2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins

So all in all, the situation hasn't changed significantly in the last 2 months. 7 states still decide the race, the 3 from the Rust Belt are still Harris' best chance and the 4 from the Sun Belt are the plan B with NC more feasible, AZ less feasible and NV/GA somewhere in the middle. Esentially the models are reaching conclusions that aren't significally different from the ones casual observers make.

In the end there's two likely outcomes: A) Harris will win by a narrow margin, which will be contested ad nauseam by the GOP structure making sure results won't be certified until early january; B) Trump will win by a narrow margin and basically all of us are either crazy or unable to understand or grasp the new world that has been born in front of our eyes. That's pretty much it.
 
Krakenzero said:
So all in all, the situation hasn't changed significantly in the last 2 months. 7 states still decide the race, the 3 from the Rust Belt are still Harris' best chance and the 4 from the Sun Belt are the plan B with NC more feasible, AZ less feasible and NV/GA somewhere in the middle. Esentially the models are reaching conclusions that aren't significally different from the ones casual observers make.

In the end there's two likely outcomes: A) Harris will win by a narrow margin, which will be contested ad nauseam by the GOP structure making sure results won't be certified until early january; B) Trump will win by a narrow margin and basically all of us are either crazy or unable to understand or grasp the new world that has been born in front of our eyes. That's pretty much it.
Click to expand...

It depends how you define narrow margin. Harris could win the blue wall and blue dot and win the presidency. Trump could just as well do the same by winning the sunbelt (NC/GA/AZ) and taking one of the blue wall states like MI. He could also win convincingly such as he did against Hillary or as Biden did against him in 2020. Hopefully the election doesn't come down to one state to avoid the inevitable legal wrangling that will happen if it does.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
All those Harris billboards I saw in MI and WI paying off, it seems.
Click to expand...

Its an interesting piece which if true, could mean a sizeable shift away from Trump's turnout machine. Definitely enough to win and mitigate the losses of smaller factions who have signaled they may not vote or even may vote Trump.
 
Raoul said:
It depends how you define narrow margin. Harris could win the blue wall and blue dot and win the presidency. Trump could just as well do the same by winning the sunbelt (NC/GA/AZ) and taking one of the blue wall states like MI. He could also win convincingly such as he did against Hillary or as Biden did against him in 2020. Hopefully the election doesn't come down to one state to avoid the inevitable legal wrangling that will happen if it does.
Click to expand...

Did he? Of course him winning isn't debatable, but at the moment it was heavily contested and looking back there were 3 states decided by a few thousand votes (less than 1% of difference between the two candidates). With a similar scenario in only a couple of states the results could be delayed for several days or even weeks, let alone the legal procedures in order to certify the results.
 
Krakenzero said:
Did he? Of course him winning isn't debatable, but at the moment it was heavily contested and looking back there were 3 states decided by a few thousand votes (less than 1% of difference between the two candidates). With a similar scenario in only a couple of states the results could be delayed for several days or even weeks, let alone the legal procedures in order to certify the results.
Click to expand...

I meant in terms of electoral votes. If you narrowly win by only one state, that's going to result in an instant legal showdown in the courts. If you win by 3 states, it makes litigation to flip the results progressively less realistic.
 
The amount of time and money that has been spent by media and pollsters to tell us in so many different ways that this will be close is mind boggling.

Is there potential for the Supreme Court to get their hands on deciding who the president is if it is close in a couple of states?
 
Raoul said:
This would make sense if it came out after, not before people actually voted, so that we can verify how many non-MAGA R's actually wound up voting for her.
Click to expand...

i don't see why movement in the polls isn't the better indicator, unless the results show that the polls are miles off. we're looking at the effect of one campaign strategy, utilised since the convention, not the campaign as a whole. because of the time-series nature of this, it makes sense to look at time-series data rather than one snapshot at the end (which might be influenced by things before the change in campaign strategy). finally, the strategy has to be looked at as a totality, not just in it's appeal to non-MAGA Rs, because, like any other strategy, it can have both benefits (presumably among this group) and drawbacks (among other groups, compared to another strategy, etc).
 
berbatrick said:
i don't see why movement in the polls isn't the better indicator, unless the results show that the polls are miles off. we're looking at the effect of one campaign strategy, utilised since the convention, not the campaign as a whole. because of the time-series nature of this, it makes sense to look at time-series data rather than one snapshot at the end (which might be influenced by things before the change in campaign strategy). finally, the strategy has to be looked at as a totality, not just in it's appeal to non-MAGA Rs, because, like any other strategy, it can have both benefits (presumably among this group) and drawbacks (among other groups, compared to another strategy, etc).
Click to expand...

Because the objective isn't movement in polls, its who actually votes in the election. Also, there are far more independents up for grabs (Republican leaning independents included) who actually do vote in elections than left wing protestors who are more interest in complaining about things on social media, than actually going through the trouble of voting. Thirdly, Harris' platform is a distinctly centrist one, so she is more likely to attempt a bi-partisan approach than one that estranges her from the center.
 
Raoul said:
Because the objective isn't movement in polls, its who actually votes in the election. Also, there are far more independents up for grabs (Republican leaning independents included) who actually do vote in elections than left wing protestors who are more interest in complaining about things on social media, than actually going through the trouble of voting. Thirdly, Harris' platform is a distinctly centrist one, so she is more likely to attempt a bi-partisan approach than one that estranges her from the center.
Click to expand...

movement in the polls is related to who actually votes in the election, and polls give time-series data which the results do not.
for the 2nd sentence, i'm sure that's the case, the question is if this strategy is a net positive or not. would they not vote otherwise, how many are voting now, how many "protestors" aren't, relative to her more anti-republican messaging when she got the nomination. which can best be judged by changes in polling.
the third sentence is a non-sequitir, this is about the campaign not the potential administration.
 
berbatrick said:
movement in the polls is related to who actually votes in the election, and polls give time-series data which the results do not.
for the 2nd sentence, i'm sure that's the case, the question is if this strategy is a net positive or not. would they not vote otherwise, how many are voting now, how many "protestors" aren't, relative to her more anti-republican messaging when she got the nomination. which can best be judged by changes in polling.
the third sentence is a non-sequitir, this is about the campaign not the potential administration.
Click to expand...

We don't know that right now. We also have to remember that in a divided country, both candidates generally have a ceiling in the high 40s, which is where both of them are right now. Therefore the tweet is completely pointless, because we have no idea how people are going to end up voting. If Harris loses and there are exit polls suggesting no Republicans voted for her, then the tweeter would have the beginnings of a rational argument.
 
berbatrick said:
Click to expand...

Very irresponsible and premature tweet. We need every vote from Republicans. Let’s wait two more weeks before making conclusions.

At the very least, the outreach to republicans could make some of them feel uncomfortable voting for Trump, and that’s good in itself, even if she doesn’t get the votes of some of these people.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
Very irresponsible and premature tweet. We need every vote from Republicans. Let’s wait two more weeks before making conclusions.

At the very least, the outreach to republicans could make some of them feel uncomfortable voting for Trump, and that’s good in itself, even if she doesn’t get the votes of some of these people.
Click to expand...
Right? And it isnt like thats ALL shes doing. She's been trying to cast a very large net. I mean shes also got both Obamas supposedly scheduled to rally with her on the weekend. And it isnt like shes out here promising Liz Cheney conservatism policies. I would be against that too if she was promoting any policy.

She's just trying to show look I can and will work across the aisle and if you are a disillusioned non Maga but maybe GOP leaning or independent it is safe to come vote for me. I don't see how that is a bad message especially when those mostly white women are a huge share of the electorate and any gains there percentagewise could offset the deficit in men or small percentage of minority men even she isn't clicking with perhaps.
 
Hamnat said:
Right? And it isnt like thats ALL shes doing. She's been trying to cast a very large net. I mean shes also got both Obamas supposedly scheduled to rally with her on the weekend. And it isnt like shes out here promising Liz Cheney conservatism policies. I would be against that too if she was promoting any policy.

She's just trying to show look I can and will work across the aisle and if you are a disillusioned non Maga but maybe GOP leaning or independent it is safe to come vote for me. I don't see how that is a bad message especially when those mostly white women are a huge share of the electorate and any gains there percentagewise could offset the deficit in men or small percentage of minority men even she isn't clicking with perhaps.
Click to expand...
It's definitely not the only thing that she's doing. In fact, I would argue that she's doing all that she should and can do:
1. Holding rallies with supporters in swing states
2. Going to "Souls to the Polls" on Sundays, like yesterday
3. Going to interviews, from CNN to podcasts to Fox
4. Scheduled to have a Townhall this week on CNN
5. Brought republicans to campaign with her, with the focus being democracy, January 6, Trumpism, etc.
6. Brought a well-known, far from being liberal, business man from Dallas, TX, to help her with the economic messaging
7. Picked a reasonable midwestern governor as runner-mate
8. Went to a debate, did well, and called for another, but Trump refused
9. Didn't call voters "deplorables"
... and one can add others that I forgot.

Of course, there is always something that you can do better, and I'm sure that we will hear about "what about this... what about that" if she ends up losing by a slim margin. In my book, there isn't much that she could do that she hasn't done already in a satisfactory (or better) manner.

If the United States of America votes for Trump, it's because enough people in this the country, particularly in swing states, want Trump and are sufficiently are OK with Trumpism. It would not be the fault of Kamala Harris or her campaign.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
Very irresponsible and premature tweet. We need every vote from Republicans. Let’s wait two more weeks before making conclusions.

At the very least, the outreach to republicans could make some of them feel uncomfortable voting for Trump, and that’s good in itself, even if she doesn’t get the votes of some of these people.
Click to expand...

Can a loss be a win?
 
Mike Smalling said:
Stupid question perhaps, but doesn't the return edge just mean that the Republican votes are likely coming later? Or is it an indication that some of them are likely to not be cast at all?
Click to expand...
The answer is we dont know. If you don't return your ballot you can bring it with you on EDay to the voting site and vote in person, but parties generally want to bank votes by confirming the mail has been sent in so they can focus on low propensity voters, so anemic return rate creates more uncertainty for the canvassers.
 
Krakenzero said:
So all in all, the situation hasn't changed significantly in the last 2 months. 7 states still decide the race, the 3 from the Rust Belt are still Harris' best chance and the 4 from the Sun Belt are the plan B with NC more feasible, AZ less feasible and NV/GA somewhere in the middle. Esentially the models are reaching conclusions that aren't significally different from the ones casual observers make.

In the end there's two likely outcomes: A) Harris will win by a narrow margin, which will be contested ad nauseam by the GOP structure making sure results won't be certified until early january; B) Trump will win by a narrow margin and basically all of us are either crazy or unable to understa
Click to expand...
I don't think the GOP will go along with whatever Trump try to cook up this time if he loses, as long as they win the Senate. Of course if Harris only manage 270 exactly then they will love to push it to the House by the faithless elector route, but most of the swing states govs and SOS are Democrats so that significantly reduce the risk.

Just worry about winning first and litigation later.
 
Cook moved Pennsylvania senate race to tossup for some reason.

This isn't a tossup, no matter what they say, if this is a tossup, then so is Texas senate race.
 
Read a discussion on Reddit earlier around the glut of partisan Republican polling houses that are flooding the market at the moment and while one claimed it was just to create momentum and normalise support for Trump the other said they reckon it might be more cynical and be part of the groundwork for Trump’s election theft. If he’s going to do it, people are more likely to shrug their shoulders and just go with it if Trump winning is seen as the most likely outcome.

Probably just one redditors opinion but I thought it was an interesting point all the same.
 
Experts believe that the campaign is tied to a network called Storm-1516, which has been linked to, among other things, a previous effort that falsely claimed vice president Kamala Harris perpetrated a hit-and-run in San Francisco in 2011. Storm-1516 has a long history of posting fake whistleblower videos, and often deepfake videos, to push Kremlin talking points to the West.
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.