2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

[Raoul]

No it doesn't?!

Losing PA is a likely harbinger of losing the rust belt, which would've resulted in a Biden win in 2020, even if he didn't win in GA, AZ, or NV. Therefore the importance of winning PA is paramount.

 

[Ubik]

Losing PA is a likely harbinger of losing the rust belt, which would've resulted in a Biden win in 2020, even if he didn't win in GA, AZ, or NV.

And electoral votes have changed since then, and your argument was based on boosting the PA vote.

 

[Raoul]

And electoral votes have changed since then, and your argument was based on boosting the PA vote.

They haven't changed enough to matter. PA is still a critical state for any candidate interested in winning. And the general sentiment in PA is often reflected in other nearby rust belt states. Harris still has to turn out as many PA voters as she can, particularly in the Philly suburbs, where the Dems make a majority of their gains in the state.

 

[ManUtd1999]

Fair enough, jewish population in PA is larger than i expected.

It’s bigger than what I thought too.

Jewish Population by State

 

[Raoul]

It’s bigger than what I thought too.

Jewish Population by State

The FL population will also be influenced by a potential Shapiro selection, just as they were with Lieberman in 2000. The FL recount shenanigans notwithstanding.

 

[Revan]

You don't think it has potential to backfire in Michigan? PA is not the only state where margins will be close come November.

And Muslims are not the only group who will decide this election. Jewish voters, as a group, vote quite overwhelmingly Democrat, but we have seen many Jews, including Rabis criticizing Biden for not helping Israel. I think in polls, percentage wise, the Jewish voters were not as pro Democrat as usual, so it is possible that having the first Jewish VP in the ticket might more than make up the Muslim voters who will not vote for that reason.

In all likelihood, except in Pennsylvania where he is super popular and thus will bring some voters, this choice won’t matter for the election. People mostly for the president, not for the vice president.

The main calculation should be whom Harris likes to work with, and in case something happens to her, whom will be the best to push her presidential agenda, not who will bring her a dozen of voters who for whatever reasons vote for VP instead of P.

 

[africanspur]

It would create a bit of manufactured controversy among a tiny sliver of progressives, but wouldn’t change anything in terms of her momentum since it would be more conspicuous to independents if she didn’t select him, as opposed to appeasing to the far left if she did.

What an odd comment. Shapiro isn't some heavyweight in the party who was far ahead of all others and a totally unanimous pick.

 

[Morty_]

The FL population will also be influenced by a potential Shapiro selection, just as they were with Lieberman in 2000. The FL recount shenanigans notwithstanding.

Eh, that was then, Florida is kinda gone for dems at this point, remember that it was the only swing(ish) state that really had a red wave election in 2022, all based on culture war-nonsense.

Its just a weird, weird, electorate, sure, they might vote abortion rights into law and i hope that they do, but they aren't voting for democrats statwide, any time soon, i don't think.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Always bear in mind that 70% of Jews vote Democratic, and the optics of excluding a VP who happens to be Jewish, because of a couple of recent comments, won't be taken very well by them. Harris' job at this point is to get as many independents as possible, which won't be helped if she is perceived as deliberately not selecting Shapiro to assuage a very small, but vocal faction of people who wouldn't ordinarily vote for Harris anyway.

I just don't think the narrative around not selecting Shapiro will be focused on his Israel stance, unless Harris explicitly makes it so (which she of course won't). The candidates are fairly similar in many ways - there are other reasons why she might go for Walz, Beshear or Kelly.

 

[Raoul]

Eh, that was then, Florida is kinda gone for dems at this point, remember that it was the only swing(ish) state that really had a red wave election in 2022, all based on culture war-nonsense.

Its just a weird, weird, electorate, sure, they might vote abortion rights into law and i hope that they do, but they aren't voting for democrats statwide, any time soon, i don't think.

Yes I don't think Harris has a shot there this cycle. It was previously very much a swing state pre-Trump and probably won't be in play for a while given that DeSantis is a pretty popular governor who himself will probably be a candidate 28.

 

[Ubik]

They haven't changed enough to matter. PA is still a critical state for any candidate interested in winning. And the general sentiment in PA is often reflected in other nearby rust belt states. Harris still has to turn out as many PA voters as she can, particularly in the Philly suburbs, where the Dems make a majority of their gains in the state.

Winning the rust belt alone results in an electoral college tie so... yes, they have.

 

[Morty_]

Winning the rust belt alone results in an electoral college tie so... yes, they have.

Nebraska 2nd district secures 270, which should go for dems.

 

[Raoul]

Nebraska 2nd district secures 270, which should go for dems.

Yes, that's the usual expectation when factoring in winning all the rust belt states. Should be 270-268 for the winner.

 

[calodo2003]

 

[Morty_]

Yes, that's the usual expectation when factoring in winning all the rust belt states. Should be 270-268 for the winner.

However, 270 is super uncomfortable, considering the prospect of faithless electors, courts and all.

Harris potentially putting at least Nevada and Georgia back into play(Trafalgar had her down by just 2 points in todays poll in Georgia) helps, every little bit helps.

 

[calodo2003]

 

[Ubik]

Nebraska 2nd district secures 270, which should go for dems.

But which also went Trump in 2016. My point was that winning PA makes it "next to impossible" for Trump to win is clearly incorrect, which was said to make it look like Shapiro is an open and shut pick and somehow antisemitic not to pick him.

 

[surf]

Harris is pulling ahead in NH, which she needs to win. It's a strange state which leans democrat at the federal election level but has a republican legislature and governor.

 

[Raoul]

However, 270 is super uncomfortable, considering the prospect of faithless electors, courts and all.

Harris potentially putting at least Nevada and Georgia back into play(Trafalgar had her down by just 2 points in todays poll in Georgia) helps, every little bit helps.

100%. If it finishes that close, you can bet the farm Trump would be shouting fraud and litigating immediately in the hope his SCOTUS picks would get him over the top. I do think she will be competitive in GA and possibly NC, which will give Trump's campaign all sorts of headaches on where to deploy ad money during the final month.

 

[Morty_]

100%. If it finishes that close, you can bet the farm Trump would be shouting fraud and litigating immediately in the hope his SCOTUS picks would get him over the top. I do think she will be competitive in GA and possibly NC, which will give Trump's campaign all sorts of headaches on where to deploy ad money during the final month.

Trump campaign going from "NH, Virginia and NM is in play" to "we have to defend NC" sure is a turn around, they too, have to play defense again.

 

[Raoul]

But which also went Trump in 2016. My point was that winning PA makes it "next to impossible" for Trump to win is clearly incorrect, which was said to make it look like Shapiro is an open and shut pick and somehow antisemitic not to pick him.

PA is widely held to be the state that neither candidate can afford to lose, which makes perfect sense given how many EVs it has. Therefore it strains credulity to believe both candidates won't do whatever it takes to win there, including bringing on a very popular Governor of PA onto the ticket.

 

[Raoul]

Trump campaign going from "NH, Virginia and NM is in play" to "we have to defend NC" sure is a turn around, they too, have to play defense again.

I think Trump will make a move in MI to disrupt the Harris rust belt path. Harris will probably do the same in GA and NV to mitigate the potential loss of one rust belt state.

 

[Morty_]

They are one of the worst rated pollsters at FiveThrityEight. Ranked 273 out of 277

That bad? Oh well, nevermind.

 

[Idxomer]

I am sure most of US elected politicans today were straight up homophobic and much more racist 30 years back. Using what someone said 3 decades ago to paint them in certain light seems bizarre when you can just rely on his recent statements on ongoing conflict/massacre in Gaza. It is also disingenuous to argue that Pro Palestinian groups did not go digging into Shapiro's past mainly because he is a JEW. So anti semitism is definitely at play here.

It shows a pattern with his recent actions which @berbatrick pointed out. This is more important than any lip service about a two-state solution which is just a meaningless party line. It's also weird that pointing out someone's racism means that these people mentioning it are the ones who are actually bigots.

Anyway, it doesn't matter whether they pick him or not. Harris is already part of the administration that killed anything between 50k-200k Palestinians. The one who helped and encouraged Netanyahu to do whatever the feck he wanted in the region. Their actions also meant that there's a very likely scenario that by January or rather next week, Beirut will also have been bombed on a wide scale.

 

[crappycraperson]

It shows a pattern with his recent actions which @berbatrick pointed out. This is more important than any lip service about a two-state solution which is just a meaningless party line. It's also weird that pointing out someone's racism means that these people mentioning it are the ones who are actually bigots.

Anyway, it doesn't matter if they pick him or not. Harris is already part of the administration that killed anything between 50k-200k Palestinians. The one who helped and encouraged Netanyahu to do whatever the feck he wanted in the region. Their actions also meant that there's a very likely scenario that by January or rather next week, Beirut will also have been bombed on a wide scale.

People are trying to argue that Shapiro is either uniquely bad or even worse than likes of Kelly on Gaza war. Relying on 3 decade old statement on same is hogwash when you have videos of Kelly clapping Netanyanhu for his address to congress. Shapiro is under more scrutiny for his views on Gaza war because his a jew, to argue otherwise is ignore reality on purpose.

 

[berbatrick]

Restricting the discussion to potential VP picks:

I am sure most of US elected politicans today were straight up homophobic and much more racist 30 years back. Using what someone said 3 decades ago to paint them in certain light seems bizarre when you can just rely on his recent statements on ongoing conflict/massacre in Gaza.

1. The 30-years-ago defence would have had some weight if there was any evidence he has changed his views. IMO, this controversy started* because he compared student protesters against Israel to the KKK. Which to me suggests he hasn't changed his views. I said this earlier too.

Spoiler

The point about it being a while ago would be valid if there was any indication of change. Within the last 5 years, he tried to sanction Ben and Jerry's for stopping sales in Israel's illegal settlements:: settlements which seem to be illegal according to the US too.

2. Tim Walz started a gay-straight alliance in the 90s, while Clinton was signing the Defense Of Marriage Act. Beshear very loudly and publicly responded to an attack on trans people by posing with a group of them in the governers mansion, and I have no evidence he was homophobic earlier. No need to lazily smear the rest to defend this one.

*IMO. More on that below

It is also disingenuous to argue that Pro Palestinian groups did not go digging into Shapiro's past mainly because he is a JEW. So anti semitism is definitely at play here.

1. I do believe the state of Israel is a "racist endeavor". According to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of anti-semitism, which has been adopted by my host country, that makes me an anti-semite. I also think it is an apartheid state, and it is possible that I'm therefore "applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation". In the last few months, I've changed my views on some Israeli actions and have "draw[n] comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." Both these thoughts are also anti-semitic.
So, I have accepted that I am anti-semitic, and so is anyone - including every Palestinian - who believes that racism was fundamental to the Zionist project. This would be a common view among those opposing Shapiro. Therefore, I agree that there is anti-semitism in the opposition to Shapiro.

2. I do not think that it is because he is Jewish. As I said earlier, I remembered him from the campus protests, where he compared students to the KKK. I believe a lot of campus activists did remember that, especially because it was accompanied by a violent crackdown on them. Also, as I have said earlier, Pritzker, another VP contender is also Jewish, and isn't facing the same attacks. Maybe just possibly because he has less right-wing views on Israel, who knows eh.


And, for the nth time, I think Shapiro is a winning pick. The vast majority of people will look at an ongoing genocide and vote to support it. If they can vote for those who are bombing the victims, it's not such a big leap to vote for those who think the victims are bad people.

 

[Jev]

It shows a pattern with his recent actions which @berbatrick pointed out. This is more important than any lip service about a two-state solution which is just a meaningless party line. It's also weird that pointing out someone's racism means that these people mentioning it are the ones who are actually bigots.

How is something he said 31 years ago as an overconfident 20-year-old more important than what he says today, where he has been more vocally critical of Netanyahu and more supportive of a two-state solution than many Democrats?

 

[Raoul]

People are trying to argue that Shapiro is either uniquely bad or even worse than likes of Kelly on Gaza war. Relying on 3 decade old statement on same is hogwash when you have videos of Kelly clapping Netanyanhu for his address to congress. Shapiro is under more scrutiny for his views on Gaza war because his a jew, to argue otherwise is ignore reality on purpose.

Its not really about Shapiro at this point. Progressives are attempting to manufacture a controversy as a device to buy themselves a seat at the policy table in a Harris administration. The Shapiro "controversy" is simply a convenient pantomime villain to generate leverage to influence Harris if she wins. Otherwise, they would be more or less shut out of policy in a Harris administration.

 

[Raoul]

 

[Idxomer]

How is something he said 31 years ago as an overconfident 20-year-old more important than what he says today, where he has been more vocally critical of Netanyahu and more supportive of a two-state solution than many Democrats?

See @berbatrick's post above. And it's also in my post, his recent actions meant that the racist things he said 31 years ago are more relevant than meaningless support of a two-state solution.

 

[berbatrick]

People are trying to argue that Shapiro is either uniquely bad or even worse than likes of Kelly on Gaza war. Relying on 3 decade old statement on same is hogwash when you have videos of Kelly clapping Netanyanhu for his address to congress. Shapiro is under more scrutiny for his views on Gaza war because his a jew, to argue otherwise is ignore reality on purpose.

Oh, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that progressives like Kelly. Either me or one of the other anti-semites here posted exactly that video of Kelly clapping the day it happened. He, like Shapiro, also faces opposition from unions, and is a hardliner on the border (like Kamala). There is no progressive who wants him, as far as I know.

 

[Raoul]

Anyway, it doesn't matter whether they pick him or not. Harris is already part of the administration that killed anything between 50k-200k Palestinians. The one who helped and encouraged Netanyahu to do whatever the feck he wanted in the region. Their actions also meant that there's a very likely scenario that by January or rather next week, Beirut will also have been bombed on a wide scale.

That's a very good point. Harris will almost certainly be very similar to Biden in her policy towards the conflict, and whoever she selects as VP will be completely in sync with her view.

 

[Mike Smalling]

People are trying to argue that Shapiro is either uniquely bad or even worse than likes of Kelly on Gaza war. Relying on 3 decade old statement on same is hogwash when you have videos of Kelly clapping Netanyanhu for his address to congress. Shapiro is under more scrutiny for his views on Gaza war because his a jew, to argue otherwise is ignore reality on purpose.

It's not based on 30 year old statements though. Just as much his comments and conduct around the pro-Palestine protests throughout the spring. This quote is a real doozy: "We have to query whether or not we would tolerate this, if this were people dressed up in KKK outfits or KKK regalia, making comments about people who are African American in our communities".

 

[Jev]

See @berbatrick's post above. And it's also in my post, his recent actions meant that the racist things he said 31 years ago are more relevant than meaningless support of a two-state solution.

Why is it meaningless when he criticizes Israel but not when he’s critical of Palestinians or pro-Palestinian protesters?

 

[Jev]

It's not based on 30 year old statements though. Just as much his comments and conduct around the pro-Palestine protests throughout the spring. This quote is a real doozy: "We have to query whether or not we would tolerate this, if this were people dressed up in KKK outfits or KKK regalia, making comments about people who are African American in our communities".

He did make a point to distinguish clearly between peaceful protesters and protesters who were harassing Jewish students going to class. His point was that American universities exhibited double standards, a view the Congress hearings certainly gave credence.

 

[Morty_]

It's not based on 30 year old statements though. Just as much his comments and conduct around the pro-Palestine protests throughout the spring. This quote is a real doozy: "We have to query whether or not we would tolerate this, if this were people dressed up in KKK outfits or KKK regalia, making comments about people who are African American in our communities".

In fairness, it wasn't made about the gaza-protesters at large, if you read through it.

 

[berbatrick]

There is a high upside to him, but he is also risky, and could stall Harris momentum, with Gaza being brought up, front and center in the media.

Walz or Beshear don't have the upside in a specific swing-state, but they are just the safe picks, with next to nothing to attack them on.

Yes, but there are long-term benefits too.
AIPAC has shown it can take out incumbent Democrats. It will remain a useful internal disciplining tool for the Democrats against usurpers like the Squad, as long as the bulk of the party remains pro-Israel enough. If the party hardens its stand on Israel, AIPAC and the Israel lobby generally will use its considerable money and institutional power to act against the party as a whole. Having a lot of NYT columnists etc agains the party will hurt the Dems among a very important base of rich liberals. Having an ex-IDF soldier who holds the line against Palestinian rights, as the presumptive next POTUS after Harris, will keep the lobby on side.

 

[Raoul]

It's not based on 30 year old statements though. Just as much his comments and conduct around the pro-Palestine protests throughout the spring. This quote is a real doozy: "We have to query whether or not we would tolerate this, if this were people dressed up in KKK outfits or KKK regalia, making comments about people who are African American in our communities".

I don't think there's anything in that statement that would be considered questionable by most mainstream voters, especially given that it has since been clarified he was addressing his point towards the worst offenders in the protests.

Spoiler

 

[berbatrick]

Why is it meaningless when he criticizes Israel but not when he’s critical of Palestinians or pro-Palestinian protesters?

What is the equivalent action to this?


Both Republican state Treasurer Stacy Garrity and Democrat Attorney General Josh Shapiro are on board with calls to unleash Pennsylvania’s anti-BDS law on Ben & Jerry’s over the ice cream makers boycott targeting Israel. Gov. Tom Wolf, however, has thus far remained silent.

After news broke that Ben & Jerry’s (now owned by corporate conglomerate Unilver) was refusing to license its product for sale in East Jerusalem and Israeli communities on the West Bank, state Rep. Aaron Kaufer (R-Luzerne) wrote Garrity, Shapiro, and Wolf asking them to invoke the 2016 law.

...

He asked college presidents to resign for not protecting Jewish students from harrasment. Many pro-Palestinian students were attacked by vigilantes, a few were attacked with some chemical, and a few were shot dead. Why didn't he ask the college presidents to resign for deadly violence?

 

[Idxomer]

Why is it meaningless when he criticizes Israel but not when he’s critical of Palestinians or pro-Palestinian protesters?

Because he backs it with actions that make any support for a two-state solution or criticism of Netanyahu meaningless.