HawkShack.com

It was all fun and games when the economy was booming, Trump was mixing it up with the press for his entertainment, and things we're going fairly well. What about now?

Whoever wins gets handed a global pandemic, a destroyed economy, and a multitude of issues related to the corona virus. They will probably spend the entire term dealing with the corona virus. Both of the main candidates are in their 70s?

Do you think either one is looking at the presidency and thinking, "I"m too old for this. I don't care if I win"?

What a nightmare situation this is. Do think Trump's competitive nature won't let him backdown? Will Trump be ok to lose and wander into Trump Tower, secure himself inside, and get back to his billionaire life for his remaining years while his kids figure out how to get the business back online? Will Biden be able to stand the stress at 77? Will America want a 77 year old during a global pandemic that could kill him? Our choice is 73 or 77. Either one a dangerous choice in this pandemic.

Biden will likely have to pick a very strong VP candidate to carry the load.

I know there has to be a tiny part of them inside that would be fine losing. I think even Trump will concede quickly and let Biden get to business if this thing is still going strong by November.

I'm glad you're acknowledging that the economy is going to take some time to turn around. IMO it's going to take 2 years before things get back to the level it was in January of 2020. I read where 20% of the restaurants in the US will close and never re-open. I suspect that the cruise ship industry will be set back 10 years. This could cause people to completely re-think how they live, work, and play.

Bank of America has issued a dire projection: 20 million jobless, 15% unemployment, 3 straight quarters of negative growth with a cumulative decline of over 10% of GDP. If those figures come to fruition, it would be the largest, deepest recession since the Great Depression.

I think both Trump and Biden want the presidency. IMO Trump loves being in the spotlight. IMO one of the reasons why he suddenly did an about face in his attitude towards the crisis is that he realized how this could help his re-election bid. Biden is a life long politician that has wanted the Presidency for decades and he, like all the other Dems, hate Trump with a passion. Nothing could happen to dissuade him from seizing this opportunity to remove him.

This does throw a monkey wrench into the election process. It has directly impacted the Democratic primary race and completely removed both Biden and Sanders from the national stage, which is one of the reasons why you've seen Trump's popularity climb as there isn't anyone out there taking shots at him. If the virus subsides in the summer and doesn't re-appear next fall, then I think that Biden wins quite handily. However, if we see another round of this pop up in the fall, it could help Trump win re-election. There's even been talk of delaying the election.

Certain industries will recover faster than others. As far as the aggregate market, 2 years sounds like a good enough time. Could happen faster if this resolves faster than expected.

Hard to look into a person and find out if they really don't want it. Trump is hyper-competitive and likely will want to be president again just to win. Biden is a career politician, though I think less driven than Trump.

It will be real interesting to see how this pandemic affects the election. I wonder if it had any effect on the election back in 1918.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Certain industries will recover faster than others. As far as the aggregate market, 2 years sounds like a good enough time. Could happen faster if this resolves faster than expected.

Hard to look into a person and find out if they really don't want it. Trump is hyper-competitive and likely will want to be president again just to win. Biden is a career politician, though I think less driven than Trump.

It will be real interesting to see how this pandemic affects the election. I wonder if it had any effect on the election back in 1918.

And certain industries will evolve out of this, too. This is going to be very similar to 9/11 in that our lives will never be the same again. There's going to be a lot of people that will come out of this with a better understanding of disease prevention and good sanitary practices. I know that I have.

It's anybody's guess as to how this will affect the election. Mine is that the virus subsides in the summer before the conventions (the Dems have moved theirs back to mid August) and initial campaign, but that it could re-appear in the fall prior to the election if it becomes seasonal like the flu. It shouldn't affect states like ours that are 100% vote by mail and some states might put together a contingency plan to do so should it become necessary. I'm not sure of the logistics, if they can get a workable system in that amount of time, but it's a good bet that they're working on it as we speak. I'm sure the Dems are. A low turnout almost certainly will help Trump, especially when the Dem's strength is in urban areas like Philadelphia and Detroit while Trump supporters are generally more dismissive of the crisis.

There's a federal law regarding the date all elections for federal offices must be held, ie the Tuesday following the first Monday of November, but President is a little different in that it's not chosen by direct balloting, it's determined in the Electoral College.

1918 wasn't a Presidential election year. The worst of the Spanish flu was over by March of 1919. Warren Harding won the next Presidential election, in November of 1920.

At least one conservative has turned on Trump due to his poor handling of the coronavirus crisis. Bill Kristol, a longtime political commentator and co founder of one of the oldest conservative publications, The Weekly Standard, has come out with a blazing criticism of Donald Trump and his handling of the coronavirus. He has bought an ad that will air next Tuesday on Fox and Friends:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/election ... =MSNewsApp

Kristol said in a statement that "When President Trump lied about the coronavirus, about its seriousness, and about the government's response to it, he damaged the very foundation of our government. The coronavirus is a threat to our people. But the president's mendacity is a threat to our Constitution."

Trump's not going to be able to afford too many of these defections.

RiverDog wrote:At least one conservative has turned on Trump due to his poor handling of the coronavirus crisis. Bill Kristol, a longtime political commentator and co founder of one of the oldest conservative publications, The Weekly Standard, has come out with a blazing criticism of Donald Trump and his handling of the coronavirus. He has bought an ad that will air next Tuesday on Fox and Friends:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/election ... =MSNewsApp

Kristol said in a statement that "When President Trump lied about the coronavirus, about its seriousness, and about the government's response to it, he damaged the very foundation of our government. The coronavirus is a threat to our people. But the president's mendacity is a threat to our Constitution."

Trump's not going to be able to afford too many of these defections.

Was this guy ever a supporter of Trump? It doesn't sound like it from what I can research. He is listed as an anti-Trumper and worked real hard in 2016 to block Trump from the Republican nomination and the presidency. Sounds like Trump won the first election without this guy and this is a confirmation bias article that you posted with an anti-Trump conservative that has a similar view as you. If he won the first time without this guy, he doesn't need this guy the second time.

Here is a list of Republicans that either voted for Hilary or at least not for him in 2016 that he didn't need. Bill Kristol is on that list along with numerous other powerful Republicans. Like I told you back in 2016, I'm not sure how he won. I thought he was going to lose and lose badly. I didn't vote for him. You didn't vote for him. Hawktawk, an ardent Republican, didn't vote for him, and I'm still not sure where he got his votes. The only guy on here we know voted for him is Idhawkmen. I've heard he took a bunch of Bernie votes because of what Clinton did to Bernie, but I don't know. I heard he got a lot of votes from people saying "Screw the government. We hate you." But a lot of Republicans don't like Trump, never will like Trump, and didn't like him back in 2016. He didn't need them and won't need them now. What you really have to hope for is the grass roots base in different states that helped him win those states by small margins don't vote for him again. That's likely who boosted him into office. I think the media mostly ignores those people and they're harder to track on polls.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/meet-republicans-speaking-out-against-trump-n530696

Aseahawkfan wrote:Was this guy ever a supporter of Trump? It doesn't sound like it from what I can research.

You have a point. Kristol is pretty darn conservative, was once Dan Quayle's Chief of Staff and often referred to as Quayle's brain, so I assumed he was at one time a Trump supporter. He was always right up there with George Will, Pat Buchanan, William Buckley Jr., and Robert Novak as neoconservative political commentators.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Like I told you back in 2016, I'm not sure how he won. I thought he was going to lose and lose badly. I didn't vote for him. You didn't vote for him. Hawktawk, an ardent Republican, didn't vote for him, and I'm still not sure where he got his votes. The only guy on here we know voted for him is Idhawkmen. I've heard he took a bunch of Bernie votes because of what Clinton did to Bernie, but I don't know. I heard he got a lot of votes from people saying "Screw the government. We hate you." But a lot of Republicans don't like Trump, never will like Trump, and didn't like him back in 2016. He didn't need them and won't need them now. What you really have to hope for is the grass roots base in different states that helped him win those states by small margins don't vote for him again. That's likely who boosted him into office. I think the media mostly ignores those people and they're harder to track on polls.

Most of my current friends are through past working relationships that as I've often mentioned are from a variety of races and nationalities and we don't talk a lot about politics, but I personally know a lot of people that voted for Trump as I see them on my Facebook page, many of them high school classmates that I grew up with, and being that I live in Trump country, I see a number of Trump signs in people's yards in my neighborhood so I know he has a solid core that are like Idahawkman that would vote for Trump even if he had the late Jeffery Epstein as his running mate. But I also saw a lot of anti Obama stuff, too, and Obama won without too much difficulty, so like you, I thought that Trump was going to lose big and probably would have if the Dems had nominated someone besides HRC.

Nevertheless, if people like Kristol come out and start openly advertising against Trump, regardless if they supported him in 2016, it's going to have an effect.

RiverDog wrote:Most of my current friends are through past working relationships that as I've often mentioned are from a variety of races and nationalities and we don't talk a lot about politics, but I personally know a lot of people that voted for Trump as I see them on my Facebook page, many of them high school classmates that I grew up with, and being that I live in Trump country, I see a number of Trump signs in people's yards in my neighborhood so I know he has a solid core that are like Idahawkman that would vote for Trump even if he had the late Jeffery Epstein as his running mate. But I also saw a lot of anti Obama stuff, too, and Obama won without too much difficulty, so like you, I thought that Trump was going to lose big and probably would have if the Dems had nominated someone besides HRC.

Nevertheless, if people like Kristol come out and start openly advertising against Trump, regardless if they supported him in 2016, it's going to have an effect.

That's what I was going to ask you too since you live in Pro-Trump country more than I do. I know quite a few Trump supporters even in Western Washington Seattle area that plan to still vote for them. They hate the left. They read all types of stories on Yahoo and various sources further fueling their dislike, distrust, and hatred of the left. They usually fall into vote for any conservative or Trump is right about nearly everything camps. They view the left as trying to take away their guns, promote homosexual normalcy, hate religion, don't have any family values, selling out America to immigrants and foreign nations, and just a variety of views.

Now you know this I'm sure, but the real question of interest have you met any of them that turned on Trump?

So far not a single Trump voter I know plans to change their vote. Even moderate people I know who were and are lukewarm to Trump don't plan to change their vote. They think Trump is doing mostly fine, the economy was good, and they didn't see any reason to vote for someone else as long as things were going well. Near as I can tell absent this pandemic, I didn't see people highly motivated to change their vote as they had become used to Trump's combative style and they didn't think the left was offering anything Trump wasn't already providing. How many people do you know that planned to change their vote?

Aseahawkfan wrote:Now you know this I'm sure, but the real question of interest have you met any of them that turned on Trump?

The short answer is no. The long answer is I don't know. My only gauge is my Facebook page, and if one of my Deplorable friends happens to have turned on Trump, it's unlikely that they'll announce it to the world and admit that they made a mistake. Besides, I don't often discuss politics with the majority of my friends, only 4-5 of my closest friends that I've known for 30 years.

Aseahawkfan wrote:So far not a single Trump voter I know plans to change their vote. Even moderate people I know who were and are lukewarm to Trump don't plan to change their vote. They thing Trump is doing mostly fine, the economy was good, and they didn't see any reason to vote for someone else as long as things were going well. Near as I can tell absent this pandemic, I didn't see people highly motivated to change their vote as they had become used to Trump's combative style and they didn't think the left was offering anything Trump wasn't already providing. How many people do you know that planned to change their vote?

It's not our state, or even our region, that matters. Washington would vote Democratic if the Dems nominated Mickey Mouse. What matters is the voters in swing states, like PA, MI, WI, FL, etc. There were a whole lot of voters in the rust belt of whom Trump's "America First" message appealed to. What they are thinking matters a lot more than the Trumpbots in our state.

Besides, it's not just a matter of changing Trump votes to Biden. It's getting traditional Dem voters that sat out 2016 to the polls this November. HRC was unable to motivate the Democratic base, in particular, black voters, and re-constitute the Obama coalition. Biden has one heck of a lot more appeal to black voters than Hillary ever did. It was the black voters in South Carolina that completely changed the primary race. In addition, there's also a lot of retired folks in swing states like Florida of whom could have had the chit scared out of them by the coronavirus and take note of Trump's very tepid response, and Trump has recently said that SS cuts are on the table. Trump attracted a lot of older voters in 2016 when he promised not to touch SS.

RiverDog wrote:[It's not our state, or even our region, that matters. Washington would vote Democratic if the Dems nominated Mickey Mouse. What matters is the voters in swing states, like PA, MI, WI, FL, etc. There were a whole lot of voters in the rust belt of whom Trump's "America First" message appealed to. What they are thinking matters a lot more than the Trumpbots in our state.

Besides, it's not just a matter of changing Trump votes to Biden. It's getting traditional Dem voters that sat out 2016 to the polls this November. HRC was unable to motivate the Democratic base, in particular, black voters, and re-constitute the Obama coalition. Biden has one heck of a lot more appeal to black voters than Hillary ever did. It was the black voters in South Carolina that completely changed the primary race. In addition, there's also a lot of retired folks in swing states like Florida of whom could have had the chit scared out of them by the coronavirus and take note of Trump's very tepid response, and Trump has recently said that SS cuts are on the table. Trump attracted a lot of older voters in 2016 when he promised not to touch SS.

Obama should help Biden with the African ancestry vote.

I don't think it is traditional Dems that sat out. Just as the right has their radical right you see in movements like the libertarians, the left has their radical left with the Bernie supporters and the people that voted for AOC. Trump rallied the radical right. Can Biden rally the radical left tired of business as usual? I'm interested to see. Biden seems like a very boring candidate. Now I haven't seen him in real action, hopefully we'll see that soon. I think a real helpful point would be if Obama really steps up and backs him to retain his legacy. Obama getting into things will rally the radical right. Maybe Bernie and AOC will throw their weight behind Biden as well to get rid of Trump.

It should all be very interesting.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Obama should help Biden with the African ancestry vote.

I don't think it is traditional Dems that sat out. Just as the right has their radical right you see in movements like the libertarians, the left has their radical left with the Bernie supporters and the people that voted for AOC. Trump rallied the radical right. Can Biden rally the radical left tired of business as usual? I'm interested to see. Biden seems like a very boring candidate. Now I haven't seen him in real action, hopefully we'll see that soon. I think a real helpful point would be if Obama really steps up and backs him to retain his legacy. Obama getting into things will rally the radical right. Maybe Bernie and AOC will throw their weight behind Biden as well to get rid of Trump.

It should all be very interesting.

By traditional Dems I didn't mean the far left. By traditional Dems I meant traditional voting blocks that have reliably cast their votes for the Democratic candidate, mainly blacks and Latinos.

I agree with you, Biden is a boring candidate and does little to inspire the progressive Dems that want an entirely new government. But he doesn't need to flip a lot of votes or get huge throngs that sat out 2016 to come to the polls. Trump lost the popular vote by over 2% the electoral college by less than 100k votes, and has never broken the 50% barrier in popularity since he took office. It's not going to be a Herculean task. I'd be happy if he used as a campaign strategy to give Trump plenty of rope so he'll hang himself. The last thing he needs to do is to go out and make an idiot of himself as he so often does.

RiverDog wrote:By traditional Dems I didn't mean the far left. By traditional Dems I meant traditional voting blocks that have reliably cast their votes for the Democratic candidate, mainly blacks and Latinos.

I agree with you, Biden is a boring candidate and does little to inspire the progressive Dems that want an entirely new government. But he doesn't need to flip a lot of votes or get huge throngs that sat out 2016 to come to the polls. Trump lost the popular vote by over 2% the electoral college by less than 100k votes, and has never broken the 50% barrier in popularity since he took office. It's not going to be a Herculean task. I'd be happy if he used as a campaign strategy to give Trump plenty of rope so he'll hang himself. The last thing he needs to do is to go out and make an idiot of himself as he so often does.

I see. You're getting your 100k vote number with Pennsylvania and Michigan, which would have been a huge flip. Those will be serious battleground states again as will Florida. Biden maintains and flips a few of those states and he will win. Trump is very vulnerable.

Texas wasn't close. I think Dems are pipe dreaming thinking Texas plans to flip. Dems have a far better chance of flipping Florida than Texas.

If Biden doesn't screw up and picks a quality VP candidate, he should have an easy win come November.

Aseahawkfan wrote:[
I see. You're getting your 100k vote number with Pennsylvania and Michigan, which would have been a huge flip. Those will be serious battleground states again as will Florida. Biden maintains and flips a few of those states and he will win. Trump is very vulnerable.

Texas wasn't close. I think Dems are pipe dreaming thinking Texas plans to flip. Dems have a far better chance of flipping Florida than Texas.

If Biden doesn't screw up and picks a quality VP candidate, he should have an easy win come November.

I agree that flipping Texas is a long shot, but it's not as much of a given as it used to be. Texas is a must for Trump. If he doesn't win there, he'll lose the election by 100+ electoral votes. And I do think that Biden will flip Florida mainly because I don't think Trump will do nearly as well with seniors as he did in 2016.

In addition to Pennsylvania and Michigan, Biden stands a good chance of flipping a number of states, including Wisconsin, Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina, and Virginia, all states Trump won by less than 5% in 2016. And besides Texas, there's a few others that could be put into the maybe category, like Georgia and South Carolina, states with large black populations.

As far as Biden's running mate, he's already said that he's going to pick a female, and there's a number of good ones out there, including Klobuchar of Minnesota and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who would help in a key swing state and that Dem party faithfuls just love. Both are moderates that would dove tail nicely with Biden's philosophy. The way he could screw it up is if he took Warren, who is nearly a polar opposite with a bunch of baggage that couldn't even win in her home state, or to a lesser degree, Kamala Harris, who is a liberal that doesn't add anything to the ticket.

RiverDog wrote:I agree that flipping Texas is a long shot, but it's not as much of a given as it used to be. Texas is a must for Trump. If he doesn't win there, he'll lose the election by 100+ electoral votes. And I do think that Biden will flip Florida mainly because I don't think Trump will do nearly as well with seniors as he did in 2016.

In addition to Pennsylvania and Michigan, Biden stands a good chance of flipping a number of states, including Wisconsin, Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina, and Virginia, all states Trump won by less than 5% in 2016. And besides Texas, there's a few others that could be put into the maybe category, like Georgia and South Carolina, states with large black populations.

As far as Biden's running mate, he's already said that he's going to pick a female, and there's a number of good ones out there, including Klobuchar of Minnesota and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who would help in a key swing state and that Dem party faithfuls just love. Both are moderates that would dove tail nicely with Biden's philosophy. The way he could screw it up is if he took Warren, who is nearly a polar opposite with a bunch of baggage that couldn't even win in her home state, or to a lesser degree, Kamala Harris, who is a liberal that doesn't add anything to the ticket.

Biden picks that Michigan governor as his running mate and he will Sarah Palin himself. She may seem cool now, but she's ridiculous. She's another one gaining a name among the anti-Trump crowd for fighting with him, but isn't a real strong leader. Sorry, bud. If he picks her, we'll make a bet Biden loses. That would be a bad pick.

Klobuchar might be ok. I'm not sure how well he has been vetted.

As far as flipping those other states, some are possible. He won't flip Arizona. They haven't moved left nearly as much as the media claims. I have family there and that is a red state with no interest in a left candidate.

The big ones are Pen, Michigan, and Florida.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Biden picks that Michigan governor as his running mate and he will Sarah Palin himself. She may seem cool now, but she's ridiculous. She's another one gaining a name among the anti-Trump crowd for fighting with him, but isn't a real strong leader. Sorry, bud. If he picks her, we'll make a bet Biden loses. That would be a bad pick.

The country barely knows her, so unless she has some skeleton in her closet, I don't see her being a drag on the ticket. She won by a landslide in the Michigan gubernatorial election, winning every county, which is impressive no matter what state you're from but even more so in a diverse state like Michigan. She can deliver a key swing state.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Klobuchar might be ok. I'm not sure how well he has been vetted.

One of the advantages of taking a Presidential candidate is that they have already been vetted. Another plus of taking a POTUS candidate is that they can essentially merge two campaigns.

Aseahawkfan wrote:As far as flipping those other states, some are possible. He won't flip Arizona. They haven't moved left nearly as much as the media claims. I have family there and that is a red state with no interest in a left candidate.

Could be, but there also might be a backlash due to how Trump treated John McCain. Trump won the state by just 4% in 2016 and the last RCP poll average had Biden up by 3.8%. Biden scored a double digit win there in the primary.

Aseahawkfan wrote:The big ones are Pen, Michigan, and Florida.

Agreed. There are others that could be in play, but those are the ones with the most electoral votes. Biden needs to win all the states Hillary did plus flip 38 electoral votes. FL Gov. DeSantis isn't doing Trump any favors by the way he's handling the coronavirus crisis.

RiverDog wrote:The country barely knows her, so unless she has some skeleton in her closet, I don't see her being a drag on the ticket. She won by a landslide in the Michigan gubernatorial election, winning every county, which is impressive no matter what state you're from but even more so in a diverse state like Michigan. She can deliver a key swing state.

Any woman wearing stupid shirts, making alarming comments about the medical situation in her state as though the entire country is not in a similar situation to Michigan, and generally acting like she is during a global pandemic is not someone I would trust as Vice President, much less president. Those should be red flags right there. If that is who you think would make a good VP candidate, you can have at it. I think it's Sarah Palin 2.0 myself.

Though she looked all good standing up to Trump with her comments according to the left wing press, I think once election time rolls around that reaction can be twisted to make her look like a hysterical female acting selfishly when other states were in more or equally dire need. And I'm sorry, you shouldn't be doing that when you run a state. You need to look like you have things together and you understand the entire nation is in the same situation. If might help her stay governor since people in Michigan will feel she really cares about them.

One of the advantages of taking a Presidential candidate is that they have already been vetted. Another plus of taking a POTUS candidate is that they can essentially merge two campaigns.

Should be. She will have the easier job of out debating Mike Pence, another boring VP.

Could be, but there also might be a backlash due to how Trump treated John McCain. Trump won the state by just 4% in 2016 and the last RCP poll average had Biden up by 3.8%. Biden scored a double digit win there in the primary.

If we knew each other, I'd bet you money against that. A lot of Republicans that voted for Trump did so when he was ridiculing McCain before he even won. They didn't care. They won't care now. I think you don't seem to get how big the immigration issue is in Arizona. They have a real anti-immigrant (Latin immigrant that is) movement there.

Agreed. There are others that could be in play, but those are the ones with the most electoral votes. Biden needs to win all the states Hillary did plus flip 38 electoral votes. FL Gov. DeSantis isn't doing Trump any favors by the way he's handling the coronavirus crisis.

Those are the states most likely to flip that will decide the election. He wins even one of those and he could take the election.

Biden didn't want to run in the first place, waiting so long he initially had trouble finding donors. He just saw the field being assembled and saw 4 more years. He wants to return America to normalcy out of love of country. I'm glad he ran or we would have Sanders in the general. I'm not sure how it will cut but I fully agree Trump is increasingly an imminent danger needing removed. Bidens no ball of fire but he understands the job description and how to pull the levers of government. He needs to choose Kamala Harris. Minority,woman, accomplished politician and state AG. Its would make he ticket formidable and I think she would lay Mike Pence's hypocrisy and slavish devotion bare if they debate.

As for Trump himself I have no idea what's in his head. Howard Stern has sworn for years he only ran to enhance his brand and was "super Pist" he won the first time. But then you look at the pathological mentally ill narcissism. Does he really want to lose at anything and admit he wasn't the favorite??

How about this. He's never wanted the job and he proves it by the day, just the power and the title. Yes he wants to keep that.

As I've said this is his entire presidency. his response to this and our outcome will determine his fate.

I know I wouldnt want the job

Aseahawkfan wrote:Any woman wearing stupid shirts, making alarming comments about the medical situation in her state as though the entire country is not in a similar situation to Michigan, and generally acting like she is during a global pandemic is not someone I would trust as Vice President, much less president. Those should be red flags right there. If that is who you think would make a good VP candidate, you can have at it. I think it's Sarah Palin 2.0 myself.

She hasn't said or done anything on the national stage that the public will remember, but I do agree she's a risky choice just because she hasn't been vetted. My point is that she's a viable choice that would lock up a key swing state if he were to take her, and there's no other VP candidate that you can say that about. IMO the smart choice would be Klobuchar as she's already been well vetted. Most successful POTUS candidates in the past 70 years have taken a former POTUS candidate as their VP (Kennedy-Johnson, LBJ-Humphrey, Reagan-Bush, Clinton-Gore, Obama-Biden) and there's been some really dismal choices for those that didn't (McGovern-Eagleton, Nixon-Agnew, Mondale-Ferraro, Bush-Quayle, McCain-Palin).

Aseahawkfan wrote:Should be. She will have the easier job of out debating Mike Pence, another boring VP.

Most VP's are boring. The job is one of the worst in government. Former VP John Nance Garner once said that it wasn't worth a warm bucket of piss (later quote was sanitized to warm bucket of spit).

I

Aseahawkfan wrote:f we knew each other, I'd bet you money against that (Biden winning AZ). A lot of Republicans that voted for Trump did so when he was ridiculing McCain before he even won. They didn't care. They won't care now. I think you don't seem to get how big the immigration issue is in Arizona. They have a real anti-immigrant (Latin immigrant that is) movement there.

I'm not saying that Biden is going to win AZ. I'm just saying that there's a lot of evidence that indicates that it's going to be a swing state this fall: Trump winning by only 4% in 2016, Biden winning the primary by 10+, current polls show Biden up over Trump).

Aseahawkfan wrote:Those are the states most likely to flip that will decide the election. He wins even one of those and he could take the election.

The magic number to win is 270. Hillary won 232 in 2016, so Biden needs to flip 38 electoral votes. The only red state with that many electoral votes is Texas, so Biden is going to have to flip at least two states unless one of them is Texas.

Hawktawk wrote:He (Biden) needs to choose Kamala Harris. Minority,woman, accomplished politician and state AG. Its would make he ticket formidable and I think she would lay Mike Pence's hypocrisy and slavish devotion bare if they debate.

Harris would be a horrible choice. First of all, she's from CA. That state is as in the bag for any Dem as Idaho is for Trump. Secondly, her ancestry and gender does not add anything to the ticket. Biden already does very well with both blacks and females. And most importantly, she's opposite Biden on too many issues, and the Trump team and debate moderators would have a field day, throwing out questions like "Mr. Biden, you're against Medicare for All but Ms. Harris is all for it. Which one of you is right?" Or how about this one: Mr. Vice President: As a DA, Ms. Harris failed to seek the death penalty for a cop killer. Do you agree with her?" Those are just the type of questions that Biden could stick his foot in his mouth with. Harris would bring with her a minefield for a man that's already subject to huge gaffes. Harris might sound good on her own or in a debate with Pence, but she would cause Biden a lot of very uncomfortable moments, putting him in the position of having to defend her, and he's not very good at handling those types of situations.

The safe choice is Klobuchar. She's been well vetted so there's no lurking skeletons in her closet, she's from the upper Midwest and should help in her border states of Michigan and Wisconsin, she already has a nation wide campaign network, she's close to Biden in ideology having endorsed him the moment she ended her own campaign (Harris waited 3 months), she's friendly, inoffensive, family orientated, and is still relatively young, at least compared to all the other old men, and could take the baton from Biden in 2024.

If this were going to be a slam dunk election, then it might make sense to take Harris based on your logic, as if it were a job application. But it's likely to be a very close election, and Biden is going to need someone that helps him politically, that makes him look good, and won't be a distraction.

For the lack of nothing else better to do, I thought I'd take a peek at the Trump vs. Biden race. Of special interest to me is the critical swing state races. It's still early, state wide polling is less reliable than nation wide surveys, and most races are within the 3-4% margin of error that most polls have. Nevertheless, it does give us an idea of where the battlegrounds are going to occur and a vague idea of who's leading.

My favorite poll is the RCP average, which itself isn't a poll, rather an average of all the major polls, so IMO it's more accurate than any single poll. It can't be accused of having a political bias. The polls come in at various times over the past few weeks, which compromises their accuracy somewhat.

Wisconsin: Biden +2.7%
Florida: Biden +0.4%
Michigan: Biden +4.4%
Pennsylvania: Biden +3.8%
North Carolina: Biden +3.4%
Arizona: Biden +3.8%
Texas: Trump +2.6%

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

Trump won every one of those states in 2016, so the polls suggest that he might be in trouble. There are some other states that voted for Trump that might be in play, like South Carolina and Ohio, but they don't have current RCP averages attached to them. The most recent nation wide RCP average has Biden up 5.9%. Hillary won the popular vote by 2.1% and the nation wide polls were spot on, and given the fact that she lost the electoral college by 100K votes in 2 states, I think it's safe to say that if the election were held today, that Biden would win.

One thing that this is telling us is that Trump isn't getting a bump from the coronavirus crisis, at least nothing that can be detected by polling. His job approval remains underwater at 44.9% approve, 50.8% disapprove. His high water mark during the crisis was 47.3% approve and 49.7% disapprove on March 29th, lowest coming on March 9th with 44.3% approve, 52.9% disapprove, so not a lot of change. It's about the same as we've seen throughout the Trump presidency, so not a lot of minds are changing one way or another.

I'm just glad it's Biden who got the nomination. He's not my favorite 2nd Amendment guy, but he is left of center and won't want to upset the economy and will be supportive of incentives to get it going again. I do think Obama will come out strong for Biden, not so much because he loves Biden but because Biden will be a means to repair his legacy which Trump is doing his best to destroy. Though I'm not sure Harris will be the best choice as she seems like a candidate to fire up the right, while at the same time not doing much to fire up the radical left that Bernie had behind him.

It's likely going to be another tight race.Though I'm expecting some bigger bombshells from the Democrats this time around like Trump using racial epithets on old Celebrity Apprentice Tapes or some other scandals to do with the corona virus response. If the economy is not back on track during election time, people who lost businesses and jobs in key states will be listening for ways to vent anger. Whoever can tap into that anger and channel it can win some votes for their side.

When I think about it, if Biden chose a strong Latino/a candidate as Vice President, that might help him quite a bit too, especially in Florida and Texas.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I'm just glad it's Biden who got the nomination. He's not my favorite 2nd Amendment guy, but he is left of center and won't want to upset the economy and will be supportive of incentives to get it going again. I do think Obama will come out strong for Biden, not so much because he loves Biden but because Biden will be a means to repair his legacy which Trump is doing his best to destroy. Though I'm not sure Harris will be the best choice as she seems like a candidate to fire up the right, while at the same time not doing much to fire up the radical left that Bernie had behind him.

Biden is far from my favorite candidate, too, but he's the most electable. If his days in the Senate are any indication of how he'll govern, he'll be a ground smoother, a welcome relief from the ground shaking, bomb throwing Trump. More so than the health care or the economy, I'm sick and tired of having to apologize for the POTUS and making excuses for those people that voted for him. It will mark the first time in my life that I've voted for a Dem for POTUS and only the 2nd time I've voted for a Dem for national office.

Aseahawkfan wrote:It's likely going to be another tight race.Though I'm expecting some bigger bombshells from the Democrats this time around like Trump using racial epithets on old Celebrity Apprentice Tapes or some other scandals to do with the corona virus response. If the economy is not back on track during election time, people who lost businesses and jobs in key states will be listening for ways to vent anger. Whoever can tap into that anger and channel it can win some votes for their side.

I think that's a fair assessment. I agree, it's going to be a dirty campaign, one of the dirtiest in our history. I do think there's a chance that Biden could win by as much as 100 electoral votes and 10% in the popular vote, but chances are that it will tighten up in the final days just like in 2016. The wild card is the coronavirus. I honestly think that Trump has blown his chance to benefit from the country rallying around its leader with his performance during the crisis, but he can change that impression if the country rebounds strongly.

Aseahawkfan wrote:When I think about it, if Biden chose a strong Latino/a candidate as Vice President, that might help him quite a bit too, especially in Florida and Texas.

He's already said that he's going to choose a female VP. There's no way he can go back on that promise. He needs all hands on board, and going back on a promise that's important to a major constituency is critical to his success. I'm not sure how many female Latino candidates are out there, but there's obviously not very many outside of someone like AOC.

RiverDog wrote:Biden is far from my favorite candidate, too, but he's the most electable. If his days in the Senate are any indication of how he'll govern, he'll be a ground smoother, a welcome relief from the ground shaking, bomb throwing Trump. More so than the health care or the economy, I'm sick and tired of having to apologize for the POTUS and making excuses for those people that voted for him. It will mark the first time in my life that I've voted for a Dem for POTUS and only the 2nd time I've voted for a Dem for national office.

I mostly ignore the president. Sure, Trump makes it difficult to ignore, but I still mostly ignore him other than the moderate debates on forums. I wouldn't apologize for the president. The entire nation runs above my head doing things I would never do. I'd be apologizing for ages if I took what these people in DC do to heart. The scumbag stuff our government has done over time and the excuses made based on party by supporters of each is so much hot air as far as I'm concerned. The Drone Assassination program alone I can't even begin to understand how it is legal. The Patriot Act seems like a complete violation of privacy. Obamacare was The Supreme Court once again using the Commerce Clause to crap on our rights. No use apologizing for this group of clowns that use the power of government to infringe upon us for our own "good."

I wouldn't apologize for Trump. The government is over our heads at this point. I doubt we'll ever have the necessary unified group with the right morals to bring it back in line. We basically kill people for foreign leaders now like Saudi Arabia. We encourage a handout mentality to keep the mob from rioting even if it is just table scraps to provide some sort of subsistence living. Americans in general are subject to taxes that keep growing to pay for the bloated mass of government. You could apologize for a lot of things we do every administration.

I imagine if you're talking about apologizing for Trump's rudeness. Screw that. I'm not apologizing for some loudmouth clown because he won an election or the people that voted for him.

And I won't vote for Biden. The only help I'll offer is not voting for Trump. Just like last time. If the Dems want the toothless Biden in office, they can put him there without my help. I can personally live with Trump or Biden. I'll ignore both of them.

He's already said that he's going to choose a female VP. There's no way he can go back on that promise. He needs all hands on board, and going back on a promise that's important to a major constituency is critical to his success. I'm not sure how many female Latino candidates are out there, but there's obviously not very many outside of someone like AOC.

As long as he doesn't Palin himself like McCain did, a female VP should help him.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I imagine if you're talking about apologizing for Trump's rudeness. Screw that. I'm not apologizing for some loudmouth clown because he won an election or the people that voted for him.

My reason for apologizing for him goes beyond simple rudeness. It's his racism and intolerance of others. As I've mentioned before, I have a lot of foreign born friends, and many of them do not understand American politics and see the POTUS from an entirely different perspective than you and I do. It may not be a rational response or one they can articulate, but they feel that because he was freely elected that most people share his views towards them, that the country hates them. Especially because I fit the demographics of a Trump supporter, I've had to go out of my way to assure people that I don't believe in Trump or what he stands for. Never in my life have I had to do that, and I have never revealed to any of my subordinates who I voted for, but I did in 2016.

Aseahawkfan wrote:And I won't vote for Biden. The only help I'll offer is not voting for Trump. Just like last time. If the Dems want the toothless Biden in office, they can put him there without my help. I can personally live with Trump or Biden. I'll ignore both of them.

I don't like Biden, either, but he's a better choice than Hillary or the rest of the Democratic candidates, so this year, I'm going with the lesser of two evils. I'm sick and tired of DJT and I'm almost to the point where I'd sleep with the Devil to get him out of office.

Aseahawkfan wrote:As long as he doesn't Palin himself like McCain did, a female VP should help him.

IMO he's probably going to take either Klobuchar or Harris. Both have been well vetted as they were candidates for POTUS so there shouldn't be any surprise revelations, but Amy is better suited as she's more in line with Biden's political philosophy and doesn't come with any baggage. Harris is more liberal and has some things in her past that Trump's people can take advantage of.

RiverDog wrote:My reason for apologizing for him goes beyond simple rudeness. It's his racism and intolerance of others. As I've mentioned before, I have a lot of foreign born friends, and many of them do not understand American politics and see the POTUS from an entirely different perspective than you and I do. It may not be a rational response or one they can articulate, but they feel that because he was freely elected that most people share his views towards them, that the country hates them. Especially because I fit the demographics of a Trump supporter, I've had to go out of my way to assure people that I don't believe in Trump or what he stands for. Never in my life have I had to do that, and I have never revealed to any of my subordinates who I voted for, but I did in 2016.

I haven't been apologizing, but I have been explaining Trump's talk is just talk for the campaign trail. He doesn't believe half of it. The immigration chatter has been here since I was young in the 80s. I even noticed it in a few 80s movies from when I was growing up and the immigration issue was still an issue. I know it was an issue when my mother was growing up in the 50s and her father had to deal with it when he was growing up in the early 1900s. And worse than anything Trump could muster.

Same thing I had to do with some Muslim friends after 9/11 with Bush Jr. as president. We sent aid to Pakistan after the Earthquake and some folks thought we were invading.

Another funny thing I watched a while back was an 80s interview with Trump defending Mike Tyson when he was sent to jail for rape. He thought the charges were BS and he thought Tyson got a raw deal. It's interviews like that as to why I didn't think of him as a racist, at least not against folk of African descent. He was always hobnobbing and speaking well of celebrities and business dealings with folk of African descent.

Could be he is mainly anti-immigrant or just exploiting them. I will never know for sure. All I can say at this moment is he sure pushed hard to get that anti-immigrant vote and has played to the racist and intolerant members of the American voting blocs, though I still don't believe every anti-immigrant person is Republican.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I haven't been apologizing, but I have been explaining Trump's talk is just talk for the campaign trail. He doesn't believe half of it. The immigration chatter has been here since I was young in the 80s. I even noticed it in a few 80s movies from when I was growing up and the immigration issue was still an issue. I know it was an issue when my mother was growing up in the 50s and her father had to deal with it when he was growing up in the early 1900s. And worse than anything Trump could muster.

Immigration has always been an issue, but never has it been more personalized than what Trump has been doing over the past 4 years since he became a candidate. He's Demonized immigrants, characterized them as nothing but a pack of drug running thugs. No POTUS in the post war world has done more to make legal immigrants and nationalized citizens feel as threatened as Trump has. It's my biggest single problem with him.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Another funny thing I watched a while back was an 80s interview with Trump defending Mike Tyson when he was sent to jail for rape. He thought the charges were BS and he thought Tyson got a raw deal. It's interviews like that as to why I didn't think of him as a racist, at least not against folk of African descent. He was always hobnobbing and speaking well of celebrities and business dealings with folk of African descent.

That doesn't surprise me at all. Trump has been a womanizer his entire adult life, banging pornstars and rubbing elbows with the likes of Jeffery Epstein. His defense of Tyson would not have caused me to think that he's not a racist, rather a defender of a person that he shares a similar sense of entitlement with.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Could be he is mainly anti-immigrant or just exploiting them. I will never know for sure. All I can say at this moment is he sure pushed hard to get that anti-immigrant vote and has played to the racist and intolerant members of the American voting blocs, though I still don't believe every anti-immigrant person is Republican.

IMO it's both. Obviously he's been able to tap into the fears and underlying racism of a lot of insecure people. But his tweet to "The Squad" to go back to where they came from had nothing to do with exploiting them for political purposes.

Trump's biggest constituency is older white males without a college education. I've worked in a field where there were a lot of whites w/o a college degree that were well qualified yet suffered huge discrimination simply because they didn't have a sheepskin. If upper management, all of whom had degrees, didn't like you, rather than telling you to your face why they didn't want to promote you, they'd use the lack of a college education as an excuse not to give you the promotion that you had been seeking. It caused a lot of resentment amongst those folks, caused many to view women, minorities, immigrants, as a threat or as a means of rationalizing their own shortcomings. That fear or insecurity is what Trump has tapped into.

RiverDog wrote:Immigration has always been an issue, but never has it been more personalized than what Trump has been doing over the past 4 years since he became a candidate. He's Demonized immigrants, characterized them as nothing but a pack of drug running thugs. No POTUS in the post war world has done more to make legal immigrants and nationalized citizens feel as threatened as Trump has. It's my biggest single problem with him.

True. Even Bush Jr. courted the Latin vote as he can see the writing on the wall with the Latin voting bloc.

That doesn't surprise me at all. Trump has been a womanizer his entire adult life, banging pornstars and rubbing elbows with the likes of Jeffery Epstein. His defense of Tyson would not have caused me to think that he's not a racist, rather a defender of a person that he shares a similar sense of entitlement with.

This isn't the only example of Trump showing respect and defense of folk from an African background. I'm pretty disappointed he chose to pursue the line of speaking he has when he had never in the past pursued or even hinted that he thought this way. It was one of the more surprising of Trump's stances I've seen as he never made such issues prior to running for president. It's unfortunate.

IMO it's both. Obviously he's been able to tap into the fears and underlying racism of a lot of insecure people. But his tweet to "The Squad" to go back to where they came from had nothing to do with exploiting them for political purposes.

Trump's biggest constituency is older white males without a college education. I've worked in a field where there were a lot of whites w/o a college degree that were well qualified yet suffered huge discrimination simply because they didn't have a sheepskin. If upper management, all of whom had degrees, didn't like you, rather than telling you to your face why they didn't want to promote you, they'd use the lack of a college education as an excuse not to give you the promotion that you had been seeking. It caused a lot of resentment amongst those folks, caused many to view women, minorities, immigrants, as a threat or as a means of rationalizing their own shortcomings. That fear or insecurity is what Trump has tapped into.

Seen this quite a bit myself. You can't much reason with folk who are sure they're getting screwed, even when you can clearly show that the reality is that minority folks have been getting screwed for years. No one seemed to do much complaining when men of European descent were getting jobs over equally qualified minority men and women due to racism. Or even given the chance. Of course, that comes down to human egocentrism and selfishness, which is in great abundance within the human race.

Yes. Trump to my disappointment is tapping into that false philosophy that has abundant evidence to prove it's falsity. I don't even think he believes it myself, but he doesn't care as he'll do whatever he feels he has to do to win. It's really all he cares about.

Aseahawkfan wrote:True. Even Bush Jr. courted the Latin vote as he can see the writing on the wall with the Latin voting bloc.

As stupid as Bush 43 was thought to be, he speaks fluent Spanish and his sister-in-law is Hispanic, but he was never able to parlay that into a political advantage.

Aseahawkfan wrote:This isn't the only example of Trump showing respect and defense of folk from an African background. I'm pretty disappointed he chose to pursue the line of speaking he has when he had never in the past pursued or even hinted that he thought this way. It was one of the more surprising of Trump's stances I've seen as he never made such issues prior to running for president. It's unfortunate.

Trump has never been in "The Arena" (to coin a term used by Richard Nixon) before. He's never had to defend himself to anywhere near the same degree as he has since he became a candidate, so his racism was never apparent. That's one of the reasons why so many politicians are former lawyers: They are used to arguing, they must have an immediate recall of facts, and are used to having to respond immediately to a critical remark. A CEO doesn't have to defend himself to packs of news reporters in a press conference. Trump's not very articulate and doesn't have a good recall of facts, so it puts him under a large amount of pressure, which causes one to revert to their roots. Trump can't do any of that, so he gets angry, and anger brings out our core values, or in Trump's case, his racism. It's kinda like getting someone drunk or putting them under some sort of hypnosis then having them spill their guts as their true emotions start coming out.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Seen this quite a bit myself. You can't much reason with folk who are sure they're getting screwed, even when you can clearly show that the reality is that minority folks have been getting screwed for years. No one seemed to do much complaining when men of European descent were getting jobs over equally qualified minority men and women due to racism. Or even given the chance. Of course, that comes down to human egocentrism and selfishness, which is in great abundance within the human race.

That's one of the things I try to explain to foreigners about the American psyche. Racism, and to a lesser degree sexism, is an irrational concept so it's not obvious how a person got that way unless you've experienced it.

RiverDog wrote:As stupid as Bush 43 was thought to be, he speaks fluent Spanish and his sister-in-law is Hispanic, but he was never able to parlay that into a political advantage.

I haven't checked recently, but I think he did get a good percentage of the Latin vote. He won two terms even with the left wing attacking him as a war criminal and protesting him, so he must have some political advantage. You remember all the liberals on this forum like c-bob, obi, old but slow, and the like ragging on Bush Jr. like crazy saying all kinds of crap like he went to war for oil and the like. He still managed to pull off two terms. And many are wishing for the days of Bush Jr on the left compared to Trump.

Trump has never been in "The Arena" (to coin a term used by Richard Nixon) before. He's never had to defend himself to anywhere near the same degree as he has since he became a candidate, so his racism was never apparent. That's one of the reasons why so many politicians are former lawyers: They are used to arguing, they must have an immediate recall of facts, and are used to having to respond immediately to a critical remark. A CEO doesn't have to defend himself to packs of news reporters in a press conference. Trump's not very articulate and doesn't have a good recall of facts, so it puts him under a large amount of pressure, which causes one to revert to their roots. Trump can't do any of that, so he gets angry, and anger brings out our core values, or in Trump's case, his racism. It's kinda like getting someone drunk or putting them under some sort of hypnosis then having them spill their guts as their true emotions start coming out.

You and I will never be in agreement on this because you no so little of Trump prior to his run for the presidency. Trump was a fixture within public circles and celebrity circles since the 70s. He has been in various interview shows, sparred with politicians, had multiple books done on him, and been on a TV show for going on twenty years with a variety of people of varying backgrounds on that show. He's been in the public eye longer than most politicians or celebrities. He has lived a very public life, very public. You may have ignored him, but his name is known worldwide. He's even done a stint or two on the WWE. He's run the Miss America pageant. He's hobnobbed with presidents, politicians, celebrities, and business people both domestically and internationally for decades. You can find interviews with Trump criticizing Reagan back to the 80s.

Trump most certainly has been in "The Arena." He's even taken out full page adds attacking politicians in New York or other public venues. If you search Youtube, you will find he has been on Letterman, Larry King Live, and various other talk shows both domestically and internationally. He hasn't been a private figure living a fairly quiet life like say Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. Trump has been pushing his name and himself publically for over 40 years.

Which is why I see him differently than you. I think if he were as racist as you claim he is rather than a guy willing to debase himself to win office, then they would have a lot more on him including celebrities he has associated with of various ethnicities coming out of the woodwork to call him a racist because he has actually hobnobbed with a lot of business people and leaders of Muslim nations, Latin nations, and the like who buy his luxury apartments and such. He is very well-connected in the international business community. He has been friends with and associated with a ton of people who all live very public lives in various nations. I was more surprised they have so little to attack him with given his life.

Not sure why he chose to pursue the path he did for election, but maybe his people told him it was a big issue for the right wing that he could tap into. So he did it. He has said a lot of rubbish I've never heard come out of his mouth even when he was criticizing politicians and the like during the past four decades I've followed him. I don't care for it, but he is doing what he thinks will get him the votes. Unfortunately, it is succeeding. I think that is troubling as well.

I'll leave it there as I doubt we'll ever agree on this. And if I had known nothing about Trump prior to him running for election, I might think the same thing as you. So I can't fault you thinking it.

That's one of the things I try to explain to foreigners about the American psyche. Racism, and to a lesser degree sexism, is an irrational concept so it's not obvious how a person got that way unless you've experienced it.

Every nation has it's own prejudices and cultural bias. We have ours that we're trying to work through. Take solace in that many nations are worse than us in the racism and prejudice department to the point of violence. It's nice that quite a few Americans are nice and try to help immigrants. If you go to some nations and you're the wrong group, you might get killed or openly spat on. Or just get the cold shoulder and freeze out.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I haven't checked recently, but I think he did get a good percentage of the Latin vote.

You're right, Bush 43 won 44% of the Hispanic vote. I didn't think that he did that well.

RiverDog wrote:Trump has never been in "The Arena" (to coin a term used by Richard Nixon) before.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Trump most certainly has been in "The Arena." He's even taken out full page adds attacking politicians in New York or other public venues. If you search Youtube, you will find he has been on Letterman, Larry King Live, and various other talk shows both domestically and internationally.

That's a little different than a live press conference with several dozens of reporters looking to score big with a quote or sound bite. Talk shows like Letterman and one-on-one interviews with Larry King and the like are largely rehearsed events. They're not going to try to put their guest on the spot. There's nothing like running for an elective office.

RiverDog wrote:That's one of the things I try to explain to foreigners about the American psyche. Racism, and to a lesser degree sexism, is an irrational concept so it's not obvious how a person got that way unless you've experienced it.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Every nation has it's own prejudices and cultural bias. We have ours that we're trying to work through. Take solace in that many nations are worse than us in the racism and prejudice department to the point of violence. It's nice that quite a few Americans are nice and try to help immigrants. If you go to some nations and you're the wrong group, you might get killed or openly spat on. Or just get the cold shoulder and freeze out.

That's true. Not many of those I've interacted with don't want to return to their homeland except for visiting family and friends. They like it here. Despite the problems they face with acceptance, they would much rather make their lives here than they would anywhere else. Their problem is that they don't understand our biases. They come from countries that are by and large one race, one religion, and one language. They've never had to confront racism and cultural biases, and they're having to do it in a foreign country in a language they don't completely understand, and it scares them.

RiverDog wrote:You're right, Bush 43 won 44% of the Hispanic vote. I didn't think that he did that well.

He did real well with the Latin vote. I thought it was intelligent to pursue that voting bloc for Republicans given many Hispanics are socially conservative. Republicans would find strong conservative support from religious Hispanics raised in very conservative Catholic nations.

That's a little different than a live press conference with several dozens of reporters looking to score big with a quote or sound bite. Talk shows like Letterman and one-on-one interviews with Larry King and the like are largely rehearsed events. They're not going to try to put their guest on the spot. There's nothing like running for an elective office.

Slightly different, but when you're a public fixture in New York, one of the biggest cities in the world, and on TV 20 years on a highly rated reality TV show, you get vetted for that kind of thing very, very well. If he had a lot of racist bones laying about in his closet, I'm sure they would have torpedoed his show and hotels and casinos much earlier. That's why it seemed to come out of the blue for those that follow Trump like myself. I never would have known he was that interested in immigration from his past. I knew he didn't like America getting screwed over in trade agreements in business because he's been ranting about that since the 80s. That was no surprise. As far as being a racist who cared about immigration, not sure where that came from. And apparently that voting bloc is stronger than any of us expected in America. We'll see if it is still strong next election.

For those like yourself who never gave a rip about Trump before he ran for president, he said a lot of racist, anti-immigrant BS while he was rattling on fueling the anti-immigrant crowd. I can see why you have the viewpoint you do.

That's true. Not many of those I've interacted with yearn to return to their homeland except for visiting family and friends. Despite the problems they face with acceptance, they would much rather make their lives here. Their problem is that they don't understand our biases. They come from countries that are by and large one race, one religion, and one language. It's a prejudice they've never had to confront, and it scares them.

What nations are by and large one race and one language? Most of the immigrants I've met are multilingual and deal with multiple tribal and ethnic groups within a single nation. It's America who is overly accustomed to a single race and single language. We think of people as monolithic groups like black, white, Hispanic, and Asian. If you go to those countries, they don't think that way at all. Foreign folk are usually very used to dealing with multiple languages and ethnic groups and sometimes multiple religions within their nation, often as their neighbors.

For example, the Iraqi are used to dealing with the Shia and Sunni conflict as well as the Kurds and Persians. The Afghans are used to dealing with Pashtun, Tajik, and Hazzara with a few other groups mixed in, but the dominant groups are Tajik and Pashtun and the Hazzara are often poorly treated. Then they have a regional conflict with the Pakistani. Mexicans have color issues between the darker skinned native groups and the people of Spanish heritage, though they do generally speak Spanish. If you go to Ethiopia, you have many different tribal groups with slightly different languages, clothing, food, and the like within the same nation like Amhara, Oromo, Somali, Tigrinya, Sidamo, and too many to list.

Americans are usually the provincial rubes who wonder why someone doesn't speak English and understand American culture because we're used to a sort of American monoculture that only we really understand. Our culture is very foreign to people from other nations who think we don't even have a culture because they've never been to a place where individual freedom is the culture of the land. I'm not even sure there is another nation that values individual freedom like we do. It's a uniquely American cultural trait where the individual is put ahead of society or family as a matter of law and culture.

Aseahawkfan wrote:What nations are by and large one race and one language? Most of the immigrants I've met are multilingual and deal with multiple tribal and ethnic groups within a single nation.

Most of the SE Asia countries. Vietnam, for example, is 85% Kinh, or traditional Vietnamese, and an even higher percentage are Asians. Nearly 90% speak Vietnamese as their native tongue. Almost all SE Asian countries, except for the random businessmen and retirees, are Asians. Even in other countries in Africa, the Middle East, and eastern Europe, that are more diversified, they are not the boiler pot like we are. Besides, it's not so much that racism and discrimination doesn't exist in their native countries, it's that as individuals, they've never been subject to it until they arrived here and had to integrate into our society. That's why Trump scares them.

Two of my closest friends are a couple from Romania, lived here since 1979 and we've been friends since about 1990. He was a professional soccer player, played for the old Portland Timbers of the NASL, and we met playing racquetball. His wife is my dental hygienist whom I met at random, neither of us knowing that I also knew her husband until I asked her about her accent. Neither spoke a word of English when they arrived, and of course, their English is heavily accented. They explained to me how people that have an accent are thought by others to be stupid because of it, and they're exactly right. I've caught myself thinking that way, at least I did in the past. When I explain that effect to other immigrants, their eyes light up in agreement, tell me that they get that same impression from people who don't know them when they're trying to make themselves understood. I'm sure it exists everywhere else on the planet, too, but it's something they've never had to deal with or been a subject of until they arrived here.

RiverDog wrote:Most of the SE Asia countries. Vietnam, for example, is 85% Kinh, or traditional Vietnamese, and an even higher percentage are Asians. Nearly 90% speak Vietnamese as their native tongue. Almost all SE Asian countries, except for the random businessmen and retirees, are Asians. Even in other countries in Africa, the Middle East, and eastern Europe, that are more diversified, they are not the boiler pot like we are. Besides, it's not so much that racism and discrimination doesn't exist in their native countries, it's that as individuals, they've never been subject to it until they arrived here and had to integrate into our society. That's why Trump scares them.

Two of my closest friends are a couple from Romania, lived here since 1979 and we've been friends since about 1990. He was a professional soccer player, played for the old Portland Timbers of the NASL, and we met playing racquetball. His wife is my dental hygienist whom I met at random, neither of us knowing that I also knew her husband until I asked her about her accent. Neither spoke a word of English when they arrived, and of course, their English is heavily accented. They explained to me how people that have an accent are thought by others to be stupid because of it, and they're exactly right. I've caught myself thinking that way, at least I did in the past. When I explain that effect to other immigrants, their eyes light up in agreement, tell me that they get that same impression from people who don't know them when they're trying to make themselves understood. I'm sure it exists everywhere else on the planet, too, but it's something they've never had to deal with or been a subject of until they arrived here.

Yep. That is how it is with Americans. We have so little experience with any language outside of English, we think if you don't speak it you must be dumb. Other nations have far more experience on a daily basis dealing with other languages and peoples than we do. We almost tune out if they don't speak English or act like Americans. We're a very provincial and insular country as much as we try to think of ourselves as this melting pot. Americans tend to stick to their own as the saying goes. I imagine that is how it is in many nations though as ethnocentrism is a common trait across the world. You're more comfortable with people who share the same language and cultural ideals as yourself.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Yep. That is how it is with Americans. We have so little experience with any language outside of English, we think if you don't speak it you must be dumb. Other nations have far more experience on a daily basis dealing with other languages and peoples than we do. We almost tune out if they don't speak English or act like Americans. We're a very provincial and insular country as much as we try to think of ourselves as this melting pot. Americans tend to stick to their own as the saying goes. I imagine that is how it is in many nations though as ethnocentrism is a common trait across the world. You're more comfortable with people who share the same language and cultural ideals as yourself.

That's because nearly every country teaches English in their schools. In the Netherlands, it's required from first grade all the way through high school. They made a conscious decision back in the 60's that they wanted American money, and the best way to achieve that goal was to be English friendly. The younger Dutch don't even speak their native tongue anymore except around their grandparents that didn't learn it in school like they did. I spent 3 days in Amsterdam and you would have thought that you were in some old American big city as they spoke nearly perfect, unaccented English, including the slang. France wasn't nearly as English-friendly. They're a little more nationalistic. I had a Frenchman correct me when I spoke of the English Channel. He told me that they considered it the French Channel.

Back to the accent thing. I saw a documentary once on baseball, and the subject was Roberto Clemente, one of my childhood favorite players. The sportswriters tried to get him to go by Robert or Bobby, but he refused, insisted on being called Roberto. They retaliated by printing the text version of his accented English in the newspaper: "The phone go green, green, I pee cup and say "yellow?" type of garbage. Not that I haven't teased some of my friends about their accent, but it's not in a situation where they're the only one that's being picked on or singled out, and it's usually followed up with a conversation on how common accents are anymore and how it's nothing to be embarrassed about, just that they have to take some crap about something, might as well be their accent.