2020 Presidential Election

[CDu]

I don't think anyone is paying attention.

Fox News has picked it up now. So it will probably get some traction. It remains to be seen if it stays off the rest of the mainstream media. So far Vox and Yahoo and Fox News are the only mainstream (loosely in Vox’s case) sites that have picked it up.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Fox News has picked it up now. So it will probably get some traction. It remains to be seen if it stays off the rest of the mainstream media. So far Vox and Yahoo and Fox News are the only mainstream (loosely in Vox’s case) sites that have picked it up.

Fine. But no one is paying attention.

[bundabergdevil]

Will Trump suggesting Pence shouldn't call unappreciative/critical governors of states hit hard by the coronavirus move the needle?

Washington state won't matter but of those governors is from the state of Michigan, which he barely won. If I'm the Dems, I take that soundbite and play it non-stop in Michigan leading up to the election.

[Rich]

Will Trump suggesting Pence shouldn't call unappreciative/critical governors of states hit hard by the coronavirus move the needle?

Washington state won't matter but of those governors is from the state of Michigan, which he barely won. If I'm the Dems, I take that soundbite and play it non-stop in Michigan leading up to the election.

I don't have the exact quote, but I watched the press conference and I recall the reference was to "the governor" of Washington and "the woman in Michigan."

[budwom]

Will Trump suggesting Pence shouldn't call unappreciative/critical governors of states hit hard by the coronavirus move the needle?

Washington state won't matter but of those governors is from the state of Michigan, which he barely won. If I'm the Dems, I take that soundbite and play it non-stop in Michigan leading up to the election.

That rant was just plain bizarre, hard to believe it's come to this. I keep adjusting my bizarre needle, but the standard keeps moving on me, I can't keep up.

[JasonEvans]

What did folks think of Biden's town hall on CNN last night? I thought he was just so-so. He hammered home that he would be consulting with experts and working with governors, not against them but he rambles endlessly. He needs to figure out how to answer a question in less than 90 seconds or 2 minutes and how to make a point and then leave it there. He has a habit of giving enough of an answer but then going on and on, often with a side story that takes him off track. He was never a brilliant orator and when he is off-prompter he's really nothing special.

That said, my colleagues at CNN did a poor job of giving him good questions. The first half hour was nothing but different people asking the same questions about testing. I get that the lack of testing so far (and the perception that the rich and famous can get tests better than the rest of us) is a huge issue for the country, but there had to be some more nuanced and interesting questions out there.

The bottom line may be there just isn't anything all that compelling for the other party to say at this time. Once you get past, "I would have listened to the experts and been more aggressive with testing and containment" what else is there to say other than bashing Trump? I suspect Biden wants to wait to start the Trump bashing until he knows more of how this turns out. Hindsight is 20-20 but we are not at the hindsight point yet... not even close.

--Jason "Bill Gates was far more compelling on Thursday night than Biden was on Friday" Evans

[bundabergdevil]

What did folks think of Biden's town hall on CNN last night? I thought he was just so-so. He hammered home that he would be consulting with experts and working with governors, not against them but he rambles endlessly. He needs to figure out how to answer a question in less than 90 seconds or 2 minutes and how to make a point and then leave it there. He has a habit of giving enough of an answer but then going on and on, often with a side story that takes him off track. He was never a brilliant orator and when he is off-prompter he's really nothing special.

That said, my colleagues at CNN did a poor job of giving him good questions. The first half hour was nothing but different people asking the same questions about testing. I get that the lack of testing so far (and the perception that the rich and famous can get tests better than the rest of us) is a huge issue for the country, but there had to be some more nuanced and interesting questions out there.

The bottom line may be there just isn't anything all that compelling for the other party to say at this time. Once you get past, "I would have listened to the experts and been more aggressive with testing and containment" what else is there to say other than bashing Trump? I suspect Biden wants to wait to start the Trump bashing until he knows more of how this turns out. Hindsight is 20-20 but we are not at the hindsight point yet... not even close.

--Jason "Bill Gates was far more compelling on Thursday night than Biden was on Friday" Evans

On first bolded sentence --- Biden has never been a great orator (some of which is attributable to his lifelong stuttering issues) but I think he's noticeably deteriorated since he was VP. That being said, I rarely listen to Biden or Trump and think either is cogent. I am guilty of assuming that's a valued quality. I think most people are willing to explain away the illogical ramblings of their favored candidate...or, more likely, cogency is in the eye of the beholder.

On second bolded statement --- lots to do, I think. I believe Biden called for a national lockdown, which is a fundamental difference in strategy right now. He's counselling the governors to continue to take the lead in the absence of federal leadership. This is also an opportunity to argue for any number of Democratic priorities, including the Affordable Care Act, stronger worker protections and social safety nets, putting boundaries on corporate bail-outs, and more - not less - multilateral cooperation.

Additionally, Trump and team have said a number of things that would be ripe for future political ads. I posted up-thread but Trump basically said NOT to help a state (Michigan) because he found the governor unappreciative. I'll keep my personal views on such a perspective to the side but if Detroit is hit as hard as anticipated, that's a powerful argument to that electorate. HRC under-performed vs. Obama in Detroit and it cost her the state. If Biden (presumably) can capitalize on those state-specific missteps, it could be pretty important for turnout come November. Just a few thousand votes decided MI, IIRC.

Finally, don't underestimate the 'should have acted earlier' argument. 60 percent of the country (previously linked poll) thinks the administration was too slow to act. This thing continues to go south, that's what you hammer. Over and over again. Failure to prevent a preventable crisis is a failure of leadership. Trump was politicking at a campaign rally, asleep at the wheel. That's the message you go with, right?

[jv001]

Interesting. Have these allegations surfaced before in his presidential runs? I do think that if these are credible they could hurt Biden more than Trump’s history of remarks and alleged sexual assaults hurt him. I expect this woman has already been contacted by Trumps campaign to see if she is willing to appear in an ad, attend a debate, etc.

I’ll leave my comments there...anything beyond the impact on the race and we’ll quickly get in heated territory.

One thing I've thought about is whether it this might be coming from the Dems side of the aisle. Those that might want another candidate to run against Trump. I don't think Trump would want to accuse Biden of this type of conduct, as he has his own dark past to consider.

GoDuke!

[Bluedog]

I don't think Trump would want to accuse Biden of this type of conduct, as he has his own dark past to consider.

GoDuke!

Uh, Trump called Bill Clinton a women abuser and invited several women accusing him on various things to the Presidential debate in the front row as special guests. Trump absolutely would go after Biden on this despite his own past.

[JasonEvans]

One thing I've thought about is whether it this might be coming from the Dems side of the aisle. Those that might want another candidate to run against Trump. I don't think Trump would want to accuse Biden of this type of conduct, as he has his own dark past to consider.

The Dems that might be unsure of Biden had their moment to try to derail him back in January. At this point, the only other option would be Bernie and I doubt the Bernie folks are putting this out, it does not fit with the way Bernie has run his campaign.

As for Trump, his supporters have clearly shown that sexual misconduct allegations just aren't all that important to them. Most people who consider sexual misconduct to be disqualifying in a leader are on the Democratic side. So, Trump making an issue of it does not hurt him with his base but could discourage some Democratic supporters to feel they cannot vote for Biden. I'm not saying it would be lot of people, but it does not take a lot of people to throw this election.

At this point, especially with Coronavirus grabbing every second of news coverage, I don't think these allegations against Biden are moving the needle at all, but if 2 or 3 more women with reasonably credible stories came forward then it could be a major problem for him.

-Jason "has anyone seen CNN or MSNBC cover this story at all on air? Sure, on the website but I don't think it has gotten any air time" Evans

[Bob Green]

As for Trump, his supporters have clearly shown that sexual misconduct allegations just aren't all that important to them. Most people who consider sexual misconduct to be disqualifying in a leader are on the Democratic side.

This generalization of Trump supporters is inaccurate. I know and work with a large number of Trump supporters who disapprove of his personal behavior. From their perspective, the Democratic alternative is worse. For starters, they believe Hillary Clinton is a criminal who belongs in prison.

[bundabergdevil]

This article takes a more nuanced look at the recent Trump bump and argues that relative to those enjoyed by other leaders, Trump's bump is small. It looks at other country-level leaders and state governors. Looking at the governor approval ratings in particular partially dispels the notion that the electorate is so polarized it can't see straight. Perhaps on most things but this suggests a pretty healthy number of people are approving of their governor's job in the crisis even if they are on the other side of the political aisle. Here is a more neutral description from Monmouth.


In other news, Tucker Carlson seems to think Andrew Cuomo will be the actual/eventual Dem nominee, not Joe Biden. I don't know about any of that but I don't disagree with some of his assessment of Biden. That being said, Cuomo has to be considered an eventual presidential candidate after this, right? I haven't seen comparative figures but he must be the second most observed figure during this time and has handled himself well. Trump's evening briefings have been drawing 8-12M viewers and I doubt Cuomo is touching those. But, I'm sure the numbers are pretty darn good and it's certainly a national platform.

[bundabergdevil]

This generalization of Trump supporters is inaccurate. I know and work with a large number of Trump supporters who disapprove of his personal behavior. From their perspective, the Democratic alternative is worse. For starters, they believe Hillary Clinton is a criminal who belongs in prison.

Coronavirus interrupted the process but Republicans were in the process of harnessing that sentiment and redirecting it toward Joe and Hunter Biden. Political jujitsu, if you will.

[JasonEvans]

This generalization of Trump supporters is inaccurate. I know and work with a large number of Trump supporters who disapprove of his personal behavior. From their perspective, the Democratic alternative is worse. For starters, they believe Hillary Clinton is a criminal who belongs in prison.

Well, I specifically said the words "people who consider sexual misconduct to be disqualifying in a leader." There just can't be that many Republicans who feel that way because Trump has the backing of so many Republicans. That said, it would be interesting to see what would happen to Democrats if we were to see more allegations against Biden. People tend to get really good at rationalizing support for their guy despite his flaws when the only other option is the other side.

-Jason "there are plenty of Democrats who think they were too quick to run off Al Franken when his #MeToo stuff cropped up" Evans

[Bob Green]

Well, I specifically said the words "people who consider sexual misconduct to be disqualifying in a leader."

Your post implies Democrats have higher morals than Republicans. I do not believe that is the case. There is lots of bad behavior on both sides of the aisle.

You use the term “Trump supporters” but most of those are Republicans.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Well, I specifically said the words "people who consider sexual misconduct to be disqualifying in a leader." There just can't be that many Republicans who feel that way because Trump has the backing of so many Republicans. That said, it would be interesting to see what would happen to Democrats if we were to see more allegations against Biden. People tend to get really good at rationalizing support for their guy despite his flaws when the only other option is the other side.

-Jason "there are plenty of Democrats who think they were too quick to run off Al Franken when his #MeToo stuff cropped up" Evans

I find this discussion of whether or not sexual assault is disqualifying of a candidate incredibly depressing - mostly because of the implied answers.

[Stray Gator]

Well, I specifically said the words "people who consider sexual misconduct to be disqualifying in a leader." There just can't be that many Republicans who feel that way because Trump has the backing of so many Republicans. That said, it would be interesting to see what would happen to Democrats if we were to see more allegations against Biden. People tend to get really good at rationalizing support for their guy despite his flaws when the only other option is the other side.

-Jason "there are plenty of Democrats who think they were too quick to run off Al Franken when his #MeToo stuff cropped up" Evans

Your statement that Republicans who back Trump cannot "consider sexual misconduct to be disqualifying in a leader" necessarily implies that anyone who votes for Trump must likewise not consider sexual misconduct to be disqualifying. The fundamental flaw with that contention, which I believe is a common misconception particularly among your former colleagues in the media, is the presumption that this single character flaw is, or should be, regarded by everyone as categorically disqualifying, to the exclusion of all other considerations.

I agree with Bob Green's observation, which coincides with my own, that many of Trump's supporters disapprove of his personal behavior. In fact, I have a number of acquaintances, ranging from self-proclaimed rednecks to highly educated professionals -- including members of both major parties as well as independents -- who find Trump's personal conduct downright reprehensible, yet continue to vote for him (some more reluctantly than others) because they find themselves aligned with his position on issues that are of greater importance to them than his past sexual misconduct and his present personality flaws. I think it's essential to understand, as I've stated here before, that a great many of the people who vote for Trump do so not because they are being drawn to him, but because they are being driven to him -- driven by a perception that the only alternative candidates all seem to be advocating policies and promoting positions that are, in their view, even more disqualifying.

[OldPhiKap]

This generalization of Trump supporters is inaccurate. I know and work with a large number of Trump supporters who disapprove of his personal behavior. From their perspective, the Democratic alternative is worse. For starters, they believe Hillary Clinton is a criminal who belongs in prison.

Your statement that Republicans who back Trump cannot "consider sexual misconduct to be disqualifying in a leader" necessarily implies that anyone who votes for Trump must likewise not consider sexual misconduct to be disqualifying. The fundamental flaw with that contention, which I believe is a common misconception particularly among your former colleagues in the media, is the presumption that this single character flaw is, or should be, regarded by everyone as categorically disqualifying, to the exclusion of all other considerations.

I agree with Bob Green's observation, which coincides with my own, that many of Trump's supporters disapprove of his personal behavior. In fact, I have a number of acquaintances, ranging from self-proclaimed rednecks to highly educated professionals -- including members of both major parties as well as independents -- who find Trump's personal conduct downright reprehensible, yet continue to vote for him (some more reluctantly than others) because they find themselves aligned with his position on issues that are of greater importance to them than his past sexual misconduct and his present personality flaws. I think it's essential to understand, as I've stated here before, that a great many of the people who vote for Trump do so not because they are being drawn to him, but because they are being driven to him -- driven by a perception that the only alternative candidates all seem to be advocating policies and promoting positions that are, in their view, even more disqualifying.

This is my experience too. Many don’t approve of Trump’s persona or past — but they ain’t voting socialist, which is what they see the the Democratic party as courting (or in Bernie’s case, actually preaching).

At the risk of being a broken record, the Dems really need to focus on a positive argument about why folks should vote for them instead of talking about Trump. People know who he is. But some of the economic arguments and social issues coming out of the Dem primary are keeping these folks from abandoning Trump.

It’s about ideas, not personalities.

[budwom]

^ some of these assertions seem to have the thread coming off the rails.

[bundabergdevil]

Your statement that Republicans who back Trump cannot "consider sexual misconduct to be disqualifying in a leader" necessarily implies that anyone who votes for Trump must likewise not consider sexual misconduct to be disqualifying. The fundamental flaw with that contention, which I believe is a common misconception particularly among your former colleagues in the media, is the presumption that this single character flaw is, or should be, regarded by everyone as categorically disqualifying, to the exclusion of all other considerations.

I agree with Bob Green's observation, which coincides with my own, that many of Trump's supporters disapprove of his personal behavior. In fact, I have a number of acquaintances, ranging from self-proclaimed rednecks to highly educated professionals -- including members of both major parties as well as independents -- who find Trump's personal conduct downright reprehensible, yet continue to vote for him (some more reluctantly than others) because they find themselves aligned with his position on issues that are of greater importance to them than his past sexual misconduct and his present personality flaws. I think it's essential to understand, as I've stated here before, that a great many of the people who vote for Trump do so not because they are being drawn to him, but because they are being driven to him -- driven by a perception that the only alternative candidates all seem to be advocating policies and promoting positions that are, in their view, even more disqualifying.

^ some of these assertions seem to have the thread coming off the rails.

Your post implies Democrats have higher morals than Republicans. I do not believe that is the case. There is lots of bad behavior on both sides of the aisle.

You use the term “Trump supporters” but most of those are Republicans.

I'll see if I can't pull this back to polls and data. I posted up-thread that I thought if the allegations against Biden were credible they would be more damaging to him than the various allegations against Trump have been. There is plenty of polling out there to suggest that Republicans view claims of sexual assault or misconduct with more skepticism than do Democrats --- there is further polling evidence to suggest Democrats may view a claim of sexual assault as credible even if it is against a member of their own team while Republicans views on the credibly of a claim break hard based on whether such claims are made against a Democrat or one of their guys. For example, here's a Politico/Morning Consult poll from 2017. This is slightly more afield but it covers MeToo. Republicans view it as mostly negative, Democrats mostly positive.

FWIW, that's why I made the claim this could hurt Biden more than Trump's significant and credible history. I'll see if I can pull up other polls/research I've seen but this issue would quite clearly have plenty of polling insight, which keeps it within the 'horse race' boundaries.