Board 8 > Biden | 40,962,735 | 57.64% | Trump | 27,258,817 | 38.36% [Ng Election Tracker!]

(+) Yeah! (+)

---

How can we be racist and do stuff to own the libs if the libs win

Geez people think

---

metaIslug posted...

Dems would rather have a guy who is barely alive over Trump

I would take a corpse over trump tbh

---

metaIslug posted...

Dems would rather have a guy who is barely alive over Trump

anyone would

---

charmander6000 posted...

Don't mail-in ballots get counted last in the United States? With the huge difference we could see Trump victory on election day only for Biden to come back later.

Depends on the state. Some states have to wait until Election Day before mail-in ballots can start being counted.
---

Weekend at Biden's is hilarious, except for the part where the people who made it think it's actually going to sway opinions in the election.

I saw a Lincoln Project ad this morning that was the same way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q5kwu-1924

---

idk whos gonna win the election but Trump is gonna be prez next year one way or another

---

Lightning Strikes posted...

There will almost certainly be an actual Gamefaqs poll about this, so dont worry guys, well get to see some trends soon.

Obama was racking up 90%+ in Europe, well see if Biden does the same.

I have the trends from the Obama 2012 GameFAQs poll here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aDApdprRZb-o9_6J92CCMF3lHkuTNluJLhFZ5E4AWE8/pub?gid=1433233704

Obama got up to almost 86% overnight in the hourly trends, which would be more than 90% in Europe considering his numbers from the US votes that were coming in during that time.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

anyone would

This is at least 75% of Biden's appeal, I imagine!

---

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/poll/6511-who-do-you-most-want-to-win-todays-us-presidential-election

didn't know hillary literally got fewer votes in this poll than "giant meteor" lol. in fairness, this joke option didn't exist in the obama/romney poll in 2012.

---

I mean it really was the best option in 2016

probably still the best option in 2020

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

This is at least 75% of Biden's appeal, I imagine!

I'm certainly not judging him very hard, considering. But then, I voted for Hilary, too, on the basis that she was not Trump. Pity the democrats nominated someone who served as the perfect foil for him. Not sure Bernie would have been any better, though. Trump would use a different drum, but the same beat.

Biden is not only not Trump, but he also lacks any of the major caveats that Trump could use as a wedge. He's not an overly-ambitious woman with decades in politics that were clearly just stepping stones to running and numerous skeletons in her closet. He's not part of the radical left, with policies that might drive anyone even mildly conservative fiscally the other way. He's literally the worst match-up for Trump -- someone so vanilla that Trump simply can't land any punches. Asking Trump to win on the basis of being a good candidate rather than a less-bad one was never going to work.

---

azuarc posted...

overly-ambitious woman

Everyone running for president is, by definition, extremely ambitious

If "overly" applied to anyone's ambition in 2016 it was the guy who thought that the presidency was an entry-level job

---

he's just speaking in terms of public perception

Hillary was an easy target for Trump compared to Biden.

---

I think his point was there is a non-insignificant part of the country that resents her for being an overly ambitious woman, but at the same time wouldn't resent a man of similar ambitions. Not that Biden was necessarily unambitious.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/poll/6511-who-do-you-most-want-to-win-todays-us-presidential-election

didn't know hillary literally got fewer votes in this poll than "giant meteor" lol. in fairness, this joke option didn't exist in the obama/romney poll in 2012.

While I did enjoy the joke, I'll forever be curious what the results without a joke option would have looked like.
---

Sadly, no.

I think that part is in reference to the fact that Trump appears to have desperately wanted to run against Bernie Sanders and frequently attacks Biden by going "these [insert scarier leftist boogeyman or boogeywoman here] are really going to be in charge". Like if you listen to his attacks, a lot of them aren't "Biden is bad" but "Biden is weak and these people are bad and these people will force Biden to do all these things he had already said he was against".

So he's trying to paint him as a member of the radical left and it comes off as silly because of how old and boring he is.

---

Aw man the post was deleted and now I look like a crazy person.

Trust me guys I'm not crazy.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I think his point was there is a non-insignificant part of the country that resents her for being an overly ambitious woman, but at the same time wouldn't resent a man of similar ambitions. Not that Biden was necessarily unambitious.

Yeah, exactly. Many stereotypical traits seen as strength in male politicians are viewed negatively for women. I don't think this even requires sexism on the part of individuals; it's built in to the way ambitious women are portrayed in our society, so if people aren't careful they'll uncritically absorb the sentiment regardless.

Actually the main reason I feel compelled to point this type of thing out whenever I see it is that I myself had a vague dislike of Hillary (though nowhere near enough that I wouldn't have voted for her in the general) until around halfway through the 2016 primaries when I was challenged by a friend about what exactly she had done that was especially objectionable and came up empty.

(This isn't to say that all criticism of Clinton is sexism, but sexism absolutely contributes to her and other female politicians from getting way more criticism than a male politician would get from doing the exact same thing)

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Yeah, exactly. Many stereotypical traits seen as strength in male politicians are viewed negatively for women. I don't think this even requires sexism on the part of individuals; it's built in to the way ambitious women are portrayed in our society, so if people aren't careful they'll uncritically absorb the sentiment regardless.

Actually the main reason I feel compelled to point this type of thing out whenever I see it is that I myself had a vague dislike of Hillary (though nowhere near enough that I wouldn't have voted for her in the general) until around halfway through the 2016 primaries when I was challenged by a friend about what exactly she had done that was especially objectionable and came up empty.

Insider trading? Calling people superpredators? Hillarycare? Insulting homemakers? Voting for the Iraq War? Getting paid $200k-250k per speech to give private speeches to Wall Street banks? Benghazi? Emails? Not supporting tax cuts for the poor? Carried interest? Obamacare? The list goes on and on and on.

I mean, if you don't think any of those things, or anything else she's done, are reasons to dislike her, then yeah, you wouldn't have much reason to dislike her. And I guess you don't care about any of those things. But let's not pretend that people had no reason to dislike Hillary other than that she was ambitious.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Insider trading? Calling people superpredators? Hillarycare? Insulting homemakers? Voting for the Iraq War? Getting paid $200k-250k per speech to give private speeches to Wall Street banks? Benghazi? Emails? Not supporting tax cuts for the poor? Carried interest? Obamacare? The list goes on and on and on.

"being against gay marriage for a long time" is another one that sticks out to me.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Voting for the Iraq War?

See my edit, but here's a great example! You know who else voted for the Iraq war? Joe Biden! Did he get anywhere near the same amount of criticism for it?

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

See my edit, but here's a great example! You know who else voted for the Iraq war? Joe Biden! Did he get anywhere near the same amount of criticism for it?

I criticize him for it and every politician who voted for it. If it's getting less attention now, it's probably because we're 4 years further removed from that war.

---

I resentfully voted Hillary in 2016 but it wasn't anything against her personally. I just hate the idea of political dynasties in America and found it objectionable that 4 last 5 presidents would've either been father and son or husband and wife.

Turns out I should've been begging for that outcome!

(But yeah I understand what you're saying)

---

Aecioo posted...

Dude stfu this topic already has 40 posts how can you be expected to read it all

With that said, didn't Clinton have a large lead this time in 2016?

Aecioo reminding me why I legitimately considered visiting him in real life at one point

---

I wasnt a huge fan of the meteor option because while I get the meme, it just promoted the whole theyre all as bad as each other thinking that enabled Trump. Indeed Trump seemed to overperform relative to Clinton compared to the Obama/Romney poll, which I have to assume is due to Clinton supporters voting for the meteor. I get it, but come on, there is always a worse option and it was definitely Trump.

---

Seanchan posted...

I wonder what a "registered user" bonus would be and what affect it would have...

I've been meaning to mention this- a record setting 25%+ of these early ballots have been cast by first time voters, so those who were active in 2016 would be getting a larger bump than usual this time around. But more importantly, it's a fact that can't have Trump feeling too good about his chances.

(Because there's also a record setting number of people under 40 casting their first vote this year, and he's getting destroyed in that demo.)

LordoftheMorons posted...

Because of the electoral college, it's living in a small state...!

True, your vote has way more power if you live in Wyoming than California. Statistically though, what really matters is being from a battleground state. My voting power is 7 times higher than average because I'm from Wisconsin, for instance.

CaptainOfCrush posted...

Ng - curious, which source are you using for your updated votals (these ones):

50,131,784 Mail In Ballot Votes
25,660,472 In-Person Early Votes

These are being tracked and made publicly available by Michael McDonald, a Professor at the University of Florida. He's done this for the last few elections and has very reliable numbers.

https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html


---

handsomeboy2012 posted...

Didn't the polls show Hilary with a large lead back in 2016? Will the same situation happen this time around?

We've discussed this from a number of angles now, but one we haven't touched on is...

Hillary was looking to be in a pretty good position before a collapse in the last week, and that's not going to happen this time around. One because we're running out of time, but even more importantly we're running out of voters.

With tonight's update we'll be at well over 80 million ballots cast, accounting for nearly 60% of the 2016 vote total. Another 15 million ballots could very well be in the mail system as we speak. Even if an enormous headline arrives in the next few days, it's just not mathematically possible for it to shake up the election like it would have in any previous election in American history.

I also think Biden's in a way better position than Hillary for a related reason: all these votes are already in the safe. Trump's attacks on the mail in process have convinced his supporters to be all-in on Election Day, and it's dangerous to put all your eggs in one basket when you have such an uphill climb ahead of you.

Even if there are 50 million highly motivated Trump fans sitting at home right now waiting for Tuesday, anything could happen to disrupt their plan. A sick kid, an emergency at work, having to wait four hours in line in bad weather, being elderly/high risk and getting scared off by a skyrocketing rate of COVID infections in your area, etc. All in all it's just a dangerous proposition that would have me wary of trusting Trump's chances, even if the polls in important states were razor thin at the moment.

---

Also in 2016 15% of voters were undecided on Election Day.

fhis year its like a third of that.

---

masterplum posted...

Also in 2016 15% of voters were undecided on Election Day.

fhis year its like a third of that.

Whoops, yeah, I meant to mention that as well (and credit Rock who touched on it earlier).


---

No matter what happens next week, the shitstorm is going to fly.

If Trump wins, the ongoing BLM riots will triple in size and entire cities will burn down.

If Trump loses, he will stall and tie up the results in courts for at least 6 months, during which the ongoing BLM riots will triple in size and entire cities will burn down. And then when the courts eventually kick him out of office, his redneck hillbilly supporters will riot in the streets as well

---

This ended up being the busiest day of the election season so far, with over 6 million ballots registered over the last 24 hours! Good news for democracy... not so much for Donald Trump.

Results From The Last 24 Hours
New Votes Cast 6,249,794
Biden Votes (estimated) 3,238,875
Trump Votes (estimated) 2,721,779

Joe extends his lead by a further 517,096 votes. Trump's comeback does continue in terms of percentage, but even there his 0.78% cut comes up a little short of yesterday's pace.

New total tally is
82,042,050 Total Early Votes Cast
(59.5% of 2016's total)

46,593,100 Biden Votes (estimated)
32,076,547 Trump Votes (estimated)
14,516,553 Current Lead (estimated)

56.79% Biden Total Percentage (estimated)
39.10% Trump Total Percentage (estimated)
17.69% Current Lead (estimated)

The Trump comeback hill continues to grow ever steeper. There are fewer than 68 million ballots left to be cast (assuming we reach 150 million total), and he'll now need to earn a whopping 60.7% of them to win the popular vote.

On a state by state basis... much has been made of the insane run Texas has been on over the last week, and indeed they're on pace to surpass 100% of their 2016 vote total over the next 24 hours (it's their last day of early voting). But check out how vote-crazy the whole South has gotten! These are their percents versus 2016.

Florida - 77%
Georgia - 82%
North Carolina - 81%
Tennessee - 83%
Arizona - 80%
New Mexico - 83%

You might think seeing so many Southerners (and South-Westerners) heading to the polls early would mean not-so-bad results for Donald Trump. Unfortunately for him, it's not looking that way from the stats... only 41.6% of the ballots so far in early In-Person voting have been cast by registered Republicans. This is usually an area where Republicans post a significant advantage (while Democrats do better with Mail In voting), so it appears most of the In-Person surge is being driven by newer, independent voters.

Full stats as always in the sheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NTMEI1vn58ET9WOWPUg2tOFnOOsQZFCqRvOvx68CpOs/edit?usp=sharing

---

bah gawd

---

I predict a spike for Trump tomorrow. n_n

---

wow, I never thought I'd see the day Arizona was a battleground state

---

What I took away from 2016 in the long run is that lots of people were probably just sick and tired of Hillary Clinton given that she has been a fixture in US Politics for more than two decades, so controversies that could have been relatively minor for someone else got blown up. Then at the last minute people who hated both candidates decided they'd rather go with the unknown over the devil they knew. That's the big test of this election: whether Trump got lucky in 2016 or is actually this popular.

While I don't necessarily think it's deliberate sexism, given there's no way Hillary Clinton could possibly have been in the position she was in if she was male I still say if Trump loses this election it basically proves Americans collectively decided they didn't want a woman in office.

---

I voted Gary Johnson in 2016. Had nothing to do with Clinton being female. It was her last name and the fact that the entire Democratic Party rolled over to give her the nomination. I always thought Bill was kind of a sleezy dude (Not from lewinsky, but his adamant lying and defense about it among other things) and I always thought Hillary stayed married to him for political reasons.

So I voted Gary Johnson. This year I have no reason not to vote for Biden

---

2016 was so bad that johnson legitimately may have been the relatively best option

---

masterplum posted...

I voted Gary Johnson in 2016. Had nothing to do with Clinton being female. It was her last name and the fact that the entire Democratic Party rolled over to give her the nomination. I always thought Bill was kind of a sleezy dude (Not from lewinsky, but his adamant lying and defense about it among other things) and I always thought Hillary stayed married to him for political reasons.

So I voted Gary Johnson. This year I have no reason not to vote for Biden

I voted Johnson for the same reason last election and then a friend yelled at me and quit talking to me.

---

Sounds like nothing of value is lost if a friend would leave you over voting for the wrong person

---

I mean I think it might be fair to end a friendship if someone votes Trump in 2020.

---

Johnson didn't know where Aleppo is.

Apparently basic competence is bad if you want to be POTUS.

---

masterplum posted...

I voted Gary Johnson in 2016. Had nothing to do with Clinton being female. It was her last name and the fact that the entire Democratic Party rolled over to give her the nomination. I always thought Bill was kind of a sleezy dude (Not from lewinsky, but his adamant lying and defense about it among other things) and I always thought Hillary stayed married to him for political reasons.

So I voted Gary Johnson. This year I have no reason not to vote for Biden

I could see an argument that Johnson would have been a better president than Hillary, but he had no chance to actually win the election. Voting for him in any remotely competitive state was a terrible idea unless Hillary and Trump would be equally bad as president.
---

redrocket posted...

I mean I think it might be fair to end a friendship if someone votes Trump in 2020.

That's the sort of attitude that got us into this hyper partisan plotting to kidnap governors mess.

Cutting off friendship for politics is terrible. You don't want every friend of yours to share the exact same views.

---

i don't want any friend of mine to share views with trump. there's a wide gamut of things we can still disagree on within that space

---

masterplum posted...

Cutting off friendship for politics is terrible.

i generally agree but there are limits. would you want to have a friend who said "hitler was awesome"?

---

Steiner posted...

i don't want any friend of mine to share views with trump. there's a wide gamut of things we can still disagree on within that space

I bet you share at least one view with Trump
---

masterplum posted...

That's the sort of attitude that got us into this hyper partisan plotting to kidnap governors mess.

Cutting off friendship for politics is terrible. You don't want every friend of yours to share the exact same views.

This is a terrible take and you should be ashamed of yourself

What got you all into this mess is a fucking 50 year long campaign to radicalize voters starting from the Southern Strategy. People on the ground had little to not individual impact on this. Learn your history yo.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

I bet you share at least one view with Trump

i can change

---