2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

Raoul said:
If Harris was an inspirational candidate capable of galvanizing people behind her then I would agree with you. But as i said before, the only time she has run, she didn't fare well. And if Biden had withdrawn six months earlier and there was a competitive primary, she would've probably not won it. When you remove the identity politics angle of race and gender from the equation, there's really not much meat on the bone in terms of political acumen, a temperament to lead, or the ability to communicate at a high level such as the likes of Reagan/Clinton/Obama had. What you are left with is someone who was selected as VP to check a box for Biden, and now with Biden's withdrawal, that same person who previously won the veepstakes has now been coronated as the nominee without going through a process. She therefore has all her work ahead of her if she is going to demonstrate why she should be taken seriously at a national level.
Click to expand...
In its simplest form, people voted against Trump in 2020 and they will vote against him in 2024.

Biden had virtually nothing to draw people to his banner, whereas Harris has lots of things. I like Harris more than I like Biden. I think her story is compelling: mixed race, modest upbringing, became a lawyer, then a DA, then the VP. Compare that to Trump: trust fund baby who squandered his fortune, rebuilt said fortune through dubious deals with foreign mobsters and through a reality TV program, 34 felony convictions, $500m in disgorgement and fines for NYC business fraud, adjudicated sexual assault, cheated on all 3 wives, stole from a cancer charity, bankrupted 7 times, lost money owning a casino, fan of Hitler, tolerates white supremacists, incited an insurrection, tried to blackmail foreign leaders to dig up dirt on his opponent, tried to steal an election.

I mean, it's still going to be work, but I don't see how she loses this.
 
Is it me or does polling seem to be a bit all of the place? With the added uncertainty of 3rd party candidates (JFK Jr. in particular), it is really difficult to draw any conclusions, other than it was a good thing Biden dropped out.

I also see a lot of headlines like "J.D. Vance is the most unpopular human in the history of the planet", but does it really matter all that much? It's a missed opportunity for Trump, but I don't see Vance actively dragging him down, when it comes to the actual votes.
 
Mike Smalling said:
Is it me or does polling seem to be a bit all of the place? With the added uncertainty of 3rd party candidates (JFK Jr. in particular), it is really difficult to draw any conclusions, other than it was a good thing Biden dropped out.

I also see a lot of headlines like "J.D. Vance is the most unpopular human in the history of the planet", but does it really matter all that much? It's a missed opportunity for Trump, but I don't see Vance actively dragging him down, when it comes to the actual votes.
Click to expand...

Polls definitely are all over the place, which is probably why they should be taken with a pinch of salt. Biden's withdrawal and Harris' introduction into the race is causing all kinds of weird disparities where people are still trying to figure out what they think about Harris and how they feel about Harris v Trump.
 
Raoul said:
Polls definitely are all over the place, which is probably why they should be taken with a pinch of salt. Biden's withdrawal and Harris' introduction into the race is causing all kinds of weird disparities where people are still trying to figure out what they think about Harris and how they feel about Harris v Trump.
Click to expand...
Yes, that seem to be the case.

By the way, I might be wrong, but historically the Siena poll hasn’t been the most positive/optimistic for Democrats (not necessarily due to bias). Is that your recollection?
 
Raoul said:
Polls definitely are all over the place, which is probably why they should be taken with a pinch of salt. Biden's withdrawal and Harris' introduction into the race is causing all kinds of weird disparities where people are still trying to figure out what they think about Harris and how they feel about Harris v Trump.
Click to expand...
It's such a weird dynamic in American presidential politics that a good share of the electorate doesn't really follow what's going on. I don't even live in the country, and I can hardly look away. So yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if polls are really inaccurate or change a lot over the next month.

I just hope there are some fundamental dynamic in the favor of Harris, namely that people are sick of the Trump drama, and that he is way to old, crazy and criminal.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
The polls are all over the place. But, wow. That’s just amazing.
Click to expand...
a lot of people simply wanted sleepy joe to leave after his first term. Didn't have to hate him, but he was obviously not a great pick for a second term. He should've made the decision not to contest when the primaries started.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
Yes, that seem to be the case.

By the way, I might be wrong, but historically the Siena poll hasn’t been the most positive/optimistic for Democrats (not necessarily due to bias). Is that your recollection?
Click to expand...

The Sienna NYT poll is ranked #1 on the FiveThirtyEight site. With that said, the two most accurate polls in 2020 that correctly predicted the result with the highest degree of accuracy where the IDB/TIPP and the Hill/Harris X polls. They had Biden winning the popular by 4% and once all the mail ins were counted, he won by 4.5 .

316eefa70a397edc86f01ae612986667676660a0.webp


Worth noting that every single poll except Rasmussen have a Dem bias and nearly all of them got it wrong in 2020. That suggests to me that Dem leaning polls are still trying to work out what the appropriate sample rate of Dems should be. Yet another reason to look at trends, rather than single polls over the next 2.5 months.
 
Raoul said:
The Sienna NYT poll is ranked #1 on the FiveThirtyEight site. With that said, the two most accurate polls in 2020 that correctly predicted the result with the highest degree of accuracy where the IDB/TIPP and the Hill/Harris X polls. They had Biden winning the popular by 4% and once all the mail ins were counted, he won by 4.5 .

316eefa70a397edc86f01ae612986667676660a0.webp


Worth noting that every single poll except Rasmussen have a Dem bias and nearly all of them got it wrong in 2020. That suggests to me that Dem leaning polls are still trying to work out what the appropriate sample rate of Dems should be. Yet another reason to look at trends, rather than single polls over the next 2.5 months.
Click to expand...
Okay, thank you. It could be me not remembering well, but I don’t remember being typically pleased after seeing a Sienna poll.

We may get more stability after the convention and Labor Day, and may not. The one thing that all polls see to agree on is the progress that Harris has made since Biden dropped.
 
Last edited:
Good segment about Gaza, Harris and DNC on MSNBC.

Uncommitted delegate Abbas Alawieh didn’t sound closing the door on supporting Harris. He was nodding his head in agreement that Trump wouldn’t be better on Gaza than Harris.

Hopefully we see some progress there as this will probably be the only contentious issue at the DNC.
 
Raoul said:
If Harris was an inspirational candidate capable of galvanizing people behind her then I would agree with you.
Click to expand...
Surely she doesn’t have to be an inspirational candidate galvanising people to vote for her? She just needs to be competent enough that when Trump galvanises enough people to vote against him they don’t stay at home because they have issues with the alternative. Harris needs to just be completely meh - do nothing controversial or remotely interesting and logic indicates she has a real chance of winning.
 
Personally think @Raoul is too harsh on Harris, and letting 2020 be the only defining moment of her political career seems unfair. She's also run in competitive primaries and won twice in California. And was the DA - you don't get there through incompetence or a lack of political nous. And parrotting the view that she's the DEI candidate doesn't really add much imo, even if that's what you believe.

Before dismissing her based on 4 years ago, maybe listen to the past month? I think she's been great, and her momentum somewhat reflects that.

Would she have been the choice in an open primary? Probably not, but she would have been amongst the favourites. In the end, going down that road is fool's errand, because hypotheticals don't matter at this stage. You go to battle with the general you have.

And she's vastly, immeasurably better than Donald f*cking Trump at just about everything.
 
Somewhat interesting, potentially: the stable genius just posted a load of AI-generated 'Swifties for Trump' pictures on Truth. Including one of Taylor Wants YOU to vote for Donald Trump, with a picture of her.

Surely that goes one of two ways for him:
Bad: Another lawsuit and forced, public recognition that he's using AI images
Really bad: She actually does what we're hoping, and publically endorses Harris, or even better, rips apart Trump
 
Beachryan said:
Somewhat interesting, potentially: the stable genius just posted a load of AI-generated 'Swifties for Trump' pictures on Truth. Including one of Taylor Wants YOU to vote for Donald Trump, with a picture of her.

Surely that goes one of two ways for him:
Bad: Another lawsuit and forced, public recognition that he's using AI images
Really bad: She actually does what we're hoping, and publically endorses Harris, or even better, rips apart Trump
Click to expand...


She will endorse, but it won’t move the needle. Liberals are just weird when it comes to this ‘we have better celebrity’ thing. Miley Cyrus campaigned for Clinton and Bruce Springsteen threw free concerts in 2004, 2008 and 2016.

Also as a side note, can the Dems not fecking going overboard with this Repubs against Trump shit? Why is Anna Navarro a DNC speaker in 2024? And while we are at that, where’s Whitmer, Beshear, Shapiro? Only Pritzker from the governors are slated to speak.
 
Raoul said:
It’s because she either doesn’t yet have an answer or she is planning on raising taxes, both of which aren’t good for her, especially since she will at some point have to do interviews where the question is asked.
Click to expand...

Feels like you want her to do and say nothing, really.

Is that it?
 
Raoul said:
If Harris was an inspirational candidate capable of galvanizing people behind her then I would agree with you. But as i said before, the only time she has run, she didn't fare well. And if Biden had withdrawn six months earlier and there was a competitive primary, she would've probably not won it.
Click to expand...
I think your personal opinion that Harris is a poor candidate might be driving your views a bit too much. The last time Democratic primary voters rejected a former VP as their presidential nominee was over 50 years ago. They have made their last three VPs their nominees: Biden, Gore, and Mondale. Biden and Gore had previously ran in presidential primaries and "not fared well," before comfortably winning the nomination as VPs. Historical precedent suggests that she would have probably won the nomination.

Not long ago I would have said she's a poor/weak candidate too but... y'know, maybe she isn't. Maybe she is.
 
Last edited:
Look, it doesn't have to be all that complicated, people really did not want Biden - Trump rematch, dems got rid of their unpopular candidate with a generic normal one, while the republicans didn't.

Is it possible that Trump flukes out an electoral win again? Yes, but a strong candidate in 2024 he is not.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
I think your personal opinion that Harris is a poor candidate might be driving your views a bit too much.

The last time Democratic primary voters rejected a former VP as their presidential nominee was over 50 years ago. They have made their last three VPs their nominees: Biden, Gore, and Mondale. Biden and Gore had previously ran in presidential primaries and "not fared well," before comfortably winning the nomination as VPs. Historical precedent suggests that she would have probably won the nomination. Hard to argue otherwise.
Click to expand...
Tbf the counter argument is Biden was muscled out in 2016 when he was the sitting vice president.

If there was a real, open process, assuming Harris still got Biden’s endorsement, she would’ve most likely at minimum face stiff competition from somebody like Shapiro, Whitmer, Pritzker, and the elephant in the room, Newsom (yes there are stories about him making a pact not to run against her, but politics and all, and he is termed out in 26). That’s before we got into the progressive wing, which she tried to run in in 2019 but got squeezed out by Sanders and Warren.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Tbf the counter argument is Biden was muscled out in 2016 when he was the sitting vice president.
Click to expand...
He was muscled out by internal party politics, not the voters, so all we have is the hypothetical possibility that he would have lost to Clinton if he'd ran.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
He was muscled out by internal party politics, not the voters, so all we have is the hypothetical possibility that he would have lost to Clinton if he'd ran.
Click to expand...
And past vice presidents became nominees largely on those internal party politics.

Biden was flailing hard in 2020 and the top brass all coalesced together and orchestrated a mass drop out before the SC primary, after he came 4th in Iowa, and lost both NV and NH. Primaries aren’t general election, endorsements, allegiance, hardcore party activists matter. Had the GOP coalesced around someone in 2016, they could’ve stopped Trump, he was only getting 35-40% for a long stretch before his delegate counts became daunting due to their winner take all system.

The silver lining is, of course, we’ve seen a weak primary candidate did well against Trump (I personally don’t think Sanders win AZ/GA and get the trifecta in 2020), so Harris tanking a primary 4 years ago isn’t especially relevant to her chances in this race.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
And past vice presidents became nominees largely on those internal party politics.

Biden was flailing hard in 2020 and the top brass all coalesced together and orchestrated a mass drop out before the SC primary, after he came 4th in Iowa, and lost both NV and NH. Primaries aren’t general election, endorsements, allegiance, hardcore party activists matter. Had the GOP coalesced around someone in 2016, they could’ve stopped Trump, he was only getting 35-40% for a long stretch before his delegate counts became daunting due to their winner take all system.
Click to expand...
I disagree with this narrative about Biden 2020. He did poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire for various reasons, but improved in Nevada and then won South Carolina. At that point Biden had 41 delegates to Sanders' 53. There was no mass drop out before the South Carolina primary; only Buttigieg and Klobuchar dropped out, after the SC primary, their campaigns essentially dead at that point. What happened in 2020 IMO is that Biden was a highly respected former VP with high favorables. Voters were willing to consider other options due to this weaknesses (age, then gender/race), but without an obvious 'better' option, they went for the safe choice.

Anyway, my point is not to litigate VP-P pipelines, it's about not treating personal opinion (in this case that Harris is a poor candidate) as fact.
 
Last edited:


Might not be an all-time low for Trump, but it's not that far off either. Would anyone fall for this?
 
Mike Smalling said:


Might not be an all-time low for Trump, but it's not that far off either. Would anyone fall for this?
Click to expand...


All this will do is encourage her to publicly support Harris. Also, it looks like Musk is planning to turn the blind eye to Trump and his followers using AI to create misleading images.
 
I seem to recall from the last presidential election, the Democrats did exceptionally well in getting out their postal voters, especially in the 'swing states'. The fact that the postal vote overall had risen in these areas was what set Trump off about being swindled out of the election.

Will this situation occur again this time? Since both (old men) amassed over 70 million each, is it feasible the same totals will be reached again in Nov?
 
MarylandMUFan said:
Not smart to poke the bear by Trumps team.
Click to expand...

Honestly the power Taylor Swift has to influence people, if she decided to get involved, would be astonishing. Trump can't handle powerful women, god forbid he wants to go toe to toe with her and an army of Swifties.
 
postal vote has always seen the right hoisted by their own petard. moan about it endlessly whilst the others take full advantage.
 
matherto said:
Honestly the power Taylor Swift has to influence people, if she decided to get involved, would be astonishing. Trump can't handle powerful women, god forbid he wants to go toe to toe with her and an army of Swifties.
Click to expand...
She won’t because as powerful as she is, politics is real power and she’s not going to alienate a significant percentage of her fanbase who are Republican or Trump supporters or who’s family members are.
 
matherto said:
Honestly the power Taylor Swift has to influence people, if she decided to get involved, would be astonishing. Trump can't handle powerful women, god forbid he wants to go toe to toe with her and an army of Swifties.
Click to expand...
i couldnt care for Swift one way or another, but i would pay very good money to see her and trump have a debate. and i think if there was bandwagon started, Trump is enough of a idiot / egotist to go for it.
 
Tay Tay is an astute businesswoman and capitalist, she gains nothing by endorsing a political candidate and alienating a part of her fanbase. She could and should take legal action against a candidate using AI images of her though and it would be funny if it happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.