turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
I was thinking about this this morning, and I have to wonder...would Biden suspending his campaigning (which I take to be only in-person, rally-type campaigning in various states) really be all that bad for his chances in the election? I'm undecided about it, but a couple of points occur to me.
1) In this day and age of TV ads and internet saturation, I wonder if maybe flying all over the country to speak in front of crowds who are, after all, mainly going to be composed of your supporters to begin with isn't a little anachronistic anyway. I guess folks like to see the candidates, and interpret an in-person presence as engagement, but...
2) It's been said here that at this point, a bare month before the election, there aren't really that many undecided voters left. If you're for Biden, his suspending the campaign surely won't make a difference- you know his positions, and those are what you are voting for. And the people who wouldn't vote for Biden if he strode onto 5th Avenue and saved the life of someone Trump had just shot are beyond the pale- who cares if they think it's a sign of weakness instead of class? It's the undecideds you want- and I think it should be at least considered whether you could gain more votes from them by what could be sold as forbearance rather than as the kind of classless "taking advantage of a bad situation" that Trump almost certainly would run with; in a way, that forbearance could be its own campaign.
As I said, I'm undecided on this, certainly prepared to hear there are objections to the idea that haven't occurred to me. And I stress that I'm only talking about in-person campaigning, not TV or Internet presences- Trump's campaign hasn't reined back in that regard, in spite of Trump being unable to indulge in his beloved rallies, so there's surely no reason even Fox would think Biden should stop.
Last edited:
