2020 US General Election Thread VI: Covid for VP!

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Either that or we would've turned full fascist.

I mean, Fascism is a form of capitalism collapsing, definitely not ideal tho.

The worse the economy goes, the worse a bastard we get.

With the rate the economy's going, we're going to have President Spencer and Prime Minister Robinson in 2024.

[Post War America]

I mean, Fascism is a form of capitalism collapsing, definitely not ideal tho.

The worse the economy goes, the worse a bastard we get.

With the rate the economy's going, we're going to have President Spencer and Prime Minister Robinson in 2024.

Probably, yeah.

[Cannot think of a name]

Biden wants a new stimulus 'a hell of a lot bigger' than $2 trillion, calling for a huge, new green infrastructure bill to be part of the deal.

It seems based on rhetoric that Biden is adapting more Progressive Ideals. Maybe not to the full extreme like Sanders or Warren but he is moving a bit to the left per se. I'll give Biden credit: he's trying not to do the same mistakes Clinton has done.

He's adopting more progressive ideas for now. He will pivot during the general election.

He's the presumptive nominee only because the convention hasn't codified the already evident result.

We're in the general election now, Biden isn't competing against primary challengers anymore. He's competing against Trump.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

The worse the economy goes, the worse a bastard we get.

With the rate the economy's going, we're going to have President Spencer and Prime Minister Robinson in 2024.

Probably, yeah.

On another topic, what I don't understand is...why did the DNC rig it in favour of Biden and not, you know, Buttigieg or...actually, he was the only decent moderate.

[Post War America]

Probably, yeah.

On another topic, what I don't understand is...why did the DNC rig it in favour of Biden and not, you know, Buttigieg or...actually, he was the only decent moderate.

Biden was seen as more electable in a matchup against Trump, and honeslty I can't procclaim to know whether or not he is. He was also the beneficiary of significant amounts of positive press coverage with people naming him the frontrunner before he even began to run.

[Valrifell]

Probably, yeah.

On another topic, what I don't understand is...why did the DNC rig it in favour of Biden and not, you know, Buttigieg or...actually, he was the only decent moderate.

That you take it as fact the DNC rigged it for Biden with not a lot of evidence is odd. I miss the conspiracies that they were rigging it for Buttigieg, when he won Iowa.

[South Odreria 2]

On another topic, what I don't understand is...why did the DNC rig it in favour of Biden and not, you know, Buttigieg or...actually, he was the only decent moderate.

That you take it as fact the DNC rigged it for Biden with not a lot of evidence is odd. I miss the conspiracies that they were rigging it for Buttigieg, when he won Iowa.

That's because the malarkey wing of the DNC purged the homosexual agenda wing.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

On another topic, what I don't understand is...why did the DNC rig it in favour of Biden and not, you know, Buttigieg or...actually, he was the only decent moderate.

That you take it as fact the DNC rigged it for Biden with not a lot of evidence is odd. I miss the conspiracies that they were rigging it for Buttigieg, when he won Iowa.

Exit polls were off by larger than the margin of error in many areas. There's only a 5% chance that happens naturally...

[Agarntrop]

Probably, yeah.

On another topic, what I don't understand is...why did the DNC rig it in favour of Biden and not, you know, Buttigieg or...actually, he was the only decent moderate.

now you are spreading conspiracy theories with no evidence.

whats next, the rnc and dnc faked the moon landings?

[Agarntrop]

That you take it as fact the DNC rigged it for Biden with not a lot of evidence is odd. I miss the conspiracies that they were rigging it for Buttigieg, when he won Iowa.

Exit polls were off by larger than the margin of error in many areas. There's only a 5% chance that happens naturally...

5% is not an exponentially small number, something that has a 5% chance is still quite likely

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

On another topic, what I don't understand is...why did the DNC rig it in favour of Biden and not, you know, Buttigieg or...actually, he was the only decent moderate.

now you are spreading conspiracy theories with no evidence.

whats next, the rnc and dnc faked the moon landings?

"Hey, exit polls were off, but why for X and not for Y? Probabilities don't make sense here..."

"LMAO YOU THINK THE MOON IS FAKE?! XD"

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Exit polls were off by larger than the margin of error in many areas. There's only a 5% chance that happens naturally...

5% is not an exponentially small number, something that has a 5% chance is still quite likely

You do realise that includes both sides, so it's more 2.5%. And a 2.5% event happening several times independently is generally an indicator of false results.

[Cannot think of a name]

Probably, yeah.

On another topic, what I don't understand is...why did the DNC rig it in favour of Biden and not, you know, Buttigieg or...actually, he was the only decent moderate.

Well, to understand it you have to start with understanding the difference between 'fixing' and 'putting their finger on the scale.' They did the latter. In order for that to make a difference, the candidate has to be close on their own.

Buttigieg had put all his eggs in early state baskets in the hopes that wins there would give him the momentum to challenge on Super Tuesday, but thanks to things like what happened in Iowa and other developments that took up the headline oxygen, his early successes weren't translating. They would have had to put their whole hand on the scale, or to use the terminology, fix the election in order for Buttigieg to have gotten the nomination via DNC interference.

Ignoring the realities of who was and was not close...

Biden has a long relationship within the Democratic Party. It's one thing to be a promising upstart mayor of a city I keep thinking is in Oregon but it isn't or a Democratically aligned gadfly, but Biden is a long standing member of the party and contributed to the party and its goals in material ways. As VP and as senator he has campaigned for other democrats, he has made deals and written bills with other democrats. He has long standing relationships with the Democratic Party that work both ways which is intrinsically valuable in a system that requires cooperation and deal making.

Separate of policy positions or whatever else you or I may like or not like about either of them, it doesn't take much to understand why they would pick one over the other.

If your question was 'why didn't moderate Democratic primary voters go for Buttigieg over Biden' then you have the open ended 'only wrong answers' question you were looking for.

[Tarsonis]

now you are spreading conspiracy theories with no evidence.

whats next, the rnc and dnc faked the moon landings?

"Hey, exit polls were off, but why for X and not for Y? Probabilities don't make sense here..."

"LMAO YOU THINK THE MOON IS FAKE?! XD"

That does seem be your thought process though. You wen't past all the possible answers and went straight to conspiracy.

[Agarntrop]

"Hey, exit polls were off, but why for X and not for Y? Probabilities don't make sense here..."

"LMAO YOU THINK THE MOON IS FAKE?! XD"

That does seem be your thought process though. You wen't past all the possible answers and went straight to conspiracy.

this

[Valrifell]

That you take it as fact the DNC rigged it for Biden with not a lot of evidence is odd. I miss the conspiracies that they were rigging it for Buttigieg, when he won Iowa.

Exit polls were off by larger than the margin of error in many areas. There's only a 5% chance that happens naturally...

I'm curious to see where you got the "there's only a 5% chance that happens naturally" sounds like there could be fun math there, even if it is statistics. Further, what do you mean by "many areas"? The majority? A plurality? A solid chunk?

I'd think the likelihood of something occurring would depend on the size of our sample, so that'd be good to know.

[Tarsonis]

5% is not an exponentially small number, something that has a 5% chance is still quite likely

You do realise that includes both sides, so it's more 2.5%. And a 2.5% event happening several times independently is generally an indicator of false results.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

"Hey, exit polls were off, but why for X and not for Y? Probabilities don't make sense here..."

"LMAO YOU THINK THE MOON IS FAKE?! XD"

That does seem be your thought process though. You wen't past all the possible answers and went straight to conspiracy.

Because I had accepted the previous possible answers as a premise, as an axiom. That wasn't the question. The question was:

"Had the DNC rigged the primary, and presuming it did, why was it rigged in favour of Joe Biden?"

[Tarsonis]

That does seem be your thought process though. You wen't past all the possible answers and went straight to conspiracy.

Because I had accepted the previous possible answers as a premise, as an axiom. That wasn't the question. The question was:

"Had the DNC rigged the primary, and presuming it did, why was it rigged in favour of Joe Biden?"

Um no. What you said was,

On another topic, what I don't understand is...why did the DNC rig it in favour of Biden and not, you know, Buttigieg or...actually, he was the only decent moderate.

Your question implied that the DNC conspiring for Joe Biden, was a fact, not a hypothetical premise.

And then made several posts arguing why it was a fact.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Because I had accepted the previous possible answers as a premise, as an axiom. That wasn't the question. The question was:

"Had the DNC rigged the primary, and presuming it did, why was it rigged in favour of Joe Biden?"

Um no. What you said was,

On another topic, what I don't understand is...why did the DNC rig it in favour of Biden and not, you know, Buttigieg or...actually, he was the only decent moderate.

Your question implied that the DNC conspiring for Joe Biden, was a fact, not a hypothetical premise.

And then made several posts arguing why it was a fact.

Yes, but you're arguing about the premise of the question, not the question itself. I can demonstrate evidence for the premise, but don't act like I don't have evidence just because I didn't explain it in a million-word essay.

[Tarsonis]

Um no. What you said was,



Your question implied that the DNC conspiring for Joe Biden, was a fact, not a hypothetical premise.

And then made several posts arguing why it was a fact.

Yes, but you're arguing about the premise of the question, not the question itself. I can demonstrate evidence for the premise, but don't act like I don't have evidence just because I didn't explain it in a million-word essay.

Because unless you actually present said evidence and explain why it is, then we have no reason to eaccept the premise or your question. You're operating under the premise that the the DNC rigging the election for Joe Biden is a fact, but are now trying to weasel your way out of it now that everyone's called bullshit. Either show your work and prove your premise, or present your premise in a manner of a hypothetical where we can actually pontificate it.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Yes, but you're arguing about the premise of the question, not the question itself. I can demonstrate evidence for the premise, but don't act like I don't have evidence just because I didn't explain it in a million-word essay.

Because unless you actually present said evidence and explain why it is, then we have no reason to eaccept the premise or your question. You're operating under the premise that the the DNC rigging the election for Joe Biden is a fact, but are now trying to weasel your way out of it now that everyone's called bullshit. Either show your work and prove your premise, or present your premise in a manner of a hypothetical where we can actually pontificate it.

Part 1.1 - Establishing Reasonable Suspicion (Intro)

There are three factors to establishing reasonable suspicion.

1. Motive
2. Means
3. Opportunity

Me proving these three does not necessarily make it true, it only makes it possible. In the succeeding chapters, I will be proving that rigging has occurred within the Democratic primary. Let's get on to the MMO of the Democratic primary, of whether the DNC could've rigged it in the first place.

Part 1.2 - Establishing Reasonable Suspicion (Motive)

There are several possible motives for this.

Motive number one is, simply put, donations. This is reasonable self-interest. Many major companies, such as Apple, Microsoft and Alphabet (the owners of Google), who were recently threatened by progressive forces Warren and Sanders into having anti-trust laws foisted upon them. As such, if either figure had won the Democratic primary, Democrats, in gubernatorial, senatorial and congressional elections alike, would have lost this corporate funding.

Motive number two is personal-political interest. Once again, reasonable self-interest. Perez, and others in the DNC, were, by definition, establishment politicians, whom Warren and Sanders waged war against. They had disagreements over policy, as Warren and Sanders effectively threatened their power, threatened their control over the party and threatened the establishment, of which the DNC were part of.

Motive number three is a simple matter of cronyism. The DNC are good friends with Biden, and see him, perhaps more unconsciously see him as electable and as such can justify their rigging through internal rationalisation. In fact, in this section I wish to retort to any remarks that perhaps the DNC may be moral and have the integrity to not do such a thing. Let me assure you, the motive is there, as it has been done before: https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admi ... t-sanders/

It is a court decision, no more, no less. If you cannot accept it, you have no respect for the rule of law. It has been done before, and has surely been done again.

I will post sections 1.3 and 1.4 soon, maybe even section 2.1 if I get in it.

[Duvniask]

Exit polls were off by larger than the margin of error in many areas. There's only a 5% chance that happens naturally...

5% is not an exponentially small number, something that has a 5% chance is still quite likely

Anyone who deals in statistics should knows about null-hypotheses, which as a rule assume no significance*, and that they are usually rejected when probability is estimated to be lower than 5% from a normal distribution (in this case, the sampling distribution of exit polls, assuming they are randomized).

*In this case, assumes no significant difference between the poll and the election result.

Also, using basic rules of probability for independent events, we multiply the chances of the event occurring with itself by each time it did. So if the exit polls had a ≤5% chance of being off each time, and that happened 5 times, then the probability of that happening is 0.05⁵ = 0.0000003125 or 0.00003125%. In other words, not freaking likely.

Exit polls were off by larger than the margin of error in many areas. There's only a 5% chance that happens naturally...

I'm curious to see where you got the "there's only a 5% chance that happens naturally" sounds like there could be fun math there, even if it is statistics. Further, what do you mean by "many areas"? The majority? A plurality? A solid chunk?

I'd think the likelihood of something occurring would depend on the size of our sample, so that'd be good to know.

A poll with a margin of error of, say, 3% and a 95% confidence interval, will tell you that the true value is within 3% of the estimate with 95% probability.

Let's say a hypothetical poll estimated 45% support for Sanders, margin of error 3%. Then we'd be able to say there's a 95% probability of the true population value being +/- 3 percentage points from 45%. The 95% confidence interval would thus be [0.42; 0.48]. If the actual result was 35% Sanders, then something would be very wrong here, either with the poll or the results themselves, because there was only a 5% chance of the results being more than 3 percentage points off (in our hypothetical example they were 10 percentage points off).


Also, the margin of error is dependent on the sample size, n, as it is calculated from multiplying the given critical value with the standard error (which contains the sample size). It is already taken into consideration. A smaller sample size will yield a larger standard error, which in turn yields a larger margin of error.

[Varmhjarta]

Sad the democrats have no decent candidates to offer and republicans voted in an idiot. USA needs a multiparty system!

[Valrifell]

5% is not an exponentially small number, something that has a 5% chance is still quite likely

Anyone who deals in statistics should knows about null-hypotheses, which as a rule assume no significance*, and that they are usually rejected when probability is estimated to be lower than 5% from a normal distribution (in this case, the sampling distribution of exit polls, assuming they are randomized).

*In this case, assumes no significant difference between the poll and the election result.

Also, using basic rules of probability for independent events, we multiply the chances of the event occurring with itself by each time it did. So if the exit polls had a ≤5% chance of being off each time, and that happened 5 times, then the probability of that happening is 0.05⁵ = 0.0000003125 or 0.00003125%. In other words, not freaking likely.

I'm curious to see where you got the "there's only a 5% chance that happens naturally" sounds like there could be fun math there, even if it is statistics. Further, what do you mean by "many areas"? The majority? A plurality? A solid chunk?

I'd think the likelihood of something occurring would depend on the size of our sample, so that'd be good to know.

A poll with a margin of error of, say, 3% and a 95% confidence interval, will tell you that the true value is within 3% of the estimate with 95% probability.

Let's say a hypothetical poll estimated 45% support for Sanders, margin of error 3%. Then we'd be able to say there's a 95% probability of the true population value being +/- 3 percentage points from 45%. The 95% confidence interval would thus be [0.42; 0.48]. If the actual result was 35% Sanders, then something would be very wrong here, either with the poll or the results themselves, because there was only a 5% chance of the results being more than 3 percentage points off (in our hypothetical example they were 10 percentage points off).


Also, the margin of error is dependent on the sample size, n, as it is calculated from multiplying the given critical value with the standard error (which contains the sample size). It is already taken into consideration. A smaller sample size will yield a larger standard error, which in turn yields a larger margin of error.

I know how MoE is calculated and what the means, that wasn't what my question was directed at.