Biden losing in swing states

[Emily Lake]

I'm sorry if you don't have patience for zealotry, but when zealots are trying to upend the entire democratic system and using whole regions and cities as meaningless pawns to be dupe, pretending this is still 1996 and we don't have to play hardball if it makes us feel uncomfortable is a luxury we can no longer afford.

Upend the entire democratic system like... warning that third-party bids are "undemocratic"?

Neither party is actually interested in upholding democracy. Both parties are seeking power for themselves and in their own interests. It's not even in the interest of their supporters, it's solely for the power of the parties themselves.

What in the world are you talking about??? Trump tried to steal an election that he clearly lost. And your side continues to embrace him. Name another election where the democrat tried to do this. The closest election that I can think of in my life time was Gore vs Bush. There is a good chance that Gore could have won. But rather than destroy our democracy, he conceded.

What exactly do you think "my side" is?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Looking at the stats in this poll, the largest number of responses to the questions were 3,662. The total number of registered voters in those states is 33,572,738. So the polls were .01% of the total.

Considering polling this past decade has been far less than stellar in accuracy, giving any weight to OP poll this far out from election day appears to me to be a fool's errand.

Standard fallacy. The ratio of those polled to the total is utterly unimportant at this scale, AFIAK it isn't even considered. The equations are a lot simpler if you assume an infinite population and at this level the difference is far below the error margin.

The problem with modern polling is that it fails to reach a representative audience anymore. Not only do a lot of people not answer unknown numbers but there are simply too many pollsters--I don't mind answering an occasional poll but I'm sure not answering the several per day that call when the election is getting close.

 

[Politesse]

I want both parties torn down and scrapped for spare parts.

That isn't going to happen.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm sorry if you don't have patience for zealotry, but when zealots are trying to upend the entire democratic system and using whole regions and cities as meaningless pawns to be dupe, pretending this is still 1996 and we don't have to play hardball if it makes us feel uncomfortable is a luxury we can no longer afford.

Upend the entire democratic system like... warning that third-party bids are "undemocratic"?

Neither party is actually interested in upholding democracy. Both parties are seeking power for themselves and in their own interests. It's not even in the interest of their supporters, it's solely for the power of the parties themselves.

What in the world are you talking about??? Trump tried to steal an election that he clearly lost. And your side continues to embrace him. Name another election where the democrat tried to do this. The closest election that I can think of in my life time was Gore vs Bush. There is a good chance that Gore could have won. But rather than destroy our democracy, he conceded.

Actually if a full recount had been done as FL law required but was blocked by the SCOTUS, Gore definitely would have one. Another example of Republican anti-democratic action.

 

[Swammerdami]

Actually if a full recount had been done as FL law required but was blocked by the SCOTUS, Gore definitely would have one. Another example of Republican anti-democratic action.

And there were three other ways that Gore would have won that election:
* If Ralph Nader had NOT run, obviously;
* without the "butterfly" ballot in Palm Beach County;
* If FoxNews hadn't called the election for Bush prematurely. This had the psychological effect of turning a narrow lead into victory, and made observers treat Gore's further efforts as an attempt to steal.

(Supposedly that "butterfly ballot" was designed by a Democrat. But I don't think GOP mischief can be ruled out. Either way, this ballot design circumvented the will of the voters.)

 

[ZiprHead]

Actually if a full recount had been done as FL law required but was blocked by the SCOTUS, Gore definitely would have one. Another example of Republican anti-democratic action.

And there were three other ways that Gore would have won that election:
* If Ralph Nader had NOT run, obviously;
* without the "butterfly" ballot in Palm Beach County;
* If FoxNews hadn't called the election for Bush prematurely. This had the psychological effect of turning a narrow lead into victory, and made observers treat Gore's further efforts as an attempt to steal.

(Supposedly that "butterfly ballot" was designed by a Democrat. But I don't think GOP mischief can be ruled out. Either way, this ballot design circumvented the will of the voters.)

Actually a consortium of news papers did a full recount afterwards and determined Gore actually beat Bush in FL.

 

[Politesse]

Okay, so if you acknowledge that both parties serve only their own interests, not the interests of the citizens... Why is it that you consistently denigrate only one of those parties? What makes the self-serving power-seeking grift of one party more palatable to you?

Because only one contingent is overtly gunning for my civil rights. Dumb question.

 

[Swammerdami]

Neither party is actually interested in upholding democracy. Both parties are seeking power for themselves and in their own interests. It's not even in the interest of their supporters, it's solely for the power of the parties themselves.

I find this point of view ridiculous. A typical member of Congress will be motivated by

• Pleasing his or her voters
• Pleasing potential campaign donors
• Serving what he or she views as duty or mission; i.e. doing what is in constituents', nation's or world's interest whether they know it or not.

What portion of motive fits into each of three categories varies from politician to politician. But it is absurdly cynical to assume that all politicians are insincere. Anyone with the talent and ambition to win election would likely have better career choices if money were the primary concern. Some Congresswomen deliberately avoid big-pocketed donors, so that pleasing donor and pleasing voters do not conflict. I especially admire Congressmen who will vote in the nation's best interest, even when voters don't understand that that stance is best.

I honestly cannot imagine where "not even in the interest ... solely for the power of the parties" comes from. GOP Congressmen are going bonzo because they are worried about re-election. Many feel that bonzosity is NOT in the party's interest ... but that is NOT their motive.

One hears that Democrats support immigration because babies born in the USA will be likely to vote blue when they come of age in 18 years. Balderdash!! These Congresscritters are not Machiavellian nerds plotting 18 years ahead.

 

[Elixir]

These Congresscritters are not Machiavellian nerds plotting 18 years ahead.

But the power of a terrifying boogeyman shrouded in 18 future years of uncertainty, is certainly not lost on Republican “replacement theorists”.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I'm sorry if you don't have patience for zealotry, but when zealots are trying to upend the entire democratic system and using whole regions and cities as meaningless pawns to be dupe, pretending this is still 1996 and we don't have to play hardball if it makes us feel uncomfortable is a luxury we can no longer afford.

Upend the entire democratic system like... warning that third-party bids are "undemocratic"?

Neither party is actually interested in upholding democracy. Both parties are seeking power for themselves and in their own interests. It's not even in the interest of their supporters, it's solely for the power of the parties themselves.

What in the world are you talking about??? Trump tried to steal an election that he clearly lost. And your side continues to embrace him. Name another election where the democrat tried to do this. The closest election that I can think of in my life time was Gore vs Bush. There is a good chance that Gore could have won. But rather than destroy our democracy, he conceded.

What exactly do you think "my side" is?

With respect, you're exactly on the side that thinks that both sides try to throw elections! This is a damaging belief that must be put in its place. Trump is not an idiot. He's actually very crafty, which makes him dangerous. He lost the 2020 election. He knew it 100%. So rather than accept, he and his minions tried to throw the election. He tried to push the election in an alternate path: to the states. Since the republicans controlled most state houses, he would have been reelected. He wanted to change our election process to the process that would most benefit him. Do you not see the danger of this? How can a democracy surive if the process was changed every election; AFTER the election! I don't know if our current form of government would have survived this. This is what the fake electors was about. This is directly against the constitution and is a crime. He should be in jail.

 

[Elixir]

He should be in jail.

Those five words are the nut of it.
He should be in jail.
He knows he should be in jail.
He has known it for decades.

So he started with “Lock her up” in a time before ANY presidential candidate had ever been accused of high crimes by another candidate, making their arrest a cornerstone of their campaign.

Because Trump, knowing what was coming, beat everyone to market with “lock her up”, he now owns first rights to it. Anyone saying he should be locked up is a cheap witch hunting imitator, creating an impression that leads well meaning folk like Emily to view both sides as equivalent, if not equal.

Nothing could be further from the truth.
Sure, political success requires a certain degree of self centered scumbaggery. But it doesn’t require the kind of sociopathic cruelty, avarice, mendacity and disregard for human lives that Donald Trump, and now HIS Party, exhibit and increasingly, embody.

 

[Emily Lake]

I want both parties torn down and scrapped for spare parts.

That isn't going to happen.

So what? Doesn't stop me from wanting it. And it certainly doesn't stop me from acknowledging that both parties are shit. One is bullshit, the other is horseshit, but they're both shit.

 

[Emily Lake]

Okay, so if you acknowledge that both parties serve only their own interests, not the interests of the citizens... Why is it that you consistently denigrate only one of those parties? What makes the self-serving power-seeking grift of one party more palatable to you?

Because only one contingent is overtly gunning for my civil rights. Dumb question.

Both contingents are actively gunning for my civil rights. Different rights being targeted by each, but both of them are chipping away at my rights.

 

[Emily Lake]

Neither party is actually interested in upholding democracy. Both parties are seeking power for themselves and in their own interests. It's not even in the interest of their supporters, it's solely for the power of the parties themselves.

I find this point of view ridiculous. A typical member of Congress will be motivated by

• Pleasing his or her voters
• Pleasing potential campaign donors
• Serving what he or she views as duty or mission; i.e. doing what is in constituents', nation's or world's interest whether they know it or not.

What portion of motive fits into each of three categories varies from politician to politician. But it is absurdly cynical to assume that all politicians are insincere. Anyone with the talent and ambition to win election would likely have better career choices if money were the primary concern. Some Congresswomen deliberately avoid big-pocketed donors, so that pleasing donor and pleasing voters do not conflict. I especially admire Congressmen who will vote in the nation's best interest, even when voters don't understand that that stance is best.

I honestly cannot imagine where "not even in the interest ... solely for the power of the parties" comes from. GOP Congressmen are going bonzo because they are worried about re-election. Many feel that bonzosity is NOT in the party's interest ... but that is NOT their motive.

One hears that Democrats support immigration because babies born in the USA will be likely to vote blue when they come of age in 18 years. Balderdash!! These Congresscritters are not Machiavellian nerds plotting 18 years ahead.

In your list you missed:

• Pleasing the leaders of the political party and serving the interests of the party as an entity

Yes, they worry about re-election. But not solely from the perspective of whether they please the citizens they're supposed to represent. They care about whether or not their party as an entity will support their re-election and will back them.

Do you honestly think that the majority of left-leaning people in the US actually WANT Biden as president again? FFS, most of us didn't want him as president in the first place! We weren't given a choice - he was foisted on us by the party. Most actual citizens sure as fuck don't want Trump again, but that's where the idiotic republican party is leaning. The majority of voters don't want either of these tow shit options, but we're not given a choice in the matter. The parties are pushing them, to support the interest of the parties.

 

[Emily Lake]

What exactly do you think "my side" is?

With respect, you're exactly on the side that thinks that both sides try to throw elections!

Would you care to support your assumption in some fashion? Or have you decided that what you imagine me to believe must be truth because it's in your brain?

This is a damaging belief that must be put in its place. Trump is not an idiot. He's actually very crafty, which makes him dangerous. He lost the 2020 election. He knew it 100%. So rather than accept, he and his minions tried to throw the election. He tried to push the election in an alternate path: to the states. Since the republicans controlled most state houses, he would have been reelected. He wanted to change our election process to the process that would most benefit him. Do you not see the danger of this? How can a democracy surive if the process was changed every election; AFTER the election! I don't know if our current form of government would have survived this. This is what the fake electors was about. This is directly against the constitution and is a crime. He should be in jail.

Why on earth do you imagine - IMAGINE - that I disagree?

 

[Elixir]

In your list you missed:

• Pleasing the leaders of the political party and serving the interests of the party as an entity

I think that’s covered under the “pleasing potential campaign donors” clause.
At least in Republicans’ case.

 

[Politesse]

Okay, so if you acknowledge that both parties serve only their own interests, not the interests of the citizens... Why is it that you consistently denigrate only one of those parties? What makes the self-serving power-seeking grift of one party more palatable to you?

Because only one contingent is overtly gunning for my civil rights. Dumb question.

Both contingents are actively gunning for my civil rights. Different rights being targeted by each, but both of them are chipping away at my rights.

That isn't a very reasonable position if you ask me, but I haven't, like, told you not to have it. So what's the problem?

 

[ZiprHead]

Okay, so if you acknowledge that both parties serve only their own interests, not the interests of the citizens... Why is it that you consistently denigrate only one of those parties? What makes the self-serving power-seeking grift of one party more palatable to you?

Because only one contingent is overtly gunning for my civil rights. Dumb question.

Both contingents are actively gunning for my civil rights. Different rights being targeted by each, but both of them are chipping away at my rights.

Interesting take. What rights of yours is the Democratic party chipping away at?

 

[Swammerdami]

Would I prefer a candidate younger than Biden if he were more likely than Biden to win election? Sure, but candidates as good as Biden -- and as righteous -- are hard to come by. Like Biden, I'm in my 70's and make more slips of the tongue and utter more Spoonerisms than before, but my brain still works fairly well. Does anyone think POTUS needs to memorize every detail of every program? There are teams of analysts and advisors to do most of the work.

Yes, they worry about re-election. But not solely from the perspective of whether they please the citizens they're supposed to represent. They care about whether or not their party as an entity will support their re-election and will back them.

Do you honestly think that the majority of left-leaning people in the US actually WANT Biden as president again? FFS, most of us didn't want him as president in the first place! We weren't given a choice - he was foisted on us by the party. Most actual citizens sure as fuck don't want Trump again, but that's where the idiotic republican party is leaning. The majority of voters don't want either of these tow shit options, but we're not given a choice in the matter. The parties are pushing them, to support the interest of the parties.

You imagine that the PEOPLE do not want Biden, but the PARTY is foisting him on us. I'd be curious to understand your point of view better. For what reason, in your opinion, does the "Party" support Biden against the "People's" desires? I sure think the "Party's" primary goal is to get its candidates elected. I won't post a Spoiler yet, but note that a "Party" is made up of people.

I'm also disappointed that you keep speaking of Biden and Trump together, as though there were similarities between the two. Biden is fundamentally a GOOD man who has dedicated his life to public service. A major fault, in the eyes of leftists, is that he was a moderate but this has changed with his arrival in the Oval Office. He has strongly helped progressive causes; he even visited a UAW picket line for heaven's sake.

Trump, on the other hand, is a continual liar, malignant narcissist, a major criminal and even a Russian asset. To even hint that there are similarities between these two men reveals breathtaking ignorance. May I ask what your major source of political news is, Emily? Some Facebook feed?

 

[barbos]

And it certainly doesn't stop me from acknowledging that both parties are shit. One is bullshit, the other is horseshit, but they're both shit.

I agree.