Let's pretend for one moment that he does die before the election, just for the funsies. What happens then? Will the nomination revert to option number 2, aka Bernie Sanders? Or will his running mate automatically replace him just the way Vice-President is supposted to step in after the Big Man in the White House chokes on a piece of matzo? Does he even have a running mate yet?
US Joe Biden News Megathread - The Other Biden Derangement Syndrome Thread (with a side order of Fauci Derangement Syndrome)
- Thread starter Borscht
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
There's also value in not tagging people and seeing if they respond to comments anyways, then you know they're lurking and obsessively hunting for people talking about them. That is a thing an insecure mental manlet would do. But I'm a big fan of Game Theory when it comes to internet interactions and treating people in kind. Especially if they have a pass for some of their behaviors.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2019
Eh don't worry, he won't post much as he is understandably scared of me being here since he has basically lost every exchange we've had via embarrassing himself.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2015
i dunno man, i tried summoning @FuckYou several times but he ain't replying
i got a couch and everything for him
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
Well, I think that Joe Biden is a real bad President.
edit: Like, super bad at it.
edit edit: And also the things he does well are the bad things.
edit: Like, super bad at it.
edit edit: And also the things he does well are the bad things.
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2020
They really do see him as a threat. I'm not surprised Obama hates blacks who don't worship him like Jesus.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2019
edit edit edit: No mean tweets though!
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2019
It's a russian roulette. Every time you @ them,there's a 50/50 chance you'll summon them into the thread.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2019
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2019
The other 50% is the chance that they die.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2019
Everyone loved him in NYC (many still do) but after Hillary went down the toilet the media hated him.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
Rumor has it that vaccine mandates are coming tomorrow.
If anything, DeSantis will immediately respond and say "go fuck yourself" to Biden by codifying a ban or exemptions in law.
Should be an interesting day tomorrow.
If anything, DeSantis will immediately respond and say "go fuck yourself" to Biden by codifying a ban or exemptions in law.
Should be an interesting day tomorrow.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2018
Bolo
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2019
This should be good, but does Biden has the moxie for this?
I could see them pulling this off back when the aproval rate was high and the man was supposed to be the next FDR, which is funny thinking back, but now every dem even near to that center line doesn't even want to be in the same room as the man fearing they will lose their seats, so where is he going to get the support to push such a divisive policy.
This can be quite a gamble.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
"Will there be more mitigations?"
"It depends if you are vaccinated or not."
It's totally happening tomorrow.
Another ploy to prop up COVID approval ratings to save his overall approval from imitating a turd getting flushed down. Screams desperation. It also begs the question whether Biden is nearing the low to mid 30's since being "the competent decent savior from Coof and Trump" narrative is deader than his grey matter.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2021
If the government forces me to get a vaccine I will forcibly shit myself like a coked out tard as they are injecting me out of pure spite. This is an actionable threat, DEMONrats.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2019
Americans' Approval Of Biden Plunges Below 40 Percent In New Poll
Approximately 50 percent of the 1,500 Americans surveyed disapprove of Biden's White House track record while only 39 percent approve.
thefederalist.com
This is a D slanted Push Poll from a sympathetic outlet. Read: Internal polling must be closer to low 30s if not upper to mid 20s.
And this guy thinks he's gonna step forward and try and declare a mandate to force everyone to get the jab? Less than a week after his pet Doctor was outed as having lied and Fauci + Obama having direct ties to the creation of COVID19?
Bold move, cotton, lets see if it works out for him.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2019
No breaks on the Joepedo lads! May he strike true on his own goal!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Become a grand wizard of your financial future with Kiwi Krypto Koins!
derpherp2
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2020
@HTTP Error 404 don't forget pushing for vaccine mandates while simultaneously trying to dick down Texas abortion laws.
My body my choice, unless we say something is important enough in which case fuck you. Also the lives of babies don't matter, in fact the lives of American Citzens in general don't matter, fuck you x2.
This will totally work though guys, my report that I made myself out of pretty crayons that took three weeks where absolutely nothing involving his ratings tanking to single digits says that his approval rating is only 2% less than Trump's in that study we made where he kept saying the no-no word and raped puppies, I mean he didn't actually do it, but we reported he did. Soooooo.
My body my choice, unless we say something is important enough in which case fuck you. Also the lives of babies don't matter, in fact the lives of American Citzens in general don't matter, fuck you x2.
This will totally work though guys, my report that I made myself out of pretty crayons that took three weeks where absolutely nothing involving his ratings tanking to single digits says that his approval rating is only 2% less than Trump's in that study we made where he kept saying the no-no word and raped puppies, I mean he didn't actually do it, but we reported he did. Soooooo.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
@HTTP Error 404 Here's the thing I don't think many posters here have realized, but which has actually been known for quite some time. Push polling backfires, hard.
Specifically, it backfires if the person being pushed is unable to pull up at some point.
Example:
Politician A, Politician B, and Politician C all get to enjoy the dubious benefits of Push Polling, both have a true approval of around 50%.
Politician A relies entirely on the push polling, doing little to nothing to improve the general attitude of the public and assuming that the narrative of his success will make people like him more. Politician B attempts and fails to pass some key liked bills that while not terribly effectual are rather public. Politician C manages to pass some key legislation which, again, is not terribly effectual but he has managed to do something.
So, what would the results be for each?
In reverse order, Politician C would have the push-polling become reality, the combination of the successful bill passing and a constructed narrative would allow someone on the edge of approval, or even slightly below it, to be considerably more well-liked.
Where things get interesting is B and A. So, if a successful bill passing results in a bump, surely a failed one is a net neutral, right? Nope. The failure to pass bills gets remembered in the general consensus, and the result is an alienation of the vote. People just view the alleged 'supporters' of Politician B as idiots. It creates a net drop in approval, usually about equal to that politician's share of the Independent vote. Still, the push-polling does something and maintains support among the politician's base generally. This is where Biden was kinda treading water at Pre-Afghanistan.
But what about the third, the one most analogous to the Biden Admin? This is where the fun is. The third option has less historical analogy since basically everyone in politics agrees it's a bad idea. That is not to say we don't have any analogy. What occurs is a self-reinforcing death spiral. The lack of any substantive policy or addition of major crises without substantive policy results in an alienation of the Politicians base. A sort of cognitive dissonance which makes them turned off by the politician, which results in them disliking the politician, which results in a lower approval, which causes the push poll number to drop, which -reinforces the cognitive dissonance-.
Basically, approval drops because approval drops. And you can probably see why that becomes a problem.
This is why Push-polling is generally avoided outside of a specific push for a specific policy or to get a candidate in office. For the latter, standard, if unethical, practice is to slowly reduce the push-polling over a span of 3 months as they do the Politician C route to ensure that their real approval remains where the polling shows.
Specifically, it backfires if the person being pushed is unable to pull up at some point.
Example:
Politician A, Politician B, and Politician C all get to enjoy the dubious benefits of Push Polling, both have a true approval of around 50%.
Politician A relies entirely on the push polling, doing little to nothing to improve the general attitude of the public and assuming that the narrative of his success will make people like him more. Politician B attempts and fails to pass some key liked bills that while not terribly effectual are rather public. Politician C manages to pass some key legislation which, again, is not terribly effectual but he has managed to do something.
So, what would the results be for each?
In reverse order, Politician C would have the push-polling become reality, the combination of the successful bill passing and a constructed narrative would allow someone on the edge of approval, or even slightly below it, to be considerably more well-liked.
Where things get interesting is B and A. So, if a successful bill passing results in a bump, surely a failed one is a net neutral, right? Nope. The failure to pass bills gets remembered in the general consensus, and the result is an alienation of the vote. People just view the alleged 'supporters' of Politician B as idiots. It creates a net drop in approval, usually about equal to that politician's share of the Independent vote. Still, the push-polling does something and maintains support among the politician's base generally. This is where Biden was kinda treading water at Pre-Afghanistan.
But what about the third, the one most analogous to the Biden Admin? This is where the fun is. The third option has less historical analogy since basically everyone in politics agrees it's a bad idea. That is not to say we don't have any analogy. What occurs is a self-reinforcing death spiral. The lack of any substantive policy or addition of major crises without substantive policy results in an alienation of the Politicians base. A sort of cognitive dissonance which makes them turned off by the politician, which results in them disliking the politician, which results in a lower approval, which causes the push poll number to drop, which -reinforces the cognitive dissonance-.
Basically, approval drops because approval drops. And you can probably see why that becomes a problem.
This is why Push-polling is generally avoided outside of a specific push for a specific policy or to get a candidate in office. For the latter, standard, if unethical, practice is to slowly reduce the push-polling over a span of 3 months as they do the Politician C route to ensure that their real approval remains where the polling shows.
- Status