US Presidential Election 2020

[Donald H]

Lots and lots of indicators this election will be a landslide for Trump. 

jobs or mobs

I think so too, barring a bigger story than Woodward's book.

Possibilities:

More military meanmouthing by Trump on tape?

A big jump in the virus deaths due to a second wave?

Climate disaster in Florida where it really counts.

Gun related violence ahead of the election?

Biden leaves the race due to illness or??

Trump leaves the race due to illness or??

Other possibilities?

 

[CBH99]

I think so too, barring a bigger story than Woodward's book.

Possibilities:

More military meanmouthing by Trump on tape?

A big jump in the virus deaths due to a second wave?

Climate disaster in Florida where it really counts.

Gun related violence ahead of the election?

Biden leaves the race due to illness or??

Trump leaves the race due to illness or??

Other possibilities?

Personally, I highly doubt Trump made those comments about military personnel.

Trump has been a very pro military guy.  And while he isn't the classiest of folks, I don't see him saying any of that stuff.  (Personally, I'd just chalk it up to pre-election rumour spreading to discredit opponents)  :2c:

 

[Good2Golf]

Lots and lots of indicators this election will be a landslide for Trump. 

jobs or mobs

Lots and lots of indicators said Hillary in 2016.

So? :dunno:

 

[mariomike]

Trump has been a very pro military guy. 

The Military Times released this on 31 Aug., 2020. A few days before the story was published.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/08/31/as-trumps-popularity-slips-in-latest-military-times-poll-more-troops-say-theyll-vote-for-biden/

 

[QV]

Lots and lots of indicators said Hillary in 2016.

So? :dunno:

No.  Lots and lots of polls and pundits said Hillary would win.  Actual indicators showed another result. 

 

[Good2Golf]

No.  Lots and lots of polls and pundits said Hillary would win.  Actual indicators showed another result.

Okay, so polls and talking heads aren’t indicators. Check.

What are indicators?

 

[Donald H]

The Military Times released this on 31 Aug., 2020. A few days before the story was published.

Great indication of where the vote will go but somewhat less of an indication on who will win the election by cheating. Many different ways of cheating have been laid out for our information.

I'm surprised to see the 'officer' support for Trump is still at 35.1%. This indicates to me that there is no great fear of Trump doing something that's truly destructive for the country That's contrary to my own belief that Trump could do something very unwise. Iran?

However, that 35% could be feeling secure in their belief that Trump won't do anything to upset his relationship with Putin.

:cheers:

 

[Donald H]

Okay, so polls and talking heads aren’t indicators. Check.

What are indicators?

That would be Trump's control over the ballot boxes, but that's probably not what you were looking for.

 

[Good2Golf]

That would be Trump's control over the ballot boxes, but that's probably not what you were looking for.

No.  I’m looking for QV to indicate what type of open source ‘indicators’ exist, other than polls and pundits That he has disqualified, that so clearly support Trump’s impending landslide win?

 

[shawn5o]

Personally, I highly doubt Trump made those comments about military personnel.

Trump has been a very pro military guy.  And while he isn't the classiest of folks, I don't see him saying any of that stuff.  (Personally, I'd just chalk it up to pre-election rumour spreading to discredit opponents)  :2c:

You're right on the money there CBH99


Trump Buries Atlantic Story in Landslide of Named Sources
Jeffrey Goldberg is emerging as the real “sucker” in this situation.

by DEROY MURDOCK
September 15, 2020, 12:00 AM

Trump: 16.

The Atlantic: 4.

Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic’s Trump-hating editor-in-chief, claimed in a September 3 article that President Donald J. Trump dissed 2,289 American GIs buried at a World War I graveyard in France on November 10, 2018. Why? According to Goldberg, Trump avoided the Aisne-Marnes American Cemetery because, the president allegedly said, “it’s filled with losers,” and the Doughboys interred there are “suckers.” Goldberg also asserted that “Trump rejected the idea of the visit because he feared his hair would become disheveled in the rain.”

...

The Secret Service also raised logistical and security concerns. The U.S. commander-in-chief’s movements would have to have been synchronized with police departments from Paris to Château-Thierry, a 90-minute-minimum drive northeast. And if circumstances required Trump’s swift extraction from France, the president and his party could have been pinned down on two-lane country roads.

So what evidence backs each story?

Goldberg and the Atlantic invoke “four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day.” They all are anonymous. Their roles, in the president’s entourage, if any, are unstated. Goldberg and the Atlantic do not even place these “sources” in France at that time. Since publishing this story, Goldberg and the Atlantic have not persuaded any of these nameless personages to show his face, nor have they produced even one new source to bolster these vicious claims. Like a parched lawn, this new story has not grown even a quarter inch in 12 days.

In stark contrast, 16 named members of President Trump’s Paris party have stepped forward to corroborate him. Trump can point to quadruple the grand-total number of sources in the Atlantic story. Trump’s sources have names. Goldberg’s don’t. Team Trump also presents two unnamed authorities whom the White House partially identified by their offices and job titles.
Here are the 16 named sources who reinforce President Trump in this controversy:

LINK

:cheers:

 

[Donald H]

You're right on the money there CBH99


Trump Buries Atlantic Story in Landslide of Named Sources
Jeffrey Goldberg is emerging as the real “sucker” in this situation.

by DEROY MURDOCK
September 15, 2020, 12:00 AM

Trump: 16.

The Atlantic: 4.

Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic’s Trump-hating editor-in-chief, claimed in a September 3 article that President Donald J. Trump dissed 2,289 American GIs buried at a World War I graveyard in France on November 10, 2018. Why? According to Goldberg, Trump avoided the Aisne-Marnes American Cemetery because, the president allegedly said, “it’s filled with losers,” and the Doughboys interred there are “suckers.” Goldberg also asserted that “Trump rejected the idea of the visit because he feared his hair would become disheveled in the rain.”

...

The Secret Service also raised logistical and security concerns. The U.S. commander-in-chief’s movements would have to have been synchronized with police departments from Paris to Château-Thierry, a 90-minute-minimum drive northeast. And if circumstances required Trump’s swift extraction from France, the president and his party could have been pinned down on two-lane country roads.

So what evidence backs each story?

Goldberg and the Atlantic invoke “four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day.” They all are anonymous. Their roles, in the president’s entourage, if any, are unstated. Goldberg and the Atlantic do not even place these “sources” in France at that time. Since publishing this story, Goldberg and the Atlantic have not persuaded any of these nameless personages to show his face, nor have they produced even one new source to bolster these vicious claims. Like a parched lawn, this new story has not grown even a quarter inch in 12 days.

In stark contrast, 16 named members of President Trump’s Paris party have stepped forward to corroborate him. Trump can point to quadruple the grand-total number of sources in the Atlantic story. Trump’s sources have names. Goldberg’s don’t. Team Trump also presents two unnamed authorities whom the White House partially identified by their offices and job titles.
Here are the 16 named sources who reinforce President Trump in this controversy:

LINK

:cheers:

The lack of a visit to the cemetary won't stand alone Shawn, on account of the political counterspin. But other examples, foremost his remarks against McCain help support the notion that Trump has been callously outspoken on his disdain for the military and especially wounded and dead.

:cheers:

 

[mariomike]

But other examples, foremost his remarks against McCain help support the notion that Trump has been callously outspoken on his disdain for the military and especially wounded and dead.

"I like people who weren't captured."

McCain was shot down on his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam.

He fractured both arms and a leg. He nearly drowned. He was bayoneted and his shoulder was crushed with a rifle butt. He received no medical treatment, and was beaten and tortured.

That went on for five and a half years. In my book, McCain was a hero.

 

 

[shawn5o]

The lack of a visit to the cemetary won't stand alone Shawn, on account of the political counterspin. But other examples, foremost his remarks against McCain help support the notion that Trump has been callously outspoken on his disdain for the military and especially wounded and dead.

:cheers:

Hi Don

That Atlantic article has been proven to be nothing more than political BS

I think that "feud" started when McCain criticized Trump running for the republican party nomination.

IOW, McCain started it ;D

 

[QV]

Okay, so polls and talking heads aren’t indicators. Check.

What are indicators?

Figure it out. 

 

[QV]

"I like people who weren't captured."

McCain was shot down on his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam.

He fractured both arms and a leg. He nearly drowned. He was bayoneted and his shoulder was crushed with a rifle butt. He received no medical treatment, and was beaten and tortured.

That went on for five and a half years. In my book, McCain was a hero.

In his earlier life McCain suffered greatly in service to his country.  In later life he was part of the political establishment and part of what could be the biggest political scandal in that country’s history, the Russia collusion hoax and attempt to illegally remove/damage a legitimately elected POTUS. 

 

[Remius]

Figure it out.

:

Translation: You don’t have anything to back up your statement.

I figured it out.

Thanks.

 

[dimsum]

Figure it out.

If you're going to say "the actual result", that isn't an indicator.  An indicator is something that can help predict the result, not the result itself.

In his earlier life McCain suffered greatly in service to his country.  In later life he was part of the political establishment and part of what could be the biggest political scandal in that country’s history, the Russia collusion hoax and attempt to illegally remove/damage a legitimately elected POTUS. 

Are we back to this again? 

Trump campaign’s Russia contacts ‘grave’ threat, Senate says
By ERIC TUCKER and MARY CLARE JALONICK
August 18, 2020

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian intelligence services during the 2016 presidential election posed a “grave” counterintelligence threat, a Senate panel concluded Tuesday as it detailed how associates of Donald Trump had regular contact with Russians and expected to benefit from the Kremlin’s help.

The nearly 1,000-page report, the fifth and final one from the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee on the Russia investigation, details how Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf. It says the Trump campaign chairman had regular contact with a Russian intelligence officer and that other Trump associates were eager to exploit the Kremlin’s aid, particularly by maximizing the impact of the disclosure of Democratic emails hacked by Russian intelligence officers.

The report is the culmination of a bipartisan probe that produced what the committee called “the most comprehensive description to date of Russia’s activities and the threat they posed.” The investigation spanned more than three years as the panel’s leaders said they wanted to thoroughly document the unprecedented attack on U.S. elections.

https://apnews.com/5e833a62e9492f6a66624b7920cc846a

 

[QV]

If the only open sources for you on this topic are polls and pundit commentary, that explains a lot.


That wasn’t called for.  Let me help with a couple of examples instead:

NY Police union endorsed Trump after 40 yrs supporting the DNC.

Six Dem mayors in Minnesota endorse Trump.

Tons of anecdotal evidence dems are switching sides (walk away movement, etc)

COVID notwithstanding Trumps record on the economy and jobs was great and will be again.  “It’s the economy, stupid!”

Trump and peace deals. This is enormous.

No new wars.  This is enormous.

All of the “impossible” like embassy to Jerusalem, troop withdraw didn’t result in all Kurds dead, etc

Trump and record low unemployment in the black community.

Jobs vs mobs

Biden 47 yrs in office

Harris left primaries at about 2% support

You can go on and on and on. But if you want to ignore all that stuff and focus on a CNN talking head with a paid by CNN poll, go right ahead.

 

[mariomike]

In his earlier life McCain suffered greatly in service to his country.  In later life he was part of the political establishment and part of what could be the biggest political scandal in that country’s history, the Russia collusion hoax and attempt to illegally remove/damage a legitimately elected POTUS.

What does that have to do with a statement Trump made about a war hero in 2015?

 

[Donald H]

What does that have to do with a statement Trump made about a war hero in 2015?

For you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw
If any conservatives watch it, just don't ask me for 18 minutes of your life back.