Trump refines messaging on COVID vaccine and mask-wearing

[JRP1994]

https://twitter.com/jamiedupree/status/1306353466529513475

Lol jk, he's picking fights with his own CDC director <50 days before the election

[Lognog]

So this is where the huge bounce comes

[Calthrina950]

This is one of the few things with regards to the pandemic that Trump has displayed any amount of consistency on. Although he did wear a mask when visiting Walter Reed back in July, and said at one point that mask-wearing was a "patriotic" gesture, he's made clear, through his own refusal to don one otherwise, that he remains opposed to the practice. And he's been dog-whistling to anti-maskers, who have remained adamant in their opposition.

[GeneralMacArthur]

You have to understand, there are very serious risks to wearing a mask.  For instance, a waiter could touch his mask, and then touch your plate.

^ this is Trump's argument against masks, as given during the ABC Town Hall.  George even tried to give him a reset button, and Trump blew past it to continue saying the same thing over and over again.

Throughout all the repetitive babble, Trump never actually clarified why a waiter touching his mask, and then touching your plate, would actually be bad.  Is it because the mask may have COVID, and then your food would get COVID?  But then if the waiter wasn't wearing a mask, you'd be guaranteed to get COVID from him breathing on the food.  It makes no sense.  Nothing about the answer makes sense.  When has this ever actually happened?  Why is this incredibly unlikely and minor event a reason not to wear masks?  We didn't get any of those details because it's Trump.  He probably doesn't even know them himself.  He just remembered hearing this story on Fox News or something and repeated the fragments of it that remained in his brain.

[compucomp]

You have to understand, there are very serious risks to wearing a mask.  For instance, a waiter could touch his mask, and then touch your plate.

^ this is Trump's argument against masks, as given during the ABC Town Hall.  George even tried to give him a reset button, and Trump blew past it to continue saying the same thing over and over again.

Throughout all the repetitive babble, Trump never actually clarified why a waiter touching his mask, and then touching your plate, would actually be bad.  Is it because the mask may have COVID, and then your food would get COVID?  But then if the waiter wasn't wearing a mask, you'd be guaranteed to get COVID from him breathing on the food.  It makes no sense.  Nothing about the answer makes sense.  When has this ever actually happened?  Why is this incredibly unlikely and minor event a reason not to wear masks?  We didn't get any of those details because it's Trump.  He probably doesn't even know them himself.  He just remembered hearing this story on Fox News or something and repeated the fragments of it that remained in his brain.

That's actually an argument for the proper wearing of masks. The outside of the mask should be considered contaminated, so if one touches it, their hand becomes potentially contaminated and should be washed. Similarly, one shouldn't be touching the inside of the mask with their contaminated hand. In no way does that imply that we should not wear masks, but of course Trump is going to twist that message to suit his own ends.

[GeneralMacArthur]

You have to understand, there are very serious risks to wearing a mask.  For instance, a waiter could touch his mask, and then touch your plate.

^ this is Trump's argument against masks, as given during the ABC Town Hall.  George even tried to give him a reset button, and Trump blew past it to continue saying the same thing over and over again.

Throughout all the repetitive babble, Trump never actually clarified why a waiter touching his mask, and then touching your plate, would actually be bad.  Is it because the mask may have COVID, and then your food would get COVID?  But then if the waiter wasn't wearing a mask, you'd be guaranteed to get COVID from him breathing on the food.  It makes no sense.  Nothing about the answer makes sense.  When has this ever actually happened?  Why is this incredibly unlikely and minor event a reason not to wear masks?  We didn't get any of those details because it's Trump.  He probably doesn't even know them himself.  He just remembered hearing this story on Fox News or something and repeated the fragments of it that remained in his brain.

That's actually an argument for the proper wearing of masks. The outside of the mask should be considered contaminated, so if one touches it, their hand becomes potentially contaminated and should be washed. Similarly, one shouldn't be touching the inside of the mask with their contaminated hand. In no way does that imply that we should not wear masks, but of course Trump is going to twist that message to suit his own ends.

You're putting words in his mouth.  This may have been what Trump was referring to, but far more likely is that he has no idea what the point of his story was, he just remembered someone saying it once as a talking point about masks.  Obviously an argument in favor of wearing masks properly is completely disconnected from the point Trump was trying to make which is that wearing masks can be bad.

Also who the hell is touching their mask and then touching other people's food?  Everyone knows not to do this.

[politics_king]

Ugh... Is it over yet? Is it November? Can we just fast-forward to 2022 and talk about the Democrats defending the Senate and House.

[Big Abraham]

Ugh... Is it over yet? Is it November? Can we just fast-forward to 2022 and talk about the Democrats defending the Senate and House.

That's assuming Greenfield wins Iowa, which is a pretty big if at this point

[Ferguson97]

Ugh... Is it over yet? Is it November? Can we just fast-forward to 2022 and talk about the Democrats defending the Senate and House.

That's assuming Greenfield wins Iowa, which is a pretty big if at this point

She's polling very decently

[Roll Roons]

Ugh... Is it over yet? Is it November? Can we just fast-forward to 2022 and talk about the Democrats defending the Senate and House.

That's assuming Greenfield wins Iowa, which is a pretty big if at this point

She's polling very decently

Let's see how it looks right now. Another Iowa poll is long overdue.

[Calthrina950]

Ugh... Is it over yet? Is it November? Can we just fast-forward to 2022 and talk about the Democrats defending the Senate and House.

That's assuming Greenfield wins Iowa, which is a pretty big if at this point

She's polling very decently

Let's see how it looks right now. Another Iowa poll is long overdue.

Do Democrats necessarily need Iowa to win the Senate? Bullock's chances in Montana are probably just as good as Greenfield's, to say nothing of potential upsets in Alaska, Kansas, and South Carolina, or the two Georgia Senate races.

[Roll Roons]

Ugh... Is it over yet? Is it November? Can we just fast-forward to 2022 and talk about the Democrats defending the Senate and House.

That's assuming Greenfield wins Iowa, which is a pretty big if at this point

She's polling very decently

Let's see how it looks right now. Another Iowa poll is long overdue.

Do Democrats necessarily need Iowa to win the Senate? Bullock's chances in Montana are probably just as good as Greenfield's, to say nothing of potential upsets in Alaska, Kansas, and South Carolina, or the two Georgia Senate races.

They don't technically need it, but we haven't gotten much Senate polling from Montana or Georgia either, and those three, in some order, are likely to be the 51st, 52nd and 53rd seats.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump does all his interviews on Fox and doesnt need to wear a mask. He said he looks like the lone Ranger when he wears his mask, apparently that's not good enough, he wore it one time to a Vet hospital.  He feels that he has been good to women, wearing a mask that doesn't look good to him hurts his pride. So, he never encourages people to wear masks. Unlike Pence wears it all the time.

Ds are forgoing IA, OH, Ernst is likely to win and MT Bullock was entangled in a scandal. Ds are targeting AK, AZ, CO, GA, NC and SC instead. Ernst is likely to win

OH will lose its Bellwether status making room for AZ

[Big Abraham]

Ugh... Is it over yet? Is it November? Can we just fast-forward to 2022 and talk about the Democrats defending the Senate and House.

That's assuming Greenfield wins Iowa, which is a pretty big if at this point

She's polling very decently

RCP has her +0.3, and 270 has her +0.5. That's a neck-in-neck race. Although I do agree with Roll that we need a poll from this month at least.

Ugh... Is it over yet? Is it November? Can we just fast-forward to 2022 and talk about the Democrats defending the Senate and House.

That's assuming Greenfield wins Iowa, which is a pretty big if at this point

She's polling very decently

Let's see how it looks right now. Another Iowa poll is long overdue.

Do Democrats necessarily need Iowa to win the Senate? Bullock's chances in Montana are probably just as good as Greenfield's, to say nothing of potential upsets in Alaska, Kansas, and South Carolina, or the two Georgia Senate races.

Bullock is faring worse than Greenfield; he's down on Daines by anywhere from 2 to 6 points, depending on the pollster. In Kansas Marshall is the favorite, as is Sullivan in his state. Georgia's special is almost guaranteed Republican; only the race between Perdue and Ossoff shows real competition (RCP has Perdue ahead by a point, but they haven't updated their average since July)

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There is gonna be split voting, Cooney can very well win and Bullick lose. Likewise in AK, Gross only needs a plurality of the vote to win, while Trump wins AK handily. Ernst is likely to win, and William's in MT can ride the coattails of Cooney.

AK, AZ, CO, GA, ME, NC and SC and we are still waiting on a KS poll, go D, while IA, KY, MT and TX go R. Dems aren't gonna win no more than 8 seats anyways. Ernst has a likeability factor due to Kim Reynolds

[DaleCooper]

My growing suspicion is that Trump is being told very directly that he has no chance of a legitimate vaccine-related October Surprise, perhaps not even much of a chance for any "good news" that's exciting enough to announce. He'll still try, I'm sure, but he's just setting himself up for failure, as usual.

[Ferguson97]

My growing suspicion is that Trump is being told very directly that he has no chance of a legitimate vaccine-related October Surprise, perhaps not even much of a chance for any "good news" that's exciting enough to announce. He'll still try, I'm sure, but he's just setting himself up for failure, as usual.

Probably something to the effect of: "VACCINE COMING VERY SOON! Mainstream media and CDC does not want Trump to win re-election so they want to stop it!" in mid-October.

[DaleCooper]

My growing suspicion is that Trump is being told very directly that he has no chance of a legitimate vaccine-related October Surprise, perhaps not even much of a chance for any "good news" that's exciting enough to announce. He'll still try, I'm sure, but he's just setting himself up for failure, as usual.

Probably something to the effect of: "VACCINE COMING VERY SOON! Mainstream media and CDC does not want Trump to win re-election so they want to stop it!" in mid-October.

Yeah, I bet he'll do it in a press conference. He'll hype it a day or two in advance: "BIG NEWS!!! Watch your Favorite President (Me) for EXCITING announcment that Fake News media won't want you to here!"

[Calthrina950]

My growing suspicion is that Trump is being told very directly that he has no chance of a legitimate vaccine-related October Surprise, perhaps not even much of a chance for any "good news" that's exciting enough to announce. He'll still try, I'm sure, but he's just setting himself up for failure, as usual.

I don't expect for the vaccine to be approved until the end of this year-after the election-and as the CDC Director made clear in his congressional testimony yesterday, it will not become widely available to the general public until the second half of next year. So that almost certainly closes another last route of hope for Trump.

[Calthrina950]

Ugh... Is it over yet? Is it November? Can we just fast-forward to 2022 and talk about the Democrats defending the Senate and House.

That's assuming Greenfield wins Iowa, which is a pretty big if at this point

She's polling very decently

RCP has her +0.3, and 270 has her +0.5. That's a neck-in-neck race. Although I do agree with Roll that we need a poll from this month at least.

Ugh... Is it over yet? Is it November? Can we just fast-forward to 2022 and talk about the Democrats defending the Senate and House.

That's assuming Greenfield wins Iowa, which is a pretty big if at this point

She's polling very decently

Let's see how it looks right now. Another Iowa poll is long overdue.

Do Democrats necessarily need Iowa to win the Senate? Bullock's chances in Montana are probably just as good as Greenfield's, to say nothing of potential upsets in Alaska, Kansas, and South Carolina, or the two Georgia Senate races.

Bullock is faring worse than Greenfield; he's down on Daines by anywhere from 2 to 6 points, depending on the pollster. In Kansas Marshall is the favorite, as is Sullivan in his state. Georgia's special is almost guaranteed Republican; only the race between Perdue and Ossoff shows real competition (RCP has Perdue ahead by a point, but they haven't updated their average since July)

I'd certainly agree that Marshall and Sullivan are the favorites in their races, but Bollier and Gross cannot be counted out completely. As for Georgia, I do expect the special to head to a runoff between Collins and Loeffler, as Warnock has proven to be a weak candidate and Lieberman has clearly hurt the Democratic position in that race. As for Montana, it's true that Daines has been leading in recent polls, but it would be foolish to write off Bullock at this juncture.

[DaleCooper]

My growing suspicion is that Trump is being told very directly that he has no chance of a legitimate vaccine-related October Surprise, perhaps not even much of a chance for any "good news" that's exciting enough to announce. He'll still try, I'm sure, but he's just setting himself up for failure, as usual.

I don't expect for the vaccine to be approved until the end of this year-after the election-and as the CDC Director made clear in his congressional testimony yesterday, it will not become widely available to the general public until the second half of next year. So that almost certainly closes another last route of hope for Trump.

Yeah, more and more information seems to indicate that any of these vaccines' longterm effectiveness is unknown. I'm hoping that there'll be better news on that front, but I'm not convinced.

[Calthrina950]

My growing suspicion is that Trump is being told very directly that he has no chance of a legitimate vaccine-related October Surprise, perhaps not even much of a chance for any "good news" that's exciting enough to announce. He'll still try, I'm sure, but he's just setting himself up for failure, as usual.

I don't expect for the vaccine to be approved until the end of this year-after the election-and as the CDC Director made clear in his congressional testimony yesterday, it will not become widely available to the general public until the second half of next year. So that almost certainly closes another last route of hope for Trump.

Yeah, more and more information seems to indicate that any of these vaccines' longterm effectiveness is unknown. I'm hoping that there'll be better news on that front, but I'm not convinced.

And there's still the possibility that no effective vaccine is developed, although medical officials and experts consider that to be unlikely at this point, and are confident that we will have a vaccine. It's a matter of time, more so, and we could be waiting for several more months. This is a problem which is probably going to consume much of the first half of Biden's term in office, assuming that he wins in November.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

[AGA]

Ugh... Is it over yet? Is it November? Can we just fast-forward to 2022 and talk about the Democrats defending the Senate and House.

That's assuming Greenfield wins Iowa, which is a pretty big if at this point

VP+AZ+CO+ME+NC-AL. Democrats don't need Iowa.