ChrisWeigant.com

Electoral Math -- Biden Looking Solid

[ Posted Monday, August 3rd, 2020 – 17:47 UTC ]

Welcome back to the second of our quadrennial Electoral Math column series. The first installment was three weeks ago, which is our standard gap for the start of the contest. As time goes by and things start to move more quickly, we will start doing these every other Monday, right up to Election Day.

Please check that first column for a full explanation of what this series tries to accomplish, as well as my earlier column on the question of the validity of polls after the 2016 election. These two should answer most questions you might have about the series and its meaningfulness.

As always, we are happy to get all our data from the fantastic Electoral-Vote.com site, which has its own series of graphs and interpretations that are well worth checking out. This site has been consistent over the past four election cycles, and stands as a great resource for poll-watchers.

I have to update something I said last time around, because I have now gotten my own data-collecting file up to snuff and up to date. This means I will be able to provide the newer graphs I used in the 2016 cycle once again, although there is still room for improvement as time goes by (the charts and graphics will hopefully be expanded even further, in other words).

That's enough introduction, let's get to the charts. The first, as always, is a measure of the percent of Electoral Votes (EV) that the two candidates would have if the election were held today and all the polls were perfectly accurate. Joe Biden's numbers start from the bottom and are in blue, and Donald Trump's numbers start from the top and are in red. Any white space in between are states which are currently tied in the polls. If the line is above the 50 percent mark, Biden has the advantage. If it is below 50 percent, Trump has the advantage. So here we go:

Electoral Math By Percent

[Click on any of theses graphs to see larger-scale versions.]

As things stand, Joe Biden has 69 percent of the Electoral Votes while Donald Trump has 28 percent (the other 3 percent represents Georgia's 16 EV, because a new poll was posted today that shows the race tied there).

Ten states moved over the course of the last three weeks. Missouri firmed up for Trump at the start, to be followed later on by Alaska also firming up. Biden got good news in Arizona, as it moved twice in Biden's direction (the battleground states will have a lot more polling reported, so they will likely tend to move more than the others). Minnesota and Florida got stronger for Biden in one poll, but then slipped back in a second. Michigan and New Hampshire got a lot stronger for Biden late last week. Biden weakened a bit in Pennsylvania as well. Two states flipped, as Ohio went from being slightly for Biden to being slightly for Trump while (as mentioned) Georgia just went from slightly Biden to a tie.

Over the whole period (which began at the start of the white block above the 7/14 mark on the above graph), Biden improved a small bit and then fell back slightly more. But as we're about to see, he's still in pretty admirable shape overall.

Our next charts show the relative strength of each candidate's support. Polls which show a 10 point lead or better are considered "Strong," while a gap of between 5 and 10 points is "Weak" and a lead of under 5 points is only "Barely" in their column. Let's start by looking at Biden's chart:

Biden Electoral Math

This is a rather notable chart because for the first time ever (the first time in the last four presidential races), a candidate has literally gone "off the charts." I considered changing the scale to accurately show Biden's historic peak, but for the time being decided against it (mostly because it's easier to compare between the years when you use the same scale). But we'll get to such comparisons in a moment.

The first thing that happened to Biden's numbers was Arizona moved from Tied to Barely Biden, which gave him a whopping total of 406 Electoral Votes and sent him off the top of the chart. A little later, Biden's Strong and Weak numbers went through some churning, as Pennsylvania weakened a bit while both Florida and Minnesota trended Strong before moving back to Weak. Arizona then moved up to Weak Biden, and finally New Hampshire and Michigan moved up to Strong. At the same time, Biden lost two of his Barely states, Ohio (which flipped to barely Trump) and Georgia (which is now tied).

In the overall numbers, Biden started with 395 EV, moved up to 406, and then fell back to 372. A quick reminder: only 270 EV are needed to win. But as always, the numbers I pay the most attention to are the "Strong Plus Weak" lines. As you can see, Biden actually improved his Strong Plus Weak, moving from 302 EV to 313 EV.

As I cautioned last week, however, these numbers are almost certainly more optimistic than what the actual vote will be for one clear reason: Texas. Texas is currently in the "Barely Biden" column, even after numerous polls have been reported. But Biden actually winning the 38 EV from Texas is doubtful, at best. And because of the size of their electoral presence, this will change the chart in rather dramatic fashion. We should see this at some point, if Texas flips back to Trump's column -- when Biden's numbers will take a rather large 38 EV dip. Just to keep everyone realistic, here.

Which brings us to our new chart, which compares Joe Biden to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's two elections. The dates used on the bottom axis are this year's, but the charts are aligned by how long there is to go before Election Day. Since in different years I started doing these columns at different times (mostly due to when the nominee was made clear), some of the Biden chart for this year has been truncated. So how does Biden stack up against Clinton and Obama? See for yourself:

Democrats Strong/Weak

Biden (in green) starts off not only in better position than Clinton or Obama did (by roughly 50 EV), but Biden's in such good position that he's close to setting a record. Biden's 313 EV in Strong and Weak states is higher than any point on anyone's graph except for an early surge by Hillary Clinton that put her briefly at 320 EV, as well as the closing days of the 2008 campaign for Barack Obama (when he hit 317 EV).

This really is no surprise, since Biden also just charted an overall record (that off-the-charts 406 EV for all his categories combined) that neither Clinton nor Obama ever hit. The most impressive thing, however, is that Biden's Strong Plus Weak (even the earlier numbers that got cut off from this comparison chart) have never been below the 270 EV needed to win. Sure, it's early days, but that's still a feat that neither Clinton nor Obama managed this early in their runs.

Now that we've seen Biden's numbers, let's take a look at how Donald Trump is doing:

Trump Electoral Math

That's a pretty sad little chart, you've got to admit. Trump did very slightly improve his Weak numbers, as first Montana and Missouri, and then later Alaska all firmed up for him. However, these three states only have 16 EV combined, so the movement on the graph was pretty small. A much bigger jump came when Trump flipped Ohio from Barely Biden to Barely Trump, which is where his 18 EV overall improvement came from.

Trump increased his overall total from 132 EV to 150 EV during this period, but even that is lower than the lowest point he ever charted in 2016. In fact, it's lower than either Mitt Romney or John McCain ever hit as well. Romney only briefly fell below 200 EV, although McCain wound up not too far above 150 EV at the end of the race. Once again: Trump's best numbers this year don't even compare favorably with the worst Republican numbers from the past three elections.

Let's look at the Republican Strong Plus Weak chart to see this comparison:

Republicans Strong/Weak

As you can see, Trump is doing pretty bad right now compared to the last three cycles. For the most part, Republicans have held a solid grip on between 150 and 200 EV. They've briefly been above this range, and briefly dropped below it, but that is really where the Republican base numbers should be. Trump, obviously, is nowhere near this level. In fact, there's really not much more that can be said, because that chart shows the sad situation so plainly.

 

My Picks

Moving on from examining raw data requires some gut feeling to enter into the equation. Such as: "Do I really think Biden will take Texas? No, I do not." As always, I encourage everyone to keep a close eye on the individual state graphs to see how many polls have been conducted in each state, and how recent they are. This helps when determining how much faith you put in the numbers coming out of each state. There is also a quick list at the bottom of this article (in the raw data section) that shows which states have either not been polled at all or haven't had a poll in a long time.

As always, I divide my picks into "Safe," "Probable," and "Leaning" for each candidate, with a final "Too Close To Call" category at the end. So let's just dive right in, shall we?

 

Likely States -- Biden

Safe Biden (18 states, 213 EV)
Biden added one state to this column this time around, since Virginia now seems to be solidly for Biden. The once-red, once-purple state is now a healthy shade of blue, in other words (to be fair, this has been a historic trend which has little to do with Donald Trump).

Probable Biden (5 states, 60 EV)
This category saw the most movement for Biden, as Virginia moved up to Safe Biden while two other states moved up from Lean Biden to take its place. Michigan now seems pretty probable for Biden, especially given the fact that Team Trump seems to have given up on advertising there. This could always change, of course, but to see Trump retreat from the Michigan battlefield is pretty noteworthy.

The other state moving into Probable Biden this week is Wisconsin. Biden opened up a decent polling lead there in the middle of May, and he's steadily held it ever since, through multiple polls. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire also remain in this category, although both of them are actually flirting with moving up to Safe Biden, at this point. I will probably wait for another few polls from each before doing so, though. So Biden winds up with five Probable states this time around: Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

 

Likely States -- Trump

Safe Trump (14 states, 87 EV)
No changes to report here -- all of Trump's stronghold states have remained strong for him, so nothing has changed.

Probable Trump (4 states, 27 EV)
Trump added two states to his Probable column this week: Alaska and Missouri. In both states, Trump has shown a decent lead (although there hasn't been a whole lot of polling). But my gut tells me that both of these states are probably in the bag for Trump, at this point.

Montana is still in the Probable Trump column, but Biden does seem to be closing the gap there (likely due to the Democrat doing so well in the Senate race). So the state is in danger of weakening for Trump, but for the time being I'm going to leave it in this column. Tennessee rounds out the Probable Trump states, for a total of four.

 

Tossup States

Lean Biden (3 states, 46 EV)
There was quite a bit of movement in this category as well, as both Michigan and Wisconsin moved up from Lean Biden to Probable Biden. In its place, Arizona now has to be seen as Lean Biden rather than Too Close To Call, as Biden has mostly led in the polling (other than one poll in early July which showed the race tied).

Nevada remains as Lean Biden, although this is probably due to the lack of polling (Nevada just never polls anywhere near the rate of other states, despite being a sometimes-swing state that trends blue). It should probably be at least Probable Biden, but we'll have to see what the polling says (when and if it happens). The last Nevada poll we have is from February, before Biden had even wrapped up the nomination.

Florida is almost (but not quite) ready to move up to Probable Biden as well. I hesitate to do so because of its overall importance to the race -- if Florida goes for Biden, it may mean Trump simply has no viable path to the 270 EV needed to win. So for now, I'm keeping Florida as just Lean Biden.

Lean Trump (2 states, 12 EV)
Alaska and Missouri both moved up from Lean Trump to Probable Trump, leaving just Arkansas and Utah in the Lean Trump category. My gut tells me Utah should be stronger for Trump, but the last two polls (both of which were taken quite a while ago) showed a very close race here.

Too Close To Call (5 states, 93 EV)
This category stayed mostly the same, with only Arizona leaving to move to Lean Biden. A case could be made for North Carolina moving up to Lean Biden as well, since he's held onto a small lead there pretty consistently, but one July poll showed the race tied. Georgia obviously belongs here, as it just posted a tied poll today, and the other three states (Iowa, Ohio, and Texas) have all been neck-and-neck throughout multiple polls over the past month or so.

 

Final Tally

Joe Biden has got to be feeling pretty good about his chances, at this point. With states moving in his direction in both Safe Biden and Probable Biden, overall Biden has a whopping 273 Electoral Votes that are likely for him right now. This is up 36 EV from last week, after adding in Michigan and Wisconsin. This total would put him over the top in the Electoral College, it bears pointing out.

Donald Trump did slightly better this time around as well, but he only added 13 EV to his likely lineup (Alaska's 3 EV and Missouri's 10 EV). This gives him only 114 EV that he can really count on in November, at least as things stand now. That's less than half of what Biden's got. That leaves Trump with an enormous gap -- he will need 156 EV from all the other states in order to win. That's not just running the table, that's close to impossible.

Even adding in the Lean Trump states doesn't help him too much, as it would only give Trump 126 EV in total. Not only will Trump have to win all of the 96 EV in the Too Close To Call states, he'd also have to win all the Lean Biden states as well. Even if he corralled the whole Tossup State category, he'd still only be at 265 EV -- five short of the goal. To win, this means he'd have to pick up at least one decent-sized state from the Probable Biden category as well as running the table in all the current Tossup States. That is a pretty tall order, obviously.

Of course, nothing is set in stone, as we all know full well. Things can change, and there are still over 90 days to go before we all vote. That's a lot of time. Trump will (no doubt) try to spring multiple October Surprises on us all (a new vaccine! Hunter Biden! etc., etc.), which could always change things at the last minute (as happened in a big way in 2016, obviously).

But for the time being, Joe Biden is dominating the race for the Electoral College. He's posting numbers never seen by either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. So he has to be seen as the odds-on favorite to win in November, three months out.

 

[Full Data:]
(State electoral votes are in parenthesis following each state's name. Washington D.C. is counted as a state, for a total of 51.)

Joe Biden Likely Easy Wins -- 23 States -- 273 Electoral Votes:

Safe States -- 18 States -- 213 Electoral Votes
California (55), Colorado (9), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14), New Mexico (5), New York (29), Oregon (7), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Virginia (13), Washington D.C. (3), Washington (12)

Probable States -- 5 States -- 60 Electoral Votes
Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), New Hampshire (4), Pennsylvania (20), Wisconsin (10)

 

Donald Trump Likely Easy Wins -- 18 States -- 114 Electoral Votes:

Safe States -- 14 States -- 87 Electoral Votes
Alabama (9), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3), West Virginia (5), Wyoming (3)

Probable States -- 4 States -- 27 Electoral Votes
Alaska (3), Missouri (10), Montana (3), Tennessee (11)

 

Tossup States -- 10 States -- 151 Electoral Votes:

Tossup States Leaning Biden -- 3 States -- 46 Electoral Votes
Arizona (11), Florida (29), Nevada (6)

Tossup States Leaning Trump -- 2 States -- 12 Electoral Votes
Arkansas (6), Utah (6)

Too Close To Call -- 5 States -- 93 Electoral Votes
Georgia (16), Iowa (6), North Carolina (15), Ohio (18), Texas (38)

 

Polling data gaps:

Polled, but no recent polling data -- 11 States
(States which have not been polled since the beginning of June, with the dates of their last poll in parenthesis.)

California (5/26), Connecticut (5/4), Delaware (1/19), Indiana (5/23), Nevada (2/21), North Dakota (3/5), Maryland (5/23), Mississippi (2/28), South Carolina (5/26), Tennessee (5/22), Utah (5/15)

No polling data at all, yet -- 12 States
(States which have not been polled so far this year.)

Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington D.C., West Virginia, Wyoming

 

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

64 Comments on “Electoral Math -- Biden Looking Solid”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Oh, one other thing I forgot to mention. The big charts (the ones you get when you click on the small ones in the article) are new and improved! Well, they're bigger, at any rate.

    If anyone has any problems viewing them, please let me know.

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Nevada is a tossup? Even after they voted to illegally rig the election against Big Orange?

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Self-obsessed windbag Chuck Todd got demoted today. He's moving to 1 PM. Soon he'll be airing opposite The View.

    Nicole Wallace keeps her show and absorbs Todd's slot as well. That's two women who have been promoted to prominant roles on MSDNC. Joy Reid just got the Hardball slot for her new show.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I love love love going off the chart!

  5. [5] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    "Yippee! Tons of numbers-numbers-numbers!" Said the former Accounting Major.

    Yep, sure looks good for Joe & Elizabeth Miller.

    Can we post charts & graphics in this comment section? Just asking, um, for a friend.

  6. [6] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    So close.

    It should have been titles and about "Election Math- Biden Looking SOLD".

    That would have been much more productive.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  8. [8] 
    andygaus wrote:

    I think the most likely October surprise is the number of people surprised to find themselves on the street. Even some supposedly safe Trump states could come unsafe.

  9. [9] 
    Kick wrote:

    Wow, Chris. All that data; those charts are awesome.

    Poor Donald 2020... at least we can refer to him as "Little Orange" now.

    91 DAYS * 02 HOURS * 48 MINUTES

  10. [10] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Naw, he'll always be Cheetogod to moi. It sure looks like Trump is Toast.

  11. [11] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [8]

    andygaus wrote:


    I think the most likely October surprise is the number of people surprised to find themselves on the street. Even some supposedly safe Trump states could come unsafe.

    Pelosi has the Repugs by the short hairs. Whatever so-and-so Trumpanzies tell the pollsters I believe that the majority of Americans want and need more relief.


    After decades of serial tax cuts for the folks who least need them there's no excuse to not help out everyone, for once.

    BTW why is it that whenever a Red state like Texas or Florida gets hit by a hurricane it's "America's problem," but when a pandemic kills people in all 50 states, "We're on our own?"

    Absent the the Democratic plan, yes, there will be millions of people "out on the street." I think Trump's October Surprise will be war with Iran.

  12. [12] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Methinks the news for Trump is so undeniably bleak that even Michale cannot convince himself that Trump and his Repug enablers are gonna get tsunamied in 3 months.

    There's that word again, tsunamied. Heh.

  13. [13] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    ...Trump and his Repug enablers are NOT gonna get tsunamied in 3 months.

    Betcha he doesn't pay off on the wagers he made with John M & I.

  14. [14] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Heya Elizabeth, here's an Atlantic article that cheered me up.

    A couple of quotes:


    In the face of upheaval, [Biden] has given reason to hope that the traits that were his supposed weaknesses could prove to be his great strengths. If one of the ultimate purposes of protest is to push politicians, he’s shown himself a politician willing to be pushed. His tendency to channel the zeitgeist has supplied him with the potential to meet a very difficult moment.

    The challenge for the Biden candidacy is to bridge an alliance with a resurgent left. Biden, a creature of the Senate, has to convince young people rushing to the barricades that he’s worth a trip to the polls. And the challenge for the left is to accept that Biden is its greatest chance of achieving its long-held dreams. What he’s demonstrated over the past week is a willingness to play the role of tribune, to let the moment carry him to a new place.

  15. [15] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I do like Little Orange's chart up there, but I'm pretty sure that Moscow Mitch has seen it. The fact that the senate Republicons are dragging their feet on another round of stimulus is a sure sign that they think Fat Donny's gonna lose. They're already positioning themselves to run against the massive debt that's accumulated thanks to their policies.

    Big Money Joe and the Dems had better have a game plan since we've seen this movie before. It should already be in motion. The Return of the Teabaggers is already in production.

  16. [16] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    See the video on DNC corruption on the Jimmy Dore show.

    There is a little foul language, but actually very little by Jimmy Dore standards.

    Stick with it until near the end when Lawrence O'Donnell is quoted:
    "If you want to pull the party, the major party, that is closest to the way you're thinking to what you're thinking you MUST, you MUST show then that you're capable of not voting for them. If you don't show then that you're capable of not voting for them they don't have to listen to you."

    He goes on a little further saying he didn't have to listen when he was part of the Deathocrats establishment.

    That is what One Demand is- showing the Deathocrats that we are capable of not voting for them.

  17. [17] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    I can't quibble with your calls.

    According to the number of yard signs in South West Ohio, enthusiasm for Trump is way past its freshness date. Out-competed by For Sale signs.

  18. [18] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Don,

    That is what One Demand is- showing the Deathocrats that we are capable of not voting for them.

    I know I'm quite capable of showing them that w/o ODd and Little Orange pretty conclusively proves that "we" can do it as well.

    Stop the hammering!

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    TS-
    It's good to see the Deathocrats are at least being honest for a change.

    The Trump signs are being out competed the "For Sale" signs that represent the Deathocrats selling out to the big money interests. :D

  20. [20] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    JFC-
    No.

    It is CW that should stop hammering the Trump is bad you have no other choice mantra.

  21. [21] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    Your headline makes me wonder-

    If Biden is solid, what physical state is Trump in? Gas, Liquid or Plasma?

    Trump is under a lot of pressure, so Degenerate might apply... :)

  22. [22] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Don,

    It is CW that should stop hammering the Trump is bad you have no other choice mantra.

    Aside from the fact that CW doesn't argue that Trump is so bad that we have no other choice but Trump, there is the fact that the Dems are his chosen party. He's doesn't seem to be shopping for some other party.

  23. [23] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    JFC (22)-
    "Trump is so bad you have no other choice" is clearly the underlying (no pun intended) theme to CW's articles and has been and is the Deathocrats SOP.

    "He doesn't seem to be shopping for some other party."

    You have correctly identified the problem.

    That is why I recommended the Jimmy Dore video as it is what the video is about.

  24. [24] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    You have correctly identified the problem.

    I have correctly identified your problem. If it were a problem for CW, he'd probably do something different.

    You are barking up the wrong tree.

  25. [25] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [21]

    TheStig wrote:


    CW-

    Your headline makes me wonder-

    If Biden is solid, what physical state is Trump in? Gas, Liquid or Plasma?

    Trump is under a lot of pressure, so Degenerate might apply... :)

    Hands down my favorite comment this week, er, Stig, swimming in an ocean of good comments hereabouts. Bravo!

  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It is a problem for CW and everyone else in the country.

    Once he finally acknowledges that it is a problem he probably will do something different.

    Until then I will keep offering my opinion that he should acknowledge the problem.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBvbiHlXkew

    Never stop hammering.

  27. [27] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Cow Patties are solid.

  28. [28] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Can we apply the Monty Python reasoning to Cow Patties and Biden being solid?

    Wood floats and ducks float. So if she weighs the same as a duck she's made of wood and she's a witch!

    Cow Patties and Biden are both solid. So Biden and Cow Patties must be made of the same thing!

  29. [29] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    10

    Naw, he'll always be Cheetogod to moi. It sure looks like Trump is Toast.

    He'll always be "Benedict Donald" to me too, but just look at his tiny little orange line on that Republican Strong Plus Weak chart. That line right there is some puny "little orange."

    So to recap: If Trump can't get that little orange line up, he really will be toast. :)

  30. [30] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Can we apply the Monty Python reasoning to Cow Patties and Biden being solid?

    Of course we can, but we could do lots of pointless things. We could also do the same with Cow Patties and Don Harris.

  31. [31] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Can we apply the Monty Python reasoning to One Demand:

    Spam, poor attempt at an insult, Spam, Spam, Spam, back peddling, Spam, creepy stalking and Spam.

  32. [32] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Don Harris,

    C'mon man! I care enough to give you the opportunity to address the issues I have with OD, and you reply, "I already have."

    You've been begging CW to do your job instead of his job for, what, five years now? Endlessly whining repetitive dreck, over and over. Yet you can't repeat your reasoning and case for OD?

    It looks like you won't because you can't.

    Why don't you either put up or shut up? As whack as the (not) dearly departed Michale is, at least he's not as boring as you are.

  33. [33] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I guess if all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a cow pie.

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    11

    Absent the the Democratic plan, yes, there will be millions of people "out on the street." I think Trump's October Surprise will be war with Iran.

    Trump being ever the projectionist, there's precedent for that too:
    *

    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump

    In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran.

    1:48 PM * Nov 29, 2011

    Trump Tweet 1

    *

    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump

    Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.

    4:39 PM * Oct 9, 2012

    Trump Tweet 2

    *

    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump

    Don't let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected--be careful Republicans!

    11:43 AM * Oct 22, 2012

    Trump Tweet 3

    *

    Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump

    I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran in order to save face!

    4:23 PM * Sep 16, 2013

    Trump Tweet 4

    *
    There's always a tweet or multiple tweets.

  35. [35] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    In today's episode of "Lost in trumplation" Absentee Ballots are good as they come from republicans, and Mail in Ballots are bad because they come from democrats.

    As is typical in a Lost in trumplation episode the viewer is required to suspend belief in the meaning of words.

  36. [36] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I shall try this one more time, Brother Don. If you don't respond directly no worries, we all have a life outside Weigantia. I'll repost it when I see that you're active again:

    Some weeks ago,

    [64] Bleydwrote:


    I'm seeing a pretty monumental flaw in your OD plan. You essentially seem to require a majority of the citizens to simultaneously go on strike against non-OD candidates in favor of a single OD-friendly candidate in order for it to work. That's simply unrealistic.

    First you'd have to find a candidate who agreed to OD's principles and who is popular enough to get the financial support of such a huge segment of the population that they could out-raise the major party candidates. That alone is simply not possible to do all in one go. No candidate of sufficient popularity would willing risk handicapping themselves so monumentally with the rules as they stand.

    Even if you could find such a candidate though, how are you expecting to get so many small donors that they could keep up with the current fund raising system? How are you going to convince them that their donations wouldn't be in vain, that the candidate they're supporting would have a realistic chance of beating someone entrenched in the current system? Most people aren't willing to throw money at causes they don't believe have a chance.

    So I ask you, what is the workable plan of action you are proposing? Ideals and concepts are great, but unless you have a way to put them into practice, they won't get you far.

    Let's add Kicks two cents:

    ...and after all these years, you still haven't answered a boatload of questions along the same lines.

    A strong and competent leader would not take big money to run their campaign. ~ Don Harris


    Prove it. Your equating of "big money" with evildoers is tedium ad nauseam and something for which you've yet to provide any proof despite multiple requests to do so.

    You've claim repeatedly that those who would accept more than your mandate aren't worthy, strong, competent, etc. Prove it. I could set my own arbitrary purity test and claim that those candidates who don't say 25 "Hail Mary's" a day aren't "strong and competent" leaders because I said so. I mean, if they're not willing to hit their knees and do the praying, they cannot possibly be worthy to lead. It sounds stupid because it is. Your standard operational statements sound likewise.

    And...my one cent:


    The only thing I would have added to her comment is the question that you've yet to answer, namely, what about the ocean of PAC money out there? Corporate money, "dark" money and (possibly/likely in Trump's case) foreign money?

    Brother Don the above commentary pretty well collects together my issues with OD.

    The balls in your court. Stand and deliver, Baby -- I know you can do it!

  37. [37] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy-
    No you do not offer an opportunity to discuss the issues you have with One Demand.

    When I have answered you before you said you would get back to me on my response and never did. Then you make reset comments claiming I never addressed it.

    I have been asking CW to do HIS job and inform citizens about this idea. My job that I have been doing is to keep after him until he does.

    The reason I am not answering you is that your shtick is boring.

    Until CW addresses this without the purity dodges I will discuss it with anyone that wants to have an adult discussion but not with people playing boring childish trolling games.

  38. [38] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Mtn Caddy-
    If you can find their comments you can find my replies to those comments and we can pick up the discussion there.

  39. [39] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And if I did not reply to those comments because they were reset comments you can go back to the many other times they said the same things when I did reply.

  40. [40] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [38]
    [39]

    So you're completely wussing out. Figures. And you'll keep on bleating "get real" over and over, but like d-bag Repugs nationwide, you run away/change the subject when the hard questions come.

  41. [41] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Don, I ain't going back nowhere. It's your job to persuade and I collected some salient objections so you could address them.

    I hereby deem you not serious, not any kind of contributor to these pages, and therefore, simply a no damn use troll. Bye bye.

  42. [42] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    MtnCaddy[41],

    It's your job to persuade

    Don has an audience of one. A fixation with CW. He's not trying to persuade anyone else. He's just beating a dead horse.

  43. [43] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH-39

    Do you lack irony receptors?

    You are the F'in' King o' Repetition! You keep selling the same rickety product that people tell you they don't want. Repetition seems to be the the only thing are good at. Your critics are more persuasive than you are.

    You don't even update your brochure.

  44. [44] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [42]

    John From Censornati wrote:


    MtnCaddy[41],

    It's your job to persuade

    Don has an audience of one. A fixation with CW. He's not trying to persuade anyone else. He's just beating a dead horse.

    Okay, I get it. He sure wasn't persuading anybody down here in the comments section. I wonder how he's doing with his man-crush CW -- hah!

  45. [45] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    15

    I do like Little Orange's chart up there, but I'm pretty sure that Moscow Mitch has seen it.

    That's what I'm talking about; if Donny can't get his "Little Orange" line up on CW's chart, he's done for. Moscow Mitch is already giving permission for those facing reelection to "distance themselves" from Trump.

    McConnell signal to Republican Senate candidates: Distance from Trump if necessary

    I'd say it's imperative they distance themselves from Deathbed Donald, and cue the commercials where they bowed and cowered.

    The fact that the senate Republicons are dragging their feet on another round of stimulus is a sure sign that they think Fat Donny's gonna lose. They're already positioning themselves to run against the massive debt that's accumulated thanks to their policies.

    Ted Cruz is already making us all throw up with his preening. Just wait until he's up for reelection in 2024. Next time, he's out of there! We're on it... slow and steady wins the race! :)

  46. [46] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    That's great news. A senile president is far preferable to a self-serving asshole, but you'd think out of 330 million citizens, we ought to be able to do at least a little better than that!

  47. [47] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    16

    That is what One Demand is- showing the Deathocrats that we are capable of not voting for them.

    No one needs any help or to pay for the pleasure of "not voting."

    No offense, but only a white guy in America would come up with such an ignorant idea. Women and minorities fought too long and too hard to earn their right to vote in this country only to have someone come along and suggest they just throw it away and self-disenfranchise.

    There are no perfect candidates, but it's a damn fool who doesn't get off their butt and exercise their right to vote for candidates who best represent their political beliefs and will appoint judges to the SCOTUS and federal courts accordingly.

    Too many women suffered for far too long working their asses off so that they and their daughters could have a say in their own lives. Too much blood has been spilled and far too many people have died being beaten by police and being assassinated to earn their right to vote!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-kA3UtBj4M

    So to recap: Only a stupid white guy would suggest this type self-disenfranchisement type shit.

    Sorry not sorry for cursing!

  48. [48] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    18

    I know I'm quite capable of showing them that w/o ODd and Little Orange pretty conclusively proves that "we" can do it as well.

    This! ^^^^^ Right here! ^^^^^ That's what I'm talking about!

    Stop the hammering!

    Heh. :)

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    26

    Once he finally acknowledges that it is a problem he probably will do something different.

    Pigs will probably fly out of your backside.

    Until then I will keep offering my opinion that he should acknowledge the problem.

    The problem is staring back at you in every mirror you look.

    Never stop hammering.

    I have a better idea. I'm going to never stop voting to choose my representatives, and I'm going to never take my vote for granted because too many people suffered, were beaten, and gave up their lives so I could vote. Anyone who would encourage "not voting" would not be something I could ever support, and I would wager CW never would either.

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    BashiBazouk
    31

    Spam, poor attempt at an insult, Spam, Spam, Spam, back peddling, Spam, creepy stalking and Spam.

    Yep!

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    MtnCaddy,

    Another Atlantic piece!?

    Just got home from work and am beat. Tomorrow promises to be mainly sunny and it's my day off. So, I'll be poolside without the pool for most of the day.

    I do wish to discuss both articles and will before the end of the week - don't look for my responses on any old threads, though. Late Wednesday night will probably be the best time for me.

  52. [52] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    THIS is just precious...

    The Anthem we sing as we vote him away!

    (Not) sorry, Elizabeth, but this couldn't wait until Sunday.

  53. [53] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [51]

    K, Elizabeth, it's a date. Should be a new CW by then.

    (sound of MtnCaddy shouting out to the neighborhood, "Woo-hoo! I got a date with Miss Canada, I got a date with Miss Canada!")

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    52

    THIS is just precious...

    The Anthem we sing as we vote him away!

    Heh. That one is good. :)

  55. [55] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    46]

    C. R. Stucki wrote:


    That's great news. A senile president is far preferable to a self-serving asshole, but you'd think out of 330 million citizens, we ought to be able to do at least a little better than that!

    What (besides Fox News or OAN) makes you think Joe is senile? Just because Cheetogod tweets something doesn't make it true.

    Sure, I wanted Bernie or Elizabeth. But the more I look at Joe the better I feel about him. 'Tever, if vote for a (senile?) tuna sandwich if it got Trump out of the Whitehouse and into the arms of SDNY . I think Trump's going to go down for tax fraud and campaign finance violations (paying off Stormy.)

  56. [56] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Spam, poor attempt at an insult, Spam, Spam, Spam, back peddling, Spam, creepy stalking and Spam.

    i thought it was backpedaling, or backpedalling with two ells in british. i've seen 'backpeddling' written before, and i'm not opposed to dialect differences. it's just that peddling also means selling door to door, so to me it always sounded more like trying to sell someone back something they just sold you, as opposed to the bicycle motion from which the idiom originated.

    JL

  57. [57] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    well, no matter which side of the atlantic you're on, pie is good.

  58. [58] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    get it? atlantic? ok, no more beer for me.

  59. [59] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    BashiBazouk [31] -

    Nice!

    Don Harris [in general]-

    You may be the only person in America who has convinced themselves that it would make no difference whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden wins the election.

    Seriously, given the binary choice, who would you rather see as our next president? Who do you think would be better for the country overall for the next four years?

    "Some pie-in-the-sky dreamworld" is not a valid response. Biden, or Trump? If you can't answer that without dissembling, then you have proven your own irrelevance, at this point. Again.

    Kick [34] -

    Nice bit of research. As you said, there's always a Trump tweet for that...

    Don Harris [37] -

    I have been asking CW to do HIS job and inform citizens about this idea. My job that I have been doing is to keep after him until he does.

    The reason I am not answering you is that your shtick is boring.

    Until CW addresses this without the purity dodges I will discuss it with anyone that wants to have an adult discussion but not with people playing boring childish trolling games.

    [Holds up mirror...]

    Couldn't have described your comments better than "childish trolling games," in fact...

    My job is actually to ignore shticks that are boring. And trolls.

    Deal with it.

    nypoet22 [56] -

    I struggle with the double-consonant multiple-syllable problem on a regular basis. I usually come down on the "double it" side of things, because that's how I was originally taught proper grammar (even though my spellchecker disagrees with me on a regular basis), but in some instances it just looks too weird. "Travelling" in particular. But I did want to let you know that I've been aware of this debate for awhile now...

    As for beer:

    "I like beer."
    -Supreme Court Justice Fratboy

    Probably the only thing he's ever said that I agree with.

    Heh.

    -CW

  60. [60] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    So the bigger charts are good with everyone?

    Just asking...

    -CW

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sure, so long as Biden is still going off them!

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    Chris Weigant
    60

    So the bigger charts are good with everyone?

    Just asking...

    I think they're great... almost a necessity if we're going to be able to find the Trump 2020 "little orange" line. Heh. Seriously, they do look awesome.

  63. [63] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Whoops... in [59], I should have said: "Focussing" in particular looks weird. "Travelling" looks fine. Don't know what made me type that (late at night...).

    -CW

  64. [64] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW (59)-
    Your response to Bashi (31)-
    Nonsense.

    Your general response to me-
    I do not say it would make no difference whether Biden or Trump wins. I say the difference will not matter because Biden will make things worse slower than Trump.

    And that is not good enough.

    The binary choice is not a given. Just because Biden or Trump will win this election does not mean that is the only choice in this election.

    When voting the binary choice has consistently led to worse outcomes and results in the same inadequate choice for the next election, then another choice is to register a vote against the binary choice in this election to create and demonstrate demand for other choices in the next election cycle to make it possible to have better choices in the next election either through moving the binary choices to be better or to make it possible for other choices to have a chance to win.

    That is how democracy is designed to work.

    That is not pie in the sky.

    Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

    The same with the troll nonsense.

    Your response to (37)-
    What Mtn Caddy, Listen and Kick do is trolling. That part of my comment you did not address.

    A perfect example is Kick comments (47, 49). Kick once again claims I am telling people not to vote when Kick clearly knows (or should know because I have expalined it many times in response to Kick's nonsensical claim) that i am telling people to cast a write in vote for the purpose referred to above.

    I, on the other hand, respond with an actual explanation of why Kick's comment is childish trolling seemingly just to be an annoyance.

    Where is the explanation of what in my comment was childish trolling?

    I referred to the Jimmy Dore show about DNC corruption and how Lawrence O'Donnell said what I have been saying about One Demand.

    You just used another dodge to avoid that with the pie in the sky nonsense. Denigrate me then you invalidate anything I say and you don;t have to address the points I make.

    That's how I am "dealing with it" by pointing out and explaining why it is nonsense designed to avoid addressing my points with rational argument.

Comments for this article are closed.