Free Republic

I frankly love the guy, he’s the modern Morgan Stanley and Edison all in one. Plus he’s an actual engineer, and autistic which I also appreciate. He may just well jumpstart the human race into space more than anyone can imagine. Just an amazing guy.

Elon Musk is Delos D. Harriman come to life.

“Look at the stats the Trump Campaign is collecting at these rallies.

25%-35% of the people there have not voted in the last two elections. That means the polls will not use them as likely voters.”

How do they come up with these stats? When you sign up for tickets they only ask for full name, email, mobile #, zip code and state. No one has ever asked me any questions at the 2 rallies I have attended this year. Awesome if they are even close to accurate.

Campaigns can match that data to existing databases of registered voters plus commercial databases, to determine whether an attendee is a likely non-Republican or non-voter, etc. Of course they also use that data as part of their Get Out The Vote effort.

One can assume that close to 100% of the people who attend a Trump rally will vote for him, so that in itself represents several thousand new votes for him from each rally who were previous non-voters. It obviously can't be extrapolated in those same high percentages to non-attendees, but perhaps can be extrapolated at some lower rate. It may be indicative of a reasonably large pool of Trump "low-propensity voters" who will be voting in this election (unlike past elections). If that is indeed the case, it throws off all of the "likely voter" screens and models that most polling firms use. We'll know in another day or two.

Thank you for the link. That’s just what I was looking for. It’s not like his next sentence directly contradicts that poorly-phrased statement, although of course in general he’s talking about wanting a fair vote. But there’s enough of a disconnect that people can quote Joe out of context and reasonably describe it as either a Freudian slip or another brain fart.

Does anyone have a link to the full video?? I'd really like to see what Joe said right before and right after that 24 second video segment. Obviously that sentence was at the least very poorly phrased by Joe. Did he go on to talk about his anti-fraud plans? If so, it just becomes an amusing but out-of-context and deceptively edited clip. If not, then it's fair to spread it around the Internet to demonstrate Joe's mental decline.

“Of course my Presidential vote won’t matter...”
Then why vote?

That was an imprecise statement on my part. More accurately, my vote won't affect the outcome in California. Biden will still win California by several million votes, albeit less than Hillary's 4.3 million winning California margin in 2016.

However, my vote matters as a symbolic expression of my political preferences, and as a continuation of my unbroken record of voting in every election since 1970 when I first became eligible to do so.

Between the sampling distortions favoring Biden, the silent DjT voters, the EV in key swing states, and a greater black vote (could already be baked into the silent vote) I’m still expecting a drubbing for the Ds. Larger than ‘16’s 306EV, I think it was.

I agree with you completely. That's why I made the bet with my brother, even though I'm not a Trump voter. (I'll be voting for Jo Jorgensen. Of course my Presidential vote won't matter, since I live in California.)

Do they really not adjust for the large dem size? I find that hard to believe. Wow.

The poll says that "This sample was weighted according to gender, age, race, and education. ... Respondents were selected from YouGov's opt-in panel to be representative of registered voters in the U.S."

It says nothing about partisan weighting, which they apparently did not consider relevant.

My brother and I have a small friendly wager going: He says Dems will win all three (House, Senate, & President); I say no. I just sent him my analysis of the skewed CBS poll:

As you know, we have very different attitudes regarding all of the polls which are out there. You are confident that Biden will win because the poll averages currently have him so far ahead of Trump. Whereas I think most of the polls showing those big leads are either garbage or are deliberately trying to create a false impression so as to boost Biden's chances. The few polls that I consider honest such as Rassmussen, Democracy Institute, and Trafalgar show Trump either leading or roughly tied (within the MOE). That could easily be confirmation bias on my part. But if my viewpoint is correct, it predicts that pollsters with big Biden leads will show those gaps sharply narrowing as we get closer to the election (just like in 2016) so that their final predictions will not be embarrassingly far from the results.

If I'm correct, the question then becomes how the pollsters are skewing their results (leaving aside the issue of whether it's deliberate). The most obvious method is to utilize disproportionate percentages of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. I decided to do some analysis of the latest CBS Battleground post-DNC-convention poll (August 20-22) that just came out today. (Note that the article is a bit confusing. It shows a pre-convention poll regarding attitudes, taken from 2,226 registered voters, followed by a smaller post-convention poll about actual candidate preferences, taken from 957 registered voters. These are both nationwide polls, not limited to "battleground" states. I'm citing the second poll; just scroll down for the crosstabs.)

The top line indication is that Biden leads Trump 52% to 42%, which appears on the surface to be pretty good for Biden. (Those numbers are rounded; the actual numbers are 51.7% to 42.5% for a 9.1% gap). That compares to the CBS Battleground July 21-24 poll which had Biden leading Trump 51% to 41% (actually 51.0% to 41.1%). Trump appears to have gained 0.8%, which seems statistically insignificant, although it's certainly not the type of historical post-convention bump that Democrats would have been hoping for.

Now let's dig a little further. The latest poll includes 389 Democrats (42.1%), 253 Independents (27.4%), and 282 Republicans (30.5%), making it a D+11.6% poll. That right there would explain the supposed 9.1% gap between Biden and Trump. Even assuming that Democrat voters have an edge on Republican voters, does anyone seriously believe that Democrat turnout in the November election will exceed Republican turnout by 11.6%? Gallup's bimonthly poll of partisan affiliation gives an average in 2020 of 29.7% Democrats, 28.5% Republicans, and 39.1% Independents.

Looking at the details of the CBS July 21-24 poll, it had 542 Democrats (39.4%), 410 Independents (29.8%), and 424 Republicans (30.8%), making it a D+8.6% poll. So even though the latest poll was more biased towards Democrats by 3 additional percentage points, Trump still gained 0.8%. That looks to me like a statistically significant post-convention bump in Trump's favor that the CBS poll was trying to hide by further skewing their results.

The other very interesting aspect of these two polls is that Independents are under-represented (according to Gallup), and that effect was exacerbated in August, going from 29.8% in July down to 27.4%. In July, Trump led Biden by 43% to 40% among Independents. But in August that 3% lead jumped up to 10% (47% to 37%) among Independents.

To summarize, the internals of these CBS Battleground polls tell me the following:

* A more plausible weighting of sample percentages for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents would show Biden and Trump in a virtual tie, or perhaps a slight Trump lead.

* Trump received a post-DNC-convention bump.

* Trump's lead among Independents is growing and is substantial.

* Biden is in trouble even when focusing on the biased polls, and it's going to get a lot worse for him as the gaps narrow approaching the election.

My understanding is that anything over a 90% oxygen saturation level is okay. (My own reading has been varying between 95% and 100%.) If it drops significantly below 90% it would be concerning.

Here's an interesting article about how FDA regulations/red tape discouraged Apple from enabling their built-in blood oxygen saturation sensor in Apple Watches. Those might have helped some people with early detection of COVID-19. I researched the topic further, and learned that my Samsung cell phone also has a built in sensor and app to measure that. I immediately used it to test myself (I had a 99% oxygen saturation level, which is fine). I then cancelled my order on Amazon from two days ago for a $65 pulse oximeter, which wasn't due to ship for another two weeks anyway because of the huge demand.

For those who have a Samsung phone with Android operating system (or want to download the Samsung Health App) you have to search a bit to locate the feature. After you open the app, scroll to the "Stress" option and press "Measure". It instructs you to put your finger on the sensor light on the back of the cell phone, and then performs the measurement which will take up to about a minute to complete. When done it displays your pulse bpm (beats per minute) and saturation percentage. I've read a number of comments which say that the measurements are surprisingly accurate, and correlate well with the more expensive pulse oximeter devices.

Here’s my take on this: Cocaine Mitch is preparing his negotiating position for “Phase IV”, and he has a giant bargaining chip in terms of a bailout for states and cities. There’s no questions that states and cities are facing enormous budget problems due to COVID-19, as tax revenues collapse and expenses explode. But unlike the federal government they can’t print money or otherwise resort to unlimited deficit spending.

Furthermore, the states (and cities) which are in the deepest trouble are the ones which are run by Democrats and have vast unfunded pension liabilities and bloated payrolls. Those Democrats (and all of the associated public employees/unions) will therefore be applying tremendous political pressure on the Congressional Democrats to obtain bailouts.

Cocaine Mitch will ultimately provide bailout money only to fill the budget holes caused by COVID-19, but not to fix their pension deficits. The latter will require them to declare bankruptcy, and a change in the law to permit that. But his price for even this limited bailout for states and cities will be to enact Trump’s wish-list (infrastructure, entertainment deductibility, etc.) and NONE of Nancy’s wish list (voting changes, $15 minimum wage, etc.).

Trump and Mitch can afford to hold out, because none of what they want in Phase IV is essential, and they can wait until next year if necessary in the hope of winning back the House. But Nancy can’t afford to hold out; the political pressure for an immediate bailout will be too great. So after endless delays and whinging and some superficial face-saving amendments, Nancy will finally cave, and then try to pretend that she somehow won a victory. Her left-wing base will be extremely pissed at her sell-out, but unable to do anything about it.

Very well put.

This sounded like such weird (but amusing) conspiracy nonsense that I decided to invest a few minutes in following the links to see if they really led to anything meaningful. They didn’t. Despite the hysteria and hyperventilation about Bill Gates building vaccine factories, it turns out that’s just a logical and compassionate effort on his part to speed up the availability of anti-COVID-19 vaccines. Essentially he’s spending money — at risk — before any vaccines are proven to be successful, to ramp up production more quickly when effective ones are finally developed.

The rest of the nonsense is all coming from a religious website which interprets everything through its “end of the world is near” perspective. And most of the links it uses as evidence just loop back to other articles written on that same website.

As stated above, I did find it all rather amusing, enough so to post this reply. But of course I don’t really expect to dissuade anyone who’s receptive to the idea that we’re approaching the end times.

There's no win here for Biden.

I agree. Biden's staff will come up with a list of suggestions that Biden will make to Trump, and Trump will respond either that they're already being done or that Trump will consider them. It's all to Trump's advantage to look bipartisan and encourage everyone in the country to unite against the epidemic. Once Biden has personally talked to Trump, it becomes difficult to continue attacking Trump and thereby foment disunity.

I'm sure Trump will record the conversation. Then if Biden misrepresents it in any way, Trump can offer to make the recording public. It would be politically impossible for Biden to insist on it remaining secret.

The other factor is that Trump probably considers Biden the weakest possible opponent, given Joe's obvious mental deterioration. A phone conversation will further cement Biden as the semi-official Democrat candidate, and make it harder for the Democrats to replace him at the last minute.

I am actually somewhat surprised Bernie is not calling for her inclusion in the debate.

I had the same thought. Bernie's campaign is on life support right now, so he needs to take some risks to shake up the race. Demanding that Tulsi be included in the debates plays to Bernie's brand (and criticism that the DNC is rigging the nomination process). If Biden refuses, it makes Joe look cowardly, and it looks like Joe is participating in the rigging.

Tulsi would be a strong contrast to both of the very old white men, but more so to mentally-challenged Biden. She might start eating into Joe's primary vote totals in the remaining contests, which would give Bernie an outside chance of catching up.

To anyone who is puzzled by the small venue when 100,000 tickets have been requested, the real value to the Trump campaign is this: In order to request tickets you have to provide your name and email address and zip code and mobile phone number (maximum of 2 tickets per phone number). This provides the Trump campaign with up-to-date contact information for between 50,000 and 100,000 likely supporters. Furthermore, that information can be correlated with voter registration data combined with other public and private databases to create a detailed profile on each person. This is invaluable data which will let the Trump campaign micro-target them during the campaign for contributions, volunteer workers, get-out-the-vote efforts, etc. The Democrats have nothing comparable (not even with Bloomberg’s money) to match Brad Parscale’s cybernated campaign organization.

All Trump has to do is exceed the last National Popular Vote by 3 million.

If he does that, he will automatically get the Electoral Votes of CA, WA, OR, CO, IL, and a dozen or so other "blue" srates whose idiotic legislatures voted to assign their state's EVs to the winner of the popular vote.

This is incorrect. That "National Popular Vote Compact" does not go into effect until enough states totaling 270 electoral votes join it (which will likely never happen). So nothing is changed, and CA and all the other blue states which have so far joined will still be casting their electoral votes for the Democrat in 2020 (absent a genuine nationwide Trump landslide) regardless of the overall popular vote.

A quick calculation shows that Edwards would have to get over 60% of the few remaining votes to avoid a runoff. Impossible.

Trump’s attacks on Romney are for positioning purposes. By making their feud explicit, it lets Trump frame Romney’s responses as personal. If in the future Romney votes against a Supreme Court nominee, or if Romney votes to remove Trump during a Senate impeachment trial, it will look like he’s doing it out of spite. Similarly, if Romney tries to run against Trump for the Republican Presidential nomination, or if Romney launches an independent Presidential campaign to siphon votes from Trump, that will also appear petty and spiteful rather than some kind of principled opposition.

Of course the other effect of Trump’s counterattack is to remind Republicans that Trump always hits back. If any other Republican Senator or Congress member or Governor gets too out of line while criticizing Trump, that politician knows he or she will be in Trump’s cross hairs and that there will be lot of unhappy Trump-supporting constituents eager to cut short that person’s political career.

"The House of Representatives" is not a single member.

That was also my reaction. Nancy Pelosi is just one member of Congress, even if she's been elected Speaker, and she can't unilaterally declare an impeachment inquiry with the power to subpoena documents and witnesses from the Executive Branch. Oh sure, she can try, but the President can just ignore her. If the Democrats go to court to enforce their subpoenas, the courts (especially the Supreme Court) will most likely say that it's a dispute between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch, and not something for the Judicial Branch to get involved in.

Of course the real battle isn't a legal one, it's a public relations one. House Democrats are desperate to find a charge which will justify impeachment, and they're hoping that they can use Trump's ignoring the subpoenas as the excuse. That's not a bad play on the surface, since it can be made to sound like "obstruction of justice" to many voters.

But Trump's riposte is more powerful. He can keep insisting that the House first formally vote for an impeachment inquiry before he'll respond to any subpoenas: He's not obstructing anything as long as there is no official action to obstruct. Every time the House issues a new demand for documents, Trump will just demand that they vote first. It's a stalemate that only Trump can win, since the only way to break it is for the House to finally vote to impeach him, which is precisely what Trump has been demanding.

Trump essentially controls the clock with this maneuver. He can drag the game out for as long as he likes, or speed it up if that looks more advantageous. And Mitch McConnell similarly controls the clock if the impeachment ever gets to the Senate. Mitch can drag things out or speed things up, however he prefers.