Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:
ireactions wrote:

I think my terror is probably about us here in Canada, where we are staring down the barrel of an election where the advantage is with this climate change dismissing looney toon who is basically Trump lite.

What do you mean?  Think of all the "seafront" property who will have up in Canada thanks to global warming.  Trump told the good folks in Michigan about that tonight on stage.

My guess is ireactions is referring to JD Vance as Trump's mini me. I think he is every bit as dangerous as Trump is. Probably more so.

Check out this ditty he said yesterday:

"JD Vance says the United States’ support for NATO should be contingent on Europe’s support for Elon Musk and Twitter."

https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1836086093500047455

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Nate Silver wrote a story the other day about how this election should really be a layup for Trump.  Biden is deeply unpopular, the economy is good in certain ways but very bad in other ways (mostly around prices), and it's an election where people are looking for a new candidate.  If the Republicans had nominated someone like DeSantis or even someone like Ted Cruz, they would probably be winning fairly handily vs Biden or Harris.

The problem is that the Republicans nominated Trump.  Not only someone who is deeply unpopular himself but someone who unites the Democratic coalition in a way that no one else does.  There's a chance that if the Republicans had selected Nikki Haley, for example, that women wouldn't be overwhelmingly supporting Harris even in the abortion environment we find ourselves in.

Then not only did Trump get nominated, he's made a number of mistakes.  Selecting Vance was a mistake when he clearly needed to select a woman.  He's made no effort to engage or attract middle of the road voters, leaving them susceptible to attraction to Harris.  He's shored up the base, for sure, but he hasn't stopped.  He appears almost never on any sort of mainstream media, opting exclusively for right-leaning/friendly media (unless the mainstream media is covering an event he's doing).

Now we can argue all day about Nate Silver and what he represents (I've certainly soured on him), but I do think he makes a good point.  I think inflation alone made this a very difficult election for Biden or Harris.  Prices are higher and even though it's not their fault and it's not a problem that will go away regardless of who wins the election, people are looking for a change at the top.  People that voted for Biden as a change are now considering voting for Trump for another change.  People that remember 2019 prices think that going back to Trump will go back to 2019 prices.  That's a thing that's happening and nothing positive that Harris does or something negative that Trump does is going to change their minds.

But Trump has left an opening, and it's Harris' job to drive right through it.

I did find myself sad for Trump supporters last night.  There was a question that an older woman in Michigan asked Trump in a town hall, and she basically sobbed through the idea that prices needed to come down and asked Trump for his plan.  And his answer, of course, was nonsensical, but his plan is basically to try and reduce the cost of energy and hope that solves all his problems.  His plan is to raise tariffs and assumes that American manufacturing can absorb all the new demand in every sector.

And I felt bad for the woman.  She trusts this man explicitly, and he has no plan.  Barely, as he would say, the concepts of a plan.  Is there a chance that tariffs will increase American manufacturing?  Sure.  Will it happen in time and in every sector?  I doubt it.  Will drilling so much that the cost of gasoline goes down help with all prices?  I can't imagine.  And it will never go back down to 2019 prices just like 2019 prices were never going to go down to 2015 prices. 

Now, in a wild attempt to convince voters, he's talking about how he's going to massively reduce home insurance costs.  He didn't elaborate, of course, but people are going to believe him.  And if he wins, they're going to expect him to follow through on his promises.  And he's just not going to be able to.  Either he's going to do nothing to help them, or he's going to actively make things worse.

And people are struggling.  The problem is that Donald Trump has zero regard for them, and he wouldn't help them if he could.  He'll help them if it also helps him, but that's about where it ends.

To me, his base is an abused wife that stays with him even though he's constantly abusive.  He cheats on her, and he hits her.  And yet she loves him, and she believes his lies.  I hate Trump, but I pity his supporters.  I really think they simply don't know any better, and they'll follow him to their own doom.

3,063

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Nate Silver just rehashed what everyone already knows, and what I've said for a year now.  The GOP continues to lose with Trump.  Haley or Desantis would be up and cruising at this point. 

I saw Trump's comments in Michigan, they were worse they you realize.  Firstly, the drilling answer is ridiculous, and every time he goes there, it makes him look dumber on the subject.  Secondly, he specifically said he would put tariffs on imported food!!!!  This is easily this stupidest and worst tariff idea yet!  I mean, how much coffee, bananas, avocados, coconuts, etc., are grown in the United States?  Some but most of that comes from central or south America.  Meaning your Starbucks would cost $30 a cup!!!  IDIOT!!!!  Again, anti-Trump PAC's should seize on these statements and lampoon him to no end.  He also told Michigan autoworkers that the state's move towards EV's was a waste of time and money.  He said "why should you compete with the Chinese who will do it better and cheaper."  WTF.  So if the US auto industry refuses to evolve, then what?  Again, complete IDIOT!

Inflation went down a bunch recently, and the FED's 0.5% point slash today will help stimulate the economy and bring inflation down, albeit not immediately.  Trump has basically spitballed his entire platform, to the point that his surrogates cannot even keep up with the daily brain droppings. 

Dave Wasserman, from New Jersey, is a good read.  He actually works with data, unlike Silver who's goal these days are to handicap elections for gamblers.  Dave has helped publish the Cook Political "Swingometer."  It's a genius tool, because you can see how turnout by demographics impacts the results.  In fact, Dave mentioned that in say, Wisconsin, if Kamala retains the 2020 Black voter edge, she wins, but Trump could flip the state if that moves in his direction by just a few points.  Likewise, demographic shifts in North Carolina have positioned the state to where if VP Harris retains the 2020 White voter numbers Biden had, she would flip the state.  Give it a try!

https://www.cookpolitical.com/swingometer

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

My post about political anxiety in Canada was referring to a conservative Canadian politician who is likely to be the next Canadian prime minister. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Poilievre He's basically Donald Trump lite in Canada. I will not vote for him, but many will; the current prime minister (for whom I will grudgingly vote) has managed to alienate progressives and centrists alike. Even people who might support the (supposedly) progressive party will not support its present leader.

SliderQuinn21 wrote:

And people are struggling.  The problem is that Donald Trump has zero regard for them, and he wouldn't help them if he could.  He'll help them if it also helps him, but that's about where it ends.

To me, his base is an abused wife that stays with him even though he's constantly abusive.  He cheats on her, and he hits her.  And yet she loves him, and she believes his lies.  I hate Trump, but I pity his supporters.  I really think they simply don't know any better, and they'll follow him to their own doom.

You may wish to consider caution with this metaphor.

I am not saying you have done anything inappropriate, and this is not a reprimand, but a confession: I have used this metaphor in the past, and I was wrong to do so, and I deeply regret it.

I do not think you are wrong to use it, but speaking only for myself: I have elected to retire this one from my own usage.

I once knew a woman who was the webmaster for Hollywood actress Allison Mack. This woman was regularly posting about how Chloe was her favourite character on SMALLVILLE and at one point declared that Chloe was the most important character in the series. At that point, I snarked -- and I should not have -- that Chloe's two minutes of screentime across most episodes made her trivial and irrelevant and that anyone who called Chloe a lead character was like a...

Well, you know what I said. I won't say it twice. I shouldn't have even said it once.

This web designer was deeply hurt and upset, and I blew it off, and I shouldn't have done that either.

At one point, she accidentally instant messaged me, sharing some difficulties with Allison Mack. I would take this opportunity to 'apologize', but not, I think, as sincerely as I would now; I said I'd been unwell and unhappy, but I think I was using illness as an excuse. She deserved better from me and deserved a sincere message of regret and responsibility from me.

In recent years, the world learned: Allison Mack was running a cult, she was physically and emotionally abusive to those she inducted into her cult. She had inducted this woman, this wonderful web designer, into her cut. She was abusing this woman savagely. This means my remark about this web designer was both grossly inappropriate and savagely accurate, and the accuracy of my comment actually makes it all the more cruel, insensitive and shameful on my part.

I have thought about the situation with Allison Mack and her web designer a lot, and about my words. I have concluded that I should have used a different metaphor.

I should have likened the situation to someone in a pyramid scheme who constantly thinks their big payout is coming soon (it isn't) or someone in a cult who constantly thinks the ascension is any day now (it's not) or to a politician insisting they can win when their fundraising and support have fallen through the floor or to SLIDERS fans who constantly thought that with one more season, John and Jerry and Sabrina and Tracy would come back (they wouldn't).

Is your use of this metaphor apt? I think so... but it's a sensitive area and I have learned not to make light of this subject. This is not a reprimand. I am not saying you have done anything wrong. I am saying it was wrong for *me* to use the metaphor that I did. I should not have done it. I won't do it again.

You aren't me. The subject to which you apply this metaphor is not the same. Your use of it is not the same. For one thing, you are speaking about a media appearance, not a private person. For another, you are describing the situation generally as opposed to directing it towards a specific individual. My mistakes are not yours.

Since we're friends, I merely wish to share my own contemplations on this, for you to use or dismiss as you see fit, and you can come to your own conclusions and decisions. Thank you for attending my TED Talk.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Yeah, I'm sure there's a better metaphor.  I just wanted to express someone who is constantly lied to by someone who doesn't have their best interests at heart.  For whatever reason, Donald Trump is able to speak to these people, but it's so clear that Trump doesn't care about them.  Trump reportedly is constantly insulting his own followers in private.  But they truly believe that he's going to help them.  They truly believe that they will be in mortal danger if he doesn't win. 

For a lot of these people, they're ignorant to truths or they're undereducated about certain things.  And with the echo chamber that a lot of these people live in, he can distort the truth to be whatever he wants, and there's no one there to fact check him.  He can say ridiculous things about tariffs, and people that don't really understand tariffs will believe him.  He can say that he's going to drastically reduce home insurance, and people will believe him.

And even if he doesn't do it, people will love him and trust him.  Even if costs don't go down, Trump can say that things are better, and they'll probably believe him.  It's like when Trump says that gas is $6.00 under Biden, and these same people go out, get gas for $2.89 and it doesn't register with them.

I get that a large swath of Trump supporters are bad people that are racist or misogynist or fascist or whatever.  But I think a lot of Trump supporters are victims of a con man who's really good at conning people.

Grizzlor wrote:

Dave Wasserman, from New Jersey, is a good read.  He actually works with data, unlike Silver who's goal these days are to handicap elections for gamblers.  Dave has helped publish the Cook Political "Swingometer."  It's a genius tool, because you can see how turnout by demographics impacts the results.  In fact, Dave mentioned that in say, Wisconsin, if Kamala retains the 2020 Black voter edge, she wins, but Trump could flip the state if that moves in his direction by just a few points.  Likewise, demographic shifts in North Carolina have positioned the state to where if VP Harris retains the 2020 White voter numbers Biden had, she would flip the state.  Give it a try!

I love Wasserman.  He's *the* person to follow on election night and he's basically able to call states independently with his "I've seen enough" proclamations.

3,066 (edited by Grizzlor 2024-09-19 10:28:00)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Exhaustive discussions over "language" are fine and dandy, but are as actionable as me farting into the wind.  The uber-sensitivity only stifles inventive thought, and divides, it only divides.  The first amendment allows for it, as simply being crass with language is protected, and one should not fear for that.  The outrage police have soiled political discourse, particularly on the left, and driven a mass of people towards the Orange menace.  In fact, I would say that besides inflation, it's up there in 2nd place for driving left of center folk into Trump's small hands.  There has been a high level clampdown on free thought and discourse, which largely came out of the COVID paranoia, and has increasingly turned younger generations off.  Yes, we want to caution against "misinformation," but the result has been a string of justifiable accusations against the main stream media, and Democratic officials.  That combined with the Democratic Party's absurd inaction on immigration (The Fed even commented that illegals make the unemployment statistics worse), rampant crime post-lockdown, and the pro-trans movement which continues to freak out parents.  This string of foolishness is why the tree in my yard would poll better than Joe Biden on almost any issue.  And now Kamala is being tasked with trying to convince voters that she effectively either disagreed with that foolishness (and stayed silent), which few believe, or that she's willing to "change."  It's going to be a highly difficult ask.  If Trump wins, one can easily point to the breakdown of classical, actual liberalism, in favor of the un-American and idiotic ideals of the left that has submitted itself, largely through fear of being "racist" to a movement that seems to despise America's actual ideals.  It's boxed the left into this ridiculous space where antisemitism and anti-colonialism mix, and the result is toxic.

Anyway, after my rambling TED talk, the view of Northwestern University data scientist Thomas Miller is an interesting one.  He uses the betting markets, rather than polling, to conclude that Kamala Harris will still win in a landslide.

https://www.newsweek.com/data-scientist … on-1955575

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I hope Thomas Miller is correct.  It would be nice if Kamala can win North Carolina on Election Night and to win Michigan soon afterwards.  It would mean that she'd just need to win PA or GA or NV+AZ or NV+WI or WI+AZ to win.

And obviously if she wins NC and MI high enough to be called fairly early, she's a good bet to win one of those combinations.  It would be even better if she wins enough states convincingly to win on Election Night itself, but that feels like more of a pipe dream.

I know that early mail-in voting reports indicate that there's a smaller edge on likely Democratic votes than likely Republican votes than there was in 2020, but I think people are forgetting that people are much more likely to vote in person than they were in 2020.  I just hope battleground Kamala voters vote early as opposed to voting on election day to avoid the intimidation-like behavior I'm expecting MAGA to try in those states.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Exhaustive discussions over "language" are fine and dandy, but are as actionable as me farting into the wind.  The uber-sensitivity only stifles inventive thought, and divides, it only divides.  The first amendment allows for it, as simply being crass with language is protected, and one should not fear for that.  The outrage police have soiled political discourse, particularly on the left, and driven a mass of people towards the Orange menace.  In fact, I would say that besides inflation, it's up there in 2nd place for driving left of center folk into Trump's small hands.  There has been a high level clampdown on free thought and discourse, which largely came out of the COVID paranoia, and has increasingly turned younger generations off.

Aside from the "fine and dandy" part, this comment strikes me as a defence coming from a person may often be very careless with language, who might regularly offend others, who dislikes discussions of this nature because then they have to confront how they may have regularly offended and upset others with their words.

When someone claims that examining "crass" language can only stifle and divide, it sounds to me like they don't want to be held accountable or responsible for their own words.

I also observe that people who complain they are being stifled and divided by analyzing language will often try to stifle review of their words and divide their protest across various excuses: they claim they shouldn't be held responsible for anything they said because they didn't think it through or they posted it a long time ago or their words weren't meant to be reviewed or they don't remember writing it or they shouldn't have to take responsibility for anything they said on the internet or passingly or ever.

It seems to me that this is the response of someone for whom words have often blown up in their faces. I think someone like this will often blame others for being oversensitive and restrictive; they will dismiss examinations of language; they will attempt to intimidate by claiming that calling for awareness of the weight and power of words are an attack on civil liberties and personal freedoms.

I think they do this because their words have exposed them when analyzed and they don't like what's revealed. I pulled all of that with Allison Mack's webmaster. I see what my words back then reveal about me and I feel just awful about it.

I should have seen that instead of this woman being oversensitive to words, I was reckless with them. Instead of restricting me, she needed me to be more responsible. Instead of impeding my liberties and freedoms by questioning my words, she needed me to understand what words can do and how they need to be wielded with care.

I could have been compassionate but realistic, empathetic yet factual. And maybe, if I hadn't been derisive, scornful and mocking, this woman wouldn't have gone on the defensive and gotten in deeper with Allison Mack.

I will not be so arrogant as to claim full responsibility for this web designer's choices. I'm sure there are lots of unfortunate reasons why this web designer joined Mack's cult, but I wish I hadn't given her one more.

People are responsible for the words they use and for how their words reflect their character and values, and the world has every right to analyze what they -- or I -- post in public, even and especially if some of us may deeply regret what we've said.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I know that early mail-in voting reports indicate that there's a smaller edge on likely Democratic votes than likely Republican votes than there was in 2020, but I think people are forgetting that people are much more likely to vote in person than they were in 2020.  I just hope battleground Kamala voters vote early as opposed to voting on election day to avoid the intimidation-like behavior I'm expecting MAGA to try in those states.

Simon Rosenberg has been very big on voting ASAP, as early as possible.

I'm pretty freaked out by all of it, albeit less frightened than with Biden, but still pretty darn scared. With Biden, my terror was at a nine out of ten. With Kamala, I'm at... seven to seven and a half.

I guess I'll just try to focus on work.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

So in 2020, pretty much the whole time, I was fairly calm the entire cycle.  I got into some brushups on Twitter with MAGA folks and spent a good deal of my time feeling good about a win.  Even when the election was closer than anticipated, I figured it was only a matter of time.

When Biden was the nominee, I was full of dread.  After the assassination attempt, I was beside myself.

With Harris as the nominee, I was hopeful but scared.  But the more I was exposed to her and saw how people are responding to her, I'm back to a quiet calm.  I'm still nervous at the idea that Trump could be president (probably more nervous than when it was just possible that he would *stay* president), but I'm feeling more confident that he won't be.

At this point, I'm most nervous about:

1. Polling error.  My confidence is based on what we're seeing in the polls, and if they're off more than 2-3 points against her, Trump will win.
2. Some kind of economic disaster in the next six weeks.  The closer we get to the election, the less likely that is.  And as Grizzlor pointed out, it seems more likely that the economy will get better.  I don't know if six weeks of good economy or lower gas prices or higher stock prices are likely to impact enough people that it impacts the election in any meaningful way, but we're maybe in a place where a cumulatively good economy for the last couple years, added with negative feelings on Trump and his economic policies, matched with potential positive feelings about Kamala's economic policies, might sway a "primarily economic" voter to switch from supporting Trump a few months ago to voting for Harris.  Hopefully that extremely run-on sentence made any sense
3. Election day chaos and/or post-election nonsense.  Harris is winning enough states with quality statewide polls that she should get to 270.  And there's enough closeness in Georgia/North Carolina/Arizona and Nevada that she has a couple avenues if she doesn't win Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.  It makes me pretty nervous that Trump just needs to win NC/GA/PA, and he's the favorite to win two of those.  And it makes me nervous that the Trump campaign is competent enough to be aware of this and using that strategy pretty effectively.  And since Georgia seems likely to be Trump because of Georgia's election authorities, then North Carolina is a must-win if she can't win Pennsylvania.  But it's comforting to know she has a backup.  And Robinson in NC might be a big-enough distraction for her to sneak a win there.  So my fear would be that Trump doesn't even care about the election and wants to overturn the results.  And while I think the Democrats are ready, I worry about what kind of unexpected things Trump's team has come up with.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Keeping my cautious but hopeful paradigm going.......

Trump Suddenly Behind in Pennsylvania, New Polls Show

https://newrepublic.com/article/186182/ … polls-show

TL;DR: Harris is 50 points ahead of Trump's 46 points.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/us/p … vania.html

If Donald Trump loses Pennsylvania, he almost certainly will lose the presidential election. Now, all of a sudden, we have four new high-quality polls showing Kamala Harris ahead, though some others show it tied. Why the heck is Pennsylvania so close? What is really going on there? Should we believe the polls? Or not? We chatted with Democratic strategist Rebecca Katz, who is from Pennsylvania herself, worked on Senator John Fetterman’s victorious 2022 campaign, and knows something about winning there. Katz explained what Harris’s path to victory in the state looks like—and the looming obstacles that still keep her awake at night. Listen to this episode here.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I've been seeing more stuff about the GOP flooding the market with Republican-leaning polls.  Like they did in 2022.  What I guess I don't understand is...what's the point of that?  I guess the idea is that if Democrats think that Republicans are winning in the polls, they are less likely to vote.  But is that true?  It wasn't true in 2016 or 2020 for Republicans, who showed Trump down in the polls and still voted.  It wasn't true in 2022 when the GOP did this same thing, leading to predictions of a Red Wave, and Democrats still voted and won.

I think the people that are more likely to pay attention to polls are also the people that are most likely to vote no matter what the polls say.  And I'm also hesitant to believe it because...wouldn't the inverse also be true?  If your preferred candidate was comfortably above in the poll and something came up, wouldn't you be less likely to vote because it's already in the bag?

I don't know.  I just think it's sorta pointless.

*******

Experts in Pennsylvania seem to think that the signs of Harris doing well are there.  I've read that a few times, but it's hard to know who really knows what they're talking about.  Independent polls seem to have really turned towards Kamala since the debate.  I think the only question is whether or not she can keep up the momentum.  I do think it's interesting that she's been overtly pro-gun recently, touting that she and Walz are both gun owners and claiming last night that she'd shoot an intruder.

I don't know if it's enough to make any real dent in any true 2A person, but I see how it could be an effective strategy.  If you're a person who doesn't like Trump and your top two issues are guns and the economy, she might be able to convince you that 4 years with Harris will be okay.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Simon Rosenberg says The New York Times polls are completely unreliable and little more than outliers. He says he will not spend any more time taking them apart.

The NYT poll is just one poll among many, and should not dictate our understanding of the race or current trends, nor am I going to any more spend dissecting this new data. I and we have better things to do. We have an election to go win.

https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/winn … -gop-keeps

I really hope I don't come to regret sharing so much Simon Rosenberg stuff. Just because he says things in a fact-oriented fashion and is saying what I want to hear doesn't mean he's right. I can only be cautiously optimistic.

3,074 (edited by Grizzlor 2024-09-23 20:35:19)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The Sienna/NYT polls have been all over the place.  The worst one I've seen though is ActiVote, who just put out a poll of 400LV which took them a MONTH to sample.  I mean, on the one they still were doing Biden vs. Trump!  It's a total joke.  Simon makes mention of this, but no matter the poll, you NEED to pay attention to the crosstabs.  What is the sample made up of?  Gender, party affiliation, how do they feel on certain issues, etc.  However, about a month from now, I would look at where Real Clear Politics has it's averages, and check sites like 538. 

Are there really any undecided's left?  I mean, come on now.  I'm very intrigued whether the dumpster fire Robinson down in North Carolina will harm Trump?  Might happen.  The polls are snapshots.  The betting markets are often a better check these days, because they are measuring intent.  It's going to be all about the turnout.

PS: Nebraska will NOT be altering their electoral vote procedure, so the likely victory in 2nd district for Harris will net her 1 vote.  That's huge obviously in attempting to get to 270.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I agree about the polls, but I want people to be careful about crosstab diving only when the poll looks good.  NYT had a poll a week ago that had Kamala up 4 in Pennsylvania and tied nationally.  That would obviously be an unusual result, but which is the poll that's wrong?  Or are both of them wrong?  Or is it possible that both are right?  It would be nice if the Pennsylvania poll is right but the national poll and the 3 Sun Belt polls are Republican-leaning.  But as Grizzlor says, polls don't matter.

What might be more interesting in the days and weeks is some of the real-time voting information we get.  How many are voting and what is their party affiliation.  Because, honestly, I'd love if every single Harris voter voted early and Election Day was simply Trump votes.  More to go wrong, more chance of chaos or mischief.  It would make me feel better.  I'm hoping Kamala and her campaign have gotten out the word to vote as early as possible with some sort of infrastructure to help people get to the polls.

******

I'm glad the Nebraska stuff failed.  If they wanted to play fair ball and let Maine do the same thing, that would've been okay with me.  The fact that they waited until Maine's deadline passed was dirty pool.  I'm glad it failed.  I also think it's funny that basically all the arguments they're using in Nebraska are reasons to get rid of the Electoral College entirely.

The Georgia hand-count law makes me nervous.  I think the whole game is to take Georgia off the board.  Because let's remember that Trump doesn't have to get to 270.  He doesn't have to play offense - he can only play defense and he wins in the House.  That's what's nerve-wracking.  But luckily at least one person in Nebraska has stood up for democracy.  We will need a lot more like him to defeat Trump.

***********

I don't believe for a second that if Trump loses in 2024 that he won't be back in 2028.  I will have a ton to say if Trump loses, but I think he'll be back.  He'll be further gone and crazier, but if he's alive, he's running.

********

I also hope Robinson drags Trump down.  What's crazy is that Trump is the ultimate vengeful guy, but no one else seems interested in taking revenge on him.  Trump tried to get Pence killed - Pence won't endorse his opponent.  Trump gets Laura Loomer banished from his presence - she doesn't lash out at him.  Trump turns his back on Robinson - no one says anything.  I keep waiting for one of these Republicans with some real dirt to come out with something to take down Trump, but it never happens.

I cannot wait until his reign over the GOP is over.

3,076

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I agree about the polls, but I want people to be careful about crosstab diving only when the poll looks good.  NYT had a poll a week ago that had Kamala up 4 in Pennsylvania and tied nationally.  That would obviously be an unusual result, but which is the poll that's wrong?  Or are both of them wrong?  Or is it possible that both are right?  It would be nice if the Pennsylvania poll is right but the national poll and the 3 Sun Belt polls are Republican-leaning.  But as Grizzlor says, polls don't matter.

What might be more interesting in the days and weeks is some of the real-time voting information we get.  How many are voting and what is their party affiliation.  Because, honestly, I'd love if every single Harris voter voted early and Election Day was simply Trump votes.  More to go wrong, more chance of chaos or mischief.  It would make me feel better.  I'm hoping Kamala and her campaign have gotten out the word to vote as early as possible with some sort of infrastructure to help people get to the polls.

********

The Georgia hand-count law makes me nervous.  I think the whole game is to take Georgia off the board.  Because let's remember that Trump doesn't have to get to 270.  He doesn't have to play offense - he can only play defense and he wins in the House.  That's what's nerve-wracking.  But luckily at least one person in Nebraska has stood up for democracy.  We will need a lot more like him to defeat Trump.

***********

I don't believe for a second that if Trump loses in 2024 that he won't be back in 2028.  I will have a ton to say if Trump loses, but I think he'll be back.  He'll be further gone and crazier, but if he's alive, he's running.

********
I cannot wait until his reign over the GOP is over.

The polls aren't right or wrong, there is the margin of error for a reason.  The cross tabs though can often better explain certain results.  Sienna might have oversampled men nationally, while going the other direction for one of the states.  For example. 

The extra counting in GA to me, is nothing but a nuisance and won't amount to anything. 

If he loses, Trump will then have to likely face one if not two Jack Smith-led prosecutions, which would be the full end of him. 

GOP isn't going anywhere.  The Democratic Party continues on a path away from blue collar issues and towards identity politics, and behemoth spending projects that have historically bad results.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

GOP isn't going anywhere.  The Democratic Party continues on a path away from blue collar issues and towards identity politics, and behemoth spending projects that have historically bad results.

Well, three things:

1. I said Trump's reign over the GOP.  I think Trump is the danger, not necessarily the GOP.

2. The GOP is on the wrong side of a lot of issues, but I would like to get back to a place where I can disagree with their politics instead of hating them for it.  I think there's an extremely clear divider between Trump politics and Trumpian politics.  If politicians want to run on hateful policies, I think they should be free to do so.  So if they want to run on deporting millions or anti-LGBT or a national abortion ban, whatever, I think that's fine and the populace will either elect them or they won't.  But you can't be pro-democracy and not let people with different viewpoints run.  America has had plenty of bad presidents, plenty of bad policy, and has been able to pull itself back.

People like Nikki Haley, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, and Ron DeSantis are dangerous for a completely different reason than Trump.  Trump is dangerous because he'll actively sell America out.  He's easily manipulated.  He's openly fascist.  He's openly criminal and racist.  And he's an idiot.  America can survive a Republican.  American might not survive Trump.  He's uniquely stupid and uniquely popular and uniquely narcissistic and uniquely a problem for the rest of us.

I said during the primaries and I'll say it right now.  If you told me we could have President Ron DeSantis or President Nikki Haley or even President F'ing Ted Cruz right now and skip the election, I would take it over even a 1% chance that Trump wins.  Because while all those people are awful, I don't think they'll actively sell the country out for a bag of beans.  I don't think they'd refuse to leave the office at the end of their term.  I don't think they'd endanger democracy.  And we've seen it.  Trumpy people act like Trump but can't pull off the kind of things Trump pulled off.  When they lose, they go away or no one follows them down Stop the Steal nonsense. 

And again, please don't get me wrong.  I think Kamala can (and I think she will) win.  And I think all those others would be terrible presidents and terrible for the country.  But terrible is better than destroyed.

3. Once Trump is gone from politics, I think some sense of normalcy will return.  When the Republicans lose an election post-Trump, they'll have to go through a reckoning like they always have.  When someone gets 270 and they don't, they'll concede.  I think they'll maintain their populist ways, and I think the Democrats will have to have a reckoning of their own because the anti-Trump coalition doesn't make much sense if there's no Trump.  Maybe the cancer that is Trump will allow both parties to become something different.  Or maybe both parties will just return to their 2014 corners - suburban whites will go back to being Republicans and blue collar whites will go back to being Democrats.  It's impossible to say.

But Trump has to lose first.  Because if he doesn't, literally none of that will matter.

3,078

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Trump doesn't have politics.  Just in the last month, he has invented new policies, backtracked, zig-zagged, everything under the sun.  He is currently aligned with an absolutely ridiculous program where Tucker Carlson, RFK Jr., Tulsi, and Vivek are marching through battleground states entertaining the sheep.  Those people have incredibly divergent stances on major issues.  Moreover, Trump is increasingly backed by Crypto morons, but his main backers in Super PAC's remain the tried and true corporations.  The GOP is lobbied massively by big Ag, big Pharma, big Oil, and big Insurance, as are the Democrats.  Yet you have MAGA now boasting how RFK Jr. is going to fire and hire a litany of federal watchdog agencies.  I poke the RFK crowd on Twitter all the time, because they are just delusional and lying to themselves.  Trump will drop that guy like an old rag if he wins. 

I beat you to the "I can sleep at night" GOP candidates being incredibly more palatable than Trump.

Anywho, another former pollster who I think really "gets" the numbers and the kinds of polls being dumped out there, is Adam Carlson (@admcrlsn).  He posts a LOT, but his analysis is pretty honest.  He gets into the weeds on the crosstabs, and also points out the massive dumping of online-driven polling.  He seems to be focusing on how the polling demographics are very, very, very similar to 2020's results.  Moreover, he says what I've been saying, that the MAGA insistence on comparing same-time polls with 2020 or 2016 is pointless, as the electorate shifts and the polling methodology surely has changed big time.  They do not reveal theirs so speculating is also fruitless.  My take on his analysis remains that Trump ***could*** be slightly stronger with Black and Hispanic men, and definitely with conservatives.  That likely results in slight advantages in AZ, GA, NV, and NC for him, as well as PA.  However, as always, it's a question of who votes?  Adam even lampooned polling some because human psychology gets involved, and many people apparently forget who they voted for, and also lie about whether they voted, and would they this time.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor, we'd talked previously about Kamala needing to hit the airwaves in every way possible.  She's doing an interview with Wisconsin Public Radio as part of a strategy to engage with local media in key states and nontraditional digital media.  She's also doing a podcast with Stephen Jackson and Matt Barnes called "All the Smoke" - it's a basketball podcast from a couple of former NBA players.  Could be a great opportunity to reach out to some people who might not typically pay attention to politics.  Hopefully people give her a chance and she can come across as down to Earth.

I like this strategy.  I hope she does more podcasts.  As much as I don't like the guy, I don't think it would be a bad idea to even do something like Joe Rogan.  There are people that hate/don't like Trump but don't know anything about her.  This is how you reach those people.

She's also doing a one on one MSNBC interview to balance it out.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

What does a Trump surrender look like? Simon Rosenberg says it looks like this:

He is doing about one third the number of rallies he did in 2016 and his crowds are thin. He is now spending a lot of his time hawking watches, coins, sneakers, a fraudulent media company, Bibles, books, crypto to his supporters, diverting money from his campaign to line his pockets, apparently preparing for his life after his nine years of grifting off politics ends in a few months.

None of this money is going into the campaign. It is going to him.

My bottom line right now is that the election is close but things have been getting better for us since the debate. We are ahead in the national popular vote and we are closer to 270 than Trump. Our continued strength in MI, PA, WI is a big problem for them, as is the epic Robinson meltdown in NC and the blue dot in Nebraska. While there have been some bumpy polls in AZ, we’ve had good ones too (above). Essentially what the polls show us today is that we can win the election. It is an opportunity. With huge advantages in money, volunteers/field, enthusiasm and crowd sizes (really important) we should be able to close stronger than them. We just have more capacity right now to move the election towards us than they do to them.

Weeks and weeks of us beating them on paid media, generating far more compelling organic social content (vs. their ongoing ugliness) and reaching more voters on the ground is going to take its toll on them. It is possible that some of that good polling we saw this week is evidence of our superior campaign starting to move the needle as voters start to really check in. We are just touching more people in more powerful ways than they are, and over time that is really going to matter. We are winning this election right now my friends. Now, together, we have to do the work to make sure we win it.

https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/been … r-the-blue

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Why the Trump watches are garbage:
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/everything … ed-to-know

3,082 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2024-09-28 10:55:26)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I don't know why Nate Silver is given any kind of air time anymore, since it has been proven that he is nothing but a Trumper spreading right wing lies that benefit Trump. I snipped the right wing propaganda from the article. If you want to read it, you can go to Newsweek.

Anyway......

Kamala Harris' Chances Surge in Major Election Forecast

https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris- … st-1960686

Kamala Harris has seen a significant boost in her 2024 election prospects, according to a major new forecast.

The Economist's latest election forecast shows that Harris now has a 3 in 5 chance of winning the Electoral College in November, compared to Donald Trump's 2 in 5 chance. This marks the vice president's strongest position since becoming the Democratic presidential candidate. The forecast also shows that Harris is expected to pick up 281 Electoral College votes, while Trump is expected to win only 257.

Over the past three weeks, Harris' chances have risen sharply by 10 percent, up from an even split with Trump on September 8, when both had a 50-50 chance of victory, with the Democrat predicted to pick up 270 Electoral College votes—just enough to win—while the Republican was predicted to win 268 votes.

Harris' overall chances of winning the election have also increased by 6 percent since September 8, from 52 percent to 58 percent, while Trump's chances have declined by 7 percent, from 48 to 41 percent.

Meanwhile, the forecast shows that the vice president is predicted to win in four swing states—Nevada, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin—while Trump is predicted to triumph in Georgia, North Carolina and Arizona.

[snip right wing propaganda against Harris]

It has been another positive week for the vice president in the polls. The most recent Outward Intelligence poll, conducted between September 22 and 26, put Harris 6 points ahead nationally among 1,735 likely voters.

Another poll, conducted by Echelon Insights, which was cofounded by former Republican digital strategist Patrick Ruffini and pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson, found that Harris is 7 points ahead of Trump in a head-to-head matchup, on 52 percent to his 45 percent. The poll surveyed 1,005 likely voters between September 23 and 25.

A Clarity Campaign Labs poll from September 24 also put Harris 7 points ahead.

However, some polls conducted in the last week, including a survey by Quinnipiac University put Trump 1 point ahead when third-party candidates were included, while the two nominees were tied in a head-to-head matchup. A CNN/SSRS poll conducted between September 19 and 22 also showed Harris and Trump neck and neck among registered voters when third-party candidates were included.

However, despite fluctuating polls, Harris remains ahead in every polling aggregator. For example, FiveThirtyEight's polling tracker puts the vice president 2.8 points ahead, on 48.6 percent to Trump's 45.7 percent.

The pollster's forecast also shows Harris has a 57 percent chance of winning the election, picking up 283 Electoral votes to the Republican's 255.

Race to the White House gives Harris a 60 percent chance of winning the election, with 289 Electoral College votes to Trump's 248.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Why Trump is so much angrier at women this year:
https://www.salon.com/2024/09/25/donald … l-in-line/

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm feeling optimistic about the election.  I think the Democratic ground game is better, and I think Trump's growing ugliness is only going to turn off people.  I worry that some people aren't paying attention, but the whole "Kamala is stupid" road that Trump is going down has got to be having some people questioning their idea to vote for Trump.  I just refuse to believe that enough people in this country are willing to vote for that man.

But I went for a walk with my family in the neighborhood we live in.  Last election, there was some Trump signs and some Biden signs.  And while I've seen *very few* Trump signs on the side of the road with the other political signs, I walked down a street that had four Trump signs.  It's just so disheartening that my neighbors fall in line with this guy.  Someone holding their nose and voting for Trump is one thing, but to opening support him to your neighbors just feels so despicable to me.

And again, one of my biggest problems with Trump is I don't want to feel this way anymore.  I don't want to feel this way about my neighbors or think less of them for their chosen candidate.  I want to live in a word where I can walk down my neighborhood and react like I did when I saw a John McCain or a Mitt Romney sign.  I wasn't going to vote for them, but I didn't immediately think bad thoughts.

These people know who they're voting for.  They know what they're going to get.  And they're going to vote for him anyway. 

So I feel pretty good about the election.  And I feel pretty bad about my neighbors.  I just really want to win this, get to January 20, 2025 with Kamala Harris as president, and stop thinking about Donald Trump and his followers for as long as humanly possible.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm feeling very good about the election too, Slider_Quinn21. Trump (Hitler) continues to decline mentally on a daily basis. He continues to insult Kamala, and more people continue to leave his rallies.

I don't feel bad about his supporters at all. They've made their choice. They can lie in it when it's over.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

QuinnSlidr wrote:

I don't feel bad about his supporters at all. They've made their choice. They can lie in it when it's over.

See, I don't think we should think of it that way.  Obviously, we don't want them to win, but like it or not, we're stuck with these guys.  And we've got to find a way to get back to a sense of normalcy.  Trump supporters deliver our mail and cook our food and defend the falsely accused and make us laugh and teach our kids (I wasn't trying to pick any particular profession here - just tried to get a wide scope of jobs).  And ten years ago, we were cool living next to them.  We probably voted for the same people.  Cheered for the same sports teams.  Sat in movie theaters with them, shopped alongside them, ate in restaurants with them.

You gotta remember that they're not the enemy.  They're our neighbors and fellow Americans.

Now some of them suck.  Some of them belong in jail.  Some of them are hateful monsters that are beyond redemption.  I'm not talking about those guys.  I'm talking about the people who barely pay attention to politics who remember life in 2019 being pretty easy and want to return to that.  People that have been convinced to be afraid of nonsense but are truly afraid.

And we gotta remember that me hating my neighbors with Trump signs is what Putin wants.   It's what Trump wants.  It's what China wants.  I always get a bit uncomfortable when people from both sides talk about splitting the country into a Red USA and a Blue USA because that's the whole point of what Putin and China are trying to do.  They can't beat us when we're united so they try to divide us.  A United States alongside a Trumpistan allows for China to be the dominant force in the world.  Without a united USA to back NATO, Putin can do what he wants.

So we have to get back to a place where we can disagree on politics without hating the other side.  Where we aren't willing to abandon our neighbors because we disagree on how taxes should work.  That's why I want to hold the line and destroy Trump.  He's the only one spewing hate.  The rest of the republicans aren't fighting him on it and they're disgustingly defending him, but I don't believe any prominent Republicans are jumping on the bandwagon and calling Harris mentally impaired.

Trump wants to divide us because Putin wants to divide us.  I think when Trump is gone, a lot of that will also go away.  I think we'll still be polarized, but I think we'll get over it.  And just look at local races.  Trump-Allred has a ton of attack ads that air constantly, but the race isn't anything like Trump-Harris.  Cruz is attacking Allred's policies, but he's not attacking Allred as a person.  He isn't hurling insults.  It's a heated race but I think it isn't unusual.

We can get back to that.  But we gotta beat Trump and show the next Trump that this stuff doesn't work.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

Read Jack Smith's Unsealed Court Filing Against Donald Trump

https://www.newsweek.com/read-jack-smit … mp-1962895

S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Wednesday made public a lengthy filing from special counsel Jack Smith in his investigation into former President Donald Trump's alleged efforts to interfere with the transfer of power following the 2020 election.

Read the full 165-page filing below.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Wow. I will probably carve out some time to read it on Saturday.

3,089 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2024-10-03 04:23:06)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

Wow. I will probably carve out some time to read it on Saturday.

You may have seen some of these talking points on the news already, depending on the news available in your area. But, based just on what's in the document:

1. Pence told Trump there was no evidence of voter fraud. Trump perpetuated the lie anyway.
2. Trump staffers pushed for violence when they saw it could boil over. They said "Make them riot." and "Do it."
3. When Pence was being moved to another location Trump said "So what."

It was all known. It was all orchestrated as part of the coup. Trump has no right to feign ignorance. He knew it all. And did it all.

Even FOX News is now starting to tell the truth: that "he resorted to crimes to stay in power."

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Is the mainstream media covering this?  I think a lot of what I've read is damning, but I'm wondering if it's reaching the undecided / unfinalized voters that could be swayed by this information.

It also makes me upset at Merrick Garland because this should've been slam dunked a long time ago.  I know that this stuff takes time, but from the accounts I've read, DOJ didn't get involved until after the 1/6 hearings.  And obviously its too late for this election, and a 50/50 election might put the whole thing in jeopardy when this should've already been wrapped up.  The documents case got derailed by bad luck (although freakin' Cannon got the assassin trial too which makes me wonder if it's luck at all), but the DC case would've been done if not for a two year delay.

3,091 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2024-10-03 17:09:21)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Is the mainstream media covering this?  I think a lot of what I've read is damning, but I'm wondering if it's reaching the undecided / unfinalized voters that could be swayed by this information.

It also makes me upset at Merrick Garland because this should've been slam dunked a long time ago.  I know that this stuff takes time, but from the accounts I've read, DOJ didn't get involved until after the 1/6 hearings.  And obviously its too late for this election, and a 50/50 election might put the whole thing in jeopardy when this should've already been wrapped up.  The documents case got derailed by bad luck (although freakin' Cannon got the assassin trial too which makes me wonder if it's luck at all), but the DC case would've been done if not for a two year delay.

It's been all over social media and the news as soon as it broke yesterday. MSNBC. CNN. etc. FOX News is even reporting the truth, which made the rounds on social media  (that Trump resorted to crimes in order to stay in power). Which is highly unusual.

3,092

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

If you are someone who finds the accusations against Trump damning, you're not voting for him.  There's NOBODY left to persuade on that end.  Criminals have been elected before, people vote selfishly. 

The bigger story was Vance refusing to say Trump lost.  Bigger story should be the big job numbers from September.  Or Pete Buttigieg resolving the potentially disastrous longshoremen strike in just days.  Or Joe Biden and Kamala visiting the hurricane victims in Western NC.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Yeah, I guess I mean "is this reaching uninformed voters?"  Because I'm not sure those voters watch any cable news, and I'm assuming (from the friends I know that are like this) that their social media is specifically aimed at avoiding any political news.  I've mentioned this before but the only news my wife gets is from the Today show on NBC, and I just looked at their web site and I don't see it mentioned at all.  And while that's a pretty light show from the bits I watch, they do cover breaking news and stories like that.  And I think this is a story that could hypothetically divert votes from Trump, but I think the bases (who will not be dissuaded) are the only ones that even know about it.

As a journalism guy, I've been pretty annoyed at the media.  I know that all these news outlets are owned by billionaires that are friendly to Trump, but they just don't cover Trump the way they covered Biden.  And I get that Trump's speech the other day where he was slumped over and slurring wasn't as big a stage as the debate, but if Biden had made a speech like that four months ago, it would've been front page news.  And it barely registered.

And if I'm the Harris campaign, I just don't know how you reach people to show them what Trump is in 2024.  I honestly think she'd do better if the news networks aired Trump's stuff live more.  That's where you see the really crazy stuff, and that's where you see his age showing.  The dude is tired because he's old.

******

I'm basically easing into a zone for this election.  If polls are right, Kamala will win the blue wall and Nevada and she has a chance to win all seven battleground states.  If polls are underestimating Trump, he wins - maybe with more electoral votes than Biden got in 2020.  I do think there are some encouraging signs around mail-in voting and early voting, and I'm hoping that those numbers represent Democrats the way they did in the past because that would mean Trump's banking on a lot of people that don't usually vote getting out to vote on a very specific day.

There's good signs for the economy.  The longshoremen didn't strike.  I think the worst news for Harris is the stuff in the Middle East and this romanticism of the Trump years.  If we can just get enough people in Pennsylvania to just feel like things are okay, and enough of them can just get annoyed by what Trump has been doing the last few weeks....I think she's in good shape.

*******

And going back to my point about non-Trump Republicans.  These guys are avoiding so many questions.  They're not spewing Trump's lies.  They're not disputing them, which is important to note, but they're not going along with them.  I think that's all the evidence I need that these guys are bad people but that our politics has a shot to heal once this nonsense is over and Trump is gone.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

If you are someone who finds the accusations against Trump damning, you're not voting for him.  There's NOBODY left to persuade on that end.  Criminals have been elected before, people vote selfishly. 

The bigger story was Vance refusing to say Trump lost.  Bigger story should be the big job numbers from September.  Or Pete Buttigieg resolving the potentially disastrous longshoremen strike in just days.  Or Joe Biden and Kamala visiting the hurricane victims in Western NC.

I don't disagree with you, Grizzlor. This is spot on.

3,095 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2024-10-05 18:19:12)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Yeah, I guess I mean "is this reaching uninformed voters?"  Because I'm not sure those voters watch any cable news, and I'm assuming (from the friends I know that are like this) that their social media is specifically aimed at avoiding any political news.  I've mentioned this before but the only news my wife gets is from the Today show on NBC, and I just looked at their web site and I don't see it mentioned at all.  And while that's a pretty light show from the bits I watch, they do cover breaking news and stories like that.  And I think this is a story that could hypothetically divert votes from Trump, but I think the bases (who will not be dissuaded) are the only ones that even know about it.

As a journalism guy, I've been pretty annoyed at the media.  I know that all these news outlets are owned by billionaires that are friendly to Trump, but they just don't cover Trump the way they covered Biden.  And I get that Trump's speech the other day where he was slumped over and slurring wasn't as big a stage as the debate, but if Biden had made a speech like that four months ago, it would've been front page news.  And it barely registered.

And if I'm the Harris campaign, I just don't know how you reach people to show them what Trump is in 2024.  I honestly think she'd do better if the news networks aired Trump's stuff live more.  That's where you see the really crazy stuff, and that's where you see his age showing.  The dude is tired because he's old.

******

I'm basically easing into a zone for this election.  If polls are right, Kamala will win the blue wall and Nevada and she has a chance to win all seven battleground states.  If polls are underestimating Trump, he wins - maybe with more electoral votes than Biden got in 2020.  I do think there are some encouraging signs around mail-in voting and early voting, and I'm hoping that those numbers represent Democrats the way they did in the past because that would mean Trump's banking on a lot of people that don't usually vote getting out to vote on a very specific day.

There's good signs for the economy.  The longshoremen didn't strike.  I think the worst news for Harris is the stuff in the Middle East and this romanticism of the Trump years.  If we can just get enough people in Pennsylvania to just feel like things are okay, and enough of them can just get annoyed by what Trump has been doing the last few weeks....I think she's in good shape.

*******

And going back to my point about non-Trump Republicans.  These guys are avoiding so many questions.  They're not spewing Trump's lies.  They're not disputing them, which is important to note, but they're not going along with them.  I think that's all the evidence I need that these guys are bad people but that our politics has a shot to heal once this nonsense is over and Trump is gone.

I agree with you.

The one thing that I've observed is that Trump is no longer even trying at all to do anything consequential or even close to it. Why? He is counting on the republican-led House and Supreme Court to overturn votes and reinstate him as President.

I hope that we get the blue tsunami landslide for Harris & Walz that we are hoping for. Magnitudes larger than Hillary's win in 2016 so it cannot be disputed. In both the popular vote and the electoral college.

Crossing fingers.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Kamala has kicked up her media game - at least to the point where it's noticeable to me in Texas.  She has done a couple podcasts (one aimed at black men and another at women), she did the 60 Minutes interview, and she's doing local/regional stuff in the battlegrounds.  I think she's doing Howard Stern too.

Trump is just doing stuff for his base and his rallies.  He's not making any effort to recruit new voters.  So if there are undecided voters willing to give her a chance, she's reaching them.

I think her campaign is doing a good job.  There's talk of spending money on an informercial that could be aired in battlegrounds and nationally.  Obama did something similar in 2008.  Might as well with all the money she has.  And I saw Walz went on Fox News which I still think is important.  I don't think it's smart to assume that every Fox News voter will vote for Trump.

I'm starting to feel a bit more optimistic that the polls are right or that the polls are underestimating Harris.  It's very nerve-wracking to know that a test for the soul of my nation is a month away, but I'll vote for her in a couple weeks and I'll know that I did my part.

3,097 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2024-10-07 09:38:00)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Kamala has kicked up her media game - at least to the point where it's noticeable to me in Texas.  She has done a couple podcasts (one aimed at black men and another at women), she did the 60 Minutes interview, and she's doing local/regional stuff in the battlegrounds.  I think she's doing Howard Stern too.

Trump is just doing stuff for his base and his rallies.  He's not making any effort to recruit new voters.  So if there are undecided voters willing to give her a chance, she's reaching them.

I think her campaign is doing a good job.  There's talk of spending money on an informercial that could be aired in battlegrounds and nationally.  Obama did something similar in 2008.  Might as well with all the money she has.  And I saw Walz went on Fox News which I still think is important.  I don't think it's smart to assume that every Fox News voter will vote for Trump.

I'm starting to feel a bit more optimistic that the polls are right or that the polls are underestimating Harris.  It's very nerve-wracking to know that a test for the soul of my nation is a month away, but I'll vote for her in a couple weeks and I'll know that I did my part.

Indeed, Kamala is kicking her media game into the stratosphere. Let's win 2024.

https://x.com/harris_wins/status/1843301914643222910

https://i.postimg.cc/XvvNnC9c/image.png

3,098

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I cannot remember where I saw the article, but the Trump campaign has outsourced most of it's "ground game" to a number of third parties.  The most prominent one is funded by Elon Musk.  Their goal is to pay volunteers and whatnot in the battleground states to canvas very specifically.  This is not unique.  However, normally you would give canvassers a list of folks who are effectively "on your team."  The point is you know they are reliable votes, and you want to be 100% sure they physically vote.  These groups though are not really doing that much.  Instead, they are sifting through the edges, to attempt to pry Trump votes out of low participation voters.  Hence the push toward black and Hispanic men, and other groups who may be audible to the Trump platform, such as the Amish in PA.  They have done this in recent elections, including 2022, and were not particularly successful.   With how tight things are, it could be vital.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Yeah Turning Point USA is driving a lot of the mobilization of Trump voters.  Something they've never done before.  It's making some Republicans nervous.

https://apnews.com/newsletter/ground-ga … ber-7-2024

It's such a crazy election.  If you look at inflation, you'd think that Trump should win in a slam dunk.  If you look at the advantages that Harris has (more money, a better ground game, more ads, etc) and Trump's approval rating, Harris should win in a slam dunk.  Instead, it's just a really close race with no one really having the advantage.  But with voting a couple weeks away, I feel better about Harris than I would Trump.  I'm not fully confident, but I feel way better than I did with Biden.

And some of the early voting stuff looks good.  I saw this morning that 25% of mail-in votes from Detroit have already been returned.  Those votes will be overwhelmingly (almost exclusively) for Harris.  Not sure if that's her ground game or her enthusiasm, but it's a good sign.  Would love to see more of that in other blue areas.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

So.

Nervous.

Simon Rosenberg wrote:

The election is here, and while I think we are winning today, we have not won it yet. https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/harr … ir-game-as

3,101 (edited by QuinnSlidr 2024-10-08 21:06:24)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

My opinion? She just won the election.

Well done, Madam President!!!!


https://x.com/harris_wins/status/1843830270384058526

https://i.postimg.cc/65kKFwsW/image.png

3,102

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/ … mains-high

From Dave Wasserman, "in key battleground states Harris leads 51-47 among voters who always show up.  Trump has a lead of 52-45 with low/mid-propensity voters."  This probably explains the Trump (and friends) strategy to try to coax these disengaged voters out of the woodwork.  Which is why I would temper the enthusiasm of the Hopium types going on the 2022 electorate, which of course, was sans-Trump.  What we ARE seeing is a clear more from 2020 even of the college grad demo towards Kamala, and those are the folks who vote in fair higher percentages.  Good for her.  Trump though is still likely to pull a greater portion of the blue collar segment, particularly with men of color.  So as I have been saying, you really cannot "pick" a winner prior, it's going to be about demographic turn out.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I think that's true.  And that's why I think Harris should have a slight edge - she has the better ground game, and her voters are more likely to show up anyway.  If she can also get enthusiasm (either from people who love her or really hate Trump), then I'd feel pretty good that she'd win.

His people are less likely to vote but are very enthusiastic.  But if they're going to depend on a vast majority of low propensity voters voting exclusively on Election Day...I still think that's a dodgy proposition.  Weather, long lines, getting off of work (especially blue collar workers) are all potential issues.  And if enthusiasm isn't there, maybe people choose to not vote.  Particularly if those voters think Trump's got it in the bag.

But it wouldn't take much for Trump to win.  His voters love voting for him, and they've been waiting four years to do it.  So hopefully her money advantage and stronger ground game can get low propensity voters (maybe women who listen to Call Her Daddy that never vote) to vote for her, then maybe she can close that gap.

I do think Republicans are looking too much at 2020 to find positives.  Right now, in places like Pennsylvania, Republicans are making up a slightly higher number of early and/or mail-in votes, but I would expect to see that.  In 2020, people were terrified to vote in person.  Harris voters will be more likely than Biden voters to vote in person, and they will be more likely to actually show up in person.  The question is whether low/medium-propensity voters are actually high-propensity voters when Trump is on the ballot.

(You could also ask if low/medium-propensity Harris voters are high-propensity voters when Trump is on the ballot.  I think it goes both ways)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Simon Rosenberg:

Red Wave Pollsters Stepped Up Their Work This Week - The red wavers stepped up their activity this past week, releasing at least 20 polls across the battlegrounds. It’s a sign that they are worried about the public polling in both the Presidential and the Senate, and have dramatically escalated their efforts to push the polling averages to the right and make the election look redder than it is. As in 2022, these polls usually between 2 and 4 points more Republican than the independent polling so when there a lot of them they can move the averages rightward.

As I wrote in my last look at this rancid project, it is time for those who analyze polls to start acknowledging that there is now a third type of poll - the red wave, right-aligned narrative polling that only exist for a single purpose - to move the polling averages to the right. They are exploiting the “toss it in the averages and everything will work out philosophy” of these sites to once again launder these polls and game the averages - and thus our understanding of the election. Party leaders should expect them to keep these polls coming, and keep working the averages until it looks like Trump is winning in all polling averages. It is what they did in 2022, and it worked. They are doing it again this time, and once again it is working as the averages are moving and everyone is treating this movement like an organic rather than a deeply corrupt process.

https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/the- … aign-early

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Yeah you can watch it happening on 538, and they don't always do a great job of notating the polls that are small and partisan.

But Kamala had a couple of bad polls.  Quinnipiac had her down FOUR in Michigan, but that poll had Trump winning with young people which just seems crazy.

But I'm transitioning from worrying about polls to worrying about the early voting data that is coming in.  It seems like Democrats are voting early and getting their mail-in votes way faster than Republicans.  That data isn't perfect because people can vote for a different candidate than their registration shows.  And that can go either way, of course.  But it feels more real than polls so I'm going to obsess about that a bit.

Republicans struck down laws in NC that would've helped with voting there, but now the Trump team is privately worried that a bunch of red votes in western NC won't get to vote.  I still assume MAGA will sacrifice whatever they need to sacrifice to get out and vote, but we'll see what happens.  The Trump team threw out the idea of "mobile polling stations" sponsored by Trump which is, of course, illegal.  It would be crazy if Trump's lies about the hurricane ended up costing him North Carolina.  I heard a report about a man who is refusing help from FEMA because of Trump's lies.  It's literally hurting people that need help.

And one hope for Kamala is the "shy wife" - people that want to vote for Kamala but don't want their husbands to know.  If that happens, it's game over for Trump.

3,106

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Quinnipiac stinks, their polls are all over the map.  They have been a highly reliable polling group in the past, .  One pollster (forget which) was just caught "removing" samples from the entire city of Philadelphia.  They were found out when they put a PA poll out showing KH in the lead with RV (registered) yet trailing with LV (likely) which made no sense.  The LV results were missing the Philly %, so duh. 

Simon is correct, and unfortunately RCP (who have never made themselves out to be impartial) continue to over rely on R polling, and often leave out other D leaning polling which have similar shoddy metrics.  The polling continues to show that a verifiable % of Nikki Haley voters in the BG States (Granted many were simply naughy Dems) are supporting Harris instead.  I saw a number that was maybe 9%.  That's not a ton of people, but it's people nonetheless who Trump has chased off.  And they vote.  If you got off your butt to vote in a primary that was already decided, you are 99% sure of voting in the General.  I hasten to call these folks simply "White College" voters as they are not simply white, but the traditionally strong Republican contingent of them are shaping up to move further to Harris than perhaps even Biden got in 2020. 

Yes, Trump has made gains with union members, and with men of color.  That's a concern.  But I do feel like Harris may have picked up enough (or Trump lost) with other demos.  However, here's the problem with that strategy.  THEY DON'T VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  If you look at the data, Harris is as I said, in better position with highly motivated voters.  Trump is solid with those who traditionally, are not.  The RFK Jr. crowd, the bro culture podcasters (Theo Von, Rogan, Barstool, etc, etc), the bitcoin morons, and worst of all, the tech billionaire crowd.  These are heavy on men, men who are 25-45 years old, often single, often non-college, etc.  They do not vote.  Yes, Trump will do well with this group, well enough to make it closer than 2020 perhaps, maybe even squeak out the win.  But the odds are not in his favor there.  As I said, it is an ecosystem that the rest of the country's demographics simply aren't a part of.  They are ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT, and by virtue, distrust the political process.  They continue to trade conspiracies on every subject, attack proven experts, and spend way too much time on FanDuel.  Trump has spent so much time attacking early and absentee voting, vote counting, certification, he's done immense harm to his own chances.  This is why the campaign's Plan B is to challenge the vote immediately, and cause chaos.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I don't know why, but optimism from Grizzlor makes me feel better than from anyone else smile