Senate "Biden Beats Trump" - The 2020 General Election Presidential Thread

I mean, liberals have spent now four years talking about how Hillary won the "popular vote" as if that's a metric that matters when it doesn't, so it's not like liberals have been on the side of "facts matters" when it's inconvenient to them.

 

"Hillary won the popular vote" is factually correct. "Hillary won the election" is delusional.

 

It's an irrelevant metric. we've had people in the now locked election thread say she "won the election" because of this metric.

 

In all fairness, Trump has also spent four years talking about how he won the popular vote.

 

You know I agree with you, so I'm not sure why you think this is a gotcha.

 

Trump needs to also stop caring about things that don't matter, but fighting one impossible battle is more than enough for me

 

It's an irrelevant metric to the election indeed, and it's not like the rules have changed. Right now this is beginning to look like a potential repeat of 2016, and not from altogether dissimilar reasons...

The popular vote win being an electoral loss, however, does say an interesting thing or two about American "democracy"...

Welcome to narcissism

 

That sounds like an optimistic outcome to me. Trump probably will appear to be winning on election night and he'll declare victory and then a significant number of the mail-in ballots will be discarded for dubious reasons and some, (many?) will flat out disappear and Trump will hand wave it all away and move on to a second term.

 

Not a gotcha for you, more as an observation that nobody out there really is invested in facts

 

Well, it's a fact. A useless one, but still a fact

 

For the Iowa caucus it's a bit more complicated than that, since "winning Iowa" has a symbolic rather than substantive meaning, so there is a certain degree of subjectivity in what we decide to call "winning". Pete neither got the most final delegates nor the most votes in any alignment, so yeah, we can make the case that "winning" means getting a (very slightly) higher SDE score -as he did- but I think we can all agree that it's a rather weird metric to use.

 

I'm not touching this Iowa thing with a twenty-metre pole

 

Guys, it was a joke. I know remembering the Iowa controversy is nice because it harkens back to before hope died but it was just a wisecrack.

 

Are liberals ever on the side of facts?

 

A lot more often than Trumpists. It's not even close.

 

Riiight ... okay lol

your buddies in the media never rush to conclusions over news stories or anything. They always wait for the actual facts to come out.

 

What’s the Donald Trump presidential lie counter up to these days? Last I checked it was over 20000. To say the president has as adversarial relationship with fact would be underselling it, the man has been waging war on the very concept of truth.

 

I want to apologise to everyone for the fact that I'm posting a picture in this thread but I feel not only is it warranted it is the only real response to this.

Spoiler: picture in serious thread

 

That thing blew up a long time like Homer Simpson taking a lie detector test:

 

Are you the same person who was arguing that the Covid deaths numbers were manufactured by a big conspiracy aimed at making Trump look bad?

 

It also helps to have a person embedded in the consulting firm that programs the app used for tabulating ballots.

 

I'm a Gaullist; you probably never have read any of our press. One thing we don't do, for your edification, is invoke alternative facts - the GOP's own words for what they do.

 

This criticism means a lot coming from someone on the same side as Q-Anon, flat earthers, and anti-vaxxers.

 

I’m literally not for any of those, thank you.

But what does it matter. The labeling liberals call you whatever they want if they don’t think the same as you.

 

The VP pick of your beloved president has openly spoken against evolution and in favor of creationism.

Also, "labeling liberals"?