Red Mosquito

digster wrote:But (and this is just my opinion), I think elections are not as centrally focused on the economy as is conventionally believed, anyway, and I think that's especially true for Trump.

Very much agree

Agree as well. This election has Trump & culture war written all over it.

Why do y'all feel that way though? What support do you have for it? I'm not saying you're wrong. I really don't know. I'm just curious where you're coming from.

durdencommatyler wrote:Why do y'all feel that way though? What support do you have for it? I'm not saying you're wrong. I really don't know. I'm just curious where you're coming from.

To me it just seems like the economy has been “good” for his whole term (until corona), but his approval never cracks 50% except for a brief period when everyone slammed the brakes because of corona. Fell back down quickly. Meanwhile, a real cultural moment happens and his numbers go down. I just think this shows what seems a bit obvious - identity politics, the culture war, whatever you want to call it, is the battleground during the trump years. I would argue it was during Obama’s terms as well, especially his second term.


I still think the economic issues matter and Dems need answers there. But “should Donald Trump still be our leader” is what I think is the question this time. A familiar democrat who was VP to a popular President is on the other side. I just don’t think it’s gonna be about the economy this time.

Rob wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Why do y'all feel that way though? What support do you have for it? I'm not saying you're wrong. I really don't know. I'm just curious where you're coming from.

To me it just seems like the economy has been “good” for his whole term (until corona), but his approval never cracks 50% except for a brief period when everyone slammed the brakes because of corona. Fell back down quickly. Meanwhile, a real cultural moment happens and his numbers go down. I just think this shows what seems a bit obvious - identity politics, the culture war, whatever you want to call it, is the battleground during the trump years. I would argue it was during Obama’s terms as well, especially his second term.

I still think the economic issues matter and Dems need answers there. But “should Donald Trump still be our leader” is what I think is the question this time. A familiar democrat who was VP to a popular President is on the other side. I just don’t think it’s gonna be about the economy this time.

Has there been a recent period where this wasn't the case? Bush was a culture war guy. Clinton ran on the economy and got HAMMERED on cultural issues his entire term, starting with 94. What is Reagan if not a culture warrior. I think it feels heightened now, but I'd argue that that has more to do with the increase in mass media communication, being always online, etc.

Just an opinion piece, but fuck this would be so funny.

Val Demmings was a good pick before George Floyd, but her background in law enforcement makes things interesting. It could help mitigate Trump screeching about a lawless society, but the brains leaking out of their heads liberals would probably have a fit.

I suspect it'll still be Harris or Abrams. Harris was evasive today on the defund the police question but it's not like Biden himself is taking a strong position. And it's definitely not Klobuchar.

Really, really hope it’s someone with more than just state-level legislative experience.

McParadigm wrote:Really, really hope it’s someone with more than just state-level legislative experience.

Oprah has universal experience

wease wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Really, really hope it’s someone with more than just state-level legislative experience.

Oprah has universal experience

Good lord

The president’s only hope to win the election is to expand his platform’s embrace of other opinions, such that he wins back *1/6* of the people who currently disapprove of him. He has five months. Currently, he is busy online accusing an old man of suffering a traumatic head injury on purpose to frame the police, because he heard about it on OAN from a journalist who moonlights for Russia’s state-run propaganda service Sputnik.

I submit to you this: a Vice Presidential candidate never “makes” an election. Not with their name or face. And within a week of Biden choosing Kermit the Frog, we’d all be talking about the next hateful and inciting thing Trump says..and not that Kermit the Frog is a VP candidate.

However, NOT having someone who is a competent, experienced legislator and an effective (preferably aggressive) strategist/debater in the VP spot will make for a much weaker White House, because Biden is too personally risk-averse and trusting, and stumbles hardest when he’s frustrated.

A hype-generating VP will make nearly no difference in the voting this year. A VP that can’t make up for Joe Biden’s “Capitol Hill game” weaknesses, however, would make for a much rougher next four years and come back on us bigly in 2024.

McParadigm wrote:The president’s only hope to win the election is to expand his platform’s embrace of other opinions, such that he wins back *1/6* of the people who currently disapprove of him. He has five months. Currently, he is busy online accusing an old man of suffering a traumatic head injury on purpose to frame the police, because he heard about it on OAN from a journalist who moonlights for Russia’s state-run propaganda service Sputnik.

I submit to you this: a Vice Presidential candidate never “makes” an election. Not with their name or face. And within a week of Biden choosing Kermit the Frog, we’d all be talking about the next hateful and inciting thing Trump says..and not that Kermit the Frog is a VP candidate.

However, NOT having someone who is a competent, experienced legislator and an effective (preferably aggressive) strategist/debater in the VP spot will make for a much weaker White House, because Biden is too personally risk-averse and trusting, and stumbles hardest when he’s frustrated.

A hype-generating VP will make nearly no difference in the voting this year. A VP that can’t make up for Joe Biden’s “Capitol Hill game” weaknesses, however, would make for a much rougher next four years and come back on us bigly in 2024.

I agree with every word of this. But curious why you think Stacy Abrams isn't the right choice. Which of the above boxes does she not check for you?

Kermit the Frog would make an EXCELLENT Vice President.

To be fair, the backstage of the Muppet Show doesn't actually seem that far removed from the goings on at Trump's White House. So he also has very relevant experience.

Higgs wrote:Kermit the Frog would make an EXCELLENT Vice President.

To be fair, the backstage of the Muppet Show doesn't actually seem that far removed from the goings on at Trump's White House. So he also has very relevant experience.

Disney should send him to cover Trump’s press conferences. He’s been a reporter longer than most of the other ones there.

durdencommatyler wrote:

McParadigm wrote:The president’s only hope to win the election is to expand his platform’s embrace of other opinions, such that he wins back *1/6* of the people who currently disapprove of him. He has five months. Currently, he is busy online accusing an old man of suffering a traumatic head injury on purpose to frame the police, because he heard about it on OAN from a journalist who moonlights for Russia’s state-run propaganda service Sputnik.

I submit to you this: a Vice Presidential candidate never “makes” an election. Not with their name or face. And within a week of Biden choosing Kermit the Frog, we’d all be talking about the next hateful and inciting thing Trump says..and not that Kermit the Frog is a VP candidate.

However, NOT having someone who is a competent, experienced legislator and an effective (preferably aggressive) strategist/debater in the VP spot will make for a much weaker White House, because Biden is too personally risk-averse and trusting, and stumbles hardest when he’s frustrated.

A hype-generating VP will make nearly no difference in the voting this year. A VP that can’t make up for Joe Biden’s “Capitol Hill game” weaknesses, however, would make for a much rougher next four years and come back on us bigly in 2024.

I agree with every word of this. But curious why you think Stacy Abrams isn't the right choice. Which of the above boxes does she not check for you?

She's not attractive. Won't get the Nailin Pailin porn boosts