2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins

Mike Smalling said:
Apparently Trump has announced a press conference later today. Probably just some bullshit about the debate or his policies, but I give it a 3% chance that he has ditched JD.
Click to expand...

He's desperate to reclaim the limelight, which I suspect will happen when he says something ridiculous today.
 
Raoul said:
He's desperate to reclaim the limelight, which I suspect will happen when he says something ridiculous today.
Click to expand...
True, but he proved with his latest appearance that not all limelight is good for him, so will be interesting. The more the momentum swings, the more desperate and vile he will get.
 
calodo2003 said:
Expound a bit on the last line of your post.
Click to expand...

As per my initial post that trigger interactions, her response to the protesters is not correct. She could:

After they shut up, having something prepared for a rally regarding what this sensitive policy? even if I don't agree. Something
Saying that is not the moment to discuss this in the rally in this sensitive problem. We are working on this yadayada
Something else

What you can't do when someone says something you don't like, is not having a response and see that the sandman is coming for you. Basically have nothing
 
Beachryan said:
VPs famously don't share major positions with Presidents, and agree to serve anyway.

You're clearly judging her policies before seeing them.
Click to expand...

Very famously. Sure you pick someone that doesn't agree with you to work with. They should pick a republican so they share as little possible

Also, Kamala didn't say ever anything about the conflict, right? I can't see where is she going with Palestine...Im in the dark
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Weird one from Rasmussen:



but...

Click to expand...

That’s not weird from Rasmussen, they’re notoriously Republican bias. I think it was said to have reduced a bit last cycle but that was only because the rest of the polling field also had an R bias and they weren’t so much of an outlier.
 
Pexbo said:
That’s not weird from Rasmussen, they’re notoriously Republican bias. I think it was said to have reduced a bit last cycle but that was only because the rest of the polling field also had an R bias and they weren’t so much of an outlier.
Click to expand...

I think the weird part is Trump +5 nationally but Harris +3 in Wisconsin. But that could be explained by incompetence, or different methods for running polls.
 
Raoul said:
Believe these may be two separate polling sources. As for the original Rasmussen, they usually skew about 2-3 points R so a 5 point Trump lead should entirely be within the margin of error.
Click to expand...

Is a "Scott Rasmussen" poll different from a "Rasmussen" poll? I know the guy left the company a fair while ago.
 
Laurencio said:
I don't know if policy disagreements are all that significant when there is a fundemental disagreement about the validity of democracy as a system of government.

The current Republican party is pushing an authoritarian political movement that rejects the principles of of liberal and neoliberal democracy that the US has been based on. The core issue that splits the two parties today is not policy, it is the political system itself.

Unfortunately that argument is too complicated for the electorate, most of which have no idea what a liberal democracy is, which results in a belief that this is about policy (back Ukraine vs not, tax vs no tax, progressive vs Conservative, abortion access vs ban, hawk vs diplomacy etc). Biden tried to make that point, but it just didn't stick and he just came across as a worried old man.

A lot of the "noise" around the election is concentrated around policy and value disagreements that are completely fair in a democratic system - but the most important difference is the fundemantal disagreement in how to run government, elections, presidential power, the international system and the role of the various branches of government.

In the US you have three main forces, two of which are driven by voters who haven't been helped by the neoliberal democracy model and one that fights for the status quo.

Two of them are in the Democratic party - progressive who want a return to classic liberal democracy and neoliberals or "moderates" who want to maintain the status quo with the belief that neoliberalism has secured US position as an undisputed hegemon. Within those two groups there are policy differences that put them left and right of centre - but there are almost no one arguing against the system. Within the Republican party the neoliberals have more or less been pushed aside by the authoritarian MAGA movement.

While the neoliberals and liberals all agree on principles about how the system is supposed to work - MAGA authoritarianism rejects those principles. As an ideology it is incompatible with liberal and neoliberal democracy. Therefore any disagreement on policy becomes essentially meaningless.

For instance; liberals and neoliberals argue about how much influence a president should have, MAGA pushes for unitarian monarchy. Liberals and Neoliberals disagree on specifics on abortion legislation, MAGA rejects the legislative branch. We see liberals and neoliberals disagree on who should vote and the structure of the electoral college, while MAGA rejects the very concept of elections.

How do you have policy discussions when faced with that?
Click to expand...


Thanks a lot for taking the time to respond so extensively. And I can agree with the exposition but IMO I don't think that "if you don't like me, you will have Trump" is not the way to go.

As you say there are fundamental differences and certainly comparing policies against your opponent is fair, valid and make sense. The correct way to go should be if you don't like my policies that are, these, those and that, lets compare it with Trump's policies that are these, those and that. That is difficult because is tiresome, that they resort to insults and stirring the shit pot? tough luck. If you are (pretending to be) better, you need to be better, be more presidential, expose the opposition besting them (shouldn't be that difficult). You can mix it with couch and dolphin jokes also. You can do everything. But just saying if you don't want me, you have trump is IMO recognizing that I am bad (or at least not that good), but Trump is worse. And that makes people lose faith in the election system, candidate quality and politics in general and they will end staying home and that favours ultimately Trump

And that is not exclusive of US, this happens in my country and in my limited observation, in many other countries. They don't focus on how good are they, how shit are the others and it ends being a protest vote every single election and that, IMO, is fundamentally wrong for a sane and healthy democracy
 
Pexbo said:
That’s not weird from Rasmussen, they’re notoriously Republican bias. I think it was said to have reduced a bit last cycle but that was only because the rest of the polling field also had an R bias and they weren’t so much of an outlier.
Click to expand...

Yeah. The national poll wasn't what I was concentrating on, rather what appeared to be a discrepancy between that and Harris' lead in Wisconsin. As @Raoul points out though, it's probably two different sources with similar names.
 
4bars said:
As per my initial post that trigger interactions, her response to the protesters is not correct. She could:

After they shut up, having something prepared for a rally regarding what this sensitive policy? even if I don't agree. Something
Saying that is not the moment to discuss this in the rally in this sensitive problem. We are working on this yadayada
Something else

What you can't do when someone says something you don't like, is not having a response and see that the sandman is coming for you. Basically have nothing
Click to expand...
So, you were discussing the one off interaction that occurred on stage? You realize that isn't policy? We will clearly learn at the convention the policy platforms.
 
calodo2003 said:
So, you were discussing the one off interaction that occurred on stage? You realize that isn't policy? We will clearly learn at the convention the policy platforms.
Click to expand...

Is not one off. Is the first off because is what republicans had been doing since 2016. And yes, is not policy. That is the problem I am not asking to expose point by point the policy, but more than "Trump is worse"
 
4bars said:
Is not one off. Is the first off because is what republicans had been doing since 2016. And yes, is not policy. That is the problem I am not asking to expose point by point the policy, but more than "Trump is worse"
Click to expand...
She responded to reckless in a manner that shut them up / a manner that engaged the rest of the crowd. The hecklers could have been griping about anything & it would have elicited the 'Trump is worse' line, it's not a response exclusive with pro-Palestinian protesters.

'Trump is worse' isn't policy, but it is handy to have in her quiver to use to shut down hecklera.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Yeah. The national poll wasn't what I was concentrating on, rather what appeared to be a discrepancy between that and Harris' lead in Wisconsin. As @Raoul points out though, it's probably two different sources with similar names.
Click to expand...

Why would you assume a poll result from one state could/would be extrapolated across a national poll that also considers 49 other states? Wisconsin has gone Democrat in eight of the past nine presidential elections.
 
The Firestarter said:
What's the unusual here ? It's Montana, is the expectation for the Trump to be larger or?
Click to expand...

Does there has to be anything unusual? Its just a poll, and its been a little while since last in Montana.

Harris polls better than Biden did, Tester, unfortunately, doesn't seem to get a bump.
 
Morty_ said:
Does there has to be anything unusual? Its just a poll, and its been a little while since last in Montana.

Harris polls better than Biden did, Tester, unfortunately, doesn't seem to get a bump.
Click to expand...
I mean, a democrat is not winning Montana in a million years. Its just moot to even post it.
 
Zumbi said:
Why would you assume a poll result from one state could/would be extrapolated across a national poll that also considers 49 other states? Wisconsin has gone Democrat in eight of the past nine presidential elections.
Click to expand...

Because the presidential elections with Trump on the ticket give the following outcomes:

2016: Wisconsin: Trump +1, National: Clinton +2
2020: Wisconsin: Biden+0.5, National: Biden +4

In both these cases Wisconsin leans Republican relative to the national vote. It would therefore be pretty surprising if in a Trump +4 environment Wisconsin went Harris +3. That's the complete inverse of what's happened before. Instead of it being Republican +3 compared to the national vote share, Wisconsin would become Democrats +7. A 10 point swing! Something enormous must have happened to the Wisconsin electorate, or for everywhere else except Wisconsin for something like that to occur. Nothing springs to mind.

Edit: At any rate this is all moot because the data that I thought came from a single pollster actually came from two different ones.
 
Is the new stick to bash Harris with that she isn't doing interviews? It's a bit hard to keep track.
 
Beachryan said:
Is the new stick to bash Harris with that she isn't doing interviews? It's a bit hard to keep track.
Click to expand...

Of all the critiques of Harris, this is a perfectly legitimate one. Not a single person has voted for her to be nominated as President, and yet she finds herself in a situation where she is being fast tracked through all the usual checks and balances every other candidate has to go through to be considered for the job. She has to therefore start doing interviews that challenge her policies, otherwise she will quickly risk being perceived as an empty vessel that is being undemocratically imposed on the electorate, who are being instructed to look the other way because the alternative is Trump.
 
Morty_ said:
Click to expand...

This sucks, there won't be any path to Dems holding senate if Tester loses (GOP will easily get West Viriginia with Manchin retiring). Still, Tester like Manchin has the ability of winning in deep red states, so probably might turn things around.

NB: To be fair, there is no chance Dems keep the senate. No GOP seat is threatened, West Viriginia will go GOP, effectively making it 50-50. Then Dems will need to hold Montana and Ohio, both deep red / red states, keep Nevada, win Minnesota, Arizona, and to a lesser degree Penn and Wisconsin.
 
Last edited:
Revan said:
This sucks, but it will probably happen. There won't be any path to Dems holding senate if Tester loses (GOP will easily get West Viriginia with Manchin retiring).
Click to expand...

Sucks that the people of Wisconsin simply couldn't handle having a black person as senator, thats what ultimately will cost dems the senate this cycle.
 
Raoul said:
Of all the critiques of Harris, this is a perfectly legitimate one. Not a single person has voted for her to be nominated as President, and yet she finds herself in a situation where she is being fast tracked through all the usual checks and balances every other candidate has to go through to be considered for the job. She has to therefore start doing interviews that challenge her policies, otherwise she will quickly risk being perceived as an empty vessel that is being undemocratically imposed on the electorate, who are being instructed to look the other way because the alternative is Trump.
Click to expand...

She could answer every single question with the bolded bit and that'd be a good enough performance to earn election.

As for no one voting for her to be nominated President, several million people in 2020 thought she's perfectly qualified to take over the top job if something happened to Biden, like, on day 10 of his presidency. So, not a big deal this time around.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Because the presidential elections with Trump on the ticket give the following outcomes:

2016: Wisconsin: Trump +1, National: Clinton +2
2020: Wisconsin: Biden+0.5, National: Biden +4

In both these cases Wisconsin leans Republican relative to the national vote. It would therefore be pretty surprising if in a Trump +4 environment Wisconsin went Harris +3. That's the complete inverse of what's happened before. Instead of it being Republican +3 compared to the national vote share, Wisconsin would become Democrats +7. A 10 point swing! Something enormous must have happened to the Wisconsin electorate, or for everywhere else except Wisconsin for something like that to occur. Nothing springs to mind.

Edit: At any rate this is all moot because the data that I thought came from a single pollster actually came from two different ones.
Click to expand...

Not really - the political landscape has changed dramatically in the past four years, and especially in the past few weeks with the changes in the democratic ticket.

But none of what you said addresses my actual point - that discrepancies between state polls and national polls are perfectly normal in American politics. Because the former is only telling you what is happening in one state whilst the latter is aggregating what is happening across a totality of 50 states. I am genuinely surprised that anyone would be surprised given how often this happens.
 
erikcred said:
She could answer every single question with the bolded bit and that'd be a good enough performance to earn election.

As for no one voting for her to be nominated President, several million people in 2020 thought she's perfectly qualified to take over the top job if something happened to Biden, like, on day 10 of his presidency. So, not a big deal this time around.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that voting for Biden in 2020 is not the same as voting specifically for Harris in the present, especially as there was no competition among Dems to replace him. She was literally anointed in the absence of a democratic process. She's going to have to publish her policies and defend them before the election and stop hiding behind the fear of Trump being reelected.
 
Morty_ said:
Sucks that the people of Wisconsin simply couldn't handle having a black person as senator, thats what ultimately will cost dems the senate this cycle.
Click to expand...
There are more risky seats than WI. Montana and Ohio will be very hard to defend, West Virginia is gone. Nevada, Pennsylvania and Arizona are as hard as Wisconsin to hold.

The thing is, Dems cannot afford to lose anything except W Virginia and even that might not be enough if Trump wins. To be fair, the goal is to lose as few seats as possible so they can regain the senate in 2026. No way they can hold the senate now.
 
Raoul said:
I'm afraid that voting for Biden in 2020 is not the same as voting specifically for Harris in the present, especially as there was no competition among Dems to replace him. She was literally anointed in the absence of a democratic process. She's going to have to publish her policies and defend them before the election and stop hiding behind the fear of Trump being reelected.
Click to expand...

Don't the DNC always release a policy platform around the convention happens? So i wouldn't worry about that, though she should have to go out and speak about it herself, of course.
 
Revan said:
There are more risky seats than WI. Montana and Ohio will be very hard to defend, West Virginia is gone. Nevada, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Arizona are as hard as Wisconsin to hold.

The thing is, Dems cannot afford to lose anything except W Virginia and even that might not be enough if Trump wins. To be fair, the goal is to lose as few seats as possible so they can regain the senate in 2026. No way they can hold the senate now.
Click to expand...

I...don't think we are talking about the same election, i'm talking about how the Wisconsin senate election of 2022 causes dems the senate this election, in all likelihood.

Yes, this election will be tough in terms of the senate, but dems should be okay all around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.