Election 2020

[Sour Masher]

If Lefties want to take the position that the election is over because Trump is trailing bigly at this point, I think that would be an error in judgement.

I sure hope no one is taking for granted that Trump will lose because of the polls. I am not, but I do admit that seeing these polls has made me more at ease and open to a far left candidate. Seeing both Sanders and Warren do well against Trump in early polling has shifted my perspective, which use to be, no way would someone that far left win. So in that regard, if the polling is bad data, that may be dangerous, because voters like me who care about electability above all against Trump are erroneously being swayed to support a candidate who could lose to Trump. Is that your contention? Do you think the polls are specifically wrong to suggest Sanders or Warren can beat Trump? Why do you think that, if so?

[Sour Masher]

Wouldn't those who participate in early polls be more likely to be on one of the extreme ends of the spectrum? Whereas the middle tends to be more undecided until closer to election day?

Hmm, that is a good point I had not considered. Revo or Frae or B-Fly someone else who knows polls more than me, how do they typically work? Do pollsters get all kinds of voters to participate, or do those who participate in early polls fit in the extreme ends of the spectrum? If that latter is true, that certainly limits their usefulness.

ETA: Biden's continued strong support would suggest that at least a large minority of polled voters are moderates.

[nots]

I sure hope no one is taking for granted that Trump will lose because of the polls. I am not, but I do admit that seeing these polls has made me more at ease and open to a far left candidate. Seeing both Sanders and Warren do well against Trump in early polling has shifted my perspective, which use to be, no way would someone that far left win. So in that regard, if the polling is bad data, that may be dangerous, because voters like me who care about electability above all against Trump are erroneously being swayed to support a candidate who could lose to Trump. Is that your contention? Do you think the polls are specifically wrong to suggest Sanders or Warren can beat Trump? Why do you think that, if so?

No, I don’t think they are wrong. If the election were held today I believe Trump would lose to all 3 of those candidates. I also think a lot can happen in the next 13 months and those poll numbers will likely rise and fall a lot between now and then. In the article I linked, the data says at this point historically, the polls turn out to be off by 11 points. If that holds true (and it very well might not), that could be a large swing in either direction.

[Sour Masher]

No, I don’t think they are wrong. If the election were held today I believe Trump would lose to all 3 of those candidates. I also think a lot can happen in the next 13 months and those poll numbers will likely rise and fall a lot between now and then. In the article I linked, the data says at this point historically, the polls turn out to be off by 11 points. If that holds true (and it very well might not), that could be a large swing in either direction.

Boy, I sure hope that folks won't forget who Trump really is, if he happens to start to be on his best behavior in the run up to the election. I hope voters won't get fooled by a hasty bipartisan project like funding for fixing roads and bridges. But I also don't think I need to worry too much about that, because while he may be able to swing things back in his favor, if he could retrain himself and focus on the things that would gain the most support, I don't think he is capable of doing that. He isn't going to stop tweeting or threatening to kill political opponents or members of the press, because they are committing treason by challenging him. Such self-restraint is not in his nature.

[heyelander]

Come on!

This is the hot button arena. Why would anybody want to speak about anything righty or repuby if this is the garbage they can expect.

Seems to me Art is agreeing with this statement by you: Those on the left still smarting from HRCs loss better get the fuck over it soon or they'll be looking at 4 more years of Trump.

Agreed.

I agree with a lot of the policies stated in here, but I still think the tone is crap.

[heyelander]

This thread is disgusting. There's a ton of good information and data being presented by several different perspectives (note, I completely disagree with "silly polls" point, I think any/all data is worth discussing), but it turns to "I can only hope you have someone dictating your every move., coming into your home and grabbing your wife or daughters pussy"? Gross.

Hot "topics" is one thing, and I can understand why everyone is free to discuss any topic with any level of passion, that's sort of the point of the hot topic board. As long as the passion is directed at the topic. But is there a reason why we have to put up with that kind of "suck your own dick" garbage? Or suggestions that someone's loved one be sexually assaulted? Really??

As noted recently, one side of the argument has basically left, which makes the discussion less interesting. Why are we encouraging that?

Maybe I'm not the best messenger for this, I know I have my own flaws - perhaps someone else could state this better. Or maybe no one even cares at this point. Sad.

Seriously... take that shit to 4chan.

[revo]

No, I don’t think they are wrong. If the election were held today I believe Trump would lose to all 3 of those candidates. I also think a lot can happen in the next 13 months and those poll numbers will likely rise and fall a lot between now and then. In the article I linked, the data says at this point historically, the polls turn out to be off by 11 points. If that holds true (and it very well might not), that could be a large swing in either direction.

I agree, and obviously, as you said, we don't even know the candidate as of yet. But that said, to have the incumbent be so far behind with a good economy, low unemployment and the incumbent advantage, clearly shows something is going on. He's just not budging off his base. He's losing key pockets he had before because they voted for what they thought was the lesser of two evils. And seeing this in action now is why the state polls matter far more than the national polls. Again, the Dems made a huge mistake in 2016 that they're not going to repeat, so seeing ALL of the Rust Belt states going for Dem candidates now, after they flipped in 2016, is very meaningful.

Is there a chance that every key battleground state poll now will be wrong again, like Art is floating out there? I guess there's always a chance. But what he's not getting is that Trump won by the slimmest of margins, by the skin of his teeth. And he hasn't done himself any favors since.

[nots]

Boy, I sure hope that folks won't forget who Trump really is, if he happens to start to be on his best behavior in the run up to the election. I hope voters won't get fooled by a hasty bipartisan project like funding for fixing roads and bridges. But I also don't think I need to worry too much about that, because while he may be able to swing things back in his favor, if he could retrain himself and focus on the things that would gain the most support, I don't think he is capable of doing that. He isn't going to stop tweeting or threatening to kill political opponents or members of the press, because they are committing treason by challenging him. Such self-restraint is not in his nature.

Your post seems to overlook some of the soft spots some of the Democratic candidates are going to have in certain states. Pennsylvania has 29,000 fracking jobs and another 216,000 indirectly related to the fracking industry. By nominating a candidate that is going to ban fracking, I think it’s very possible that some of those folks are going to likely make peace with Trump’s boorish behavior and bullying tweets rather than support a candidate who is going to eliminate their industry.
In Michigan the UAW right now is on strike. On of the key points of contention is that management wants to make the employees pay 15% of their health costs rather than the current 4%. The unions bargained for and have taken less pay, to get these great health plans. Is it possible quite a few union members will not vote for a candidate who wants to eliminate that private collectively bargained for health care and replace it with MFA? I think it’s certainly possible. What happens if Trump wins Michigan and Pennsylvania?
I think those kinds of issues are going to weigh more heavily than his narcissism and undeserved bravado and Democrats need a candidate more in the middle or who has a really good answer for the Pa fracker and the machinist in Michigan.
Just my thoughts.......

[Sour Masher]

Your post seems to overlook some of the soft spots some of the Democratic candidates are going to have in certain states. Pennsylvania has 100,000 fracking jobs and another 216,000 indirectly related to the fracking industry. By nominating a candidate that is going to ban fracking, I think it’s very possible that some of those folks are going to likely make peace with Trump’s boorish behavior and bullying tweets rather than support a candidate who is going to eliminate their industry.
In Michigan the UAW right now is on strike. On of the key points of contention is that management wants to make the employees pay 15% of their health costs rather than the current 4%. The unions bargained for and have taken less pay, to get these great health plans. Is it possible quite a few union members will not vote for a candidate who wants to eliminate that private collectively bargained for health care and replace it with MFA? I think it’s certainly possible. What happens if Trump wins Michigan and Pennsylvania?
I think those kinds of issues are going to weigh more heavily than his narcissism and undeserved bravado and Democrats need a candidate more in the middle or who has a really good answer for the Pa fracker and the machinist in Michigan.
Just my thoughts.......

I think Warren is capable of being flexible and/or focusing her message in ways that can combat these issues, by highlighting other benefits and green job creation. I am not sure Sanders is, but he could energize those majority of voters who don't fit in that 100k workers. I agree these are concerns though. I've often lamented the fact that no other moderate candidate that might play better in key states has emerged. But one hasn't and all we have is Biden right now, and you and I have both seen his issues.

Also, in terms of jobs in middle America, Trump's Tarriff War has created some new vulnerabilities there. There are a lot of folks who work for companies negatively impacted by these Tarriffs, as Revo has pointed out.

[Gregg]

Revo, I think your post is a good example of a post that isn't polite, but okay for this particular forum, especially on these topics. I know folks like JJ (and maybe Gregg) would point to this post as also overly "mean" and scaring off debate. But I think this type of calling out is within the bounds of what should be okay in this forum. It is challenging and a little insulting, but fair, given the heated nature of the discussion--you are pointing out Art's post has no substance and he needs to back up his ideas to be taken seriously. There is a clear distinction between this response and GITH's wishing suffering and harm on Art and his family. I wish JJ were still lurking here, so we could talk about the difference between this sort of post and GITH's, but I recognize everyone has a different line. To me, we are going to disagree in here, and it is okay to attack ideas as idiotic or unfounded. It isn't okay to wish harm on each other or family members. This should be obvious to us all.

Thank you for the kind words. I have no problem with revo's post. I find that I agree with some of it and disagree with some of it.

Lurking on the political posts since RJ began I find that sides often let emotions get in the way of logic. But that is a thing when dealing with politics. In the big picture it doesn't sway votes one way or another.

I am more concerned with the health of RJ than I am arguing politics.

[Sour Masher]

I am more concerned with the health of RJ than I am arguing politics.

I think that has more to do with attracting new blood to the baseball forums. That is what attracted me, and I did not venture to the sports bar for several years.

[Teenwolf]

Your post seems to overlook some of the soft spots some of the Democratic candidates are going to have in certain states. Pennsylvania has 29,000 fracking jobs and another 216,000 indirectly related to the fracking industry. By nominating a candidate that is going to ban fracking, I think it’s very possible that some of those folks are going to likely make peace with Trump’s boorish behavior and bullying tweets rather than support a candidate who is going to eliminate their industry.
In Michigan the UAW right now is on strike. On of the key points of contention is that management wants to make the employees pay 15% of their health costs rather than the current 4%. The unions bargained for and have taken less pay, to get these great health plans. Is it possible quite a few union members will not vote for a candidate who wants to eliminate that private collectively bargained for health care and replace it with MFA? I think it’s certainly possible. What happens if Trump wins Michigan and Pennsylvania?
I think those kinds of issues are going to weigh more heavily than his narcissism and undeserved bravado and Democrats need a candidate more in the middle or who has a really good answer for the Pa fracker and the machinist in Michigan.
Just my thoughts.......

Both of your concerns are addressed in Sanders' proposals.

Your point about fracking and fossil fuel job elimination, Sanders has proposed any worker whose job is eliminated in the Green New Deal would be compensated with their full salary for 5 years, younger workers capable of re-training are allowed a good paying job through the federal jobs guarantee. He refers to it as a "just transition" for the workers in fossil fuel and other environmentally unsustainable industries that will need to be phased out. There will be millions of new Green energy jobs created in overhauling housing efficiency, installing solar panels, overhauling the automotive industry. Endless jobs required.

As far as worrying about union negotiated health care coverage, Sanders has also addressed this. Within the implementation of Medicare For All, any union that previously offered health insurance to their workers would be forced to re-negotiate a pay increase at a certain rate that's based on the amount the company is saving through single payer implementation. It's written into the bill, this union re-negotiation clause, but I'm not sure of the exact details. Whereas unions are currently able to leverage health insurance against workers, like those GM workers who had their health coverage pulled while striking, under Medicare For All, there is one less vulnerability for corporations to leverage. People who feel stuck in jobs they hate because of their fear of losing their health coverage, that goes away. It really enables more freedom. I think he can sell it well to Independents and Republicans if he makes it to the General.

Warren's answer to climate change involves "green militarism", Bernie's plan costs $16 Tn, Warren's plan costs $2 Tn. I think the effects of breaching 1.5 C were projected to cost many more $Tn's, as well as exacerbating the refugee crisis by creating half a billion climate refugees. Seems worth spending that money to me.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Lot's to respond to so after digesting it all--here goes.

It seems to me the issues are thus: I go after certain posters in a tone most here don't like. I wish Karmic payback on people. I seek to discourage opposition viewpoints. Maybe I'm missing something, but these three seem to be at the crux of the outrage.

#1 I go after certain people in a tone most don't like here--Ture, after trying civil conversations and rational debate it sometimes gets to the point where I can either just drop it or say WTF is wrong with you, you ignoramus. I am about 50-50 in which course of action I follow, it really depends on how strongly I feel and the manner in which the individual I'm dealing with has responded. I will continue to piss some off in here as I will always speak my mind and there are just moments in life when you have to call a spade a spade and to hell with decorum. I, also would like to mention that I have been the target of some pretty vile statements and not once was an apology issued or a retraction made--nor did I need or expect one--I expect people to speak their midst even if it's nasty and unflattering and aimed directly at me.

#2 I wish karmic payback on people--Absolutely true. I won't sugarcoat it--If you're a bad person I want you to stop that behavior and if not, I hope bad things happen to you. Same goes for those who enable bad people, should you not listen to reason and continue to support ad people-I want you to experience the crap that who you support makes others endure IE Grab the Pussy comment. I want to see people get what they have coming. I didn't used to be this way, but a series of events throughout my life have brought me to this point. I will attempt to make life as fair as I can make it, which to me means balancing justice or karma. If my wishing it can nudge it into existence, great some people need to be kicked in the ass at times.

#3. I try to dissuaded opposing viewpoints--Somewhat true, I think there are points of views and opinions that have NO RIGHT being expressed as if they have any validity. None of you would allow someone from the KKK to come in here and spread their vileness, nor a Pedophile, nor an adult who thought sex with a minor is alright--I put Trumps corruption and abuse on the same level of egregiousness. So yes, I will try to stop any conversation that's supportive of this cretin or at least mock, deride those who do so. Other than that, I don't care what you talk about or how you say it.


To wrap this up, It's been inferred that I and somehow a bad person or unstable or a danger to others and mostly by one individual. Most seem to think I just cross the line here and there and should be more thoughtful when I post, but to that One guy--My ol buddy, Ken. I'd like to say a few things I've been avoiding foisting upon the RJ community. First, I don't really believe you think I'm a danger to you or anyone in here, nor do I think you believe I'm actually a bad guy--you just don't like me--Nor I you, in fact I can't think of one person I've disliked more in my almost 6 decades on this earth, that said--in all that time I have never threatened you nor wished ill upon you or your family--not once. I just dislike you. I tried to see you in a different light, we sat and had beers, you met my soon to be wife--to your credit, you tried as well--but we are just not going to ever be even tolerable acquaintances and that's cool. If you REALLY think I'm a danger, you're not being rational. Hell I've been back in your part of Texas 3 times since last we met, it would have been easy to find out your place of work or home address and "come get ya" but nothing has ever happened like that has it, because--in the grand scheme of things, you're just some guy who's an irritation to me as I am to you. I watch as you take words and twist them to your narrative and that's fine too, I know what I've said and what my words mean--though I will take exception of you saying I attacked your family when we were arguing in box score--that's just not true. My words were something to the effect of--You will NOT speak to me/treat me like you do those you work with or your children 9something to that effect) NEVER did I attack, wish harm on or otherwise disparage your family--Ever. I did tell you to go f*ck yourself, but you had it coming.

So there it is, in a nutshell.

I'm going to be who I am, if that's more than the community can stomach, petition Revo to ban me. If he doesn't put me on ignore--but understand that I will always advocate for bad people and those who enable them, to get theirs. Unapologetically so. I will also own my shit when I overstep, in this case-Art- I don't believe I have.

I'd say this will be the last I speak of this, but I can't imagine I won't at the very least get on angry response, but maybe not.

[Sour Masher]

Both of your concerns are addressed in Sanders' proposals.

Your point about fracking and fossil fuel job elimination, Sanders has proposed any worker whose job is eliminated in the Green New Deal would be compensated with their full salary for 5 years, younger workers capable of re-training are allowed a good paying job through the federal jobs guarantee. He refers to it as a "just transition" for the workers in fossil fuel and other environmentally unsustainable industries that will need to be phased out. There will be millions of new Green energy jobs created in overhauling housing efficiency, installing solar panels, overhauling the automotive industry. Endless jobs required.

As far as worrying about union negotiated health care coverage, Sanders has also addressed this. Within the implementation of Medicare For All, any union that previously offered health insurance to their workers would be forced to re-negotiate a pay increase at a certain rate that's based on the amount the company is saving through single payer implementation. It's written into the bill, this union re-negotiation clause, but I'm not sure of the exact details. Whereas unions are currently able to leverage health insurance against workers, like those GM workers who had their health coverage pulled while striking, under Medicare For All, there is one less vulnerability for corporations to leverage. People who feel stuck in jobs they hate because of their fear of losing their health coverage, that goes away. It really enables more freedom. I think he can sell it well to Independents and Republicans if he makes it to the General.

Warren's answer to climate change involves "green militarism", Bernie's plan costs $16 Tn, Warren's plan costs $2 Tn. I think the effects of breaching 1.5 C were projected to cost many more $Tn's, as well as exacerbating the refugee crisis by creating half a billion climate refugees. Seems worth spending that money to me.

These are very compelling promises, f he can keep them. Will voters believe he can keep them, would be the main issue.

[Ken]

To wrap this up, It's been inferred that I and somehow a bad person or unstable or a danger to others and mostly by one individual. Most seem to think I just cross the line here and there and should be more thoughtful when I post, but to that One guy--My ol buddy, Ken. I'd like to say a few things I've been avoiding foisting upon the RJ community. First, I don't really believe you think I'm a danger to you or anyone in here, nor do I think you believe I'm actually a bad guy--you just don't like me--Nor I you, in fact I can't think of one person I've disliked more in my almost 6 decades on this earth, that said--in all that time I have never threatened you nor wished ill upon you or your family--not once. I just dislike you. I tried to see you in a different light, we sat and had beers, you met my soon to be wife--to your credit, you tried as well--but we are just not going to ever be even tolerable acquaintances and that's cool. If you REALLY think I'm a danger, you're not being rational. Hell I've been back in your part of Texas 3 times since last we met, it would have been easy to find out your place of work or home address and "come get ya" but nothing has ever happened like that has it, because--in the grand scheme of things, you're just some guy who's an irritation to me as I am to you. I watch as you take words and twist them to your narrative and that's fine too, I know what I've said and what my words mean--though I will take exception of you saying I attacked your family when we were arguing in box score--that's just not true. My words were something to the effect of--You will NOT speak to me/treat me like you do those you work with or your children 9something to that effect) NEVER did I attack, wish harm on or otherwise disparage your family--Ever. I did tell you to go f*ck yourself, but you had it coming.

Dude, why are you airing your dirty laundry yet again? You cussed me out on a text message for not taking the time to fix your fantasy baseball problem (which, as it turns out was actually a mistake on your part), while I was on vacation with my family. I had directed you to Byron while I was out, but instead you decided your fantasy baseball problem was more important than someone else's time with their family, and sent a text message to me which my wife read aloud while I was driving about how I needed to "f*cking handle" your problem already. And as you noted, you aren't the type to apologize, you don't take responsibility for your actions. The puzzle pieces all fit together.

For some reason you think you know about my interactions with my daughters and my coworkers such that you asked me not to speak to you like them, something we've never discussed and something that is very odd to bring up considering your ignorance on the topic. And the fact that it even comes to your mind to "find your place of work or home address and come get ya", is demented - why would you even mention something like that? Gross. As far as "go f*ck yourself", I don't remember 100%, but yeah, that certainly sounds like something you'd say to me. It lines up with numerous other messages you sent to other owners in our fantasy baseball league over what was supposed to be a fun hobby. Does anyone wonder why every time the name "Doig" comes up we celebrate the fact that you are long gone?

Look, we've discussed this numerous times. I think everyone can see why I don't like you - you hit below the belt and refuse to apologize. Over, and over, and over. You are clearly a narcissist. There is no blow too low for GITH. The I hope your wife and daughter are sexually assaulted comment, which you refuse to back down from says it all (along with the name calling / etc). I wish I could say it was a surprise. The editing/deleting/censorships of posts you don't agree with (while you yourself posted much, much worse) was another character tell.

I don't think it's a secret to anyone why someone would not like GITH - you have laid it all out there.

I guess the question is why anyone would want that garbage to be on this board? What's the point of you airing it out here? I commented on the content of the post you made to Art, because it was so vile and disgusting. Pretty sure that everyone here that has responded agrees with that, it's not like my comment was something unique. I guess the question back to you is what will it take for you to stop hitting people below the belt and posting disgusting content hoping for sexual assaults? Whether you like it or not, there's a decorum to follow, one which, if ignored, makes this place less than pleasant. Sure, you can continue calling people vile names and wishing harm on their families. But why would anyone want to read that? What are you hoping that others get out it? (oh yeah, narcissistic personality disorder, I take that back...) what exactly do you get out of it?

And is that what people want this place to be about? This isn't the GITH board, this is the RJ board. Do you really think those who read and post here want to read that vile garbage you spew? I know I'm questioning if I really want to be involved in a community that supports the type of hate that you spew (over, and over).

Regardless, I've had my say, and I'd request in the future if you have interest in revisiting why we did not get along in person, or really anything off topic, just send a PM. There's no reason to air your dirty laundry here. You've done it multiple times, there's no need to revisit it.

Got anything to say on Election 2020 that doesn't involve sexually assaulting someone?