2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Timsup2nothin]

I have seen analysis based on the 2018 race. The short version is that Trump's hard base is what you see in every poll, about 43%. They were seeking to find Biden's hard base.

News flash, it's the other 57%. You know, the people who aren't just plain stupid enough to re-elect someone who has proven his inability to handle the job.

 

[Patine]

"its" shouldn't have an apostrophe.

Obviously you're not one of them. Grammar of other posters on the Internet is much more important of a priority to you than the future and betterment of your nation.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Obviously you're not one of them. Grammar of other posters on the Internet is much more important of a priority to you than the future and betterment of your nation.

Perhaps he just expects better from people who pretend to have all the answers than he does from the average poster.

 

[Berzerker]

"its" shouldn't have an apostrophe.

I'm curious about that, I thought 'its' does need an apostrophe when 'it' refers to something else that does. Like in his sentence, 'it' refers to their country. Their country's future.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The comparative of bad is worse.

I think you're missing the point. Everyone who repeats the "Both sides are bad" refrain is fully aware of what you just said. So they could easily say "The Democrats are bad. The Republicans are worse." But they don't. Instead they very intentionally and deliberately say "Both sides are bad" precisely to imply (or really to state outright) that the Democrats and Republicans are equally bad.

The reason some people do this, is because they genuinely believe that there is no meaningful or substantive difference between the Democrats and the Republicans and how bad they are. Those people are wrong, but that's their good faith belief. However, the reason most people say this, particularly Republicans and Conservatives themselves, is to cloak themselves in moral equivalence. If "both sides are bad" then there is no immorality in picking one side or the other, its basically arbitrary and/or a simple matter of personal preference.

 

[Phrossack]

I think you're missing the point. Everyone who repeats the "Both sides are bad" refrain is fully aware of what you just said. So they could easily say "The Democrats are bad. The Republicans are worse." But they don't. Instead they very intentionally and deliberately say "Both sides are bad" precisely to imply (or really to state outright) that the Democrats and Republicans are equally bad.

The reason some people do this, is because they genuinely believe that there is no meaningful or substantive difference between the Democrats and the Republicans and how bad the are. Those people are wrong, but that's their good faith belief. However, the reason most people say this, particularly Republicans and Conservatives themselves, is to cloak themselves in moral equivalence. If "both sides are bad" then there is no immorality in picking one side or the other, its basically arbitrary and/or a simple matter of personal preference.

I also believe they do this as a cop-out. Saying "both sides" gives the Enlightened Centrist some advantages. Neither side hates centrists much if at all, on the whole, so they can maintain relationships with people on both sides and avoid messy political discussions. It also absolves them of the responsibility to research matters and see which side is better or worse - if they're equally bad, or just assumed to be, they already have their answer! And you can't forget the sense of superiority both-siding gives; they're the Enlightened Centrists who "don't have bias" and "can see through propaganda."

Of course it's a shallow, self-serving, morally irresponsible habit, but that doesn't stop them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm curious about that, I thought 'its' does need an apostrophe when 'it' refers to something else that does. Like in his sentence, 'it' refers to their country. Their country's future.

It's their future, so it's the possessive, which does not have an apostrophe. Only the contraction does.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Obviously you're not one of them. Grammar of other posters on the Internet is much more important of a priority to you than the future and betterment of your nation.

I'll refer you to George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language." My concern with grammar is very much of a piece with my concern with the betterment of my nation.

 

[Phrossack]

Words of wisdom regarding apostrophes.. It's easy to confuse "it's" with "its" because apostrophes normally denote possession, but "it's" strictly means "it is" or "it has."

 

[Naskra]

I think you're missing the point.

Well, someone is.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, someone is.

I take it you are assuming the someone is someone other than you?

 

[Sommerswerd]

I have seen analysis based on the 2018 race. The short version is that Trump's hard base is what you see in every poll, about 43%. They were seeking to find Biden's hard base. The conclusion was 30%-33% of virulent anti-Trump voters is Biden's base and he has none of his own. These are groups that typically turn out in much higher numbers than the national average. The benchmark for 2018 was 80%, though arguments were made for 90%.

80% of Trump's 43% yields 76 million votes, not counting any from the middle. Hillary had 66 million in 2016.

OK but nothing about this post has anything to do with, let alone contradict, my point that I would vote in Massachusetts despite being confident that Biden would win it under all circumstances. Are you saying that you disagree that Biden will win MA. If so, maaaaan... lets make a bet right now!

I also believe they do this as a cop-out. Saying "both sides" gives the Enlightened Centrist some advantages. Neither side hates centrists much if at all, on the whole, so they can maintain relationships with people on both sides and avoid messy political discussions. It also absolves them of the responsibility to research matters and see which side is better or worse - if they're equally bad, or just assumed to be, they already have their answer! And you can't forget the sense of superiority both-siding gives; they're the Enlightened Centrists who "don't have bias" and "can see through propaganda."

Of course it's a shallow, self-serving, morally irresponsible habit, but that doesn't stop them.

Perfectly stated. Absolutely agree.

 

[Estebonrober]

Well, someone is.

I take it you are assuming the someone is someone other than you?

seems like a 747 is flying over his head and he just didn’t even notice.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I also believe they do this as a cop-out. Saying "both sides" gives the Enlightened Centrist some advantages. Neither side hates centrists much if at all, on the whole, so they can maintain relationships with people on both sides and avoid messy political discussions. It also absolves them of the responsibility to research matters and see which side is better or worse - if they're equally bad, or just assumed to be, they already have their answer! And you can't forget the sense of superiority both-siding gives; they're the Enlightened Centrists who "don't have bias" and "can see through propaganda."

Of course it's a shallow, self-serving, morally irresponsible habit, but that doesn't stop them.

I think you are lumping together some very disparate political views under the banner of "centrist," and also wrongly considering a brand of GOP apologist who uses "both sides bad" as a deflector shield for the indefensible positions the GOP has taken to be a centrist rather than the GOP shill that they obviously are.

 

[onejayhawk]

Not having negatives is the key to this election.

Just the opposite. The extremes are already hardened. The 25% or so in the middle are distinguished by not hating Trump. Biden needs 60% of them just to pull even. In 2016, Trump is the one who managed that feat.

The electoral college means I can't be personally part of voting Trump out though.

By design. Remember that the first thing raised--and immediately defeated--was popular vote for President. Would you prefer one voter per state? The EC was a compromise between those extremes.

If you set aside, you know, Democrats.

Not setting aside anyone. The distinction is between casual support and core support. It has long been a montra that Democrats could win if they could only get their youth to vote. In this election, there is real chance that the Green party gets a lot of registered Democrat voters. Libertarians had a 3 million vote bump in 2016 vs 2012.

J

 

[Phrossack]

I think you are lumping together some very disparate political views under the banner of "centrist," and also wrongly considering a brand of GOP apologist who uses "both sides bad" as a deflector shield for the indefensible positions the GOP has taken to be a centrist rather than the GOP shill that they obviously are.

There is a lot of overlap between the Enlightened Centrist and the embarrassed conservative. Embarrassed conservatives pretend to be the former. We see both on CFC.

 

[Gori the Grey]

The distinction is between casual support and core support.

This year there'll be an "I hate Trump" vote.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There is a lot of overlap between the Enlightened Centrist and the embarrassed conservative. Embarrassed conservatives pretend to be the former. We see both on CFC.

I see more trolling than embarrassment in their behavior.

As to the theoretical centrists that aren't just GOP shills in disguise there are still a pretty wide variety. People who hold actual moderate views become difficult to distinguish from those who are simply apathetic when viewed from the polarized positions.

The 25% or so in the middle are distinguished by not hating Trump.

LOL...at this point the ONLY people who don't hate Trump are his kool-aid drinkers.

 

[Lexicus]

By design. Remember that the first thing raised--and immediately defeated--was popular vote for President. Would you prefer one voter per state? The EC was a compromise between those extremes.

Here is why we have the electoral college:
Mr. MADISON. If it be a fundamental principle of free Govt. that the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers should be separately exercised, it is equally so that they be independently exercised. There is the same & perhaps greater reason why the Executive shd. be independent of the Legislature, than why the Judiciary should: A coalition of the two former powers would be more immediately & certainly dangerous to public liberty. It is essential then that the appointment of the Executive should either be drawn from some source, or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the Legislature. This could not be if he was to be appointable from time to time by the Legislature. It was not clear that an appointment in the 1st. instance even with an eligibility afterwards would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted. He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

I keep having to post this. I am not sure why people cannot get this simple quote through their heads when it comes to the electoral college.

LOL...at this point the ONLY people who don't hate Trump are his kool-aid drinkers.

@Socrates99 seems to disagree though.

 

[Patine]

I also believe they do this as a cop-out. Saying "both sides" gives the Enlightened Centrist some advantages. Neither side hates centrists much if at all, on the whole, so they can maintain relationships with people on both sides and avoid messy political discussions. It also absolves them of the responsibility to research matters and see which side is better or worse - if they're equally bad, or just assumed to be, they already have their answer! And you can't forget the sense of superiority both-siding gives; they're the Enlightened Centrists who "don't have bias" and "can see through propaganda."

Of course it's a shallow, self-serving, morally irresponsible habit, but that doesn't stop them.

First of all, the concept of only "two sides," is an artificial and highly inaccurate concept engineered by a manipulative propaganda engine pushing absolutist, Neo-Manichaean, siege mentality, divide-and-conquer politics. The architects of this narrative, being pushed through their dehumanizing, Goebbels-school engine of misinformation, are definitely irredeemably enemies of all good people and any progress, advancement, or benefit at all coming of governance. As for the political factions themselves - please tell me a good reason why I, in any good conscience and sincerity, should spare one "faction," "side," or "party," their proper due of criticism, excoriation, and calling out for the vileness, crimes, corruption, and betrayals of the trust under their belt, and reserve it only for the other "faction," "side," or "party." And why should I not call out two organized crime cartels who have failed, screwed over, and lied to their people unrepentantly, and who violate their oaths and mandates of power, commit high treason against their nation, and serve powerful plutocrats over their own constituents for what they truly are? And why should I believe that either of these gangs of high crooks deserve to be supported in governing again - EVER, whether in the U.S., or any civilized country? This I ask you (in softcore Enlightenment tenor of written presentation, which is deliberate).