I'm starting to think he knows he is losing and now he is solidifying his base/viewers fo the rollout of Trump tv. Either that or he is having a stroke.
I just want to know how anybody in their right mind could look out into that crowd and think it’s a good idea to ask them to join in.
"Joe Biden Bows to the Teachers Unions": "Or what about this line from Mr. Biden: 'This is going to be a teacher-oriented Department of Education.' Oh, not a student-oriented one?" https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-bows-to-the-teachers-unions-11593978756?mod=hp_opin_pos_2 Joe Biden Bows to the Teachers Unions ‘You’ll have an NEA member in the White House,’ he says. By The Editorial Board July 5, 2020 3:52 pm ET Here’s a place Joe Biden differs from his old boss: President Obama had fraught relations with the teachers unions, including the National Education Association, which in 2014 called (unsuccessfully) for the resignation of Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Mr. Biden, seeking the NEA’s endorsement at a virtual assembly on Friday, pledged his fealty to the union, noting that his wife, Jill, is a member. “When we win this election, we’re going to get the support you need and the respect you deserve,” Mr. Biden said. “You don’t just have a partner in the White House, you’ll have an NEA member in the White House. And if I’m not listening, I’m going to be sleeping alone in the Lincoln Bedroom.” If a Republican presidential candidate spoke to a special-interest group with that kind of amorous devotion, the caterwauling in the press would never end. Or what about this line from Mr. Biden: “This is going to be a teacher-oriented Department of Education.” Oh, not a student-oriented one? Mr. Biden didn’t get a question about school choice during the Friday forum, but he has made clear that he believes the union dogma. “No privately funded charter school—or private charter school—would receive a penny of federal money,” he told the NEA in March, when it endorsed him in the Democratic primary. This is a marked departure. The Obama Administration increased federal funds for charter schools. From 2000 to 2017, the share of public-school students who attended a charter rose to 6% from 1%. Behind these statistics are thousands of stories of children, many of them black and Hispanic, who escaped failing public schools to get a better education. Mr. Biden seems downright eager to repudiate this record. He told the NEA on Friday that his plan involves “higher salaries for educators,” “universal pre-K,” and “tripling the funding for Title I schools.” He pledged to “double the number of school psychologists and counselors and nurses and social workers in school,” and to “help educators wipe out the burden of their own student debt.” Teachers first. Put it on a bumper sticker, Mr. Biden, and hope people don’t notice the corollary is that students, and especially poor and minority students, come second.
WTF! Is she really upset that something that was actually changed by an amendment and Biden acknowledged that? That satisfied smirk at the end was priceless. Idiocracy indeed.
the Republican Party isn’t even trying anymore...I’m just waiting for some of them to start arguing for segregation like some posters on here have done
You're talking about two incumbents, and how reelection campaigns are always more about incumbents than challengers, and that bit is about the only relevant/true thing in this article. Obama and Trump were each incumbents, so voters were responding to what they'd done in office. In this particular referendum Tump is bleeding support in every. single. demographic. Biden only needs one of those states. Think he won't get even one? If Trump still trails in even one demographic on Election Day, he's lost. Furthermore, Biden is presently leading in every single state that was considered a swing state in 2016, most of which Trump won by very narrow margins. That's happening because any talk about an enthusiasm gap is misleading. People were not motivated to vote for Romney or to stay home, it's true. But supporters weren't dropping like flies for Obama and the anti-Obama sentiment was nowhere near the anti-Trump sentiment now. Otherwise, Romney voters would have been out in force, because what they'd have wanted most was to remove Obama from office. But these elections have less than zero to do with one another. Biden doesn't need voters to be excited or enthusiastic about him to win, because the real energy and enthusiasm is behind removing an historically unpopular disaster of a president. Look at favorability ratings for each candidate. Trump's down by high teens or early 20s and Biden's numbers are almost even. So it's important to look at the enthusiasm gap through the filter of how many people are energized to vote against Trump. That comparison doesn't hold water against Obama 2012 either, though he was temporarily unpopular. Meanwhile, it would be difficult to find another modern president that was as unpopular as Trump. And the Trump campaign is working without any manner of strategy. Not a single attack on Biden has landed (Trump's playground insults/nicknames, insinuation of senility, trying to pick off Bernie voters, ludicrously insinuating that he's done "more for Black people than anyone since Abraham Lincoln") and Trump refuses to take any advice from his reelection campaign, so the hole he's standing in now grows every deeper It's considerably less true that Trump 2000=Obama 2012 is similar than it is to say that about Trump 2020=George Wallace 1968. And the grand divide there, which originates with an us-or-them strategy that worked in '68 but decidedly does not now, is drawing voters to Biden's campaign almost every day. Biden doesn't have to be exciting. He only has to be a calm, reasonable, empathetic antidote to the angry baby in chief. Not a single one of those qualities is Trump capable of and that is why he's losing and losing badly. And man, Trump lost some real opportunities. There was a good deal of low-hanging fruit he could have chosen to pick, and he just chose not to do that. He had opportunities to unify the nation and he chose the other path. Bad call. He could have brought the country together over covid-19. Covid-19 is a once-in-a-lifetime crisis that is in no way easy to solve, but would have been a great way to unite the country and show his leadership skills. He could have shown empathy for victims, answered questions (that the American people needed answered) with clarity instead of nasty insults against the media and boasts about how great he was. He could have presented steady information instead of letting a scientist speak in a press conference before taking the podium to directly contradict them. Then he pressed premature openings, which could only ever have led to more illness, more death, and a worse hit to the economy because they would result in longer-term closings and a possible new stay-at-home order. Staying home a little longer is how we might have flattened the curve, like every other country has done. But since the first lockdown was actively dismissed or obfuscated by R's taking Trump's lead on that, a good 35% of our country just disregarded the whole thing, with a sort of vengeance, disregarding safety measures as a sort of righteousness and demonstration of liberty (oh, kill me) and that's why community spread is worse in this country than in any other. Only in Trump's America. Essentially, as usual, he put his own short-term, reelection interests over the health and safety of the country he swore to serve. As we all know now, his early resistance to even admit there was a problem resulted in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. And he still chooses to dodge the issue, saying again and again it will just go away or that he's doing a "great job!" or that "it's all going in a good direction," when conditions on the ground show everyone (R, D, and I) that he is consistently making the problem worse. Why have we had this resurgence in cases? Two reasons: Trump (and likeminded governors) rushed reopening when no state had met the CDC guidelines for a safe reopening and he did it too while actively discouraging his supporters from wearing masks. He turned the mask issue political when he tweeted that he wondered if people were wearing masks just to spite him. And that's all it took to turn masks into a culture war. The confusion, the lack of leadership, and the flat-out dangerous response to the pandemic could not have worse in a satirical comic strip. He also could have brought the country together over the BLM protests. Again, he chose the opposite path. To be fair to him, he was literally incapable of doing either thing--narcissists lack the ability to feel or express empathy. If he had responded like any other president would have when faced with nationwide crisis and unrest, he'd probably be on a glide path to reelection. Instead he did neither and instead dove into the ugliest responses imaginable, revealing his personal strategy to get his shrinking base to vote for him even harder and revealing more his true character. That will work on racist white voters. It will not work for anyone else, as evidenced by his plummeting poll numbers over his response to BLM, followed by a series of hateful responses to the movement. In fact, it's BLM (not the virus) that has caused his numbers to plummet in the last month. Almost nobody believes he's handling that well and he's bleeding support in this area more than any other. How far we have come. So there's an interesting way Trump 2020 is different from Wallace or Nixon in '68, which is that way less white voters are willing to stand for systemic racism anymore. Trump's fighting Wallace's/Nixon's old fight, but their supporters have long since left the building. I could debunk virtually every issue raised in that article comparing Obama to Trump in reelection campaigns. Instead I'll show you once again how difficult it would be for Trump to win, especially as he doubles down on incendiary rhetoric that is ONLY meant to excite his base, while it alienates every other 2016 Trump voter, leaving him with 35-40% that will vote for him no matter what and the rest that will vote against him no matter what. Right now, Biden is very often over 50% in national matchups and several swing states that Trump won before. Furthermore, polls show that over 50% of American voters have already decided they can't and won't support Trump. Finally, Trump has never cracked 50% in any poll outside of dark red states. Never. And if you won't want to believe the polls, just look at Trump's internal polling which has sent him through the roof because it's in line with all other polling. But more than polling, look at the betting markets, where people study elections and put their money on the line as a result of that study. Two months ago, Biden led in all polls but Trump led in betting markets by 7-10%. Biden now enjoys a 27.7% lead in betting market aggregates. Did Obama enjoy that advantage in the 2012 election? Of course he didn't. If Trump winds up carrying every single state he won last cycle but one, some of which he won by 0.2%, he still has to recover from very discouraging polls in states he'd won but where Biden is currently leading, many by double-digits (MI, WI, FL, OH, NC, PA, AZ) AND doesn't lose the brand new swing states, which have become so largely because of Trump (IA, GA, TX, and more), then MAYBE he has a chance. But he won't carry all of those states. To begin with, he won't carry Michigan. Take away any one of the states that Trump barely won and that's the ballgame. Moreover, because he's in tight races in the new swing states, Biden can focus money and energy on swing states Trump barely won while Trump has to make large ad buys in Texas, Georgia, and Iowa. That's about 5-10 kinds of hat tricks. But keep on keeping on, trying to cherrypick the incredibly rare stories that make the case that Trump could run the table in every single state he won (he won't) or lose a few but make them up by winning states he did not win last cycle. It won't help. Trump has already lost and every time he opens his mouth, in person or on twitter, he harms his chances further. He's not going to make up this necessary ground by leaning into his racist base or calling protestors Nazis. At this point, I don't think Trump's even trying to win. I think he's given up the ghost on that, because he realizes that there's really nothing he can do to turn this around. At this point, I think he's just trying to avoid the humiliation of a blowout.
Joe Biden shouldn't have said what he said about how if "you don't know who to vote for, you ain't Black." But the essence of a gaffe is that it unintentionally tells the truth. Trump-supporting Black voters vote against their interests, by and large, so they essentially are Uncle Tom's. Not literally, but it's the same idea. Or, it's the modern equivalency of that idea. Voting against one's interests, especially in favor of the interests of someone that is higher up the ladder than you are, is a servile thing to do. It's the same with Log Cabin Republicans or poor whites in the South that vote against their interests. That doesn't mean any official or candidate or surrogate member of the media should ever say any of that, but it's essentially true. I also love how two different articles/videos are similar because they're both about Black people. This is why you guys are losing.
