Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

Trump refusing to leave office should he be defeated in the November election would be severely damaging to the already-shredded fabric of America. But I'd kind of like to see this scenario of Trump's refusal to vacate play out for the catharsis of seeing Trump evicted from the White House in handcuffs:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 … leave.html

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kat6RDH-3zM/VbevSjfHY0I/AAAAAAAAFOA/ia22KbF1mD8/s1600/Luthor%2Barrested.png

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I really don't understand the support for Trump.  I understand the support for conservative politics, and I understand that he's the best bet for conservative judges and conservative-ish policies (although I'm not sure there's much conservative policy being generated during this administration - it's mostly the judges).  I understand that he says a lot of things that sound good to both conservatives and Christians (pro-life and 2nd amendment protection).  I understand that it makes the libs mad, and that makes conservatives feel good after Obama.

But 90% of that is obvious bullshit.  The reason there hasn't been any marquee conservative legislation is because Trump doesn't stand for anything.  The reason he talks about Christian values without displaying any of them is that he doesn't care.  At the end of the day, all he has is the blustering of a bully and hatred on his side.  He's abandoned any notion that he cares about anyone but white people, and he's focusing his campaign on white supremacy and trying to trick Christians.

I still don't think that all Trump supporters are evil, but I don't get following this guy.  He's not a leader, and he's not particularly good at pretending that he is.  And Republican leaders that supported him can stop whenever they want.  They don't have to openly condemn their own president, but they can stop with the positives.  Stop with open support.  Do not help elect.

Trump is doing too much damage to the Republican party, and he's not doing anywhere near enough good to recoup it.

I don't think Trump has nearly enough votes to get elected (and I'm in TEXAS), but even if he does, the Republican party is robbing Peter to pay Paul (a reference Trump wouldn't get) in a really dangerous way.  Because if they really pivot to a party for only white people, Democrats will dominate in a country of shifting demographics for decades.  They have a chance to say "we made a mistake, we sold our souls, but enough is enough" and pivot to a platform that stands for conservative politics but not white politics.  And, honestly, if they start now and really work at it, I think they could have things (mostly) cleaned up by the time the election happens.

But it won't matter.  They won't.  They feel like they're in too deep and have to see the bullshit all the way through.  Sad.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I really don't understand the support for Trump.

You know, this reminds me of SLIDERS. (Shock! Gasp!)

When Season 4 was airing, I remember sitting in class and chatting with my classmates, all of whom hated Season 4. They were confused by how isolated and setbound the soundstages looked. They were baffled by Wade's bizarre non-exit exit in "Genesis." They were put off by how our home Earth was now a Kromagg battleground that the sliders left -- yet, the very next week, the sliders liberated the world of "Prophets and Loss" with little difficulty.

They were confused by Quinn's new backstory as a Kromagg Prime refugee when "Invasion" was pretty clear that the Kromaggs hated all humans as an evolutionary deviation and could never have co-habited with humans. They were also disoriented by Maggie's suddenly non-acidic characterization and Quinn's lack of interest in tracking Wade down.

The Kromagg makeup was also extremely poor.

I insisted that it was fine. That surely Wade would be back and the whole breeding camp was just a Kromagg jibe. That we'd maybe get some flashbacks explaining Maggie's characterization. That SLIDERS had always needed an ongoing arc to bring to a huge climax in the season finale and surely this was it. That the Kromagg makeup would sort itself out.

That surely "World Killer" was a new dawn for the show. That "Just Say Yes" was poor, but not every episode could be a winner, and "Mother and Child" and "Net Worth" and "Data World" and "My Brother's Keeper" and "Roads Taken" were just speed bumps. That the season finale would be good, surely it couldn't be bad, and... and...

I just didn't want to admit that the fans had gone through so much torment and grief during Season 3 only to get pretty much the same quality and with Season 4 only being less offensive because it was less expensive and therefore less excessive. If I admitted that Season 4 was bad, then I'd be admitting that I'd invested and hoped and campaigned for nothing. That I'd backed the wrong horse.

In my case, Tracy Torme talked to me over AOL Instant Messenger and explained to me that he himself declined to read the Season 4 - 5 scripts or watch the episodes and it was fine for us both to concede that despite so much effort, he hadn't saved SLIDERS, that the show was past its sell-by date, and that it was okay for him and anyone else to move on and find something new to believe in.

Long time Republican campaigner Steve Schmidt, who is responsible for Sarah Palin, renounced the Republican party after Trump and pinned a lengthy repudiation on his Twitter account at https://twitter.com/steveschmidtses -- and showed that it's okay to admit when we've made a mistake.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

Long time Republican campaigner Steve Schmidt, who is responsible for Sarah Palin, renounced the Republican party after Trump and pinned a lengthy repudiation on his Twitter account at https://twitter.com/steveschmidtses -- and showed that it's okay to admit when we've made a mistake.

Definitely. 

https://twitter.com/lindseygrahamsc/sta … 08?lang=en

This has made the rounds quite a bit since 2016.  Lindsey Graham knew that Trump was a problem.  Then, he changed his mind.  Now he's one of Trump's most loyal lapdogs.

So what happened?  Did he meet Trump and realize that he was wrong?  Or is he playing politics?  I think Graham will support Trump as long as it suits him and drop him when he doesn't.  And I think that sentiment, more than conservatism, is what the big problem is in Washington.  We need (at least) two parties.  I'd love for another party, separate to the GOP, to rise up.  But I think our best bet is for the republicans to get rid of the two-facers and try to find their true soul.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

Long time Republican campaigner Steve Schmidt, who is responsible for Sarah Palin, renounced the Republican party after Trump and pinned a lengthy repudiation on his Twitter account at https://twitter.com/steveschmidtses -- and showed that it's okay to admit when we've made a mistake.

Just an aside regarding Schmidt’s tweet, but it’s rare to see someone mention that it’s been almost exactly 29.7 years since they did something.  He missed the slide all those years ago and has been stuck on that world waiting.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I imagine that Graham thinks backing Trump keeps him in office. We've seen such behaviour on this forum as well among our own members where a guardedly Trump-neutral figure became a fervent Trump supporter when Trump was winning, later insisting that there was no Muslim ban, that Trump's racist comments and self-confessed sexual assault weren't racist or confessional -- because he would support whoever claimed to be on his side or enabled him to (still somewhat guardedly) declare that women should tolerate sexual harassment (in coded terms like saying women-only screenings of WONDER WOMAN were unfair to men or encouraging viewership of Mens Rights Activist documentaries and deceptively edited James O'Keefe videos). He'd support whoever made his deep-seated but not wholly voiced views seem like the mainstream.

I am deeply displeased with Joe Biden, but I've come to terms with voting as a choice in who you want to be your opponent. Who do you think will be easier from whom to wrangle improved health care and federal oversight of police officers and a federal response to COVID-19 and debt relief and rebuilding America's alliances globally? Who would be easier to impeach if he abused his office? Who is likely to stand out of the way of equality for people of colour and essential but low-paid workers? The current president? Or Biden?

Which 2021 president is likely to come after you on Twitter and call for you to be harassed if you criticize his policies? The current president? Or Biden?

Andrew Yang is great. Andrew Yang is not running.

As for Tara Reade -- the liberal media was keen to attack her with charges of being a delinquent debtor as though someone who owes money couldn't possibly be telling the truth about being an assault victim. However -- another investigation that I think will stick is that Reade turns out to have a history of misrepresenting her credentials and work history specifically to present herself as an expert witness in criminal court cases involving violence against women.

The California district attorney is now forced to investigate at least six cases in which Reade presented herself as a graduate and former professor at Antioch University when the university says she never completed her degree and was only an administrative assistant. She also cited her past as a legislative assistant to Biden when working on the Violence Against Women Act when in truth, she sorted mail and had no legislative duties at all. A pattern has emerged: Reade has a history of frequently embellishing her past with Biden for notoriety. When it gave her importance and made her hirable, she praised him; now she's using her past association to smear him in the current climate. Her lawyer has dropped her, the cases in which she testified are going to have to be reopened and I think Reade's credibility is shattered.

But I have absolutely no doubt that Biden engaged in inappropriate touching throughout his life and we should absolutely hold that against him from now to forever.

1,207

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

TemporalFlux wrote:
ireactions wrote:

Long time Republican campaigner Steve Schmidt, who is responsible for Sarah Palin, renounced the Republican party after Trump and pinned a lengthy repudiation on his Twitter account at https://twitter.com/steveschmidtses -- and showed that it's okay to admit when we've made a mistake.

Just an aside regarding Schmidt’s tweet, but it’s rare to see someone mention that it’s been almost exactly 29.7 years since they did something.  He missed the slide all those years ago and has been stuck on that world waiting.

Wait wuhhhhhhhhhh?

--------------

The GOP has been in bed with lobbyists for decades.  The days of leadership from Reagan or Bush Sr. or Dole, people like that, are long gone.  They have pushed sensible people out, replacing a lobby-friendly Tom Dashell (Dem) with a (Rep) who's 10x worse John Thune, for example.  Others like Alan Simpson have left.  They have had this echo chamber in Fox News where they are never challenged.  Gone are the days when McConnell might have had to explain himself on a regular network or the old CNN.  Now they simply talk to their base only.  This was all before the tea party, which ushered in plenty of buffoons with no interest in governing.  And so, the GOP itself became this joke, full of opportunistic windbags who wilt at the first sign of scrutiny, and betrothed to special interests.  When they leave Washington, like classic foil Tom Delay, they get rich in lobbying.  What you have is a cadre of immoral spineless shrimp, and so the antics of Trump really mean little to them.  They have no values themselves to begin with, so why would his bother them?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:
TemporalFlux wrote:
ireactions wrote:

Long time Republican campaigner Steve Schmidt, who is responsible for Sarah Palin, renounced the Republican party after Trump and pinned a lengthy repudiation on his Twitter account at https://twitter.com/steveschmidtses -- and showed that it's okay to admit when we've made a mistake.

Just an aside regarding Schmidt’s tweet, but it’s rare to see someone mention that it’s been almost exactly 29.7 years since they did something.  He missed the slide all those years ago and has been stuck on that world waiting.

Wait wuhhhhhhhhhh?

TF is referring to the text of Mr. Schmidt's tweets on June 20, 2018:

Steve Schmidt wrote:

Twenty nine years and nine months ago, I registered to vote and became a member of the Republican Party which was founded in 1854 to oppose slavery and stand for the dignity of human life. Today, I renounce my membership in the Republican Party. It is fully the party of Trump.

It is corrupt, indecent and immoral. With the exception of a few Governors like Baker, Hogan and Kasich it is filled with feckless cowards who disgrace and dishonor the legacies of the party’s greatest leaders. This child separation policy is connected to the worst abuses of humanity in our history. It is connected by the same evil that separated families during slavery and dislocated tribes and broke up Native American families.

It is immoral and must be repudiated. Our country is in trouble. Our politics are badly broken. The first step to a season of renewal in our land is the absolute and utter repudiation of Trump and his vile enablers in the 2018 election by electing Democratic majorities. I do not say this as an advocate of a progressive agenda. I say it as someone who retains belief in DEMOCRACY and decency.

On Ronald Reagan’s grave are these words: “I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.” He would be ashamed of McConnell and Ryan and all the rest while this corrupt government establishes internment camps for babies.

Everyone of these complicit leaders will carry this shame through history. Their legacies will be ones of well earned ignominy. They have disgraced their country and brought dishonor to the Party of Lincoln.

I have spent much of my life working in GOP politics. I have always believed that both parties were two of the most important institutions to the advancement of human freedom and dignity in the history of the world. Today, the GOP has become a danger to our democracy and values.

This Independent voter will be aligned with the only party left in America that stands for what is right and decent and remains fidelitous to our Republic, objective truth, the rule of law and our allies. That party is the Democratic Party.

1,209

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

TF is referring to the text of Mr. Schmidt's tweets on June 20, 2018:

Steve Schmidt wrote:

Twenty nine years and nine months ago, I registered to vote and became a member of the Republican Party which was founded in 1854 to oppose slavery and stand for the dignity of human life. Today, I renounce my membership in the Republican Party. It is fully the party of Trump.

Holy Moley!  Now that's an interesting coincidence.  Let me tell ya, that's a long ass damn time, too.  29.7 years ago I was in Junior High School, my mind completely fried between tougher schoolwork, girls, sports, video games, and well, girls.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I have a friend whose mother is a diehard MAGA person.  Evangelical.  Nationalist.  Boomer.  I've always thought she was a very sweet lady.  Her husband is even older and is a very sweet, gentle, quiet man.  It bothers me that she's been swept up in all this crap.

It bothers me more that I never would've figured she would.  Maybe she wasn't a very sweet lady.

I had a long conversation with my own mother.  She voted for Trump in 2016, but it never seemed like she voted for him because she liked Trump.  I think she was raised to vote Republican, and I think she's always had an issue with the Clintons.  She's not political at all so it's more of one of those people that hates them "just because."  She's regretted her Trump vote and has listened to increasingly less conservative talk radio (thank you, true crime podcasts!), and I'm about 95% of the way getting her to vote for Biden.

I think this is a story of two people.  My friend's mom won't change.  My friend is worried that if Trump loses, it will be the end of his family.  My mother has changed.  She might vote Democrat for the first time in her life (I had to explain to her that there were huge chunks of the 90s where she should've but that's a story for another day).

Too often, we focus too much on the people like my friend's mother.  They're, in a way, brainwashed.  That's not to say that she's a victim, but I don't think they're salvageable before 2020.  I think we need to try and remember the people like my mother.  The people that thought maybe Trump would work.  The people that thought it was time to hand the job to a non-politician.  The ones who like the idea of draining the swamp.  The ones who liked the idea of a Republican during a good economy.  The ones who just didn't like Hillary Clinton and have not liked her since 1992 for various contradictory reasons.

As I've said, he didn't win by that much.  He hasn't converted many to his side in four years.  He can't afford for too many people to be like my mom.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well, the current riots are causing Trump to lose support, but not always in the way one might think - there are those who think he hasn’t done enough to stop it.  My 76 year old mother in particular has mentioned that she doesn’t understand why he hasn’t declared martial law and deployed the military.  I’ve attempted to explain how that is a slippery slope to go down (for obvious reasons), but I’m not really getting through.

It reminds me of something I saw on Tucker Carlson the other night (a guy with an off-putting, condescending manner but usually has interesting information and perspectives different from the other shows).  He mentioned how die-hard supporters will forgive a lot (lies, affairs, boorish behavior, etc), but there is one thing they won’t forgive - failure to keep them safe.  I’m actually seeing this play out with my mom, so I know he’s on to something.

1,212

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

People don't mind the military being used for crowd control when they disagree with the crowd.  Don't hear many people today complaining about federal troops being sent to the south to enforce integration.

1,213 (edited by Grizzlor 2020-06-03 12:44:51)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well Trump has claimed the "Silent Majority" approve of what he's doing.  Whether they do or not, as I've said for awhile, you'll either get people break his way for that reason, or the opposite, to Biden simply because they are sick of MAGA.

That said, I think there's a fine line there, and a return to 1960's era fear and military street presence actually does him no good.  Ask the Dem ticket of '68 or Bush Sr. of '92 how riots combined with a faltering economy did for their re-elections.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Keep in mind the below was written in 2012.  No one even dreamed of a Trump presidency then.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/8gvb … 000-v19n10

Scientist Peter Turchin's work suggests that the next state of upheaval in the US is set to hit in 2020.

Historically, the trouble has always come from people with power, and the number of those people who want the most power. There are too many political entrepreneurs who are all trying to get power, and they get frustrated, which is how revolutions start: when members of the elite try to overturn the political order to better suit themselves.

1,215

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Jon Stewart for the win

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/cu … w-1015120/

“But the how isn’t as important as the why, which we never address,” he continued. “The police are a reflection of a society. They’re not a rogue alien organization that came down to torment the black community. They’re enforcing segregation. Segregation is legally over, but it never ended. The police are, in some respects, a border patrol, and they patrol the border between the two Americas. We have that so that the rest of us don’t have to deal with it. Then that situation erupts, and we express our shock and indignation. But if we don’t address the anguish of a people, the pain of being a people who built this country through forced labor — people say, ‘I’m tired of everything being about race.’ Well, imagine how [expletive] exhausting it is to live that.”

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I am really worried about voter purges and voter suppression in November.

1,217

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

I am really worried about voter purges and voter suppression in November.

Made easier now because much of the voter registration will not happen.  That's done door to door, at colleges, or concerts, things like that.  None of which is happening.  Will be one of the worst youth turnouts ever, probably, suiting both candidates fine as neither are liked by them.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well, there's some hope that maybe Georgia was another call to action:

https://www.thenation.com/article/polit … te-recall/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/politics … index.html

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

Made easier now because much of the voter registration will not happen.  That's done door to door, at colleges, or concerts, things like that.  None of which is happening.  Will be one of the worst youth turnouts ever, probably, suiting both candidates fine as neither are liked by them.

Isn't there voter registration happening at the protests?  I haven't been to any (can't risk anything with an infant), but I thought I'd heard that there was a big push at the rallies?  I know a lot of my black friends on social media have been making a push to make sure that voting stays a part of the protests.  Which would be huge - if there's even a minor uptick in black voting from 2016, Trump is beyond toast.

1,220

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Ehh, whatever they're doing that's a blip on the radar compared to what would normally have been done in the spring, summer and fall basically EVERYWHERE that young people congregate.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

But, in your view, neither Trump nor Biden are concerned by the lack of registration?

1,222 (edited by Grizzlor 2020-06-17 16:36:32)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

But, in your view, neither Trump nor Biden are concerned by the lack of registration?

Not entirely.  In many states where voter suppression is rampant, those states disenfranchise minority and poor voters substantially.  The Democratic Party and other progressive groups have been battling there.  Basically, they purge voter rolls, often without good reason and illegally.  That means the voter must register again, and with COVID-19, who knows how difficult that will be.  Plus the Trump Campaign plans to pay thousands of people to sit at polling places and challenge every voter than can to prevent them from legally voting.  This is work that happens all the time from Civil and Voting rights groups to prevent this.

My comment was more about the youth (generally first time) voter registration that happens on campuses, concerts, etc.  That group obviously sways heavily Democratic, but as I say all the time, they do not vote.  Repeat, they do not vote.  Yes, it's a problem perhaps for Biden, but he has biggest concerns dealing with voting demographics who actually go out and vote being preventing from doing so.

2018 say record midterm turnout by both parties, and the Republicans lost badly.  Trump has literally said, forget registration, he wants to stop people from voting period, or he will lose.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

But, in your view, neither Trump nor Biden are concerned by the lack of registration?

The lower the voter turnout, the better. You think the two major parties want full voter engagement? They would be terrified of it.

The ONLY way Biden wins this fall is because people are so disenfranchised. He is such a shitty choice that many younger voters will peace out and leave the voting to the Boomers who think he's still relevant.

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Transmodiar wrote:

The ONLY way Biden wins this fall is because people are so disenfranchised. He is such a shitty choice that many younger voters will peace out and leave the voting to the Boomers who think he's still relevant.

I mean I just don't agree with this.  I'm no fan of Biden but he's got so many things in his favor.  Trump's base is nebulous at best because people assume there are 60 million Evangelicals that are loyal to him, but that's not true.  His "base" from 2016 was evangelicals, fiscal conservatives, and people that straight-up hated Clinton.  Two-thirds of that group is wavering at best.  The economy is floundering and will only be worse in November so the fiscal conservatives aren't going to rush out for four more years of that, and Biden's own right-leaning ways help with that.  And I don't think people hate Biden the way they hated Hillary.  The best they can come up with is that he's sleepy.

Then there's the math.  Biden has 183 electoral votes today locked up.  No question.  Done.  The west coast and Illinois and New England are blue, period.  You have your Minnesotas and your Nevadas and your Virginias and your Colorados that are probably blue.  It essentially gets him to Hillary's 232 without breaking a sweat.

Trump?  He has the heartland and Dixie, but those states barely add up to more than California alone.  Even Texas is borderline purple (and if he loses Texas, both he and the Republicans are done for a very long time).  Everyone laughs at Texas as a republican stronghold, but I live here and I don't know a single person who's going to vote for him.  The cities are overwhelmingly blue.  And the demographics are changing.  The farmland is overwhelmingly Trump, but steer don't vote.  I think Texas goes blue in 2024 or 2028.  And if it went blue in 2020, it wouldn't surprise me.

But let's say he gets Texas.  And let's say he gets Ohio, which could easily be a battleground state.  And let's say he gets Georgia (which could easily flip with all the activism happening there) and Iowa.  Even then, he's barely at 200.

It leaves Arizona, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Florida as your battleground states.  Trump won in 2016 because he won all those states.  He won North Carolina by 150,000.  Arizona by 100,000 votes.  Florida by 100,000.  Pennsylvania by 50,000.  Wisconsin by 20,000.

So he needs every one of those people that voted for him to vote for him again.  He might be able to lose one of those 5 and still win, but he probably needs a full sweep.  During a pandemic he made worse.  During a recession.  After four years of doing nothing he said he'd do.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

How much does voter suppression warp Slider_Quinn21's calculations?

(I don't know.)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

232 is what Hillary got.  I think that's Biden's minimum.  Voter suppression has been happening forever and I don't think there's enough voter suppression to impact that.

I think it's easier to suppress voters in North Carolina, Florida, and Arizona than Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  If it shakes out like that, Biden wins.  Of course, if it shakes out the opposite, Biden wins even bigger.

Voter suppression is one thing, but Trump's doing his own version of that.  He's hemorrhaging voters left and right whether it be on the economy (which is flailing and will get worse), the courts (where "his" Supreme Court keeps choosing against him), social issues (if he had very many minority voters left, they're going away) and as TF said, safety issues (Trump has looked very weak from a law and order standard).

Trump would have to actively work to suppress Biden's voters.  Biden doesn't have to do anything to suppress Trump voters - his own failings are doing that for him.

1,227

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

So you cannot ignore the polls, even though many were wrong in 2016.  Well, the national ones were not that bad, state polls were.  The Trump undercount in the state polls still happens, because white non-college educated voters tend to be more difficult to keep on the phone and answer the pollster's questions.  In 2016, pundits argued they were just embarrassed to say Trump, but that is not an issue now, he's the damn President.  National polls though are much more accurate because the huge swath of demographics can be fulfilled because they can hit a much wider sample size. 

If you look at the national polling, Biden is now on average up 8-9 points and growing.  He's been consistently in the lead with likely voters since 2019.  Yes, Clinton won the popular vote but only by 3.3%.  If Biden were to win that by even 5-6% though polling indicates a higher gap, there's simple little possibility for Trump in the Electoral College.  The reason for this is mainly with probability calculations, but to be 6+% up, it's just very difficult.  Hell at 3% he won three critical states by less than 100,000 votes in total.

One of the interesting sites I look at was created by a college freshman, Jack Kersting, https://projects.jhkforecasts.com/presi … -forecast/  He uses polling as well as Fundamentals (partisan lean, economic indexes), Expert's Ratings, and State Similarity Regression (demographic changes) to make a forecast. 

Then there is the modern expert, Five Thirty Eight, https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po … national/, which does a great job at tracking all of the national and state polls.

Finally we have Real Clear Politics, https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll … _map.html, who have an interactive map and do the gold standard in polling averages.  RCP is also very selective in what polls it includes in the averages.

With all of that said, to chime in on what SQ21 calculated, I have it Biden 222 Trump 125 right now in terms of absolute guaranteed votes.  What's left?

Let's take states that are not "in the bag" yet, though likely, for one or the other....Iowa (T), Minnesota (B), Texas (T), Georgia (T), Nebraska 2nd (T), Michigan (B).   Yes I know Michigan went for Trump in 2016, but ALL of the polling is totally to Biden by a highly safe number. 

That's now Biden 248 Trump 186 with 104 votes remaining, and Biden only needing 22.  The states included are Arizona, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Maine's 2nd district. 

There's many scenarios, but if Biden takes PA, he's 2 votes shy.  While the Maine 2nd would tie the two of them, Biden would lose the tie breaking house vote (it's done by state delegations and that's unlikely to favor him after 2020 election even).  So he then needs only one other state, likely to be AZ, WI, FL, or NC.  I don't see Ohio flipping. 

If I had to estimate where the race is right now, I'd say 333-205, but again, it's tough because the state polling might be off again.  Look a LOT can change, but you cannot ignore trends.  The trend since 2017 has been mass turnout and move away from Trump.  The GOP has been steamrolled all over the country under his leadership.  James Carville predicts a blow out, which I'd adore but not counting on.  Biden in like polls is doing far better with suburbanites, independents, women, and even high school only white guys than Hillary. 

Now in terms of Transmodiar's lamentations, I'll go back to Carville.  Bernie ran a good campaign, but in the end, the rank and file of the Democratic Party voting against him.  He only had about 30% support in most of the country.  And if you get away from the coasts, it just was not there.  Like Trump, he opted to be populist, and that just doesn't have a big enough tent.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well I think you have to look at a couple things with Biden:

1. His campaign has been much more friendly with the Sanders campaign than Hillary's was.  I've said it before - Hillary should've run the primary by sucking up to Bernie.  She could've essentially said "I love Bernie, but the people are voting for me.  I have to listen to them" and she would've easily won.  Whether you want to say it was rigged or not, she had essentially won the primary without having a single vote cast.  She'd been working on it for 8 years.  It was in the bag.  Why she ever went dirty against Bernie was beyond me.  It cost her votes.  Bernie Bros may still be mad now and may hold it against Biden, but Bernie (and Yang) have been out in front of the campaign.  I think by November, the party will be more unified than it was in 2016.

2. I'm hoping (fingers crossed) that people see Biden as a hard reset.  Rewind the clock back to 2016.  Use the typical American theory that a popular president's VP will run after his term is over, and assume that Biden ran in 2016.  And just feel normal.  They can even pretend Obama is there while it's happening.  It really doesn't matter.  It also represents a hard stop because he's already said he was only going to be a one term president.  Get a female VP for the first time and then have an open race in 2024 (with the female VP being the leader in the clubhouse for that race).

So whether you see Biden as being too conservative or too old or too boring or too creepy or whatever, I think people will just see him as "Not Trump" when November rolls around.

1,229

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It's an election for/against Trump.  As long as Biden proves he's not totally senile, he's going to be the safe, normal anti-Trump choice.  From there it's about who actually goes ahead and votes.  Biden does not have enthusiasm on his side, just excuse Trump anger.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Biden having things "locked up" in many states doesn't mean he's a good candidate. He's a shitty candidate for reasons I've mentioned upthread, and younger voters - the kind that might be influenced by a registration drive - aren't going to turn out for him. They just aren't - look at how big of a disparity there was between Sanders' perceived influence among young voters and how many actually voted. Younger voters see how Sanders was treated (twice) and prefer platforms like Andrew Yang's. There's nothing of substance in a Biden presidency for them. If they turned out, they might vote for a third party candidate, which would hurt both party's bottom line. So they're happy to sideline half the electorate and pander to the partisans. That's what I mean.

Biden IS totally senile. Biden IS one of the key reasons why our society has such bias and animous toward the black community. He's not a good guy, and I'm absolutely not interested in him as a candidate, or in a "hard reset." Younger voters want more than status quo, they want something legitimately progressive. We're not getting it, and people are tired of waiting four years for the next "savior." Obama was a shit-show in his own way; just because he was more erudite and polished doesn't mean he didn't commit war crimes, or shaft the black community. It's time for some real change, damn it.

Recall suggested I listen to the "West Wing Thing" podcast recently - it's a recap podcast where comedians Dave Anthony and Josh Olson watch the show. I highly suggest you tune in. Listen to the pilot, listen to the season two premiere if you want insight into the Hollywood writing process, and then skim ahead to season three. I never watched TWW but it turns out that's irrelevant because these two are highlighting the current dystopic landscape and drawing parallels to the "Camelot"-style reverence people have for a show steeped in misogyny and inaction. Definitely worth a listen.

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Biden is not the candidate I wanted.

But Trump has to go.

1,232

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Klobuchar called Biden today, suggested he choose a woman of color in this moment, and dropped from consideration.

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1273803046687047681

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Optics do not translate to good leadership. And anyone who is selected in that way will immediately (and correctly) be called out for tokenism.

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

With Biden, we won’t really know who is president.  Even if he wins, it’s not going to be him; there’s no way he can handle it.

I don’t agree with the blind “anybody but Trump” either.  There are always worse people.

1,235

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

President by quorum is better than by quack!

1,236 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2020-06-19 06:56:36)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

TemporalFlux wrote:

With Biden, we won’t really know who is president.  Even if he wins, it’s not going to be him; there’s no way he can handle it.

This is actually part of the reason I think it would work.  Biden can essentially be the "CEO president" that his voters were expecting/hoping for from Trump.  Where something happens and the president could send the appropriate party (a cabinet member, the vice president, etc) to handle it.  As a one-term president, it would be more about a) stablity and b) getting experience for the next generation of Democrats.  The Democrats weren't really able to do that because everyone knew that Hillary was going to win the 2016 nomination.  If you want Yang in 2024, getting four years of experience in a Biden administration helps (I don't know if he even wants that but it would).  If you want Kamala, being VP or attorney general will help there.  If you want Mayor Pete, he could get the federal executive experience that people thought he was missing.  Inexperience was the downfall of most of the candidates in 2020, and a hands-off president could give big time experience to a ton of people.

It'd be exactly like the Trump administration except it'd be smart people running things instead of Trump's kids.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Biden either.  He's not my choice.  But I think he'd at least get the country back on the rails.  And that's all I'm really looking for.  I like Yang quite a bit, and I think Biden winning makes it *much* more likely that Yang can win in 2024.  And that applies to pretty much every 2020 Democratic candidate under 70.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm more aligned with Slider_Quinn21, although TF and Transmodiar are right to note that we shouldn't confuse being against Trump with being for anything meaningful or worthwhile.

I've posted this earlier, but North Americans citizens generally expect their political candidates to represent them when Slate.com suggests viewing candidates as choosing an opponent.

Slate.com wrote:

No one candidate will ever be a perfect leader in any movement’s eyes. Activists accept they’ll have to put political pressure on—and occasionally argue with—whoever wins the election.

The question, for them, is which elected official they’d rather be up against, considering the respective communities the candidates are beholden to and their respective abilities to be swayed. Would Ocasio-Cortez rather push Trump to halt deportations, or Biden? Would #MeToo activists rather mobilize for sexual harassment legislation under a Trump administration, or a Biden one? It’s not about accepting a lesser of two evils. It’s about choosing an opponent.

The choosing-an-opponent framework doesn’t require any moral concessions or wavering on values, because there’s no wholesale acceptance involved. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 … -2020.html

Also, The Atlantic observed that Biden's concept of the presidency is a step back to what the role was designed to be: "president" was devised as a deliberately unthreatening term for a world leader when most world leaders were kings or emperors. A president, in the American framework, was meant to preside over national affairs, set the tone and delegate appropriately and accordingly. A president was not a ruler but rather a temp. A contract staffer whose job was to be a figurehead for a broad coalition of often contradictory interests. This eroded severely under Bush II and Obama acquiring executive powers that Trump inherited. Biden's vision for his presidency is clearly one where he is the ceremonial leader of a chosen team of staffers and advisors that he would like to include Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Andrew Yang, Gretchen Whitmer and maybe Stacy Abrams.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … ng/609769/

I'm not a Republican, but like most Republicans who aren't Trumpists, I could tolerate Biden. He's the opponent I'd want to have if seeking universal basic income and health care, police reform, an end to student debt, a sensible federal response to COVID-19, investment in the UN, NATO and the World Health Organization -- I could live with choosing him as the alternative to the worst. Joe Biden. The best choice. Also the only choice. I had to check to be sure; Yang seemed smart; he dropped out. A presidency of nothing is preferable to a presidency of malevolence.

1,238

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The erosion of that view of the president started much earlier than Bush or Obama.  Teddy Roosevelt started the trend and Woodrow Wilson institutionalized it.

1,239

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

This is what happens when your President decides a national health crisis no longer is worth his time. 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ea4P4DNXQAEPtJx?format=jpg&name=small

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It isn't a matter of it being worth his time.  The coronavirus affects his chances at re-election.  The lockdown hurts the economy, which is his number one talking point.  With a pandemic, he can't hold his rallies...which is one of 1) his favorite things to do but 2) his best way to stir up support and get people excited to vote.  Them there's the idea that his major followers either don't believe in the virus at all or don't believe it's that big of a deal. 

So even if Trump were a good president who wants what's best for people, it's counter to his entire re-election campaign to do anything about it.  I'll give him credit for going along with the lockdown on any level, but he's essentially hoping to just ride out the storm and pretend that if he acts like things are back to normal, they'll be back to normal.

1,241 (edited by ireactions 2020-06-20 14:09:26)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

So... nationally, police officers have revealed themselves incapable of addressing any situation without pointless brutality and violence upon unarmed individuals to the point of attacking a 75 year old man trying to return a helmet to them. Even when these police are aware that their actions are being filmed and broadcast globally, they have no ability to behave otherwise.

This is a deeply uncomfortable thing for me to say because I have friends who are like the cast of BROOKLYN NINE NINE. Individually, I know police officers and police force staffers who are like Jake and Amy. Anecdotally, every police officer I've met has helped me with the competence and ability of Holt and Terry. I have always been treated with kindness and care by police and law enforcement workers, some of whom are reading this.

Saying "defund the police" feels like I'm attacking my friends' livelihoods and all I can say is that the cops and cop-adjacent people I personally know are the solution, not the problem. They are good individuals often in good offices that exist within a badly and systemically corrupt institution where police seem answerable to nobody thanks to qualified immunity and a culture of internally protecting any officer from murder and assault charges.

The cops I know aren't deranged thugs who got a badge and a gun to bully with impunity, but they're not all cops. Every cop I like is proving to be an outlier.

I cannot stress enough in the name of Quinn's cat, Wade's teddy bear, Rembrandt's car and Arturo's bow tie that the opinions of ireactions are not those of Sliders.tv.

1,242

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The police are just part of a greater problem in this society.  We have most of the worlds guns, legal and illegal, most of the "illegal drugs," the most expensive and least productive health care, the worst income disparities, the most prisons and prisoners, the most overpriced colleges, yada yada yada.  Both good and bad cops are forced to navigate this mess, same as the rest of us. 

They used to claim it was the breakdown of the family, but no, it's privileged stressing the other 98% into stressful horror that they have to call their lives.  It used to be forces were split up, but almost all forces have lined up this way.  This began with Reagan, with the need to break unions, public education, public healthcare, and the like.  It got worse.  Bush II sold whatever public institution they could, as if investors HAD to be involved with every fucking second and ounce of our lives.  This is where we've gotten now.  Corporations are unstoppable, while hedge funds and banks are allowed to rob us blind, and if they falter, we pay to bail them out. 

Climate Change will only make these concerns more heightened, as will pandemics (this wasn't the last one we'll see).  We have allowed corrupt corporations and governments to destroy our ecosystem.  The Earth will not go quietly, it will purge us too one day.  Action must be taken. 

All of this angst cannot be fixed overnight, and it won't be.  It will be a struggle for vigilance.  The first step is to rid the world of the most corrupt, morally destitute, emotionally unhinged, and unintelligent President of a Democracy in human history, before it's too late.  Hell even Putin yesterday "said" that Trump is losing his grip, and they (Moscow) will have to start thinking about the future.  He must go, he must go.  I realize the people who may succeed him are not perfect, and will still have to battle with an opposition party who will refuse to compromise, but when the food is rotten, toss it first before trying to clean the fridge.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

This time during the last election, Hillary Clinton seemed to have an unassailable lead and Trump looked certain to lose. Now it's this time during this election and it looks like Biden has a sizable lead. A few months ago, Biden looked unlikely to become the nominee. Political fortunes can change.

Trump's campaign is in shambles. Transmodiar called Trump a master showman. That might have been true in 2016, but not any more. Trump's clumsy performances at White House briefings and to cadets and at a Tulsa rally where he anticipated 1,000,000 attendees and got about 6,200 show that his showmanship is gone. He is flabbergasted, addled, depressed and dull. His performative bravado is broken; his supporters are deserting him; his polls are so low that any margin of error is fundamentally irrelevant.

I don't know how optimistic we should be that Trump is out. Clinton looked certain to win. Admittedly, Biden has a lead well above Clinton's and Clinton was fundamentally disliked by Americans. Fairly or unfairly (and Slider_Quinn21 and Transmodiar would say it was very fair), Americans did not trust Hillary Clinton, didn't want her as their president and saw Trump as either the lesser of two evils or a protest vote. And fairly or unfairly, most Americans like Joe Biden. I didn't want Joe Biden to be the nominee and I still find myself liking him on a personal level despite my better judgement. (He keeps doing all the stuff I ask him to do in my fan mail.)

Trump said in a FOX interview of Biden, "He’s gonna be your president because some people don’t love me, maybe." Right now, I don't see the "maybe" part except Democrats have been here before in this position where victory seemed so certain and then they were utterly destroyed.

1,244

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Biden has a 10 point favor-ability above Hillary.  His leads in demographics like white women, college educated, over 65, etc, etc, are literally light years above Hillary.  Trump is minus 12-15 on almost every question polled.  In 2016, the winds of change, particularly in the Rust Belt, were slightly with Trump.  This time it's a gale force blast against Trumpism.  You've got COVID-19 blowing up again in the Sun Belt.  Biden gives speeches that only MSNBC runs, while Trump is lambasted by social media ads from Republicans against him.  If this keeps up, Trump will probably quit and run away, which is his M.O. over 50 years of business.  Bankruptcy after bankruptcy.  If he has to choose between being a quitter and being perhaps history's biggest loser, he'll chose to quit.  That's why he's had Bill Barr attempting to erase "Individual 1" from the Michael Cohen case, so that Trump is not indicted the minute he's out of office.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I am amused by the current narrative.

The George Floyd protests begin in earnest on June 3.  People are on the streets rubbing shoulders for 7 to 14 days straight (and still sizeable today).  The optics of the protests indicate it is largely young people taking part.  We are told by the media and medical experts (including Dr. Fauci) that these protests are more important than the virus.

June 25 (14 to 21 days from the height of the protests), a record breaking spike of COVID cases covers the US causing renewed but so far limited shut downs.  The news media and medical experts (like Dr. Fauci) tell us the spike is mostly in younger people, and they state the cause was relaxed standards in Republican states that led to young people going to bars and restaurants.  We are told it has nothing to do with the protests.

I really hope Dr. Fauci realizes his credibility is now shot to hell with an enormous amount of people (and I base that on my personal circles - many of whom are no longer even believing the reported infection count numbers).  Even some of my highly liberal, progressive friends are now saying “fuck it - let’s just go back to normal and let the virus do what it’s going to do.”

You don’t get to play politics with science and expect people to still believe you - a criticism that I believe was also laid at Trump’s feet.  Either it’s okay to run through the streets with your tongue hanging out or it’s not.  And the people in my circles are beyond furious that we spent three months in quarantine prison and have risked a new Great Depression just to see that sacrifice thrown away for the sake of largely uncontrolled screaming, looting, burning and killing.

And no - they don’t hold Trump and the Republicans as heroes because they did absolutely nothing to stop this virus resurgence.  They equally hate Biden and Democrats for stoking the community spread.  The people are not inspired - they want a new wrecking ball to politics.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It looks like protestors were wearing masks. Masks are effective in restricting droplets to the wearer and prevent them from infecting others. Marching doesn't require an exposed face whereas consuming food and drink does. Protests are outdoors. Bars and restaurants are enclosed spaces of recycled air where droplets circulate whereas in the outdoors, they're swept away. That said, that Columbia study was done this month and the research is ongoing.

**

I'm appalled by looting and rioting and I certainly don't consider that erased by police officers firing tear gas and pepper spray and bean bag rounds on hospital workers and pregnant women in cars and people on their front porches and throwing fists at harmless senior citizens. But looters and rioters can be arrested and tried whereas police officers have myriad avenues to dodge consequences from assaulting people even when it's happening on live TV.

I don't have sympathy for people who use a social justice outrage to act on their avarice and violent impulses. But the balance of power isn't in their favour and they're not breaking a sworn oath to serve and protect, so I have less outrage even if they're just as criminal.

1,247

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Most of the looting and vandalism is by infiltrators, be they alt-right goons or undercover cops.  Most of the violence has been perpetrated by the police.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I remember a story from a couple of weeks ago.  Jewish families wanted their kids to play in a New York park, but Mayor DeBlasio had chained the gate shut to prevent it.  These Jewish families see massive groups of protestors out and about, so they no longer accept the premise that they will be treated differently.  The Jewish families cut the lock off the gate, and they let their children play.

Mayor DeBlasio orders the gate welded shut to prevent the Jewish families from doing it again.

https://www.jta.org/2020/06/15/united-s … open-parks

Do we remember the man in Colorado who was arrested in a park because he was playing with his daughter?  No one else standing near them.

https://abc7news.com/social-distancing- … r/6086163/

And this doesn’t even start to get into the myriad of reports of shaming and even threats against people in some states just because they were outside.

Not all of the protestors are wearing masks; I’ve seen the footage too.  It’s also unrealistic to believe they are the one group in America who would 100% obey that guideline.

What I’m saying here - keep it consistent.  Treat everyone the same because the virus doesn’t care who you are.  You don’t have to agree with the opinions, but people are watching the double standard and coming to their own, logical conclusions based on what they see as opposed to what they’re told.  There’s a county in Oregon that now exempts black people from the mask requirement - they were afraid it would lead to racial profiling.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lincoln-co … sk-policy/

So...blacks are immune to the virus, I guess?  What?!

As for law enforcement, I’m not going to fully delve into that for professional reasons; but if people want to defund the police, I say give it a try for a few months.  Let’s see how everybody holds up.  Maybe it will create the utopia humanity has strove for throughout recorded history.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

Most of the looting and vandalism is by infiltrators, be they alt-right goons or undercover cops.  Most of the violence has been perpetrated by the police.

Which has as much evidence behind it as saying Antifa and the Sunrise Movement are orchestrating it.  We can spin conspiracy theories all day, but the truth is that criminal elements (no matter their race, religion, gender or creed) saw their opportunity and seized it.  And on all news channels, those criminal acts received as much (or more) coverage as the peaceful assemblies.

1,250

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

In regards to the protests spreading COVID, I'm sure there's some of that, but did Florida, Arizona, South Carolina, Texas, etc. see the bulk of them?  Nope.  The states opened with few restrictions and the political leaders basically told people, it's over with, don't worry about it anymore.  If you look at it state by state, the reality is, once again, the virus grew from surges in low income, often migrant workforces who are forced to work and live in unsafe conditions (for COVID), and have no healthcare access.  From there, it spreads and spreads.  Many of them are indeed young.  Most of the spiking states are either on the Mexican border, or rely on migrant labor like Florida.  Like the Iowa meat processing industry, the state's simply didn't do squat to protect those people, and now they're paying the price. 

As for Fauci, I mean, he's not a politician, and he DID say the protests could be an issue.  It's not his job to say, well this will spread the virus so shut it down, because he and everyone else knew that wasn't going to happen. 

Anyway, my point remains that the protests are not what has caused a spike in the virus.  Just look at California.  The county that has seen massive, I mean massive spikes?  Imperial County right on the border.