HawkShack.com

Maybe it’s just the stark comparison and contrast in style but Biden seems to have risen to the moment in history imo. He appears comforting, dignified , thoughtful , presidential . His ad people are helping greatly to be sure .

His statement to Trump about not knowing who he was running against after a rail against Sanders plans was classic as was shut up man. He’s had some lapses and misspeak but he’s highly outperformed the bucket of mush caricature trump still attempts to hang on him .

The thing that impressed me the most and drew the sharpest contrast was an interview when he was asked why he hadn’t attacked Trumps kids profiteering around the globe . He responded” it’s crass. I’m running against Trump, not his family . Besides I think the American people don’t want to hear about my family or his family . They want to know what we are going to do for their family “.

Between he and Obama it’s the most presidential language and comportment I’ve seen in 4 years .

Hawktawk wrote:Maybe it’s just the stark comparison and contrast in style but Biden seems to have risen to the moment in history imo. He appears comforting, dignified , thoughtful , presidential . His ad people are helping greatly to be sure .

His statement to Trump about not knowing who he was running against after a rail against Sanders plans was classic as was shut up man. He’s had some lapses and misspeak but he’s highly outperformed the bucket of mush caricature trump still attempts to hang on him .

The thing that impressed me the most and drew the sharpest contrast was an interview when he was asked why he hadn’t attacked Trumps kids profiteering around the globe . He responded” it’s crass. I’m running against Trump, not his family . Besides I think the American people don’t want to hear about my family or his family . They want to know what we are going to do for their family “.

Between he and Obama it’s the most presidential language and comportment I’ve seen in 4 years .

I don't think Biden has changed. He has towed the company line his whole career in politics and he's doing the same now. I agree his ad people are helping. As far as appearing comforting, dignified, thoughtful, and presidential I would say 2 things. 1) Almost anybody would look like that compared to Trump and he didn't look that great in the first debate, he just looked better than Trump. 2) There are plenty of cringe worthy videos of him over the past few months and I'm not talking about the sniffing stuff, but stuff that he has said and ways he has treated people asking hard questions that don't look good at all. Yes he looks better than Trump but no he hasn't changed. I imagine you feel this way because you are watching media that continually focus on his 'good' qualities, sound bites, and videos while completely ignoring the bad.

He can't bring up Trump's kids because of what Hunter is accused of is so much worse than anything Trump's kids can currently be accused of. Bringing up Trumps kids international dealings would be like a pedophile's parent pointing out how bad somebody else's son is for insider trading or something. I'm not saying Trumps kids aren't doing anything illegal, but the stuff Hunter is alleged to have done looks way worse than anything anybody has brought up about Trump's kids.

He can't bring up Trump's kids because of what Hunter is accused of is so much worse than anything Trump's kids can currently be accused of.

Not so sure I agree with that. If Biden and Harris start hiring unqaulified family members for jobs in the White House, then we can talk.

I-5 wrote:
Not so sure I agree with that. If Biden and Harris start hiring unqaulified family members for jobs in the White House, then we can talk.

That still doesn't come even close to what Hunter is accused of. Besides the only Trump family members with positions at the white house are Ivanka and Kushner and neither one of them are paid for their work. Again, I'm not saying that the Trumps are squeaky clean here, but you are going to be hard pressed to find anything about them that is as sleazy as the Hunter Biden stuff and I don't want to get in an argument in which I am defending Trump or his family. My point is simply that it is not in Joe's best interest to bring anything up about Trump's family because if pales in comparison to what Hunter is accused of. Joe isn't taking the high road here he is taking the smart road and the smart road is for him to stay away from what Trump's kids are or aren't doing.

I guess I would ask, if Biden decided to go after Trump's kids...how would it matter? Isn't Trump and Fox News already trying their best to keep Hunter's name in the news? What more could they possibly do that they aren't desperately trying to do now? I think Biden is both smart and doing the right thing, but he certainly couldn't do any worse by bringing them up, based on all the attention they're giving the Hunter Biden story now, even though he's not part of any administration, and Biden was not even running for office in 2016.

ASF was right that Trump would go after Hunter Biden, but I agree with Riv that it simply won't make a difference. The only people who care about the Hunter Biden story are those who follow Fox...they've already laid out that argument months ago, and it's not going to move any needle. It's simply an eyeroll for anyone else.

They SHOULD have touted their plan on how to defeat Covid, and they SHOULD have touted details of their new health plan to replace the ACA, but they don't have either plan, so they are going to focus on the VP's son instead. Bad strategy in my opinion.

I-5 wrote:They SHOULD have touted their plan on how to defeat Covid, and they SHOULD have touted details of their new health plan to replace the ACA, but they don't have either plan, so they are going to focus on the VP's son instead. Bad strategy in my opinion.

Which is why they don't want to be talking about COVID or ACA. Both are losing issues for Trump.

If I were Trump's campaign manager, I'd be hitting Biden over the head with this court packing idea that's been floating around and his inconsistencies in his statements regarding his energy policy. It was stupid for them to dedicate the amount of time and effort they did on Hunter Biden. All it does is play to Trump's base. It's not going to sway any voters that weren't going to vote for him.

I-5 wrote:I guess I would ask, if Biden decided to go after Trump's kids...how would it matter? Isn't Trump and Fox News already trying their best to keep Hunter's name in the news? What more could they possibly do that they aren't desperately trying to do now? I think Biden is both smart and doing the right thing, but he certainly couldn't do any worse by bringing them up, based on all the attention they're giving the Hunter Biden story now, even though he's not part of any administration, and Biden was not even running for office in 2016.

ASF was right that Trump would go after Hunter Biden, but I agree with Riv that it simply won't make a difference. The only people who care about the Hunter Biden story are those who follow Fox...they've already laid out that argument months ago, and it's not going to move any needle. It's simply an eyeroll for anyone else.

They SHOULD have touted their plan on how to defeat Covid, and they SHOULD have touted details of their new health plan to replace the ACA, but they don't have either plan, so they are going to focus on the VP's son instead. Bad strategy in my opinion.

I agree the Hunter Biden stuff won't change many voters minds or move the needle in Trumps favor enough to matter, but why would Joe want to even head in that direction. The best course of action for him is to steer clear of the topic. Even if it doesn't move the needle towards Trump it takes the focus off of the real ammunition he has against Trump.

All I care about right now is getting coordinated action on the coronavirus nationally and globally. That's it. These people turning a global pandemic into a liberty issue are unbelievable to me. The White House fueling the politicization of the coronavirus sickens me. Right now we need a government that is going to coordinate and clean up this mess including stimulus, national guidelines, support for states, support for families, and the like. It's the number one thing on my mind. Trump has done a terrible job handling the coronavirus politicizing it in his trade war against China, attacks on his political enemies, attacks on states with citizens who voted Democrat as though we Americans only help people by political affiliation, and the like. We need a person who is going to coordinate America to get this coronavirus under control, not the sideshow Trump has made it.

I wish Biden and the Dems hadn't given the Republicans court packing and oil industry destruction to breed fear in certain key states for job losses. if Biden loses, it will be because of he Dems pushing court packing, the oil industry remarks, and their seeming unequivocal support for defunding the police and blaming them in every shooting as well as the protests associated. Right now what I am seeing is that the police can't use force in any instance without a protest. This mob justice is not going over well with anyone but those who think mob justice is an acceptable way to govern. I don't think that is close to a majority of Americans.

A few things to unpack here. Yes asea I agree this pandemic is the very worst thing going and as a conservative publication in New Hampshire said endorsing a Democrat for the first time “while we don’t think everything DJT does is wrong we do believe he is the wrong person at this time , the very worst person to deal with this “. Hear hear he is holding several super spreaders a day and plans 11 stops on Election Day . It’s a perfect storm . The way it’s zooming up again we may be in desperate shape by Jan 20 if he loses and if he wins we are screwed . I didn’t like the misspeak on fracking and oil but current polls show Joe over 50% lots of places including penn and even Texas is a toss up. It’s not about ideology : it’s fear for our nation . Completely agree about cops having no way to protect themselves . I’ve heard reports it was a mentally ill person . I haven’t seen video . The police commissioner said it was problematic . I dunno it does seem lots of times it comes to the glock a little fast . I have a vivid memory of a heroic Spokane co Sherrif charging a man armed with a shotgun in downtown Spokane and disarming him.he was straight in front of the guy and at least 50 feet away when he took off . But then I remember the cop in tukwilla years ago trying to subdue a naked black man , clearly mentally ill and high . The man began struggling and got his gun and killed him with it . I had a guy I knew quite well with who was a state trooper. He gave me a big break one day doing 90 in a mustang svo. Jim Saunders was killed by an illegal during a routine traffic stop in pasco in 1999. He left behind 2 kids and a pregnant wife . The Benton county Sherrif went in the cell and beat that murderer nearly to death. I think he was suspended 2 months .i don’t blame him . But while a majority hate this violence they also understand it will not improve with this adminstration . And it goes back to square one . The virus is more worrisome than sporadic civil unrest .

As for hunter Biden’s corruption vs Donnie Jr, Eric , Svetlana and Jared I beg to differ . Jarred was under scrutiny as was Ivanks for shady real estate dealing by Fed prosecutor Preet Barajah who was fired in a housecleaning by trump after he had repeatedly contacted the prosecutor to curry favor . Jarreds 666 soho complex was 200 million upside down and mysteriously was purchased by the saudis . He spent a week with the Saudi crown prince and the following week Jamal Kashoggi , a Saudi critic and Washington post reporter , a permanent us resident was lured to the consulate in turkey and strangled to death and cut up with a meat saw. Trump is on tape with Woodward saying he saved the crown princes ass. Eric is on tape with a golf writer saying they get all the money they need from Russia . Ivanks bS been granted over 20 trademarks in China since the election . There’s corruption then there is trump corruption

Hawktawk wrote:As for hunter Biden’s corruption vs Donnie Jr, Eric , Svetlana and Jared I beg to differ . Jarred was under scrutiny as was Ivanks for shady real estate dealing by Fed prosecutor Preet Barajah who was fired in a housecleaning by trump after he had repeatedly contacted the prosecutor to curry favor . Jarreds 666 soho complex was 200 million upside down and mysteriously was purchased by the saudis . He spent a week with the Saudi crown prince and the following week Jamal Kashoggi , a Saudi critic and Washington post reporter , a permanent us resident was lured to the consulate in turkey and strangled to death and cut up with a meat saw. Trump is on tape with Woodward saying he saved the crown princes ass. Eric is on tape with a golf writer saying they get all the money they need from Russia . Ivanks bS been granted over 20 trademarks in China since the election . There’s corruption then there is trump corruption

All this amounts to is whose step sister is the ugliest. Whether it be right or wrong, no one cares about the first family or the family of the challenger.

Too bad most of you guys weren't conscious of events during the late 70's. Jimmy Carter's brother Billy was a real life SNL skit.

Too bad most of you guys weren't conscious of events during the late 70's.

I think most people here were conscious during the 70's (ok I was 10 years old in '76).

Billy Carter was definitely an embarassment; however, his brother Jimmy didn't try to cover up the issue of accepting funds from a foreign gov't. He rightfully acknowledged it as a problem and conflict when he learned about it, unlike today.

Too bad most of you guys weren't conscious of events during the late 70's.

I-5 wrote:I think most people here were conscious during the 70's (ok I was 10 years old in '76).

Billy Carter was definitely an embarrassment; however, his brother Jimmy didn't try to cover up the issue of accepting funds from a foreign gov't. He rightfully acknowledged it as a problem and conflict when he learned about it, unlike today.

No, he didn't. I wasn't really trying to make a point, just that Billy Carter was such a black sheep and was the polar opposite personality of what Carter was trying to project of himself. He sure gave Johnny Carson some really funny material.

I miss Johnny Carson and Ed Mcmahon
My comments about Trump corruption were directed at mykc14 who said the reason Joe isn't bringing up the sleazy trump kids profiting directly off the presidency is cause Hunter did something so awful its way worse than looking the other way as a us resident is strangled without consequence by Jarred boys BFFEAE orders the week after Kushner spent a week in the kingdom.

Eric and Donnie tapping russian oligarch money to prop up failed golf resorts. Ivanka getting Chinese trademarks. All of them using a charity set up to help kids as a slush fund mostly paid by others leading to a 3 million dollar fine and a court ordered shutdown of the billionaire president's private charity he was stealing money from.

Don Jr clearly perjured himself in front of the house and senate panels investigating Russian interference. Even given a chance to return and clean up his remarks he was still untruthful. IMO were he not the presidents son he would have been recommended to be indicted by the congress as others were such as Michael Cohen who got 2 years in prison.

Again my whole point bringing it up was I think there's plenty of material to mine from these kids and likely its the tip of the iceberg as evidence of all profiting off the presidency emerges every day. I think Biden can take the high road as he is in a clear lead and polls show the Hunter stuff isn't registering anyway. Maybe if it was bringing him down he would get in the mud but he looks positively angelic down the stretch as angry crazy orange donnie spreads the virus throughout the swing states

Hawktawk wrote:As for hunter Biden’s corruption vs Donnie Jr, Eric , Svetlana and Jared I beg to differ . Jarred was under scrutiny as was Ivanks for shady real estate dealing by Fed prosecutor Preet Barajah who was fired in a housecleaning by trump after he had repeatedly contacted the prosecutor to curry favor . Jarreds 666 soho complex was 200 million upside down and mysteriously was purchased by the saudis . He spent a week with the Saudi crown prince and the following week Jamal Kashoggi , a Saudi critic and Washington post reporter , a permanent us resident was lured to the consulate in turkey and strangled to death and cut up with a meat saw. Trump is on tape with Woodward saying he saved the crown princes ass. Eric is on tape with a golf writer saying they get all the money they need from Russia . Ivanks bS been granted over 20 trademarks in China since the election . There’s corruption then there is trump corruption

I guess we'll just have to disagree. What this comes down to is the fact that I think Biden would use Trump's family issues against him if it was best for his campaign and you are saying that he isn't bringing these things up because he is being the bigger man, doing the right thing, etc. I think Biden and the Dems would, without a doubt, use Trump's family against him if Hunter's accusations weren't so bad. Like I said before I am not defending Trump's family at all. I am sure he is using them to make money internationally, yes it is a conflict of interest. The evidence surrounding all of these accusations against the Trumps is hearsay at best, there is no smoking gun, no repair shop laptop with pictures and stuff. Again, I wouldn't be shocked at all if it is all true, but my point remains that it does Biden no good politically to bring any of that up and I don't think for a second he is taking the high road by not bringing it up.

I would just ask mykc, IF Biden brought up Trump's kids many conflicts pointed out above, how would it affect Trump and Fox currently going after the Hunter Biden attack more than they are trying now? Are they holding back on something? They look like they are going full bore (although no one outside of true believers cares)

I-5 wrote:I would just ask mykc, IF Biden brought up Trump's kids many conflicts pointed out above, how would it affect Trump and Fox currently going after the Hunter Biden attack more than they are trying now? Are they holding back on something? They look like they are going full bore (although no one outside of true believers cares)

I'm not talking about what Fox News is doing, they are going to stay with Hunter Biden because it's what they have. I was referring more to to OP in regards to why Biden hadn't gone after Trumps family. I took that to mean in a debate setting, when Trump attacked his family, or some sort of interview/town hall setting. In all of those situations it would have come back on him. If he remarked about Trumps kids the next question would be something about Hunter or if it was during the debate Trump would jump on him.

At the end of the day there is very little chance that you will be able to convince me that the ONLY reason Biden isn't attacking Trump's family is because he is just a stand up guy who wants to keep things PC. I stand by my statement that if Hunter Biden didn't have any issues then Joe would certainly go after Trump's family. If my son had a drug addiction/prostitution issue/shady international business, some of which there is direct evidence of, I wouldn't point out the international business dealings of my opponents kids. At the end of the day, unless hard physical evidence comes up against the Trumps Hunter is going to look worse than the Trumps. Furthermore, Biden has other issues that are way more important to voters to push against Trump.

mykc14 wrote:At the end of the day there is very little chance that you will be able to convince me that the ONLY reason Biden isn't attacking Trump's family is because he is just a stand up guy who wants to keep things PC. I stand by my statement that if Hunter Biden didn't have any issues then Joe would certainly go after Trump's family. If my son had a drug addiction/prostitution issue/shady international business, some of which there is direct evidence of, I wouldn't point out the international business dealings of my opponents kids. At the end of the day, unless hard physical evidence comes up against the Trumps Hunter is going to look worse than the Trumps. Furthermore, Biden has other issues that are way more important to voters to push against Trump.

Agreed, except that I would add that one of the reasons why Biden chooses not to go this route is because he's ahead. There's no sense in getting into a pissing contest with Trump over their various family problems when it's uncertain who would come out with the net advantage. If Biden were behind int he polls, I could absolutely see him and the Dems pulling out all the stops just like they did with Bush 41. It's a lot easier to take the moral high road when you're ahead.

RiverDog wrote:Agreed, except that I would add that one of the reasons why Biden chooses not to go this route is because he's ahead... It's a lot easier to take the moral high road when you're ahead.

Yeah, that is a good point. No reason to rock the boat or push things for Biden.

Biden doesn't take the low road because the left wing media does it for him. They have attacked Trump on every front. They have attacked his children, his wife, his friends, and anything he's ever done. The left wing media has turned Trump into the Greatest Villain President in American history. Why would Biden need to bring it up when the left wing media and Democratic Congress has already built Trump into supervillain owned by the Russians, hasn't paid any taxes, treated women poorly, is a KKK level racist using dog-whistles the new Democratic term to call someone a racist, attacked Ivanka and his other children for their business relationships, and everything else.

Biden isn't bringing anything up in direct confrontation because what's the point? The Democrats have painted Trump as everything you can possibly paint him as. Sascha Baron Cohen is putting out a film attacking Trump followers. They painted him as a friend of Jeffrey Epstein even though the Democrats received more support from Epstein and Bill Clinton associated with Epstein more than Trump. They've had documentaries, multiple books on Trump, multiple lawsuits accusing him of rape or sexual assault, they painted his father as a member of the KKK based on one arrest at some rally decades ago, he's had every snake he helped turn on him like Omarosa and Michael Cohen, and every left wing reporter hates him.

Where exactly does Biden go with this? The Democratic Party and left wing media have already thrown the kitchen sink at Trump labeling him everything other than murderer and I may have missed that one at some point. Biden has no real place to go as all those accusations did not stop Trump.

The only thing that stopped Trump from likely getting re-elected was the coronavirus and his egregious handling of it. That's it. Otherwise, Trump likely would have easily won re-election with a 3.5% unemployment rate and a weak Democratic challenger in Biden to go against. For whatever reason, this global pandemic beat Trump when everything else the Democrats tried couldn't do it.

They have attacked Trump on every front. They have attacked his children, his wife, his friends, and anything he's ever done. The left wing media has turned Trump into the Greatest Villain President in American history. Why would Biden need to bring it up when the left wing media and Democratic Congress has already built Trump into supervillain owned by the Russians, hasn't paid any taxes, treated women poorly, is a KKK level racist using dog-whistles the new Democratic term to call someone a racist, attacked Ivanka and his other children for their business relationships, and everything else.

I challenge you to outline which accusation is inaccurate, and show strong evidence, be it Ukraine, Russia, taxes, enabling racists, etc....or are you saying Trump doesn't deserve the criticism? I would argue he's gotten a pass for too long, starting with the treatment he got during the last election. But you can think whatever you want.

I-5 wrote:I challenge you to outline which accusation is inaccurate, and show strong evidence, be it Ukraine, Russia, taxes, enabling racists, etc....or are you saying Trump doesn't deserve the criticism? I would argue he's gotten a pass for too long, starting with the treatment he got during the last election. But you can think whatever you want.

I could go back and forth with you on the truth of a variety of the accusations, but we've done that already and it misses the point. My point is the attacks on Trump have been relentless, varied, and tried at every level whether the media or legally or politically through Congress. There is no where else to go with it.

One thing and one thing alone has stopped Trump from a second term: the corvonavirus. A virus did what the Democrats could not do throwing the kitchen sink at Trump on every level. And if he somehow pulls out the win this last week, I guess not even the coronavirus can stop him.

That was my point. Trump handed the Democrats a gift of completely FUBARing the coronvavirus response and opening himself up to defeat by a fairly weak candidate like Biden. If not for the coronavirus and with unemployment at 3.5%, I would have bet you, Riverdog, and c-bob a 1000 dollars each without a second thought that Trump would have won re-election for a second term.

Aseahawkfan wrote:If not for the coronavirus and with unemployment at 3.5%, I would have bet you, Riverdog, and c-bob a 1000 dollars each without a second thought that Trump would have won re-election for a second term.

That would have been a very risky bet. Trump was well behind Biden in the polls before the coronavirus struck, and with exception of the 5 months during the Democratic primary when the Dems were busy beating each other up, has been running anywhere from 7.2% to 10.0% behind Biden.

Here's the nation wide RCP average, Trump vs. Biden, on the first of each month starting in September of 2019:

09/01/19 Biden 50.3, Trump 40.8 Biden +9.5%
10/01/19 Biden 50.3 Trump 42.7 Biden +7.6%
11/01/19 Biden 50.7 Trump 42.7 Biden +8.0%
12/01/19 Biden 51.7 Trump 41.7 Biden +10.0%
01/01/20 Biden 49.0 Trump 43.3 Biden +5.7%
02/01/20 Biden 50.1 Trump 44.7 Biden +5.4%
03/01/20 Biden 49.8 Trump 44.4 Biden +5.4%
04/01/20 Biden 49.9 Trump 44.0 Biden +5.9%
05/01/20 Biden 47.7 Trump 42.4 Biden +5.3%
06/01/20 Biden 49.0 Trump 41.5 Biden +7.5%
07/01/20 Biden 49.3 Trump 40.0 Biden +9.3%
08/01/20 Biden 49.4 Trump 42.0 Biden +7.4%
09/01/20 Biden 49.6 Trump 42.4 Biden +7.2%
10/01/20 Biden 50.3 Trump 42.9 Biden +7.4%
10/27/20 Biden 51.1 Trump 43.6 Biden +7.5%

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

Trump won a very narrow victory in 2016 and his popularity has been flat during his entire administration, running between 3% and 10% underwater for the last 3.5 years. It was always going to be a very difficult re-election for him, coronavirus or no coronavirus.

RiverDog wrote:That would have been a very risky bet. Trump was well behind Biden in the polls before the coronavirus struck, and with exception of the 5 months during the Democratic primary when the Dems were busy beating each other up, has been running anywhere from 7.2% to 10.0% behind Biden.

Here's the nation wide RCP average, Trump vs. Biden, on the first of each month starting in September of 2019:

09/01/19 Biden 50.3, Trump 40.8 Biden +9.5%
10/01/19 Biden 50.3 Trump 42.7 Biden +7.6%
11/01/19 Biden 50.7 Trump 42.7 Biden +8.0%
12/01/19 Biden 51.7 Trump 41.7 Biden +10.0%
01/01/20 Biden 49.0 Trump 43.3 Biden +5.7%
02/01/20 Biden 50.1 Trump 44.7 Biden +5.4%
03/01/20 Biden 49.8 Trump 44.4 Biden +5.4%
04/01/20 Biden 49.9 Trump 44.0 Biden +5.9%
05/01/20 Biden 47.7 Trump 42.4 Biden +5.3%
06/01/20 Biden 49.0 Trump 41.5 Biden +7.5%
07/01/20 Biden 49.3 Trump 40.0 Biden +9.3%
08/01/20 Biden 49.4 Trump 42.0 Biden +7.4%
09/01/20 Biden 49.6 Trump 42.4 Biden +7.2%
10/01/20 Biden 50.3 Trump 42.9 Biden +7.4%
10/27/20 Biden 51.1 Trump 43.6 Biden +7.5%

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

Trump won a very narrow victory in 2016 and his popularity has been flat during his entire administration, running between 3% and 10% underwater for the last 3.5 years. It was always going to be a very difficult re-election for him, coronavirus or no coronavirus.

I would have taken that bet from each of you without a second thought. People don't like boats rocked when economies are good.

I buy polls from months ago not at all.

Even now November 3rd can't come and go fast enough because I keep imagining Trump somehow winning from a surprise turnout of pro-Trump supporters from some groups that they missed again.

Trump handed the Democrats a gift of completely FUBARing the coronvavirus response and opening himself

I was predicting a Trump win before the pandemic came along, too. Yep, he FUBARed covid....but that's exactly how his narcissistic personality works, so there was not a chance in hell he was going to treat it like a leadership test. He saw it as an enemy to be conquered via his constant spinning, not understanding that a pandemic doesn't care how you spin it when it starts killing people. The pandemic may be a fluke event, but his response is a natural result of who he is.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I would have taken that bet from each of you without a second thought. People don't like boats rocked when economies are good.

I buy polls from months ago not at all.

Even now November 3rd can't come and go fast enough because I keep imagining Trump somehow winning from a surprise turnout of pro-Trump supporters from some groups that they missed again.

If it were just the polls, I would be with you in your doubts. But there's other information out there that indicate that it would have been a very problematic re-election despite the virus: Trump won a razor thin election in 2016 and lost the popular vote, there is no viable 3rd party candidate like there was in 2016, he would still have had to run on a very shaky record (the economy was humming when he took over), he had just undergone an impeachment inquiry, the mid term elections went strongly in favor of the Democrats, flipping counties that went for Trump in 2016, and there is no war or external threat that would cause voters not to want to change commanders in chief.

Trump handed the Democrats a gift of completely FUBARing the coronvavirus response and opening himself

I-5 wrote:I was predicting a Trump win before the pandemic came along, too. Yep, he FUBARed covid....but that's exactly how his narcissistic personality works, so there was not a chance in hell he was going to treat it like a leadership test. He saw it as an enemy to be conquered via his constant spinning, not understanding that a pandemic doesn't care how you spin it when it starts killing people. The pandemic may be a fluke event, but his response is a natural result of who he is.

I think I started a prediction thread before the virus. I was predicting a near landslide Biden win at that time. But except for your first sentence, I agree completely with what you are saying.

RiverDog wrote:If it were just the polls, I would be with you in your doubts. But there's other information out there that indicate that it would have been a very problematic re-election despite the virus: Trump won a razor thin election in 2016 and lost the popular vote, there is no viable 3rd party candidate like there was in 2016, he would still have had to run on a very shaky record (the economy was humming when he took over), he had just undergone an impeachment inquiry, the mid term elections went strongly in favor of the Democrats, flipping counties that went for Trump in 2016, and there is no war or external threat that would cause voters not to want to change commanders in chief.

Economy was roughly 6% unemployment when Trump took over and that isn't including the people who had stopped looking for work which often makes the unemployment rate look better than it is just like it is doing now. We're more at 11% unemployment than 8%.

The unemployment rate before the virus was at roughly 3.5% with more Americans working than had been the case for decades. Trump was not lying when he said it was historically low unemployment with real wages starting to rise for the first time in ages. Unemployment across all groups was at its lowest. The economy may have been in good shape when he took over, but he ramped it up even more.

You seem to forget that for all the talk the Democrats flipped the House, but the Republicans held the Senate strongly. The Republicans maintaining their majority protected Trump. The supposed Blue Wave was nowhere near as big as predicted.

There's no way to go back now, but I would have taken that bet with you without blinking an eye. Trump had taken the worst the Democrats had to throw at him and still maintained the Senate. The economy was great, we had no war, and people were getting very used to his stupid talk. He would have had huge ammunition with the economy to use at rallies. There would have been none of this COVID to take him down which would have made the Biden Gaffes and Hunter Biden story even more of an issue for Biden. You think people would not freak out even worse if he talked about destroying oil when the oil industry was producing oil at a rate that made us one of the highest producers in the world? I don't think so.

I don't think it would have been a Trump landslide like Idhawkmen. Just a solid win with people not wanting to rock the economic boat with likely increases by minority voters voting for Trump given how he could sell them on how much he was helping them get work.

Coronavirus completely derailed him and might derail all the Republicans that backed him in their stupid response. It's literally the main issue killing Republicans right now.

Aseahawkfan wrote:You seem to forget that for all the talk the Democrats flipped the House, but the Republicans held the Senate strongly.

And you seem to forget that in 2018, the numbers in the Senate strongly favored the Republicans. The Democrats had 24 seats to defend, the Republicans just 9. It would have been pretty hard for Republicans to F that up. With those kind of numbers and with the nation on such solid footing as you claimed, they should have flipped more than the 2 seats that they did. You can look at it another way: The Republicans won 11 races while the Dems won 22. If you look at the popular vote for Senators, over 58% went to the Democratic candidate, less than 39% to the R's. No one was expecting the Democrats to flip the Senate. The 'blue wave' manifested itself in the House and in state elections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Unit ... _elections

A scenario similar to that in the House played out at the state level in 2018, with the Democrats gaining 6 governorships, the R's losing 7.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Coronavirus completely derailed him and might derail all the Republicans that backed him in their stupid response. It's literally the main issue killing Republicans right now.

I agree. The virus response exposed a weakness in the Republican's psychology. They aren't as easy of a sell as the Democrats are when it comes to science and medicine, and in this case, they did not heed the advice from the medical community like they should have. They also have a tendency to cherish individual freedoms more so than the Dems, and took their love of liberty to an irrational extreme over the mask wearing issue. Republicans are a lot more supportive of private businesses, big and small, and of the economy in general, than the Democrats are. It's a lot easier for a Dem to shut down the economy. As a result, a lot of Republicans made, and continue to make, some really bad decisions with regards to our coronavirus response.

What would have happened absent this virus is not known . What is known is that any incumbent under 50% at election time is in trouble normally . Trump became the first president never to crack 50 in any average of polls in modern history . His screw up was governing like Andrew Dice Clay , a cartoon figure , a clown . His great economy had some problems cropping up before the virus , especially the repo markets . He ran massive debt , a huge tax cut primarily for the rich 90+% of which went to stock buybacks. Massive increase in federal spending . It was not the greatest economy ever and again , what happens to the economy minus coronavirus . We don’t know .

Hawktawk wrote:What would have happened absent this virus is not known . What is known is that any incumbent under 50% at election time is in trouble normally. Trump became the first president never to crack 50 in any average of (job approval) polls in modern history.

Which is exactly what I was saying. Trump won a very close election and has never built on that very narrow win by increasing his popularity. All he's ever done is play to his base and hasn't tried to expand it or build on it, never so much as tossing a bone to the moderates and independents. Absent a very inflammatory and divisive opponent like he had in HRC and not being able to advertise himself as the outsider that was going to drain the swamp, the only way Trump was going to win re-election would have been the same path he did in 2016, ie lose the popular vote but win a couple key states (MI and PA) by small, razor thin margins. Speaking for myself, I think that Biden would have beaten Trump and beaten him soundly had the election been held last January instead of next week, but obviously we'll never know. Heck, he could prove me wrong and win anyway. Stranger things have happened.

Hawktawk wrote:His great economy had some problems cropping up before the virus , especially the repo markets . He ran massive debt , a huge tax cut primarily for the rich 90+% of which went to stock buybacks. Massive increase in federal spending . It was not the greatest economy ever and again , what happens to the economy minus coronavirus . We don’t know .

The unemployment rate had been falling steadily since the end of the Great Recession. Trump jumped on the train as it was halfway down the hill.

https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-s ... t-rate.htm

But I do agree that the economy would have been a good selling point for Trump. It's just that Biden could have made some very good counter arguments, such as that he was part of the administration that turned it around, the gap between rich and poor has been increasing, etc.

RiverDog wrote:Which is exactly what I was saying. Trump won a very close election and has never built on that very narrow win by increasing his popularity. All he's ever done is play to his base and hasn't tried to expand it or build on it, never so much as tossing a bone to the moderates and independents. Absent a very inflammatory and divisive opponent like he had in HRC and not being able to advertise himself as the outsider that was going to drain the swamp, the only way Trump was going to win re-election would have been the same path he did in 2016, ie lose the popular vote but win a couple key states (MI and PA) by small, razor thin margins. Speaking for myself, I think that Biden would have beaten Trump and beaten him soundly had the election been held last January instead of next week, but obviously we'll never know. Heck, he could prove me wrong and win anyway. Stranger things have happened.

\

Pointless to argue at this point. Neither of us can go back.

The unemployment rate had been falling steadily since the end of the Great Recession. Trump jumped on the train as it was halfway down the hill.

https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-s ... t-rate.htm

But I do agree that the economy would have been a good selling point for Trump. It's just that Biden could have made some very good counter arguments, such as that he was part of the administration that turned it around, the gap between rich and poor has been increasing, etc.

It would have been interesting to see what happened with the juiced economy without COVID. Earnings will take a huge hit when Biden raises taxes on corporations. If the Democrats control The House, Senate, and Presidency, they will pass a lot of legislation that may damage the economy. We will probably see a lot of money shifting around if they take all three.

RiverDog wrote:And you seem to forget that in 2018, the numbers in the Senate strongly favored the Republicans. The Democrats had 24 seats to defend, the Republicans just 9. It would have been pretty hard for Republicans to F that up. With those kind of numbers and with the nation on such solid footing as you claimed, they should have flipped more than the 2 seats that they did. You can look at it another way: The Republicans won 11 races while the Dems won 22. If you look at the popular vote for Senators, over 58% went to the Democratic candidate, less than 39% to the R's. No one was expecting the Democrats to flip the Senate. The 'blue wave' manifested itself in the House and in state elections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Unit ... _elections

A scenario similar to that in the House played out at the state level in 2018, with the Democrats gaining 6 governorships, the R's losing 7.

All I know is the left wing media talked up the "Blue Wave" claiming they were going to flip the Senate. Never happened. As far as going back and forth on the House, that just seems to happen depending on who is in office when people are unhappy. Been watching this flip flopping for ages with all these claims of parties losing power or what not or all done, it just keeps on flipping back and forth.

Doesn't support at all that Trump would have lost in 2020 without the coronavirus. Republicans maintaining the Senate pretty much guaranteed Trump staying in office for his term. If the American population hated Trump as much as you claim, they would have made sure to get rid of him during that election as flipping the Senate would have guaranteed his removal from office. But they didn't.

I don't personally know a single person that is changing their vote. I know the people that have changed are out there, but they seem to exist on both sides. Democrats are hardly picking up the vote because people love what they're doing. This is strictly about either loving or hating Trump. That's the divide right there. Even the context of this conversation is not you stating, "I sure love the Democrats. Can't wait to see what they do when they take control." It's you pushing that Trump is hated enough to lose to Biden, period. I personally doubt that would have worked as well if Biden didn't a huge campaign booster known as the coronavirus led by an idiot who doesn't want to wear masks and wants to handwave it away.

Trump is getting what he had coming to him. But the Dems have mainly the coronavirus to thank stopping Trump's normal rallies, knocking him down for nearly two weeks, making him look more stupid than anything the Dems could manufacture when he got sick weeks before the election, and his general terrible response to the virus. Best Democratic booster out there is the surging coronavirus.

I think I started a prediction thread before the virus. I was predicting a near landslide Biden win at that time. But except for your first sentence, I agree completely with what you are saying.

Interesting to look back on that. I didn't know the stats of an incumbent under 50% approval (since I'm not used to having a president this unpopular) winning re-election, but I based my prediction of a Trump victory simply because the economy wasn't tanking yet, and that favors the incumbent.

Like I said, the pandemic is a fluke, but the response is NOT a fluke. It's pure Trump 100%, and he made that bed himself. It didn't have to be that way.

Aseahawkfan wrote:All I know is the left wing media talked up the "Blue Wave" claiming they were going to flip the Senate. Never happened.

I'm not sure which left wing media you were listening to, but they'd have to have been damn optimistic if they thought that they had more than a snowball's chance in hell of flipping the Senate.

On October 14th, 2018, 3 weeks before the election, RCP had the Senate as 50 safe seats for the R's, 44 for the D's, and 6 toss ups. Under that scenario, even if the Dems won all the toss ups, they still wouldn't have flipped the Senate as the VP breaks ties. The best odds they had during the campaign was on Sept. 1st, which had the race as 47 R's, 44 D's, and 9 toss ups, meaning the Dems would have had to have won 7 out of 9 toss up races to win control of the Senate. With those kind of odds, no observer with a reputation to worry about is going to predict that the Dems would flip the Senate.

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

Aseahawkfan wrote:As far as going back and forth on the House, that just seems to happen depending on who is in office when people are unhappy. Been watching this flip flopping for ages with all these claims of parties losing power or what not or all done, it just keeps on flipping back and forth.

It's true that the party out of power usually does better in the midterms. But what the Dems pulled off in the House elections in 2018 was historic:

This year's 8.6 point House popular vote win for the Democrats is the greatest on record for a minority party heading into an election. This dates all the way back to 1942, when the Clerk of the House started listing the House popular vote in its after-election statistics document. That is, the Democratic performance this year was better than the minority party's in the previous 38 elections.

The Democrats won by a wider margin this year than Democrats did in 2006 or Republicans did in 1994 or 2010. They beat the previous record of 8.5 points Republicans won by in 1946.

The 2018 large turnout allowed House Democrats to win about 10 million more votes than House Republicans. That's the largest raw vote margin in a House midterm election ever.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/06/politics ... index.html

Aseahawkfan wrote:Trump is getting what he had coming to him. But the Dems have mainly the coronavirus to thank stopping Trump's normal rallies, knocking him down for nearly two weeks, making him look more stupid than anything the Dems could manufacture when he got sick weeks before the election, and his general terrible response to the virus. Best Democratic booster out there is the surging coronavirus.

I agree with most of that, but my take is that the coronavirus took the election from a probable win for Biden and turned it into a slam dunk.

I-5 wrote:Interesting to look back on that. I didn't know the stats of an incumbent under 50% approval (since I'm not used to having a president this unpopular) winning re-election, but I based my prediction on a Trump victory simply because the economy wasn't tanking yet, and that favors the incumbent.

Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George HW Bush all had sub 50% job approval ratings before their attempt at re-election and were unsuccessful. Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama all had a 50%+ job approval and easily won re-election. The only outliers were Harry Truman in 1948, the first year they started doing job approval surveys, and Bush 43, who had a 48% job approval and won a close re-election. The fact that Trump's job approval rating, currently at 44.4% and as Hawktalk noted never above 50% during his entire presidency, is a very strong indicator of his re-election chances.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/311825/pre ... cally.aspx

I-5 wrote:Like I said, the pandemic is a fluke, but the response is NOT a fluke. It's pure Trump 100%, and he made that bed himself. It didn't have to be that way.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but that's not what ASF and I were debating.

RiverDog wrote:I'm not sure which left wing media you were listening to, but they'd have to have been damn optimistic if they thought that they had more than a snowball's chance in hell of flipping the Senate.

On October 14th, 2018, 3 weeks before the election, RCP had the Senate as 50 safe seats for the R's, 44 for the D's, and 6 toss ups. Under that scenario, even if the Dems won all the toss ups, they still wouldn't have flipped the Senate as the VP breaks ties. The best odds they had during the campaign was on Sept. 1st, which had the race as 47 R's, 44 D's, and 9 toss ups, meaning the Dems would have had to have won 7 out of 9 toss up races to win control of the Senate. With those kind of odds, no observer with a reputation to worry about is going to predict that the Dems would flip the Senate.

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

Did you really miss them talking it up?

It's true that the party out of power usually does better in the midterms. But what the Dems pulled off in the House elections in 2018 was historic:

This year's 8.6 point House popular vote win for the Democrats is the greatest on record for a minority party heading into an election. This dates all the way back to 1942, when the Clerk of the House started listing the House popular vote in its after-election statistics document. That is, the Democratic performance this year was better than the minority party's in the previous 38 elections.

The Democrats won by a wider margin this year than Democrats did in 2006 or Republicans did in 1994 or 2010. They beat the previous record of 8.5 points Republicans won by in 1946.

The 2018 large turnout allowed House Democrats to win about 10 million more votes than House Republicans. That's the largest raw vote margin in a House midterm election ever.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/06/politics ... index.html

Gee, CNN. Big surprise. That is exactly what I am talking about. They built up this blue tsunami and didn't take the Senate for all their talk. Sorry, unconvincing article written by an obvious Democratic supporter building it up into bigger than it was. Just like I told you was happening back in 2018.

Just did a quick query. You should check how these vote numbers are tabulated. Large Democratic centers account for the large vote difference when the Democrats win office. It seems to have shifted over in 2008. Gee, big surprise.

Democrats had 257 seats in 2008. Republicans 178. Must have been because of the unpopularity of Bush Jr.

Then in 2010 the Republicans flipped 63 seats and the Dems lost 63. Gee, must have been because of the unpopularity of Obama. Or was Obama unpopular? Gee, who can tell.

I guess that was a Red Wave.

Sorry, those numbers are skewed because of the sheer population size of Democratic strongholds like California and New York. They flipped 41 seats. The Republicans flipped more in 2008. What does that mean? Was it historic?

I agree with most of that, but my take is that the coronavirus took the election from a probable win for Biden and turned it into a slam dunk.

We'll see on November 3rd. You are very confident. I am not. Trump has strange support that comes from odd places. I will be sure he is done when it is announced that he is done.

Either outcome is good enough for Republicans. It will set them up well next election against a weak Biden. Given the coronavirus will be a big drag on the economy nationally and in the world, anything that goes wrong and people being incredibly tired of lockdowns will set them up for hard times in the future. If Biden comes in and does a hard national lockdown and it doesn't clear up the problem as it didn't in Europe, he is going to set himself and the Democratic Party for some very hard re-election chances. I'm hoping Biden and his advisors can see the hard lockdown does not work. It merely forestalls the inevitable return of the virus as it is doing in Europe. But we shall see.

Right now we need a different path on the coronavirus than Trump. And you might as well stop because absolutely nothing you post will convince me that Trump was going to lose in 2020 regardless of the coronavirus. Biden is a weak candidate. He's made many gaffes and has a bunch of chinks in his armor. The only think making him look better than he otherwise would have is Trump's idiotic handling of the coronavirus. Absent that Biden's gaffes and Hunter Biden corruption would have swayed many swing voters against him, especially his stupid oil comments. It may still cost him in quite a few states regardless of what these polls state. We'll only know election day.

We'll see on November 3rd. You are very confident. I am not. Trump has strange support that comes from odd places. I will be sure he is done when it is announced that he is done.

I'm with Riv on this one. I think he is right Biden would have won anyway, but Covid really pushed him even lower due to his inaction and bluster...republican voters are usually very solid, but he has pissed off a huge part of the base. I believe based on the record turnout so far, I think this will easily be the highest turnout in a century, and Biden will win by a landslide.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Gee, CNN. Big surprise. That is exactly what I am talking about. They built up this blue tsunami and didn't take the Senate for all their talk. Sorry, unconvincing article written by an obvious Democratic supporter building it up into bigger than it was. Just like I told you was happening back in 2018.

Just did a quick query. You should check how these vote numbers are tabulated. Large Democratic centers account for the large vote difference when the Democrats win office. It seems to have shifted over in 2008. Gee, big surprise.

Focus on the facts, for crying out loud! More people voted for the Democratic candidate vs. the Republican in 2018 than in any year since they started tracking it back in the 40's. If it makes you feel any better, here's the raw data that CNN drew their conclusions from:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Aseahawkfan wrote:We'll see on November 3rd. You are very confident. I am not. Trump has strange support that comes from odd places. I will be sure he is done when it is announced that he is done.

You're seeing ghosts. That support just plain doesn't exist.

All indications are that this is that there is going to be a huge increase in voter participation in this election than there was in 2016, perhaps more than the past 100 years. If that is true, it's a very good sign for the Dems as they usually do better in elections with high turnouts. I'm very confident, but not to the point where I'd bet the house on it. Nevertheless, I'll dust off a spot for for your gracious concession on Nov. 4th.

RiverDog wrote:Focus on the facts, for crying out loud! More people voted for the Democratic candidate vs. the Republican in 2018 than in any year since they started tracking it back in the 40's. If it makes you feel any better, here's the raw data that CNN drew their conclusions from:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

That does not compare anything. Did you open it? And the Republicans flipped 63 seats in 2008? Does that mean it was historic? You posted an article written by an obvious Democratic supporter cherry picking stats. It wasn't a great blue wave or they would have firmly taken the Senate too. It was a standard flipping of The House that the Democrats had sold as a Blue Tsunami, but really wasn't. The writer of the story is cherry-picking stats to support what CNN was selling.

That's the part I don't understand why you don't check first before you buy into these articles. I explained to you the cherrypicking of the voting was due to the extremely large states like California and New York. Just like the popular vote loss when Republicans win is for the same reason.

You are ignoring the facts, not me. There was absolutely nothing particularly historic about that vote. It was like a sports statistic where you go, "Russell Wilson had the most TDs in this three game stretch." It was cherry-picking to support a preconceived bias.

Once again, did the Republicans set a record flipping 63 seats when they did? Did Democrats and CNN list this record? It was apparently far more historic in number of seats flipped.

You're seeing ghosts. That support just plain doesn't exist.

All indications are that this is that there is going to be a huge increase in voter participation in this election than there was in 2016, perhaps more than the past 100 years. If that is true, it's a very good sign for the Dems as they usually do better in elections with high turnouts. I'm very confident, but not to the point where I'd bet the house on it. Nevertheless, I'll dust off a spot for for your gracious concession on Nov. 4th.

My gracious concession? For what? I never told you Trump would win. I certainly won't concede that he would have lost without the coronavirus. I wish that we would have had the chance for that bet. Because I still haven't found anyone stating they are voting because they love Joe Biden, no one I know, not even you.

I just want this Trump period to be over. It will be over when it is announced he has lost. Not due to your predictions or anything of the kind. It will be over when the votes are counted and Trump has clearly lost. Then I won't be much interested in this forum for a while to be honest with you. Hopefully all the Trump crybabies and Trump sycophants and the idiot Trump will STFU. The entire group of smarmy, nutty, pathetic people who think the world lives and dies on this asshat.

You want to know the most convincing argument I heard to vote for Biden? It was from Obama. It was him saying, "You can finally have some peace and quiet." That is literally the only thing I'm looking forward to. Peace and quiet and all the whining, arguing stupidity to stop or at least return to regular levels of Pre-Trump stupidity.

I'll know that's going to happen when it happens. Not when someone makes a prediction or polls say one thing or anything of the kind. When it's done.

Then I'll take a nice, long break from here as there won't be a whole lot to discuss any longer.