April Presidential Poll: Biden, Trump or ?

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

I do not think that you know what you are talking about.

Cortez is already in the nation that she was born in.

rockysmith76 is probably taking the p***. But Poe's law is in full effect. Hence the p***-taking means drinking your own supply.

[rockysmith76]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

rockysmith76 is probably taking the p***. But Poe's law is in full effect. Hence the p***-taking means drinking your own supply.

Your denialism means nothing to me! Send her back to Bolivia!

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

No thats not true, send her home!

If it is not true, then where is this home that you are referring to?

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

Your denialism means nothing to me! Send her back to Bolivia!

You know what you want means nothing to her and you're powerless to make her go anywhere right?

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

Your denialism means nothing to me! Send her back to Bolivia!

You do not know what you are talking about.

Furthermore, the Moderators really do not like it when people try to derail threads.

[Crossbow]

I sure do support Biden.

But since the Corona Crisis has consumed so much public attention, then I fear that Trump has been unduly boosted by it and that Biden has been unduly reduced by it.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

I sure do support Biden.

But since the Corona Crisis has consumed so much public attention, then I fear that Trump has been unduly boosted by it and that Biden has been unduly reduced by it.

The data doesn't suggest that at all. Biden is doing better in Florida since the start of the crisis. DeSantis ****** up by the numbers in Florida and it looks like it cost Trump.

Biden is also up in Ohio and Michigan. Trump's bump in approval rating was small and short-lived. Trump might be killing Biden for media saturation but that only helps if people like what they see.

[SuburbanTurkey]

I have the fortune of living in Mass, which will go to the Democratic candidate in a landslide as usual. Therefore I can freely vote my conscience and not grant legitimacy to either Trump or Biden, who I detest to different degrees for very different reasons.

I have tremendous sympathy for like-minded people in important states. The harm-reduction vote is one that I can easily justify, but I also see why many would consider it self-sabotaging to lend legitimacy to a party that is openly contemptuous of our valid concerns. I honestly can say I don't know what I'd do in that situation, and I would never presume to brow-beat someone facing this dilemma as so many Biden liberals are doing now.

Tricky situation for sure. I personally suspect that Biden is in a good position to win handily. People are fatigued with Trump and Biden can't compare to the intensely disliked Clinton. People will gladly accept the empty suit and be shocked when a non-Trump Republican, perhaps even more openly fascistic, wipes the floor with him in 2024.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Craig4

The data doesn't suggest that at all. Biden is doing better in Florida since the start of the crisis. DeSantis ****** up by the numbers in Florida and it looks like it cost Trump.

Biden is also up in Ohio and Michigan. Trump's bump in approval rating was small and short-lived. Trump might be killing Biden for media saturation but that only helps if people like what they see.

I sure do hope that you are correct.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

I sure do hope that you are correct.

It's all about the the electoral map.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Craig4

It's all about the the electoral map.

And quite a few people (including myself) said about the same thing in 2016 and look at where we are at now.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I have the fortune of living in Mass, which will go to the Democratic candidate in a landslide as usual. Therefore I can freely vote my conscience and not grant legitimacy to either Trump or Biden, who I detest to different degrees for very different reasons.

I have tremendous sympathy for like-minded people in important states. The harm-reduction vote is one that I can easily justify, but I also see why many would consider it self-sabotaging to lend legitimacy to a party that is openly contemptuous of our valid concerns. I honestly can say I don't know what I'd do in that situation, and I would never presume to brow-beat someone facing this dilemma as so many Biden liberals are doing now.

Tricky situation for sure. I personally suspect that Biden is in a good position to win handily. People are fatigued with Trump and Biden can't compare to the intensely disliked Clinton. People will gladly accept the empty suit and be shocked when a non-Trump Republican, perhaps even more openly fascistic, wipes the floor with him in 2024.

I have no sympathy for someone who would look at the reality of the situation, be faced with the choice of Biden or Trump and exclaim "they are equally bad". Because they're not. It's not even close.

You are faced with the following choice as compared with the current situation:

1. Incremental change for the better with the stewardship of a flawed individual.

2. Incremental change for the worse, with a not insignificant risk of significant change for the worse, with a deeply flawed individual.

3. Other, hoping other people who are less privileged than you make the correct choice.

Radical change for the better is not on the ballot.

Anyone picking option 3 is suffering from a serious personality flaw and needs to seriously consider getting a ******* grip.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by uke2se

I have no sympathy.

This much is very clear from the brow-beating libs.

Good luck hawking incremental change to the people who have been screwed over and over again by the "better things aren't possible" crowd.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by fishbob

Voting for the least bad pretty much characterizes my entire 40+ years of participation in the electoral process. But I think protecting us from government by the most bad is not a waste.

My thought too. We're not going to jump from the awful to the ideal with nothing in between. That's a revolution, not an election. If you wait until you can choose the best you can imagine instead of the best you can do, you do nothing. But the worst, "full of passionate intensity," will always act.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

This much is very clear from the brow-beating libs.

Good luck hawking incremental change to the people who have been screwed over and over again by the "better things aren't possible" crowd.

Would you rather the people who have been hurt by Trump be hurt even further then? I'm likely talking about people that aren't you, but you could try thinking about them as well.

This election isn't about you having all your issues with America solved. It's about making sure there's an America left to change in the future. I find your rationalizations to be selfish in the extreme. As I said, a character flaw.

You see this as brow beating, but you know that what I am saying is true. Stop pouting and act your age.

That last part was brow beating.

BTW, I ain't a lib.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by uke2se

Would you rather the people who have been hurt by Trump be hurt even further then? I'm likely talking about people that aren't you, but you could try thinking about them as well.

This election isn't about you having all your issues with America solved. It's about making sure there's an America left to change in the future. I find your rationalizations to be selfish in the extreme. As I said, a character flaw.

You see this as brow beating, but you know that what I am saying is true. Stop pouting and act your age.

That last part was brow beating.

MLK said it best:

Quote:

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I have nothing but contempt for these liberals who profess to share our values, but return election after election holding the most vulnerable people in this nation hostage in their "lesser of two evils" gambit.

Here come the Biden bros, telling us all to pipe down and vote blue or else the poors get a boot to the face again. I have tremendous compassion for people facing this decision in swing states and am glad I am not facing a similar situation in MA.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

MLK said it best:



I have nothing but contempt for these liberals who profess to share our values, but return election after election holding the most vulnerable people in this nation hostage in their "lesser of two evils" gambit.

Here come the Biden bros, telling us all to pipe down and vote blue or else the poors get a boot to the face again. I have tremendous compassion for people facing this decision in swing states and am glad I am not facing a similar situation in MA.

One of the characteristics of a fanatic is a deeper hatred for those who lie close to them politically than for those who are further away from them. The reason for this seemingly strange state of affairs is that the fanatic feels as if the people close to them politically, but insufficiently pure, are sellouts, traitors.

I'm no "Biden-bro". If you'd care to look, I was saying the same thing to the sour-pus Biden followers when Bernie was on top.

Bottom line: Get the **** over yourself and act like a grown up, and drop your fanaticism because it's unbecoming. Adopt the policy of "do the least amount of harm." Life isn't a sprint.

PS: MLK would be voting Biden in a heart-beat and you know it. He would likely vote Biden over Bernie.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by uke2se

One of the characteristics of a fanatic is a deeper hatred for those who lie close to them politically than for those who are further away from them. The reason for this seemingly strange state of affairs is that the fanatic feels as if the people close to them politically, but insufficiently pure, are sellouts, traitors.

I'm no "Biden-bro". If you'd care to look, I was saying the same thing to the sour-pus Biden followers when Bernie was on top.

Bottom line: Get the **** over yourself and act like a grown up and drop your fanaticism because it's unbecoming. Adopt the policy of "do the least amount of harm." Life isn't a sprint.

There's a strong "lesser evil" argument to be made for Biden. Someone gaming out the election in a two-party system can't help but realize this and act accordingly.

I live in a state that will go blue by nearly 30 points. There is no practical imperative for me to add to the pile, so there's no reason for me to pretend that Biden isn't terrible. I will vote accordingly. This does nothing to prevent Biden from winning, so the brow-beaters have no leverage.

if this country is going to start moving away from the right, as it has been drifting for decades, it will start with the Democratic party. That means holding these corporate Democrats accountable. That means not giving them a pass when they choose the interests of the rich over the interests of the common people. MBNA Biden is a servant of the rich. He's better than Trump is the kindest thing I can say about him.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

There's a strong "lesser evil" argument to be made for Biden. Someone gaming out the election in a two-party system can't help but realize this and act accordingly.

I live in a state that will go blue by nearly 30 points. There is no practical imperative for me to add to the pile, so there's no reason for me to pretend that Biden isn't terrible. I will vote accordingly. This does nothing to prevent Biden from winning, so the brow-beaters have no leverage.

if this country is going to start moving away from the right, as it has been drifting for decades, it will start with the Democratic party. That means holding these corporate Democrats accountable. That means not giving them a pass when they choose the interests of the rich over the interests of the common people. MBNA Biden is a servant of the rich. He's better than Trump is the kindest thing I can say about him.

I agree. A move to the left will start with the Democratic party. In case you haven't noticed, the Democratic party has started moving left, thanks in no small part to Bernie Sanders, Elisabeth Warren and the like. Even Biden is further left policy wise than ever before. That is incremental change.

You believe you are in a safe state for Biden, so you are privileged to vote for someone else. You are relying on those around you who are dependent on Biden winning in order to stop the American slide into fascism and in very real peril should Trump win. You are the very definition of privileged. This privilege stops you seeing those around you who are actually hurt by Trump's policies, not just annoyed on an internet forum. Instead of doing what you can to help those people, you are going to act on your privilege, and you voice support for people with the same life privilege but in less safe states.

It's almost as if you don't actually understand the seriousness of the situation. Almost childlike.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by uke2se

I agree. A move to the left will start with the Democratic party. In case you haven't noticed, the Democratic party has started moving left, thanks in no small part to Bernie Sanders, Elisabeth Warren and the like. Even Biden is further left policy wise than ever before. That is incremental change.

You believe you are in a safe state for Biden, so you are privileged to vote for someone else. You are relying on those around you who are dependent on Biden winning in order to stop the American slide into fascism and in very real peril should Trump win. You are the very definition of privileged. This privilege stops you seeing those around you who are actually hurt by Trump's policies, not just annoyed on an internet forum. Instead of doing what you can to help those people, you are going to act on your privilege, and you voice support for people with the same life privilege but in less safe states.

It's almost as if you don't actually understand the seriousness of the situation. Almost childlike.

Yes, yes, the Biden bros are quite good at twisting the arm of the hostage to make them squeal in pain.

There's never a good time to question why "lesser evil" is the only option with these people.

Failure to act boldly is worthy of scorn if the moment demands it. The right is stampeding towards reactionary politics and open fascism and the best the DNC can put up is lowering the medicare age by 5 years.

These people would rather lose to Trump than betray their corporate masters. It's plain as day.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Yes, yes, the Biden bros are quite good at twisting the arm of the hostage to make them squeal in pain.

There's never a good time to question why "lesser evil" is the only option with these people.

The system is set up to present "lesser evil" choices. It's probably one of the best systems ever devised for this purpose. There are a few other systems currently in place in other countries, but they seem on balance to be about as successful as this one.

The main problem with this system is that it still allows some kind of evil. But I don't think that's really a problem with the system itself. Mostly the system is trying to mitigate the underlying problem in human nature.

Systems have been proposed, to do away with the "lesser of two evils" problem entirely. Those systems have all turned out to be vastly more evil, inevitably more evil, than the system we currently have in place.

Electing a government is always going to be a lesser of two evils proposition. That's as it should be.

Do you (or did you, before Biden became the presumptive nominee) have an option in mind for us, other than "the lesser of two evils", within the current system? What does "the lesser of two evils" mean, exactly, in the context of your complaint? I assume you don't mean we should be trying to elect the greater of two evils.

Do you have a different system in mind, that would give us other options besides a greater evil and a lesser evil? If so, what's that system, and what kind of options would it give us?

Are you an accelerationist revolutionary progressive, and you're actually arguing for the greater evil, such that the system collapses under its own evil weight, and can be replaced by something better?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by theprestige

The system is set up to present "lesser evil" choices. It's probably one of the best systems ever devised for this purpose. There are a few other systems currently in place in other countries, but they seem on balance to be about as successful as this one.

The main problem with this system is that it still allows some kind of evil. But I don't think that's really a problem with the system itself. Mostly the system is trying to mitigate the underlying problem in human nature.

Systems have been proposed, to do away with the "lesser of two evils" problem entirely. Those systems have all turned out to be vastly more evil, inevitably more evil, than the system we currently have in place.

Electing a government is always going to be a lesser of two evils proposition. That's as it should be.

Do you (or did you, before Biden became the presumptive nominee) have an option in mind for us, other than "the lesser of two evils", within the current system? What does "the lesser of two evils" mean, exactly, in the context of your complaint? I assume you don't mean we should be trying to elect the greater of two evils.

Do you have a different system in mind, that would give us other options besides a greater evil and a lesser evil? If so, what's that system, and what kind of options would it give us?

Are you an accelerationist revolutionary progressive, and you're actually arguing for the greater evil, such that the system collapses under its own evil weight, and can be replaced by something better?

Not to dodge your valid questions, but I have to answer that I don't know. I don't know what an alternative to this Democratic-Republican death-lock on this country would look like. it is quite clear to me that it is desperately needed. Does that mean taking over the Democratic party ala Bernie, challenging it with a third party, or something much more radical? I can't say.

It's a question that a lot of people on the left are asking themselves right now, with no clear answer.

I'm not an accelerationist. Biden would be better than Trump in the immediate future. Pissing away my vote in MA is one thing, but I'm pretty sure I'd vote for Biden if I were in a swing state. I may end up voting for him yet. Much is unclear at this point.

To be honest, I think the left has a brighter future if someone like Biden were to win. Corporate Democrats are hiding their terrible policies behind #resistance shields, and so long as someone like Trump is in power, the attention is not on them.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Not to dodge your valid questions, but I have to answer that I don't know. I don't know what an alternative to this Democratic-Republican death-lock on this country would look like. it is quite clear to me that it is desperately needed. Does that mean taking over the Democratic party ala Bernie, challenging it with a third party, or something much more radical? I can't say.

I get that you don't have an answer, but at this point I can't even figure out what your question is.

You said:

"There's never a good time to question why "lesser evil" is the only option with these people."

What option besides "lesser evil" are you wanting to ask them about?

And assuming that when you say you don't know what the options are, then why the **** are you complaining that they don't know either?

Because I gotta say, "there's never a good time to ask people about options nobody can imagine" seems like a perfectly reasonable position for "these people" to take.

[The_Animus]

Regarding the "none of the above" option being a vote for Trump I think there are several examples that can show that's not necessarily the case.

1. A person who voted for Trump in 2016 chooses in 2020 to vote 3rd party or stay home. In this case by choosing none of the above they've actually removed a vote Trump would have otherwise gotten. If anything in this scenario, "none of the above" helps Biden rather than Trump.

2. A person in an overwhelmingly blue state votes 3rd party. In this scenario Biden will still win the state but some people can help bump up the 3rd party numbers to show dissatisfaction with the two main candidates.

3. More people vote 3rd party than for Trump (in such a way Trump loses the electoral college). While this scenario is incredibly improbable, it would result in Trump losing, which obviously is not a vote for Trump and does not help him.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

Regarding the "none of the above" option being a vote for Trump I think there are several examples that can show that's not necessarily the case.

1. A person who voted for Trump in 2016 chooses in 2020 to vote 3rd party or stay home. In this case by choosing none of the above they've actually removed a vote Trump would have otherwise gotten. If anything in this scenario, "none of the above" helps Biden rather than Trump.

"none of the above" in 2016 helped Trump. Why would it help Biden this time?

Originally Posted by The_Animus

2. A person in an overwhelmingly blue state votes 3rd party. In this scenario Biden will still win the state but some people can help bump up the 3rd party numbers to show dissatisfaction with the two main candidates.

Third party voters in states that were considered safely blue caused Trump to win enough of those states to win the whole shebang.

Originally Posted by The_Animus

3. More people vote 3rd party than for Trump (in such a way Trump loses the electoral college). While this scenario is incredibly improbable, it would result in Trump losing, which obviously is not a vote for Trump and does not help him.

When you have to imagine a scenario that is for all intents and purposes impossible to make it not a vote for Trump or help for Trump, you might as well have conceded the argument.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

I sure do support Biden.

But since the Corona Crisis has consumed so much public attention, then I fear that Trump has been unduly boosted by it and that Biden has been unduly reduced by it.

I support ABT -- Anyone but Trump. I'll vote for Mitt Romney over Trump if the D's nominate him. But Biden wouldn't have been my first choice this year. Four years ago, yes. And had he run and been nominated, he'd be Pres now.

I have a hard time imagining Trump having been boosted by the crisis. But then again, I had a hard time imagining anyone voting for him four years ago.

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by wareyin

I'm reminded of a few of my conservative friends on Facebook. They seem to enjoy posting obviously bad information to provoke people into correcting them. I don't quite get why making oneself look far less intelligent than one is in reality translates into a win, but they seem to think it does. On Facebook, that action is trolling. Here, we are not allowed to speculate whether or not it is, so I have no opinion on whether any particular conservative here is doing it.

I very rarely argue by YouTube links, but this one is too good not to pass on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xGa...ANnTnzkA_HMFtQ


To many trumpkins, it doesn't seem to be about trolling as such, but about deliberately derailing/sabotaging discussions where Dear Leader is criticized. Posting obviously stupid/wrong things triggers the "I can't come to bed, this is important, someone's wrong on the Internet" response in a lot of people, and voila, thread derailed.

I wish people would learn and just stop responding, but it's like people just can't help themselves.

[The_Animus]

Originally Posted by wareyin

"none of the above" in 2016 helped Trump. Why would it help Biden this time?

Are you arguing that people who supported Trump and voted for him in 2016 but don't in 2020 somehow helps Trump? By that logic all the people who still support Trump should vote "none of the above". It will help him win right?

Quote:

Third party voters in states that were considered safely blue caused Trump to win enough of those states to win the whole shebang.

I said overwhelmingly blue. The states that won Trump the election were purple or slightly blue and the difference in vote percentages between Clinton and Trump was less than 1%. There were lots of states Clinton won by a 15% margin, and several that she won by 25%+. Those are the overwhelmingly blue states.

Quote:

When you have to imagine a scenario that is for all intents and purposes impossible to make it not a vote for Trump or help for Trump, you might as well have conceded the argument.

I said it was highly improbable, which is why I listed two others before it that will absolutely occur in the 2020 election. People in contested states should absolutely vote Biden to get Trump out of office. I'm just saying that there are cases where a person can vote 3rd party or not at all and it won't help Trump win.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

I support ABT -- Anyone but Trump. I'll vote for Mitt Romney over Trump if the D's nominate him. But Biden wouldn't have been my first choice this year. Four years ago, yes. And had he run and been nominated, he'd be Pres now.

I have a hard time imagining Trump having been boosted by the crisis. But then again, I had a hard time imagining anyone voting for him four years ago.

I think if the swing states that were close in 2016 are in good shape re:C19 in November, Trump wins in a landslide.

The hard blue states are going to vote against him no matter how well things turn out. The hard red states are going to vote for him no matter how poorly.*

But come November, swing state voters are either going to feel like the feds screwed them on this coronavirus thing, or not. And it's not going to be a matter of opinion polls, or sound bites, or media coverage. It's going to purely, "are we okay? Yeah, I feel like we're pretty much okay." And even if Trump had little to do with it, the fact is that Biden will have had nothing to do with it.

I think this crisis has basically made it Trump's election to lose - if he can. And I'm not sure he can. I mean, yes, he could certainly end the world if he tried. But if he does nothing? I think that at the state and federal level the country's institutions and infrastructure are sufficient to handle this crisis, even with a bumbling incompetent in the White House. Unless the President embarks on an intentional (and competent!) program of destruction, all of the swing states will pull through just fine.

So that's my take on the crisis. If Trump does more or less nothing, he wins in November. If he makes some half-assed, ignorant, and only marginally-effective attempt to do something, he wins in November. The number of swing voters who will lose a loved one to C19 in a way they can blame on Trump simply won't be enough to override the general "we're okay; four more years!" sentiment.

---
*Ironically, a lot of the hard red states might do better than the hard blue states just due to demographic differences.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I think if the swing states that were close in 2016 are in good shape re:C19 in November, Trump wins in a landslide.

The hard blue states are going to vote against him no matter how well things turn out. The hard red states are going to vote for him no matter how poorly.*

But come November, swing state voters are either going to feel like the feds screwed them on this coronavirus thing, or not. And it's not going to be a matter of opinion polls, or sound bites, or media coverage. It's going to purely, "are we okay? Yeah, I feel like we're pretty much okay." And even if Trump had little to do with it, the fact is that Biden will have had nothing to do with it.

I think this crisis has basically made it Trump's election to lose - if he can. And I'm not sure he can. I mean, yes, he could certainly end the world if he tried. But if he does nothing? I think that at the state and federal level the country's institutions and infrastructure are sufficient to handle this crisis, even with a bumbling incompetent in the White House. Unless the President embarks on an intentional (and competent!) program of destruction, all of the swing states will pull through just fine.

So that's my take on the crisis. If Trump does more or less nothing, he wins in November. If he makes some half-assed, ignorant, and only marginally-effective attempt to do something, he wins in November. The number of swing voters who will lose a loved one to C19 in a way they can blame on Trump simply won't be enough to override the general "we're okay; four more years!" sentiment.

---
*Ironically, a lot of the hard red states might do better than the hard blue states just due to demographic differences.

Ignoring the economic fallout of C19.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by The_Animus

Are you arguing that people who supported Trump and voted for him in 2016 but don't in 2020 somehow helps Trump? By that logic all the people who still support Trump should vote "none of the above". It will help him win right?

I'm questioning your assumption that voting "none of the above" will work out better this time, since it failed us last time.

Originally Posted by The_Animus

I said overwhelmingly blue. The states that won Trump the election were purple or slightly blue and the difference in vote percentages between Clinton and Trump was less than 1%. There were lots of states Clinton won by a 15% margin, and several that she won by 25%+. Those are the overwhelmingly blue states.

The states that went purple were considered safe blue. Too many people voted none of the above, and they suddenly weren't safe blue anymore. How is it a good idea to do so again?

Originally Posted by The_Animus

I said it was highly improbable, which is why I listed two others before it that will absolutely occur in the 2020 election. People in contested states should absolutely vote Biden to get Trump out of office. I'm just saying that there are cases where a person can vote 3rd party or not at all and it won't help Trump win.

Not just highly improbable, but basically impossible. And both of your other justifications were the same that people used in the 2016, which ended disastrously. Some of us would hope that this might cause people to learn from their mistakes, while others of us are encouraging people to make the same mistake all over again.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by bruto

My thought too. We're not going to jump from the awful to the ideal with nothing in between. That's a revolution, not an election. If you wait until you can choose the best you can imagine instead of the best you can do, you do nothing. But the worst, "full of passionate intensity," will always act.

I agree. But some people will insist on cutting off their nose to spite their face.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I think if the swing states that were close in 2016 are in good shape re:C19 in November, Trump wins in a landslide.

The hard blue states are going to vote against him no matter how well things turn out. The hard red states are going to vote for him no matter how poorly.*

But come November, swing state voters are either going to feel like the feds screwed them on this coronavirus thing, or not. And it's not going to be a matter of opinion polls, or sound bites, or media coverage. It's going to purely, "are we okay? Yeah, I feel like we're pretty much okay." And even if Trump had little to do with it, the fact is that Biden will have had nothing to do with it.

Funny, I'm over here reading stories about Georgia having a budget shortfall of over $4billion because of this, but you think we're all going to be fine by November?

Originally Posted by theprestige

I think this crisis has basically made it Trump's election to lose - if he can. And I'm not sure he can. I mean, yes, he could certainly end the world if he tried. But if he does nothing? I think that at the state and federal level the country's institutions and infrastructure are sufficient to handle this crisis, even with a bumbling incompetent in the White House. Unless the President embarks on an intentional (and competent!) program of destruction, all of the swing states will pull through just fine.

We have over 42,000 dead, not enough tests and PPE and equipment yet, but our institutions (that couldn't keep Trump in check) and our crumbling infrastructure will be sufficient?

Originally Posted by theprestige

So that's my take on the crisis. If Trump does more or less nothing, he wins in November. If he makes some half-assed, ignorant, and only marginally-effective attempt to do something, he wins in November. The number of swing voters who will lose a loved one to C19 in a way they can blame on Trump simply won't be enough to override the general "we're okay; four more years!" sentiment.

---
*Ironically, a lot of the hard red states might do better than the hard blue states just due to demographic differences.

I think a lot off the hard red states haven't started to get bad yet, but places like Texas, Georgia, and Tennessee opening up early like they are will make things worse than they would have gotten.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by uke2se

One of the characteristics of a fanatic is a deeper hatred for those who lie close to them politically than for those who are further away from them. The reason for this seemingly strange state of affairs is that the fanatic feels as if the people close to them politically, but insufficiently pure, are sellouts, traitors.

I'm no "Biden-bro". If you'd care to look, I was saying the same thing to the sour-pus Biden followers when Bernie was on top.

Bottom line: Get the **** over yourself and act like a grown up, and drop your fanaticism because it's unbecoming. Adopt the policy of "do the least amount of harm." Life isn't a sprint.

PS: MLK would be voting Biden in a heart-beat and you know it. He would likely vote Biden over Bernie.

I agree. Let's just be thankful that ST lives in a reliably blue state where his vote very likely doesn't matter.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

Send her home!

I think the idiom is, "Send her back!"

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Ignoring the economic fallout of C19.

I was including the economic fallout in my assessment. Can you expand on this?

---

ETA: The economic fallout is mostly due to shutting down the economy in favor of quarantine. Come November, swing voters will mostly be thinking about how long it took for their state to get back to business as usual, and how much they've recovered. If they think they came out of quarantine and recovered okay, Trump wins in a landslide.

If they're still in quarantine, and the economic fallout for them is extreme, and they feel like Trump is to blame, Trump loses. But if they feel like their state government is to blame, Trump wins in a landslide.

So we'll see.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I was including the economic fallout in my assessment. Can you expand on this?

You believe the economic fallout will be less in red states? The arse has fallen out of the oil market. Will that alone not hit jobs in red states more?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Funny, I'm over here reading stories about Georgia having a budget shortfall of over $4billion because of this, but you think we're all going to be fine by November?

Nothing about an if-then argument indicates a belief in the if-as-fact. Try again.

Quote:

We have over 42,000 dead, not enough tests and PPE and equipment yet, but our institutions (that couldn't keep Trump in check) and our crumbling infrastructure will be sufficient?

You're arguing with a hypothetical voter about their hypothetical mood in a particular branch of an if-then scenario. I wish you the best of luck in that Quixotic endeavor.

Roughly a third of those deaths are in the New York area. New York is going to vote against Trump anyway. It remains to be seen if there's going to be enough deaths in enough swing states to put Biden in the White House.

Quote:

I think a lot off the hard red states haven't started to get bad yet, but places like Texas, Georgia, and Tennessee opening up early like they are will make things worse than they would have gotten.

Probably. Will it make things bad enough in those states to convince enough voters that it was a mistake, and that Trump needs to be replaced? If it does, then he loses. If overall those voters think the tradeoff was acceptable, then Trump wins.

Again, you can argue as much as you want against the reasoning and the sentiment. I'm just saying, this election is going to come down to that sentiment. If the swing states by and large feel like they came out of this okay, my prediction is that Trump will win easily.

Note that I'm not saying they're going to come out of this okay. It's purely an if-then proposition. If X, then Y. If the swing states feel like they came out of this okay, then Trump wins. Is my prediction.

I hope nobody here actually wants things to get worse in swing states!

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

You believe the economic fallout will be less in red states? The arse has fallen out of the oil market. Will that alone not hit jobs in red states more?

More to my point: Will voter sentiment about the oil market cause red states to go blue in November? Especially if they otherwise feel like they came through this crisis okay?

I think voters are more likely to be thinking of local conditions, rather than global conditions. I think that even in normal times, the global oil market isn't a significant influence on voting choices. This year, I think what's going to be topmost in voters' minds is the economic impact - and the impact on way of life - from local and regional quarantine rules. IF states are able to ease quarantine restrictions sooner rather than later, AND IF no horrific surge of deaths results from this, THEN Trump wins. Is my prediction. I don't think the oil market downturn will have a significant influence on voter sentiment, in red states or swing states. It'll have a YUGE influence on voter sentiment in blue states, of course. But that won't matter at all, electorally.*

---
*I dunno. Maybe New York could give Texas a call. Explain that the Big Apple is voting against Trump on account of they care so much about all those oil workers who lost their jobs because of ORANGE MAN BAD. They could even use the same script they had prepared for all the coal workers who were going to lose their jobs thanks to Hillary Clinton (WWNBP). That might make a difference in November. I predict the drop in the oil markets won't, though. It'll all come down to how long it takes to lift the regional quarantines, and how many people die before and after in those regions.

[The_Animus]

[quote=wareyin;13063240]I'm questioning your assumption that voting "none of the above" will work out better this time, since it failed us last time.[quote]

That wasn't my assumption.

Once again, I said that someone who supported and voted for Trump in 2016 but who does not vote for him in 2020 does not help Trump. That didn't 'fail us last time'. That doesn't even make sense in this context. No, it was people who normally voted Democrat who instead chose none of the above combined with the electoral college that won Trump the election last time.

Quote:

The states that went purple were considered safe blue. Too many people voted none of the above, and they suddenly weren't safe blue anymore. How is it a good idea to do so again?

No they were considered battleground states but as I already clarified for you last post it's irrelevant anyway because I was not talking about those states. I'm talking about the states that are overwhelmingly democratic such as California or New York.

Quote:

Not just highly improbable, but basically impossible. And both of your other justifications were the same that people used in the 2016, which ended disastrously. Some of us would hope that this might cause people to learn from their mistakes, while others of us are encouraging people to make the same mistake all over again.

No they weren't, you just keep ignoring what was actually said in favor of something easier to argue against. I think there is a term for that.