2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins

CNN polls: “In North Carolina, Harris and Trump stand at 48% each among likely voters. In Nebraska’s 2nd District, the so-called blue dot encompassing Omaha, Harris has 53% to Trump’s 42%, the poll finds.”

The NB-2 number is re-assuring.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
CNN polls: “In North Carolina, Harris and Trump stand at 48% each among likely voters. In Nebraska’s 2nd District, the so-called blue dot encompassing Omaha, Harris has 53% to Trump’s 42%, the poll finds.”

The NB-2 number is re-assuring.
Click to expand...

No wonder GOP were desperate trying to get rid of that 2nd district, even though i think Nevada goes blue, personally.
 
Morty_ said:
No wonder GOP were desperate trying to get rid of that 2nd district, even though i think Nevada goes blue, personally.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they had a reason.

My understanding is that this idea was struck down. Is that final (to the extent that anything is final in the Trump era)?
 
ManUtd1999 said:
Yeah, they had a reason.

My understanding is that this idea was struck down. Is that final (to the extent that anything is final in the Trump era)?
Click to expand...

Between 2nd district looking like more or less safe blue, and the seemingly close senate race, i'm thinking that Trump actually doesn't win the state by more than around 15 point this time, he won it by nearly 20, four years ago, the state overall trending to the left somewhat?

I don't have an answer if it is the end of the battle for the 2nd district, but i guess so.
 
Morty_ said:
Between 2nd district looking like more or less safe blue, and the seemingly close senate race, i'm thinking that Trump actually doesn't win the state by more than around 15 point this time, he won it by nearly 20, four years ago, the state overall trending to the left somewhat?

I don't have an answer if it is the end of the battle for the 2nd district, but i guess so.
Click to expand...
Regarding NB drifting to the left: it’s interesting that few states actually moved to the left over the past decade. AZ, GA, NH, CO, VA, TX and potentially NB and MS. In the latter, nearly 40% of the voters are African Americans/ blacks. That’s surely a state to watch in the future (not 2024 or 2028).

What the Dems should do is to put back FL and OH in play. Luckily, neither was a blue state: Obama won them twice, but so did Bush. In other words, no traditionally blue state has become red, while some traditionally red states became purple or slightly blue.

Democrats can really expand their map by the end of the decade and the beginning of the next. A relatively conservative Democrat, a la Clinton, can help with that.
 
Raoul said:
Predictably....Silver and Lichtman are beefing on Twitter. There are more tweets....

Click to expand...


I'm not Silver's biggest fan, but back him every time over Licthman and his "keys".
 
Morty_ said:
I'm not Silver's biggest fan, but back him every time over Licthman and his "keys".
Click to expand...

Trouble is they're approaching the same issue from entirely different methods of analysis. Silver's is inherently quantitative and based on statistics, Lichtman's is qualitative and based on a series of subjective categories that he himself invented. Silver gives a probability, whereas Lichtman bombastically makes a wholesale prediction of who will win as if his methodology is based on objective fact.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
Regarding NB drifting to the left: it’s interesting that few states actually moved to the left over the past decade. AZ, GA, NH, CO, VA, TX and potentially NB and MS. In the latter, nearly 40% of the voters are African Americans/ blacks. That’s surely a state to watch in the future (not 2024 or 2028).

What the Dems should do is to put back FL and OH in play. Luckily, neither was a blue state: Obama won them twice, but so did Bush. In other words, no traditionally blue state has become red, while some traditionally red states became purple or slightly blue.

Democrats can really expand their map by the end of the decade and the beginning of the next. A relatively conservative Democrat, a la Clinton, can help with that.
Click to expand...

Also, a house district in play, where the dem is leading over the incumbent by 4 points, could be crucial, especially at the rate New York dems keeps screwing up, speaking of states to watch for in the future, who knows where New York is in 10 years, the state party in New York needs to get a grip, short-term for house majority.

MS mean Mississippi, right? Isn't the electorate about the least elastic in the US? Big population of black people, but thats not enough when the white population never votes for democrats, governor race or something is possible, was very close less than two years ago, but federal? I doubt it.

Ohio is probably a lost cause, there are no signs it is coming back, i just hope Brown can hold on, one last time, and thats about it.
 
Raoul said:
Trouble is they're approaching the same issue from entirely different methods of analysis. Silver's is inherently based on statistics, Lichtman's is based on a series of subjective categories that he himself invented. Silver gives a probability, whereas Lichtman bombastically makes a wholesale predictions of who will win as if his methodology is based on objective fact.
Click to expand...
Silver massages the statistics based on his own intuition and emotions though. That’s the point of political prediction models, the raw numbers are never significant enough to be as trust worthy as an exit poll so they try to judge where the bias sits and why. It’s all well and good applying that to discrete variables like demographics and communication methods but it becomes tea leaves when you’re doing things like trying to predict how much of an artificial bump a certain recent event has caused and how much you think that’s likely to drift back to a median.
 
Raoul said:
Trouble is they're approaching the same issue from entirely different methods of analysis. Silver's is inherently quantitative and based on statistics, Lichtman's is qualitative and based on a series of subjective categories that he himself invented. Silver gives a probability, whereas Lichtman bombastically makes a wholesale predictions of who will win as if his methodology is based on objective fact.
Click to expand...

Yeah, how do you measure things like "scandal", how do you measure "charisma"? Some of his keys can be altered to whatever fits his view at the time.

Data can be flawed, but at least its something.
 
good, strengthening her weak area again



it might help to do a photo-shoot with a section of the completed wall, possibly another one with AOC holding a symbolic shovel to build more wall :)
 
Tester is going to lose his race, and Sherrod Brown might not win either at this rate.

So, partisanship is certainly showing in the red states, why isn't that the case for a number of states that are, probably no more than 2% either way?

Nobody can convince me that there will be about 10% difference between senate and presidential races in states like Nevada and Arizona, i will really have to see it to believe it.

I expect a rather major polling error in Nevada and Arizona, and yes, that should benefit Harris.
 
Morty_ said:
Tester is going to lose his race, and Sherrod Brown might not win either at this rate.

So, partisanship is certainly showing in the red states, why isn't that the case for a number of states that are, probably no more than 2% either way?

Nobody can convince me that there will be about 10% difference between senate and presidential races in states like Nevada and Arizona, i will really have to see it to believe it.

I expect a rather major polling error in Nevada and Arizona, and yes, that should benefit Harris.
Click to expand...

Yes. The Republicans will most likely control the Senate, which will effectively make a Harris presidency (if one actually happens) a lame duck from day one in terms of no legislation passed.
 
Raoul said:
Part of it is by design, as in, you never want your VP candidate in the news all the time. If they are, it’s either because they’ve said something controversial or because they are so competent that they’re outperforming the person who selected them. Nice and slightly anonymous is the ideal combination. Also, he’s probably been preparing for the VP debate next week, so both him and Vance aren’t likely to be doing much media between now and the debate.
Click to expand...

Agree in a sense. The fear about Josh Shapiro is that maybe people would see the VP as being more competent and a better candidate than the President. He is certainly a better speaker and communicator, without the 2019 Primary and Biden baggage.

But even prior to this run up to the VP debate, Walz hasn't been interviewed or shown up on any of the sunday shows.

I find that strange given he did his own media blitz in order to put himself in the shop window for the VP position, he has disappeared since the DNC.

There is no fear of Walz overshaddowing Harris, so why is he not out there?
 
Raoul said:
Yes. The Republicans will most likely control the Senate, which will effectively make a Harris presidency (if one actually happens) a lame duck from day one in terms of no legislation passed.
Click to expand...

But as i've said, the senate races in swing states should favor Harris by quite a bit, to win the white house.
 
gaffs said:
Agree in a sense. The fear about Josh Shapiro is that maybe people would see the VP as being more competent and a better candidate than the President. He is certainly a better speaker and communicator, without the 2019 Primary and Biden baggage.

But even prior to this run up to the VP debate, Walz hasn't been interviewed or shown up on any of the sunday shows.

I find that strange given he did his own media blitz in order to put himself in the shop window for the VP position, he has disappeared since the DNC.

There is no fear of Walz overshaddowing Harris, so why is he not out there?
Click to expand...

100% about Shapiro. Harris would've struggled to outperform him in terms of speeches and general political acumen, which would've created the perception of a VP who is better equipped for POTUS than the actual Dem nominee. Same thing would've happend with Newsom if he was somehow allowed to be VP. In Walz, Harris got her nice, uncontroversial guy for VP so that she can shine as the leader, similar to what Trump got with Pence.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
I honestly still think that she made a good choice.

Besides, while I’m not sure about GA, I find her numbers in AZ surprising given where the state has been in recent years. If you push me against the wall, I would pick her to win there but lose in GA.
Click to expand...

I don't think Walz brings much to the table but vibes for those who were already voting for Harris.

He doesn't bring a state and i don't think he convinces enough blue collar workers when they are mainlining Fox News 24/7.
 
Morty_ said:
But as i've said, the senate races in swing states should favor Harris by quite a bit, to win the white house.
Click to expand...

If Allred comes through, that's the Dems only shot imo. Stein will win his, and the Dems will lose two by way of Tester and Brown. Are there any other states where the Dems can pick up a seat ?
 
Raoul said:
100% about Shapiro. Harris would've struggled to outperform him in terms of speeches and general political acumen, which would've created the perception of a VP who is better equipped for POTUS than the actual Dem nominee. Same thing would've happend with Newsom was somehow allowed to be VP. Harris got her nice, uncontroversial guy for VP so that she can shine as the leader, similar to what Trump got with Pence.
Click to expand...

Pence brought something to the table though. The permission slip for the Christians, Evangelicals and true Conservatives.
Even Tim Kaine was brought in by Clinton to help secure Virginia.

What is Walz offering? And where is he?
 
Raoul said:
If Allred comes through, that's the Dems only shot imo. Stein will win his, and the Dems will lose two by way of Tester and Brown. Are there any other states where the Dems can pick up a seat ?
Click to expand...

Agreed.

But i think we are talking about two different things, also, Stein? I'm confused.
 
Morty_ said:
Agreed.

But i think we are talking about two different things, also, Stein? I'm confused.
Click to expand...

Whoops. He's going for Governor isn't he.
redface.gif
 
gaffs said:
Pence brought something to the table though. The permission slip for the Christians, Evangelicals and true Conservatives.
Even Tim Kaine was brought in by Clinton to help secure Virginia.

What is Walz offering? And where is he?
Click to expand...

Walz offers uncontroversial anonymity, which is just what Harris needs. Shapiro would've obviously offered a bit more, but I don't think Harris would've been comfortable having to constantly prove that she would make a better potus than her VP pick.
 
Raoul said:
Whoops. He's going for Governor isn't he.
redface.gif
Click to expand...

Ah, the governor candidate in NC, now i get it.

You will just about always see a significantly higher degree of split tickets for governor races, compared to senate, as i'm sure you know.
 
gaffs said:
Can we talk about Tim Walz?

Very likable guy, but apart from a couple of speeches to union workers and him tinkering with his air filter, I have not seen him anywhere since the DNC. I have seen Josh Shapiro more on TV since than Walz. And i have seen 10x more of Vance than Walz, even though Vance shoots himself in the D every time he speaks!

Is he moving the needle at all?

If she loses PA, then not picking Shapiro will be one of the reasons as to why. As has been pointed out, AZ seems to be slipping away and she could have picked a goddamn Astronaut from Arizona!!!
Click to expand...
He's been at a lot of rallies and meeting people on the ground going by social media.
 


Almost as if the people that don't live in the select 8-10 states that decides every election are tired of this nonsense, who would have thought.
 
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...


This must be so depressing for these people. Being boxed in by both sides, knowing that neither of them is going to actually deal with an issue that is very important to them.

They either get continued genocide with a smile and fistpump (Trump) or continued genocide with a disapproving finger being waved but also justifying it by saying "boys will be boys" (Dems)
 
Raoul said:
Walz offers uncontroversial anonymity, which is just what Harris needs. Shapiro would've obviously offered a bit more, but I don't think Harris would've been comfortable having to constantly prove that she would make a better potus than her VP pick.
Click to expand...

We thought that. But the right have still managed to accuse him of stolen valor, putting tampons on boys bathrooms, drunk driving and having nefarious links to China.
Expect all topics to be raised in the VP debate.

I just think that she should have gone with someone with a tangible positive in a swing state, than go for someone who doesn't overshadow her.
 
gaffs said:
We thought that. But the right have still managed to accuse him of stolen valor, putting tampons on boys bathrooms and having nefarious links to China.
Expect all topics to be raised in the VP debate.
Click to expand...

That has now blown over. He is pretty much a back bencher at this point, and spare next week’s debate, will remain as such going forward.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
Regarding NB drifting to the left: it’s interesting that few states actually moved to the left over the past decade. AZ, GA, NH, CO, VA, TX and potentially NB and MS. In the latter, nearly 40% of the voters are African Americans/ blacks. That’s surely a state to watch in the future (not 2024 or 2028).

What the Dems should do is to put back FL and OH in play. Luckily, neither was a blue state: Obama won them twice, but so did Bush. In other words, no traditionally blue state has become red, while some traditionally red states became purple or slightly blue.

Democrats can really expand their map by the end of the decade and the beginning of the next. A relatively conservative Democrat, a la Clinton, can help with that.
Click to expand...
Ohio is gone, gone, gone. The bleed of young voters out of state from the Cleveland and Cincinnati area and GOP swing in rural area of the state means there’s no path back for a national party that increasingly rely on college educated suburban voters.

Florida is possible but would require a substantial persuasion effort to bring back the Dade margin to Obama-Clinton level (25+), in addition to winning seniors as retirees flock to that state (Harris is showing signs of life in that regard in this cycle polling, albeit it can be just noise).

Overall, the future of the Democratic Party electoral path lies in the Sun Belt. Especially the growing metro Atlanta, Phoenix, Raleigh/research triangle. Texas is close but it will be very inelastic for a while. Meanwhile, PA is going the way of Ohio but the only reason stopping it for the moment is the size of Pittsburgh/Philadelphia and their suburbs.
 
gaffs said:
We thought that. But the right have still managed to accuse him of stolen valor, putting tampons on boys bathrooms, drunk driving and having nefarious links to China.
Expect all topics to be raised in the VP debate.

I just think that she should have gone with someone with a tangible positive in a swing state, than go for someone who doesn't overshadow her.
Click to expand...
It’s all nothing burgers, he remains the most liked candidate on either side and you can argue that it helps with Harris’s favourables as well.

Whereas, LaCivita would have a field day with Shapiro’s murder coverup, staff sexual misconduct etc… Don’t buy into the crocodile tears from the right, they are now saying Biden was/is a stronger candidate. The VP nominee job is first and foremost to do no harm and not detract the campaign, and we literally have a mountain of evidence that they have negligible to no effect even on their home state, just ask Mitt Romney how Paul Ryan helped him win Ohio (/s).
 
gaffs said:
We thought that. But the right have still managed to accuse him of stolen valor, putting tampons on boys bathrooms, drunk driving and having nefarious links to China.
Expect all topics to be raised in the VP debate.

I just think that she should have gone with someone with a tangible positive in a swing state, than go for someone who doesn't overshadow her.
Click to expand...

None of those points have made any tangible impact on Walz favorables or the polls, it's pure desperation from the right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.