2020 Presidential Election -- Biden v Trump: Sleepy Joe vs Dopey Don [Results begin on page 409]

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

12 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

Yeah, the quoted data is so biased.

Non-voters swung the election, not Obama-Trump voters. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Biden’s Rapid Response Team has been nails so far.

And all y’all that are hyperventilating about his campaign stopping “negative” ads can take your underwear off your heads.

If they’re willing to use footage of Trump returning from the hospital to dunk on him about masks, I think we’re good.

[heso 2813]

20 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It means he is the candidate who describes himself as a democratic socialist, who, among the democratic candidates, pushed a variety of socialist ideas the hardest, and, more importantly, would be described by people who might be convinced to not vote for Trump as the socialist, aka the boogeyman commonly used by the right. Being the guy that beat the boogeyman might buy Biden enough cred to convince those people to abstain from voting for Trump. I don't think Bernie takes it personally. Neither should you.

I saw an interview with Bernie the other day where he said as much without saying it when asked about the way Biden talked about him in the first pres debate. “Look, Joe and I have different opinions on some things, but we both agree on the common ground of removing the existential danger in the White House.” Or something to that effect. 

He gets it. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

I wasn't sure where this should go but here it shall be:

 

[heso 2813]

1 hour ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

They make money hand over fist by doing it. That’s all there is to it.

On one hand, I get that. My thought on it is that they (Fox News) already have a caprice audience. What do they gain by taking their praise to such fanatical levels. maybe the thought is that it breeds loyalty. Like, if they are seen as being most favorable to Trump within the fox family they gain some stickiness with the viewers. And I guess fox really has that figured out where they’ll give you whatever flavor you want, from constant praise to the faux critical eye that in the end comes to the conclusion that Trump is always right. But I dont feel like that really explains the ridiculous level that it gets taken to. 

 

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

It's what insecure people do.  This is a psychosis we are dealing with.  These are insecure, broken people that don't know how to deal with their stature in the world.  They've been brought up thinking they are above everyone else (American, white) and have realized in the past couple of decades that they are absolutely NOT that.  This is their defense mechanism.  They have been brought to critical mass with the election of this carnival barker and they must now be put down.

I understand it from the perspective of Joe Truckdriver in Fulton county Pa. It’s easy to explain the psychology of the bottom rung rural white trying to convince themself that there are classes of people below them. Those people will buy whatever Fox News is selling them, regardless of the rhetoric surrounding it. 

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

It comes off that way because it is. Remember, in North Korea even if you recognize that it is fake as all get out, there is nothing else to watch.

Here, I suspect it's because you don't have to think. You just do. The leader can do no wrong and has to be exalted to the nth degree because otherwise those little nagging moments can't be overcome as easily. In every society I'm guessing there will always be a percentage that is immune and a percentage that is susceptible. You can't kill or sway them all so some buy it and others hide it. At least we aren't to the stage where Fox and OANN are all there is, but if this doesn't work on election day, the day of free press is gone.

I think this might start to get at it a bit. If the man gets built up to a point of absolute and total infallibility, it eliminates any seeds of doubt in relation to his fuckups before they can start to germinate.

We’re talking about a sophisticated media empire. There are brilliant strategists behind it. I can’t imagine that it wasn’t a conscious decision to mythologize Trump to such an extreme nature. I just can’t immediately see the payoff. Like I said before, it seems on the surface like it would only alienate the fringes without any measurable gain in the base.

Like I said up-post, Cletus in Bedford is easy to explain away. He’s too dumb to understand and too racist to care if he did. 

What gets me is the smart, educated, urban and suburban conservative. How do they not look see this bombastic rhetoric for what it is and lose interest? How can that person not see that their being lied to with something so obvious, and then not question the legitimacy of other more subtle points being made. 

Edited October 6, 2020 by heso

[Gatorubet 30271]

Enabling, overlooking, accommodating are some words I would contribute.  A surge in voting participation isn't occurring because the populace is that inspired by Biden.  Rather, it is a condemnation of Trump and those that have failed to challenge him appropriately.

Yeah. 25% increase in early voting in Georgia from non-2016 voters does not sound like content voters really happy with how awesome 2020 is/status quo.

[bad_teammate 13220]

36 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It means he is the candidate who describes himself as a democratic socialist, who, among the democratic candidates, pushed a variety of socialist ideas the hardest, and, more importantly, would be described by people who might be convinced to not vote for Trump as the socialist, aka the boogeyman commonly used by the right. Being the guy that beat the boogeyman might buy Biden enough cred to convince those people to abstain from voting for Trump. I don't think Bernie takes it personally. Neither should you.

Bernie is not a socialist. I don't mean that to defend him against the slur "socialist", but it's just not accurate or true. His proposals were not socialist. The closest he got was basically worker co-ops in which the workers in a business would get a small share of the company itself and control would remain in the hands of virtually-unaccountable oligarchs.

"Socialist", in this context, means absolutely nothing and Joe is embracing the right-wing framing of the term that dismisses everything that isn't Republican economics as "socialist".

I don't take it personally, because it's not about me. I just think it makes the person/people doing it extremely shitty people. I can understand why someone does something and still have a value judgment about them for doing it.

34 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320%3famp=1

Read your own article, bud.

The data would suggest that Trump's efforts were at least in part successful. Another factor, however, was that of those who switched their allegiance from Sanders to Trump less than 10 percent considered themselves strong Democrats, while less than 50 percent even leaned Democrat.

Sanders brought non-liberals/non-Democrats into the 2016 primary. He attracted people in who weren't already there. Use your brain and think that through.

Quote

Also, look in the mirror. You’re not voting for Biden, right?

If Texas looks to be close, I will. If not, not unless he chooses to endorse 100% universal healthcare and says he won't actively veto M4A if it passes.

30 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I'll give it to you.  All of you purists sitting out or voting for Jill Fucking Stein led us to this.  

Jill Stein got a pathetically small # of votes. Hillary didn't earn enough votes to win because she sucked shit through a straw and blew the most gimme layup in history. The fact that she couldn't earn those votes is on her and her alone.

Bernie Sanders worked so hard for her that her dogshit campaign later complained because her $1B+ campaign had to pay for his air travel.

But why are you conflating Bernie himself with Jill Stein voters? Did he endorse Jill Stein? Were Jill Stein's general election voters the same people as Bernie's primary voters?

Quote

One Trump's SC overturns Roe and your daughter have to deliver her rape baby full term, thank your purity by name the baby Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders. 

I have no idea why you think this is a compelling argument to make, but you need to stop trying to use the suffering and pain of women as some kind of cudgel in this petty internecine war. It's pathetic and embarrassing.

If RBG gave a shit about this she would've retired in Obama's first term when she was in her 70s and had already had cancer twice. But she didn't care. She was asked to retired and refused, saying that she was sure the next president would be a nice person.

Obama could've just installed Garland and said that the Senate had abdicated its Constitutional role via obstruction.

Laying this at Bernie's feet is a joke.

[Texaspython 231]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Bernie is not a socialist. I don't mean that to defend him against the slur "socialist", but it's just not accurate or true. His proposals were not socialist. The closest he got was basically worker co-ops in which the workers in a business would get a small share of the company itself and control would remain in the hands of virtually-unaccountable oligarchs.

"Socialist", in this context, means absolutely nothing and Joe is embracing the right-wing framing of the term that dismisses everything that isn't Republican economics as "socialist".

I don't take it personally, because it's not about me. I just think it makes the person/people doing it extremely shitty people. I can understand why someone does something and still have a value judgment about them for doing it.

Read your own article, bud.

The data would suggest that Trump's efforts were at least in part successful. Another factor, however, was that of those who switched their allegiance from Sanders to Trump less than 10 percent considered themselves strong Democrats, while less than 50 percent even leaned Democrat.

Sanders brought non-liberals/non-Democrats into the 2016 primary. He attracted people in who weren't already there. Use your brain and think that through.

If Texas looks to be close, I will. If not, not unless he chooses to endorse 100% universal healthcare and says he won't actively veto M4A if it passes.

Jill Stein got a pathetically small # of votes. Hillary didn't earn enough votes to win because she sucked shit through a straw and blew the most gimme layup in history. The fact that she couldn't earn those votes is on her and her alone.

Bernie Sanders worked so hard for her that her dogshit campaign later complained because her $1B+ campaign had to pay for his air travel.

But why are you conflating Bernie himself with Jill Stein voters? Did he endorse Jill Stein? Were Jill Stein's general election voters the same people as Bernie's primary voters?

I have no idea why you think this is a compelling argument to make, but you need to stop trying to use the suffering and pain of women as some kind of cudgel in this petty internecine war. It's pathetic and embarrassing.

If RBG gave a shit about this she would've retired in Obama's first term when she was in her 70s and had already had cancer twice. But she didn't care. She was asked to retired and refused, saying that she was sure the next president would be a nice person.

Obama could've just installed Garland and said that the Senate had abdicated its Constitutional role via obstruction.

Laying this at Bernie's feet is a joke.

I did, 1 in 10 Bernie voters, voted for Trump. The Democratic voters who didn’t show up were Bernie primary voters. Young voters who were convinced that Hillary was the anti-Christ by Bernie bros. 
 

It’s you and people like you that constantly shit on our candidates in such a naive and unfair manner that it’s incredible anyone likes them. We lose because of your stupidity.

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2680]

43 minutes ago, heso said:

On one hand, I get that. My thought on it is that they (Fox News) already have a caprice audience. What do they gain by taking their praise to such fanatical levels. maybe the thought is that it breeds loyalty. Like, if they are seen as being most favorable to Trump within the fox family they gain some stickiness with the viewers. And I guess fox really has that figured out where they’ll give you whatever flavor you want, from constant praise to the faux critical eye that in the end comes to the conclusion that Trump is always right. But I dont feel like that really explains the ridiculous level that it gets taken to. 

 

I understand it from the perspective of Joe Truckdriver in Fulton county Pa. It’s easy to explain the psychology of the bottom rung rural white trying to convince themself that there are classes of people below them. Those people will buy whatever Fox News is selling them, regardless of the rhetoric surrounding it. 

I think this might start to get at it a bit. If the man gets built up to a point of absolute and total infallibility, it eliminates any seeds of doubt in relation to his fuckups before they can start to germinate.

We’re talking about a sophisticated media empire. There are brilliant strategists behind it. I can’t imagine that it wasn’t a conscious decision to mythologize Trump to such an extreme nature. I just can’t immediately see the payoff. Like I said before, it seems on the surface like it would only alienate the fringes without any measurable gain in the base.

Like I said up-post, Cletus in Bedford is easy to explain away. He’s too dumb to understand and too racist to care if he did. 

What gets me is the smart, educated, urban and suburban conservative. How do they not look see this bombastic rhetoric for what it is and lose interest? How can that person not see that their being lied to with something so obvious, and then not question the legitimacy of other more subtle points being made. 

I have a WHOLE thing to say about this but not tonight when the sipping on Coivossier renders me less lucid than Bushwick Bill

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

53 minutes ago, heso said:

What gets me is the smart, educated, urban and suburban conservative. How do they not look see this bombastic rhetoric for what it is and lose interest? How can that person not see that their being lied to with something so obvious, and then not question the legitimacy of other more subtle points being made. 

You left out lazy. Maybe not lazy in that the smart, educated, urban, and suburban conservative doesn't know how to work hard but that the bombastic rhetoric allows him/her to turn away from discomfort and discomforting thoughts. And maybe lazy isn't the right word, but I can't think of a better one right now. It allows the Fox viewer to explain that nagging worry away. "What if I am privileged? What if I am racist? What if my children can't compete with these new immigrants?" This Fox rhetoric, on the other hand, is not guilt inducing, doesn't take away from football, or driving the kids to Little League, and gives one a complacent perch from which to judge others. Random events are no longer random and you don't have to think about that. There is an answer for everything (talking points). To me, talking points aren't just for the slow thinkers, they are also for people who would just rather not be bothered with it. Someone can be pretty smart and would rather not dwell on the homeless in Austin beyond thinking that they are annoying and get in the way. I think Tucker is adept at reaching people like that. He asks a lot of questions that make me groan, but if I just wanted to agree, get on with cooking dinner, get the kids fed and bathed, and not think about it, then sure I'm going to drink the beverage he's offered.

In a similar vein, have you ever watched a group of suburban women turn on another one in the group who has a child make poor choices? It is a bitch to watch and I've seen it. Thank the Lord I wasn't involved, but I had a seat on the sidelines.  I found it uncomfortable but viewing it was Trump cult writ large watching how they managed to begin the process of expelling this mother from their group (cult) while smugly congratulating themselves that their children were raised better (not democrats). Fox lets one create that bubble of like-minded thinking that keeps the team together. It's less work to do that when you're all on the same page.

How does that relate?  Again, no guilt that you have to consider. No social compassion or consideration. YOU deserve this (the good things) but THEY brought this on themselves (the bad things). Do people sometimes make poor choices that lead to bad things? Of course, but turning away with that simple explanation in every situation leads to very little understanding of the connections we share as brothers and sisters and the duty we have to each other as human beings.

Finally, it's an ego stroke to watch Fox. "I'm a good person! Others don't deserve what I have." I'm not sure education and intelligence play into that part as much as self-esteem.

The president is inflated and larger than life because if you're going to have a cult or a team you need an infallible leader and coach. He cannot be flawed or you might quit or enter the transfer portal. People, even educated smart ones, may feel the need to believe that the decision they made is the correct one to justify the terms of the contract that was signed. It's probably also why the more radical extreme ones take it so personally when they 'lose.'

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Mrs Whiggins

[atomheartbevo 89757]

5 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

I have a WHOLE thing to say about this but not tonight when the sipping on Coivossier renders me less lucid than Bushwick Bill

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

2 hours ago, heso said:

That clip highlights something that has been bothering me about how Fox News and the like speak about trump. Maybe it’s just the first time I’ve been paying this close attention, but I can’t remember any mainstream media exalting a president like they do with Trump. And I just don’t understand it. I get talking up your guy. But I don’t understand the desire to build him up to such mythical standards. He doesn’t just work hard, he works harder than anyone who has ever lived. He’s not just fighting covid, he’s fighting it with a fervor that no one else can muster. And not only do I not get the desire to do it, I don’t see how it’s not plainly transparent bullshit. Even if the man worked hard, why say he has a work ethic that the rest of us can only dream of? It’s so over the top that, at least at the fringes of their target market, it has to turn some people off.  

it comes off as goofy North Korean style propaganda and I don’t fucking get it. 

They're afraid of losing market share to oan

[bad_teammate 13220]

34 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

I did, 1 in 10 Bernie voters, voted for Trump. The Democratic voters who didn’t show up were Bernie primary voters. Young voters who were convinced that Hillary was the anti-Christ by Bernie bros.

1 in 10 Sanders primary voters went Trump. Which is right in line with historical norms, because there is always variability. 

And not even close to the divisive rancor of the 2008 campaign.

But only 59% of Democratic voters who support Clinton say they would vote for Obama against McCain, while 28% say they would vote for the Republican McCain. This suggests that some Clinton supporters are so strongly opposed to Obama (or so loyal to Clinton) that they would go so far as to vote for the "other" party's candidate next November if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

I know some of you guys don't really pay attention to this stuff, which is understandable, but 10% is just the noise of an election. Voters aren't monolithic. They are fickle and unaware of their own ideologies and motivations.

Jill Stein received 1.07% of the vote. Gary Johnson, on the other hand, got 3x her vote count. And Evan McMullin got half her vote.

Left-of-center third parties got 1.46M votes
Right-of-center third parties got 5.42M votes

So to use the simplistic logic that everyone is either a Democrat or a Republican by default, a pure split would've resulted in...
Trump: 68,409,250
Clinton: 67,310,732

I did the state-by-state margins on that months/years ago and not only would she have lost the popular vote, Wisconsin/Penn/Michigan would've been much clearer stompings and she would've ALSO lost New Hampshire, Nevada, Maine, with Colorado and Virginia at risk

Trump won 306-232
If the knife cut like you think it does (it doesn't), it could've easily been 341-197

Relative to the 2008 shitshow, after which Hillary did a grand total of 3 appearances for Obama, Bernie did a magnificent job of campaigning for her. He worked his ass off. And if you think his voting base is horrible, you should love him even more for how effective he was at wrangling them to vote for Hillary.

Your thinking is disorganized and you're ignorant of the basic facts involved.

Quote

 It’s you and people like you that constantly shit on our candidates in such a naive and unfair manner that it’s incredible anyone likes them. We lose because of your stupidity.

You think Clinton's negatives were because of leftists?

There's no way you can answer this in the affirmative. It defies all reason.

1 hour ago, heso said:

What gets me is the smart, educated, urban and suburban conservative. How do they not look see this bombastic rhetoric for what it is and lose interest? How can that person not see that their being lied to with something so obvious, and then not question the legitimacy of other more subtle points being made. 

Because it serves their class interests so it is in their interest to buy the lie.

[jimmyjazz 46000]

No doubt the best time to re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-litigate the 2016 election is 28 days before the 2020 election.

Well done, gentlemen.

[bad_teammate 13220]

There are 27.5M uninsured people in America.

How is 100% coverage not even our fucking GOAL?

[bad_teammate 13220]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

No doubt the best time to re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-litigate the 2016 election is 28 days before the 2020 election.

Well done, gentlemen.

I'd like for the current candidate to just not take giant shits constantly on the guy who finished 2nd and is beloved by a massive need voter base for the Democratic Party now and in the future.

I don't think that's controversial.

[jimmyjazz 46000]

As others have said, it's just politics.  I don't think Biden is "shitting all over" Bernie.  Think of it this way:

"I beat the 'socialist' in the primary."

not

"I beat the socialist in the primary."

 

He's pushing back against one of the biggest talking points being used against him.  If he were more verbose, and more accurate, the point would be lost.  As it stands, he might open some eyes.  (Probably not many, to be sure.)

[thepop 4409]

 

[Texaspython 231]

24 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

1 in 10 Sanders primary voters went Trump. Which is right in line with historical norms, because there is always variability. 

And not even close to the divisive rancor of the 2008 campaign.

But only 59% of Democratic voters who support Clinton say they would vote for Obama against McCain, while 28% say they would vote for the Republican McCain. This suggests that some Clinton supporters are so strongly opposed to Obama (or so loyal to Clinton) that they would go so far as to vote for the "other" party's candidate next November if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

I know some of you guys don't really pay attention to this stuff, which is understandable, but 10% is just the noise of an election. Voters aren't monolithic. They are fickle and unaware of their own ideologies and motivations.

Jill Stein received 1.07% of the vote. Gary Johnson, on the other hand, got 3x her vote count. And Evan McMullin got half her vote.

Left-of-center third parties got 1.46M votes
Right-of-center third parties got 5.42M votes

So to use the simplistic logic that everyone is either a Democrat or a Republican by default, a pure split would've resulted in...
Trump: 68,409,250
Clinton: 67,310,732

I did the state-by-state margins on that months/years ago and not only would she have lost the popular vote, Wisconsin/Penn/Michigan would've been much clearer stompings and she would've ALSO lost New Hampshire, Nevada, Maine, with Colorado and Virginia at risk

Trump won 306-232
If the knife cut like you think it does (it doesn't), it could've easily been 341-197

Relative to the 2008 shitshow, after which Hillary did a grand total of 3 appearances for Obama, Bernie did a magnificent job of campaigning for her. He worked his ass off. And if you think his voting base is horrible, you should love him even more for how effective he was at wrangling them to vote for Hillary.

Your thinking is disorganized and you're ignorant of the basic facts involved.

You think Clinton's negatives were because of leftists?

There's no way you can answer this in the affirmative. It defies all reason.

Because it serves their class interests so it is in their interest to buy the lie.

Hold on, you referenced a Gallup poll from March of 2008. I’m sorry, my data comes from ya know, post election, they thing we’re talking about.

Your shit is just so weak. 

[Patrick Bateman 3918]

Oh yea..... Hillary also had a lead of about 4-5 points at this time in Maricopa in 2016, but there was 20% undecided and a large percentage ended up going 3rd party.  Trump ended up carrying it by 3 points.

 

[Patrick Bateman 3918]

Michigan..... 

 

[thepop 4409]

all of the above

[ultimaton 2982]

Wasn't sure the best thread for this, but  -- my wife got her ballot in the mail today, so if you're in Texas and requested one keep an eye out, they should be hitting your mailbox soon. 

[totallynotabuttpirate 5400]

Looks like it’s that time of the month for badteammate. 

[Dahobbs 17627]

5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I'd like for the current candidate to just not take giant shits constantly on the guy who finished 2nd and is beloved by a massive need voter base for the Democratic Party now and in the future.

I don't think that's controversial.

He isn't shitting on him, that is the part you are not getting. I agree with you that Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. Go back and read my post. All Biden is saying is that he beat the guy that the right is calling the "socialist." It is ok and smart for him to say that. I don't understand why you think Biden saying "I won" is an attack on Bernie. It isn't. You're a smart guy. Stop acting so dumb. 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Dahobbs

[HenryJames 66134]

 

[SydneyCarton 48134]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

 

What would that translate to in millions of the popular vote? Is each percentage point like 750k? As a rough estimate. 

Edited October 6, 2020 by SydneyCarton

[Bookman 4639]

138,000,000 voted in 2016, so 22,000,000?

[Wulaw Horn 19138]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

 

I don’t think I believe this is even remotely close, but maybe?  It was always going to be a possibility that he lost bigly, but 16 points man- that’s 50% more than Reagan in 84 territory, right?  If it was 16 points we’d see him up 7 in Texas. That doesn’t seem right. 

[Post Oak 20254]

I enjoy the polls. But I'm inclined not to believe any of them.  I've been bitten before

[SydneyCarton 48134]

3 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I don’t think I believe this is even remotely close, but maybe?  It was always going to be a possibility that he lost bigly, but 16 points man- that’s 50% more than Reagan in 84 territory, right?  If it was 16 points we’d see him up 7 in Texas. That doesn’t seem right. 

Oh it’s not right.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

7 hours ago, Grade of D as in David said:

They're afraid of losing market share to oan

This. I'm looking forward to @ChuckNorrisActionJeans reply to @heso but Fox knows the raison d'etre is the dough. But the method they use keeps their viewers attached to them. Bread and circuses, but thanks to a variety of announcers they can pitch their tent in multiple arenas.

1 minute ago, Post Oak said:

I enjoy the polls. But I'm inclined not to believe any of them.  I've been bitten before

Hear hear!

[LTbear 4171]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

He isn't shitting on him, that is the part you are not getting. I agree with you that Bernie Sanders is not a socialist. Go back and read my post. All Biden is saying is that he beat the guy that the right is calling the "socialist." It is ok and smart for him to say that. I don't understand why you think Biden saying "I won" is an attack on Bernie. It isn't. You're a smart guy. Stop acting so dumb. 

Ya this isn't hard, but bad_teammate is beginning to act Trump-esque in manufacturing reasons to be offended. "He said mean things!"

[Dark Horse 2284]

That CNN poll is an outlier, but the recent polls have been very good for Biden. 

[cactusflinthead 27601]

4 minutes ago, LTbear said:

Ya this isn't hard, but bad_teammate is beginning to act Trump-esque in manufacturing reasons to be offended. "He said mean things!"

It's what he does. 

[Zonahorn 8079]

How does the early vote look right now?

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

6 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

How does the early vote look right now?

No clue, but hopefully promising. In the meantime, watch this:

 

[Chad Fuck 17698]

I enjoy the polls. But I'm inclined not to believe any of them.  I've been bitten before

Yup. Only 1 poll matters.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Ohio:

 

[cactusflinthead 27601]

Trump might not be on life support but his campaign sure is 

[DigglerontheHoof 21207]

3 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Trump might not be on life support but his campaign sure is 

Damnit, 

[Hank Kingsley 20991]

Another small antecdote. Talked to my 70 year old Sooner diehard Trumpkin friend on the phone yesterday. Last time we spoke about a month ago, he was talking about Trump getting 350 EC votes, Antifa, China, etc. This time he started off the call with “we’re not talking about fucking politics, ok?” and then just bitched about OU’s defense the entire time.

He senses what’s coming. That’s progress. 

 

 

[Huckleberry 33042]

Hard core Trump supporters are even bigger frontrunners than most political fanboys. There's a fine line in messaging. The Democrats need to convince their voters it's too close for comfort and every vote is needed, but they also need Trump supporters to believe he's going to lose. 

If he's painted as the guy who's actually going to lose to the libs then even more of them will stay home. 

[Captainant 27689]

8 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Another small antecdote. Talked to my 70 year old Sooner diehard Trumpkin friend on the phone yesterday. Last time we spoke about a month ago, he was talking about Trump getting 350 EC votes, Antifa, China, etc. This time he started off the call with “we’re not talking about fucking politics, ok?” and then just bitched about OU’s defense the entire time.

He senses what’s coming. That’s progress. 

I suspect we're going to see an increasing rate of people being shitty about [NO POLITICS!!!!] as they lose their mob that supported their toxic mentality. More dog-whistling and using subtle talking points 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

I suspect we're going to see an increasing rate of people being shitty about [NO POLITICS!!!!] as they lose their mob that supported their toxic mentality. More dog-whistling and using subtle talking points 

You could already see it warming up when the President became ill. Very touchy.

[cactusflinthead 27601]

Missed one 

 

Sitting on my ass waiting to vote. 10/13 baby

Edited October 6, 2020 by cactusflinthead

[troph 24892]

Hard core Trump supporters are even bigger frontrunners than most political fanboys. There's a fine line in messaging. The Democrats need to convince their voters it's too close for comfort and every vote is needed, but they also need Trump supporters to believe he's going to lose. 
If he's painted as the guy who's actually going to lose to the libs then even more of them will stay home. 

Everyone I know remembers the shock and horror of Clinton losing. No one is taking it for granted.

[Eastwood 4394]

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

I suspect we're going to see an increasing rate of people being shitty about [NO POLITICS!!!!] as they lose their mob that supported their toxic mentality. More dog-whistling and using subtle talking points 

They'll just revert a lot quicker to "just asking questions" to end the conversation. It's been a fairly consistent formula.

Step 1: plan on bringing up a topic out of the blue to someone that they clearly have been reading about the past day. They have all these talking points to bum rush someone with and that someone doesn't have actual facts on hand because they didn't know that friend/family member/coworker was going to be doing this today.
Step 2: simple logic would usually be enough of a rebuttal, but whatever they read or listened to already addressed the easy logical counterarguments and prepared them with a rebuttal to memorize.
Step 3: their victim is now irritated enough to go to a credible source to try to shut the conversation down so everyone can move on with their day. However, that source is "fake news" and not a credible source to them, even though it could even be a .gov website or the NIH or CDC, etc.
Step 4: their victim now pulls 5 to 10 more sources saying the same thing and asks the aggressor for their sources. Surprise, it's only one source and it's some far right or worse propaganda machine, it's their only source, and when you ask them for more...
Step 5: "I'm just asking questions." That's their parachute for when the jump out of a conversation. They are all out of the arguments and rebuttals that were prepared for them by their source. They did none of the leg work themselves, their education doesn't go much farther beyond that, and once that supply is exhausted they have to end the conversation as soon as possible to preserve what little false sense of superiority they feel they have left. Someone acting in good faith would actually visit some of the opposing sources to see if maybe they were in the wrong there, but instead they run back to the propaganda playbook to see where they went wrong and move on to the next opponent.

I do this dance about once a month with my mom and have recognized this pattern with friends who are also dealing with loved ones and friends who are deep in it. I don't think it will go away, but the source material will be less. I think we are still in for a tumultuous year 1 of Biden's presidency. What happened over the last 4 years isn't going away on 01/20/2021. It's going to have to burn itself out and there is going to be some lashing out, unfortunately. I think it will go the opposite of NO POLITICS for at least a year. Think of the screaming woman at the inauguration that was memed. We're going to get a lot of that in 2021 from the other side.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Eastwood

[Anastasis 23480]

14 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

 

 

 

He definitely knows how to pitch to millennials.

[Eastwood 4394]

15 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Sitting on my ass waiting to vote. 10/13 baby

I know I've repeated it ad naseum on here, but please wait until the 19th. The 13th was an extension by Abbott that is under attack in the courts. Until it is a 100% settled matter, please plan on voting during the early voting period starting on the 19th. My concern is that the courts will find the extension illegal, thereby invalidating any votes cast between the 13th and the 19th. If you are able through your circumstances, I would wait until the 19th or later.