(11-05-2020, 11:32 AM)teejers1 Wrote: 1. Mick, I admire your tenacity in even bothering to respond to Snorlax, who perfectly encapsulates the back hand of the Elitists who "just know better."
2. The bottom line is we'll never know the outcome of a Trump-Biden battle in a non-Covid world. But I respectfully suggest that those underestimating how economy drives things are mistaken...
I don't know about a landslide - probably not. But I'm with Mick in thinking Trump wins without Covid, perhaps comfortably.
I would point out that despite your response, on substance, our points were actually quite similar. I really went after the idea that "Trump probably wins in a landslide..." because, like you, I think we just don't know. Maybe Trump wins comfortably without Covid. But I'd also argue that the #BLM protests could have played an even bigger role in the election, which could have led to the flipping of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona anyway. And if there were no Covid, the biggest story of the year may have been the wildfires in Australia and the wildfires in California, and so Global Warming may have been an even bigger issue. So, we just don't know, and you, probably like I, find the statement "Trump probably wins in a landslide" to be a dubious one.
Additionally, we agree that the economy is a powerful determinant of who wins the economy, and I pointed out, I find it reasonable that some people support Trump because they have an economic incentive to do so.
And you may dislike how I speculate that Trump is using mind-control type of psychological techniques to control his adoring fans, but even you say " What I have a much harder time "getting" is the 30K (or whatever the number is) of people who show up for a Trump rally. There is some degree of Trump adulation out there that is baffling for someone with hardly any (and that may be generous) personally redeeming qualities." My point being, the "adoring" fans are inexplicable to you, as well, and even Trump supporters like Scott Adams pointed out in 2016 that Trump would win because Trump was a master of using hypnosis techniques.
But like Terry, I agree that "This thread is way too political. It doesn't belong on the board, IMO."
So in the spirit of bipartisanship, I recommend an old debate workplace technique -- on this thread, which is so political in nature, from this point on we continue to comment on this thread *only* to make points that support the other side, which I will now do.
First, in terms of "elitism" and the mistreatment of non-college educated people, I agree there is a problem. For example, when I was a child, two of the most popular shows in America were Hee Haw and Donnie and Marie, which were both celebrations of rural life and country music. And as I got older, my brother and I loved "The Dukes of Hazzard." Clearly, things like the use of the Confederate flag and anything remotely pro-slavery is condemnable, but at its core, I think the theme of two good 'ol boys never meaning no harm, outwitting the local corrupt politician and his inept sheriff, is a universal, fun theme that I think all kinds of people -- city folks and country folks -- would enjoy today. I don't know what happened because I find a lot of media today so divisive, but my corrective suggestion would be to call out mean-spirited, derogatory characterizations of southerners and rural people in a similar matter to how we call out racist characterizations. I find all of these kinds of jokes -- that make fun of people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, or education-level -- unfunny, cheap, and mean-spirited. You mean you can't think of anything to make fun of besides a person's skin color, gender, or accent (whether foreign or southern)? Shows that demean southerners with cheap jokes should be called out, and shows that demean city folks with cheap jokes should be called out.
Second, I agree that we are in a brobdingnagian period of economic upheaval and many people are being left behind. But, we've known there's a crisis for many decades, it's not like we "don't understand" there's a problem, and it's not like either party doesn't care. I remember when President George HW Bush talked about the need to lift up the economic lives of all Americans as the world globalized, and he pointed to the European model of apprenticeships for highly-skilled jobs as a model. And nothing happened, things just got worse. Bill Clinton also talked about apprenticeship programs, but with the explosion of the Internet, the rift accelerated. George W Bush campaigned on the common, Joe six-pack man, and nothing got done (in fact, the chasm between the haves and have-nots probably grew at its fastest during this time). I know people who interacted with the Obama administration, and Obama also frantically tried to help the plight of people on the losing end of globalization and the economic shifts. Obama had dinner with Apple's CEO cajoling them to bring more manufacturing back to the US. And with Trump, especially in 2017, he sometimes pressured manufacturers to keep jobs in the US, and has also pressured Chinese companies to shift more manufacturing to the US, but often only by Twitter, in a one-off, case by case basis. So, I'd say I disagree that presidents of either party are somehow unaware of this and are ignoring it. Economics (and tech) is my background, so, I'd argue this is reasonably in my lane. I actually disagree with solutions like "we should listen more." Because, it is a very hard problem, and people have been aware of this and presidents from both parties have been trying for decades. If someone solved it, they'd be a shoe-in for re-election and would be a hero. Part of the problem is that, arguably, all incumbents have been too beholden to the corporations that benefit from one-sided globalization. Also, pretty much every president has talked about turning around manufacturing, and *delivering* a strategic plan to turn things around, but no president has made it a priority and pushed on Congress to pass it. A criticism of Republican solutions is that Tweets do nothing to solve the underlying problems, and tax cuts, deregulations and the Citizens United case ("corporations are people, too") just make corporations more powerful to look out only for themselves. A criticism of Democrats' solutions is that they are too much in-bed with big tech companies, and unemployment supplements and one-time construction programs are just one-time payments. People want jobs that lead to careers, financial security and pride, not payments and salves.
