The US President

[Tommok]

1 hour ago, New York Red said:

That one is total b*llocks and not based on any sort of reality. I mess around with that map all the time. I was at 339 for Biden last I recall.

That'd be cool

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

8 minutes ago, PaulMcC186 said:

If you spend more in a presidential election campaign do you win 95% of the time?

Freakenomics looked at spending in elections and found no evidence that spending helps as much as people think

 

https://freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/how-much-does-campaign-spending-influence-the-election-a-freakonomics-quorum/

[PaulMcC186]

26 minutes ago, Sir Tokyo Sexwale said:

Freakenomics looked at spending in elections and found no evidence that spending helps as much as people think

 

https://freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/how-much-does-campaign-spending-influence-the-election-a-freakonomics-quorum/

I just seen an article from 2014 that said the biggest spender won 91% of the time. Trump spent far less than Clinton apparently.

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

It's not saying the highest spender doesn't win - it's ages since I read it so I can't remember the detail now - so yeah, maybe they do win 91% of the time but maybe ot by as much as they 'should' or would be expected to.

 

I hope that's the case as it's pretty s*** if you can lob a load of cash at it & get elected regardless....then again look at US politics

[Molby]

33 minutes ago, smithdown said:

So how about Jews who vote for Trump?  He patently carries around and bandies about the “you’re good with money, get me a Jew lawyer” etc as well as anyone

Well, there are various levels of disgrace

the ones that I have particular beef with are the ones that betray our heritage and values (in the main) as I see them, rather than the ones of working with people who disrespect us 
I suppose voting for Trump is kind of betraying those values though, so that’s reason enough even without the crass talk

 

 

[Falconhoof]

2 hours ago, Sir Tokyo Sexwale said:

Freakenomics looked at spending in elections and found no evidence that spending helps as much as people think

 

https://freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/how-much-does-campaign-spending-influence-the-election-a-freakonomics-quorum/

I wonder if the democratic or republican candidate refused to spend a dollar campaigning, but funnelled every cent into something different, could they be elected. Be an interesting experiment.

[cymrococh]

25 minutes ago, Falconhoof said:

I wonder if the democratic or republican candidate refused to spend a dollar campaigning, but funnelled every cent into something different, could they be elected. Be an interesting experiment.

Depends what the different thing was I suppose.

If they encroached on the vintage band t-shirt/lego action, then they would not be getting my vote.

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

hahahahaha

[Nebraska Red]

Maybe cancer or diabetes research.

$9.8 billion was spent on advertising in 2016. I assume that will be higher in 2020.

"My  nation spent almost $10 billion and all i got was a s***house for a president."

Would look good on a tee shirt. 

[Nebraska Red]

Apparently Barron Trump had Covid. Does this make him superboy? 

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

guardian saying 14m votes have already been cast - this can only be a good thing for Democrats

[Crazy Horse]

not if the Supreme court throws them all out

[Stevie H]

7 hours ago, PaulMcC186 said:

I just seen an article from 2014 that said the biggest spender won 91% of the time. Trump spent far less than Clinton apparently.

Trump got billions of dollars worth of free media coverage from CNN, MSNBC et al. 

[New York Red]

I’m seeing 340-198 in the electoral college for Biden.

Dems pick up AZ, CO, ME, NC for sure. They lose AL. They possibly pick up GA, IA, MT, SC. Adding Kentucky would be a grand slam.

I see between 5 and 20 pickups in the House. At least three pickups in Texas which would be a huge indication of what the future looks like.

[surf]

10 hours ago, Sir Tokyo Sexwale said:

Freakenomics looked at spending in elections and found no evidence that spending helps as much as people think

 

https://freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/how-much-does-campaign-spending-influence-the-election-a-freakonomics-quorum/

it's far easier to target the people you want to target nowadays, with online advertising, so not sure that still holds

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

7 hours ago, New York Red said:

I’m seeing 340-198 in the electoral college for Biden.

Dems pick up AZ, CO, ME, NC for sure. They lose AL. They possibly pick up GA, IA, MT, SC. Adding Kentucky would be a grand slam.

I see between 5 and 20 pickups in the House. At least three pickups in Texas which would be a huge indication of what the future looks like.

that sounds a fair, comfortable but not landslide win. Looking at the history - bloody hell - 

Reagan - 489/49 & 525/13

GW Sr - 426/111

Clinton - 370/168 & 379/159

GW Jr - 271/266 & 286/251

Obama - 365/173 & 332/206

Trump - 304/227

 

Obama's 1st was considered a landslide

[Cobs]

7 hours ago, New York Red said:

I’m seeing 340-198 in the electoral college for Biden.

Dems pick up AZ, CO, ME, NC for sure. They lose AL. They possibly pick up GA, IA, MT, SC. Adding Kentucky would be a grand slam.

I see between 5 and 20 pickups in the House. At least three pickups in Texas which would be a huge indication of what the future looks like.

any state that actually switches to Trump after the last 4 years should be put on lockdown

[Swan Red]

Alabama went to Trump by about 30 points in 2016 so I'm assuming NYR means fail to pick up

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

6 minutes ago, Cobs said:

any state that actually switches to Trump after the last 4 years should be put on lockdown

I reassure myself on that - I don't see any state that voted for Hillary last time to flip to Trump this time

[Tommok]

7 hours ago, New York Red said:

I’m seeing 340-198 in the electoral college for Biden.

Dems pick up AZ, CO, ME, NC for sure. They lose AL. They possibly pick up GA, IA, MT, SC. Adding Kentucky would be a grand slam.

I see between 5 and 20 pickups in the House. At least three pickups in Texas which would be a huge indication of what the future looks like.

 

18 minutes ago, Sir Tokyo Sexwale said:

that sounds a fair, comfortable but not landslide win. Looking at the history - bloody hell - 

Reagan - 489/49 & 525/13

GW Sr - 426/111

Clinton - 370/168 & 379/159

GW Jr - 271/266 & 286/251

Obama - 365/173 & 332/206

Trump - 304/227

 

Obama's 1st was considered a landslide

Have you guys never heard of mockering, ffs!

[Earl Hafler]

1 hour ago, Sir Tokyo Sexwale said:

that sounds a fair, comfortable but not landslide win. Looking at the history - bloody hell - 

Reagan - 489/49 & 525/13

GW Sr - 426/111

Clinton - 370/168 & 379/159

GW Jr - 271/266 & 286/251

Obama - 365/173 & 332/206

Trump - 304/227

 

Obama's 1st was considered a landslide

Reagan's numbers are insane

[PaulMcC186]

11 hours ago, Stevie H said:

Trump got billions of dollars worth of free media coverage from CNN, MSNBC et al. 

Did they not show Clinton too?

[Cobs]

2 minutes ago, Earl Hafler said:

Reagan's numbers are insane

presumably the Iranian hostage crisis killing Carter's presidency ?

[stressederic]

12 minutes ago, PaulMcC186 said:

Did they not show Clinton too?

Not in the same ways. Trump's rallies and campaign events produced so many talking points and soundbites that he was able to fill the airwaves of news shows essentially for free.

Clinton got news coverage but not in the same way. And much of it ended up being 'but her emails' related anyway.

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

33 minutes ago, Cobs said:

presumably the Iranian hostage crisis killing Carter's presidency ?

pretty much, yeah

 

1 hour ago, Tommok said:

 

Have you guys never heard of mockering, ffs!

hahahahaha - no I was just wondering what 'normal' numbers are like and was quite shocked by the margins for Reagan, GW Sr & Clinton.