Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Point one is also b.s. For a couple of reasons.
First, the polls didn't "lie". They actually showed Trump with a pretty strong chance of winning the election. The issue was more with the coverage of those polls. Additionally, to the extent that the polls showed Clinton winning, it's hard to say that they were totally inaccurate since she did win the popular vote. Lastly, the polls have consistently been much more favorable towards Biden than they were at almost any point for Clinton.
Edit -
Edited by Hodor2 on Aug 31st 2020 at 2:53:27 PM
Edited by sgamer82 on Aug 31st 2020 at 12:53:13 PM
Time to try and change the topic.
Trump is considering targeting...Canadian lobster exports to China and the EU (bolstered by his own idiotic trade war). This is a naked attempt to save Susan Collins, and possibly win Maine's single potentially Republican EV.
This is on top of the aluminum tariffs he slapped on Ottawa to attempt to win over the Midwest.
North American Trade War 2: Pandemic Edition
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.We can't be overconfident. A lot can happen in two months. Everybody needs to keep that in mind, particularly with the recent violence and the noticeable dip Biden has taken lately.
I'm not overconfident.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangWell, I am going to contest these points:
- 2016 was perfectly well within margins of error. Biden's current leads have been very stable and not really within margins of error (and margins of error are two-sided; they can underestimate Biden too).
- There is no evidence of this at all. As some folks have pointed out, Trump gets very bad marks for his handling of the protests and his approval did not improve with them either.
- Again woth the lack of evidence.
- Not necessarily enough to affect the election. Especially since the attempt was so unsubtle that the public is very well aware and will take countermeasures, and as Nate Silver from 538 indicated the difficulty/risk of in-person voting could reduce turnout there.
- As strange as it sounds, but from past polls it doesn't seem like there are large party differences in how people actually behave.
- Fair, but see #1
- Which had an approval rating of - 7%? last I checked.
I’m just going to imagine a literal interpretation of that statement about “dangerous lobsters.”
My musician page@Septimus -
I also do want to note, I don't understand why Qanon is being mentioned as a reason that Trump will win. My most charitable interpretation is that the poster is bringing them up as evidence of how Trump supporters will remain Trump supporters despite the presence of inconvenient facts.
Also, I really don't want to rehash the fights about 2016, but I think it needs to be noted that there were deliberately timed out releases of hacked materials from Clinton's campaign that were framed to put her in the worst light possible and to sabotage the unification of different groups in the Democratic Party. Most notably, there was a timed "drop" right after the Access Holywood tape leaked.
Conversely, while I'm not ruling out another hack, Trump was caught attempting the same kind of thing with Ukraine and got impeached for it. And Biden and Sanders are good friends and there's a lot less in-fighting this time around.
Edited by Hodor2 on Aug 31st 2020 at 3:05:29 AM
Law and order rhetoric does generally appeal to conservatives and older voters, that much I think is true. Whether that will give Trump the edge is another thing entirely.
I suspect the people who prefer a strong law and order candidate tend to be the same who are afraid of those riots or think they are left wing terrorism (or what have you), and so are likely to already be decided to vote for Trump.
And there may indeed be a small subset of Republican voters who are looking for any reason to vote for Trump against their dislike of him, but I doubt that will be a large factor, and won't sway the election in Trump's favour.
I think how the electoral college shapes out will be a lot more crucial to who wins than whatever rhetoric each candidate uses.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesI am going to say that the law and order thing may appeal also to...centrists and apathetic people who are not affected by the whole racial riots, other than, you know. The oppression of having black people rioting and possibly even looting your workplace.
They can certainly pay lip service to the idea of it being nice if they had their issues solved but the premise of them being safe from them would entice them.
And the apathetic voters are the vast majority.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesAnd the apathetic voters are the vast majority.
I think this is the fundamental problem with your argument, the majority of people are not apathetic when it comes to BLM and protests. Most people support them, which means that punitive law and order messages are not going to appeal to them because in practice those messages are about crushing protests.
Now obviously there is a portion of the populace who are supportive, but they're Trump supporters and they're the people who he had in 2016 where he barely beat Clinton. Playing to his base is better than nothing but it's not the expansion Trump needs to win reliably.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
I'm being "glass half full" here, but those things are happening under Trump, so it seems more likely that he'd be blamed for them than people voting for him (who didn't previously) because of fears of it getting worse. Especially because it's not at all controversial to say that Trump is doing more to fan violence than to allay it.
Edit - Semi-
Also, I kind of have to ask. Is it really so hard to believe that people like/support Biden and think he's a better choice on various issues, including ones related to the protests?
Edited by Hodor2 on Aug 31st 2020 at 3:40:20 AM
Didn't get them to vote when Trayvon Martin was shot. And Ferguson didn't help Hillary win in 2016.
Not enough to get them to vote more than usual...in fact the 2012 elections had less turnout than the 2016, and 2008 ones...
You could argue that the riots that resulted from George Floyd's death have given a far larger response than those have, but I am a bit cynical as to whether BLM will actually move the centrist unaffected vote.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesThe situation with BLM is not comparable to what it was years ago, support for BLM has risen noticeably in the last few years. Now whether it will be enough to motivate people to vote is another story, but the argument of "these previous deaths of black men did not motivate people to vote" doesn't really work when the political landscape is noticeably different in important ways.
Edited by Draghinazzo on Aug 31st 2020 at 5:10:52 AM
![]()
![]()
You know that Democrats won the 2018 midterms, right?...
Also, who are these "centrist unaffected" people that you think are the majority of the country and will never vote for Biden?
I find this argument kind of weird to be honest, because my impression is that you are a leftist (a Never Biden leftist?), and I thought the whole criticism of Biden was the fact that he is a Centrist. So the argument that Centrists will never vote for Biden seems to be a strange one.
Edit - One other thing - Is "didn't get them to vote" referring to protestors not voting for Democrats or the idea that protests made people vote for Republicans? Both? Because those are two separate things.
Edited by Hodor2 on Aug 31st 2020 at 4:14:46 AM
Trump’s Law & Order strategy has two major flaws, firstly he’s the incumbent, Nixon was the challenger and that is a big part of why his strategy worked, he could point to current chaos and say “look at what the other party has caused, I’ll fix it”. Secondly the suburbs have changed, they’re a lot more racially diverse and they have a greater percentage of dual-income households, which means that appeals to white-suburban-housewives have a much smaller audience.
Edited by Silasw on Aug 31st 2020 at 9:14:11 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranGood points. I also really think it needs to be underscored the extent to which Trump is fairly explicitly supportive of violent right-wing "protestors". And conversely, the fact that as a benefit of Biden's somewhat chequered record on racial issues coupled with his condemnation of violence and looting, it's hard to believably paint him as responsible for the actions of left-wing extremists.
Edit - I really am having a hard time phrasing this concisely. But basically, the answer to the question, "What do you call people who think Biden is the leader of BLM?" is "Republicans".
Edited by Hodor2 on Aug 31st 2020 at 4:31:03 AM

Polls didn't "lie" in 2016; they were completely accurate and within the margin of error. If we treat 2020 polls with the same scepticism levied retroactively at 2016 polls, they still favour Biden more than the equivalent polls favoured Hillary.