Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

[hepcat]

I wonder if Obama would have insisted on the presidential seal on HIS mask?

I actually think that's pretty cool, myself.

Just a petty aside on my part. Something our current president doesn't traffic in, thankfully.

[coopasonic]

Another point of interest, Senator Cornyn is at less than 50%, with a large number of undecided and the Democratic primary still to be held. That undecided number is probably large because we don't know yet who the challenger would be, but that formerly shoo-in race might suddenly become interesting if Trump continues to collapse.

I refuse to get hopeful on the Senate side (or the presidential side, for that matter). We re-elected Ted god damn Cruz.

[El Guapo]

Another point of interest, Senator Cornyn is at less than 50%, with a large number of undecided and the Democratic primary still to be held. That undecided number is probably large because we don't know yet who the challenger would be, but that formerly shoo-in race might suddenly become interesting if Trump continues to collapse.

I refuse to get hopeful on the Senate side (or the presidential side, for that matter). We re-elected Ted god damn Cruz.

O'Rourke has to be kicking himself for choosing to run for President instead of Senate again.

[Alefroth]

Texas is now a battleground state, and if Trump loses here, game over.

I think Texas now being competitive is a good sign it's already game over. It'll be interesting to see which way that trends now.

[Defiant]

I remain skeptical of polls until after the conventions/labor day, when the General Election and campaigning begin in earnest. In most elections, there's some people from either party (or leaners to that party) that flirt with voting for the other side or third parties and even voting for the other party. They usually "come to their senses" and return to their party once the campaigning begins and they remember their partisanship. IIUC, between this point and the election, there's an average of 7 points difference between the polling average and the election (average, so sometimes larger, sometimes smaller).

I'm not saying that that will happen this time - indeed, I would definitely think/hope that this year we see more people on the right stay with the Democrat, and see a landslide for Biden - but I want more evidence before feeling confident it won't. And who knows, maybe the 7 point swing will be towards Biden.

[hepcat]

Another point of interest, Senator Cornyn is at less than 50%, with a large number of undecided and the Democratic primary still to be held. That undecided number is probably large because we don't know yet who the challenger would be, but that formerly shoo-in race might suddenly become interesting if Trump continues to collapse.

I refuse to get hopeful on the Senate side (or the presidential side, for that matter). We re-elected Ted god damn Cruz.

And your state did so, knowing full well his father killed JFK.

[Scraper]

Another point of interest, Senator Cornyn is at less than 50%, with a large number of undecided and the Democratic primary still to be held. That undecided number is probably large because we don't know yet who the challenger would be, but that formerly shoo-in race might suddenly become interesting if Trump continues to collapse.

I refuse to get hopeful on the Senate side (or the presidential side, for that matter). We re-elected Ted god damn Cruz.

And your state did so, knowing full well his father killed JFK.

Also, isn't his wife ugly?

[hepcat]

Good point. Yeah, Mrs. Cruz has NEVER been asked to pose topless by a magazine, has she?

<that whole thing still cracks me up to this day, and proves that Cruz has zero integrity>

[Scraper]

Good point. Yeah, Mrs. Cruz has NEVER been asked to pose topless by a magazine, has she?

Total LOSER

[Scraper]

Gatorade has electrolytes

[hepcat]

I think I understand where you're going with that assertion, and I would have to agree: the war of 1812 would have been more amusing if they had rubber chickens instead of cannons. Also, manwich isn't really made from real men.

[Scraper]

I think I understand where you're going with that assertion, and I would have to agree: the war of 1812 would have been more amusing if they had rubber chickens instead of cannons. Also, manwich isn't really made from real men.

It's just that the CDC, WHO, most medical doctors, scientist, the media, the FBI, the Northern Governors, the Democrats, Canada, Angela Merkel and Bob Barker are alll lying to try and make Trump look bad. Manwich can be made from man.

[hepcat]

Trump's forte is blaming others for his own incompetence. We've seen this every day for the last 3 and a half years.

Also, I just wanted to let you know I'm NOT coming over for dinner this week.

[stessier]

I was listening to the Bakari Sellers podcast from last week where he talked to Jason Johnson. They were talking about presidential polling and brought up that if the Democrats get 40-41% of the white vote, they will win in a landslide - like GA and TX in play landslide. I had no idea Democrats have historically gotten so few white votes.

[Holman]

I was listening to the Bakari Sellers podcast from last week where he talked to Jason Johnson. They were talking about presidential polling and brought up that if the Democrats get 40-41% of the white vote, they will win in a landslide - like GA and TX in play landslide. I had no idea Democrats have historically gotten so few white votes.

I think I've read that no Dem presidential candidate has won a majority of the overall white vote since LBJ.

(This is skewed by age, since older Americans have always been and still remain disproportionately white.)

[stessier]

I was listening to the Bakari Sellers podcast from last week where he talked to Jason Johnson. They were talking about presidential polling and brought up that if the Democrats get 40-41% of the white vote, they will win in a landslide - like GA and TX in play landslide. I had no idea Democrats have historically gotten so few white votes.

I think I've read that no Dem presidential candidate has won a majority of the overall white vote since LBJ.

(This is skewed by age, since older Americans have always been and still remain disproportionately white.)

Yep, that was what they said. And they didn't think it would happen this year either, but thought 40% was in play...while being very cautious about predicting anything this far out.

[Defiant]

(This is skewed by age, since older Americans have always been and still remain disproportionately white.)

Yes, but older voters weren't always as conservative as they seem today and are winnable as a demographic (Clinton/Gore won them in '92, '96 and '00 - the issue of Social Security probably helped them)

[El Guapo]

I remain skeptical of polls until after the conventions/labor day, when the General Election and campaigning begin in earnest. In most elections, there's some people from either party (or leaners to that party) that flirt with voting for the other side or third parties and even voting for the other party. They usually "come to their senses" and return to their party once the campaigning begins and they remember their partisanship. IIUC, between this point and the election, there's an average of 7 points difference between the polling average and the election (average, so sometimes larger, sometimes smaller).

I'm not saying that that will happen this time - indeed, I would definitely think/hope that this year we see more people on the right stay with the Democrat, and see a landslide for Biden - but I want more evidence before feeling confident it won't. And who knows, maybe the 7 point swing will be towards Biden.

This is true, but this doesn't really give much hope to Trump as applied to this election. In 2016, Clinton steadily lead Trump throughout the campaign, BUT: (1) her lead was consistently smaller than Biden's (~ 4-6% vs. 10%), and more importantly: (2) she never sniffed 50% of the vote in the polls, with large independents / undecideds (e.g., her lead was usually something like 43% - 38%). Whereas Biden both has a bigger lead AND has repeatedly hit 50%+ in polls, with much smaller groups of independents / undecideds.

So, it's not just that Biden has a huge lead. It's also that whereas in 2016 Trump only needed to win over independents / undecideds to win, in 2020 Trump's going to need to win over declared Biden supporters, which in general is a tougher road.

[Jeff V]

Trump's going to need to win over declared Biden supporters, which in general is a tougher road.

He also needs to stop pissing off/killing off the voters he still commands, but he just can't help himself...

[Holman]

I wonder to what degree incumbency is a factor in (or against) the "natural" tightening of late-race polls?

Clinton/Trump was a battle between two unpopular candidates, neither currently in office, and it was still possible for some (deluded) people to believe that Trump would be something new and exciting in Washington. But now it's 2020, and Trump has removed all doubt about what he is.

In an election that will 100% be a referendum on Trump, I don't think it makes as much sense to talk about the campaign only really beginning after Labor Day. I think this campaign has been underway for years.

[Defiant]

I remain skeptical of polls until after the conventions/labor day, when the General Election and campaigning begin in earnest. In most elections, there's some people from either party (or leaners to that party) that flirt with voting for the other side or third parties and even voting for the other party. They usually "come to their senses" and return to their party once the campaigning begins and they remember their partisanship. IIUC, between this point and the election, there's an average of 7 points difference between the polling average and the election (average, so sometimes larger, sometimes smaller).

I'm not saying that that will happen this time - indeed, I would definitely think/hope that this year we see more people on the right stay with the Democrat, and see a landslide for Biden - but I want more evidence before feeling confident it won't. And who knows, maybe the 7 point swing will be towards Biden.

This is true, but this doesn't really give much hope to Trump as applied to this election. In 2016, Clinton steadily lead Trump throughout the campaign, BUT: (1) her lead was consistently smaller than Biden's (~ 4-6% vs. 10%), and more importantly: (2) she never sniffed 50% of the vote in the polls, with large independents / undecideds (e.g., her lead was usually something like 43% - 38%). Whereas Biden both has a bigger lead AND has repeatedly hit 50%+ in polls, with much smaller groups of independents / undecideds.

So, it's not just that Biden has a huge lead. It's also that whereas in 2016 Trump only needed to win over independents / undecideds to win, in 2020 Trump's going to need to win over declared Biden supporters, which in general is a tougher road.

Except that some people do declare themselves as supporting another candidate (the Democrat or the Republican or the independent) and then back off when the general election starts, the campaigning starts and they're reminded how the person they're voting is "really" a commie or a fascist and they need to support their own party to save the courts/America/Freedom. Plus, of course, dirty tricks/voter suppression is also a possibility. And hopefully, Bidens huge, historic lead, and Trump continuing to mess up will prevent that being significant, but we'll see.

Also, what specifically prompted me posting that was remarks about Texas polls and other red states showing close races or Biden leads. Those are the ones I'm especially skeptical of.

[Max Peck]

In an election that will 100% be a referendum on Trump, I don't think it makes as much sense to talk about the campaign only really beginning after Labor Day. I think this campaign has been underway for years.

Trump has literally been campaigning since his inauguration.

[Defiant]

I wonder to what degree incumbency is a factor in (or against) the "natural" tightening of late-race polls?

Clinton/Trump was a battle between two unpopular candidates, neither currently in office, and it was still possible for some (deluded) people to believe that Trump would be something new and exciting in Washington. But now it's 2020, and Trump has removed all doubt about what he is.

In an election that will 100% be a referendum on Trump, I don't think it makes as much sense to talk about the campaign only really beginning after Labor Day. I think this campaign has been underway for years.

I think the conventions play a role in that (you tend to see bumps after them as some people come home and others on the fence see some of the positives of each party, although the bumps have been smaller in the last decade or two). You also see a lot more campaign spending after the conventions/labor day.

I do think the increased news media in recent years, plus that Trump is a media magnet that tries to get more and more attention (not to mention that one major issue in the election, the pandemic, is literally everywhere), will have made it harder for low information voters to ignore/avoid thinking about the election, and maybe we'll see less minds switching than normal (assuming no more surprises in 2020.)

[Kraken]

I wonder to what degree incumbency is a factor in (or against) the "natural" tightening of late-race polls?

Clinton/Trump was a battle between two unpopular candidates, neither currently in office, and it was still possible for some (deluded) people to believe that Trump would be something new and exciting in Washington. But now it's 2020, and Trump has removed all doubt about what he is.

In an election that will 100% be a referendum on Trump, I don't think it makes as much sense to talk about the campaign only really beginning after Labor Day. I think this campaign has been underway for years.

Well, trump's been running for reelection since the day he took office. He does appear to be losing to himself bigly now.

Incumbency's most advantageous when things are going well. Very few Americans can honestly say that we're better off today than we were four years ago. 70% of us think the country is on the wrong path. As hard as trump works to dodge any responsibility for anything bad, that isn't working when it's almost all bad.

[El Guapo]

I remain skeptical of polls until after the conventions/labor day, when the General Election and campaigning begin in earnest. In most elections, there's some people from either party (or leaners to that party) that flirt with voting for the other side or third parties and even voting for the other party. They usually "come to their senses" and return to their party once the campaigning begins and they remember their partisanship. IIUC, between this point and the election, there's an average of 7 points difference between the polling average and the election (average, so sometimes larger, sometimes smaller).

I'm not saying that that will happen this time - indeed, I would definitely think/hope that this year we see more people on the right stay with the Democrat, and see a landslide for Biden - but I want more evidence before feeling confident it won't. And who knows, maybe the 7 point swing will be towards Biden.

This is true, but this doesn't really give much hope to Trump as applied to this election. In 2016, Clinton steadily lead Trump throughout the campaign, BUT: (1) her lead was consistently smaller than Biden's (~ 4-6% vs. 10%), and more importantly: (2) she never sniffed 50% of the vote in the polls, with large independents / undecideds (e.g., her lead was usually something like 43% - 38%). Whereas Biden both has a bigger lead AND has repeatedly hit 50%+ in polls, with much smaller groups of independents / undecideds.

So, it's not just that Biden has a huge lead. It's also that whereas in 2016 Trump only needed to win over independents / undecideds to win, in 2020 Trump's going to need to win over declared Biden supporters, which in general is a tougher road.

Except that some people do declare themselves as supporting another candidate (the Democrat or the Republican or the independent) and then back off when the general election starts, the campaigning starts and they're reminded how the person they're voting is "really" a commie or a fascist and they need to support their own party to save the courts/America/Freedom. Plus, of course, dirty tricks/voter suppression is also a possibility. And hopefully, Bidens huge, historic lead, and Trump continuing to mess up will prevent that being significant, but we'll see.

Also, what specifically prompted me posting that was remarks about Texas polls and other red states showing close races or Biden leads. Those are the ones I'm especially skeptical of.

I know, but it's still easier (as a general rule) to win people over who are undecided or third party than to win over people who have decided on your opponent (even if temporarily). And it is still early, but the lead is the lead.

I'm skeptical that Biden will ultimately win Texas, but at the same time, he's got a real big lead. A double digit lead will bring a lot of states into the fringes of contention.

[Remus West]

I simply find it depressing that tRump has any percentage of the population behind him beyond the completely nuts and/or overtly racist groups. I honestly can not think of a single thing he has done that has benefitted our nation. Given how badly he has mangled the pandemic and social unrest how can it even be possible he might win. The fact that we have to account for that "might" is sorely depressing. Add in the voter suppression and outright cheating I am sure he will at least attempt to commit and will certainly encourage and it just looks bleak for the nation regardless of the outcome of the election. We were fractured before but he has shattered us as a cohesive society.

[Unagi]

I simply find it depressing that tRump has any percentage of the population behind him beyond the completely nuts and/or overtly racist groups.

This is at the core of my depression. The shear amount of people, people whom I would never had thought would be capable of going this far down the road with this man.
It's chilling.
And then frankly, the politician version of the above (the degree to which the entire GOP is willing to actually destroy the country) is easily the most alarming thing I've ever witnessed in the US.

[stessier]

I simply find it depressing that tRump has any percentage of the population behind him beyond the completely nuts and/or overtly racist groups. I honestly can not think of a single thing he has done that has benefitted our nation. Given how badly he has mangled the pandemic and social unrest how can it even be possible he might win. The fact that we have to account for that "might" is sorely depressing. Add in the voter suppression and outright cheating I am sure he will at least attempt to commit and will certainly encourage and it just looks bleak for the nation regardless of the outcome of the election. We were fractured before but he has shattered us as a cohesive society.

Anecdotally living in an area where I am surrounded, I will say it's not what he's done (although a few think he's been fine), it's what they are afraid Biden will do. A lot of that is the second amendment, the other big talking point is taxes. There is a big contingent who do not like spending taxes to help people who don't deserve it...which probably goes back to your first sentence.

[Remus West]

The 2nd amendment is a horrible thing to our nation the way it has been twisted to the point of psychosis. And I have no issues with gun ownership, but the lunatic fringe has been given the keys to that particular ride.

[noxiousdog]

I honestly can not think of a single thing he has done that has benefitted our nation.

That's only because you disagree with him philosophically. He reduced taxes on corporations. He reduced the number of folks coming here illegally. He nominated two conservative supreme court judges. He rolled back tons of regulations. He has challenged the EU on NATO payments. He has challenged China on trade. He reworked NAFTA.

Those are objective and depending on your philosophies determine how good/bad they are. Some will play out over time.

[Jaymann]

He swiftly deployed his brown shirts to protect our national, er, regional heritage, so there's that.

[Defiant]

I agree that there's stuff that Trump's done that some people (especially those on the right) can find positive, although I would have to imagine that even for them, Trump comes off as worse than other potential Republicans would have been.

But what I find truly bizarre is the ~33% of the country that approves of his coronavirus response. *That* has to be pure partisanship.

[Paingod]

I honestly can not think of a single thing he has done that has benefited our nation.

Those are objective and depending on your philosophies determine how good/bad they are. Some will play out over time.

From your list, based on my philosophies:

• He reduced taxes on corporations - thus pushing the increase in income disparity from the poorest to the wealthiest while throwing out the money that might have otherwise gone into providing needed social services, like universal healthcare so the poorest don't have to decide between a doctor's visit and the rent. This has been playing out over time since Reagan, and it hasn't gone well for the general population. Great for the 1%, though.
• He reduced the number of folks coming here illegally - in itself good, but the methodology of terrorizing families and locking kids in cages is verybad. Villainizing and promoting hate towards immigrants is very bad. Immigrants are the backbone of US growth and it should be made easier to come here legally and become a tax-paying, card-carrying citizen - not harder.
• He nominated two conservative supreme court judges - two people who are expected to try and roll back social progress towards giving women rights over their bodies and lean towards favoring GOP agendas, like dismantling social services and killing regulations.
• He rolled back tons of regulations - regulations are the only thing keeping the US from becoming a desolate wasteland. Corporations don't limit themselves willingly; that's wishful thinking of the worst kind. If they did, we wouldn't have regulations to begin with. Rolling them back is essentially fucking the environment and the future for a quick buck today. My feelings on this mimic The Lorax.
• He has challenged the EU on NATO payments - Challenged? Great. Pissing off allies and throwing epic tantrums? Bad.
• He has challenged China on trade - this is maybe one thing I might like, but that's because I don't like the way China treats it's populace and it's less about a trade imbalance. I'm cool with an affordable imbalance with countries that work towards making the world a better place. China is not one of them.
• He reworked NAFTA - I don't think he reworked NAFTA as I didn't see any commentary on crayons and sharpies during the process. By all accounts it was overdue and all he really did was sign a line. Even a stopped clock, etc.

[Jaymann]

Oh yeah, and he took decisive action to defend our troops against Russian bounties by declaring no one told him, and it never happened anyway.

[ImLawBoy]

From your list, based on my philosophies:

That's exactly his point. You're looking at it from your philosophies and finding it bad. Others with differing philosophies will disagree with you and find those results positive.

[Jaymann]

Speaking of positive results, he bolstered free speech by encouraging people not to wear masks during a pandemic, and declared the press an enemy of the state.

[Paingod]

From your list, based on my philosophies:

That's exactly his point. You're looking at it from your philosophies and finding it bad. Others with differing philosophies will disagree with you and find those results positive.

Like everyone else on both sides, I know my way of thinking is the right way and everyone else is wrong. I just need to yell loud enough for them to hear it.

[Remus West]

I honestly can not think of a single thing he has done that has benefitted our nation.

That's only because you disagree with him philosophically. He reduced taxes on corporations. He reduced the number of folks coming here illegally. He nominated two conservative supreme court judges. He rolled back tons of regulations. He has challenged the EU on NATO payments. He has challenged China on trade. He reworked NAFTA.

Those are objective and depending on your philosophies determine how good/bad they are. Some will play out over time.

Thank you for reminding me. While I do not agree with most/all of that stuff at least I can understand why, or at least that, some do.

[Paingod]

at least I can understand why, or at least that, some do.

That's always been one of my hangups. I can't understand why people would choose to do some of these things. When I try to boil down the arguments, I'm often left with the only explanation being "ignorance" and "avarice" which isn't enough for me to say "Oh, yeah, good point. I get that."

Just as an example, environmental regulations. You kill these to make a buck today for the rich and dribble some pennies into the working class, but at the cost of reducing the available natural resources for every generation that follows. It just makes no sense to me.

[Remus West]

I honestly can not think of a single thing he has done that has benefited our nation.

Those are objective and depending on your philosophies determine how good/bad they are. Some will play out over time.

From your list, based on my philosophies:

• He reduced taxes on corporations - thus pushing the increase in income disparity from the poorest to the wealthiest while throwing out the money that might have otherwise gone into providing needed social services, like universal healthcare so the poorest don't have to decide between a doctor's visit and the rent. This has been playing out over time since Reagan, and it hasn't gone well for the general population. Great for the 1%, though.
• He reduced the number of folks coming here illegally - in itself good, but the methodology of terrorizing families and locking kids in cages is verybad. Villainizing and promoting hate towards immigrants is very bad. Immigrants are the backbone of US growth and it should be made easier to come here legally and become a tax-paying, card-carrying citizen - not harder.
• He nominated two conservative supreme court judges - two people who are expected to try and roll back social progress towards giving women rights over their bodies and lean towards favoring GOP agendas, like dismantling social services and killing regulations.
• He rolled back tons of regulations - regulations are the only thing keeping the US from becoming a desolate wasteland. Corporations don't limit themselves willingly; that's wishful thinking of the worst kind. If they did, we wouldn't have regulations to begin with. Rolling them back is essentially fucking the environment and the future for a quick buck today. My feelings on this mimic The Lorax.
• He has challenged the EU on NATO payments - Challenged? Great. Pissing off allies and throwing epic tantrums? Bad.
• He has challenged China on trade - this is maybe one thing I might like, but that's because I don't like the way China treats it's populace and it's less about a trade imbalance. I'm cool with an affordable imbalance with countries that work towards making the world a better place. China is not one of them.
• He reworked NAFTA - I don't think he reworked NAFTA as I didn't see any commentary on crayons and sharpies during the process. By all accounts it was overdue and all he really did was sign a line. Even a stopped clock, etc.

As noted, this is your philosophy.
I happen to agree with you.
It is a good portion of why I have such a difficult time seeing anyone supporting him. All his "major accomplishments" I see as failures.