Michael Moore: Trump on track to win again

[Eraserhead]

It's definitely weird that liberals are getting angry at Michael Moore for simply trying to scare more progressives/leftists into voting for Biden in the general election.

[oraclebones]

In all seriousness he would rather see Trump again so progressives can try to get their candidate nominated in four years.

Which is why he said Democrats need to "make sure each of us are going to get a hundred people out to vote" for Biden?

[JerryArkansas]

Michael Moore is a hack who hasn't been relevant in political discussion since 2004.  He's just pissed his drifting isn't making as much money as it used to so he's trying to stir the pot.

[President Johnson]

Michael Moore is a hack, he also predicted Obama's loss in 2012. Just being lucky once doesn't mean a lot. Of course the election shouldn't be taken for granted, especially with Republican efforts to suppress the vote, but suggesting Trump is anywhere close to being on track for reelection is ignorant to say at least. He even wasn't before Covid19 hit. Joe Biden was always beating him.

There are several factors different from 2016: The political environment is not the same at all. If anything, it's much more like 2018 rather than 2016. Joe Biden as a candidate has much less baggage than Hillary had, who had a 25-year right-wing smear campaign going against her for being a strong woman (some baggage earned, but most not). Uncle Joe's polling numbers are much stable and tend to be around 50%. And their attacks on him and Kamala are falling flat. Nobody is scared of Uncle Joe or buying the fact he's a crazy socialist or Trojan horse for Bernie and AOC. It just doesn't stick, just like it didn't with Reagan in 1980, when Democrats said he was a dangerous right-winger. Ronnie just smiled in the camera and gave answers that didn't sound radical for most voters.

Enthusiasm being off the charts is basically useless if you only reach 35% of the electorate. Trump generates excitement in his hardcore base, but not with everyone else. The only other excitement he creates is among liberals, progressives and moderate suburbanites to get rid of him. He has practically done nothing to expand his base, which should be necessary to win again. Let's not forget how narrow his victory was, 77,000 votes in three states. He has basically no room for error. And if Joe Biden manages to flip states like Arizona or Florida, the game is over.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Warning to Ds, Kudlow says Unemployment is keep dropping to 7.5 percent. Do we really want amnesty for illegal immigrants and unsecure boarders will that bloated immigration reform bill.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Michael Moore wrongly predicted the victories of Al Gore, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, but since he happened to get it right on the fourth try, he’s now some election guru.

What about 2004? In fairness, Gore actually did sort of win in 2000...

I'm pretty sure the last line in Farenheit 9/11 was about Bush losing, but I can't be sure if that was bravado or his actual prediction.

[SInNYC]

Biden seems to be doing better than Clinton, but that is certainly no reason to be over confident. This could come down to a small number of states, and possibly only one.

He literally just has to do 70,000 votes better than she did and the presidency's his. I think people keep forgetting how narrow Trump's victory was in 2016.

Alternatively, he has to do a tad better in Penn AND Mich AND Wisc. If there is a 75% chance in each and they are independent, he still has just a 42% chance of winning.

Also, nobody should be surprised if the 4% Libertarians and McMullin voters move towards Trump, while the much smaller 1% Green voters move towards Biden.

In short, 'dont be overconfident' is good advice.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm beginning to think a lot of longstanding Professional Liberals, especially in entertainment and journalism (and regardless of how you understand what Michael Moore does for a living, he's definitely in at least one of those two fields), perversely want Trump to win again because it'll confirm their poor opinions of the American public. The NYT with its weird exoticization of Trump voters (almost to the point of an ethnic fetish for working-class whites) is especially bad about this.

[Gracile]

I'm beginning to think a lot of longstanding Professional Liberals, especially in entertainment and journalism (and regardless of how you understand what Michael Moore does for a living, he's definitely in at least one of those two fields), perversely want Trump to win again because it'll confirm their poor opinions of the American public. The NYT with its weird exoticization of Trump voters (almost to the point of an ethnic fetish for working-class whites) is especially bad about this.

A Trump second term would also greatly benefit this class of people financially, so these comments are not surprising.

[JerryArkansas]

I'm beginning to think a lot of longstanding Professional Liberals, especially in entertainment and journalism (and regardless of how you understand what Michael Moore does for a living, he's definitely in at least one of those two fields), perversely want Trump to win again because it'll confirm their poor opinions of the American public. The NYT with its weird exoticization of Trump voters (almost to the point of an ethnic fetish for working-class whites) is especially bad about this.

You're half right here, I think they want him to win, but not for a confirmation bias, more to make money off of him.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I'm beginning to think a lot of longstanding Professional Liberals, especially in entertainment and journalism (and regardless of how you understand what Michael Moore does for a living, he's definitely in at least one of those two fields), perversely want Trump to win again because it'll confirm their poor opinions of the American public. The NYT with its weird exoticization of Trump voters (almost to the point of an ethnic fetish for working-class whites) is especially bad about this.

The liberals at the NYT view WCW voters as people who are traitors to the team.  They SHOULD be Democrats!  We're the "Party of the Common Man".  They are blinded to see how actual Democratic Party POLICY penalizes the working class, even when the rhetoric waxes rhapsodic.

Democrats are honestly in denial as to the degree they have become an elitist party.  That includes the Sanders folks whose appeal comes from at least some of the most obnoxious glitterati.  Their campaign this year is sort of Marshal Petain and Madame Mao.  (An exaggeration, to be sure, but it's really an odd pairing.)  They have also become a socialist party; this seems to have occurred in stealth fashion, but it's real now.  It's one reason the GOP is shifted to the left as well.  Whatever you want to say about Trump's GOP, it's not about Small Government Conservatism.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think all three of the posters above me have good points about what's going on here. Not often I'd have occasion to say that about a group consisting of gracile, JerryArkansas, and Fuzzy Bear, but strange times make for strange bedfellows.

I've been warning since the heady days of the 2016 GE campaign that the "liberal media" in fact has a perverse incentive to bolster Trump because he knows how to work them and provides them with more "synergy" than they could have dreamed of getting from pre-Trump political news. Then you have the fact that most Media People are in a socioeconomic stratum that benefits from right-wing rule, the fact that they have a preference for "muh horserace" narratives over landslide narratives regardless of the political climate going into an election cycle, and (yes) the fact that it's very difficult to see a Joe Biden/Kamala Harris ticket as representing a mass or popular movement of any kind. Combine them all, and add a heaping helping of condescension and all-but-overt dislike and distrust for most of the American public, and you have a style of coverage that's dominated by "HERE'S HOW TRUMP CAN STILL WIN" concern trolling and undisguised political PTSD, rather than by cogent indictments of what these people want us to think that they think is an obviously failed presidency.

[Ferguson97]

I'm beginning to think a lot of longstanding Professional Liberals, especially in entertainment and journalism (and regardless of how you understand what Michael Moore does for a living, he's definitely in at least one of those two fields), perversely want Trump to win again because it'll confirm their poor opinions of the American public. The NYT with its weird exoticization of Trump voters (almost to the point of an ethnic fetish for working-class whites) is especially bad about this.

The liberals at the NYT view WCW voters as people who are traitors to the team.  They SHOULD be Democrats!  We're the "Party of the Common Man".  They are blinded to see how actual Democratic Party POLICY penalizes the working class, even when the rhetoric waxes rhapsodic.

Democrats are honestly in denial as to the degree they have become an elitist party.  That includes the Sanders folks whose appeal comes from at least some of the most obnoxious glitterati.  Their campaign this year is sort of Marshal Petain and Madame Mao.  (An exaggeration, to be sure, but it's really an odd pairing.)  They have also become a socialist party; this seems to have occurred in stealth fashion, but it's real now.  It's one reason the GOP is shifted to the left as well.  Whatever you want to say about Trump's GOP, it's not about Small Government Conservatism.

🙄 caring about minorities and women makes the Democrats “elite”?

Name one GOP policy that is better for working people than what the Democrats offer.

[Suburbia]

Biden needs to do well with Latinos

Ben Jealous is sounding the alarms on CNN right now, Biden needs to listen to Maher, Jealous and Moore, NOW.

[tallguy23]

Michael Moore wrongly predicted the victories of Al Gore, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, but since he happened to get it right on the fourth try, he’s now some guru.

Wait...he thought Obama was losing in 2008?

[Figueira]

Michael Moore wrongly predicted the victories of Al Gore, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, but since he happened to get it right on the fourth try, he’s now some guru.

To be fair to Moore, he got 2016 pretty much spot-on. He didn't just predict that Trump would win, but he predicted that he would win by picking up Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. (He missed Iowa and Florida, but they were really beside his point.) He certainly got it more right than any other pundit.

That doesn't mean he'll be right again, though.

[Velasco]

I don't believe Michael Moore is acting in bad faith or driven by perverse desires. He is a public figure, a notorious and outspoken leftist who gives opinions. He may be spotted on or completely out of focus, but anyway I believe he is sincere. Claiming that Trump is on track to win again may sound alarmist, sure. But I honestly believe that you better worry about the Biden campaign, because it's important the latter do its job effectively and not what Michael Moore is saying or aiming for

[Sbane]

Michael Moore is right. Trump will get close to 46% of the vote again, probably around 45%.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I'm beginning to think a lot of longstanding Professional Liberals, especially in entertainment and journalism (and regardless of how you understand what Michael Moore does for a living, he's definitely in at least one of those two fields), perversely want Trump to win again because it'll confirm their poor opinions of the American public. The NYT with its weird exoticization of Trump voters (almost to the point of an ethnic fetish for working-class whites) is especially bad about this.

The liberals at the NYT view WCW voters as people who are traitors to the team.  They SHOULD be Democrats!  We're the "Party of the Common Man".  They are blinded to see how actual Democratic Party POLICY penalizes the working class, even when the rhetoric waxes rhapsodic.

Democrats are honestly in denial as to the degree they have become an elitist party.  That includes the Sanders folks whose appeal comes from at least some of the most obnoxious glitterati.  Their campaign this year is sort of Marshal Petain and Madame Mao.  (An exaggeration, to be sure, but it's really an odd pairing.)  They have also become a socialist party; this seems to have occurred in stealth fashion, but it's real now.  It's one reason the GOP is shifted to the left as well.  Whatever you want to say about Trump's GOP, it's not about Small Government Conservatism.

🙄 caring about minorities and women makes the Democrats “elite”?

Name one GOP policy that is better for working people than what the Democrats offer.

The shift is almost entirely in the rhetoric as the Democrats have been pretty corporate since the Clinton era. It is a product of the culture war.

The GOP have become no less rightwing in the policies they attempt to enact and elected Democrats are not moving rightwards on economics these days, but Republicans use a lot more populist rhetoric (in b4 "It's just racism" - the racism isn't new, for the most part). The Democrats, by contrast, have become increasingly fixated on pandering to well-heeled elites who prioritise Decency^TM and culture war nonsense (because supporting warrantless searches while advocating for ReCkoNing WiTh ThE PasT/white guilt/painting "black lives matter" on a street isn't "caring about women and minorities"). It is much more common than it used to be for Democrats to pitch to people much further up Mazlow's hierarchy of needs - or, at least, those who were raised in an environment further up said hierarchy - than those they allegedly want to help most. When they do this, they often drop vital appeals to universalism or, worse, let slip their contempt for many of the unenlightened folk further down the hierarchy ("deplorables").

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

The NYT's just run a piece touching on this, which is a real surprise coming from them: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/opinion/education-prejudice.html

I think it ties into the surge in donations to the Biden campaign after Harris was picked. A lot of UMC Democrats wanted someone who could speak their lingo on the ticket before they could feel willing to donate.

[DaleCooper]

Michael Moore wrongly predicted the victories of Al Gore, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, but since he happened to get it right on the fourth try, he’s now some election guru.

What about 2004? In fairness, Gore actually did sort of win in 2000...

I'm pretty sure the last line in Farenheit 9/11 was about Bush losing, but I can't be sure if that was bravado or his actual prediction.

It was a play on Bush's "Can't get fooled again" line applied to the 04 election. It was a call to vote against him.

[McGarnagle]

Michael Moore is right. Trump will get close to 46% of the vote again, probably around 45%.

Trump might get 45%, but if Biden gets 51% or greater he probably wins

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I think we can interpret this as: Anybody can lose, but the cards are stacked against Trump due to Covid and he has to win a 278 state and the chances of that happening is nil, compared to 2016 since 200K died from Covid, and we have elevated unemployment

[Bojack Horseman]

A statistics class should be mandatory for anyone who wants to watch politics. The convention bounce will be over in a week or so after Covid is front and center again. For four days the average voter was subjected to a fantasy land where Covid had been contained, unemployment was still 3%, and America is not a racist nation.

[Battista Minola 1616]

The NYT's just run a piece touching on this, which is a real surprise coming from them: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/opinion/education-prejudice.html

I think it ties into the surge in donations to the Biden campaign after Harris was picked. A lot of UMC Democrats wanted someone who could speak their lingo on the ticket before they could feel willing to donate.

Wow. I honestly did not think that the NYT had any ability at self-awareness about this kind of biases.