2020 US General Election Thread VII: Summer of Discontent

[San Lumen]

Makes sense. I was looking at results from Wyoming and its quite sad how many state legislative seats are unopposed there. How hard is it to find a paper candidate to run or someone who will put in some minimal effort therefore a number of legislators dont run unopposed?

Considering virtually no one lives in Wyoming to the point that bison and wild horses can vote, quite hard. Many of the less-populated counties have less than 500 Democratic voters.

and the state party can't find a single person willing to have their name placed on the ballot just so someone doesnt run unopposed?

In the Dakotas and even Alaska for example both parties make an effort to have to contest as many seats as possible. The Dakota's and Alaska have some very sparsely populate counties too

[Major-Tom]

Considering virtually no one lives in Wyoming to the point that bison and wild horses can vote, quite hard. Many of the less-populated counties have less than 500 Democratic voters.

and the state party can't find a single person willing to have their name placed on the ballot just so someone doesnt run unopposed?

In the Dakotas and even Alaska for example both parties make an effort to have to contest as many seats as possible. The Dakota's and Alaska have some very sparsely populate counties too

Alaska has some deeply blue and activist pockets (Juneau, parts of Anchorage, much of their Native Population), the Dakotas, while deeply red, had Dem Senators until the Obama era and still are influenced in part by some of the populist Prairie progressivism.

Wyoming just doesn't have any of that. That's not a condemnation of the state, just an explanation.

[San Lumen]

and the state party can't find a single person willing to have their name placed on the ballot just so someone doesnt run unopposed?

In the Dakotas and even Alaska for example both parties make an effort to have to contest as many seats as possible. The Dakota's and Alaska have some very sparsely populate counties too

Alaska has some deeply blue and activist pockets (Juneau, parts of Anchorage, much of their Native Population), the Dakotas, while deeply red, had Dem Senators until the Obama era and still are influenced in part by some of the populist Prairie progressivism.

Wyoming just doesn't have any of that. That's not a condemnation of the state, just an explanation.

I wasn't;t condemning them either. I merely hate when people run opposed in a general election

[Shrillland]

Considering virtually no one lives in Wyoming to the point that bison and wild horses can vote, quite hard. Many of the less-populated counties have less than 500 Democratic voters.

and the state party can't find a single person willing to have their name placed on the ballot just so someone doesnt run unopposed?

In the Dakotas and even Alaska for example both parties make an effort to have to contest as many seats as possible. The Dakota's and Alaska have some very sparsely populate counties too

No. No, they can't. In a lot of those seats, even the Democrats support the legislator they have.

[Major-Tom]

Alaska has some deeply blue and activist pockets (Juneau, parts of Anchorage, much of their Native Population), the Dakotas, while deeply red, had Dem Senators until the Obama era and still are influenced in part by some of the populist Prairie progressivism.

Wyoming just doesn't have any of that. That's not a condemnation of the state, just an explanation.

I wasn't;t condemning them either. I merely hate when people run opposed in a general election

Forsure. It's just inevitable sometimes.

[Shrillland]

and the state party can't find a single person willing to have their name placed on the ballot just so someone doesnt run unopposed?

In the Dakotas and even Alaska for example both parties make an effort to have to contest as many seats as possible. The Dakota's and Alaska have some very sparsely populate counties too

Alaska has some deeply blue and activist pockets (Juneau, parts of Anchorage, much of their Native Population), the Dakotas, while deeply red, had Dem Senators until the Obama era and still are influenced in part by some of the populist Prairie progressivism.

Wyoming just doesn't have any of that. That's not a condemnation of the state, just an explanation.

And most blue Alaskans don't even vote Democratic, as we'll see in a little bit. The two big names to watch tonight are both independents.

[San Lumen]

and the state party can't find a single person willing to have their name placed on the ballot just so someone doesnt run unopposed?

In the Dakotas and even Alaska for example both parties make an effort to have to contest as many seats as possible. The Dakota's and Alaska have some very sparsely populate counties too

No. No, they can't. In a lot of those seats, even the Democrats support the legislator they have.

Every single one? How do you know that? surely they can find someone willing to be a paper candidate?

[Major-Tom]

Alaska has some deeply blue and activist pockets (Juneau, parts of Anchorage, much of their Native Population), the Dakotas, while deeply red, had Dem Senators until the Obama era and still are influenced in part by some of the populist Prairie progressivism.

Wyoming just doesn't have any of that. That's not a condemnation of the state, just an explanation.

And most blue Alaskans don't even vote Democratic, as we'll see in a little bit. The two big names to watch tonight are both independents.

It's a fascinating primary system they have, really.

Here's to Al Gross, anyways, he seems like a splendid candidate.

[Shrillland]

No. No, they can't. In a lot of those seats, even the Democrats support the legislator they have.

Every single one? How do you know that? surely they can find someone willing to be a paper candidate?

Many of them keep their political proclivities to themselves, since they can be ostracised by their communities for openly espousing such views.

[Shrillland]

And most blue Alaskans don't even vote Democratic, as we'll see in a little bit. The two big names to watch tonight are both independents.

It's a fascinating primary system they have, really.

Here's to Al Gross, anyways, he seems like a splendid candidate.

And one they may be getting rid of come November.

[San Lumen]

Every single one? How do you know that? surely they can find someone willing to be a paper candidate?

Many of them keep their political proclivities to themselves, since they can be ostracised by their communities for openly espousing such views.

That's insane. I understand if that;s the case but I hate seeing so many people run unopposed.

[Shrillland]

Here's our next call:

DLIA(Democratic-Libertarian-Independent-AKIP) AK-Senate Independent Spot: Al Gross
DLIA AK-Senate Democratic Spot: Edgar Blatchford
DLIA AK-Senate AKIP Spot: John Wayne Howe
GOP AK-At-Large: Don Young
DLIA AK-At-Large Independent Spot: Alyse Galvin

[Shrillland]

And with that, the night's over, and indeed the penultimate of the major primaries with Florida ended. We even saw another incumbent lose his seat with Ross Spano being unseated, making eight incumbents primaried out, the biggest number in a non-redistricting year since 1974. We're down to the final five states, and the calendar moves on so here's my take on next week.

Oklahoma Take Two: Just one House race moves to a runoff next week, but it's an important one, the GOP runoff for Oklahoma City Central(5th). When we left it last in June, State Sen. Stephanie Bice and former Republican candidate Terry Neese, coming out of retirement after nearly 30 years in the wilderness, had moved on to this week. Given that Neese surprised everyone with the lead last time, and also given that she seems to have more of a following among the more Conservative Republicans that Oklahoma is full of, I think Neese will win next week, but her chances against Incumbent Democrat Kendra Horn are around 50-50.

[Ngelmish]

I mean, dinging the fact that you randomly seem sympathetic to the Nixon propaganda line that he ended Vietnam (after bombing an extraneous country) so as to whack Johnson,

Provide evidence of such.

and then whine about the neocons at large seems more like you don't have a consistent position on intervention,

I oppose intervention, be it Vietnam or Iraq. That seems very consistent. Sorry this is hard for you. My post about Nixon indicates I find him preferable to Johnson because the war would have been smaller in scale. That's a consistent position, and given there was no one running who wanted a complete withdrawal, Nixon it is.

but, y'know, do you and deflect you've chosen a debate tack that literally ignores Nixon's neocon moves to complain about the neocons, sure.

Nixon was a complicated person and had a more belligerent foreign policy than I support, but he wasn't really a neocon. Reagan started that.

You don't need to go on the record.

I think I do, because you're pulling shit out of your ass. See below:

LBJ could have been avoided. Everyone knows Kennedy rigged the election in 1960.

With Nixon, we would have never had a Cuban Missile Crisis, a much smaller Vietnam, and certainly no '65 Act.

It is an obvious fact that Nixon winning in 1960 means smaller Vietnam War if it even happens. But here's the thing:

What does commenting on the 1960 election have to do with Nixon's actions in Cambodia in 1968 and where is support for those actions derived? Please point it out. I must say though, it is amusing that you have to reach this far to get your internet pwnage points.

That is on the record.

Evidently not.

I suppose you may be accurate that bombing Cambodia as opposed to Vietnam is a "smaller" Vietnam, but, at that point, you argument that your opposed to American war lording gets really strangely country specific.

Nobody is bringing up Cambodia but you.

Yes, I mentioned Cambodia, something that you, anti-interventionist should have opposed. I alluded to Nxion's ramping up of Vietnam, which you, anti-interventionist, should have found more egregious than LBJ's marginally smaller escalation. You're not arguing principles, you're arguing aesthetics. There is no serious evidence that Nixon would have moderated himself, and he escalated the hell out of Vietnam.

But tell us more about how you oppose all the neocons all the time.

[Kannap]

For the record, I'm not really watching the convention, they tend to bore me. Anyway, another call to make:

Dem FL-3(Gainesville-Ocala): Adam Christensen

I’m skipping it too. This is the first time since high school I have not watched the convention. 2000 was the first convention I watched

I've never watched one. Limited time on Earth, ya know, I've got better things to do

[The Blaatschapen]

I’m skipping it too. This is the first time since high school I have not watched the convention. 2000 was the first convention I watched

I've never watched one. Limited time on Earth, ya know, I've got better things to do

Source?

[Kannap]

Thoughts on the DNC Convention, particularly the strangeness/awkwardness that came with it's digital format?

Do it without an anti-LGBT, anti-abortion Republican next time.

[Saiwania]

The latest rumor is that Donald Trump is surging in the polls. These are his best results in a long time. Biden is now only ahead by 4% because of a bad DNC showing. With the margin of error Trump could now be outright winning. This is no longer a Bagration rout, the line Trump is apparently stabilizing and with any luck, he's set to turn the situation around such as might've been the case if Erich Von Manstein were in charge of the Eastern Front early on and given free reign to manuver.

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/shock-po ... down-to-4/

[Jedi Council]

The latest rumor is that Donald Trump is surging in the polls. These are his best results in a long time. Biden is now only ahead by 4% because of a bad DNC showing. With the margin of error Trump could now be outright winning. This is no longer a Bagration rout, the line Trump is apparently stabilizing and with any luck, he's set to turn the situation around such as might've been the case if Erich Von Manstein were in charge of the Eastern Front early on and given free reign to manuver.

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/shock-po ... down-to-4/

Um, ever heard of an outlier? One poll does not indicate a "surge" and we certainly cant say that it's from the strange DNC because this poll was conducted between August 12th-15th, days before the DNC.

Polls since, per FiveThirtyEight have shown Bidens lead remaining comfortable, between 6 and 13 points, with the most likely average being somewhere around 8 or 9.

Per your own article;

FiveThirtyEight shows both CNN’s last poll, and the new poll released Sunday to be outliers. On June 8, when the last CNN survey was released, Biden was leading by an average of 7.2 points in the polls. On Sunday evening — even with the latest CNN poll averaged in — FiveThirtyEight shows Biden up by 8 points. Further, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released earlier Sunday showed Biden up 9, and the latest Fox News survey — out Friday — had Biden 7 points

So no, you can keep making strange Second World War metaphors and try to convince everyone Trump has already turned this thing around, but until you learn how to interpret polls properly, it will just remain wishful thinking.

[Vassenor]

The latest rumor is that Donald Trump is surging in the polls. These are his best results in a long time. Biden is now only ahead by 4% because of a bad DNC showing. With the margin of error Trump could now be outright winning. This is no longer a Bagration rout, the line Trump is apparently stabilizing and with any luck, he's set to turn the situation around such as might've been the case if Erich Von Manstein were in charge of the Eastern Front early on and given free reign to manuver.

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/shock-po ... down-to-4/

Um, ever heard of an outlier? One poll does not indicate a "surge" and we certainly cant say that it's from the strange DNC because this poll was conducted between August 12th-15th, days before the DNC.

Polls since, per FiveThirtyEight have shown Bidens lead remaining comfortable, between 6 and 13 points, with the most likely average being somewhere around 8 or 9.

Per your own article;

FiveThirtyEight shows both CNN’s last poll, and the new poll released Sunday to be outliers. On June 8, when the last CNN survey was released, Biden was leading by an average of 7.2 points in the polls. On Sunday evening — even with the latest CNN poll averaged in — FiveThirtyEight shows Biden up by 8 points. Further, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released earlier Sunday showed Biden up 9, and the latest Fox News survey — out Friday — had Biden 7 points

So no, you can keep making strange Second World War metaphors and try to convince everyone Trump has already turned this thing around, but until you learn how to interpret polls properly, it will just remain wishful thinking.

You have to remember that any poll that shows him losing is fake and biased and 2016 shows that polls are worthless but any poll that shows him winning is the absolute truth that must not be questioned ever.

[Jedi Council]

Um, ever heard of an outlier? One poll does not indicate a "surge" and we certainly cant say that it's from the strange DNC because this poll was conducted between August 12th-15th, days before the DNC.

Polls since, per FiveThirtyEight have shown Bidens lead remaining comfortable, between 6 and 13 points, with the most likely average being somewhere around 8 or 9.

Per your own article;

FiveThirtyEight shows both CNN’s last poll, and the new poll released Sunday to be outliers. On June 8, when the last CNN survey was released, Biden was leading by an average of 7.2 points in the polls. On Sunday evening — even with the latest CNN poll averaged in — FiveThirtyEight shows Biden up by 8 points. Further, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released earlier Sunday showed Biden up 9, and the latest Fox News survey — out Friday — had Biden 7 points

So no, you can keep making strange Second World War metaphors and try to convince everyone Trump has already turned this thing around, but until you learn how to interpret polls properly, it will just remain wishful thinking.

You have to remember that any poll that shows him losing is fake and biased and 2016 shows that polls are worthless but any poll that shows him winning is the absolute truth that must not be questioned ever.

Ironically, he wasnt even winning, he was still 4 points behind.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

The latest rumor is that Donald Trump is surging in the polls. These are his best results in a long time. Biden is now only ahead by 4% because of a bad DNC showing. With the margin of error Trump could now be outright winning. This is no longer a Bagration rout, the line Trump is apparently stabilizing and with any luck, he's set to turn the situation around such as might've been the case if Erich Von Manstein were in charge of the Eastern Front early on and given free reign to manuver.

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/shock-po ... down-to-4/

Rumor? All the polls show him behind. I'm not remotely surprised since he's a shitty president. Donald Trump couldn't even do a good job as the captain of the good shop lollipop, much less as the commander and chief.

[Loben III]

The latest rumor is that Donald Trump is surging in the polls. These are his best results in a long time. Biden is now only ahead by 4% because of a bad DNC showing. With the margin of error Trump could now be outright winning. This is no longer a Bagration rout, the line Trump is apparently stabilizing and with any luck, he's set to turn the situation around such as might've been the case if Erich Von Manstein were in charge of the Eastern Front early on and given free reign to manuver.

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/shock-po ... down-to-4/

Rumor? All the polls show him behind. I'm not remotely surprised since he's a shitty president. Donald Trump couldn't even do a good job as the captain of the good shop lollipop, much less as the commander and chief.

Would Biden really be any better?

Guy who refuses a cognitive test on flimsy grounds, has a questionable political history and basically did dick in the 8 years when he was VP.

Apart from the “two blasts” comment that is.

[Vassenor]

Rumor? All the polls show him behind. I'm not remotely surprised since he's a shitty president. Donald Trump couldn't even do a good job as the captain of the good shop lollipop, much less as the commander and chief.

Would Biden really be any better?

Guy who refuses a cognitive test on flimsy grounds, has a questionable political history and basically did dick in the 8 years when he was VP.

Apart from the “two blasts” comment that is.

And what powers does the VP actually have to do anything other than break Senate ties?

[Loben III]

Would Biden really be any better?

Guy who refuses a cognitive test on flimsy grounds, has a questionable political history and basically did dick in the 8 years when he was VP.

Apart from the “two blasts” comment that is.

And what powers does the VP actually have to do anything other than break Senate ties?

You’d think he’d spend more time doing something.