US Presidential Election 2020

StringerBell

Water John wrote: »

So some posters say control of the pandemic is largely the responsibility of each Govn'r and State. Well what do you do when Trump comes into your state and breaks the guidelines and law?

It's one of the major flaws, he actively encourages and breaks himself the state laws. What can the governor do?

There has been no national leadership, no national testing plan, no national tracing plan, the federal government have in fact forced states to compete with it, and each other not to mention the myriad other issues caused directly by trump.

Letting him off the hook is common by those who seek to defend him or mitigate his actions so it isn't to be surprising or anything but it rings hollow. The states are governed by the governor, the state's make up a union which cede a lot of power to the executive branch and the president. If the governor's held more power to act then the president he would not be able to come to states and break the rules and have his supporters break the rules with impunity.

He is the main cause of what's happening in the USA, it doesn't matter how much they try to say he is irrelevant, he is the president of the country. The buck stops with him.

BonnieSituation

hotmail.com wrote: »

Grotesque waste of money.

How so?

Manic Moran

Water John wrote: »

So some posters say control of the pandemic is largely the responsibility of each Govn'r and State. Well what do you do when Trump comes into your state and breaks the guidelines and law?

Same way you deal with any other law-breaking, compliance by enforcement. The manufacturing facility in Henderson which held the rally there yesterday is being subjected to criminal proceedings. Penalties can include suspension or revocation of the business license. Reno airport denied the request to hold a rally in their hangar because of the state regulations. Consequences to Trump would be exactly what are actually happening: Well deserved political excoriation. Why Henderson PD, Clark County Sheriff or Nevada State Troopers permitted the event to continue anyway is a question best asked of the political leadership of those jurisdictions. There is no reason I can think of why Trump could not have been forced to hold his rally with 49 people in the building whilst the entrances for the rest were blocked by local law enforcement enforcing the prohibition. Heck, given the demographics of Clark County, I'm sure their dominant political party would have loved to see such photographs.

Even the issue of mask wearing is more complicated than just Trump's soft influence. Fully agreed, Trump's doing active damage here. The mixed signals from the experts didn't help either. (Remember, in late March, the WHO was advising people not to wear masks, it wasn't just the CDC trying to save resources). The issue of masks and gatherings has been politicized by both sides, note the difference in reaction to mass protests between the US and Ireland: Gardai take information on people who breached the gathering guidelines, and threat of prosecution shuts down others. In the US, the response is "protests are OK, there hasn't been much transmission and it's a cause we agree with". Well, in that case, why all the concern...? There is a lack of consistency in the US even at the local levels.

I'd not be to sure on that; same way you can't sign a paper stating you're fine to be killed there will be limitations on what you can sign away here, esp. if you've been warned about the danger. I'd expect the most likely outcome would be a lawsuit by a surviving family member in some form that would end with a undisclosed settlement (as is so common with Trump).

There's a bit of a subtle line between 'hold harmless against something under one's control' and 'against something not under control.'

In other words, you can't enforce something saying "We are not liable for anything that happens on our property" and then something happens as a direct result of your own actions. Eg if you crane a piano over a crowd and the one cable snaps. Protections against environmental things outside of your direct control, however, are far more sustainable. Not only is the rally organiser not in a position to definitively state if CODID exists onsite, COVID exists both inside and outside the rally, for example. Who's to say any subsequent positive test result was the cause of the rally vs some other interaction? There is ample precedent for such waivers having binding effect.

At a time early on when the governors were looking to the President for a unified approach to the crisis it was not forthcoming. A good example of this failing was the sourcing of PPE. The states ended up competing directly with each other to try and find PPE and testing resources because the federal government decided not to source it via their agencies. The Governors were crying out for federal assistance but ended up having to fend for themselves.

Agreed, subject to the caveat that some of the States were competing with each other because they, too, had not acquired sufficient PPE for their needs in the first place. Not that that's unique to them, I don't think many countries had enough.

But many other elements work only at a Federal level with limited local presence at a State/local level. Take NIH or CDC for instance. They have capabilities that are necessary but that cannot be replicated at a State level. They are a part of the Federal Government and controlled by it.

Doesn't mean that the States aren't capable. California is about equivalent to France. Texas to Australia. Alabama's the same population as Ireland. There is zero reason why any State cannot (or does not) have an equivalent capability to any other nation of equivalent size or economy, and most other equivalent nations have managed to do well enough. CDC and NIH are 'nice-to-haves' which provide an additional capability on top so the US should be doing better than the global average, but the floor for which there is no reason to drop below is that of any other equivalent country. This, by the way, is the case for US healthcare in general, not just pandemic response. There is, for example, absolutely nothing in US law saying that States cannot enact single payer healthcare or at least universal coverage. They just don't want to pay for it, as evidenced by the repeated times such proposals have been made in places like California. There are some exceptions like Massachusetts. Far easier to dump the problem on the federal government.

In other words, the reason we are not doing better than the first-world average can be said to be the Trump administration. The reason we are doing worse than the first-world average is the States.

So, yes- Trump personally, and his Administration collectively, are absolutely to blame for the appalling Federal response to Covid. Do others share blame for the overall response? Absolutely! But this thread is not about everyone else. Its about the Election for President. Its about Biden v Trump. And in that context, Trump has behaved appallingly, has led a cack-handed Federal response and has lied to the people.

That's fine, and it's perfectly accurate. Still, Trump is not the only person we're voting for in November and narratives such as this thread run the risk of drowning out the realities (Or does nobody else here talk about this thing on other fora which have US voters?). Note what I have not said, here. I have not said things like "Trump did well" or "Trump is worth voting for". Blame him for what he's blamable for, but local leadership are directly responsible to their own voters and have their own authorities, this should not be minimized or belittled in the discussions.

StringerBell

Michael Caputo spouting some ****e reported in The New York times today. Everything from left wing hit squads being trained for insurrection to accusing CDC scientists of sedition.

TomOnBoard

StringerBell wrote: »

Michael Caputo spouting some ****e reported in The New York times today. Everything from left wing hit squads being trained for insurrection to accusing CDC scientists of sedition.

The fact that Caputo was put in charge of CDC Covid messaging is straight up bat**** crazy. This guy is one of the few people ever to have worked for a Russian President (Yeltsin) and now an American one. In what universe is it OK to put an outright far-right conspiracy theorist loon into a role that can manipulate the public health information produced by the CDC? In the above interview, he claims to be living in fear in his DC apartment, and is seeing some very long shadows on his ceiling at night (yes, he actually said that)... The man needs psychiatric intervention if he's seeing things in the manner he describes!

I read earlier that the House Dems are starting an investigation into how he and Alex Azar have been trying to corrupt CDC reports and Covid advice and information. I hope they work on a 24/7 schedule so this person is removed from control of CDC activities immediately!

TomOnBoard

Manic Moran wrote: »

Even the issue of mask wearing is more complicated than just Trump's soft influence. Fully agreed, Trump's doing active damage here. The mixed signals from the experts didn't help either. (Remember, in late March, the WHO was advising people not to wear masks, it wasn't just the CDC trying to save resources). The issue of masks and gatherings has been politicized by both sides, note the difference in reaction to mass protests between the US and Ireland: Gardai take information on people who breached the gathering guidelines, and threat of prosecution shuts down others. In the US, the response is "protests are OK, there hasn't been much transmission and it's a cause we agree with". Well, in that case, why all the concern...? There is a lack of consistency in the US even at the local levels.

There's so much whataboutery built into this response which is trying to deflect responsibility to everyone else and minimise the extent of Trump's responsibility. Practically every paragraph is an exercise in "Yes But" argument and serve to widen a blame pool to minimise POTUS 's culpability for failures.

Apart from the fact that reliance on the WHO in support of a point around the US response in relation to masks is quite disingenuous as the USA has withdrawn from WHO, we all know why masks were not being advised initially. Firstly there werent enough of them and they needed to be kept for first responders and secondly there was a great fear that ppl wouldnt use them properly, that they would over-rely on them and not take enough of the other steps to stay safe such as handwashing. And all that advice still stands today just as in March. If I wear a basic cloth mask, it helps to protect you from me. If you wear a basic cloth mask it helps to protect me from you. I get little or no protection from wearing a basic cloth mask for myself. It is only if I properly don and doff a N95 mask that my self protection improves considerably but not entirely.

The statement that the issue of masks and gatherings has been politicized by both sides is simply wrong! How has anyone other than Trump and his supporters politicized masks? What examples can you offer in support of this assertion. To me it is reading like flat out deflection with no basis in reality. But, I stand to be corrected if you know of such cases.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Agreed, subject to the caveat that some of the States were competing with each other because they, too, had not acquired sufficient PPE for their needs in the first place. Not that that's unique to them, I don't think many countries had enough.

More deflection! Why bother with the caveat? All the States that needed PPE (if they had enough in the 1st place, they wouldnt have needed to buy more) had to compete with each other and the point the original post was making was that this created a Wild West auction that forced prices through the roof. States asked for a Federal response to bulk buy and the Administration failed them.

Manica Moran wrote: »

Doesn't mean that the States aren't capable. California is about equivalent to France. Texas to Australia. Alabama's the same population as Ireland. There is zero reason why any State cannot (or does not) have an equivalent capability to any other nation of equivalent size or economy, and most other equivalent nations have managed to do well enough. CDC and NIH are 'nice-to-haves' which provide an additional capability on top so the US should be doing better than the global average, but the floor for which there is no reason to drop below is that of any other equivalent country. This, by the way, is the case for US healthcare in general, not just pandemic response. There is, for example, absolutely nothing in US law saying that States cannot enact single payer healthcare or at least universal coverage. They just don't want to pay for it, as evidenced by the repeated times such proposals have been made in places like California. There are some exceptions like Massachusetts. Far easier to dump the problem on the federal government.

So, you're suggesting that there should be 51 CDCs and 51 NIHs fully staffed and equipped? Wow! That would be some level of planned redundancy- 51 organisations (1 per State and 1 Federal) duplicating effort and capabilities? Seriously??? It is for precisely the avoidance of that effort and massive redundancy and associated waste, that a single CDC and NIH exist today, each of which services the needs of all 50 States and is funded by taxation (and are the country's primary public health resource, and not just a 'nice to have' ). They are Federal agencies and are therefore under the control of the Federal Government which is the responsibility of the Administration.

Now that the CDC's former authority as a straight actor has been compromised by Caputo's manipulation and accusations of sabotage levelled at CDC scientists, following so closely on the heels of the undermining of, and withdrawal from, the World Health Organisation, the USA no longer has any trusted public health capability in the midst of a massive public health emergency. ALL responsibility for that ongoing cluster**** lies entirely in the Oval Office!

TomOnBoard

As if their suffering from Covid wasn't enough to bear, West Coast wildfires are running amok, and people in major cities are being poisoned by poor air quality. Many people have died and thousands of properties engulfed in the infernos.

So, fresh from his astounding success at managing the impact of Covid, Chief Scientist Trump went to California today and brought his messages of comfort and support to the fire-ravaged State. His main points were:

The record heat and dry weather experienced in August across California have nothing to do with Climate....
It'll get cooler.. He just feels it...
Scientists don't actually know that theres any global warming going on...
The fires could be easily fixed with better forest management...
The best management strategy is "clean the floors...ya gotta clean the floors.." No, he didnt mention raking the leaves this time, but you just know he was itching to. ..
And the lack of forest management is all the States' fault...

I'm sure his words of great comfort and wisdom will help millions of people sleep so soundly tonight!

Oh, and by the way, 58% of forests in California are owned by the Federal Government as against THREE (3)% owned by the State itself. But of course, its all the States fault... Yeah, Right!

By contrast, Biden commented on the fires by clearly placing Climate Change front and centre as the cause of increased heat and drought catalysing the raging infernos. I wonder, could he possibly be right?? Hmmmmm!!!

Quin_Dub

Some changes to the RCP polls overnight.

Minnesota moves from "Toss up" to "leans Biden" and Missouri moves from "toss up" to "Leans Trump"

That leaves it with Biden on 222 EC Votes and Trump on 125 with 191 considered "Toss up"

It looks like an 8 point lead is the threshold when they shift a State to "Leans"

That moves both States to where they were in 2016.

Brian?

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Some changes to the RCP polls overnight.

Minnesota moves from "Toss up" to "leans Biden" and Missouri moves from "toss up" to "Leans Trump"

That leaves it with Biden on 222 EC Votes and Trump on 125 with 191 considered "Toss up"

It looks like an 8 point lead is the threshold when they shift a State to "Leans"

That moves both States to where they were in 2016.

At the point where the polls would normally really start to narrow, Biden is now pulling away. He's now "favoured" to win, last week he was "likely".

Zubeneschamali

If you hit the Eliminate Tossups button and just go with the polls, RCP has Biden winning 352-186

Quin_Dub

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If you hit the Eliminate Tossups button and just go with the polls, RCP has Biden winning 352-186

Yeah.. Don't see it being quite so decisive , I think the upside for Biden is maybe a 75-100 point margin.

It could be a lot closer than that though.

everlast75

Trump will scorch the earth before accepting defeat.

Trump retweeted a guy calling Biden a paedo ffs.

Anything short of a comprehensive result on the night of the election will not be enough to comprehensively settle this. Trump will allege fraud regarding mail in ballots. Court cases and rioting will follow.

Overheal

everlast75 wrote: »

Trump will scorch the earth before accepting defeat.

Trump retweeted a guy calling Biden a paedo ffs.

Anything short of a comprehensive result on the night of the election will not be enough to comprehensively settle this. Trump will allege fraud regarding mail in ballots. Court cases and rioting will follow.

Honestly even if there’s a landslide result on November 3/4 watch Trump will make a fight over ballots. There’s no wiggle room about it.

Quin_Dub

everlast75 wrote: »

Trump will scorch the earth before accepting defeat.

Trump retweeted a guy calling Biden a paedo ffs.

Anything short of a comprehensive result on the night of the election will not be enough to comprehensively settle this. Trump will allege fraud regarding mail in ballots. Court cases and rioting will follow.

Tend to agree , a key advantage for Biden though is that the Secretaries of State for the key swing states are Democrats - Pennsylvania , Michigan , Wisconsin so if it will be them deciding when/if to call the results , just as a GOP SoS shut down the re-count in Florida in 2000

pixelburp

As has been pointed out a few times here & on various outlets, the real problem is going to be the Postal Votes; but not for reasons of them being invalid or corrupt as Trump would have you believe. But his narrative may yet prove to be prepaaring the ground for a fraudulent vote all the same.

Hand counting is faster, and given statistics show that GOP voters are more likely to vote in person, the initial count is more than likely to swing heavily for Trump. At this point, anything's up in the air: we've seen in 2000 that the GOP are more than capable of styming or blocking ballot counting and so fully expect the Postal Count to be held up as much as possible. In the meantime, Fox & Trump will declare victory so even if the slow counting of postal votes swings the needle towards Biden, the GOP can declare "Fraud!" having so nobly warned of it months ago. Cue the counts beind held up in the courts and Mitch McConnell solemnly declaring we should "respect" the result and all this red tape is holding back vital governance.

The hysterectomies can then continue unabated.

everlast75

pixelburp wrote: »

As has been pointed out a few times here & on various outlets, the real problem is going to be the Postal Votes; but not for reasons of them being invalid or corrupt as Trump would have you believe. But his narrative may yet prove to be prepaaring the ground for a fraudulent vote all the same.

Hand counting is faster, and given statistics show that GOP voters are more likely to vote in person, the initial count is more than likely to swing heavily for Trump. At this point, anything's up in the air: we've seen in 2000 that the GOP are more than capable of styming or blocking ballot counting and so fully expect the Postal Count to be held up as much as possible. In the meantime, Fox & Trump will declare victory so even if the slow counting of postal votes swings the needle towards Biden, the GOP can declare "Fraud!" having so nobly warned of it months ago. Cue the counts beind held up in the courts and Mitch McConnell solemnly declaring we should "respect" the result and all this red tape is holding back vital governance.

The hysterectomies can then continue unabated.

And that is because Trump is holding rallies, and downplaying the virus. If he warned people then they wouldn't attend at the ballot box and he might not have his lead on the night.

He told Woodward it was "lethal", but could not give two ****s about the health of those attending the rallies.

Zubeneschamali

In past elections, more absentee/mail ballots were republican.

The theory is that an increase this time would be mostly Democrats, worried about Covid, intimidation or suppression tactics like few sites meaning very long lines.

But freaking everyone out about vote by mail might hit older voters more, who would lean Republican..

No-one really knows which side will benefit from an increase or decrease in mailed ballots.

StringerBell

everlast75 wrote: »

Trump will scorch the earth before accepting defeat.

Trump retweeted a guy calling Biden a paedo ffs.

Anything short of a comprehensive result on the night of the election will not be enough to comprehensively settle this. Trump will allege fraud regarding mail in ballots. Court cases and rioting will follow.

That's what the likes of stone and Caputo are setting the table for now with their bull****.

It's transparent, it's stupid, but it may just work over there.

everlast75

Another positive endorsement for Biden.

Quite a call to action, given that it is unprecedented..

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1305899178124402696?s=20

briany

StringerBell wrote: »

That's what the likes of stone and Caputo are setting the table for now with their bull****.

It's transparent, it's stupid, but it may just work over there.

Hey, in the case that Trump loses and he really wants to claim the election was rigged, he's perfectly welcome to challenge the result in a court of law.

I know he won't do that, as his aim is more to fire up the base and try some sort of constitutional jiggery-pokery that keeps him in office, but it seems to me that being allowed another term where you might not actually have won the election is a thing that cannot be stood for. So get your lawyers, get your evidence, and put it to the SC.

everlast75

briany wrote: »

Hey, in the case that Trump loses and he really wants to claim the election was rigged, he's perfectly welcome to challenge the result in a court of law.

I know he won't do that, as his aim is more to fire up the base and try some sort of constitutional jiggery-pokery that keeps him in office, but it seems to me that being allowed another term where you might not actually have won the election is a thing that cannot be stood for. So get your lawyers, get your evidence, and put it to the SC.

I was speaking to a mate and I suggested that Trump might try some very extreme tactics if he loses the vote. My mate reckoned I was being over the top.

I asked if, in 2016, he would have thought that Trump would be calling the FBI scum. the press the enemy of the people , that he would excuse extra-judicial killings, that he would be inciting a race war etc etc.

I suggested that we are all in a situation where day to day, we are being worn down by the endless stream of lawlessness and asked if my suggestion was too much of a stretch considering all that has gone before and the direction it is all heading.

He moved from "that will never happen" to "I hope that will never happen"

TomOnBoard

briany wrote: »

Hey, in the case that Trump loses and he really wants to claim the election was rigged, he's perfectly welcome to challenge the result in a court of law.

I know he won't do that, as his aim is more to fire up the base and try some sort of constitutional jiggery-pokery that keeps him in office, but it seems to me that being allowed another term where you might not actually have won the election is a thing that cannot be stood for. So get your lawyers, get your evidence, and put it to the SC.

Agreed! And I read a report in the last few days that the Biden Campaign is building up a strong legal team already to prepare for the legal fight...

So, Team Trump, through Caputo/Stone says prepare by buying bullets (coz theyre gonna be in such short supply by years end). Team Biden says prepare by hiring lawyers...

Spot the Difference!

Quin_Dub

everlast75 wrote: »

I was speaking to a mate and I suggested that Trump might try some very extreme tactics if he loses the vote. My mate reckoned I was being over the top.

I asked if, in 2016, he would have thought that Trump would be calling the FBI scum. the press the enemy of the people , that he would excuse extra-judicial killings, that he would be inciting a race war etc etc.

I suggested that we are all in a situation where day to day, we are being worn down by the endless stream of lawlessness and asked if my suggestion was too much of a stretch considering all that has gone before and the direction it is all heading.

He moved from "that will never happen" to "I hope that will never happen"

There is absolutely no question that the Overton window has shifted towards authoritarianism over the last 4 years and it has been moving for a while in truth in the US but the shift has been more pronounced since 2016.

There are a whole host of things happening right now , that if people were asked were they possible 4 or 5 years ago they would have laughed or you'd be called a crank.

The far left aren't helping either to be honest with the cancel culture and extreme gender politics that some are pursuing.

However they do not have the tacit support of Government and it's apparatus (nor are they likely to get it to anything like the same extent) that the far-right have been receiving in spades over the last 4 years.

everlast75

The town hall meeting last night for Trump was car crash stuff. He was asked questions by the people present (as pretty much defined by what a town hall meeting is) and it was so bad, Fox were calling it an ambush.

here is a *partial* fact check

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1306078114942980097?s=20

He was fact checked in real time by the host and those asking questions too, and seemed transparently nonsensical. As someone online commented, Joe Biden won the debate and he didn't even turn up.

briany

If Joe Biden had said, "Herd mentality" instead of "Herd immunity", Trump supporters would be going, "Oh, I've heard enough. Please, for that man's own good, send him to an assisted living facility this minute!". But when Trump says it, crickets. I wonder why that is? Hey, if you're going to make an armchair diagnosis about Biden having dementia, you could at least try to seem even-handed about it and make the same diagnosis for your own man. Every time Trump is put in a halfway impartial interview setting, he's rambling and barely coherent in his train of thought, and has worryingly weak answers for many of the questions put to him.

Muahahaha

Saw a clip of that town hall and Trump looked flustered, a black man asked him when was America ever great for black people and he wasnt able to answer.

briany

Muahahaha wrote: »

Saw a clip of that town hall and Trump looked flustered, a black man asked him when was America ever great for black people and he wasnt able to answer.

He gave a sort of answer, but it was laughably short of specifics. I hope this is a fair summation to say that he said that African American prosperity was at an all-time high under his own administration and this has only changed because of, to use Trump's own words, the Chinavirus.

Water John

Here is a 14 day poll tracker from the Guardian on 8 key swing states. to be looked at taking the caveats in the script into account;
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2020/sep/16/election-polls-latest-trump-biden-us-presidential-vote-2020-who-is-winning-tracker
This is interactive so, if you put the cursor on any dot within a graph it gives you that exact poll data.

Biden possibly taking 4 and the other 4 are toss ups.

Quin_Dub

Water John wrote: »

Here is a 14 day poll tracker from the Guardian on 8 key swing states. to be looked at taking the caveats in the script into account;
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2020/sep/16/election-polls-latest-trump-biden-us-presidential-vote-2020-who-is-winning-tracker
This is interactive so, if you put the cursor on any dot within a graph it gives you that exact poll data.

Biden possibly taking 4 and the other 4 are toss ups.

If you look at the current state of play and assume that Biden will secure all of the same Sates that Clinton did , giving him 232 and then just take those 4 States were he currently has leads beyond the MoE - Pennsylvania , Michigan , Wisconsin and Arizona - that takes him beyond 270 to 289 Electoral college votes.

North Carolina or Florida would just be gravy after that.

Water John

Agree, it's positive for him but push on hard to the line.
Trump is banking on Florida to go to him, fairly or unfairly with DeSantis in his pocket.