Undecided Voters - a new view

[Cheerful Charlie]

Polls and surveys show a very low number of undecided voters this year. You either love Trump or despise him. This year, voters who do not particularly like Biden are swinging to Biden because Biden is not Trump.
Surveys seem also to show a lot less third party voters this time around. Interest in voting this election cycle is very high. In the past, undecided voters who did in fact vote, often made up their minds late in the election. But we are not going to see a big last moment swing of these since they are not large numerically speaking. And the true independents who do not lean red or blue usually vote in low numbers, many sit the elections out. If that holds this year, the undecideds who are in that category may not matter much at all.
Quinnapiac finds that only 5% are undecideds this year, it was 10% in 2016. Clinton by election day was surprisingly disliked, but this year it is Trump who is disliked. If Trump is hoping the undecideds will give him a win, Trump is most likely going to be disappointed.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/10/po...2016-are-supporting-biden-over-trump-in-2020/

...
Between October 16-18, Morning Consult Political Intelligence surveyed 359 likely voters who opted for candidates other than Trump or Hillary Clinton in 2016 and found that 53% are supporting Biden in this year’s election, while just 21% are backing Trump.
...

In 2016, third party candidates took about 5.73% of the national popular vote. (Source Roll Call website)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Both Reds and Blues make equal claims of being scientific and honest, and of the other side being antiscientific and dishonest.

What does the term "undecided voter" mean?

Or better: What about voters who have decided definitely that they will not vote for either the Buffoon Demagogue Biden OR the Buffoon Demagogue Trump?

These might be DECIDED that they will leave it blank, or they are DECIDED that they will vote for a 3rd Party choice.

And yet the poll-takers seem oblivious to these non-Red and non-Blue voters and imagine that there are only 3 animals -- 1) the Trump idiots, 2) the Biden idiots, and 3) the idiots who think they have to choose which of these 2 camps of idiots to join.

Why are there only these 3 categories into which everyone must be herded?

. . . if you TRULY are "undecided" at this point, in 2020, you're so stupid your vote shouldn't count anyway.

But the Blue decideds and the Red decideds are just as stupid. So whose vote should count?

If you genuinely can't pick a lane in this one, while you've both seen what's been going on since 2016 and you have two functional brain cells to rub together, you should just sit in the back seat and moo at cows or whatever, while the adults drive the car.

But who are these "adults"? not the Trump fanatics or the Blue anti-Trump fanatics. They don't have even 1½ functional brain cells. It's better to let the teddy bear take the wheel than turn the driving over to these mindless cattle whose only claim to adulthood is their ability to snort their preference between the hooting-and-howling Red or hooting-and-howling Blue demagogues.

In order to arrive at these opinions you proclaim, you must first ignore all context.

No, you must listen to both sides. Whereas to think one party is telling The Truth and the other is lying, you have to listen to only one side to the exclusion of the other.

The vast majority of one of the parties listens to scientists on the vast majority of topics. The vast majority of the other party doesn't.

No, both sides listen equally to scientists, and equally distort what the scientists say. They both find quotes from scientists to support their side. And they argue about which ones are the true scientists and which ones are phony. Or how many scientists there are on each side. They argue over which ones have legitimate credentials, and which ones are only amateurs.

One of these parties is more interested in facts which is why highly educated people are drawn to it.

No, both parties have the same interest and non-interest in facts, and both find facts to promote their side. And both accuse the other side of ignoring facts.

One of these parties is interested in enriching the wealthy, . . .

No, both are run by a wealthy class and are interested in enriching their respective wealthy class. The term "the wealthy" is not legitimate because there are different wealthy classes, and their interests conflict with each other. Though in cases where the interests of these classes overlap, they agree and are equally interested in enriching those wealthy classes.

. . . and enshrining myths(_{Abrahamic religions}) and myth based policies into government institutions, which is . . .

No, both parties have their myths which they enshrine, and both enshrine their myth-based policies into government institutions. Virtually everyone and every group has their myths which they promote and enshrine.

. . . which is why kleptocrats and poorly educated magical thinkers are drawn to it.

No, each party does this, and each one accuses the other of doing this, and each one denies doing it and says only the other side is guilty of this.

There is a best choice here and abstaining from voting or voting 3rd party isn't it.

Both sides agree on this. And the best choice is Trump if you're in the Red camp, but it's Biden if you're in the Blue camp.

 

[bilby]

What does the term "undecided voter" mean?

Or better: What about voters who have decided definitely that they will not vote for either the Buffoon Demagogue Biden OR the Buffoon Demagogue Trump?

These might be DECIDED that they will leave it blank, or they are DECIDED that they will vote for a 3rd Party choice.

And yet the poll-takers seem oblivious to these non-Red and non-Blue voters and imagine that there are only 3 animals -- 1) the Trump idiots, 2) the Biden idiots, and 3) the idiots who think they have to choose which of these 2 camps of idiots to join.

Why are there only these 3 categories into which everyone must be herded?



But the Blue decideds and the Red decideds are just as stupid. So whose vote should count?

If you genuinely can't pick a lane in this one, while you've both seen what's been going on since 2016 and you have two functional brain cells to rub together, you should just sit in the back seat and moo at cows or whatever, while the adults drive the car.

But who are these "adults"? not the Trump fanatics or the Blue anti-Trump fanatics. They don't have even 1½ functional brain cells. It's better to let the teddy bear take the wheel than turn the driving over to these mindless cattle whose only claim to adulthood is their ability to snort their preference between the hooting-and-howling Red or hooting-and-howling Blue demagogues.

In order to arrive at these opinions you proclaim, you must first ignore all context.

No, you must listen to both sides. Whereas to think one party is telling The Truth and the other is lying, you have to listen to only one side to the exclusion of the other.

The vast majority of one of the parties listens to scientists on the vast majority of topics. The vast majority of the other party doesn't.

No, both sides listen equally to scientists, and equally distort what the scientists say. They both find quotes from scientists to support their side. And they argue about which ones are the true scientists and which ones are phony. Or how many scientists there are on each side. They argue over which ones have legitimate credentials, and which ones are only amateurs.

One of these parties is more interested in facts which is why highly educated people are drawn to it.

No, both parties have the same interest and non-interest in facts, and both find facts to promote their side. And both accuse the other side of ignoring facts.

One of these parties is interested in enriching the wealthy, . . .

No, both are run by a wealthy class and are interested in enriching their respective wealthy class. The term "the wealthy" is not legitimate because there are different wealthy classes, and their interests conflict with each other. Though in cases where the interests of these classes overlap, they agree and are equally interested in enriching those wealthy classes.

. . . and enshrining myths(_{Abrahamic religions}) and myth based policies into government institutions, which is . . .

No, both parties have their myths which they enshrine, and both enshrine their myth-based policies into government institutions. Virtually everyone and every group has their myths which they promote and enshrine.

. . . which is why kleptocrats and poorly educated magical thinkers are drawn to it.

No, each party does this, and each one accuses the other of doing this, and each one denies doing it and says only the other side is guilty of this.

There is a best choice here and abstaining from voting or voting 3rd party isn't it.

Both sides agree on this. And the best choice is Trump if you're in the Red camp, but it's Biden if you're in the Blue camp.

Yeah, nah. Reality exists.

The mental patient claims to speak to leprechauns, and that the Psychiatrist is wrong to say that there's no such thing.

The Psychiatrist says there's no such thing as leprechauns, and that the mental patient is wrong to say they're real.

These are two directly opposing opinions; But that doesn't make them equally reasonable or equally believable. Balance is for questions of pure opinion, not for questions with a factual basis.

If I say it's raining and my wife says it's not, it's not reasonable (or even sane) for you to declare that we are both entitled to our opinion on the matter; The reasonable thing for you to do is to take a look out the window and see who is right. And it's perfectly reasonable, when you see that it's in fact NOT raining, for you to be highly disinclined to accept my word for it in regards to future claims about the weather, and to rely on my wife instead.

Balance is bullshit. Reality is real, and fear, obfuscation and denial are antithetical to freedom and honesty, and as such undermine democracy and society. We shouldn't give both sides an equal hearing just because they make equally opposing claims about the other's honesty. We should preferentially believe the side that lies the least about testable and observable facts.

That side is VERY clearly NOT the one led by fucking Donald fucking lying sack of fucking shit Trump, who lies on a scale and at a rate massively unprecedented, even in the stereotypically disingenuous world of politics.

Trump is many orders of magnitude more likely to lie than Biden when making testable claims; To suggest that their opposing (but not easily tested) claims are, by virtue of being difficult to test, equally plausible is to abandon all reason and sanity. You might as well put on a straitjacket and start talking to leprechauns.

 

[starwater]

Yeah well there is lots of folks who like to be told what they want to hear and continue to live in their own bubble of non-reality.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yeah well there is lots of folks who like to be told what they want to hear and continue to live in their own bubble of non-reality.

 

[Politesse]

And everyone wants to believe that they, and they alone, are smart enough and independent enought to see the world as it truly is rather than as it is presented to them. Look at Plato... and then at the cosmological hierachy that the Neo-Platonists managed to derive from his works. Everyone always wants to see themselves as clever enough not to be hoodwinked like "everyone else" is, yet in truth we inevitably end up resembling our allegedly brainless neighbors far more than either party would ever volunteer to admit.

 

[rousseau]

And everyone wants to believe that they, and they alone, are smart enough and independent enought to see the world as it truly is rather than as it is presented to them. Look at Plato... and then at the cosmological hierachy that the Neo-Platonists managed to derive from his works. Everyone always wants to see themselves as clever enough not to be hoodwinked like "everyone else" is, yet in truth we inevitably end up resembling our allegedly brainless neighbors far more than either party would ever volunteer to admit.

Yep. A pretty good rule of thumb is that if you've never read any books by the world leaders on any given subject, or even know who any of those people are, you very likely don't understand the subject as well as you think you do.

And it's amazing how extensively people fall prey to this. A few years ago when I was still on Twitter, university educated people abound who were absolutely certain, and absolutely wrong about a whole host of subjects, pretty consistently.

 

[Politesse]

And everyone wants to believe that they, and they alone, are smart enough and independent enought to see the world as it truly is rather than as it is presented to them. Look at Plato... and then at the cosmological hierachy that the Neo-Platonists managed to derive from his works. Everyone always wants to see themselves as clever enough not to be hoodwinked like "everyone else" is, yet in truth we inevitably end up resembling our allegedly brainless neighbors far more than either party would ever volunteer to admit.

Yep. A pretty good rule of thumb is that if you've never read any books by the world leaders on any given subject, or even know who any of those people are, you very likely don't understand the subject as well as you think you do.

And it's amazing how extensively people fall prey to this. A few years ago when I was still on Twitter, university educated people abound who were absolutely certain, and absolutely wrong about a whole host of subjects, pretty consistently.

Ah, indeed. At work, there have been some ruffled feathers lately about anthropology's inclusion on a steering committee for the sciences on campus. Hardly unusual of course, but I found myself on a Zoom call last weekend with an Oxford-educated mathematician vehemently trying to explain why anthropology was an invalid discipline based on his extensive study and insightful understanding of the social sciences... all while very clearly betraying an utter lack of awareness of the basic nature of the discipline (the topical scope of the field, its subdisciplines, any of its research methods, any of its key thinkers...). Even the well-degree'd often have a shaky understanding of the limits of their personal knowledge.

Why, you should hear me expound on economics and political science when I'm three sheets to the wind, despite having exactly zero formal training in either discipline.

I do sometimes wonder whether I harbor similar blind spots with respect to political "conservatism". But ultimately, self-interest obliges me to resist Trump and his minions politically whether I understand their viewpoint or not, for it is partly my own civil rights at stake in their rise or fall. If it be a fault to care little for their fate or feelings, I pray it be a small fault.

 

[Toni]

I lost the link to the story in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune about undecided voters. Its basic thesis is that the dwindling number of undecided voters are people who lean Republican but who fear what Mr. Biden might do and who strongly dislike Mr. Trump's style. Some of those interviewed said they voted for HRC in 2016 but feared Mr. Biden's policies on taxes or guns.

So, these people are balancing their distaste for Mr. Trump with their fear of what might happen under a Biden Presidency.

Maybe this article?:

https://www.startribune.com/policy-vs-personality-undecideds-torn-as-election-nears/572787932/

 

[bilby]

Yeah well there is lots of folks who like to be told what they want to hear and continue to live in their own bubble of non-reality.

Lots? It's all of them. Every single last solitary one, you and me included.

A tiny fraction do sometimes manage to understand that what they like has little bearing on what is real. But only a fraction. And only sometimes.

 

[Derec]

They voted for Hilary but are afraid of Joe? How does that work?

Rise of the "squad" and other far-left Democrats being elected to Congress or winning primaries (like Jamaal Bowman in NY) and them being hailed as "the future of the Democratic Party" may have to do with it.
Republicans are definitely using the Squad in their ads.

 

[Elixir]

They voted for Hilary but are afraid of Joe? How does that work?

Rise of the "squad" and other far-left Democrats being elected to Congress or winning primaries (like Jamaal Bowman in NY) and them being hailed as "the future of the Democratic Party" may have to do with it.
Republicans are definitely using the Squad in their ads.

Well yeah - they're terrified that an administration aligned with "the squad" might provide things that people like (e.g. public health care, infrastructure improvement) that will be really hard for them to take away.
With all that money spent on stuff that doesn't matter to billionaires, it could get difficult to extract the donations they rely on to have any chance at all to re-gain power.

 

[bilby]

Far-left Democrat n.

A politician in the USA whose positions are at the centre-right of the global political spectrum.

Characterised by such extreme policies as provision of similar levels of healthcare access to ordinary citizens as those found everywhere else in the OECD; and supporting smaller tax cuts (particularly for the hyper-wealthy) than those supported by their mainstream colleagues.

A source of abject terror amongst rural Americans who would be the greatest beneficiaries of their policies, were they ever enacted. This terror apparently stemming from the belief that there's a genuine risk that these poor rural individuals might be billionaires at that future date, and thereby miss out on these slightly lower marginal tax rates.

 

[Shadowy Man]

They voted for Hilary but are afraid of Joe? How does that work?

Rise of the "squad" and other far-left Democrats being elected to Congress or winning primaries (like Jamaal Bowman in NY) and them being hailed as "the future of the Democratic Party" may have to do with it.
Republicans are definitely using the Squad in their ads.

They don’t have to vote for squad-like members of Congress to represent them then. People seem to forget how the government works.

Do they think Joe Biden is more aligned with the squad than Hilary would have been? I still don’t get it.

 

[TV and credit cards]

They voted for Hilary but are afraid of Joe? How does that work?

Rise of the "squad" and other far-left Democrats being elected to Congress or winning primaries (like Jamaal Bowman in NY) and them being hailed as "the future of the Democratic Party" may have to do with it.
Republicans are definitely using the Squad in their ads.

They don’t have to vote for squad-like members of Congress to represent them then. People seem to forget how the government works.

Do they think Joe Biden is more aligned with the squad than Hilary would have been? I still don’t get it.

They're probably fed a Manchurian Candidate like message that old man Biden will be controlled by the squad. Not only are they going to take away their guns, they're going to make them drive Prius' and they're only going to have electricity for four hours a day.

The Faces of Evil

 

[Rhea]

And make them cover their MAGA hat with a sticker that says COEXIST.

You know scary monster under the bed. But the fact is - those people believe it.

 

[Derec]

Well yeah - they're terrified that an administration aligned with "the squad" might provide things that people like (e.g. public health care, infrastructure improvement) that will be really hard for them to take away.

More like that a squad-dominated Democratic Party will ruin the economy by passing hyperexpensive bills like the GND (most of whose provisions have nothing to do with the environment or the climate), banning fracking (which we need as we get half our oil and 2/3 of our gas through hydraulically fracked wells) etc. And that they will make the country less safe by passing laws hamstringing local police.

With all that money spent on stuff that doesn't matter to billionaires,

Ordinary people in states like Pennsylvania need jobs in the fracking industry.
Ordinary people in the entire US need affordable oil and gas provided by the fracking technology.
Billionaires like Tom Steyer don't need to worry about peasant concerns like gasoline and natural gas prices.

it could get difficult to extract the donations they rely on to have any chance at all to re-gain power.

Socialism has been tried over and over again and was a disaster each time. This Millennial version of socialism AOC et al are pushing will not fare any better if implemented.

 

[Derec]

The Faces of Evil
View attachment 29933

More like:


And

 

[Derec]

They don’t have to vote for squad-like members of Congress to represent them then. People seem to forget how the government works.
Do they think Joe Biden is more aligned with the squad than Hilary would have been? I still don’t get it.

Joe probably not, but he will probably not run in 2024 and may not even survive until then. Kamala Harris will probably be a lot more receptive to their ideas. During the primaries she supported some of their ideas like banning fracking, some sort of Medicare for all, and libelously calling justified police shootings "murder".

And the far left Democrats in Congress have become FAR more numerous and prominent than they were in 2016.

Then you have political opinion pieces like this one in NYT.
'The Squad' is the Future of Politics

If the Squad is the future of politics, then we are all fucked.