|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 426 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-28-20 | | technical draw: I think odds makers should consider only races where there is an incumbent running. In calculating the odds you have to get as close to the race as possible meaning that you take into consideration only races that are similar. Going into the past performances check how many incumbents have won/lost and disregard the other races. |
|
| Oct-28-20 | | technical draw: Here is a list of recent presidential candidates that were running for reelection and their won/lost record: LBJ-won
Richard Nixon-won
Gerald Ford-lost
Jimmy Carter-lost
Ronald Reagan-won
George H.W.Bush-lost
Bill Clinton-won
George Bush-won
Barack Obama-won
So we have 6 presidents winning reelection and 3 losing. So a good point to start figuring the odds of Trump winning are 2 to 1. This, of course, is just a starting point. From here you add or subtract points according to how good or bad his decisions have been and when finished you will have a good working probability. |
|
Oct-28-20
 | | chancho: <Natasha Bertrand: Scoop--DNI Ratcliffe strayed from his prepared remarks last week to say publicly that Iran's spoof emails intimidating Dems were aimed at "damaging President Trump," blindsiding FBI Director Wray and CISA Director Chris Krebs who were standing behind him.> Ratcliffe, a boot-licking Trump sychophant. |
|
Oct-28-20
 | | saffuna: <LBJ-won
Richard Nixon-won
Gerald Ford-lost
Jimmy Carter-lost
Ronald Reagan-won
George H.W.Bush-lost
Bill Clinton-won
George Bush-won
Barack Obama-won>
Except LBJ was not running for reelection in 1964 nor Ford for reelection in 1976. If you want to say LBJ lost in 1968 by dropping out, that's OK. |
|
Oct-28-20
 | | chancho: <I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress. ~Frederick Douglass>
Progress... (laughs)
If Douglass were alive today to see what the Republican party looked like, he'd have a conniption! |
|
Oct-28-20
 | | perfidious: Douglass would, of course, likely be a Democrat today, though not so through most of the twentieth century. |
|
| Oct-29-20 | | technical draw: <saffuna> LBJ was the sitting president when he ran for president in 1964 and he won. He decided not to run in 1968 (even though constitutionally he could have). Ford was also the sitting president in 1976 and was defeated by Jimmy Carter. My list is correct. I wanted to show the power of a sitting president running for reelection and thus show what is known as the power of the pulpit. |
|
Oct-29-20
 | | perfidious: 'Landslide Lyndon' is an interesting case; had he run, it is far from clear he would even have got the Democratic nomination, and if successful in overcoming Hubert Humphrey for the nomination, I do not believe he would have beaten Nixon, what with his popularity in decline for various reasons. |
|
Oct-29-20
 | | perfidious: <'He’d say he was born here, but he left when he was like 8, 9 or 10. So he left 68 years ago, he left — a long time ago. So I view it differently. He wasn’t born here. He abandoned Scranton!'> Classic. |
|
Oct-29-20
 | | perfidious: <'we have made tremendous progress with the China Virus, but the Fake News refuses to talk about it this close to the Election. COVID, COVID, COVID is being used by them, in total coordination, in order to change our great early election numbers. Should be an election law violation!'> 'Tremendous progress', as hospital beds and morgues continue to fill at an alarming pace--to sensible people, anyway. How 'bout a trip to the abattoir? We's heading there, in one big hurry! Maybe the ghost of Herman Cain will make a cameo to gig the Tinpot Despot for amusement value. |
|
| Oct-29-20 | | technical draw: <saffuna> <Except LBJ was not running for reelection in 1964 nor Ford for reelection in 1976.> This can be partially true is we say that they were never "elected" president but assumed the office by other means. This, however, can just be a matter of semantics since you vote for a "ticket" so actually you don't know if the voter likes the presidential candidate or the vice-presidential candidate. For more info see the Beatle's "Ticket to Ride". |
|
Oct-29-20
 | | saffuna: Definitely semantics, I agree. But a president who assumes the presidency via the vice-presidency does not carry the weight of a president who was elected. |
|
Oct-29-20
 | | perfidious: A feature we saw played out in the aftermath of Nixon's forced resignation; even then, Jimmy Carter fell victim to the Iran hostage crisis and a weak economy, which put paid to his chances of reelection. |
|
Oct-30-20
 | | chancho: Donnie Trump, the Pied Piper of Covid, leading his followers into Covid-19, hypothermia, and heatstroke: https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.car... |
|
Oct-30-20
 | | chancho: Dude's giving the Devil a run for his money.
<Daniel Dale@ddale8
·55m
In this one speech, Trump has:
- Called mask use "politically correct"
- Falsely claimed we're turning some corner
- Falsely claimed spike in cases is just more testing - Dismissed importance of cases in young people
- Accused doctors of inflating death toll to get "more money"> |
|
Oct-30-20
 | | numbersguy70: I'm no Trump fan, but Biden is a Trojan Horse for Harris, and, given the chance, she will be straw on the camel's back to send the US dollar the way of the Venezuelan bolivar. |
|
Oct-30-20
 | | chancho: <Conservatives have attempted to tack “socialism” on policies that today enjoy majority support, such as universal health coverage (supported by 70.1% of respondents in a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll) or free college tuition (supported by 60%). The truth is that the “socialism” taunt is among the oldest and most discreditable of political chestnuts. It’s been used by conservatives to smear Democratic or progressive policies they don’t like (which is most of them) since the 1930s, more than a decade after the Socialist Party of America last fielded Eugene V. Debs as a presidential candidate. Let’s take a brief journey down memory lane.
The high-water mark of conservatives’ “socialist” battle cry probably was reached in January 1936, during a remarkable political event at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. This was a gala dinner sponsored by the American Liberty League, a splinter group of wealthy business leaders and old-guard Democrats formed in 1934 in opposition to Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. The glittering star of the Mayflower gala was former New York Gov. Al Smith, who had thrown in his lot with the plutocrats after a distinguished career in which he became an icon of progressive Democratic politics. As I recounted in my book “The New Deal: A Modern History,” Smith’s apostasy perplexed and unnerved Democrats — after all, FDR, Smith’s successor as governor, had been the man who placed his name in nomination for president at the Democratic convention in 1928 and had bestowed on Smith his nickname, “the happy warrior.” Whether Smith harbored personal resentments over the rise of a man who had been his protege, or was merely dazzled by his rich new friends, he now was at full-scale war with FDR. It was a delicate moment for the New Deal. FDR’s popularity had fallen to about 50%, a low point. Business was pushing back against his programs. Roosevelt’s image as a traitor to his class was reinforced by his proposed Revenue Act of 1935, which was openly aimed at the wealthy and was passed largely intact. An attack on Social Security, enacted in 1935, would become the central theme of the presidential campaign of Republican Alf Landon in 1936. (Landon got shellacked.) The Liberty League had a solid pedigree from the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party, including John J. Raskob, a former party chairman and an executive of DuPont. The league’s board of directors bristled with DuPont family members and executives of big corporations such as General Motors. FDR witheringly described the league to reporters as “an organization that only advocates two or three out of the Ten Commandments…. [They] say you shall love God and then forget your neighbor.” Roosevelt struck back at the league in his State of the Union message in early January 1936, reminding his listeners that his program had sought “the adjustment of burdens, the help of the needy, the protection of the weak, the liberation of the exploited and the genuine protection of the people’s property.” As a result, he said, “we have earned the hatred of entrenched greed…. [B]ut now … they seek the restoration of their selfish power.”> https://www.latimes.com/business/hi... |
|
Oct-30-20
 | | perfidious: <'A number of people have said it, but — and I feel it, actually: I’m a wartime president. This is a war. This is a war. A different kind of war than we’ve ever had.'> Just two words for this grandiose proclamation, and the first is 'bull'. |
|
Oct-30-20
 | | perfidious: <'Our doctors get more money if someone dies from Covid. You know that, right? I mean, our doctors are very smart people.'> Jaysus.
Really? |
|
Oct-30-20
 | | perfidious: <'I got here with the worst, most unfair press treatment they say in the history of the United States for a president. They did say Abraham Lincoln had very bad treatment.'> |
|
Oct-30-20
 | | chancho: <The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that's the essence of inhumanity... ~ George Bernard Shaw> |
|
Nov-01-20
 | | perfidious: <'If we win on Tuesday or — thank you very much, Supreme Court — shortly thereafter…'> |
|
Nov-01-20
 | | perfidious: Kellyanne Airhead in classic pro-jek-shun mode, weighing in with her rather predictable views on how life on the trail is going: <'Many observers are missing what a gamble it is for the Biden message to be 10 percent pro-Biden, 90 percent anti-Trump. It’s mystifying that Biden has become increasingly negative and even Obama has traded in "hope and change" for "harangue and complain." '> Not, of course, one word of how negative her horse's campaign has been from the get-go. |
|
| Nov-01-20 | | technical draw: Don't listen to the polls or the pundits. Listen to TD. Why? Because I'm a psychedelic. Trump wins by a landslide. No need for SCOTUS. Trump gets 380 electoral votes. And this prediction is on the record with date and all. When I win I will give you all the future lottery numbers. |
|
Nov-01-20
 | | perfidious: <td>, if he gets 400, then we'll talk. (laughs) |
|
 |
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 18 OF 426 ·
Later Kibitzing> |