US Presidential Election 2024

[so1]

What a time to be alive. 

[Jon the Hat]

Ho anyone trusts Elon Musk on anything at all is quite beyond me.  No doubt he has been effective in making himself very rich, but the bloke is clearly a massive self-serving narcissist who is backing the guy who will make him richer with ever increasing tariffs on Chinese electric car imports.

Edited 13 October 2024 by Jon the Hat

[HighPeakFox]

If (but I greatly fear when) Trump gets in, then we're all in deep doo-doo, in my opinion.

Edited 13 October 2024 by HighPeakFox

[Jon the Hat]

4 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

If (but I greatly fear when) Trump gets in, then we're all in deep doo-doo, in my opinion.

The worry is that he is now able to use the levers of power more effectively than last time, but given his cognitive decline I think more likely outcome if he wins is he says a lot more stupid things, swans about the place and buggers off in the ether after 3 years or so leaving a way out of his depth Tim Vance in charge leading to a huge defeat in the next GE.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

The worry is that he is now able to use the levers of power more effectively than last time, but given his cognitive decline I think more likely outcome if he wins is he says a lot more stupid things, swans about the place and buggers off in the ether after 3 years or so leaving a way out of his depth Tim Vance in charge leading to a huge defeat in the next GE.

It's more what he won't do/will get in the way of that will be more damaging, I think. Unless the bad luck of needing another Supreme Court judge replacement happens, of course.

[grobyfox1990]

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

The worry is that he is now able to use the levers of power more effectively than last time, but given his cognitive decline I think more likely outcome if he wins is he says a lot more stupid things, swans about the place and buggers off in the ether after 3 years or so leaving a way out of his depth Tim Vance in charge leading to a huge defeat in the next GE.

Yeh this is probably about right. He will get in, absolve himself of all his criminal liabilities, then eat burgers and blame the woke state for his agenda badly failing. America isn’t an influential world superpower anymore, we’re in the midst of two wars and they’re standing by doing nothing. They no longer have the sway to make it break global accords 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Yeh this is probably about right. He will get in, absolve himself of all his criminal liabilities, then eat burgers and blame the woke state for his agenda badly failing. America isn’t an influential world superpower anymore, we’re in the midst of two wars and they’re standing by doing nothing. They no longer have the sway to make it break global accords 

The numbers both militarily and economically would dispute that tbh. If they really wanted to make a big noise anywhere they wanted, they could.

[HighPeakFox]

For me, it is as much as the movement behind him - the deliberate dissemination of nonsense so nobody knows the truth anymore, the quite obvious encouragement of the great unwashed to rise up violently, the determination to dismantle democracy everywhere, not just in the USA.... one does not need to look very far to see the normalisation of appalling views and the acceptance into the mainstream of attitudes which are, not to put too fine a point on it, fascistic.

[grobyfox1990]

23 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The numbers both militarily and economically would dispute that tbh. If they really wanted to make a big noise anywhere they wanted, they could.

Yeh that’s theory, not seeing any of that playing out in reality. Two full scale wars underway. Frequent NK nuclear tests and china flirting with Taiwan. No American influence at all, burger man won’t make a difference to that. Militarily mute. Huge global, inflation driven crisis they could do nothing about. Economically mute. They did not lead the response during or post covid. 
Trump is a simple bozo, but to think he’s gonna be anymore dangerous to the world than the current situation we’re in seems incredibly hyperbolic 

[Lionator]

Yeah America still IS the world superpower. What China have done to get where they have is nothing short of remarkable, especially without completely militarising like the US/Soviet Union did, but the USA is still the big dog and everybody knows it. The ‘multipolar world’ stuff that the Russians bang on about it probably true and I don’t think it’s unhealthy to have strong blocs provided that they are economically beneficial to each other (think China/EU) rather than competing for land and resources that will lead to wars. 

Edited 14 October 2024 by Lionator

[leicsmac]

29 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Yeh that’s theory, not seeing any of that playing out in reality. Two full scale wars underway. Frequent NK nuclear tests and china flirting with Taiwan. No American influence at all, burger man won’t make a difference to that. Militarily mute. Huge global, inflation driven crisis they could do nothing about. Economically mute. They did not lead the response during or post covid. 
Trump is a simple bozo, but to think he’s gonna be anymore dangerous to the world than the current situation we’re in seems incredibly hyperbolic 

Just because we're not seeing it clearly doesn't mean that a. It isn't happening in a more unobtrusive way and b. There isn't potential for it, but I think we agree there.

 

WRT bolded, climate policy. That pretty much speaks for itself.

[HighPeakFox]

Sadly, what I said last has been deemed beyond the pale, which is rather telling. 

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Just because we're not seeing it clearly doesn't mean that a. It isn't happening in a more unobtrusive way and b. There isn't potential for it, but I think we agree there.

 

WRT bolded, climate policy. That pretty much speaks for itself.

Yeh true, unobtrusive. 

He won't make any material difference to climate policy IMO. Paris 2015 is long gone, the SDGs will be nowhere near met. The SEC climate disclosure rulings are going through court, but expect many to voluntarily report anyway. Who will drill baby drill in an uneconomic environment? 

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

Yeah America still IS the world superpower. What China have done to get where they have is nothing short of remarkable, especially without completely militarising like the US/Soviet Union did, but the USA is still the big dog and everybody knows it. The ‘multipolar world’ stuff that the Russians bang on about it probably true and I don’t think it’s unhealthy to have strong blocs provided that they are economically beneficial to each other (think China/EU) rather than competing for land and resources that will lead to wars. 

Who knows it? Not Israel or the GCC states. Or China and the countries in their economic sphere. Not any of Africa, which is becoming a Chinese colony. Once the $ loses its peg status appeal, why would South America even care about the USA.

[leicsmac]

48 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Yeh true, unobtrusive. 

He won't make any material difference to climate policy IMO. Paris 2015 is long gone, the SDGs will be nowhere near met. The SEC climate disclosure rulings are going through court, but expect many to voluntarily report anyway. Who will drill baby drill in an uneconomic environment? 

A Trump administration might, whilst giving fat subsidies to keep it at least looking economical. He knows he has votes from crucial areas in that.

 

And while we may well not meet the Paris targets, everything we can do now will prevent vastly higher future costs later.

[Torquay Gunner]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

Sadly, what I said last has been deemed beyond the pale, which is rather telling. 

Not sure what was supposed to be ‘beyond the pale’ in your previous post. I think you told it as it is.

[HighPeakFox]

1 hour ago, Torquay Gunner said:

Not sure what was supposed to be ‘beyond the pale’ in your previous post. I think you told it as it is.

My impression is that it is taken as insinuating that we are all subject to malign influence, and some people don't like to admit or think about that possibility. 

[Detroit Blues]

On 12/10/2024 at 11:28, leicsmac said:

So what does this all mean? Well, firstly the Beeb don't have Minnesota as a swing state...

 

And secondly, Trump arguably only needs three of these nine states - Penn, Georgia and NC - to win. Harris needs those and one more, or to at least deny him one or maybe two out of the three. Counting from the bottom up, Harris needs any seven of these to guarantee victory, while Trump needs any six. 

 

It's obvious though that the four worth 15+ are the biggest prizes - win two and you're doing well, win three and you're practically there, for either candidate. Current Beeb polling has it two and two in terms of leads, RCP actually has Trump ahead (marginally) in all four, but it's very close either way.

 

One final observation is that four years ago, Biden had decent leads in almost all of these states pretty much for most of the race. It's much, much tighter this time round.

 

 

Yeah, Minnesota and the single district of Nebraska are generally solid democrat territory. I would be shocked if either went for trump this year. That leaves the race at 226 (D) vs 219 (R) with these battleground states remaining:

 

Arizona (11)

Georgia (16)

Michigan (15)

Nevada (6)

North Carolina (16)

Pennsylvania (19)

Wisconsin (10)

 

Since 1980-2020, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania have all voted for the same candidate in each election, with the sole exception being the 1988 presidential election:

- 1980 /1984 - Reagan (R)

- 1988 - Wisconsin went for Dukakis (D), Michigan/Penn went for H.W Bush (R)

- 1992 / 1996 - Clinton (D)

- 2000 - Gore (D)

- 2004 - Kerry (D)

- 2008 / 2012 - Obama (D)

- 2016 - Trump (R)

- 2020 - Biden (D)

 

Since they account for 44 electoral votes, if they all go towards the same candidate, it would be the tipping point of the election. At 226 + 44 = 270, Harris would win the election by locking up the "blue wall" of Michigan/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania. If they go for Trump, her path towards victory is extremely slim, as Trump would be at 219 + 44 = 263. He would just need one of Arizona, Georgia, or North Carolina. If Trump only won Nevada, it would get him to 269 and an electoral college tie. In that circumstance, it would come down to who controls the House of Representatives (including the Nov 2024 races). 538 currently has Republicans at a 54% chance to retain the House of Representatives. The Senate would pick the VP, which means Trump could be saddled with a democrat as VP, or vice versa.

 

I personally see Harris winning North Carolina, because the Republican candidate for Governor is so unpopular. Unfortunately, i think Georgia will go Republican. Either by actual mandate, or via 2000 Florida election shenanigans. This is the state, if you've been reading the news, has a partisan electoral commission that is changing the rules to force a hand count, and will likely not certify a Harris win. Unfortunately, if Harris wins Georgia, but they fail to certify, and that is the number of electors needed to get her over 270, then it will go to the supreme court, which will almost assuredly vote in favor of Trump on partisan lines.

 

Lastly, it's just a gut feeling, but I can see Arizona and Nevada going for trump. Something about the focus on immigration, and Trump tapping into the anti-migrant hatred, in two states that have high populations of immigrants. 

 

 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Detroit Blues said:

 

Yeah, Minnesota and the single district of Nebraska are generally solid democrat territory. I would be shocked if either went for trump this year. That leaves the race at 226 (D) vs 219 (R) with these battleground states remaining:

 

Arizona (11)

Georgia (16)

Michigan (15)

Nevada (6)

North Carolina (16)

Pennsylvania (19)

Wisconsin (10)

 

Since 1980-2020, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania have all voted for the same candidate in each election, with the sole exception being the 1988 presidential election:

- 1980 /1984 - Reagan (R)

- 1988 - Wisconsin went for Dukakis (D), Michigan/Penn went for H.W Bush (R)

- 1992 / 1996 - Clinton (D)

- 2000 - Gore (D)

- 2004 - Kerry (D)

- 2008 / 2012 - Obama (D)

- 2016 - Trump (R)

- 2020 - Biden (D)

 

Since they account for 44 electoral votes, if they all go towards the same candidate, it would be the tipping point of the election. At 226 + 44 = 270, Harris would win the election by locking up the "blue wall" of Michigan/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania. If they go for Trump, her path towards victory is extremely slim, as Trump would be at 219 + 44 = 263. He would just need one of Arizona, Georgia, or North Carolina. If Trump only won Nevada, it would get him to 269 and an electoral college tie. In that circumstance, it would come down to who controls the House of Representatives (including the Nov 2024 races). 538 currently has Republicans at a 54% chance to retain the House of Representatives. The Senate would pick the VP, which means Trump could be saddled with a democrat as VP, or vice versa.

 

I personally see Harris winning North Carolina, because the Republican candidate for Governor is so unpopular. Unfortunately, i think Georgia will go Republican. Either by actual mandate, or via 2000 Florida election shenanigans. This is the state, if you've been reading the news, has a partisan electoral commission that is changing the rules to force a hand count, and will likely not certify a Harris win. Unfortunately, if Harris wins Georgia, but they fail to certify, and that is the number of electors needed to get her over 270, then it will go to the supreme court, which will almost assuredly vote in favor of Trump on partisan lines.

 

Lastly, it's just a gut feeling, but I can see Arizona and Nevada going for trump. Something about the focus on immigration, and Trump tapping into the anti-migrant hatred, in two states that have high populations of immigrants. 

 

 

Appreciate the additional info there, mate.

 

It will be interesting to see if those three states all pick one side or the other again then, or whether they fragment. It all seems very, very close.

Edited 14 October 2024 by leicsmac

[Torquay Gunner]

6 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

My impression is that it is taken as insinuating that we are all subject to malign influence, and some people don't like to admit or think about that possibility. 

How very curious.  Living on a deserted island, or in a remote wood cabin might excempt you from such influences, otherwise we all have to trust our own instincts. 

[HighPeakFox]

19 minutes ago, Torquay Gunner said:

How very curious.  Living on a deserted island, or in a remote wood cabin might excempt you from such influences, otherwise we all have to trust our own instincts. 

I've always found people of a certain political persuasion to have very thin skin when it comes to having their true motivations challenged. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm24g1nj364o

 

With just weeks to go until the US presidential election, Kamala Harris is ramping up efforts to court black and Latino voters. Despite holding a clear lead among both groups, some Democrats have warned she needs to do more to energise these voters to turn out for her in November.

 

Long story short, the Trumpian ideas of "I've got mine, screw everyone else" and the right of a bloke to be a good old-fashioned misogynist is transcending ethnic grounds and drawing away from traditional Dem support - there's been similar trends across gender lines in recent elections elsewhere, too. With an additional dose of the usual "it's the economy, stupid".

 

Worrying and in the long term much more costly in things far more important than material wealth, but I understand how difficult it is to point that out effectively.

Edited 15 October 2024 by leicsmac

[Torquay Gunner]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm24g1nj364o

 

With just weeks to go until the US presidential election, Kamala Harris is ramping up efforts to court black and Latino voters. Despite holding a clear lead among both groups, some Democrats have warned she needs to do more to energise these voters to turn out for her in November.

 

Long story short, the Trumpian ideas of "I've got mine, screw everyone else" and the right of a bloke to be a good old-fashioned misogynist is transcending ethnic grounds and drawing away from traditional Dem support - there's been similar trends across gender lines in recent elections elsewhere, too. With an additional dose of the usual "it's the economy, stupid".

 

Worrying and in the long term much more costly in things far more important than material wealth, but I understand how difficult it is to point that out effectively.

Sad indictment of the US, where not voting for a female candidate based on her gender, is a more motivating factor for some than not voting for the other candidate, despite the constant racist hate speech practised by that candidate.  I see he has now turned his demonic ire on Venezuelan gangs in Colorado, claiming Aurora is a war zone, which even it’s Republican mayor denies. 

[leicsmac]

39 minutes ago, Torquay Gunner said:

Sad indictment of the US, where not voting for a female candidate based on her gender, is a more motivating factor for some than not voting for the other candidate, despite the constant racist hate speech practised by that candidate.  I see he has now turned his demonic ire on Venezuelan gangs in Colorado, claiming Aurora is a war zone, which even it’s Republican mayor denies. 

Misogyny isn't the only motivating factor, but it would be remiss to say it isn't a big one.

 

A lot of it is about good old fashioned individualist self-interest.

Edited 15 October 2024 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

Trump: "[there was a] peaceful transfer of power on January 6th."

 

...I know that politicians lie, but how is it possible to tell that big a lie while keeping even close to a straight face?