2024 Presidential Election | ELECTION DAY 2024

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 8K
  • Views: 207K
  • Politics 
Calheel said:
If Kamala can only get 80% of the black vote due to black men, she will have been a disaster candidate. I expect her ultimate number in the final exit polls to be around 90%.
Click to expand...
I believe in 2016 Trump got only 6% of the black vote (men and women), and in 2020 he got only 8%. I remain very skeptical of all these claims that minorities are switching to Trump in significant numbers. I agree that if Trump gets more than 10% of the black vote it will indeed be very surprising.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
I believe in 2016 Trump got only 6% of the black vote (men and women), and in 2020 he got only 8%. I remain very skeptical of all these claims that minorities are switching to Trump in significant numbers. I agree that if Trump gets more than 10% of the black vote it will indeed be very surprising.
Click to expand...
Part of the problem with these discussions is that voters don’t identify their race in ballots, so we have to rely on exit polls - which have some of the same problems as regular polls. So there is an always a bit of +|- when discussing the numbers — especially when dealing with numbers as high as 90%.

That said, here is a pretty good site for historical exit poll data. Exit Polls | Roper Center for Public Opinion Research
 
rodoheel said:
Hopefully HY2012 will be around soon for a rebuttal
Click to expand...
Here’s the obvious rebuttal. She said if inflation is what’s important to you, that breaks for Harris. This is somehow based on hypothetical inflation for each candidate in their upcoming administration, based on some subset of anonymous economists?

The obvious rebuttal is that we already have inflation data from when these two candidates were in power. And the data on inflation looks horrible for Biden/Harris.

There is a reason the electorate trusts Trump more than Harris on the economy.

If/when Harris wins, it will be because of Roe being overturned, people having Trump fatigue, and other things that move the needle in her favor. It will not be because the average voter thinks voting for Harris is the better “business decision”
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
Here’s the obvious rebuttal. She said if inflation is what’s important to you, that breaks for Harris. This is somehow based on hypothetical inflation for each candidate in their upcoming administration, based on some subset of anonymous economists?

The obvious rebuttal is that we already have inflation data from when these two candidates were in power. And the data on inflation looks horrible for Biden/Harris.

There is a reason the electorate trusts Trump more than Harris on the economy.

If/when Harris wins, it will be because of Roe being overturned, people having Trump fatigue, and other things that move the needle in her favor. It will not be because the average voter thinks voting for Harris is the better “business decision”
Click to expand...
Rachel’s whole show last night was on the “business decision” argument. Here is 8 minutes of it.

 
HeelYeah2012 said:
Here’s the obvious rebuttal. She said if inflation is what’s important to you, that breaks for Harris. This is somehow based on hypothetical inflation for each candidate in their upcoming administration, based on some subset of anonymous economists?

The obvious rebuttal is that we already have inflation data from when these two candidates were in power. And the data on inflation looks horrible for Biden/Harris.

There is a reason the electorate trusts Trump more than Harris on the economy.

If/when Harris wins, it will be because of Roe being overturned, people having Trump fatigue, and other things that move the needle in her favor. It will not be because the average voter thinks voting for Harris is the better “business decision”
Click to expand...
We also have data on how many novel viruses created worldwide pandemics when these two candidates were in power. One started under Trump and none started under Biden. I mean that's just as fair as saying inflation under Biden is his fault because it occurred while he was POTUS. So in your childlike logic, a vote for Trump is a vote for global pandemics.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
Here’s the obvious rebuttal. She said if inflation is what’s important to you, that breaks for Harris. This is somehow based on hypothetical inflation for each candidate in their upcoming administration, based on some subset of anonymous economists?

The obvious rebuttal is that we already have inflation data from when these two candidates were in power. And the data on inflation looks horrible for Biden/Harris.

There is a reason the electorate trusts Trump more than Harris on the economy.

If/when Harris wins, it will be because of Roe being overturned, people having Trump fatigue, and other things that move the needle in her favor. It will not be because the average voter thinks voting for Harris is the better “business decision”
Click to expand...
You can’t possibly be serious about this. Do you have a college education? Have you ever taken a single economics course?
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
Here’s the obvious rebuttal. She said if inflation is what’s important to you, that breaks for Harris. This is somehow based on hypothetical inflation for each candidate in their upcoming administration, based on some subset of anonymous economists?

The obvious rebuttal is that we already have inflation data from when these two candidates were in power. And the data on inflation looks horrible for Biden/Harris.

There is a reason the electorate trusts Trump more than Harris on the economy.

If/when Harris wins, it will be because of Roe being overturned, people having Trump fatigue, and other things that move the needle in her favor. It will not be because the average voter thinks voting for Harris is the better “business decision”
Click to expand...
I can't possibly believe that this simplistic reasoning makes sense to you.

1. Everyone with a brain understands that Biden/Harris did not *cause* inflation. Inflation has occurred all around the world, under administrations running the entire political spectrum with all sorts of different policies and economic foundations, in the post-COVID period. Economists generally agree that such inflation resulted from the unique economic situation caused by the pandemic. It caused inflation to rise everywhere, and now inflation has been falling most places for a while. But in the US, inflation rose less steeply and declined more quickly than in almost every country, which is pretty obviously a win for the Biden/Harris economic policy. I am confident that you can't point to any policy of the current administration that is responsible for inflation. So surely you're smarter than to actually believe that "the data on inflation looks horrible for Biden/Harris." Unless you actually want to point us to some data that suggests the Biden admin caused inflation?

2. it's sad that even though you're better educated than most voters, and especially most Trump voters, you still fall for the typical Trumpist mantra of "discredit the experts." You can find, everywhere, publicly, what economists think about the candidates' economic plans. The broad consensus is that Trump's economic "plan" (I use that term loosely, because really the only aspect of that "plan" that he's provided in anything approaching coherent detail is that he will raise tariffs across the board) will increase inflation more, and add more to the debt, than the Harris plan. I am confident that you have not made any effort to determine for yourself what effects tariffs may have on the economy, but if you did you would likely come to the same conclusion. Ignoring what economists say will happen in the future as irrelevant and instead focusing on what happened in the past as if it will be predictive of the future is simply foolish.

3. it's pretty much not debatable that the macro economic indicators right now are very good overall. Inflation continues to fall; wages continue to rise; jobs continue to be added; unemployment is low; the stock market is up. (I can remember when you used to tout the stock market under Trump as a reason for supporting him, and now you conveniently don't care about it anymore - shocking.) I think it's absolutely true that the average voter is not well educated about these things and bases their own opinion of the economy on things like "it feels like eggs are twice as expensive as they used to be." That is typical of the MAGA base - they tend to trust their feelings about what's happening over actual data. But aren't you better than that? We can measure the economy objectively; we don't need to rely on "vibes" about the economy that are mostly based on anecdotes and personal financial circumstances. Do you truly believe there is an objective case for the economy doing poorly right now? If so, feel free to make it.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
Here’s the obvious rebuttal. She said if inflation is what’s important to you, that breaks for Harris. This is somehow based on hypothetical inflation for each candidate in their upcoming administration, based on some subset of anonymous economists?

The obvious rebuttal is that we already have inflation data from when these two candidates were in power. And the data on inflation looks horrible for Biden/Harris.

There is a reason the electorate trusts Trump more than Harris on the economy.

If/when Harris wins, it will be because of Roe being overturned, people having Trump fatigue, and other things that move the needle in her favor. It will not be because the average voter thinks voting for Harris is the better “business decision”
Click to expand...
1. Kamala has never been "in power."
2. Inflation is gone. It's basically at the Fed target. 2022 wants its talking points back.
3. Here's the thing about tariffs (which Trump absolutely will put in place after all the emphasis he's given them; it's basically his entire spiel): the only way they work is by causing inflation. They are designed to cause inflation. They are pointless without inflation.

What, after all, is the point of a tariff? It's too give domestic industry a price advantage over foreign imports. Well, that can only happen if the foreign imports actually go up in price. If, as Trump says, the foreign industry will just pay the tax and keep the imports flowing at the same price, then the tariff would have accomplished nothing! Foreign competition will still have a price advantage and US workers will have gained nothing!

Another (related) purpose of tariffs: to help American companies become more profitable by allowing them to raise prices. Again, inflation is the whole point! If American companies don't raise prices, then what did the tariffs do for them? One supposes that for firms with high operating leverage, a bit of spike in gross profit could help increase net income (though this would not help workers) -- but tariffs apply to tradeable goods, which are typically low operating leverage firms (because, you know, the stuff they make costs actual resources).

So your casual dismissal of these tariffs as "speculation" or "hypothetical" doesn't work. The only way they aren't inflationary is if they have no effect, and then you might wonder why set off trade wars to accomplish nothing. Either way, it's an incredibly stupid economic policy.

4. What neither you nor Trump seems to understand is that adjustments in the economy do not occur overnight. Let's suppose that, by magic, Trump tariffs autos and auto parts at 100% and it doesn't cause any decline in demand and it won't raise prices in the long term. Fine. All the auto parts are going to be made in the US and none in Mexico. How long is that going to take? There are not American auto parts plants ready to pick up the slack. The supply chains haven't been developed. The labor force isn't there.

So, again, even best case scenario about what the tariffs will do eventually, in the short run the tariffs he is talking about will cause shortages. Remember when you couldn't buy a bike during the pandemic? Well, that's the purpose of Trump's economic plan. The whole point is to prevent you from buying a bike until whenever American industry can develop domestic bike manufacturing.
 
rodoheel said:
I can't possibly believe that this simplistic reasoning makes sense to you.

1. Everyone with a brain understands that Biden/Harris did not *cause* inflation. Inflation has occurred all around the world, under administrations running the entire political spectrum with all sorts of different policies and economic foundations, in the post-COVID period. Economists generally agree that such inflation resulted from the unique economic situation caused by the pandemic. It caused inflation to rise everywhere, and now inflation has been falling most places for a while. But in the US, inflation rose less steeply and declined more quickly than in almost every country, which is pretty obviously a win for the Biden/Harris economic policy. I am confident that you can't point to any policy of the current administration that is responsible for inflation. So surely you're smarter than to actually believe that "the data on inflation looks horrible for Biden/Harris." Unless you actually want to point us to some data that suggests the Biden admin caused inflation?

2. it's sad that even though you're better educated than most voters, and especially most Trump voters, you still fall for the typical Trumpist mantra of "discredit the experts." You can find, everywhere, publicly, what economists think about the candidates' economic plans. The broad consensus is that Trump's economic "plan" (I use that term loosely, because really the only aspect of that "plan" that he's provided in anything approaching coherent detail is that he will raise tariffs across the board) will increase inflation more, and add more to the debt, than the Harris plan. I am confident that you have not made any effort to determine for yourself what effects tariffs may have on the economy, but if you did you would likely come to the same conclusion. Ignoring what economists say will happen in the future as irrelevant and instead focusing on what happened in the past as if it will be predictive of the future is simply foolish.

3. it's pretty much not debatable that the macro economic indicators right now are very good overall. Inflation continues to fall; wages continue to rise; jobs continue to be added; unemployment is low; the stock market is up. (I can remember when you used to tout the stock market under Trump as a reason for supporting him, and now you conveniently don't care about it anymore - shocking.) I think it's absolutely true that the average voter is not well educated about these things and bases their own opinion of the economy on things like "it feels like eggs are twice as expensive as they used to be." That is typical of the MAGA base - they tend to trust their feelings about what's happening over actual data. But aren't you better than that? We can measure the economy objectively; we don't need to rely on "vibes" about the economy that are mostly based on anecdotes and personal financial circumstances. Do you truly believe there is an objective case for the economy doing poorly right now? If so, feel free to make it.
Click to expand...
While this isn’t part of his economic plan, his plan for mass deportation would certainly have an impact on the economy.
 
lightbluenc said:
According to Pew Research, Hillary got 81% of black men, 65% of Hispanic men, 32% of white men.

Curious where Harris stands and will stand with each of those.
Click to expand...
As Joy Reid said yesterday: black men came out for Hillary in much greater percentages than white women.
 
Calheel said:
Rachel’s whole show last night was on the “business decision” argument. Here is 8 minutes of it.

Click to expand...

That was actually the segment I was responding to. I watched it all. While it’s interesting sometimes to see what the far left is saying, most of her points are clearly biased.

The reason Trump wins on the economy is because people know their dollar stretched further in his 4 years than it has in the 4 years of Biden/Harris. He will likely still lose the election despite all that because he’s so polarizing and he drives record turnout from the left. But the reason he loses will not be because the average person thinks Harris is a better business decision. The polls already show this.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
That was actually the segment I was responding to. I watched it all. While it’s interesting sometimes to see what the far left is saying, most of her points are clearly biased.

The reason Trump wins on the economy is because people know their dollar stretched further in his 4 years than it has in the 4 years of Biden/Harris. He will likely still lose the election despite all that because he’s so polarizing and he drives record turnout from the left. But the reason he loses will not be because the average person thinks Harris is a better business decision. The polls already show this.
Click to expand...
Nobody disputes that a majority of voters see trump as a better "business decision," what Maddow and others are challenging is whether there is any objective basis for actually thinking that given the policies Trump is now proposing. "Inflation was lower the last time he was President" is the reasoning of a child (through to be fair, tens of millions of Americans think of this and other issues like children).
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
That was actually the segment I was responding to. I watched it all. While it’s interesting sometimes to see what the far left is saying, most of her points are clearly biased.

The reason Trump wins on the economy is because people know their dollar stretched further in his 4 years than it has in the 4 years of Biden/Harris. He will likely still lose the election despite all that because he’s a buffoon and he drives record turnout from the left. But the reason he loses will not be because the average person thinks Harris is a better business decision. The polls already show this.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, it is Rachel -- so she has tendency to omit certain facts (and is not a business reporter by any means).

But the idea that the dollar stretched further under Trump? Unless you have deflation, the dollar always stretches further under the predecessor. That is how inflation works. As someone with a financial degree, you surely understand that.

The point you are leaving out is that wage growth has been massive under Biden, much more so than under any recent administration. And wage growth has out paced inflation for the last year. Sure, there was a brief spike of high inflation in the US in 2021 and 2022 -- albeit not as high in the US as in most wealthy nations. But at this point, in October 2024, the economy is as strong as it has ever been. High GDP growth, low unemployment, low inflation, stock market at an all-time high. Any "business decision" would want that to continue.

Edit -- the parallels to Reagan's first term are striking.
 
HY you know good and well if Trump had the current economy he would be gloating about it NON-STOP. I know its probably hard to look past everything you've ever thought of politically in regards to right vs left, but you will do much better under Harris than you will under Trump financially. So I'm hoping that happens for you.

The child tax credit alone is huge. Adding medicare to at-home senior care is massive. The small business tax cuts are fantastic, and this is all just her stuff, not to mention how devastating it'll be if Trump imposes more tariffs on us, and starts getting rid of the backbone of our manual labor workforce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top