Trump vs. Biden - the Final Showdown

[Defiant]

Probably not a great sign that you need opportunities to show undecideds that your Presidential candidate doesn't have dementia.

I'd say a completely false attack against you is a normal sign that you're an opponent of Trump. Or a Democratic presidential candidate.

I'm not suggesting that it's a true attack, but you invite this sort of thing I suppose when you run a 77-year old Presidential candidate.

Agreed (that's one of the reasons my first preferences were for some of the younger candidates).

But you would also invite that sort of thing when you run someone with a pulse. it wouldn't matter if you ran a highly intelligent, athletic young person. (*cough*Birtherism*cough*)

[malchior]

Probably not a great sign that you need opportunities to show undecideds that your Presidential candidate doesn't have dementia.

I'd say a completely false attack against you is a normal sign that you're an opponent of Trump. Or a Democratic presidential candidate.

I'm not suggesting that it's a true attack, but you invite this sort of thing I suppose when you run a 77-year old Presidential candidate. And the 74-year old opponent is already clearly suffering from the beginning stages.

Woah hold on there. The only realistic way that was going to happen with this field was to let some Gen X slacker (Harris is on the cusp) take the wheel. No one wants to see that.

[dfs]

How anyone could be undecided at this point is simply beyond me. Is there a debate that would change your mind about these men?

[Smoove_B]

How anyone could be undecided at this point is simply beyond me. Is there a debate that would change your mind about these men?

Exactly. It's also why I don't trust people (generally) that say they're undecided in voting. IMHO they're either intentionally not wanting to share their thoughts to avoid conflict or they're not affected/impacted by people in office and don't want to say they don't vote or care about politics.

The idea in 2020 that someone is "undecided' is enraging.

[Skinypupy]

Nearly all of the “undecideds” or “independents” I know are simply conservatives looking for a fig leaf to justify their Trump vote. They’re not actually undecided at all, they’re just having a momentary crisis of conscience in actually pulling the lever for a garbage human being.

But they’ll all do so in the end.

[malchior]

I agree - there aren't 'undecided' folks. They simply don't care, are checked out, or are delusional about what is happening. The checked out people I understand to an extent though it'd be better if they voted.

[Blackhawk]

There are probably a few undecideds, but they're of the type who know who Trump is and are struggling to vote for a Democrat (and, naturally, claim they voted for Trump afterward.) They're torn about whether to turn against what they stand for when it contradicts what they believe in.

I supposed 'conflicted' would be a better term.

[Defiant]

I would think undecideds are:

1. Republican leaners who are conflicted about Trump but not quite ready to vote Democrat.
2. Voters so far off the political spectrum (either at the extremes, or otherwise far outside the norm) that see both parties as really bad.
3. People who actually buy smears of Biden and thus think both candidates are equally bad.
4. And people who are just naturally indecisive and wait for the last minute to decide on things.

There's probably overlap of these (well, not 1 and 2, but other combinations).

[Blackhawk]

4. And people who are just naturally indecisive and wait for the last minute to decide on things.

This would include those who don't pay any attention at all to current events/watch the news/etc and make their decisions at the last minute.

[El Guapo]

4. And people who are just naturally indecisive and wait for the last minute to decide on things.

This would include those who don't pay any attention at all to current events/watch the news/etc and make their decisions at the last minute.

Yeah, I think this is the core of it. It seems ridiculous to us to be undecided because pretty much everyone here is at least minimally informed about politics and current events. But there are a lot of people who pay zero attention to the news and to politics.

[gbasden]

Yeah, I think this is the core of it. It seems ridiculous to us to be undecided because pretty much everyone here is at least minimally informed about politics and current events. But there are a lot of people who pay zero attention to the news and to politics.

True. And I'd like to give those assholes two big middle fingers as their inability to give a fuck is going to cost us our democracy.

[Unagi]

I dont know why they feel compelled to go vote if they are so disengaged.

[YellowKing]

I know a lot of folks (including some in my own family) who are completely distanced from politics except for the presidential election every 4 years. I compare them to "Christmas and Easter" churchgoers. If you asked them, I'm sure they'd say they vote because it's their responsibility as American citizens, etc. etc. even though it's apparently not their responsibility to pay attention the remaining 3 years, 364 days.

[LawBeefaroni]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 4130214913

Spoiler:

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
RECORD HIGH NASDAQ! It would all come crashing down, including your Jobs, Stocks, and 401k’s, if Sleepy Joe ever became President. China and others would own us!!!
8:49 AM · Aug 3, 2020

Jobs are already gone. NASDAQ is what, 80% owned by the 1%? China and Russia are already owning us.

[El Guapo]

Yeah, I think this is the core of it. It seems ridiculous to us to be undecided because pretty much everyone here is at least minimally informed about politics and current events. But there are a lot of people who pay zero attention to the news and to politics.

True. And I'd like to give those assholes two big middle fingers as their inability to give a fuck is going to cost us our democracy.

What this reminds me of is during the Boston mayoral election a couple years ago I decided to finally watch a mayoral debate for the first time in my life. Mayor Walsh had a progressive challenger (Tito Jackson) that people in my progressive neighborhood were all excited about. While I actively keep up on national (and to a lesser degree state level) politics, I pay essentially zero attention to local / city politics.

So when Walsh and Jackson were debating, I had *zero* idea what the issues were that they were talking about, and how I should feel about them. At times I would think to myself that X point or Y point seemed reasonable, but without any foundation in the issues it was really hard to assess who had the better arguments. So in some ways I wound up defaulting to "well, Mayor Walsh seems fine, and the city government seems to run ok overall, so I think I'm fine with Walsh".

I think about that because I think there are a non-trivial number of voters in that position with regards to presidential elections and debates.

[LordMortis]

Jobs are already gone. NASDAQ is what, 80% owned by the 1%? China and Russia are already owning us.

And how much of that is not US owned? And how much is people investing because they have nowhere else to put their money? And how much of it is people gambling because no sports and entertainment? And how much of that is infusion from gov't incentive that will have to be paid to the piper one way or another? (And how much of that giveaway was from you irrespective of your name in a letter, vs Congress and their poorly planned (but greatly needed) action)

Yes a successful market is necessary, but it is not sufficient to declare economic success. Let's see what happens now that the CARES unemployment windfall is dry and these mortgage deferrals/forebearances have expired.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/15/private ... igate.html

[Blackhawk]

While I actively keep up on national (and to a lesser degree state level) politics, I pay essentially zero attention to local / city politics.

I'm the same way, although I do make an attempt to see what's on the ballot and read up on anything I'm not clear on in the weeks prior to the election.

[NickAragua]

Yeah, I think this is the core of it. It seems ridiculous to us to be undecided because pretty much everyone here is at least minimally informed about politics and current events. But there are a lot of people who pay zero attention to the news and to politics.

True. And I'd like to give those assholes two big middle fingers as their inability to give a fuck is going to cost us our democracy.

What this reminds me of is during the Boston mayoral election a couple years ago I decided to finally watch a mayoral debate for the first time in my life. Mayor Walsh had a progressive challenger (Tito Jackson) that people in my progressive neighborhood were all excited about. While I actively keep up on national (and to a lesser degree state level) politics, I pay essentially zero attention to local / city politics.

So when Walsh and Jackson were debating, I had *zero* idea what the issues were that they were talking about, and how I should feel about them. At times I would think to myself that X point or Y point seemed reasonable, but without any foundation in the issues it was really hard to assess who had the better arguments. So in some ways I wound up defaulting to "well, Mayor Walsh seems fine, and the city government seems to run ok overall, so I think I'm fine with Walsh".

I think about that because I think there are a non-trivial number of voters in that position with regards to presidential elections and debates.

The main difference is that most "local politics" is basically irrelevant to me. I'll occasionally review the town meeting warrants that get sent out where I live, and it's about 50/50 stuff like "allocate $15000 from fund A to fund B for the purchase of replacement plows for snow plow people plowing school C so they don't have to use a 15-year-old broken snow plow" or "amend city bylaws to replace 'whitelist' with 'allowedlist' in network configurations controlled by the town IT department". So basically either no-brainer basic maintenance stuff or "overactive white soccermoms trying to pretend like they're being socially aware". Occasionally, we'll have votes on raising taxes to give teachers a pay raise, or some guy who wants to buy an abandoned farm to build a farm-to-table restaurant, which, for some reason, requires a town meeting vote (was it a historical site or something?). In about 99% of the cases, I just can't bring myself to care (for the record, I voted for the tax increase and against the farm-to-table restaurant - no idea what the hell a farm-to-table restaurant is, but the guy who wanted to do it looked and sounded like a sleazy greek gangster. In retrospect, we probably did him a favor by denying the permit, he'd have gotten that place open just in time to get shut down by the plague).

Anyway, my point is that 99% of local issues are trivial bullshit that nobody cares about.

[El Guapo]

Yeah, I think this is the core of it. It seems ridiculous to us to be undecided because pretty much everyone here is at least minimally informed about politics and current events. But there are a lot of people who pay zero attention to the news and to politics.

True. And I'd like to give those assholes two big middle fingers as their inability to give a fuck is going to cost us our democracy.

What this reminds me of is during the Boston mayoral election a couple years ago I decided to finally watch a mayoral debate for the first time in my life. Mayor Walsh had a progressive challenger (Tito Jackson) that people in my progressive neighborhood were all excited about. While I actively keep up on national (and to a lesser degree state level) politics, I pay essentially zero attention to local / city politics.

So when Walsh and Jackson were debating, I had *zero* idea what the issues were that they were talking about, and how I should feel about them. At times I would think to myself that X point or Y point seemed reasonable, but without any foundation in the issues it was really hard to assess who had the better arguments. So in some ways I wound up defaulting to "well, Mayor Walsh seems fine, and the city government seems to run ok overall, so I think I'm fine with Walsh".

I think about that because I think there are a non-trivial number of voters in that position with regards to presidential elections and debates.

The main difference is that most "local politics" is basically irrelevant to me. I'll occasionally review the town meeting warrants that get sent out where I live, and it's about 50/50 stuff like "allocate $15000 from fund A to fund B for the purchase of replacement plows for snow plow people plowing school C so they don't have to use a 15-year-old broken snow plow" or "amend city bylaws to replace 'whitelist' with 'allowedlist' in network configurations controlled by the town IT department". So basically either no-brainer basic maintenance stuff or "overactive white soccermoms trying to pretend like they're being socially aware". Occasionally, we'll have votes on raising taxes to give teachers a pay raise, or some guy who wants to buy an abandoned farm to build a farm-to-table restaurant, which, for some reason, requires a town meeting vote (was it a historical site or something?). In about 99% of the cases, I just can't bring myself to care (for the record, I voted for the tax increase and against the farm-to-table restaurant - no idea what the hell a farm-to-table restaurant is, but the guy who wanted to do it looked and sounded like a sleazy greek gangster. In retrospect, we probably did him a favor by denying the permit, he'd have gotten that place open just in time to get shut down by the plague).

Anyway, my point is that 99% of local issues are trivial bullshit that nobody cares about.

I don't disagree - obviously my preferences and actions are 100% the perfect model that everyone should emulate. My point is just that people who are completely uninformed about news and politics may well be legitimately undecided. Just to push back a bit on the notion that there are no real undecided voters.

[Fireball]

Are the debates becoming debatable?

Democratic strategists and supporters of Vice President Joe Biden are urging him not to debate President Donald Trump in the lead-up to Election Day, citing Trump's publicity stunts and disregard for the rules in 2016. Meanwhile Biden backers, including some conservatives, applauded the University of Notre Dame and the University of Michigan for cancelling their scheduled debates over COVID-19 concerns.

Former White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart joined several Democratic Party strategists in bluntly advising Biden, "whatever you do, don't debate Trump." Speaking on CNN Saturday, Lockhart said Trump shouldn't be given another platform which will enable him to "repeat lies," which he said occurred in the 2016 debates against Hillary Clinton.

Laying low and letting trump hang himself every day is working fine so far. Why throw him potential lifelines? If Biden were a skilled debater I'd be persuadable, but he really has nothing to gain and a lot to lose by going head-to-head in front of the cameras.

OTOH, "Biden refuses to debate!" isn't a good look, either.

It's bizarre to use the Clinton example as a reason *not* to debate Trump. Yeah, Trump lied, but Clinton cleaned his clock thoroughly across those debates, and Trump came across as obviously a crazy unhinged lunatic, as evidenced by the fact that Clinton's polling numbers shot up after each of those debates. I don't think that Biden's as good a debater as Clinton, but Trump hasn't become any less crazy.

I can see some reasons to decline the debates, but in general I think they're more likely to help Biden than Trump.

Agreed.

In 2016, Hillary's lead over Trump grew after each debate (and then settled back down after a few days). Biden is a much stronger debater than people think. He did poorly in the early primary debates where you had to grab time aggressively to make an impact, but did well in the later debates that were smaller and less chaotic. Trump is a terrible debater.

[Fireball]

Apparently there's widespread agreement among Gen Z that Biden is a pedophile. There's no shortage of pics of grabby Joe to fuel that narrative. When I try gently arguing with them, all I get is "OK boomer."

Young people are idealistic and sometimes kinda ignorant about the real world. They also don't vote at a very high level. Very few Gen Zers are eligible to vote in 2020, anyway.

What infuriates me about the "Biden is a pedophile" bullshit is that it is usually accompanied by a picture of Biden with his hands on the shoulders of a very upset young girl who he is kissing on the top of her head as an upset young boy looks on. Those are his grandchildren. At their father's funeral.

[Holman]

In 2016 everything turned on Comey's letter, the October surprise. Prior to that bombshell, Trump's numbers had been collapsing not only from the debates but from the Access Hollywood tape. Top Republicans were literally withdrawing their endorsements at that point.

We can be certain that Bill Barr is preparing to announce some bullshit fake revelation and investigation into Biden's deep, deep corruption the week or two before the election. I hope the Democrats are ready for that.

[YellowKing]

We can be certain that Bill Barr is preparing to announce some bullshit fake revelation and investigation into Biden's deep, deep corruption the week or two before the election. I hope the Democrats are ready for that.

I think you're right, but I think anything they come up with is going to be ineffective.

1. It's going to be REALLY difficult to convince Biden-leaning voters that he is somehow more corrupt than Trump. That wasn't hard to do at all in 2016. Hillary wasn't very popular, and Trump was an unknown.

2. Biden's been vetted so much at this point that anything they come up with is going to be easily disprovable bullshit. Unlike Clinton, where there was ambiguity since the news was dropping straight out of the mouth of the FBI. Hey, it was a simpler time when we believed certain offices were incorruptible.

3. Nothing Trump's done so far has been able to shift his poll numbers, which leads me to believe this election is largely baked in at this point. In 2016, despite the hindsight 20/20 notion that Hillary had it in the bag, her numbers, demographics, and electoral math were nowhere close to Biden's lead.

I honestly think one of the "surprises" they may be holding onto is announcement of a vaccine, believing that such a "bombshell" would change people into thinking Trump's their savior. It's a foolish notion, but then again we are dealing with fools.

[Kraken]

Apparently there's widespread agreement among Gen Z that Biden is a pedophile. There's no shortage of pics of grabby Joe to fuel that narrative. When I try gently arguing with them, all I get is "OK boomer."

Young people are idealistic and sometimes kinda ignorant about the real world. They also don't vote at a very high level. Very few Gen Zers are eligible to vote in 2020, anyway.

What infuriates me about the "Biden is a pedophile" bullshit is that it is usually accompanied by a picture of Biden with his hands on the shoulders of a very upset young girl who he is kissing on the top of her head as an upset young boy looks on. Those are his grandchildren. At their father's funeral.

I guess they must be Millennials then -- mid 20s to 30. IDK where the millennials end and the zoomers begin.

I don't engage with their pedophile charges. Nothing I say would change their minds, because I'm a boomer.

[YellowKing]

I never trust people who are obsessed with pointing out pedophiles, because they're the same ones that are probably into it. I've unfortunately crossed paths with a couple of sexual predator types at my workplace in the past, and both of them were known for speaking out loudly (and often) about how much they hated pedophiles, how immoral and sick it was, etc. Only to find out it was their way of deflecting attention from their own sins.

[Kraken]

I honestly think one of the "surprises" they may be holding onto is announcement of a vaccine, believing that such a "bombshell" would change people into thinking Trump's their savior. It's a foolish notion, but then again we are dealing with fools.

Yeah, I'm reading that trump will give emergency approval to an unproven vaccine before the election and try to force it upon frontline workers. One of the loopier stories says Putin will give him the Russian vaccine.

[NickAragua]

I don't disagree - obviously my preferences and actions are 100% the perfect model that everyone should emulate. My point is just that people who are completely uninformed about news and politics may well be legitimately undecided. Just to push back a bit on the notion that there are no real undecided voters.

I'll buy that. Probably a few less undecided people this time around, at least at the national-level elections, what with all the unemployment and death virus going around.

[Grifman]

I would think undecideds are:

1. Republican leaners who are conflicted about Trump but not quite ready to vote Democrat.
2. Voters so far off the political spectrum (either at the extremes, or otherwise far outside the norm) that see both parties as really bad.
3. People who actually buy smears of Biden and thus think both candidates are equally bad.
4. And people who are just naturally indecisive and wait for the last minute to decide on things.

There's probably overlap of these (well, not 1 and 2, but other combinations).

I agree. Now I don't think there are many at this point, but of course there are going to be undecided people. Everyone doesn't see the world the same as the most rabid anti-Trump or pro-Trump voter. They could be enough to tip the election to a slight Trump victory or a Biden landslide.

[malchior]

There is reporting that the Biden campaign is floating that they'll announce the VP pick this weekend / Monday at the latest. And the rumors are that it is a contest between Susan Rice and Harris.

[Paingod]

There is reporting that the Biden campaign is floating that they'll announce the VP pick this weekend / Monday at the latest. And the rumors are that it is a contest between Susan Rice and Harris.

I've got my fingers crossed for Harris. I was pulling for her as Presidential candidate after watching her perform in the Senate hearings.

[El Guapo]

There is reporting that the Biden campaign is floating that they'll announce the VP pick this weekend / Monday at the latest. And the rumors are that it is a contest between Susan Rice and Harris.

Odds have to be 80% Harris 20% Rice, right?

[malchior]

There is reporting that the Biden campaign is floating that they'll announce the VP pick this weekend / Monday at the latest. And the rumors are that it is a contest between Susan Rice and Harris.

Odds have to be 80% Harris 20% Rice, right?

Probably but I keep getting a sense that insiders are saying that Biden might go with Rice in a strategy that involves saying he is going to deal with domestic matters and have Rice handle foreign restoration. It isn't the worst play but it definitely has its risks.

[Smoove_B]

I'd really like Kamala Harris but not if it interferes with her ability to purge anything Trump related from DC. Basically, I want to see her continue to dismantle Trump officials in hearings and I'm afraid as VP she won't be able to do that. However, if as VP she can legit purge them and burn out the cancer that allowed the Trump tumor to grow, then I'm all for it.

Also, given Mitch McConnell, I don't know what it means for the Senate if she takes the VP nomination.

[malchior]

Also, given Mitch McConnell, I don't know what it means for the Senate if she takes the VP nomination.

It won't affect the Senate much other than her voice being absent.

[El Guapo]

Also, given Mitch McConnell, I don't know what it means for the Senate if she takes the VP nomination.

It won't affect the Senate much other than her voice being absent.

Looks like California is one of the states where the governor appoints an interim senator until the next general election. So the Democratic CA governor would appoint another democrat until the next general election, at which point the CA electorate will pick which Democrat will fill that seat.

Anyway, just means that another Democrat will be in the Senate. And Harris does a great job excoriating Trump appointees and whatnot, but while satisfying that ultimately doesn't mean that much while McConnell is majority leader.

[malchior]

Also, given Mitch McConnell, I don't know what it means for the Senate if she takes the VP nomination.

It won't affect the Senate much other than her voice being absent.

Looks like California is one of the states where the governor appoints an interim senator until the next general election. So the Democratic CA governor would appoint another democrat until the next general election, at which point the CA electorate will pick which Democrat will fill that seat.

Thanks for doing the leg work - I assumed it was Governor or special election. Either way same result from a balance of power point of view.

[LawBeefaroni]

I find it crazy that the VP pick even matters as far as this election. I get that it does matter but he should be able to win with a roasted turnip as a running mate, given the opposition.

Just insane.

[stessier]

I find it crazy that the VP pick even matters as far as this election. I get that it does matter but he should be able to win with a roasted turnip as a running mate, given the opposition.

Just insane.

Listening to Bakari Sellers, a lot of Black voters simply chose to stay home in 2016. He uses his mother as an example. With Hillary, she got out and voted. With Obama, she went and voted and was telling all her friends at the hair salon, at church, and on the street to get out and vote. He thinks a Harris selection will lead to the Obama model. I hope she's the choice too, but I'm biased as I voted for her in the primary.

[El Guapo]

I find it crazy that the VP pick even matters as far as this election. I get that it does matter but he should be able to win with a roasted turnip as a running mate, given the opposition.

Just insane.

It's not totally clear that it will. Mostly he just needs someone who (1) is not super old; (2) can plausibly fill in as President, especially given that Biden is super old; (3) is a woman (given his prior commitments to that); (4) isn't crazy or radioactive.

As long as he hits those, the pick probably won't move the needle too much - maybe a slight bump.

[LawBeefaroni]

It shouldn't be, "vote because there is a black candidate!"

It should be, "vote or we could get more of this bullshit!"


But wherever helps.