Page 674 of 844 FirstFirst ... 174574624664672673674675676684724774 ... LastLast
Results 13,461 to 13,480 of 16862
  1. #13461
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Westport, CT
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I watched Joe's entire Town Hall...

    On the one hand, there were no flubs or gaffes that I saw. He is clearly mentally fit. He does a great job of connecting with people in a real way. It helped that these were Pennsylvanians from his part of the state and he often commented on their home towns and how their story was connected to his.

    But, his answers were too long and often featured rambling sidebars. There were a few times he clearly lost focus and never really came close to answering what was asked. One time in particular, a woman who said she was a Republican asked a pretty reasonable question about enhanced unemployment benefits paying more than some regular jobs and he never even came close to addressing that concern. At one point, Biden almost started to explain mRNA versus adenovirus vaccines but stopped himself and shifted his focus. It seemed like Biden was sorting through a million facts in his head to find the ones that would most connect to the question and his audience.

    All in all, he was fine. Anderson Cooper and the crowd were really respectful and largely threw him softball questions. It did not feel nearly as contentious as Trump's town hall on ABC earlier this week. Biden clearly exceeded the "he's senile!" bar that Trump keeps laying out for him but I thought he did little to really "wow" me. He wasn't close to as good as he was in his convention speech.

    I actually think a debate will be good for him because the time limits will force him to be a bit more concise and focused. He is clearly well-briefed and knows the facts which may help him to fact-check Trump in real time, which will be very important to him.

    Agree with this. In fact, when asked how he is preparing for the debates he said that he was trying to get his answers to be more concise. I agree with you also about the fact that he didn't answer that woman's question regarding enhanced unemployment benefits. I thought Anderson would hold his feet to the fire on that one, but no.

  2. #13462
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I actually think a debate will be good for him because the time limits will force him to be a bit more concise and focused. He is clearly well-briefed and knows the facts which may help him to fact-check Trump in real time, which will be very important to him.
    I don't expect Trump to much respect debate rules or time limits. I remember a few times in the Democratic debates when Biden would just stop in mid-thought and say, "I see my time is up," when the red light popped on. I thought that made him look weak so I trust his team is prepping him to finish his thought rather than stopping in mid-thought/sentence.
    Rich
    "Failure is Not a Destination"
    Coach K on the Dan Patrick Show, December 22, 2016

  3. #13463
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    I didn't realize it was on, so I only caught the last 15 minutes. I agree on the train of thought, but he can fix that easy if he doesn't make his answers so meandering. It's not often that one can find fault in having so much to say, but he obviously does, and that can lead him from point A to point D while skipping past B & C. Hopefully a focus during debate prep is concise answers.

    I agree with your overall assumption, he looked like he did well.
    Quote Originally Posted by fisheyes View Post
    Agree with this. In fact, when asked how he is preparing for the debates he said that he was trying to get his answers to be more concise. I agree with you also about the fact that he didn't answer that woman's question regarding enhanced unemployment benefits. I thought Anderson would hold his feet to the fire on that one, but no.
    HA! That's good to know, it sure is needed.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  4. #13464
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Some high-quality swing polls out this morning--

    NYTimes/Sienna College poll, which is rated A+ by Nate and the gang:
    • Arizona - Biden 49, Trump 40 - that poll, all by itself, moved Biden from a 65% chance of winning AZ to a 68% chance
    • Maine, 2nd District - Biden 47, Trump 45 - Biden is going to crush in the Maine 1st district. The 2nd is the toss-up and it could be significant in some scenarios (if PA goes Trump, and AZ goes Biden then the 2nd will decide the election!!)
    • North Carolina - Biden 45, Trump 44 - NC may be the most be the closest state in the nation, the way the polls currently look

    Also, Morning Consult has a Wisconsin poll that is Biden 51, Trump 42. Unless something major happens, it is starting to look like Wisconsin and Michigan are out of Trump's reach.

    -Jason "the NYT polls also found Dems flipping the AZ senate seat by 8, Maine by 5, and NC by 4... " Evans
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  5. #13465
    https://www.stitcher.com/s?eid=77829035&refid=asa

    The 538 politics Podcast is extraordinary for stat geeks. This week they spend quite a bit of time discussing state polls versus national polling and forecast modeling which is really good stuff. They are coming out with their congressional forecast model and it shows a tighter race in the senate than in the presidency at this point. Spoiler alert: Nate Silver is dubious that the race has tightened much (but it has some) because the national polling average has tightened but the aggregate of state polling averages has not tightened as much. Historically state polling averages are more representative of the national polling average then national polls.

  6. #13466
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Some high-quality swing polls out this morning--

    NYTimes/Sienna College poll, which is rated A+ by Nate and the gang:
    • Arizona - Biden 49, Trump 40 - that poll, all by itself, moved Biden from a 65% chance of winning AZ to a 68% chance
    • Maine, 2nd District - Biden 47, Trump 45 - Biden is going to crush in the Maine 1st district. The 2nd is the toss-up and it could be significant in some scenarios (if PA goes Trump, and AZ goes Biden then the 2nd will decide the election!!)
    • North Carolina - Biden 45, Trump 44 - NC may be the most be the closest state in the nation, the way the polls currently look

    Also, Morning Consult has a Wisconsin poll that is Biden 51, Trump 42. Unless something major happens, it is starting to look like Wisconsin and Michigan are out of Trump's reach.

    -Jason "the NYT polls also found Dems flipping the AZ senate seat by 8, Maine by 5, and NC by 4... " Evans
    I am a little surprised* that Biden and Dems are not shouting from the rooftops that U.S. trade deficits are the highest since 2008. I do think how the Trump administration handled the pandemic is a winning argument for the Dems but Trump leaned hard into his ability to negotiate better deals and put America's economic interest first, using trade deficits specifically as a talking point. If I'm Biden and the Dems, I would take a big ol' step back from the culture war issues and hammer the deficit growth under Trump's watch home repeatedly in WI, MI, MN, PA, OH...

    Most of the manufacturing and agricultural sectors cannot be happy with the current state of what was promised by Trump in these areas.

    *Perhaps I've just not seen the grassroots efforts in these states...

  7. #13467
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by ClemmonsDevil View Post
    https://www.stitcher.com/s?eid=77829035&refid=asa

    The 538 politics Podcast is extraordinary for stat geeks. This week they spend quite a bit of time discussing state polls versus national polling and forecast modeling which is really good stuff. They are coming out with their congressional forecast model and it shows a tighter race in the senate than in the presidency at this point. Spoiler alert: Nate Silver is dubious that the race has tightened much (but it has some) because the national polling average has tightened but the aggregate of state polling averages has not tightened as much. Historically state polling averages are more representative of the national polling average then national polls.
    On the back of the high-quality NYT polls in several key swing states, the 538 model has now ticked up to Biden having a 77% chance of winning, the highest Biden has been since late June when Trump was still reeling from gassing the protesters outside the White House.
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  8. #13468
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    I am a little surprised* that Biden and Dems are not shouting from the rooftops that U.S. trade deficits are the highest since 2008. I do think how the Trump administration handled the pandemic is a winning argument for the Dems but Trump leaned hard into his ability to negotiate better deals and put America's economic interest first, using trade deficits specifically as a talking point. If I'm Biden and the Dems, I would take a big ol' step back from the culture war issues and hammer the deficit growth under Trump's watch home repeatedly in WI, MI, MN, PA, OH...

    Most of the manufacturing and agricultural sectors cannot be happy with the current state of what was promised by Trump in these areas.

    *Perhaps I've just not seen the grassroots efforts in these states...
    My issue with that is that all trade deficits mean is that you have enough cash on hand to afford imports. A trade imbalance is generally a good thing when viewed through the prism of the importing country's financial health. I don't know how you dunk over something that was irrationally argued by Trump in the 1st place.

  9. #13469
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Quote Originally Posted by ClemmonsDevil View Post
    My issue with that is that all trade deficits mean is that you have enough cash on hand to afford imports. A trade imbalance is generally a good thing when viewed through the prism of the importing country's financial health. I don't know how you dunk over something that was irrationally argued by Trump in the 1st place.
    If an opponent hammers on a criterion for judging and then fails on it, I think you might accept the hammer and hit them over the head with it.

  10. #13470
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    Quote Originally Posted by ClemmonsDevil View Post
    My issue with that is that all trade deficits mean is that you have enough cash on hand to afford imports. A trade imbalance is generally a good thing when viewed through the prism of the importing country's financial health. I don't know how you dunk over something that was irrationally argued by Trump in the 1st place.
    I should have added, "Regardless of what this actually means..."

    Politicians have been using the trade deficit as Exhibit A of America's manufacturing decline forever. I don't think Biden's people should hold off cudgeling an opponent with an unrealized promise if potentially sway-able voters see the deficit with China as indicative of some larger issue.

  11. #13471
    Quote Originally Posted by camion View Post
    If an opponent hammers on a criterion for judging and then fails on it, I think you might accept the hammer and hit them over the head with it.
    Fantastic reply. I generally agree. I think it is easier for democrats to slap him around over the health care thing than the business thing. Trump adopted the approach of Bernie Sanders with not trusting international trade agreements (I am STRONGLY supportive of international trade agreements AND recognize not everyon benefits and those who don't need support) and I think Democratic response to things like this are awkward. I understand why Biden won't touch it.

  12. #13472
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    I should have added, "Regardless of what this actually means..."

    Politicians have been using the trade deficit as Exhibit A of America's manufacturing decline forever. I don't think Biden's people should hold off cudgeling an opponent with an unrealized promise if potentially sway-able voters see the deficit with China as indicative of some larger issue.
    While there is considerable truth in this, I don't think that focusing on the deficit when you're proposing another two trillion dollar Covid bill is a great idea...moreover, no one really cares about the deficit any more, IMO.

  13. #13473
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    While there is considerable truth in this, I don't think that focusing on the deficit when you're proposing another two trillion dollar Covid bill is a great idea...moreover, no one really cares about the deficit any more, IMO.
    I think you’re right in that hardly anyone seems to care about the deficit anymore. It was a huge talking point in the 80’s and 90’s, but not anymore.

    After the massive deficits that occurred during George W. Bush’s eight years I think most of us just gave up. The problem just seemed to have gotten too large to even contemplate, much less actually deal with.

  14. #13474
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    While there is considerable truth in this, I don't think that focusing on the deficit when you're proposing another two trillion dollar Covid bill is a great idea...moreover, no one really cares about the deficit any more, IMO.
    The trade deficit is not the same as just the deficit. Trump has been using the former as a proxy for "saving manufacturing jobs". I think that point is reachable, but not that many people care about the trade deficit, either. However, the trade deficit does tie in quite nicely to tariffs, which, IMO, people do care about and have not been popular. It's certainly true that China has not paid for them any more than Mexico has paid for any wall, and those those two things are very reducible to excellent debate sound bites.

    And that itself ties back into Biden shortening his answers. Policy wonks will watch the debates directly, and you want to give them some careful answers to digest. But the vast majority of the electorate is going to consume the debates the next day via news outlets, and it is crucial to give those outlets a couple 5-15 second clips to feed on. To my way of thinking, who paid for the wall and the tariffs is one of those things.

  15. #13475
    My assumption is that true, dyed in the wool, fiscal conservatives would love to discuss the debt. It is a legitimate concern in that it is ever increasing. That is a long term problem. Running up the deficit is US recession management 101 (as opposed to German/European austerity). We should be running up the deficit right now. The problem was for 3 1/2 years we had a humming economy and ran up a $2 trillion deficit. We lost all the job gains and more from 2008-2020 and kept the deficit. The issue is the Trump tax cuts never increased GDP enough to offset the lost tax cut revenue. To me THIS is the economic policy that Democrats should hammer. Incessantly. Democrats can hit Republicans over Republican administrations talking about deficits but running them up at an alarming rate while Democratic administrations have been the better stewards of economic policy and debt management (especially Clinton).

  16. #13476
    Quote Originally Posted by ClemmonsDevil View Post
    My assumption is that true, dyed in the wool, fiscal conservatives would love to discuss the debt.
    I don't think there are many of them left, to be honest. While it wasn't that long ago that fiscal conservatives in the GOP were screaming about the mounting national debt, I hear only crickets nowadays. Trump is the exact opposite of a deficit hawk, and where he goes the vast majority of the GOP have decided to follow.

  17. #13477
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDukie View Post
    I don't think there are many of them left, to be honest. While it wasn't that long ago that fiscal conservatives in the GOP were screaming about the mounting national debt, I hear only crickets nowadays. Trump is the exact opposite of a deficit hawk, and where he goes the vast majority of the GOP have decided to follow.
    That's ridiculous. There are 7 left.

  18. #13478
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDukie View Post
    I don't think there are many of them left, to be honest. While it wasn't that long ago that fiscal conservatives in the GOP were screaming about the mounting national debt, I hear only crickets nowadays. Trump is the exact opposite of a deficit hawk, and where he goes the vast majority of the GOP have decided to follow.
    If I remember correctly...here is a timeline of caring.

    When Clinton was in office, Republicans cared about the debt/deficit.
    When Bush was in office, Democrats cared about the debt/deficit/.
    When Obama was in Office, Republicans cared about the debt/deficit.
    When Trump was in Office, both sides admitted they were fake caring all along and are done worrying about the debt/deficit.

  19. #13479
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    If I remember correctly...here is a timeline of caring.

    When Clinton was in office, Republicans cared about the debt/deficit.
    When Bush was in office, Democrats cared about the debt/deficit/.
    When Obama was in Office, Republicans cared about the debt/deficit.
    When Trump was in Office, both sides admitted they were fake caring all along and are done worrying about the debt/deficit.
    Pretty much, this.

    And if Biden wins, we're gonna hear a lot about the deficit starting on Inauguration Day.

  20. #13480
    I don't think Democrats have ever spent much time on it actually. It's why it is hard for Democrats to really fight over raising the debt ceiling. You can ask for concessions but it is disingenuous to advocate increases in public health and social program spending and decry increased debt spending. What Democrats can say is Republicans spend just as much but not on the right things (not my beliefs, what Dems can say).

Similar Threads

  1. MLB 2020 HOF Election
    By Blue in the Face in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-24-2020, 11:28 AM
  2. Presidential Inauguration
    By such in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 10:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •