US Elections 2020

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

The Republican convention is a joke. It includes speeches by every Trump child, as though they are qualified to weigh in on the direction our country is going in. It includes fear-mongering over mask wearing when we've had the worst response to covid in the entire industrialized world and are falling apart as a country. They have nothing to offer except fear and hatred as their movement is completely bereft of any underlying principles.

I really don't know what it is they're running on. Their only hope is that they convince people that Biden will support anarchy or be in favor of defunding police instead of fighting police brutality but once again that depends on misinformation. There was some suggestion that the Democratic party has strayed too far to the left, but Biden's nomination was a referendum on more radical policies that may be a tough sell for some people in this country. With Biden you get a slightly left of center agenda with a return to normalcy, both in process and rule of law. Even if you're a conservative, the alternative of racism, corruption, nepotism, and dysfunctional chaos in government should not be attractive.

---

Completely agree that the Republican National Convention aka Trump Enablers Convention was a joke,Donald-Jackwagon-Trump Jr,Eric-Dopey Ass-Trump,Tiffany-DADKB-Trump and Ivanka-Trustfund-Trump are just like their Demagouge And Malignant Narcissist father,stoking fear and division to rile up his delusional base,and portraying their father as a leader,which is he isn't. and none of them are qualified to weigh in on the direction the United States is going. and they are running on fear,hatred,lies,misinformation and propaganda trying to convince voters that Joe Biden is will support anarchy and defund the police,and destroy the country if he gets elected. and also agree that with Joe Biden,US Citizens will get someone who will have a plan to return the country to normalcy,both in process and rule of law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnightHawk 2.0

with Joe Biden,US Citizens will get someone who will have a plan to return the country to normalcy,both in process and rule of law.

---

You hope. The great takeway from the PoT Convention is that the wife of the rent collector from New Jersey and Under-President of the USA, Ivana (for that is her name), is the favoured successor to the Crown. Bannon may say she is 'dumb as a brick', but daddy loves her, in a manner of speaking (and we hope that's all it is, for her sake), and it is his party now.

Having seen Mitchell McConnell claiming that the Democrats are going to tell you what car you can drive, and how many burgers you can eat, with or without cheese and pickle (a detail he missed), the US appears to be moving into surreal territory, but the joke is on you, because 'they' are in fact deadly serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

You hope. The great takeway from the PoT Convention is that the wife of the rent collector from New Jersey and Under-President of the USA, Ivana (for that is her name), is the favoured successor to the Crown. Bannon may say she is 'dumb as a brick', but daddy loves her, in a manner of speaking (and we hope that's all it is, for her sake), and it is his party now.

---

It will be fascinating/horrifying to see what happens to this dynasty, not just 2 months from now, but 10 years down the road. Although Ivanka is the favoured successor, she is robotic, seems to lack whatever charisma her dad has although charisma is probably not the right word.

Donald, for all of his faults, has mastered the art of bullshit. He's uninhibited, able to gladhand people and pretend he knows things he doesn't and all his supporters really want is the pretense of competence combined with childish invective. Ivanka has that calculated, overly formal snobbery thing down but I actually wonder whether Donald Jr. is not the slicker operator. He's malicious, is able to parrot talking points better than his dad, and is uninhibited and aggressive in the same ridiculous way.

Ivanka may be dumb as a brick but she's smart for a Trump. I'm just not sure being slightly smarter than her Dad and brothers is actually helpful given that they have tools to take advantage of their primal stupidity.

Anyhow, I hope the entire Trump nightmare ends in November.

It is probably no surprise that the President is presenting his law and order case in a simple manner with regard to American cities: Democrats run cities of crime and violence. An article in today's New York Times, offers a more complex argument with examples, and asks some basic questions, though I doubt many or any will be asked of the President, and I am sure he will not bother to answer them.
Or maybe refer to anarchists armed with cans of soup as taking over with Joe Biden's permission.

For example, why are so many big cities run by Democrats rather than by Republicans? The article suggests in many cases the Republican party has given up trying to win those cities. I could add that even when Democrats have run cities, the policies they had responsibility for were not so far from the Republican Party- Mayor Richard Daley in Chicago was not what one would calll a Progressive Democrat.

The President selects his victims, ignoring the smaller but Republican run cities where crime is rife, and ignoring the Democrat cities where crime has fallen over the last 25-30 years, for example New York and Boston. Moreover, and I ask this having no day-to-day experience of living in New York, if Republican Mayor Giuliani played an important role in reducing crime, why under successive Democrats has New York not reverted to the levels of crime and violence that were common the the 1970s and 1980s?

And as the article points out, Mayors have limited powers and limited funds,and have often been prevented from taking action to combat crime -gun violence, for example- by the Courts, and the President has launched a barrage of criticism and invective but without a single practical, policy-based solution, his only reaction so far being to actually or threaten to militarize the situation on the ground.

And of course it looks bad when people are shot dead or injured, when there are riots in the streets and shops looted and burned. Meanwhile, behind closed doors, white collar crime -most of it commtted by white people- also causes damage to people's lives. Indeed, I wonder if, rather than rob a bank at gunpoint -wearing a mask, of course!-, which these days is a crime in decline, the robbery can be done by remote control. It doesn't make for good action films, but is closer to reality.

As I say, I don't know what the reality is, I do know I felt safer at night in Manhattan in 2004 than I did in 1983, but that doesn't mean this is true for residents of all the Boroughs, as Manhattan might be an exception. Is the South Bronx still referred to as 'Fort Apache?'

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/u...gtype=Homepage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Other than parroting the PoT, you need to explain what you mean by 'far left', given that in the UK we have a different interpretation of the term, Trotskyists, mostly.

---

The "far left" here in the states are the new progressives coming into power. I.E., Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, IIhan Omar, and, Rashida Tlaib. The Kennedy and Clinton Democrats for example would have taken an early an immediate stance in the violence that's happening within the U.S. cities - all of which interestingly have Democrat mayors as well. Also, 3 Pelosi backed candidates have now lost progressive candidates as well (the latest being Pelosi backed Joseph Kennedy losing to progressives backed Ed Markey).

Also.....

As 'Black Chubby' eluded to in an earlier post, violence may very well determine who wins in November.
We are already seeing Biden and Harris whom were either silent (Biden) or sided with arrested protestors (Harris) now changing their tune and subsequently condemning violent protests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

It is probably no surprise that the President is presenting his law and order case in a simple manner with regard to American cities: Democrats run cities of crime and violence. An article in today's New York Times, offers a more complex argument with examples, and asks some basic questions, though I doubt many or any will be asked of the President, and I am sure he will not bother to answer them.
Or maybe refer to anarchists armed with cans of soup as taking over with Joe Biden's permission.

For example, why are so many big cities run by Democrats rather than by Republicans? The article suggests in many cases the Republican party has given up trying to win those cities. I could add that even when Democrats have run cities, the policies they had responsibility for were not so far from the Republican Party- Mayor Richard Daley in Chicago was not what one would calll a Progressive Democrat.

The President selects his victims, ignoring the smaller but Republican run cities where crime is rife, and ignoring the Democrat cities where crime has fallen over the last 25-30 years, for example New York and Boston. Moreover, and I ask this having no day-to-day experience of living in New York, if Republican Mayor Giuliani played an important role in reducing crime, why under successive Democrats has New York not reverted to the levels of crime and violence that were common the the 1970s and 1980s?

And as the article points out, Mayors have limited powers and limited funds,and have often been prevented from taking action to combat crime -gun violence, for example- by the Courts, and the President has launched a barrage of criticism and invective but without a single practical, policy-based solution, his only reaction so far being to actually or threaten to militarize the situation on the ground.

And of course it looks bad when people are shot dead or injured, when there are riots in the streets and shops looted and burned. Meanwhile, behind closed doors, white collar crime -most of it commtted by white people- also causes damage to people's lives. Indeed, I wonder if, rather than rob a bank at gunpoint -wearing a mask, of course!-, which these days is a crime in decline, the robbery can be done by remote control. It doesn't make for good action films, but is closer to reality.

As I say, I don't know what the reality is, I do know I felt safer at night in Manhattan in 2004 than I did in 1983, but that doesn't mean this is true for residents of all the Boroughs, as Manhattan might be an exception. Is the South Bronx still referred to as 'Fort Apache?'

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/u...gtype=Homepage

---

No the South Bronx is still not referred to as "Fort Apache".

Also Mayor Bloomberg was a Republican/Independent when he ran the city. So the only Democratic mayor we have had since Giuliani is Deblasio and my feelings about him are already well known.


But when it comes to Trump presenting the law and order case as to the reason why he should be reelected, he is doing it for two reasons.

1. It changes the topic of discussion from Covid 19.

2. It may actually work if voters don't look at it from a long term standpoint as a reduction in crime over the past 25 years or so and they look at what's been happening in the Democratic ran cities in the wake of George Floyd's death. Or more specifically, Portland, Minneapolis, NYC, and Chicago.

There has been protests that have delved into rioting and looting going on in Portland for almost 90 days now and for whatever reason the mayor has allowed it to go on for a longer than it should have.

We all saw what happened in Minneapolis and this article goes into detail on how it happened:

http:////www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/...rge-floyd.html


Here in NYC:

http://nypost.com/2020/08/31/nyc-pas...tings-in-2020/


Chicago:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...nificent-mile/


Finally, there was what happened in Kenosha last week.

Now we all know what precipitated the riots and that was the murder of George Floyd and the shooting of Jacob Blake. While its the important to address issues such police brutality and the appropriate use of force, there is a difference between addressing issues and overreacting to them. I apologize in advance, but that's the only word I can come up with.

I believe there was an overreaction to the death of Floyd, which led to how the police were allowed to combat the looters and rioting. Then there was the "defund the police mantra", which in turn has led to a rush to pass legislation in certain cities to address the issue of police misconduct. I believe this has contributed to rise in shootings and crime here in NYC.

Also remember this from back in June:

ACLU of Minnesota
@ACLUMN
BREAKING: Minneapolis City Council members have announced their intent to disband the Minneapolis Police Department and invest in community-led public safety.

Now while Biden has said that he isn't for defunding the police, he can't help fact that there are leaders from his party who are doing otherwise. It also doesn't help fact that two of the riots took place in battleground states.

Trump can win reelection if he is able to peel off some undecided voters who think that rioting and looting is not the answer to enacting police reform. Especially if it was their property that got destroyed.

He can do the same if he increases his support from Blacks and Latinos whose neighborhoods will be the first to suffer from defunding the police measures. Or just from the ones who also believe in law and order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

The "far left" here in the states are the new progressives coming into power. I.E., Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, IIhan Omar, and, Rashida Tlaib. The Kennedy and Clinton Democrats for example would have taken an early an immediate stance in the violence that's happening within the U.S. cities - all of which interestingly have Democrat mayors as well. Also, 3 Pelosi backed candidates have now lost progressive candidates as well (the latest being Pelosi backed Joseph Kennedy losing to progressives backed Ed Markey).

---

Mr Fanti, you at least put 'far left' in quotation marks, because from where I am, neither AOC/the Squad nor the Democrat Party or Sanders can be considered even 'left-wing' let alone 'far left' -which to me suggests Trotskyists, and Anarchist-Communists (as opposed to Libertarians, or Utopian-Anarchists).

Yes, it suits the Republicans to demonize the DP and the Squad as Socialists who will destroy America, but you know as well as I do this is rubbish. In the first place, and I think I have pointed this out before, Democrats since Reagan have defined their politics and created policies framed by so-called 'Reaganomics' which treats taxation as a Sin against Humanity, and maintained the 'tough on crime' policies of the Clinton Presidecy which condemned petty criminilas to life imprisonment, until I believe Obama and his successor have tackled because it was both stupid and very expensive.

This article corrects the view the Squad reflect the Democrat Party as it is, even though some of the so-called Left's policies are appealing (ask yourself to whom, and why?) -the core question here is whether or not they appeal to enough voters to make a difference in November, given that absent votes from supporters of Sanders and the 'left' is claimed to be one reason why Clinton did not become President, even with 3 million more votes than the Republican.

"This may shock you, given the preposterous amount of media attention that has been lavished on those four women, but the truth is that they in no way represent the broad sentiments of grassroots Democrats nationwide — or even the sentiments of most House Democrats. In fact, the largest ideological group within the House Democratic caucus is a centrist, moderate group called the New Democrat Coalition. The coalition’s members (including Pennsylvania’s Susan Wild, Madeleine Dean and Chrissy Houlahan) predominantly hail from swing suburban districts — the same districts that went blue in 2018, toppled the GOP House majority and put the Democrats in charge".
https://whyy.org/articles/will-the-o...ver-the-cliff/

Is the 'Green New Deal' a 'far left' policy option? No. Here is how the Guadian describes it-

"The proposal outlines the broad principles of a plan simultaneously to fight inequity and tackle climate change. It does not contain policy details or advocate for specific ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But with a broad brush it aims to begin to make the US carbon-neutral – net zero carbon emissions – in 10 years."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rtez-ed-markey

Ten years is clearly too ambitious, but that ambition is not derived from being 'too left' or any 'left', as it is broadly in line, give a decade or two- with the postion of many parties in Europe -and the point is that even Boris Johnson's Conservative Party accepts the principle of carbon emissions, but has a target of 2050 rather than 2030- Johnson's new wife is known to be a 'green' advocate, something that hard core Tories think makes Johnson a 'wet' when it comes to the environment, and there was the comical moment in June when Johnson felt he needed to declare 'I am not a Communist' owing to the extent of State intervention in the economy. But the key point is that Ocasio-Cortez may like to think she is 'left-wing' but to people like me she is a moderate who would easily fit into the Labour Party over here.

So, will the Demcrats re-commit the USA to the Paris Climate Change accords?
Will the Democrats remove the US Embassy in Israel frm Jerusalem back to Tel-Aviv?
Will the US take direct action -any action- to end Israel's siege of the Gaza District and end its illegal occupation of Palestine?
Will the Democrats commit to negotiating a global reduction of nuclear weapons, commit to a Nuclear-Free Middle East, and negotiate a major, significant reduction of conventional weapons with the Russians and the Chinese, and halt immediately any proposal to create a Space Force'?
Will the Democrats 'tear down that wall' and produce a coherent poicy on immigration, and tackle the causes of illegal immigration?
Will the Democrats campaign to legalize narcotics?
The list goes on, but don't expect anything from the Democrats that isn't safe, and designed not to upset the legions of so called 'Middle Americans' who are apparently terrified of policies that are so basic in Europe we don't use them as tools of engagement.

If you want Socialist policies, take major industries and services into public ownership -is AOC advocating that? No. Is anyone caampaigning to repeal the 2nd Amendment? Not that I know of. And why would the left, so called, be soft on immigration when most new immigrants think markets work better than States, who want less rather than more government in their lives, and have retarded views on same-sex marriage?

The Republicans can threaten America with bogus policies, even in the UK we dont have 'free health care' or 'free welfare', and even the Republicans have not declared they will end all forms of welfare if re-elected, and anyway, what is wrong with a single-payer health care system when forms of it exist across Europe, it works, and is cheaper and more efficient than the callous, immoral, profit-based business you have in the US?

Reagan established an alternative to FDR's New Deal Administation, and so far, nobody has challenged it, though AOC and her chums and Sanders have poked it about.

And if your attitudes are merely reactions to what the Republicans say, rather than being formed from a different and more rational and realistic perspective, then you will end up collapsing into the very same worthless stereoypes that Republicans rely on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

No the South Bronx is still not referred to as "Fort Apache".

Also Mayor Bloomberg was a Republican/Independent when he ran the city. So the only Democratic mayor we have had since Giuliani is Deblasio and my feelings about him are already well known.


But when it comes to Trump presenting the law and order case as to the reason why he should be reelected, he is doing it for two reasons.

1. It changes the topic of discussion from Covid 19.

2. It may actually work if voters don't look at it from a long term standpoint as a reduction in crime over the past 25 years or so and they look at what's been happening in the Democratic ran cities in the wake of George Floyd's death. Or more specifically, Portland, Minneapolis, NYC, and Chicago.

There has been protests that have delved into rioting and looting going on in Portland for almost 90 days now and for whatever reason the mayor has allowed it to go on for a longer than it should have.

We all saw what happened in Minneapolis and this article goes into detail on how it happened:

http:////www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/...rge-floyd.html


Here in NYC:

http://nypost.com/2020/08/31/nyc-pas...tings-in-2020/


Chicago:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...nificent-mile/


Finally, there was what happened in Kenosha last week.

Now we all know what precipitated the riots and that was the murder of George Floyd and the shooting of Jacob Blake. While its the important to address issues such police brutality and the appropriate use of force, there is a difference between addressing issues and overreacting to them. I apologize in advance, but that's the only word I can come up with.

I believe there was an overreaction to the death of Floyd, which led to how the police were allowed to combat the looters and rioting. Then there was the "defund the police mantra", which in turn has led to a rush to pass legislation in certain cities to address the issue of police misconduct. I believe this has contributed to rise in shootings and crime here in NYC.

Also remember this from back in June:

ACLU of Minnesota
@ACLUMN
BREAKING: Minneapolis City Council members have announced their intent to disband the Minneapolis Police Department and invest in community-led public safety.

Now while Biden has said that he isn't for defunding the police, he can't help fact that there are leaders from his party who are doing otherwise. It also doesn't help fact that two of the riots took place in battleground states.

Trump can win reelection if he is able to peel off some undecided voters who think that rioting and looting is not the answer to enacting police reform. Especially if it was their property that got destroyed.

He can do the same if he increases his support from Blacks and Latinos whose neighborhoods will be the first to suffer from defunding the police measures. Or just from the ones who also believe in law and order.

---

Thanks for your perspectives. On one level, what often happens in elections is that the campaign is shaped by events and personalities rather than policy, and in this one, there is a lack of policy and too much personality.

Yes, personality is important. In our election last December, both major parties presented colossal spending commitments to re-generate the post-industrial North, but a key factor was the fact that most people did not like or trust Jeremy Corbyn, even though Boris Johnson is probably the least trustworthy party leader the Conservatives have ever had. It appears the choice in the US is between four more years of a foul-mouthed, ignorant bully, or Uncle Joe, who will read America bed-time stories, and be gentle and nice.

Yes, factions in the party will break out and make headlines, and the Republicans will exploit that, but given the outrageous things Republicans have said and will say, which to me are something most Americans would/should find outrageous and unacceptable too, this aspect of the campaign is there for both sides to exploit.

I just don't know how to explain the urban violence that you refer to, because it must have complex roots. I suspect on investigation, and I think this is true of Kenosha, de-industriaization has taken away a lot of the jobs that Black Americans relied on in the past, and that this marks a generational shift,noted in Europe as well as North America, that our children will be worse off than we have been.
Their grandparents had steady jobs, probably their parents, or they were in the first wave of redundancies in the 1980s-1990s. And, critically, either new jobs have been low-paid service sector jobs, or have been in small-scale manufacture that is not geographically in the places they live in.
I recall, I think it was Channel 4 News in the UK, reporting on small industries in Indiana and the owner of a trailer business who stated candidly that he needed immigrants to do jobs that locals would not do- but without making the point that if they wanted to move from Baltimore or Kenosha to Indiana, young Black people would get those jobs. As I argued a week or so ago, the geography of labour in the US might reveal something about the opportinities that are, or are not available to Black Americans, but specifically, Black Americans under 30.

Does this breed resentment that expresses itself in violence, and violence against property? To some extent I think it does, we had savage riots in the UK in 2011 and it appeared the world was coming to an end, then next year we had the Olympic Games and everyne was happy. Or so it seemed. I also wonder if decades of neglect creates in people a cynical disregard for the Government, Federal or State, and thus an indifference to the damage rioting causes.

Yes there are some on the left who use these flashpoints in an attempt to recruit young people to their organized cause, like BLM, but in the long term I don't see this being anything other than a nuisance, albeit a damaging one. Small cells of Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists and so forth can organize demonstrations and protests and people in the heat of the moment will join in, without subscribing to the vision of a worker's paradise.

The cultural dimension, where famous people from Sports, Music and so forth give a voice to protest reflect the divisions in the country, but I don't see any concrete proposals that can be transformed into pactical policy options. How does any society end Racism? It can be tackled, it can be hedged in by the law, but as an attitude I don't know the answer, because even people much younger than me are racists, so I can't congratulate myself that my generation succeeded where ohers failed, though I do think we are less racist than we were in the 1960s and 1970s.

In the end it is mostly about jobs, and the dignity of work. The geographic shifts in the US economy since the 1970s-80s, whose roots may be in the 1960s, has left generations bereft of that dignity, and unless massive investment -but in what?- takes place, I see no solutions, as Capitalism continuously modernizes and requires less and less human labour to produce the things we consume. If the trend now is for Cities to lose their workers, only able to survive as zones of entertainment, then maybe jobs in the service sector will expand, or Cities go bust and become the war zones they threatened to become in the 1970s, with a population living on its wits fighting each other for the crumbs left on the sidewalk, ie Escape from New York as a documentary, not a feature film. But is MOMA going to re-locate to Yonkers? Will the New York Philharmonic and the Met re-locate to Woodstock?

Those are the broader issues. As for the everyday, I just hope Biden can create a sense of unity in his party, and have immediate rebuttals to what the Republicans say -and given the weird things the President is saying, I would have thought his inability to remain 'on message' and say crazy and offensive things is -or should be- a gift to Biden. So maybe in the end it is all about news management, rather than the news itself. Best of luck with that!

One thing missing from this thread is the possibility -- likelihood -- of a coup d'etat. Trump may well have a strategy to win votes, but his backup is a declaration of martial law, with support from his brownshirts (Patriot Boys and various other heavily armed white supremacists -- dare I say fascists?) and segments of the military. I don't see anyone seriously considering this possibility. I think it's more likely than not. And noone is talking about a response to it, or how to head it off.

BTW, Stavros, you're right, the "squad" and it's policies are not far left, except in the distorted lens of American corporate media. They are more like the "socialists" in Spain, socialist only in comparison with the PP and Vox. I.e., run of the mill social democrats, so not even really anti-capitalist.

Regarding racism, I think you've got it wrong. Change the power dynamic -- the laws and structures (e.g. red-lining real estate practices) supporting racist policies and people's attitude will change. Ibrim Kendi's got a good handle on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del06

One thing missing from this thread is the possibility -- likelihood -- of a coup d'etat. Trump may well have a strategy to win votes, but his backup is a declaration of martial law, with support from his brownshirts (Patriot Boys and various other heavily armed white supremacists -- dare I say fascists?) and segments of the military. I don't see anyone seriously considering this possibility. I think it's more likely than not. And noone is talking about a response to it, or how to head it off.

BTW, Stavros, you're right, the "squad" and it's policies are not far left, except in the distorted lens of American corporate media. They are more like the "socialists" in Spain, socialist only in comparison with the PP and Vox. I.e., run of the mill social democrats, so not even really anti-capitalist.

Regarding racism, I think you've got it wrong. Change the power dynamic -- the laws and structures (e.g. red-lining real estate practices) supporting racist policies and people's attitude will change. Ibrim Kendi's got a good handle on this.

---

I agree with your view of the Democrats 'left', and thanks for the reference to Ibrim Kendi whom I had not heard of before, I have just opened his website.

Patrick Cockburn in The Independent offers a depressing view of the Democrats election campaign -in effect, they need to match their rival's 'black ops' and go low if they want to be more effective-

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a9705321.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I agree with your view of the Democrats 'left', and thanks for the reference to Ibrim Kendi whom I had not heard of before, I have just opened his website.

Patrick Cockburn in The Independent offers a depressing view of the Democrats election campaign -in effect, they need to match their rival's 'black ops' and go low if they want to be more effective-

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a9705321.html

---

The Kendi book I'm reading is "How to be an anti-racist". Very objective, identifying racism as primarily a social power construct, and only secondarily an ideology to support that power construct.

"Moral and educational suasion breathes the assumption that racist minds must be changed before racist policy, ignoring history that says otherwise. Look at the soaring White support for desegregated schools and neighborhoods decades after the policies changed in the 1950s and 1960s. Look at the soaring White support for interracial marriage decades after the policy changed in 1967. Look at the soaring support for Obamacare after its passage in 2010. Racist policymakers drum up fear of antiracist policies through racist ideas, knowing if the policies are implemented, the fears they circulate will never come to pass. Once the fears do not come to pass, people will let down their guards as they enjoy the benefits. Once they clearly benefit, most Americans will support and become the defenders of the antiracist policies they once feared. To fight for mental and moral changes after policy is changed means fighting alongside growing benefits and the dissipation of fears, making it possible for antiracist power to succeed. To fight for mental and moral change as a prerequisite for policy change is to fight against growing fears and apathy, making it almost impossible for antiracist power to succeed."

BTW, thanks for the Cockburn article.

Thanks for this reference -I like this article too, from The Atlantic by Adam Serwer, with this extract-

"Even after Obama was elected, conservative pundits argued that Obama wasn’t “really popular” because he maintained sky-high support among black voters—who, they implied, should count less. The underlying argument behind the claim, no matter how mundane or outlandish, was that being black confers unearned benefits rather than systemic obstacles to be overcome. Obama became the living, breathing symbol of the narrative that undeserving people of color were being elevated even as hardworking white people were being left behind. In a country where most wealthy CEOs, legislators, governors, presidents, justices, and judges are white Christian men, Republicans believe whites and Christians face more discrimination than anyone else.
What this narrative is meant to obscure is the reality that American policy making has not created some nightmare inversion of power between white people and ethnic minorities, but a landscape of harrowing inequality where people are forced to beg strangers for money on the internet to pay their medical bills. Upward mobility is stagnant; those who are born rich, die rich, and those who are born poor, die poor. Real wages have risen painfully slowly for decades; housing, particularly in urban centers, is unaffordable; and young people are saddled with skyrocketing student debt for educations that did not provide the opportunities they were supposed to."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...cortez/579901/

I'm a resident of the state of Pennsylvania and just requested my mail in ballot today. This is an option they have in addition to the typical absentee ballot for people who are residents but will not be in state on election day. I will be in state but prefer to mail my ballot in. It was really straightforward and the election council for my county has approved the application and will be sending me my ballot soon.

It's that time of the election cycle when we might look at the electoral map and see what states could turn the election. Halfway down the wiki I link below you can see the states Trump won in 2016. The states he won in 2016 but is behind in include at least Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin. He has a slight lead in Ohio and a slight deficit in Florida. If he takes Ohio, Florida, and Arizona (which he's behind in by about 4%) but loses Michigan, Wisconsin, and PA he would lose. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan are 20, 10, and 16 electoral votes respectively.

Anyhow, since I think there's a decent chance he takes Florida and Ohio which are both pretty close right now, I think Pennsylvania is crucially important for Biden.

So much time between now and the election though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_U...ntial_election
https://fivethirtyeight.com/

Interesting article but it again, categorizes Black Americans as being monolithic and that is simply not true - although the majority of the media portrays Black Americans as monolithic.
Dig in the weeds within the Black community and you will see that we are not monolithic.

Case in point (which goes against the popular "Defund The Police") that is being broadcast by mainstream media.

81 Percent of Black Americans Want the Same Level, or More, of Police Presence: Gallup
https://reason.com/2020/08/06/81-per...esence-gallup/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Thanks for this reference -I like this article too, from The Atlantic by Adam Serwer, with this extract-

"Even after Obama was elected, conservative pundits argued that Obama wasn’t “really popular” because he maintained sky-high support among black voters—who, they implied, should count less. The underlying argument behind the claim, no matter how mundane or outlandish, was that being black confers unearned benefits rather than systemic obstacles to be overcome. Obama became the living, breathing symbol of the narrative that undeserving people of color were being elevated even as hardworking white people were being left behind. In a country where most wealthy CEOs, legislators, governors, presidents, justices, and judges are white Christian men, Republicans believe whites and Christians face more discrimination than anyone else.
What this narrative is meant to obscure is the reality that American policy making has not created some nightmare inversion of power between white people and ethnic minorities, but a landscape of harrowing inequality where people are forced to beg strangers for money on the internet to pay their medical bills. Upward mobility is stagnant; those who are born rich, die rich, and those who are born poor, die poor. Real wages have risen painfully slowly for decades; housing, particularly in urban centers, is unaffordable; and young people are saddled with skyrocketing student debt for educations that did not provide the opportunities they were supposed to."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...cortez/579901/

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I'm a resident of the state of Pennsylvania and just requested my mail in ballot today. This is an option they have in addition to the typical absentee ballot for people who are residents but will not be in state on election day. I will be in state but prefer to mail my ballot in. It was really straightforward and the election council for my county has approved the application and will be sending me my ballot soon.

---

May I ask why you are choosing a postal ballot over a vote in person on the day at your designated polling station? It used to be the case in the UK that postal votes were limited to those who could not vote in person, because they were not going to be in the country or the constituency on polling day, be in hospital, and other legitimate reasons. The Blair government changed the rules so make postal ballots an option -for what it's worth in this country I think postal voting should be restriicted as it was before Blair, lagely as a result of some of the questionable things I saw when I was in charge of an election campaign for the Labour Party in London, though I stress this did not involve postal ballots at that time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Interesting article but it again, categorizes Black Americans as being monolithic and that is simply not true - although the majority of the media portrays Black Americans as monolithic.
Dig in the weeds within the Black community and you will see that we are not monolithic.

---

But the Atlantic article that I linked concerns the way in which some Conservative and more extreme White Americans view Black Americans, rather than what Black Amercans think of themseves. I understand the GOP has had a solid 10% of the Black votee in recent years and I think we can agree that yes, it is wrong to lump all Black Americans together. But I do wonder if even that 10% truly agrees that the 45th President has done more for Black Americans than any President since Lincoln. I assume he has heard of Lyndon B. Johnson, but with this guy, you can't be sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

May I ask why you are choosing a postal ballot over a vote in person on the day at your designated polling station? It used to be the case in the UK that postal votes were limited to those who could not vote in person, because they were not going to be in the country or the constituency on polling day, be in hospital, and other legitimate reasons. The Blair government changed the rules so make postal ballots an option -for what it's worth in this country I think postal voting should be restriicted as it was before Blair, lagely as a result of some of the questionable things I saw when I was in charge of an election campaign for the Labour Party in London, though I stress this did not involve postal ballots at that time.

---

There are a few reasons. I always vote in person but I don't think it should be necessary when there's a pandemic even though I'm not super high risk. I think that requiring the vote to be in person is intended to suppress the vote rather than protect against fraud.

I was curious about the process as well. I am already registered to vote, but I had to go through the additional step of filling out an application for a ballot, which is then processed and if approved a ballot is sent to the address at which you're registered.

One ulterior motive I have is that I want to convince my parents who are in their late 70s to get a mail in application. My mother believes it is her responsibility to show up at the polls on election day and cast a ballot against Trump. I haven't been able to convince her that getting a mail in ballot is safer, is legal in Pennsylvania without the requirement that anyone have a reason. If I can give her a sense of how long it takes and how easy it is, then maybe I demystify it for them.

Finally, if my state has provided a process to vote by mail without any qualifying reason, I thought why not do it if I can get a ballot in advance and make sure I deliver it well in advance? I'm not certain I made the right choice here but a ballot is on the way and I will be sending it back well in advance of the deadline.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/08/vo...-swing-states/

I thought this was an interesting article about the process in a lot of the swing states, including the controversy over it. Initially I was only worried about a backlog or my ballot not being delivered but apparently my state gives me the option of dropping the ballot off as an alternative to mail as long as it's before 8 pm on election day.

Stavros brings up an interesting point in my view about the real potential for fraud in mail-in ballots and also about civic engagement. Fred brought this point up earlier but what should our expectation be about the effort people make to vote?

I do think there's a greater potential for fraud in mail in ballots though I don't think it is a significant risk given how much of it would have to take place in a coordinated way to change the election. I think electoral districts should balance the risk of fraud against the unequal burdens people have in making it to the polls. In ordinary times I don't think it's unreasonable to require people to vote in person unless they are unable to.

In this pandemic, someone who is 80 years old or 70 years old might have a 15 or 20% chance of dying if they're infected with covid. We also don't have a great deal of epidemiological data about what someone's risk is standing in line in a crowded building but we do know that Trump has made mask wearing a cultural fault line and one's risk is correlated with other people's compliance.

I don't think voter turnout should be based on risk tolerance or health status. I think the net result of requiring the vote to be in person right now would be to have a greater suppressive effect on voter turnout than it would on fraud. Looking at the states that have mail in voting I do think Trump is going to be yelling fraud at the top of his lungs if he loses.

Just as an aside if anyone wants to talk about the electoral college or the way the math breaks down in that link above, I think Trump has to win Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to win if the polls are even close to accurate right now. I didn't realize just how close it had been but he carried Michigan and Pennsylvania by tiny margins of like 11,000 and 45,000 respectively.

I wasn't able to link the section of the wiki with the state by state breakdown but you can find it in section 8.5 of the wiki I linked called "results by state". Hard to be optimistic, even with the polling, but I think Biden probably wins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

But the Atlantic article that I linked concerns the way in which some Conservative and more extreme White Americans view Black Americans, rather than what Black Amercans think of themseves. I understand the GOP has had a solid 10% of the Black votee in recent years and I think we can agree that yes, it is wrong to lump all Black Americans together. But I do wonder if even that 10% truly agrees that the 45th President has done more for Black Americans than any President since Lincoln. I assume he has heard of Lyndon B. Johnson, but with this guy, you can't be sure.

---

You would be quite surprised at what that 10% believes......
And to say 90% vs 10% isn't an accurate representation either as there are also a number of Black Americans who ride both sides of the fence (so to speak) depending on subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

You would be quite surprised at what that 10% believes......
And to say 90% vs 10% isn't an accurate representation either as there are also a number of Black Americans who ride both sides of the fence (so to speak) depending on subject.

---

You mean, like Vernon Robinson?

"Robinson holds a number of views which many would consider outrageous – “The UN is possibly the greatest abuser of children on the planet”; the World Health Organization “subscribes to a far-left ideology”; Sweden has a high suicide rate because “everything is free except the citizens”; the abortion rate in the US is a “hidden holocaust” of “black babies”; too many progressive-leaning sportspeople these days are “Lenin’s useful idiots,” transgender-inclusive policies will stop black girls from getting track scholarships to college; people born to illegal immigrants in the US shouldn’t get citizenship; people are being fired from their jobs in Dallas because they don’t speak Spanish; “The Democrats want open borders because they need new voters” – but it’s worth noting that most are in line with what the president has said himself. Indeed, Robinson was doing shock tactic conservatism long before Trump: in 2006, one of his campaign ads for Congress attacked feminism, same-sex marriage and “aliens” who “come across our unguarded Mexican border by the millions”. In the same cycle, he made waves by climbing that if his opponent had his way, “America would be nothing but one big fiesta for illegal immigrants and homosexuals”. Little wonder he has embraced Trump’s “big, beautiful wall” with unbridled enthusiasm."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...n-b420765.html

Trump did get a bit of a post convention bump in his numbers. All polls have some margin for error and it's possible there is systematic error. But if you give Trump every state that is within two percentage points of current polling averages (up or down), he still loses the electoral college right now.

Of the states that are close, we have Texas, which is historically a red state and in which Trump is up in polling by less than a percentage point. I have to assume Trump probably carries Texas but if he lost it, I can't imagine he'd win the election. There's Florida, which always seems to disappoint the Democrats, where Trump is down by 2.8% points. He is up by close to a percentage point in Ohio, and I assume maybe he really will win Ohio given that the margin of victory was close to 500,000 votes in 2016.

But it bears repeating that he could win all of these states, by no means a certainty and still lose. That would happen if he loses Michigan, where he's down 7.4%, Wisconsin, where he's down 7.1%, Minnesota, where he's down 6.4%, and Pennsylvania, where he's down 5.1%.

I know people don't have a lot of faith in polling but I have trouble seeing Trump winning any of the states I list in the last paragraph except for Pennsylvania. And if he does, he still has to make sure he doesn't lose Florida, Ohio, or Texas.

Biden should continue campaigning hard in swing states and take nothing for granted. But let's hope there's nothing that really shakes up these results by November.

The margins by which Trump won Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin in 2016 should give Republicans pause. Hillary was reviled by large parts of this country (unfairly in my view), but people do not have really strong negative reactions to Biden.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com.../pennsylvania/

The above assumes Biden doesn't get any surprise negative results in states that Hillary won. The thing is, of the states I've looked at, he's consistently doing better than Hillary was. He's up by 6% in Nevada and 11% in Colorado. Shit, he's up in North Carolina and Arizona, which Trump won by margins of 2.7% and 4% respectively.

Long story short: if you can believe that Trump has suffered any loss of popularity from 2016 or that Biden is slightly more popular than Hillary, Trump's margins of 23,000, 44,000, and 11,000 votes in the decisive states of (all else equal) Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan give lots of reason for optimism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

There are a few reasons. I always vote in person but I don't think it should be necessary when there's a pandemic even though I'm not super high risk. I think that requiring the vote to be in person is intended to suppress the vote rather than protect against fraud.

I was curious about the process as well. I am already registered to vote, but I had to go through the additional step of filling out an application for a ballot, which is then processed and if approved a ballot is sent to the address at which you're registered.

One ulterior motive I have is that I want to convince my parents who are in their late 70s to get a mail in application. My mother believes it is her responsibility to show up at the polls on election day and cast a ballot against Trump. I haven't been able to convince her that getting a mail in ballot is safer, is legal in Pennsylvania without the requirement that anyone have a reason. If I can give her a sense of how long it takes and how easy it is, then maybe I demystify it for them.

Finally, if my state has provided a process to vote by mail without any qualifying reason, I thought why not do it if I can get a ballot in advance and make sure I deliver it well in advance? I'm not certain I made the right choice here but a ballot is on the way and I will be sending it back well in advance of the deadline.

---

Thanks for this- I understand your point about voting in person in the midst of a pandemic -I have never had to queue up to vote and dont believe it has ever happened in the UK but I might be wrong on that. Perhaps in US districts - I think I mean Precincts?- there should be more polling stations per head of populaton?

Here are some weird and wonderful polling stations in the UK
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/st...s-chosen-71006

Re: your posts on States and Stats:
Do you or does anyone else think the Revelations of St Bob will impact voter choice, notwithstanding the fact that many Americans have already voted and can't change their minds now?

And what was Bob doing all this time, sitting on such explosive information while Americans have been falling ill and dying? I was struck by how feeble his first book -Fear- was, his complete lack of interest in the President's pre-history as a rent collector for dad, his multiple failed businesses, his financial ties to Felix Sater, the extensive ties to the Russians and the illegal assistance the campaign received from Russians in 2016- as Bob is a Republican, I suspect he laments the slow death of his party but is reluctant to use the President to kick it into its grave.

My sense about polling stations is that there's inconsistency. Some places it's sufficient and there's no wait and some places there are long lines. I've never had a super long wait, the kind I've heard about on the news, but that shouldn't happen.

I'm a bit puzzled by Woodward's revelations because it doesn't seem to tell people much that we didn't know. The Chinese government has experience dealing with pandemics that we don't and they weren't able to suppress it. They have good emergency care and good doctors who were using both condensed oxygen and ventilators to keep people alive. They were also trying every drug that is currently available to us, including antivirals and steroids. Despite all of this we were getting reports of case fatality rates not that much different to what they are now. They had thirty year and forty year olds who were dying, including a doctor who was a whistleblower.

We also know at this time that experts inside the cdc and HHS were exchanging emails about how this was a pending disaster. I guess the only thing we now know is that Trump subjectively knew what we should have expected a normal functioning person to know given the information he had available to him. At every step of the way he played down the virus and gave bad advice. His insistence on testing hydroxychloroquine beyond the point of failure has had the effect of draining participants from other clinical trials that were more likely to be effective. In total, his egotism and desire for political advantage not only cost lives but he almost explicitly traded human lives for political advantage. I suppose now we know that not only would a well informed person have known the risk but even a dullard surrounded by talented health experts would know and he did.

I do think little by little some of the information is seeping through. There is a percentage of the public who probably can't be reached as long as he keeps up the culture wars. I think he'd survive an audio tape of him admitting to not caring that people are dying better than a picture of him wearing a pussy hat.

The longest I had to wait on line to vote was about 2.5 hours back in 2008. It was early in the morning before people were going to work.

In 2012, 2016, and the last NYC mayoral election, I voted in the afternoon and I was in and out in about less than 10 minutes.

The polling stations are in the community centers of the my co-op. It will take a little doing, but I can see them being able to follow social distancing guidelines. But as long as everyone is wearing a mask, things should be okay. So even though I do have the option of mail in voting, I plan to vote in person.

Next question: the 'youth vote'-the article in the link argues the youth vote was a jey factor in the Democrats taking back the House in 2018, but does it mean that the same cohort of voters,plus new voters will vote for Biden/Harris, when they may have been attracted in 2018 by their local candidates? And, one must assume, not all 18-25 yar olds are Democrats. In addition, the list of third party candidates linked below includes the Green Party, and Maverick candidates likes Kanye West, probably better known than Texas-based concert pianist Jade Simmons, also linked below.

That complacency, that specific groups of people will vote a certain way, may not be certain -but can the 'youth vote' play a decisive factor?

The youth Vote
https://www.voanews.com/student-unio...20-us-election

Third Party Candidates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_...lectoral_votes

Jade Simmons
https://jadesimmons.com/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Trump did get a bit of a post convention bump in his numbers. All polls have some margin for error and it's possible there is systematic error. But if you give Trump every state that is within two percentage points of current polling averages (up or down), he still loses the electoral college right now.

---

You may have seen it already, but FiveThirtyEight currently give Trump a 24% chance of winning, although that has been declining recently. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/
Incidentally, they give Trump a 38% chance of winning at least one state he didn't win last time, so you might be taking that possibility too lightly.

Nate Silver has also calculated the probabilities of a Biden victory for different margins in the popular vote. If the margin is 2-3% then the odds are a bit less than even, but they rise strongly as the margin gets larger. (The margin in 2016 was 2.1%.) A system that gives one side a 2-3% head start is clearly not very democratic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Nate Silver has also calculated the probabilities of a Biden victory for different margins in the popular vote. If the margin is 2-3% then the odds are a bit less than even, but they rise strongly as the margin gets larger. (The margin in 2016 was 2.1%.) A system that gives one side a 2-3% head start is clearly not very democratic.

---

I'm guessing that's a function of margins of victory being bigger in Democratic states. Still, it doesn't make sense to have a federal election apportioned by states. It already feels like there's inertia trying to get Republicans to vote against really extreme figures like Trump. It would be nice if we had two parties in this country devoted to our founding principles and rule of law, separated only by reasonable differences in policy. And I don't delude myself into thinking policy differences ever feel civil or anything less than life-changing but there is a qualitative difference in what the GOP has become and I wonder if our system's lack of sensitivity to the popular vote has reduced accountability enough to cause it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Incidentally, they give Trump a 38% chance of winning at least one state he didn't win last time, so you might be taking that possibility too lightly.

---

Thanks. I have to do my homework a bit on that.

The good news is that even without other big surprises for Dems like Ohio, Florida, or Texas there is good polling in Arizona and North Carolina. So if GOP flips a small state, we might pick up 11 electoral votes in Arizona or 15 in NC. Not that GOP flipping states doesn't matter bc we could easily lose these two AND the GOP flips one.

Looking at the last election numbers and 538 polling averages it looks like GOP has the best chance in Minnesota (10 votes), New Hampshire (4), and Nevada (6). Colorado (9) is sometimes somewhat close but Biden has a 10 point lead in polls right now. Virginia (13) often is too but Biden has close to an 11 point lead. The scenario I thought of with only PA, MI, and WI flipping was a narrow enough margin that even NH flipping would bring the Dem from 273 to 269. I could be missing something since I'm eyeballing it.

I know the Democratic party is working very hard in Pennsylvania right now. In a system like ours where voter participation is pretty low, get out the vote efforts often are more effective than efforts targeting undecideds or disaffected Republicans. But I've heard that PACs are focused on both right now. Lots can happen and so many ways this election can go, so we'll see.

Democrat Tulsi Gabbard Says Netflix is Complicit in Child Sex Trafficking for 'Child Porn' Film 'Cuties'
https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabba...icking-1531474

Would make a much better POTUS than Biden IMHO....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

You mean, like Vernon Robinson?

"Robinson holds a number of views which many would consider outrageous – “The UN is possibly the greatest abuser of children on the planet”; the World Health Organization “subscribes to a far-left ideology”; Sweden has a high suicide rate because “everything is free except the citizens”; the abortion rate in the US is a “hidden holocaust” of “black babies”; too many progressive-leaning sportspeople these days are “Lenin’s useful idiots,” transgender-inclusive policies will stop black girls from getting track scholarships to college; people born to illegal immigrants in the US shouldn’t get citizenship; people are being fired from their jobs in Dallas because they don’t speak Spanish; “The Democrats want open borders because they need new voters” – but it’s worth noting that most are in line with what the president has said himself. Indeed, Robinson was doing shock tactic conservatism long before Trump: in 2006, one of his campaign ads for Congress attacked feminism, same-sex marriage and “aliens” who “come across our unguarded Mexican border by the millions”. In the same cycle, he made waves by climbing that if his opponent had his way, “America would be nothing but one big fiesta for illegal immigrants and homosexuals”. Little wonder he has embraced Trump’s “big, beautiful wall” with unbridled enthusiasm."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...n-b420765.html

---

No.
I mean folks like Kimberly Klacik, Joe Collins, and a few others.

Now I can go tit-for-tat with you bring up Black Democrats that hold a number of outrageous views as well if you'd like......

Both parties have ridiculous individuals within - and hopefully, you're smart enough to see that.....

But just by mentioning Vernon Robinson, you've proved my point that the Black community is not monolithic in thought and I thank you for that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Democrat Tulsi Gabbard Says Netflix is Complicit in Child Sex Trafficking for 'Child Porn' Film 'Cuties'
https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabba...icking-1531474

Would make a much better POTUS than Biden IMHO....

---

She would indeed, if she had the courage to tackle that legal thing you have in he US called Child Marriage- set aside the volume of 'cute kids' on American tv in soaps, gymnastics (ban all under-18 year-olds from competitions), dance documentaries and so on, and focus less on Netflix and more on your own corrupt Union where this is concerned-

"Only two US states – Delaware and New Jersey – have set the marriage age floor at 18 with no exceptions. Twelve states do not have any set age limit, and six allow girls under the minimum age to get married if they are pregnant. In those states the laws “are weaker than child marriage laws in countries like Afghanistan, Honduras and Malawi”, Girls Not Brides CEO Dr Faith Mwangi-Powell says."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9467121.html

"In 87% of child marriages, the minor is a girl; 86% of the time she is marrying a legal adult. Based on these numbers, advocates argue that the vast majority of marriages with minors would otherwise constitute statutory rape."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/child-m...bsn-originals/

Yeah, go for a French film most people will never see, and ignore the problem that mght be happeining next door or across the street. Are any of the Candidates opposed to chilld marriage in the USA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

And I don't delude myself into thinking policy differences ever feel civil or anything less than life-changing but there is a qualitative difference in what the GOP has become and I wonder if our system's lack of sensitivity to the popular vote has reduced accountability enough to cause it.

---

Yes, policy differences are one thing, but when a party is condoning blatant lying, law-breaking and hate-mongering it has clearly crossed a line. I think you are right about the effect of electoral bias - if the Republican Party needed a majority of votes to gain power then just pandering to their base would no longer be a winning strategy and they would be forced to appeal more to the middle ground.

This is just an afterthought but at least one completely sociopathic move of Trump's would be cut off without an electoral college. This crap where he plays red state blue state and tries to deny federal funding and assistance to people in states he has no chance of winning would be less appealing without an electoral college. He knows he'll lose California, but if it would matter whether he loses it by 4 or 5 million votes it might encourage him to put out the fires that are ravaging the west coast. What would he do if he wins a second term and doesn't have to worry at all about winning elections?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

But just by mentioning Vernon Robinson, you've proved my point that the Black community is not monolithic in thought and I thank you for that!

---

Nobody's arguing that point. Not one single person said the Black community is monolithic or implied it.

Here is a fact for you since an you seem only able to repeat yourself and don't have much interest in the election generally: an overwhelming majority of the Black community will vote for the Democratic Party in November. In fact, of minority communities the division here is about as lopsided as it for any. Compare this to Cuban-Americans. Compare to Mexican-Americans. Compare to Asian-Americans. Compare to Jewish-Americans. Compare to LGBT. No minority community is monolithic and no vote is ever unanimous. 90% is a fairly large number though. I wasn't going to include Muslim-Americans only because I assumed the percentage would be similarly lopsided but in the first article I found it said 13% of Muslims vote Republican. Anyhow, there you go. No community is monolithic.

You put a Trump sign on your lawn it gets burned down.
You wear a MAGA hat you are attacked or get fired.

And you all seriously believe in polling numbers? As if these people tell someone calling them the truth...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teydyn

You put a Trump sign on your lawn it gets burned down.
You wear a MAGA hat you are attacked or get fired.

And you all seriously believe in polling numbers? As if these people tell someone calling them the truth...

---

You can read the posts above to see what I think about polls. They're not perfect and they may miss some Trump voters but I don't have anything other than data to go on.

There are certainly people who don't want to admit they support Trump but I'm not sure polls don't try to assure participants their privacy is somewhat protected. Nevertheless it might be a factor.

Two questions:

1) What happens to people in Oregon and California who have lost their homes in the dreadful fire storms? Can they vote if they no longer have the address on the register because it burned to the ground and they are in temporary accommodatiion elsewhere?

2) I read that the NYPD Union has declared it supports the President. Is this legal? In the UK police officers can vote, but they are not allowed to make any political statements or be seen supporting a political party or movement. I also wonder how this makes people in a Precinct feel knowing their local cops support a politician they don't approve of, and in particular when/if there are issues of trust between the citizens and the police which through the public support for a President who now belives in 'retribution', make them fear for their lives?

Would it not make more sense for the Police to be re-named the Republican Guard?