2024 Pre-Election Political Polls | POLL - Trump would have had 7 point lead over Biden
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 6K
- Views: 183K
- Politics
- Messages
- 1,454
Yeah, but that isn't remotely the same thing as believing every US POTUS should rot in hell simply because they were in the chair that forced decisions in the moment.
The US should be a lot less interventionist. I concede that point. However, it's not as if POTUS can flip a switch and make it so. Withdrawing has dramatic consequences too. Those consequences inevitably lead to death...sometimes far more death than continued intervention.
If you're interesting in continuing this conversation, you’re welcome to explain your point—which it not self-evident— in more detail.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 8,871
1. Can we avoid the cock-based rhetoric, please. It's really not OK.
2. I understand where you're coming from, and when I was younger, I used to feel this way. But let me offer a different perspective, one that isn't necessarily a challenge to your view point so much as a mollifying complement.
It's important for US presidents to maintain some continuity in foreign policy, for a number of reasons. When I say "continuity" I don't mean exactly the same; I mean that the policy should gradually change instead of radically swinging depending on the administration. And one reason for this is that we can't have effective foreign policy if other countries can't trust us to do what we say we are going to do, because the administration might change and everything gets dismantled. A substantial amount of foreign policy goes to treaties, agreements, protocols and the like.
Because of Trump, our credibility is almost shot. For instance, It was a calamity when Trump withdrew us from the Trans Pacific Partnership. That treaty was a dozen years in the making, and required the US to do a lot of cajoling of some of the included nations. It was no small ask for Malaysia or Singapore, for instance, to join a trade partnership that excluded Beijing. And yet with lots of diplomacy, they finally came on board . . . and then it vanished. Those countries gave China a small middle finger and for what end? I doubt they will ever trust the US again. It shouldn't really matter whether you think the TPP is good or bad; the point is that the sudden withdrawal was damaging to the United States long term, and that damage is considerably greater than whatever harms might have come from the treaty (editor's note: opposition to the treaty was rarely based in fact, because it was not what the far left and far right depicted it as).
And of course, what Trump did to the TPP, he also did to the Paris Accords and the Iranian nuclear treaty. And he could do to NATO. Or the UN. Or any other agreement, and then what will happen to our standing in the world?
I think sometimes people don't really understand what international cooperation does for us. For instance, the US has been able to cajole most offshore tax havens into policies that make it much harder for tax cheats and money launderers to stash new money there. We got Switzerland to open its banks to US law enforcement after decades of cajoling and diplomacy. It's not in Switzerland's interests to do so, but the US was able to use carrots and sticks to make progress on that front. Not just the US, but you get the point. Banking regulations are coordinated between international countries, and financial policy in particular. One of the reasons for the 2008 financial crisis is that Bush basically stopped caring about regulatory harmonization, and thus so did Europe, and thus the financial crisis was largely birthed out of a UK subsidiary of AIG that was following UK law but engaging in ridiculously risky practices.
So broadly speaking, our foreign policy needs to be predictable. It doesn't necessarily have to be fixed, but it can't be a thing where a new president takes office and does for foreign policy what s/he typically does for domestic policy. That's something to consider when evaluating Obama.
3. Now I understand that I'm talking about concerns that don't necessarily get to the heart of your complaint. After all, I take you not to be talking about the WTO but rather Allende and Mobutu, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. And those situations do present more of a challenge to the continuity I outlined above. The cost benefit is different. And where there's no real risk to America's reputation, quick shifts aren't as dangerous. There are still other reasons why continuity should be the norm, but let's stay with this one and analyze the Vietnam War. Would it have been a problem if Nixon had decreed in 1969, we were pulling out of Vietnam immediately? I don't think so. We didn't have war partners to speak of. Nobody except the SV kleptocrats wanted us there. The spectrum of world opinion there ranged from "you should get out" to "we don't give a fuck really," but nobody wanted us in.
Let's also take the second Iraq War. Bush 43 did assemble an international coalition, but other than the UK, I don't think anyone really wanted to participate. It was more of a "if you insist, we will grudgingly contribute." Some of the "assistance" offered by some allies was comically symbolic. There were countries, IIRC, that sent less than 10 soldiers as their "contribution." So if Kerry had won in 04 and stopped the Iraq War, nobody would have minded about the reversal (which is different from a decision as to whether a sudden reversal would have been a good idea on the merits, given that we broke it and thus had a responsibility to "fix it", which of course we didn't).
But on other issues, where our national interest more closely dovetails with those of our allies and thus our allies (and non-allies for that matter) rely on us, sharp deviations from policy are highly suboptimal. Yes, if you evaluate individual policies on their own merits, some of them were gross -- but that's not the same thing as saying we should just reverse them. In foreign relations as in law, sometimes consistency is more important than getting it right.
- Messages
- 1,003
Political polls, people.
I would say that I disagree with either the war or the way the war was conducted in every conflict we've had since I was born but I was too young to form an opinion on Korea. Your assumption of my opinion on our foreign policy was amusing so I responded in kind. Basically, I'm old, very cynical and find that I rank pragmatism and decency in that order and greatly different in importance. Does this leave us with either the grounds or need to continue?
SnoopRob
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 2,980
If political polls want to be the topic of more discussion, they should release more high quality polls.
- Messages
- 1,003
This doom loop won’t scroll itself!
The real problem, as far as I'm concerned, is that there is no hell and, for that reason, I can't sit back with the confidence that Bush, Obama, you, and me will ever get our just desserts, whatever they may be. In the grand scheme of things, I'd like to think my life warrants one firm flick on the balls.
I'm glad that you agree that the US should be less interventionist. Admittedly, I am not a historian. But I am skeptical that our reluctance to withdraw bespeaks some well-reasoned, somber take on the potential for even worse outcomes. To me, that position reads like a variation on the perversity argument: a peaceful United States would (perversely!) lead to a less peaceful world.
ole howard1
Active Member
- Messages
- 41
Rosenberg's calm and confidence helps to keep me somewhat sane -- only somewhat.
Centerpiece
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,321
Is the strategy of Pubs gaming the polls in swing states an attempt at making Dems think: “wow! I thought we should be way ahead, and we’re not! Perhaps, it’s a lost cause and we should just stay home and not bother to vote”?
Or is it to give Pub voters a sense of “it’s close folks, we got this! we need to show up and vote!”
To me, if no one really pays close attention, and simply sees the polls as “gee, it’s really close, I guess we should go vote”, then that sense may indeed work - at turning out the vote - on both sides.
In my mind, I’d rather see a tie in polls, or our side being slightly behind in the polls, increasing our motivation to get out the vote. Numbers, we need massive numbers.
Clinton won popular vote by close to 3 million votes. Correct?
Biden won by 6 million votes.
Kamala needs to win pop vote by 10 million and the electoral college by at least the same 306 to 232. Need to make this a landslide to remove all doubt.
UNCBAdookJD
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 377
The purpose of flooding the polls with right-leaning trash polls is to justify violence after Trump loses. Trump was ahead in the polls, but Kamala won? Must have been fraud, since the election was stolen violence is justified.
JCTarheel82
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,377
The GQP is going to reference these polls as "evidence" when they try to steal the election should Kamala win.
Centerpiece
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,321
Ouch.
Makes sense in some goose-stepping sort of way. But with Biden in the WhiteHouse, and Kamala the current VP charged with over-seeing the certification… another J6 uprising gets squashed fairly quickly, no?
If the real threat is GQP State legislators throwing wrenches into their State by State certifications (before it ever gets to DC Jan 6 certification) then that could happen anyway, regardless of what polls say, no?
But at this point it’s all optics I guess. If it “looks close” now, but Kamala wins - in a close one - then trump “got screwed again”… thereby giving GQP Governors justification to “find those 11,000 votes” miraculously. And for Arizona and Wisconsin to “stop the steal” and to get the whole thing thrown to SCOTUS.
But that brings us back to winning so enormously that even bad polling in October won’t matter in November. The optics won’t matter with a landslide both popular and electoral. Seems the only way forward.
Centerpiece
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,321
Good lord willing and the creek don’t rise. And I say that in all seriousness, living in WNC still dealing with Helene aftermath…
ole howard1
Active Member
- Messages
- 41
I think Rosenberg's theory is likely on target. That said, the NBC poll today makes me worried and despondent.
Centerpiece
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,321
So is there a reason why the Dems - with that billion $ war chest - isn’t ALSO FLOODING THE POLLSTER LANDSCAPE by “dropping dozens of polls into the battleground States” to skew the polling averages back to where they obviously are in reality?
Old fashioned ideas about winning on merit, I suspect. That and not having to worry about their candidate throwing a total tantrum in public if the candidate realized what a buffoon he was being.
lightbluenc
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 655
I’d guess because the strategy for Dems isn’t to convince anyone after the election of foul play. We will accept the results, but pubs won’t and they need a reason to have a grievance.