2024 Presidential Election | ELECTION DAY 2024

[superrific]

I hear you, but to be clear, I’m not saying undecideds will break almost entirely to Kamala. I’m saying they’re not likely to break heavily to Trump. If it’s 80-20 Kamala, she wins easily. If it’s 50-50, she wins, but we’ll be chugging Mylanta. If it’s 80-20 Trump, we could potentially win, but he’d be the favorite. I just don’t think that latter scenario is likely.

If it's 80-20 AND the polls are correct, then she wins easily. But if the polls are off by 2 points in Trump's favor, then winning 80% of current undecideds will put us in Mylanta land in the best case scenario.

 

[Paine]

1. Yes, there is polling to that effect.
2. Why did Pete Buttigieg get no lift-off whatsoever in the 2020 primary? He polled well among white people. Very well. But his support in the black community was non-existent, which is why he was not a plausible candidate.
3. The antipathy among black men for queerness is really well documented.

Here's a survey from Pew about this. A quote: "Black Protestants (57%) are much less likely than Catholics (78%) and the religiously unaffiliated (75%) to favor acceptance of homosexuality."

7. Gender, sexuality and religion

Roughly seven-in-ten Black Christians say that opposing sexism is essential to their faith, as do a similar share of those who belong to other religions.

www.pewresearch.org

Now, maybe that opposition to acceptance of homosexuality isn't causing a drift toward Trump, but something is. It probably isn't his attack on Haitians, you know? It isn't all about sexuality (and gender), but it is implausible that plays no role.

Black men are swinging to Trump because of all the reasons we’ve discussed in the red pilled young men thread.

I don’t think Black men are any more or less transphobic than white men. It’s a societal problem tied into masculinity and gender norms. You don’t acquiesce to this kind of transphobia, you present an argument to them that addresses the actual concerns they have. In terms of this masculinity crisis, I think it is rooted in economic policy 8 times out of 10, especially with Black men.

 

[superrific]

Black men are swinging to Trump because of all the reasons we’ve discussed in the red pilled young men thread.

I don’t think Black men are any more or less transphobic than white men. It’s a societal problem tied into masculinity and gender norms. You don’t acquiesce to this kind of transphobia, you present an argument to them that addresses the actual concerns they have. In terms of this masculinity crisis, I think it is rooted in economic policy 8 times out of 10, especially with Black men.

Well, they are less accepting of homosexuality according to Pew. Again, that's not the same as trans, but I doubt there are many people who are fine with trans but anti-gay.

You absolutely do present an argument to them to address their concerns. That's how the battle for gay marriage was ultimately won. But that fight took a very long time. Liberals wanted to deal with trans rights as if they were picking up from Obergefell, and whatever the merits of that judgment, it was unquestionably a different playbook than we used in the past.

It might be rooted in economic policy to some degree, but that Pew study suggests the opposite. Church-going black protestants were barely more tolerant than white protestants in that survey. Agnostic or atheist black people were the single most gay-tolerant group surveyed. Now maybe there are also cultural or economic discrepancies between agnostic and protestant black people, but if you take the survey at face value, then I don't think it's right to say that it's mostly just about economics.

 

[rodoheel]

1. Yes, there is polling to that effect.
2. Why did Pete Buttigieg get no lift-off whatsoever in the 2020 primary? He polled well among white people. Very well. But his support in the black community was non-existent, which is why he was not a plausible candidate.
3. The antipathy among black men for queerness is really well documented.

Here's a survey from Pew about this. A quote: "Black Protestants (57%) are much less likely than Catholics (78%) and the religiously unaffiliated (75%) to favor acceptance of homosexuality."

7. Gender, sexuality and religion

Roughly seven-in-ten Black Christians say that opposing sexism is essential to their faith, as do a similar share of those who belong to other religions.

www.pewresearch.org

Now, maybe that opposition to acceptance of homosexuality isn't causing a drift toward Trump, but something is. It probably isn't his attack on Haitians, you know? It isn't all about sexuality (and gender), but it is implausible that plays no role.

Edit to add: I know that trans and gay are not synonyms. But to the average person who doesn't accept homosexuality, they are.

I understand that to many anti-queer voters, trans and gay may well be the same thing. And I understand that among the traditional core Dem constituencies, black Christians (along with Hispanic Christians) are the most negative towards queer issues. But that sort of proves my point. Even if the word "trans" had never entered the political lexicon, Dems would still be the party supporting queer rights, and the thing you say is a problem would still be a problem.

Males, everywhere, have been trending conservative and trending to Trump over the last few years. I think it's implausible that the "trans" debate specifically, as opposed to the plethora of culture war issues I've referenced, is responsible for this shift. It very well may be a part of it. But I think this idea that if Kamala loses, it's specifically because of Dems fighting on trans rights, is simplistic at best and flat-out wrong at worst.

 

[Paine]

Well, they are less accepting of homosexuality according to Pew. Again, that's not the same as trans, but I doubt there are many people who are fine with trans but anti-gay.

You absolutely do present an argument to them to address their concerns. That's how the battle for gay marriage was ultimately won. But that fight took a very long time. Liberals wanted to deal with trans rights as if they were picking up from Obergefell, and whatever the merits of that judgment, it was unquestionably a different playbook than we used in the past.

It might be rooted in economic policy to some degree, but that Pew study suggests the opposite. Church-going black protestants were barely more tolerant than white protestants in that survey. Agnostic or atheist black people were the single most gay-tolerant group surveyed. Now maybe there are also cultural or economic discrepancies between agnostic and protestant black people, but if you take the survey at face value, then I don't think it's right to say that it's mostly just about economics.

Poll numbers are not set in marble. Public approval ratings move. That’s why you go out and make the argument based on your actual values, not try to act as a megaphone for whatever the Pew poll is saying.

My point is, Black men, white men, Latino men, whatever. They’re all persuadable on this issue and it is not anyone’s top issue.

Address the economic concerns of these voters, and I think they become much easier to persuade in terms of other social issues.

 

[superrific]

Poll numbers are not set in marble. Public approval ratings move. That’s why you go out and make the argument based on your actual values, not try to act as a megaphone for whatever the Pew poll is saying.

My point is, Black men, white men, Latino men, whatever. They’re all persuadable on this issue and it is not anyone’s top issue.

Address the economic concerns of these voters, and I think they become much easier to persuade in terms of other social issues.

1. I reject the primacy that you're giving to economic concerns, but that's a different thread.

2. OK, maybe they are persuadable on this issue and maybe they aren't. I don't really know. I think it's safe to say that some are (i.e. more than zero are, and more than zero aren't). But the point is that political battles go more smoothly when the persuasion precedes the politics. I mean, we still don't have federal civil rights protections for gay people, even now (only court precedents that are highly endangered), and that's after all these years of persuasion. Eh, I'm not sure that point cuts in my favor, but it does cut against yours. Maybe we're both just wrong that meaningful persuasion is possible.

3. You don't know how important that issue is to people. From what I've read, it's an incredibly important issue to evangelicals. That's why they are suddenly jumping up and down about protecting "girls' sports" after spending the last fifty years opposing girls' sports. Maybe those people were already voting Trump anyway. I mean, there's just so much that's unknowable. That's what makes politics so hard.

4. I'd like to reiterate that I'm not arguing it was a mistake for the Dems to go all-in on trans rights. I'm arguing that maybe it was a mistake. As I said, years ago I feared it would be and my confidence hasn't really changed. It's speculative, but I think we are all speculating. Also, I'm not debating whether it's the right thing to do absent political considerations.

 

[Rock]

I assume this was posted elsewhere?

 

[SmilingJack]

So much of this seems like projection. I'm sure that's not the intention but it is never really clear why voters get persuaded to change their minds. At this time I'm thinking trying to figure out how to change someone's mind is more a view of the person arguing one issue is more important than another is more about them than the group they're talking about.

 

[rodoheel]

3. You don't know how important that issue is to people. From what I've read, it's an incredibly important issue to evangelicals. That's why they are suddenly jumping up and down about protecting "girls' sports" after spending the last fifty years opposing girls' sports. Maybe those people were already voting Trump anyway. I mean, there's just so much that's unknowable. That's what makes politics so hard.

Lots of things about politics are unknowable, but "will the evangelicals break for Trump no matter what" is not really one of them.

 

[Kingpin]

I assume this was posted elsewhere?

Is this being challenged? Can this shit stand?

 

[lightbluenc]

The State Board of Elections in the release said the majority of those stripped from the rolls were deemed ineligible to be registered because they had moved within the state and did not register their new address, or because they did not participate in the past two federal elections, prompting an inactive status.

Other reasons for removal included death, felony convictions, out-of-state moves and personal requests for removal, the board said.

 

[Calheel]

Is this being challenged? Can this shit stand?

Is 747,000 over 20 months more or less than normal? Annualized, it is roughly 5% of the total. People die, move, get convicted of felonies, or don't vote for 8 years. I just don't know if 5% a year is an unusually high total or not?

Do you know if the state reaches out to purged voters to let them know of the purging? Or do voters just get to the booth and find out they are not registered? And if that happens, are they allowed to cast provisional ballots and get unpurged or are they just turned away?

 

[rodoheel]

Is this being challenged? Can this shit stand?

Note that the headline is a little misleading - this didn't just happen overnight, several hundred thousand people have been removed over the last twenty months.

Most of this is probably routine - deaths and people no longer living in the state. The part that concerns me is taking people off the rolls (or making them inactive) because they didn't vote in to federal elections. People should never lose the ability to vote just by not voting.

 

[aGDevil2k]

My grandmother died in 2013, but she's all in for Harris.

 

[Calheel]

Is 747,000 over 20 months more or less than normal? Annualized, it is roughly 5% of the total. People die, move, get convicted of felonies, or don't vote for 8 years. I just don't know if 5% a year is an unusually high total or not?

Do you know if the state reaches out to purged voters to let them know of the purging? Or do voters just get to the booth and find out they are not registered? And if that happens, are they allowed to cast provisional ballots and get unpurged or are they just turned away?

To answer some of my own questions, 19 million were purged nationwide between 2020 and 2022. Assuming that is a two-year period and not a three-year period, that would be about 9.5 million a year, which would be consistent with NC's 500k a year.

Voter Purges

Voter purges are an often-flawed process of cleaning up voter rolls by deleting names from registration lists. The Brennan Center works to ensure that they are nondiscriminatory and do not disenfranchise eligible voters.

www.brennancenter.org

If you want to read up a little more about how states use ERIC to find the names to purge, but which was then attacked by Trump as being part of a liberal front, read:

Attacks on Voter Rolls and How to Protect Them

Election deniers are targeting best practices for maintaining accurate rolls and proposing dangerous “alternatives.”

www.brennancenter.org

 

[uncgriff]

My grandmother died in 2013, but she's all in for Harris.

Have her vote early and often

 

[Centerpiece]

X number of people were purged from rolls the past 20 months. I’ll bet 1/3 were Dems; 1/3 were Pubs and 1/3 were Indy.
If the reasons given for the purge is accurate, all three groups of voters are represented in the purge.

Of the 7 million + registered voters in NC, which party has more? Dem, Pub or Indy?

You guessed it: Indy at 36%
Dems at 33%
Pubs at 30%

Now, with that said, of those purged, if an inordinate amount were purged from only one party… somethings fishy.

 

[aGDevil2k]

X number of people were purged from rolls the past 20 months. I’ll bet 1/3 were Dems; 1/3 were Pubs and 1/3 were Indy.
If the reasons given for the purge is accurate, all three groups of voters are represented in the purge.

Of the 7 million + registered voters in NC, which party has more? Dem, Pub or Indy?

You guessed it: Indy at 36%
Dems at 33%
Pubs at 30%

Now, with that said, of those purged, if an inordinate amount were purged from only one party… somethings fishy.

I could see fewer indies purged as it wasn't as popular decades prior

 

[theel4life]

 

[Centerpiece]

I could see fewer indies purged as it wasn't as popular decades prior

But the purge they'e talking about was 20 months ago not 20 years