2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) look forward to a new life under Ruben Amorim. What system will we be playing? What players will impress? and how will it all go? We also say goodbye to Ruud Van Nistelrooy and review United's 3-0 win at home against Leicester City.
Known for considerable R bias in his polling.
But Rasmussen is literally unranked at 538, is this guy the one who created their model?
RCP selectively includes which garbage pollsters they want, to push their narrative, 538 don't, and nor should they.
I'm beginning to think maybe Biden wasn't the only one who could have beaten historically unpopular Donald Trump in 2020.
I doubt it's the same model, he hasn't worked there for a decade.
It was a long time ago, but man, having that on his record is not going to sit well in Michigan, nor with young voters in general.
Hope its solid then, anybody knows his ranking?
Im not the biggest fan of Nate Silver, but for those who follow him:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/polli...tion-from-trump-electoral-victory-toss-up.amphttps://www.foxnews.com/media/polli...tion-from-trump-electoral-victory-toss-up.amp
“
Silver said according to his model, Harris has a 54% chance of winning in Michigan, 50% chance of winning Wisconsin, and 47% chance of winning Pennsylvania, all states that would lock down the 270 electoral votes necessary to win.
"As of this afternoon’s model run, Harris’s odds had improved to 44.6 percent, as compared to 54.9 percent for Trump and a 0.5 percent chance of an Electoral College deadlock. It’s not exactly 50/50, but close enough that a poker player would call it a "flip": Democrats have ace-king suited, and Republicans have pocket jacks," Silver wrote.”
https://www.foxnews.com/media/polli...tion-from-trump-electoral-victory-toss-up.amphttps://www.foxnews.com/media/polli...tion-from-trump-electoral-victory-toss-up.amp
“
Silver said according to his model, Harris has a 54% chance of winning in Michigan, 50% chance of winning Wisconsin, and 47% chance of winning Pennsylvania, all states that would lock down the 270 electoral votes necessary to win.
"As of this afternoon’s model run, Harris’s odds had improved to 44.6 percent, as compared to 54.9 percent for Trump and a 0.5 percent chance of an Electoral College deadlock. It’s not exactly 50/50, but close enough that a poker player would call it a "flip": Democrats have ace-king suited, and Republicans have pocket jacks," Silver wrote.”
Picking Josh Shapiro could be a bit of a momentum killer.
His numbers usually skew with an R lean. I don’t think most take him seriously at this point.
First, I'm really not that invested in the subject, already said I don't know it in detail, and will add now that I happily cede to people with more information. Second, that's stuff from 30 or so years ago, he doesn't have to think that anymore. But either way, I agree that those are some terrible opinions that are not mainstream and should not receive the VP's podium.
It would create a bit of manufactured controversy among a tiny sliver of progressives, but wouldn’t change anything in terms of her momentum since it would be more conspicuous to independents if she didn’t select him, as opposed to appeasing to the far left if she did.
It won’t sit well with voters in Michigan, Virginia (where there is a sizable Arab electorate), with young voters and with many voters who don’t like what Israel has done since October.
Shapiro would be a risky pick. Harris, however, would be called coward if she doesn’t pick him. Not a good situation.
You don't think it has potential to backfire in Michigan? PA is not the only state where margins will be close come November.
I don’t agree. I hear from Democrats, not Arab and not even minorities. They won’t be happy with Shapiro.
There are safer picks than him.
The point about it being a while ago would be valid if there was any indication of change. Within the last 5 years, he tried to sanction Ben and Jerry's for stopping sales in Israel's illegal settlements:: settlements which seem to be illegal according to the US too.
I don't think that sliver is so tiny, and I don't think independents would find it conspicuous if he didn't select him. But we shall see.
Also, don't underestimate progressives ability to cut off their nose to spite their face.
It has that potential, but at least online, (non-Muslim) progressive and young voters, including those with very strident messages about Palestine in their bio, have joined Kamala whole-heartedly the moment she announced. Reminders of her track record from the left are being shouted down by other leftists. Some Muslim progressives have praised her "shift in tone" too. She could get away with picking him, and he has very high upside.
e - I saw someone whose bio said "i yearn for a free palestine above all" (very clear specific words!) and who posted "i think so many of u fail to realize that palestine is not the only thing that needs addressing in the ballot. u guys come off as a bit performative when there’s entire groups of people whose rights are on the line if we vote for trump."
kamala being not old, not male, not white, has created a massive vibe shift. as i predicted it would, during the debate itself! (the not-old part, at least).
Last edited:
I saw the reaction to the visit of Netanyahu last week to DC. I passed there and the city was locked. The issue of Israel is causing discomfort among many Dem voters of all backgrounds. Putting Shapiro on the ballot won’t be a good idea.
There is a high upside to him, but he is also risky, and could stall Harris momentum, with Gaza being brought up, front and center in the media.
Walz or Beshear don't have the upside in a specific swing-state, but they are just the safe picks, with next to nothing to attack them on.
That's an unfair framing. They've been extremely clear from the off that he'd be a deeply unpopular choice for them and said that multiple other front running candidates would be perfectly acceptable picks. The Harris campaign will have been fully aware of this, so it's hard to argue that such a pick would be anything other than a slap in the face.
Ultimately, it's just not going to matter to Dems. There are far more domestic issues to dwell upon & vote accordingly.
Bear in mind that 70% of Jews vote Democratic, and the optics of excluding a VP who happens to be Jewish, because of a couple of recent comments, won't be taken very well by them. Harris' job at this point is to get as many independents as possible, which won't be helped if she is perceived as deliberately not selecting Shapiro to assuage a very small, but vocal faction of people, many of whom wouldn't ordinarily vote for Harris anyway.
I am sure most of US elected politicans today were straight up homophobic and much more racist 30 years back. Using what someone said 3 decades ago to paint them in certain light seems bizarre when you can just rely on his recent statements on ongoing conflict/massacre in Gaza. It is also disingenuous to argue that Pro Palestinian groups did not go digging into Shapiro's past mainly because he is a JEW. So anti semitism is definitely at play here.
Ultimately, its all about winning, and Trump's paths to 270 become next to impossible if he loses PA. So the value of selecting an incredibly popular Governor of PA (61% popularity in a state Trump previously won in 2016), will outweigh the twitter outrage of the moment.
The presidential election is not a popularity context, driving up turnout in New York literally doesn't matter outside of downballot races.
Jews live all over the country. There was a mass shooting attack in Pittsburgh just a few years ago, so PA voters are all too familiar with anti-semitism. There are also about 425k jews who live in PA.
So much wrong in this picture...
No it doesn't?!
Fair enough, jewish population in PA is larger than i expected.
Losing PA is a likely harbinger of losing the rust belt, which would've resulted in a Biden win in 2020, even if he didn't win in GA, AZ, or NV. Therefore the importance of winning PA is paramount.
And electoral votes have changed since then, and your argument was based on boosting the PA vote.
They haven't changed enough to matter. PA is still a critical state for any candidate interested in winning. And the general sentiment in PA is often reflected in other nearby rust belt states. Harris still has to turn out as many PA voters as she can, particularly in the Philly suburbs, where the Dems make a majority of their gains in the state.
The FL population will also be influenced by a potential Shapiro selection, just as they were with Lieberman in 2000. The FL recount shenanigans notwithstanding.
And Muslims are not the only group who will decide this election. Jewish voters, as a group, vote quite overwhelmingly Democrat, but we have seen many Jews, including Rabis criticizing Biden for not helping Israel. I think in polls, percentage wise, the Jewish voters were not as pro Democrat as usual, so it is possible that having the first Jewish VP in the ticket might more than make up the Muslim voters who will not vote for that reason.
In all likelihood, except in Pennsylvania where he is super popular and thus will bring some voters, this choice won’t matter for the election. People mostly for the president, not for the vice president.
The main calculation should be whom Harris likes to work with, and in case something happens to her, whom will be the best to push her presidential agenda, not who will bring her a dozen of voters who for whatever reasons vote for VP instead of P.