What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Biden v Dump 1: If not now, when? If not us, who?

Status
Not open for further replies.
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
It won't matter. Between GA, TX, and FL, I would guess GA has the best shot at flipping. Florida is gonna Florida and Texas doesn't have enough ex-Californian tech bros yet.
Click to expand...

Georgia flips that should be the nail in the coffin. If it looks like Biden has the win after the night because it's a wave that is as strong or stronger than 2018 it will be very interesting to see how far the Republicans will fight this to further destroy the Republic.
 
bronconick said:
Judd Legum

@JuddLegum
BREAKING: Texas federal judge rules that plaintiffs don't have standing, 127,000 ballots will be counted
3:26 PM · Nov 2, 2020·TweetDeck
Click to expand...

Stinger's in the tail:

Judge says if he thought that the plaintiffs had standing, he would have enjoined drive-thru voting tomorrow, on Election Day. (He says a tent is not a building, which is required on Election Day.)
Click to expand...

So the judge said he doesn't have standing, but if he did he'd kill drive-through. That leaves a mile wide avenue for the Court to say "a tent is not a building, f-ck your voting feelings." Even better they can say it after the election and wipe up even more Dem votes.

This gives the Nazis a bullet in the gun if TX somehow is the tipping point (which would require Kamasutra level gymnastics). But it gives them a bullet and obviously those guys would use it if they could steal the White House with it.

I may have mentioned this before, but +6 ON DAY ONE!
 
ScoobyDoo said:
Georgia flips that should be the nail in the coffin. If it looks like Biden has the win after the night because it's a wave that is as strong or stronger than 2018 it will be very interesting to see how far the Republicans will fight this to further destroy the Republic.
Click to expand...

I assume the GOP only steals a given state if it's going all the way to steal the whole election. If Biden already has the win with NC and PA the Nazis won't steal FL, GA, and TX.

But if the election is on the line of course they will. You'd have to have been in a coma since 1994 not to realize these f-cks will do anything to keep the heists rolling. They would fricassee every one of their voters if it meant transferring one more dollar from the middle class to the 1%.

Like Barack, "it's what they do."

OBAMA-SHOT-1.gif
 
We have never had 4 consecutive presidents be re-elected. I can't wrap my head around there being even the slightest possibility that THIS traitor would be the one to buck that.
 
Kepler said:
This is such a wild statistic.

Gotta think death has as much to do with it as voting.
Click to expand...

Well not really. We've only had 2 sets of three who were consecutively re-elected. Obama, W and Clinton. And way back when Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. The first three were followed by the father of the FIRST president to not win re-election.

Dying in office has led to the predecessor winning election in his own right the last 4 times it happened after not happening the first four times.
 
Kepler said:
Stinger's in the tail:



So the judge said he doesn't have standing, but if he did he'd kill drive-through. That leaves a mile wide avenue for the Court to say "a tent is not a building, f-ck your voting feelings." Even better they can say it after the election and wipe up even more Dem votes.

This gives the Nazis a bullet in the gun if TX somehow is the tipping point (which would require Kamasutra level gymnastics). But it gives them a bullet and obviously those guys would use it if they could steal the White House with it.

I may have mentioned this before, but +6 ON DAY ONE!
Click to expand...

I think that last part is only referring specifically to Election Day. The judge is saying a building is required on Election Day, so they could not do the tents then. On others day, only a structure is required, and a tent is a structure. So the worst there would be they shut down the tents on Election Day and people go inside buildings; maybe slightly less convenient, but at least no ballots cast in places where they could be thrown away after the fact.
 
What do you make of betting markets giving Trump a much better chance than the polls? That is one thing that makes me nervous.
 
WeAreNDHockey said:
Well not really. We've only had 2 sets of three who were consecutively re-elected. Obama, W and Clinton. And way back when Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. The first three were followed by the father of the FIRST president to not win re-election.
Click to expand...

Son.
 
French Rage said:
I think that last part is only referring specifically to Election Day. The judge is saying a building is required on Election Day, so they could not do the tents then. On others day, only a structure is required, and a tent is a structure. So the worst there would be they shut down the tents on Election Day and people go inside buildings; maybe slightly less convenient, but at least no ballots cast in places where they could be thrown away after the fact.
Click to expand...

Oh. OK.
 
Drew S. said:
What do you make of betting markets giving Trump a much better chance than the polls? That is one thing that makes me nervous.
Click to expand...

Nothing.

First, betting markets are not necessarily a picture of who the house thinks is going to win. The house has to take into account who they think bettors are going to bet on.

Ideally the house likes an equal amount of money on both sides of a bet. They pocket the juice and don't care who wins. Thus, if they need to attract more bets to one side or another, they will adjust the line in order to try to attract more money to that side.
 
SJHovey said:
Nothing.

First, betting markets are not necessarily a picture of who the house thinks is going to win. The house has to take into account who they think bettors are going to bet on.

Ideally the house likes an equal amount of money on both sides of a bet. They pocket the juice and don't care who wins. Thus, if they need to attract more bets to one side or another, they will adjust the line in order to try to attract more money to that side.
Click to expand...

Corollary: Does this mean lines always move towards the suckers?

Example: Redskins fans are always delusional about their chances. They probably overestimate Washington's performance in a given game by 5 or more points. So does that mean the House will push that line out in the direction of that "irrational exuberance"?

Basically, is gullibility the market inefficiency they exploit?

I always figured what was happening was a mathematical computation like a carpenter's spirit level that moved based on which side of it was attracting more action, in order to reach equilibrium. But are you saying it is deliberate and moved with a will: say the line is Washington -7 and 80% of the action is on Washington, fine, they move the line to Washington -3 to try to soak up that action at an even easier point for the House to make?

I thought it was deterministic, not actually manipulated.

Or does it amount to the same thing in the end?

I probably should have picked Notre Dame as an even better example.
 
Last edited:
bronconick said:
Judd Legum

@JuddLegum
BREAKING: Texas federal judge rules that plaintiffs don't have standing, 127,000 ballots will be counted
3:26 PM · Nov 2, 2020·TweetDeck
Click to expand...

Huh. Ruled they dont have standing (which they dont) but also says even if they did he would still count the votes. Even went so far as to call it untimely because voting in this method has been going on since September. Also suggests not voting drive through tomorrow as that might not count. (tents dont count on Election Day)

https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1323360820869373955

I would think that puts an end to this. I don't see the Supremes sticking their neck out over this one...
 
The Sicatoka said:
Oh, and one more note, ... it'll come down to ...

Who (or at least their absentee ballot) shows up.
Click to expand...

Oh look who decided to join us. Dont worry we still remember all of your BS. Still upset over all those emails and unsecured servers and such?

What did you get dared by people on another web site to come here and try and troll a bit?
 
Kepler said:
Stinger's in the tail:



So the judge said he doesn't have standing, but if he did he'd kill drive-through. That leaves a mile wide avenue for the Court to say "a tent is not a building, f-ck your voting feelings." Even better they can say it after the election and wipe up even more Dem votes.

This gives the Nazis a bullet in the gun if TX somehow is the tipping point (which would require Kamasutra level gymnastics). But it gives them a bullet and obviously those guys would use it if they could steal the White House with it.

I may have mentioned this before, but +6 ON DAY ONE!
Click to expand...

No he said if they had standing he would kill it ON ELECTION DAY. It sounds like they have different rules of what constitutes a "structure" for early voting and day of voting.

He also said even if they had standing he would rule to count the votes.

edit: Frenchy beat me too it :-)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top