Jump to content

chasfh

The 2020 Presidential Race

Recommended Posts


6 hours ago, ewsieg said:

I never tried to argue which side anyone should be on nor actually argue the pro's/con's of ACA.  My only point was that Trump and the GOP indicated they would preserve pre-existing conditions if they actually succeeded in knocking the entirety of ACA down.  It's not made up, it's a fact. 

If you want to argue that you don't think he would have actually done it, that's an entirely different story and one you won't get any argument from me on.

OK, yeah I mean it's fact they've said that.  I've definitely heard them say that.   I guess that's fact, but it's undermined by the fact that they're in court trying to dismantle the law that is giving people the protections.   They could argue that part of the law should be preserved, but they're not - they're arguing the law is not severable (even though SCOTUS already severed it).   So in that bigger picture, their mouths aren't in line with their behaviors. 

Personally, I've never trusted what the GOP says so why would I start now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Alternately, why should anyone give Trump the benefit of the doubt?  He is a pathological liar.

well other politicians have lied too, that means THEY ALL LIE and therefore we have no ability or obligation to try to make sense of any of it.... at least he'll go in there and shake things up and isn't beholden to anyone since he's a billionaire.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quinnipiac had Biden up by 11 in Maine 2 for comparison....

EDIT: Still an outlier, but if Biden really is outperforming HRC with older voters and WWC, this is the kinda district you'd see it in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I guess I don't understand the point of your argument / statement

My first response was to a reporter tweeting what Stephanopoulus saying something like 'You're trying to strike down pre-existing conditions'.  

My argument is that by itself is misleading.  Trump is trying to strike down ACA which does have pre-existing conditions included in it, but has stated if he succeeds in getting rid of ACA, he'll then follow up with a bill to take care of pre-existing conditions.  I initially stated that such a process of doing something that you know isn't perfect now with the idea of going back and fixing errors you see in it later is not new precedent (as seen by the original passage of ACA).

Guess I can relate it to defense bills.  Anytime i've seen Democrats push back on defense bills the Republican response is to point to something that all sides can agree on that have public support.  Republicans point out how injured military folks won't get the funds they need via the VA.  If the Dems hold out on the bill, that is exactly what will happen, but the Dems simply are trying to see if there is a better way to spend money overall and of course they are going to make sure the VA folks get theirs.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Oblong said:

I'm not getting my hopes up.  Not because I think this stuff is wrong but rather I am wrong about everything in terms of predictions.

I'm kind of with chas on this... I think it's going to be a mess.  

I hope we're both wrong, and not even kind of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CMRivdog said:

This a bit like me telling my wife I’ll clean out the flower beds when I get a chance

In other words it ain’t gonna happen

That's because based on my observation. Republican politics is mainly about what's gonna happen, and not just what Democrats are gonna do to destroy America and its people that will never happen, which makes up most of their message. They will also tell you all the great things Republicans are gonna do that will also never happen.

Democratic politics are mainly about what has already happened: the things they already did that made things better for people, and the things that Republicans already did that are just horrifying.

IOW, Republicans seek to scare voters into voting for them by telling us what Democrats are going to do, and Democrats seek to horrify voters into voting for them by reminding us what Republicans have already done.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump would like to take out the blue states to fully judge his COVID-19 response.   WTF!?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really ******* hate him. 

How dare he make it a red/blue numbers game.

******* hate him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, smr-nj said:

I really ******* hate him. 

How dare he make it a red/blue numbers game.

******* hate him.

maybe he is just auguring that TX and FL are going blue in Nov.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/presidential-polls-trump-biden#biden-continues-run-of-strong-state-polls

Quote

A split between state and national polls? If you look over the state polls so far this week, you see a run of strong results for Mr. Biden — some of his best of the cycle. But if you look at the national releases, you see stability, or even a bit of tightening.

It’s hard to know what to make of the split.

One possibility is that it’s just noise: The national polling is pretty sparse and often of fairly questionable quality. And some of the state polling for Mr. Biden — like the Quinnipiac poll — comes from firms with a record of showing him doing particularly well.

But it’s also possible that it reflects a real split, perhaps driven by demographics: Most of the great results for Mr. Biden in recent state polls have come in overwhelmingly white states, and there are plenty of national (and state) poll results suggesting that Mr. Biden is running ahead of Mrs. Clinton among white voters but faring worse among nonwhite voters. If so, it might lead to seemingly surprising results for Mr. Biden in overwhelmingly white states like Minnesota and Maine without corresponding national leads.

Of course, it’s not necessarily a bad trade for Mr. Biden. After all, Mrs. Clinton probably would have traded a few points nationwide for greater support in the Midwest.

Regarding our conversation last night on the divergence of national/state polling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, chasfh said:

Including two during which they had at least majority control of all three branches.

And came up with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ewsieg said:

No, with the stated goal of repealing ACA which republicans felt was bad legislation and in some cases were proven right, as well as wrong depending on what you're specifically looking at within ACA.

 

It costs the top 1% some money to help 25 million Americans have health insurance/ coverage so...

Their obvious conclusion was **** these 25 million Americans.

Pretty simple really...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/presidential-polls-trump-biden#biden-continues-run-of-strong-state-polls

Regarding our conversation last night on the divergence of national/state polling.

All of which nuance is going to be the spec on a gnat's asz compared to the massive uncertainty for turnout right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Motown Sports Blog



×
×
  • Create New...