Biden vs Trump 2020 - vote now and discuss!

mickeyrat said:

pjl44 said:

OnWis97 said:

pjl44 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

pjl44 said:

Further cementing my belief that the largest obstacle the Libertarian Party faces is libertarians

how so? is it because that there are like not many of them?

There are a bunch who are fixated on purity and so they get bogged down in minutiae. The type who will ask at a debate whether driver's licenses should be legal. One of the current leading candidates thinks Medicare should be repealed. Shit like that. Bad ideas that will also never play with voters. Winning combination. 

I think the primary obstacle is the same for any third party: it’s a huge uphill climb and on the national level voting third is essentially throwing a vote away. Success would take a slow climb starting locally and growing toward the ability to compete on the national stage over a period of decades.  This is for any party.

That said, you do make a point about this specific party; it’s tailor-made for purity tests.  In theory, things like Medicare and driver’s licenses should not exist...but most people don’t agree.  And either way, the smart move is to be pragmatic and get there after some easier hurdles have been cleared.  The hard-left has the same problem with impatience and not being able/willing to play the long game.

I go back and forth on your first paragraph. 4.5 million people voted for Johnson in 2016. Obviously nowhere near enough to win, but they got 4.5 million people to go out and affirmatively check the box for a third party. Ultimately I don't think it's either/or. Do all of that work locally and run candidates wherever you can, but taking big swings in a Presidential election can pay dividends, too.

wonder how many of those votes for johnson were party votes or  a vote against don and Hillary...

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

OnWis97 said:

pjl44 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

pjl44 said:

Further cementing my belief that the largest obstacle the Libertarian Party faces is libertarians

how so? is it because that there are like not many of them?

There are a bunch who are fixated on purity and so they get bogged down in minutiae. The type who will ask at a debate whether driver's licenses should be legal. One of the current leading candidates thinks Medicare should be repealed. Shit like that. Bad ideas that will also never play with voters. Winning combination. 

I think the primary obstacle is the same for any third party: it’s a huge uphill climb and on the national level voting third is essentially throwing a vote away. Success would take a slow climb starting locally and growing toward the ability to compete on the national stage over a period of decades.  This is for any party.

That said, you do make a point about this specific party; it’s tailor-made for purity tests.  In theory, things like Medicare and driver’s licenses should not exist...but most people don’t agree.  And either way, the smart move is to be pragmatic and get there after some easier hurdles have been cleared.  The hard-left has the same problem with impatience and not being able/willing to play the long game.

I go back and forth on your first paragraph. 4.5 million people voted for Johnson in 2016. Obviously nowhere near enough to win, but they got 4.5 million people to go out and affirmatively check the box for a third party. Ultimately I don't think it's either/or. Do all of that work locally and run candidates wherever you can, but taking big swings in a Presidential election can pay dividends, too.

The question is how many of those people were voting for Johnson vs against the other two.  How many people really understood his positions.  I think that's the challenge of a third party.  You're going to ahve some people vote against the D and R, without being engaged with what the third party believes in.  There is a poster here who made a comment that he would be interested in Amash, but he's a passionate advocate for M4A.  I don't know what universe those two things connect.  

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

OnWis97 said:

pjl44 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

pjl44 said:

Further cementing my belief that the largest obstacle the Libertarian Party faces is libertarians

how so? is it because that there are like not many of them?

There are a bunch who are fixated on purity and so they get bogged down in minutiae. The type who will ask at a debate whether driver's licenses should be legal. One of the current leading candidates thinks Medicare should be repealed. Shit like that. Bad ideas that will also never play with voters. Winning combination. 

I think the primary obstacle is the same for any third party: it’s a huge uphill climb and on the national level voting third is essentially throwing a vote away. Success would take a slow climb starting locally and growing toward the ability to compete on the national stage over a period of decades.  This is for any party.

That said, you do make a point about this specific party; it’s tailor-made for purity tests.  In theory, things like Medicare and driver’s licenses should not exist...but most people don’t agree.  And either way, the smart move is to be pragmatic and get there after some easier hurdles have been cleared.  The hard-left has the same problem with impatience and not being able/willing to play the long game.

I go back and forth on your first paragraph. 4.5 million people voted for Johnson in 2016. Obviously nowhere near enough to win, but they got 4.5 million people to go out and affirmatively check the box for a third party. Ultimately I don't think it's either/or. Do all of that work locally and run candidates wherever you can, but taking big swings in a Presidential election can pay dividends, too.

The question is how many of those people were voting for Johnson vs against the other two.  How many people really understood his positions.  I think that's the challenge of a third party.  You're going to ahve some people vote against the D and R, without being engaged with what the third party believes in.  There is a poster here who made a comment that he would be interested in Amash, but he's a passionate advocate for M4A.  I don't know what universe those two things connect.  

I think we overestimate how much analysis goes into a voter's decision vs. gut. I think people project their beliefs onto a candidate more than they chop up a platform. Relatively speaking, we’ve hardcore ideologues in this thread. There's no way of fully understanding the intent of a mass of voters without dumping a mountain of one's own bias into the analysis. 

True dat.  However, if he was viable, there would be much more research by the marginally engaged voter I think.  

I do take issue with your statement that we're all ideologues here. I think we're all engaged, but not all hyper-partisan warriors. 

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

OnWis97 said:

pjl44 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

pjl44 said:

Further cementing my belief that the largest obstacle the Libertarian Party faces is libertarians

how so? is it because that there are like not many of them?

There are a bunch who are fixated on purity and so they get bogged down in minutiae. The type who will ask at a debate whether driver's licenses should be legal. One of the current leading candidates thinks Medicare should be repealed. Shit like that. Bad ideas that will also never play with voters. Winning combination. 

I think the primary obstacle is the same for any third party: it’s a huge uphill climb and on the national level voting third is essentially throwing a vote away. Success would take a slow climb starting locally and growing toward the ability to compete on the national stage over a period of decades.  This is for any party.

That said, you do make a point about this specific party; it’s tailor-made for purity tests.  In theory, things like Medicare and driver’s licenses should not exist...but most people don’t agree.  And either way, the smart move is to be pragmatic and get there after some easier hurdles have been cleared.  The hard-left has the same problem with impatience and not being able/willing to play the long game.

I go back and forth on your first paragraph. 4.5 million people voted for Johnson in 2016. Obviously nowhere near enough to win, but they got 4.5 million people to go out and affirmatively check the box for a third party. Ultimately I don't think it's either/or. Do all of that work locally and run candidates wherever you can, but taking big swings in a Presidential election can pay dividends, too.

The question is how many of those people were voting for Johnson vs against the other two.  How many people really understood his positions.  I think that's the challenge of a third party.  You're going to ahve some people vote against the D and R, without being engaged with what the third party believes in.  There is a poster here who made a comment that he would be interested in Amash, but he's a passionate advocate for M4A.  I don't know what universe those two things connect.  

I think we overestimate how much analysis goes into a voter's decision vs. gut. I think people project their beliefs onto a candidate more than they chop up a platform. Relatively speaking, we’ve hardcore ideologues in this thread. There's no way of fully understanding the intent of a mass of voters without dumping a mountain of one's own bias into the analysis. 

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mickeyrat said:

pjl44 said:

OnWis97 said:

pjl44 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

pjl44 said:

Further cementing my belief that the largest obstacle the Libertarian Party faces is libertarians

how so? is it because that there are like not many of them?

There are a bunch who are fixated on purity and so they get bogged down in minutiae. The type who will ask at a debate whether driver's licenses should be legal. One of the current leading candidates thinks Medicare should be repealed. Shit like that. Bad ideas that will also never play with voters. Winning combination. 

I think the primary obstacle is the same for any third party: it’s a huge uphill climb and on the national level voting third is essentially throwing a vote away. Success would take a slow climb starting locally and growing toward the ability to compete on the national stage over a period of decades.  This is for any party.

That said, you do make a point about this specific party; it’s tailor-made for purity tests.  In theory, things like Medicare and driver’s licenses should not exist...but most people don’t agree.  And either way, the smart move is to be pragmatic and get there after some easier hurdles have been cleared.  The hard-left has the same problem with impatience and not being able/willing to play the long game.

I go back and forth on your first paragraph. 4.5 million people voted for Johnson in 2016. Obviously nowhere near enough to win, but they got 4.5 million people to go out and affirmatively check the box for a third party. Ultimately I don't think it's either/or. Do all of that work locally and run candidates wherever you can, but taking big swings in a Presidential election can pay dividends, too.

wonder how many of those votes for johnson were party votes or  a vote against don and Hillary...

At least one. 

There were two options in that question.  

OnWis97 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

OnWis97 said:

pjl44 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

pjl44 said:

Further cementing my belief that the largest obstacle the Libertarian Party faces is libertarians

how so? is it because that there are like not many of them?

There are a bunch who are fixated on purity and so they get bogged down in minutiae. The type who will ask at a debate whether driver's licenses should be legal. One of the current leading candidates thinks Medicare should be repealed. Shit like that. Bad ideas that will also never play with voters. Winning combination. 

I think the primary obstacle is the same for any third party: it’s a huge uphill climb and on the national level voting third is essentially throwing a vote away. Success would take a slow climb starting locally and growing toward the ability to compete on the national stage over a period of decades.  This is for any party.

That said, you do make a point about this specific party; it’s tailor-made for purity tests.  In theory, things like Medicare and driver’s licenses should not exist...but most people don’t agree.  And either way, the smart move is to be pragmatic and get there after some easier hurdles have been cleared.  The hard-left has the same problem with impatience and not being able/willing to play the long game.

I go back and forth on your first paragraph. 4.5 million people voted for Johnson in 2016. Obviously nowhere near enough to win, but they got 4.5 million people to go out and affirmatively check the box for a third party. Ultimately I don't think it's either/or. Do all of that work locally and run candidates wherever you can, but taking big swings in a Presidential election can pay dividends, too.

The question is how many of those people were voting for Johnson vs against the other two.  How many people really understood his positions.  I think that's the challenge of a third party.  You're going to ahve some people vote against the D and R, without being engaged with what the third party believes in.  There is a poster here who made a comment that he would be interested in Amash, but he's a passionate advocate for M4A.  I don't know what universe those two things connect.  

I think we overestimate how much analysis goes into a voter's decision vs. gut. I think people project their beliefs onto a candidate more than they chop up a platform. Relatively speaking, we’ve hardcore ideologues in this thread. There's no way of fully understanding the intent of a mass of voters without dumping a mountain of one's own bias into the analysis. 

That's probably depressingly true. Clinton helped himself by playing the sax.  W was "a guy you'd like to have a beer with" while Gore was a boring policy wonk.  Obama was young and charismatic while his opponents were reasonable but did not come off as spectacular.  Reagan was...I don't really know, but boy did people like him.  The only one from Reagan to Obama that wasn't likeable for intangible reasons was the only one-term president, Bush the First.

In theory this would not bode well for Trump. I doubt too many "gut" people really love him.  Of course, Bush lost to a charismatic, fresh newcomer.  Trump's squaring off the only guy that seems older than him.

pjl44 said:

OnWis97 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

OnWis97 said:

pjl44 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

pjl44 said:

Further cementing my belief that the largest obstacle the Libertarian Party faces is libertarians

how so? is it because that there are like not many of them?

There are a bunch who are fixated on purity and so they get bogged down in minutiae. The type who will ask at a debate whether driver's licenses should be legal. One of the current leading candidates thinks Medicare should be repealed. Shit like that. Bad ideas that will also never play with voters. Winning combination. 

I think the primary obstacle is the same for any third party: it’s a huge uphill climb and on the national level voting third is essentially throwing a vote away. Success would take a slow climb starting locally and growing toward the ability to compete on the national stage over a period of decades.  This is for any party.

That said, you do make a point about this specific party; it’s tailor-made for purity tests.  In theory, things like Medicare and driver’s licenses should not exist...but most people don’t agree.  And either way, the smart move is to be pragmatic and get there after some easier hurdles have been cleared.  The hard-left has the same problem with impatience and not being able/willing to play the long game.

I go back and forth on your first paragraph. 4.5 million people voted for Johnson in 2016. Obviously nowhere near enough to win, but they got 4.5 million people to go out and affirmatively check the box for a third party. Ultimately I don't think it's either/or. Do all of that work locally and run candidates wherever you can, but taking big swings in a Presidential election can pay dividends, too.

The question is how many of those people were voting for Johnson vs against the other two.  How many people really understood his positions.  I think that's the challenge of a third party.  You're going to ahve some people vote against the D and R, without being engaged with what the third party believes in.  There is a poster here who made a comment that he would be interested in Amash, but he's a passionate advocate for M4A.  I don't know what universe those two things connect.  

I think we overestimate how much analysis goes into a voter's decision vs. gut. I think people project their beliefs onto a candidate more than they chop up a platform. Relatively speaking, we’ve hardcore ideologues in this thread. There's no way of fully understanding the intent of a mass of voters without dumping a mountain of one's own bias into the analysis. 

That's probably depressingly true. Clinton helped himself by playing the sax.  W was "a guy you'd like to have a beer with" while Gore was a boring policy wonk.  Obama was young and charismatic while his opponents were reasonable but did not come off as spectacular.  Reagan was...I don't really know, but boy did people like him.  The only one from Reagan to Obama that wasn't likeable for intangible reasons was the only one-term president, Bush the First.

In theory this would not bode well for Trump. I doubt too many "gut" people really love him.  Of course, Bush lost to a charismatic, fresh newcomer.  Trump's squaring off the only guy that seems older than him.

I think a lot of Trump support is tied up in how much he annoys the "right" people. For too many people (imo), they have allowed their politics to be defined by who or what they hate. And that spans the entire political spectrum. These people aren't enthusiastic about Trump or Biden, per se. They want to inflict pain. And the key is that their rage is justified, while their opponents' rage is selfish. Shit all the way down.

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

OnWis97 said:

pjl44 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

pjl44 said:

Further cementing my belief that the largest obstacle the Libertarian Party faces is libertarians

how so? is it because that there are like not many of them?

There are a bunch who are fixated on purity and so they get bogged down in minutiae. The type who will ask at a debate whether driver's licenses should be legal. One of the current leading candidates thinks Medicare should be repealed. Shit like that. Bad ideas that will also never play with voters. Winning combination. 

I think the primary obstacle is the same for any third party: it’s a huge uphill climb and on the national level voting third is essentially throwing a vote away. Success would take a slow climb starting locally and growing toward the ability to compete on the national stage over a period of decades.  This is for any party.

That said, you do make a point about this specific party; it’s tailor-made for purity tests.  In theory, things like Medicare and driver’s licenses should not exist...but most people don’t agree.  And either way, the smart move is to be pragmatic and get there after some easier hurdles have been cleared.  The hard-left has the same problem with impatience and not being able/willing to play the long game.

I go back and forth on your first paragraph. 4.5 million people voted for Johnson in 2016. Obviously nowhere near enough to win, but they got 4.5 million people to go out and affirmatively check the box for a third party. Ultimately I don't think it's either/or. Do all of that work locally and run candidates wherever you can, but taking big swings in a Presidential election can pay dividends, too.

The question is how many of those people were voting for Johnson vs against the other two.  How many people really understood his positions.  I think that's the challenge of a third party.  You're going to ahve some people vote against the D and R, without being engaged with what the third party believes in.  There is a poster here who made a comment that he would be interested in Amash, but he's a passionate advocate for M4A.  I don't know what universe those two things connect.  

🤚Hi that was me. Mostly when it comes to Amash I was thinking more along the lines of throwing support at the viability of a third party.  Of course I live in Texas and voting for a third party this election would not be too risky as it is likely to go to Trump overwhelmingly, it would more or less be a protest vote in favor of third parties in general.  Yes I realize that most libertarians are ashamed republicans and that many libertarian positions run counter to my values and positions.  The universe where supporting a third party that wouldn’t support m4a while supporting m4a myself is one in which politics has become so slow and stagnant that anything would be refreshing at this point.  Maybe a third party that had viable support would provoke a party that was more in line with my values to start doing something besides pulling its hair out and screaming Trump or Republicans every time they fail to do something.  My views on M4a have evolved to m4a option. if someone chooses to pay an insurance company that is their right, just give the rest of us a safety net that will keep us from going bankrupt without paying a for profit insurance company through the nose for “care”. That’s about as likely as there being a viable third party before the complete collapse of the empire.

The Lincoln Project Effect

Trump Republicans are in deep trouble in Arizona. The President continues to be a drag on the national brand and an anchor on the GOP’s prospects of holding the White House, Senate and recapturing the House. Moreover, Republicans tying themselves to Trump are sinking faster than the President. A recently released poll in Arizona shows what’s happening and why it changes the electoral college roadmap.

It’s important to know that two days prior to the poll being conducted, The Lincoln Project, a Republican organization created to defeat Trump, began airing ads targeting McSally. The ads were sharp, hard-hitting and effective.

McSally now trails Democrat Mark Kelly by 13 points, according to the latest tracking poll by OH Predictive Insights. While the April poll of 600 likely voters favored Kelly 51% to McSally’s 42%, in May it’s now 51%-38%.

Her rapid four point drop in support in support in Maricopa County, Arizona’s most Republican and most populous county, shows just how precarious the situation is. The recent influx of suburban Republican voters to this area are more often high skilled technical workers with college degrees than those without.

This demographic is target rich for The Lincoln Project and recent national and state battleground polls show why our strategy is moving numbers.

The Lincoln Project Effect and why the ads are working

College educated voters are the most elusive part of Trumps Republican base. There is a direct correlation between how much education a Republican voter has and their dislike of the President. In 2016, this education ‘gap’ turned into an education ‘chasm’ as college educated voters — specifically women — fled the party. The trend continued in the 2018 midterms as Democrats captured the House of Representatives and at this point in the election cycle the break between college and non-college educated Republicans is growing even wider. Only 36% of college graduates voted for Trump in 2016 — a number he’ll find harder to reach in 2020. These voters do not believe Trump is competent to be running the country and the handling of the pandemic is proving them right.

Older voters are Trump Fatigued

Lots of older voters in Arizona. Older voters have among the highest likelihood of voting and this group gave Trump some of his biggest margins of support in 2016. It has also remained (along with white evangelicals)one of his most resilient bases of support.

Enter COVID-19.

Trumps incompetence and inability to be trusted to handle a situation that is not only serious but life threatening to seniors — not to mention devastating to retirement programs seniors are reliant upon — and you have the perfect alignment of factors to erode senior support.

As the New York Times recently pointed out. “A recent Morning Consult poll found that Mr. Trump’s approval rating on the handling of the coronavirus was lower with seniors than with any other group other than young voters. And Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the presumptive Democratic nominee, in recent polls held a 10-point advantage over Mr. Trump among voters who are 65 and older.”

In 2016 Trump won this group by 7 points — that’s an astonishing 17 point drop in support.

In January, The Lincoln Project launched its first salvo against Senator Martha McSally in a blistering. one-minute ad. Drawing a clear distinction between iconic Arizona Republicans John McCain and Barry Goldwater, the ad was designed in large part to contrast traditional Republicanism versus Trumpism.

The objective, in part, was to see just how ‘soft’ Trumps Republican base was.

We liked what we saw.

McSally was tanking and we knew we couldpush Republican vote share even lower.

The Lincoln Project began running its second ad targeting base Republican voters two days before the Predictive Insights poll was conducted. Again, the ad specifically contrasted McSally and Trumpism with traditional Republican leadership. Moreover, it asked Republicans already questioning their support for Trump ‘Why?’ Why would they continue to support McSally and Trump?

McSally is now losing 12% of Republican voters in Arizona. She’s getting clobbered with Independents. If this were to play out nationally, the results could be measured in the Richter scale.

McSally’s drop in support demonstrates how soft GOP support is in the time of Trump, but more importantly how powerful a Republican to Republican message is.

The President has been driving a false narrative showing his statistically impossible levels of Republican support. He does this because even a slight crack in his base of support spells doom for his re-election prospects. Even the slightest Republican dissent could derail a re-election effort focused on winning by the slimmest of margins.

The Lincoln Project ad illustrates to Republican voters that the high levels of ‘trust’ and ‘competence’ they’ve spent associating with their traditional Republican leaders doesn’t transfer to Trump. College educated and older Republicans have reached their limit and they are responding.

Trump fatigue is real and it’s getting worse for the President and Republican candidates.