2024 Presidential Election | ELECTION DAY 2024

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 8K
  • Views: 291K
  • Politics 
gtyellowjacket said:
Is Texas in play? Harris has been there several times this month. Trump is showing up today to defend it. That's some very valuable campaign time spent in a state that has been a Republican lock for decades. Ted Cruz is also looking a little vulnerable.

The polls say Harris is at a four or five-point disadvantage but maybe internal polling is showing something different. I'm hoping this turns out like some of those rust belt states that Trump won in 2016 when Hillary took them for granted.
Click to expand...
Ted Cruz’s seat is possibly in play. Texas is not in play for the presidential election.
 
If Democrats had run progressive candidates that embrace progressive ideals, I think we'd get shellacked in this election. As it stands, the reason why Harris even has an edge in a razor-thin election is because of her ability to entice crossover voters from the moderate conservative ranks.
 
HintonJamesHeel said:
I’m checking out. These polls are crazy. Democrats need to start to run progressive candidates that embrace progressive ideals. I’m resigned to a very bad result.
Click to expand...
Or Pubs can just run lunatics like Mark Robinson-I mean that works also lol
 
Paine said:
Agreed man, but don’t resign yourself too much yet. It’s still a toss-up. Let’s get Harris in there and then push as hard as we can for her to embrace some economic populist/progressive ideals.
Click to expand...
I'll say this, as someone who was essentially bred by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Ron Paul, and Sean Hannity to believe that the word 'progressive' was a swear word, I have found myself becoming more and more open to wanting to understand and learn more about progressive ideological ideals and policy proposals. Not to say, of course, that I'd always agree with them, but I am at least becoming more and more interested in wanting to learn.
 
CFordUNC said:
If Democrats had run progressive candidates that embrace progressive ideals, I think we'd get shellacked in this election. As it stands, the reason why Harris even has an edge in a razor-thin election is because of her ability to entice crossover voters from the moderate conservative ranks.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
She definitely has an edge. The lead is more like 3-4 points nationally from what I've seen. It's still going to be close, no question about it, but she would be a slight favorite right now if it were a college football game being bet upon. Harris has way more upside than Trump as it pertains to garnering silent and/or crossover voters, last-minute "undecideds", first-time youth voters, etc.

I won't presume to tell you how to feel about this election, but personally I think you would much, much rather be the Harris campaign than the Trump campaign if your goal is winning.
 
Paine said:
My DMs are always open to talk about it. I can somewhat understand how the word “liberal” was effectively demonized by the right, but the word “progressive” contains what it means. I think it’s a powerful word, it’s easy to understand. More than that, America has rich tradition of progressivism.

Hell, the man in my profile picture has somehow been effectively co-opted by the right in this country even though he advocated for a welfare state before anyone even knew what that was.

The Farmer-Labor alliance of the late 1800s dominated rural political life and was decidedly progressive on economics.

Anyways, always down to talk about it like I said. Podcast and book recommendations etc.
Click to expand...
I think this is a great conversation to have after the election. It can either be triumphant or part of a "long winter" study program so to speak.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top