• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

2020 Presidential Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lincoln Project is on a roll.

Three messages:
1. you've (this one to is directed at Trump personally) spent bigly on the campaign and has to throw in his own money now.
2. it's not working. You're still losing.
3. oh, and lest you forget from our previous ad, your own people are still corrupt and embezzling campaign money.
I'm not sure how effective this would be against Trump. I watched and came away unimpressed. I had high hopes though! They could have done it way better.
Keep in mind that, as Safe-keeper mentioned, much of the ad was directed at Trump personally, in an attempt to get under his skin.
Clinton outspent Trump by over a billion and she should have benefited by the RNC not being behind their own candidate until very late in the game.
Its impossible to say. Maybe it did't make a difference. Maybe if Clinton didn't outspend Trump, Trump might have done even better in the election. Its hard to say since you can't go back in time and re-run things with different spending.
Do you think that Trump needs to pay for more media exposure than his opponent this time? I don't think that is true for a campaign like his.
Maybe, maybe not. I suspect that most political campaigns are better off with more advertising than less. (Not to mention other uses of campaign money... voter registration drives, polling, opposition research, etc.)

Yes, he gets a lot of free publicity in the 2020 election (as he did in 2016). But a lot of that is accompanied by criticism by the same media outlets that gave him the free publicity last time. (And the media is evaluating him a bit more critically than they did last time.)
 
Yes, he gets a lot of free publicity in the 2020 election (as he did in 2016). But a lot of that is accompanied by criticism by the same media outlets that gave him the free publicity last time. (And the media is evaluating him a bit more critically than they did last time.)


One issue I see is that many people who DID NOT vote for Trump the last time believed all the horror of what was supposed to come. The whole country was supposed to devolve into an immediate economic and social disaster with chaos and war. But that did not happen. The country actually did pretty well.
I think most of us see that the racism protests evolved from liberal colleges (and coastal media) and spread from there.
Statistically, racism had no changes though, just more complaints about it and calls for change. Warranted? Maybe. Any deaths are too many but we have a BIG country here!

Now, the same things are being said --so do people believe it 'this time'?
Is it true this time?
 
Last edited:
One issue I see is that many people who DID NOT vote for Trump the last time believed all the horror of what was supposed to come. The whole country was supposed to devolve into an immediate economic and social disaster with chaos and war. But that did not happen. The country actually did pretty well.

There were some very early protests, but that was in reaction to Trump getting smashed on the popular vote but winning due to the features of the electoral college.

That being said, no, it was not a disaster prediction. Trump backed off a lot of his more scary rhetoric at first and most folks who voted against him just signed and figured and took a 'wait and see' approach, me included.

That Trump was so unprepared with his transition team (or lack thereof) did not fill people with confidence. And given his first actions prior to inauguration that should have been playing to his strengths (I.e. negotiations with drug companies) were utter, abject failures did not inspire confidence.

Once Trump was in office and started almost immediately doing what his white supremacist handlers wanted (Muslim ban, for example) there were more protests.

Yes, the economy kept growing. Trump jumped in front of that parade and claimed he started it, but we've seen time and time again that his efforts either made no difference (coal deregulation) or actively hurt sectors of the economy (tariffs). The stock market spiked upon his election, because it does that when a GOP gets elected, but it settles down to whatever direction it was going at the same rate.

Still, through it all we could see that the man had zero capacity to lead. He talked a big game but was obviously a craven coward unwilling do any actual leading. He'd be fine if no crisis came up. Unpopular, certainly, but still electable due to the EC, a decent enough economy, and the GOP's constant, unyielding efforts at voter suppression.

Unfortunately, a crisis came up. Several, actually but not enough people cared about Puerto Rico or his Concentration camps. We are all suffering from his neglect, his ineptitude, his arrogance, and his complete inability to show any form of leadership.

Now in an earlier post you referred to Clinton outspending Trump, and this is true, but I will also say Clinton's ads weren't particularly effective against Trump. She went for a positive route, which is fine but the ad I saw the most of was a very boring interview where she talked about helping children. Very nice, but ultimately a bit aloof when looking at the Trump circus and not very effective at snaring the "let's see what an outsider can do" crowd away from Trump. More to the point, it was boring. I got sick of seeing the ad. Now Trump can get publicity by being his usual inept self, but without decades of Clinton bashing by the GOP to aim at Biden, it has been coming up short.

Trouble is, at this point most of Trump's voters are a devoted, destructive cult. Ads probably won't make much of a difference at this point. Trump is unlikely to get his 'FBI investigating emails' event but he's probably going to try a 1/2 dozen Hail Mary passes efforts starting mid-October, I suspect he's going to try buying and passing off the untested Russian C19 vaccine as a miracle solution. I also expect him to try a bunch of artificial scandals with Biden and the Ukraine, but I doubt that is going to sway anyone the way the emails

The thing is, he cannot just be beaten. He needs to be crushed. Utterly. This nation needs to say it overwhelmingly rejects him. Anything shy of that and you can bet his appointees are going to do everything to keep him in power until he drops dead.
 
Last edited:
Now in an earlier post you referred to Clinton outspending Trump, and this is true, but I will also say Clinton's ads weren't particularly effective against Trump. She went for a positive route, which is fine but the ad I saw the most of was a very boring interview where she talked about helping children. Very nice, but ultimately a bit aloof when looking at the Trump circus and not very effective at snaring the "let's see what an outsider can do" crowd away from Trump. More to the point, it was boring. I got sick of seeing the ad. Now Trump can get publicity by being his usual inept self, but without decades of Clinton bashing by the GOP to aim at Biden, it has been coming up short.

Trouble is, at this point most of Trump's voters are a devoted, destructive cult. Ads probably won't make much of a difference at this point. Trump is unlikely to get his 'FBI investigating emails' event but he's probably going to try a 1/2 dozen Hail Mary passes efforts starting mid-October, I suspect he's going to try buying and passing off the untested Russian C19 vaccine as a miracle solution. I also expect him to try a bunch of artificial scandals with Biden and the Ukraine, but I doubt that is going to sway anyone the way the emails

Because of all the outrageous things he does and says, or in the case of the 2016 election did and said, President Trump gets an enormous amount of free coverage across the media spectrum. In FOXNews and Sinclair Media he also has two full-time propaganda outlets. He can get away with relatively modest media spends because of that.

The thing is, he cannot just be beaten. He needs to be crushed. Utterly. This nation needs to say it overwhelmingly rejects him. Anything shy of that and you can bet his appointees are going to do everything to keep him in power until he drops dead.

Unfortunately the size and enthusiasm of his base and the willingness of GOP supporters to vote the ticket means IMO that this isn't going to happen.

IMO it won't be close on the popular vote, but GOP voter suppression, trashing postal ballots and election-day shenanigans will mean that he'll likely win the Electoral College and if he doesn't, he'll attempt to litigate his way to reelection and he has appointed the judges to allow him to do that :(
 
My county's Supervisor of Election just sent me a PDF sample ballot. Not 100% finalized yet but this is probably more or less what we are going to see on November 3rd.

Lot more 3rd party people on the ballot for President then I was expecting. There's a total of 7 POTUS/VOTUS tickets and a write-in space and we didn't even get Kanye.
 
Last edited:
While Trump clings to the claim about Biden being an extreme far-leftist who works for Bernie and Mao, Republicans running for office in Missouri and Nebraska have released ads that openly acknowledge that Biden is actually on their side: they play video of Biden's own anti-progressive rants to make the Republicans' case for them that their opponents in those races contrast with Biden by actually being lefties. They don't appear to think the public would buy Trump's claim that Biden is precisely what he was ranting against in those videos. That makes these Missouri & Nebraska Republican campaign videos essentially refutations against Trump's own campaign theme.

Targeted ads: same thing that the Trump campaign used in 2016. The targets were identified by Cambridge Analytica's data mining, some of which was illegal skimming.

NPR 2018: Cambridge Analytica's Legal Challenges
The British data mining firm Cambridge Analytica has suspended its CEO as investigations gear up in Great Britain and the United States. The firm allegedly obtained data from millions of Facebook users and used that data to help President Trump get elected in 2016. NPR's Peter Overby gives us a look at some of the potential legal problems here.

NBC: Donald Trump's 2020 campaign is working with ex-Cambridge Analytica staffers
A company run by former officials at Cambridge Analytica, the political consulting firm brought down by a scandal over how it obtained Facebook users' private data, has quietly been working for President Donald Trump's 2020 re-election effort, The Associated Press has learned.

The AP confirmed that at least four former Cambridge Analytica employees are affiliated with Data Propria, a new company specializing in voter and consumer targeting work similar to Cambridge Analytica's efforts before its collapse. The company's former head of product, Matt Oczkowski, leads the new firm, which also includes Cambridge Analytica's former chief data scientist.

Oczkowski denied a link to the Trump campaign, but acknowledged that his new firm has agreed to do 2018 campaign work for the Republican National Committee. Oczkowski led the Cambridge Analytica data team which worked on Trump's successful 2016 campaign.


Brittany Kaiser, who formerly worked at Cambridge Analytica, argues that Trump’s 2020 campaign is benefiting from Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to allow politicians to lie in ads. The political dust from this is still settling.


So Delvo, are you glad, indifferent, concerned about the data mining, and/or concerned about disinformation in campaigns?

The hypocrisy of the Federalists' insisting Biden take down the disputed* ad claiming witnesses heard Trump dissing the dead soldiers before canceling a visit to a war memorial in Europe is off the charts.


*Disputed because multiple witnesses tell different stories supporting both sides.
 
How badly is your campaign going if you’re resorting to accusing your opponent of taking performance enhancing drugs?

Trump War Room tweeted

Trump War Room - Text TRUMP to 88022
@TrumpWarRoom
Joe Biden does NOT deny he is taking performance enhancing drugs

Classic propaganda technique.


On the other hand, Donald is NOT denying he is taking anti-paranoid schizophrenic drugs.
Perfect response.
 
Last edited:
https://www.niskanencenter.org/bitecofer-epstein-september-update/

Poor Biden.

After the election he’ll wind up in that institution on the hill, where they
send elderly, sometimes crazy politicians, watched over by cameras and
a very attentive staff. Ever door has alarms, and key pads to open them,
the whole facility surrounded by high fences and armed guards at every
gate making sure he can’t wander off…

Oh…

I’m reading the 2020 September Bitecofer/Epstine Analysis of the upcoming
election, with extra nuance in the appendix that runs contrary to my thinking
on the issue. But I do agree them on with block voter theory performs better
than swing voter theory.


In this cycle though, disunity between the popular vote and the Electoral
College is unlikely. The Republican Party’s “small tent” strategy of appealing
primarily to white voters and using voter suppression strategies to mitigate
the damage is likely to keep Trump’s share of the two-party vote share low,
well below 50%.

To win, the Trump campaign needs to replicate 2016. They need to drag
the winning two-party vote margins in the swing states to “plurality” vote
shares: something below the 50% mark. Based on Trump’s polling, which
is consistently stuck at 46-47%, well below.

Then they must subtract from Biden enough votes that his ultimate two-party
vote share ends up even lower than Trump’s - as what happened to Clinton.
This can only happen with another round of atypically high third-party and
write-in balloting.

This time, polling data makes no suggestion of the voter sentiments
that drove 2016’s high defection rates. Not only are voters much more
likely to choose either Biden or Trump, the percent indicating undecided
is already low - the complete opposite of the conditions everyone should
have seen plainly heading into 2016.


I like the small tent strategy.

The smaller the tent the more cozy it becomes.

Jokes aside, I notice in the appendix the 2004 election which runs
counter to this prediction. Alas, I’ve got a bit more reading to do,
before I can comment fully.
 
Trump hasn't said a single thing about the Lincoln Project, has he?


He's made several angry Tweets about "lying ads" that were clearly referring to the Lincoln Project in context.

For example:
"We had FAR more people (many millions) watching us at the RNC than did Sleepy Joe and the DNC, and yet an ad just ran saying the opposite. This is what we’re up against. Lies. But we will WIN! "

That was in reference to this ad.

 
He's made several angry Tweets about "lying ads" that were clearly referring to the Lincoln Project in context.

For example:
"We had FAR more people (many millions) watching us at the RNC than did Sleepy Joe and the DNC, and yet an ad just ran saying the opposite. This is what we’re up against. Lies. But we will WIN! "

That was in reference to this ad.


Like Woodward said, Trump doesn't know what is real and what is unreal. I don't think he was exaggerating. I think Trump really does believe his own lies.
 
Florida, the last place you would look for a crazy political strategy to work…


2018 Florida District Votes

Florida does not count votes in uncontested races, so the votes in
the four uncontested seats held by Democratic members of the House
are not counted in the totals or percentages on this page, and each
under counts the votes for Democrats in Florida.


I wonder. Could the Republicans admit that they cannot win certain districts,
then leave the Democratic candidate unopposed and not have those votes
counted in the presidential election? Biden wins the popular vote in Florida,
but Trump wins the state. Anyone know?
 
One issue I see is that many people who DID NOT vote for Trump the last time believed all the horror of what was supposed to come. The whole country was supposed to devolve into an immediate economic and social disaster with chaos and war. But that did not happen. The country actually did pretty well.
I think most of us see that the racism protests evolved from liberal colleges (and coastal media) and spread from there.
Statistically, racism had no changes though, just more complaints about it and calls for change. Warranted? Maybe. Any deaths are too many but we have a BIG country here!

Now, the same things are being said --so do people believe it 'this time'?
Is it true this time?

You cannot be serious.
 
Florida, the last place you would look for a crazy political strategy to work…




I wonder. Could the Republicans admit that they cannot win certain districts,
then leave the Democratic candidate unopposed and not have those votes
counted in the presidential election? Biden wins the popular vote in Florida,
but Trump wins the state. Anyone know?

Vote for President is contested though.
 
I've been looking at Texas for a while now. Everyone is worrying about Florida but Texas is really the state to watch. The likely voter polling may not be taking into account new Hispanic voters in Texas. Hispanic voters in Texas are not the same as Hispanic voters in Florida and their issues are very different. They're anti wall, and Trump's anti immigrant xenophobia plays very poorly (to say the least) with them. That, coupled with suburbs going blue may put Texas in play more than the models suggest.
 
Yep. Totally serious.
Do you have something constructive to add?
These are my ideas, my experience.

I also think Trump will win and this forum will go totally bananas...again.
:boxedin:

Everything did devolve into an economic and social disaster with chaos and war just not immediately - this year, in fact. Of course, you think Trump's going to win. You're voting for him, aren't you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom