2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

B20 said:
I mean, it's good Biden isn't going for re election and all, but the outcome is still pretty sad for democracy.

One party sticks to their default candidate for a third straight election.

The other party will effectively skip a proper nomination process and go with the VP by default. On the back of an election where a former VP beat the encumbent president and the election before that, the Democrats literally rigged their own nomination to give it to the wife of a former president.

Hard to imagine a democracy being more rigged than this before we call it all a downright sham.
Click to expand...

Its more so due to Biden's stubbornness to think that despite his age and diminishing cognitive abilities, that he would have the ability to beat Trump again. The rush to nominate Harris was simply a time issue that developed overnight in the absence of any others interested in challenging her.
 
Brwned said:
That’s just a very selective reading of things. Biden is not charismatic - not in the same league as the two other examples mentioned, Trump and Obama - yet he won. If you look at the leaders around the world, you’ll find some completely lacking in charisma now like Starmer, just like you’ve found throughout history. Reagan is very memorable, but his VP wasn’t. George Bush went on to be president anyway. Same for Obama and Biden. And George Bush wasn’t charismatic like Obama, much like Reagan’s predecessor Jimmy Carter.

What’s really being said here is that Trump is not an exception, but is now the new norm. That argument was plausible before Biden beat him. The reality is that despite the fact that Biden was a historically unpopular president in obvious mental decline, he was within touching distance of Trump. That’s with him having negative charisma at this point. The bar to beat Trump isn’t that high, charisma is not remotely essential. It would just make people like voting for the candidate more, it wouldn’t stop them from voting for them. That was true of Biden 4 years ago.
Click to expand...
I mean, it's a simplification lacking nuance for sure, but not selective reading. You're literally doing the same above.

You talk about Starmer being elected despite lacking charisma. But you omit that he was up against another politician completely lacking in charisma, in Sunak. It was a competition between uncharismatic leaders to begin with. While Sunak also had the burden of 13 years of Tory rule, where services and standards in this country have all but collapsed while corruption increased, on his shoulders. He didn't have a clean slate like Starmer. Additionally, Sunak and the Tories were flanked on the right by Britain's version of Trump (a charismatic politician but otherwise contemptible human being) in Farage. And all those reasons were why the polls consistently predicted a Labour landslide for months ahead of the elections.

None of that context applies to the US election and there's basically no analogy to be made here between Starmer vs Sunak and Harris vs Trump. The latter is a close contest in a 2-party presidential system and the leader's charisma will play far more of a part than the UK elections.

Biden winning in 2020 is indeed a better example. Again charisma is very important but not everything. Trump administration had just come out of 4 years in government, where not only was he a very polarising leader but he was also burdened by the COVID crisis and his administration's response to it. A lot of voters are fickle/thick and attribute to an administration everything that happens during its term, regardless of whether its within its control or not. And despite that he only narrowly lost to Biden (51.3% vs 46.8%). But now the current admin (of which Kamala is a part of as VP) is burdened by the effects of inflation and high interest rates in the post-COVID and war-in-Ukraine world. And she's not even as popular as Biden was in 2020, never mind Trump.
 
gaffs said:
Here she is, at the border...

merlin_189876933_149377e0-db7e-4acf-a0f9-5588fd79f1d3-superJumbo.jpg


"pole" numbers? Young man?

What in the world?
Click to expand...

It's Trump. He is an imbecile who happily boasts that he has never read a book. He is without doubt the thickest and most ill-informed President in history.
 
I think since late 2021 or early 2022 that I predicted (not on here) that it would be Kamala vs Trump in 2024 with Trump winning fairly easily.

I’ll go on to predict that Newsome will win 2028 after a successful Summer Olympics in LA where the homeless crisis is “resolved.”
 
Revan said:
Call it lack of charisma, call it being not very likeable, call it not being able to relate with people.

Thing is, she started the last primaries as the establishment choice (cause Biden was considered too old back then too). And then she was polling below 1% and had to withdraw before the Iowa caucuses. Forget the likes of Klobuchar, Warren etc, but even the likes of Buttigieg (who no one has ever heard before) did far better than her. Then she got the VP job by essentially being a black woman. And now gets the nomination without ever earning it.

For all the GOP are trying to destroy the democracy (which I kind of agree), nominating as president someone who no one in the vote base ever wanted is not a strong argument on 'saving the democracy'. A bit stronger than nominating a demented puppet, but not very very strong.
Click to expand...

She was polling badly, but literally none of the bolded is true. I don't know what "started the last primaries" means exactly since she dropped out two months before the first even occurred but Biden was the (presumptive) establishment choice from the moment he started to run and this is born out both by the number and quality of his endorsements; the dollar value raised to campaign, the speed with which he raised it and the primary sources of those funds.

When she dropped out Harris was polling at about 3-5%, not "less than 1%" (worst individual poll listed on wiki 2%, best 5%). At this point the polls were still being split between up to18 candidates and the centre was crowded. She was also polling better than Klobuchar at the time she dropped out. She undeniably ran a bad campaign and squandered all her money. It's clearly worth highlighting but doesn't need to be exaggerated.

Finally on the appointment of VP's it's quite clear that prospective presidents often use this position in an attempt to pander to some demographic or other. Biden was himself chosen for being a comfortable old white man, Pence was a sop to evangelicals. Let's not pretend that this type of appointment is peculiar only to Harris. Also there are many black women in America; Harris managed to put herself in a position from where Biden decided she was the best black woman for the job.

I agree that the Dem's have totally fecked up their nominations this year, but the cardinal sin was coronating Biden and not committing to a proper primary in the first place. I'd definitely prefer an open convention too but even that would just be a facsimile of intra-party democracy. At any rate there doesn't (yet) seem to be a great outpouring of rage from primary voters at Harris being shovelled in. I guess that might come if she starts to flounder though.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
She was polling badly, but literally none of the bolded is true. I don't know what "started the last primaries" means exactly since she dropped out two months before the first even occurred but Biden was the (presumptive) establishment choice from the moment he started to run and this is born out both by the number and quality of his endorsements; the dollar value raised to campaign, the speed with which he raised it and the primary sources of those funds.

When she dropped out Harris was polling at about 3-5%, not "less than 1%" (worst individual poll listed on wiki 2%, best 5%). At this point the polls were still being split between up to18 candidates and the centre was crowded. She was also polling better than Klobuchar at the time she dropped out. She undeniably ran a bad campaign and squandered all her money. It's clearly worth highlighting but doesn't need to be exaggerated.

Finally on the appointment of VP's it's quite clear that prospective presidents often use this position in an attempt to pander to some demographic or other. Biden was himself chosen for being a comfortable old white man, Pence was a sop to evangelicals. Let's not pretend that this type of appointment is peculiar only to Harris. Also there are many black women in America; Harris managed to put herself in a position from where Biden decided she was the best black woman for the job.

I agree that the Dem's have totally fecked up their nominations this year, but the cardinal sin was coronating Biden and not committing to a proper primary in the first place. I'd definitely prefer an open convention too but even that would just be a facsimile of intra-party democracy. At any rate there doesn't (yet) seem to be a great outpouring of rage from primary voters at Harris being shovelled in. I guess that might come if she starts to flounder though.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
Speaking of undermining democracy, project 2025 doesn't seem popular. Dems need to keep upping the awareness of it.

 
Florida Man said:
I think since late 2021 or early 2022 that I predicted (not on here) that it would be Kamala vs Trump in 2024 with Trump winning fairly easily.

I’ll go on to predict that Newsome will win 2028 after a successful Summer Olympics in LA where the homeless crisis is “resolved.”
Click to expand...
You think it will be possible for a Democrat to win 2028 after four years of Trump/MAGA Republican fascism?
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
Am I the only one who watches and listens to Harris and thinks she's a great candidate? Don't think anyone can predict if it's enough to beat Trump, because that seems like a calculus of swing state issues, but in terms of being fit for the office, she seems fantastic.

A seasoned and combative senator with what has always seemed like expertise in confrontational conversations, she's well spoken and comes across as educated and intelligent. Composed and sensible with an adult-in-the-room vibe. Would love to see her debate Trump, she would school him like a teacher.

She doesn't have the rizz or charisma that Obama did, or a convincing sense of humor (very Starmer-esque, in that regard), but who cares? She seems like the first truly Presidential candidate since Obama himself.

What am I missing? Why are people put off by Harris?
Click to expand...

As attorney General in California she refused to support a lot of reform.of police and criminal justice system such as diversion programs for non violent drug offenders instead of jail, reforming overcrowded prisons, and not allowing police to racially profile. She was seen as afraid to take a stance because she wanted to play both sides for future political moves upward. Her start in politics was a little questionable by sleeping with the much older Willie Brown, a "political kingmaker" whose favorite could skyrocket a political career or sink it. So taken together a lot of people in California viewed her as less sincere and only doing things or taking stances to advance her own political career not because she passionately wanted to do the right thing.

In 2020 she failed to connect with primary voters and a lot of potential candidates felt more genuine than she did.
 
Raoul said:
Its more so due to Biden's stubbornness to think that despite his age and diminishing cognitive abilities, that he would have the ability to beat Trump again. The rush to nominate Harris was simply a time issue that developed overnight in the absence of any others interested in challenging her.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was overnight at all. I think it was being planned in the background for a couple weeks and getting all these endorsements lined up to be released right after Biden stepped down precisely to prevent anyone else from challenging her. Newsom clearly would have if Biden stepped down right after the debate and before they lined up all the ducks for Kamala.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
As attorney General in California she refused to support a lot of reform.of police and criminal justice system such as diversion programs for non violent drug offenders instead of jail, reforming overcrowded prisons, and not allowing police to racially profile. She was seen as afraid to take a stance because she wanted to play both sides for future political moves upward. Her start in politics was a little questionable by sleeping with the much older Willie Brown, a "political kingmaker" whose favorite could skyrocket a political career or sink it. So taken together a lot of people in California viewed her as less sincere and only doing things or taking stances to advance her own political career not because she passionately wanted to do the right thing.

In 2020 she failed to connect with primary voters and a lot of potential candidates felt more genuine than she did.
Click to expand...

The sleeping with Willie Brown bit will be a big talking point for the GOP. Unlikely to resonate among non MAGA types though.
 
MadMike said:
I mean, it's a simplification lacking nuance for sure, but not selective reading. You're literally doing the same above.

You talk about Starmer being elected despite lacking charisma. But you omit that he was up against another politician completely lacking in charisma, in Sunak. It was a competition between uncharismatic leaders to begin with. While Sunak also had the burden of 13 years of Tory rule, where services and standards in this country have all but collapsed while corruption increased, on his shoulders. He didn't have a clean slate like Starmer. Additionally, Sunak and the Tories were flanked on the right by Britain's version of Trump (a charismatic politician but otherwise contemptible human being) in Farage. And all those reasons were why the polls consistently predicted a Labour landslide for months ahead of the elections.

None of that context applies to the US election and there's basically no analogy to be made here between Starmer vs Sunak and Harris vs Trump. The latter is a close contest in a 2-party presidential system and the leader's charisma will play far more of a part than the UK elections.

Biden winning in 2020 is indeed a better example. Again charisma is very important but not everything. Trump administration had just come out of 4 years in government, where not only was he a very polarising leader but he was also burdened by the COVID crisis and his administration's response to it. A lot of voters are fickle/thick and attribute to an administration everything that happens during its term, regardless of whether its within its control or not. And despite that he only narrowly lost to Biden (51.3% vs 46.8%). But now the current admin (of which Kamala is a part of as VP) is burdened by the effects of inflation and high interest rates in the post-COVID and war-in-Ukraine world. And she's not even as popular as Biden was in 2020, never mind Trump.
Click to expand...
But where is the evidence that charisma is such an important factor, in the historical context in the US or across the world in current politicians?
 
On the one hand, the economy is a big burden on Harris in this race. But on the other, there is plenty of ammunition to hurt the republican vote. Project 2025, the overturning or Roe vs Wade, JD Vance and his massive shift in views on Trump. All of this can be used as powerful weaponry against the Republicans. Let’s hope that now that the “infighting” has ceased, the Democrats can strategise around these core areas and swing momentum and the narrative.
 
Brwned said:
But where is the evidence that charisma is such an important factor, in the historical context in the US or across the world in current politicians?
Click to expand...
In fairness, “charisma” might be the wrong word. But personality more broadly, and the way you resonate with the public through your personal style rather than the substance of your words, is clearly an important factor in galvanising support. It’s obviously impossible to scale “how” important. But I think one can subjectively arrive at that conclusion relatively easily.
 
Raoul said:
She will need to be at about +4 or +5 to win.

Click to expand...

I find polls like this hard to take seriously. I don’t care how unpopular she is, he’s even more unpopular and there’s no way a Democrat is losing the popular vote to him.
 
Pexbo said:
I find polls like this hard to take seriously. I don’t care how unpopular she is, he’s even more unpopular and there’s no way a Democrat is losing the popular vote to him.
Click to expand...

The point is she can win the popular vote and still lose the election unless she wins the popular vote by at least 4-5% . Biden won it by 4.5% last time and barely squeaked by. Hilary won it by 2.1% and lost the EC by about 77. Therefore simply winning the popular vote isn't enough. It has to be done convincingly so that the national vote is reflected in swing state results.
 
Pexbo said:
I find polls like this hard to take seriously. I don’t care how unpopular she is, he’s even more unpopular and there’s no way a Democrat is losing the popular vote to him.
Click to expand...
1st bold: Trump is at -11.8, Harris is at -13. 1 (based on 538) https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/

2nd bold: Yes, almost every poll for a year has been putting Trump winning the popular vote.
 
Beachryan said:
9% for Kennedy seems like utter trash to me.
Click to expand...

I know a couple of RFK voters. Basically people who think Dems have let them down on crime and immigration, but don't want to go full maga. Unsurprisngly, they're also amenable to conspiracy theories.
 


I guess out of that lot I'd go with Shapiro???? rustbelt swing state, youngish. Male. Kelly might be interesting. Former astronaut. Border senator. Could hammer on about the GOP bombing a cross party solution to the border to bolster Trump's ambitions.
 
Raoul said:
The point is she can win the popular vote and still lose the election unless she wins the popular vote by at least 4-5% . Biden won it by 4.5% last time and barely squeaked by. Hilary won it by 2.1% and lost the EC by about 77. Therefore simply winning the popular vote isn't enough. It has to be done convincingly so that the national vote is reflected in swing state results.
Click to expand...
We do not really know this, demographics change (e.g., Florida and Texas gaining population while Cali losing), GOP won the popular vote by 2.7%, but they only had 2% more seats than Dems, despite their states being some of the most gerrymandered in the US.

If Harris manages to connect with the three swing rust-belt states, she'll win the presidency without needing to win the popular vote by 4-5%.
 
altodevil said:
Different questions. Comparison therefore irrelevant.
Click to expand...
It is the closest you can get in 538 from what I searched. Approve is quite similar to having a positive opinion, disapprove is similar to having a negative opinion.

To be fair, the precise numbers do not necessarily matter. They both have a similar disapproval rate.
 
Scandi Red said:
All he needs is an unflattering nickname that sticks. He had Sleepy Joe. Before that he had Hillary Rotten Clinton. He even called covid the China Virus / Kung Flu!

Perhaps he will use his Scottish roots and call her Masala Haggis?
Click to expand...

his one and only attempt so far is "laughing kamala" which is so many levels worse than crooked hillary and sleepy joe and low energy jeb and lil marco.
 
Revan said:
It is the closest you can get in 538 from what I searched. Approve is quite similar to having a positive opinion, disapprove is similar to having a negative opinion.
Click to expand...
Question wording can hugely influence responses on any survey/poll. There's very little value in comparing different questions.
 
The wife pointed out that she reminds her of Janice from Friends and now I can't unhear it.

I think it'll be a couple of weeks before polling is in anyway indicative of her chances. Leaders take a lot of their public persona from the policy they push and she'll now be in a very different position. It's hers to lose given the opponent.
 
Revan said:
We do not really know this, demographics change (e.g., Florida and Texas gaining population while Cali losing), GOP won the popular vote by 2.7%, but they only had 2% more seats than Dems, despite their states being some of the most gerrymandered in the US.

If Harris manages to connect with the three swing rust-belt states, she'll win the presidency without needing to win the popular vote by 4-5%.
Click to expand...

A large part of this is because Democrats don't run in as many districts as Republicans.
 
Revan said:
We do not really know this, demographics change (e.g., Florida and Texas gaining population while Cali losing), GOP won the popular vote by 2.7%, but they only had 2% more seats than Dems, despite their states being some of the most gerrymandered in the US.

If Harris manages to connect with the three swing rust-belt states, she'll win the presidency without needing to win the popular vote by 4-5%.
Click to expand...

The declines and gains in various states are negligible in contrast to the popular vote. Biden beat Trump by over 7 million votes in 2020 and barely scraped by in the EC. So that dynamic will continue to be in play this year, where Harris will need to push out similar numbers to squeak out a narrow win by running the table in the rust belt.
 
Ekkie Thump said:


I guess out of that lot I'd go with Shapiro???? rustbelt swing state, youngish. Male. Kelly might be interesting. Former astronaut. Border senator. Could hammer on about the GOP bombing a cross party solution to the border to bolster Trump's ambitions.
Click to expand...

All decent choices, thought Beshear would be on the shortlist too, but agree on Shapiro being probably the best pick.
 
Wibble said:
Coup :lol:

You have officially lost the plot.
Click to expand...
So, you think I've lost the plot? Let's recap the week:
  • An assassination attempt on the GOP candidate. Just another day in politics, right?
  • A California lab-grown redneck gets bumped up to #2.
  • The President resigns via tweet, doing a complete 180 and leaving his staff in the dark. Classic leadership move.
  • He doesn’t bother addressing the media or the public. Traditions are overrated, apparently.
(If he's too sick with COVID for a news conference, isn't he too sick to make such decisions?)

Clearly, the plot hasn't been lost. It's just gotten a lot more interesting.
 
Suedesi said:
So, you think I've lost the plot? Let's recap the week:
  • An assassination attempt on the GOP candidate. Just another day in politics, right?
  • A California lab-grown redneck gets bumped up to #2.
  • The President resigns via tweet, doing a complete 180 and leaving his staff in the dark. Classic leadership move.
  • He doesn’t bother addressing the media or the public. Traditions are overrated, apparently.
(If he's too sick with COVID for a news conference, isn't he too sick to make such decisions?)

Clearly, the plot hasn't been lost. It's just gotten a lot more interesting.
Click to expand...

Why are you conflating unrelated events ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.