President Joe Biden

[Vic]

This is exactly the thing I couldn't understand from the Democratic primaries, they were attacking each other and basically doing the republicans job for them as well as providing plenty of ammo

Have you forgotten what his rivals said about Trump? Or would have said if they thought they could have unseated him as candidate this time round?

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Have you forgotten what his rivals said about Trump? Or would have said if they thought they could have unseated him as candidate this time round?

Yes, all is typically forgotten once a nominee is chosen.

 

[cjn]

That was my point, mate: trends are where we actually derive insight and this is too limited to discern anything of real value. I was just being fair to Bigga’s intention with his post.

Though, I was referring to the 10 day national polling gap trend which, going off anti- or neutral-Biden surveys (just to be above reproach for the purposes of this specific discussion) had sloped slightly downward. And Trumpers were running with that, as they usually do.

But I also pointed out, for the sake of our specific discussion, that BIPOC voters are historically underrepresented in national polling, so it’s not a trend that would be especially helpful for arguing for or against Harris having “Black support” or how her selection would or would not shift the polling.

I am also not convinced the objective poll national aggregate point gap will ultimately tighten that much.

But that’s also completely separate from the ultimate vote pct gap. Biden could go in to Election month (we’ll be lucky if it only takes four weeks this cycle) with a 10 point lead and still lose, and badly if Trump is successful in his current efforts.

I know I sound like a broken record in that regard, but I do think it is very important to remind everyone that many of these discussions are mostly academic when one candidate has no intention of playing by the rules (or abiding law) and largely has control over many of the mechanisms of the election process itself (for this cycle specifically, given what is likely to come in the pandemic in October/November due to Trump and co’s at times intentional mismanagement).

Fair points all around. I do expect the polls to tighten somewhat as Republican voters come home the closer we get, but between the economy and COVID this is such a weird election that who knows really? If I had to bet, Biden wins somewhat comfortably in the end, but more in the 5-6 point range than 8-9.

 

[penguins4kompany]

I know I sound like a broken record in that regard, but I do think it is very important to remind everyone that many of these discussions are mostly academic when one candidate has no intention of playing by the rules (or abiding law) and largely has control over many of the mechanisms of the election process itself (for this cycle specifically, given what is likely to come in the pandemic in October/November due to Trump and co’s at times intentional mismanagement).

I'm sorry, but that is far too speculative to be put out there as "fact" rather than opinion.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I'm sorry, but that is far too speculative to be put out there as "fact" rather than opinion.

I don’t think I have claimed it as “fact”.

But I think it is difficult to argue that Trump and his cronies’ have not continually undertaken obvious attempts to subvert the presidential election (and restructure the power of his office), or that those efforts could not render discussions about polling, various levels/types of electoral support, and/or actual voting outcomes merely an academic exercise.

That said, I am happy to hear arguments against my assertions.

 

[penguins4kompany]

I don’t think I have claimed it as “fact”.

But I think it is difficult to argue that Trump and his cronies’ have not continually undertaken obvious attempts to subvert the presidential election (and restructure the power of his office), or that those efforts could not render discussions about polling, various levels/types of electoral support, and/or actual voting outcomes merely an academic exercise.

That said, I am happy to hear arguments against my assertions.

I think he's just recognising what is afoot. 'Subversion" is prominent on both sides, to disagree would be disingenuous . Rationality is what is sorely lacking here. Do you even entertain the possibility that he could potentially win another term fair and square ?

 

[SebastianBlue]

I think he's just recognising what is afoot. 'Subversion" is prominent on both sides, to disagree would be disingenuous . Rationality is what is sorely lacking here. Do you even entertain that he could potentially win another term fair and square ?

Do I entertain the possibility that Trump could win another term fair and square?

Of course.

The same way I entertain the possibility of a giant purple horned elephant spontaneously appearing in my back garden any moment now.

The laws of the universe technically allow for both to occur.

But neither events are particularly likely, especially in the case of Trump, given he would have to rescind, mitigate, and/or fully correct the many corrupt, destructive, subversive actions he and his camp have already taken just to arrive back at a neutral state allowing for a “fair and square” victory. Not to mention needing to acknowledge and take responsibility for quite literally thousands of demonstrable lies that have unduly influenced many things, including the lead up to the election. All before November, without doing anything else like it afterward.

And I think it would be woefully misguided to claim equivalency of power to subvert a presidential election between a political entity seeking office and the vast apparatus of the sitting President of the United States, after he has effectively assumed control of nearly every department and agency of the executive branch.

Anyone earnestly arguing equivalency is either ignorant of systems of government, have not been staying abreast of recent events, or is being intellectually dishonest for their own purposes. Even posters in this and other threads that hate Biden, Harris, Clinton, and so on would not argue they have the same powers as Trump to improperly influence the election. Nor that he has not been attempting to do so already.

And, as you brought it up: the better part of rationality is understanding what is possible (nearly anything) versus what is likely (a considerably smaller universe of possibilities).

But this is really a discussion for the Trump thread at this point.

 

[penguins4kompany]

Do I entertain the possibility that Trump could win another term fair and square?

Of course.

The same way I entertain the possibility of a giant purple horned elephant spontaneously appearing in my back garden any moment now.

The laws of the universe technically allow for both to occur.

But neither events are particularly likely, especially in the case of Trump, given he would have to rescind, mitigate, and/or fully correct the many corrupt, destructive, subversive actions he and his camp have already taken just to arrive back at a neutral state allowing for a “fair and square” victory. Not to mention needing to acknowledge and take responsibility for quite literally thousands of demonstrable lies that have unduly influenced many things, including the lead up to the election. All before November, without doing anything else like it afterward.

And I think it would be woefully misguided to claim equivalency of power to subvert a presidential election between a political entity seeking office and the vast apparatus of the sitting President of the United States, after he has effectively assumed control of nearly every department and agency of the executive branch.

Anyone earnestly arguing equivalency is either ignorant of systems of government, have not been staying abreast of recent events, or is being intellectually dishonest for their own purposes. Even posters in this and other threads that hate Biden, Harris, Clinton, and so on would not argue they have the same powers as Trump to improperly influence the election. Nor that he has not been attempting to do so already.

And, as you brought it up: the better part of rationality is understanding what is possible (nearly anything) versus what is likely (a considerably smaller universe of possibilities).

But this is really a discussion for the Trump thread at this point.

You fuckin weirdo

 

[SebastianBlue]

You fuckin weirdo

A truly masterful, erudite rebuttal.

 

[penguins4kompany]

No one cares