Donald Trump

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Biden’s not even started yet and current has 3x the cash on hand in his campaign.

Trump would have more money if he wasn't funnelling it into his personal legal defence fund. (see Trump's 'I love the poorly educated' comments for further clarification). ;-)

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

It’s not plucked out of thin air. As I expressly stated, it’s based on what @SWP's back reasoned in his post. If you have such poor comprehension skills it’s little wonder you struggle to evaluate likely outcomes with any apparent care or skill.

Your reasoning appears to be rooted in what happened in 2016, since when, as has been posted many times, a number of factors have materially (some overwhelmingly) changed.

My figure, based in that logic, places Trump’s prospects as less than likely (so concomitantly less than 50%) but realistic and plausible, hence the figure of 33%.

I accept its quite a crude and simple calculation, but is in direct response to yours, which is misconceived and flawed.

Oh come on! Ad hominem attacks?

Digest what I've posted.

Trump may well win, unfortunately.

No one knows the future for sure - and given that the election outcome is down to how a few percent vote in a handful of swing states - and not down to the popular vote - makes the outcome even less clear.

Hell, Democrats have won the popular vote for President for years, and years and years. And will likely win the popular vote by more, even on a percent basis, this coming election. But that doesn't determine who our president will be, unfortunately.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Trump may well win, unfortunately.

No one knows the future for sure - and given that the election outcome is down to a few percent either way in a handful of swing states - and not down to popular sentiment - makes the outcome even less clear.

I think stating he has in the order of a one in three chance fully acknowledges that Trump can win. I’m not sure why you are struggling to understand this.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

Read my edit.

Everyone is calling you out on your point, and for good reason.

So either you are the only one that knows the truth (sounds familiar) or there may be some cause for everyone else questioning your broad statements.

Huh?

My point is that the election outcome - because of the screwed up electoral college - is down to how a handful of undecided voters in a few swing states - a mere 1/2 percent or so of voters in some such cases - end up voting.

Are you really arguing that either my assertion above isn't so, or that it is so but that you can confidently predict how those 1/2 percent of voters in swing states will vote?

 

[SebastianBlue]

Huh?

My point is that the election outcome - because of the screwed up electoral college - is down to how a handful of undecided voters in a few swing states - a mere 1/2 percent or so of voters in some such cases - end up voting.

Are you really arguing that either my assertion above isn't so, or that it is so but that you can confidently predict how those 1/2 percent of voters in swing states will vote?

Below is an example of the many extreme statements you have made with no evidence to support them which everyone has been rightly calling out as false.

No one in the thread occupies that bubble. You have created a strawman argument, then shifted the premise once called out, rather than just admitting you were wrong in the first place.

For those still in the Biden-can't-possibly-lose-reality-distortion-bubble...

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

Below is an example of the many broad statements you have made with no evidence to support them which everyone has been rightly calling out as false.

A) It's a broad statement - I suppose;
B) The post, immediately above yours, makes abundantly clear (why this is even necessary is beyond me), what my exact point is. Namely, no one knows how the very few undecided voters in the swing states will end up voting - and that this will decide who our next president is.

Hell - kudo's to SWP who is at least betting on the outcome. If you're so confident that Biden will win, there's money to be made: https://www.oddschecker.com/us/politics/us-politics

Me, I have no clue as to who will win - though I fervently hope it's Biden, and indeed, news as of late has been going Biden's way. There's months before the election though.

 

[SebastianBlue]

A) It's a broad statement - I suppose;
B) The post, immediately above yours, makes abundantly clear (why this is even necessary is beyond me), what my exact point is. Namely, no one knows how the very few undecided voters in the swing states will end up voting - and that this will decide who our next president is.

If your position has shifted, after being called out for your initially false assertions, then why not just admit they were wrong, rather than belligerently doubling down?

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

If your position has shifted, after being called out for your initially false assertions, then why not just admit they were wrong, rather than belligerently doubling down?

WTF are you talking about? My position hasn't shifted one iota.

I was spot on in thinking that you aren't looking for a discussion - rather, you're hell-bent on provoking an argument, or on scoring a point.

My points:
1) This forum is almost exclusively pro-Biden (Yes! - I love Biden);
2) But this outlook creates a bias - pro-Biden, pro-Democracy, pro-Democrat stories, outcomes and projections are favored, sometimes without firm basis;
3) The electoral college in the US is such that the election outcome is going to be decided by very few voters in a very few states; the ability of anyone to accurately predict how such voters will actually vote is suspect;
4) SWP, at least, has the confidence to actually vote his beliefs by betting that Biden will win. Kudos to SWP - I'm not nearly so confident - though I suspect I'm at least as hopeful as SWP in the outcome.

I've likely left out some points in 1-4 above... but that's my jist.

TL/DR - don't be overconfident in a Biden victory in 2024 - it's likely going to be too close to call either way.

 

[SebastianBlue]

WTF are you talking about? My position hasn't shifted one iota.

Guess I was spot on that you aren't looking for a discussion - rather, you're hell-bent on provoking an argument, or scoring a point.

Mate, everyone else has called you out on the statements you have been making being false. You then pivoted to the arguments you are now having with @SWP's back and @gordondaviesmoustache.

I am not the one “hell-bent on provoking an argument”. You are the only one doing that right now.

If you want to be taken seriously in this thread—or engaged with at all—you can’t behave erratically, belligerently, and seemingly in bad faith like this.

I will leave it at that as it does not seem I am getting through.

 

[TinFoilHat]

I have been told that “egghead ****” is an accurate descriptor for me.
.

I thought that was MES?