Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The US 2020 Presidential Election & Attempts To Overturn It

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by astralis View Post
    tantalus,



    frankly, the Democrats are far too shy when it comes to responses to constitutional hardball as played by the GOP. even now, in the Washington Post, there are several articles signed out by Democratic senators hand-wringing over court expansion and breaking the legislative filibuster. Mitch McConnell simply does not pay a political price for wrecking norms to accumulate political power -- so he will continue to do so.

    I agree with this.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by snapper View Post
      Seems to me that Trumpkin has given up trying to win the election and is more worried about how he may steal or subvert it.
      Oh yeah, big time. It's always the Republicans are so desperate to get RBG's seat on the SCOTUS filled immediately. They're that confident in Trump's ability to win another 4 years.
      “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post

        Dangerous waters. I fully expect him to protest the election and try to take it to the Supreme Court. Taking things to court has been his MO all his life. He is not about to change.
        At present, we are Ruthless.
        You may expect us to act accordingly.
        Trust me?
        I'm an economist!

        Comment


        • tantalus,

          [Not a trick question but if the democrats had just "absurdly" (in a political sense) agreed to the republicans offer that was on the table before it all broke down (1 trillion deal I think) would the american people have been better off than with no deal at all?
          no, the Senate GOP couldn't even agree to $1 trillion.

          in the end, they came up with a $500 billion package, which would have taken away a significant number of unemployment benefits, and directed money at business instead.

          in any case, this is a political negotiation, and not just between parties. it's between factions within each party. had Pelosi agreed to this, she would have caused a revolt within her own party, because even half the Senate GOP didn't want a figure that low! as it is, Pelosi had to eat the political costs of forcing her own side down $1 trillion even while the Republicans moved not a single jot.

          this is what I mean by the imbalance in responsibility. Democrats are forced to sign onto the proposals of conservative Republicans because the other side says "this or nothing". this is called minority rule, which is profoundly (little d) undemocratic and raises all sorts of legitimate questions of why people should bother voting for a Democrat if all we get are conservative GOP policy outcomes.
          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

          Comment


          • Originally posted by astralis View Post
            tantalus,

            this is what I mean by the imbalance in responsibility. Democrats are forced to sign onto the proposals of conservative Republicans because the other side says "this or nothing". this is called minority rule, which is profoundly (little d) undemocratic and raises all sorts of legitimate questions of why people should bother voting for a Democrat if all we get are conservative GOP policy outcomes.
            Does bring up the idea of whether or not the Senate needs a make over. Back in the days two Senators per state might have made a lot of sense but not so much today. I see no reason why Wyoming, home to 600,000 people and two Senators, should have essentially more pull (per capita) than 40,000,000 people with two Senators. Maybe instead of thinking about adding more Justices we should be thinking about adding more Senators. The Dems thinking that. Obviously no one back at the Constitutional Convention could have possibly thought there could be such a extreme difference in populations of states. It's great that some were wary of majority rule but now we have minority rule. Just as obvious this would require an amendment which probably has less chance than a snowball in hell.

            Comment


            • Joe Biden charm? referring to airmen as stupid bastards.
              https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FjPH2szmf6Y

              Comment


              • Originally posted by surfgun View Post
                Joe Biden charm? referring to airmen as stupid bastards.
                https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FjPH2szmf6Y
                Didn't bother to actually watch the video (as usual) did you.
                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                Comment


                • McConnell, Graham, others in GOP break from Trump to vow peaceful transition of power

                  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other prominent GOP lawmakers have broken from President Donald Trump’s comments about transition of power if he loses the November election.

                  “Well, we’re going to have to see what happens,” Trump told reporters Wednesday when asked whether he’d commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses on Election Day.

                  “Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation,” Trump said. “The ballots are out of control. You know it, and you know who knows it better than anyone else? The Democrats know it better than anyone else.”

                  McConnell pushed back on Trump’s comments, saying Thursday that there would be an “orderly” transition of power if Democrat Joe Biden wins the election.

                  “The winner of the November 3rd election will be inaugurated on January 20th. There will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792,” McConnell tweeted.

                  Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, who has previously criticized Trump and joined Democrats to support impeaching him, also weighed in.

                  “Fundamental to democracy is the peaceful transition of power; without that, there is Belarus. Any suggestion that a president might not respect this Constitutional guarantee is both unthinkable and unacceptable,” Romney tweeted.

                  GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has supported Trump in the past, promised a “peaceful transfer of power.”

                  “I can assure you, it will be peaceful,” Graham said on “Fox & Friends” on Thursday. “Now, we may have litigation about who won the election, but the court will decide and if the Republicans lose, we will accept that result. But we need a full court.”

                  Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida vowed on Thursday to have a fair election and a “peaceful” swearing in.

                  “As we have done for over two centuries we will have a legitimate & fair election,” Rubio tweeted. “It may take longer than usual to know the outcome, but it will be a valid one. And at noon on Jan 20, 2021 we will peacefully swear in the President.”

                  Rep. Liz Cheney, a Republican from Wyoming, distanced herself from Trump’s comments.

                  “The peaceful transfer of power is enshrined in our Constitution and fundamental to the survival of our Republic. America’s leaders swear an oath to the Constitution. We will uphold that oath,” Cheney tweeted Thursday morning.

                  Trump has said mail-in voting would make the election “rigged” and “fraudulent,” while also saying voting by mail is secure in Florida — a crucial swing state — because “we defeated Democrats’ attempts at change.” He also said the state has “a great Republican governor” while explaining his support for mail-in voting in Florida.

                  Studies have found that mail-in voting does not benefit one party more than the other, FiveThirtyEight reported in May.

                  An Axios/Ipsos poll found Democrats are more likely to be concerned about in-person voting during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sixty-four percent of Democrats said it was risky, compared to 29% of Republicans. The poll was conducted July 31-Aug. 3 with a margin of error of 3 to 3.4 percentage points.

                  Another poll from Yahoo News/YouGov in July found 55% of Trump supporters said they won’t view Biden’s win as legitimate if it’s from mail-in ballots.

                  There’s evidence of a large partisan gap when it comes to voting in person vs. mailing in ballots. Of those who said they would rather vote in person, Trump led Biden 59% to 28%, according to the poll. Biden led Trump 70% to 14% among respondents who said they would prefer to vote through mail.

                  The poll has a margin of error of 3.3 percentage points.

                  In 2016, Trump refused to say whether he’d accept the election results, saying without evidence that the election was “rigged” against him, The New York Times reported.

                  Trump told his supporters at the timethat he would accept the election results “if I win,” CNN reported.
                  _____________

                  Meanwhile, Donald Trump and his disciples feel differently:

                  "When Donald Trump refuses to stand down at the inauguration, the shooting will start," longtime Trump adviser Michael Caputo, a senior political appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a video posted to his Facebook page this month.

                  His words complemented those of Roger Stone, the political counselor whose prison sentence Trump commuted in July, who said recently that the president should institute martial law to remain in office if he loses.

                  Both men predicted a Trump victory, but cited the same unfounded notion that Democrats would "steal this election" that Donald Trump Jr. used as his premise for encouraging every man and woman who supports the president to form an "army for Trump's election security operation." The elder Trump has repeatedly told his backers to try to vote twice, while also leveling unsupported accusations that his political opponents will engage in election fraud.
                  ____________

                  How about you surfgun? You gonna take up arms and stand in front of polling centers to intimidate those godless lefties on November 3rd? How about Inauguration Day? You gonna start shooting to keep your god emperor in office?
                  “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                    tantalus,



                    no, the Senate GOP couldn't even agree to $1 trillion.

                    in the end, they came up with a $500 billion package, which would have taken away a significant number of unemployment benefits, and directed money at business instead.

                    in any case, this is a political negotiation, and not just between parties. it's between factions within each party. had Pelosi agreed to this, she would have caused a revolt within her own party, because even half the Senate GOP didn't want a figure that low! as it is, Pelosi had to eat the political costs of forcing her own side down $1 trillion even while the Republicans moved not a single jot.

                    this is what I mean by the imbalance in responsibility. Democrats are forced to sign onto the proposals of conservative Republicans because the other side says "this or nothing". this is called minority rule, which is profoundly (little d) undemocratic and raises all sorts of legitimate questions of why people should bother voting for a Democrat if all we get are conservative GOP policy outcomes.
                    Fair enough.

                    It's a tough situation and I take the point that Pelosi was trapped.

                    Obviously the democrats started with a very high number that gave them room to come down. The republicans didnt moved at all but floated the idea of a skinny bill. In the world of no politics americans would have been better off with it than with nothing but it was a political non-starter. The problem for the democrats is too many of the republicans just dont care and dont have the right incentives.

                    Trump failed to try to move his party at all and is surrounded with people that are incapable, uninterested or ideologically opposed. This is where the people you select matters the most, building a consensus or atleast momentum. He just can't get it done. This has been a real lesson on what you need to do to be able to well to run an effective presidential office.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post

                      Does bring up the idea of whether or not the Senate needs a make over. Back in the days two Senators per state might have made a lot of sense but not so much today. I see no reason why Wyoming, home to 600,000 people and two Senators, should have essentially more pull (per capita) than 40,000,000 people with two Senators. Maybe instead of thinking about adding more Justices we should be thinking about adding more Senators. The Dems thinking that. Obviously no one back at the Constitutional Convention could have possibly thought there could be such a extreme difference in populations of states. It's great that some were wary of majority rule but now we have minority rule. Just as obvious this would require an amendment which probably has less chance than a snowball in hell.
                      Its an obvious problem. Its clearly not in the spirit of democracy. But it is in the spirit of federalism. They are in tension and conflict with each other. Forget your 2 parties for a moment, which story are you more attracted too,.... democracy or federalism.

                      It seems likely democracy is more sustainable in the long term. It will force people towards the centre and to more representative representation.

                      this is one of the reasons why the democrats should start thinking about breaking the norms. The republicans are the party of the minority protected by the norms and willing to break the ones that dont suit them. The democrats are stuckly merely wating for the long term shift (although identity politics and cancel culture are not waiting) in the demographics and cultural norms to wash over the minority. It will eventually happen in a couple of states like texas and then federalism will break down gradually because even the republican states will be a clear minority.

                      Last edited by tantalus; 26 Sep 20,, 10:52.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by tantalus View Post

                        Fair enough.

                        It's a tough situation and I take the point that Pelosi was trapped.

                        Obviously the democrats started with a very high number that gave them room to come down. The republicans didnt moved at all but floated the idea of a skinny bill. In the world of no politics americans would have been better off with it than with nothing but it was a political non-starter. The problem for the democrats is too many of the republicans just dont care and dont have the right incentives.

                        Trump failed to try to move his party at all and is surrounded with people that are incapable, uninterested or ideologically opposed. This is where the people you select matters the most, building a consensus or atleast momentum. He just can't get it done. This has been a real lesson on what you need to do to be able to well to run an effective presidential office.
                        The total dollar amount is bait for journalists. Politicians care about the details, and who is perceived to win or lose. When all the money goes toward families, a trillion may have a larger impact than two trillion spread so thinly as to be less effective.
                        Trust me?
                        I'm an economist!

                        Comment


                        • yes, but in wars and economic downturns, quantity has a quality all its own...
                          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                          Comment


                          • It's 'now or never' for ex-Trump aides weighing speaking out

                            WASHINGTON (AP) — Elizabeth Neumann wrestled with the decision for weeks. She worried about the backlash, the impact it would have on her career, potential threats to her family.

                            But the former Department of Homeland Security official, who had resigned in April, reached a breaking point after President Donald Trump deployed Homeland Security agents to Portland, exacerbating tensions there. She decided it was worth the risk to speak out against Trump, whom she had come to view as a threat to the country.

                            “Enough is enough," said Neumann, the former assistant secretary of counterterrorism and threat prevention. “People need to understand how dangerous a moment we are in.”

                            There are plenty of others weighing the same decision.

                            With just weeks left before the Nov. 3 election, now is the moment of truth for current and former Trump administration officials debating whether they, too, should step forward and join the chorus of Republican voices trying to persuade on-the-fence voters to help deny Trump a second term.

                            “It’s now or never," said Miles Taylor, former chief of staff at DHS, who has been working to recruit others to join the effort. In interviews, Taylor has accused Trump of routinely asking aides to break the law, using his former agency for explicitly political purposes, and wanting to maim and shoot migrants trying to cross the southern border.

                            “Those who witnessed the president’s unfitness for office up close have a moral obligation to share their assessment with the electorate," said Taylor, who launched the group REPAIR — The Republican Political Alliance for Integrity and Reform — to bring together concerned former officials.

                            A related group, Republican Voters Against Trump, has compiled nearly 1,000 video testimonials from Republicans across the country who want Trump out. Strategic director Sarah Longwell said her goal was to provide a "permission structure" to help wavering Republicans feel comfortable opposing Trump.

                            The effort, she said, grew out of research on “soft” Trump voters.

                            “While these voters disliked Trump intensely, they didn’t trust the media, they didn’t trust Democrats, they didn’t trust the leaks,” she said. “Who's a credible messenger? It was people like them.”

                            Other prominent “formers” have spoken out independently — or are considering it.

                            Former national security adviser John Bolton wrote a scathing book in which he said Trump “saw conspiracies behind rocks, and remained stunningly uninformed" on how to run the government. Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis broke a self-imposed vow of silence in June with an op-ed slamming Trump's response to racial justice protests. He and former director of national intelligence Dan Coats also were quoted extensively in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward calling Trump dangerous and unfit for office.

                            But Mattis and Coats, like former White House chief of staff John Kelly and former national security adviser H.R. McMaster, have refrained from more explicit condemnations, often citing a “duty of silence” or a long tradition of military officials staying out of politics, according to people who've spoken with them.

                            Efforts to draw them out are ongoing. While former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen appears disinclined to step forward, there are hopes that former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson might be persuaded to comment and that Coats might be urged to say more. And Kelly, a retired four-star general, is said to be on the fence and torn about the decision.

                            “I think that he loves his country and he wants to do what’s best for the country,” said Neumann, who served as Kelly’s deputy chief of staff at DHS and is hopeful he'll speak out, even as others don't think it will happen.

                            Officials like Kelly, with long careers and hefty pensions, would seem to have less to lose by doing so than more junior staffers like Olivia Troye, a former counterterrorism adviser to Vice President Mike Pence who last week joined the campaign against Trump and said she'd be voting for Biden.

                            In a video and interviews, Troye has accused Trump of mishandling the coronavirus and being more concerned about his reelection prospects than saving lives. The White House punched back with an aggressive attack campaign aimed at discrediting her through a barrage of statements, interviews and denunciations from the lectern in the White House briefing room.

                            “These are not profiles in courage, but these are profiles in cowardice,” White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said of Troye and Taylor, dismissing them as part of a “fringe club of, quote, ‘Never Trumpers’ who are desperate for relevancy."

                            Taylor said it was clear the White House was “coming after” those who speak out as a warning to others who are considering doing likewise.

                            “The White House knows if they show this is a very costly thing to do they will scare people from going forward," he said.

                            He added that while more people are still considering coming forward, the White House tactics have worked to some extent — dissuading one senior official who had been on the cusp of speaking out.

                            Rick Wilson, a longtime Republican strategist who co-founded the anti-Trump Lincoln Project, stressed that time is running out.

                            “There will be a cottage industry when Trump is out of office of people who say, ‘Oh, I fought from the inside, I fought the good fight, I kept so many bad things from happening.’" he said. "It doesn’t matter. There’s only one moment in time where it matters. And that’s now."

                            For Neumann, who describes herself as a conservative Christian and voted for Trump in 2016, the considerations were deeply personal, including what it might mean for her career in a city that puts a premium on loyalty.

                            "This is a town based on relationships,” she said. "And what we have done is, you know, usually not done in this town. Usually you stab people in the back and do it quietly. You do it as an anonymous source. You don’t actually put your name to it.”

                            Neumann is still out of work and notes that many companies fear making hires that might seem political. But she still said she's been pleasantly surprised by the response overall.

                            “It was more positive than I expected," she said, adding, “No serious threats, haven't had to call the police or anything, so that’s good.”

                            Anthony Scaramucci, who turned against the president last year after a short stint as White House communications director, has also been in discussions with those on the fence and is using every channel he can find to spread his message, including a new anti-Trump documentary.

                            “We have to keep the pressure on, and so for me it’s a multimedia approach. It’s radio, it’s podcasts, it’s Twitter, it’s television and it's movies," he said. “As a citizen all I've tried to do is provide a surgeon general’s warning. ... This guy is a threat to the institutions of democracy, and I worked for him and I think it’s important to send a signal to other people,” he said, that it’s OK to speak out.

                            ___


                            “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                            Comment


                            • Biden braces for Trump to come after his family in first debate

                              Tuesday night’s debate might be the last chance for Donald Trump and Joe Biden to command the collective attention of swing-state voters who will decide the election: By the second debate in mid-October, many of them will have already cast their ballots through early voting.

                              It’s why both campaigns have long had Sept. 29 marked on their calendars. A big night for Trump or a bad night for Biden could alter the trajectory of a race that’s barely budged during months of nationwide upheaval.

                              “This debate will be watched by the country as though it’s tuning into the Super Bowl,” said Mari Will, a debate coach and longtime Republican political adviser.
                              Or, as Republican strategist Michael Steel put it: “In a race that has been remarkably stable — in the face of earth-shaking events — the debates, particularly the first one, represent one of the last real chances to change the terms of the contest.”


                              With those stakes in mind, POLITICO interviewed more than a dozen campaign aides and outside allies about the candidates’ preparations and expectations for the 90-minute showdown at 9 p.m. Tuesday. Here’s a look at what we learned.

                              Biden’s imperative: Don’t play Trump’s game

                              Stick to Covid-19 and the economy. Don’t waste valuable time fact-checking the president, except perhaps his most egregious falsehoods. And be ready for Trump to go after your kid — and your brothers.

                              These are among the pointers Biden’s advisers are giving the candidate in prep sessions ahead of the debate.

                              Biden took time off the trail last week to prepare with a small group of advisers in his Wilmington, Del., home. His team expects that Trump, given his disregard for rules or boundaries, will get personal and possibly nasty.

                              One person familiar with the campaign’s thinking said the team is bracing Biden for the likelihood that Trump will attempt to weaponize past business dealings by his family members, who the candidate is especially protective of.

                              Biden could differentiate himself from the president simply by noting that the pandemic death toll has surpassed 200,000 and by paying tribute to the victims — two things Trump has been reluctant to do.

                              “Biden is someone who speaks to that painand actually sees people and understands. That’s one of the most important things he can do in this debate,” says Karen Finney, a Democratic strategist and former aide to Hillary Clinton.

                              Democrats expect the president to do his best to steer the conversation away from coronavirus. They point to Trump's recent comments at campaign rallies about Hunter Biden as evidence of his probable strategy.

                              “It’ll be despicable. But I guarantee you that in debate prep, they’re saying the nastiest things about Hunter they can think of because Donald Trump will say anything and is capable of anything. … They’re well aware of that,” said Matt Bennett, co-founder of the center-left group Third Way. “Trump plays only to one audience all the time, it’s the red meat audience.”

                              Former Hillary Clinton aide Philippe Reines, who played Trump in mock debates in 2016, said Biden can’t afford to allow Trump to knock him off message. If he could have one do-over in 2016, Reines said, it would be to insist that Clinton abide by one hard-and-fast rule.

                              “If you find yourself defending yourself for more than 10 seconds, then stop,” Reines said. “There’s an opportunity cost to not talking to the audience. You can bicker with Donald Trump for 45 minutes if you want. You can also talk to 100 million people at home.”

                              “They’re not only coming after Hunter, they’re coming after Frank and Jim,” the person said of Biden’s son and his brothers.

                              The former vice president will attempt to draw stark contrasts with Trump on leadership style by asking viewers, for example, to imagine what it would be like to have a president who believes in science.

                              Much like he did in the Democratic primary, Biden is expected to portray himself as the candidate of unity and healing, while depicting Trump as a president pulling the nation apart.

                              “The goal for this debate is to not be a fact-checker of Donald Trump. His goal is to communicate directly to the American people and to outline his vision for how we overcome the pandemic, finally,” said a second person familiar with the Biden campaign’s thinking.

                              Trump’s strategy: Link Biden to the radical left

                              Trump has engaged in what allies describe as unconventional debate preparations, relying more on his daily give-and-take with the media than on traditional practice sessions. Still, he has been planning for the debate with several of his top advisers, including Jason Miller, Bill Stepien, and Jared Kushner. Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie recently traveled to Washington for a prep session with the president in the White House that lasted several hours.

                              Still, some senior advisers have privately expressed concern that the president has been unfocused in the run-up to the debate.

                              Trump aides said they want to use the debate to draw out Biden on some of his more liberal positions, such as his support for the Green New Deal, in hopes of softening the former vice president’s support among more moderate voters. Senior Republicans say Trump’s objective is simple: to spend his time keeping Biden on defense — and to not spend too much time in back-and-forths over his first-term record, especially on Covid-19.

                              The hope among Republicans is that Trump avoids the fate that befell past incumbents like Barack Obama and George W. Bush, who faltered in the first debate of their reelection campaigns.

                              “The pressure is on the president,” said Steel, who was also involved in Paul Ryan’s 2012 debate prep and advised former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in his 2016 primary debates against Trump. “The president is clearly consistently down in national polls,” he added, and “it’s very hard to stay sharp and focused and crisp when you’re in the bubble of the White House and an awful lot of people are crawling all over each other to kiss your backside all the time.”

                              Some Democrats and Republicans think Trump has set Biden up for success by portraying him as several cards short of a full deck. Republicans spent months promoting the idea that Biden can’t string together a sentence without a teleprompter and calling him “Sleepy Joe.” Trump has even suggested that if Biden performs well at the debate it’s because he’s on performance-altering drugs.

                              “Stupidly, Trump and his side have tried to underestimate Biden. Now they’re screwed,” said Amanda Loveday,a senior adviser with the pro-Biden Unite the Country super PAC and former director of the South Carolina Democratic Party.

                              Some members of the president’s inner circle regret the strategy and worry the former vice president will have to do little to clear the bar.

                              Other Republicans, however, argued that’s the wrong way to look at it. If Biden slips up, they say, it will only confirm doubts that Trump has been seeding for months.

                              “I think a lot of folks have big questions about whether or not Joe Biden can sustain a 90-minute debate performance against Donald Trump,” said Brett O’Donnell, a veteran GOP debate coach who helped Sarah Palin prepare for her 2008 showdown with Biden. “So should Biden have a moment where he seems lost or makes a substantial gaffe, it will only reinforce the argument of the Trump campaign that he’s unfit for office.”

                              In recent days, Trump advisers and allies have worked to lower expectations for Biden by pointing to his strong performances against Palin in 2008 and Ryan in 2012. Among them is New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, who led Ryan’s extensive preparations for his face-off against Biden.

                              “Joe Biden was very well prepared,” Stefanik said. "The debate stage is where he feels most comfortable.”

                              Trump has privately acknowledged to allies that Biden — who has appeared in dozens of debates during his nearly five-decade career in politics debates — is an accomplished debater. The president, who focuses relentlessly on press coverage, has also expressed concern that no matter how the former vice president fares, he will be treated by the media as the winner.
                              ___________



                              “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                              Comment


                              • As an aside, I regularly keep an eye on Trump's favorite poll, Rasmussen. (Special thanks to Double Edge for bringing that one to my attention). It's the only one I really look at besides Electoral-Vote.com

                                Lately Trump has been doing rather well, relatively speaking: He even briefly surfaced above water to an impressive +4 on the overall Approval Index on September 18th. He then submerged back to his typical negative rating and ended last week at -2. Pretty typical, nothing particularly interesting.

                                Today he went from Friday's rather benign -2 and plummeted to a -11, a startling 9 point drop and a number he hasn't been at since mid-August. Whoa.

                                It'll be interesting to see what happens tomorrow and the rest of the week, especially with the debate tomorrow night. More than likely he'll continue the gentle up-and-down wave but that kind of sudden drop, happening as it did when Trump was start to recover a bit, was something of a jolt, to say the least.

                                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X