By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - 2024 US Presidential Election



Around the Network


Getting JD Vance back in the spotlight in the final stretch is a benefit to the Harris campaign, dude is such a clown, Lol. He always provides Democrats with good ammo, I legit don't think he has ever positively benefited the Trump campaign once during the entire election and only hurt it.

They need to be blasting the airwaves that John Kelly called Trump a fascist.



More endorsement for Harris

Former aide says Netanyahu’s ‘experience with Republicans is very good’

Aviv Bushinsky, a political commentator and Netanyahu’s former chief of staff, told the AFP news agency that Netanyahu’s “experience with Republicans is very good… unlike with the Democrats who are much tougher on him”.

Bushinsky’s comments come after Trump spoke about his close personal relationship with the Israeli prime minister at a rally in Georgia on Wednesday. “We have a very good relationship,” said Trump, who met with Netanyahu at his Florida residence in July. “We’re going to work with them very closely.”

Those positives will outweigh any concerns, said Bushinsky.  “I think Netanyahu would be willing to take the risk of Trump’s unpredictability,” he said.

Nadav Tamir, a former Israeli diplomat to the US, agreed, noting that Trump is also much more popular among Israelis than his rival Kamala Harris. “In Israel, more than any other liberal democracy outside the United States, Trump is more popular than Harris,” Tamir told AFP.



(Calling Israel a liberal democracy is quite a stretch...)

Harris sucks, yet if it were up to Trump the US would have been dragged into a full scale war with Iran by now. Biden/Harris so far prevented that by limiting Israel's retaliation strikes on Iran.



Women have registered and voted at higher rates than men in every presidential election since 1980, I don't really get how polls can be so 50-50 with differences like these, does anyone have data on how the gender split was for 16 and 20? Women are a stronger voting block then men per traditional elections as far as I can see.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - 2 days ago

Around the Network
Ryuu96 said:

Women have registered and voted at higher rates than men in every presidential election since 1980, I don't really get how polls can be so 50-50 with differences like these, does anyone have data on how the gender split was for 16 and 20? Women are a stronger voting block then men per traditional elections as far as I can see.

2020: Trump +8 with men, Biden +15 with women.

2016: Trump +11 with men, Clinton +13 with women.

According to exit polls

Roughly in the low 20s for both, so it's just about the same.



 

 

 

 

 

White Women with College Degrees +9 Biden to +23 Harris.



A few points.

Regarding polling, we know a few things. We know that most neutral pollsters have shifted their models to account for misses in 2016 to 2020. We also know there are far more Republican pollsters in the aggregates which have incredibly strange data like Trump winning among women and black people in certain states. We also know that polls overestimated republicans by about 5 points in 2022. With all of that said polls for the swing states are within the margin of error, so statistically, they can go either way.

In regards to early voting, I am not sure what can really be gleaned from it. The republican narrative is that Democrats are not leading the early vote by as much as they did in 2020, so they will lose. But, in 2020 there was a pandemic and Trump was stupidly ranting about early voting being evil. So, there is a reasonable chance that the gap in election day voting will not be the same as it was in 2020.

In both cases, the problem is the same. Whatever predictions we make are only valid insomuch as the electorate (the people coming out to vote and which method they use) are the same as in 2020. They might be, they might not.

So here is my advice, which I need as much as anyone else. Be humble. I believe that anxiety is one of the least pleasant of the emotions we experience. It is comforting to feel like we have read the tea leaves properly and have the answer, even if that's not an answer we don't like. There is a certain solace in resignation. However, when all the votes are counted, there are always a slew of people who seemed to know what they were talking about who will be trying to rationalize why they got it wrong. Those of us just feeding on their table scraps are in even worse shape.

I would love to be able to end things early and know the results now one way or another. But no matter how many podcasts I watch, anecdotes I listen to, articles I read, or crosstabs I analyze, I'm simply not going to figure it out from my computer. I am going to have to deal with this anxiety for at least until election day, and probably a few days after. So do you.



haxxiy said:
zorg1000 said:

You guys are getting it backwards. The Democratic Party didn’t abandon the rural/working class demographics, those demographics abandoned the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party has never turned away from the programs created by the New Deal coalition in the 1930s-early 70s. This was a period of high taxes & regulations that saw massive investments in worker protections, healthcare, housing, manufacturing, small businesses, agriculture, education, infrastructure, research & development, environmental protections & safety net programs. Things that the Democratic Party still largely supports.

What caused these demographics to realign? The 60s-70s was an era of counterculture movements fighting for the rights of minorities, women & LGBT people and it just so happens that a lot of rural/working class whites are racist, sexist & homophobic so the Republican Party began to use the Southern Strategy to cozy up to racists and later the Christian Right.

More Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and Goldwater lost overwhelmingly in 1964. If these things were as important beyond the Deep South as you say then surely none of that wouldn't have happened. I'm not saying Democrats needed to adopt George Wallace's ideas as the party's mainstream, and even he was open to a more gradualist compromise with either party in case 1968 was a deadlock.

None of that has anything to do with being obliterated in the high plains and the Rust Belt in recent years. Yes, that would require more concessions/moderation in social questions. But a mainstream party has to work with the electorate it has, not the one it wished it had.

Just a few months ago a Democratic representative was expelled in Nebraska for being pro-life (like... Jimmy Carter). It almost cost the Democrats the NE-2 electoral vote. Tell me how any of that is smart politics.

Your point about the 1957 Civil Rights Act & Barry Goldwater doesn’t refute my point, these were before the parties realigned on social issues. Goldwater got dominated but he won his home state and 5 states in the Deep South which caused the Republican Party to see cracks in the Democratic stronghold in the South and they capitalized on it.

Goldwater in 64 was too blatantly racist to garner much support out of the Deep South so the Republican Party began to use what is called The Southern Strategy by making racist policies sound less blatantly racist.

Instead of openly supporting segregation & discrimination like Goldwater did, Nixon & Reagan start using coded language that racists could pick up on and doesn’t sound so cruel to non-racists. Things like “states rights”, “forced busing”, “tough on crime” & “welfare queens”.

They expanded this to appeal to the Christian Right where people use religion as a cover for their opposition to reproductive rights and LGBT rights.

This is how Republicans became the dominant party of rural America and Democrats became the party of diversity.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Can't believe Arabs in Michigan endorsed Trump