Red Mosquito

Hey just a reminder: a poll about who we think will win sure would be quality content right now. Too bad the fascist mods won't allow that.

Bi_3 wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:He's not just an incumbent president though. People fucking HATE this guy. He's unique all on his own in presidential history in how much of a brain dead asshole millions of people think he is.

Democrats, sure

Then Biden's campaign, surrogates, and stakeholders need to incentivize the younger ones to hold their noses and vote for Biden in November.

Fixed that for you!

there's quality content on the board right now?

Peeps wrote:

Mickey wrote:As I said above, I think it's tactically important not to get confident about Biden's chances. He is a uniquely vulnerable candidate and I think we should be operating as if he's going to lose.

cant really argue that

No one is arguing this though. The skepticism of Biden has been aired in this forum by pretty much everyone. I just think his chances are better than Hillary's, for a variety of reasons. Whether it's enough or not, no one knows. I also think Trump has less going for him this time. Again, not sure how much that affects his chances. I dont agree with the statement that "Biden is going to lose." Some people are really convinced of that. I am not.

BurtReynolds wrote:Hey just a reminder: a poll about who we think will win sure would be quality content right now. Too bad the fascist mods won't allow that.

Who do you think will win?

Rob wrote:

Peeps wrote:

Mickey wrote:As I said above, I think it's tactically important not to get confident about Biden's chances. He is a uniquely vulnerable candidate and I think we should be operating as if he's going to lose.

cant really argue that

No one is arguing this though. The skepticism of Biden has been aired in this forum by pretty much everyone. I just think his chances are better than Hillary's, for a variety of reasons. Whether it's enough or not, no one knows. I also think Trump has less going for him this time. Again, not sure how much that affects his chances. I dont agree with the statement that "Biden is going to lose." Some people are really convinced of that. I am not.

I wouldn't argue that Biden could certainly lose and has some big weaknesses as a candidate, but I'll admit it's hard for me to grasp disagreeing with the bolded. Hillary Clinton was just about the best possible candidate Donald Trump could have the luck of running against.

Hillary Clinton was THE perfect candidate to run against in the eyes of conservative media. Decades of groundwork already laid.

Mickey wrote:
As I've said multiple times in this thread, I would love to be proven wrong. I would love for the final years of Donald Trump's life to be spent in disgrace as a failed one-term president. But I am not optimistic that that will happen and I am especially wary of rhetoric that overstates Trump's vulnerabilities, given how that played out in 2016. If anything, those of us who do not want to see Trump re-elected should be assuming he's going to win and working backwards from there.

I think the main thing I would note is the assumption that Trump would lose in 2016 was mostly based on some vague notion or concept that the country wouldn't possibly elect someone like that. I don't think that's necessarily the case here; there's quite a bit of evidence over the span of his first term that he's in a vulnerable position. Again, I don't think that means it's a slam dunk, I don't think it means Biden is a clear favorite, I just think it means that Trump is weak for an incumbent.

Anders wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Hey just a reminder: a poll about who we think will win sure would be quality content right now. Too bad the fascist mods won't allow that.

Who do you think will win?

I'd say Biden if forced to pick, but after 2016, i really have no idea.

digster wrote:

Mickey wrote:
As I've said multiple times in this thread, I would love to be proven wrong. I would love for the final years of Donald Trump's life to be spent in disgrace as a failed one-term president. But I am not optimistic that that will happen and I am especially wary of rhetoric that overstates Trump's vulnerabilities, given how that played out in 2016. If anything, those of us who do not want to see Trump re-elected should be assuming he's going to win and working backwards from there.

I think the main thing I would note is the assumption that Trump would lose in 2016 was mostly based on some vague notion or concept that the country wouldn't possibly elect someone like that. I don't think that's necessarily the case here; there's quite a bit of evidence over the span of his first term that he's in a vulnerable position. Again, I don't think that means it's a slam dunk, I don't think it means Biden is a clear favorite, I just think it means that Trump is weak for an incumbent.

Yeah I mean, I definitely agree that Trump is about as weak of an incumbent as one could imagine. But I still see a parallelism between "he couldn't possibly win" and "he couldn't possibly win again," the latter I am seeing expressed (less here, but it does exist). I'll also note that a lot of this depends on how the coronavirus narrative goes (of course).

BurtReynolds wrote:

Anders wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Hey just a reminder: a poll about who we think will win sure would be quality content right now. Too bad the fascist mods won't allow that.

Who do you think will win?

I'd say Biden if forced to pick, but after 2016, i really have no idea.

Yes, very tough to pick a winner at the moment.

digster wrote:

Mickey wrote:
As I've said multiple times in this thread, I would love to be proven wrong. I would love for the final years of Donald Trump's life to be spent in disgrace as a failed one-term president. But I am not optimistic that that will happen and I am especially wary of rhetoric that overstates Trump's vulnerabilities, given how that played out in 2016. If anything, those of us who do not want to see Trump re-elected should be assuming he's going to win and working backwards from there.

I think the main thing I would note is the assumption that Trump would lose in 2016 was mostly based on some vague notion or concept that the country wouldn't possibly elect someone like that. I don't think that's necessarily the case here; there's quite a bit of evidence over the span of his first term that he's in a vulnerable position. Again, I don't think that means it's a slam dunk, I don't think it means Biden is a clear favorite, I just think it means that Trump is weak for an incumbent.

Yes, this is important. It's a different dynamic now.

Mickey wrote:

digster wrote:

Mickey wrote:
As I've said multiple times in this thread, I would love to be proven wrong. I would love for the final years of Donald Trump's life to be spent in disgrace as a failed one-term president. But I am not optimistic that that will happen and I am especially wary of rhetoric that overstates Trump's vulnerabilities, given how that played out in 2016. If anything, those of us who do not want to see Trump re-elected should be assuming he's going to win and working backwards from there.

I think the main thing I would note is the assumption that Trump would lose in 2016 was mostly based on some vague notion or concept that the country wouldn't possibly elect someone like that. I don't think that's necessarily the case here; there's quite a bit of evidence over the span of his first term that he's in a vulnerable position. Again, I don't think that means it's a slam dunk, I don't think it means Biden is a clear favorite, I just think it means that Trump is weak for an incumbent.

Yeah I mean, I definitely agree that Trump is about as weak of an incumbent as one could imagine. But I still see a parallelism between "he couldn't possibly win" and "he couldn't possibly win again," the latter I am seeing expressed (less here, but it does exist). I'll also note that a lot of this depends on how the coronavirus narrative goes (of course).

I think the coronavirus could go both ways for Trump. People that hate him have good reason to criticize him, but that’s just more water in the ocean. It really depends on how his base will feel about it.

Trump’s base ain’t leaving him. I honestly can’t believe people still think that’s even a possibility at this point.

Anders wrote:

Mickey wrote:

digster wrote:

Mickey wrote:
As I've said multiple times in this thread, I would love to be proven wrong. I would love for the final years of Donald Trump's life to be spent in disgrace as a failed one-term president. But I am not optimistic that that will happen and I am especially wary of rhetoric that overstates Trump's vulnerabilities, given how that played out in 2016. If anything, those of us who do not want to see Trump re-elected should be assuming he's going to win and working backwards from there.

I think the main thing I would note is the assumption that Trump would lose in 2016 was mostly based on some vague notion or concept that the country wouldn't possibly elect someone like that. I don't think that's necessarily the case here; there's quite a bit of evidence over the span of his first term that he's in a vulnerable position. Again, I don't think that means it's a slam dunk, I don't think it means Biden is a clear favorite, I just think it means that Trump is weak for an incumbent.

Yeah I mean, I definitely agree that Trump is about as weak of an incumbent as one could imagine. But I still see a parallelism between "he couldn't possibly win" and "he couldn't possibly win again," the latter I am seeing expressed (less here, but it does exist). I'll also note that a lot of this depends on how the coronavirus narrative goes (of course).

I think the coronavirus could go both ways for Trump. People that hate him have good reason to criticize him, but that’s just more water in the ocean. It really depends on how his base will feel about it.

Even if 100% of his base stays with him, the case for him winning doesn't change. Trump winning depends on all his voters to come back. No margin for error there.

Hot take: I think Biden winning would be disastrous, and would mean we have to keep playing out this farce for many more years. There will always be more Trumps to serve as bogeyman, and always more Bidens to feed off of the terrified voters.

Four more years of Trump would do the democrats some good, much the same way that 8 years of Obama and the failures of McCain and Romney did for Republican voters, who successfully revolted against party leaders. Dem voters should admire and be inspired by this incredible feat, but partisanship blinds them.

I was hoping the dems were already there with Bernie, but this year has proved that the dems haven't reached their breaking point yet. They're all too afraid of the other guy to vote for what they really believe in.

Anders wrote:

Mickey wrote:

digster wrote:

Mickey wrote:
As I've said multiple times in this thread, I would love to be proven wrong. I would love for the final years of Donald Trump's life to be spent in disgrace as a failed one-term president. But I am not optimistic that that will happen and I am especially wary of rhetoric that overstates Trump's vulnerabilities, given how that played out in 2016. If anything, those of us who do not want to see Trump re-elected should be assuming he's going to win and working backwards from there.

I think the main thing I would note is the assumption that Trump would lose in 2016 was mostly based on some vague notion or concept that the country wouldn't possibly elect someone like that. I don't think that's necessarily the case here; there's quite a bit of evidence over the span of his first term that he's in a vulnerable position. Again, I don't think that means it's a slam dunk, I don't think it means Biden is a clear favorite, I just think it means that Trump is weak for an incumbent.

Yeah I mean, I definitely agree that Trump is about as weak of an incumbent as one could imagine. But I still see a parallelism between "he couldn't possibly win" and "he couldn't possibly win again," the latter I am seeing expressed (less here, but it does exist). I'll also note that a lot of this depends on how the coronavirus narrative goes (of course).

I think the coronavirus could go both ways for Trump. People that hate him have good reason to criticize him, but that’s just more water in the ocean. It really depends on how his base will feel about it.

Yeah, exactly. I mean it's kind of stating the obvious to say that this is going to dictate the terms of November, but it is a fluid situation that could break either way. He's really mired in it right now but even still my FIL is texting us about what a good job he's done, so a good chunk of his base will never see the light. I think it will ultimately depend on the size of the economic downturn re: the stock market (for that pivotal suburban light-republican/independent vote) and when the second wave hits--if it's before November then Biden should win in a landslide, but after November and Trump might be able to coast on being the President who survived the crisis. Enough to win alone, probably not, but combined with some of Biden's vulnerabilities...(or, again, thinking of that Politico poll of Obama voters who chose Trump over Biden to handle the crisis).

BurtReynolds wrote:Hot take: I think Biden winning would be disastrous, and would mean we have to keep playing out this farce for many more years. There will always be more Trumps to serve as bogeyman, and always more Bidens to feed off of the terrified voters.

Four more years of Trump would do the democrats some good, much the same way that 8 years of Obama and the failures of McCain and Romney did for Republican voters, who successfully revolted against party leaders. Dem voters should admire and be inspired by this incredible feat, but partisanship blinds them.

I was hoping the dems were already there with Bernie, but this year has proved that the dems haven't reached their breaking point yet. They're all too afraid of the other guy to vote for what they really believe in.

Or maybe they don't want to follow the Republican path and end up in the same place. Has to be a better way to change a party. An old man who will sign whatever, maybe?

BurtReynolds wrote:Hot take: I think Biden winning would be disastrous, and would mean we have to keep playing out this farce for many more years. There will always be more Trumps to serve as bogeyman, and always more Bidens to feed off of the terrified voters.

Four more years of Trump would do the democrats some good, much the same way that 8 years of Obama and the failures of McCain and Romney did for Republican voters, who successfully revolted against party leaders. Dem voters should admire and be inspired by this incredible feat, but partisanship blinds them.

I was hoping the dems were already there with Bernie, but this year has proved that the dems haven't reached their breaking point yet. They're all too afraid of the other guy to vote for what they really believe in.

You're close, but I don't think this is the takeaway. The takeaway is that what they (read: establishment dems) want is more in line with Trump than Bernie. Bernie was a much more significant existential threat to their true interests (read: money, preserving the status quo) than Trump ever will be.

Well, you did say it was a hot take, so.