Poll Watching

[RiverDog]

I cannot disagree with you more. You have always pooh pooh'd the damage Trump caused by triggering the worst in the worst elements of our society and by his making racism and hate and ignorance OK again. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

That part, ie the psychological effect, which is not to be discounted, I completely agree with you on and represents the bulk of my objections to that POS. But we'll get over it soon after he leaves office.

This pandemic in and of itself would have been next to nothing has Trump not fired the Pandemic response team (including monitors permanently stationed in China to identify such a problem and work to keep it from ever leaving China in spite of any mistakes made by the Chinese) and thrown out the pandemic response playbook. There would have been no months of denial and actively working against the scientific and medical communities. We would have been right there along with most of the rest of the world in keeping this thing in fair check. (Like Canada for instance) ...

Everything going on right now, from the pandemic running wild in our country to the BLM movement gaining so much steam in counter to his "get tough with them" (but not the white ones!) routine, is traceable directly to this joker, and you have been wrong about the effect he's had on this country every step of the way. Time to start taking this clown much more seriously. Just because the markets are weathering this storm doesn't mean the country is.

The pandemic would never have been "next to nothing" no matter what Trump did or didn't do. There's no way in hell any response team was going to prevent a new virus that at the time we knew next to nothing about and is as communicable as COVID from leaving the most populous country on the planet and entering the 3rd most populous country. That's an over exaggeration and you know it. One way or another, it was going to hit us and hit us hard, the only question being how hard.

As far as the post March 1st events, I agree, but you're missing my point. Most of our problems have occurred in the past 6 months and can be either directly or indirectly linked to the pandemic, and I hold Trump primarily responsible for its severity. I can't remember the specific percentages we attached to Trump and the R's (and that you agreed with) regarding the sharing of blame for the pandemic, but Trump is IMO the single most responsible individual for the depth of the crisis that we face today. I'm taking him dead seriously, which is why I've been so passionate about seeing him leave office. This will be the first Dem I've voted for POTUS in my life. That alone has to say something about how serious I take this clown to be.

My point is that our country was on relatively sound footing prior to March 1st. It's pretty hard to argue the opposite when we were experiencing peace and prosperity.

[I-5]

Most of our problems have occurred in the past 6 months

If you really believe that, I think you're living in a very comfortable bubble. He's been undermining the US in favor of Putin since Day 1, lowering our standing in the world in multiple ways, reneging on climate change (Paris Agreement) to nuclear proliferation (Iran Nuclear Agreement). He endangers our national security by having meetings with our enemies that are off the record, tried to appoint a National Security Advisor who admitted to lying about his contacts with Russia, tried to use his power to try to leverage political gain from a foreign country (Ukraine), and his policies resulted in permanent separation of families seeking legal asylum at our border. That's barely even the tip of the iceberg.

I would like to ask, what is your standard for what constitutes 'problems'? Is it only things that you can see on a ledger?

[RiverDog]

I would like to ask, what is your standard for what constitutes 'problems'? Is it only things that you can see on a ledger?

No, of course not.

Here's how I see as the major problems that our country faces today:

1. The virus. It's out of control and shows no signs of abating, and if it combines with the upcoming flu season, we could be in for a real blood bath. Getting a vaccine developed and deployed has to be our top priority.

2. Unemployment. Although it's come down in recent months, its still over twice the rate it was in March. We have to find a way to get people back to work without jeopardizing the safety of our citizens.

3. The economy (goes hand-in-hand with unemployment). It plunged by 32.9% last quarter, the biggest quarterly drop ever recorded. Many, many businesses have closed permanently due to the pandemic and many more could follow if we don't do something to get them back on their feet.

4. Social unrest. Most of our big cities are still reeling from riots and unrest that started with the Floyd murder. It's my opinion that the veracity and duration of the rioting is an indirect result of the shutdown that has put so many people out of work.

All 4 of those problems are either directly or indirectly a result of the pandemic. I'm not defending Trump in his dealings with the Russians, his stance on climate change, or his immigration policy, to the contrary. I disagree with him on all of those issues. Heck, I could even toss in a couple more that you didn't include, such as his being an a$$hole. But they're all secondary to the top 4 that I've listed above.

[Aseahawkfan]

If you really believe that, I think you're living in a very comfortable bubble. He's been undermining the US in favor of Putin since Day 1, lowering our standing in the world in multiple ways, reneging on climate change (Paris Agreement) to nuclear proliferation (Iran Nuclear Agreement). He endangers our national security by having meetings with our enemies that are off the record, tried to appoint a National Security Advisor who admitted to lying about his contacts with Russia, tried to use his power to try to leverage political gain from a foreign country (Ukraine), and his policies resulted in permanent separation of families seeking legal asylum at our border. That's barely even the tip of the iceberg.

I would like to ask, what is your standard for what constitutes 'problems'? Is it only things that you can see on a ledger?

This shows such a lack of awareness of the policies you just cited I don't even know where to begin. You are liberal sheep that doesn't understand the politics of America at all. You can't really debate with someone so hornswaggled by the articles you read. You basically listed everything you were spoonfed by the liberal press without at all investigating deeper to see what American policy really is in these areas.

The most egregious one being the Iran Deal, which did not at all prevent nuclear proliferation and enriched Iran to the point where they can build massive cash and technology to prepare for future nuclear operations after expiration in 20 years. Iran knew they played us for idiots on that Iran Nuclear deal. It was enormously one-sided and here you are making it seem like that deal was good without knowing anything about it.

Let's just say I'm glad you're in Canada. You have a terrible understanding of American and world politics. The fact that you think the above is anything new because Trump was elected shows a level of ignorance I can't even fathom.

[Aseahawkfan]

No, of course not.

Here's how I see as the major problems that our country faces today:

1. The virus. It's out of control and shows no signs of abating, and if it combines with the upcoming flu season, we could be in for a real blood bath. Getting a vaccine developed and deployed has to be our top priority.

2. Unemployment. Although it's come down in recent months, its still over twice the rate it was in March. We have to find a way to get people back to work without jeopardizing the safety of our citizens.

3. The economy (goes hand-in-hand with unemployment). It plunged by 32.9% last quarter, the biggest quarterly drop ever recorded. Many, many businesses have closed permanently due to the pandemic and many more could follow if we don't do something to get them back on their feet.

4. Social unrest. Most of our big cities are still reeling from riots and unrest that started with the Floyd murder. It's my opinion that the veracity and duration of the rioting is an indirect result of the shutdown that has put so many people out of work.

All 4 of those problems are either directly or indirectly a result of the pandemic. I'm not defending Trump in his dealings with the Russians, his stance on climate change, or his immigration policy, to the contrary. I disagree with him on all of those issues. Heck, I could even toss in a couple more that you didn't include, such as his being an a$$hole. But they're all secondary to the top 4 that I've listed above.

Man, you must be super bored.

I5 listed political issues that show he barely started following politics since Trump became president. Some of the issues he listed pre-dated Trump like the terrible Iran deal which was deemed a total failure at the time it was made and the family separation issue was pre-Trump and occurred during Obama but wasn't publicized due to the liberal press protecting Obama. It's damn unbelievable how ignorant people are as to how America operates.

Once we have a president that I5 approves of, he'll go back to ignoring American and world politics and think all the same policies he criticized Trump over no longer exist or aren't an innate part of the law. Russia took part of Ukraine during a different administration and they did nothing about it that stopped Russia at all. Why do you think that is I5? Why do you think Russia even needs Trump to influence American politics? That was nothing but a dog an pony show that Trump is a Russian puppet.

You still haven't acknowledged that you are even aware of who Russia does most of its trade with. Liberal supporters like I5 and C-bob haven't even made themselves aware of where Russia gets their money or who does business with them. They just read some article about Trump and bought it hook, line, and sinker without ever going does it work this way? They never ask things like if we're sanctioning Russia over Ukraine, why are huge oil companies like BP and Exxon Mobile still doing huge business in Russia? What were those presidents doing while this was happening? Why are Russian billionaires and politicians involved with other political campaigns? Hmm. I wonder.

We are absolutely screwed as a nation because most Americans are like what we see on these boards. Led around the nose by the media thinking that once Dumb as Dirt is gone that any of these policies will change, when all that will change is the press won't report that these policies are still in effect and nothing substantial has changed and we won't get tweets any more from Dumb as Dirt.

That's the biggest change with Trump being gone. Peace and quiet and less obvious idiot talk from the government. Americans will go back to sleep and let what they called corruption continue as long as it's not Trump doing it. I5 don't care when it's the Clintons or Obamas making bad policy like one-sided Iran nuclear deals or separating families per immigration laws, as long as it's not Trump it's ok then. If the Democrats are overlooking corrupt moves by China or Russia, then it's ok. But if Trump is doing it, it's deep and profound corruption.

You can't do much when the people of a nation are more interested in voting based on media driven perception than a real understanding of decades long American policy and laws they are only made aware of when it is an angle for political attack.

[I-5]

If there was an award for condescension, asf would (wittingly or unwittingly, I’m not sure which is the case) easily win it. I don’t bother reading anything that begins with an insult, so I won’t. You wasted all that typing, dude.

[RiverDog]

Man, you must be super bored.

That's pretty apparent. I'm retired and in self quarantine.

I5 listed political issues that show he barely started following politics since Trump became president. Some of the issues he listed pre-dated Trump like the terrible Iran deal which was deemed a total failure at the time it was made and the family separation issue was pre-Trump and occurred during Obama but wasn't publicized due to the liberal press protecting Obama. It's damn unbelievable how ignorant people are as to how America operates.

I can't speak a lot to the Iran deal as I don't know all the details about it except that I agree that it was one sided. But I will speak to the family separation policy as I am more familiar with it as it's an issue that I've taken a special interest in due to my numerous relationships with immigrants.

Prior to Trump, separating families at the border was done only if there was a suspicion that human trafficking was occurring and there was a question about the guardianship of minors or in instances where unaccompanied minors attempted to illegally enter the country. In those instances where guardianship was in question, they were resolved and reunification occurred almost immediately. These instances were very rare and as a result, could be easily kept track of.

What sets Trump's approach apart from previous Administrations is that he adapted a zero tolerance policy, vowed to prosecute 100% of detainees even though there weren't anywhere near enough facilities to meet that objective, separated families by the thousands of which many had no criminal record and weren't even suspected of a crime other than attempting to enter the country illegally, separated families and scattered them in various detention camps hundreds of miles apart, then lost track of where they were and were unable to reunite them in a timely manner.

You're repeating a gross distortion promoted by the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh who claimed that Trump was simply carrying out a policy established by previous administrations as a means to deflect criticism. It likely would still be going on today if not for a federal judge intervening to stop it as Trump lacks the sensitivity that any normal human being possess that would allow one to understand that although legally permissible, what they were doing was morally wrong. As I recall, even the First Lady was appalled by the actions taking place and encouraged Trump to abandon it.

And before you accuse me of being led around by the nose by the liberal press, here's a report from the inspector general's office of HHS that details the lack of coordination between federal agencies, specifically the Border Patrol, who separated the families, and HHS, the agency tasked with caring for them, and the mass chaos that resulted in Trump's poorly managed and hastily implemented zero tolerance policy:

https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-BL-18-00510.pdf

[RiverDog]

So...I'm going out on a limb. I'm predicting that Joe Biden will beat Donald Trump by 376 to 162 votes in the electoral college and by 7% in the popular vote. Of the states Trump won in 2016, Biden will win WI, MI, PA, FL, TX, AZ, and OH. Trump will not win any states he lost in 2016. Of course, this does not take into account faithless electors.

Let's bookmark the page.

I've been looking at the most recent RCP polls. I use RCP because they combine all major polls to determine an average, which at least in theory, increases their accuracy as they represent a larger sample size. What I am seeing makes me very uneasy.

Over the past 6 weeks, Biden's lead nation wide has slipped from an 8.6% margin to 6.2% today and his "battleground" average (PA, WI, MI, AZ, NC, and FL) has been cut in half, from 5.3% to 2.7%. On August 31st in 2016, Hillary led by a wider margin in the battleground states than Biden does today, registering a 3.3% lead over Trump.

The national average isn't nearly as important as the state wide battleground averages. As we are all aware, the election isn't decided on the popular vote but rather in the electoral college, and 2.7% is within the margin of error of most polls. Plus state polls aren't as reliable as nation wide polling. They're more difficult to run and there are fewer of them and further between. Hillary won the popular vote by 2.1% yet lost the electoral college by a couple of big states (PA and MI).

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... 0-vs-2016/

The good news for Biden is that his overall average support hasn't moved much. It's still about 48% in the battleground average, closer to 50% in the nation wide polls. That means that Trump is gaining via undecided voters and has yet to flip those that remain committed to voting for Biden. It's tougher to change a voter's mind than it is to win over an undecided voter. But the trend is clear: The election is tightening up.

Labor Day is the widely acknowledge final lap of the election. Obviously things can change but it's no longer going to be good enough for Biden to just play defense and allow himself to be defined by the opposition. Trump is obviously making some major inroads, more than likely due to the ongoing civil unrest that he's blaming on the Democrats even though Biden has come out in some pretty strong language and condemned all violent demonstrations.

We have 3 debates in the coming weeks. Let's hope that Biden doesn't shoot himself in the foot.

[RiverDog]

We're at 39 days before the election and voting has already started in some states, so I thought it might be interesting to re-visit this thread.

Biden still has what appears to be a comfortable margin, ahead in all of the national polls from anywhere between 4% and 10% with one exception: Rassmussen has Biden with just a 1% lead, but as Idahawkman would be quick to point out, even though all the polls got the 2016 nation wide popular vote projection right to within their margin of error, Rassmussen came the closest. Biden is still polling close to 50%, Trump in the low 40's. A cumulative average of the battleground states gives Biden a 6-7% advantage.

When looking at the current electoral map, with 270 votes needed to win, there are 222 votes that are either solid/likely/or leaning Biden and just 125 votes that are solid/likely/leaning Trump. That leaves 191 votes that are rated as toss ups. Comparing the current map to the 2016 results, there are only two states, Nevada and New Hampshire, both with 6 votes, rated as toss ups that fell to Clinton in 2016. The rest of those toss up states Trump won in 2016.

In 2016, several of the state polls in critical swing states, in particular PA and WI, were off by well outside their margins of error. Post election analysis suggested that the most likely cause was that the polls under represented a significant Trump constituency, white males over 50 w/o a college degree. Most of the polls have corrected this error. There's other factors that polls can't predict, like the undecided voters that makes up their minds in the booth or the 'shy' voters that answer a question one way then votes another. Polling is far from being an exact science.

Here's a link to an interactive electoral map that I like to play with as it gives one a good idea of how the election might break.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... e_map.html

Bottom line is that this election is Biden's to lose. We still have 3 televised debates and a SCOTUS nomination in the weeks ahead so things could obviously change, but given that there are so few undecided voters in this election vs. 2016, my guess is that barring a real bombshell, things remain static. Unlike 2016, most everyone knows the two candidates. I'm still sticking by my prediction of a solid Biden win, but I'm backing off on the margin to around 100-125 electoral votes.

[Aseahawkfan]

I will wait for the polls after the debates and closer to the election. If calling the election this early were possible, it would be done more often.

[RiverDog]

I will wait for the polls after the debates and closer to the election. If calling the election this early were possible, it would be done more often.

I'm not 'calling' the election, I'm predicting it. "Calling" it means that you have declared a winner. And there are plenty of predictions out there. As a matter of fact, I-5 mentioned one of them a few months ago, Allan Lichtman, that rather than using polling data, uses an analytical model he claims has correctly predicted the outcome of every Presidential election for the past 40 years. He's picking Biden.

Besides, my post is just to get an idea of how the race is going and to generate a discussion.

[Hawktawk]

The first debate is huge. Its really the only chance for Trump minus some sort of actual election hack in battleground states.I wouldnt rule it out. Russia is flooding social media with doctored tapes making Biden sound like he's mentally shot and clearly wants to reelect their useful idiot.

FBI director Chris Wray flat out said they are meddling again. Trump attacked him as did his patsy chief of staff Mark Meadows. Lost in all this covid riot etc stuff is that Russia is being more aggressive than at any time since the end of the cold war, probing iour airspace with nuclear armed bombers and conmducting war games in the arctic.China showed a film simulating an attack on Guam a few days ago, continues to menace and has now built the world's largest navy.

A bumbling erratic Commander in Chief could make all our masks, freedoms, politics etc a friggin ash. Generals are notoriously tight lipped and for multiple to say he's unfit is unprecedented in history. Jim Mattis slept in his clothes he was so afraid of what could happen with trump tweeting threats on NK. His assassination of Soleimani as a political distraction created a crisis that barely averted total war with the most powerful military in the region and got a US base bombed with ballistic missiles. Over 100 soldiers suffered TBIs which this WH covered up.

The president is not fit to lead our military. Its been clear from day one.Why doesn't this matter more to americans?

[Aseahawkfan]

The first debate is huge. Its really the only chance for Trump minus some sort of actual election hack in battleground states.I wouldnt rule it out. Russia is flooding social media with doctored tapes making Biden sound like he's mentally shot and clearly wants to reelect their useful idiot.

FBI director Chris Wray flat out said they are meddling again. Trump attacked him as did his patsy chief of staff Mark Meadows. Lost in all this covid riot etc stuff is that Russia is being more aggressive than at any time since the end of the cold war, probing iour airspace with nuclear armed bombers and conmducting war games in the arctic.China showed a film simulating an attack on Guam a few days ago, continues to menace and has now built the world's largest navy.

A bumbling erratic Commander in Chief could make all our masks, freedoms, politics etc a friggin ash. Generals are notoriously tight lipped and for multiple to say he's unfit is unprecedented in history. Jim Mattis slept in his clothes he was so afraid of what could happen with trump tweeting threats on NK. His assassination of Soleimani as a political distraction created a crisis that barely averted total war with the most powerful military in the region and got a US base bombed with ballistic missiles. Over 100 soldiers suffered TBIs which this WH covered up.

The president is not fit to lead our military. Its been clear from day one.Why doesn't this matter more to americans?

Because they're not some mindless person focused on hating one person in lieu of everything else in the nation like yourself. You have one issue and one issue alone that you have had since Trump won and nothing else has even bothered to enter your mind: you hate Trump and want him gone at all costs whether or not it is good for the nation. Same with c-bob or I5 or any of the large faction of Trump hating side. You view anyone that doesn't agree with you as as some Trump supporting traitor or what not. I wonder if you do this to the people around you treating them in this fashion or if the internet is just your means to vent all that pent up rage at your life and Trump I guess.

Get it through your head that some Trump supporters vote for Trump they feel they have no choice because the Democrats are enacting policies that take away their gun rights, attack their religious beliefs, attack their whiteness, attack the police, raise their taxes, harm their businesses, and support ideals, values, and the like they are against and will vote for almost anyone including Crazy Trump to resist the Democrats. Whether they're right or not is open for debate, but that is what they think. The fact you used to vote this way and don't understand that others still see the Democrats as worse enemies of the nation and as evil as you view Trump means you aren't bothering with rational thought.

It's why I don't view either of your polarizing views as rational, good for the nation, or a path to anywhere positive. You're just convincing each other the other side is more evil and voting who the most evil group is. Waste of time and votes with no real improvement to the nation. Just more fear-mongering by both sides to hand the government back and forth to two corrupt and terrible groups with no path to anywhere worth going.

You have no idea how much I despise both the Trump supporters and Trump haters, Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and progressives for all their lies, hypocrisy, and terrible leadership of this nation. The examples they are setting for this nation are terrible. They are making us look like some clown show soap opera of petty insults and corrupt legal maneuvering to manipulate power in this nation. Dishonest, corrupt, and without a doubt America has no Clothes right now and hasn't for a while. Trump is the culmination of all these years of stink that have built up in Washington D.C. that Americans like you are still too short-sighted to see. Trump was always part of the swamp. All he did was expose it more by going to Washington D.C. I wish Americans would wake up that we need term limits on Congress, more limitations on presidential power, and more honest discussion of history, not controlled by one group or the other. So much wrong and so much to fix.

[RiverDog]

The first debate is huge. Its really the only chance for Trump minus some sort of actual election hack in battleground states.

The first debate IS huge, especially now that Trump's made a SCOTUS nomination that's not likely to help him with undecided and wavering Biden voters. But Trump has more of a chance than a hack in the battleground states. RCP's current battleground average at 3.6%, or very close to the margin of error. Florida has tightened up to within a percent, and although they claim to have corrected their errors from 2016, state wide polls, where the election will be won or lost, are a lot tougher to get right than nation wide polling. A poor showing by Biden could tip the election to Trump, Russians or no Russians.

[RiverDog]

It looks like Biden got a healthy bump in the polls following the Tuesday debates. The latest NBC/Marist poll taken from Sept. 30th-Oct. 1st shows Biden with a whopping 14 point lead, 53%-39%. The RCP tracking poll, which averages all the major polls and since it takes into account polls that are weeks old, shows him 8% ahead, about a 1.5% gain from the beginning of the week.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp

We won't see what effect, if any, Trump's recent COVID positive test and subsequent hospitalization will have on the polls until later in the week, but it stands to reason that it's only going to hurt Trump.

The election is now 30 days away and heading into the home stretch.

[Aseahawkfan]

Trump looks done. Only thing I'm waiting to see is what bombs they try to drop before the election. I have little doubt both the Republicans and Democrats have strategic bombs to drop the last week or two of the election. I figure we'll start seeing bigger ones around the 20th and all the way up to election day.

[mykc14]

Trump looks done. Only thing I'm waiting to see is what bombs they try to drop before the election. I have little doubt both the Republicans and Democrats have strategic bombs to drop the last week or two of the election. I figure we'll start seeing bigger ones around the 20th and all the way up to election day.

Yeah, it is going to be very interesting to see how this plays out. As you've noted before he has looked done in the past as well, but this definitely feels different. I don't see a 'silent majority' coming out and saving him this time.

[RiverDog]

Trump looks done. Only thing I'm waiting to see is what bombs they try to drop before the election. I have little doubt both the Republicans and Democrats have strategic bombs to drop the last week or two of the election. I figure we'll start seeing bigger ones around the 20th and all the way up to election day.

Yeah, it is going to be very interesting to see how this plays out. As you've noted before he has looked done in the past as well, but this definitely feels different. I don't see a 'silent majority' coming out and saving him this time.

I don't, either. There were a lot of undecided voters in 2016, but that's not the case this time around. Pollsters made some big mistakes in some key battleground states in 2016 that skewed their results towards Hillary by underestimating the size of Trump's core constituency: White males over 50 and w/o a college degree. They claim to have corrected those errors, so I don't think they'll be off as badly as they were the last time around. And although the election isn't decided by the popular or nation wide vote, it is an indication of how the battleground states might perform. Biden's latest nation wide RCP average has him up by 9.2%, which is huge at this stage of the game. In the same average 28 days out in 2016, Hillary had a 5.4% lead that drifted down to a 2.1% popular vote win on election day. Plus due to the pandemic, there are more states voting by mail, which shortens this election process compared to previous years. There's not a lot of time left for Trump to turn things around, and given how static his job approval numbers have been throughout his presidency, it's going to take a bombshell to change voter's minds.

In PA, MI, and WI, the three closest states that Trump won in 2016, Biden has been consistently polling 5-7% ahead of Trump, and those are lagging averages that have yet to show the entire effect of the first debate and Trump's bout with the virus, events that do not break in Trump's favor. He can afford to lose one of either PA or MI, but not both. Plus there's a slew of states that Trump won handily in 2016 where he's either trailing, like AZ, where recent polling show Biden up by 8%, along with FL, OH, GA, NC, and several others that are rated as toss ups, with most leaning towards Biden. There aren't any states that Hillary won in 2016 where Biden isn't ahead by less than 5%. Trump's going to have to hope that all those toss ups break his way.

A lot of people lost confidence in polling after 2016, but the reality is that most of the embarrassment in that election was due to the incompetence of self appointed experts that were giving Hillary a 90%+ chance of winning. The polls themselves, although off in some key areas, were very close to actual in the nation wide result. I can't see them being that far off base in enough states to give Trump another upset win. But like a stat line in football, polls don't decide an election.

[NorthHawk]

I worry about abuse of the system from the Gov't under Trump and his cronies in the Republican held states.
I've heard a number of comments from constitutional scholars and legal experts who say the election can be
stolen by Republicans by means of (amongst others) declaring voting irregularities and having the R Governors
award the result for Trump. I don't know how it all works, but it has a lot to do with the limits of the
constitution and the laws that are in place. They make the case that Trump could lose big but win the Presidency
by such moves. So the real battle should be to flip the Senate and retain the House for the Democrats. This would
then cut Trump off from his excesses and his toadies in the Senate would be largely powerless.

People always say things like "They would never go that far" and such but history shows us that the Republican supporters
will do anything they need to in order to win including gerrymandering, voter suppression, squeezing the USPS, voter
intimidation, and more.

As free and fair elections are necessary in a liberal democracy, I worry those freedoms are being eroded and the public
don't realize how easily democracy can be lost. It's little things that over time have the most impact. Mussolini once
said something to the effect that the way to retaining power is to chip away slowly and when the public wakes up to it,
it's too late.

[RiverDog]

I worry about abuse of the system from the Gov't under Trump and his cronies in the Republican held states.

Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all have Democratic governors so I wouldn't get too worried about abuse of the system in those states.

As free and fair elections are necessary in a liberal democracy, I worry those freedoms are being eroded and the public
don't realize how easily democracy can be lost. It's little things that over time have the most impact. Mussolini once said something to the effect that the way to retaining power is to chip away slowly and when the public wakes up to it, it's too late.

And the public also doesn't realize that conspiracies of the size and scope that you're talking about requires the full and complete cooperation of thousands, all of whom have to keep their actions discrete and secret.

[c_hawkbob]

Another argument for 1 person 1 vote. A popular vote nationwide would mechanically disinclude a party's Governor from being able to award his states voted to the same party candidate on questionable grounds such as those the president has been seeding for months.

And the public also doesn't realize that conspiracies of the size and scope that you're talking about requires the cooperation of thousands, all of whom have to keep their actions discrete and secret.

Not at all, it would only take Trump and his R Governors.

[RiverDog]

And the public also doesn't realize that conspiracies of the size and scope that you're talking about requires the cooperation of thousands, all of whom have to keep their actions discrete and secret.

Not at all, it would only take Trump and his R Governors.

The R governors are, for the most part, in states that Trump won in 2016, so if he loses in states that have Democratic held governorships that he won in 2016, ie WI, MI and PA, he'd still lose the electoral college no matter what happens in states like FL and TX.

Here's a map of the governorships by party control:

https://www.270towin.com/2020-governor-election/

[c_hawkbob]

You seem to be assuming he carries all the same states he carried in 16. I'm saying a few of his R governors in states that he carried then but could lose this time could tip the balance of this election. No conspiracy required.

[I-5]

I have a stupid question, since I don't fully understand the history of the Electoral College, other than it was designed to preserve smaller states' role in electing a president. If we have 538 electors spread out, do the electors of each state have to submit their vote towards one presidential candidate only, even if their state for example showed a close race? Say, Florida or Michigan for example. If so, why can't electors of each state represent a more true breakdown of how their residents voted, instead of giving them all to one? I told you it would be a stupid question....

[RiverDog]

You seem to be assuming he carries all the same states he carried in 16. I'm saying a few of his R governors in states that he carried then but could lose this time could tip the balance of this election. No conspiracy required.

The assumption I am making, based on polling information, is that Biden wins all the states that Hillary won in 2016. The only one that's within spitting distance is NV at 5-6%, and they have just 6 electoral votes. Without exception, all of the other 2016 blue states show Biden with at least a 9% lead.

I'm not sure how a governor can, by himself, change the results of an election without the cooperation of many others, which would have to include non or bi partisan election commissions as they're the ones that collect, tabulate, and report the results. Besides, I reject your assumption that there's any governors, red state, Republican, or otherwise, that are inherently corrupt and would assume that great of a risk for someone like DJT.

[RiverDog]

I have a stupid question, since I don't fully understand the history of the Electoral College, other than it was designed to preserve smaller states' role in electing a president. If we have 538 electors spread out, do the electors of each state have to submit their vote towards one presidential candidate only, even if their state for example showed a close race? Say, Florida or Michigan for example. If so, why can't electors of each state represent a more true breakdown of how their residents voted, instead of giving them all to one? I told you it would be a stupid question....

There were several reasons that the founding fathers went with an electoral college vs. direct popular vote. You mentioned one of them, big states vs. small states. There was also a logistical problem of collecting and tabulating votes. Since the fastest transportation was by horseback, it would take many months to collect and tabulate ballots. Having electors meet at a certain time and place simplified matters. Additionally, there were some that argued that the common man was not smart enough to be given the responsibility of such a momentous decision as electing a leader. When I see surveys showing that 29% of adult Americans can't find the Pacific Ocean on a map, that argument has some validity in today's America.

States are not required to vote for one candidate. They are free to choose their electors however they please so long as they don't violate any provisions in the US Constitution, as was the case in Florida in 2000. Indeed, in 2016 in Maine, the 2nd Congressional district voted for Trump while their other 3 votes went to Hillary. Nebraska has a similar arrangement.

Then, of course, there are the faithless electors that pop up occasionally. Washington state had 4 of their 12 electors break ranks in 2016, three casting their votes for Colin Powell and one for Faith Spotted Eagle, an activist opposing the Dakota Access Pipeline.

If no candidate wins a majority of the electoral college, ie 270 votes, the election gets thrown into the House of Representatives, which with the Democrats in control and the near certainty of Biden winning the popular vote, would declare Biden the winner of the election.

[I-5]

Thanks Riv. Yes, now I do remember those rogue electors. If a tie gets thrown to the House of Representatives, then what's this talk of the courts' role, like back in 2000?

[RiverDog]

Thanks Riv. Yes, now I do remember those rogue electors. If a tie gets thrown to the House of Representatives, then what's this talk of the courts' role, like back in 2000?

SCOTUS's role in 2000 was regarding Florida's election law. They took 2 votes: The first one was to halt the recount. The election was approaching a drop dead date mandated by law and they were still counting and re-counting and still hadn't decided on which set of electors would be seated for the electoral college vote. That decision was 5-4 to stop the count. The second vote was the constitutionality of the Florida election law, which allowed Al Gore to cherry pick precincts known to be heavily Democratic to recount on the hope that there would be more under counted ballots in his favor. That part of the law was ruled to have violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment as it was treating some votes, and the voters that cast them, differently than others around the state. That ruling was 7-2 against Gore and essentially gave Bush the win.

The only controversy that I've heard about the courts intervening in the election is regarding mail in balloting.

[c_hawkbob]

Besides, I reject your assumption that there's any governors, red state, Republican, or otherwise, that are inherently corrupt and would assume that great of a risk for someone like DJT.

That's not an assumption and I never stated it as such. What it is is a possibility, which is what we were discussing was it not?

Never said I though it would happen, only that it could and the fact that it could is a further argument for 1 person 1 vote. A system under which it could not because the sates governors would be completely out of the equation.

[RiverDog]

Besides, I reject your assumption that there's any governors, red state, Republican, or otherwise, that are inherently corrupt and would assume that great of a risk for someone like DJT.

[/url]

That's not an assumption and I never stated it as such. What it is is a possibility, which is what we were discussing was it not?

Well, anything is possible, so I'll grant you your point.

Never said I though it would happen, only that it could and the fact that it could is a further argument for 1 person 1 vote. A system under which it could not because the sates governors would be completely out of the equation.

We already have one person one vote. Each registered person is allowed to vote once for an elector or group of electors to represent them, or at least that's how its supposed to work. What you are referring to is abolishing the electoral college and going strictly by nation wide popular vote, a proposal that I disagree with, although if I had my druthers, I would like to see a few changes made to it.

[RiverDog]

The full effect of the first debate and Trump's bout with COVID has been realized in the polls. In the RCP national average, Biden has pushed his advantage out to 9.8%. On September 28th, the day before the first debate, that margin was 6.1%. There are only 6% undecided, which means that Trump would have to flip a significant percentage of voters that have committed to Biden if he is to completely close the gap.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6247.html

As our friend Idahawkman would be quick to point out, the election is not decided by popular vote. In what RCP has calling the top battlegrounds average, in other words, the average between the states of FL, MI, WI, PA, WI, NC, and AZ, the margin isn't as wide nor has it widened as much as it has in the nation wide average. That average stands at 4.5% in favor of Sleepy Joe, having moved just 1% since 9/28.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elect ... nd-states/

However, when you consider that Trump won all but one of those states and can't afford to lose more than one large state or a couple of smaller states, those numbers look pretty grim if you're a Trump supporter. In addition, there are other states not mentioned in this particular poll that Trump won in 2016, such as Ohio where Biden is leading by .6% and Georgia that has Trump with just a .4% margin, that are competitive.

If we can accept these results as accurate...there were some major mistakes made in 2016 that underestimated Trump's voting base that pollsters claim they have corrected...Biden's lead is almost insurmountable.

Trump backed out of the 2nd POTUS debate, and for good reason: His style isn't compatible with a virtual format. But especially when you consider that voting is already well underway, he's losing opportunities to narrow the gap. There are the impending SCOTUS nomination hearings scheduled for this week, but that's not likely to help him much and would likely have more of an effect on the Senate races. The next scheduled Presidential debate isn't scheduled until Thursday, Oct. 22. Time is running out.

[Aseahawkfan]

The full effect of the first debate and Trump's bout with COVID has been realized in the polls. In the RCP national average, Biden has pushed his advantage out to 9.8%. On September 28th, the day before the first debate, that margin was 6.1%. There are only 6% undecided, which means that Trump would have to flip a significant percentage of voters that have committed to Biden if he is to completely close the gap.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6247.html

As our friend Idahawkman would be quick to point out, the election is not decided by popular vote. In what RCP has calling the top battlegrounds average, in other words, the average between the states of FL, MI, WI, PA, WI, NC, and AZ, the margin isn't as wide nor has it widened as much as it has in the nation wide average. That average stands at 4.5% in favor of Sleepy Joe, having moved just 1% since 9/28.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elect ... nd-states/

However, when you consider that Trump won all but one of those states and can't afford to lose more than one large state or a couple of smaller states, those numbers look pretty grim if you're a Trump supporter. In addition, there are other states not mentioned in this particular poll that Trump won in 2016, such as Ohio where Biden is leading by .6% and Georgia that has Trump with just a .4% margin, that are competitive.

If we can accept these results as accurate...there were some major mistakes made in 2016 that underestimated Trump's voting base that pollsters claim they have corrected...Biden's lead is almost insurmountable.

Trump backed out of the 2nd POTUS debate, and for good reason: His style isn't compatible with a virtual format. But especially when you consider that voting is already well underway, he's losing opportunities to narrow the gap. There are the impending SCOTUS nomination hearings scheduled for this week, but that's not likely to help him much and would likely have more of an effect on the Senate races. The next scheduled Presidential debate isn't scheduled until Thursday, Oct. 22. Time is running out.

The left is already seeding the waters against Amy Coney Barrett making her sound like some religious fanatical nut intent on destroying Roe vs. Wade.

Man, I hope these polls hold up. I can't take more years of this level of stupid. Not just from the president, but from everyone in general. Trump pushes this chaos. He's a loud mouth idiot who should not be running a nation. Every nation has some kind of sectarian divide. Good politicians smooth that divide out, bad ones encourage it.

Please let it end. I can only hope America isn't stupid enough to vote this idiot in a second time. Now Biden has to not mess up too badly before election day.

If Trump is elected four more years, America is going to be this super annoying nation as both sides fight against each other over incredibly stupid stuff without even knowing the laws. I can't believe the number of Trump supporters who think Trump can act in a unilateral fashion to quell protests, when he can't. You explain to them that Trump can't do what they think he can do, they just fall back on, "He's the president. I think he can do it." You are left shaking your head that they don't understand the limitations on the presidency. The moronic lack of awareness of the checks and balances inherent in our system is maddening.

How did we get this ignorant I'll never know.

[RiverDog]

The left is already seeding the waters against Amy Coney Barrett making her sound like some religious fanatical nut intent on destroying Roe vs. Wade.

The Dems are going to have to tread lightly around the religious issue. Kamala Harris has already come out and said that Barrett's religion shouldn't be scrutinized. Almost to a person, SCOTUS nominees have been able to duck the Roe v. Wade decision by saying that they won't comment about hypothetical cases that might come before the court. From what I've seen of Barrett, she holds herself well. I don't think she'll come off as some faith healing fruit cake.

In any event, I don't think that SCOTUS hearing will make hardly any difference one way or another in the presidential race, but it could affect the Senate. Lindsey Graham is on that committee, and he's in the fight of his political life. There's other R Sens on that committee that are in tight re-election races, like Joni Ernst and Thom Tillis. This could decide control of the Senate.

Man, I hope these polls hold up.

I do, too, and I think they will. I've been trying to ferret out my personal feelings and make sure that I'm not engaging in wishful thinking. I have some good reasons based on objective logic to believe that they'll hold up:

1. There are fewer undecideds in this race than in previous ones. Most people have made up their minds long ago. With Biden polling over 50%, Trump can't win by simply convincing an undecided to cast their vote for him, he has to flip Biden voters.

2. Trump's popularity has been flat during his entire term. He went in with a below 50% job approval rating and it's hovered in the low 40's for his entire term, another indication that there are very few undecideds. This means that it's going to take something major to change what people have thought about him for the last 4 years.

3. In 2016, pollsters made some critical errors in a couple key battleground states like PA and WI by underestimating Trump's primary constituency, over 50 white males w/o a college degree. More so than other demographic groups, they either don't have cell phones, won't answer them, or if they do answer them, are less likely to respond to questions posed by surveyors. This is what is known as a response bias. Although they can't get them to answer a survey, then can estimate how large this group is, determine how they might vote based on other surveys of that group, and factor it into their results.

4. This election cycle is shorter than others due to the pandemic and the move to vote by mail. That gives the person leading a race at this point in the cycle an advantage as people are making their decisions weeks earlier than they have in the past.

5. Trump just shot himself in the foot. By catching the virus, he forced the 2nd debate to be canceled, thus missing out on an opportunity to force Biden into a major gaffe and turn the heads of voters. By the time they meet for the last debate, on Oct. 22nd, many more voters will have already cast their ballots. For example, here in WA ballots start going out on the 16th.

[mykc14]

Man, I hope these polls hold up. I can't take more years of this level of stupid. Not just from the president, but from everyone in general. Trump pushes this chaos. He's a loud mouth idiot who should not be running a nation. Every nation has some kind of sectarian divide. Good politicians smooth that divide out, bad ones encourage it.

How did we get this ignorant I'll never know.

I hope this helps end the divide as well, but I'm not as optimistic as you that it will. No doubt Trump's had a huge hand in this divide but he isn't the only reason. He has accelerated us in a direction that we were already heading, IMO. Both the average Republican and Democrat are far more Right and Left than they were five years ago. We had been trending in that direction for awhile, but the jump over that period of time is extreme. The thing that worries me is that the average Democrat has moved more left than the average Republican has moved Right and this is a direct result of Trump. My only hope is that it is not permanent. Some of the things that the Dems have been pushing lend me to believe that they may be stuck there (Biden's Green New Deal, getting rid of the filibuster, late term abortion legislation, Biden and Harris both continually refusing to address whether or not they will try to pack the Supreme Court, etc). I don't like the 2-party system overall but one thing that it has done for us as a country is keeping us from becoming too extreme right or left.

As far as how we go this ignorant a really good documentary called 'The Social Dilemma' touches on this. No two of us are getting the same news on social media. We all get things on our news feed that reinforce our beliefs. Most people take what their facebook news feed gives them as gospel whether it is true or not. The social media algorithms want you to click on things and people tend to click on things that reinforce their beliefs. The algorithms don't know if the source is true or made up by some dude in Russia. The media in general has done the same thing for years. I can't remember the exact stat but in 'Bowling for Columbine' Michael Moore mentions a stat (I can't remember it exactly off the top of my head) but it's something like, "From 1992-2002 gun deaths in our country were down 47% but media time spent covering gun violence was up 200%." Again, those aren't the exact numbers or years, but that was the general idea. On top of that most of the perpetrators of this gun violence were black males. The media created the narrative of the black male 'thug' criminal in the 1990's and early 2000's and now they are calling everybody racists for pointing out that black males commit more violent crimes than other races. Anyways, I teach a civics class for HS seniors and I battle against this social media created bias all of the time. I always challenge my students to search and click on things that are opposite of what they believe for one month, just one. By the end of the month their Facebook wall and Instagram posts, etc are completely different. It is really a good social experiment.

[RiverDog]

I hope this helps end the divide as well, but I'm not as optimistic as you that it will. No doubt Trump's had a huge hand in this divide but he isn't the only reason. He has accelerated us in a direction that we were already heading, IMO. Both the average Republican and Democrat are far more Right and Left than they were five years ago. We had been trending in that direction for awhile, but the jump over that period of time is extreme. The thing that worries me is that the average Democrat has moved more left than the average Republican has moved Right and this is a direct result of Trump. My only hope is that it is not permanent. Some of the things that the Dems have been pushing lend me to believe that they may be stuck there (Biden's Green New Deal, getting rid of the filibuster, late term abortion legislation, Biden and Harris both continually refusing to address whether or not they will try to pack the Supreme Court, etc). I don't like the 2-party system overall but one thing that it has done for us as a country is keeping us from becoming too extreme right or left.

As far as how we go this ignorant a really good documentary called 'The Social Dilemma' touches on this. No two of us are getting the same news on social media. We all get things on our news feed that reinforce our beliefs. Most people take what their facebook news feed gives them as gospel whether it is true or not. The social media algorithms want you to click on things and people tend to click on things that reinforce their beliefs. The algorithms don't know if the source is true or made up by some dude in Russia. The media in general has done the same thing for years. I can't remember the exact stat but in 'Bowling for Columbine' Michael Moore mentions a stat (I can't remember it exactly off the top of my head) but it's something like, "From 1992-2002 gun deaths in our country were down 47% but media time spent covering gun violence was up 200%." Again, those aren't the exact numbers or years, but that was the general idea. On top of that most of the perpetrators of this gun violence were black males. The media created the narrative of the black male 'thug' criminal in the 1990's and early 2000's and now they are calling everybody racists for pointing out that black males commit more violent crimes than other races. Anyways, I teach a civics class for HS seniors and I battle against this social media created bias all of the time. I always challenge my students to search and click on things that are opposite of what they believe for one month, just one. By the end of the month their Facebook wall and Instagram posts, etc are completely different. It is really a good social experiment.

Great post, mykc!

You're right, the divide didn't start with a Trump presidency and won't end when he's thrown out. I don't think any of us are under that illusion as it's something that several of us have discussed for the past 4 years. But it won't get better until he's thrown out.

I also like what you said about where people get their information. It's not that the stories different sources report on are false or misleading, at least not the major ones that have a reputation to worry about. None of them want the negative publicity that CBS had to endure with the Dan Rather-Bush Texas Air National Guard story or that CNN had to deal with in their Peter Arnett-Operation Tailwind scandal. They all do a good job of vetting their information before they run with it. The bias comes from the stories they choose to run or choose to ignore. My favorite example was when I was channel surfing while working out on a treadmill. MSNBC was talking about the Trump impeachment proceedings and when I flipped the channel to Fox News, the story they were discussing was about the murder of a college student by an illegal alien. They know what kind of stories appeal to their audience, and being that they are driven by ratings, they will tell people what they want to hear. That's why it's absolutely critical that people get their information from a broad range of sources.

Don't get me started on Michael Moore. Being that I was 9 years old when JFK was assassinated, it was the first major event I lived through and have a clear recollection of, and because of that, over the past 40 years I've had an obsession of reading or watching anything that has to do with it, and Moore's movie "JFK" was a piece of garbage, filming fictitious events to match the grainy black and white actual film to make it appear that they were real, misstating key facts like seating positions in the limousine, and so on. It was the grossest example of revisionist history I've ever witnessed, and the sad part is that a huge number of ignorant morons bought it hook, line, and sinker.

[mykc14]

They all do a good job of vetting their information before they run with it. The bias comes from the stories they choose to run or choose to ignore.

I completely agree with this in terms of national media and the major networks, like you mentioned. I wonder how many people are getting the news via those means compared to those who are getting their news on social media which largely is not regulated. I imagine most people 45 and younger don't watch nearly as much news on TV as they do on some sort of social media site or You Tube. This is concerning and the industry needs to be better regulated in all regards, not just politically. If it's not the divide will continue as well as the extreme increase in mental illness and suicide.

[RiverDog]

They (major news outlets) all do a good job of vetting their information before they run with it. The bias comes from the stories they choose to run or choose to ignore.

I completely agree with this in terms of national media and the major networks, like you mentioned. I wonder how many people are getting the news via those means compared to those who are getting their news on social media which largely is not regulated. I imagine most people 45 and younger don't watch nearly as much news on TV as they do on some sort of social media site or You Tube. This is concerning and the industry needs to be better regulated in all regards, not just politically. If it's not the divide will continue as well as the extreme increase in mental illness and suicide.

I agree with your problem statement, but I can't accept your solution as we start bumping up against the First Amendment, and secondly, who is going to do the regulating?

IMO the major problem...and since you're an educator I'd love to hear your take on it...is that collectively, we're a bunch of morons, and you can start with the Chief Executive, and I don't mean that as some sort of trash talking jive. If a person is so stupid that they don't know that that Colorado doesn't share a border with Mexico, that Paris isn't in Germany, or that there weren't airports during the War of 1812, then no amount of objective and accurate presentation of information is going to be absorbed and processed.

Bottom line is that the key to a functioning, democratic society is a well educated, well informed public. Otherwise, those empty heads are going to be subjected to the types of misinformation you're referring to over social media, YouTube, etc.

[mykc14]

I agree with your problem statement, but I can't accept your solution as we start bumping up against the First Amendment, and secondly, who is going to do the regulating?

Bottom line is that the key to a functioning, democratic society is a well educated, well informed public. Otherwise, those empty heads are going to be subjected to the types of misinformation you're referring to over social media, YouTube, etc.

Typically I don't like governmental regulations, but I do think they are appropriate in certain situations. I may be wrong and there may be other ways but I think that you could regulate online media and social networking sites like television and radio are regulated with the FCC or something like that. There is very little regulating online content right now and simple steps could help. For example Youtube for kids has no where near the regulations that something like the Cartoon network has. As far as regulation on something like facebook or instagram the government could regulate how much they can sell your information. The algorithms they use thrive on knowing as much about you as they can and what they learn about you they sell advertising for. They could also regulate political mis-information coming from other countries. Things like that. I am sure there are better answers out there but at least its a start... I understand this is a slippery slope in that we don't want the government to regulate everything but why shouldn't social media be regulated as harshly as TV media?

[mykc14]

IMO the major problem...and since you're an educator I'd love to hear your take on it...is that collectively, we're a bunch of morons, and you can start with the Chief Executive, and I don't mean that as some sort of trash talking jive. If a person is so stupid that they don't know that that Colorado doesn't share a border with Mexico, that Paris isn't in Germany, or that there weren't airports during the War of 1812, then no amount of objective and accurate presentation of information is going to be absorbed and processed.

Bottom line is that the key to a functioning, democratic society is a well educated, well informed public. Otherwise, those empty heads are going to be subjected to the types of misinformation you're referring to over social media, YouTube, etc.

Although this is a conversation that could go on for pages and pages I will try to keep it brief. I agree that education is a key to having a democracy. I don't think that most Americans are a bunch of morons. I think our collective ability to learn is pretty high but what is valued as education today isn't what was valued years ago. Our education system has been in decline for years and, IMO, it has to do with a lot of things, including policies. A perfect example of this is Bush's No Child Left Behind Act of the early 2000's. It had bi-partisan support so Bush isn't he only one to blame, but it has really hurt education. The idea is good... educate every student in as normal of a classroom setting as possible. The problem is that students are all over the place academically, behaviorally, emotionally, etc. It doesn't work. Schools in Washington can't hold students back. They can recommend it to parents but can't require it. Most elementary schools don't use grades they use 1-4 scale, standards based scoring. Middle School students can go through Middle School and get straight F's and then onto High School. This lowers the aim of teachers and leads to mediocracy. The State Test has really placed the focus of education on Reading, Writing, and Math. All of which are good, but not at the expense of other disciplines. Combine that with an absolute lack of accountability from adults in their lives and you get entitled kids who don't think they have to work to learn. There is far less accountability on the student parent end today then there has ever been. Grades, dress codes, behavior issues everything is questioned and excused at home. At the end of the day it leads to an entitlement that suggest that the individual never has to adjust their actions, words, etc for others. You are wrong because I am right is a belief that many hold. Social Media and societal excuses for behavior contribute to this and empower this lack of accountability, even if some of those excuses are legitimate. Americans used to be taught that you need to work to overcome obstacles because when you got to 'the real world' we would have to do it on our own. Now when kids are pushed to overcome obstacles, real or perceived, parental figures work to make excuses for behavior, lack of production, apathy instead of pushing to get over the obstacle, so when they get to 'the real world' they make excuses and blame authority. This creates kids who can't adapt well to information they don't agree with. When something challenges their world view the information must be wrong, not them.

That's all over simplistic and not all encompassing but it's all I got right now...

[RiverDog]

Although this is a conversation that could go on for pages and pages I will try to keep it brief. I agree that education is a key to having a democracy. I don't think that most Americans are a bunch of morons.

"Most" aren't. But an alarming number of American adults are just plain ignorant. Here's an example: ...but a 2017 poll from the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center reveals profound ignorance about the nation's most important document (the Constitution).

For example, 37 percent could not name a single right protected by the Bill of Rights, only 26 percent could name all three branches of government (a big slip from 2011, when 38 percent aced that question) and 33 percent could not name a single branch of government.

And it doesn't stop with civics. Way too many adults don't know common, everyday things, like the decimal equivalent of 1/4 or at what temperature water freezes at. If Donald Trump has done anything positive during his presidency, it's been to highlight by his own ignorance the extent of the problem.

I think our collective ability to learn is pretty high but what is valued as education today isn't what was valued years ago. Our education system has been in decline for years...

Sorry to cut your statement short. I appreciate your insights and read every word of what you wrote and found it enlightening. I agree with much of what you said.

But I was not attempting to assign blame or give a reason. I am simply stating a fact: We have A LOT of stupid, ignorant, or gullible people, so it should be no surprise that we have such a problem with misinformation being spread over social media and other unconventional sources. My point was, and where I was disagreeing with you on is, that trying to regulate news sources is treating the symptom rather than curing the disease.

That's all over simplistic and not all encompassing but it's all I got right now...

I didn't think your comments were simplistic, at least not to someone like myself that hasn't had a lot of exposure to our educational system lately. You covered quite a bit of ground and it's worthy of it's own separate discussion.