Election 2020

[David Horn]

(09-29-2020, 05:49 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-29-2020, 03:08 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Why do they call them ‘tell all books’ if they come out every few days?  If one of them really told everything, would you need the others? 

The latest book Rachel is featuring is by Andrew Weissmann, a member of the team that was supposed to do the Mueller Report.  Supposed to.  It seems to tell more about why nothing could be done if you were very aware that the subject of the investigation could fire the investigators.

The consensus was that sometimes it is your job to step on the proverbial landmine.

I guess it doesn't really matter. When they caught Trump in further wrong-doing the Republicans just exonerated him. They would have done that even if the Mueller Report had been fully told. So, it's up to the voters to make the decision to fire him, unless Trump usurps power by getting "rid of the ballots."

If this is ever going to stop, a lot more than public exposure will be needed.  The bankers avoided their perp walk in 2008, and we got more bad behavior from them almost immediately. Now it's Republicans, and the same mistake should be avoided at all costs.  Some Trumps need to go to jail, along with a few others, and the GOP needs to be voted out in total,  though that's impossible I know.

[David Horn]

(09-29-2020, 05:49 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-29-2020, 03:08 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Why do they call them ‘tell all books’ if they come out every few days?  If one of them really told everything, would you need the others? 

The latest book Rachel is featuring is by Andrew Weissmann, a member of the team that was supposed to do the Mueller Report.  Supposed to.  It seems to tell more about why nothing could be done if you were very aware that the subject of the investigation could fire the investigators.

The consensus was that sometimes it is your job to step on the proverbial landmine.

I guess it doesn't really matter. When they caught Trump in further wrong-doing the Republicans just exonerated him. They would have done that even if the Mueller Report had been fully told. So, it's up to the voters to make the decision to fire him, unless Trump usurps power by getting "rid of the ballots."

Because Trump is incorrigible, we're facing an existential crisis.  A less disreputable adversary would make this just another high stakes election.

[Eric the Green]

(09-29-2020, 11:02 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-29-2020, 05:49 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-29-2020, 03:08 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Why do they call them ‘tell all books’ if they come out every few days?  If one of them really told everything, would you need the others? 

The latest book Rachel is featuring is by Andrew Weissmann, a member of the team that was supposed to do the Mueller Report.  Supposed to.  It seems to tell more about why nothing could be done if you were very aware that the subject of the investigation could fire the investigators.

The consensus was that sometimes it is your job to step on the proverbial landmine.

I guess it doesn't really matter. When they caught Trump in further wrong-doing the Republicans just exonerated him. They would have done that even if the Mueller Report had been fully told. So, it's up to the voters to make the decision to fire him, unless Trump usurps power by getting "rid of the ballots."

Because Trump is incorrigible, we're facing an existential crisis.  A less disreputable adversary would make this just another high stakes election.

Yes, and I extend that description of "incorrigible" to today's Republican Party.

The Republican Party of Nixon's time was less incorrigible, and so was Nixon, so we got through it. Now it's different.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-29-2020, 10:42 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-29-2020, 08:17 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I don't often bother with the anti Trump adds, but Sully did one well, covered lots of bases.

It's sad that it takes Vote Vets and the Lincoln Project to get ads with teeth in them.

Perhaps, but I think the idea is that as long as somebody is doing attack adds, Biden can just look presidential.

[Eric the Green]

I am obsessed with following the polls, and I hang on every decimal point. I am an elections freak, as if you didn't know. Let's see how the tide is moving today in this make or break election (and anything less than a clear win for Biden is a break).

Polling averages for Sept.30, 5 AM EDT, edited for 3 PM
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pol.../national/

National Biden +7.3

Alaska Trump +4.4
Arizona Biden +3.5
Colorado Biden +10.1
Florida Biden +1.9
Georgia Trump +0.1
Iowa Trump +0.7
Kansas Trump +8.9
Michigan Biden +6.9
Minnesota Biden +8.8
Missouri Trump +6.6
Montana Trump +8.0
Nevada Biden +6.5
New Hampshire Biden +9.2
North Carolina Biden +1.1
Ohio Biden +1.1
Pennsylvania Biden +5.5
South Carolina Trump +6.6
Texas Trump +2.0
Virginia Biden +10.2
Wisconsin Biden +6.8

270towin polling averages, Sept.29
National Biden +7.5
https://www.270towin.com/2020-polls-biden-trump/

Battleground states:
https://www.270towin.com/content/2020-pr...te-polling

Arizona Biden +4
Colorado Biden +10.6
Florida Biden +0.8
Georgia Biden +0.8
Iowa Trump +1.2
Michigan Biden +5.8
Minnesota Biden +8.4
Missouri Trump +8
Montana Trump +6
Nevada Biden +6.7
New Hampshire Biden +6
North Carolina Biden +0.6
Ohio Biden +1.2
Pennsylvania Biden +6.1
South Carolina Trump +7.3
Texas Trump +3
Virginia Biden +9.5
Wisconsin Biden +7

THE MAP. Based on the fivethirtyeight percentages, using 270towin map sharing, with MY standards of toss-up +-3%, leaning 3-9%, likely 9-15%, solid 15%+
Arkansas leaning Republican.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-29-2020, 06:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I am obsessed with following the polls, and I hang on every decimal point. I am an elections freak, as if you didn't know. Let's see how the tide is moving today in this make or break election (and anything less than a clear win for Biden is a break).

I'm not so much into the day to day changes, but I sympathize.  I'd just like to see how the election will come up, and hoping the aftermath isn't too eventful.

[pbrower2a]

Did anyone see the debate? Anyone who expected Donald Trump to be anything other than the obnoxious boor, rigid in thought, egocentric in the extreme, fanatical, arrogant, and pushy -- there he was. He used all the vicious code words . He tried to take over the debate.

It's unfortunate that someone didn't control the mikes so that he could not interrupt Biden.

Biden knows enough to use statistics confidently, and he was well prepared for any insult.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-30-2020, 02:37 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Did anyone see the debate?

I didn't watch live, but picked up a few highlights after.  A few thoughts.

• Trump took an established institution and did his best to trash it.
  
  
• The rules didn't seem to apply in Trump's mind to Trump.
  
  
• The result was chaos.
  

All of this doesn't contradict Pbrower's post, which I can't argue with.

My thought is that Biden shouldn't do other debates without some modifications to enforce the rules agreed to, and perhaps applying some lessons picked up from COVID.  Three separate studios with the microphones and cameras of the candidates turned off when on the other guy's time.  If the candidates speak longer than the allocated time, their closing statements get shorter by the length of the overrun.  After there is overrun greater than their closing statement is planed for, no closing statement.

This seems necessary.  One chance for Trump to show himself being Trump is likely enough.  The results would perhaps distinguish between Trump and Biden presidencies.

[pbrower2a]

(09-30-2020, 05:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-30-2020, 02:37 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Did anyone see the debate?

I didn't watch live, but picked up a few highlights after.  A few thoughts.

• Trump took an established institution and did his best to trash it.
  
  
• The rules didn't seem to apply in Trump's mind to Trump.
  
  
• The result was chaos.
  

All of this doesn't contradict Pbrower's post, which I can't argue with.

My thought is that Biden shouldn't do other debates without some modifications to enforce the rules agreed to, and perhaps applying some lessons picked up from COVID.  Three separate studios with the microphones and cameras of the candidates turned off when on the other guy's time.  If the candidates speak longer than the allocated time, their closing statements get shorter by the length of the overrun.  After there is overrun greater than their closing statement is planed for, no closing statement.

This seems necessary.  One chance for Trump to show himself being Trump is likely enough.  The results would perhaps distinguish between Trump and Biden presidencies.

I don't fault the moderator. Chris Wallace played it straight, but Trump overpowered him. It would be appropriate to cut the microphone of Donald Trump when Joe Biden is speaking and vice-versa. This debate is far from the measured contention of a high-school debate; it's more like a taping of the Jerry Springer Show, except that no chairs are flying and there are no accusations of marital infidelity. There needed to be a referee capable of establishing sanctions for a lack of integrity on the game. Even in a team sport there are sanctions against a cheater. Penalties called for improper play can decide an NFL game, and a pitcher caught throwing spitballs will be ejected.  

Chris Wallace tried to be fair... but there is no subtle way of stopping a speeding locomotive. Maybe the other participant could have buttons to press to give a lighted response such as "lie", "cheat", "wrong", "extreme" or "disloyal" as opposed to such an interjected word such as "Liar!". 

This was more like a boxing match than a debate. Boxing is brutal, but even it has rules. Break those rules as egregiously as Mike Tyson biting the ear of Evander Holyfield, and the match is over. When someone breaks the rules so egregiously as to make a mockery of the event, then the person who does that typically is adjudicated as the loser. Donald Trump figuratively bit Joe Biden's ear.

[Isoko]

I watched some of the debate. I concur with what p rower is saying - it was more like Jerry Springer and not a presidential debate. Its up in the air though on who won and I feel it necessary to add my own thoughts.

I think that both Biden and Trump "won". They both played to their effective bases. I don't think either of them changed any minds. However I do think Biden did very well and held himself in a dignified manner, this sort of blowing a hole in the Republican "he's got dementia" strategy.

However, Biden also came across as a worn out time piece, someone who belongs in an entirely different period of time. Whether you like it or not, America is starting to resemble Latin American politics and Trump is a 2020 man. 

Its actually surprising but from polls I've seen and comments I've read, Trump does have significant support in the black and Hispanic community. Some of them like the tough macho image and Trump plays it well. I wouldn't be surprised if those Cuban Americans in Florida vote Trump quite heavily. 

To be honest, I think the debates will change no minds. They'll just further reinforce the existing bases. The big question on election day is silent America. Do they decide to go with Joe or back Trump for another four years?

Also of interest I realised today is that this is probably the last election we will see of what I term "old white America". Come 2024, the lineup is going to be more diverse and reaching out to the changing demographics, which means that in the long run, American politics are going to take a rapid change.

So even if Trump wins another 4 years, it really is a last hurrah as demographics are destiny and the changes are going to come inevitably.

[pbrower2a]

Joe Biden is... well, the mechanical pocket watch in an era of digital watches. He does his job right, but he is clearly old. He will be from a generation more than half deceased, and he will belong to a generation that will start to turn 100 in the last 21 days of his term in office.

I see him as a one-term President due to his age. I expect him to fit the Reagan pattern of becoming largely a ceremonial leader if he isn't up to the tasks that someone much younger does. That he is in unusually good shape for someone 78 years old comes with a qualification. If debility sets in, then Biden can resign for reasons of health or let others assume many of the responsibilities of the President. Trump cannot keep good people around him as Reagan could.

If Joe Biden is the pocket watch, then Trump is the battery-powered digital watch for which the battery yas run out or for which new batteries are unavailable or are available for a price much higher than the watch. The antique pocket watch is still useful, and even if it isn't convenient, it at least works. Yes, you must wind it up.

...as for the tough macho stuff... that is in decline. Trump is a rearguard barrier to modernity.

[Eric the Green]

(09-30-2020, 12:29 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-30-2020, 05:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-30-2020, 02:37 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Did anyone see the debate?

I didn't watch live, but picked up a few highlights after.  A few thoughts.

• Trump took an established institution and did his best to trash it.
  
  
• The rules didn't seem to apply in Trump's mind to Trump.
  
  
• The result was chaos.
  

All of this doesn't contradict Pbrower's post, which I can't argue with.

My thought is that Biden shouldn't do other debates without some modifications to enforce the rules agreed to, and perhaps applying some lessons picked up from COVID.  Three separate studios with the microphones and cameras of the candidates turned off when on the other guy's time.  If the candidates speak longer than the allocated time, their closing statements get shorter by the length of the overrun.  After there is overrun greater than their closing statement is planed for, no closing statement.

This seems necessary.  One chance for Trump to show himself being Trump is likely enough.  The results would perhaps distinguish between Trump and Biden presidencies.

I don't fault the moderator. Chris Wallace played it straight, but Trump overpowered him. It would be appropriate to cut the microphone of Donald Trump when Joe Biden is speaking and vice-versa. This debate is far from the measured contention of a high-school debate; it's more like a taping of the Jerry Springer Show, except that no chairs are flying and there are no accusations of marital infidelity. There needed to be a referee capable of establishing sanctions for a lack of integrity on the game. Even in a team sport there are sanctions against a cheater. Penalties called for improper play can decide an NFL game, and a pitcher caught throwing spitballs will be ejected.  

Chris Wallace tried to be fair... but there is no subtle way of stopping a speeding locomotive. Maybe the other participant could have buttons to press to give a lighted response such as "lie", "cheat", "wrong", "extreme" or "disloyal" as opposed to such an interjected word such as "Liar!". 

This was more like a boxing match than a debate. Boxing is brutal, but even it has rules. Break those rules as egregiously as Mike Tyson biting the ear of Evander Holyfield, and the match is over. When someone breaks the rules so egregiously as to make a mockery of the event, then the person who does that typically is adjudicated as the loser. Donald Trump figuratively bit Joe Biden's ear.

Excellent suggestion to cut the mics off when the time is up, or at least if they go over by more than a few seconds so they can finish a sentence. Worth sending emails to the election commission or wherever. Chris Wallace did a great job to talk over Trump when he wouldn't stop. He didn't take anything from the drump. I wonder who is willing and able to step forward as referee next time. It will be tough. Maybe Rachel Maddow might be his match, or Chuck Todd. I wish Terry McAuliffe was the Democratic candidate. He knows how to take Trump down. But Biden did OK I guess.

Black men do sometimes fall for the free-market trickle-down theory once they become "uppity," as Clarence Thomas called his fellow traitors at his 1991 hearing. There are the Kanye West, Ben Carson and Herman Cain types out there, indeed. Hispanics will continue at about 30% Republican support, with the majority correctly regarding how their brethren are being abused and their need for a government of justice for all. But the Cubans, they are still eager to beat Castro, so they vote Republican. 

Florida is always a crap shoot, and we Democrats lost in 2016 and 2018. This year the pandemic's mismanagement and threats to health care and social security are cutting into elderly white support for Trump and Republicans. It will be close, and cheating by the Republicans is always a threat. They imposed a poll tax on felons after they were voted eligible to vote by a wide margin by the people. But Bloomberg and others are trying, against stiff bureaucratic resistance, to pay their fines.

[pbrower2a]

The Qu Qlux Qlanon.

[David Horn]

(09-29-2020, 06:50 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-29-2020, 10:42 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-29-2020, 08:17 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I don't often bother with the anti Trump adds, but Sully did one well, covered lots of bases.

It's sad that it takes Vote Vets and the Lincoln Project to get ads with teeth in them.

Perhaps, but I think the idea is that as long as somebody is doing attack adds, Biden can just look presidential.

He needs to look engaged!  Why do we have a Silent running for POTUS now?  It's just so wrong.

FWIW, Bernie may be a Silent by cohort, but he's more a mix of Prophet and Civic by temperament.  But he's not the Silent we got.

[Eric the Green]

Debate fallout already? Trump's poll numbers fell to their lowest level after he said there were good people on both sides at the Nazi march. His directive to the Proud Boys to "stand by" may have been a major gaffe, in addition to his immature conduct. His constant interruptions may have been a plan to cause Biden to stutter more.

2020 national polling averages Oct 1 8:40 AM, edited 3 PM EDT
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pol.../national/

National Biden +7.9

Alaska Trump +4.1
Arizona Biden +3.8
Colorado Biden +10.6
Florida Biden +2.2
Georgia even
Iowa Trump +0.4
Kansas Trump +8.7
Michigan Biden +7.1
Minnesota Biden +9.1
Missouri Trump +6.4
Montana Trump +7.8
Nevada Biden +6.8
New Hampshire Biden +9.4
North Carolina Biden +1.2
Ohio Biden +1.3
Pennsylvania Biden +5.7
South Carolina Trump +5.8
Texas Trump +1.7
Virginia Biden +10.5
Wisconsin Biden +7

[Eric the Green]

(09-30-2020, 06:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-29-2020, 06:50 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-29-2020, 10:42 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-29-2020, 08:17 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I don't often bother with the anti Trump adds, but Sully did one well, covered lots of bases.

It's sad that it takes Vote Vets and the Lincoln Project to get ads with teeth in them.

Perhaps, but I think the idea is that as long as somebody is doing attack adds, Biden can just look presidential.

He needs to look engaged!  Why do we have a Silent running for POTUS now?  It's just so wrong.

FWIW, Bernie may be a Silent by cohort, but he's more a mix of Prophet and Civic by temperament.  But he's not the Silent we got.

It all depends who steps up. The best candidates did not. All the Democratic primary candidates were losers, and they proved it by losing to two old gentlemen (who of course had the best two horoscope scores).

[David Horn]

(09-30-2020, 10:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-30-2020, 06:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-29-2020, 06:50 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-29-2020, 10:42 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-29-2020, 08:17 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I don't often bother with the anti Trump adds, but Sully did one well, covered lots of bases.

It's sad that it takes Vote Vets and the Lincoln Project to get ads with teeth in them.

Perhaps, but I think the idea is that as long as somebody is doing attack adds, Biden can just look presidential.

He needs to look engaged!  Why do we have a Silent running for POTUS now?  It's just so wrong.

FWIW, Bernie may be a Silent by cohort, but he's more a mix of Prophet and Civic by temperament.  But he's not the Silent we got.

It all depends who steps up. The best candidates did not. All the Democratic primary candidates were losers, and they proved it by losing to two old gentlemen (who of course had the best two horoscope scores).

Joe is old and tired already.  He may not make it to 2024, and even if he does, he shows no sign of being even a little progressive. Not surprising: people in the alternate news universe are scared to death that he's a radical leftist coming for <insert your fear of choice>. Can we get much further apart?

[Isoko]

You know, the polls right now still favour Biden and if I'm honest I don't think they are really going to budge anymore at this point. But it still interests me on how accurate they are. How many people are saying "I'll vote for Biden" when they secretly plan to vote for Trump. Or who are the people they are asking.

If I am to be honest, I think if we narrow it down, thus really could be on a knife edge and I do predict that is what the result will be - a knife edge. So no I don't take the polls seriously because I remember at the exit poll for Brexit, they predicted a comfortable win for the remain side at like 10%. Even the prime minister at the time seemed relieved and was ready to party when early warning signs started to hit at 12am that something weird was happening.

That 7% lead for Biden is nothing. Never, ever trust the polls.

[David Horn]

(10-01-2020, 12:15 PM)Isoko Wrote: You know, the polls right now still favour Biden and if I'm honest I don't think they are really going to budge anymore at this point. But it still interests me on how accurate they are. How many people are saying "I'll vote for Biden" when they secretly plan to vote for Trump. Or who are the people they are asking.

If I am to be honest, I think if we narrow it down, thus really could be on a knife edge and I do predict that is what the result will be - a knife edge. So no I don't take the polls seriously because I remember at the exit poll for Brexit, they predicted a comfortable win for the remain side at like 10%. Even the prime minister at the time seemed relieved and was ready to party when early warning signs started to hit at 12am that something weird was happening.

That 7% lead for Biden is nothing. Never, ever trust the polls.

I don't see Brexit as a model, frankly.  You Brits tend to be a bit reserved anyway, and my experience in the more rural areas says: even moreso there.  And the polls in the US 2016 election weren't really off.  Three states that made the difference were all within the margin of error, and the national poll hit the vote count very close.

[Eric the Green]

(10-01-2020, 09:22 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-30-2020, 10:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-30-2020, 06:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-29-2020, 06:50 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-29-2020, 10:42 AM)David Horn Wrote: It's sad that it takes Vote Vets and the Lincoln Project to get ads with teeth in them.

Perhaps, but I think the idea is that as long as somebody is doing attack adds, Biden can just look presidential.

He needs to look engaged!  Why do we have a Silent running for POTUS now?  It's just so wrong.

FWIW, Bernie may be a Silent by cohort, but he's more a mix of Prophet and Civic by temperament.  But he's not the Silent we got.

It all depends who steps up. The best candidates did not. All the Democratic primary candidates were losers, and they proved it by losing to two old gentlemen (who of course had the best two horoscope scores).

Joe is old and tired already.  He may not make it to 2024, and even if he does, he shows no sign of being even a little progressive. Not surprising: people in the alternate news universe are scared to death that he's a radical leftist coming for <insert your fear of choice>. Can we get much further apart?

He's shown some progressive signs. Trump has not been hesitant to point out how he is listening to "radical leftists" like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. His program or "vision" as expressed on his website is pretty ambitious. His program is something less than the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, and he denied that it was in answer to Trump during the debacle (debate), but I think his program goes a fair distance toward these proposals.

What he actually will propose is yet to be seen, but the greater danger is that the Democrats flake out on reducing or eliminating the filibuster and packing the Court. Unless they take these bold and controversial steps, I don't see how much of his program or vision can be realized. The Republicans would block it all in the Senate, and if they throw out the filibuster his legislation still would be contested in Trump's new Courts. The Democrats will have to be bolder and more radical than they are used to being if they are going to get anything done at all. Otherwise we are stuck in the same old stalemate that we have been stuck in for at least 40 years, bound to the Reagan neo-liberal philosophy.