Who does Urban think (not hope) will win the November US Presidential Election? (The Poll)

[Humberto]

Just asking, but do they ever make much difference? They're usually a couple of prepared statements over here in the UK aren't they, rather than the heavyweight slug-fest they are billed as.

 

[ska invita]

Just asking, but do they ever make much difference? They're usually a couple of prepared statements over here in the UK aren't they, rather than the heavyweight slug-fest they are billed as.

i dont know about historical examples, but there is still a campaign to be had here, and Biden, from what tiny bit I've seen/heard of him seems more than capable of fucking it up.

 

[Humberto]

Yes that could make the difference for either of them.

 

[Humberto]

Trump capable of it too I meant.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I think some of the Bernie supporters just won't vote.

I'm a Bernie supporter and I'll vote, but a lot of his supporters do feel pretty messed over. Its obvious that a backroom deal was made when it appeared the Sanders might actually win the nomination this time. Obama and Clinton must have made a lot of phone calls that night. So I'll vote with the dems this time because another four years of Trump is unthinkable, but after that I'm going to put my energy elsewhere.

 

[Ax^]

I wonder how many Bernie bros quietly voted for Trump?

how many do you think have bested your record for rubbin one on to his speeches

 

[ska invita]

Yes that could make the difference for either of them.

Not for Trump - what could he possibly do that he hasn't yet done?

 

[PTK]

Pennsylvania?

Didn’t that state loose around 50k + jobs under Obama and Biden.

Trump brought those jobs back in steel, oil and gas etc industries. If Biden wins and implements the green new deal - all those jobs are gone.

When unemployment is rising, then conservatives such as yourself argue that governments cannot create jobs. You cannot give the government credit for creating jobs if you are a conservative.

 

[Humberto]

Not for Trump - what could he possibly do that he hasn't yet done?

Release his tax records?

 

[PTK]

I wonder how many Bernie bros quietly voted for Trump?

None. They are not unprincipled cynics. That you think that they are says more about you than them.

 

[ska invita]

Release his tax records?

thats not going to happen before november
also it wouldnt make a difference to the trump vote

 

[Humberto]

He's a dodgy dealer, a bad day could do for him in the same way as (if we accept the premise) Joe Biden is senile and doesn't know what day it is.

 

[Humberto]

Which I don't.

 

[Streathamite]

....also watch Biden Crash And Burn in the TV debates. His poll lead is there to lose

Sure. But everyone thought he would do that in the primary debates. He didn't.
Then they thouht he'd do it in interviews and pressers. he didn't.
Then they thought he'd dp it in his converntion speech. he aced that.
The point is, when you've been doing this for as long as he has, practice is on your side.

 

[Streathamite]

Joe Biden is senile and doesn't know what day it is.

He isn't, though. His lifelong stammer gives him speaking problems, but he isn't senile. Even in this oddest of years for primary eaces, no senil eperson would survive a primary contest intact, let alone win in a field that big and competitive.

 

[ska invita]

Sure. But everyone thought he would do that in the primary debates. He didn't.
Then they thouht he'd do it in interviews and pressers. he didn't.
Then they thought he'd dp it in his converntion speech. he aced that.
The point is, when you've been doing this for as long as he has, practice is on your side.

fair enough, i havent paid it any attention
i think thats what it hinges on though...if he doesnt fuck up too big between and november he should make it over the finish line.

 

[Streathamite]

Which I don't.

fair enough - I rush-posted and missed that! Apologies

 

[Streathamite]

fair enough, i havent paid it any attention
i think thats what it hinges on though...if he doesnt fuck up too big between and november he should make it over the finish line.

yep, agree with that.

 

[killer b]

I rush-posted

this seems unlikely.

 

[Marty1]

Hillary Clinton’s gives her tuppenth of how she thinks the election will go.



The speculation of a drawn out result seems to be propagating.

 

[Streathamite]

Just asking, but do they ever make much difference? They're usually a couple of prepared statements over here in the UK aren't they, rather than the heavyweight slug-fest they are billed as.

The ghosts of Richard Nixon and JFK would tell you they did. Before the first TV debate in thye 1960 contest, Nixon qwas leading and - as incumbent VP - the strong favourite to win. The incredibly telegenic Kennedy came acoss brilliantly, Nixon looked and sounded awful. Kennedy squeaked home.

Equally, Al Gore started the 2000 election-proper race as a widely-admired incumbent VP, and favourite to win, agaisnt a man widely soon as a thick, ignorant buffoon who would be nothing without his family name. In the debates, Gore came across as badly as is humanly possible - he came across as an arrogant, patronising, smug jerk with zero empathy or emotional IQ. Bush came across as a friendly, regular guy. That - plus some spectacularly venal electoral chicanery in Florida - won Bush the Presidency.

In a tight race, the debates matter, because such a race is decided by independent and undecided voters, and it is one of the few occasions they can sit down in the comfort of their own homes, and study how the candidates perform, and address issues, under pressure, over a long stint.

 

[Streathamite]

this seems unlikely.

Unfortunately, it was. I do a fair bit of it, hence the typoes which litter my posts.

 

[killer b]

I was joking tbh. Every second post of yours is some lengthy screed hammered out in reply to a post you've obviously not read properly. You'd save yourself a lot of effort if you just slowed down a bit.

 

[Humberto]

The ghosts of Richard Nixon and JFK would tell you they did. Before the first TV debate in thye 1960 contest, Nixon qwas leading and - as incumbent VP - the strong favourite to win. The incredibly telegenic Kennedy came acoss brilliantly, Nixon looked and sounded awful. Kennedy squeaked home.

Equally, Al Gore started the 2000 election-proper race as a widely-admired incumbent VP, and favourite to win, agaisnt a man widely soon as a thick, ignorant buffoon who would be nothing without his family name. In the debates, Gore came across as badly as is humanly possible - he came across as an arrogant, patronising, smug jerk with zero empathy or emotional IQ. Bush came across as a friendly, regular guy. That - plus some spectacularly venal electoral chicanery in Florida - won Bush the Presidency.

In a tight race, the debates matter, because such a race is decided by independent and undecided voters, and it is one of the few occasions they can sit down in the comfort of their own homes, and study how the candidates perform, and address issues, under pressure, over a long stint.

The truth will become clear, they are more on eachother's side than ours and the televised 'debate' will be the dead rubber it nearly always is. At least that's how they do it over here.

 

[Streathamite]

Given that...

a) the norm is for incumbent US presidents to win

Sure, but not that much of a norm. In fact, only seven presidents who'd already served most of a full four years (in other words, I exclude those who cama in i/2 way through or less)got re-elected - and five didn't

b) the electoral college system favours the GOP (e.g. in 2016 where Clinton convincingly won the popular vote)

again, some drill down is needed. HRC just lost the EC. In fact, if she'd won Michigan and Pennsylvania, she would have won. in fact, she lost both by just 75,000 votes combined. in short, if just 38,000 voters had gone the other way, she'd have won. And this= despite the fact that - by near-universal consensu - her strategy and campaign for those oh-so-crucial; rustbelt votes was as poor as poor ever gets.
If it does favour dems, it dcoes so only marginally, and in ways that can be countered.

 

[Streathamite]

I was joking tbh. Every second post of yours is some lengthy screed hammered out in reply to a post you've obviously not read properly. You'd save yourself a lot of effort if you just slowed down a bit.

fair enough!

 

[scifisam]

Sure, but much less so than last time, simply because a) Biden was seen to win the nomination fair and square i.e. b) no complete, blatant stittch up from DNC HQ (or none that wikileaks has managed to expose, yet) and b) Bernie's absolutely storming round everywhere for Biden/Harris. in fact, he's fast becoming their biggest campaigning asset

That is a factor that could definitely make a difference. I'm just concerned about the way some people - relatives of friends, mainly -are reacting to BLM, and how that could affect their vote.

The ghosts of Richard Nixon and JFK would tell you they did. Before the first TV debate in thye 1960 contest, Nixon qwas leading and - as incumbent VP - the strong favourite to win. The incredibly telegenic Kennedy came acoss brilliantly, Nixon looked and sounded awful. Kennedy squeaked home.

Equally, Al Gore started the 2000 election-proper race as a widely-admired incumbent VP, and favourite to win, agaisnt a man widely soon as a thick, ignorant buffoon who would be nothing without his family name. In the debates, Gore came across as badly as is humanly possible - he came across as an arrogant, patronising, smug jerk with zero empathy or emotional IQ. Bush came across as a friendly, regular guy. That - plus some spectacularly venal electoral chicanery in Florida - won Bush the Presidency.

In a tight race, the debates matter, because such a race is decided by independent and undecided voters, and it is one of the few occasions they can sit down in the comfort of their own homes, and study how the candidates perform, and address issues, under pressure, over a long stint.

In the debates with Clinton, she came across relatively well. Trump rambled like he wasn't all there, then wandered around right behind her as she spoke, like some sort of very close-up stalker. I think most people were of the opinion that she won that debate, but Trump won the election.

Everyone knows that Biden is more articulate than Trump - even people who think Biden's senile (for which the evidence seems to be "he's really old") would admit he's more articulate than Trump. Demonstrating that in a debate wouldn't persuade anyone, and it could be made to look like a clever man bullying "the man of the people."

 

[Streathamite]

The truth will become clear, they are more on eachother's side than ours and the televised 'debate' will be the dead rubber it nearly always is. At least that's how they do it over here.

hmn....absolutely take your point over here. Not sure about there though.
Twice I've been in the states during those debates, watching them in bars. Plenty of people were watching intently and thoughtfully, and discussing them at length

 

[Humberto]

So let me get this right: you're expecting a proper debate where either side could lose?

 

[Streathamite]

I think most people were of the opinion that she won that debate, but Trump won the election.

Agreed, but the election defeat was really close, and mainly down to her total - and inexplicable - failure to devise and implement a successful strategy for the rustbelt swing states, when it was so utterly bleedin' obvious that was where it would be won, and where Trump had been gunning for for 14 solid months.
I'm not saying debates are always or even usually nedcessarily an important factor, because I don't think they are. But if a candidate gets all the other elements (EC strategy, messaging, platform, ads, media management, online etc) right or right enough...then they can have an effect. Al gore probably still has nightmares about 2000.