2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

Raoul said:
Some less encouraging news for Dems

Click to expand...

These are good. More of this. No complacency. Trump will get turnout (though I maintain it will never be as high as 2020 in absolute terms) and the Dems need to win. No one should be celebratinga thing, other than the Dems now having a chance.

The fact that Trump is this abhorrent a candidate and STILL basically favourite tells you all you need to know about Americans and their media consumption imo.
 
Morty_ said:
Now, personally, i believe that the polls will not overestimate Trump by much, if anything, this election, just a personal opinion, but the "energy" doesn't seem to be there.

But whatever "hold" Trump hold over these traditional blue states is indeed rather strange, and i hope its gone, when he is gone.
Click to expand...

Its hard to say how many of them will turn up. But if past performance is an indicator, the result is likely to be that a lot more Trump voters show up on election day than main street polling would lead us to believe. The fact that he has already won an election with just 62m popular votes then gotten 74m in the next one, should be a massive red flag for Harris. She will probably need an unprecedented level of turn out to win this time.
 
Raoul said:
Its hard to say how many of them will turn up. But if past performance is an indicator, the result is likely to be that a lot more Trump voters show up on election day than main street polling would lead us to believe. The fact that he has already won an election with just 62m popular votes then gotten 74m in the next one, should be a massive red flag for Harris. She will probably need an unprecedented level of turn out to win this time.
Click to expand...

Have you considered that millions of these people are now dead, by covid, or other health oriented issues? I don't see who he replaced them with.

Not ruling out he can win through the EC again, but i don't see any way he is getting close to 74m votes again, 2020 was the top.

If Harris gets high turnout, she wins.
 
Raoul said:
The fact that he has already won an election with just 62m popular votes then gotten 74m in the next one, should be a massive red flag for Harris.
Click to expand...
These numbers are still astonishing to me. Like 12m additional people thought, “Yes, more of that please”.

Is there any good analysis of which groups he gained with from 16 to 20?
 
Morty_ said:
Have you considered that millions of these people are now dead, by covid, or other health oriented issues? I don't see who he replaced them with.

Not ruling out he can win through the EC again, but i don't see any way he is getting close to 74m votes again, 2020 was the top.

If Harris gets high turnout, she wins.
Click to expand...

I don't think the pandemic will factor into this since both sides were affected. If anything, the residual economic impact of inflation and the cost of living will benefit the guy who is manipulating the public's grievances for his own political gain. Harris is going to need turnout comparable to Biden's in 2020 to win, or else hang her hat on Trump having an unusually low turnout, which would be both risky and irresponsible.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think the pandemic will factor into this since both sides were affected. If anything, the residual economic impact of inflation and the cost of living will benefit the guy who is manipulating the public's grievances for his own political gain. Harris is going to need turnout comparable to Biden's in 2020 to win, or else hang her hat on Trump having an unusually low turnout, which would be both risky and irresponsible.
Click to expand...
Significantly more MAGA, etc. citizens died from Covid versus their political counterparts.
 
berbatrick said:
If this was directed at me, I think a vote for either major side in the US is an affirmative vote for the slaughter to continue.



Their response has the characteristics of a genocide, as has been reported on by the American free press. Continuing to support this slaughter, and, according to you, not seeing it as at least ethnic cleansing, if not more, does suggest a deep-rooted racism (as I indicated in my first post.)
Click to expand...

The only power you have in a representative democracy is your vote. What you are suggesting here is to give all power to those who unequivicoally support "the slaughter".

Policy is defined by what voters favour, and what direction policies they choose to vote for move a country. In a two party system, which the US effectively is, you vote to move the needle - not for an ideal policy. In this case we know that Republicans are more actively supportive of Israel's military actions than Democrats who passively support them. Republicans are in favor of a much stronger hard line foreign policy strategy against Iran, while Democrats are aiming toward diplomatic interactions.

What you have to ask yourself as a one-issue voter, is which direction do you want the country to move in?

The real opportunity to change a party's policy is during house and senate primaries. This is when you vote for candidates who will influence national policy. If a pro-palestinian candidate creates enthusiasm and wins a seat handidly after a strong primary, that in turn influences other seats (Warner and Sanders -> AOC -> The squad).

Voters is all that matters, that is why Universal Sufferage was so important. If you choose to abstain, you aren't "protesting", you are making your vote irrelevant and allowing others to define how the country will be shaped.

When Gen Z realise they are the second most powerful voting block after the boomers, and start using their votes in every single election, then things will start to change. Perhaps drastically. Because at that point political parties will actually care about trying to win their votes.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think the pandemic will factor into this since both sides were affected. If anything, the residual economic impact of inflation and the cost of living will benefit the guy who is manipulating the public's grievances for his own political gain. Harris is going to need turnout comparable to Biden's in 2020 to win, or else hang her hat on Trump having an unusually low turnout, which would be both risky and irresponsible.
Click to expand...

If you are asking for specific numbers, no, i don't have them infront of me right now, but really, we all know republicans were less in favor of vaccines, less in favor of masks, less in favor of isolation, and importantly, their electorate is more on the elderly side.

So, covid, and other health-related issues, hurt them more than it did democrats.
 
Laurencio said:
The only power you have in a representative democracy is your vote. What you are suggesting here is to give all power to those who unequivicoally support "the slaughter".

Policy is defined by what voters favour, and what direction policies they choose to vote for move a country. In a two party system, which the US effectively is, you vote to move the needle - not for an ideal policy. In this case we know that Republicans are more actively supportive of Israel's military actions than Democrats who passively support them. Republicans are in favor of a much stronger hard line foreign policy strategy against Iran, while Democrats are aiming toward diplomatic interactions.

What you have to ask yourself as a one-issue voter, is which direction do you want the country to move in?

The real opportunity to change a party's policy is during house and senate primaries. This is when you vote for candidates who will influence national policy. If a pro-palestinian candidate creates enthusiasm and wins a seat handidly after a strong primary, that in turn influences other seats (Warner and Sanders -> AOC -> The squad).

Voters is all that matters, that is why Universal Sufferage was so important. If you choose to abstain, you aren't "protesting", you are making your vote irrelevant and allowing others to define how the country will be shaped.

When Gen Z realise they are the second most powerful voting block after the boomers, and start using their votes in every single election, then things will start to change. Perhaps drastically. Because at that point political parties will actually care about trying to win their votes.
Click to expand...

For the bolded bit ... what? I said both sides unequivocally support the slaughter, therefore a vote for either is a vote for slaughter.

Can you explain how the Democratic support for this has been more passive? I'm assuming, since this is about voting and policy, you're talking about Democratic politicians, who control the Senate and White House. They have provided full diplomatic cover, opposed any intervention by bodies of international law, provided literally billions in weapons, provided on-the-ground military assistance, and have given a public security guarantee as Israel escalates its feuds with many neighbours. None of these are moves of passive support. Passive support is what Israel gets from the island nations in the UNGA.

Some believe that there is a powerful lobby and a unified media apparatus that restricts pro-Palestinian politics, and results in a pro-Israel govt. Some believe that this govt, democratically elected, is merely a reflection of public sentiment in favour of Israel. Either way, the fact is that, through these elections, primaries and generals, the public has consistently chosen pro-Israel politicians. When they vote for Harris or Trump, they will be continuing that. If genocide was a deal-breaker for the voting public, they have a couple of options, who are both polling at 0%.

Gen Z, like millennials, will one day start owning capital (mostly home equity), and will start looking out for themselves. There is no perpetual "progressive" waiting to awaken.
 
Raoul said:
Even if true, Trump isn''t getting blamed for it. Trump also got 12m more votes in 2020 than 2016, which shouldn't be overlooked.
Click to expand...
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/political-party-affiliation-linked-excess-covid-deaths

Not talking about blame nor overlooking the disparity between 2016 & 2020, just stating that red / swing counties absorbed more Covid deaths than blue counties. Who knows if Repubs were able to make up their death losses vs. Dems? We shall see.

Personally I don't see Trump attaining new votes close to the millions he received in 2020. But that's just me.
 
Mike Smalling said:
These numbers are still astonishing to me. Like 12m additional people thought, “Yes, more of that please”.

Is there any good analysis of which groups he gained with from 16 to 20?
Click to expand...
Turnout was dramatically larger in 2020 than 2016 due to covid-related measures to facilitate voting. So while Trump gained in some groups (for example Latinos), the bulk of the gain is likely just people who would have voted for him in 2016 if they'd been bothered.
 
Raoul said:
Even if true, Trump isn''t getting blamed for it. Trump also got 12m more votes in 2020 than 2016, which shouldn't be overlooked.
Click to expand...
Population growth accounts for increasing mumbers on both sides + if I recall correctly the turnout was up.

One thing I'm curious about is what will happen in States where GOP legislatures made it harder to vote or put barriers in place, I'm thinking Georgia where you can't give a bottle of water to someone in a queue, given GOP voters have a tendency to vote in-person on the day, wouldn't that be more likely do disincentivise them?
 
Red in STL said:
Population growth accounts for increasing mumbers on both sides + if I recall correctly the turnout was up.

One thing I'm curious about is what will happen in States where GOP legislatures made it harder to vote or put barriers in place, I'm thinking Georgia where you can't give a bottle of water to someone in a queue, given GOP voters have a tendency to vote in-person on the day, wouldn't that be more likely do disincentivise them?
Click to expand...

Population growth wouldn't explain Trump's far bigger popular vote numbers in 2020 (during a pandemic no less). Safe to say, much of the public were comfortable with the economic conditions during most of his first term, which resulted in a lot more votes. Biden also broke the Dem popular vote record because he managed to swing even more people who desperately didn't want a 2nd Trump term.

On the second bit, Trump famously mocked early voting by mail in 2020, which some believe hurt him. This time he has embraced it, so he should actually outperform his numbers this year.
 
Mike Smalling said:
What a strange argument. The left has been bothered by the situation in Gaza and the West Bank for a long time, but of course it's going to take center stage when +30,000 people are killed indiscriminately with weapons largely supplied by the US government, and when that same government is simultaneously completely unwilling to draw a line in the sand for seemingly anything.
Click to expand...
I think Biden can't win here. If he hadn't supported Israel, then he would have lost big group of Jewish voters.

If muslin voters want to punish Biden for his stand on Gaza and vote for Trump or don't vote at all (which is indirectly a vote for Trump) then they will have to have the consequences, if Trump will be president again.
 
Raoul said:
Population growth wouldn't explain Trump's far bigger popular vote numbers in 2020 (during a pandemic no less). Safe to say, much of the public were comfortable with the economic conditions during most of his first term, which resulted in a lot more votes. Biden also broke the Dem popular vote record because he managed to swing even more people who desperately didn't want a 2nd Trump term.

On the second bit, Trump famously mocked early voting by mail in 2020, which some believe hurt him. This time he has embraced it, so he should actually outperform his numbers this year.
Click to expand...

Was it sad, and disturbing to see the amount of voters he got behind in in 2020? Yes, absolutely, 4 years of chaos, and more people voted for him than previously.

But he was the incumbent, and had, up until covid, a decent economy inherited by previous admin.

But that was pre-january 6th, and Trump acting like a salty bitch ever since, and he hasn't gotten better cognitively either, with Biden out, he is now the old candidate, and it shows at times.

It all depends on the turnout Harris can get, if she gets close to 2020, i don't see how Trump wins, he has for sure lost voters since then imo.
 
Today is the Ilhan Omar primary. While low-key initially, after expelling Bush and Bowman, the lobby has its tail up, and has the added advantage of this being an open primary in a deep-blue seat (incentivising Republicans to come out for the challenger).



The members of the group "Jews for Ritchie Torres" are remarkably clear-eyed about the national picture too. "The bottom line is and it's a sad one, we need to be supportive ON PRESIDENTIAL LEVEL of the alt right Christian Neo Nazis at the moment (like Ukraine) to fight off the socialist, Marxist, anarchists who are supporting radical Islam."
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
I mean yes? The two party system is extremely fecking stupid and should be done away with - but I fail to see why considering the broader context of the election in the election thread is a problem?
Click to expand...
There is no plausible mechanism I can think of to do a "reckoning" on Gaza after winning an election. Parties usually continue doing what they're doing until they lose elections.
 
Laurencio said:
The only power you have in a representative democracy is your vote. What you are suggesting here is to give all power to those who unequivicoally support "the slaughter".

Policy is defined by what voters favour, and what direction policies they choose to vote for move a country. In a two party system, which the US effectively is, you vote to move the needle - not for an ideal policy. In this case we know that Republicans are more actively supportive of Israel's military actions than Democrats who passively support them. Republicans are in favor of a much stronger hard line foreign policy strategy against Iran, while Democrats are aiming toward diplomatic interactions.

What you have to ask yourself as a one-issue voter, is which direction do you want the country to move in?

The real opportunity to change a party's policy is during house and senate primaries. This is when you vote for candidates who will influence national policy. If a pro-palestinian candidate creates enthusiasm and wins a seat handidly after a strong primary, that in turn influences other seats (Warner and Sanders -> AOC -> The squad).

Voters is all that matters, that is why Universal Sufferage was so important. If you choose to abstain, you aren't "protesting", you are making your vote irrelevant and allowing others to define how the country will be shaped.

When Gen Z realise they are the second most powerful voting block after the boomers, and start using their votes in every single election, then things will start to change. Perhaps drastically. Because at that point political parties will actually care about trying to win their votes.
Click to expand...
I think there's generally too much emphasis placed on this type of 'voter' who rationally assesses all things in order to 'move the needle' in the direction they want.

I think to the extent that the Gaza war can affect the election, it is not because of this kind of rational assessment, but because people are viscerally repulsed by mass murder.
 
Red in STL said:
Any constitutional amendment also requires 3/4 of states as well as 2/3 of Congress, that's even less likely.

Re; Filibuster, abolishing it has consequences, this was done for the nomination of SCOTUS judges and look where that ended up, the filibuster needs to change, probably by reducing the numbers required, it serves a purpose as it means there needs to be some bi-partisan ship
Click to expand...
Abolishing the filibuster is a terrible idea and would just strengthen the division even more. I know that Harry Reid to some degree had to do it for judicial appointments, but that eventually helped McConnell the next time GOP got in power.

Unless the Dems plan to rule forever (which in democracies outside of Singapore just doesn’t happen), abolishing the filibuster would have negative consequences.

In any case, Dems won’t control the Senate in January so any talk of abolishing filibuster, adding statehoods to DC and PR, enlarging the Supreme Court is poor fantasy. And limits to SCOTUS is just to sell to people who know nothing about it, considering that it cannot be done without extreme bipartisan support.
 
Revan said:
Abolishing the filibuster is a terrible idea and would just strengthen the division even more. I know that Harry Reid to some degree had to do it for judicial appointments, but that eventually helped McConnell the next time GOP got in power.

Unless the Dems plan to rule forever (which in democracies outside of Singapore just doesn’t happen), abolishing the filibuster would have negative consequences.
Click to expand...

If your political conversation so broken that it needs a ridiculously undemocratic thing like the filibuster, then it's probably best to just rip the band aid off and hope that things improve. There are many ridiculous ideas in the American political system, but the filibuster might be at the top of the list.
 
Revan said:
Abolishing the filibuster is a terrible idea and would just strengthen the division even more. I know that Harry Reid to some degree had to do it for judicial appointments, but that eventually helped McConnell the next time GOP got in power.

Unless the Dems plan to rule forever (which in democracies outside of Singapore just doesn’t happen), abolishing the filibuster would have negative consequences.

In any case, Dems won’t control the Senate in January so any talk of abolishing filibuster, adding statehoods to DC and PR, enlarging the Supreme Court is poor fantasy. And limits to SCOTUS is just to sell to people who know nothing about it, considering that it cannot be done without extreme bipartisan support.
Click to expand...

Abolishing it is a great idea, and it will happen, its just a matter of when.

Its not about ruling forever, its about democracy, and not having some senators in Wyoming, state virtually without people, decide what goes on at the national stage.

Then, when its time for republicans to "abuse" that power, well, they can go ahead and abolish ACA, implement federal abortion bans etc. and see just how popular they become...
 
B. Munich said:
I think Biden can't win here. If he hadn't supported Israel, then he would have lost big group of Jewish voters.

If muslin voters want to punish Biden for his stand on Gaza and vote for Trump or don't vote at all (which is indirectly a vote for Trump) then they will have to have the consequences, if Trump will be president again.
Click to expand...
Not voting is not 'indirectly a vote for Trump' anymore than it is 'indirectly a vote for Biden'.
 
B. Munich said:
And not voting at all too!
Click to expand...
A vote for a third party as well, at least in the scenario he posits.

I don't agree with the premise that both parties would have been equally unequivocal in support of Israel's actions in Gaza. I personally believe a Trump administration would have given more extreme levels of support and not withheld any weapons but that's just based on my impressions.
 
berbatrick said:
For the bolded bit ... what? I said both sides unequivocally support the slaughter, therefore a vote for either is a vote for slaughter.

Can you explain how the Democratic support for this has been more passive? I'm assuming, since this is about voting and policy, you're talking about Democratic politicians, who control the Senate and White House. They have provided full diplomatic cover, opposed any intervention by bodies of international law, provided literally billions in weapons, provided on-the-ground military assistance, and have given a public security guarantee as Israel escalates its feuds with many neighbours. None of these are moves of passive support. Passive support is what Israel gets from the island nations in the UNGA.

Some believe that there is a powerful lobby and a unified media apparatus that restricts pro-Palestinian politics, and results in a pro-Israel govt. Some believe that this govt, democratically elected, is merely a reflection of public sentiment in favour of Israel. Either way, the fact is that, through these elections, primaries and generals, the public has consistently chosen pro-Israel politicians. When they vote for Harris or Trump, they will be continuing that. If genocide was a deal-breaker for the voting public, they have a couple of options, who are both polling at 0%.

Gen Z, like millennials, will one day start owning capital (mostly home equity), and will start looking out for themselves. There is no perpetual "progressive" waiting to awaken.
Click to expand...

A vote for either is not a vote for slaughter. It is a vote for either hardline or soft-line policies. That is an important distinction, because only one of them opens the door for a possible pro-Palestinian outcome.

Conservative think-tanks are openly and vocally questioning the feasibility of a two-state solution and advocating for Israel to have full control of the region with Palestine being a semi-autonomous territory within Israel to avoid Palestinians becoming Isreali citizens. For the moment, Democrats are still invested in a two-party solution, trying to involve the Saudis and the Arab League.

Vote republican and US policy on Palestine changes to actively destroying the Palestinian state and the two-state project in favour of a semi-autonomous territory under Israeli control. Vote democrat and they will still push towards a two-state solution and, given that democratic presidents in general have supported settlement activity less than republicans, a bit more pressure on Isreal. If everyone who thinks the current situation in Gaza is horrific decide to abstain, the Republicans are more likely to win.

As for the pro-isreal vs pro-Palestine goverments.
It is not so much "powerful lobbies" as self-interest. Israel is an ally of the US, it has a long standing trade relationship, is part of a international intelligence gathering apparatus, and has a remarkably stable government-structure. Palestine on the other hand has no trade to speak of, is highly volatile, has a history of seeking support from US enemies/rivals (Russia, Iran and they tried with China) and have been weakened significantly over the years by Isreali settlers stealing land. The US might have been involved in weakening Palestine, but it has not exactly put them in a prime position to negotiate for a free Palestine. This is why Biden is trying to involve the Saudis - give Palestine more leverage.


Iker Quesadillas said:
I think there's generally too much emphasis placed on this type of 'voter' who rationally assesses all things in order to 'move the needle' in the direction they want.

I think to the extent that the Gaza war can affect the election, it is not because of this kind of rational assessment, but because people are viscerally repulsed by mass murder.
Click to expand...

Then they should vote in primaries, house elections and senate elections, not sit it out as a "protest". Your vote is only valuable if you use it - and use it often, at every level of government. Go out and vote in a primary for a democratic candidate who wants a different foreign policy approach to Israel, or a republican for that matter - if you can find any republican candidate anywhere that wants that. The only way to change party policies is from the ground up.
 
Laurencio said:
Then they should vote in primaries, house elections and senate elections, not sit it out as a "protest". Your vote is only valuable if you use it - and use it often, at every level of government. Go out and vote in a primary for a democratic candidate who wants a different foreign policy approach to Israel, or a republican for that matter - if you can find any republican candidate anywhere that wants that. The only way to change party policies is from the ground up.
Click to expand...
You are talking about what ought to be. I'm talking about what it is.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
Not voting is not 'indirectly a vote for Trump' anymore than it is 'indirectly a vote for Biden'
Click to expand...
Of course it is, because we are talking about potential democrat voters.
The MAGA voters will vote for Trump, whatever he will do.

I talked with many of the retired US expats here in the Philippines (mostly ex army). They (almost) all support Trump and don't give a f*** about what's happening in Gaza.
 
DanH said:
I don't agree with the premise that both parties would have been equally unequivocal in support of Israel's actions in Gaza. I personally believe a Trump administration would have given more extreme levels of support and not withheld any weapons but that's just based on my impressions.
Click to expand...
I also believe that voters, who primarily care about the Palestinian cause, would anyway only vote for democrats or not at all.
 
gaffs said:
What a moron.

I mean, Elon is a lot of things, but he is not stupid. He must know Trump is a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
Click to expand...

Elon may have been “not stupid” one day back whenever, but he absolutely is now. Drugs have done a massive number on his brain.
 
Raoul said:
He's apparently taking a bit more from Trump than (previously) Biden. Unclear how the introduction of Harris factors in.
Click to expand...

My guess, RFK takes more from Trump.

And the "lean Biden" voters that may have gone RFK/third party as they didn't really like either candidate.

It is the double haters, as well as young voters, that are the ones that are moving to Harris.
 
gaffs said:
What a moron.

I mean, Elon is a lot of things, but he is not stupid. He must know Trump is a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
Click to expand...

It can not be healthy to live your life on the premise that the universe is a simulation and nothing actually matters, while also having Asperger's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.