Poll: Most Voters In Swing States View Both Trump and Biden As Mentally Unfit

I have previously written (here and here) about the need to break the duopoly of power in this country by creating greater opportunity for other parties and candidates. Every presidential election, the voters are told that they have to chose between two candidates who garner little support in their own right. It is the continual replay of “choosing between evils” option for voters.  Now we have a new disgrace: a majority of polled voters in swing states view both Donald Trump and Joe Biden as mentally unfit but are told that they must chose between them.

The poll of 4,143 likely voters in the pivotal states of Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin was shocking, even for those of us who have been long critics of the duopoly system. A 51% majority said Trump is mentally unfit to be president while 52% felt the same way about Biden.

Those figures generally track the rest of the country. In a CNBC/Change Research nationwide poll, 55% said Trump was mentally unfit and 52% said that Biden was mentally unfit.

They do not fare much better on physical fitness. Only 52% said Trump is physically fit to be president while 54% felt the same way about Biden.

Every four years we are faced with the same unpopular choices but we now have two candidates that most voters consider mentally unfit.  Every four years I hope that voters will finally get sufficiently angry to make real changes in our political system to break up the hold of the political establishment on our elections. We are a nation of over 300 million but have produced two candidates that the majority concerned mentally unfit. That captures the insanity of our times perfectly.

297 thoughts on “Poll: Most Voters In Swing States View Both Trump and Biden As Mentally Unfit”

    1. It seems Gleeson’s reputation is well deserved. His arguments are very clear and detailed. I don’t see how the government can justify its position after Gleeson exposed major flaws in its reasoning.

  1. More information Democrats don’t want voters to know prior to the election. Nothing to see here, move along.

    DLA Piper boasts of having “long-established and embedded “China Desks” in both the U.S. and Europe” to assist their China-focused consulting, prompting questions about the firm’s potential proximity to the White House could be leveraged by DLA Piper, exploited by the Chinese Communist Party, or represent a financial conflict of interest for the Vice Presidential candidate.
    https://thenationalpulse.com/politics/harris-husband-ccp/

    1. Politico: “Chinese state-owned companies are constructing two luxury Trump developments in United Arab Emirates and Indonesia.” “the president and his daughter Ivanka Trump, a White House adviser, have been awarded trademarks by China’s government [during Trump’s presidency and] his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has courted Chinese investors in at least one other real estate deal.”

      No doubt you’re concerned about how their “proximity to the White House could be leveraged …, exploited by the Chinese Communist Party, or represent a financial conflict of interest for the [President].”

      At least Emhoff doesn’t co-own DLA Piper, unlike the Trumps and Kushner and their businesses.

      As Richard Painter and Noah Bookbinder argued in a USA Today op ed, Congress should pass a “ban on financial conflicts of interest of the president, vice president and members of Congress that is as strong as the current law for all other federal employees,” requiring them “to divest from conflicts of interest … sell off conflicted assets and put the money in conflict-free assets or a blind trust.”

      1. Congress should pass a “ban on financial conflicts of interest of the president, vice president and members of Congress that is as strong as the current law for all other federal employees,”

        They aren’t employees.

        1. Yes, they’re federal employees (just not federal civil service employees). However, the financial conflicts of interest laws exempt them.

          1. So, then, not ordinary employees. And that is for a reason, one of them to keep people like you from sticking your thumb in their eyes over petty and byzantine regulations.

            1. “So, then, not ordinary employees.”

              I’m not sure what you mean by this, but then I presume you aren’t either. At any rate, the fact that they are “not ordinary,” i.e. that they are elected officials in policy-making and -enforcing roles is absolutely all the more reason that they should be bound by conflict of interest laws. As a 2020 Trump voter and 2016 Hilary voter, I think Committohonestdiscussion is making a valid point here.

              The Chinese Government is NOT our friend; we need to start thinking of them as an enemy. For that very reason, even if you think these particular officials should not be bound by conflict of interest laws generally, we ought to make it absolutely illegal to have conflicts with the chinese government.

      2. You have no idea what a joke you’ve become ever since you came out and effectively declared your allegiance to an ideology and not our country and rule of law. Bwahahahahaha!

        1. In other words, Olly, you don’t have an argument, and you’re choosing to resort to insult based on nonsense you’ve projected onto me.

            1. Olly — She hit you with ‘insult’ and ‘projection’ but left out ‘ROFL’ and ‘LOL’, also favorites.

              But you are right about her becoming a joke with an OCD fixation of rabidly hating the President.

              1. Young, you and Olly have no idea what a joke you’ve become ever since you came out and effectively declared your allegiance to an ideology and not our country and rule of law. Bwahahahahaha!

                You are becoming a joke with an OCD fixation of rabidly hating liberals..

    2. ha, ha. DLA is one of the biggest law firms in the world. tons of trade business. trust me they know no allegiances above MONEY

  2. Top Aide To John Durham Leaving Investigation

    Federal prosecutor Nora Dannehy, a top aide to U.S. Attorney John H. Durham in his Russia investigation, has quietly resigned – at least partly out of concern that the investigative team is being pressed for political reasons to produce a report before its work is done, colleagues said.

    Dannehy, a highly regarded prosecutor who has worked with or for Durham for decades, informed colleagues in the U.S. Attorney’s office in New Haven of her resignation from the Department of Justice by email Thursday evening. The short email was a brief farewell message and said nothing about political pressure, her work for Durham or what the Durham team has produced, according to people who received it.

    Durham, who has never even acknowledged that Dannehy was in Washington working for him, had no immediate comment on the resignation.

    Durham recruited Dannehy to join his team after he was appointed by Attorney General William Barr more than a year and a half ago to examine the the FBI’s legal justification for a disputed counterintelligence investigation that looked for ties between President Donald J. Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russian efforts to meddle in the election.

    Dannehy is a career prosecutor who worked closely with Durham before leaving the U.S. Attorney’s office about a decade ago for a corporate position in the defense industry. Durham persuaded her to return to the justice department and, within weeks, join his team in Washington in the spring of 2019.

    Colleagues said Dannehy is not a supporter of President Donald J. Trump and has been concerned in recent weeks by what she believed was pressure from Barr – who appointed Durham – to produce results before the election. They said she has been considering resignation for weeks, conflicted by loyalty to Durham and concern about politics.

    Durham is notoriously circumspect and neither he nor members of his team have revealed anything about the direction of their work. But Durham associates, none of whom have specific knowledge of the investigation, have said recently that it is their belief he is under pressure to produce something – perhaps some sort of report – before the presidential election in November.

    The thinking of the associates, all Durham allies, is that the Russia investigation group will be disbanded and its work lost if Trump loses.

    Dannehy was told to expect an assignment of from six months to a year when she agreed to join Durham’s team in Washington, colleagues said. The work has taken far longer than expected, in part because of complications caused by the corona virus pandemic. In the meantime, team members – some of whom are current or former federal investigators or prosecutors with homes in Connecticut – have been working long hours in Washington under pressure to produce results, associates said.

    Edited from: Nora Dannehy, Top Aide To John Durham, Resigns Amid Concerns About Pressure From A.G. Barr”

    The Hartford Courant, 9/11/20

    1. REGARDING ABOVE:

      The article keeps emphasizing that investigators are “under pressure” to produce results before Election Day. ..No surprise..! Everyone knows this investigation is heading to the ash heap if Trump loses.

      1. Regarding above, Peter Shill believes uncritically every article he reads in the Bezos Birdcage Liner, especially those relying entirely on anonymous ‘sources’.

        1. TIME FOR SOME APOLOGIES

          https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69

          BACK IN 2005 Virology Journal published that chloroquine was a potent inhibitor of Sars Cov (the old sars not the covid sars cov 2)

          DID ANYBODY BOTHER TO LOOK INTO THAT?

          we know some did and now the hcq+ therapy is proven against sars cov 2

          I just wonder WHY DID THIS HAVE TO BE SO DIFFICULT?

          maybe the ones with “blood on their hands” are the ones who downplayed the hcq+ therapy– and deterred it from fast testing and implementation by BS headlines and lies
          when it was not exactly rocket science to suspect that MAYBE JUST MAYBE IF IT WORKED ON ONE CORONA IT WOULD WORK ON ANOTHER

          but no. trump trump trump. liars!

        2. Tabby, that’s not The Washington Post. But I guess for those in the rightwing bubble, all mainstream sources are the same.

      2. “Everyone knows this investigation is heading to the ash heap if Trump loses.”

        Well, they’ll have until January… And there’s some wicked shit taking place on U.S. soil. Maybe it will come out and maybe it won’t…, but it should.

      3. Barr may have designated a whitewash on this thing. Klinesmith is an important plea but a small fish. They should be using it to go up the ladders and it looks like they didn’t.
        Barr should not have said as he did that Obama and Biden were off limits. Why? why give them de facto immunity if the evidence lead to them? that was a red flag

        I predict that no major indictments will come out of this and the statutes of limitations will run. Even if Trump wins it may be too late.

        I had hoped Brennan was the target and he should have been. This one’s been a disappointment.

        Seems like spying on a rival campaign and getting false FISA warrants is no big deal, even against an incoming POTUS. I guess none of us lesser mortals can expect any better.

        FBI and DOJ and Barr have lost a lot of credibility by failing to deliver. I hope they defy the custom and bring something serious soon anyhow. The old custom barely matters compared to the impunity the failure to deliver would imply. Yet, I wont hold my breath

        1. Kurtz, the Senate Report on Russian meddling totally validated The Mueller Probe (and impeachment). Consequently the Durham Investigation is already negated to a very large extent.

          1. Wrong on all three points, but you go ahead and maintain your narrative. In the end this won’t be resolved by endless chatter.

            1. ‘Remember when I said, wake me when there are indictments and or arrests? Well, a solid DOJ source just told me to “set my alarm clock.”
              I said, I’ll believe it when I see it.’ #DurhamReport

              -Kevin Corke, Fox News White House Correspondent 6:49 PM · Sep 11, 2020

          2. America is to a large degree a plutocracy that has the trappings of democracy out front to fool the customers.

            Trump’s unexpected victory verified a certain degree of residual health in our electoral system, but, watching the usual suspects drag feet, malinger, and sabotage all the way, and then watching the past near 4 months of anarchy in certain cities, I am of the belief that we are at a critical juncture in which the last gasp of popular middle and working class majority sovereignty will either show its mettle in the election or vanish from America until it finally ossifies or dissolves.

            Why you might ask do I not think the Democrat party could be the standard bearer of middle and working class majority rule?

            Two reasons.

            a) democratic party base is too diverse. it lacks any kind of popular unifying element except only a strong presence in big cities. all the other components are too diverse. unions are a diverse group from the urban reserve army of the unempoyed; native born blacks workers are too diverse from freshly imported low wage workers from central america; white suburbanite liberals are too diverse from the rural poor of any race; the bureaucratic elites are in an ivory tower all of there own. The supposed strength of the Democratic party coalition is actually one of its biggest weaknesses. The primary process was a reminder of this. The loudest voices are always actually the most unpopular ones and yet the squeaky wheel keeps on getting the grease.

            b) the democrat finance comes from billionaires, really big ones, and not that many. Their globalist agenda will inevitably lead to lower standards of living inside of America. They are perfectly open about this. Read Joseph Stiglitz book from years ago about globalization, i forget the title. They will not increase prosperity here for anybody but themselves and a sufficient number of their immediate helpers. The other 99% of us will suffer.,

            That is my prediction,. But it would be swell if it was wrong.

            In my view trump has made a good stab at strengthening America and scotching the schemes of globalism for the good of our people. However, he will be gone in 2024 if not 202. And I question the integrity of the GOP who have fought him at every turn on some of his best ideas.

            So. Not only if Trump loses in 20 but if he fails to reform the Republican party so that it’s purged its own silkstocking elements, which will mean a certain loss come 2024 if he does not; but if Trump fails in these longshot goals (hell i have no clue if he is even trying to reform the lame GOP) but if he fails, the eventual triumph of globalism is the most likely outcome. Because, the Democrat party is presently committed to globalism. It doesnt need to be but at present it is.

            The aims of globalism, which are likely to advance later if not sooner, will not mean that poverty will vanish nor any other problem. Actually problems will increase. The urban conditions will continue to erode. A new influx of low wage workers will exacerbate income inequality. Increased regulation will stifle economic growth as if it was not already screwed up enough now due to the COVID and the crazy Fed Res policies.

            This will mean a swelling of the urban lumpenproletariat.

            Hence BLM – ANTIFA will have plenty more foot soldiers to come. And what is the nature of their thinking, long term? I have an idea of the strategy.

            Did you know that marxist-leninist-maoist thought a la Sendero Luminoso explicitly calls for a long “dual power” struggle, on one hand, with violence and insurrection, and on the other hand, with political jockeying inside of liberal democratic institutions? Now assuming the BLM and ANTIFA are familiar with that notion and I believe they are, I would expect that the trouble in the cities will not go away even if Biden wins.

            How does a nation like Peru win against a Sendero Luminoso? Same way they won against FMLN, et al. Pheonix Program methods. without those methods, they always grow. maybe slowly but they don’t go away. mark my words, these anarchists will be a plague for some time to come, until decisive action is taken against them. And America is not yet the sort of country that will abide such a vigorous initiative./

            So take that arguendo and then ask yourself. Once the Democrat party, either in 2020 or 2024, has so ardently pandered to the likes of BLM, so long coddled them and tolerated them, at what point will it be even capably of initiating that kind of action? Never is my projection. The devil’s bargain you have made, may win you in 2020, or 2024, but eventually it will mean the death of the party. Even in success the Democrat party will find failure. The crises that have bedeviled Trump will one day bedevil Democrat leaderships too. heck they are right now, really.

            at some point the plutocracy tire of us and them too. they will have enough mercs and allies built up in the managerial bureaucracies of the state to just take over. They will sweep away the old trappings of elections and democracy in America, once the two major parties have both failed, and they will set up some sort of emergency government and squash the lumpen rebels with decisive viciousness, and along with them anybody above their level who has the temerity to oppose the new order.

            At that point they might have total victory in North America, but I doubt they will be independent of the PRC. They may be let to do their thing by the PRC if they pledge allegiance. But the CCP & PRC are a different civilization than us and they will not have the same problems that are miring us in the mud. They do not and will not. So lets say 12 years out, almost inevitably, when the PRC will be bigger than the US economy and will have outpaced us in artificial general intelligence and will be in a position to co-opt the Western plutocracy or just crush them. Of course the Western plutocrats could decide to nuke them at some point and then they would also get their global die-off due to starvation and that would solve the global warming problem too, in a trice. Regular people like us will just be lucky if we all dont get nuked within 12-16 years if this dynamic continues. I mean some people think the Soros types and CCP honchos are on the same team. THEY ARE NOT. They are in bed together for now. One day they will make their move on the plutocrats of the West, who will probably be forced to submit or die. That is assuming the US does not somehow revitalize itself in a positive way that now seems questionable.

            but what would revitalization entail?

            So in my view if we want to see any form of popular working and middle class democratic republicanism endure in the USA, we need to strengthen the nation by achieving some degree of progress in every single one of these areas:

            a. revalorize patriotism and organic forms of social organization. end the critical deconstruction of natural human affinities and attacks on cultural traditions.
            b. reinvigorate common citizen participation in party activity and government,
            c. fight the monopolies and oligopolies which monopolize and control information and unfairly channel public debate
            d. stay out of hot wars with rivals abroad, seek fair trade but not let it get so adverse it leads to war. curtail danger of nuclear war.
            e. address income inequality – rebuild incomes for working and middle class. there are a hundred different good ideas to try but it must happen
            f. repair public goods and infrastructure and in this effort also make adaptive improvements to combat likely climate change and trouble it will unleash
            g. increase nuclear energy development, in addition to other alternative energies, to both address climate change concerns, fossil fuel stocks depletion, and secure the energy and agricultural and industrial bases of the economy
            h. reform higher education, promote STEM, and
            i. tame the political scheming by global centi-billionaires by any means necessary
            j make society more resilient against naturally emergent and potential future weaponized biological threats to humanity

            one party can’t do that alone. It would actually take both. our system allows for horse trading that can make it happen. i see interest in every single one of these things from some people in both parties and some leaders. we really should not get too sucked into demonizing one side or the other in this election because long term the people need to come together or we will all end up slaves on the globalist plantation.

            1. If you really believe in “fossil fuel stocks depletion,” then there’s no reason to seriously consider anything else you wrote.

              The world today is producing more hydrocarbons – and has far more proven hydrocarbon reserves – than at any time in history. At the current rate of discovery we have a truly limitless supply of so-called fossil fuels.

Leave a Reply