2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins

There’s nothing ‘fair’ about it because Facebook/Insta/Tik Tok isn’t aggressively pushing right wing content the way Musk’s Twitter does, the For You tab is literally chocked full of MAGA contents actively filling your feed. Also I’m not sure what you meant about Google because the only big social space they own is YouTube and YouTube is 100% not lefty friendly in its content moderation, you can’t possibly claim that when anything from Ben Shapiro to alt right incels to Andrew Tate to fake natty bodybuilders and every other color of kooky right wing characters have thrived on that platform over the years, and then on the other hand a show that’s not even especially left wing like David Pakman has ran into multiple rounds of demonetisation and contents flags.

Social media space by its nature skew left because of the demographics populating it. Having more lefties because they are young and grew up being used to airing their politics online is not by itself proof of the network being biased, it’s just how it has dynamically evolved. What we are seeing is a concerted effort from the right to invade those space and artificially suppress any ideology that doesn’t agree with theirs, backed by big money in an unprecedented way, and it’s succeeding because there’s no equal pushback from the left, and the result is a lot of young impressionable boys being redpilled and start parroting the ‘sigma’, ‘alpha’ mindset before graduating to hating wokes and women. We are watching a gender divide growing in politics that has never been seen before due to that culture war shit the right has been waging, not limited to, but predominantly on these online spaces.

It's also outright wrong to claim that pre-Musk Twitter was "very left". That might be what the culture felt like to him, perhaps based on the curated content people posted here, but studies showed that the algorithm consistently pushed right-wing content far more aggressively than left-wing content.

The same broadly applies to Facebook, and YouTube, as you say. They've contributed to the resurgence of far right conspiracy nonsense as much as any other platform. It's meaningless to somehow claim those for the left.
 
both sidesing this stuff is so boring.

Maybe there was a slight leftwing bias before, but it is nothing like what Musk is doing now. Same with saying, yeah well CNN, like NewsMax is also biast.

Get out of here with that crap.
 
The tariff videos on the last page were funny. Although the economic argument is obviously far more nuanced than “American companies pay the tariffs = tariffs must be 100% Bad”
 


Arizona still doesn't add up for me, even though Lake is a terrible candidate, that level of split tickets makes little sense.

But if NYT is right i'll definitely take it, Arizona isn't required for dems to win the election, all that matters is getting to 270.
 
Arizona still doesn't add up for me, even though Lake is a terrible candidate, that level of split tickets makes little sense.

But if NYT is right i'll definitely take it, Arizona isn't required for dems to win the election, all that matters is getting to 270.

Absolutely. I'm hanging my hopes on WI, MI and PA, anything else is a bonus in my view.
 
Just listened to a New York Times podcast interview with J.D. Vance, which was about an hour long. For 90% of it, he actually comes across as quite reasonable, and he was able to deflect quite well on most things (the interviewer also didn't really push that hard). But then towards the end, the inevitable question about the 2020 election comes, and the facade just totally drops and it's all the way back to creepy MAGA world. It basically went, NYT: "Do you believe Trump lost the 2020 election? Yes or no?", Vance: "Do you think big tech companies are censoring speech?", which was repeated like three times. I really can't imagine that flies with independents, and it's something the Harris campaign should bring into the light as much as possible.
 
The NYT over sampled black voters poll is… interesting. Topline looks pretty terrible for Harris (78-15, their 2020 for Biden was 83-6, actual result 91-8), but when you dig deeper, she retains the same share of Biden voters, did better with Trump voters (15-85), and only lost those who didn’t vote in 2020 (61-34), so since the supposed gain is concentrated in like a triple whammy of non-voter (male, black, low propensity), it’s not hard to see that not materialise when push comes to shove.

@Mike Smalling he is a shameless liar, just like Trump, came up on the spot with the story about the robbery, which was fact checked as not true by the end. There’s also the nonsense about the crying baby on the train, it’s the fecking train, of course people would be annoyed by a screaming toddler, it doesn’t mean they are anti children. He’s just inventing flimsy, reasonable sounding anecdotes and high minded musings to mask his dogshit politics.
 
@Mike Smalling he is a shameless liar, just like Trump, came up on the spot with the story about the robbery, which was fact checked as not true by the end. There’s also the nonsense about the crying baby on the train, it’s the fecking train, of course people would be annoyed by a screaming toddler, it doesn’t mean they are anti children. He’s just inventing flimsy, reasonable sounding anecdotes and high minded musings to mask his dogshit politics.
Clearly he is a liar, yes, but I think he managed to sound reasonable to a lot of people that may be looking for an excuse to vote for Trump (except for the 2020 election part, which is bonkers). Whether the people he needs to reach listen to this particular podcast is another question. The train story was quite funny, because it has nothing to do with policy, like a lot of this culture war nonsense.
 
Just listened to a New York Times podcast interview with J.D. Vance, which was about an hour long. For 90% of it, he actually comes across as quite reasonable, and he was able to deflect quite well on most things (the interviewer also didn't really push that hard). But then towards the end, the inevitable question about the 2020 election comes, and the facade just totally drops and it's all the way back to creepy MAGA world. It basically went, NYT: "Do you believe Trump lost the 2020 election? Yes or no?", Vance: "Do you think big tech companies are censoring speech?", which was repeated like three times. I really can't imagine that flies with independents, and it's something the Harris campaign should bring into the light as much as possible.

That’s why Trump brought him on; because he can lie on command while otherwise seeming quite polished and articulate. Whether or not Trump wins, Vance has he done an effective job of setting himself up for a political future in the post Trump GOP. And unlike, Haley, DeSantis, or Youngkin; Vance will be able to leverage his VP selection and fealty to Trump to his own political benefit, assuming Trump’s own brand retains any political value after he leaves politics.
 
Getting fecking nervous now with less than a month ago. I feel there was momentum in Aug and Sept but I also feel the democrats haven’t released enough negative info about the Trump campaign to up the momentum. There is so much ammunition to use but they just don’t do it effectively.
 
Getting fecking nervous now with less than a month ago. I feel there was momentum in Aug and Sept but I also feel the democrats haven’t released enough negative info about the Trump campaign to up the momentum. There is so much ammunition to use but they just don’t do it effectively.

Oh its there, they just don't have any media power. Republicans drown it all out.
 
Just listened to a New York Times podcast interview with J.D. Vance, which was about an hour long. For 90% of it, he actually comes across as quite reasonable, and he was able to deflect quite well on most things (the interviewer also didn't really push that hard). But then towards the end, the inevitable question about the 2020 election comes, and the facade just totally drops and it's all the way back to creepy MAGA world. It basically went, NYT: "Do you believe Trump lost the 2020 election? Yes or no?", Vance: "Do you think big tech companies are censoring speech?", which was repeated like three times. I really can't imagine that flies with independents, and it's something the Harris campaign should bring into the light as much as possible.

This is why some of the new-age conservatives like Vance and Tom Cotton are so dangerous; under the surface they're just as deranged as Trump, but in the spotlight they come off as reasonable because they're well-spoken and behave like adults.

They're going to be much more palatable moving forward, and their brand of Christofascism will be much more subtle when it's implemented. I think the GOP probably recognizes that in a post-Trump world they're going to have to do some rehabilitating of their party so as to not come off as batshit insane as they do now, and guys like Vance and Cotton are going to be key to that.
 
This is why some of the new-age conservatives like Vance and Tom Cotton are so dangerous; under the surface they're just as deranged as Trump, but in the spotlight they come off as reasonable because they're well-spoken and behave like adults.

They're going to be much more palatable moving forward, and their brand of Christofascism will be much more subtle when it's implemented. I think the GOP probably recognizes that in a post-Trump world they're going to have to do some rehabilitating of their party so as to not come off as batshit insane as they do now, and guys like Vance and Cotton are going to be key to that.

I'm not sure, everything points to MAGA not being substainable without Trump, he gets a special bunch of people out to vote, who are nowhere to be seen when he isn't on the ballot, just look at all these MAGA-affiliated candidates that has crashed and burned in recent years.

Maybe they will find a new cult-leader, but if they want to win, they will probably have to go back to the more sane types of republicans, like Haley, who i would imagine be the favorite vs Harris right now, if she was the republican nominee.
 
Is that video of him asking if people prefer a white or black president real?
 
Dems absolutely need PA to have any chance of winning. That’s why maybe Shapiro might have been a better VP pick, not that I have anything against Tim Walz.
There is no historical evidence that VP picks deliver their home state.
 
Dems absolutely need PA to have any chance of winning. That’s why maybe Shapiro might have been a better VP pick, not that I have anything against Tim Walz.
PA is looking pretty consistently good in polls right now, though.
 
Dems absolutely need PA to have any chance of winning. That’s why maybe Shapiro might have been a better VP pick, not that I have anything against Tim Walz.

Polling is looking decent in PA for Harris, with high rated pollsters(such as NYT), early numbers also looks like its pointing to high enthusiasm for dems, even though you can't read who into who wins by that, its overall looking decent so far,

Not a state Harris needs if she wins the rustbelt states, but, NYT being more trustworthy than most pollsters, i'd be very curious to see what early numbers looks like in Arizona though, when they come in.
 
There is no historical evidence that VP picks deliver their home state.

There doesn't have to be "historical evidence". A popular governor in the most important, must win state that could be decided within 50k votes is simply a no brainer. If Harris loses PA, all narratives will point to who she didn't select as VP.
 
I think Harris is doing better in Arizona than the polls suggest, Lake has done a lot of damage there for Trump.
 
I think Harris is doing better in Arizona than the polls suggest, Lake has done a lot of damage there for Trump.

I suspect so as well. She may not win it, but the way Maricopa county has been going in recent years + Gallego doing well against Lake at the moment, she should at a minimum keep it within 1-2 points imo.
 
Rosenberg is a bit of a Dem shill who often paints an excessively rosey picture of Dem prospects, so time will tell if this is true.

 
There doesn't have to be "historical evidence". A popular governor in the most important, must win state that could be decided within 50k votes is simply a no brainer. If Harris loses PA, all narratives will point to who she didn't select as VP.
Any kind of a smart campaign will look at electoral history and statistics to help inform their decision. And if it was such a no-brainer Harris would obviously have picked him, but she didn't. You'd have to believe Harris is either really dumb or that she doesn't want to win, to call it a no-brainer.
 
PA is looking pretty consistently good in polls right now, though.

Polling is looking decent in PA for Harris, with high rated pollsters(such as NYT), early numbers also looks like its pointing to high enthusiasm for dems, even though you can't read who into who wins by that, its overall looking decent so far,

Not a state Harris needs if she wins the rustbelt states, but, NYT being more trustworthy than most pollsters, i'd be very curious to see what early numbers looks like in Arizona though, when they come in.
I never trust these polls. Small sample size. Not really accurate. Case in point all these “polls” had Hillary winning before the election by a lot.
 
Rosenberg is a bit of a Dem shill who often paints an excessively rosey picture of Dem prospects, so time will tell if this is true.



As i've said, if GOP wants a repeat of 2022 in the swing-states, be my guest.

But it is a pretty dumb strategy, is it not? I'm not sure what the "end-game" is here, making "your side" believing they are ahead come election day sounds like it could cause complacency if anything.
 
I never trust these polls. Small sample size. Not really accurate. Case in point all these “polls” had Hillary winning before the election by a lot.

I mentioned the early numbers too, btw.

Also, polling can be wrong in dems favor too(see election results since 2022), for the record.
 
Any kind of a smart campaign will look at electoral history and statistics to help inform their decision. And if it was such a no-brainer Harris would obviously have picked him, but she didn't. You'd have to believe Harris is either really dumb or that she doesn't want to win, to call it a no-brainer.

There is no modern comparison to draw from on this issue, which is why its not a legitimate point.

In the modern era (past 50 years), there has never been a precedent where a Dem candidate so badly needed one state and was therefore incentivized to select a VP based on that. Therefore its pointless to make historical claims based on information that doesn't exist. We are dealing with an entire new and unique precedent here.

The only VP you can make a plausible claim for is Gore in 92, who helped Clinton carry Tennessee. But even then, TN wasn't considered a must win state. All the others were selected because the POTUS candidate felt more comfortable with them, not for whether or not they could help win a state.
 
There doesn't have to be "historical evidence". A popular governor in the most important, must win state that could be decided within 50k votes is simply a no brainer. If Harris loses PA, all narratives will point to who she didn't select as VP.

But isn’t there reason to believe he would hurt her more elsewhere?
 
There is no historical evidence that VP picks deliver their home state.
I think in this political climate people will tend to go with known devils over unknown angels. With PA if there are undecided voters or maybe some men have a hard time voting for Harris cause she is a woman then at least they might think to themselves I know Shapiro and he is from this state and at least my vote is a vote for him since I don’t know Kamala. Even if 10-20k people vote based on that idiotic ideology you might win the state.
 
But it is a pretty dumb strategy, is it not? I'm not sure what the "end-game" is here, making "your side" believing they are ahead come election day sounds like it could cause complacency if anything.

I’d say it somehow endorses swing voters that it’s ok to vote for Trump?
 
Last edited:
If there is, I haven't seen it. All VP candidates have comparable policy views on the same topics.

How so? What’s the negative news around Shapiro?

I know Harris isn’t exactly doing much to downplay it already tbf but isn’t he rather extreme in his Israel support?

Admittedly I’m not overly familiar with him, and basing this mostly off things I’m vaguely remembering from this thread.