Lurker > red sox 777

Because we need to prosecute the big fish first. Of course, the biggest fish may require immunity for any of his actions before he embarks on his campaign of prosecuting the other big fish.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1229871184193282048?s=21

Saying major party nominations are not for sale the same day you commute the sentence of Rod fucking Blagojevich is a bit on the nose

Blago won his election fair and square and was entitled to choose a new senator by drawing names out of a hat if he wanted. Alternatively, he could have given it to someone who once paid him $200,000 to give a speech to an organization he was friendly with. So he wasn't punished for being unethical. He was punished for breaking the rules.

And that's just not fair. Why should equally unethical people be treated differently? Until the day Hillary Clinton is put on trial, maybe the DOJ just has no business prosecuting political corruption at all. Call it DACA 2 - Deferred Action on Corrupt Activity. Like Obama told his DOJ not to investigate illegal immigration, Trump can tell his DOJ not to investigate corruption - except for high level Democrats favored by the DNC.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Jakyl25 posted...

Trump said that he just did what all politicians do and thus shouldnt be punished

Also Comey's friend prosecuted the case.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Trump has commuted the sentence of Rod Blagojevich, former Democratic governor of Illinois, who was in prison for trying to sell an appointment to the Senate. Also pardoned Michael Milken, the famed junk bond king and a former NYC police commissioner.

Draining the swamp!

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

KamikazePotato posted...

I don't think 'Donald Trump didn't commit genocide' is a good argument considering that we're in 2020. Standards of morality have overall increased since 200 years ago. The fact that this is 2020 and we're back to putting to doing things like putting people in cages is lunacy - ICE is the US version of the Gestapo and it's terrifying. It's always alarming when a society reverses course.

Trump is also doing a lot of things that aren't going to be immediately felt but are going to hurt big time in the long run. Our foreign relations are being trashed, stuff like the trade war and repeated shitting on the poor is going to reverse any progress the economy made towards improvement, and the flagrant abuse of unchecked power has shown that the checks and balances that make up the core tenets of our government mean nothing. His rhetoric has also served to normalize racism and white supremacy - like, racism was hardly 'fixed' before but now we have literal white supremacist groups marching down the street. How the fuck did we get Nazis back?

I actually agree with you that Sanders shouldn't take the money, but let's not act like Trump isn't a unique brand of terrible even among Republican presidents. He's taken the pre-existing issues of America and magnified all of them while also bringing back a few old ones. I certainly hope that if Sanders doesn't win the nomination (fairly) that you'll be voting for the winner regardless, because even if the chosen Democratic candidate isn't perfect, and will inevitably disappoint when compared to Sanders, they will be a hell of a lot better than Trump.

Unless it's Bloomberg. Fuck that noise.

Standards of morality have increased from 200 years ago? Are you sure about that? 200 years ago Napoleon lost a pan-European war after 10 years of warfare and the victors gave him an island to be emperor of. Even when he made himself emperor of France again after that and a new war started for 100 days, when he was defeated again he was merely sent to another island, this one farther from land and without a position as any kind of emperor.

In the last 100 years we've had 2 world wars in which tens of millions of people have died, the Holocaust, Stalin purging millions in the USSR based on paranoia, the Khmer Rouge, North Korea, etc. etc. etc. I think there can be little doubt that moral standards have gotten worse from 1820, not better.


---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

People of wealth tend to understand debt better. Many people from poorer backgrounds are frightened of debt, even if the interest is low.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

Actually a ton of the benefit goes to society! Both directly in terms of employment, but also in propping up the local economy by driving demand for support industries and in providing society with whatever technology is developed (e.g. Silicon Valley companies have pretty wildly changed the lives of pretty much all Americans).

Silicon Valley jobs (the good ones at least) go overwhelmingly to affluent people. So not 1% necessarily, but 10 or 20%.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Corrik7 posted...

Aren't some colleges paying like 100k for a speech from Clinton or some crap?

I think her rate is 200k+, although that's probably done for the same reasons as banks. It's a legal bribe. And now that she lost, she'll never be able to uphold her end of the quid pro quo.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

Profs that have won Nobel Prizes very well might not even be better lecturers. What America does have is a disproportionate amount of the worlds most impactful research output (and that does feed into economic growth by spinning off into productive companies).

Come now. You should know who the benefits of spinning off research into companies goes to. The 1%!

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

I think the real solutions on the college cost problem have to come on the college side. They need to be less expensive. No other country spends anywhere near what we do on college education.

Now, we have won around 2/3 of Nobel prizes in the sciences since WWII and our universities are prestigious the world over. But is that worth the obscene amounts we spend, mostly by students who don't go to grad school and really don't get a benefit from having professors in the country who have won Nobel prizes?

Elizabeth Warren receiving 300k to teach one class - that is the face of the problem.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

But I guess to return to the original question, means testing for college students is hard because unless they received an inheritance or something, college students by and large don't have the means to pay for college. You need to means test the parents. But what if a parent says their child has been disowned and they won't pay a dime- is this child still to be means-tested based on his parents' wealth? If not, is the government going to be sending agents to see if he comes home for Christmas, and if he does, arrest the family for fraud in claiming disownment for free tuition?

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Corrik7 posted...

And you better believe that is going to be an argument if Bernie's plan is actually that. And, I think that is one that is gonna resonate with the masses come election time.

Bernie has more class consciousness than to adopt such a tone deaf response. Warren did that when asked and it hasn't worked out for her. Bernie understands there is a huge gap between doctors/lawyers making 300k as a family who can't make ends meet because all their money goes to taxes, a mortgage, and student loans (in that order) and actual working class people.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Corrik7 posted...

So morally you should be disgusted at the responsible / non applicable being shafted for something they have to pay into but can't benefit from? I mean, if you are cool with anyone receiving the benefit if they paid into it.

Do you support increasing the tax rate 20% on all those that receive it and leaving those who don't untouched? I mean, I don't get that argument because the main gripe is that less well off families (let's say a 15k family income with a family of 4 that doesn't have student debt) may have to watch a well off family (let's say 300k income with a family of 2) receive like 100k in relief on student debt for their fancy law degrees.

That doesn't sit well with me morally, Chris. I mean, maybe I lack empathy to that well off family and shit, but I dunno. I think morally that's backwards.

So if you ask that family making 300k they will almost certainly not consider themselves affluent. This is where the dissonance comes from - people in the top 10% believe they are solidly middle class. Probably because they are always comparing themselves to the 1%.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Corrik7 posted...

It can't be that hard to just have income from the IRS just automatically generated eligibility or some shit on a formula.

Based on IRS tax data alone, Donald Trump would probably qualify for free tuition much of the time. Since he may have negative taxable income.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Corrik7 posted...

How much money would debt go down by just by relieving all subsidized loan interest and not putting interest on them in the future? Would you say maybe 20% or more of that 1.4 trillion number is just interest? More maybe? Idk. How much of that 1.4 trillion is actually in bad state? Probably a lot right? I dunno. I think it definitely needs to require checks though so the actual needy are getting it and not those who don't. Or at least has a requirement to earn it.

Given that students loans have very long payment durations and start accruing interest during school I would guess interest at 30-40% of the total.

The thing is that with income-based repayment it's very unclear how much of the student loans should be considered bad debt (i.e. how much will be forgiven after 20 years of paying 10% of income). It's very easy for people in power to make very rosy projections for how much money American student loan holders will make in the future.....you just have to plan based on a 4% growth rate like Jeb said he would do.

The subprime mortgage crisis was similar.....everything worked if the US economy performed very very well. Hopefully we can avoid the situation of the 1920s when we were loaning money to Germany so they could afford to pay reparations to Britain and France so Britain and France could afford to repay their debt to us! And of course it ended badly when the market realized that these loans were never going to be repaid.


---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

DoomTheGyarados posted...

States already have schools though. Lots of them. They already receive public funding and everything.

States fund their own public schools right now. They lose money on the operation. If the federal government will pay for everything the states will open lots of new, really bad schools. Depending on loopholes in the laws, they might even be able to offer kickbacks to students. (The feds sent your tuition of $100k per year, we keep 70k, here's 30k for "living expenses," classes are optional and you can't fail out, thanks for your business!

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

I mean, if the government ends up getting billed a million dollars per student to have them attend the Alabama University of Creationism, I guess there will be justice?

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

I'm not a millionaire and don't have kids but if I become one and have kids and the college situation remains the way it is now there is no way I am paying for their college out of pocket without exhausting their supply of loans first. Why should I pay for something the government will provide for free? It makes no sense.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Honestly the Dems look ridiculous for opposing voter ID.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

I dont know, I personally find Donald Trump to be pretty inspiring. Not many Republicans would drive me to vote for even Tulsi Gabbard!

I mean if you want to go with the exact same strategy as 2016, I guess that's your right. But don't be surprised with the result!

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Conversion is more important than turnout and that's why you need Bernie. Why would someone who voted Trump over Hillary be converted by Biden? He's like Hillary 2.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Also you guys should stop before Trump moves onto "some people are calling me a King."

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Weird to see Trump unironically use Red Sox arguments

Thank you! I am so honored.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Nelson_Mandela posted...

https://twitter.com/DRUDGE/status/1228705577678716929?s=19

LOL. Please do it Mike. Go spend billions on the election. We can calculate how much you spent per vote gained and maybe you can break Jeb's record!

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Mr Lasastryke posted...

with how much the US has been moving to the left in the past several years, i think it's entirely possible that the country is ready for AOC by the time she's able to run. socialism used to be pretty much non-existent in the US (lol nader). as bernie's popularity shows, that's changed quite a bit by now.

Bernie is popular because he's an honest politician, and hasn't fallen for third way center left politics. Not for socialism per se.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

The way the Dems are going Ivanka just may win 2024.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

His representation of Stormy Daniels was one of the weirdest things I've seen. What kind of lawyer goes on CNN or MSNBC twice a day for months? Especially when his client had signed an NDA!

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

In other news, Michael Avenatti was convicted of extorting Nike today. He's looking at some substantial prison time.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

Ah okay yeah your setup is different than what I was thinking. Anyway, I'm not sure that your example is in the same category of question. When I specify a model, the outputs are not binary predictions but probability distributions, whereas you seem to be both. Here you're saying that your model gives both a probability and a binary outcome. Is there any relationship between the two (e.g. is the binary outcome determined by saying that the outcome above 50% is the one that it "called")?

Another point (which you kind of brought up earlier) is that 538 is not making 50 independent predictions, though the way they display their data may lead one to believe that. The probability distribution is over sets of 50 outcomes of each state (and those results are correlated). This makes it much more likely that they'll call 49 or 50 states right than we'd naively expect viewing the races as independent.

Yes, technically the binary prediction based on the 51% model is a second model. And since the binary model was created after seeing the outcome of the trials, we must exercise some caution. Although the numbers were designed here to make the evidence overwhelming, retrospective modeling notwithstanding.

And yeah, that's another reason 538's results based on the transformation of its model into binary predictions will usually be more accurate in some sense than the underlying model. But sometimes it will be systematically wrong.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Thanks. This discussion has been interesting to me; I think that statement that 538's model would be more successful if it got fewer elections right always struck me as suspicious and I think I've worked out the problems with it.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Again, suppose the people with the Hillary 99% prediction again give a 1% chance to the next winner. And the next. And the next 100. Clearly they have a very powerful model - you just have to flip their predicted winner and loser to get the actual results.

A model that lacks predictive power cannot generate accurate predictions by mechanically applying some consistent algorithm to it.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

There's a definitely possibility that I don't understand your setup correctly, but the best estimate is 51% if I use no extra information (like in reality I would use the fact that I know a normal coin gives a 50% chance and for N flips of a fair coin the standard deviation is sqrt(N/4), so unless there were much more than 2500 flips 1% is a reasonable discrepancy).

The setup is that you don't know the actual probability distribution. You know the outcome of 100 trials and you know that someone had a model before this set of trials that predicted all of them correctly while telling you that they assigned a 51% probability to their being right in each trial. You are being asked to create your model of the situation in light of these facts. Since you have the 51% model you can use it to generate future predictions.

The reasonable conclusion is that the coin has a much higher probability than 51% of turning out the way the 51% model says is 51% likely. Notice how the number 51% is not based in any actual data. It was pulled out of thin air. The person who created that model could have replaced it with 62% or 35% and it wouldn't change the analysis one jot. By the outcome of the 100 trials (you can make it 1 million if you think 100 isn't a big enough sample to you intuitively), you know that these coin flips can be predicted to a high degree of accuracy. Because the 51% model has already done it. Even if it doesn't claim that it should be able to.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

And this is really relevant because this is analogous to 538 in 2012 - should their model be considered worse because it called more states correctly than the model itself would have expected itself to call? And I think the answer is no.

There is something being changed between the statements "Hillary has a 70% chance of winning" and "hold 100 elections, and Hillary wins 70 of them on average." I think that is where the error slips in that lead to the absurd results we're seeing in the thought experiments. Namely, the 2nd statement here subtly implies that seeing the outcome of election 1 doesn't change the probability (in the eyes of the observer) of the other 99 elections. It does change, because the 100 elections are highly correlated events. 538 gets this correct, btw.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

If you want to talk in terms of the underlying probability distribution, for this thought experiment it is 99% whatever the model predicts as having a 51% chance.

So now, should your model be considered less accurate because it predicts the correct outcome almost 99% of the time rather than 51% of the time as it claims it should?

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

The model can only estimate a probability distribution; it cant say anything to distinguish between different processes that give the same probability distribution function (e.g. flipping 100 fair coins or flipping 100 double faced coins that each have a 50% chance of being double heads or double tails). But if you have two models with even slightly different distributions, they can be distinguished in the limit of infinite data.

We don't have infinite data. Nor do we need it for our purposes.

I guess the question is, after running this experiment you get to predict one more coin flip. The model says 51% heads. What do you think the probability is? Do you think it's closer to 51% or 99%?

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

Assuming I'm understanding your setup correctly and exactly half are the slightly heads biased coins and exactly half are the slightly tails biased coins, we can distinguish those two models by using higher moments if we have enough data. In particular, you've slightly reduced the variance of the outcomes (this is obvious if you push the deviation all the way up so half of the coins are guaranteed to be heads and half are guaranteed to be tails; in that case we're guaranteed to get exactly 50 of each). In principle you could continue to look at higher and higher moments to recreate the entire probability

In the experiment we don't know that the coins are slightly biased. That is just our model.

I think with the results, it is overwhelmingly likely that the coins are extremely biased. But in the same direction as we had predicted a small bias. So our model is wrong and yet more powerfully predictive than it claimed to be.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Another thought experiment for LOTM:

Suppose I predict 100 coin flips. I predict half the coin flips as having a 51% chance of coming out heads and half the flips as having a 51% chance of coming out tails. 100 coins are flipped and the result I said was more likely is right 100 times out of 100.

Do these results suggest my model is worse than if it only predicted 51 coins out of 100 correctly? I don't think so. I think my model was wrong, but the error was that it was actually more powerfully predictive than I gave it credit for.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

If you lacked the information about the previous cards, your 1/13 prediction is better than someone else's 100% prediction. But you are still wrong, and it's because you lacked information.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

People are misunderstanding this. The Clinton 99% people were obviously wrong. They could have had a great model and a correct prediction based on the information they had, but then their information was lacking.

It's like the question, what are the odds of the next card in a pack of cards being a K? You might say 1/13. But what if the previous cards were A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 J Q? Now it's overwhelmingly likely you have an unshuffled pack - and the probability of the next card being K is nearly 100%.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

To flesh this out a little more, here's a thought experiment. It's late in the evening of election day 2012. 538 has called the first 49 states correctly. The last state to have be called, let's call it Florida for argument, is still outstanding. 538 predicted earlier that Obama has a 60% chance of winning Florida. When Florida is called for Obama, does this increase or decrease your confidence in 538's model?

Surely your answer cannot be that it depends on how 538 did in the other states, and if it did really well in the other states, then its favored candidate in Florida winning means the model is less accurate.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

LordoftheMorons posted...

No, if he claims 100 races are 70/30, he should be judged on whether the 70 candidates won roughly 70 of those races. If they won 95 or 50 of them, his model was likely wrong.

I am not sure about this. For argument's sake I am going to assume that we are judging the model on its predictive power. If 95% of the 70% candidates won, it seems the model could actually be extremely (like, 95%) predictive. I could create another model that takes the model that says 70% and averages it with 50%. My new model would say that X candidate will win 60% of the time. And it would still be 95% accurate if we assume that it's really predicting that whoever is over 50% in the model will win 100% of the time.

Conversely, suppose we had a model that was wrong 100% of the time. This model is actually 100% accurate at predicting things. Because we can construct another model that is right 100% of the time by just predicting the opposite.

I'm aware that 538 tries to mean what they say. But I'm not sure they can be criticized for getting 100% of the states correct in 2012 for instance when their model was not at that level of confidence. I guess what I'm saying is that this shows that the model acknowledges its own lack of precision, but the actual results aligning with 538's call 100% of the time doesn't mean the model is worse than if it had only "called" 90% of the states correctly. That is sort of a fictitious accuracy, rather like guessing a number between 1 and 100 and getting it exactly right - it means you were lucky.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Corrik7 posted...

Trump threatened this in just 2016.

They all had to sign that document that they wouldn't run 3rd party lol

I don't think Trump signed, did he? In any case, I think my point is proven. One person doesn't have to sign. If two people don't you have a problem.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Corrik7 posted...

What if the Dem threatened this also?

Bernie threatens to run 3rd party. Biden threatens to run 3rd party. What ya gonna do.

Put it this way - if this happened in the Republican Party, there is no way they would end up running 2 candidates. For the same reason, the Republican Party is better at governing.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Maybe Bernie should threaten to run as an independent if he really does end up with 40% of the delegates and no one else is close. I think the Democratic Party would probably buckle under and fold if he sounded serious about that.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Suprak the Stud posted...

Also true!

Weird that Clinton is one of the biggest electoral failures of all time but actually got more votes than Obama and Trump.

I mean, that's why she's a big electoral failure, right? It's not remarkable to lose elections by getting fewer votes than your opponent. To get more votes than your opponent and still lose - that's failure!

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Suprak the Stud posted...

^

There is no winning in this scenario.

If Sanders has 30% of delegates, Biden has 25%, Buttigieg has 20%, and Klobuchar has 20%, then what even is fair? It is very clear the boring moderate lane got the most votes and their voters just split on the exact choice. Sanders might have a slight overall lead but the goal isnt to have a slight overall lead but to get the majority of delegates.

The good news is this means every primary is actually important this year and you really will need to vote! The bad news is 538 currently predicts the most likely outcome is DISASTER and some chunk of the base will be mad and Trump cruises to an easy re-election.

fun

This could easily be solved by making each state winner take all. Then most likely Sanders would have a clean majority of the delegates. Alternately, it's possible 1 or 2 of the moderates would have dropped out early when they weren't actually getting any delegates from coming in third or fourth and Biden or Buttigieg would have a majority (as well as being the national popular vote winner).

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1228311415192215553

What was I saying last night? Called it!

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

Would be willing to compromise on ranked choice if each state is turned into a mini-Electoral College based on counties, with the state winner getting all of its national EVs.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

KamikazePotato posted...

https://mobile.twitter.com/deep_beige/status/1228119011973586944

Read the comment chain.

This was done in 2016. I mean Trump and Bernie share a lot of positions. As do the American people!

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!

I think Democrats are more likely to vote by mail, so it would hurt Republicans.

---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!