But surely even they can see the difference between what the health recommendations are (wear masks, social distance, don’t have big social activities) and the actions and words of Trump (refusing to wear a mask, pushing unproven and unsound treatments, holding giant rallies with no social distancing, etc)?
Even if the agree more with Trump (Hey, it’s all covid theater, what about my rights?, etc), they still have to see the difference between what they are being told and what he is doing and saying. Right?
But they have Facebook, and they have friends and neighbors, some of whom are opiniated and not silent about it.
Okay, that might be fair. Listen to the rant or waive it off, go on with your life. Grumble about how unfair it is that you can’t go get a beer with your friends but not pay attention to the President saying you should be able to go get a beer and the Governor saying “No beer for you!”
I can get that. “What’s Biden offering that I want?”
That’s a more complicated argument for a different thread.
The way I see it, most of those people will vote for Trump. They will vote their wallet or their policy preferences over their conscience. “He’s a turd, but he’s our turd.” If they’re getting what they want policy-wise, then they will ignore or hold their nose over his behavior.
That’s an interesting thought process I hadn’t considered. I disagree with that notion, but others could be having it.
That seems ridiculous directly as worded, but it’s not ridiculous if you examine the scenario. Let me reword it and see if this makes sense.
“Plant, I liked your man, but I didn’t think he could win [in the general election], so I voted for the other one [in the primary].”
I’m not saying that’s what your conversation was about, but it’s common enough.
Part of the solution to that is not just voting in Biden/Harris, but voting in Dems to the House and Senate (and any local offices you have). Break up the Mitch obstacle in the Senate and retain (or increase) control of the House, and see what can be done.
Um, given how bad it’s already gotten, I’m strangely curious about that answer, but I’m not interested in finding out that way.
So, no, they didn’t fall into a sinkhole, but there sure was a lot of damage done and lives lost. I mean, think Yugoslavia (Bosnia-Herzegovina) or the Romanian Revolution of 1989.
And even though the states have populations with different majority members, all are solidly integrated with folks of the other party embedded in the state, too. I can’t imagine any breakup of the United States that would not result in a collapse of the economy (again), or the disruption of families, or the possibility of mass migrations, or even the likelihood of armed groups in major conflicts. Maybe eventually they could form something like you describe, but it wouldn’t be pretty or painless getting there.
Understatement of the decade.
Thanks, Max_S, for some actual opinions from those concerned.
Sounds like a topic for a different thread. I’m genuinely interested in your position.
I don’t know what to tell you. If you refuse to believe that there are some people that just don’t pay much attention to presidential politics, that just don’t read all of the Facebook feeds on it (or just aren’t on social media), that just don’t discuss politics much with their family and neighbors or just don’t pay much attention when family and neighbors discuss it…shrug.
They really, truly, exist. I know some of them. If queried about their choice, they’ll reply, “I just haven’t thought about it much”. Of course, some people who say that are just avoiding an argument, and it’s likely that some “undecideds” just don’t want to discuss their actual choice, even with a pollster.
But this is a fact of human existence. Many things that are vitally important to you just aren’t vitally important to me, and vice versa. Presidential politics are just very remote to a lot of people. They just really, honestly, don’t pay much attention, don’t have strong opinions, and just don’t make their decision ahead of time.
Personally, I’d bet essentially none. You think that there are statistically significant numbers of Trump supporters who are strategically lying to pollsters in an attempt to manipulate voter turnout?
Of course, I could be wrong. What evidence is there that this is happening? What evidence is there that this is something that ever happens?
You haven’t noticed any posts on the internet, or even on this board, from “undecideds” whose anti-Biden posts far outnumber their anti-Trump posts? Driving down the vote has been a Republican strategy for many years and it is easier to reach the target audience if you pretend not to be a Republican.
How does lying to a pollster in an anonymous survey help a random Trump supporter “reach the target audience”?
If you’re just saying that some specific individuals who claim to be “undecided” in specific conversations are really Trump supporters…ok, that probably happens. Probably happens the other way, too.
I think this is pretty much the answer. This question comes up every presidential election. Those of us who pay attention to such things can’t imagine why EVERYONE couldn’t find a reason to decide between 2 very different candidates.
But I sorta analogize to how folk merge. Do you get over when they say your lane will end, or do you wait until the lane actually ends? I think many people simply think that they don’t HAVE to decide until November, so they WON’T - for whatever reason.
What I REALLY don’t understand, is someone who says they are going to vote for a 3d party candidate. At least in a contested state. Hell, I’m in a blue state, so it really doesn’t matter whether I vote for Bugs Bunny.
I dunno - I guess I can see how it is theoretically worth recording your support for a philosophy other than the 2 major parties, but in an election that is anywhere near close, I can’t understand why you would not try to increase the chances of what you perceive to be the lesser of 2 evils.
For some people, it is genuinely hard to tell which is worse. Trump has his thousand scandals, rank incompetence and ignorance, narcissism and corruption. Biden is a decent guy in comparison, but his victory would embolden the SJWs, Antifa, and signify a repudiation of the good portion of the pro-Trump movement.
He was asked about switching positions on fracking, and he answered it. I’m sure he could answer any questions about his son, too, but it doesn’t seem relevant to whether Joe Biden should be president or not. If I’m running, please don’t make me explain everything my daughters have done. I love them, but I can’t defend all their decisions.
By the way, in the latest Quinnipiac poll I could find, from September 2nd, “Don’t Know/No Answer” was only 3% of likely voters. That’s vanishingly small, within the margin of error of 3.8%.
So, “How are there any undecided voters left?” Statistically, there aren’t actually any undecided voters left.
Ok, that’s an overstatement. Among “independents” (non-Democrat, non-Republican likely voters), the number of undecideds is larger, at 6%. That’s outside the margin of error, so they do exist. But it’s still a small number. And the “Don’t Know/No Answer” category includes both genuine undecideds and respondents who prefer not to answer.
I never understand the flak politicians get for switching positions. I would much rather vote for someone who looked at facts, listened to the people, and changed his/her mind on something that someone who will blindly stick to the views they chose early on and never reconsider. I don’t believe all the same things I did 20 years ago. I was younger and dumber then. Why should my elected officials not evolve over time as well?
The Times yesterday had a reporter talk to a couple of undecideds. One interview really struck me. She started out by saying that she would most definitely vote, but she wasn’t sure whom yet. She described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal. To me that sounds like a perfect fit for the Dems since any idea that the Reps are fiscally conservative is fantasy. The three recent presidents who blew up the deficit are Reagan, Bush 43, and Trump. All with tax cuts that were supposed to pay for themselves in increased productivity and didn’t come close. She went on to say that the three most important issues for her were women’s health, K-12 education, and ending poverty. But she had no idea how the parties stood on these questions. She added that she never looked at political ads because they were so negative. And so she is still undecided.