I’m struggling to see the evidence where trump is leading anywhere except right win polls and then… the king of right wing polls (Rasmussen) said Kamala was leading. Also funny that Nate Silver is claiming people are hacks. That prick has made a career as a hack.
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
To be fair, elections are usually pretty close no matter the candidates. Harris is likeable and competent.
There are a lot of issues contributing to the fact that Trump still has a lot of votes. It‘s ridiculous really to blame it on Harris.
In my opinion the media‘s failure to accurately portray Trump is the biggest reason. At the same time, they don‘t focus on the economic recovery that has been very good. Instead of a recession, we have record stock market levels.
A lot of people only consume news through right-wing outlets. They are mostly cut off from reality. That medua machine paints an economic hellscape, while the economy is actually doing amazing.
Another factor is high food prices, which has nothing to do with the government really, but is caused by supply issues, mostly the war in Ukraine, as well as price gauging.
To suggest someone votes for Trump because they think Harris is not good enough, is a bit ridiculous.
Last edited:
Peter Thiel underwrites Nate Silver these days, so being a hack is only the tip of the iceberg.
100%
That was beautiful!
There's also been very little talk of the domestic accomplishments of the Biden administration. Infrastructure bill, CHIPS act, IRA, student debt relief, etc. Biden is also the most pro-union president in a long time. Unfortunately the Biden-Harris term gets reduced to inflation and Gaza, when there is also some good stuff to discuss. This is partly on the Harris campaign as well, that has more chosen to separate herself from Biden.
What a load of crap. Most of these are made up Fox News talking points. And very few have anything to do with who wins the election.
If Trump wins the election it will be down the inflation and Biden mishandling of the border.
Anyway, the rerun of the 1939 Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden starts soon. You should probably be in line already so you can catch Stephen Millers speech!
I think there's merit to this. The most dangerous people currently on the globe are Elon Musk and Rupert Murdoch. The sooner those two kick the bucket the better it'll be for the rest of us.
The Obama's are excellent at this.
Trump's immigration policies used to be one of the main reasons he was called a fascist. Now they're "sensible", and the Democrats have successfully attacked asylum rights in ways Trump was never close to.
Watching Michelle’s speech.
Damn I wish she was interested in seeking office.
Damn I wish she was interested in seeking office.
It would make a lot more sense to me that Trump was favorite if he wasn't like, 9 points or so more unlikable than Harris, and that enthusiasm in most of the polls, dems seems to have a significant edge over republicans.
These things typically matters in an election, it makes sense to win when your opponent is almost as disliked as you(Hillary), but maybe these things are not irrelevant now.
These things typically matters in an election, it makes sense to win when your opponent is almost as disliked as you(Hillary), but maybe these things are not irrelevant now.
Last edited:
Her argument about abortion and men is how I've wanted them to frame it the whole time. If you have to run on one issue, make it all-encompassing.
Frankly, the Democratic consultant class is just horrid. For supposedly 'very smart people', they've consistently played catch up with messaging
The even better thing about the trump rally is that it’s at the same time as the Yankees play the dodgers and yesterday’s game was incredible.
Vote for people like her husband, so they can refuse to codify Roe into federal law for eight fecking years.
They can't not do it without your vote folks.
Last edited:
Obama is pretty and elegant and regal and Trump is a fat slob. That is 90% of the equation for most liberal Dems and their moderate conservative friends on the Republican side. They are not serious people, it's all a game of dress up for them.
It's how we get this dissonance of abortion rights being paramount but we welcome liz Cheney with open arms and brag about it. Or how we hate those who undermine democracy and want to "drill baby drill" but "thank you, thank you, thank you Dick Cheney" for all you have done for the country and future of the planet.
Dick Cheney has done more damage to the world than Trump has, or is promising to do. He should be in a dungeon in some far away land.
You can just imagine the awful policy positions the dems will borrow from Trumps current campaign for the next go around and the demonic maga types they'll welcome as speaker at future dnc events.
And many think that none of this matters.
The president can’t codify it into law, that’s Congress’s job.
I reckon Trump will win because shy republicans. At this point in 2016 Clinton was comfortably ahead and she still lost. And it will be a disaster for the west because he's a Kremlin asset. He will roll over on Ukraine, on Iran, on Taiwan.
The President can however work with Dems in Congress when he has a Dem House and Senate such as Obama had in 2009. In his defense, he did have to deal with the Great Recession and getting Obamacare through Congress. A national abortion bill has never really been a Dem priority until it was too late.
The dem senators back then were also different than now though, and i reckon, significantly more conservative.
The "supermajority" may not have been as solid as it seem, with senators out states such as Nebraska etc.
Different times.
Honestly, when Obama was President, I would have wondered what the point was by taking on abortion which was settled law for my entire lifetime. Healthcare and the economy were the focal points and that made sense at the time. I didn't know how compromised our Supreme Court would become in a very short period of time.
That's not fair or true. It's just many can't see how Trump is still so popular despite everything. I personally don't think Kamala is a good choice, certainly not a great one, but she's the candidate regardless of how she got there.
I think she's been pretty invisible for the last 4 years, but Biden has.dominated the headlines, especially the last 18 months or so. Since she's been thrust in the spotlight I've been impressed by a lot of what I have seen. She's smart, accomplished, determined and appears to be honest and caring, but I doubt she would make the top 10 of Dems I would like to see as President.
It's a mute point anyway as I'm from England so can't vote, but I have to be honest, if I could I'm not sure I could vote for her simply because of... Israel.
She had a better response the other day saying she felt it was time for Israel to back down and look at rebuilding and repairing instead of more destruction and she also said she was for a 2 State solution, it's just I don't believe her, and I also feel that time has gone. I also find it incredibly hypocritical that the argument all over social media and even in here turned to people having a go at Trump supporters for voting for Trump despite knowing he is a fascist or sexual abuser etc yet people were attacked for saying they wouldn't vote for Harris because of the Israel/Palestine issue.
What is happening in the Middle East might not be important to some, I get that, it's thousands of miles away and a situation many don't know about, or understand or even care about when they have their own troubles at home. But don't go after someone who does care about that or someone it does affect personally, especially when you are having a go at Trump supporters for doing the opposite.
It's not new news though. Kelly (and others) have repeatedly said things like this about Trump. You only have to look at the long list of ex Trump White House staffers and cabinet members or military leaders that served under him that have all come out tine and time again with stories of him, that have refused to work for him again and refused to endorse him. Those people have been warning everyone for years, including John Kelly, so it's not out of the Blue or surprising at all. Yes the timing may have been planned but so what? It's a tactical move from a 4 Star Marine General, so are you surprised at that? Doesn't mean he's lying at all, which I absolutely believe he isn't, especially as I said, it's not the first time he's said this or something like it.
Its more so a case of Dems not thinking they needed to make a law to protect Roe because they didn't think the balance of power in the SCOTUS would reverse it. This is obviously before Trump rolled in and the Dems lost out on the Garland nomination and Trump quickly added Gorsuch, Kavannagh, and Barrett. I would suspect that if he wins, the likes of Alito and Thomas will magically retire (with lucrative backend job offers from some corporate entity waiting for them) and Trump will cram two new, very young justices in.
Even though it would only be Trump being killed I think we would have to extradite an assasin.
Because literally any choice, up to and including my cat, would be a better choice than Trump. How it is possible that such a large portion of the US could vote for such obvious pure evil is amazing to most of us. Pure evil that would feck you all like last time (only probably worse) and the rest of us for 4 more years (plus the long term fall out).
Shame. I was looking forward to her visit.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/podcast...isiting-australia-for-speaking-tour/kbdi7u9tf
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/podcast...isiting-australia-for-speaking-tour/kbdi7u9tf
Does anyone have insight into following?
In 2020 PA, why did democrats have way lower turnout than republicans (as a %). I am defining turnout as total votes for party / registered voters? There were 4.2m registered democrats vs 3.5m republicans. Yet, Biden only got 3.3m while Trump got 3.2m.
What was primary demographic of registered PA democrat voters who failed to show up?
Is this pattern expected to repeat in 2024?
In 2020 PA, why did democrats have way lower turnout than republicans (as a %). I am defining turnout as total votes for party / registered voters? There were 4.2m registered democrats vs 3.5m republicans. Yet, Biden only got 3.3m while Trump got 3.2m.
What was primary demographic of registered PA democrat voters who failed to show up?
Is this pattern expected to repeat in 2024?
Nothing burger here, just a massive campaign law violation that can land you in jail.
Eat the rich.
Because a lot of Democrats in the rural areas of that state, just like similar states in the Midwest, are Trumpers who used to vote Democratic (last prob. Obama) and just never bothered to switch party affiliation.
Although it must be said that Biden did nothing special turnout wise in vote-rich Democratic strongholds like Philly or Pittsburgh. He did marginally better than Hillary Clinton but almost all of his winning margin came from clawing back some of those voters described above across the state, and some improvement in the suburbs of those 2 cities that were already swinging left in 2016. For all the criticisms of Clinton's campaign, Dems have been winning running that exact playbook ever since, she just got the double whammy of being a damaged candidate and running against the headwind implementing a new electoral strategy.
It looks like one candidate wants to do what's best for the country in their opinion and about half the country disagrees with what that is and how it should be achieved. Like it happens in any reasonable election.
The other candidate has repeatedly made it clear (with words and action) that they'll do what's best for themselves and if the country benefits in the process, that's great. Otherwise, too bad.
If Trump wins fair and square, then that's fine. Just reflects the people's will as a democracy should.
But it's silly for anyone to pretend that because of Harris, they had no choice but to vote Trump. Pretty much anyone voting for him at this point had decided at least a year ago regardless of who the other candidate was. The so-called undecided voters that get shown every now and then are just liars looking for a few minutes of attention.
I wouldn't say Harris is terrible but she's not particularly strong either. Dems have not fielded particularly strong candidates in the last three presidential elections.
What’s great about it to me is that it challenged MY prejudices. I’m a bleeding heart liberal bloke that’s gone through the gears of social change and never really had a problem with anything.
But the sight of a strong, confident man who happened to be born a female talk so powerfully about his journey, his vagina, pregnancy, his forever risk of sexual assault, with a beard and a hoody…
It still gave my head a rattle. A further reminder that oh yes, despite the far right talking about trans issues as some problematic thing, there are just regular folks within that community that can self advocate from a position of power. They don’t need the likes of me to do anything other than not get in the way.
Kind of gave me hope that if the media just lets guys like that have a platform instead of campaigners, they’ll tear apart right wing grifters every single time. Just with lived experience that points out how goddamn snowflakey the right are.
We’re getting so much wrong and that little bit gave a small reset.
Trump literally said at a rally that if he wins ‘you’ll never have to vote again’
What other implications can you draw from a statement like that?
We're now at the stage where it's one of two things:
1. A comfortable Trump victory
2. A massive polling error
Personally I just have to bury myself in soft, fluffy clouds of the latter.
Imo those blaming Harris just don't understand enough about American politics, and how Trump's popularity has bounced. In just over 100 days she has gone from being completely underwater on favourability to massively ahead of Trump. She certainly isn't a generational change candidate - like Obama (or Sanders would have been) - but she is an intelligent, qualified, 'safe pair of hands' that can manage the most powerful nation on Earth at a very uncertain time. She's also non-white and female - if she is elected that in of itself is hugely significant. If she were the leader of any random European nation no-one would bat an eye.
If Trump wins - and wins like the polls suggest, hugely - no Democratic candidate could have beaten him. That's result of the media ecosystem above all things.
The only positive I can draw from this is that the status quo has to change from the perspective of actual democracy. A Trump victory built off the back of pure disinformation should see some kind of reaction. Of cousre, his actual Presidency coverage will also be part of that - when he inevitably fails to deliver literally any benefit to his voters and tariffs are either blocked by people that understand economics or go through and ruin the economy.
I've posted before that I'm not sure how incumbents win in today's media space. There is no longer a collective memory, or even desire to understand the chain of events that lead to the current moment. You can get elected simply by attacking what is - whether true or not - and there is no push back on how you would realistically change it. It reminds me so much of high school elections: if you run a campaign of stopping homework, no school on Fridays and pizza everyday you will win.
1. A comfortable Trump victory
2. A massive polling error
Personally I just have to bury myself in soft, fluffy clouds of the latter.
Imo those blaming Harris just don't understand enough about American politics, and how Trump's popularity has bounced. In just over 100 days she has gone from being completely underwater on favourability to massively ahead of Trump. She certainly isn't a generational change candidate - like Obama (or Sanders would have been) - but she is an intelligent, qualified, 'safe pair of hands' that can manage the most powerful nation on Earth at a very uncertain time. She's also non-white and female - if she is elected that in of itself is hugely significant. If she were the leader of any random European nation no-one would bat an eye.
If Trump wins - and wins like the polls suggest, hugely - no Democratic candidate could have beaten him. That's result of the media ecosystem above all things.
The only positive I can draw from this is that the status quo has to change from the perspective of actual democracy. A Trump victory built off the back of pure disinformation should see some kind of reaction. Of cousre, his actual Presidency coverage will also be part of that - when he inevitably fails to deliver literally any benefit to his voters and tariffs are either blocked by people that understand economics or go through and ruin the economy.
I've posted before that I'm not sure how incumbents win in today's media space. There is no longer a collective memory, or even desire to understand the chain of events that lead to the current moment. You can get elected simply by attacking what is - whether true or not - and there is no push back on how you would realistically change it. It reminds me so much of high school elections: if you run a campaign of stopping homework, no school on Fridays and pizza everyday you will win.
It's pronounced bigly. And no his odds of winning haven't drastically increased in the last week or whatever, you've just been reading the "news" again, it's terribly bad for all of us.
Agree with that. Harris is probably better than Hillary in 2016, but not as good as Biden in 2020, who was good for that specific election. It's just the notion that the race is tight because Harris is so bad, that I disagree with.
Firstly it is a simplification to say that Harris agrees with Trump on immigration. There are significant differences when it comes to scooe of deportations, scope of raids, denying suspected illegal immigrants due process, use of the military, limiting birthright citizenship, a new muslim ban, an ideological ban on people with "marxist and communist views", legal protections for ICE agents' untethered use of violence and the rhetoric used both in policy proposals and discussions.
They agree on there being a need for tougher border restrictions and a more comprehensive enforcement system, but they largely disagree on how to go about that.
Secondly, there is nothing fascist about limiting asylum rights, increasing detention capacity or increasing funding for enforcement agencies. I might not agree with it, and it might be overly Conservative- but it isn't fascist.
Lastly the whole Führerprinzip isn't there with the Democrats, nor is the whole blaming immigrants for everything or the ideological screening element that would classify as fascist.