2024 Presidential Election | ELECTION DAY 2024

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 8K
  • Views: 298K
  • Politics 
BillOfRights said:
I'm trying to remember why this seems familiar. Didn't the Clinton campaign have claims about new campaign tactics and strategy? About making inroads with with long-ignored groups?

I'm going to disagree. If she loses, she will NOT have knocked it out of the park. She will have miscalculated with disastrous results. 2016 redux. Now, I don't believe she's directing the campaign as much as she is relying on her top campaign staff, but they damn sure better be right.
Click to expand...
So what do you think she's doing wrong??
 
Mulberry Heel said:
I don't think the Clinton campaign was nearly as energetic and innovative as Kamala's has been. And I don't agree that if she loses it will be because she miscalculated. Unlike Hillary's campaign, which seemed to take her victory for granted and just coasted into election day, Kamala has been running a far more dynamic effort, including on social media. What different tactics and strategy would you have her use right now?
Click to expand...
Clinton campaign assumed she would win the blue wall and spent time and money in other states trying to run up the score. I hope not to ever read, write, or hear Robby Mook's name again.

The Harris campaign has been great on social media, but turnout is going to determine the winner. There aren't many persuadeables. Voter registration and getting them to the polls, then making sure all the legitimate votes are counted.
 
BillOfRights said:
Clinton campaign assumed she would win the blue wall and spent time and money in other states trying to run up the score. I hope not to ever read, write, or hear Robby Mook's name again.

The Harris campaign has been great on social media, but turnout is going to determine the winner. There aren't many persuadeables. Voter registration and getting them to the polls, then making sure all the legitimate votes are counted.
Click to expand...
The Mook Mafia……an inexperienced, arrogant group.
 
BillOfRights said:
Clinton campaign assumed she would win the blue wall and spent time and money in other states trying to run up the score. I hope not to ever read, write, or hear Robby Mook's name again.

The Harris campaign has been great on social media, but turnout is going to determine the winner. There aren't many persuadeables. Voter registration and getting them to the polls, then making sure all the legitimate votes are counted.
Click to expand...
All true. It’s that last part about all legitimate votes being counted that worries me most.
 
nycfan said:
IMG_2902.jpeg
Click to expand...
Elon obviously knows about sensible spending.

fortune.com

Elon Musk convinced pals Marc Andreessen, Changpeng Zhao and Prince Al Waleed to invest in Twitter. They’re down 67%, according to a new Fidelity filing

Musk rallied arguably the most prestigious roster of technology superstars ever assembled for a single investment. It hasn't gone well so far.
fortune.com fortune.com

“We can apply the same math to the 19 equity partners’ original, $7.1 billion investment. By Fidelity’s measure, it’s now worth one-third of that total, or $2.34 billion, meaning that as of now, the group has suffered an almost $5 billion loss. That’s a $670 million drop for Ellison, a $540 million slide for Sequoia investors, and a $260 million bath for the Andreessen Horowitz Capital Fund. By Fidelity’s reckoning, Baron’s down by $67 million.”
 
lawtig02 said:
No question that in that scenario, the majority of states would elect Trump. But I’d also put the odds of an electoral college tie at way less than 1%.
Click to expand...
Oh let me have some fun ruthlessly speculating.
The election boils down to seven swing states and the Omaha district in Nebraska. Looking at today's NYT/Siena polls, it is quite possible Trump will win AZ, NC, and GA. If Harris wins the three rust belt states, PA, MI, and WI, that would put the count at 269 for Harris and 268 for Trump. All that has to happen is the Omaha district goes for Trump OR the process is changed so that all five NE electoral votes go to one candidate. So while not very likely, I do think it is a bit more likely than many think.
I would also point out that the Robinson impact in NC is likely very significant and could help Harris win NC, which would be huge.
And I still chuckle thinking about the tie scenario...Harris could become President with Vance as her VP so that Harris could issue an Executive Order on Day One directing Vance to shave his beard just to mess with him.
 
IllegalMotion9999 said:
Oh let me have some fun ruthlessly speculating.
The election boils down to seven swing states and the Omaha district in Nebraska. Looking at today's NYT/Siena polls, it is quite possible Trump will win AZ, NC, and GA. If Harris wins the three rust belt states, PA, MI, and WI, that would put the count at 269 for Harris and 268 for Trump. All that has to happen is the Omaha district goes for Trump OR the process is changed so that all five NE electoral votes go to one candidate. So while not very likely, I do think it is a bit more likely than many think.
I would also point out that the Robinson impact in NC is likely very significant and could help Harris win NC, which would be huge.
And I still chuckle thinking about the tie scenario...Harris could become President with Vance as her VP so that Harris could issue an Executive Order on Day One directing Vance to shave his beard just to mess with him.
Click to expand...
The tie scenario doesn't work like that. After 12th Am, pres and vice pres are chosen separately. For Harris and Vance to end up together, it would require the Dems to hold the Senate, which is unlikely in a scenario of Trump ekeing out a tie.

NOTE: Re-reading the 12th Am demonstrates a possible way around the Nebraska situation. The quorum for the House vote is 2/3. If the blue state delegations don't show up, then the House can't choose and VP Harris will become acting president. It's unclear what would happen if the Pub Reps from a blue state tried to show up and cast votes for that state. Presumably the blue states could pass laws stating that their delegations cannot vote in a way differently from how their electors voted.

I wouldn't bet my life on that ploy working. I probably wouldn't bet $100. But once we get into that uncharted territory, lots of things can happen
 
Apparently the Nebraska gambit is off. The guy the Pubs needed to flip did not flip. He announced today that he's voting no.

FWIW he's a former Dem who is term-limited and has his eyes set on being mayor of Omaha. I suspect he decided that he would be unable to win that race if he voted to screw that district. Also, he probably hates Trump, and also he's doing the right thing.
 
superrific said:
Apparently the Nebraska gambit is off. The guy the Pubs needed to flip did not flip. He announced today that he's voting no.

FWIW he's a former Dem who is term-limited and has his eyes set on being mayor of Omaha. I suspect he decided that he would be unable to win that race if he voted to screw that district. Also, he probably hates Trump, and also he's doing the right thing.
Click to expand...
That’s one of those “small” stories that could prove to be a major chapter in US History curricula in 50 years.
 
StrangePackage said:
I kinda wonder about an equitable estoppel argument - selectively asking to be on certain ballots and off others seems incongruous.
Click to expand...
There are other plaintiffs in the NY action. Not that it matters.

The residency requirement for presidential elections is a bit fishy -- but it's also arguably required by the Constitution, since after all, the VP and Pres candidates have to be from different states. And that's indeed one reason, I suspect, that Kennedy is trying to run as a NY resident. Shanahan is a CA resident, which is what Kennedy would be but for that residence.

I think he would have had a better chance if he had sought an injunction against the residency requirement in the spring. He didn't. So now he's facing a situation where he gathered signatures *based on a lie* and now wants the residency requirement deemed unconstitutional. OK, but he still lied on his petitions. At this point, the state would be fully justified -- in my view -- to invalidate his petitions based on that fact. That's certainly how it's done in other states.
 
superrific said:
Apparently the Nebraska gambit is off. The guy the Pubs needed to flip did not flip. He announced today that he's voting no.

FWIW he's a former Dem who is term-limited and has his eyes set on being mayor of Omaha. I suspect he decided that he would be unable to win that race if he voted to screw that district. Also, he probably hates Trump, and also he's doing the right thing.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the first actual deadline of any kind is Oct 7th, when the state starts early voting, and that's only under a "don't change the rules once voting starts" ethical guideline. And that there's really nothing stopping them from changing it any time between now and election day.

So I won't be comfortable that Nebraska Pubs won't pull this off until we get to election night and the law is unchanged.
 
SnoopRob said:
My understanding is that the first actual deadline of any kind is Oct 7th, when the state starts early voting, and that's only under a "don't change the rules once voting starts" ethical guideline. And that there's really nothing stopping them from changing it any time between now and election day.

So I won't be comfortable that Nebraska Pubs won't pull this off until we get to election night and the law is unchanged.
Click to expand...
Guy sounded pretty definitive that he's not going for it. The legislature isn't in session. The governor said he would call a special session if they had the votes to defeat a filibuster, which they don't have.

Again, this is a guy who was a Dem until he got censured by the Dems in April (WHY???). He wants to be mayor of Omaha. The current mayor, a Pub, does not support changing the EV. He's term limited. If he votes to change the EV, his political career is done.
 
superrific said:
The tie scenario doesn't work like that. After 12th Am, pres and vice pres are chosen separately. For Harris and Vance to end up together, it would require the Dems to hold the Senate, which is unlikely in a scenario of Trump ekeing out a tie.

NOTE: Re-reading the 12th Am demonstrates a possible way around the Nebraska situation. The quorum for the House vote is 2/3. If the blue state delegations don't show up, then the House can't choose and VP Harris will become acting president. It's unclear what would happen if the Pub Reps from a blue state tried to show up and cast votes for that state. Presumably the blue states could pass laws stating that their delegations cannot vote in a way differently from how their electors voted.

I wouldn't bet my life on that ploy working. I probably wouldn't bet $100. But once we get into that uncharted territory, lots of things can happen
Click to expand...
Just want to point out that the House elects the President and the Senate elects the VP in the event of an electoral tie. So it does work like that. If there is an unlikely electoral tie, the Senate would elect Vance and there is a part of me that can see enough Repubs holding out on Trump that Harris would somehow win in the House.
 
IllegalMotion9999 said:
Just want to point out that the House elects the President and the Senate elects the VP in the event of an electoral tie. So it does work like that. If there is an unlikely electoral tie, the Senate would elect Vance and there is a part of me that can see enough Repubs holding out on Trump that Harris would somehow win in the House.
Click to expand...
I just can't imagine a scenario in which Pubs would dump Trump and keep Vance. Vance is even less popular than Trump. Plus, it would prob take more than just a few Pubs holding out on Trump in the House because the voting is by state.

Technically it is possible but I think we're talking powerball lottery odds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top