Who do you think will win the 2020 US Election?

Who will win the 2020 US Election

  • Trump

    Votes: 144 82.3%
  • Biden

    Votes: 31 17.7%

  • Total voters
    175

paninaro

Kingfisher
Because what is likely to happen is that you request your mail-in ballot, the election office "accidentally" screws it up based on your demographics (i.e. because you're a white male) and sends you a ballot with a printing error or damage, sends it to a wrong address, etc.... and as a result you can't vote in person because you've already been mailed a ballot, yet you were unable to submit it.

Mail-in ballots are fraud, pure and simple. It's a feature, not a bug.
Using Pennsylvania as an example, they do not require you to provide race on voter registration, but I suppose they can try to link it to DMV records, pull up your driver's license photo, analyze skin color, and determine you're white and send you a messed up ballot. That would be quite an operation though.

In Pennsylvania, you can track if they sent you a ballot, and also track they received your ballot and it was processed. If you didn't receive a ballot, you are still allowed to vote at the polling center.

Trump voted by mail in the primaries. Think he'll vote in person this time, given all the issues you raised?
 

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Gold Member
Well Paninaro, those are all valid safeguards, but in the end if subversives want to screw you, you'll definitely end up screwed.

In the example of determining someone's race, there's no need to target a specific person. Why bother? A corrupt official can simply sabotage (by incorrect printing/mailing/collection) a random sample of ballots in a mostly white county/municipality/neighborhood (accurate demographic data for all of those is publicly available), while sparing the non-white ones.

For example, in Queens, New York City, a democrat operative could sabotage a quarter of the ballots in Howard Beach (77% white), while leaving Jackson Heights (57% latino) unscathed.

It doesn't even need to be institutional, just encouraged by the utter lack of consequences thanks to corrupt district attorneys. Simply create an atmosphere where everyone knows nothing bad will happen to you if you're caught, and people will come up with a myriad of ways to play the system.

For example, if you live in a predominantly Latino neighborhood (which should be safe in the example listed above), but it just happened to vote 50% Trump last time instead of the national average of 25% (all of this data is publicly available too), the lone SJW postman might just "accidentally" lose some ballots from there to prevent those disgusting race traitors and uncle toms from being heard. You'll never know until it's too late, and you won't go to vote in person, after having successfully sent your ballot.

The point is, long-distance voting introduces so many vulnerabilities into the process that it's almost guaranteed to be heavily abused unless it's designed with security as a priority. For example, online voting with 3-factor authentication based on a combination of a personal password, government ID and fingerprint scan akin to beefed-up online banking might be pretty safe; printing paper ballots and randomly mailing them all over the country based on obsolete addresses is definitely not.

No matter how you put it, there is no substitute for an actual, physical appearance where you personally insert the ballot into the box. The chance of manipulation from that point onwards is insignificant and has been proven to be highly accurate for centuries. This might not be the case if you live a 3rd-world country like Mexico where armed hitmen literally waltz in and steal the boxes or set fire to the polling station, but of course if your country has reached that point you have much bigger problems than voting anyway.
 

ralfy

Pigeon


"Biden will beat Trump, says historian who predicted every presidential race since 1984"
 

kosko

Peacock
Gold Member
Saw this on Heartist’s Gab. Someone read my post here?

View attachment 25938
These poling companies had a motive and are profit-driven groups, whoever is paying their bills they will cater to their products towards. If I were the GOP I would not pay money for their garbage public polls and would go find a more reputable firm or pay to produce private internal poll data. Everyone knows these polls are goofy and cooked up but it is all we really have so many people still hold blind faith towards them.
Using Pennsylvania as an example, they do not require you to provide race on voter registration, but I suppose they can try to link it to DMV records, pull up your driver's license photo, analyze skin color, and determine you're white and send you a messed up ballot. That would be quite an operation though.

In Pennsylvania, you can track if they sent you a ballot, and also track they received your ballot and it was processed. If you didn't receive a ballot, you are still allowed to vote at the polling center.

Trump voted by mail in the primaries. Think he'll vote in person this time, given all the issues you raised?
There has been mail-in type voting for a long time.

Absentee ballots are where: you provide your information and make a request for a ballot --> Ballot is sent --> and you return the ballot with a coded envelope back.

I am not sure if your website is for this type of service but this is different than general mail-in where: --> Ballots are sent out to all registered voters ---> you fill out ---> send back.

The issue with option #2 is that States have bunk voter lists with outdated addresses so many addresses get doubles and with these extra ballots, you can easily manipulate them as they don't have the coded safeguards of an absentee ballot.

There is also the greater issue that people are idiots and fill-out ballots in error invalidating them. In-person voting systems are typically set-up to be foolproof with leavers or bubbles you fill out and since it is hyper-localized, in many cases, the ballots don't need to be marked with individual identifying information.** The large bulk of rejects of these mail-in ballots comes from people not filling them incorrectly. This is where the issue will come from on election day as likely 10% of ballots will go in the trash as not valid. This is the core reason Dems are running away from mail-in ballots now because, as they are learning, if you have 10% of your votes tossed aside you have zero chance of winning the election.

When I worked on elections and for the national census and everything was coded. For the census, to mitigate human errors you had to manually input people's entries into a system that was crossed checked with the computer scans of the paper booklets. Anything not filled out correctly was not sent back to Ottawa. Each booklet got scanned twice before it got sent back to Ottawa. It takes 1.5 years for them to run through all those booklets and we are a tiny nation versus the USA that has 80 million ballots swimming around.

** The fall-out from this is that the evil cronies that want all-digital voting will likely get their wish. The mess that will result from this election with millions upon millions of votes tossed in the trash will cause people to scream for a better system. In the past, the push to make voting digital was tossed aside as if there was ever a hack or breach it would be problematic. Now, these cronies will 100% rush in to offer some sort of digital voting system for both online (so one can vote from a home computer) and in person. Once this is done the fraud and rigging can take place behind the scenes moving digits around.
 

paninaro

Kingfisher
In the example of determining someone's race, there's no need to target a specific person. Why bother? A corrupt official can simply sabotage (by incorrect printing/mailing/collection) a random sample of ballots in a mostly white county/municipality/neighborhood (accurate demographic data for all of those is publicly available), while sparing the non-white ones.

For example, in Queens, New York City, a democrat operative could sabotage a quarter of the ballots in Howard Beach (77% white), while leaving Jackson Heights (57% latino) unscathed.

For example, if you live in a predominantly Latino neighborhood (which should be safe in the example listed above), but it just happened to vote 50% Trump last time instead of the national average of 25% (all of this data is publicly available too), the lone SJW postman might just "accidentally" lose some ballots from there to prevent those disgusting race traitors and uncle toms from being heard. You'll never know until it's too late, and you won't go to vote in person, after having successfully sent your ballot.

The point is, long-distance voting introduces so many vulnerabilities into the process that it's almost guaranteed to be heavily abused unless it's designed with security as a priority. For example, online voting with 3-factor authentication based on a combination of a personal password, government ID and fingerprint scan akin to beefed-up online banking might be pretty safe; printing paper ballots and randomly mailing them all over the country based on obsolete addresses is definitely not.

No matter how you put it, there is no substitute for an actual, physical appearance where you personally insert the ballot into the box. The chance of manipulation from that point onwards is insignificant and has been proven to be highly accurate for centuries. This might not be the case if you live a 3rd-world country like Mexico where armed hitmen literally waltz in and steal the boxes or set fire to the polling station, but of course if your country has reached that point you have much bigger problems than voting anyway.
Can't that happen with in-person voting also? The corrupt official can sabotage the set of ballots being sent to the polling place in a neighborhood that is predominantly white.

I agree with you that mailing ballots out that were not requested is ripe for fraud. It'll go to old addresses, and people aren't expecting them or looking out for them. Most states require you to request a ballot, so it's only sent to those who are expecting it, and to the valid address they provided in their request. If an SJW postman decides to not deliver your blank ballot, you can go to your polling place on election day and vote there instead.

If you do actually receive your ballot, as seems to usually be the case (my postman is way too busy to spend time yanking mailpieces from his stack I guess), you can just go drop your completed paper ballot that you received by mail in a locked ballot box sitting at the polling station. I fail to see how that process is highly insecure.
 

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Gold Member
Can't that happen with in-person voting also? The corrupt official can sabotage the set of ballots being sent to the polling place in a neighborhood that is predominantly white.
Well sure, but those ballots are subject to more scrutiny before being used, have less points of failure (no address, for example), and of course in that case the ballots are always in full view of multiple poll workers and election observers. Additionally, there's a physical record of how many ballots were received and used that can't be tampered with.

It's not like a Biden subversive can sneak off with a stack of ballots during a smoke break and fill them out by themselves, and if there is a lack of ballots because some of them have printing errors, it's very fortunate that they're the same as ballots everywhere else in that district and their supply can be replenished quickly.

With mail-in voting, it's all blind. You sent out X ballots of dubious quality and no way of verifying it, you have no idea how many of them you expect to receive back, where they should be received, or how it should happen. It's like inviting people to send you postcards from all over the country and hoping that you get one from every town.
 

Moolooman

Newbie
Reports in from the Harris camp, apparently some members of her team have just tested positive for Covid. I’d expect the whole lot of them to get it to try and delay the election.

They’re really throwing the kitchen sink at this. If it wasn’t so serious you’d laugh.
 

Dusty

Peacock
Gold Member

The 2020 presidential race may be closer than the polls suggest, according to an analysis of voter registration trends by JPMorgan Chase.

Changes in the number of voters registered to each of the major parties have proven to be a significant variable in election outcomes in the past, according to strategists at the New York-based bank, which analyzed trends in some of the battleground states that will be crucial to an electoral college victory.

Former Vice President Joe Biden leads President Trump by 9.2 points nationally, according to an average of polls compiled by RealClearPolitics, but his lead is at a tighter 4.9 points in hotly contested states.

Four years ago, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also outstripped Trump in national polling and won the popular vote by nearly 3 million, only to lose the electoral college, where she took just 227 votes to Trump’s 304.

This year’s campaign may be won or lost in some of the same battlegrounds as that race, which has made them focal points for politicians, pollsters and observers alike.

In Pennsylvania, for example, a blue-leaning state that Trump won by 44,292 votes in 2016, the Republican Party has since picked up nearly 200,000 voters.

JPMorgan says the gains suggest Trump could win the state by a margin of more than 240,000 in the upcoming election.

Similar progress in battlegrounds Florida and North Carolina suggest Trump may take those states by a larger margin than in his first campaign as well.

JPMorgan also believes a surge in the number of registered Republicans will tighten the race in New Mexico, but that the state will still go with Biden. On the flipside, a growing number of registered Democrats in Arizona will make the state close, but Trump should prevail.

While voter registration is encouraging for Trump and the GOP, it is “only one variable in determining the election outcome,” the JPMorgan team wrote, noting that the results should not be used to predict a state’s outcome.

A number of other issues that don’t show up in the polls also offer encouraging signs for Trump, according to a Wells Fargo report released last month.

The firm noted Trump outperformed the polls in all of the key battleground states in 2016 and also suggested his recent Supreme Court nomination, gun ownership trends and a stronger backing from African-American voters are all playing into Trump’s hands.

Off-campus learning due to COVID-19 and a smaller independent vote also favor the president, the analysts said.
 

gework

Ostrich
Gold Member
My main worry is that the big tech crackdown could be enough to swing it. This time last year we could watch pro-Drumpf videos with 20M videos on Yidtube. No more. How many people will hear of the Hunter Biden story by 3 Nov? How many average Joes will hear anything but a bit of light TDS to inform their decision.

On the flip side a lot of independents may tune in and see the MSM is an anti-orange machine; and with trust in the media so low instinctivley do what the media don't want them to do.

If I was a normie, but still had the same underpinnings I'd always had if the choice was an wall to wall MSM pushed Jeb Bush vs. A villifiee Bernie Sanders I would not vote Bush, but may vote for Bernie.

Another factor is support for Hunter Biden's dad is so low and they are keeping him under such wraps that people may not be bothered or even remember to vote. With Brexit there were large numbers of students who went REEEEeEEE after the vote to leave, but didn't vote as they are student bums. I imagine there will be a lot of that. These students are no so far left that many wont be able to vote for Hunter's dad in lieu of him being a Nazi.
 

Neo

Pelican
Gold Member

Blade Runner

Kingfisher
I wanted to reply and give an update on this post. Looks like the RCP gap has tightened in FL and PA and Trump is now ahead in Ohio. I predict that the polls will tighten even more as we get closer to Nov 3rd. Lots of polling is garbage. Hoping my man Helmut Norpoth comes through again.
He will. News cannot, and will not, get better for Biden. I was a bit skittish about Michigan in the last month, but now seeing what I see - I see no path for a Biden victory. It doesn't look like he will win MI or PA. As you stated, either of those is a death blow if Trump wins it again. At that same point about a month ago, I actually thought WI was the one that Trump would win for sure. I now believe Trump wins PA, MI, OH, flips MN and NV, and loses WI. I'm not worried at all about NC or FL.

Trump wins. When he does again, people are going to wonder why they were so stupid to believe the same charlatans again. This one is actually unforgivable, but pessimists will be pessimists, I get it.
 

Alpone

Woodpecker
Yea I agree with @gework. Censorship has complicated things. This time in 2016 there was major meme momentum on the right and Hillary's emails were getting play on major TV networks. Now, social media is banning the right across all platforms, censoring negative stories about Biden, and most people who aren't on social media may not even know about Hunter's laptop.

I can't really predict how this election will go.
 

Blade Runner

Kingfisher
Yea I agree with @gework. Censorship has complicated things. This time in 2016 there was major meme momentum on the right and Hillary's emails were getting play on major TV networks. Now, social media is banning the right across all platforms, censoring negative stories about Biden, and most people who aren't on social media may not even know about Hunter's laptop.

I can't really predict how this election will go.
The reason why it doesn't matter is that the energized voters were already all in a long time ago. The independents - that is, the small number of people that truly are malleable or open to going either way - absolutely are paying attention and know all the news is horrible with Biden. On top of his low energy and Trump having demonstrated economic prowess, I believe most of these will also side with Trump when it comes down to it. The cherry on top is that "latinos" will vote Trump higher and blacks, particularly black males, could give a shit about quid pro Joe. They won't show up. Trump also already had made about a 20% hike in black male support, anyway.
 
Top