2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

It really is a multidimensional problem, but IMO the main issues are:

A) Electoral college instead of direct vote
B) Winner takes all instead of proportional representation
C) Two party system

I feel like solving any of these main issues would eventually make the others solve themselves. But the way politics function right now prevents any advance on either, setting a perfect equilibrium that reminds me of Simpsons' There Stooges syndrome.

The fact that the elections in itself are a periodic itinerant circus based on views, clicks and money spent instead of policy doesn't help but it's also in some ways a subproduct of the 3 conditions above mentioned.
 
WI_Red said:
Alabama was last blue in 1976, and like most of the south the flip occurred as a reaction the the realigning of parties.

And for fecks sake, you guys are defending a system enacted solely to advantage slave owners.

Edit: damn it @Carolina Red
Click to expand...
I'm not defending it, but the reality is it's not going to change no matter how much we want it to in our lifetime, if ever
 
Red in STL said:
I'm not defending it, but the reality is it's not going to change no matter how much we want it to in our lifetime, if ever
Click to expand...

Well, its just a matter for dems to get Texas over the line one of these elections, not to remove the electoral college, but to get out of the politics of old in a way.

It would cause sheer panic among the GOP, and it would, actually force them to adapt, and change as a party.

Republicans knows this too, which is why voter suppression is particulary bad in that state.
 
Morty_ said:
Well, its just a matter for dems to get Texas over the line one of these elections, not to remove the electoral college, but to get out of the politics of old in a way.

It would cause sheer panic among the GOP, and it would, actually force them to adapt, and change as a party.

Republicans knows this too, which is why voter suppression is particulary bad in that state.
Click to expand...
How does that change the needle dramatically?

In the Senate it changes at best 2 senators, in the House it'll barely change anything, neither of those 2 things will change a whole lot

Changing the fillibuster would be the most consequential change that could be made in the near future along with some reduction in power of the majority leaders, the fact that legislation can be killed by 1 of them refusing to allow a debate and vote to me is nuts!
 
Red in STL said:
How does that change the needle dramatically?

In the Senate it changes at best 2 senators, in the House it'll barely change anything, neither of those 2 things will change a whole lot

Changing the fillibuster would be the most consequential change that could be made in the near future along with some reduction in power of the majority leaders, the fact that legislation can be killed by 1 of them refusing to allow a debate and vote to me is nuts!
Click to expand...

Because if the GOP cares about actual power, they desperately need Texas, they literally can't win the presidency without it.

Its mainly that, but when looking at the margins in house and senate, it will help there too.

Of course the filibuster rules needs to be changed.
 
Morty_ said:
Because if the GOP cares about actual power, they desperately need Texas, they literally can't win the presidency without it.

Its mainly that, but when looking at the margins in house and senate, it will help there too.

Of course the filibuster rules needs to be changed.
Click to expand...
For that to happen MAGA needs to disappear, and if Dems force thru or attempt any meaningful gun control measures then the chances of taking Texas reduces
 
Morty_ said:
Well, its just a matter for dems to get Texas over the line one of these elections, not to remove the electoral college, but to get out of the politics of old in a way.

It would cause sheer panic among the GOP, and it would, actually force them to adapt, and change as a party.

Republicans knows this too, which is why voter suppression is particularly bad in that state.
Click to expand...
Or Florida, and the Democrats were close to winning there as recently as 2016. With the right candidate it is feasible.
 
surf said:
Or Florida, and the Democrats were close to winning there as recently as 2016. With the right candidate it is feasible.
Click to expand...

Eh, i wouldn't count on Florida, its drifting in exactly the opposite direction, and about the only state GOP went all in on culture-wars successfully in 2022.

Reckon Texas will be closer to voting for democrats than Florida this time, for the first time, well, since basically forever.
 
SirAF said:
How is this logical? It's obviously unfair when a Republican vote in California is worthless and a Democratic vote in Alabama is equally worthless. Even though it is not perfect a simple majority by popular vote is much more fair. All votes should be equal, it should not matter if the vote was cast in New York or Iowa, a vote should be a vote.

And yes, it would mean that the Dems would be pretty much nailed on to win every election (which would be a good thing for both the US and the world FYI...) but that is not nearly the same as Gerrymandering. It is that way because the majority of Americans do not want Republican policies, so if the Republicans want to win the popular vote, then the onus is on them to appeal to enough voters - right?
Click to expand...

I believe it would force Republicans to change their platforms and all, probably for the better of the country as a whole and for their own clueless voting base that continuously vote against their own interests. And it would force all politicians to actually govern, maybe.
 
Last edited:
Morty_ said:
Eh, i wouldn't count on Florida, its drifting in exactly the opposite direction, and about the only state GOP went all in on culture-wars successfully in 2022.

Reckon Texas will be closer to voting for democrats than Florida this time, for the first time, well, since basically forever.
Click to expand...
Not fast enough. Hurry up Poseidon.
 
On the side, Trump is pressuring the GOP house to shut down the government, if they don't get him what he wants in the process.
 
To really boost Harris' chances even further, we need a rate cut and a Walz debate win over Vance. And of course, a ceasefire. Plenty of chances of another Harris bump or two even without another debate.
 
I don’t see how they can do it if they want any chance of maintaining even a sliver of a chance of retaining the house. Hell, it might even blow up some of the close Senate races.
 
rio's upper lip said:
To really boost Harris' chances even further, we need a rate cut and a Walz debate win over Vance. And of course, a ceasefire. Plenty of chances of another Harris bump or two even without another debate.
Click to expand...
Chance of a ceasefire is slim to none, Netenyahu wants a Trump victory and isn’t going to hand Biden/Harris any such victory.
 
WI_Red said:
I don’t see how they can do it if they want any chance of maintaining even a sliver of a chance of retaining the house. Hell, it might even blow up some of the close Senate races.
Click to expand...

Senate is inherently rigged for republicans, so unless dems flips Texas, or hope for a Nebraska miracle, senate is gone.

Those scenarios might be equally as likely as Tester holding on in Montana at this rate.
 
rio's upper lip said:
To really boost Harris' chances even further, we need a rate cut and a Walz debate win over Vance. And of course, a ceasefire. Plenty of chances of another Harris bump or two even without another debate.
Click to expand...

I don’t think any of those three would help Harris. She should stick to campaigning on message by spending all her time in swing states.
 
Raoul said:
Click to expand...


Speaking of ratings, Siena shows numbers that are more in line with Rasmussen than other fellow top rated pollsters these days, btw.

I'm thinking its not going to work out for them so well this cycle, we will find out in less than two months.
 
Raoul said:
Not a wise statement given that the winner wouldn’t be the incentivized to expose themselves to needless risk in a 2nd debate if they won the first and were leading in the polls.
Click to expand...
Don’t agree with this at all. It’s not a game of tag. Trump has got nothing and both she and he know it. Another debate where she can once again make him (and let him make himself) look like an idiot is a fantastic opportunity and not one she will turn down any time soon.

If anything, he’s likely to feel the pressure to turn things around which is in turn is going to make him more erratic, more angry and more of an idiot.
 
Pexbo said:
Don’t agree with this at all. It’s not a game of tag. Trump has got nothing and both she and he know it. Another debate where she can once again make him (and let him make himself) look like an idiot is a fantastic opportunity and not one she will turn down any time soon.

If anything, he’s likely to feel the pressure to turn things around which is in turn is going to make him more erratic, more angry and more of an idiot.
Click to expand...

There’s no evidence to suggest Harris doing another debate would help her. Hillary “beat” Trump three times, went into November with a bigger lead than Harris has, and still lost. Also, there’s no telling how Trump may switch his strategy in another debate (he invited Bill Clinton’s accusers to one of his Hillary debates).

Harris should take the win and go back to actually campaigning in swing states where her presence will energize turnout.
 
Raoul said:
There’s no evidence to suggest Harris doing another debate would help her. Hillary “beat” Trump three times, went into November with a bigger lead than Harris has, and still lost. Also, there’s no telling how Trump may switch his strategy in another debate (he invited Bill Clinton’s accusers to one of his Hillary debates).

Harris should take the win and go back to actually campaigning in swing states where her presence will energize turnout.
Click to expand...
Why debate at all if that’s the theory?

Clinton would likely have beaten Trump if it wasn’t for James Comey’s bullshit intervention in the 11th hour which had absolutely zero to do with debates.
 
Pexbo said:
Why debate at all if that’s the theory?

Clinton would likely have beaten Trump if it wasn’t for James Comey’s bullshit intervention in the 11th hour which had absolutely zero to do with debates.
Click to expand...

More than one debate was always aspirational given the condensed schedule of when Harris entered the race. Also, people in some swing states are already starting mail in voting next week, so Harris and Walz need to be on the ground making their case in swing states instead of going dark because they have to do debate prep.
 
Raoul said:
Not a wise statement given that the winner wouldn’t be the incentivized to expose themselves to needless risk in a 2nd debate if they won the first and were leading in the polls.
Click to expand...

You can look at this both ways, the loser wants a debate to make up ground, or the winner wants another, to solidify, after all, post-debate bump don't last that long, certainly not for 1,5 months.
 
WTF Biden wearing a MAGA cap, I know someone posted it earlier but there was no replies. America is batshit insane and Biden said don’t eat the cats and dogs lmfao




 
Parts of America are beyond help. Biden and the Dems are doing the right thing just making fun of these people, they'd never change their minds and vote Dem anyway.
 
Kinsella said:
Very interesting.

What’s going on in Nevada?
Click to expand...
In some ways Massachusetts surprises me more.

"Third party" column is throwing me off too, unless thats not what that means. Seems concerning, albeit likely more so for Rs than Dems this time around if I had to take a guess.

Also Biden taking the piss in the video above is funny. People on either side taking it as some deeper meaning. Joe may have lost some steps but it's very clear he s handling that interaction very well, even after the other guy started off with an insult.
 
Last edited:
Carolina Red said:
The Electoral College is a hold over from slave states protecting their political power against the growing population of free states.

That's the system we're arguing about right now.
Click to expand...
WI_Red said:
Alabama was last blue in 1976, and like most of the south the flip occurred as a reaction the the realigning of parties.

And for fecks sake, you guys are defending a system enacted solely to advantage slave owners.

Edit: damn it @Carolina Red
Click to expand...
The challenge is always that a system that produces decisive results (and relative stability) always has to sacrifice a degree of valuing each vote the same.

Looking at the US system from outside the most bizarre thing is that the federal government has power hugely concentrated in one person.
 
Wibble said:
The challenge is always that a system that produces decisive results (and relative stability) always has to sacrifice a degree of valuing each vote the same.

Looking at the US system from outside the most bizarre thing is that the federal government has power hugely concentrated in one person.
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t. It’s not like we came up with the EC to address an issue of instability in a popular vote system. Quite the opposite in fact as both of us mentioned above.

Maybe it’s an American thing, but I find it wild to read statements like the bolded (and others in different posts) from our European (and Australian) posters. A system that sacrifices equality in the present because results are favorable, but ignores the injustices of the past and the potential for abuse in the future is not a system that can be accepted as adequate.

As for relative stability, I would argue that the very nature of the EC is what gave us Jim Crow and the end of reconstruction in the late 1870’s. Look up the New Orleans massacre (1866) and you can see a cascade of events that culminated in the 1876 election where the EC (and alternative slates of electors….sound familiar) resulted in Hayes trading the withdrawal of troops from the South for the White House.
 
WI_Red said:
No it doesn’t. It’s not like we came up with the EC to address an issue of instability in a popular vote system. Quite the opposite in fact as both of us mentioned above.

Maybe it’s an American thing, but I find it wild to read statements like the bolded (and others in different posts) from our European (and Australian) posters. A system that sacrifices equality in the present because results are favorable, but ignores the injustices of the past and the potential for abuse in the future is not a system that can be accepted as adequate.

As for relative stability, I would argue that the very nature of the EC is what gave us Jim Crow and the end of reconstruction in the late 1870’s. Look up the New Orleans massacre (1866) and you can see a cascade of events that culminated in the 1876 election where the EC (and alternative slates of electors….sound familiar) resulted in Hayes trading the withdrawal of troops from the South for the White House.
Click to expand...
I mean in the sense that the UK first past the post system makes votes in firmly Tory or Labor seats less valuable in seats that swing far more often. And you have to make a compromise if you aren't prepared to deal with the inherent instability of a fully proportional representation system. I'm not saying that this truism means the Electoral Collège/Vote system is a good way of avoiding this instability. TBH it seems almost as batshit crazy as the power that is vested in the US President.

Then again our various transferable vote systems are a bit batshit crazy - some good stuff and some bad/dubious. I also suspect that few people truly understand the senate voting system (I don't in detail).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.