Trump is Not Well

[Forestluv]

3 hours ago, Scholar said:

Now the question is how do you guys get rid of Biden? He is better than Trump for sure but I would prefer someone like Bernie who I think will attempt to make more meaningful changes than him.

I think Biden has soft support based on name recognition and Obama's VP. He represents a "return to normalcy". His biggest positive with voters is "electability" and the polls reinforce this. People in polls select Biden often for electability - which reinforces his electability images. I think as people get to know Biden, he will fade. Not just because of his checkered past on the issues, his creepy behavior toward girls or his gaffes. I think most of his supporters see him as a nice guy that is socially awkward and made a few bad votes he learned from. 

My bigger concerns are that he will not excite the base or new voters - at all. I hear a media narrative that "all democrats will be energized to vote against Trump regardless of the democratic candidate". To me, this seems like a corporate frame to nominate a centrist and maintain the status quo. Biden would suck energy out of the electorate. My second major concern is Biden's cognitive decline. This is being ageist. Bernie is older than Biden and Bernie is still mentally sharp. Warren is also in her 70s and sharp. Biden is not. His memory is failing. He is creating personal stories that combine memories of events that took place years apart. He has struggled to remember Obama's name. Multiple times he hasn't known what state he is in. Several times during the climate debate he struggled to be cognitive. Trump's team has already picked up on this and called Biden "mentally unfit". Trump will be brutally attack Biden on this and I he now longer has the mental clarity and crispness to counter.

So how do we "get rid of him"? I was hoping he would naturally fade away and we do see him fading in the polls, yet I'm concerned it is too gradual. The good news is that Bernie and Warren have more support combined than Biden. I'd like to see Biden fall and the race come down to Bernie and Warren. This mainly falls on the hands of other moderates to expose Biden. A few candidates have done this somewhat effectively in the debates. In particular, other centrist candidates need to press Biden. I hope Biden can fall based on the issues. I'd rather not go after his cognitive decline. I don't think he is still cognitively healthy enough to beat Trump and be an effective President (although he would be better than Trump). Yet to reveal this in a humane way would tricky. Right-wingers are brutal to each other and eat their own. Yet progressives don't like to harm each other. Cory Booker told Biden during the debate like "You are drinking the kool-aid and don't even know the flavor". This was a jab at Biden's declining cognition, yet came across as tongue-in-cheek. Early stages of dementia is difficult to deal with and I would never want to take advantage of someone's declining mind - yet we are talking about the presidency here. If Biden doesn't fall below Bernie and Warren in the next month, I think this point should come to the forefront.

2 hours ago, Etherial Cat said:

I've been reaching the conclusion recently that Trump is the Jar Jar Binks of politics. He looks like a fool, sounds like a fool, but he's a devil agent who's a master a leveraging dark magic to travel unnoticed and strike. 

 I'm amazed at what resonates with Trump supporters. It's a totally different resonance than progressives. Sometimes I try to see it from the perspective of a Trump supporter, yet it takes effort. For example, Trump supporters  don't care about Trump's lying or corruption as long as they "own the libs". Yet progressives get upset when a candidate meets with someone associated with corporate America - in particular health insurance, fossil fuel industry, gun lobby or military industrial complex. Progressives hold their candidate to a much higher standard than conservatives. The biggest blunder for Warren so far was her claim of Native American heritage. In degree, this would rank somewhere around 100,000 on a list relative to Trump's behavior. Yet Trump has the leveraging dark magic and was able to equalize Warren's mishap to his own atrocious behavior.

2 hours ago, Etherial Cat said:

That's why the Democrats really messed up by imposing Hilary last time. Any candidate of the establishment has 0% of wining in the current climate. 

The 2020 election is going to put in the White House someone whose promise will be to rock the boat.

Emotions will be important to unify large groups as collective egos beyond their rational differences. 

Obama's first campaign was bridging americans leveraging positive feelings, while Trump was all about dividing them using fear.

The one who'll get the better story and leverage the most powerful emotion will win.

Bernie better get that.

I totally agree. Bernie has the most passionate supporters by far - in particular people under 35. He would ignite a movement. 50,000+ rallies with intense passion. People vibrating with hope and desire to evolve. Bernie is a very special person and candidate. We may not see another Bernie in our lifetimes.

I think Bernie is more solid than Warren. She is my #2. Warren is trying to build a broader coalition that includes the establishment. I don't think she would hit the same level of energy Bernie would, yet I think she could still generate excitement and would be able to settle down the resistance in the media and corporations generate. I don't think this is good for policy, yet it would have a political benefit in terms of electability. Bernie won't back down to conservatives, media or corporations. Warren would in many contexts (except she is very strong against corporate corruption).

I think it's more than just "change". I think many people feel and desire forward motion toward Green. To transcend the toxicities of Blue and Orange - such as hyper capitalism, racism and inhumane treatment of "the other". 

[Scholar]

6 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I think Biden has soft support based on name recognition and Obama's VP. He represents a "return to normalcy". His biggest positive with voters is "electability" and the polls reinforce this. People in polls select Biden often for electability - which reinforces his electability images. I think as people get to know Biden, he will fade. Not just because of his checkered past on the issues, his creepy behavior toward girls or his gaffes. I think most of his supporters see him as a nice guy that is socially awkward and made a few bad votes he learned from. 

My bigger concerns are that he will not excite the base or new voters - at all. I hear a media narrative that "all democrats will be energized to vote against Trump regardless of the democratic candidate". To me, this seems like a corporate frame to nominate a centrist and maintain the status quo. Biden would suck energy out of the electorate. My second major concern is Biden's cognitive decline. This is being ageist. Bernie is older than Biden and Bernie is still mentally sharp. Warren is also in her 70s and sharp. Biden is not. His memory is failing. He is creating personal stories that combine memories of events that took place years apart. He has struggled to remember Obama's name. Multiple times he hasn't known what state he is in. Several times during the climate debate he struggled to be cognitive. Trump's team has already picked up on this and called Biden "mentally unfit". Trump will be brutally attack Biden on this and I he now longer has the mental clarity and crispness to counter.

So how do we "get rid of him"? I was hoping he would naturally fade away and we do see him fading in the polls, yet I'm concerned it is too gradual. The good news is that Bernie and Warren have more support combined than Biden. I'd like to see Biden fall and the race come down to Bernie and Warren. This mainly falls on the hands of other moderates to expose Biden. A few candidates have done this somewhat effectively in the debates. In particular, other centrist candidates need to press Biden. I hope Biden can fall based on the issues. I'd rather not go after his cognitive decline. I don't think he is still cognitively healthy enough to beat Trump and be an effective President (although he would be better than Trump). Yet to reveal this in a humane way would tricky. Right-wingers are brutal to each other and eat their own. Yet progressives don't like to harm each other. Cory Booker told Biden during the debate like "You are drinking the kool-aid and don't even know the flavor". This was a jab at Biden's declining cognition, yet came across as tongue-in-cheek. Early stages of dementia is difficult to deal with and I would never want to take advantage of someone's declining mind - yet we are talking about the presidency here. If Biden doesn't fall below Bernie and Warren in the next month, I think this point should come to the forefront.

What do you think about Andrew Yang, aside from it being unlikely that we will become the candidate?

[Forestluv]

7 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

In Wisconsin Trump is down 8 to 10 points to the top 3 Dems.  It may be due to the excitement over the convention being held in Milwaukee next year.

I think Wisconsin is one of the most important states for Trump. From your perspective, do Trump's declining poll numbers reflect the general attitude you see in Wisconsin? Have you seen a shift since his election?

I live in Michigan, which narrowly went to Trump - similar to Wisconsin. Here there has been a considerable shift. In 2018, Democrats won governor and many lower level seats switched democrat. Also, Republicans were benefiting from gerrymandering and an voters overwhelmingly passed an anti-gerrymandering bill. I don't see Trump winning Michigan again.

[Forestluv]

5 minutes ago, Scholar said:

What do you think about Andrew Yang, aside from it being unlikely that we will become the candidate?

Yang's main thrust is his UBI plan and to me he is too one-dimensional. I only know a bit about UBI. I think it has good intentions, yet I don't think it is the best strategy because it doesn't address the deeper systemic issues. I don't think it is the most effective use of money. For example, it won't address inequality in health care, racism, jobs, empowerment. I would rather see something like a guaranteed job program. 

As well, it diverts too much from existing social infrastructure. Currently, it would be very hard to dismantle social programs like medicare and social security that have deep infrastructure. Republicans have tried for decades and have failed. If deep social programs are weakened by diverting their resources to UBI, it will be easier for Republicans to dismantle weakened social programs as well as the new UBI program. Secondly, UBI can be used as an excuse by Republicans to cut programs such as food stamps. 

To me, UBI doesn't go nearly far enough to address underlying issues and shift power back to the people. I see it like a band-aid. 

[Scholar]

17 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yang's main thrust is his UBI plan and to me he is too one-dimensional. I only know a bit about UBI. I think it has good intentions, yet I don't think it is the best strategy because it doesn't address the deeper systemic issues. I don't think it is the most effective use of money. For example, it won't address inequality in health care, racism, jobs, empowerment. I would rather see something like a guaranteed job program. 

As well, it diverts too much from existing social infrastructure. Currently, it would be very hard to dismantle social programs like medicare and social security that have deep infrastructure. Republicans have tried for decades and have failed. If deep social programs are weakened by diverting their resources to UBI, it will be easier for Republicans to dismantle weakened social programs as well as the new UBI program. Secondly, UBI can be used as an excuse by Republicans to cut programs such as food stamps. 

To me, UBI doesn't go nearly far enough to address underlying issues and shift power back to the people. I see it like a band-aid. 

Do you not think UBI is inevitable? I don't really see it as a band-aid, to me it seems more like a foundation upon one would build in the future. To me the part about it rewarding work that happens outside of the work-place is actually very compelling, like the raising of children by unemployed parents.

Yang is known for his UBI plan but he has a lot of policy proposals. I haven't gone through them as I am not an US citizen, but from what little I heard from him it seemed like he had some systemic approaches that seem to lack in many of the other candidates. He is talking a lot about reincentivizing economic forces instead of pure redirection of ressources. He shows an understanding of why things are the way they are instead of demonizing natural economic forces.

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/

Edited September 10, 2019 by Scholar

[Bodigger]

22 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I think Wisconsin is one of the most important states for Trump. From your perspective, do Trump's declining poll numbers reflect the general attitude you see in Wisconsin? Have you seen a shift since his election?

I live in Michigan, which narrowly went to Trump - similar to Wisconsin. Here there has been a considerable shift. In 2018, Democrats won governor and many lower level seats switched democrat. Also, Republicans were benefiting from gerrymandering and an voters overwhelmingly passed an anti-gerrymandering bill. I don't see Trump winning Michigan again.

In 2018 Democrats won governor here in Wisconsin as well.  Trump won Wisconsin by 20,000 votes in 2016, and in 2018 the Dems won governor by 30,000 votes.  I don't see a shift here, with the on exception that the Dems are motivated.  It comes down to turn out and motivation.  I get a sense that many of the Dems are discouraged with their choices thus far.  They either want to move big with Bernie, who won Wisconsin in the primary, or go more moderate with Biden.  It should be an interesting year in politics here.

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, Scholar said:

Do you not think UBI is inevitable? I don't really see it as a band-aid, to me it seems more like a foundation upon one would build in the future.

I think something is inevitable. Over the last 40 years in the U.S. capitalism has grown in power - in particular political power. And wealth has been hyper concentrated into the top 1%. To me, this seems unsustainable. 

The main advantage I see with UBI is that at a surface level, it is very simple and easily presented to the public. Yet I don't think it is the best use of resources because it doesn't address deeper issues. I'd rather see money directed toward lower/middle income America in a way the addresses inequality in an integrated manner. For example, the GND uses money in a way that addresses several underlying issues. As well, my understanding is that everyone would get a fixed amount like $1,000, yet if someone is already receiving aid their UBI income would decrease. Like if someone was on food stamps that would factor into UBI. In my view, this would create an imbalance. From people's current level, lower income might be essentially receiving $500/month, while middle and upper income receive $1,000 per month. I think this will be a good way to "sell" it to the public because those under the poverty line are desperate for any help and those in the middle/upper class understand lower class won't be receiving as much. To me, this isn't the most effective distribution.

[Forestluv]

8 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

They either want to move big with Bernie, who won Wisconsin in the primary, or go more moderate with Biden.  It should be an interesting year in politics here.

What are your impressions of Bernie and Biden relative to Trump?

[Bodigger]

6 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

What are your impressions of Bernie and Biden relative to Trump?

I think if Bernie is the candidate, some of the moderates will sit out.  If it is Biden, some of the Bernie supporters will rebel and sit out.  Trump has as much of a chance of winning Wisconsin as he did in 2016, IMO.  I think the convention may be the motivator which gives the Dems the edge though.

[Forestluv]

59 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

You've gotta catch them by the emotions, and I'm not sure if Bernie excels at that. Bernie sounds like a university professor. Not like JFK, MLK or even Hitler, on the bad side.

To me, Warren comes across as a University professor. She is very good at explaining complexities in simple terms. She is a great teacher. I personally love that about her (I'm also a University professor). Teaching has it's place, yet it doesn't bring forth emotion. When Warren goes for the emotion angle, she often talks about her poor upbringing and her fearful mother mustering up the courage to take a minimum wage job to save their house and family. It's a touching story and inspiring from one perspective, yet it doesn't seem to get the emotions going. Sometimes she seems a bit out of touch and old fashioned. I think as she does more big rally's she will get better in this area. I suppose this is important for an election, yet it can also be fluff. Obama was very good at rhetorical inspiration, yet ended up capitulating on issue after issue. Bernie doesn't have the same rhetorical skills, yet he is such a grounded progressive and has so much courage. He was the first top tier politician to speak out against Israel's maltreatment of the Palestinians and brought into question the U.S.'s unconditional financial support of Israel. This was a huge risk and it took a lot of courage. He took the conservative backlash like a champ and then the other candidates followed his lead and voiced their concerns about Israel and our financial relationship with them. To me, that is a leader. . . He also held a rally in kentucky -  McConnell's home state to shame McConnell. He is fearless and will stand up for his principles. He is on another level. . . . He might not have the best rhetorical skills, yet his barking against powerful oppressors can ignite a lot of emotion. Even something like "I wrote the damn bill!!!" ignited a lot of emotion in his supporters because he knocked down a corporate dem trying to control the narrative.

[Bodigger]

1 hour ago, Etherial Cat said:

Anyone voting for Trump must resonate with his energy. To vote for him, you necessarly have to share some of his traits, or otherwise you'd see him for the poor soul that he is.

There are plenty of great fools, who are nearly as developed as Trump is in the USA. They share in common the same type of self-deception mechanisms and pathological devilry. And of course they viciously hate anyone trying to cast the light on some of their hypocrisy. They just want things to stay at their level of development and shape a reality corresponding to their level of consciousness.

My take is that they don't care whether Trump sucks a his job (because anyway they are short term thinkers, obsessed with chasing BS), or is a serial liar and hypocrite (because morality gets against opportunities). All they want is to remain in power and not be disturbed, whatever the cost.

You've gotta catch them by the emotions, and I'm not sure if Bernie excels at that. Bernie sounds like a university professor. Not like JFK, MLK or even Hitler, on the bad side.

I'm fine with both, as long as they are fostering some collective karma clean up and we can evolve further. And keep away the big Ding Dong!!

People vote for the candidate who best resonates with themselves.  The Dems need to put out better candidates than Hillary if they want to win.  I don't think that is happening with the top three Dems.  2 socialist professors and a career politician who is all over the map.

Also, Trump and the Republicans just put $1,500 in the voters pocket annually.  That will resonate with the many voters down the road as well.

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Bodigger said:

2 socialists

That is a binary category which will get called out on the conscious politics subforum. 

A binary construct such as "socialist vs. non-socialist" is hyper dualistic and simple. One step up in complexity is a continuum of degree from socialist to non-socialist. As well, "socialist vs. capitalist" is also hyper dualistic. There are many different forms of integration between socialism and capitalism. The U.S. is a hybrid of socialist components as well as capitalist components. The conversation is not about "socialist vs. capitalist". It is about the relative balance between socialism and capitalism. No one in the U.S. is advocating for pure socialism or pure capitalism.

Also, there are evolutionary levels of socialism. Old school dictatorial socialism is at a blue level. Bernie is two full conscious levels higher into Green democratic socialism. 

[whoareyou]

19 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't think Trump has a chance of re-election. He is deeply unpopular.

All Dems need to do is not nominate Joe Biden.

LOL

According to bookies, Trump is a  FAVORITE to get re-elected:

https://gyazo.com/263d8632889565f653190bae11487fec

With all due respect, I doubt that you know more than the bookies. I think that your strong dislike of trump is blinding you of the ability to see the situation as it is (self-bias). 

Edited September 10, 2019 by whoareyou

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, whoareyou said:

According to bookies, Trump is a big FAVORITE to get re-elected:

https://gyazo.com/263d8632889565f653190bae11487fec

With all due respect, I doubt that you know more than the bookies. I think that your strong dislike of trump is blinding you of the ability to see the situation as it is (self-bias)

I'm not sure if you are kidding, trying to be tricky or missed something here. . . 

That bookie you linked has the odds of Trump winning at -110. That is essentially even-odds. The reason each democratic candidate is shown as +450 and higher is because we don't know who the democratic nominee is yet. 

[whoareyou]

6 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I'm not sure if you are kidding, trying to be tricky or missed something here. . . 

That bookie you linked has the odds of Trump winning at -110. That is essentially even-odds. He is a very slight favorite to win. Whoever the democratic nominee is would be a very slight underdog. The reason each democratic candidate is shown as +450 and higher is because we don't know who the democratic nominee is yet. 

I shouldn't have used the word "big", my apologies.

My point, is that if he actually stood no chance as Leo says, he wouldn't be any close to a slight favorite. He would be a pretty big underdog, no (despite us not knowing who democratic candidate is going to be) ?

Edited September 10, 2019 by whoareyou

[Forestluv]

26 minutes ago, whoareyou said:

I shouldn't have used the word "big", my apologies.

My point, is that if he actually stood no chance as Leo says, he wouldn't be any close to a slight favorite. He would be a pretty big underdog, no (despite us not knowing who democratic candidate is going to be) ?

In September 2019, Warren is at 4:1 to win the 2020 election.

In September 2015, Trump was at 18:1 to win the 2016 election. 

The odds are based on public perception of gamblers. I think this is an interesting metric, yet I would not say the public perception of gamblers is the best metric. As well, it is waaaaay to far out from the election. I doubt much money has been placed, thus the sample size is small.

Personally, I would put Trump's chances of winning at about 45%. Yet I would not be surprised if Trump gets blownout. He could lose big, lose small or win small - yet Trump won't win big. The best he can do is match his 2016 performance (in which he lost the popular vote by 3 million votes).

I also think there is about a 10% chance Trump doesn't even make it to the election. 

[Aakash]

@Serotoninluv what statistics or theory do you rely on to make your claims about re-election? 

he said curiously, without knowledge of any political statics of america. 

 

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, Aakash said:

@Serotoninluv what statistics or theory do you rely on to make your claims about re-election? 

If I was to make a prediction, I would base it on a combination of statistics such as polling and bookies as my own analysis. And intuition would factor in. 

For example, Biden has been consistently leading the polls. I would place him in the top tier. However, I would not place him as the favorite. Biden's support is soft name recognition. Warren is putting a lot of effort into forming grassroots support and a broad coalition. Bernie has super strong support. Biden supporters are low knowledge and soft. Bernie supporters are among the most politically knowledgeable and are rock solid.

Plus, Biden will likely lose the first two states (Iowa and New Hampshire) allowing another candidate to gain momentum. Obama was a big underdog to Clinton, yet he won Iowa and got a huge burst of momentum. Lastly, Biden's cognition is on the decline. Most people are not paying attention to the race this far out - once they do, I don't think they will like Biden. Even though he is currently ahead in the polls, I would put his chances at 30% of winning the nomination.

[Aakash]

@Serotoninluv okay so you are taking a cognitive standpoint as well as the ground covered by each candidate.

Then you are using polls to assess the likely outcome and intuition to guess 

would it not be as simple as assessing the cognitive function of all swing states and assuming that in the past two years with trumps election, all swing states have developed and therefore are likely to choose a higher cognitive candidate based on the conditions of thier economy of the state. What are the polls for the swing states? 

[Forestluv]

Just now, Aakash said:

@Serotoninluv 

Then you are using polls to assess the likely outcome and intuition to guess 

I wouldn't say "intuition to guess". It is deeper than that. And it's not just polls. For example, I am noticing things in Biden that I don't believe are getting picked up in the polls.

2 minutes ago, Aakash said:

@Serotoninluv would it not be as simple as assessing the cognitive function of all swing states and assuming that in the past two years with trumps election, all swing states have developed and therefore are likely to choose a higher cognitive candidate based on the conditions of thier economy of the state. What are the polls for the swing states? 

Swing states have evolved, yet one needs to consider the time frame. At the population level, four years is often not a lot of time for social evolution. Yet, social evolution can be rapid at times as well.

In terms of development, I would say that there has been greater awareness for many, yet there are also underlying dynamics that remain. 

Most polls have Trump underwater in swing states. It is not looking good at this point. Yet Trump can be good at manipulating narratives and emotions.  He is essentially a bully and bullies don't go down easy. Imagine a bully in high school running for class president. He is unpopular, yet he is the biggest bully in school. Many students are afraid of him and many students believe the bully is protecting them. And the bully will bully the other candidate. There is a decent chance he wins.