2024 Presidential Election | ELECTION DAY 2024

[CFordUNC]

Little unsolicited background here but I am a lifelong conservative (fiscally not socially) who until about 12-15 years ago voted pretty much along party lines. However, within that time period I became disillusioned with the Republican party due to what I call bible thumpers and their desire to spend more time in people's bedrooms than on national policies.

With that said, I went to the Trump event yesterday in Mint Hill not because he's even remotely getting my vote but more for reasons along the lines of what I told some of my employees who know I'm no fan of his..."when the circus comes to town, you go see the clowns even if you don't like them." Had VIP access so I was only about 20 feet from him. Yes, his hands really are that tiny but I digress.

Towards the end of the speech he confirmed why I've moved further away from the Republican party. All his talk of the economy, Iran trying to kill him, bringing manufacturing back into the country, etc. elicited cheers from the crowd; however, the absolute loudest cheers (and I mean not even close) was when he talked about getting CRT out of the classroom, and transgenders, and no men in women's sports. The damn place went crazy. I just can't anymore. It's fucking disgusting. Leave people the fuck alone and focus on running the damn country instead of who people want to sleep with.

Well said. Couldn’t agree more.

 

[lawtig02]

Yep. There have been several articles in recent days about how Harris will likely only need a small popular vote victory to win the electoral college.

Similarly to how Clinton got a lot of votes in states she didn’t win (Florida, Texas), Trump seems set to gain more votes in Cali and NY. Of course, he won’t win those.

Yeah, I’m having a hard time avoiding responding to the doomcasting on here, as I don’t want to be annoying. But the reality is Kamala remains in excellent shape. The overwhelming majority of variables and markers favor her right now. Barring a major mistake or an asteroid-hits-NYC type catastrophe, she will win. That doesn’t diminish the need to keep doing the work, but we can do it with enthusiasm and excitement. The end of Trump is nigh. Maybe not MAGA, but at least Trump.

 

[CFordUNC]

Yeah, I’m having a hard time avoiding responding to the doomcasting on here, as I don’t want to be annoying. But the reality is Kamala remains in excellent shape. The overwhelming majority of variables and markers favor her right now. Barring a major mistake or an asteroid-hits-NYC type catastrophe, she will win. That doesn’t diminish the need to keep doing the work, but we can do it with enthusiasm and excitement. The end of Trump is nigh. Maybe not MAGA, but at least Trump.

Couldn’t agree more. I’ve tried to scale back on my posting as I, too, don’t want to come across as irritating or diminishing the concerns of others, but I totally agree with you. Kamala is well positioned for a resounding victory in November, and she is a clear and solid favorite.

 

[uncgriff]

Couldn’t agree more. I’ve tried to scale back on my posting as I, too, don’t want to come across as irritating or diminishing the concerns of others, but I totally agree with you. Kamala is well positioned for a resounding victory in November, and she is a clear and solid favorite.

Your a lot more sanguine than I am.

I've decided the average person in this country is much less grounded in logic and reality than I ever imagined possible.

 

[aGDevil2k]

OTOH, I’ve read a number of analysts indicate that the gender gap is doing strange things to voting models — white men in very blue states moving to Trump and women in very red states away from Trump, so the blue state margins for Harris may not match Biden 2020 or Clinton 2016 (and the red states are generally smaller so the flow toward Harris there might not even out). I think we just won’t know until we know, but there do seem to be some unusual flow/counterflow in voting.

The crazy thing is, all the data suggest that if Haley were the GOP nominee, she might win in an electoral landslide and even win the popular vote. The country’s general mood seems to be to shift right but Trump seems to be just awful enough that he is creating an opportunity for Harris to thread the needle. Trump may still win, but having him as the nominee may also be a drag on the GOP preventing what could have been a genuine red wave.

It isnt' shifting right. It's a change time. Look at Europe in the last year.

 

[dukeman92]

Little unsolicited background here but I am a lifelong conservative (fiscally not socially) who until about 12-15 years ago voted pretty much along party lines. However, within that time period I became disillusioned with the Republican party due to what I call bible thumpers and their desire to spend more time in people's bedrooms than on national policies.

With that said, I went to the Trump event yesterday in Mint Hill not because he's even remotely getting my vote but more for reasons along the lines of what I told some of my employees who know I'm no fan of his..."when the circus comes to town, you go see the clowns even if you don't like them." Had VIP access so I was only about 20 feet from him. Yes, his hands really are that tiny but I digress.

Towards the end of the speech he confirmed why I've moved further away from the Republican party. All his talk of the economy, Iran trying to kill him, bringing manufacturing back into the country, etc. elicited cheers from the crowd; however, the absolute loudest cheers (and I mean not even close) was when he talked about getting CRT out of the classroom, and transgenders, and no men in women's sports. The damn place went crazy. I just can't anymore. It's fucking disgusting. Leave people the fuck alone and focus on running the damn country instead of who people want to sleep with.

I too used to be what I consider a fiscal conservative. I've rid myself of the republican party for all the reasons you stated. I also noted from his rally yesterday that the loudest cheers were when he was disparaging a certain group of people or just being generally disgusting. There is absolutely no policy based reason to vote for this man. He's not a Republican.

He hates who they hate and that's why they vote for him.

 

[superrific]

But the reality is Kamala remains in excellent shape. The overwhelming majority of variables and markers favor her right now.

I don't agree about that reality. I would not say she is in excellent shape. Biden in 2020 was in excellent shape. Kamala is in excellent shape relative to Biden 2024, but if the overwhelming majority of variables and markers favor her right now, why are all the election models saying the race is pretty close to a tossup? You're assuming, I think, that the greater Kamala enthusiasm will turn into more Kamala votes, but we don't know that's true.

And as for that asteroid hitting NYC, I give you the impending dockworker strike:

Ports seek order to force dockworkers to bargaining table as strike looms at East and Gulf ports

With a strike deadline looming, the group representing East and Gulf Coast ports is asking a federal agency to make the Longshoremen’s union come to the bargaining table to negotiate a new contract.

apnews.com

I'm trying to find the profile of the head of that union that I just read this morning. That dude DGAF and he improbably has the unliteral authority to call a strike.

 

[superrific]

OTOH, I’ve read a number of analysts indicate that the gender gap is doing strange things to voting models — white men in very blue states moving to Trump and women in very red states away from Trump, so the blue state margins for Harris may not match Biden 2020 or Clinton 2016 (and the red states are generally smaller so the flow toward Harris there might not even out). I think we just won’t know until we know, but there do seem to be some unusual flow/counterflow in voting.

The crazy thing is, all the data suggest that if Haley were the GOP nominee, she might win in an electoral landslide and even win the popular vote. The country’s general mood seems to be to shift right but Trump seems to be just awful enough that he is creating an opportunity for Harris to thread the needle. Trump may still win, but having him as the nominee may also be a drag on the GOP preventing what could have been a genuine red wave.

1. The candidates on the sidelines, like the quarterbacks, always look attractive. Haley "might" win a a landslide, but she'd have to get a lot more MAGA support. If MAGA was willing to support a woman of foreign parentage, we wouldn't be in such a predicament today.

2. I don't think the country's mood is shifting right. I think part of what we're seeing is the incel angst we discussed on the other thread. Put it this way: if young men would put down the porn and experience the pleasure of having sex at night, then waking up in the norming next to the same person and having again, it might be an electoral blowout.

3. The other reason that the mood seems to be shifting right is that Americans decided not to argue about COVID any more because they want to put it in the past (this does not apply to some on this board). So Trump is getting judged on the three years of his term where things were generally calm in the world despite Trump's best efforts to create storms everywhere. 2020, when the chickens came home to roost -- not only about his crisis management, but also his terrible policies -- has been excised.

That's not an ideological shift. That's just temporary exhaustion.

 

[nycfan]

Little unsolicited background here but I am a lifelong conservative (fiscally not socially) who until about 12-15 years ago voted pretty much along party lines. However, within that time period I became disillusioned with the Republican party due to what I call bible thumpers and their desire to spend more time in people's bedrooms than on national policies.

With that said, I went to the Trump event yesterday in Mint Hill not because he's even remotely getting my vote but more for reasons along the lines of what I told some of my employees who know I'm no fan of his..."when the circus comes to town, you go see the clowns even if you don't like them." Had VIP access so I was only about 20 feet from him. Yes, his hands really are that tiny but I digress.

Towards the end of the speech he confirmed why I've moved further away from the Republican party. All his talk of the economy, Iran trying to kill him, bringing manufacturing back into the country, etc. elicited cheers from the crowd; however, the absolute loudest cheers (and I mean not even close) was when he talked about getting CRT out of the classroom, and transgenders, and no men in women's sports. The damn place went crazy. I just can't anymore. It's fucking disgusting. Leave people the fuck alone and focus on running the damn country instead of who people want to sleep with.

Aaron Rupar, who posts clips of almost every Trump rally, has frequently reported the same thing — that anti-Trans statement in particular consistently get the biggest roar of approval from MAGA crowds.

 

[superrific]

Aaron Rupar, who posts clips of almost every Trump rally, has frequently reported the same thing — that anti-Trans statement in particular consistently get the biggest roar of approval from MAGA crowds.

Back when liberals started going all-in on trans rights, this was exactly what I was afraid of. I feared that liberals were walking into a right-wing trap. And I think my fears are coming to fruition. This election would be very different -- and Dems would be in a much better place -- if trans was not an issue.

I get that it's a really tough issue. Balancing political expedience and moral principle is hard, because both are important and so often in conflict. As LBJ said when signing the Civil Rights Act, "we're going to lose the South for a generation." And he did it, because it was the right thing to do -- in part because there were so many black people suffering so much from a cruel system.

But let's change the calculus a bit. Suppose Jim Crow wasn't aimed at black people, but rather albinos. That wouldn't make Jim Crow any less wrong. But I would think it should change the political calculus a bit. If we could end discrimination without cost, of course we would do it. But if someone told you, "if we sign this legislation protecting albinos, the result will be that the right to abortion will disappear and thousands upon thousands of women will suffer greatly," wouldn't that change how you think about that albino legislation?

Trans people are more common than albinos, but they are still a very small minority. Liberals are coming to the defense of a political pariah group. That's electorally unwise. If trans rights are what puts Trump back in the White House, was it a good idea to have taken on that fight in that way? It seems like the outcome is worse for everyone, except the MAGAs.

 

[roostra]

Back when liberals started going all-in on trans rights, this was exactly what I was afraid of. I feared that liberals were walking into a right-wing trap. And I think my fears are coming to fruition. This election would be very different -- and Dems would be in a much better place -- if trans was not an issue.

I get that it's a really tough issue. Balancing political expedience and moral principle is hard, because both are important and so often in conflict. As LBJ said when signing the Civil Rights Act, "we're going to lose the South for a generation." And he did it, because it was the right thing to do -- in part because there were so many black people suffering so much from a cruel system.

But let's change the calculus a bit. Suppose Jim Crow wasn't aimed at black people, but rather albinos. That wouldn't make Jim Crow any less wrong. But I would think it should change the political calculus a bit. If we could end discrimination without cost, of course we would do it. But if someone told you, "if we sign this legislation protecting albinos, the result will be that the right to abortion will disappear and thousands upon thousands of women will suffer greatly," wouldn't that change how you think about that albino legislation?

Trans people are more common than albinos, but they are still a very small minority. Liberals are coming to the defense of a political pariah group. That's electorally unwise. If trans rights are what puts Trump back in the White House, was it a good idea to have taken on that fight in that way? It seems like the outcome is worse for everyone, except the MAGAs.

Look at Kant's thoughts about treating people as means to ends.

Until very recently, this argument would have been true about the LGBTQ community. Supporting them was electorally unwise, until it wasn't. And i would argue that we got the point that it wasn't because we (Democrats) took a stand and supported the community. I am sure there were tangible electoral losses because of this. Sometimes you have to do the right thing, even if there are short term costs.

ETA - I also think we also run the risk of losing internal support as a party if we make these kind of cold, dare i say cynical, decisions. I agree it is a very complicated issue to unravel.

 

[CLT Heel]

Little unsolicited background here but I am a lifelong conservative (fiscally not socially) who until about 12-15 years ago voted pretty much along party lines. However, within that time period I became disillusioned with the Republican party due to what I call bible thumpers and their desire to spend more time in people's bedrooms than on national policies.

With that said, I went to the Trump event yesterday in Mint Hill not because he's even remotely getting my vote but more for reasons along the lines of what I told some of my employees who know I'm no fan of his..."when the circus comes to town, you go see the clowns even if you don't like them." Had VIP access so I was only about 20 feet from him. Yes, his hands really are that tiny but I digress.

Towards the end of the speech he confirmed why I've moved further away from the Republican party. All his talk of the economy, Iran trying to kill him, bringing manufacturing back into the country, etc. elicited cheers from the crowd; however, the absolute loudest cheers (and I mean not even close) was when he talked about getting CRT out of the classroom, and transgenders, and no men in women's sports. The damn place went crazy. I just can't anymore. It's fucking disgusting. Leave people the fuck alone and focus on running the damn country instead of who people want to sleep with.

As someone who was there and as close to him as you said, I have a question for you. Did he appear in person to be more orange than usual? He seemed to have a particularly bad makeup day. How his people follow him looking like that is beyond me.

 

[Calheel]

Back when liberals started going all-in on trans rights, this was exactly what I was afraid of. I feared that liberals were walking into a right-wing trap. And I think my fears are coming to fruition. This election would be very different -- and Dems would be in a much better place -- if trans was not an issue.

I get that it's a really tough issue. Balancing political expedience and moral principle is hard, because both are important and so often in conflict. As LBJ said when signing the Civil Rights Act, "we're going to lose the South for a generation." And he did it, because it was the right thing to do -- in part because there were so many black people suffering so much from a cruel system.

But let's change the calculus a bit. Suppose Jim Crow wasn't aimed at black people, but rather albinos. That wouldn't make Jim Crow any less wrong. But I would think it should change the political calculus a bit. If we could end discrimination without cost, of course we would do it. But if someone told you, "if we sign this legislation protecting albinos, the result will be that the right to abortion will disappear and thousands upon thousands of women will suffer greatly," wouldn't that change how you think about that albino legislation?

Trans people are more common than albinos, but they are still a very small minority. Liberals are coming to the defense of a political pariah group. That's electorally unwise. If trans rights are what puts Trump back in the White House, was it a good idea to have taken on that fight in that way? It seems like the outcome is worse for everyone, except the MAGAs.

Trans are just an easy target. They would do the same with any made up “wokeism” like CRT in the classrooms. That got the loudest applause and it is not even a thing.

I mean Trump’s campaign is almost all about made up threats and fake scary things. If trans people didn’t exist, the campaign would be doing the exact same thing and getting the exact same votes.

The deeper psychological issue is that some people fear change and don’t like feeling like their way of life and values are being disavowed by others. They want to cling to what they know and understand. That is what Trump is latching onto for the applause. Not trans, itself.

 

[superrific]

Look at Kant's thoughts about treating people as means to ends.

Until very recently, this argument would have been true about the LGBTQ community. Supporting them was electorally unwise, until it wasn't. And i would argue that we got the point that it wasn't because we (Democrats) took a stand and supported the community. I am sure there were tangible electoral losses because of this. Sometimes you have to do the right thing, even if there are short term costs.

It's still true about the LGBTQ community in some places. If the Dems stopped defending gay people, they'd still win CA and NY but would probably also coast to victory in MI and GA.

I mean, I expressly said that it's important to do the right thing. But I don't think it's so easy to dismiss the costs that way. Let's take an example. Weimar integrated Jews into German society in a way that had never been done before. Then came Hitler. [yes, I know this is massively oversimplified. I'm using a stylized example for illustrative purposes]. If you were a decisionmaker in Weimar 1922, and you knew that integration would lead to Nazism, what would be the right thing to do? It's not so easy, is it?

This is one of the many reasons why Kant is more or less useless for policy makers. Policy always involves using people as a means to an end. That's inherent in the task. Remember: to the extent that Kant was writing anything related to policy, it was for an audience of one: the Kaiser. Kant's philosophy perhaps works for individuals (I'm not taking sides on that now), but it doesn't work as a philosophy of government.

 

[superrific]

Trans are just an easy target. They would do the same with any made up “wokeism” like CRT in the classrooms. That got the loudest applause and it is not even a thing.

There's some truth to that, but trans has an import well beyond fads like CRT. I remember reading an article, I think it was Slate, from a liberal who grew up evangelical. She foresaw that the evangelical right would absolutely freak the fuck out about trans being mainstreamed. It's because evangelical culture (and to some extent its theology) depends on the establishment of clear and fixed gender roles. If gender is fluid, then it means that it's not ordained by God, and thus there is no particular reason why it has to be the man who "wears the pants in the family."

 

[superrific]

I don’t think it’s an issue at all personally. Republicans ran hard on the trans issue in 2022 in underperformed, especially the candidates who made it central to their pitch.

I hope you're right. I'm not sure you are, but equally unsure you're not.

 

[lawtig02]

I don't agree about that reality. I would not say she is in excellent shape. Biden in 2020 was in excellent shape. Kamala is in excellent shape relative to Biden 2024, but if the overwhelming majority of variables and markers favor her right now, why are all the election models saying the race is pretty close to a tossup? You're assuming, I think, that the greater Kamala enthusiasm will turn into more Kamala votes, but we don't know that's true.

And as for that asteroid hitting NYC, I give you the impending dockworker strike:

Ports seek order to force dockworkers to bargaining table as strike looms at East and Gulf ports

With a strike deadline looming, the group representing East and Gulf Coast ports is asking a federal agency to make the Longshoremen’s union come to the bargaining table to negotiate a new contract.

apnews.com

I'm trying to find the profile of the head of that union that I just read this morning. That dude DGAF and he improbably has the unliteral authority to call a strike.

I have two somewhat contradictory thoughts in response.

1. I think the models are underestimating Kamala’s odds. Based on all the variables, including but not limited to the polling on which the models mainly rely, I think her odds are more like 75-80%. Not a guarantee by any means, but a very strong favorite.

2. The fact the models have Kamala with a lead with less than 45 days to go is part of the reason I’m so optimistic. Is it more likely that over the next six weeks, Trump will close the gap and pull ahead, or is it more likely that Kamala will maintain or slightly expand her lead? I think the latter is far more likely. We’re not yet at an 8 point lead with a minute remaining in the game, but every day that passes gets us closer. Miracles can happen, but Trump isn’t smart or savvy enough to make them happen 99% of the time.

 

[roostra]

It's still true about the LGBTQ community in some places. If the Dems stopped defending gay people, they'd still win CA and NY but would probably also coast to victory in MI and GA.

I mean, I expressly said that it's important to do the right thing. But I don't think it's so easy to dismiss the costs that way. Let's take an example. Weimar integrated Jews into German society in a way that had never been done before. Then came Hitler. [yes, I know this is massively oversimplified. I'm using a stylized example for illustrative purposes]. If you were a decisionmaker in Weimar 1922, and you knew that integration would lead to Nazism, what would be the right thing to do? It's not so easy, is it?

This is one of the many reasons why Kant is more or less useless for policy makers. Policy always involves using people as a means to an end. That's inherent in the task. Remember: to the extent that Kant was writing anything related to policy, it was for an audience of one: the Kaiser. Kant's philosophy perhaps works for individuals (I'm not taking sides on that now), but it doesn't work as a philosophy of government.

I agree that it is complicated, but if this kind of analytical framework reduces the party to a weathervane that only plays it safe (yes, this is an oversimplification), what are we left with? Couple this with the fact that we can't know the future, as political society is a complicated system, I would like to avoid this type of thinking as much as possible.

As to the Weimar example - we are acting with the benefit of hindsight and one still can't say "But for the Weimar decision on the treatment of Jewish folks, Hitler would not have come to power." I just think that kind of analysis can lead to bad outcomes.

 

[superrific]

I have two somewhat contradictory thoughts in response.

1. I think the models are underestimating Kamala’s odds. Based on all the variables, including but not limited to the polling on watch the models mainly rely, I think her odds are more like 75-80%. Not a guarantee by any means, but a very strong favorite.

2. The fact the models have Kamala with a lead with less than 45 days to go is part of the reason I’m so optimistic. Is it more likely that over the next six weeks, Trump will close the gap and pull ahead, or is it more likely that Kamala will maintain or slightly expand her lead? I think the latter is far more likely. We’re not yet at an 8 point lead with a minute remaining in the game, but every day that passes gets us closer. Miracles can happen, but Trump isn’t smart or savvy enough to make them happen 99% of the time.

What if the race just stays as it is?

I think if the race stays as it is, the models will start to register a higher probability for Kamala because they will be modeling less uncertainty. But there is a limit on how high she can go with this polling, and the models are probably the best way to get a sense of that limit -- certainly better than eyeballs.

As someone wrote recently, maybe on Vox, we might have an incredibly close election but a normal sized polling error could turn it into a blowout. Maybe not a landslide, but not exactly close either. Hopefully, the enthusiasm gap that favors Kamala will lead to more turnout, thus mitigating some of the damage if the polls are underestimating Trump by a point or two. But there's a lot we don't know.

I want to be optimistic as you are. I've said before that I suspect the polls are overshooting and now overestimating Trump. Kamala will surely have a better ground game. But the fact is that Kamala is winning by maybe one point in PA, and it's quite difficult for her to get the presidency without it. NC doesn't do the trick. It would have to be NC + NV, which is a tall order in an election where she's losing PA. And that's assuming she keeps MI and WI. I just can't see that as an excellent position.

 

[lawtig02]

What if the race just stays as it is?

I think if the race stays as it is, the models will start to register a higher probability for Kamala because they will be modeling less uncertainty. But there is a limit on how high she can go with this polling, and the models are probably the best way to get a sense of that limit -- certainly better than eyeballs.

As someone wrote recently, maybe on Vox, we might have an incredibly close election but a normal sized polling error could turn it into a blowout. Maybe not a landslide, but not exactly close either. Hopefully, the enthusiasm gap that favors Kamala will lead to more turnout, thus mitigating some of the damage if the polls are underestimating Trump by a point or two. But there's a lot we don't know.

I want to be optimistic as you are. I've said before that I suspect the polls are overshooting and now overestimating Trump. Kamala will surely have a better ground game. But the fact is that Kamala is winning by maybe one point in PA, and it's quite difficult for her to get the presidency without it. NC doesn't do the trick. It would have to be NC + NV, which is a tall order in an election where she's losing PA. And that's assuming she keeps MI and WI. I just can't see that as an excellent position.

If it stays as is, I think Kamala wins. But it can’t really stay as is because (amazingly enough) there’s still a (small) group of undecideds. If that group breaks to Trump, he could win, although it depends on how many of them he gets. If they break to Kamala, she wins comfortably. If they stay home, she probably wins, but it will be very close. I don’t see them breaking to Trump, but I can’t rule out that possibility either.