|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland27209 Posts
On August 02 2020 21:41 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2020 21:00 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 02 2020 09:35 JimmiC wrote:
I wish Biden had said he was picking the best possible candidate for VP, instead of that he was picking a women. Whoever he picks he has now set up as the best female candidate instead of just the best candidate. Just semantics but I think it seems weaker doing it this way.
I'm not sure if I'm saying it right, but I wish he would have picked a woman but without announcing he would only pick a woman. All he had to do was say he was picking the best candidate, then choose a woman if it was the intent all along. Of course there’s a degree of cynicism in the process but as you say it would send the message that the best candidate is a woman, not the best woman candidate. That said it’s such a wonky time politically that I can’t see the VP pick being particularly impactful. The smart strategy seems to be just watching Trump fuck things up from afar and don’t put your own foot in it. This can of course change quite considerably too. But VP isn't a techical position. It's a political one. And thus, if *any* woman as VP pick is going to bring more people out to vote than "the best man" would have brought people, then *any* woman is automatically the best candidate, right? I mean... this can obviously backfire, as Sarah Palin showed quite clearly, but none of the candidates being mentioned are anywhere near as bad a choice as Sarah Palin. They may not all have ideas I agree with, but not being a totally clueless bimbo automatically wins you that competition.
Well aye don’t disagree there. I think what me and Jimmy were saying was purely a matter of optics, if you pronounce you’re going to put the best candidate on the ticket, but privately intend to give it to a woman anyway, you get the same benefit of enfranchising women in high office while deflecting accusations of tokenism. That said I don’t think it’ll be terribly impactful this cycle anyway.
|
I would argue that Kamala Harris could be as bad as Sarah Palin. McCain was never going to beat Obama but a cali da has to have some skeletons in the closet and a lot of ammo for Republicans to manufacture.
|
As much as I generally have a distaste for Harris I don't think she'd come off as idiotic as Palin did.
She will have a record to attack though, to my knowledge she was a pretty pro-cop sort, which won't be an asset this election for Democrats (at least I hope it's not an asset.)
|
Arizona (Biden +3,2)
Florida (Biden +6,7)
Michigan (Biden +8,0)
North Carolina (Biden +3,4)
Pennsylvania (Biden +6,0)
Wisconsin (Biden +5,0)
source:realclearplitics,the average of several different polls.
It looks like a done deal,how could trump ever turn this around?
Polls where off in 2016,reason i saw mentioned is that the polls didnt have a clear vieuw of the group of people who had not voted before (and who did vote for trump mostly). Appearently the groups who perform the polls have corrected this for this election so the polls should be more accurate now.
Its dangerous to think its already done for the biden campaign off course and they shouldnt count the victory yet but if the democrats dont mess up they should win.
There was talk here on the news media that bidens vp would also be the democratic candidate in 2024 but i dont see why. Biden wasnt the candidate after obama either and while the vp often is the new candidate i dont think it is (nor should be) a given fact.
|
Well Trump is actively shooting himself in the foot, reloading, and continuing to shoot. Coronavirus/Economy/Unemployment are the largest issues to people right now, and the Trump administration is:
1. Not handling Coronavirus.
2. Desperately trying to prop up the stock market, in the face of a gigantic drop in consumer spending
3. (Mostly republicans) refusing to touch unemployment benefits, telling people to just get a job
That does not really play well when you're a voter affected by it.
|
On August 03 2020 07:44 pmh wrote:
Arizona (Biden +3,2)
Florida (Biden +6,7)
Michigan (Biden +8,0)
North Carolina (Biden +3,4)
Pennsylvania (Biden +6,0)
Wisconsin (Biden +5,0)
source:realclearplitics,the average of several different polls.
It looks like a done deal,how could trump ever turn this around?
Polls where off in 2016,reason i saw mentioned is that the polls didnt have a clear vieuw of the group of people who had not voted before (and who did vote for trump mostly). Appearently the groups who perform the polls have corrected this for this election so the polls should be more accurate now.
Its dangerous to think its already done for the biden campaign off course and they shouldnt count the victory yet but if the democrats dont mess up they should win.
There was talk here on the news media that bidens vp would also be the democratic candidate in 2024 but i dont see why. Biden wasnt the candidate after obama either and while the vp often is the new candidate i dont think it is (nor should be) a given fact.
August 1, 2020, battleground states: Biden +5.6
August 1, 2016, battleground states: Clinton +2.5
He's outperforming Clinton marginally, so Trump definitely has to turn it around. The same logic then applies to now: There is no one "fix" for adjusting for "likely voters." They weren't too far off from Clinton's actual performance last time. That should remind people that this time around, small errors (even as pollsters will say smaller than last time) can matter.
I'd agree with anyone saying "If the election were held today, Trump would lose." On the flip side, American voters don't usually pay tons of attention to the political race until things get into late September/October. Debate performance can change that, and any recognition from Trump that he's down and needs to improve can change that, as much as the latter is not expected. He has headwinds of the exhaustion from stupid tweets like delaying the election, and bad coronavirus messaging. He doesn't really have a political message right now, or not enough of a coherent one. So it's going to be a big uphill battle for Trump. I'm not counting out Biden's capacity to self detonate either, and people are overly downplaying his answers on gun control, black vote, sending the nuns back to court, and hiding out in his basement.
Just as an aside, with all the mail in voting, don't expect a result the same night of the election unless it turns out to be a landslide. New York just had a primary, and they're still counting mail-in votes three weeks after. The 12th Congressional District had only counted 800 of 65,000 three weeks after the event. Expect similar things to happen this time around. States aren't optimized for quick counting of absentee ballots of the magnitude that might be expected should coronavirus still be bad in November.
|
with all the mail in voting, don't expect a result the same night of the election unless it turns out to be a landslide. New York just had a primary, and they're still counting mail-in votes three weeks after. The 12th Congressional District had only counted 800 of 65,000 three weeks after the event. Expect similar things to happen this time around. States aren't optimized for quick counting of absentee ballots of the magnitude that might be expected should coronavirus still be bad in November.
Add on the delays caused by the new leadership at USPS plus legal challenges and there's not a very good chance we have a reliable election result before inauguration.
Can't forget the dearth of poll workers/vote counters, states with empty coffers, and a potentially massive recently houseless population that may not be housed where they're registered come election time. It's going to be a total cluster.
|
Its all speculation off course but speculation can be kinda fun (political commentators do this all day) and is a bit of a hobby for me when it comes to the american elections. Right now i think even a landslide is possible.
There are the voters who will always vote republican or democratic no matter what and then there is the hardcore base of trump as well. (to some extends this overlaps with the group who will always vote republican).
Its a wild guess but i guess the voters who will always vote republican or democratic at the moment is maybe 40% for each party and then 20% swing voters.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/just-how-many-swing-voters-are-there/
This article estimates the number of swing voters much lower at around 10% or even less,this seems like a very low estimate to me though specially in todays economic,medical and social situation.
The current situation which is quiet polarizing on various subjects i think increases the potential amount of swing voters when compared to the historic amount of swing voters.
I do agree that what happens in the last month will probably be decisive,memory is short for many voters.
On the other hand its only 3 more months to go and i dont think there is all that much room for the overall situation to change significantly. Some factors that could effect the election:
-biden/the democrats could mess up and run a very weak campaign in the final month with weak public performances of the candidate and a weak vp choise. Definitely not impossible.
-trump on the other hand i think can not mess up his campaign. He is rather consistent in his public performance and people know what to expect,which he will deliver.
-The riots/protests could run completely out of control which overall favors trump imo. Not all that likely imo.
-There could be a vaccine,safing the economy in the long run. Oddly enough i think this would only have a very small impact on the election,it would be a big relieve for the country but i doubt it would make people change their vote. i also think this isnt all that likely.
-The geo political situation when it comes to china/hong kong could escelate which i think would favor trump. Somewhat likely as this could be an opportunity for trump and he has the power to make it happen.
On the other hand i think that seeing the big issues at home the geo political situation might only have a small impact on this election. (contrary to for example the 2nd bush election,where the geo political situation had a major impact).
-The medical situation (besides a possible vaccine). The medical situation i think will improve slightly in the coming months which would favor trump to some extend. Overall i think this wont have a huge impact on the elections though. While memory is short,to much has happend already.
Looking at these elements the biggest danger for the democrats is biden and his vp having a weak performance in the final month.
Trumps best chance is law and order and to a smaller extend an escelation of the geo political situation and an improvement of the medical and economical situation.
The biggest danger for trump is the economic and medical situation not improving from today.
While i do think an improvement of the economic/medical situation wont have a huge effect on the election (though it would favor trump),a continuation of the current situation would be rather bad for trump. On this subject (which is pretty much outside his control) i think he has little to gain and quiet a bit to lose.
The elections ending up in a big mess. This is very likely i think but i am not sure it would actually change the outcome of the election in the end. Right now i would guess biden winning the popular vote with 55-45 which would be a huge margin historically. How that translates to the electoral college remains to be seen but in the swing states biden has twice the lead in the polls that clinton had which is quiet significant even though percentage wise it is small.
|
Bot edit.
User was banned for this post.
|
The way Biden loses is him actually existing, that is to say, making his presence well-known with many debates and media appearances. It's why he's basically a ghost right now and why he only agreed to 3 debates. His mental faculty deterioration is extremely evident. If he can somehow manage those few debates he wins, but I think it's going to be hard to do unless the debates are like 45 min long or something. Personally, this election is such a lose/lose that it's an embarrassment.
|
|
|
On August 04 2020 00:43 Wegandi wrote:
The way Biden loses is him actually existing, that is to say, making his presence well-known with many debates and media appearances. It's why he's basically a ghost right now and why he only agreed to 3 debates. His mental faculty deterioration is extremely evident. If he can somehow manage those few debates he wins, but I think it's going to be hard to do unless the debates are like 45 min long or something. Personally, this election is such a lose/lose that it's an embarrassment.
Drinking games with corn pop and double-down Trump should be awesome.
If it’s remote, I bet Biden’s team holds up generic lines to repeat on broad topics to keep him on script.
Update on the vote-by-mail situation: New York races still have unannounced winners 6 weeks after the vote.
|
On August 04 2020 00:43 Wegandi wrote:
The way Biden loses is him actually existing, that is to say, making his presence well-known with many debates and media appearances. It's why he's basically a ghost right now and why he only agreed to 3 debates. His mental faculty deterioration is extremely evident. If he can somehow manage those few debates he wins, but I think it's going to be hard to do unless the debates are like 45 min long or something. Personally, this election is such a lose/lose that it's an embarrassment.
I'm not really sure what this weird obsession is with remote diagnosing American politicians about their physical or mental state without any actual evidence but I think it's extremely inappropriate.
Biden seemed completely fine in any of the televised debates so far and I don't think there is any indication that he's mentally suffering. People seemed to do the same thing with Clinton.
|
On August 04 2020 01:01 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2020 00:43 Wegandi wrote:
The way Biden loses is him actually existing, that is to say, making his presence well-known with many debates and media appearances. It's why he's basically a ghost right now and why he only agreed to 3 debates. His mental faculty deterioration is extremely evident. If he can somehow manage those few debates he wins, but I think it's going to be hard to do unless the debates are like 45 min long or something. Personally, this election is such a lose/lose that it's an embarrassment. I'm not really sure what this weird obsession is with remote diagnosing American politicians about their physical or mental state without any actual evidence but I think it's extremely inappropriate. Biden seemed completely fine in any of the televised debates so far and I don't think there is any indication that he's mentally suffering. People seemed to do the same thing with Clinton. When you can't win a fight on policy, the only option is to attack the other person.
|
Come on, guys. Tell me that you felt the same way about Obama's mental state when he was running vs. now with Biden. I'm certainly anti-Trump but to make criticisms of Biden's mental state all about those pesky Republicans is disingenuous at best.
And just lol at people "being unable to believe" people criticizing mental/physical states of candidates...I bet these same people claim Trump is a narcissist, has dementia, is overweight etc. without a second thought.
|
Obama is 20 years younger than Biden, and Biden has always had issues with stuttering, something he's talked about which makes the 'mental decline' attacks particularly awful. It's absolutely ridiculous, without any medical evidence, to accuse someone of being in mental decline which would imply they are unfit to even serve.
btw, it was also stupid to do the same thing to Trump. He's an absolute idiot but he's not demented. In the US apparently now everytime someone slurs a word the entire nation has turned into physicians.
|
On August 04 2020 01:15 Nyxisto wrote:
Obama is 20 years younger than Biden, and Biden has always had issues with stuttering, something he's talked about which makes the 'mental decline' attacks particularly awful. It's absolutely ridiculous, without any medical evidence, to accuse someone of being in mental decline which would imply they are unfit to even serve.
btw, it was also stupid to do the same thing to Trump. He's an absolute idiot but he's not demented. In the US apparently now everytime someone slurs a word the entire nation has turned into physicians.
Fair enough, I didn't mean to imply Biden wasn't fit to serve and if it's anybody's business am going to vote for him because I'm in a swing-ish state. I do think it's unreasonable to attribute some of the ridiculous things I've heard Biden say to "a stutter", though, and that seems like almost Trump supporter levels of rationalization.
|
Biden absolutely seems less sharp than he was eight years ago. Whether or not the same thing is true for Trump, it does not escape my attention that Biden reminds me a lot of people I know as they started to develop dementia. That isn't a diagnosis, that is an observation that is troubling enough that it shouldn't be ignored.
Doesn't mean that that disqualifies him as a candidate, but it absolutely should factor into the voting decisions you make. If the determination is that Biden is still better than Trump regardless of any potential mental health concerns, fine. It's not at all disingenuous to make note of it, though.
|
On August 04 2020 00:47 JimmiC wrote:
I don't think that having a smart president is that important to the USA. Trump, whether it is decline or not, is not very bright.
The voting electorate will vote for a dumb person, but I doubt they'll vote for a rapidly senile one. We'll see.
PS: For those who care I work in the OT field so I have some experience with observing mental acuity. I don't need to administer Allen Cog, MMSE, or MoCA to see decline.
|
Could the voting electorate distinguish between the two?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
