2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins

Polls definitely are all over the place, which is probably why they should be taken with a pinch of salt. Biden's withdrawal and Harris' introduction into the race is causing all kinds of weird disparities where people are still trying to figure out what they think about Harris and how they feel about Harris v Trump.
It's such a weird dynamic in American presidential politics that a good share of the electorate doesn't really follow what's going on. I don't even live in the country, and I can hardly look away. So yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if polls are really inaccurate or change a lot over the next month.

I just hope there are some fundamental dynamic in the favor of Harris, namely that people are sick of the Trump drama, and that he is way to old, crazy and criminal.
 
The polls are all over the place. But, wow. That’s just amazing.
a lot of people simply wanted sleepy joe to leave after his first term. Didn't have to hate him, but he was obviously not a great pick for a second term. He should've made the decision not to contest when the primaries started.
 
Yes, that seem to be the case.

By the way, I might be wrong, but historically the Siena poll hasn’t been the most positive/optimistic for Democrats (not necessarily due to bias). Is that your recollection?

The Sienna NYT poll is ranked #1 on the FiveThirtyEight site. With that said, the two most accurate polls in 2020 that correctly predicted the result with the highest degree of accuracy where the IDB/TIPP and the Hill/Harris X polls. They had Biden winning the popular by 4% and once all the mail ins were counted, he won by 4.5 .

316eefa70a397edc86f01ae612986667676660a0.webp


Worth noting that every single poll except Rasmussen have a Dem bias and nearly all of them got it wrong in 2020. That suggests to me that Dem leaning polls are still trying to work out what the appropriate sample rate of Dems should be. Yet another reason to look at trends, rather than single polls over the next 2.5 months.
 
The Sienna NYT poll is ranked #1 on the FiveThirtyEight site. With that said, the two most accurate polls in 2020 that correctly predicted the result with the highest degree of accuracy where the IDB/TIPP and the Hill/Harris X polls. They had Biden winning the popular by 4% and once all the mail ins were counted, he won by 4.5 .

316eefa70a397edc86f01ae612986667676660a0.webp


Worth noting that every single poll except Rasmussen have a Dem bias and nearly all of them got it wrong in 2020. That suggests to me that Dem leaning polls are still trying to work out what the appropriate sample rate of Dems should be. Yet another reason to look at trends, rather than single polls over the next 2.5 months.
Okay, thank you. It could be me not remembering well, but I don’t remember being typically pleased after seeing a Sienna poll.

We may get more stability after the convention and Labor Day, and may not. The one thing that all polls see to agree on is the progress that Harris has made since Biden dropped.
 
Last edited:
Good segment about Gaza, Harris and DNC on MSNBC.

Uncommitted delegate Abbas Alawieh didn’t sound closing the door on supporting Harris. He was nodding his head in agreement that Trump wouldn’t be better on Gaza than Harris.

Hopefully we see some progress there as this will probably be the only contentious issue at the DNC.
 
If Harris was an inspirational candidate capable of galvanizing people behind her then I would agree with you.
Surely she doesn’t have to be an inspirational candidate galvanising people to vote for her? She just needs to be competent enough that when Trump galvanises enough people to vote against him they don’t stay at home because they have issues with the alternative. Harris needs to just be completely meh - do nothing controversial or remotely interesting and logic indicates she has a real chance of winning.
 
Personally think @Raoul is too harsh on Harris, and letting 2020 be the only defining moment of her political career seems unfair. She's also run in competitive primaries and won twice in California. And was the DA - you don't get there through incompetence or a lack of political nous. And parrotting the view that she's the DEI candidate doesn't really add much imo, even if that's what you believe.

Before dismissing her based on 4 years ago, maybe listen to the past month? I think she's been great, and her momentum somewhat reflects that.

Would she have been the choice in an open primary? Probably not, but she would have been amongst the favourites. In the end, going down that road is fool's errand, because hypotheticals don't matter at this stage. You go to battle with the general you have.

And she's vastly, immeasurably better than Donald f*cking Trump at just about everything.
 
Somewhat interesting, potentially: the stable genius just posted a load of AI-generated 'Swifties for Trump' pictures on Truth. Including one of Taylor Wants YOU to vote for Donald Trump, with a picture of her.

Surely that goes one of two ways for him:
Bad: Another lawsuit and forced, public recognition that he's using AI images
Really bad: She actually does what we're hoping, and publically endorses Harris, or even better, rips apart Trump
 
Somewhat interesting, potentially: the stable genius just posted a load of AI-generated 'Swifties for Trump' pictures on Truth. Including one of Taylor Wants YOU to vote for Donald Trump, with a picture of her.

Surely that goes one of two ways for him:
Bad: Another lawsuit and forced, public recognition that he's using AI images
Really bad: She actually does what we're hoping, and publically endorses Harris, or even better, rips apart Trump


She will endorse, but it won’t move the needle. Liberals are just weird when it comes to this ‘we have better celebrity’ thing. Miley Cyrus campaigned for Clinton and Bruce Springsteen threw free concerts in 2004, 2008 and 2016.

Also as a side note, can the Dems not fecking going overboard with this Repubs against Trump shit? Why is Anna Navarro a DNC speaker in 2024? And while we are at that, where’s Whitmer, Beshear, Shapiro? Only Pritzker from the governors are slated to speak.
 
It’s because she either doesn’t yet have an answer or she is planning on raising taxes, both of which aren’t good for her, especially since she will at some point have to do interviews where the question is asked.

Feels like you want her to do and say nothing, really.

Is that it?
 
If Harris was an inspirational candidate capable of galvanizing people behind her then I would agree with you. But as i said before, the only time she has run, she didn't fare well. And if Biden had withdrawn six months earlier and there was a competitive primary, she would've probably not won it.
I think your personal opinion that Harris is a poor candidate might be driving your views a bit too much. The last time Democratic primary voters rejected a former VP as their presidential nominee was over 50 years ago. They have made their last three VPs their nominees: Biden, Gore, and Mondale. Biden and Gore had previously ran in presidential primaries and "not fared well," before comfortably winning the nomination as VPs. Historical precedent suggests that she would have probably won the nomination.

Not long ago I would have said she's a poor/weak candidate too but... y'know, maybe she isn't. Maybe she is.
 
Last edited:
Look, it doesn't have to be all that complicated, people really did not want Biden - Trump rematch, dems got rid of their unpopular candidate with a generic normal one, while the republicans didn't.

Is it possible that Trump flukes out an electoral win again? Yes, but a strong candidate in 2024 he is not.
 
I think your personal opinion that Harris is a poor candidate might be driving your views a bit too much.

The last time Democratic primary voters rejected a former VP as their presidential nominee was over 50 years ago. They have made their last three VPs their nominees: Biden, Gore, and Mondale. Biden and Gore had previously ran in presidential primaries and "not fared well," before comfortably winning the nomination as VPs. Historical precedent suggests that she would have probably won the nomination. Hard to argue otherwise.
Tbf the counter argument is Biden was muscled out in 2016 when he was the sitting vice president.

If there was a real, open process, assuming Harris still got Biden’s endorsement, she would’ve most likely at minimum face stiff competition from somebody like Shapiro, Whitmer, Pritzker, and the elephant in the room, Newsom (yes there are stories about him making a pact not to run against her, but politics and all, and he is termed out in 26). That’s before we got into the progressive wing, which she tried to run in in 2019 but got squeezed out by Sanders and Warren.
 
Tbf the counter argument is Biden was muscled out in 2016 when he was the sitting vice president.
He was muscled out by internal party politics, not the voters, so all we have is the hypothetical possibility that he would have lost to Clinton if he'd ran.
 
He was muscled out by internal party politics, not the voters, so all we have is the hypothetical possibility that he would have lost to Clinton if he'd ran.
And past vice presidents became nominees largely on those internal party politics.

Biden was flailing hard in 2020 and the top brass all coalesced together and orchestrated a mass drop out before the SC primary, after he came 4th in Iowa, and lost both NV and NH. Primaries aren’t general election, endorsements, allegiance, hardcore party activists matter. Had the GOP coalesced around someone in 2016, they could’ve stopped Trump, he was only getting 35-40% for a long stretch before his delegate counts became daunting due to their winner take all system.

The silver lining is, of course, we’ve seen a weak primary candidate did well against Trump (I personally don’t think Sanders win AZ/GA and get the trifecta in 2020), so Harris tanking a primary 4 years ago isn’t especially relevant to her chances in this race.
 
And past vice presidents became nominees largely on those internal party politics.

Biden was flailing hard in 2020 and the top brass all coalesced together and orchestrated a mass drop out before the SC primary, after he came 4th in Iowa, and lost both NV and NH. Primaries aren’t general election, endorsements, allegiance, hardcore party activists matter. Had the GOP coalesced around someone in 2016, they could’ve stopped Trump, he was only getting 35-40% for a long stretch before his delegate counts became daunting due to their winner take all system.
I disagree with this narrative about Biden 2020. He did poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire for various reasons, but improved in Nevada and then won South Carolina. At that point Biden had 41 delegates to Sanders' 53. There was no mass drop out before the South Carolina primary; only Buttigieg and Klobuchar dropped out, after the SC primary, their campaigns essentially dead at that point. What happened in 2020 IMO is that Biden was a highly respected former VP with high favorables. Voters were willing to consider other options due to this weaknesses (age, then gender/race), but without an obvious 'better' option, they went for the safe choice.

Anyway, my point is not to litigate VP-P pipelines, it's about not treating personal opinion (in this case that Harris is a poor candidate) as fact.
 
Last edited:


Might not be an all-time low for Trump, but it's not that far off either. Would anyone fall for this?
 


Might not be an all-time low for Trump, but it's not that far off either. Would anyone fall for this?


All this will do is encourage her to publicly support Harris. Also, it looks like Musk is planning to turn the blind eye to Trump and his followers using AI to create misleading images.
 
I seem to recall from the last presidential election, the Democrats did exceptionally well in getting out their postal voters, especially in the 'swing states'. The fact that the postal vote overall had risen in these areas was what set Trump off about being swindled out of the election.

Will this situation occur again this time? Since both (old men) amassed over 70 million each, is it feasible the same totals will be reached again in Nov?
 
Not smart to poke the bear by Trumps team.

Honestly the power Taylor Swift has to influence people, if she decided to get involved, would be astonishing. Trump can't handle powerful women, god forbid he wants to go toe to toe with her and an army of Swifties.
 
postal vote has always seen the right hoisted by their own petard. moan about it endlessly whilst the others take full advantage.
 
Honestly the power Taylor Swift has to influence people, if she decided to get involved, would be astonishing. Trump can't handle powerful women, god forbid he wants to go toe to toe with her and an army of Swifties.
She won’t because as powerful as she is, politics is real power and she’s not going to alienate a significant percentage of her fanbase who are Republican or Trump supporters or who’s family members are.
 
Honestly the power Taylor Swift has to influence people, if she decided to get involved, would be astonishing. Trump can't handle powerful women, god forbid he wants to go toe to toe with her and an army of Swifties.
i couldnt care for Swift one way or another, but i would pay very good money to see her and trump have a debate. and i think if there was bandwagon started, Trump is enough of a idiot / egotist to go for it.
 
Tay Tay is an astute businesswoman and capitalist, she gains nothing by endorsing a political candidate and alienating a part of her fanbase. She could and should take legal action against a candidate using AI images of her though and it would be funny if it happens.
 
Tay Tay is an astute businesswoman and capitalist, she gains nothing by endorsing a political candidate and alienating a part of her fanbase. She could and should take legal action against a candidate using AI images of her though and it would be funny if it happens.
Didn’t she endorse Biden in 2020?
 
Personally think @Raoul is too harsh on Harris, and letting 2020 be the only defining moment of her political career seems unfair.

I'd love to be wrong. Maybe there's a new level to Harris' game that will magically be revealed in the coming months.

She's also run in competitive primaries and won twice in California. And was the DA - you don't get there through incompetence or a lack of political nous. And parrotting the view that she's the DEI candidate doesn't really add much imo, even if that's what you believe.

I've followed her career since her CA days. Being a local DA is nowhere near the same level as running for President. As for the DEI issue, Biden literally broadcast to the world that he was committed to selecting a black woman VP, and he did. So instead of running away from it, the Dems should just own it, especially since they are the ones who champion DEI as good policy.

Before dismissing her based on 4 years ago, maybe listen to the past month? I think she's been great, and her momentum somewhat reflects that.

To be clear, she hasn't done anything in the past month either, other than selecting Walz and going on a short tour of swing states. Her momentum is reflective of the Democrats having a collective sigh of relief that their candidate isn't an 80 year old, and therefore a possibility that another Trump term isn't a forgone conclusion. It has nothing to do with Harris herself or anything she's said or done since she hasn't given a single interview and only released a bit of policy the other day. I can't recall a single situation in the past where people were asked to vote for someone going into a political convention without first knowing what their published policies are.

Back to my first line above - I'd love to be wrong. Maybe there's a new level to Harris' game that will magically be revealed in the coming months. So far I have not seen it.
 
I'm in a swing state and I'm being inundated with RFK Jr. mailers advertising him as a Democrat. Anyone else getting these?

It's blatantly obvious his campaign is trying to steal votes from Harris but that only helps Trump. Wonder how much of an effect it'll have.
 
She won’t because as powerful as she is, politics is real power and she’s not going to alienate a significant percentage of her fanbase who are Republican or Trump supporters or who’s family members are.
She has done it before and spoke about not caring who it alienates in her documentary. And she may be forced too if Trump supporters stupidly try to use her music or likeness with AI etc. But, if I was an organizer I would at least try and get rights to play a song during the DNC. Cause she would never allow it for a trump rally or RNC.
 
She won’t because as powerful as she is, politics is real power and she’s not going to alienate a significant percentage of her fanbase who are Republican or Trump supporters or who’s family members are.

Tay Tay is an astute businesswoman and capitalist, she gains nothing by endorsing a political candidate and alienating a part of her fanbase. She could and should take legal action against a candidate using AI images of her though and it would be funny if it happens.



q7vjor16fqr51.jpg
 
Back to my first line above - I'd love to be wrong. Maybe there's a new level to Harris' game that will magically be revealed in the coming months. So far I have not seen it.
If nothing else do you not think her speeches have been rock solid this month? That's not a small differentiator from both her opponent and her predecessor.

As for policy, it's coming this week, as it was always going to. Let's at least let the (incredibly new and unexpected) campaign formulate said policies. She has a tough road to take given she has to own her role as VP while also propose things that are likely not in-line with Biden.

I was aligned with your view a few months ago - that if anything she was somehow less popular than doddering Biden - but I've personally been pleasantly surprised. Maybe it all falls down, but given the hand that was dealt, I feel like there were a lot of ways we were at a worse stage today.