Poll Watching

[Aseahawkfan]

The divide was there before Trump. It will be there after him. Americans are deeply divided on a variety of issues that have to do with the legacy of this nation meeting with its future. That's to be expected.

But the problem is Trump has so inflamed people that he has created a focus on him I've never seen. Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real thing. Not just for those that hate him, but for those that worship him as well. The rhetoric surrounding Trump is idiotic. He encourages it.

Trump has people so wound up that they are raising him up as some messiah of the right here to battle the Democrats and "the swamp" as they refer to it that they can't see how corrupt and false he is as a person. He has been part of the swamp for ages. He has used and supported politicians and policies to support the tax advantages he uses, the low interest rates, and the economic laws to his advantage. He isn't some defender the working man. He isn't religious. He's a talking head salesman who built his name off attacking Obama and other right wing ideas like immigration and China for his own purposes. He's all about himself. Always has been, always will be. It's why he's not a puppet of Putin or any of that trash. He's a self-centered, egotistical, narcissistic rich businessman that his supporters have elevated to some kind of great figure because they can't engage in rational thought very well.

The left has elevated Trump into this right wing boogeyman responsible for the rise in White supremacy, a Kremlin puppet under the control of Putin, an anti-immigrant racist, a corrupt businessman more corrupt than the vast majority of business people in this country, and the reason for all that is wrong with America. He loves to goad them. Private meeting with Putin with a smile on his face? Sure, let's piss off the Democrats and believers in the Russian theory. Ask him about white supremacy and right wing militias, let's not answer to wind them up. He goes out of his way to push every leftist and Democrat button he can. He pisses the press off on purpose calling them fake news and winding his followers up. He spouts off with whatever he thinks will get him noticed. He does it intentionally. The left just slurps it up becoming enraged and acting idiotic themselves in believing rubbish like our C.I.A. is so bad and stupid they would allow someone in Putin's hand to become president. That white supremacy is some huge threat even the evidence doesn't fit the narrative. That Trump is some kind of fascist dictator that can over-ride the Constitution.

It's all ridiculous. It's all encouraged by Trump and his rhetoric. Most presidents know to as I call it keep the peace even while under constant attack from the other side. If Biden or nearly anyone else is elected, they will keep the peace. Let the loons sound off. Smooth things over with the moderates, the news, and the like. They won't encourage this ridiculous level of chaos and division.

America has been divided for years. Probably always has been divided. I have never read a period in history where Americans were unified behind single causes other than perhaps a few major wars. The entire system is built for people to argue and resist back and forth. All these calls for unity are just pablum for the masses like when someone says "Love is the greatest thing" and we all go 'awwww." The reality is humans are competitive. Which is why part of the job of the president and politicians is to smooth over the idiot divide and get deals done that satisfy various constituents.

But Trump don't get this. He likes to stoke the divided and make it all about him. That is not good politics or leadership. He doesn't seem to learning that the attacks on him are not personal, it's just various groups maneuvering to push their policies. He has to brush off those attacks, not let the divisiveness ruin the nation, and get things done all at the same time. We need that element back in the Oval Office because this crazy stupid divisive crap is amusing at best during good times, but an absolute detriement during a global pandemic when the Chief Executive is more concerned with stoking his ego than following the science of controlling a global pandemic. We can't have a selfish, divisive idiot in office during a global pandemic because it is terrible for the nation.

[RiverDog]

The divide was there before Trump. It will be there after him. Americans are deeply divided on a variety of issues that have to do with the legacy of this nation meeting with its future. That's to be expected.

But the problem is Trump has so inflamed people that he has created a focus on him I've never seen. Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real thing. Not just for those that hate him, but for those that worship him as well. The rhetoric surrounding Trump is idiotic. He encourages it.

Agreed. Like I was mentioning to Mykc, most of us in here recognize that the divide didn't start and won't end with Trump. But he sure as hell has exacerbated it, and getting rid of him will be a good first step towards narrowing the gulf...if it can be narrowed. Getting him out changes the discussion somewhat.

The left has elevated Trump into this right wing boogeyman responsible for the rise in White supremacy, a Kremlin puppet under the control of Putin, an anti-immigrant racist, a corrupt businessman more corrupt than the vast majority of business people in this country, and the reason for all that is wrong with America. He loves to goad them. Private meeting with Putin with a smile on his face? Sure, let's piss off the Democrats and believers in the Russian theory. Ask him about white supremacy and right wing militias, let's not answer to wind them up. He goes out of his way to push every leftist and Democrat button he can. He pisses the press off on purpose calling them fake news and winding his followers up. He spouts off with whatever he thinks will get him noticed. He does it intentionally. The left just slurps it up becoming enraged and acting idiotic themselves in believing rubbish like our C.I.A. is so bad and stupid they would allow someone in Putin's hand to become president. That white supremacy is some huge threat even the evidence doesn't fit the narrative. That Trump is some kind of fascist dictator that can over-ride the Constitution.

I agree with most of that. Trump feeds off of hate. Many of his followers internalize the viscous, demeaning attacks on Trump as an attack on them. That's one of the reasons he beat Hillary, because she played right into his hand, calling Trump followers "a basket of deplorables". That remark didn't win her one single vote that wouldn't have been there for her anyway, but it was a rallying cry for Trump backers.

But Trump don't get this. He likes to stoke the divided and make it all about him. That is not good politics or leadership.

Trump has never made the transition from candidate to executive. His rhetoric serves him well when he's running for office, but it doesn't do him any good when he's trying to manage a nation.

[mykc14]

"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.


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.

I understand what you are saying and agree that it is a major problem. Even AOC had trouble remembering the branches of Gov. in an interview shortly after she was elected. I imagine she would ace that question now though. I use examples like that poll to my students all of the time- I say you do not want to stand there looking dumb when a person asks a simple question like "who's the vice president" (something most of my seniors don't know except during election years).

As far as treating the symptom rather than the problem I definitely agree, but I do think this particular problem is more involved than that. Furthermore fixing the problem with a 'stupid' population of adults would take years as you would have to fix the part of the population that is still in school (the kids). The 'stupid' adults are beyond fixing so the best solution is to try and take care of a symptom while you fix disease. To me the bigger issue is that the disease is no where near fixing. Our teachers are not exempt from the political polarization that has taken place and often times push that perspective on the kids. Also, the way the Social Media algorithms manipulate us is on the subconscious level. They are dividing us as a country and we don't even realize it. Schools need to teach how to use these technologies safely but until we have adults who can on their own there needs to be regulation, IMO. I can see why it is controversial, it's sort of like policing McDonald's fat content or calories in a burger. Average citizens should know how to eat responsibly. Although I agree with this what if there was more to the story. What if by the time the irresponsible citizen became an adult they were already addicted to the food. They were allowed to eat the addictive food their whole childhood, they didn't choose to become addicted but they are. This is sort of like that. I think we are all responsible for our actions, but when we are tricked into life-long habits as children I think the government should look at stepping in, especially when these decisions have consequences for the whole country. Your obesity is now my problem because of health care costs, especially if/when our healthcare becomes socialized. I think Social Media addiction/manipulation is in the same vein.

[Aseahawkfan]

I understand what you are saying and agree that it is a major problem. Even AOC had trouble remembering the branches of Gov. in an interview shortly after she was elected. I imagine she would ace that question now though. I use examples like that poll to my students all of the time- I say you do not want to stand there looking dumb when a person asks a simple question like "who's the vice president" (something most of my seniors don't know except during election years).

As far as treating the symptom rather than the problem I definitely agree, but I do think this particular problem is more involved than that. Furthermore fixing the problem with a 'stupid' population of adults would take years as you would have to fix the part of the population that is still in school (the kids). The 'stupid' adults are beyond fixing so the best solution is to try and take care of a symptom while you fix disease. To me the bigger issue is that the disease is no where near fixing. Our teachers are not exempt from the political polarization that has taken place and often times push that perspective on the kids. Also, the way the Social Media algorithms manipulate us is on the subconscious level. They are dividing us as a country and we don't even realize it. Schools need to teach how to use these technologies safely but until we have adults who can on their own there needs to be regulation, IMO. I can see why it is controversial, it's sort of like policing McDonald's fat content or calories in a burger. Average citizens should know how to eat responsibly. Although I agree with this what if there was more to the story. What if by the time the irresponsible citizen became an adult they were already addicted to the food. They were allowed to eat the addictive food their whole childhood, they didn't choose to become addicted but they are. This is sort of like that. I think we are all responsible for our actions, but when we are tricked into life-long habits as children I think the government should look at stepping in, especially when these decisions have consequences for the whole country. Your obesity is now my problem because of health care costs, especially if/when our healthcare becomes socialized. I think Social Media addiction/manipulation is in the same vein.

This is a question I have pondered for ages. Even though I get pissy sometimes, I don't think Americans are necessarily stupid so much as self-interested. Myself as an example like to use humans as a source of information for which they are specialized. Almost every human has some intense interest they spend the majority of their time learning about even if something others deem unimportant like video games, knitting, or scrapbooking. It varies from person to person.

Yet you have a government system where the people are expected to govern which requires that they take the time to learn about their nation enough to choose candidates, ensure policies are in line with Constitutional philosophy, and a variety of information necessary for a citizen to govern. But how many people are actually interested in governing? How many want to learn what the need to to govern? It seems far easier for them to read some news stories or choose some candidate appealing to their emotions and be done with it. But does this lead to a well run nation? Hard to determine. On the one hand America is a very powerful and capable nation. Can we say this is because our people make good decisions? I'm doubtful. I think it is more that the powerful and motivated people in this nation have done an excellent job managing our resources publically and privately, while manipulating the masses as needed.

Can a large and diverse group of people govern a nation very well? Or is it better to leave it to those truly invested and interested in government allowing them to manipulate the masses as needed giving the illusion of Democracy, while we're run more like an oligarchy? It is perplexing. It is a noble idea to have the people govern a nation. But good government requires expert management that is likely not in line with what a large and diverse group of people are capable of. It's a real conundrum.

[RiverDog]

I understand what you are saying and agree that it is a major problem. Even AOC had trouble remembering the branches of Gov. in an interview shortly after she was elected. I imagine she would ace that question now though. I use examples like that poll to my students all of the time- I say you do not want to stand there looking dumb when a person asks a simple question like "who's the vice president" (something most of my seniors don't know except during election years).

The vice president question is one that most Americans can't get, and it doesn't bother me a whole lot when people can't name the sitting one.
My favorite trivia challenge is VP running mates as few of even well educated, intelligent people can name even recent ones, like Hillary's or Romney's. What bothers me more is when people don't know what the Holocaust was, the major issue in the Civil War, or how we ended up with a Senate and House of Representatives. I am more concerned with their knowledge of the mechanics of government and how we got to where we are, not who holds a specific position. The only thing that reciting the names of office holders achieves is to stroke the egos of our politicians. Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth.

As far as treating the symptom rather than the problem I definitely agree, but I do think this particular problem is more involved than that. Furthermore fixing the problem with a 'stupid' population of adults would take years as you would have to fix the part of the population that is still in school (the kids). The 'stupid' adults are beyond fixing so the best solution is to try and take care of a symptom while you fix disease. To me the bigger issue is that the disease is no where near fixing. Our teachers are not exempt from the political polarization that has taken place and often times push that perspective on the kids. Also, the way the Social Media algorithms manipulate us is on the subconscious level. They are dividing us as a country and we don't even realize it. Schools need to teach how to use these technologies safely but until we have adults who can on their own there needs to be regulation, IMO. I can see why it is controversial, it's sort of like policing McDonald's fat content or calories in a burger. Average citizens should know how to eat responsibly. Although I agree with this what if there was more to the story. What if by the time the irresponsible citizen became an adult they were already addicted to the food. They were allowed to eat the addictive food their whole childhood, they didn't choose to become addicted but they are. This is sort of like that. I think we are all responsible for our actions, but when we are tricked into life-long habits as children I think the government should look at stepping in, especially when these decisions have consequences for the whole country. Your obesity is now my problem because of health care costs, especially if/when our healthcare becomes socialized. I think Social Media addiction/manipulation is in the same vein.

I agree, fixing the stupid problem isn't a viable solution, at least not in the short term. It's a pet peeve of mine, and I'll take any opportunity to vent about it.

I could be talked into outlawing or regulating specific things in social media, like the manipulative algorithms you referred to, and I can see some logic in an effective banning use of certain types of material for those under 18, although I don't know how that would be done. What I don't like is talk of putting in fact checker pop ups or registering websites with some type of controlling authority.

But what ever they do, they're going to have to tap dance around the 1st Amendment, especially given the current philosophical make-up of SCOTUS.

[NorthHawk]

I'm part way through a book about how America has changed in the last 40+ years and why.
It's an interesting point of view with some good observations backed up by history.

It's called Evil Geniuses The Unmaking of America by Kurt Andersen

I'm only about half way through it, but it shows how the rise of the right has taken the
country away from the ideals of the 50's, 60's, and early 70's and how it was done.
By inference (so far in my reading), the reader can understand why there is such a big divide between the left and right.

[RiverDog]

I'm part way through a book about how America has changed in the last 40+ years and why.
It's an interesting point of view with some good observations backed up by history.

It's called Evil Geniuses The Unmaking of America by Kurt Andersen

I'm only about half way through it, but it shows how the rise of the right has taken the
country away from the ideals of the 50's, 60's, and early 70's and how it was done.
By inference (so far in my reading), the reader can understand why there is such a big divide between the left and right.

I'm not sure how anyone can lay that kind of responsibility on any one political ideology. Over the past 40 years, the Republicans have controlled the Presidency for 24 years, the Democrats for 16. We've had divided government for the majority of that time, with one party in the White House and the other controlling at least one legislative body.

[NorthHawk]

But the country has moved to the right.
Could the Environmental Protection Agency be created by almost unanimous consent today? How about the ERA?
Now Roe v Wade is considered to be in jeopardy and one party doesn't believe in science. As well, the gap between
the rich and poor is wider than ever before. Most of us working stiffs have only seen our wages increase by a few
percentage points (in real dollar values) but the top end has seen their take increase by well over 200%. This type of
change can't help the divisions in any society. And it's similar in all western democracies as we've followed the lead
of the US. Free trade was sold as a deal where we could sell our goods and services freely in the other countries markets
but in reality it was and is a vehicle for the free movement of capital. And with capital goes jobs. The start of the
free trade agreements was an idea opposed by the left, and made everyone poorer except those at the top who cached
in mightily. Gone are the days of the social contract whereby everyone shared almost equally in the new wealth created
by productivity.

[RiverDog]

But the country has moved to the right. Could the Environmental Protection Agency be created by almost unanimous consent today? How about the ERA?

The ERA was a 70's initiative that failed more than 40 years ago and outside your time frame. But to answer your question, I'd give you Obama Care, the Americans with Disabilities Act, COBRA, gay marriage, and a myriad of gun control laws. There's tons of legislation at both the federal level as well as state and local governments that can be considered liberal that has come to fruition over the past 40 years.

Now Roe v Wade is considered to be in jeopardy and one party doesn't believe in science.

Not sure if you can take at face value what the current nominee has been testifying to, but she's saying that such a prospect is extremely unlikely. As far as one party not believing in science, that's an over simplification but I do agree that they are a lot tougher sell.

As well, the gap between the rich and poor is wider than ever before.

And that's the fault of conservatives? What else does the book blame on conservatives? 9/11? The Great Recession? The George Floyd murder? The national debt? Drug addiction? Maybe the common cold?

You're making it sound like the book has a political agenda. I generally try to stay away from that type of literature.

[mykc14]

But the country has moved to the right.
Could the Environmental Protection Agency be created by almost unanimous consent today? How about the ERA?
Now Roe v Wade is considered to be in jeopardy and one party doesn't believe in science. As well, the gap between
the rich and poor is wider than ever before. Most of us working stiffs have only seen our wages increase by a few
percentage points (in real dollar values) but the top end has seen their take increase by well over 200%. This type of
change can't help the divisions in any society. And it's similar in all western democracies as we've followed the lead
of the US. Free trade was sold as a deal where we could sell our goods and services freely in the other countries markets
but in reality it was and is a vehicle for the free movement of capital. And with capital goes jobs. The start of the
free trade agreements was an idea opposed by the left, and made everyone poorer except those at the top who cached
in mightily. Gone are the days of the social contract whereby everyone shared almost equally in the new wealth created
by productivity.

That's interesting and I think Republicans could point out issues that have moved more left (LGBT+ Rights, Late term abortion policies, social programs like safe injection sites, etc...) . Being an independent I try to do as much objective research as possible, which is getting more and more difficult, but it seems like both parties have become more extreme and the average Democrat has moved farther left than the average Republican has moved right.

[Aseahawkfan]

But the country has moved to the right.
Could the Environmental Protection Agency be created by almost unanimous consent today? How about the ERA?
Now Roe v Wade is considered to be in jeopardy and one party doesn't believe in science. As well, the gap between
the rich and poor is wider than ever before. Most of us working stiffs have only seen our wages increase by a few
percentage points (in real dollar values) but the top end has seen their take increase by well over 200%. This type of
change can't help the divisions in any society. And it's similar in all western democracies as we've followed the lead
of the US. Free trade was sold as a deal where we could sell our goods and services freely in the other countries markets
but in reality it was and is a vehicle for the free movement of capital. And with capital goes jobs. The start of the
free trade agreements was an idea opposed by the left, and made everyone poorer except those at the top who cached
in mightily. Gone are the days of the social contract whereby everyone shared almost equally in the new wealth created
by productivity.

You can yourself see this is not true.

I'm not even sure you can view the world accurately by seeing it in terms of right and left. The right and left blurred into something else a while back. There isn't really a strong right or left in power any longer. Both the Democrats and Republicans tend to be centrists who move the bar a little bit one way or the other, but not far.

And the wealth gap and wages are being sold to you in an 80s or 70s package. This is a very bad way to sell it and gives you a false idea of how your life has changed in regard to wealth. I wish many of these folks buying into the wealth gap would shift to standard of living. The wealth gap is meaningless and a way for the Marxist left to stoke the rich vs. poor divide and conflict. It is not a good way to discuss economics or how to better the standard of living to empower people to improve personal wealth and capitalism. Anyone that wants socialism, and I mean true socialism as in forced collectivism, should be driven from American society as forced collectivism is the antithesis of freedom.

But socio-capitalism is the proven modern economic model. It's a blend of socialist elements like military, police, and the like with a strong capitalism core that drives innovation, wealth building, and technology which leads to a much better standard of living. That is what the real focus economic improvement should be focused on. Less on a "hate the rich" and the so called "wealth gap" which is a numbers game and more on how do we ensure people can own more of the product of their labor and feel more economically free and empowered. Suffice it to say socialism in its pure form is not the answer to that question as creating no wealth and forced collectivism is a path to a poor, divided society where power replaces wealth and you concentrate it with whatever group claims to hold the answers to society and that power is maintained through violence and forced thought policing. Something no one should support.

What we really want is a discussion of the standard of living and how to create an environment by which the working person can build a good life within the current corporate structure. That is the biggest problem. We have basically socialized through corporations and need to rethink the economy in this era of mega-corporations.

I think you can look at nations that have successfully enhanced the standard of living and empowered their citizens like Germany and Sweden. Both nations have nationalized certain previously privatized elements like medicine and childcare which has enhanced the ability of citizens to pursue wealth building opportunities in their capitalist system. In America right now you have tremendous number of people that have to maintain jobs to maintain healthcare with little assistance from the government as well as childcare issues along overly expensive housing. So you create this system that encourages working people to maintain jobs on a corporate schedule with their wages and wealth being tied to a corporations valuation of wages and labor. These corporations control hundreds of thousands of jobs along with globalizing the labor pool causing Americans to compete for jobs against not only other American, but citizens of other nations with different labor laws, wage levels, standards of living, education, and the like.

So what Americans need is de-risking of some of the normal life fears to allow them to take chances on pursuing opportunities in the global wealth system. Basically, the entire world is capitalist now. So the discussion should be concerned with socializing or nationalizing healthcare to support capitalism and democracy as this would allow for greater job mobility and wealth building opportunities. Suffice it to say, given the current environment the government needs to focus on de-risking certain elements of the capitalism system to create greater opportunities for the middle class to rebuild their wealth and focus on standard of living over the wealth gap as three is no way for a wealth gap to be reduced to a level where a working person will ever be within sniffing distance of owners of global corporations. It's a red herring as valuations are driven by a global stock market with companies valued as global entities due to revenue streams on a global rather than national level. Measuring wealth gaps on a national level when global corporations like Google and MIcrosoft derive revenue streams on a global scale is an outmoded and inaccurate method of determining inequality on a national scale.

I would stay as far away as you can from books pushing any partisan divide or thinking and focus on source material to help understand the world around you. As in learn how economics works on a basic level, then analyze the current environment, and support policies that will better the opportunity of the working person to build wealth and sustain a quality standard of living for an American. We need that defined in a modern context rather than in a 1970s or 1980s context.

Sure, home ownership was easier in the 70s and 80s. But things like cable, cell phones, internet, computers, and similar technologies are far more advanced now and access to them has fallen so that working folk have access to technology and opportunities once only available to the wealth. But it's very hard to take advantage of these new opportunities if the government is enacting policies like it's the 70s and 80s rather than adapting policy to support a middle class in the modern tech driven era.

Main point, dig deeper into what has changed. Study successful societies like Sweden and Germany who are doing a better job of setting their citizens up for success in the modern day and why. Both are highly capitalist societies, but have set their citizens up for success by de-risking education, health care, childcare, and other aspects of daily life that improve their citizens abilities to pursue wealth and opportunity in the modern global economy.

[Aseahawkfan]

That's interesting and I think Republicans could point out issues that have moved more left (LGBT+ Rights, Late term abortion policies, social programs like safe injection sites, etc...) . Being an independent I try to do as much objective research as possible, which is getting more and more difficult, but it seems like both parties have become more extreme and the average Democrat has moved farther left than the average Republican has moved right.

This idea the parties have become more extreme is an illusion proliferated by a for profit media. Fox News selling the Democrats as socialist, white hating, baby killers. MSNBC and CNN selling the Republicans as racist, military colonizing, corporate supporting shills. Both views are pretty far from the truth.

If you look at actual policies enacted by Republicans and Democrats, you see very centrist, careful policies enacted by both groups. You do see more division on a state level like some extreme Anti-abortion stances in the Bible Belt and some extreme liberal stances in some states like California or Washington. But overall a lot of centrism by both parties.

What I do not understand is how people can claim the world is a bad place right now other than the pandemic, which is temporary. We literally live in the greatest period in history. We have never been more peaceful, more technologically advanced, more united on a global level, and had a higher standard of living than we have right now. We live in the greatest time in history on so many levels, yet here we are as humans fabricating misery even as the world is spinning more and more gold on a global level.

I'm flabbergasted at the idea the world is moving in a terrible direction when all I see is continuous improvement in communication, wealth, standards of living worldwide, cultural sharing, medicine, entertainment, and a general desire by humanity to work together to improve every aspect of human life. This is an amazing time when you take the time to read the history books and see what life was like around the world even 50 years ago.

The majority of our ideas about life are media amplification of small issues built into huge issues to ensure their relevance because broadcasting news about fixing problems that are getting easier and easier wouldn't be very interesting to humans. So they gotta go big to really sell people on how terrible the world is to keep people watching. Fear is a far more powerful emotion than contentment and happiness to manipulate people with.

Don't get me wrong in saying the world perfect, but boy, it's in a good spot and getting better. Far better than we've ever been. We really could mostly ignore the press, ignore dumbasses like Trump, and keep pressing forward intelligently and the world would keep improving. The media won't let that happen of course as fear mongering and divisiveness lead to bigger profits. But as far as the reality of our situation, as long as we don't have some major catastrophe that derails the global economy causing a very powerful nation to be forced into a Germany post-WW 1 situation, the world is going to keep improving. Humanity as a group has become too good at making things work well and collaborating for the greater common good now that communication barriers have been pretty much shattered and the global economy is so interconnected that no one really wants to disrupt it.

But don't believe the hype any longer. The world is in great shape and will be even better once his pandemic is over. We have issues to work out that can be done without all the handwringing or violent division.

[RiverDog]

...I think Republicans could point out issues that have moved more left (LGBT+ Rights, Late term abortion policies, social programs like safe injection sites, etc...)

That's my point, too. George W. Bush, supposedly an arch conservative, gave us Medicare Plan D. Now how in the heck does that figure with the premise of the country moving to the right?

[RiverDog]

What I do not understand is how people can claim the world is a bad place right now other than the pandemic, which is temporary. We literally live in the greatest period in history. We have never been more peaceful, more technologically advanced, more united on a global level, and had a higher standard of living than we have right now. We live in the greatest time in history on so many levels, yet here we are as humans fabricating misery even as the world is spinning more and more gold on a global level.

I'm flabbergasted at the idea the world is moving in a terrible direction when all I see is continuous improvement in communication, wealth, standards of living worldwide, cultural sharing, medicine, entertainment, and a general desire by humanity to work together to improve every aspect of human life. This is an amazing time when you take the time to read the history books and see what life was like around the world even 50 years ago.

My parents grew up during the Great Depression, had to endure WW2, the red scare, the prospect of nuclear Armageddon, political assassinations, race riots, Vietnam, etc. We really do live in some very good times. If more people had even a casual knowledge of 20th century history, they wouldn't be so panicked over the current state of affairs.

[c_hawkbob]

Democratic Supreme Court appointments since 1969 = 4
Republican Supreme Court appointments since 1969 = 15 (4 by presidents that lost the popular vote)

Gee, I wonder why the US is moving to the right ...

[Aseahawkfan]

Sure, we're moving right. That's why gay marriage is legal, Obama was elected president, cancel culture by the left is prominent, J.K. Rowling is under attack for making comments about transgender people, Black Lives Matter is written across NBA courts, statutes of American leaders are being torn down, abortion is still legal, marijuana is legal in several states and moving towards Federal legalization, the death penalty is being outlawed in several states, the police are being vilified as racists and defunded, and the like. It's because we're moving right. Let me see if I can roll my eyes hard enough.

There is maybe some argument that fiscally we are moving more right, but that is only because the government was taking so much money that people revolted against tax and spend economics. It's really the Democrats biggest chink in the armor is tax and spend economics. There are a lot of fiscal conservatives like myself and Riverdog who vote conservative almost solely based on economics as we believe tax and spend economics are a bad idea that hurts wealth building and the working man more than almost anything else.

I keep wondering how many Democratic supporters can keep on complaining about corporations becoming richer by paying less in taxes, while never asking the question, "Would I be better off I were paying less taxes? Could I do something better with my money for myself and my family if I wasn't giving so much money to the government? Maybe we should find out."

[RiverDog]

Democratic Supreme Court appointments since 1969 = 4
Republican Supreme Court appointments since 1969 = 15 (4 by presidents that lost the popular vote)

Gee, I wonder why the US is moving to the right ...

I'm not sure what it has to do with the price of tea in China to begin with, but George W Bush's two appointments, Roberts (2005) and Alito (2006), were both made after the 2004 election in which Bush won the popular vote. Additionally, since Bill Clinton, having won a plurality but not a majority, was not a popularly elected president having never received more than 50% of the popular vote (he won 43% of the vote in '92, 49% in '96), you'd have to toss in a couple more justices.

Regardless of that rather irrelevant point, despite the fact that most of the justices were appointed by Republican presidents, the court has still come down on the liberal side of a number of decisions, such as Obama Care, Roe v. Wade, Gay Marriage, environmental protection, etc. Additionally, a number of Republican appointed justices, such as Powell, Stevens, Kennedy, and Souter, can hardly be considered conservative.

Whether the country has been moving to the right or the left depends on your own politics.

[RiverDog]

Sure, we're moving right. That's why gay marriage is legal, Obama was elected president, cancel culture by the left is prominent, J.K. Rowling is under attack for making comments about transgender people, Black Lives Matter is written across NBA courts, statutes of American leaders are being torn down, abortion is still legal, marijuana is legal in several states and moving towards Federal legalization, the death penalty is being outlawed in several states, the police are being vilified as racists and defunded, and the like. It's because we're moving right. Let me see if I can roll my eyes hard enough.

Gotta toss in all these gun control laws we've been passing. My old man died in 1985, and I often times wonder what he would think if he were told that he was risking being convicted of a felony if he didn't lock up the 12 gauge shotgun he kept in his bedroom closet.

[c_hawkbob]

Democratic Supreme Court appointments since 1969 = 4
Republican Supreme Court appointments since 1969 = 15 (4 by presidents that lost the popular vote)

Gee, I wonder why the US is moving to the right ...

I'm not sure what it has to do with the price of tea in China to begin with, but George W Bush's two appointments, Roberts (2005) and Alito (2006), were both made after the 2004 election in which Bush won the popular vote. Additionally, since Bill Clinton, having won a plurality but not a majority, was not a popularly elected president having never received more than 50% of the popular vote (he won 43% of the vote in '92, 49% in '96), you'd have to toss in a couple more justices.

Regardless of that rather irrelevant point, despite the fact that most of the justices were appointed by Republican presidents, the court has still come down on the liberal side of a number of decisions, such as Obama Care, Roe v. Wade, Gay Marriage, environmental protection, etc. Additionally, a number of Republican appointed justices, such as Powell, Stevens, Kennedy, and Souter, can hardly be considered conservative.

Whether the country has been moving to the right or the left depends on your own politics.

Bite me with your "irrelevant point". 15-4 Republican nominations on the SCOTUS is supposed to have nothing to do with an overall move to the right in the US? Whatever.

[RiverDog]

Bite me with your "irrelevant point". 15-4 Republican nominations on the SCOTUS is supposed to have nothing to do with an overall move to the right in the US? Whatever.

The irrelevant point you made wasn't the 15-4 R to D appointments. It was your suggestion that minority elected presidents (and 4 of the past 7 elections have resulted in a minority POTUS) has anything to do with whether the country has moved to the right or the left.

No one said that SCOTUS nominations "have nothing to do" with a move to the right. It's simply one fact amongst scores of others that would tend support one side of an argument.

[c_hawkbob]

The 4 appointments by Presidents that lost the popular vote was NOT my point! It was quite literally a parenthetical aside.

[RiverDog]

The 4 appointments by Presidents that lost the popular vote was NOT my point! It was quite literally a parenthetical aside.

Then I'm not sure why you would even mention it. Your 'parenthetical aside' isn't relevant to the discussion.

But be that as it may. I do agree with you that the number of SCOTUS justices appointed by R's vs. D's does tend to support your contention that the country has moved towards the right. But as both ASF and I have demonstrated, there's mounds of other evidence one can cite to support either argument.

[Aseahawkfan]

Gotta toss in all these gun control laws we've been passing. My old man died in 1985, and I often times wonder what he would think if he were told that he was risking being convicted of a felony if he didn't lock up the 12 gauge shotgun he kept in his bedroom closet.

And electric cars and renewable energy growing at a record pace. Vegan and vegetarian life-style growing at a record pace including processed vegetable replacements for meat. A complete removal of almost anything viewed as right wing from social media platforms like Facebook, Youtube, and Instagram.

But hey, Trump's in office, so we must be moving right. To hell with the facts and evidence to the contrary. Left wing media and supporters told me we're moving right and the DHS has a quote in a long report with many threats saying white supremacists are the biggest threat to America. I guess it must be true.

Now you're seeing the left can't admit they are being manipulated by the left wing media, talking heads, and other associated parties like the right wing drones who buy into everything Fox News is selling. America has an inability to analyze information for themselves to determine what their nation is really like and how varied it is from state to state and even person to person. We view each other as these big groups that all think the same way. A big reason for that is the way the media and political groups paint Americans to push their agenda even though Americans are a very large and varied group of people.

[Aseahawkfan]

Bite me with your "irrelevant point". 15-4 Republican nominations on the SCOTUS is supposed to have nothing to do with an overall move to the right in the US? Whatever.

I don't think the political appointments matter. You're over-stating their effect maybe because Trump gets to appoint another judge.

But if you and Northhawk mean we moved more right during Trump, then that is true. As far as moved more right overall for the past 30 years, not true at all. We've moved more left by leaps and bounds.

Trump is the result of the extreme left movement. He pushed right wing voters to vote his narcissistic ass into office. He is the living embodiment of the rage of the right against the left for all that the left has done to marginalize them, tell them their religious values are stupid, insult them, and force all their views down their throat. Trump is the old right's last kick in the teeth to the left. Once he's out of office, they will have exhausted their last effort to hold onto that old idea of America they represent. That generation is dying off and not being renewed as not many people believe like that baby boomer generation.

So sure, for this little 4 year period we have moved slightly back right to account for all the leftward movement we've had over the past 30 years from Clinton. Even Bush Jr. was a very centrist president who was highly supportive of immigration and wasn't able to make any real moves right other than fiscal moves. In fact, the most right we have move is fiscal. We are more fiscally right than we've been in a long time, but not socially. Socially we are way more left than we've historically been.

We'll likely move even farther left socially once Trump is out office and likely a little more left fiscally. At least as far as those words mean much any longer since Biden is a pretty big centrist.

[RiverDog]

And electric cars and renewable energy growing at a record pace. Vegan and vegetarian life-style growing at a record pace including processed vegetable replacements for meat. A complete removal of almost anything viewed as right wing from social media platforms like Facebook, Youtube, and Instagram.

Yup. Toss in things like spilling water over dams for a stupid fish, re-introducing wolves into our forests, sex education in public schools, our first openly gay POTUS candidate, female NFL referees, no more Washington Redskins, you name it. There's all sorts of evidence one can cite that shows that the country is moving to the left, both politically and socially.

[Aseahawkfan]

Yup. Toss in things like spilling water over dams for a stupid fish, re-introducing wolves into our forests, sex education in public schools, our first openly gay POTUS candidate, female NFL referees, no more Washington Redskins, you name it. There's all sorts of evidence one can cite that shows that the country is moving to the left, both politically and socially.

Yep. The evidence does not fit the narrative unless we're talking fiscally. We've moved more right fiscally since Reagan. Then again Reagan was alive when the top tax bracket was 90 percent I think. Basically 90 cents of every dollar over a certain amount earned was paid in taxes. If you have people paying 90 cents of every dollar earned, you have gone way too far left.

I think some people like to believe whatever narrative their side is tossing out there. I have to talk my mother off the "the world is ending and a terrible place" cliff all the time because she saw some news story. I get so tired of hearing that crap. We can literally cure the blind, the deaf, live longer from medical science, and have problems like obesity due too much high calorie food we've never had in history. Then there is the Internet where information, entertainment, banking, shopping, and just about every aspect of life is available to you at all times via your mobile computer smartphone and somehow we're in this terrible world about to come to an end because the world isn't like these people prefer.

Yet that has nothing to do with the media fear mongering, no of course not. Fox News doesn't sell immigrants as sneaking into America to kill people in their homes and take American jobs. No way does MSNBC sell every single environmental event as a precursor to the coming environmental Armageddon that's going to happen in 20 years or maybe 50 years or maybe a 100 years or maybe a 1000 years or maybe they don't know if anything of the sort will happen, but hey, AOC thinks 20 years or so. She must be a prophet. Of course none of them are selling fear to the masses for ratings riling everyone up. Trump won office just because he's so damn competent. Let me roll my eyes.

I have been wary of the government and media selling me on enemies, fear, and the media since 2001 and the subsequent Iraq War. Ever since we went to war in Iraq when 15 of 19 Saudi Arabians carried out 9/11 and absolutely nothing happened to Saudi Arabia, it really opened my eyes to how much our government and media lie to us. You can't really trust any of them very much. The media may be there to call out some bad things and they do some times because having an open media is better than a state controlled media by leaps and bounds. But you really have to stay awake to what is going on and filter their stories because they definitely push agendas for whatever political group or idea they are supporting.

One of the most hypocritical votes I have ever seen that really hit home was the the Democrats voting to go to war in Iraq, then voting against funding it and acting as though they were anti-war when it become popular to do so. One of the most hypocritical policies by Republicans was going to war in Iraq while ignoring the threat in Saudi Arabia as that was the nation that the main source of anti-American terrorism hails from. Just reading the entire Iraq and post-9/11 moves by our government showed me how much the Republicans and Democrats are united on so many fronts even though they pretend to be substantially different. Just public gamesmanship to manipulate the masses using their various media arms for support. They are both run by special interests and throw scraps and bone to the public, while the powerful really run the nation and enact policy.

[Hawktawk]

That's a pretty good analysis. Both parties use corrupt mechanisms to win. Both lie and demonize and polarize. But you still gotta choose. We need a third party but there isn't a viable one . Exit polls show many early voters did not vote last election and are overwhelmingly supporting Biden. I have been waiting 4 years to strike a blow against this utterly disqualified fascist. This isn't an ideological election per se. Its a sanity, competency election. Polls and early voting shows there may be hope for america after all.

[Aseahawkfan]

That's a pretty good analysis. Both parties use corrupt mechanisms to win. Both lie and demonize and polarize. But you still gotta choose. We need a third party but there isn't a viable one . Exit polls show many early voters did not vote last election and are overwhelmingly supporting Biden. I have been waiting 4 years to strike a blow against this utterly disqualified fascist. This isn't an ideological election per se. Its a sanity, competency election. Polls and early voting shows there may be hope for america after all.

I don't hate Trump, nor am I as against him as you, c-bob, or I5. I don't think he is a Russian Spy. I don't think he is much more corrupt than most politicians or business people on a similar wealth level as him give or take a few pegs on the spectrum.

But one area we do agree is Trump shouldn't be president. He puts an ugly face on America. He doesn't understand that when you govern a nation as president, you are not the president just for those who voted for you, but for the entire nation. You are expected to mediate and preside over the national discussions, not inflame one side over the other. You must even look at those who disagree with you and take into account their viewpoints and smooth it over with both sides to come to some kind of compromise in how to move forward. That is a major part of your job as president. Not inflame, divide, and push America's inherent divisions and differences, especially not during a global pandemic while a virus is freely spreading.

And the lack of a national plan for contact tracing, coordination between states, arguments on stimulus, and the entire attitude of Trump in regards to the virus is ridiculous, un-presidential, and irresponsible. We have enormous resources in America. We should have one of the best, most organized contact tracing in the world. Our athletic organizations by themselves are doing a better job managing the corona virus for their athletes than the Federal Government. They have fewer resources than the Federal government, but a smarter plan based on science. The same kind of plan America could be following, but the idiot in chief doesn't want to support it so America is forced into this disorganized coronavirus response that differs from state to state which is slowing down our recovery.

America needs a president that will act in an intelligent and coordinated manner. Not this idiot who wants it all to go away so he can go back to gloating about the economy and calling people names acting like a fake tough guy. Viruses don't go away because you wished them away or act tough. You have to take very specific measures against them. He isn't doing it.

Funny thing is I think McConnel wants Trump gone. I think he wants to hold up stimulus until after election day because he doesn't want the jackass to win again. I wouldn't be surprised if in that voting booth or on his private ballot McConnell doesn't check the Biden box with that goofy grin on his face thinking, "I can't wait for this dumbass to be gone from office." That's the real problem. Republicans have a hard time speaking out because the Republican base is so split in their areas between the Trump lovers and the Trump haters because Republicans hate Democrats so much.

If Biden wins, then all we get is a political reset. Biden isn't a long-term president. All the Republicans have to do is field a better candidate than the current idiot and they can get back to centrist politics without all the idiot tweeting, narcissism, and noise.

[Aseahawkfan]

I heard Trump has closed to within 5% of Biden on the Rasmussen Poll which predicted Trump's win in 2016. They are a more conservative polling site that tracks Republican voters better than the leftist mainstream polling sites.

[RiverDog]

I heard Trump has closed to within 5% of Biden on the Rasmussen Poll which predicted Trump's win in 2016. They are a more conservative polling site that tracks Republican voters better than the leftist mainstream polling sites.

Sounds like you've been talking to Idahawkman. Rassmussen did come the closest in the 2016 nation wide poll, but only by a couple tenths. All of the major polls were within the margin of error.

In 2012, Rassmussen missed badly, predicting that Romney would win the popular vote 49% to 48% for Obama. The final result was 51-47 Obama, or a 5 point swing, well outside the 3% margin of error.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-america ... o-gop-bias

Not all pollsters are alike. Most polls use all adults while Rassmussen uses 'likely voters', which might explain why they were slightly better than the others as turnout in 2016 came in at a 20 year low. That's not expected to be the case this time around.

Having said that, there is some concerning news in Pennsylvania as Biden's lead has slipped several percent to 5.6%.

[Aseahawkfan]

Sounds like you've been talking to Idahawkman. Rassmussen did come the closest in the 2016 nation wide poll, but only by a couple tenths. All of the major polls were within the margin of error.

In 2012, Rassmussen missed badly, predicting that Romney would win the popular vote 49% to 48% for Obama. The final result was 51-47 Obama, or a 5 point swing, well outside the 3% margin of error.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-america ... o-gop-bias

Not all pollsters are alike. Most polls use all adults while Rassmussen uses 'likely voters', which might explain why they were slightly better than the others as turnout in 2016 came in at a 20 year low. That's not expected to be the case this time around.

Having said that, there is some concerning news in Pennsylvania as Biden's lead has slipped several percent to 5.6%.

The Republican bias is why I'm following Rasmussen. They will track the Trump supporters better than the mainstream sources who seem to be firmly against Trump.

[RiverDog]

Sounds like you've been talking to Idahawkman. Rassmussen did come the closest in the 2016 nation wide poll, but only by a couple tenths. All of the major polls were within the margin of error.

In 2012, Rassmussen missed badly, predicting that Romney would win the popular vote 49% to 48% for Obama. The final result was 51-47 Obama, or a 5 point swing, well outside the 3% margin of error.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-america ... o-gop-bias

Not all pollsters are alike. Most polls use all adults while Rassmussen uses 'likely voters', which might explain why they were slightly better than the others as turnout in 2016 came in at a 20 year low. That's not expected to be the case this time around.

Having said that, there is some concerning news in Pennsylvania as Biden's lead has slipped several percent to 5.6%.

The Republican bias is why I'm following Rasmussen. They will track the Trump supporters better than the mainstream sources who seem to be firmly against Trump.

They don't 'track' Republican voters. They call people at random like all the other pollsters. The difference is in who they're counting. Unlike other organizations, they only count those that they determine are likely to vote. That has a tendency to bias the results.

“Likely voters are a small subset of registered voters. Many people in this country, particularly in mid-term elections or special elections, don’t vote,” Newall said.

In an analysis released last year, the Pew Research Center found that less than half of Hispanic- and Asian-Americans who were eligible to vote cast a ballot in the 2016 general election. Black turnout also declined as well to 60 percent of eligible voters. Democrats have fared better than Republicans among all three groups.

That's why Trump has been trying to throw up hurdles for voters, because he knows that if turnout is low, that his chances are better.

There seems to be a lot more interest in this election than there was in 2016. My guess that turnout will be relatively high, at least higher than it was in 2016.

[Aseahawkfan]

They don't 'track' Republican voters. They call people at random like all the other pollsters. The difference is in who they're counting. Unlike other organizations, they only count those that they determine are likely to vote. That has a tendency to bias the results.

“Likely voters are a small subset of registered voters. Many people in this country, particularly in mid-term elections or special elections, don’t vote,” Newall said.

In an analysis released last year, the Pew Research Center found that less than half of Hispanic- and Asian-Americans who were eligible to vote cast a ballot in the 2016 general election. Black turnout also declined as well to 60 percent of eligible voters. Democrats have fared better than Republicans among all three groups.

That's why Trump has been trying to throw up hurdles for voters, because he knows that if turnout is low, that his chances are better.

There seems to be a lot more interest in this election than there was in 2016. My guess that turnout will be relatively high, at least higher than it was in 2016.

I keep hearing lots of predictions about landslides both ways. Both sides seem very confident they will win. Trump's followers are far more enthusiastic from what I hear at the rallies. I know almost no one that is looking forward to or is enthusiastic about Biden. I guess we'll see.

What do you think of this guy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm44z0TyROE

I wish it would get over with. No matter the result, there will be tons of whining.

[RiverDog]

I keep hearing lots of predictions about landslides both ways. Both sides seem very confident they will win. Trump's followers are far more enthusiastic from what I hear at the rallies. I know almost no one that is looking forward to or is enthusiastic about Biden. I guess we'll see.

I would bet the house that Trump won't win by a landslide. The only 2016 blue state that he's competitive in is NV where he's down by over 5%, and that's just 6 electoral votes. He's not flipping any big blue states. He's trailing by 5-7%, outside the margin of error, in the three states he narrowly won in 2016. He has to take 3 of the 4 big states where he's running behind: PA, MI, FL, and OH, plus all of the smaller states he won in 2016, like WI, AZ, GA, and NC. He's behind in all of those. I can see one or two of those state polls being off, but not all of them.

If Trump wins, it's likely going to be a close election similar to 2016.

What do you think of this guy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm44z0TyROE

I'm not sure where that guy is getting his information. That's one of the reasons why I don't like You Tube, because fact checking can be difficult. Nevertheless, I don't like tracking individual polls for the reasons he suggests. They all have their warts.

There's other information out there besides polls that play into Biden's favor. There is no serious 3rd party or independent candidate. In September of 2016, Libertarian Gary Johnson was getting nearly 10% in the polls. That percentage gradually slid down to 3% by election day. Trump peeled off most of those voters into his column. Third party and independents are always a wild card and their effect is less predictable. There is no viable 3rd party or independent in this election.

There are fewer undecideds in this election. In 2016, they estimated that 15% of voters made their minds up on election day. That percentage is currently less than 7%. With Biden polling at or near 50%, Trump can't make up the difference by convincing an independent to vote for him. He has to flip voters already committed to Biden.

Trump's job approval ratings have been incredibly flat throughout his entire presidency. He hasn't changed a lot of people's minds, and it seems implausible that he'd do so in the the last 2.5 weeks.

The election cycle is shorter this time around because of the expansion of vote by mail due to the pandemic. Over 20 million people have already cast their votes. That's 15% of the number of people that voted in the 2016 election.

Here's a good article that breaks down the effects of early voting and the trends so far:

Republicans have been bracing themselves for this early Democratic advantage (mail-in) for months, as they’ve watched President Donald Trump rail against mail-in ballots and raise unfounded worries about fraud. Polling, and now early voting, suggest the rhetoric has turned his party’s rank and file away from a method of voting that, traditionally, they dominated in the weeks before Election Day.

That’s why, despite Trump’s rhetoric, his campaign and party are encouraging their own voters to cast ballots by mail or early and in-person.

But it’s had limited success in selling absentee voting. In key swing states, Republicans remain far less interested in voting by mail.

In Pennsylvania, more than three-quarters of the more than 437,000 ballots sent through the mail so far have been from Democrats. In Florida, half of all ballots sent through the mail so far have been from Democrats and less than a third of them from Republicans. Even in Colorado, a state where every voter is mailed a ballot and Republicans usually dominate the first week of voting, only 19% of ballots returned have been from Republicans.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/natio ... story.html

If Trump is to win, there's going to have to be a huge surge of Trump voters that make it to the polls on Election Day. Just the demographics of his major constituency, older people, suggests that they are more likely to utilize vote by mail or absentee than other groups. By raising so much doubt about mail-in balloting, he may have shot himself in the foot.

I wish it would get over with. No matter the result, there will be tons of whining.

I hear ya. Although I'm confident that Biden will win by a comfortable margin, you never know. I was shocked in 2016 because I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention. I was still working then, and didn't have the time on my hands to watch events like I have been in this election. And yes, there's going to be a huge outcry no matter what the result. If Biden loses, it will be because of the Russians and Trump subduing the vote. If Trump loses, it will be due to unproven mail fraud.

[c_hawkbob]

To hell with the polls, Biden hit Trump where it hurts the most: the ratings!

Trump's town hall was on 3 channels, Biden's on one, yet Biden's town hall outdrew Trump's by more than a half a million viewers.

That has GOT to have caused a meltdown!

I attribute much of that to the undecideds checking out Biden; they already know what Trump has got to offer. This, without Trump there to interrupt every sentence, lie about every single thing and generally confuse and confound at every opportunity, was perfect for Biden, as interacting one on one with people is his strong suit.

If any of them are still undecided at this point they were never going to vote blue anyway.

[RiverDog]

To hell with the polls, Biden hit Trump where it hurts the most: the ratings!

Trump's town hall was on 3 channels, Biden's on one, yet Biden's town hall outdrew Trump's by more than a half a million viewers.

That has GOT to have caused a meltdown!

I attribute much of that to the undecideds checking out Biden; they already know what Trump has got to offer. This, without Trump there to interrupt every sentence, lie about every single thing and generally confuse and confound at every opportunity, was perfect for Biden, as interacting one on one with people is his strong suit.

If any of them are still undecided at this point they were never going to vote blue anyway.

Less than 7% of adults are undecided, so that's unlikely to be a major factor in the ratings.

But I do agree that TV ratings are an indicator. Although it's the exact opposite of what people should be doing, ie listening to the other candidate to confirm that they've made the right choice, most people tend to listen only to what they want to hear.

[c_hawkbob]

Half a million viewers fits well within that 7%.

[RiverDog]

Half a million viewers fits well within that 7%.

Biden had 12.7 M viewers to Trump's 10.4 M, or roughly a 55%-45% split. That's an almost identical margin to the nation wide polls that show Biden with a 9% lead. People are watching the candidate that most appeals to them.

If after all the focus and attention that's been given to this election there are still people that don't know enough about the two candidates that they're undecided, I doubt that they have sufficient interest to waste their time watching a televised interview.

[Aseahawkfan]

I hope Trump doesn't dig it out this time. Super annoying if he does. 3 more weeks. Hopefully the narcissistic windbag is out. I know Republicans are being convinced of some idiotic liberal Armageddon if Trump loses just as the Democrats are being fear-mongered that if Trump wins it will be the end of our Democracy, but as far as the policies themselves America could use some Democratic handouts right now along with a politician that will coordinate on a national level. I don't like being fear-mongered myself. I feel fear-mongering by the right and left is the lowest form of political campaigning and a complete lie. You don't need fear to see Trump isn't fit for this time period. He's ill-equipped mentally to handle an America in this type of crisis.

[RiverDog]

I hope Trump doesn't dig it out this time. Super annoying if he does. 3 more weeks. Hopefully the narcissistic windbag is out. I know Republicans are being convinced of some idiotic liberal Armageddon if Trump loses just as the Democrats are being fear-mongered that if Trump wins it will be the end of our Democracy, but as far as the policies themselves America could use some Democratic handouts right now along with a politician that will coordinate on a national level. I don't like being fear-mongered myself. I feel fear-mongering by the right and left is the lowest form of political campaigning and a complete lie. You don't need fear to see Trump isn't fit for this time period. He's ill-equipped mentally to handle an America in this type of crisis.

It might be a little longer than three more weeks before we get a result. Several of the swing states have rules on when they can start counting mail in and absentee ballots, that the can't start counting before election day, and there's a huge number of ballots.

“Will it take months? Probably not. Could it take weeks? Probably,” said Jennifer Morrell, a member of the National Task Force on Election Crises.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/critic ... in-ballots

There's also lawsuits pending regarding the disqualification of ballots that aren't validated with a witness, so if it's close, we could go into Thanksgiving not knowing who the winner is. Hopefully we don't have another Florida 2000 fiasco.