The US Presidential election prediction thread

[roman_bairn]

That seems a bit fucked up that the media declare results before they are official. Given the state of the right-wing controlled newspapers and Sky we have here I'm glad we don't have that system.

Actually. It’s dangerous. Especially when you see the variations between in person and postal votes..

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

13 minutes ago, Arch Stanton said:

Just why is Pennsylvania taking so long to count the postal votes when four more populous states (plus Illinois which is only marginally less populous) declared ages ago?

Because a republican judge ruled that their storm troopers could get into the building. They're no doubt doing everything they can to disrupt the count.

[Bully Wee Villa]

4 minutes ago, Arch Stanton said:

That seems a bit fucked up that the media declare results before they are official. Given the state of the right-wing controlled newspapers and Sky we have here I'm glad we don't have that system.

ITV always count the results before they are officially declared. If you flick between ITV and BBC on a UK election night the former always has more constituencies counted.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Bully Wee Villa

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

12 minutes ago, roman_bairn said:

Why do they accept postal votes after closing of the polls? 

They don't.

[GordonS]

Just now, Arch Stanton said:

That seems a bit fucked up that the media declare results before they are official. Given the state of the right-wing controlled newspapers and Sky we have here I'm glad we don't have that system.

Declaration - or calling - has no effect or meaning, it's literally just that media outlet's prediction. This time, only Fox and AP appear to have called Arizona, and I suspect AP at least might think that was hasty. Generally though they have enough data to call them when they're over 99% confident.

They can do this because precincts publish the results of batches of votes counted as they go, which is good for transparency and something they're able to do because they use electronic counting machines. Here, with counts by hand you don't know the votes for a constituency until it's all added up and they've carried out adjudication on unclear papers. But even here, the media outlets will all predict who is going to be prime minister long before they've won enough seats. 

If you waited for official results in the US you'd be waiting about a week for any sort of result. There's hardly ever any need for that.

[Bully Wee Villa]

Just now, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) said:

Because a republican judge ruled that their storm troopers could get into the building. They're no doubt doing everything they can to disrupt the count.

Crazy isn't it. The selfless people are being demonised. I wouldn't blame any of them if they were put off ever offering their services again at future elections. Having large crowds intimidating officials involved in counting votes is unbelievable for a nation like America. They would be losing their shit if something like this happened in Belarus or Venezuela.

[RossBFaeDundee]

We're at that part of the grief, folks

Difference in PA is just over 53,000

[GordonS]

4 minutes ago, roman_bairn said:

Actually. It’s dangerous. Especially when you see the variations between in person and postal votes..

It's only dangerous when people lie. It would usually be more dangerous to make people wait for days to get any sort of indication, even though tens of thousands of officials would have access to numbers in their area.

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

2 minutes ago, RossBFaeDundee said:

We're at that part of the grief, folks

Difference in PA is just over 53,000

99% of the comments on there agreeing with him.

[roman_bairn]

It's only dangerous when people lie. It would usually be more dangerous to make people wait for days to get any sort of indication, even though tens of thousands of officials would have access to numbers in their area.

Might be wrong but was it Al Gore that lost an election on the basis of an early concession that turned out to be no more than a few hundred votes?

[Arch Stanton]

This is the first time I've ever taken an interest in the intricacies of the US election such as Maine and Nebraska having a different process to the other states, faithless electors and the incumbent having a meltdown live on TV.

[Arch Stanton]

f**k me, US adverts for drugs and medical insurance are grim.

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

Just now, Arch Stanton said:

f**k me, US adverts for drugs and medical insurance are grim.

Especially when their target audience are all outside with their flags and guns.

[GordonS]

6 minutes ago, RossBFaeDundee said:

We're at that part of the grief, folks

Difference in PA is just over 53,000

Right into my veins.

1 minute ago, roman_bairn said:

Might be wrong but was it Al Gore that lost an election on the basis of an early concession that turned out to be no more than a few hundred votes?

Yeah, he conceded too early because he thought he'd lost Florida and later took it back. It is a great and noble American tradition that the loser concedes once it's clear that it's over, they praise the winner and they make a dignified speech about the country uniting behind the new President.

I wonder if that will happen this time...

[Arch Stanton]

1 minute ago, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) said:

Especially when their target audience are all outside with their flags and guns.

Rectal bleeding seems to be a common side effect.

[GordonS]

3 minutes ago, Arch Stanton said:

This is the first time I've ever taken an interest in the intricacies of the US election such as Maine and Nebraska having a different process to the other states, faithless electors and the incumbent having a meltdown live on TV.

I've stayed up overnight for every US election since 1992. They're bonkers, but they're great television for nerds. This one has been a wee bit different.

[welshbairn]

The risk of being caught voting illegally outweighs massively the advantage you might gain in an election. Might be worth risking in a local council election if you can get enough people involved but anything bigger it's pishing in the wind. Unless you're the President of Belarus and controlling the counting of course.

[aDONisSheep]

As i said earlier, this notion of widespread fraud is a nonsense.  In Pennsylvania you'd need 70,000 (yes, seventy thousand) fraudulent ballots to gain a 1% advantage.

Imagine trying to organise and coordinate that.

[Bully Wee Villa]

2 minutes ago, aDONisSheep said:

As i said earlier, this notion of widespread fraud is a nonsense.  In Pennsylvania you'd need 70,000 (yes, seventy thousand) fraudulent ballots to gain a 1% advantage.

Imagine trying to organise and coordinate that.

Yep. It's up there with "George W Bush organised 9/11" in terms of its stupidity. If the amount of effort required outweighs the potential gain to a near-impossible level, then it probably didn't happen.

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

1 minute ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Yep. It's up there with "George W Bush organised 9/11" in terms of its stupidity. If the amount of effort required outweighs the potential gain to a near-impossible level, then it probably didn't happen.

Correct.

His younger brother did.