2024 Presidential Election thread

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

It looks like the former guy is getting the old gang back together.

Makes it easier to funnel secrets to his handlers and launder dirty money.   

yup. Manafort = Russia.

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, mtutiger said:

In the short term, I agree. 

In the long term, you always need to be adding.

fair enough. Win the battle, without losing sight of the war.

[gehringer_2]

23 minutes ago, oblong said:

I’m resigned to the fact that there’s nothing more that can be done to motivate people.  I don’t know what more can be said or shown or expressed. 

This is true, but it's sort of like brushing your teeth. You don't need to be told you should, and that bad things will happen if you don't, but that doesn't mean your dentist doesn't stop encouraging you because it still helps.

[mtutiger]

Yikes

[smr-nj]

3 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

It looks like the former guy is getting the old gang back together.

Makes it easier to funnel secrets to his handlers and launder dirty money.   

These guys are like cockroaches. You think you’ve exterminated them, but when you switch the lights on, they’re all over the place.

[1984Echoes]

21 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Yikes

 

Any American that votes for Trump hates America. They hate everything about America, and they should be ashamed of themselves because America, and the "America Way of Life", will be destroyed by their stupidity.

And Trump sees that. To him weak-minded Americans means votes, and a cash stream that he can misuse to his own purposes. And a means to replicate Kim Jong Un's or Xi Jinping's fascist dictatorship in America. At least in his dreams.

 

Moral of the Story: Vote Democrats only November 2024.

Edited March 19 by 1984Echoes

[romad1]

4 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

It looks like the former guy is getting the old gang back together.

Makes it easier to funnel secrets to his handlers and launder dirty money.   

Yeah, guy with a direct role in Russian operations in Ukraine...Ukraine is screwed if Putin gets Trump back in office.

[mtutiger]

10 hours ago, ewsieg said:

We're going to survive regardless, but your point stands in terms of getting back towards a normal.  If Trump was 10 years younger and not looking stupid old himself, i'd be more concerned, but he won't be around long, rather he wins or not.  The republican party is already destroying themselves.  A Trump win only temporarily delays it.

I do think in terms of motivation, Trump has benefitted a lot from not being front and center in the news and seeing his remarks at rallies not getting more coverage overall. He's also not on Twitter these days, and his campaign has clearly worked hard to keep his public appearances for interviews generally with friendly press outlets.

The "bloodbath" comments are a good example of the downside risks though, and probably mark the end of that honeymoon period. And it was always inevitable as this race shifts to a general election state.

Edited March 19 by mtutiger

[mtutiger]

12 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

Let me rephrase my prior post:

30% of this country is registered Republicans. Mostly dedicated to voting their party.

35% of this country is registered Democrats. Mostly dedicated to voting their party.

35% of this country is INDEPENDENTS.

So, who are the swing voters in this country? Who could vote either way? Who is persuadable, or needs to be persuaded?

Even aside from partisan breakdowns, there are shifts in the body politic that happen every cycle that candidates need to address. 2016 experienced a large shift away from HRC/Dems from WWC voters, 2020 marked a large shift away from Trump/GOP with suburbanites as well as a smaller but profound shift with Latinos toward Trump (particularly in FL and TX). 

I know that election wins require many groups, but in 2020 in particular, there were at least three states that Biden won (Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia) where historically GOP voters in suburban areas made a profound difference on the outcome. Including some who voted for Trump in 2016 I would imagine.

In 2024, though the polling crosstabs are probably way overstated, there's likely to be a continued shift among Latino voters.... I imagine Biden's campaign will invest a lot of money trying to stem that shift (and could succeed to a degree), but if you're running one of these campaigns, that's the stuff you're gonna think about. Obviously this could be countered within suburban areas and further shifts there, but you have to put in the work *and* persuade in order to maximize those gains.

That's why it isn't all just about turnout.... if that's all you are focusing on, you aren't addressing larger demographic changes and are hedging that you can retain every single vote you earned last time. And that's risky as hell.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

Even aside from partisan breakdowns, there are shifts in the body politic that happen every cycle that candidates need to address. 2016 experienced a large shift away from HRC/Dems from WWC voters, 2020 marked a large shift away from Trump/GOP with suburbanites as well as a smaller but profound shift with Latinos toward Trump (particularly in FL and TX). 

I know that election wins require many groups, but in 2020 in particular, there were at least three states that Biden won (Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia) where historically GOP voters in suburban areas made a profound difference on the outcome. Including some who voted for Trump in 2016 I would imagine.

In 2024, though the polling crosstabs are probably way overstated, there's likely to be a continued shift among Latino voters.... I imagine Biden's campaign will invest a lot of money trying to stem that shift (and could succeed to a degree), but if you're running one of these campaigns, that's the stuff you're gonna think about. Obviously this could be countered within suburban areas and further shifts there, but you have to put in the work *and* persuade in order to maximize those gains.

That's why it isn't all just about turnout.... if that's all you are focusing on, you aren't addressing larger demographic changes and are hedging that you can retain every single vote you earned last time. And that's risky as hell.

true, but in the background is that 30 million more people voted in 2020 vs 2016. That's a 21% increase in the electorate and a 23% increase in the Dem electorate. Those are seismic differences. So of course if you look inside those populations you see shifts in what the breakdowns are, but when you look a those breakdowns you are now looking at a different set of people to a larger degree than normal. That is always true to some degree but uncommonly huge between those two elections. The question is how many individual people moved vs how many people added to populations were in a different place to begin with. That's a non trivial question in terms of strategy implications.  When you add the state wide election results since 2020, it's also hard to see decay in the democratic voting coalition.

So I do get concerned that if effort spent on the unpersuadable comes at the expense of motivating lazy friends it's a potential strategic error. Now in truth, most campaign activities should cut both ways - we hope.

Edited March 19 by gehringer_2

[mtutiger]

7 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

true, but in the background is that 30 million more people voted in 2020 vs 2016. That's a 21% increase in the electorate and a 23% increase in the Dem electorate. Those are seismic differences. So of course if you look inside those populations you see shifts in what the breakdowns are, but when you look a those breakdowns you are now looking at a different set of people to a larger degree than normal. That is always true to some degree but uncommonly huge between those two elections. The question is how many individual people moved vs how many people added to populations were in a different place to begin with. That's a non trivial question in terms of strategy implications.  When you add the state wide election results since 2020, it's also hard to see decay in the democratic voting coalition.

So I do get concerned that if effort spent on the unpersuadable comes at the expense of motivating lazy friends it's a potential strategic error. Now in truth, most campaign activities should cut both ways - we hope.

Understood. 

But my point still stands.... they have to do both and they *did* both in 2020. And, money wise, they will have the resources to do both in 2024 to the extent they can.

Edited March 19 by mtutiger

[chasfh]

21 hours ago, mtutiger said:

There was plenty of gnashing of teeth this weekend about what he actually meant about the "bloodbath" comment (ie. ackshully, it's about the auto industry)... but I think that sort of misses the point.... the reality is that it's about his rhetoric and the fact that there is a history of it being inflammatory and leading to violence. And moments like that remind people.

This cannot be stressed enough. This is not the way a statesman should be talking. At all. Ever. Not even in private conversations.

This is related to when Trump said he would be a dictator on day one, for one day only. Or when he  suggested injecting Americans with cleaning agents like bleach to kill the COVID virus. Or when he mislabeled the Nobel Prize as the "Noble Prize". Or when he said he can grab them by the pussy and get away with it. Or when he said that Russia should release emails he suggested it had stolen from Hillary Clinton’s private email server. All said very seriously, even earnestly. Then when he was called on each of these, he employed some variation of the "I was just joking" defense. Nobody at his level should be allowed to joke about any of this. he's not a private citizen anymore. he's a public figure, always, 24/7, and by choice. He tries to get it both ways, and his acolytes will allow him to. We cannot follow suit.

[chasfh]

20 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

If people are not interested in facts and truth, then having facts and truth is not an advantage.  This is a huge problem in our country which perhaps overrides any other problem.  

You're right, many people aren't interested in facts and truth. But a lot of people are, including independents and fence-sitters. So just throwing up our hands and giving up on trying is not an option.

[chasfh]

20 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

There is possible context for the bloodbath comment.  It's a common euphemism for perhaps the economy collapsing.  However, if he uses it in the same speech where he is asking people to honor insurrectionists, then the context gets lost. 

We've seem this game before.  Say something outrageous.  The libs get triggered.   MAGAs say that's not what he meant.  libs try to put some nuance into it.  MAGAs laugh at them.  Media normalizes Trump.  libs look silly even though they are right.  We lose this game every time.  

If we lost this game literally every time, then Trump would have won in 2020, the Trump Party would have super-majorities in the House and Senate from electoral routs in 2018, 2020, and 2022, and this country would be done for right now, at this minute.

[mtutiger]

10 minutes ago, chasfh said:

This cannot be stressed enough. This is not the way a statesman should be talking. At all. Ever. Not even in private conversations.

This is related to when Trump said he would be a dictator on day one, for one day only. Or when he  suggested injecting Americans with cleaning agents like bleach to kill the COVID virus. Or when he mislabeled the Nobel Prize as the "Noble Prize". Or when he said he can grab them by the pussy and get away with it. Or when he said that Russia should release emails he suggested it had stolen from Hillary Clinton’s private email server. All said very seriously, even earnestly. Then when he was called on each of these, he employed some variation of the "I was just joking" defense. Nobody at his level should be allowed to joke about any of this. he's not a private citizen anymore. he's a public figure, always, 24/7, and by choice. He tries to get it both ways, and his acolytes will allow him to. We cannot follow suit.

Yep... and a lot of very serious people and commentators, who should know better, always seem to go along with these defenses or go on about "context" as well. 

It just misses the forest through the trees.... 

[chasfh]

15 hours ago, oblong said:

I’m resigned to the fact that there’s nothing more that can be done to motivate people.  I don’t know what more can be said or shown or expressed.  The country is at a dangerous crossroads and the people have the power to change it just by voting. It’s a simple task and easily attainable.  No blood has to be shed. No tricks.  Just go vote on Election Day for not Donald Trump and not republicans and our country survives. 

I think it's premature to worry about motivating people to vote because the vote is not scheduled for today, or this week, or this month. People aren't thinking about it right now because it's not happening right now. By the time October comes around, though—once the election is actually any day now—people will start to get motivated, I promise you.

While I don't worry about motivating people against Trump or even down-ballot Trump Party candidates, what I do worry about are dirty tricks to keep people from the polls, such as disinformation and deep fakes. I also worry about violence, or credible threats of violence, at the polls in contestable places like Michigan. Lastly, I worry about hacking and vote-stealing, because you know how those MAGA people operate: they tell you exactly what they are planning to do with their incredible accusations of the same exact thing against Biden and the Democrats. It is the most obvious and dangerous form of projection imaginable. There will be multiple incidences of breaking into polling places, stealing machines, attempts to switch votes, all of that. That's the thing we have to defend against more than apathy, which I don't think will be a thing.

[Tiger337]

5 minutes ago, chasfh said:

If we lost this game literally every time, then Trump would have won in 2020, the Trump Party would have super-majorities in the House and Senate from electoral routs in 2018, 2020, and 2022, and this country would be done for right now, at this minute.

He lost in 2020, in part, because we had the biggest health crisis of our lifetime and he didn't give a ****.  Then the whole country shut down and everyone was miserable.  Now, it's Biden's turn to be blamed for everything.  I just hope people are not that dumb.  

 

 

[Tiger337]

4 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Yep... and a lot of very serious people and commentators, who should know better, always seem to go along with these defenses or go on about "context" as well. 

It just misses the forest through the trees.... 

They aren't missing anything.  The media needs him.

[chasfh]

14 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

 

Any American that votes for Trump hates America. They hate everything about America, and they should be ashamed of themselves because America, and the "America Way of Life", will be destroyed by their stupidity.

All depends how "American Way of Life" is defined, because reducing entire classes of people to second-class status based on their identities, backgrounds, beliefs, or choices, and then perpetrating both vigilante and state-sponsored violence against them, is one of the original pillars of the American Way of Life.

[Tiger337]

5 minutes ago, chasfh said:

All depends how "American Way of Life" is defined, because reducing entire classes of people to second-class status based on their identities, backgrounds, beliefs, or choices, and then perpetrating both vigilante and state-sponsored violence against them, is one of the original pillars of the American Way of Life.

A lot of the people who vote for him don't think he's going to do that stuff.  I still hear a lot of "He's a jerk but he's good for the economy, gets things done"

[CMRivdogs]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

A lot of the people who vote for him don't think he's going to do that stuff.  I still hear a lot of "He's a jerk but he's good for the economy, gets things done"

They tend to forget about the guy who did get infrastructure week done. Blinded by the Bronze  

[chasfh]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

A lot of the people who vote for him don't think he's going to do that stuff.  I still hear a lot of "He's a jerk but he's good for the economy, gets things done"

Those people can be reached. Based on anecdotes I've seen over the past few months or so, a lot of them already have. There's still more work to do with the others.

The people who can't be reached are those who vote for him who absolutely want that stuff. They are jealous of their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents who got to live in the the pre-Brown era. They have a lot of rage they need to vent. All they're waiting for is permission from the state.

[gehringer_2]

Just now, chasfh said:

Those people can be reached. Based on anecdotes I've seen over the past few months or so, a lot of them already have. There's still more work to do with the others.

The people who can't be reached are those who vote for him who absolutely want that stuff. They are jealous of their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents who got to live in the the pre-Brown era. They have a lot of rage they need to vent. All they're waiting for is permission from the state.

It's made difficult as the MSM media don't view outright advocacy as their role - while right side media does. That creates a practical imbalance in reporting. I don't know as I want a MSM media that sees advocacy as their primary role. Maybe the correct balance would be instead of taking on advocacy per se, they simply upped their coverage of the inaccuracy of RW media. That story is actually not advocacy per se, but just media prophylaxis. While that might be of some use to balancing political coverage, the MSM doesn't seem interested in the role even on those terms. I imagine there is no subscriber income to be gained by the NYT in regularly reporting on the failures of Fox News. So it remains a dilemma. 

[mtutiger]

24 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Those people can be reached. Based on anecdotes I've seen over the past few months or so, a lot of them already have. There's still more work to do with the others.

This comports with my experience as well.

[chasfh]

31 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

It's made difficult as the MSM media don't view outright advocacy as their role - while right side media does. That creates a practical imbalance in reporting. I don't know as I want a MSM media that sees advocacy as their primary role. Maybe the correct balance would be instead of taking on advocacy per se, they simply upped their coverage of the inaccuracy of RW media. That story is actually not advocacy per se, but just media prophylaxis. While that might be of some use to balancing political coverage, the MSM doesn't seem interested in the role even on those terms. I imagine there is no subscriber income to be gained by the NYT in regularly reporting on the failures of Fox News. So it remains a dilemma. 

I don't think this is the MSM's job, necessarily. I think it's the Democrats' job, and they will get MSM coverage for it.

I would be a little wary of the MSM leaning directly into prioritizing criticism of RW media, because at a certain point it will come off as unseemly, because RWM is so steeped in garbage, MSM could reasonably end up doing nothing but.