Undecided voters

slant

slant

Capitalist pig
Donor
MBTI
None
How many people do we think out there are currently undecided voters and what is their reasoning?

I did find this article from Pew Research Center published about August 2024 that claims about 10 to 12 percent of voters are undecided. I am amongst them.

Online (given, we know online brings out the worst of people) the way I see undecided voters represented as being 'stupid', on certain sides they will claim ' a closet trump supporter', etc.

I don't understand how anyone could be a firmly decided voter in this election. I feel like we have not had any particularly good speaker/charismatic President's since Obama. I am not necessarily entirely left leaning, another President who I thought was pretty charismatic was Reagan (watching his debates/speeches, etc.) as well as obvious John F. Kennedy. But it seems like these really outstandingly good Presidents who can connect people and bridge the gap are exceedingly rare.

No offense to Trump or Harris, but neither of them are particularly good at speaking. It just feels all very...lackluster.

But personality of the President is the least important thing, of course. Actual policy is the most important. But Harris has come in so late to the game, it seems hard to get a good read on her. Her major policy she is advocating is this first time buyer housing credit which, I watched a really good video breaking down hers vs Trumps policy on the housing crisis but I think that is a different thread. Other than that her plans seem pretty vague.

Trump, I don't like his anti-interventionist policies. National Defense and security is a priority for me and I think probably Harris is going to go a more traditional, stable route. But then, Harris might institute some increases on Corporate taxes which I think will hurt our economy and I don't agree with.

I don't think my preferences are contradictory, it seems likes when one party likes some ideas they are opposite in the other ideas and it makes it pretty impossible to vote for anyone who is going to do anything you want. Like one policy 'cancels out' the good of the other policy.

So I am wondering how it is that everyone hates undecided voters so much and looks down on them when arguably politics are super complicated and it's difficult to really vote for someone who will do what's in the best interest?
 
I don’t care if someone is undecided. That’s their business, not mine.

People who want you to take a side can fuck right off. Some protesters got in my grill and pushed me today, and I lost my balance and fell. The entire group of four were arrested, as they were on private property.

Cheers,
Ian
 
@slant

Your comment was not in this vein, and is not directed at you.

I hear reports on undecided voters on the radio, and they get interviewed, and they often say they are deeply into politics, but don’t know much about Kamala Harris.

I always think to myself “Wait, you are telling me you are deeply into politics, but know little about the person who has been one heartbeat away from the presidency for years?”

Makes Me Wonder,
Ian
 
For this election, I see undecided voters as people who live with such privilege that they would be unaffected by anything that happens in politics or blissfully unaware of how politics affect their lives.
 
my list of five most important issues is something like: Global warming/energy transition, reproduction freedom, ending state violence against Blacks and minorities, voting rights, equal protection under the law.
Economic policy is complex. I am basically a new dealer who sees fiat currency under the control of a state that has to answer to voters as the most sound way to go. When business conglomerations start thwarting the collective will they need to be broken up.
 
Asa said:
For this election, I see undecided voters as people who live with such privilege that they would be unaffected by anything that happens in politics or blissfully unaware of how politics affect their lives.
Click to expand...
So for you it sounds like strong political views that if your candidate doesn't win there will be consequences, so an undecided voter represents someone who doesn't understand that

Edit: I did want to add just to be sure that I don't sound dismissive, you could be right. I'm not saying either way. And I was thinking about it and unfortunately with these types of things to can't really prove it until whatever consequence you foresaw comes into effect and it's too late for others who didn't also see it. But it can be difficult to take that leap of faith because so often predictions are wrong. Everyone has some prediction based off their values and it seams like every election is painted as a meaningful historic one. I don't remember an election where people I knew who had strong political views was like " it's fine if either side wins"
 
Last edited:
SlowUpTake said:
my list of five most important issues is something like: Global warming/energy transition, reproduction freedom, ending state violence against Blacks and minorities, voting rights, equal protection under the law.
Economic policy is complex. I am basically a new dealer who sees fiat currency under the control of a state that has to answer to voters as the most sound way to go. When business conglomerations start thwarting the collective will they need to be broken up.
Click to expand...
It sounds like many of your top issues are in alignment so that might make it easier to find a candidate that represents you satisfactorily
 
I occasionally wonder how strong perceivers (P) make irrevocable decisions.

By irrevocable, I mean in the sense that once a ballot is in the box, it can't be revised later.
 
Matty said:
I occasionally wonder how strong perceivers (P) make irrevocable decisions.

By irrevocable, I mean in the sense that once a ballot is in the box, it can't be revised later.
Click to expand...
We never do. We don’t make decisions because we seek to leave things open-ended.

😂
Ian
 
@slant I appreciate the depth of your consideration in forming an understanding.
Currently I am not registered to vote and after looking at everything since 2020. It feels like the US is in the process to being changed and regardless of who is president Israel will continue to thumb drive the US. This all feels like a skit but the consequences are real. To me neither of them are trustworthy so my choice is to sit this one out and focus on being self sufficient in the immediate vicinity. It feels like either WW3 with her or the economy collapse and pandemic part deux with him. Both of those options are unacceptable. It's all just bizarre and I have basically lost trust in the system as a whole because of all the corruption. Limiting exposure to it all has been good though.
 
@slant ~ Part of the issue you may be skating around is that in a democracy, we risk giving up what we want for the process. The choices cannot veer too far apart, or voters will not be willing to cooperate in that process or take that risk. The two-party system exacerbates this. When one party shifts, the other party follows to keep the gap within the acceptable realm of what voters will be willing to accept. In the US, currently, the right keeps going more right, and the liberals move right, too. (There is no leftist party in the US. Both parties are conservative compared to countries that have many parties. Sadly, the US isn't into partying. 🥳 )

But, Project 2025 is something that people should feel strongly about, one way or another.
 
Asa said:
In the US, currently, the right keeps going more right, and the liberals move right, too. (There is no leftist party in the US. Both parties are conservative compared to countries that have many parties. Sadly, the US isn't into partying. 🥳 )
Click to expand...

Liberals are perhaps shifting right economically, because frankly, the leftist economics policies don't work. Socially, it seems to me they're shifting more left if anything.

The leftist types from the US like to idealize Europe for it's (almost) free education and healthcare. While I agree that the cost of those things in the US seem to be overly high, Europe is a complete disaster when it comes to growth and innovation. Can you name a single successful company from Europe from last 25-30 years? When you look at French stock market valuations, I think 80% of value is in fashion/luxury brands from the 20th century.

But OK, I am not really that obsessed with innovation and growth. I absolutely support people working less hours, enjoying good work-life balance, tending to their gardens and going on long walks in nature. I simply don't think most Europeans live like this anymore. In fact, in most countries they're raising retirement age because fiat states are bankrupt.

I think Americans don't understand how comparatively poor most Europeans are.
 
Last edited:
philostam said:
Liberals are perhaps shifting right economically, because frankly, the leftist economics policies don't work. Socially, it seems to me they're shifting more left if anything.

The leftist types from the US like to idealize Europe for it's (almost) free education and healthcare. While I agree that the cost of those things in the US seem to be overly high, Europe is a complete disaster when it comes to growth and innovation. Can you name a single successful company from Europe from last 25-30 years? When you look at French stock market valuations, I think 80% of value is in fashion/luxury brands from the 20th century.

But OK, I am not really that obsessed with innovation and growth. I absolutely support people working less hours, enjoying good work-life balance, tending to their gardens and going on long walks in nature. I simply don't think most Europeans live like this anymore. In fact, in most countries they're raising retirement age because fiat states are bankrupt.

I think Americans don't understand how comparatively poor most Europeans are.
Click to expand...

Democrats (who are not left) are not shifting left. They do the bare minimum that the voters demand to keep the vote.

It depends on what you mean by wealth and success. Europeans from many countries enjoy a higher standard of living than people in the US, and our quality of life is currently plummeting.
 
Maybe. Part of it is also that post WW2 USA was literally the only industrial powerhouse of the world. Most of Europe was destroyed or under communism, likewise Japan. China, India, Koreas were dirt poor.

So part of USA decline is simply the rest of the world (particularly Asia) catching up and taking bigger share of the pie.
The post ww2 decades were really Goldilocks times for US and England.

I don't believe there is a simple policy change that can reverse that, especially when we're living in the information age.
 
A guy I follow on Twitter made a post saying that even if the US taxed all of their billionaires 100% on total net worth, it would be only enough to cover like 6-7 months of US deficits. I haven't done the numbers myself but it intuitively checks out. People don't understand in what terrible fiscal situation we are throughout the world. And almost almost no one is talking about it. In fact, leftist policies such as Keynesianism and in more extreme form modern monetary theory claim that deficits don't matter at all.

All I can say I will personally not be positioned that way. I will fade the state-media advice. Just like people who faded the state advice in 1920 Wiemar Republic profited (by exchanging marks into Swiss franks, gold or any kind of real assets), while those who listened to it and stayed loyal and patriotic to the currency lost everything.

For more details I recommend a great book When Money Dies by Adam Fergusson exactly on the topic of how German people were led into oblivion by politicians and state media. Don't be a sucker at the card table is my advice. Do your research and position accordingly.
 

U.S. combined value of billionaire wealth 2020-2022​

Published by Statista Research Department, Jul 5, 2024
As of November 2022, a combined value of 4.48 trillion U.S. dollars was held by billionaires living in the United States. While U.S. billionaire wealth has seen a drop over the last year, it is still more than 1.5 times the amount it was at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1291685/us-combined-value-billionaire-wealth/

1.9/8=.237 4.48/.237=20.21 but hey, what does the actual facts matter as long as you can make your point?
 
SlowUpTake said:

U.S. combined value of billionaire wealth 2020-2022​

Published by Statista Research Department, Jul 5, 2024
As of November 2022, a combined value of 4.48 trillion U.S. dollars was held by billionaires living in the United States. While U.S. billionaire wealth has seen a drop over the last year, it is still more than 1.5 times the amount it was at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1291685/us-combined-value-billionaire-wealth/

1.9/8=.237 4.48/.237=20.21 but hey, what does the actual facts matter as long as you can make your point?
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm missing something but I can't seem to figure out what assets these stats are factoring in. Because individual wealth vs like corporate wealth is different.


This is more directed towards @philostam am I think

Like for example I would not count the stocks a CEO has in a company if they hold 5% or more of the stock, they're now a block holder and cannot sell their stocks without causing a stock overhang, so this money isn't counted as 'liquid' wealth anymore. People see a CEO's networth and imagine that's all money just sitting in a bank account when in reality if it is stored in stocks it is absolutely inaccessible, you are forced to retain the stocks to keep the business afloat so I wouldn't even count that as wealth, or at least distinguish liquid wealth vs illquid assets, and former would not be able to be taxed in the same way. Which is why the unrealized gains tax that Harris proposes is so dangerous to the economy, because it would in fact classify these types of stocks as taxable assets and then, in order to pay the taxes, these individuals would likely need to sell off the stocks and this would collapse the stocks of ones which they are the major holders of. It's also pretty illegal, you have to gradually sell stocks off their are regulations regarding that, so the whole thing is a mess.

Second, a lot of this is wanting corporations to pay their fair share not just individual billionaires. There are going to be accounts a corporation holds called retained earnings, basically money which was profit after paying everyone. So as of the 4th quarter of this year according to Federal Reserve Bank Data there is about 4.34 trillion being held in retained earnings by corporations. So you're going to need to combine both of these things.

If a 94% tax were applied to just the top 1% of individual income earners, based on their estimated $46 trillion in net worth, this could generate hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars in additional tax revenue annually, depending on the income derived from that wealth.

For corporations, a return to high corporate tax rates (40-50%) could yield hundreds of billions more from retained earnings and profits. For example, in 2021, corporate profits totaled about $2.8 trillion, and taxing these at 40-50% could raise upwards of $1 trillion in revenue.

So that's really 2 to 3 trillion extra dollars, assuming that world war 2 tax-era standards were re-imposed. How this would actually impact businesses, IDK, but I think the calculation you did was a bit off.

@phil
 
Math is hard.
Money isn't real.
 
The giant gorilla in the room is the Fed. We have no idea what is going on in that void of a system because there is no check and balance. All this talk of tax and we are leaving out the largest invisible tax of all, inflation, that was literally put in place by our government while fully understanding what they were doing.

1. Get rid of anything that backs the money like gold or silver.
2. Print all the money you want to spend on whatever you want to spend it on. This will increase the number of dollars and reduce the value of each dollar (through inflation).
3. The people then have to pay back the government debt for their fiscal irresponsibility AND they have to come up with the cash (for taxation) from dollars that are now worth less than before [the government was printing].

This makes the inflation a tax because it is stealing money from the people through inflation (reduction in the value of money) which was created through loans the government took. That makes this scenario a triple taxation: a) The interest owed to the Fed. b) The inflation which steals from the people. c) The taxes that must be collected to pay back principle to the Fed.

Still we don't know who technically owns the Fed and there is no auditing allowed - at least not anything that the public is allowed to see.

So, I'm not in favor of supporting any candidate that wants to continue with low transparency and continued "taxation without representation." This has all become a house of cards and the people are just standing on the top card looking out over the horizon with their genital's in one hand and a giant bong in the other.

Is it better to die fat, dumb, and happy OR just a quick lights out, because that is what it feels like when I'm choosing a candidate this election term. But isn't China being a good sport about it all by sending in the Fentanyl Ferry from the southern border while whispering, "go to sleep," even after Biden directly asked them to stop. I don't think THEY are listening to the Biden administration and that means my ass is being pimped out in some way, shape or form.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top