Posts Made By: James Lacey

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi James:

But the betting markets have Trump up +8.  I am having trouble getting my head around that!  I think that last election showed that Trump is very hard to poll accurately.  As you noted too, it is so early as to be meaningless.  I recall that Hillary was up tons in the battlegrounds in the spring of '16, although we had not realized which states would be the battlegrounds at that point.  

The Texas polling you mentioned seems to be a recurring thing too.  "Texas is turning blue" articles and so on, but come election day... 

I'm not disputing your analysis of course.  You obviously can read a poll as well as anyone.  I think we agree that election predictions are just tavern banter between forum participants at this point in time.

One thing is certain, (I believe).  Trump and Biden's performances between now and election day will matter with those persuadable voters in the swing states.  That alone should be enough to terrify partisans of either variety!

Jim

Hi Jim,

The betting markets are not a representative sample of registered voters. I have always assumed that this must have something to do with their famous misfires. My take is pretty simple. Trump barely won in 2016. Despite what he or his supporters want to believe, he won by 70,000 votes in three rust-belt states. His electoral win ranks 46th out of 58. His election was a statistical anomaly, and betting on losing the popular vote again and winning the electoral college is not a winning strategy. Trump faces all the same opposition he had in 2016 and then some. He's deeply unpopular even in his party, and significant factions of his party are working hard to see him defeated. Trump has done little to persuade swing voters to his side. If anything, he has driven away more minority and women voters, and he certainly has not made any inroads with traditional democrats or progressives. To top it all of, he has lost the only bulwark he had, the economy.

Additionally, the pandemic crisis has laid bare his inability to lead and unite. You can't gaslight a virus or sharpie it out of existence. This crisis is not going to end on Trump's timeline. In November, we are going to be closing in on 160,00 deaths or more. We are already nearly twice what some on this forum thought they would ever see. I'll eat crow when the time comes if necessary, but Trump is going to lose and lose historically.

Originally Posted by James Brown

I agree with 99% of this, but I am not so sure about Trump losing.  I think you are underestimating two things.  (1)  Biden's ability to implode, and (2) The economy.  I recognize that this is cold-blooded, but 160,000 dead is not that bad, given what most folks believe might have happened.  If the re-opening of the country proceeds as I hope it does, and if the economy responds, Trump will get some credit from those who are persuadable.

I think the race is a 60/40 near-tossup as of now, favoring Biden.  Lot of time between now and November for sure. Jim

Indeed a lot hinges on what the economy does.

Another thing that this pandemic crisis has revealed is how dependent our economy is on two things 1) the service and hospitality industries, and 2) the ability of the working class and middle class to be able to go out and spend money. Trickle-down economics is not going to save us, and neither is billionaires creating jobs or wealth. Until the majority of people are comfortable returning to air travel, dining out, vacationing, and until schools, sporting arenas, and dance halls and bars reopen, the economy is going to remain stalled.

The national economy will not recover without a nation-wide test, trace, and isolate program, and right now, it's abundantly clear there is no plan for this at the federal level. Certain regions and states may be successful, but nationally it will be a patchwork quilt menagerie of success and failure.

No vaccine on the horizon is going to save us either. Even under the best of circumstances, we might see a vaccine in 1.5 to 2 years. And when it does become available, it will be even longer before it's rolled out to the masses. And let's hope that the US is the one to develop it, because right now I don't think other nations are going to be feeling particularly charitable towards the US. The New York Times has a good and realistic article on the prospects of a vaccine. It's not a rosy picture.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/30/opinion/coronavirus-covid-vaccine.html

Sorry for my lack of positive outlook Jim. Maybe I am just destined to be the foil to your optimism.

Originally Posted by Fred Lusk

James....

You are repeating the same logical fallacy.  Biden isn't ready for prime time against ANYBODY.  Let me repeat, the video was NOT about Trump.  Your attempt to shift the focus of the video to something it didn't cover is pathetic.

Fred

Fred,

I love logical fallacies as much as the next guy, but this is US politics, not a debate club.

You cannot simply ignore the fact that Biden is the head-to-head opponent of Trump in the upcoming election. Anything that questions his ability to lead is ipso facto also about Trump's readiness as well, whether you like it or not. If Biden was simply a candidate for the Democratic nomination, you might have a point, but that is not the case here.

Originally Posted by James Brown

RCP has some interesting poll analysis that is relevant here.  Most folks approve of what their state and governor are doing, and disapprove of the federal response to the pandemic.  It is horribly skewed by party.  Still, maybe lots of us are federalists at heart?

Jim


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/real_clear_opinion_research/viewing_the_election_through_a_pandemic_prism.html


p.s.  This polling data supports a lot of what James has been posting.

Disapproval of the federal response will most likely get worse. Rick Bright's whistle-blower case is saying the Trump administration steered contracts to cronies as political favors. Is anyone surprised by this? The New York Times is also reporting that Jared Kushner's "medical supplies task force" was staffed by inexperienced 20-somethings who had no experience in disaster relief. A whistle-blower has come forth and described the "medical supplies task force" as "bureaucratic cycles of chaos." The inexperienced staff under direction prioritized tips from political allies and associates of President Trump, and they tracked them on a spreadsheet titled, I kid you not, "VIP Update." Among the VIP were members of the Republican Congress, the Trump youth activist Charlie Kirk, and a former Apprentice contestant who serves as the campaign chair of Women for Trump. In one case, they pushed a VIP ventilator supplier to New York State who sent the suppler $69Mn, and New York has yet to see any ventilators or their money back. The supplier was a scam artist. They weren't doing logistics. They were handing out political favors.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Mel, you'll be happy to know the coronavirus task force is winding down in the mission accomplished mode...

Rod,

Stop complaining. After all, Trump sprained his thumb tweeting, and Jared has run out of political cronies and bogus medical suppliers to offer to states. There's just not much left for them to do at this point.

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

China had more PPE because they stalled and lied resulting in the deaths of many. They used the time to corner the market on PPE!

Per usual, the truth is more complicated. According to Rick Bright's whistle-blower complaint, he urged the government to stop exporting high-quality N95 masks in early February, which was, of course, ignored. I remember stories back in March to talking about how 3M and other companies were still sending masks overseas. I realize there is an enormous push right now in the right-wing media to blame China and insulate Trump, but while China does deserve some blame, so does the Trump administration.

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Coming from someone with the worst case of TDS I have ever seen (Lacey) along with the fact that he posts all this outlandish stuff and never provides any corroborating links, yep its all good but I dont own a MAGA anything....lol

Hi Greg,

You are perfectly capable of looking up the New York Times report for yourself if you care. It's not like it's a secret. Many other news outlets are also starting to share the same reporting. Don't worry, though; the pale princeling is getting yet another opportunity to fail up! Reporting is he's now in charge of developing a vaccine by the end of the year. And what experience does Jared have in this regard? Why none, of course.

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Coming from someone with the worst case of TDS I have ever seen (Lacey) along with the fact that he posts all this outlandish stuff and never provides any corroborating links, yep its all good but I dont own a MAGA anything....lol

Greg, I'm actually going to participate in a MAGA event this coming Friday; Make America Groomed Again. Barbershops and Salons will be opening in Texas. Don't worry about my health though, my stylist runs her own private shop and we will both be wearing masks and she's disinfecting after every client!

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

OMG! I knew it was bad but holy crap, this is probably as bad as it gets. Of course, for the average Trump voter with a MAGA hat, it's all good...

Imagine that Clinton had won in 2016, and she had put Chelsea in charge of such efforts. The conservative world would be losing its shit, right? But not with Jared, he seems to have some bubble that's impenetrable despite his apparent lack of successes and qualifications. Here is the irony, though. Chelsea is far more qualified than Jared, or Ivanka, or any of the other Trump nepotism squad. Chelsea has a Masters of Public Health from Columbia University.

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

So everybody is stuck with these two guys, no matter what. If Biden does clearly show himself worse than Trump mentally, that doesn't change anything for the Dems?

So, I distinctly remember people making the argument that Trump was not fit for office in 2016. I think it's fair to say that argument has held. Even prominent leaders inside the Republican party like Cruz, Romney, and many others were making this argument. The GOP establishment tried fervently to deny Trump the nomination. Yet once he won it, they all snapped to and have since lock-stepped into unwavering political support except for off-shoots like "The Lincoln Project" and "Republicans for the Rule of Law."

An argument often heard from Trump supporters then and now is, "What choice did I have? You don't expect me to vote for Clinton, do you?" Well, if that argument applied in the choice between Trump and Clinton, it certainly applies now. Like I've said in the past, I'm no Biden fan-boy, but voting for Trump is not an option. Besides, it's not like I, a simple electorate participant, have the power to overturn the outcome of the Democratic nomination process.  I'm honestly not sure what you expect Democratic voters to do at this point, other than do what Republican voters did in 2016.