As I said I don’t care if Fox & AP calls were terrible I’m super grateful for them and everyone should be too. Any libs criticizing those calls can get kicked in the genitals. Those calls probably saved us from a lot more bullshit from Trumps side. That AZ call took the wind out of their sails. They seemed completely defeated after that. It wasn’t until days later Trump was able to rile them back up.
7 Likes
Quite literally the blown call that saved the world. It’s basically always better to be lucky than good in the short run.
3 Likes
Yeah we really should lean into this Dominion conspiracy theory and make voting machines illegal. Ballots should be made of paper so that they can be checked. You shouldn’t be allowed to destroy them for like 4 years or something. Intentionally destroying ballots should be one of those crazy federal felonies like robbing a post office that arbitrarily carry a long ass sentence.
5 Likes
Most of this is not true. Their level of certainty isn’t “The ballots out skew blue ergo Trump loses.”
They have mathematical processes and need 99.5% certainty. They clearly had some methodology here, regardless of whether they blew it.
I’m pretty sure WI was accurate. I think some statements were misconstrued or unclear, but the hard data was mostly pretty accurate elsewhere.
Sorry best we can do is mandatory ID, no mail in voting, and a melanin check before registering to vote.
6 Likes
Yeah, part of why Trump’s rhetoric kind of works is that our election system is being exposed a complete clusterfuck. That’s his thing, making a fair point for completely nefarious, self-serving purposes.
3 Likes
I don’t know. They were pitching a rigged election narrative well before the election.
1 Like
Yes, they came up with “99.5% certainty” with the wrong fucking denominator… seems pretty bad… like they may have had 99.5% certainty that if their inputs were correct that their call was correct but they clearly didn’t ensure that their inputs were correct with 99.5% certainty.
Sorry, can’t let this go.
What we are doing is sorting the states by margin. Your argument is that because at the tipping point state and states near the tipping point, but on the winners side the margins were larger in 2020 that 2020 was a more solid win. What I am saying is that because at the tipping point and states near but on the losers side had smaller margins than in 2016 that 2020 was a less solid win. Given that facts about closeness are true then I think we can both be right. You may be saying that your solution is the only way to answer the question.
Lets face it naming your voting machine company “Dominion” is uh not the wisest choice.
2 Likes
If true, they blew it. We don’t know for sure because we weren’t in the room. I’m already on the record that it’s likely they blew it. But we don’t know for sure.
I’m saying that the process here is simple and pretty well established in politics. You take the states Biden won, sort by margin in descending order, and count to 270. So you start with like DC, Hawaii, etc. You end with WI, GA, AZ. The ones that got Biden to and over 270 determine how close it is much more so than the ones that got him to 290 and 306.
For example if he won the blue wall by 10% and won GA and AZ by .0000000000000001% that wouldn’t be a very strong argument that he barely won.
Your best argument is that WI was very close and we needed it, however in the context of my confidence on election night the certainty we’d win it mattered way more than the margin we’d win it by, plus AZ already being called was important too.
If the argument is not about reactions on 11/3 and 11/4, and you simply want to argue that 2016 was about as close as 2020, I’d point you to the fact that of the three really close states in 2020 (WI, AZ, GA), we only needed one whereas Trump needed all three really close ones (WI, PA, MI) in 2016. I’d point you to the popular vote margin next. Then I’d say “Blue Georgia, I rest my case.”
The AP said on the record in they article I linked to earlier that their call was 150k ballots outstanding the next morning and it turned out that there was over 250k:
Those are indisputable facts, not “likely wrong.” A poster on this very board caught similar mistakes in Pennsylvania reporting on the denominator. Stop trying to make me agree with SenorKeed that you are “insufferable,” would make me have to re-evaluate everything in life…
1 Like
this is false. Trump got the exact same amount of EVs in 2016 that Biden is going to get this year
Again, I’m sure they have various ranges built into their model and account for uncertainty in outstanding ballots. It took Arizona 1.5-2 weeks to count ballots in the Senate race in 2018, and they kept trickling in. I have to assume the AP decision desk factors this in.
Without being in the room we don’t know what they did or did not consider. They likely blew it, but we simply do not know without more info.
Oh, right. That’s true about Trump not needing all three. But the popular vote margin still stands and turning GA blue makes it hard to argue it was a razor thin margin, although you could say the same about WI and MI in 2016 I guess.
I have a tough time saying a win by 5M+ is as close as an electoral college win with a 3M vote popular vote loss.
I mean I basically agreed with him on a half a dozen things he ran on in 2016. For different reasons than the ones he gave obviously.
Closeness is based on what the minimum number of votes are that you need to flip to change the results.
lol @ math problem my god cuse is exactly that dude at your home game who won a tournament once.