The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[RedDenver]

6 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Mmmmmaybe. I think there's a small but potentially significant number of Republicans who feel queasy voting for Trump, but can't bring themselves to vote for a Dem. Given anonymity, these people might choose not to vote at all. That would help Biden.

Seriously though, this argument is exactly why I push back so hard against the illogic here. The issue is that hurting Trump is not the same as helping Biden and vice versa. It's possible to hurt Trump by not voting for him. It's also possible to hurt Biden by not voting for him. And of course it's possible to hurt Trump and help Biden by voting for Biden and vice versa.

[RedDenver]

3 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

I understand the disdain for Biden in some progressive circles but if there was ever an election to get all philosophical about the difference between a vote for Trump's opponent vs. a third party, it ain't this one. Lots of people recognize that. 

 

For as much as progressives universally detest the Iraq War and crave real action for climate change, I'd think they'd have already learned this lesson with 2000 and Nader.

And how many Dems voted for the Iraq War? And how did Biden vote again?

 

But my disdain is because it's not just illogical but also counter-productive. If voting third-party is the same as voting for Trump, then you're giving permission to all the third-party voters to go ahead and vote for Trump. And all the potential Trump voters who are considering not voting, to also just go ahead and vote for Trump.

 

And if we use @Guy Chamberlin's logic that a right-winger not voting for Trump actually helps Biden, then voters who are considering not voting Trump but absolutely won't help the Dems are being pushed towards voting for Trump.

[teachercd]

Man...after reading all the different ideas about how voting does what and so on...maybe Trump and Biden should just arm wrestle.  Best two out of three...Over The Top style.

[Danny Bateman]

15 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

And how many Dems voted for the Iraq War? And how did Biden vote again?

 

But my disdain is because it's not just illogical but also counter-productive. If voting third-party is the same as voting for Trump, then you're giving permission to all the third-party voters to go ahead and vote for Trump. And all the potential Trump voters who are considering not voting, to also just go ahead and vote for Trump.

 

And if we use @Guy Chamberlin's logic that a right-winger not voting for Trump actually helps Biden, then voters who are considering not voting Trump but absolutely won't help the Dems are being pushed towards voting for Trump.

 

My point was elections have real consequences for progressive priorities. As well as the nation as a whole.

 

Maybe we're just talking past each other. You two are saying that there are voters out there who would otherwise vote for Trump that may vote third party instead.

 

What I'm trying to espouse, perhaps poorly, is that within the pool of voters who would even remotely consider voting for Biden (obviously not all voters) as many as possible should do so rather than going third-party or sitting out because this is not a typical election and we should not be screwing around with another four years of Trump. The stakes are much greater this go-around than Obama vs. McCain or Obama vs. Romney. Trump is malicious and toxic in a way those two Republicans were not. 

 

Can you agree with me on that much?

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

My point was elections have real consequences for progressive priorities. As well as the nation as a whole.

 

Maybe we're just talking past each other. You two are saying that there are voters out there who would otherwise vote for Trump that may vote third party instead.

 

What I'm trying to espouse, perhaps poorly, is that within the pool of voters who would even remotely consider voting for Biden (obviously not all voters) as many as possible should do so rather than going third-party or sitting out because this is not a typical election and we should not be screwing around with another four years of Trump. The stakes are much greater this go-around than Obama vs. McCain or Obama vs. Romney. Trump is malicious and toxic in a way those two Republicans were not. 

 

Can you agree with me on that much?

I mostly agree, but I remember W being arguably worse than Trump and him winning in 2004 over Kerry reminds me very strongly of this election cycle. Maybe that's why I'm not quite as concerned about Trump winning as some of the posters here - for all of the awful things Trump is and says and does, he still hasn't effed America as bad as Bush did getting us into the Iraq War. Although the covid-19 response might end up being worse.

 

I think efforts spent trying to engage voters and convince them to vote for Biden is a better strategy than trying to guilt them with a false premise. Everyone who's voting just to get Trump out is already going to vote for Biden, so something different is needed now. JMHO.

[Notre Dame Joe]

7 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm not following what you're wanting me to explain.  What is....anything Trump cannot do?

 

And, you asked me a question that I need clarification on.  What "dictator powers" do you think Ds want Trump to have?

 

Well even accounting for the fact that few understand how federalism works, I've heard Ds call for the abolishment of just about every Constitutional right in the name of public health.  Just now the governor of NJ said "I wasn't thinking about the bill of rights."

 

I'm just curious why you want to vest so much power in an office that will often be (and is now) occupied by your sworn enemy.  And is there any limit at all?   If Trump were to decree that political rallies presented to great a risk of contagion, would you just roll over and conduct the campaign online?  

3 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Mmmmmaybe. I think there's a small but potentially significant number of Republicans who feel queasy voting for Trump, but can't bring themselves to vote for a Dem. Given anonymity, these people might choose not to vote at all. That would help Biden.

The ones trotted out by media generally live in wealthy blue state mega-cities.  They got us thinking; did the Republican CEO of a New York City Hedge fun really care about middle class America? Did I have anything in common with them besides political alliance?

 

2 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

My point was elections have real consequences for progressive priorities. As well as the nation as a whole.

 

Maybe we're just talking past each other. You two are saying that there are voters out there who would otherwise vote for Trump that may vote third party instead.

 

What I'm trying to espouse, perhaps poorly, is that within the pool of voters who would even remotely consider voting for Biden (obviously not all voters) as many as possible should do so rather than going third-party or sitting out because this is not a typical election and we should not be screwing around with another four years of Trump. The stakes are much greater this go-around than Obama vs. McCain or Obama vs. Romney. Trump is malicious and toxic in a way those two Republicans were not. 

 

Can you agree with me on that much?

 

No.  Bush was once malicious and toxic and whatever label the haters could find. It was competitive bile among the media.  Then his son was. Whoever is in the white house or running for it will be EVIL in the mind of a liberal.

[Moiraine]

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I mostly agree, but I remember W being arguably worse than Trump and him winning in 2004 over Kerry reminds me very strongly of this election cycle. Maybe that's why I'm not quite as concerned about Trump winning as some of the posters here - for all of the awful things Trump is and says and does, he still hasn't effed America as bad as Bush did getting us into the Iraq War. Although the covid-19 response might end up being worse.

 

 

I think Trump’s presidency will cause longer lasting and deeper damage than Bush’s. I don’t really think they’ll be comparable.

 

It seems like a lot if people expect immediate change/consequences. Some of what Trump has done isn’t going to show up immediately, e.g. the environmental protections he’s removed and the tax cuts.

[RedDenver]

8 hours ago, Moiraine said:

I think Trump’s presidency will cause longer lasting and deeper damage than Bush’s. I don’t really think they’ll be comparable.

 

It seems like a lot if people expect immediate change/consequences. Some of what Trump has done isn’t going to show up immediately, e.g. the environmental protections he’s removed and the tax cuts.

Maybe. But Bush had tax cuts as well and we're still in Afghanistan and the Patriot Act keeps getting refreshed.

 

But even if Trump is voted out, I don't think we'll be able to make the systemic changes we need to fix the issues that brought us Trump to begin with. Biden is likely to give us more of the Obama years that helped lead to Trump. (The Republicans will of course do most of the heavy lifting, but Biden like Obama will be ineffectual against them.)

[Guy Chamberlin]

15 hours ago, RedDenver said:

 

 

Can we just put this illogical nonsense to bed? Not voting doesn't help any candidate win.

 

It's pretty simple. Just not predictable. The party that can get more of its people to the polls, wins.  If you voted for your party in the last election, but choose not to vote in this election, your non-vote could help the opposing candidate --- assuming the opposing party had fewer defections. 

 

Democrats are given the advantage in big turnout elections simply because there are 20 million more registered Democrats in America. 

 

At the moment, 48% of likely Republican voters are "very enthusiastic" about voting for Trump. 24% of likely Democratic voters are "very enthusiastic" about voting for Biden. This is concerning for Democrats banking on turnout. The non-votes will help Trump. 

 

 

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

10 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

No.  Bush was once malicious and toxic and whatever label the haters could find. It was competitive bile among the media.  Then his son was. Whoever is in the white house or running for it will be EVIL in the mind of a liberal.

 

As opposed to the open-minded and insult-free view conservatives take of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or any stray Clinton?  No bile detected at Fox News?  By any chance do you remember Sean Hannity's special "Obama: The First 100 days" set to the soundtrack and graphics from "The Omen?" 

 

For the record, the Bush/Cheney administration was pretty damn evil, complete with a large needless death count. Some folks in both parties have actually become nostalgic for Bush given the comparative train wreck of Trump, but I'd go easy on the rehabilitation of that era. 

[TGHusker]

35 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Maybe. But Bush had tax cuts as well and we're still in Afghanistan and the Patriot Act keeps getting refreshed.

 

But even if Trump is voted out, I don't think we'll be able to make the systemic changes we need to fix the issues that brought us Trump to begin with. Biden is likely to give us more of the Obama years that helped lead to Trump. (The Republicans will of course do most of the heavy lifting, but Biden like Obama will be ineffectual against them.)

Not sure how you can hang the Obama years that lead to Trump.  I think you can pin it more on bad candidate Hillary + tRump's ability to con people leads to tRump. 

 

I agree wt Moiraine, Trump will be worse then Bush.  Bush actually accomplished some good things while in office - Trump, not so much.  Could you imagine Trump as president on 911?  The nukes would have been flying.

[BigRedBuster]

10 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Well even accounting for the fact that few understand how federalism works, I've heard Ds call for the abolishment of just about every Constitutional right in the name of public health.  Just now the governor of NJ said "I wasn't thinking about the bill of rights."

 

I'm just curious why you want to vest so much power in an office that will often be (and is now) occupied by your sworn enemy.  And is there any limit at all?   If Trump were to decree that political rallies presented to great a risk of contagion, would you just roll over and conduct the campaign online?  

Well...actually, states and local communities do have the constitutional right to do what they are doing.  It's been fought out in the supreme court.  LINK

 

Quote

 

States—and their cities and counties by extension—possess what has long been known as a “police power” to govern for the health, welfare and safety of their citizens. This broad authority, which can be traced to English common law and is reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment, is far from radical; it justifies why states can regulate at all.

 

The police power of the states has been invoked on multiple occasions by the Supreme Court, often in contrast to the limited powers of the federal government—for example, in Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in the 2012 Obamacare case. This power also has been recognized in the context of public health for decades. In a 1905 Supreme Court case that upheld mandatory smallpox vaccinations, the court observed that “upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”

 

What does this mean for the drastic coronavirus responses we’re seeing across the country? State and local governments can indeed decide to force even unwilling businesses to shut down, require people to stay mostly at home, impose curfews and even threaten noncompliance with arrest if necessary. (Thankfully, with COVID-19, we have so far seen mostly peaceful, even if begrudging, compliance to “flatten the curve” so that our health care workers and hospitals are not overwhelmed.) But, you might ask, don’t I have individual rights, even in a pandemic? Of course you do. We possess constitutionally protected rights to assemble and travel, for instance. State and local governments must be careful to make sure that measures they impose to protect people are not overly broad and are taken only for justifiably important reasons.

 

 

Boy....if you don't think the government has the right to do what it's doing, you must really hate Trump.

[Danny Bateman]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

Maybe. But Bush had tax cuts as well and we're still in Afghanistan and the Patriot Act keeps getting refreshed.

 

But even if Trump is voted out, I don't think we'll be able to make the systemic changes we need to fix the issues that brought us Trump to begin with. Biden is likely to give us more of the Obama years that helped lead to Trump. (The Republicans will of course do most of the heavy lifting, but Biden like Obama will be ineffectual against them.)

 

OK. It's fair to say W's presidency was pretty bad from a leftist perspective. I agree with others that Trump's will ultimately be much worse. But let's suppose Trump's presidency is ultimately equally as bad as W's. Think about all the stuff that happened in W's second term: ongoing war(s), Katrina, attempted Social Security privatization, 2 conservatives on SCOTUS, Great Recession. 
 

If we can avert that type of damage in the next four years, it's a five-alarm fire and we need to pull all the stops out to do so. It's enough for me to cringe when I hear talk of third-party voting because I think it will actually be worse and the SCOTUS appointments will be more consequential. 

 

For all W's flaws and foibles, I think most in retrospect would agree that generally a component of his decision-making was what he thought best for the country and its people out of a sense of patriotism. Trump does what he thinks will please only his voters because his decision-making is guided exclusively by self-interest. He's about his bottom line, his popularity and his re-election. That's it.

[Danny Bateman]

10 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

No.  Bush was once malicious and toxic and whatever label the haters could find. It was competitive bile among the media.  Then his son was. Whoever is in the white house or running for it will be EVIL in the mind of a liberal.

 

Certainly Democrats will always want to defeat a Republican president to take back the White House and vice-versa. 

 

But I'm afraid you're the board outlier in thinking Trump is not uniquely terrible and harmful.

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

But even if Trump is voted out, I don't think we'll be able to make the systemic changes we need to fix the issues that brought us Trump to begin with. Biden is likely to give us more of the Obama years that helped lead to Trump. (The Republicans will of course do most of the heavy lifting, but Biden like Obama will be ineffectual against them.)

 

 

I agree with this. I think we’re screwed. There has to be a revolution of some kind. We’re an oligarchy now. It’ll either go from that to dictatorship or something in the total opposite direction as progressives age and vote more and become a larger % of the pop. But by the time the latter happens voting might not be legitimate. It’s already being f#&%ed over by GOP governed states increasing wait times/reducing access to polls as much as they can in areas that don’t vote Republican not to mention the gerrymandering.