ChrisWeigant.com

Electoral Math -- Biden Maintains Lead

[ Posted Monday, August 17th, 2020 – 17:06 UTC ]

I realize that the last time I wrote one of these Electoral Math columns, I said I would only be doing them every three weeks for a while to come. However, I hadn't checked the political calendar closely enough, because doing so would have put the column right between the two parties' conventions, next Monday. Instead, I thought it would be more valuable to do one before both conventions, as a baseline, and then revisit the issue afterwards to see if either candidate (or both) got the traditional "convention bounce" in the polls. Because it's only been a couple of weeks, though, this is going to be a somewhat-abbreviated column, with quicker takes on the data.

Let's get right to the new charts, to begin with. As always, all of our polling data comes from the incomparable Electoral-Vote.com site, which we urge everyone to keep a close eye on for the next few months. As usual, our first chart shows the Electoral Vote (EV) percentage that we'd see if all the polls were correct and the election were held today. If the blue is above the 50 percent mark, Biden leads. If there's more red than blue (the red area goes below the 50 percent mark), then Trump is in the lead.

Electoral Math By Percent

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

The last time we checked in was two weeks ago, when the chart had just begun to show another white area, after Georgia's 16 EV moved into the middle "perfectly tied" category. Since that time, there has been a bit of offsetting movement, and then towards the end Donald Trump picked up North Carolina once again. This left Joe Biden one EV better off than he had been before and Trump up 15 EV. Biden now has the same 69 percent of the EV he had previously, while Trump moved up to 31 percent.

Nine states showed some degree of movement this time around. The first day, Montana firmed up considerably for Trump, but then the next day South Carolina weakened for him. At the same time, Michigan weakened a bit for Biden. Trump then got offsetting news as Utah solidified behind him but Kansas showed a weaker Trump lead.

None of this movement affected this chart, however. The only movement between the candidates came when North Carolina flipped from Biden to Trump, and then one day later Georgia moved from tied back into Biden's column.

Towards the end of the period, Arizona wobbled slightly as it showed Biden with a weaker lead, but then firmed right back up again with the next poll. Minnesota, however, weakened for Biden and stayed there.

Over the course of the past two weeks, Trump picked up what had been tied, while Biden improved only a single EV. This left the race essentially unchanged, with Biden maintaining a commanding lead.

Since there wasn't much movement in the overall picture, let's take a closer look at each candidate's polling, breaking it down to "Strong" (10 points up in the polls or better), "Weak" (between 5 and 10 points), and "Barely" (a lead under 5 points). First, let's look at how Biden is doing:

Biden Electoral Math

Last time around, Biden's Strong numbers had hit 233 EV (that last bump upwards in the dark blue). He started off this period by falling back, as that bump disappeared and Biden fell back to 217 EV in the Strong column. This was due to Michigan weakening a bit. But then for the rest of the period, the Strong Biden numbers stayed exactly the same.

Roughly a week ago, there was a flurry of movement in the other two categories as multiple new polls were posted. Arizona went from Weak Biden to Barely Biden, but then right back to Weak Biden the next day. North Carolina flipped from Barely Biden to Barely Trump, while Georgia went from Tied to the Barely Biden column once again. Minnesota moved from Weak Biden to Barely Biden at the same time.

The net result of all this movement was that Weak Biden went from 80 EV previously up to 96 EV, back to 85 EV, and then finally settled at 86 EV. This was a net gain of 6 EV over the course of two weeks. Barely Biden moved from 59 EV to 55 EV, but then up to 70 EV, where it stayed, for a net gain of 11 EV. In total, Biden gained 17 EV in Barely and Weak while losing 16 EV in Strong, for a final total net gain of only 1 EV. Biden began with 372 EV overall, and finished with 373 EV.

The line I pay the most attention to in that chart, however, is "Strong Plus Weak." In this regard, Biden slipped back a bit, going from 313 EV at the start down to 302 EV but then inching back up to finish at 303 EV. As always, I hasten to remind everyone that only 270 EV are necessary to win the Electoral College. Biden currently has 33 more than he needs, in other words, without even counting any of his Barely Biden states (or any of the tossup states) at all. Historically (sorry, but I am not going to provide these charts this week), Biden is still ahead of where Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were at this point in the past three presidential elections -- although in Clinton's case, only by one vote (Clinton had 302 EV, to Biden's 303 EV). Biden heads into his national convention in excellent shape, and this is before his historic running mate selection has even really registered in any of these polls.

So now let's take a look at how Trump is doing, by comparison:

Trump Electoral Math

Last time around, Trump's chart had been fairly stable for a while. The last data point was right before the first of the two tiny upward spikes in the Strong Trump line on the graph.

Trump began the period with minor good news, as Montana moved from Weak Trump to Strong Trump, but then this was offset the next day by South Carolina moving in the opposite direction. Since South Carolina has 9 EV to Montana's 3 EV, this resulted in a net loss in the Strong Trump category.

A few days later, Trump got better news, as Utah moved all the way from Barely Trump to Strong Trump. However, the next day Kansas moved from Strong Trump to Weak Trump, which offset this move (both states have 6 EV). Still, it was a net gain for Trump in the Strong Plus Weak area.

The best news for Trump, however, came when North Carolina went from Barely Biden to Barely Trump, as this resulted in the only overall gain he saw during the period. North Carolina's 15 EV moved into Trump's Barely column, which gave him his entire boost for the period, up from a previous total of 150 EV to his new overall total of 165 EV. That shows improvement, but is not a new high point for Trump, since he started this chart off with 188 EV, back in June.

For the second straight time, Trump improved his Strong Plus Weak numbers, but not by very much. He has slowly climbed from 101 EV in this category up to 114 last time around, and this time managed to get to 120 EV. This only puts him 150 EV away from the goal -- meaning he's going to have to increase a lot faster in this regard if he's even going to have a chance. At exactly the same point in the campaign previously, Trump had 139 EV in 2016, John McCain had 165 EV, and Mitt Romney had 181 EV in the Strong Plus Weak category, for historical comparison.

 

My Picks

As usual, we now move on to a more subjective classification of where each state stands. This comes from pondering the individual state graphs, paying particular attention to how many polls have been conducted and how recently the last one was posted. As well as simple gut feeling about how trustworthy the polling truly will prove to be in each state.

There was some general good news in this regard this time around, as the number of states with any recent polling increased. As always, at the very bottom of the data section (below), you can find a list of which states have had absolutely no polls at all this election cycle, as well as those states where no poll has been reported in months. The first of those categories remained the same (12 states with no polling at all), but the second one dropped from 11 states to 7, as new polls were released from California, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah.

But getting back to my own subjective picks -- 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.

 

Likely States -- Biden

Safe Biden (18 states, 213 EV)
No change from two weeks ago. Biden held all his Safe states.

Probable Biden (4 states, 50 EV)
Michigan weakened a bit, but Biden is still polling 7 points ahead of Trump, so for now I'm going to leave it as a Probable Biden state. There have been differing reports as to how much Team Trump is even trying to hold onto Michigan, so we'll have to see what happens here, but for now it stays as a Probable state for Biden. In Minnesota, however, Biden's lead dropped down to a scant 2 points in a recent poll, so we're going to have to consider the state only Lean Biden for now. Net loss here was one state, which drops Biden 10 EV for the category. Remaining Probable Biden states: Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

 

Likely States -- Trump

Safe Trump (12 states, 72 EV)
Trump lost two states from the Safe category this time around, as new polling came in from Kansas and South Carolina showing a tighter race. But Trump is still up 5 points in South Carolina and 7 points in Kansas, so they only move down to Probable Trump. All the rest of Trump's Safe states stayed the same.

Probable Trump (7 states, 48 EV)
There was a lot of activity in the Probable Trump column this time around, as Kansas and South Carolina moved down from Safe and Utah moved up from Lean Trump. A case could be made that Montana is now a Safe Trump state, after a very strong poll for Trump came in, but the previous two polls were a lot closer, so it could have been an outlier. For now, I'm going to keep Montana here, but it could move up next time around. This leaves 7 states in the Probable Trump column: Alaska, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah.

 

Tossup States

Lean Biden (4 states, 56 EV)
Minnesota moved into the Lean Biden category, down from Probable Biden. Arizona wobbled a bit, as first one poll showed the race tightening but then a second poll restored Biden's lead. Without this wobble, a case could have been made to move Arizona up to Probable Biden (the state is looking pretty strong for Democrats in general, this time around), but for now I'm going to leave it here. Both Nevada and Florida stayed the same this time around, so we're going to leave both of them as Lean Biden as well.

Lean Trump (1 states, 6 EV)
A new poll arrived from Utah (the first in quite some time) which showed Trump doing very well, so the state had to move up to Probable Trump (a case could even have been made to move it to Safe Trump, on the strength of his new lead, in fact). This leaves only one state, Arkansas, in the Lean Trump column this time around.

Too Close To Call (5 states, 93 EV)
There was no change at all in the Too Close To Call category, as all 5 states stayed where they were. Georgia firmed up a tiny bit for Biden (going from a tie to a 2-point lead), while North Carolina flipped to a razor-thin 1-point lead for Trump. But both of these states have been flipping back and forth all along, which I expect to continue. The other three states here (Iowa, Ohio, and Texas) likewise have shown no clear lead for either candidate yet, so they remain Too Close To Call.

 

Final Tally

Heading into the start of the Democratic National Convention, Joe Biden is in excellent shape in the state-level polling. If he winds up getting a convention boost and Trump doesn't, he may well prove to be unstoppable.

That's pretty optimistic, however, I will fully admit. For some reason or another (I would have to do a very deep dive into the data to even begin to figure out why, which I have not yet done), Democrats often seem to experience what might be called a "September slump." There could be many factors for this -- people generally pay a lot more attention to the campaign after Labor Day, some pollsters switch over to "likely voters" instead of "all registered voters" or even "all eligible voters" as the election gets closer, or just a general fallback from the convention bounce.

Will Biden see a September slump this time around? It wouldn't be all that surprising, since presidential races often tighten around this time period. Because Democrats are going first, the Republican convention could see a convention bounce that lasts longer. But whatever happens, I thought it would be useful to take a pre-convention baseline look at how things are stacking up.

By any measurement, Joe Biden has an enormous lead over Donald Trump at this point. In just the Strong states, Biden leads Trump 217 EV to 81 EV. In Strong Plus Weak, Biden leads 303 EV to 120 EV -- more than enough for Biden to win, right there. Overall, Biden leads 373 EV to Trump's 165 EV -- which is higher than a 2-to-1 margin.

Looking at it through my own picks, Biden has 22 states and 263 EV in either the Safe or Probable categories. Trump has 19 states in Safe or Probable, but they only add up to 120 EV -- again, worse than a 2-to-1 margin. Adding in the Lean states only makes things worse for Trump, because then Biden has 26 states with 319 EV while Trump only has 20 states with 126 EV.

While 5 states (with 93 EV total) are Too Close To Call, Biden would need none of them to find a path to victory -- all he would have to do at this point is pick up one of the current Lean Biden states of Arizona, Florida, or Minnesota in order to top 270 EV in the Electoral College. Trump could win all of: Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas -- and even two out of three of the current tipping-point states of Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota -- and he would still lose the race.

That is a pretty enviable spot to be in, heading into the Democratic National Convention. Of course, overconfidence and complacency could cause disaster, to say nothing of how Donald Trump just got caught actively trying to sabotage the Post Office in advance of the biggest mail-in election the country has ever seen. There are still over two months to go, and anything at all could still happen (and probably will).

Even having said all of that, though, Joe Biden is so far doing an excellent job of maintaining his commanding lead over Donald Trump in the state-level polling. We'll check back in a few weeks (probably three Mondays from now) to see how both parties' conventions moved the needle, but the baseline heading into this period is decidedly in Biden's favor.

 

[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 -- 22 States -- 263 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 -- 4 States -- 50 Electoral Votes
Michigan (16), New Hampshire (4), Pennsylvania (20), Wisconsin (10)

 

Donald Trump Likely Easy Wins -- 19 States -- 120 Electoral Votes:

Safe States -- 12 States -- 72 Electoral Votes
Alabama (9), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Dakota (3), West Virginia (5), Wyoming (3)

Probable States -- 7 States -- 48 Electoral Votes
Alaska (3), Kansas (6), Missouri (10), Montana (3), South Carolina (9), Tennessee (11), Utah (6)

 

Tossup States -- 10 States -- 155 Electoral Votes:

Tossup States Leaning Biden -- 4 States -- 56 Electoral Votes
Arizona (11), Florida (29), Minnesota (10), Nevada (6)

Tossup States Leaning Trump -- 1 State -- 6 Electoral Votes
Arkansas (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 -- 7 States
(States which have not been polled since the beginning of June, with the dates of their last poll in parenthesis.)

Connecticut (5/4), Delaware (1/19), Nevada (2/21), North Dakota (3/5), Maryland (5/23), Mississippi (2/28), Tennessee (5/22)

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

 

40 Comments on “Electoral Math -- Biden Maintains Lead”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This all sounds good to me but, doesn't this election win for Biden have to be very bigly in order to avoid a lot of unpleasantness in the, ah, Aftermath? Heh.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Speaking of the Rolling Stones, JFC, I got all the albums and one compilation you recommended and most are scheduled to arrive tomorrow. So, I'll be busy for a while. :)

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    Wow, CW. Nice summary.

    So Poor Donald is struggling in numerous states that the GOP normally doesn't generally have to give a second thought to. Sure explains why he is acting like a cornered hyena.

  4. [4] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    [2]

    Wow. You're all in. I can't imagine that you'll be disappointed with any of it. I was watching one of their concert films on AXSTV this afternoon. Totally Stripped. Had never seen it.

  5. [5] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Maybe impeachment wasn't a failure.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Totally Stripped. Right, added to the list. :)

  7. [7] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The only two charts that really matter:

    - Biden wins
    -
    -
    50%
    -
    -
    - citizens lose

    - Trump wins
    -
    -
    50%
    -
    -
    - citizens lose

  8. [8] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    7

    Those aren't charts, Don... just more of your invented drivel and spew signifying absolutely nothing. :)

  9. [9] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    just because it's out in the open and everybody knows about it, doesn't mean it won't work.

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Totally Stripped. Right, added to the list. :)

    And, just as promptly, checked off the list! Woo Hoo! Dropped a few pounds in the process, of course. Just can't sit still.

    I didn't know the Stones played so many small venues. It gives me hope.

    The Centre in the Square would be perfect for them. Best acoustics in North America. Heck, Glen Campbell was here to tape his 25th Anniversary as a rhinestone cowboy with Anne Murry as guest, so ...

    Loved, loved, loved Like A Rolling Stone!!!

  11. [11] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    EM 10

    Back in '02 they did the 40 Licks Tour, were T.O.A.S.T... Tour Of Arenas Stadiums Theaters.

    Pretty much every city they went to they would play an arena or stadium and then do a small venue theater...

    I can honestly say the only thing better than seeing the Stones in concert, is getting paid to watch them in concert.

    I think I even have my crew shirts still, and definitely my tour jacket.

    They even did a documentary on it... good watch.

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, gt! Wow. That sounds like fun ... for another night. I'm so done for this night!

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, you will have to tell me more about that one day ... :)

  14. [14] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    It most certainly was... $850.00 bucks in my pocket and being able to say I kept trying to count the wrinkles on Keith's face but kept loosing track after 100. :)

    Come to think of it... I still have a couple of set lists and guitar picks.

  15. [15] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I'm guessing that about this time, a lot of people are wondering if the Democratics shouldn't have Mrs. Obama at the top of their ticket instead of Biden???

  16. [16] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Goode trickle-14

    I was subcontracted to The Grateful Dead during the summer of 1974. One hr. set-up, 2 hr. breakdown & repack. Got 200 bucks and a B class backstage pass with food & other goodies for my trouble. Performance quality varied greatly from day to day - there was a lot friction within the band at the time.

  17. [17] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    15

    The "Democratics" is a political Party that only exists in your imagination. I am wondering why trolls have the propensity to invent shit.

  18. [18] 
    Kick wrote:

    Wow, GT and TS. Very coolness. :)

  19. [19] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (17)-
    A bit a Freudian slip there admitting that you don't know why you invent stuff in your comments.

  20. [20] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    19

    A bit a Freudian slip there admitting that you don't know why you invent stuff in your comments.

    Vass ziss? Zo you zink psychoanalyziss is zomesing performed via zee Internets? Must be zuffering from Dropped on Head Syndrome az a childt und complikations of Oedipal Complex and Peniz Envy, nicht wahr?

  21. [21] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick [17]

    Not true. Do you claim that if you belong Republican party, you're a 'Republic'?? Do you claim if you belong to the Libertarian party, you're a 'libertar'?? Do you claim if you belong to the Socialist party, you're a 'social'???

    Of course not, so why do you claim it you belong to the Democratic party, you're not a 'Democratic'???

    I realize that you are only marginally literate, but don't try to justify that situation by claiming that it's OK because everybody else is also only marginally illiterate!

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Psychoanalysis is easy when analyzing an anal psycho.

  23. [23] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    22

    Psychoanalysis is easy when analyzing an anal psycho.

    Said the psychotic board troll. So here's the thing, Don. I was teasing Stucki. Why don't you butt out?

  24. [24] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    I watched the first evening of the Joe Biden Infomercial yesterday. On the whole the Dems pulled off this brave new world of "virtual convention" fairly well. Production values were top drawer and the speakers did okay without the crowd feedback. In fact, I enjoyed hearing each speech without the constant interruption of kabuki theater live applause.

    I was reminded why a lot of Dems are in love with Michelle Obama as she gave what turned out to be my favorite speech of the evening. That Gal has political chops, a-yup.

  25. [25] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    21

    Not true. Do you claim that if you belong Republican party, you're a 'Republic'??

    I made/make no such claim.

    Do you claim if you belong to the Libertarian party, you're a 'libertar'??

    No.

    Do you claim if you belong to the Socialist party, you're a 'social'???

    No.

    I claim that, for you, question marks are like potato chips... in that one is never enough.

    Of course not, so why do you claim it you belong to the Democratic party, you're not a 'Democratic'???

    I don't belong to the Democratic Party so I make no such claim, but I do know that a member of the Democratic Party is referred to as a "Democrat." It's a proper noun, Stucki, so you must use it properly. ;)

    I realize that you are only marginally literate, but don't try to justify that situation by claiming that it's OK because everybody else is also only marginally illiterate!

    I made/make no such claim, right??? :)

  26. [26] 
    Kick wrote:

    Stucki

    I hope you're taking care of yourself, mountain man. :)

  27. [27] 
    John M wrote:

    Anyone else NOTICE that is was announced TODAY that The Trump campaign was WITHDRAWING its advertising from PENNSYLVANIA like it had done earlier in MICHIGAN? Seems like the path may be getting a LOT narrower for Trump!

  28. [28] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    I am not the board troll- you are. You can once again post CW's comment calling me a troll but that does not mean it is true. I responded to CW's post explaining why he was wrong and he did not offer any counter argument. So that quote is nonsense.

    All comments here are fair game to any commenter. You did not hesitate to butt in to my comment to CW. Why should I have to butt out in your comment Teasing/trolling CRS?

    Note the difference. You are telling me to butt out but I do not care if you butt in.

    Your butting in only exposes you as a troll.

  29. [29] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Butt, butt, butt. Your I'm rubber, you're glue shtick is looking a little anal.

  30. [30] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    28

    I am not the board troll- you are.

    Opinions are like board trolls.

    You can once again post CW's comment calling me a troll but that does not mean it is true.

    Okay, if you insist:

    [54] Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [49] -

    Yes. You are a troll. Deal with it.

    As for your language, you are pushing me very very close to banning the first person ever from my site. You have been warned, and this is your final warning.

    If ignoring you doesn't work, then banning you just might. Address the issues in the articles or the comments to those articles, and quit with your own monomania, because nobody's listening. Instead, you are just trolling.

    And we're ALL way beyond getting tired of it.

    Is that clear enough?

    -CW

    [Thursday, April 2nd, 2020 at 16:05 UTC]

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/04/01/april-is-the-cruelest-month/#comment-156925

    *
    There you go, Don.

    I responded to CW's post explaining why he was wrong and he did not offer any counter argument. So that quote is nonsense.

    He is ignoring you because you're a troll, and he explained it clearly in the comment you begged me to repost above. He banned you and gave you a warning to stop being a troll so I'm pretty sure he meant it whether or not he has provided a written counterargument since you were definitely banned.

    He's right about your monomania and your trolling, of course, and we're ALL way beyond getting tired of it.

    All comments here are fair game to any commenter.

    "Fair game"? I'll take "Things a Board Troll Would Claim" for $500, Alex.

    You did not hesitate to butt in to my comment to CW.

    You did not address your comment to CW; you just made a general comment. My comment was actually addressed to "C. R. Stucki." See the difference? I wanted to tease him and make sure he was doing okay. I don't really think he's a bona fide troll like you; I'm sure that news will upset him since he tries so hard to be a menace when he occasionally posts. ;)

    Why should I have to butt out in your comment Teasing/trolling CRS?

    See the author's comment addressed to you in the blockquote above for an explanation of why you should not troll. In addition, you should only stop trolling comments not addressed to you unless you enjoy being referred to as a/the "board troll."

    Note the difference. You are telling me to butt out but I do not care if you butt in.

    Yes, Don, your repetitive trolling just screams: "I do not care." /sarcasm off

    Also, somebody asking: "Why don't you butt out?" isn't the equivalent of "telling" you to "butt out," but what would the Don Harris troll have to talk about without his constant and repetitive false equivalency shtick? Not a whole lot, it seems.

    Your butting in only exposes you as a troll.

    I agree that your butting in only exposes you as a troll. Why don't you stop trolling? That was indeed my entire point. :)

  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And your entire point is trolling nonsense.

    The only thing you got right is that I did not specifically direct my comment to CW.

    But you have often butted in on the comments that I did specifically direct to CW which is okay to do because all comments are fair game for all commenters.

    I do feel for you though. With Michale on hiatus it must be very frustrating got you when I am all that is left for you spew your nonsense about and I am not cooperating by getting drawn into a point by point back and forth with your repetitive trolling reset comments and lies and am mostly just pointing out that you are doing it.

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    gt and TS,

    Wow, GT and TS. Very coolness. :)

    Indeed! I'm sure you guys have a store or two to share ...

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    or, you know, a story in a store or a store load of stories to tell or ... :)

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    31

    And your entire point is trolling nonsense.

    No it isn't. You can't refute it so you label it and dismiss it; it's your standard repetitive modus operandi.

    The only thing you got right is that I did not specifically direct my comment to CW.

    Incorrect, as per your usual. I got a lot of other things right:

    * CW is definitely ignoring you; he said he was. If he wasn't, you wouldn't still be trolling him with the same shit over and over.

    * CW definitely banned you.

    * Somebody asking you to "butt out" is not the equivalent of somebody "telling" you to "butt out."

    * Lots of other things I "got right," but you get the general idea.

    But you have often butted in on the comments that I did specifically direct to CW which is okay to do because all comments are fair game for all commenters.

    I do not believe I have "often butted in" on comments that you specifically addressed to CW. If I have done it so often as you claim, then you won't mind proving it, right? Except that your standard modus operandi is to frequently make fantasyland claims for which you have no proof whatsoever and then refuse to provide it when asked by MtnCaddy, JL, Russ, TS or pretty much anyone else on the forum. You then hurl out some kind of insult about "reset" BS, blah, blah, blah... same routine over and over... lather, rinse, repeat... all part of your regular standard drivel and spew shtick that we're ALL way beyond getting tired of (props to CW).

    I do feel for you though. With Michale on hiatus it must be very frustrating got you when I am all that is left for you spew your nonsense about and I am not cooperating by getting drawn into a point by point back and forth with your repetitive trolling reset comments and lies and am mostly just pointing out that you are doing it.

    "I am all that is left" *laughs* Nice try, Sigmund, but I was attempting to speak with another person here when you so rudely interrupted with your standard drivel and spew troll routine; this revisionist history bullshit of yours is freaking hysterical. If you think you are all that is left on this forum, then you might want to curtail your monomania for just a scintilla of a second and "clue in" to facts and reality... not something you're used to, for sure. Contrary to your typical fantasyland where unicorns fart rainbows and pixies frolic in the meadow purity test, I happened to have been attempting to speak to someone else when you decided to butt in and troll me. As such, you aren't remotely "all that is left"! There are many other posters on this forum, yet you want to spew the nonsensical claim that you are all that is left! I can't stop. *paroxysms of laughter*

    Additionally, you can mount your sanctimonious purity high horse until the cows come home, and you may claim that you're rubber and I'm glue (props to JFC) and you're not getting drawn into whatever, but you seem pretty damn drawn in from what I can see and to anybody else with two brain cells to rub together because there are definitely other people here besides you!

    I do feel for you though. With Michale on hiatus it must be very frustrating got you when I am all that is left for you spew your nonsense about and I am not cooperating by getting drawn into a point by point back and forth with your repetitive trolling reset comments and lies and am mostly just pointing out that you are doing it.

    ~ Don Harris

    ^^Discussing trolls, Don Harris confesses to being "all that is left."^^

    So to recap: While I'm quite sure Don isn't setting out to keep making my point for me over and over in repetitive fashion, it appears that he cannot seem to stop himself from doing it. :)

  35. [35] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    33

    or, you know, a story in a store or a store load of stories to tell or ... :)

    We should definitely schedule it! Make them tell us everything, EM. Handle it. ;)

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    They will ... Sunday night!

  37. [37] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    36

    Coolness.

    76 DAYS * 05 HOURS * 12 MINUTES

  38. [38] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Day One wrapup column is now up....

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/08/18/democratic-convention-day-one-we-the-people/

    Check it out!

    :-)

    Getting ready for the second night now...

    -CW

  39. [39] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    24

    I watched the first evening of the Joe Biden Infomercial yesterday. On the whole the Dems pulled off this brave new world of "virtual convention" fairly well.

    Under the circumstances, I also thought they did a pretty good job.

    Production values were top drawer and the speakers did okay without the crowd feedback. In fact, I enjoyed hearing each speech without the constant interruption of kabuki theater live applause.

    It just zipped right along too, which sure made the speeches "pop" versus the constant long interruptions that make them seem more disjointed. I really think Bernie Sanders gave a great speech last night.

    I was reminded why a lot of Dems are in love with Michelle Obama as she gave what turned out to be my favorite speech of the evening. That Gal has political chops, a-yup.

    I know, right; she's definitely good at speechifying! She's brutally good at the pomp and circumstance required for politics even though she claims she hates it; she is a master debater/slasher. It is what it is. ;)

  40. [40] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,

    When I first read your posts all those many years ago describing how you had come up with an idea that you believed would force BigMoney out of our political campaigns, I was intrigued. And while I kept having trouble understanding how you expected to achieve the goals you kept claiming were possible based on nothing but hopeful dreams, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. “Voucher Vendetta”, or whatever you were specifically calling it, from an organizational stand point, seemed to have lots of areas that set off red flags that would likely prevent your idea from ever taking shape. I should have realized that you were not going to be very receptive to any criticism as you were extremely defensive when people suggested that the name of your dream movement might not be the best for getting people to join you as it made no sense to them — even after you explained what it meant. Despite your oddly overboard love of that name, I still admired your desire to be a catalyst for change and I wanted to assist you if I could. But when I looked at your website, I saw a large number of things that I recognized would be pitfalls for any non-profit movement. I took the time to list these areas and explained why they were areas that would hurt your organization from being taken seriously out of a desire to help.

    And I was not the only person who tried to offer you assistance based on our own expertise and insight by pointing out areas that we thought were questionable — like claiming to be a “non-profit Organization” without bothering to show any evidence that you’d ever filed for tax-exempt status or your lack of having a board of directors. You responded to any criticism or question about best practices with hostility and took offense that we could not see the genius to your ideas. You discounted our experience working in areas that you openly admit to having no experience in, and dismissed any suggestions we offered as being the result of our inability to recognize your vision’s greatness.

    We’ve asked simple questions that you responded to with rhetoric and babbling in an obvious attempt to not address the subject matter. From that point on, anytime we try to get you to actually address the question we posed, you act as if you have adequately answered it in the past.

    You fail to realize that just about everyone here has attempted to understand how OneDumbPlan could work, and we have all come back with the clear understanding that it cannot work as you have set it up. You have no desire to work on this project to make it better — it’s perfect as is! We tried to help you in good faith and you tell us that we are wrong to point out OneDumbPlan’s faults and then attack our intelligence for not accepting your claims without any supporting evidence. You simply want people to praise your idea and to ignore how the world really works.

Comments for this article are closed.