[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;563639]Not the only means, however.[/QUOTE]One is the time-honoured approach of finding a loaded revolver on one's pillow at bed time.

I think it is exceedingly unlikely that Trump would take the hint and act upon it.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;563673]Someone we thought we really knew well informed us that they voted for Trump. We asked them why, since we figured nobody we associated with could vote for someone who is that morally corrupt.

They told us that they were worried that Biden would eliminate (?) the police. Apparently they are convinced that all of the BLM protests were really just excuses for violent riots. They said they are angry that a bunch of people game the welfare system and refuse to work. They also mentioned that they figured their stock portfolio would do better with Trump.
[/QUOTE]

That kind of revelation always stings a little. A lot of voters only get their information from one source. If that source has a partisan bias, and some local peer pressure supports that bias, it's natural those voters choose the party line. When one steps back and looks at the entire US electorate, it's scary to consider how many voters fit that categorization.

Since 2016, I've made an effort to find and understand what I would call "the rational Trump supporters." Some classes of voters I wouldn't necessarily call rational, but I can understand their decisions. These are single-issue voters: 2nd amendment, abortion, immigration. There are also anti-partisans: Trump may be morally reprehensible and unfit for the office, but these voters just can't support a politician with team Democratic leanings. Finally, there are interesting cases - rational people genuinely torn between Trump and his opponents. They might despise Trump's personality, but their livelihoods benefit directly from his policies (e.g. tariffs, taxes, regulations).

There's a livestock farmer I follow on twitter. He voted for Biden, against his own financial interests, but for what he considered the greater good of the country. However, he's now worrying about Biden's appointments to agriculture-related committees; all of these appointments are vegan types committed to ending livestock farming. On the economic committees, Biden is appointing people that are anti-tariffs. For this particular farmer, cheaper beef from Brazil will destabilize his farm financially. At a certain point, we can't expect voters to frequently vote against their own interests.

Considering the amount of ticket-splitting and the margins in the key states, it certainly appears to be the case that Trump lost because enough voters found him beyond the pale, even if they were naturally inclined to support his policies. That finding should humble progressives, but it probably won't.

Oh the huge manatee!

[QUOTE=masser;563687]Trump lost because enough voters found him beyond the pale, even if they were naturally inclined to support his policies. That finding should humble progressives, but it probably won't.[/QUOTE]

I just read an editorial where the author could not understand how half the country voted for a racist and are therefore themselves racist. He should flip the question and ask "how can half the country find our politicians and/or policies so unpalatable that they preferred a racist to our candidate?"

While some support is from racists, I believe a lot more of Trump's support comes from a deep disgust with politicians from both parties that have gutted the middle class.

[QUOTE=masser;563687]Considering the amount of ticket-splitting and the margins in the key states, it certainly appears to be the case that Trump lost because enough voters found him beyond the pale, even if they were naturally inclined to support his policies. That finding should humble progressives, but it probably won't.[/QUOTE]

I disagree with this last statement. Some progressive policies are very popular. Florida just raised their minimum wage to $15 and hour. It will be done gradually over the next 6 years, but it will be done. 61% voted to support this measure even though Trump won the state. Florida also voted years ago to allow felons to vote after they have served their time. Granted the Republicans that control the state added the poll tax for those felons (I don't see how it can be viewed any other way) to keep as many of them disenfranchised as they could. The point is that both of these positions are very progressive and highly popular. Raising of the minimum wage has wide popularity in many states, even those that are conservative, but the Republicans continue to stand in the way of changing it. McConnell prevented the federal minimum wage from being raised arguing that it is a "job killer", [URL="https://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org/news/00135/research-shows-minimum-wage-increases-do-not-cause-job-loss"]but one study has shown that to not be true[/URL].

So the question to progressives should be if their policy positions are popular, why don't we see more of them in positions of power? You made a statement about "single issue" voters. Apparently progressives do not appeal to them on these issues.

I consider gun control to be moot. There are protections in the second amendment. Gun rights advocates seem to think that the president can use an executive action to "take all of their guns away". The president has no such power and any executive action would result in a fight in the court system fairly quickly.

I consider abortion to be moot (for now). Unless two conservative justices die before an abortion case gets to SCOTUS, Biden cannot do much to change the final outcome of any abortion case that will get there. I am not convinced that SCOTUS will outlaw abortion even with the conservative majority.

I understand that conservatives see immigration as an issue. The Democrats have difficulty countering their fear mongering. They need to focus on the positives of legal immigration basically saying that companies will move jobs overseas if they cannot find the talent here and that is a net negative for our economy. As for illegal immigration DACA is very progressive yet is highly supported by all citizens, not just Democrats.

In short people voting on one of these "single issues" really seem to have their focus on the wrong things. I do not know how to convince them of that.

One big "single issue" you missed is religious freedom. That is much more complicated than that others, but I would ask people voting on this issue about what they are specifically afraid of. Just like gun rights, the president cannot take away religious freedoms easily.

A subset of religious freedom is gay marriage and discrimination against homosexuals. Based upon two studies I looked at somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of Americans support gay marriage. Like the other issues, this is a very progressive position. There seems to be a disconnect between the issue of gay marriage and the issue of discrimination as it seems that many religious folks want to continue to discriminate based upon sexuality even though they support gay marriage.

Watch 2:45 to 3:10

[YOUTUBE]NzDhm808oU4[/YOUTUBE]

[url=https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-michigan-elections-detroit-6ab95edd3373ecc9607381175d6f3328]GOP canvassers again oppose certifying Detroit-area votes[/url][quote]DETROIT (AP) — Two Michigan Republicans who initially blocked certification of election results for the county that includes Detroit despite no evidence of fraud before approving them now say they want to rescind their certification.
<snip>
The county canvassers later voted again and certified the results, 4-0. Then, on Wednesday, Palmer and Hartmann signed affidavits saying they believe the county vote "should not be certified." They said in their statement Wednesday that they've reported threats against them to law enforcement.
<snip>[/quote]I reckon they [i]have[/i] been getting threats -- [i]because they voted to certify the election results[/i]. And that they are now saying they want to take back their vote as a direct result of those threats.

I don't think they [i]can[/i] rescind their votes, but hey -- at least they can say they tried, and that might be enough to placate the howling mob.

[QUOTE=masser]...Trump lost because enough voters found him beyond the pale, even if they were naturally inclined to support his policies...[/QUOTE]

How about his apparent lax attitude towards COVID-19? It is out of control, and has been for quite a while. People tend to care much more about what happens in their own homes and communities rather than something much more distant. Simply put, the populous felt he was not doing the job so they fired him by not voting for him. They felt another might do better.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;563757][url=https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-michigan-elections-detroit-6ab95edd3373ecc9607381175d6f3328]GOP canvassers again oppose certifying Detroit-area votes[/url]I reckon they [i]have[/i] been getting threats -- [i]because they voted to certify the election results[/i]. And that they are now saying they want to take back their vote as a direct result of those threats.

I don't think they [i]can[/i] rescind their votes, but hey -- at least they can say they tried, and that might be enough to placate the howling mob.[/QUOTE]

One of them received a [URL="https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2020/11/19/trump-monica-palmer-wayne-canvassers-certification-election/3776190001/"]personal call from Trump[/URL].

[QUOTE=rogue;563776]One of them received a [URL="https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2020/11/19/trump-monica-palmer-wayne-canvassers-certification-election/3776190001/"]personal call from Trump[/URL].[/QUOTE]
Oh, no, getting a call from the president didn't put any pressure on her at all. No, not at all.

Not only that, WAPO [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/19/wayne-county-rescind-certifying-election/]reports that[/url][quote]Also on Thursday, Trump’s efforts seemed to have gained some traction, with the news that Michigan’s GOP leaders appear willing to meet with him.

The Detroit News [url=https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/19/shirkey-chatfield-set-visit-white-house-amid-election-fight/3777657001/]reported[/url] that the state GOP legislative leaders who plan to visit the White House on Friday are Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey and House Speaker Lee Chatfield.[/quote]That they have even apparently agreed to meet with him is Very Bad News indeed.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;563706]Watch 2:45 to 3:10
<snip>[/quote]
Wow. I think my favorites were the ones who said during the impeachment proceedings to "read the transcripts and make up your own mind" -- but, of course, had not themselves read the transcripts.

I also liked the one who thought Obama was President during the 9/11 attacks.

Yup. Brainwashed.