Election Day Jitters

[Minimalist]

The obvious. He can't call around telling election officials what he wants them to do and what will happen to them if they don't do it. He can't pretend to raise a crowd of morons on the grounds that the "president" is telling them to do it. And when the authorities want to call out the national guard to protect the capitol they will get it done. Do you think those wheezing old fucks will charge a line of bayonets?

Right now he seems to be planning to tie up the courts with a lot of frivolous law suits that, just like last time, have no evidence to back them up.

[Cavebear]

The obvious.  He can't call around telling election officials what he wants them to do and what will happen to them if they don't do it.  He can't pretend to raise a crowd of morons on the grounds that the "president" is telling them to do it.  And when the authorities want to call out the national guard to protect the capitol they will get it done.  Do you think those wheezing old fucks will charge a line of bayonets?

Right now he seems to be planning to tie up the courts with a lot of frivolous law suits that, just like last time, have no evidence to back them up.

Tying things up in court seems to be Trump's main strategy. Even when he loses, it delays things. And every delay mostly keeps him out of the prison cell where he belongs.

There won't be a 2nd insurrection attempt. The law enforcement officials aren't stupid. "Once burned, twice shy". They will be prepared. And the hell with bayonets; they will be ordered to shoot.

[Minimalist]

60 cases were thrown out of court because you need "evidence."  You also need "standing" to sue.  It's a complex issue.

And both sides can appeal.  

But I don't see the enthusiasm on Fuckface's side needed to pull anything like an insurrection off.


And I don't know if they give the National Guard live ammunition after Kent State for crowd control.

[Cavebear]

60 cases were thrown out of court because you need "evidence."  You also need "standing" to sue.  It's a complex issue.

And both sides can appeal.  

But I don't see the enthusiasm on Fuckface's side needed to pull anything like an insurrection off.


And I don't know if they give the National Guard live ammunition after Kent State for crowd control.

Was that a reply to me?  Can't tell without a quote y'know. OK, you know who you are replying to, but not everybody else does.

I agree all the cases Trump tried failed in lower courts.  60-0 is encouraging.

I think the chances of Trump pulling off another attack on the National Govt is unlikely, but attacks on the State Govts may happen.

The law enforcement officials will certainly have live ammunition if that happens.  This is not a Kent State situation.  In fact, I hope they have machine guns and are authorized to use them.  Once is "weird", twice is far more deliberate and serious.  I expect the Federal and State Govts to be prepared to act quickly (and lethally if required).

[Charladele]

And this time, I hope secret service lets Trump lead them in (like he wanted to do last time) so he is right at the front of the crowd.

[Minimalist]

I'm more worried about pin prick or lone-wolf attacks by individual crazies.  As a group I don't think this bunch of Magatards could organize a two-car funeral.  But one nut bag with a gun can cause trouble.

As a matter of fact....it happens 3-4 times a day in this fucking country already.

[SYZ]

Trump and his allies are full of bravado over his chances of
victory in the closing days of the 2024 campaign. But there
are signs, publicly and privately, that the former president
and his team are worried that their opponents’ descriptions
of him as a racist and a fascist may be breaking through to
segments of voters.

That anxiety was clear after Trump’s six-hour event at Madison
Square Garden, where the inflammatory speeches on Sunday
included an opening act by comedian Tony Hinchcliffe known
for his history of racist jokes deriding Puerto Rico as "a floating
island of garbage".   His set also included derogatory remarks
about Latinos generally, African Americans, Palestinians and Jews.

Hinchcliffe was the "warm up" act chosen by Trump himself.    

Many in the predominantly white audience groaned at Hinchcliffe’s
insult to Puerto Rico. Still, he told a tasteless, vulgar joke about
the size of Hispanic families, mentioned watermelons as he called
out a Black man in the audience, and mocked Palestinians as
rock-throwers and Jews as cheapskates.

  —Excerpted from the NYT, 30 October 2024.

[Dānu]

Nonsense. Trump said he didn't even know Tony Hinchcliffe! Why would he lie?

[SYZ]

Nonsense.  Trump said he didn't even know Tony Hinchcliffe!  Why would he lie?

Oh yeah... silly me... I was forgetting of course      
that Trump has never been known to lie.

[mordant]

Nonsense.  Trump said he didn't even know Tony Hinchcliffe!  Why would he lie?

Yeah and Vance said he hadn't heard the routine or listened to it ... when he was physically THERE.

[Minimalist]

But, Mord....there might have been a hot couch in the break room?

[Rhythmcs]

In the end, when this is all over, they'll say the same about the whole thing. None of them will remember it. None of them were for it. None of them believed in it.

[pattylt]

In the end, when this is all over, they'll say the same about the whole thing.  None of them will remember it.  None of them were for it.  None of them believed in it.

And you forgot…Dems can’t take a joke.

(Seriously, that’s what some are now saying)

Why is Republican humor always denigrating someone?  Except, of course, white men.

[Cavebear]

Trump and his allies are full of bravado over his chances of
victory in the closing days of the 2024 campaign. But there
are signs, publicly and privately, that the former president
and his team are worried that their opponents’ descriptions
of him as a racist and a fascist may be breaking through to
segments of voters.

That anxiety was clear after Trump’s six-hour event at Madison
Square Garden, where the inflammatory speeches on Sunday
included an opening act by comedian Tony Hinchcliffe known
for his history of racist jokes deriding Puerto Rico as "a floating
island of garbage".   His set also included derogatory remarks
about Latinos generally, African Americans, Palestinians and Jews.

Hinchcliffe was the "warm up" act chosen by Trump himself.    

Many in the predominantly white audience groaned at Hinchcliffe’s
insult to Puerto Rico. Still, he told a tasteless, vulgar joke about
the size of Hispanic families, mentioned watermelons as he called
out a Black man in the audience, and mocked Palestinians as
rock-throwers and Jews as cheapskates.

  —Excerpted from the NYT, 30 October 2024.

And, of course, Trump denies knowing who that guy is... It is so typical. If someone Trump actually doesn't know says something good about him, that person is a "close friend". But if the person he knew about and approved for the campaign rally says something embarrassing, he says he never had anything to do with that choice.

[Cavebear]

Nonsense.  Trump said he didn't even know Tony Hinchcliffe!  Why would he lie?

Because he is Trump, and always lies... I don't say that about all Republicans, just Trump (well, OK, some dedicated followers too). He just always does. It is a learned habit that has served him well both before he entered politics and since. Lying and inuendo is just how he talks. He can't even stop doing it when it causes him political or business harm anymore.

[Charladele]

What's funny about that is that they knew enough about Hinchcliffe's monolog to tell him not to call Harris a cunt. So, another words, they fully knew about Hinchcliffe's monolog.

[SYZ]

Writing on NBC’s website, Josh Clinton, a politics professor
at Vanderbilt University, and John Lapinski, the network’s
director of elections, pondered whether the tied race reflected
not the sentiments of the voters, but rather risk-averse
decision-making by pollsters. Some, they suggested, may
be wary of findings indicating unusually large leads for one
candidate and introducing corrective weighting.

Of the last 321 polls in the battlegrounds, 124—nearly 40%
—showed margins of a single point or less, the pair wrote.
Pennsylvania was the most “troubling” case, with 20 out of
59 polls showing an exact tie, while another 26 showed margins
of less than 1%.

This indicated “not just an astonishingly tight race, but also
an improbably tight race”, according to Clinton and Lapinski.

[Cavebear]

Writing on NBC’s website, Josh Clinton, a politics professor
at Vanderbilt University, and John Lapinski, the network’s
director of elections, pondered whether the tied race reflected
not the sentiments of the voters, but rather risk-averse
decision-making by pollsters. Some, they suggested, may
be wary of findings indicating unusually large leads for one
candidate and introducing corrective weighting.

Of the last 321 polls in the battlegrounds, 124—nearly 40%
—showed margins of a single point or less, the pair wrote.
Pennsylvania was the most “troubling” case, with 20 out of
59 polls showing an exact tie, while another 26 showed margins
of less than 1%.

This indicated “not just an astonishingly tight race, but also
an improbably tight race”, according to Clinton and Lapinski.

That is a very interesting observation. As a Government&Politics major in college, I took a couple of courses in polling. Polling is both an art and a science. "Art" in designing the poll; "science" in measuring the results. But that was back in the early 70s when polling was essential non-partisan and informative. Back then, we were graded on how objectively we designed a test poll.

These days, I'm not so sure. First, too many polls seem to have assumptions built into them. And some are outright partisan. But also, it is just harder to get meaningful poll results. Cell/smartphones have changed things very much. It is harder to construct an accurate sample voter base to contact. And worse, it is actually harder to contact actual likely voters. The telemarketers have ruined it.

I myself have both a landline cordless phone and a smartphone. I only use the smartphone for GPS and in the car for emergencies. Once a week, I just delete all the incomibng news/telemarketer calls. I don't bother to answer the landline phone unless there is a voicemail message (and 99% of the time, I just delete them. So even as a politically-aware, opinionated, and dedicated voter, I am out of reach of pollsters.

And as a "politically-aware, opinionated, and dedicated voter", I am exactly the kind of person pollsters want to reach. But they can't. I don't even bother to open my door most times the doorbell rings (unless I am expecting someone). It is almost always some contractor who wants to replace my roof/siding or cut down a tree.

I am probably rather typical. We have become a nation of people who have learned (due to telemarketers and scam contractors) to ignore the outside world most times. The only poll I will pay attention to will end on election day. THAT I do participate in. I haven't missed an election (general, primary, or off-year) since I could first vote in 1968. With one exception to which I must admit...

In 1980, I didn't like Carter or Reagan, so I considered a protest vote for John Anderson. But back then, you had to stand in line for a couple hours to vote and I decided it wasn't worth my time. So I stayed home for that one. BTW, since Democrats took over the County from Republicans in the 90s, there are so many more voting places that I can get in and out in 15 minutes.

But no pollster has the slightest idea how I personally am going to vote.

[Minimalist]

I do not understand how anyone could be UNDECIDED at this point in time.

I think they are full of shit.

[pattylt]

Writing on NBC’s website, Josh Clinton, a politics professor
at Vanderbilt University, and John Lapinski, the network’s
director of elections, pondered whether the tied race reflected
not the sentiments of the voters, but rather risk-averse
decision-making by pollsters. Some, they suggested, may
be wary of findings indicating unusually large leads for one
candidate and introducing corrective weighting.

Of the last 321 polls in the battlegrounds, 124—nearly 40%
—showed margins of a single point or less, the pair wrote.
Pennsylvania was the most “troubling” case, with 20 out of
59 polls showing an exact tie, while another 26 showed margins
of less than 1%.

This indicated “not just an astonishingly tight race, but also
an improbably tight race”, according to Clinton and Lapinski.

That is a very interesting observation.  As a Government&Politics major in college, I took a couple of courses in polling.  Polling is both an art and a science.  "Art" in designing the poll; "science" in measuring the results.  But that was back in the early 70s when polling was essential non-partisan and informative.  Back then, we were graded on how objectively we designed a test poll.

These days, I'm not so sure.  First, too many polls seem to have assumptions built into them.  And some are outright partisan.  But also, it is just harder to get meaningful poll results.  Cell/smartphones have changed things very much.  It is harder to construct an accurate sample voter base to contact.  And worse, it is actually harder to contact actual likely voters.  The telemarketers have ruined it.

I myself have both a landline cordless phone and a smartphone.  I only use the smartphone for GPS and in the car for emergencies.  Once a week, I just delete all the incomibng news/telemarketer calls.  I don't bother to answer the landline phone unless there is a voicemail message (and 99% of the time, I just delete them.  So even as a politically-aware, opinionated, and dedicated voter, I am out of reach of pollsters.  

And as a "politically-aware, opinionated, and dedicated voter", I am exactly the kind of person pollsters want to reach.  But they can't.  I don't even bother to open my door most times the doorbell rings (unless I am expecting someone).  It is almost always some contractor who wants to replace my roof/siding or cut down a tree.

I am probably rather typical.  We have become a nation of people who have learned (due to telemarketers and scam contractors) to ignore the outside world most times.  The only poll I will pay attention to will end on election day.  THAT I do participate in.  I haven't missed an election (general, primary, or off-year) since I could first vote in 1968.  With one exception to which I must admit...

In 1980, I didn't like Carter or Reagan, so I considered a protest vote for John Anderson.  But back then, you had to stand in line for a couple hours to vote and I decided it wasn't worth my time.  So I stayed home for that one.  BTW, since Democrats took over the County from Republicans in the 90s, there are so many more voting places that I can get in and out in 15 minutes.  

But no pollster has the slightest idea how I personally am going to vote.

Me, too!

One exception is that I would answer an in person poll that knocked on my door…but, they never do.

I once answered a voice survey on the landline phone years ago but after cell phones were in circulation.  For the next year, I got survey calls almost daily.  It isn’t just scammers and telemarketers, it’s that they sell your information to every other telemarketer.  It’s the same with contributing to your political party.  Do it once and every candidate from your party is emailing or texting you for money begs.  I get calls and texts daily…and I STOP every text.  I’m not interested in contributing to Ohio or Nebraska and I never had but, I contributed to my state Rep.  if she wins, she’s getting a letter from me letting her know how much I DON’T appreciate her selling of my information…especially because I added a note not to.

NEVER AGAIN.

My husband gets texts on his phone for me, too.  I’ve never given out his phone number, so WTF?

[Fireball]

I do not understand how anyone could be UNDECIDED at this point in time.

I think they are full of shit.

Consider that most people expect that their vote should be secret, as advertised. I'd venture that they don't want to be hassled my MAGAts if overheard. Best would be to say, "Undecided" and put the vote in...hopefully for Kamala.

[mordant]

I heard a sort of sad bit of reporting on NPR today where the reporter was curious what it's like to have a split-vote household.

She interviewed the wife of a hard-core MAGA, who plans to vote for Harris without her husband's knowledge. She said it wasn't always like this. Twenty years ago when they met, he was apolitical and not even registered to vote. It was she who pushed him to vote as a civic duty. It was her who researched candidates and issues, distilled it down for him, and he went with her recommendations. She has always been conservative, but had real misgivings about voting for Trump in 2016, but she thought, well he won't get elected anyway. And immediately regretted it.

After that her husband changed, becoming more controlling and more obsessed with Trump, and wants to continue to talk about politics like they always have -- but only if she is all-in like he is.

She has learned to deflect, plead being busy, or respond in such boring ways that he gives up. But every 10 days to 2 weeks they have a knock-down, drag-out fight about Trump.

Now she is skulking about in the back yard while her husband takes a shower or other odd moments when she's not joined at the hip with him, talking to a reporter under a pseudonym. It is not that she's afraid of him, she just doesn't want to fight with him. And she doesn't like that he's now so controlling about it.

According to the report, generally speaking, men are 6+ points for Trump, women are 6+ points for Harris at this point, so this is going on a LOT.

[Cavebear]

I do not understand how anyone could be UNDECIDED at this point in time.

I think they are full of shit.

According to some political analysts, some people actually go to vote not knowing who they will vote for at the time. That seems bizarre to me, but I suppose not to them.

[Cavebear]

That is a very interesting observation.  As a Government&Politics major in college, I took a couple of courses in polling.  Polling is both an art and a science.  "Art" in designing the poll; "science" in measuring the results.  But that was back in the early 70s when polling was essential non-partisan and informative.  Back then, we were graded on how objectively we designed a test poll.

These days, I'm not so sure.  First, too many polls seem to have assumptions built into them.  And some are outright partisan.  But also, it is just harder to get meaningful poll results.  Cell/smartphones have changed things very much.  It is harder to construct an accurate sample voter base to contact.  And worse, it is actually harder to contact actual likely voters.  The telemarketers have ruined it.

I myself have both a landline cordless phone and a smartphone.  I only use the smartphone for GPS and in the car for emergencies.  Once a week, I just delete all the incomibng news/telemarketer calls.  I don't bother to answer the landline phone unless there is a voicemail message (and 99% of the time, I just delete them.  So even as a politically-aware, opinionated, and dedicated voter, I am out of reach of pollsters.  

And as a "politically-aware, opinionated, and dedicated voter", I am exactly the kind of person pollsters want to reach.  But they can't.  I don't even bother to open my door most times the doorbell rings (unless I am expecting someone).  It is almost always some contractor who wants to replace my roof/siding or cut down a tree.

I am probably rather typical.  We have become a nation of people who have learned (due to telemarketers and scam contractors) to ignore the outside world most times.  The only poll I will pay attention to will end on election day.  THAT I do participate in.  I haven't missed an election (general, primary, or off-year) since I could first vote in 1968.  With one exception to which I must admit...

In 1980, I didn't like Carter or Reagan, so I considered a protest vote for John Anderson.  But back then, you had to stand in line for a couple hours to vote and I decided it wasn't worth my time.  So I stayed home for that one.  BTW, since Democrats took over the County from Republicans in the 90s, there are so many more voting places that I can get in and out in 15 minutes.  

But no pollster has the slightest idea how I personally am going to vote.

Me, too!

One exception is that I would answer an in person poll that knocked on my door…but, they never do.

I once answered a voice survey on the landline phone years ago but after cell phones were in circulation.  For the next year, I got survey calls almost daily.  It isn’t just scammers and telemarketers, it’s that they sell your information to every other telemarketer.  It’s the same with contributing to your political party.  Do it once and every candidate from your party is emailing or texting you for money begs.  I get calls and texts daily…and I STOP every text.  I’m not interested in contributing to Ohio or Nebraska and I never had but, I contributed to my state Rep.  if she wins, she’s getting a letter from me letting her know how much I DON’T appreciate her selling of my information…especially because I added a note not to.

NEVER AGAIN.

My husband gets texts on his phone for me, too.  I’ve never given out his phone number, so WTF?

Yeah, I sent some token money to Nikki Haley just to annoy Trump, and I have gotten many emails from Harris ever since. Its like they all find everything you do. On the positive side, I have gotten very few political telephone calls. And every political email goes straight to the spam folder.

[SYZ]

I do not understand how anyone could be UNDECIDED at this point in time.

I think they are full of shit.

This happens in Australia, particularly at federal elections.
It's estimated here that 11% of voters decide which way
their ballot's going while they're waiting in the queue at
the polling booth (from 2022 electoral data).

Reviews also found that 26% of voters had not decided in
the campaign’s final week, and undecideds were more likely
to swing to the incumbent.