Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

timschochet’s political thoughts and commentary- back in here until the election is done


timschochet

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Ok. Now multiply it by the CNN factor.  

Big Trump win in the final debate, again.  

You’re about as unbiased as I am. 

But I agree that Trump was his best tonight. But Biden was very good as well. The problem for Trump is that the facts work against him. He has no good defense for Covid. And his take on the immigrant children was awful and pathetic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BobbyLayne said:

What percentage of the country do they estimate has already cast their ballot?

Can't speak to the rest of the country, but the number of votes counted here in Florida (as of Tuesday) is approx 15% of the entirety of those that voted in 2016 and is absolutely dwarfing where they were at this point in the 2018 midterms.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank Luntz sees it like I do: Trump had a very good night last night, and it will bring some Republicans home, but it won’t change the trajectory of the race: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/10/23/gop-pollster-frank-luntz-trump-won-debate-but-biden-will-win-election.html

Luntz also makes what I think is a really important point: Americans prefer Joe Biden’s positive outlook to Trump’s negative one. Now I realize that on paper this might seem the opposite of what is happening; after all, Biden predicted a dark winter for Covid while Trump says we’ve turned the corner. But positivity is more than words; it’s attitude and confidence. Nobody believes Trump and even when he tries to be positive it is usually so divisive, so filled with grievance and bile, that it comes off negative. Meanwhile Biden has borrowed a page from those two masters of positive attitude, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. He’s nowhere near good at it as they were, but he still manages to project a confident aura of “we can get through this” which Americans have always wanted. A big reason why he will win. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Frank Luntz sees it like I do: Trump had a very good night last night, and it will bring some Republicans home, but it won’t change the trajectory of the race: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/10/23/gop-pollster-frank-luntz-trump-won-debate-but-biden-will-win-election.html

Luntz also makes what I think is a really important point: Americans prefer Joe Biden’s positive outlook to Trump’s negative one. Now I realize that on paper this might seem the opposite of what is happening; after all, Biden predicted a dark winter for Covid while Trump says we’ve turned the corner. But positivity is more than words; it’s attitude and confidence. Nobody believes Trump and even when he tries to be positive it is usually so divisive, so filled with grievance and bile, that it comes off negative. Meanwhile Biden has borrowed a page from those two masters of positive attitude, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. He’s nowhere near good at it as they were, but he still manages to project a confident aura of “we can get through this” which Americans have always wanted. A big reason why he will win. 

Biden is fear mongering about people being dead at the dinner table and he's the positive one?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Biden is fear mongering about people being dead at the dinner table and he's the positive one?

Yes. And I don’t think it’s fear mongering. 
 

Again it’s all about attitude more than words. In the election of 1932 (most analogous I can think of) Herbert Hoover kept saying the Depression is over, good times are just ahead. FDR said no, we’re in for very hard days ahead. Yet FDR exuded confidence and optimism, while nobody believed Hoover. This is very similar to that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Yes. And I don’t think it’s fear mongering. 
 

Again it’s all about attitude more than words. In the election of 1932 (most analogous I can think of) Herbert Hoover kept saying the Depression is over, good times are just ahead. FDR said no, we’re in for very hard days ahead. Yet FDR exuded confidence and optimism, while nobody believed Hoover. This is very similar to that. 

It's the definition of fear mongering.  Look at the death rates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other parallel I want to bring up from last night: this one between Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan, in terms of rhetorical argument. Last night Trump argued that the public option will lead to socialized medicine. Back in 1964, Ronald Reagan, on the stump for Goldwater, argued that Medicare would lead to socialized medicine. 
Both arguments may be correct (though if Reagan was right it was certainly a lonnnng range prediction). Personally I believe that socialized medicine has been an inevitability from the moment we guaranteed the same prices for people with pre-existing conditions because ultimately there’s no way the free market can pay for that. 
But my point here is that, in terms of elections, these sorts of “slippery slope” arguments rarely work. You’ve got to make a direct argument- Biden wants to end fracking, Trump wants to end ACA. Those work. But if you argue, Bidens going to put a restriction on fracking and eventually that will end fracking, or Trump wants to change the ACA and eventually that will end the ACA- those types of warning arguments are usually too subtle for the average voter, IMO. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

It's the definition of fear mongering.  Look at the death rates

No, I’m guessing you didn’t hear him correctly, because he wasn’t predicting that someone close to you was going to die; he said that many of you have loved ones that already have died. I have. I lost my best friend to this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

It's the definition of fear mongering.  Look at the death rates

So are you saying there aren’t dinner tables with people missing because of Covid? Or won’t be going forward?

Edited by dkp993
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why didn’t Trump take ownership of the children separated from their parents story? Unlike the Covid crisis this isn’t an instance of incompetence; it was a deliberate action, competently performed, based on a philosophy which Trump has expounded throughout his Presidency. That philosophy is this:

“those families that come to our southern border from Latin America seeking asylum and refuge are undesirable; we don’t want them to come. The best way to dissuade them is to forcibly separate them from their children at the border.” 

So why prevaricate and lie? These children in their current situation are exactly what Trump and his supporters intended to happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Here is the leading story on Fox News tonight: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/media/c-span-caller-leaning-trump-biden-hunter-biden-story.amp

A C-Span caller named “Jimmy from Maine”, who says he’s undecided, is leaning toward Trump because the media is ignoring the Hunter Biden story. 
😆

Sounds like a complete set-up. Anyone who cares about corruption and conflicts of interest, and votes for Trump, hasn't been honest or paying attention the last few years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, SoBeDad said:
52 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Here is the leading story on Fox News tonight: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/media/c-span-caller-leaning-trump-biden-hunter-biden-story.amp

A C-Span caller named “Jimmy from Maine”, who says he’s undecided, is leaning toward Trump because the media is ignoring the Hunter Biden story. 
😆

Sounds like a complete set-up. Anyone who cares about corruption and conflicts of interest, and votes for Trump, hasn't been honest or paying attention the last few years.h

Oh IDK fellas. What would you think of this hypothetical voter?

  • "undecided" and somewhat unengaged (may not vote)
  • voted for Trump in 2016 because he was a disruptive force, wouldn't be business as usual, an outsider (if you will)
  • "not a Trump supporter" but likes a lot of his policies, thinks he has kept a lot of his promises
  • thinks Trump has been good for the country
  • doesn't like how he acts like a moron and doesn't care for his Twitter feed (but we knew those things coming in)
  • feels like Democrats have fought him from Day One, and the partisanship started with Obama, so it's not really Trump's fault
  • thinks Biden is a bumbling idiot but wants to get back to normal
  • not sure if a vote for normalcy as it might mean pseudo-electing Harris (likely Biden cannot serve 4 years)m which would be really bad

Is that person an independent voter? are they undecided? how much (if any) effort would you put into trying to persuade them one way or another? do you think this person would fit under the Democrat umbrella?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug B said:

Tim, do you have opinions about the presidential election results at the individual state level, or do you prefer not get into the weeds with that?

I’m not sure what you’re asking- do you want me to make predictions? 
I think Biden’s winning bigly, which means I think he’s winning Florida and we’ll know early on election night. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m not sure what you’re asking- do you want me to make predictions? 
I think Biden’s winning bigly, which means I think he’s winning Florida and we’ll know early on election night. 

I agree here. I think Biden wins by a margin we haven't seen in a while. Even people I know that I thought for sure would be trump voters aren't giving me any kind of vibe that they are going to punch the trump ticket. It just needs to end. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, timschochet said:

I’m not sure what you’re asking- do you want me to make predictions? 
I think Biden’s winning bigly, which means I think he’s winning Florida and we’ll know early on election night. 

I just meant that if I throw out a few musings about which states might flip and which states Trump might retain, you’d be willing to discuss. For edification and fun, not for gotchas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BobbyLayne said:

Oh IDK fellas. What would you think of this hypothetical voter?

  • "undecided" and somewhat unengaged (may not vote)
  • voted for Trump in 2016 because he was a disruptive force, wouldn't be business as usual, an outsider (if you will)
  • "not a Trump supporter" but likes a lot of his policies, thinks he has kept a lot of his promises
  • thinks Trump has been good for the country
  • doesn't like how he acts like a moron and doesn't care for his Twitter feed (but we knew those things coming in)
  • feels like Democrats have fought him from Day One, and the partisanship started with Obama, so it's not really Trump's fault
  • thinks Biden is a bumbling idiot but wants to get back to normal
  • not sure if a vote for normalcy as it might mean pseudo-electing Harris (likely Biden cannot serve 4 years)m which would be really bad

Is that person an independent voter? are they undecided? how much (if any) effort would you put into trying to persuade them one way or another? do you think this person would fit under the Democrat umbrella?

This is a red voter. The fact that he/she is even considering a blue vote is good for Biden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BobbyLayne said:

Oh IDK fellas. What would you think of this hypothetical voter?

  • "undecided" and somewhat unengaged (may not vote)
  • voted for Trump in 2016 because he was a disruptive force, wouldn't be business as usual, an outsider (if you will)
  • "not a Trump supporter" but likes a lot of his policies, thinks he has kept a lot of his promises
  • thinks Trump has been good for the country
  • doesn't like how he acts like a moron and doesn't care for his Twitter feed (but we knew those things coming in)
  • feels like Democrats have fought him from Day One, and the partisanship started with Obama, so it's not really Trump's fault
  • thinks Biden is a bumbling idiot but wants to get back to normal
  • not sure if a vote for normalcy as it might mean pseudo-electing Harris (likely Biden cannot serve 4 years)m which would be really bad

Is that person an independent voter? are they undecided? how much (if any) effort would you put into trying to persuade them one way or another? do you think this person would fit under the Democrat umbrella?

My whole goal is to convince people like this that......it was worth a shot 4 years ago to "drain the swamp", but Trump hasn't lived up to the hope.   He's an embarrassment - nobody could have seen this coming (!!) - nobody who voted for him made a mistake, it just didn't work out.  The only mistake would be voting for him again and expecting something different.   So....Biden is a crappy candidate and nobody HAS to vote for him, but it's better to sit this one out than to vote for Trump again.

That's my pitch to people who I don't think will ever vote blue.  Just to encourage them to NOT vote Trump.  Vote third party.  Or stay home.   Just don't vote for him again.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/22/2020 at 9:15 PM, [scooter] said:

We'll probably still end up with high turnout, but I wonder how many voters the Democrats are leaving on the table by not having a more magnetic candidate.

This was the recurring thought in my mind during the entire debate.  Mayor Pete is still my preferred candidate.   It's embarrassing that our two choices are these guys.   Once again, just like 4 years ago, we ended up with historically bad candidates.  Why is that?   Is the primary process irreparably broken?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alex P Keaton said:

This was the recurring thought in my mind during the entire debate.  Mayor Pete is still my preferred candidate.   It's embarrassing that our two choices are these guys.   Once again, just like 4 years ago, we ended up with historically bad candidates.  Why is that?   Is the primary process irreparably broken?

I think the primary process is pretty messed up...lending too much weight to too few places.  It all swings in just a few states which then influence the others because of the timing of when their primary occurs.

And yeah...Mayor Pete out campaigning for Biden and doing clips on TV has shown even more that I prefer him as a candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Alex P Keaton said:

This was the recurring thought in my mind during the entire debate.  Mayor Pete is still my preferred candidate.   It's embarrassing that our two choices are these guys.   Once again, just like 4 years ago, we ended up with historically bad candidates.  Why is that?   Is the primary process irreparably broken?

I don’t think you can reasonably make the argument that Joe Biden is a historically bad candidate. At worst, Biden is a mediocrity- but he very well may end up rising above that, not because of the election but because of Covid and how he deals with it. 

I know this sounds silly right now but Joe Biden might one day be regarded as one of our great Presidents based almost solely on how he deals with Covid as compared to how Trump handled it. 

Edited by timschochet
  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I don’t think you can reasonably make the argument that Joe Biden is a historically bad candidate. At worst, Biden is a mediocrity- but he very well may end up rising above that, not because of the election but because of Covid and how he deals with it. 

I know this sounds silly right now but Joe Biden might one day be regarded as one of our great Presidents based almost solely on how he deals with Covid as compared to how Trump handled it. 

That doesn't sound silly at all.   COVID was an opportunity for any president to step up and lead (which of course Trump has failed to do).

I'm sticking by my statement.  Biden is a terrible, terrible candidate.   Some Biden career highlights:

- Draft dodger

- Near the bottom of his law school class (76th out of 85)

- Opposed busing and cozied up to a legendary white supremacist

- Had his real shot in 1988 and was chased out of the race for a variety of reasons, including multiple instances of plagiarism

- Performed shamefully during the Clarence Thomas hearings, and absolutely abandoned Anita Hill

- Led the way on the 1994 Crime Bill (an abomination)

- Had a chance to run in 2008 and didn't get the nomination

- Passed up the chance to run in 2016 (for understandable reasons)

- edit to add:  he's clearly not fully on his game at this advanced age.  He exhibits many of the same behaviors and slips as my father -- and I wouldn't trust my father to drive his car for an hour solo, let alone run the entire country.

 

Maybe your label of "mediocre candidate" is more accurate.  To me that's splitting hairs.  He's a bad candidate, who happens to be running against possibly the worst President in history.  We can and should have done better.   No idea how we keep getting stuck with these poor choices.   He already has my vote despite all of this -- because preserving democracy is my #1 goal right now.  

Edited by Alex P Keaton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

The main reason Joe Biden is the candidate is because black voters decided he would be. The main reason black voters have so much power in the Democratic Party is because white people in the south chose to abandon the Democratic Party following integration. 

Ah, thx for the reminder!  I never gave you full props for predicting Biden would get the nomination!!  Seriously, well done.  You were consistent in this prediction from the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

The main reason Joe Biden is the candidate is because black voters decided he would be. The main reason black voters have so much power in the Democratic Party is because white people in the south chose to abandon the Democratic Party following integration. 

There is also the past 40 years of race baiting by Republicans, starting with Reagan using the fictional “Cadillac Queen” to argue that the welfare system was being abused by Black people.  That certainly hasn’t helped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Alex P Keaton said:
On 10/22/2020 at 7:15 PM, [scooter] said:

We'll probably still end up with high turnout, but I wonder how many voters the Democrats are leaving on the table by not having a more magnetic candidate.

This was the recurring thought in my mind during the entire debate.  Mayor Pete is still my preferred candidate.   It's embarrassing that our two choices are these guys.   Once again, just like 4 years ago, we ended up with historically bad candidates.  Why is that?   Is the primary process irreparably broken?

Well, I disagree that Clinton and Biden were "historically bad" candidates. Both of them had very strong resumes on paper, both of them were considered to be "safe" picks, both of them ran campaigns which were considered to be competent by contemporary standards. How many pundits (even the Republican ones) were saying in 2016 that Hillary had ignored Wisconsin (or, to a lesser extent, Pennsylvania and Michigan) to the point where they were now within Trump's reach?

In football terms, Hillary and Biden are like the team that has a 4-point lead, gets into field goal range, and then kneels 3 times before kicking the field goal with 10 seconds left on the clock. If you win, then nobody questions why you didn't try to score the touchdown. But if your opponent scores a TD on the ensuing kickoff and ends up beating you, then all of the Monday Morning Quarterbacks will come out of the woodwork and say that you should have gone for the TD.

I like Mayor Pete, but he's got his own set of drawbacks -- if he runs against Trump and loses, then it would be just as easy to point to him and say that the Democrats picked another "historically bad" candidate.

As for what the Democratic party can do going forward, my advice would be find some younger Governors/Senators and start pushing them into the spotlight, and to find some younger Mayors/Representatives and start pushing them towards being Governors/Senators. Because right now the cupboard is pretty bare in that department, and it's filled with candidates who are either fatally flawed (Cuomo, Warren) or unproven on a national stage (Klobuchar, Harris and the rest).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hillary Clinton really was a historically bad candidate.  She had never won a competitive election at any level before having the Democratic nomination handed to her more or less by default. She ranked right up there with Newt Gingrich in terms of polarization, had no legislative accomplishments to speak of, single-handedly set the cause of health care back two decades, and was best known for defending sexual misconduct committed by powerful men.  And of course she lost to Donald Trump, so there's also that.  

Biden isn't great, but he's at least "replacement level," and that's a massive improvement over Hillary.

Edited by IvanKaramazov
  • Like 2
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, timschochet said:
13 hours ago, Doug B said:

I just meant that if I throw out a few musings about which states might flip and which states Trump might retain, you’d be willing to discuss. For edification and fun, not for gotchas.

Of course. I love musings. Muse away. 

I had posted the following series of predictions in Joe B's "Who Will Win the Election?" thread. I'll repost here for discussion and add a little detail (in red) :

Quote

I call it 95-100% for Biden. No deep dive into the stats and polls, just general impressions:

- Biden gets back WI, MI, and PA and IA. Trump was about as weak as a state winner can be in these areas. Super vulnerable in all four of these states.

- Trump keeps OH to make things semi-interesting early in the evening. Here, Trump can afford to lose three or four percentage points from 2016 and still carry the state.

- Biden wins NC in a mild surprise. In contrast to Ohio, if Trump loses a percentage point here, the state probably flips blue.

- Trump keeps GA, but it's startlingly close. Just a hunch -- Excluding Ross Perot's vote-splitting, 2016 Trump was the weakest Republican candidate in Georgia since 1980 when Carter won his home state. Trump won by 5 points in 2016; I'll bet he squeaks by Biden by less than one this time around. It'll be news.

- Trump keeps TX, but the surprise is he only hovers around the 50% mark, with Biden coming in north of 48%. Similar to Georgia, you have to go back to 1976 to find a GOP candidate that performed as weak in Texas as 2016 Trump. I do think Texas is (very) slowly turning blue, but 2020 Biden getting 48% seems a little too ambitious on second thought. 2008 Obama and 2016 H. Clinton both got to 43% and change ... I can see Biden bumping that to 46%.

- Biden flips FL back to the Dems, becoming the first candidate since 1988 to get more than 53% of the state's vote. The newscasters hold out for Central Time Zone Escambia County before calling FL to maintain viewer interest. H. Clinton lost to Trump by 1.2% while picking up over 200,000 more Florida votes than either of Obama's runs. Biden's got room to move here, whereas Trump barely scraped past 49% in 2016 and will lose a few points off of that.

- Biden flips AZ to put the final nail in Trump's 2020 run. 2/3 of Arizona's popular vote is in Maricopa County. In that county, 3rd-parties took just under 10% of the vote in a election that Trump won by less than 3%. In November, the 3rd party vote drops and Maricopa swings Democratic. Pretty similar to Florida. 2016 Hillary outvoted both of Obama's runs by over 130,000 votes. 2016 Trump stumbled to 48%. Not a state Republicans can take for granted in 2020.

 

 

Edited by Doug B
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Doug B said:

I had posted the following series of predictions in Joe B's "Who Will Win the Election?" thread. I'll repost here for discussion and add a little detail (in red) :

 

I tend to agree with a lot of this. 

But- a Texas poll just came out this morning: Biden by 3!!! 
I know I know it’s gotta be a mirage, but how sweet would it be? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I tend to agree with a lot of this. 

But- a Texas poll just came out this morning: Biden by 3!!! 
I know I know it’s gotta be a mirage, but how sweet would it be? 

Imagine being a Republican right now.  With this economy and a merely competent response to covid-19, President Jeb! or President Cruz is high-stepping his way to a second term if the party had had any sense in 2016.  Instead the party is facing annihilation next week all because they tossed the keys to one of the most comically inept politicians in our lifetimes.  

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Imagine being a Republican right now.  With this economy and a merely competent response to covid-19, President Jeb! or President Cruz is high-stepping his way to a second term if the party had had any sense in 2016.  Instead the party is facing annihilation next week all because they tossed the keys to one of the most comically inept politicians in our lifetimes.  

What’s so weird is the number of Trump supporters I have met who believe that Covid has been exaggerated in order to defeat Trump. The truth is that if we had been told “there will be no Covid and the price is 4 more years of Trump, “ I think 99% of Democrats would have gladly chosen 4 more years of Trump. Who wouldn’t? 

Edited by timschochet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey @Shutout I know you’re not discussing stuff in this thread anymore (I regret that) but in another thread you offered a list of issues important to voters and Covid was mentioned as 4th below the Supreme Court among others. I’m wondering: where did you get that list? Everything I’m reading, and hearing personally, is that Covid is #1 and nothing else is even close. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

What’s so weird is the number of Trump supporters I have met who believe that Covid has been exaggerated in order to defeat Trump. The truth is that if we had been told “there will be no Covid and the price is 4 more years of Trump, “ I think 99% of Democrats would have gladly chosen 4 more years of Trump. Who wouldn’t? 

Yeah its amazing...and the sad thing is, I wonder where they get it from? :rolleyes:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/us-election-trump-visits-battleground-states-as-covid-19-numbers-surge-1.4390695

Quote

“Covid, covid, covid … On November 4th you won’t hear about it any more,” he told a crowd of about 3,000 supporters at a rally in Lumberton, North Carolina.

He's a disgrace.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I tend to agree with a lot of this. 

But- a Texas poll just came out this morning: Biden by 3!!! 
I know I know it’s gotta be a mirage, but how sweet would it be? 

Yeah ... not so much a mirage, really, as an artifact of repeated data collection influenced by the vagaries of poll-taking. Biden won’t need Texas, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug B said:

Yeah ... not so much a mirage, really, as an artifact of repeated data collection influenced by the vagaries of poll-taking. Biden won’t need Texas, anyway.

He won’t need it, but the nation could sure use it. For our mental health we need to repudiate this guy. An electoral landslide would send a message to the world: America is back. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Imagine being a Republican right now.  With this economy and a merely competent response to covid-19, President Jeb! or President Cruz is high-stepping his way to a second term if the party had had any sense in 2016.  Instead the party is facing annihilation next week all because they tossed the keys to one of the most comically inept politicians in our lifetimes.  

And they'd still have their tax cuts and SC appointments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, timschochet said:

What’s so weird is the number of Trump supporters I have met who believe that Covid has been exaggerated in order to defeat Trump. The truth is that if we had been told “there will be no Covid and the price is 4 more years of Trump, “ I think 99% of Democrats would have gladly chosen 4 more years of Trump. Who wouldn’t? 

And to think.  All Trump needed to do was to pretend he was concerned about Covid, somewhat listen to the science, encourage wearing a mask and social distancing.  He wouldn't even need to go to all the meetings.  He could have just feigned concern.

It is unbelievable that this was set up on a tee for him and all he had to do was put the ball in play.  Instead he swung and missed 3 times.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Chaz McNulty said:
4 hours ago, timschochet said:

What’s so weird is the number of Trump supporters I have met who believe that Covid has been exaggerated in order to defeat Trump. The truth is that if we had been told “there will be no Covid and the price is 4 more years of Trump, “ I think 99% of Democrats would have gladly chosen 4 more years of Trump. Who wouldn’t? 

And to think.  All Trump needed to do was to pretend he was concerned about Covid, somewhat listen to the science, encourage wearing a mask and social distancing.  He wouldn't even need to go to all the meetings.  He could have just feigned concern.

It is unbelievable that this was set up on a tee for him and all he had to do was put the ball in play.  Instead he swung and missed 3 times.  

The baseline for a Trump re-election was to simply wear a mask and say "Many people are saying, 'Sir, nobody wears a mask more than you do'."

If he really wanted to twist the knife, he could have allocated more resources to swing states, while getting his surrogates to spread disinformation in blue states. Then, when the election rolls around, he can point to how the swing states are doing so much better than the blue states, and he could cite it as proof that the Republican approach is better than the Democratic approach. Not only does Trump win in a landslide, but Republicans easily hold the Senate and might even flip the House.

But, instead, he and the Republican party spent 10 months saying "hoax!" and "flu!" and "vaccine!" and "rounding the corner!" And the electorate has finally grown tired of the act. We're done with it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Chaz McNulty said:

And to think.  All Trump needed to do was to pretend he was concerned about Covid, somewhat listen to the science, encourage wearing a mask and social distancing.  He wouldn't even need to go to all the meetings.  He could have just feigned concern.

It is unbelievable that this was set up on a tee for him and all he had to do was put the ball in play.  Instead he swung and missed 3 times.  

He’s incapable of doing that.  Because he’s a narcissist.    It never crosses his mind - he literally can’t do it.  It would be like asking me to dunk a basketball.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2020 at 6:22 AM, IvanKaramazov said:

Hillary Clinton really was a historically bad candidate.  She had never won a competitive election at any level before having the Democratic nomination handed to her more or less by default. She ranked right up there with Newt Gingrich in terms of polarization, had no legislative accomplishments to speak of, single-handedly set the cause of health care back two decades, and was best known for defending sexual misconduct committed by powerful men.  And of course she lost to Donald Trump, so there's also that.  

Biden isn't great, but he's at least "replacement level," and that's a massive improvement over Hillary.

Sorry, I don’t follow politics closely enough to understand the bolded. Can you give me a quick summary why you feel this way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Terminalxylem said:

Sorry, I don’t follow politics closely enough to understand the bolded. Can you give me a quick summary why you feel this way?

Her husband campaigned hard on health care reform and came into office with a clear mandate to do something in this area.  He put Hillary in charge of it and she steered it right into the iceberg.  There was no further movement on HCR until Obama came along and did it right.

Edit: It sounds weird to say that the president put the first lady in charge of what would have been his administration's singular accomplishment, but that's literally what happened.  It was a weird time.

Edited by IvanKaramazov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Her husband campaigned hard on health care reform and came into office with a clear mandate to do something in this area.  He put Hillary in charge of it and she steered it right into the iceberg.  There was no further movement on HCR until Obama came along and did it right.

Edit: It sounds weird to say that the president put the first lady in charge of what would have been his administration's singular accomplishment, but that's literally what happened.  It was a weird time.

I see. I’ll have to educate myself where she went wrong.

But to be fair, 8 years of Dubya’s inaction can’t really be blamed on Hillary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Edit: It sounds weird to say that the president put the first lady in charge of what would have been his administration's singular accomplishment, but that's literally what happened.  It was a weird time.

It's always a weird time.

If someone would have told me that any president would have tasked his son-in-law with.....

- reforming the criminal justice system

- solving the opioid epidemic

- brokering peace in the Middle East

- diplomatic relations with China AND Mexico(presumably on his weekends)

- finishing a wall along the entire southern border of the country

.... all this without any qualifications with ANY of it I would have thought someone was describing a satirical comedy that was going a little too far into the realm of the unbelievable. If anything, things are getting even weirder.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Her husband campaigned hard on health care reform and came into office with a clear mandate to do something in this area.  He put Hillary in charge of it and she steered it right into the iceberg.  There was no further movement on HCR until Obama came along and did it right.

Edit: It sounds weird to say that the president put the first lady in charge of what would have been his administration's singular accomplishment, but that's literally what happened.  It was a weird time.

I don't know if you would call it reform but HIPAA comes out of this era and then with the collapse of capitated plans around Y2K (other than Medicaid MSOs) comes the "skin in the game" high deductible plans that the masses love so much in the early W years.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a fascinating debate on Joe Scarborough this morning. The question: if Donald Trump is defeated, and if it looks likely that during his time in office, he may have committed crimes, should a new Justice Department pursue this? 

The Pros No person is above the law. If we let this go we are inviting future Presidents to abuse their power and it will only get worse, not better. If Trump committed crimes then he MUST be investigated and prosecuted because we are a nation of laws. 

The cons There is no way that the millions of Americans who voted for Donald Trump, either in 2016 or 2020, will view any prosecution of him as other than partisan and unfair, and thus this will only further damage the integrity of our institutions, along with increasing our level of division. Further, a prosecution of Trump will consume the nation and the political process, making any hope of bipartisanship improbable and preventing the next administration from moving forward with their own agenda. 
 

I find these both to be good arguments. I lean towards the con but I’m not sure because the pro is a very powerful argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find the arguement that people will consider it partisan to be a reason not to pursue if someone committed actual crimes...especially from the highest office in the country.  Those at such levels should be held to that higher standard and getting away with anything criminal should not be part of that.

With that said...it has to be done as open as possible with attention to every legal detail...transparent...and in front of congress.  And if its clear crimes, GOP in congress better damn well get on board and not sew more division with such things.

Its a thin line to walk...but I think it is important no matter who we would be talking about...this goes beyond Trump...anyone in that office should be held to that standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...