2020 Presidential Election: Joe Biden vs Whoever the Republicans Nominate

[Brontoburglar]

yes, he's wrong. he can't even explain the wisconsin ruling properly. it has nothing to do with ending the count *on election night*

he's a perfect example of how disinformation takes hold

I was referring to the tweet about Kavanaugh's grotesquely partisan screed.

oh yeah, that sucks. it's awful and bad. but pointing out how much it sucks and is bad when you can't even get the basic tenet of the case correct is counterproductive.

[EnochRoot]

yes, he's wrong. he can't even explain the wisconsin ruling properly. it has nothing to do with ending the count *on election night*

he's a perfect example of how disinformation takes hold

I was referring to the tweet about Kavanaugh's grotesquely partisan screed.

oh yeah, that sucks. it's awful and bad. but pointing out how much it sucks and is bad when you can't even get the basic tenet of the case correct is counterproductive.

That depends on the message you're conveying. This is Trump's green light to skull-fuck the integrity of the election.

[brian]

I don't think he was waiting on the courts to do that. That was really just a given. The next seven days are gonna be dark, man. We just gotta muddle through.

[The Sybian]

yes, he's wrong. he can't even explain the wisconsin ruling properly. it has nothing to do with ending the count *on election night*

he's a perfect example of how disinformation takes hold

I was referring to the tweet about Kavanaugh's grotesquely partisan screed.

oh yeah, that sucks. it's awful and bad. but pointing out how much it sucks and is bad when you can't even get the basic tenet of the case correct is counterproductive.

This. And the bigger issue is posting Tweets from completely unknown people saying bad things are going to happen. Or posting a Tweet that 50 Trump supporters are driving their trucks in a line, so clearly Trump has huge support!?!?!?!?!

[The Sybian]

Just a quick reminder that we are all living in bubbles.

[psunate77]

yes, he's wrong. he can't even explain the wisconsin ruling properly. it has nothing to do with ending the count *on election night*

he's a perfect example of how disinformation takes hold

I was referring to the tweet about Kavanaugh's grotesquely partisan screed.

oh yeah, that sucks. it's awful and bad. but pointing out how much it sucks and is bad when you can't even get the basic tenet of the case correct is counterproductive.

This. And the bigger issue is posting Tweets from completely unknown people saying bad things are going to happen. Or posting a Tweet that 50 Trump supporters are driving their trucks in a line, so clearly Trump has huge support!?!?!?!?!

Thing is people with blue checks know more then you doofus.


And. Ought ohh.

[mister d]

Pretty sure this isn't leaving for a week?

[Johnnie]

Just a quick reminder that we are all living in bubbles.

That type of person is literally in every state. They have the same amount of teeth, same accent, and same inability to understand complex scenarios. They're probably the best representation of America in many instances.

[Johnnie]

Whoa...



(Not getting my hopes up, but that seems so weird to see.)

[A_B]

Just a quick reminder that we are all living in bubbles.

That type of person is literally in every state. They have the same amount of teeth, same accent, and same inability to understand complex scenarios. They're probably the best representation of America in many instances.

And what the last two said is all too true. There are many areas that are agnostic to politics because literally nothing every changes. Lyndon Johnson went to poverty-stricken East KY in the 60s and it's still poverty stricken east KY. There is some self fulfilling prophecy to that, as sadly there are simply not enough people like my mother who made sure we got out with no plans to come back. Some of her friends were aghast that she could "let her babies leave" but she said: "They aren't babies anymore and there's nothing here for them...why would they come back?"

And then one of them started working a coal company!

[The Sybian]

yes, he's wrong. he can't even explain the wisconsin ruling properly. it has nothing to do with ending the count *on election night*

he's a perfect example of how disinformation takes hold

I was referring to the tweet about Kavanaugh's grotesquely partisan screed.

oh yeah, that sucks. it's awful and bad. but pointing out how much it sucks and is bad when you can't even get the basic tenet of the case correct is counterproductive.

This. And the bigger issue is posting Tweets from completely unknown people saying bad things are going to happen. Or posting a Tweet that 50 Trump supporters are driving their trucks in a line, so clearly Trump has huge support!?!?!?!?!

Thing is people with blue checks know more then you doofus.


And. Ought ohh.

If Wisconsin got the ballot out early enough and gave drop box options, then I really don't have a problem with this. They announced months ago that ballots had to be received by election day. It's not like the Court reversed the State here. The State Legislature is GOP, and they passed a law in line with what the GOP wants. If the Court reversed Dem Legislature law with no warning to the citizens, then I'd join you in panic.

And sure, most blue check political commentators probably know more than me, but half the shit you post is nobodies misunderstanding or posting shit out of context.

[mister d]

There are many areas that are agnostic to politics because literally nothing every changes.

Which is exactly what a bunch of us have been harping on in terms of hammering the Dems and their cheering section for thinking everyone to the left of center owes them a vote.

[brian]

There are many areas that are agnostic to politics because literally nothing every changes.

Which is exactly what a bunch of us have been harping on in terms of hammering the Dems and their cheering section for thinking everyone to the left of center owes them a vote.

When there's a fucking Nazi on the ballot, they do. You somehow keep forgetting that important point. Biden isn't running against <insert your favorite moderate Republican here>

[The Sybian]

And what the last two said is all too true. There are many areas that are agnostic to politics because literally nothing every changes. Lyndon Johnson went to poverty-stricken East KY in the 60s and it's still poverty stricken east KY. There is some self fulfilling prophecy to that, as sadly there are simply not enough people like my mother who made sure we got out with no plans to come back. Some of her friends were aghast that she could "let her babies leave" but she said: "They aren't babies anymore and there's nothing here for them...why would they come back?"

And then one of them started working a coal company!

I get it, I just watched the first 2 seasons of Justified. Also, I grew up in a town with a couple trailer park communities, and we had an interesting mix of people very similar to these interviewed, along with university professors, doctors from 3 hospitals and a fuck-ton of IBM engineers. Bizarre mix in my town, as all the highly educated people would only send their kids to my district, while all the neighboring districts had a severe dropoff in SAT scores and other metrics. And there is nothing there for me, and I never go back. Well, my parents are there, but they like to travel.

[mister d]

When there's a fucking Nazi on the ballot, they do. You somehow keep forgetting that important point. Biden isn't running against <insert your favorite moderate Republican here>

Do you really think these same arguments weren't being made when we had to get GWB out in 2004? There's always something of dire consequence in an election, even if its "just" the potential for SCOTUS appointments. As AB pointed out, the only consistents are the Dems are owed certain votes and those who owe them are last in line to receive.

[A_B]

When there's a fucking Nazi on the ballot, they do. You somehow keep forgetting that important point. Biden isn't running against <insert your favorite moderate Republican here>

Do you really think these same arguments weren't being made when we had to get GWB out in 2004? There's always something of dire consequence in an election, even if its "just" the potential for SCOTUS appointments. As AB pointed out, the only consistents are the Dems are owed certain votes and those who owe them are last in line to receive.

And sad to say a lot of socialist policies would go a long way to helping underserved areas, but the word is scary. And that's in part because handouts are anathema to prideful people.

And a bit to Syb's post. My situation is different from most. I think I've mentioned it here before, but my daughter at BU, assuming she gets her degree will be a 4th generation female college graduate at least (we think it's possible it's fifth but can't confirm) with east KY roots. So college wasn't some boogeyman to my family. We weren't rich but we were worlds better off than most people I went to school with.

[mister d]

Granted I come from a small family, but my either of mine would be the first.

[Steve of phpBB]

When there's a fucking Nazi on the ballot, they do. You somehow keep forgetting that important point. Biden isn't running against <insert your favorite moderate Republican here>

Do you really think these same arguments weren't being made when we had to get GWB out in 2004? There's always something of dire consequence in an election, even if its "just" the potential for SCOTUS appointments. As AB pointed out, the only consistents are the Dems are owed certain votes and those who owe them are last in line to receive.

Yes! GWB named Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court, engaged in massive illegal surveillance, presided over and promoted torture, created Guantanamo and Black Sites, and claimed literally unreviewable and unlimited power to detain Americans (or really, do anything else). He also promoted policies that increased economic inequality, appointed judges to the bench who restricted abortion rights. And, in case this matters, he did not establish universal health care (in fact millions more people lost health insurance during his term).

And, even though the Green Party torpedoed Al Gore's candidacy to put him in office, GWB presided over eight years of increased carbon emissions and did nothing to rein them in.

The Republicans have been terrible since at least 1994. So, yes, you have to vote for the Democrats in every election - if you actually care about the people you claim you care about.

It's not about owing *the Democratic party* your votes. It's about having a moral obligation to help the less fortunate. Letting Republicans take power hurts the less fortunate. Helping Dems beat Republicans (i) protects the less fortunate from this harm and (ii) helps the less fortunate.

Ensuring that Democrats beat Republicans helps the less fortunate.

And no, there may never come a time when Democrats commit themselves entirely to the policy preferences of straight white males on the far left edge of the spectrum political spectrum. And until your policy preferences line up with the American electorate - or vice versa - it's the height of privilege to demand that they do so.

[mister d]

It's not about owing *the Democratic party* your votes. It's about having a moral obligation to help the less fortunate.

And what you're still not grasping is that a large percentage of the less fortunate you constantly refer to don't believe the Dems will put in an honest effort for thus don't turn out.

For a dramatic example and pretending voter suppression isn't a thing, do you believe poor people would turn out in droves for a candidate who could promise a one-time $100K "economic equality" payment to all families upon a win?

[Steve of phpBB]

It's not about owing *the Democratic party* your votes. It's about having a moral obligation to help the less fortunate.

And what you're still not grasping is that a large percentage of the less fortunate you constantly refer to don't believe the Dems will put in an honest effort for thus don't turn out.

It's not about them. It's about people who are knowledgeable, politically engaged, able to vote, purport to care about the fate of the less fortunate, but who say things like "why should I be expected to vote for Democrats?"

For a dramatic example and pretending voter suppression isn't a thing, do you believe poor people would turn out in droves for a candidate who could promise a one-time $100K "economic equality" payment to all families upon a win?

Maybe?

[mister d]

And no, there may never come a time when Democrats commit themselves entirely to the policy preferences of straight white males on the far left edge of the spectrum political spectrum. And until your policy preferences line up with the American electorate - or vice versa - it's the height of privilege to demand that they do so.

Some might counter-argue that the real height of privilege is being able to constantly tout one's personal concern for "the less fortunate" while incessantly arguing against policies that would actually help the less fortunate under the guise of them being too unpopular (people are too dumb to answer polls right) or financially unrealistic (in a country where 50 people are worth the same as almost 50%).

[Steve of phpBB]

And no, there may never come a time when Democrats commit themselves entirely to the policy preferences of straight white males on the far left edge of the spectrum political spectrum. And until your policy preferences line up with the American electorate - or vice versa - it's the height of privilege to demand that they do so.

Some might counter-argue that the real height of privilege is being able to constantly tout one's personal concern for "the less fortunate" while incessantly arguing against policies that would actually help the less fortunate under the guise of them being too unpopular (people are too dumb to answer polls right) or financially unrealistic (in a country where 50 people are worth the same as almost 50%).

I don't argue against policies that would actually help the less fortunate.

I argue against running general election campaigns that depend on promoting policies that are politically unpopular and thus very likely to lose.

[mister d]

1. Sentence B means you absolutely do sentence A whether or not you have a personal justification for doing so.

2. They're only unpopular when you project different results if the question was hypothetically phrased to your liking or simply dismiss the polling as a result of people being too stupid to understand the question.

[brian]

These ads Don Winslow has been doing are great, especially this one featuring CMU LEGEND Jeff Daniels.

[Steve of phpBB]

1. Sentence B means you absolutely do sentence A whether or not you have a personal justification for doing so.

2. They're only unpopular when you project different results if the question was hypothetically phrased to your liking or simply dismiss the polling as a result of people being too stupid to understand the question.

Oh jesus fucking christ, dude. We just had a primary election where one of the most prominent candidates ran on single payer health care for five years. And he didn't even get a consistent one-third of the vote - among Democrats.

My god. "Hypothetically phrased to your liking." I'm simply asking for reliable evidence that people are willing to vote to raise their own taxes and give up their own health insurance. And you have never been able to provide such evidence. Because it doesn't exist. Because Americans have never been willing to raise their own taxes or put their own health insurance at risk.

[mister d]

We've sent numerous polls that show explicit majority support for M4A and you always wave it off as being answered by people too stupid to know what they're saying. It would be like seeing polls overwhelmingly supporting marriage equality and dismissing the results by claiming people would never actually support it if they knew gay people could move nextdoor or have kids in the same class.

[A_B]

And no, there may never come a time when Democrats commit themselves entirely to the policy preferences of straight white males on the far left edge of the spectrum political spectrum. And until your policy preferences line up with the American electorate - or vice versa - it's the height of privilege to demand that they do so.

Some might counter-argue that the real height of privilege is being able to constantly tout one's personal concern for "the less fortunate" while incessantly arguing against policies that would actually help the less fortunate under the guise of them being too unpopular (people are too dumb to answer polls right) or financially unrealistic (in a country where 50 people are worth the same as almost 50%).

I touched on this a bit. I’m way closer to mister d than Steve here.

[rass]

... cracks its knuckles

[Steve of phpBB]

We've sent numerous polls that show explicit majority support for M4A and you always wave it off as being answered by people too stupid to know what they're saying. It would be like seeing polls overwhelmingly supporting marriage equality and dismissing the results by claiming people would never actually support it if they knew gay people could move nextdoor or have kids in the same class.

I remember you citing one or two polls saying that people were generally favorable to "single payer health care" - which is not the same things as Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All proposal. The public option that Biden is running on also counts as "single payer health care."

And I remember you citing a couple versions of the KFF poll report over the past four months. That report itself said that two thirds of people who favored M4A *incorrectly believed that they'd keep their own health insurance*, and that when the subjects are told that M4A would raise their taxes and eliminate their health insurance, support dropped. That report also said that a public option was more popular, as was building on the ACA.

The gay marriage example doesn't work because most people know that if gays get married, you could have married gays next door. Most people *don't* know that single payer will require massive tax increases or elimination of private health insurance. You say I'm simply accusing people of being stupid when I bring this up, but the KFF report *you* have cited confirms that people don't fully understand the implications of the Medicare for All proposal.

(And if you think I'm wrong about what people understand, let's see the evidence.)

Hell, some intelligent people here thought that we could pay for single payer simply by raising taxes on the rich. I have read lots of people on Twitter who appear to believe that single payer could be paid for if we just reduced military spending.

Anyway, if we are going to base national strategies because of a response to an abstract question in a poll before an issue is fully vetted, President Hillary Clinton has a story for you.

[mister d]

Aside from the merry-go-round of "its too much money to pay for" versus acknowledging its simply different streams that result in lower overall payments from the whole ... do you consider some people dying from illnesses other people don't, for only economic reasons, to be a moral failing of the country? Like is "s/he didn't want to seek treatment for cancer because s/he knew it would financially ruin the family" an acceptable thing to be happening here?

[Steve of phpBB]

Aside from the merry-go-round of "its too much money to pay for" versus acknowledging its simply different streams that result in lower overall payments from the whole ... do you consider some people dying from illnesses other people don't, for only economic reasons, to be a moral failing of the country? Like is "s/he didn't want to seek treatment for cancer because s/he knew it would financially ruin the family" an acceptable thing to be happening here?

Yes, I consider it to be a moral failing, and no, it is not an acceptable thing to be happening.

That is why I supported Bill Clinton's attempt to establish universal health care in 1993.

That is why I supported the ACA when it was before Congress - even as it got very unpopular - and ever since. I went in to my representative's office when it was up for a vote in 2009 and 2010, I've marched, and I made numerous calls to my senators (even though I knew it was a losing battle with those guys) when repeal was on the table in 2017. I've volunteered with the Utah Health Policy Project to help people sign up for ACA coverage when the Trump Administration cut the funding for ACA navigators.

And that is why I think it is so important that the Democrats beat the Republicans, because Democratic Party power is the only way to achieve universal health care. That is one of the main reasons why I've been giving Democratic candidates so much money and why I've put myself out there knocking on doors, texting, and making calls. (And I really fucking hate making calls.)

[The Sybian]

Oscar Schindler is worse than Hitler because he didn’t save all the Jews.

[A_B]

Oscar Schindler is worse than Hitler because he didn’t save all the Jews.

But...he wanted to but don’t have the right support?

Please excuse any misrepresentation or bad interpretations. I don’t have to be up early tomorrow and I’m enjoying the best value blended scotch available. Costco Kirkland brand.

[mister d]

Oscar Schindler is worse than Hitler because he didn’t save all the Jews.

I’m not a “movie guy”, but I’m assuming Oscar Schindler actually wanted to save them and didn’t weigh saving them against popular polling, special interests or funding concerns?

[EnochRoot]

Oscar Schindler is worse than Hitler because he didn’t save all the Jews.

But...he wanted to but don’t have the right support?

Please excuse any misrepresentation or bad interpretations. I don’t have to be up early tomorrow and I’m enjoying the best value blended scotch available. Costco Kirkland brand.

Value blended scotch? Cost and size of bottle?

I’m on a Monkey Shoulder blended scotch kick nowadays. I can get the 1.75L bottle for about $65 at Total Wine.

[A_B]

21 bucks for a 1.75. It’s not macallan but I like it at least as good as dewards. I will occasionally buy a good scotch but it isn’t my go to. Give the kirklands a try. In my state you don’t have to be a member for the liquor store.

If nothing else you’ll have something to serve to guests if it isn’t your bag.

(Also I’m a quantity over quality guy in nearly every respect except good craft beers)

[EnochRoot]

21 bucks for a 1.75. It’s not macallan but I like it at least as good as dewards. I will occasionally buy a good scotch but it isn’t my go to. Give the kirklands a try. In my state you don’t have to be a member for the liquor store.

If nothing else you’ll have something to serve to guests if it isn’t your bag.

(Also I’m a quantity over quality guy in nearly every respect except good craft beers)

Thanks for the head’s up. I’ll give it a go.

[The Sybian]

Oscar Schindler is worse than Hitler because he didn’t save all the Jews.

I’m not a “movie guy”, but I’m assuming Oscar Schindler actually wanted to save them and didn’t weigh saving them against popular polling, special interests or funding concerns?

But Schindler could have sold his ring, that could have saved more Jews!

I actually do get your point, and voting Dems means the party gets away with their bullshit and continuing on in serving their corporate masters, but this election, I'd rather take a step forward with Biden than step backwards over a cliff with Trump. I'll take the small victory today and work to push them Left once in office. Obama just gave a great discussion on Pod Save about this, saying it's easier to push the Party Left once in power than during a campaign. Then again, I gave a 3rd party protest vote in 2012 because Obama wasn't Left enough in his first term, but NJ wasn't in play so I could afford to throw away my vote.

[tennbengal]

The WaPo poll on WI this AM is a margin that MIGHT get around cheating.

[Johnnie]

The WaPo poll on WI this AM is a margin that MIGHT get around cheating.

I saw this post before I saw the poll, so I was thinking it went to like 11 or 12, maybe and thought "Yes, that would be very good. Go Wisconsin "

But no. 17.

Holy fuck.