2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

Raoul said:
Of all the critiques of Harris, this is a perfectly legitimate one. Not a single person has voted for her to be nominated as President, and yet she finds herself in a situation where she is being fast tracked through all the usual checks and balances every other candidate has to go through to be considered for the job. She has to therefore start doing interviews that challenge her policies, otherwise she will quickly risk being perceived as an empty vessel that is being undemocratically imposed on the electorate, who are being instructed to look the other way because the alternative is Trump.
Click to expand...

She could answer every single question with the bolded bit and that'd be a good enough performance to earn election.

As for no one voting for her to be nominated President, several million people in 2020 thought she's perfectly qualified to take over the top job if something happened to Biden, like, on day 10 of his presidency. So, not a big deal this time around.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Because the presidential elections with Trump on the ticket give the following outcomes:

2016: Wisconsin: Trump +1, National: Clinton +2
2020: Wisconsin: Biden+0.5, National: Biden +4

In both these cases Wisconsin leans Republican relative to the national vote. It would therefore be pretty surprising if in a Trump +4 environment Wisconsin went Harris +3. That's the complete inverse of what's happened before. Instead of it being Republican +3 compared to the national vote share, Wisconsin would become Democrats +7. A 10 point swing! Something enormous must have happened to the Wisconsin electorate, or for everywhere else except Wisconsin for something like that to occur. Nothing springs to mind.

Edit: At any rate this is all moot because the data that I thought came from a single pollster actually came from two different ones.
Click to expand...

Not really - the political landscape has changed dramatically in the past four years, and especially in the past few weeks with the changes in the democratic ticket.

But none of what you said addresses my actual point - that discrepancies between state polls and national polls are perfectly normal in American politics. Because the former is only telling you what is happening in one state whilst the latter is aggregating what is happening across a totality of 50 states. I am genuinely surprised that anyone would be surprised given how often this happens.
 
erikcred said:
She could answer every single question with the bolded bit and that'd be a good enough performance to earn election.

As for no one voting for her to be nominated President, several million people in 2020 thought she's perfectly qualified to take over the top job if something happened to Biden, like, on day 10 of his presidency. So, not a big deal this time around.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that voting for Biden in 2020 is not the same as voting specifically for Harris in the present, especially as there was no competition among Dems to replace him. She was literally anointed in the absence of a democratic process. She's going to have to publish her policies and defend them before the election and stop hiding behind the fear of Trump being reelected.
 
Morty_ said:
Sucks that the people of Wisconsin simply couldn't handle having a black person as senator, thats what ultimately will cost dems the senate this cycle.
Click to expand...
There are more risky seats than WI. Montana and Ohio will be very hard to defend, West Virginia is gone. Nevada, Pennsylvania and Arizona are as hard as Wisconsin to hold.

The thing is, Dems cannot afford to lose anything except W Virginia and even that might not be enough if Trump wins. To be fair, the goal is to lose as few seats as possible so they can regain the senate in 2026. No way they can hold the senate now.
 
Raoul said:
I'm afraid that voting for Biden in 2020 is not the same as voting specifically for Harris in the present, especially as there was no competition among Dems to replace him. She was literally anointed in the absence of a democratic process. She's going to have to publish her policies and defend them before the election and stop hiding behind the fear of Trump being reelected.
Click to expand...

Don't the DNC always release a policy platform around the convention happens? So i wouldn't worry about that, though she should have to go out and speak about it herself, of course.
 
Revan said:
There are more risky seats than WI. Montana and Ohio will be very hard to defend, West Virginia is gone. Nevada, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Arizona are as hard as Wisconsin to hold.

The thing is, Dems cannot afford to lose anything except W Virginia and even that might not be enough if Trump wins. To be fair, the goal is to lose as few seats as possible so they can regain the senate in 2026. No way they can hold the senate now.
Click to expand...

I...don't think we are talking about the same election, i'm talking about how the Wisconsin senate election of 2022 causes dems the senate this election, in all likelihood.

Yes, this election will be tough in terms of the senate, but dems should be okay all around.
 
Revan said:
This sucks, there won't be any path to Dems holding senate if Tester loses (GOP will easily get West Viriginia with Manchin retiring). Still, Tester like Manchin has the ability of winning in deep red states, so probably might turn things around.

NB: To be fair, there is no chance Dems keep the senate. No GOP seat is threatened, West Viriginia will go GOP, effectively making it 50-50. Then Dems will need to hold Montana and Ohio, both deep red / red states, keep Nevada, win Minnesota, Arizona, and to a lesser degree Penn and Wisconsin.
Click to expand...
I would love us holding the senate, but that’s going to be very difficult even if Tester wins.

For me, winning the Presidency would be a great achievement and would qualify for a successful election. This would end the era of Trump as a serious contender. We can figure out the rest later.

The House is definitely in play, and so we can win that one, which would be a bonus.
 
calodo2003 said:
She responded to reckless in a manner that shut them up / a manner that engaged the rest of the crowd. The hecklers could have been griping about anything & it would have elicited the 'Trump is worse' line, it's not a response exclusive with pro-Palestinian protesters.

'Trump is worse' isn't policy, but it is handy to have in her quiver to use to shut down hecklera.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, and that is what I say, I expect more than handiness on berating your opponent and lift your qualities. But we are going on circles. You find it find, I don't. Agree to disagree
 
Raoul said:
Of all the critiques of Harris, this is a perfectly legitimate one. Not a single person has voted for her to be nominated as President, and yet she finds herself in a situation where she is being fast tracked through all the usual checks and balances every other candidate has to go through to be considered for the job. She has to therefore start doing interviews that challenge her policies, otherwise she will quickly risk being perceived as an empty vessel that is being undemocratically imposed on the electorate, who are being instructed to look the other way because the alternative is Trump.
Click to expand...

One obvious counter point to this is that Americans vote on a presidential ticket made up of the presidential candidate and the vice presidential candidate, not solely on just a presidential candidate. Therefore Harris has already been vetted and checked and debated and interviewed as a Vice Presidential candidate, and then won an election as a Vice Presidential candidate. It’s not like she’s been parachuted in from obscurity - she was literally voted in as the person to step up and replace the president if anything happened to him over the past four years.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
I would love us holding the senate, but that going to be very difficult even if Tester wins.

For me, winning the Presidency would be a great achievement and would qualify for a successful election.

The House is definitely in play, and so we can win that one, which would be a bonus.
Click to expand...
To be fair if Tester wins, it is still doable. Ohio is very vulnerable, but after that the others are a bit easier. GOP fecked itself again by having Lake in Arizona which should make things slightly easier for Dems. Nevada is hard too but Dems are favourites.

The issue is that Montana and Ohio are really toss-up. If we assume they are independent, and in both cases are 50-50, then chances of keeping both are just 25%. This is the main issue, there are a couple of very vulnerable seats, and a couple of somehow vulnerable that the Dems need to keep. While GOP basically are certain to keep all of their seats.

I guess the goal is win presidency, flip the house and do not lose the senate for more than 1-2 seats. In which case it will be a success.

NB: Minnesota is completely safe, I think I read something wrong when I wrote my previous post. Klobuchar will easily keep her seat.
 
Morty_ said:
Don't the DNC always release a policy platform around the convention happens? So i wouldn't worry about that, though she should have to go out and speak about it herself, of course.
Click to expand...

They do for the main candidate because that person has usually been running for the past 9-12 months, much of which was spent campaigning on specific policies, doing interviews, press conferences, debates etc. All of that ostensibly becomes the candidate's vetting process with the media and the public. This accelerated coronation of Harris has completely circumvented that, and her ignoring calls to do proper one on one interviews with journos isn't helping.
 
Morty_ said:
I...don't think we are talking about the same election, i'm talking about how the Wisconsin senate election of 2022 causes dems the senate this election, in all likelihood.

Yes, this election will be tough in terms of the senate, but dems should be okay all around.
Click to expand...
Ah, you are talking about the previous race. To be fair, it is always hard to defeat the incumbent. And Wisconsin is as a tossup state as it can be, so it was always very hard, no need to put it down to racism. Incumbents simply tend to keep their seats. We see incumbents keeping their seats in states that usually go for the other party (Montana, Ohio, Maine, and even West Virginia), essentially in states that are not solid blue/red, it is close to impossible to defeat incumbents.
 
Zumbi said:
One obvious counter point to this is that Americans vote on a presidential ticket made up of the presidential candidate and the vice presidential candidate, not solely on just a presidential candidate. Therefore Harris has already been vetted and checked and debated and interviewed as a Vice Presidential candidate, and then won an election as a Vice Presidential candidate. It’s not like she’s been parachuted in from obscurity - she was literally voted in as the person to step up and replace the president if anything happened to him over the past four years.
Click to expand...

That's correct, but she's not running for VP. Further, her policies seem to change as the wind blows and people generally don't know what she stands for because she has largely been kept out of the spotlight over the past four years. People are simply assuming her views are a facsimile of Biden's, so maybe she needs to explain them in situations where people can ask questions.
 
Revan said:
To be fair if Tester wins, it is still doable. Ohio is very vulnerable, but after that the others are a bit easier. GOP fecked itself again by having Lake in Arizona which should make things slightly easier for Dems. Nevada is hard too but Dems are favourites.
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s doable, but it’s difficult. We should not convince ourselves otherwise.

If Harris wins and the Democrats lose the Senate, you will hear some doom and gloom on election night, just like when Biden won but the Dems lost the House in 2020.

This election is about winning the White House. It’s about ending this terrible Trump era. It’s about the future of our institutions, especially with this Supreme Court.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
Yes, it’s doable, but it’s difficult. We should not convince ourselves otherwise.

If Harris wins and the Democrats lose the Senate, you will hear some doom and gloom on election night, just like when Biden won but the Dems lost the House in 2020.

This election is about winning the White House. It’s about ending this terrible Trump era. It’s about the future of our institutions, especially with this Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Dems kept the House when Biden won the White House. They lost it in 2022.
 
Zumbi said:
One obvious counter point to this is that Americans vote on a presidential ticket made up of the presidential candidate and the vice presidential candidate, not solely on just a presidential candidate. Therefore Harris has already been vetted and checked and debated and interviewed as a Vice Presidential candidate, and then won an election as a Vice Presidential candidate. It’s not like she’s been parachuted in from obscurity - she was literally voted in as the person to step up and replace the president if anything happened to him over the past four years.
Click to expand...
This is in theory, but in practice people vote for the president, not for the VP. It is the same vote, so while in theory you vote for both, pretty much everyone votes for the president, with the VP being parachuted there. This is different to the early days, where the VP was simply the person who got the second most electoral votes.
 
Revan said:
Ah, you are talking about the previous race. To be fair, it is always hard to defeat the incumbent. And Wisconsin is as a tossup state as it can be, so it was always very hard, no need to put it down to racism. Incumbents simply tend to keep their seats. We see incumbents keeping their seats in states that usually go for the other party (Montana, Ohio, Maine, and even West Virginia), essentially in states that are not solid blue/red, it is close to impossible to defeat incumbents.
Click to expand...

Dems don't have a problem winning statewide races in Wisconsin, but did you know, they are all white?

Also, that incumbent outed himself out as a traitor, literally all Wisconsin had to do, a state that tilts blue, for the record, was to not vote for a traitor, but he was white, so i guess it was okay.
 
Revan said:
Dems kept the House when Biden won the White House. They lost it in 2022.
Click to expand...
Correct. When they lost seats in the House in 2020.

I heard so much doom and gloom despite beating T. Four 5 years they wanted to beat him, and they we did…. some were like “look, we lost seat No. whatever in Florida… a congressman is crying”…
 
Trump having a press conference, everything he says so far is a lie, per usual.

For whatever reason, this guy plays well in the rust-belt states.
 
Raoul said:
That's correct, but she's not running for VP. Further, her policies seem to change as the wind blows and people generally don't know what she stands for because she has largely been kept out of the spotlight over the past four years. People are simply assuming her views are a facsimile of Biden's, so maybe she needs to explain them in situations where people can ask questions.
Click to expand...

Which will happen as the DNC takes place, followed by all the associated media, then interviews and town halls and, hopefully, debates. A day can be a long time in politics, and so there’s still a a huge amount of time for all these things to play out.

Incidentally, it’s a little bemusing to hear this critique being made of Harris when Trump is her opponent - the guy who is the least policy-minded presidential candidate in history. His current campaign strategy of rambling nonsense and insults for hours on end at maga rallies is hardly a policy tour de force.
 
Revan said:
This is in theory, but in practice people vote for the president, not for the VP. It is the same vote, so while in theory you vote for both, pretty much everyone votes for the president, with the VP being parachuted there. This is different to the early days, where the VP was simply the person who got the second most electoral votes.
Click to expand...

But they still get vetted and interviewed and have debates etc, which is the point I was making. That’s a fundamental and inescapable part of being the VP on the ticket, so to make out like she is an unknown or hasn’t faced scrutiny already is disingenuous.
 
Raoul said:
Trump just called for 3 debates

Click to expand...


He is just making up stuff, if Harris caves in to the Fox debate, he will do that one, and then bail on the rest.

Insist on the agreed schedule.
 
Zumbi said:
But they still get vetted and interviewed and have debates etc, which is the point I was making. That’s a fundamental and inescapable part of being the VP on the ticket, so to make out like she is an unknown or hasn’t faced scrutiny already is disingenuous.
Click to expand...

The last time she was "vetted" was when she was running for VP in 2019 and wound up the worst performer among prominent Dems. Even Biden's Transportation Secretary outperformed her, so what transpired then isn't something that can be used in the present imo.

Fortunately we are now getting debates so that's a good start.
 
Trump insists on having multiple times the crowd sizes of Harris still.

Heck, why not just fully take the piss, and go full Dr. Evil? Nobody will care anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.