Trump is tied with Biden... in SOUTH CAROLINA!

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Yeah, whatever. For some reason the big industrialists, the major German corporate set, supported Hitler. And Hitler killed off the left wing - the socialists, communists, left wing intellectuals, the Jews, and the unions, but he was one of them, that he rounded up and murdered, while getting the backing of the big German corporations, because of his leftist views!!

Sheesh, you can try your theory on someone else who hasn't read basic history.

Prescott Bush would have LOVED to hear that he was bankrolling a socialist, same with Henry Ford, the guy who PERSONALLY saw to it that copies of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" were available at every Ford dealership in the country.

 

[Taylor]

Yeah, the polls are all over the place, someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong.

I have no clue what’s going to happen, one poll has Trump up by 2 in Ohio, another has him within the MOE in Nevada. ABC has Trump leading in Arizona and Florida, 538 rates them A+.

Meanwhile, Rasmussen has Biden up by 8 nationally, two weeks ago they had Trump up by 1. Harvard/Harris has Biden up by 2 nationally, which would likely be a Trump victory.

Most polls still aren’t including third party candidates. Biden’s ABC national lead shrinks 4 points when third party candidates are included.

There are still reports of firms sampling too many Dems. Someone is polling correctly, someone isn’t.

Not to mention that this is not a normal election year, with rules changing state-by-state, a much higher proportion of mail-in ballots, turnout influenced by COVID... this year should be tougher to predict.

 

[Anagram]

Not true. Most of those I listed were newer than the ones you had.

WashPo was from Nov.
Gravis was from Nov.
Ipsos was Oct-Nov.

Multi-State Polls

Gravis Polls providing state and national polling services. Gravis provides market research and polling results.

www.gravispolls.com

SurveyMonkey (11/1-11/7 2016)

2016 Alabama President - Trump 55%, Clinton 36% (SurveyMonkey 11/1-11/7)

elections.huffingtonpost.com

It looks like that's true. I saw the PPP and Feldman numbers you said matched the August polls and assumed they were all back there. Also none of them appear on Real Clear Politics or Wikipedia's lists because of the low quality of the polls. The Survey Monkey and Ipsos 50 state polls are notoriously horrible. It's not just a South Carolina issue.

 

[Taylor]

It looks like that's true. I saw the PPP and Feldman numbers you said matched the August polls and assumed they were all back there. Also none of them appear on Real Clear Politics or Wikipedia's lists because of the low quality of the polls. The Survey Monkey and Ipsos 50 state polls are notoriously horrible. It's not just a South Carolina issue.

In 2016 538 had Ipsos with an A- and WashPo/SurveyMonkey with a C-. Looks like both dropped a letter after that election.

 

[Threegoofs]

you would see similar results

however, SC with a black senate candidate, can get out the vote by the african-American community in a way NC cannot

Good point.

And remember, SC really helped deliver the nomination for joe with a big primary win.

 

[justabubba]

This is a 1000 watt boombox.

True, the batteries are only capable of supplying 12aH each and that means that this "thousand watt boombox" could theoretically only put out a kilowatt for about two thousandths of a second but if you measure using "IPP" you're good to go.
IPP is "Instantaneous Peak Power".
I call it "I piss purple" because it's a bogus measurement unit, just as "Democratic" is as meaningless as "Socialist" when you're dealing with an authoritarian dictatorship.

In essence, if anyone is talking to a person who insists that Hitler was a socialist or that North Korea is democratic, you're dealing with an eight year-old who didn't get their grape soda and Hot Pocket from Mom that morning.

essential measurement if one must size speakers to accommodate peak load

and in SC biden will be running on harrison's coat tails

Harrison and Graham are tied at 48 percent among likely voters, according to the Quinnipiac University poll. It matches a handful of recent public surveys this month that have shown the two candidates deadlocked as Graham faces the toughest reelection campaign of his career.

Graham, Harrison tied in another South Carolina poll

The poll also shows President Donald Trump and Democrat Joe Biden running neck-and-neck in a state Republicans have carried in every presidential election since 1980.

www.politico.com

 

[Threegoofs]

Billionaires and the mega rich are plowing massive sums of money into Democratic candidates for 5 primary reasons:

1. Eliminating Trump will put hundreds of billions and more into their pockets by eliminating tarriffs on their non-white foreign slave labor sweatshops.
2. Biden promised them he will not raise their taxes nor fundamentally change anything.
3. Biden will eliminate their having to provide their employees any health insurance
4. Biden will assure an endless supply of cheap immigrant labor in the USA
5. Biden will continue to permanently eliminate the middle class - eliminating their economic competitors

Other than non-white slaves making them cheap products, there is nothing most Democrats love than the super rich that the voluntarily exist to serve as servants and beggars.

They are pouring tens of millions of dollars against Lindsey Graham.

Even Graham likes Biden.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

essential measurement if one must size speakers to accommodate peak load

and in SC biden will be running on harrison's coat tails

Graham, Harrison tied in another South Carolina poll

The poll also shows President Donald Trump and Democrat Joe Biden running neck-and-neck in a state Republicans have carried in every presidential election since 1980.

www.politico.com

In the case of "Instantaneous Peak Power" you're going to be measuring cow manure.

 

[justabubba]

In the case of "Instantaneous Peak Power" you're going to be measuring cow manure.

not my experience. but then i hate blowing $200-300 speakers because they were undersized for the amp load driving them

 

[aociswundumho]

Yeah, whatever. For some reason the big industrialists, the major German corporate set, supported Hitler.

They supported Hitler because they thought the alternative to Hitler was Bolshevism, which, at the time, was a reasonable belief.

And Hitler killed off the left wing - the socialists, communists, left wing intellectuals, the Jews, and the unions, but he was one of them, that he rounded up and murdered

No, Hitler was against Marxists, because he observed that Marx was a Jew, and that most Bolsheviks were Jews. Hitler didn't like Jews. Hitler had no problem with unions per se, the unions he abolished had Jewish leaders. Again, Hitler didn't like Jews.

In the present state of affairs I am convinced that we cannot possibly
dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the
most important institutions in the economic life of the nation. Not only
are they important in the sphere of social policy but also, and even
more so, in the national political sphere. For when the great masses of
a nation see their vital needs satisfied through a just trade unionist
movement the stamina of the whole nation in its struggle for existence
will be enormously reinforced thereby.

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt

Like every filthy leftist, Hitler luved the idea of labor cartels backed by the state.

And Hitler killed off the left wing - the socialists, communists, left wing intellectuals, the Jews, and the unions, but he was one of them, that he rounded up and murdered

Again, Hitler hated Jewish Marxists and Bolsheviks. He did not hate socialists and communists as you assert above. In fact, commies were welcomed into the Nazi party:

Beefsteak Nazi (German: Rindersteak Nazi) was a term used in Nazi Germany to describe Communists and Socialists who joined the Nazi Party. The Munich-born American historian Konrad Heiden was one of the first to document this phenomenon in his 1936 book Hitler: A Biography, remarking that within the Sturmabteilung (Brownshirts, SA) ranks there were "large numbers of Communists and Social Democrats" and that "many of the storm troops were called 'beefsteaks' – brown outside and red within."[1] The switching of political parties was at times so common that SA men would jest that "n our storm troop there are three Nazis, but we shall soon have spewed them out."[1]
...

As a former Marxist in his early years, Goebbels once stated "how thin the dividing line" was between communism and Nazism, which had caused many Red Front Fighters to "switch to the SA."[14]

Beefsteak Nazi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nazis and commies are pretty much the same thing. The differences between them are trivial.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

not my experience. but then i hate blowing $200-300 speakers because they were undersized for the amp load driving them

Yes your experience because I seriously doubt you or anyone with a brain used IPP as a valid measurement.
I'd bet money you were using RMS (root mean square volt-amps) or at the very least IHF.

What I'm getting at is, those tiny speakers in that boombox would fry if you gave them more than about 10 watts continuous because the amp in that boombox when measured correctly probably only puts out about ten watts max.

I think you might have my meaning flipped 180.

 

[Paradoxical]

Show me the links if you want, but I don't really care all that much. The Nazis were fascists and purged the socialists, rounded them up into concentration camps, murdering the socialist leaders, in the early 1930s. The Nazis had the backing of Germany big business because they weren't socialists and brutally repressed the left wing, labor, socialists and communists. That's just history. Here's a summary if you want to educate yourself.

Nazism, socialism and the falsification of history - ABC Religion & Ethics

If the Nazis were so obviously anti-socialist and committed to private property, and if socialists were among the earliest victims of the Nazi party, why are some claiming Hitler was a socialist?

www.abc.net.au

here is the link

Hitler and the socialist dream

He declared that 'national socialism was based on Marx' Socialists have always disowned him. But a new book insists that he was, at heart, a left-winger

www.independent.co.uk

It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not hypocritical. The claim that Hitler cannot really have been a socialist because he advocated and practised genocide suggests a monumental failure, then, in the historical memory. Only socialists in that age advocated or practised genocide, at least in Europe, and from the first years of his political career Hitler was proudly aware of the fact. Addressing his own party, the NSDAP, in Munich in August 1920, he pledged his faith in socialist-racialism: "If we are socialists, then we must definitely be anti-semites - and the opposite, in that case, is Materialism and Mammonism, which we seek to oppose." Socialism, Hitler told Wagener shortly after he seized power, was not a recent invention of the human spirit, and when he read the New Testament he was often reminded of socialism in the words of Jesus. The trouble was that the long ages of Christianity had failed to act on the Master's teachings. (My edit...Hitler was brought up in a devout Catholic home and thought he was sent by God to exterminate humans just like God did)

On 16 June 1941, five days before Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, Goebbels exulted, in the privacy of his diary, in the victory over Bolshevism that he believed would quickly follow. There would be no restoration of the tsars, he remarked to himself, after Russia had been conquered. But Jewish Bolshevism would be uprooted in Russia and "real socialism" planted in its place

I find it interesting that society has been fooled into believing that Goebbels and Hitler were NOT socialists by the same people who lean that way today in the Goebbelsian media known as WaPo, the NY Times, CNN, MSNBS, etc.

 

[JasperL]

They supported Hitler because they thought the alternative to Hitler was Bolshevism, which, at the time, was a reasonable belief.

No, Hitler was against Marxists, because he observed that Marx was a Jew, and that most Bolsheviks were Jews. Hitler didn't like Jews. Hitler had no problem with unions per se, the unions he abolished had Jewish leaders. Again, Hitler didn't like Jews.

Like every filthy leftist, Hitler luved the idea of labor cartels backed by the state.

Again, Hitler hated Jewish Marxists and Bolsheviks. He did not hate socialists and communists as you assert above. In fact, commies were welcomed into the Nazi party:

Nazis and commies are pretty much the same thing. The differences between them are trivial.

I'm not going to keep beating my head against this wall. If you for some reason need to believe fascists and the Nazis were "left wing", that's fine. I'm happy for you. It's historically ignorant, but that's OK with me.

 

[aociswundumho]

I'm not going to keep beating my head against this wall.

In other words, you have no argument and no evidence to support your assertions.

If you for some reason need to believe fascists and the Nazis were "left wing", that's fine. I'm happy for you. It's historically ignorant, but that's OK with me.

It's historically accurate, not ignorant. I've only touched the surface here, as there's a mountain of evidence, and all of it's against you.

 

[JasperL]

In other words, you have no argument and no evidence to support your assertions.

I made my arguments and supplied several links to back them up. You ignored them entirely, with responses that effectively said "nuh uhh!!!." So what's the point of continuing? You cited Mein Kampf, which was written in the 1920s, and a biography from the early 1930s. Things changed quite a bit in 1933-1934, when Hitler killed off the head of the SA you cited, and took it over, and when he rounded up and often murdered everyone on "the left" who opposed him, including socialists communists and the unions. Hitler never lost the support of what would be the Fortune 500 in this era, because his policies were profitable for them. You didn't mention any of that, which just means you're not interested in the actual history, but in somehow attributing 'fascism' that has no real modern equivalent to "the left" versus where virtually all historians and political analysts place the ideology which is on the far right.

And if you find me an image of a Nazi scum at a rally in 2020 anywhere in the world, that moron is in a sea of fellow far right wing assholes. They're not showing up at a Bernie Sanders rally and don't count AOC as a leader, but they do show up at far right wing rallies. They're not marching in support of democratic socialist governments in Europe - those on the "left" in Europe - but marching in opposition to those parties that are on "the left."

 

[aociswundumho]

You cited Mein Kampf, which was written in the 1920s, and a biography from the early 1930s.

Yes, I cited a book that Hitler wrote for evidence as to what Hitler believed.

Things changed quite a bit in 1933-1934, when Hitler killed off the head of the SA you cited, and took it over, and when he rounded up and often murdered everyone on "the left" who opposed him, including socialists communists and the unions.

1. Leftist are inherently deranged, violent people, and they often murder each other, e.g. the Bolsheviks murdered the Mensheviks. That's not evidence that the Bolsheviks were right wing.

2. I provided evidence that commies where welcomed into the Nazi party with open arms:

"As a former Marxist in his early years, Goebbels once stated "how thin the dividing line" was between communism and Nazism, which had caused many Red Front Fighters to "switch to the SA."[14]"

The "dividing line" is so thin, because the ideologies are so similar. They are both collectivist, and reject individualism. They are both extremely statist. Economically, under both, the state controls the means of production. Note that modern progressives are also collectivist, statist, and they luv socialism.

Hitler never lost the support of what would be the Fortune 500 in this era, because his policies were profitable for them. You didn't mention any of that, which just means you're not interested in the actual history,

I didn't mention it because it's false. For evidence, I will use an actual news source from the time period, not the words of some leftist history professor:

Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on others what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for foodstuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism.

Adolf Hitler: Man of the Year, 1938

Greatest single news event of 1938 took place on September 29, when four statesmen met at the Führerhaus, in Munich, to redraw the map of Europe. The three visiting statesmen at that historic...

content.time.com

Mussolini who was a lifelong socialist, was no different:

By 1939, Fascist Italy attained the highest rate of state ownership of an economy in the world other than the Soviet Union

Economy of Italy under fascism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Like it or not, fascism is left wing.

And if you find me an image of a Nazi scum at a rally in 2020 anywhere in the world, that moron is in a sea of fellow far right wing assholes. They're not showing up at a Bernie Sanders rally and don't count AOC as a leader, but they do show up at far right wing rallies. They're not marching in support of democratic socialist governments in Europe - those on the "left" in Europe - but marching in opposition to those parties that are on "the left."

I'll address this later.

 

[JasperL]

Yes, I cited a book that Hitler wrote for evidence as to what Hitler believed.



1. Leftist are inherently deranged, violent people, and they often murder each other, e.g. the Bolsheviks murdered the Mensheviks. That's not evidence that the Bolsheviks were right wing.

2. I provided evidence that commies where welcomed into the Nazi party with open arms:

"As a former Marxist in his early years, Goebbels once stated "how thin the dividing line" was between communism and Nazism, which had caused many Red Front Fighters to "switch to the SA."[14]"

The "dividing line" is so thin, because the ideologies are so similar. They are both collectivist, and reject individualism. They are both extremely statist. Economically, under both, the state controls the means of production. Note that modern progressives are also collectivist, statist, and they luv socialism.

I didn't mention it because it's false. For evidence, I will use an actual news source from the time period, not the words of some leftist history professor:

Mussolini who was a lifelong socialist, was no different:

Like it or not, fascism is left wing.

I'll address this later.

I'll just say that one problem with using the term "fascism" in 2020 is it really means, as far as I can tell, "the economic and political systems of Nazi Germany under Hitler and Mussolini." If you read about Italy during that era, there were several major eras and the economic system changed radically with them. So I've tried and found it impossible to describe 'fascism' as an economic system, because it changes over time. It's clear that to survive, 'fascism' had to have the support of big business, and they did fine under both Hitler and Mussolini. Hitler in effect cut them in on the profits of slave labor, acquiring Jewish-owned businesses for pennies on the dollar, and a wartime economy. You don't have to look far to find examples of the major corporations in Germany first spending massively to fund Hitler's final rise to power and throughout the Nazi era, and it wasn't because they believed he was on "the left" as we define it today.

Point is the economic system in Nazi Germany clearly wasn't in any sense 'free market' capitalism, but it also wasn't 'socialized' in the sense that term is used today. The major corporations were hugely, privately profitable. That's why we refer to it as 'fascism' and not the other choices, like capitalism or socialism or communism. Fascism was different than all those and was more 'some of all those' than any one of them. What's clear is the economy and political system in Germany/Italy has little or nothing to do with democratic socialist countries in Europe or what we refer to 'socialism' in this country, and no one on the modern day 'left' shares more than superficial ideologies with Nazi Germany. It's also true that the modern day 'conservative' movement in the U.S. also shares little to nothing with the Nazi ideology. They were fascists, which is almost undefinable except to refer to Germany and Italy in the pre-WWII period and during the war. It's why I almost never if ever use the term 'fascism' because it's more of a slur in this era than a useful term.

Finally, whether fascism is on the 'right' or the 'left' isn't very important. What I object to are efforts to equate fascism and the Nazis to the modern day 'left' because it's just dishonest. I also disagree with any effort to equate the Nazis with 'conservatism' and certainly it has nothing at all to do with libertarianism. But the VAST majority of historians and political scientists place fascism on the far right, but I don't really care about that. We're not a 'fascist' country and what are better terms in my view are to describe modern far right wing movements as authoritarian or toward autocracy versus fascism, because we can all agree what authoritarianism looks like. Same thing with oligarchy. The far right tells us they have a contempt for representative democracy. We have some of them who tell us this on this forum on a regular basis.

Of course it's also true that communism isn't representative democracy. We had in this era the 'communist' dictatorship in Cuba, and a bunch of right wing dictatorships in central and S. America. So is a dictatorship left or right wing? Doesn't really matter. It's fair to say the big corporate interests were just fine with right wing dictatorships, and so was the U.S. for a lot of recent history, funding overthrows of left wing authoritarian governments in our regional sphere of influence.

 

[Threegoofs]

If anyone cares about the (cough) OP.... now new polls post debate are showing Biden up in GEORGIA by three points.

 

[Anagram]

If anyone cares about the (cough) OP.... now new polls post debate are showing Biden up in GEORGIA by three points.

If anyone cares about the (cough) OP.... now new polls post debate are showing Biden up in GEORGIA by three points.

I'm seeing a WSBTV/Landmark poll showing Biden up 2 that just came out a few minutes ago. (A substantial improvement for Biden from their last poll which had Trump +7%). Is there another poll I am missing?

 

[Threegoofs]

I'm seeing a WSBTV/Landmark poll showing Biden up 2 that just came out a few minutes ago. (A substantial improvement for Biden from their last poll which had Trump +7%). Is there another poll I am missing?

 

[Anagram]

Oh gotcha. They came out post-debate, but were pre-debate polls. Coincidentally there is the poll I just mentioned showing Biden up 2% which was conducted post-debate though. And it came out about 5 minutes before your post so I just assumed that was what you were talking about.

Following rocky debate, Biden takes lead over Trump in latest exclusive Channel 2 poll

Compare that to our landmark poll from one month ago, Trump was leading Biden 47 to 40 percent.

www.wsbtv.com

 

[Threegoofs]

Oh gotcha. They came out post-debate, but were pre-debate polls. Coincidentally there is the poll I just mentioned showing Biden up 2% which was conducted post-debate though. And it came out about 5 minutes before your post so I just assumed that was what you were talking about.

Following rocky debate, Biden takes lead over Trump in latest exclusive Channel 2 poll

Compare that to our landmark poll from one month ago, Trump was leading Biden 47 to 40 percent.

www.wsbtv.com

Bodes very well for the Senate races there.

 

[Anagram]

Bodes very well for the Senate races there.

I'm skeptical of Democrats winning runoffs in either race. Jim Martin got pretty close (down 3%) to Saxby Chambliss on election day in 2008 while Obama had what was essentially a landslide nationwide. That national movement did not really help Martin in the runoff though where he lost by 15%.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I made my arguments and supplied several links to back them up. You ignored them entirely, with responses that effectively said "nuh uhh!!!." So what's the point of continuing? You cited Mein Kampf, which was written in the 1920s, and a biography from the early 1930s. Things changed quite a bit in 1933-1934, when Hitler killed off the head of the SA you cited, and took it over, and when he rounded up and often murdered everyone on "the left" who opposed him, including socialists communists and the unions. Hitler never lost the support of what would be the Fortune 500 in this era, because his policies were profitable for them. You didn't mention any of that, which just means you're not interested in the actual history, but in somehow attributing 'fascism' that has no real modern equivalent to "the left" versus where virtually all historians and political analysts place the ideology which is on the far right.

And if you find me an image of a Nazi scum at a rally in 2020 anywhere in the world, that moron is in a sea of fellow far right wing assholes. They're not showing up at a Bernie Sanders rally and don't count AOC as a leader, but they do show up at far right wing rallies. They're not marching in support of democratic socialist governments in Europe - those on the "left" in Europe - but marching in opposition to those parties that are on "the left."

They even went to the WRONG RALLY in Charlottesville!



Why would "leftist" Nazis celebrate "uniting the Right"?
This bullsh*t revisionism falls apart at the slightest factual nudge, so much so that it's an automatic IQ test.
The moment one hears some brainless foolio muttering about how Hitler was a leftist, that's when you know
you're dealing with a person who suffers from a severe intellectual deficit.

 

[NWRatCon]

Take it for what it's worth, but so far this cycle Quinnipiac has had Biden doing much better southern whites in most of their polls than other pollsters. They have also had him faring worse than average among Hispanics. Could be noise. Could be an issue with their sampling. It's even possible that they're sampling correctly and the other pollsters are missing something, but it is a trend that has continued.

It's left Biden with better numbers than you would expect in their polls of South Carolina and Georgia and with more muted numbers where there are more Hispanics in Florida and Texas.

I think they're over-sampling or over-weighting whites. Biden is carrying white voters in many States, something a Democrat hasn't done in some time. It's consistent in many States and shows up in national polls.