2020 Presidential Election

[OldPhiKap]

Apples to oranges. Colon cancer could easily be growing within you in a dangerous way and you would not exhibit any noticeable symptoms. We do colonoscopies precisely because it is the only way to detect colon cancer. But the kind of deficiencies that are revealed on a MoCA test are so much more obvious when speaking to someone.

The kind of people who need a MoCA test are people who are quite clearly showing mental decline. Look at the questions on the test.

Can you identify a picture of a camel?
Can you draw a clock?
Tap your finger every time I say the letter A in this list of letters.
Repeat this phrase back to me.

There's a reason the test seems "easy." It is because the test is looking for signs of serious mental decline. There's just no way Biden could sit down for a media interview on a wide variety of issues and yet be unable to repeat a short phrase spoken to him or unable to identify what comes next in the sequence A-1-B-2-C...

I know a doctor who gives MoCA tests all day. She told me that she would never consider giving one to Biden or Trump because it is abundantly clear that they have the level of cognitive function that is well beyond what would be revealed via a MoCA test. She laughs every time the media talks about this like it is some issue. I'm just trying to help folks here understand the level of cognitive decline you need to have for a MoCA test to be revealing. And I'm trying to explain why a non-partisan person would look at any interview, debate, news conference given recently by Biden and Trump and conclude that neither of them needs to take a MoCA test.

According to MoCA’s website, it also is used to test for mild cognitive impairment and not simply the level of near-dementia your friend seems to be describing:

https://www.mocatest.org/faq/#

Having grown up watching Trump in the NYC media market since I was a kid, and Biden since my cable provider got C-SPAN back in the day, I personally believe they both appear to have diminished mental capacity from where either was ten or do years ago. Do you disagree?

(And if the answer is “we all do as we age,” that is why geriatric doctors are amongst the target group of MoCA users: https://www.mocatest.org/ ).

But back to the point — I think it is a legitimate question, and a very odd response to it.

[Rich]

Apologies if this was posted already (I've been out of pocket due to the storm) and for it being behind the NYT firewall - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/05/o...sultPosition=1

The historian Allan Lichtman was the lonely forecaster who predicted Mr. Trump’s victory in 2016 — and also prophesied the president would be impeached. That’s two for two. But Professor Lichtman’s record goes much deeper. In 1980, he developed a presidential prediction model that retrospectively accounted for 120 years of U.S. election history. Over the past four decades, his system has accurately called presidential victors, from Ronald Reagan in ’84 to, well, Mr. Trump in 2016.

In the video Op-Ed above, Professor Lichtman walks us through his system, which identifies 13 “keys” to winning the White House. Each key is a binary statement: true or false. And if six or more keys are false, the party in the White House is on its way out.

So what do the keys predict for 2020? To learn that, you’ll have to watch the video.

Link to video: https://nyti.ms/2DyHXyn

[duke96]

I'm interested in why one base would be more susceptible to defection than the other? Also, I think the data from the past has shown a relatively similar size for the two bases, let's assume 40% to either side. So wouldn't the better tactic be to be address the middle 20% of moderates and undecideds?

My comment about VP selection didn't reference Biden's "base", it referenced his potential supporters. So, more to the 20% than the 40%. As noted, I suspect that group has the potential to be more influenced by VP selection than in other presidential elections over the past few decades.

[swood1000]

If you will simply answer my questions first so we can put that to bed, I'll be happy to click your links when I have a chance in order to respond. Thanks.

Your first claim is a bit extravagant. Can you provide a source for Trump saying that mail-in balloting constitutes per se voter fraud?

As for your second question, I thought that there was general agreement that mail-in voting, especially when it is being done for the first time at large scale, has been shown to have significant drawbacks, with many ballots not being counted because of a failure to follow the required rules, this potentially leading to another “hanging chad” type of debacle. In addition, mail-in voting, depending on the rules in place, opens the process up to fraud, such as in Paterson, N.J. and in North Carolina.

Your position is apparently that it is counterproductive for anyone to be concerned about the potential for American citizens to lose confidence in the probity of the voting process as a result of these shortcomings, but another view is that if such concern and agitation can cause procedures to be adopted that will reduce the number of ballots that are discarded or minimize the possibility of fraud then that is a positive thing. It used to be admitted freely that paper ballots are extremely susceptible to fraud.

[Kdogg]

Biden saidAre we cool that this is hypocrisy? It sounds to me like Biden is trying to seem to be all things to all people. Does “progressive” not mean “left”? What does it mean when a person says that he is a moderate, and that as a moderate he will be one of the most progressive presidents in American history?

No it does not and to characterize it as such is a vast over simplification. Progressivism is NOT a blanket term by any means. Nor is it something that is Left or Right / Liberal or Conservation. Ronald Reagan had a "progressive" immigration policy. He (and and a functioning Congress) passed an amnesty bill for illegal aliens. It put three million immigrants on a track for citizenship and taxes. Richard Nixon willed the EPA into existence. There are numerous examples throughout US history. Hell Teddy Roosevelt (R) was a leading figure with his Square Deal.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Your first claim is a bit extravagant. Can you provide a source for Trump saying that mail-in balloting constitutes per se voter fraud?

As for your second question, I thought that there was general agreement that mail-in voting, especially when it is being done for the first time at large scale, has been shown to have significant drawbacks, with many ballots not being counted because of a failure to follow the required rules, this potentially leading to another “hanging chad” type of debacle. In addition, mail-in voting, depending on the rules in place, opens the process up to fraud, such as in Paterson, N.J. and in North Carolina.

Your position is apparently that it is counterproductive for anyone to be concerned about the potential for American citizens to lose confidence in the probity of the voting process as a result of these shortcomings, but another view is that if such concern and agitation can cause procedures to be adopted that will reduce the number of ballots that are discarded or minimize the possibility of fraud then that is a positive thing. It used to be admitted freely that paper ballots are extremely susceptible to fraud.

So what is your solution? The socratic method only gets you so far around here...

The fundamental difference between the two parties is that Democrats stay up at night worrying about people being disenfranchised, and Republicans worry about voter fraud. And neither side is changing their opinion or priorities.

[OldPhiKap]

Your first claim is a bit extravagant. Can you provide a source for Trump saying that mail-in balloting constitutes per se voter fraud?

With respect, haven't you been listening to the guy for the last few months? And rather than parse my statement, just fess up -- Trump is being blatantly hypocritical in attacking mail-in balloting nationally, but now suddenly supporting it in Florida because he thinks it will help him. It's okay to admit, really. It's not really that hidden.

As for your second question, I thought that there was general agreement that mail-in voting, especially when it is being done for the first time at large scale, has been shown to have significant drawbacks, with many ballots not being counted because of a failure to follow the required rules, this potentially leading to another “hanging chad” type of debacle. In addition, mail-in voting, depending on the rules in place, opens the process up to fraud, such as in Paterson, N.J. and in North Carolina.

And yet, you fail to explain why Florida is different and is now okay according to Trump.

Your position is apparently that it is counterproductive for anyone to be concerned about the potential for American citizens to lose confidence in the probity of the voting process as a result of these shortcomings, but another view is that if such concern and agitation can cause procedures to be adopted that will reduce the number of ballots that are discarded or minimize the possibility of fraud then that is a positive thing. It used to be admitted freely that paper ballots are extremely susceptible to fraud.

You know that was not my point, nor is that what I said. Nice try to shift, though.

[robed deity]

According to MoCA’s website, it also is used to test for mild cognitive impairment and not simply the level of near-dementia your friend seems to be describing:

https://www.mocatest.org/faq/#

Having grown up watching Trump in the NYC media market since I was a kid, and Biden since my cable provider got C-SPAN back in the day, I personally believe they both appear to have diminished mental capacity from where either was ten or do years ago. Do you disagree?

(And if the answer is “we all do as we age,” that is why geriatric doctors are amongst the target group of MoCA users: https://www.mocatest.org/ ).

But back to the point — I think it is a legitimate question, and a very odd response to it.

I would definitely agree that both have "diminished mental capacity" moments. Biden has a history of them and oooooh boy just watch the Axios interview for Trump. Holy moly.

[swood1000]

No it does not and to characterize it as such is a vast over simplification. Progressivism is NOT a blanket term by any means. Nor is it something that is Left or Right / Liberal or Conservation. Ronald Reagan had a "progressive" immigration policy. He (and and a functioning Congress) passed an amnesty bill for illegal aliens. It put three million immigrants on a track for citizenship and taxes. Richard Nixon willed the EPA into existence. There are numerous examples throughout US history. Hell Teddy Roosevelt (R) was a leading figure with his Square Deal.

Take a look at this article, for example: Progressives don’t love Joe Biden, but they’re learning to love his agenda. Do you disagree that the meaning of “progressive” in this article is the meaning of the word generally in the population, and that most people understand it as being synonymous with “liberal” or “left”?

[OldPhiKap]

Biden said that if he is elected and his plans on the economy and health care “and the rest” are passed he will “go down as one of the most progressive presidents in American history.”

Biden then sent his wife to tell a Fox News audience that “he’s not someone who’s left, he's not someone who is right, he's a moderate and that's who he's always been." But, she said, this doesn’t mean that “his ideas aren't progressive and bold and forward-thinking.”

Are we cool that this is hypocrisy? It sounds to me like Biden is trying to seem to be all things to all people. Does “progressive” not mean “left”? What does it mean when a person says that he is a moderate, and that as a moderate he will be one of the most progressive presidents in American history?

I am sure that Biden has said inconsistent and, at times, hypocritical things. "Whataboutism" is not a logical construct though, it is a sophistic distraction. (I don't say that pejoratively; I have certainly used it to normalize bad actions by my clients over the decades when needed). if you are trying to equate undermining the confidence in elections with vague stump speech, I respectfully suggest those are two entirely different things. YMMV.

As for the examples you set out, we have Biden saying one thing and then his wife characterizing Biden in an arguably inconsistent way. Since it is two different speakers I do not think that "hypocrisy" is the right term. "Inconsistent pandering" is probably the harshest I would say. And, that's assuming that his wife's comment that his ideas are progressive does not somehow make the two congruous. "Progressive" means forward-moving, not just a label for what we used to call left-wing liberals but that appellation apparently ruffled some feathers.

[PackMan97]

No it does not and to characterize it as such is a vast over simplification. Progressivism is NOT a blanket term by any means. Nor is it something that is Left or Right / Liberal or Conservation. Ronald Reagan had a "progressive" immigration policy. He (and and a functioning Congress) passed an amnesty bill for illegal aliens. It put three million immigrants on a track for citizenship and taxes. Richard Nixon willed the EPA into existence. There are numerous examples throughout US history. Hell Teddy Roosevelt (R) was a leading figure with his Square Deal.

AFAIK, "Progressive" is the term liberals gave themselves when they got tired of being called liberals. There may be other meanings of the word, but it today's politics that's what it means to most people.

It's a bit like saying taking the stance that the US is a democracy and then someone else arguing we are a republic.

[OldPhiKap]

AFAIK, "Progressive" is the term liberals gave themselves when they got tired of being called liberals. There may be other meanings of the word, but it today's politics that's what it means to most people.

It's a bit like saying taking the stance that the US is a democracy and then someone else arguing we are a republic.

True. Having watched the clip, though, I did not get the sense that Biden was declaring himself to be in the Bernie/AOC camp. Given that his whole shtick during the campaign has been that he is the supposedly solid moderate, that kind of read would be really off-brand and hard for me to imagine him really meaning. So I think he is using the term the way seventy-year old guys do -- in an arcane manner. The same way he refers to LP records, dial telephones, and those new-fangled fax machines.

Hard to judge from a 20 second clip I think.

[LasVegas]

Apologies if this was posted already (I've been out of pocket due to the storm) and for it being behind the NYT firewall - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/05/o...sultPosition=1



Link to video: https://nyti.ms/2DyHXyn

Well he incorrectly predicted trump would win the pop vote in 2016 so he was pretty far off. Also predicted Gore would win the pop vote.

[Rich]

Well he incorrectly predicted trump would win the pop vote in 2016 so he was pretty far off. Also predicted Gore would win the pop vote.

Gore DID win the popular vote - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gor...ntial_campaign

On November 7, 2000, projections indicated that Gore's opponent, then-Governor of Texas George W. Bush, the Republican candidate, had narrowly won the election. Gore won the national popular vote but lost the electoral college vote after a bitter legal battle over disputed vote counts in the state of Florida. Bush won the state of Florida in the initial count and also in each subsequent recount. The legal dispute was ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court of the United States in a 5-4 decision. Bush won the election on the electoral college vote of 271 to 266. One elector pledged to Gore did not cast an electoral vote; Gore received 267 pledged electors.

[LasVegas]

Gore DID win the popular vote - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gor...ntial_campaign

Yeah. I know. The video states he has a perfect record. How? Wrong on trump pop vote or wrong on gore winning presidency. It’s just straight up confusing.

[Rich]

Yeah. I know. The video states he has a perfect record. How? Wrong on trump pop vote or wrong on gore winning presidency. It’s just straight up confusing.

OK so he's fudging the data a bit

Lichtman claims to have accurately predicted the winner of every presidential contest since Ronald Reagan's reelection in 1984. While he predicted former Vice President Al Gore would win the election in 2000, he stands by his projection, stating Gore won the popular vote while former President George W. Bush won the electoral college after the Supreme Court ruling.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...mp/3304680001/

[swood1000]

With respect, haven't you been listening to the guy for the last few months? And rather than parse my statement, just fess up -- Trump is being blatantly hypocritical in attacking mail-in balloting nationally, but now suddenly supporting it in Florida because he thinks it will help him. It's okay to admit, really. It's not really that hidden.

And yet, you fail to explain why Florida is different and is now okay according to Trump.

Look, I acknowledged up-front the possibility that Trump is being inconsistent.

I can’t find what he is referring to. Maybe it’s simply an acknowledgement that with so many elderly voters in Florida he better get their votes any way he can. Of course that would be inconsistent with the position he has taken elsewhere.

So what else are you expecting me to say? I have no great love for the guy, and in fact have plenty of distaste for how he has conducted himself, but I like his Supreme Court nominees much more than I would like the ones I expect Biden to make. And I think that deregulation and lowered taxation is much more apt to produce prosperity and a higher living standard for everyone in this country than the opposite policies would produce, which is what I expect from Biden. As to whether he is racist I think I agree with Coleman Hughes that that he may have the “mild racism common to his era.” Beyond that I think that his detractors are lost in fanatical exaggeration.

You know that was not my point, nor is that what I said. Nice try to shift, though.

So maybe your point is that a certain level of caution and concern on the part of the public with respect to mail-in ballots is appropriate but that you think that the likelihood of fraud, considering the rules in place in some states, is less than Trump thinks it is, or maybe even that he is not worried about fraud at all and just wants to disenfranchise people who can’t get to the polling place, and you think that your view is not open to question and that every reasonable person must agree. Was that your point?

I am sure that Biden has said inconsistent and, at times, hypocritical things. "Whataboutism" is not a logical construct though, it is a sophistic distraction.

Whataboutism would be a sophistic distraction if I used it to defend Trump’s inconsistency. I didn’t, though. I used it to demonstrate that neither candidate occupies the high ground on this score. (Please let’s not start a war of inconsistent statements, in which both quantity and effect would have to be debated. Everybody knows that would be out of bounds.)

As for the examples you set out, we have Biden saying one thing and then his wife characterizing Biden in an arguably inconsistent way. Since it is two different speakers I do not think that "hypocrisy" is the right term.

This didn’t get past the plausibility meter. It is her statement that represents the standard line that Biden has been trying to establish. His was the inconsistent statement. Furthermore, the notion that Biden’s wife is a loose cannon would be reality-challenged.

True. Having watched the clip, though, I did not get the sense that Biden was declaring himself to be in the Bernie/AOC camp. Given that his whole shtick during the campaign has been that he is the supposedly solid moderate, that kind of read would be really off-brand and hard for me to imagine him really meaning. So I think he is using the term the way seventy-year old guys do -- in an arcane manner. The same way he refers to LP records, dial telephones, and those new-fangled fax machines.

Hard to judge from a 20 second clip I think.

I agree that Biden’s statement was “off-brand and hard for me to imagine him really meaning.” But there is no difficulty seeing whose votes he was trying for with it. What about the Biden-Sanders Manifesto? That also seems to be off-brand. What are we to conclude?

[duke96]

It is her statement that represents the standard line that Biden has been trying to establish.

That's not really fair. Seen plenty of indications he has comforted centrists that his administration won't lead to major leftward social and economic changes. So ... maybe they are sending slightly different signals depending on who the audience is? AKA political standard operating procedure...

[LasVegas]

OK so he's fudging the data a bit



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...mp/3304680001/

Well then he needs to admit he got the trump prediction wrong then. Can’t have it both ways!

[YmoBeThere]

Well then he needs to admit he got the trump prediction wrong then. Can’t have it both ways!

I watched the video but didn't catch the part where he said that Trump would win the popular vote. I do recall it noting that after the Bush/Gore vote that he changed to predicting the winner and not necessarily who got the most votes.