Jump to content
270soft Forum

State of the Race: 11 Days Left


11 Days Poll  

23 members have voted

  1. 1. See the Data in the First Post: Who do you think wins if the election were today?

  2. 2. In Obama's speech last night, he brought up that Fox News would have been all over him if he had had a Chinese Bank account. Is it a big deal that Pres. Trump has a Chinese bank account?

    • Yes, it would be a big negative for any president to have a Chinese Bank account, whether Trump or Obama.
    • It's only bad that Trump has one because he's trying to play that he's tough on China.
    • It would only be bad if Obama had a Chinese Bank account. It's not bad for Trump to have one.
    • It is not important if a president has a Chinese bank account, whether Trump or Obama.
  3. 3. Do you think Democrats boycotting Justice Barrett's Judiciary Committee will help energize Democrats on election day?

    • It won't matter one way or the other.
    • Yes.
    • It will backfire, helping GOP on election day.
  4. 4. Who do you hope wins the 2020 Election out of the two major tickets?

  5. 5. A Psychological-Political Test! (Based off reading a Business Insider article on psychology and political leanings--I might do a longer one later at some point)

    • I think I express and process fear more than people on the other side of the political spectrum.
    • My political views are somewhat expressed by my need to feel safe and secure, more so than I think are people on the other side of the political spectrum.
    • I think I am more grossed out by things than people on the other side of the political spectrum.
    • I think myself, and people that align with me politically, have more ordered thinking patterns, using a step-by-step thinking process.
    • I think myself, and people that align with me politically, tend to have more "aha" moments, more capable of reorganizing their thoughts in flexible ways when stuck.
    • I think I can focus more on a single issue without veering off topic than people on the other side of the political spectrum.
    • I think I am more likely to move the topic off a single issue than people on the other side of the political spectrum.
    • I think I am more resistant to change than people on the other side of the political spectrum.
    • My political views help to reduce fear, anxiety, and uncertainty; to avoid change, disruption, and ambiguity; and to explain, order, and justify inequality among groups and individuals.
    • I tend to like simple paintings, familiar music, unambiguous poems over more abstract art, experimental music and ambiguous poems.
    • I tend to like abstract art, experimental music, and ambiguous poems over simple painting, familiar music, and unambiguous poems.
    • I think I am more compassionate and optimistic than people on the other side of the political spectrum.
    • I think I am more of a person of honor and religion than people on the other side of the political spectrum.
    • I think I am more concerned with compassion and fairness than people on the other side of the political spectrum.
    • I think I am more concerned with loyalty, tradition, authority, and purity than people on the other side of the political spectrum.
    • I think I have more self-control than people on the other side of the political spectrum.
    • I think I express compassion to a smaller social circle than people on the other side of the political spectrum.
    • I think I am more likely to express the same level of compassion for people around the world, even to non-human subjects like animals, than people on the other side of the political spectrum.
    • I think I am more attracted to Trump's personality and concept of money than I am about his political leanings.
    • I think I am more likely to seek power over others, be motivated by wealth accumulation, prefer conformity, hierarchy, and clear-cut rules than people on the other side of the political spectrum.
    • None of these apply to me


Recommended Posts

vcczar @Reagan04 @Actinguy @Patine @Conservative Elector 2 @TheMiddlePolitical @WVProgressive @SilentLiberty @pilight @admin_270 @Hestia11 @Herbert Hoover @mlcorcoran @Leuser @upandaway @jvikings1 @Rodja @Edouard @jnewt @Nentomat @Kingthero @Sunnymentoaddict @RFK/JFKfan @Mr.Blood @Zenobiyl @Wiw @MBDemSoc @ThePotatoWalrus @Alxeu @Allyn @Cenzonico @CentristGuy @Ishan @billay @wolves @RI Democrat @lizarraba @lizphairphreak @TheLiberalKitten @MysteryKnight @avatarmushi @servo75 @Mark_W

As usual, Blue trends for Biden and Red trends for Trump. Overall, a better day for Biden. 

  • Biden is now averaging single-digits nationally vs. Trump, albeit a +9.9.
  • Biden's numbers keep improving in FL on average -- very worrisome for Trump. 
  • Biden shot up an entire point in IA. 
  • Trump shot up 0.6% in OH
  • Trump falls by 0.7% in TX
  • If you are curious, MI is now +8.1 for Biden, PA is +6.3 for Biden, WI is +6.6 for Biden. 
  • Trump's approval has now fallen in the 42% range again, after briefly getting to 43%. 
  • IA flips from Lean R to Lean D

Categories 11 12 13 14 17 18
Gen Avg Biden 9.9 (-0.1) Biden 10.0 (-0.3) Biden 10.3 (-0.5) Biden 10.8 (+0.2) Biden 10.5 (-0.1) Biden 10.4 (-0.2)
AK avg       Trump 4.5 (-0.1)    
AZ avg Biden 3.5 (-0.2) Biden 3.7 (-0.2) Biden 3.9 (+0.1) Biden 3.8 (0) Biden 3.8 (0) Biden 3.8 (-0.1)
FL avg Biden 3.8 (+0.3) Biden 3.5 (+0.1) Biden 3.4 (-0.5) Biden 3.9 (-0.2) Biden 4.1 (0) Biden 4.1 (-0.4)
GA avg Biden 1.0 (+1.0) Biden 0.8 (-0.2) Biden 1.0 (-0.3) Biden 1.3 (+0.1) Biden 1.2 (-0.1) Biden 1.3 (+0.6)
IA avg Biden 1.1 (+1.0) Biden 0.1 (-0.2) Biden 0.3 (+0.1) Biden 0.2 (0) Biden 0.2 (-0.1) Biden 0.3 (-1.0)
MI Avg       Biden 8.4 (+0.6)    
MN avg       Biden 9.0 (+0.1)    
MO avg       Trump 5.6 (-0.1)    
MT avg       Trump 8.7 (-0.1)    
NV avg       Biden 6.8 (+0.1)    
NH Avg       Biden 10.7 (+0.8)    
NC avg Biden 2.9 (-0.2) Biden 3.1 (+0.1) Biden 3.0 (-0.2) Biden 3.2 (+0.1) Biden 3.1 (-0.2) Biden 3.3 (0)
OH avg Trump +0.8 (+0.6) Trump 0.2 (+0.1) Trump 0.1 (-0.3) Trump 0.4 (-0.3) Trump 0.1 (-0.4) Biden 0.3 (+0.2)
PA Avg       Biden 7.1 (+0.1)    
SC avg       Trump 5.4 (0)    
TX avg Trump 0.6 (-0.7) Trump 1.3 (0) Trump 1.3 (0) Trump 1.3 (-0.1) Trump 1.4 (0) Trump 1.4 (+0.1)
WI Avg       Biden 7.1 (+0.1)    
Trump Approval 42.6 (-0.5) 43.1 (+0.3) 42.8 (0) 42.8 (-0.1) 42.9 (-0.5) 43 (-0.4)
Trump Disapproval 53.8 (+0.1) 53.7 (+0.2) 53.5 (-0.7) 54.2 (+0.1) 54.1 (-0.2) 54.3 (+0.6)
Favorability       Biden 18.2 (0)    
Direction of the Country       -31.5 (6.2)    
Generic Ballot       Dem 6.6 (0)    
Betting Markets       Biden 64.6 (+0.3)    
Clinton vs. Trump 2016 GE            
Biden vs Clinton GE Polls            

DdVek.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Agree with this 100%. Stop subsidizing big, inhumane factory farms and let the little farms flourish.

Weekly jobless claims -> lowest since March. Number complicated by unprecedented dynamics, though. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/22/weekly-jobless-claims.html

Not really apathetic - I'm quite interested in elections. But it's like being upset the tide has gone in or gone out.

"My political views help to reduce fear, anxiety, and uncertainty; to avoid change, disruption, and ambiguity; and to explain, order, and justify inequality among groups and individuals."

 

Had be very confused I selected it cause I read it as basically my views helping reduce fear and anxiety, made me think that not having those anxietys means that I do not justify inequality among people, because for example trump puts fear on individuals which makes them okay with inequality (Like how he did the Muslim ban) so I am still confused by the question. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheMiddlePolitical said:

"My political views help to reduce fear, anxiety, and uncertainty; to avoid change, disruption, and ambiguity; and to explain, order, and justify inequality among groups and individuals."

 

Had be very confused I selected it cause I read it as basically my views helping reduce fear and anxiety, made me think that not having those anxietys means that I do not justify inequality among people, because for example trump puts fear on individuals which makes them okay with inequality (Like how he did the Muslim ban) so I am still confused by the question. 

@vcczar

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re 4., I have a Stoic attitude on either. I think everyone should. Elections are outside your control. Although I prefer Trump's policies on the whole and am concerned about Biden's mental abilities, if Biden won I imagine my response would be "Ok, on to the next election."

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Re 4., I have a Stoic attitude on either. I think everyone should. Elections are outside your control. Although I prefer Trump's policies on the whole and am concerned about Biden's mental abilities, if Biden won I imagine my response would be "Ok, on to the next election."

Well, you also don't live in the US, so you aren't as impacted as I am and many other people are on this forum. To me, it is a big deal who the president currently is and who it will be. 

I imagine I'd have the same response you do about our election if you asked me my thoughts if Trudeau, or whomever the more socially liberal major candidate is in a Canadian election. I probably wouldn't have much of a reaction to the result, so long as the winner of the Canadian election isn't advocating invading the US or committing genocide on people in his or her country. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

Well, you also don't live in the US, so you aren't as impacted as I am and many other people are on this forum. To me, it is a big deal who the president currently is and who it will be. 

I imagine I'd have the same response you do about our election if you asked me my thoughts if Trudeau, or whomever the more socially liberal major candidate is in a Canadian election. I probably wouldn't have much of a reaction to the result, so long as the winner of the Canadian election isn't advocating invading the US or committing genocide on people in his or her country. 

Sure, I don't live in the country so it's different. But I had that sort of reaction when Trudeau won in the last election in Canada.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Conservative Elector 2 Could you explain your vote on #2. I honestly, can't think of a valid reason for selecting that that doesn't come off as being open to political hypocrisy or political corruption so long as it helps ones political ideology or party. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Sure, I don't live in the country so it's different. But I had that sort of reaction when Trudeau won in the last election in Canada.

Hmm...odd. Why do you think that is? 

On a side note, I find it odd that someone that makes political games would be so apathetic about election results, even in their own country. Do you think that helps you or harms you in the creation of election games, either historical or contemporary elections, whether Canadian or otherwise? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Hmm...odd. Why do you think that is? 

On a side note, I find it odd that someone that makes political games would be so apathetic about election results, even in their own country. Do you think that helps you or harms you in the creation of election games, either historical or contemporary elections, whether Canadian or otherwise? 

Not really apathetic - I'm quite interested in elections. But it's like being upset the tide has gone in or gone out.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

'I think I am more likely to express the same level of compassion for people around the world, even to non-human subjects like animals, than people on the other side of the political spectrum.' @Conservative Elector 2

Are the political parties you support not obsessed with killing animals and big on demonising asylum seekers? :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@Conservative Elector 2 Could you explain your vote on #2. I honestly, can't think of a valid reason for selecting that that doesn't come off as being open to political hypocrisy or political corruption so long as it helps ones political ideology or party. 

Sure I can. To cultivate an image of having a clean slate, while not having one in fact, is worse for me than playing with open cards. We already know Trump's attitude. That's a good about Trump. You know what you get. Everyone has to decide for themselves if they can support him or not. There isn't much possibility left for a surprise afterwards.

Furthermore Trump was a businessman, it's more likely to have different bank accounts all over the world when being in big business. I don't even know when it was opened, used and so on. Obama was a politician for more than a decade before moving up to the presidency. That would put him more in trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Sure I can. To cultivate an image of having a clean slate, while not having one in fact, is worse for me than playing with open cards. We already know Trump's attitude. That's a good about Trump. You know what you get. Everyone has to decide for themselves if they can support him or not. There isn't much possibility left for a surprise afterwards.

Furthermore Trump was a businessman, it's more likely to have different bank accounts all over the world when being in big business. I don't even know when it was opened, used and so on. Obama was a politician for more than a decade before moving up to the presidency. That would put him more in trouble.

That still seems like a biased double-standard to me. I mean, I'd be bothered if Trump, Obama, Warren, Sanders, Cruz, AOC, or Bloomberg had an active Chinese bank account while as president. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Sure I can. To cultivate an image of having a clean slate, while not having one in fact, is worse for me than playing with open cards. We already know Trump's attitude. That's a good about Trump. You know what you get. Everyone has to decide for themselves if they can support him or not. There isn't much possibility left for a surprise afterwards.

Furthermore Trump was a businessman, it's more likely to have different bank accounts all over the world when being in big business. I don't even know when it was opened, used and so on. Obama was a politician for more than a decade before moving up to the presidency. That would put him more in trouble.

I disagree. Hidden corruption and blatant corruption are corruption, period.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mark_W said:

'I think I am more likely to express the same level of compassion for people around the world, even to non-human subjects like animals, than people on the other side of the political spectrum.' @Conservative Elector 2

Are the political parties you support not obsessed with killing animals and big on demonising asylum seekers? :unsure:

Showing compassion means not to be pro-immigration on a humanitarian level for me. It is not humane to let people in like the perpetrator of the beheading attack in France for example. (Predictable) Outcomes like that are the main reasons why I am absolutely against letting asylum seekers in.

I love animals personally, but I don't think one does animals a favor when idolizing people like Greta Thunberg for example.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zenobiyl said:

I disagree. Hidden corruption and blatant corruption are corruption, period.

 

From the Guardian: ''The account paid $188,561 in taxes in China between 2013 and 2015''.

I don't see corruption, when a businessman and his company pay taxes in another country. It seems to be legal. He wasn't even president in the named time span.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Conservative Elector 2 said:

From the Guardian: ''The account paid $188,561 in taxes in China between 2013 and 2015''.

I don't see corruption, when a businessman and his company pay taxes in another country. It seems to be legal. He wasn't even president in the named time span.

Okay? But if Obama had done the same thing is the question, so it's basically assuming everything is the same circumstances, that he had an account in a Chinese bank. It can't be for one but not for the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Showing compassion means not to be pro-immigration on a humanitarian level for me. It is not humane to let people in like the perpetrator of the beheading attack in France for example. (Predictable) Outcomes like that are the main reasons why I am absolutely against letting asylum seekers in.

I love animals personally, but I don't think one does animals a favor when idolizing people like Greta Thunberg for example.

'Not humane to let people in' that's an odd way to look at it. So you'd rather let vast numbers of people who are trying to flee war die? It's only more humanitarian if you think people living in currently peaceful countries have more value than people living in wartorn countries. Your 'humanitarian' position is that Jewish people should have been left to perish under the Nazis rather than be 'let in', in case one or two were radical? It's not a question of 'letting people in', it's a case of giving people a chance to 'get out' and you'd rather let them die?

And you think idolizing Greta Thunberg is worse for animals than voting in politicians who hunt them for fun?

Well thanks for confirming why I felt comfortable voting for that one myself.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark_W said:

Your 'humanitarian' position is that Jewish people should have been left to perish under the Nazis rather than be 'let in', in case one or two were radical?

I don't remember Jews causing the massive problems like we see with certain immigrant groups in Europe. From my point of view it's not just ''two radicals among a large group''. It's the majority who is not in line with the society of their new country. I see it in Austria myself. There are dangerous subcultures developing in certain areas of cities and schools. Some parks in Vienna are controlled by Chechen youth gangs. Why should anyone welcome such a development? These people have no interest in taking part in our democratic country and I'd say countries are better off without them.

I have to state here, that I clearly not refer to acceptable immigration. I don't oppose the Italian grocery store owner in the next street, the Greek college professor or the Chinese restaurant owner across the street to come here. That's absolutely okay and fosters the cultural exchange we can take advantage from. We need to work with other countries on economical and security issues in a way which allows us to make gains for the greater good. I want people to learn about other countries, cultures and learn as many languages as possible. I am an absolute globalist when it comes to this, but I also want to see a strong sense of patriotism and understanding of individual nations' histories in each country. I believe we need both aspects globalist and nationalist (like we need both religion and science) to develop a proud but also common society which could reach goals never thought of. But we don't need most aspects of the kind of immigration we see now, because youth gangs, drug dealers or organized crime members clearly won't bring us to the top.

2 hours ago, Mark_W said:

It's not a question of 'letting people in', it's a case of giving people a chance to 'get out' and you'd rather let them die?

I don't think so. If you just want to flee a war, you could stay in a neighboring country or a region at peace near yours. Especially if it's culturally similar to your region. Germany, the UK, France or Austria are far away, you don't have to come here just to flee war. 

2 hours ago, Mark_W said:

And you think idolizing Greta Thunberg is worse for animals than voting in politicians who hunt them for fun?

Seen on a larger scale yes. The whole dynamic set around FFF is a hysteric and completely absurd one. You can acknowledge there's a problem without using publicity gigs too much. I'd say children are used, because they are easily manipulated unfortunately.

I don't hunt myself and I don't encourage doing so. It's certainly a tradition I don't like although I am a traditionalist person. If I have to choose between a politician who shares 0 of my values but doesn't hunt or a hunter who has tremendous policy ideas, I am voting for the hunting guy. I am not guilty for his actions and in the end the country will be better off if the good policies are actually implemented. Simple choice for me.

@vcczar tagging you, because you reacted with the puzzled icon.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I don't remember Jews causing the massive problems like we see with certain immigrant groups in Europe. From my point of view it's not just ''two radicals among a large group''. It's the majority who is not in line with the society of their new country. I see it in Austria myself. There are dangerous subcultures developing in certain areas of cities and schools. Some parks in Vienna are controlled by Chechen youth gangs. Why should anyone welcome such a development? These people have no interest in taking part in our democratic country and I'd say countries are better off without them.

I have to state here, that I clearly not refer to acceptable immigration. I don't oppose the Italian grocery store owner in the next street, the Greek college professor or the Chinese restaurant owner across the street to come here. That's absolutely okay and fosters the cultural exchange we can take advantage from. We need to work with other countries on economical and security issues in a way which allows us to make gains for the greater good. I want people to learn about other countries, cultures and learn as many languages as possible. I am an absolute globalist when it comes to this, but I also want to see a strong sense of patriotism and understanding of individual nations' histories in each country. I believe we need both aspects globalist and nationalist (like we need both religion and science) to develop a proud but also common society which could reach goals never thought of. But we don't need most aspects of the kind of immigration we see now, because youth gangs, drug dealers or organized crime members clearly won't bring us to the top.

I don't think so. If you just want to flee a war, you could stay in a neighboring country or a region at peace near yours. Especially if it's culturally similar to your region. Germany, the UK, France or Austria are far away, you don't have to come here just to flee war. 

Seen on a larger scale yes. The whole dynamic set around FFF is a hysteric and completely absurd one. You can acknowledge there's a problem without using publicity gigs too much. I'd say children are used, because they are easily manipulated unfortunately.

I don't hunt myself and I don't encourage doing so. It's certainly a tradition I don't like although I am a traditionalist person. If I have to choose between a politician who shares 0 of my values but doesn't hunt or a hunter who has tremendous policy ideas, I am voting for the hunting guy. I am not guilty for his actions and in the end the country will be better off if the good policies are actually implemented. Simple choice for me.

@vcczar tagging you, because you reacted with the puzzled icon.

 

I 100% assure you that there were plenty of people of your political persuasion (and others) who were saying very similar things about Jews in 1940s Europe & USA. In fact the limits placed on refugees by other countries is one of the reasons many were unable to escape the horrors of Nazi Germany. And it was because of Politicians with world views like yours. You 'other' today's immigrants and make out that you wouldn't have done exactly the same thing as the countries of Europe did to asylum seekers in the Second World War, but it's a fallacy. You tell yourself, having seen the horrible impact of views just like yours, that in that situation you would have been liberal and pro-asylum seekers. But in today's equivalent you don't give a s*** about people in exactly the same situation, who have been 'othered' by the right-wing.

And you said you were against allowing in Asylum Seekers in general. We weren't talking about specific countries or wars, so I don't understand the comment about staying in a neighboring country or region. I imagine a big part of the desire to move to countries like the UK, Germany, France, Austria is that we are viewed as having more liberal attitudes, democracy, freedom, a much more stable economy & situation than other countries people could move to so they don't feel like they are fleeing a war into a country where there could imminently be another. Why are those people, less deserving of a society like ours than you or I? Because they weren't born here? I'm sorry but that is not compassion.

Maybe the immigrants who you've encountered aren't in line with your society or 'democratic' values because their experience of your society is meeting bigoted people who don't want to welcome them, don't want to support them and don't want them to be part of their country - before they've even had a f***ing conversation with them. I live in a very multi-cultural city and I assure you that if you have an education system that's open to it, and a willingness on the part of the host country/region/city to embrace the cultural differences then it is positive for everyone.

But if your attitude is 'they should stay there and die, or go somewhere else' because your default position is they're a problem, then sure, large numbers probably will struggle to integrate. And they probably will resent their new 'home'.

People do not come to a country wanting to hate it, or wanting to hate the people in it. But they end up hating it and them, because of people with views like yours, and politicians who either share those views or foster that hate for votes. You really, frankly, should be ashamed of yourself.

And if you think that you can say you're 'more likely to express the same level of compassion ... even to non-human subjects like animals, than people on the other side of the political spectrum', when you ultimately don't care what a politician's animal rights position is then you're absolutely deluded.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I don't hunt myself and I don't encourage doing so.

All apex predators hunt naturally. Humans are apex predators. If someone hunts and then eats the animal (which is the most common form of hunting nowadays in N.A.), hard for me to see much that's wrong with that, unless the animal is endangered. The number of animals killed through hunting nowadays is minuscule relative to the number that are killed as livestock.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I don't hunt myself and I don't encourage doing so. It's certainly a tradition I don't like although I am a traditionalist person. If I have to choose between a politician who shares 0 of my values but doesn't hunt or a hunter who has tremendous policy ideas, I am voting for the hunting guy. I am not guilty for his actions and in the end the country will be better off if the good policies are actually implemented. Simple choice for me.

...you are so pro-hunter and I have zero sympathy for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

All apex predators hunt naturally. Humans are apex predators. If someone hunts and then eats the animal (which is the most common form of hunting nowadays in N.A.), hard for me to see much that's wrong with that, unless the animal is endangered. The number of animals killed through hunting nowadays is minuscule relative to the number that are killed as livestock.

Humans also don't need to eat meat to maintain their nutrition, so I view both as a wrong (I'm a hypocrite though - I eat meat). And I would probably say killing livestock for meat is worse than hunting since animals that are hunted at least get to live a free life until they die. I always feel guilty about eating beef or poultry since these animals were raised for the sole purpose of being killed and eaten.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...