2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins

The Boy said:
The trouble for Biden was that all those voters upset at the US's unstinting support of Israel are on the left side of the political spectrum, so would never vote for Trump anyway, Trump's side love Israel!
Click to expand...

So you think the voters Biden would have lost because of Israel/Palestine are essentially lost for Trump anyway because they are politcally left through and through? I thought that this group included at least a few swing voters who maybe just didn't know Trump was as bad (he positioned himself as a "peace president" quite a few times in the past) while those far on the left would have voted for Biden despite his Isael support simply to prevent another Trump term - or possible even multiple ones if he sees through Project 2025.
 
gaffs said:
How is their "polling average" calculated? Date range and does it include the junk like Rasmussen?
Click to expand...
Is it not an average of Washington Post conducted polls?
 


Would you look at that @Raoul, she is starting to run on some policies after all.
 
Red in STL said:
And is about to be labelled a Commie
Click to expand...

Trump has already started that. She's already getting hit by libs like Catherine Rampell on "price controls", which will only get amplified by Republicans. Never mind that none of these policies will ever happen since most involve support from Congress.

 
Raoul said:
Trump has already started that. She's already getting hit by libs like Catherine Rampell on "price controls", which will only get amplified by Republicans. Never mind that none of these policies will ever happen since most involve support from Congress.

Click to expand...


And? Whats the big worry? Republicans has been calling every democrat communist since Obama.

They are not serious people, if backing things child tax credits is "scary"(its actually popular with people), then i don't know what we are doing here.

How are the "commie" attacks on Walz working out for them, btw? Oh, when pointed out what he actually did, his approval rating went up, isn't it odd?
 
Morty_ said:
And? Whats the big worry? Republicans has been calling every democrat communist since Obama.

They are not serious people, if backing things child tax credits is "scary"(its actually popular with people), then i don't know what we are doing here.

How are the "commie" attacks on Walz working out for them, btw? Oh, when pointed out what he actually did, his approval rating went up, isn't it odd?
Click to expand...

You obviously don't have an appreciation for how American politics work. Trump's primary task between now and voting is the bring her favorability numbers down, which will have a ripple effect on national and state polling, which will suppress her turnout. If he does that, he will win the election. She shouldn't therefore give him the ammo to do that with flowery, pie in the sky policies that will never happen, but that he can then still use to attack her with between now and the election. Therefore I agree with Rampell's below point in her Op-Ed, that Harris should steer clear since any other good policy she announces today, will be overshadowed by this.

It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is. It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food. Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Far-off Washington bureaucrats would. The FTC would be able to tell, say, a Kroger in Ohio the acceptable price it can charge for milk.

At best, this would lead to shortages, black markets and hoarding, among other distortions seen previous times countries tried to limit price growth by fiat. (There’s a reason narrower “price gouging” laws that exist in some U.S. states are rarely invoked.) At worst, it might accidentally raise prices.
Click to expand...
 
Raoul said:
Click to expand...

I'm somehow confused now. Over the last days all the networks are reporting that Harris took over the lead in most swing states except in Arizona.

If these figures are true, then Trump will still win the election despite all the negativity and feck ups of the last days.

What's actually true?
 
B. Munich said:
I'm somehow confused now. Over the last days all the networks are reporting that Harris took over the lead in most swing states except in Arizona.

If these figures are true, then Trump will still win the election despite all the negativity and feck ups of the last days.

What's actually true?
Click to expand...

They're all snapshots in time. Trump probably isn't leading and Harris certainly isn't running away with it. Expect the polls to sway back and forth over the next 2.5 months now that Harris' honeymoon is over and Trump begins attacking her. They also have the DNC next week (Harris should get a small polling bump from that), as well as at least one debate and a VP debate.
 
Morty_ said:
And? Whats the big worry? Republicans has been calling every democrat communist since Obama.

They are not serious people, if backing things child tax credits is "scary"(its actually popular with people), then i don't know what we are doing here.

How are the "commie" attacks on Walz working out for them, btw? Oh, when pointed out what he actually did, his approval rating went up, isn't it odd?
Click to expand...
These not serious people currently run the House of Representatvives and will likley be running the Senate next year, one of them used to be the President, labels do matter sometimes, ask Bernie Sanders how being labeled a Commie helped end his bid to become Presidemt
 
Raoul said:
Hard to say. I am not sure if this is the same Wapo/ABC service that is the #2 rated pollster on FiveThirtyEight or another service. If you look at Silver's polls he looks at in various states, the results aren't particularly far off from this.

https://www.natesilver.net/p/where-harris-has-improved-the-most
Click to expand...

I was surprised by the WAPO one, as looks far more favorable to Trump that Silvers and models from 538. I know 538 exclude some of the nutty right wing polls.
 
Raoul said:
Hard to say. I am not sure if this is the same Wapo/ABC service that is the #2 rated pollster on FiveThirtyEight or another service. If you look at Silver's polls he looks at in various states, the results aren't particularly far off from this.

https://www.natesilver.net/p/where-harris-has-improved-the-most
Click to expand...

You can look at each state in more detail if you scroll down the WaPo page. Basically they're incredibly selective in which polls they use. This means that as of right now there's a dearth of state level polls to feed into their analysis. Until more come in the model is over reliant on the national picture.

Arizona: Zero state polls since June 4th (Fox - Biden 46, Trump 51) - prediction = Trump +3​
Georgia: Zero polls since July 31st (AARP - Harris 48, Trump 48) - Trump +4​
Nevada: Zero polls since June 18th (AARP - Biden 45, Trump 48) - Trump +3​
N Carolina: Zero polls since April 13th (Mason-Dixon - Biden 43, Trump 49) - Trump +3​
​
Michigan: 2 polls since July 24th. (Aug 11: AARP -Harris 48/Trump 48) (Aug 8: NYT - Harris 50, Trump 46) - Trump + <1​
Pennsylvania: 2 polls since July 24th (Aug 12: Quinnipiac - Harris 50, Trump 47) (Aug 8: NYT - Harris 50, Trump 46) - Harris +2​
Wisconsin: 2 polls since July 24th (Aug 8: NYT - Harris 50, Trump 46) (Aug 1: Marquette - Harris 50, Trump 49) - Harris +2​

I really don't think that the model currently has the data to reach particularly meaningful conclusions. Interesting, though, that Trump does decidedly better in unpolled states than those that come with more recent state level data. Also interesting that Harris trails in precisely zero state polls that they have included.
 
Last edited:
Red in STL said:
And is about to be labelled a Commie
Click to expand...

She's been called a Communist, even a Marxist for months. Trump uses the words and these dumbasses repeat them even though they don't know the true meaning of them or the fact that the policies of a true socialist government would actually benefit them more than most other Americans.

They just don't care. They don't understand politics enough and are so brainwashed, the same as many Tory voters over here in the UK. That's why I was so dismayed at Obama during his first term when he had control of the house and the senate and instead of forcing through policies he pandered to the Republicans and tried to play nice to appease them to stop the growing divide and distance between the two parties and their voters. The polarisation is just too ingrained now and imho it's insurmountable especially given the bullshit spreading influence of social media and the complete and utter distrust in the MSM where nothing they report is believed unless it aligns with their beliefs and views.

To Trump's credit (ugh) he saw this and ran with it and it's how he operates and why he's so successful with his base. He plays on fears and paranoia while speaking in a language not previously heard from politicians. Add the lying and ability to change the narrative so frequently, never giving anyone time to process the shit he's saying or doing and you have the reason he's as popular as he is.
 
Beachryan said:
I'll just never understand how the last week of Trump and Vance has seen them close in polls. It's been an absolute disaster. And yet.
Click to expand...

Its more so because Harris' energy is leveling out which is allowing Trump to regroup and make a bit of a comeback, especially after she starts announcing policies he can criticize.
 
Raoul said:
Its more so because Harris' energy is leveling out which is allowing Trump to regroup and make a bit of a comeback, especially after she starts announcing policies he can criticize.
Click to expand...
Maybe. I just can't fathom the human beings that look st what those two people said over the past 10 days or so and fall on Trump's side.

Honestly I'm rattled, felt like Harris' momentum would easily last through August. Especially with Trump self immolating. But America gonna America I guess.
 
Raoul said:
Its more so because Harris' energy is leveling out which is allowing Trump to regroup and make a bit of a comeback, especially after she starts announcing policies he can criticize.
Click to expand...
Not really. It’s just a poll. Nothing changed from last week to this week that, in a statistical sense, would help Trump. Next week she could be up 3% again, even before the full impact of the DNC.
 
Beachryan said:
Maybe. I just can't fathom the human beings that look st what those two people said over the past 10 days or so and fall on Trump's side.

Honestly I'm rattled, felt like Harris' momentum would easily last through August. Especially with Trump self immolating. But America gonna America I guess.
Click to expand...

The amount of momentum she generated in the first few weeks definitely wasn't sustainable at such an intense level. If anything, she can continue to do well by way of the DNC convention next week and possibly in her debate against Trump. Beyond that, she is going to have to get back on the trail with Walz, for the remaining 2.5 months and go all in on the 7 or 8 swing states.

Her job is to sustain about a 4 point national lead and go into voting with 2-3 point leads in the key swing states. Trump has a pretty simple job of going negative on Harris and bringing her unfavorables up going into voting, which will suppress her turnout and help him win. He outperformed expectations in both of the two previous elections, so the Dems would be wise to not pretend they are going to win without a massive fight.
 
Raoul said:
The amount of momentum she generated in the first few weeks definitely wasn't sustainable at such an intense level. If anything, she can continue to do well by way of the DNC convention next week and possibly in her debate against Trump. Beyond that, she is going to have to get back on the trail with Walz, for the remaining 2.5 months and go all in on the 7 or 8 swing states.

Her job is to sustain about a 4 point national lead and go into voting with 2-3 point leads in the key swing states. Trump has a pretty simple job of going negative on Harris and bringing her unfavorables up going into voting, which will suppress her turnout and help him win. He outperformed expectations in both of the two previous elections, so the Dems would be wise to not pretend they are going to win without a massive fight.
Click to expand...
Why should she need that big a gap?
 
We still have the convention coming up starting Monday. I expect positive takes from it. I mean compared to the RNC you shouldn't expect ranting and raving fearmongering lunacy. I expect more momentum and excitement there. Then the 3 debates and continued campaigning I wouldn't get too worried about momentum seeming to slow or not gain so rapidly.

It was always going to be a close race. Harris just needs exceptional turnout Imo and keep campaigning and fighting for every vote till the end.
 
Jev said:
Why should she need that big a gap?
Click to expand...

Because Trump has a tendency to outperform the polls on election day. For instance, Hillary was up by 3.7, 4.2 and 5.3 in PA, MI, and WI respectively in 2016 and wound up losing all of them. Turnout is more important than just polls and Trump is pretty good at it.
 
Beachryan said:
I'll just never understand how the last week of Trump and Vance has seen them close in polls. It's been an absolute disaster. And yet.
Click to expand...
It’s just noise, the Fox poll for instance is +/-4.5 MoE so it’s anywhere from Harris +4 to Trump +5. Realistically nothing has changed, if you get Monmouth +5 for her you will inevitably get something like this to balance it out.

Summer polling is notoriously unreliable anyway, something like 7 or 8 of the last 13 leaders at this point went on to lose the election. It’s after early voting starts next month that it’s really worth paying attention to. By early October it’s generally locked in and you shouldn’t see more than a 2 points drift in either direction in the final result, so if Harris is +2 or tie by then then press the panic button (although worth pointing out that polls have underestimated Ds since Dobbs)
 
Raoul said:
Because Trump has a tendency to outperform the polls on election day. For instance, Hillary was up by 3.7, 4.2 and 5.3 in PA, MI, and WI respectively in 2016 and wound up losing all of them. Turnout is more important than just polls and Trump is pretty good at it.
Click to expand...
The pollsters have attempted to correct this. He consistently underperformed his polls during the primaries.
 
Red in STL said:
These not serious people currently run the House of Representatvives and will likley be running the Senate next year, one of them used to be the President, labels do matter sometimes, ask Bernie Sanders how being labeled a Commie helped end his bid to become Presidemt
Click to expand...

Just to take the next step, if 51% of a country believed the earth was flat, is that belief any more valid than if 1% of the country believed in it?

My personal opinion is that they are to be laughed at regardless, because its not a serious position.

Back to the US elections and the US electorate, the US senate is not representative of anything, its a super undemocratic institution to the core, and rewards empty lands over people.
At least the republicans won their slim majority more or less fairly in the house, despite underperforming.

In terms of labels, its easier to make that against Sanders, who did have a history of being something of a socialist in his youth, so that label has some truth to it, to be fair.
 
Raoul said:
You obviously don't have an appreciation for how American politics work. Trump's primary task between now and voting is the bring her favorability numbers down, which will have a ripple effect on national and state polling, which will suppress her turnout. If he does that, he will win the election. She shouldn't therefore give him the ammo to do that with flowery, pie in the sky policies that will never happen, but that he can then still use to attack her with between now and the election. Therefore I agree with Rampell's below point in her Op-Ed, that Harris should steer clear since any other good policy she announces today, will be overshadowed by this.
Click to expand...

Since when was Trump, an effective communicator on policy? He isn't about policy, there might be written details on the republican side, but he isn't the one to bring them forth, he will just do the usual "my policy great, dem policy terrible"-stick, with next to no details on it.

As far as price controls goes, the Biden administration did that on insulin, as far as i can see, it did not lead to mass shortages on insulin distribution, at least, not according to any headlines i have seen in recent months.

Obviously, price caps all across the board is different, not sure about that one.
 
Raoul said:
Nor was 2020 given the pandemic, and nor is this time due to Harris not being elected as the Dem nominee by the people in a competitive primary.
Click to expand...
Safe to say no election will be "normal " in the sense of it following the norms pre-2016.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.