2024 Presidential Election | ELECTION DAY 2024

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 8K
  • Views: 207K
  • Politics 
HintonJamesHeel said:
She doesn’t have an edge. A 1-2 point lead nationally means a Trump presidency. The only hope she has is the hidden vote against the Dobbs. When I say progressive, I’m not saying taxpayer funded trans-surgeries. The Democrats need to run to the working men and women. Tax policies, health care, topics that average Americans deal with every day.
Click to expand...
1. The Dems are running on that platform. The problem is getting that message through amidst all the noise and self-selecting censorship. You basically can't reach right-wing media consumers.

2. A 1-2 point lead nationally does NOT mean a Trump presidency. There's no law of nature saying that the EC: popular vote ratio has to favor the GOP. In fact, in 2012, Obama did better in the EC than in the popular vote.

One story of this race has been Trump opening ever-widening leads in his territory while clawing at some voters in places that don't matter. Trump 2024 is running about 4-5 points ahead of Trump 2020 in California. The NYT had him up 13 in Florida. Even if that was a big outlier, the polls are telling us that Trump is going to do better in Florida than he did in 2020. So Trump is doing better in the places that don't matter.

3. But sure, let's assume that Kamala needs to win by 2 nationally to win and she's winning by 1.5 in the polls. There are so many other factors working in her favor. Ground game. Organization. Turnout. One problem with likely voter screens is that they don't have gradations -- at least none that I've seen. That is, they take a poll of people and figure out which of them they deem more than 75% likely to vote (the threshold varies). That's great, but a 75% voter is not the same as a 100% chance voter. In past years, Pubs cleaned up with the 100% voters and Dems were there trying to turn out their 85% voters. But the tables are turned. It's Dems who are doing best among the 100% voters. Trump is strongest with 50% voters. He does fine with 75% voters and that's what you see in the polls. But I'd rather have 100% voters.

4. 538's electoral forecast gives Kamala a 47% chance as of today. Most of the forecasts are hovering right around 50%. But note: those are polls only forecasts. They aren't taking account of the factors described above.
 
Paine said:
This x10,000
Click to expand...
Thing is there is a hidden vote one way or the other.

538 has it currently 48-46. So that's leaving ~6% of the vote unaccounted for. We have to assume a percent or two will go to other fringe candidates. But him being at 46% is fantastic. We need that to be his ceiling nationally. If the national polling averaged out to 51-49 and she was up, I'd be extremely concerned. But we have to hope beyond hope there is a hidden Dobbs vote (entirely possible), and a hidden R crossover vote, that are putting country over party (also entirely possible) that will come out for Harris.
 
Paine said:

The newspapers in this country are morally bankrupt and probably well on their way to actual bankruptcy.
Click to expand...
Eh. Does anyone actually care who a paper endorses any more? I can understand why the papers aren't doing it. It's downside for them, because it makes them look partisan and alienates some potential readers. And the upside?

I mean, the reason why newspaper endorsements mattered in years past was the lack of information. People got their information from the newspapers. If they didn't have time to read the newspaper all the time (or couldn't read, or couldn't read English well, etc), they would count on the newspaper editors to be informed. Hence the endorsements that mattered. There were all sorts of gatekeepers whose endorsements mattered in yesteryear. Hell, a union endorsement used to bring virtually all of the members with it.

In today's world, newspapers don't have that role, or that cachet, or anything special that would make their opinions useful. I mean, who is saying "I'm on fence as to who to vote for. Let's see what the LA Times says about that"? Nobody.
 
superrific said:
Eh. Does anyone actually care who a paper endorses any more? I can understand why the papers aren't doing it. It's downside for them, because it makes them look partisan and alienates some potential readers. And the upside?

I mean, the reason why newspaper endorsements mattered in years past was the lack of information. People got their information from the newspapers. If they didn't have time to read the newspaper all the time (or couldn't read, or couldn't read English well, etc), they would count on the newspaper editors to be informed. Hence the endorsements that mattered. There were all sorts of gatekeepers whose endorsements mattered in yesteryear. Hell, a union endorsement used to bring virtually all of the members with it.

In today's world, newspapers don't have that role, or that cachet, or anything special that would make their opinions useful. I mean, who is saying "I'm on fence as to who to vote for. Let's see what the LA Times says about that"? Nobody.
Click to expand...
I agree that no one is changing their vote based on the endorsement.

I’m more concerned about the role that the press is supposed to play in promoting a free, open, and democratic society.

If your newspaper’s slogan is “Democracy Dies in Darkness” and you can’t even bring yourself to endorse the candidate running against a fascist then it’s clear they don’t really care about democracy.

Not a surprise to those of us who know that capital controls the major newspapers, but it’s still disheartening.
 
Paine said:
I agree that no one is changing their vote based on the endorsement.

I’m more concerned about the role that the press is supposed to play in promoting a free, open, and democratic society.

If your newspaper’s slogan is “Democracy Dies in Darkness” and you can’t even bring yourself to endorse the candidate running against a fascist then it’s clear they don’t really care about democracy.

Not a surprise to those of us who know that capital controls the major newspapers, but it’s still disheartening.
Click to expand...
They are probably afraid of being thrown in prison (or worse) if Trump wins.
 
Speaking as a newly-minted member of the CONTIFA wing of the Democratic Party, is this pre-election freak out a normal thing among my brother and sister Dems? Good lord, people. NOTHING HAS CHANGED!!! Even with the recent WSJ poll that has some obvious methodological problems, Trump has STILL not hit even 47% on the 538 average. Kamala is working hard and has a great plan to keep working the people who need to be reached over the next 10 days.

It's like everyone who's been recognizing and calling out Trump's nonstop lies for the last nine years is suddenly believing them.
 
lawtig02 said:
Speaking as a newly-minted member of the CONTIFA wing of the Democratic Party, is this pre-election freak out a normal thing among my brother and sister Dems? Good lord, people. NOTHING HAS CHANGED!!! Even with the recent WSJ poll that has some obvious methodological problems, Trump has STILL not hit even 47% on the 538 average. Kamala is working hard and has a great plan to keep working the people who need to be reached over the next 10 days.

It's like everyone who's been recognizing and calling out Trump's nonstop lies for the last nine years is suddenly believing them.
Click to expand...
As the founding co-member of CONTIFA I heartily endorse this message.
 
lawtig02 said:
Speaking as a newly-minted member of the CONTIFA wing of the Democratic Party, is this pre-election freak out a normal thing among my brother and sister Dems? Good lord, people. NOTHING HAS CHANGED!!! Even with the recent WSJ poll that has some obvious methodological problems, Trump has STILL not hit even 47% on the 538 average. Kamala is working hard and has a great plan to keep working the people who need to be reached over the next 10 days.

It's like everyone who's been recognizing and calling out Trump's nonstop lies for the last nine years is suddenly believing them.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is pretty standard freak out dooming by us. I think 2016 just made us all so wary that he can win that we are sort of bracing for it now, just so we aren't knocked off balance if it does happen again.
 
The more I think about it, the more I realize that it would have never worked out in the long-term for me in the Republican Party. I’ve just got too much damn pride to allow myself to be treated like I am a slack jawed dumbfuck by all of the politicians in my party. It is pretty apparent that it takes a special kind of someone who lacks any self-respect whatsoever to gobble up all of the bullshit being tossed at them by Republican politicians.

Board Republicans, listen. Take it from me, a former dyed in the wool Republican: they fucking hate you! They think you are dumber than a pile of dog shit! They literally think you are too stupid to function. Quit proving them correct!
 
nycfan said:
Ted Cruz’s seat is possibly in play. Texas is not in play for the presidential election.
Click to expand...
That is very nice of Trump and Harris to go down there and help out their candidates. I think I'd be a little more selfish.
Paine said:
I agree that no one is changing their vote based on the endorsement.

I’m more concerned about the role that the press is supposed to play in promoting a free, open, and democratic society.

If your newspaper’s slogan is “Democracy Dies in Darkness” and you can’t even bring yourself to endorse the candidate running against a fascist then it’s clear they don’t really care about democracy.

Not a surprise to those of us who know that capital controls the major newspapers, but it’s still disheartening.
Click to expand...

I like the endorsements on the local and less well-known state candidates like the soil and water commissioner or the county commissioner of district 6 or whatever. I think for president it's probably not going to affect too many votes.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
That is very nice of Trump and Harris to go down there and help out their candidates. I think I'd be a little more selfish.


I like the endorsements on the local and less well-known state candidates like the soil and water commissioner or the county commissioner of district 6 or whatever. I think for president it's probably not going to affect too many votes.
Click to expand...
I think Harris is going down there to get in an appearance with Beyonce and in hopes of a resulting media bounce in coverage.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
That is very nice of Trump and Harris to go down there and help out their candidates. I think I'd be a little more selfish.


I like the endorsements on the local and less well-known state candidates like the soil and water commissioner or the county commissioner of district 6 or whatever. I think for president it's probably not going to affect too many votes.
Click to expand...
Harris isn't in Texas to help other candidates. I thought maybe that's why she was going, and I'm sure she'll do what she can while she's there, but she's made her intentions clear now. She's in Texas to highlight the state's barbaric abortion laws, which are actively causing the deaths of women and the needless suffering of nonviable infants. That seems well worth a quick trip to our second largest state to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top