And who would have thought, but running on a platform that it is no big deal if old people die seems to be having an adverse effect on the Donald's support among seniors:
"Another key to Trump’s success was his strong support among older voters, who tend to turn out in large numbers, despite being a relatively small part of the electorate.
Among voters aged forty-four and under, Hillary Clinton bested Trump by fourteen percentage points, according to exit polls. But Trump carried voters between the ages of fifty and sixty-four by eight percentage points, and voters aged sixty-five or older by seven points. State by state, the numbers varied. He led Clinton among voters aged sixty-five and over by four points in Michigan, by ten points in Pennsylvania, and by one point in Wisconsin. Given the thin margins of victory that Trump enjoyed in these states, support from seniors was essential to the majority he achieved in the Electoral College.
This year, retaining the support of seniors is obviously central to Trump’s reëlection chances. But a number of polls released this week show that he has slipped badly in this key demographic. According to a survey from the New York Times and Siena College, he is now running two points behind Joe Biden at the national level among voters aged sixty-five and over. In Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, he is trailing Biden by double digits.
If you compare the Trump-Biden matchups from the new Times surveys to the Trump-Clinton matchup in the network-sponsored exit polls from 2016, the contrast couldn’t be starker. In Michigan, Trump is now trailing Biden by twelve percentage points among senior voters, a swing of sixteen points relative to 2016; in Pennsylvania, he is behind by eighteen points, a swing of twenty-eight points; and in Wisconsin, he is down by twenty-one points, a swing of twenty-two points. Even allowing for some possible polling errors, these are big differences.
And other surveys of the battleground states show a similar shift. A recent poll from Fox News shows Trump trailing Biden by one point in Florida among voters aged sixty-five and over. In 2016, Trump carried seniors in the Sunshine State by seventeen points. In North Carolina in 2016, Trump carried the senior vote by twenty-three points. The Fox News poll shows him leading Biden by just four points there."
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/donald-trumps-big-problem-with-senior-voters
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
@no1marauder said"How pathetic. It was YOU who limited the discussion to those in the 25-34 year old category"
How pathetic. It was YOU who limited the discussion to those in the 25-34 year old category, but I have shown even in that group the death toll in April and May was among the leading causes of death for those in it. Of course, in the far larger group of those under 65, the death toll is far higher, putting the lie to your stupid claim that only the elderly were "susceptib ...[text shortened]... y.
And screeching name calling isn't going to rehabilitate the lack of character you are showing.
You bet I did...It was in direct response to YOU trying to corroborate the "25% deaths under 65 figure" YOU presented with anecdotal evidence of a 29 year old's death. Integrity...HA!
😉
@joe-shmo said(Shrug) I wasn't relying on the one case obviously; just found it to be interesting that it happened in my town (which does have a population of 83,000 though).
"How pathetic. It was YOU who limited the discussion to those in the 25-34 year old category"
You bet I did...It was in direct response to YOU trying to corroborate the "25% deaths under 65 figure" YOU presented with anecdotal evidence of a 29 year old's death. Integrity...HA!
😉
Your response has been childish and illogical and your claim that only the elderly are "susceptible" to COVID19 completely refuted. Of course, even if that were true, it would be immoral to justify nonaction to prevent avoidable deaths in any age group when measures to do so are easily put in place (as they now have been in most countries).
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
@no1marauder saidA lawyer lecturing on morals! What next, a plague of locusts?
(Shrug) I wasn't relying on the one case obviously; just found it to be interesting that it happened in my town (which does have a population of 83,000 though).
Your response has been childish and illogical and your claim that only the elderly are "susceptible" to COVID19 completely refuted. Of course, even if that were true, it would be immoral to justify nonaction to ...[text shortened]... age group when measures to do so are easily put in place (as they now have been in most countries).
The relevant quote:
"The US averages 8000 Deaths per Day pre COVID. The population that is susceptible to death is small and decreasing ( maybe 50 million older than 65) and most of the COVID deaths overlap with the 8k figure. If you count that group as complete fatalities that would have only happened this year due to COVID it’s a 2.5% increase in deaths. The reality is it is substantially less."
Where explicitly is the word "only" with regards to susceptible that you keep implying I said?
I stated "the population that is susceptible ", as in:
sus·cep·ti·ble
adjective
likely or liable to be influenced or harmed by a particular thing.
Age 25-34 - 0.68% of COVID deaths is not likely to die from COVID in any sensible usage of the term likely. However, 80% COVID deaths > 65 is exactly the type of sensible interpretation of the term likely i'm referring to.
@joe-shmo saidGoalpost moving. Your post wasn't referring merely to the 25-34 year olds but to all non-elderly.
A lawyer lecturing on morals! What next, a plague of locusts?
The relevant quote:
"The US averages 8000 Deaths per Day pre COVID. The population that is susceptible to death is small and decreasing ( maybe 50 million older than 65) and most of the COVID deaths overlap with the 8k figure. If you count that group as complete fatalities that would have only happen ...[text shortened]... COVID deaths is not likely to die from COVID in any sensible usage of the term likely.
To your edit: there have already been more deaths in a few months among the non-elderly from COVID then there are in entire years from flu and pneumonia. Yes, the non-elderly are "susceptible" to death from COVID and you either should admit it or buy a dictionary.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
@no1marauder saidFALSE: See my edit. You projected that interpretation on to my statement. Its obvious that I know ( and practically everyone should by now) deaths occur throughout ALL age categories. Your just trying dearly to pretend that 80% isn't THE significant statistic.
Goalpost moving. Your post wasn't referring merely to the 25-34 year olds but to all non-elderly.
@joe-shmo saidYour edit is a BS attempt to change what you actually wrote.
FALSE: See my edit. You projected that interpretation on to my statement. Its obvious that I know deaths occur throughout ALL age categories!
Whatever you "know", you have been on a mission to pedal misinformation attempting to minimize the dangers of this pandemic. The success of such attempts is literally going to get people killed.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
@no1marauder saidShow me the "misinformation" I'm pedaling in this thread.
Your edit is a BS attempt to change what you actually wrote.
Whatever you "know", you have been on a mission to pedal misinformation attempting to minimize the dangers of this pandemic. The success of such attempts is literally going to get people killed.