Jump to content

2024 Presidential Election thread


pfife

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think this is probably true, but I'm not sure Trump believes it. I think the default assumption by both sides in this election is that the other side is already fully committed. It may not be true on either side. And that is also exactly where polling is pretty useless. Those are the things the pollsters can only guess about until this election is in the can and they can adjust weightings from another real result.

If the default assumption by both sides in this election is that the other side is already fully committed, then what's the difference to Pete whether Trump brings the crazy or instead talks about his record? According to the assumption, it's going to come out the same either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, chasfh said:

If the default assumption by both sides in this election is that the other side is already fully committed, then what's the difference to Pete whether Trump brings the crazy or instead talks about his record? According to the assumption, it's going to come out the same either way.

I guess I don't follow. It's not what it is to Pete it is? Pete's was asked the question how he interprets what the other side is doing and in it's simplest form Pete said they are trying to gin up their side's turnout. Heck, Harris may be running as the 'Joy' candidate, but what is their tag line? "We won't go back." That is also targeting fear to drive turnout. Each side wants to make sure their voters are kept mindful of what the other side does that their voters find most threatening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I guess I don't follow. It's not what it is to Pete it is? Pete's was asked the question how he interprets what the other side is doing and in it's simplest form Pete said they are trying to gin up their side's turnout. Heck, Harris may be running as the 'Joy' candidate, but what is their tag line? "We won't go back." That is also targeting fear to drive turnout. Each side wants to make sure their voters are kept mindful of what the other side does that their voters find most threatening.

Pete said the Trump campaign is talking crazy because he doesn't want to talk about his record. Why wouldn't he want to talk about his record? Presumably because the campaign believes talking about his record would hurt Trump on Election Day. Follow now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, chasfh said:

 Presumably because the campaign believes talking about his record would hurt Trump on Election Day.

Why wouldn't you keep hammering immigration if you know  (or believe) that taking about immigration drives your base more effectively than talking about your record?  Reminding people what you did - even if they liked it, or that they thought needed doing would only tend to make them more complacent wouldn't it?

At any rate, Illegal aliens is pretty much 100% of what Trump decided he wanted to talk about. We can speculate about what the theory is, or maybe there even is no theory beyond that it's Trump's political intuition of how to run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, chasfh said:

OK, this is a smart-sounding take and all, but how does Trump talking about Haitians eating dogs and cats help him achieve a net gain on Kamala, or limit his net loss against her, when it comes to voting? Pete makes it sound like Trump will lose more votes against Kamala if we talk about his record, but to me, a major candidate having a psychotic episode on stage in front of 60+ million viewers would seem to be more damaging when it comes to the net margin, wouldn't it? I mean, that's what we saw in the first debate, isn't it?

Highlighting Trump's record won't motivate Democrats to vote more than highlighting his crazy, will it? And isn't the crazy going to hurt him with undecideds and fence-sitters and party-jumpers just as much if not more than his record? And talking about Trump's record isn't going to keep more red hats home than cat- or dog-eating because they reject any disparagement of his record as fake news anyway, don't they?

So what am I missing in this analysis?

He said it in the the debate because he's an idiot.  There was no strategy there.

There may be some strategy in turning it from a stupid unforced error into a chaotic distraction.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Haitians to Venezuela. 

That's why it's better for Trump not to make plans.....

"Too many Mexicans" is an old forum joke.  Oblong had a friend that used to complain there being "too many Mexicans" on the Tigers even though were no Mexicans.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

"Too many Mexicans" is an old forum joke.  Oblong had a friend that used to complain there being "too many Mexicans" on the Tigers even though were no Mexicans.     

Yes - IIRC it became the standard 'the Tigers can't hit in the cold' trope for some time.

But I wasn't commenting on your comment but directly on the tweet. The Dems have been charging Trump with having no plans, but it's clear why his people don't let him have plans because Haitians to Venezuela is the level of what you get if do let let Trump try to plan something.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

"Too many Mexicans" is an old forum joke.  Oblong had a friend that used to complain there being "too many Mexicans" on the Tigers even though were no Mexicans.     

I relayed the quote but it wasn’t a friend.  I used to hang out at a local neighborhood dive bar, that’s no longer there, and after either the 2008 or 2010 season someone asked what happened to the Tigers that year?   I heard a voice down the bar from one of the regulars “too many Mexicans”.  It was perfect.   Those were fun times. Kids were young. Life was busy.  I just had to get out of the house and veg somewhere in peace when my wife watched greys anatomy or whatever.  Drink cheap draft beer. Eat a greasy burger. Walk home at midnight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

He said it in the the debate because he's an idiot.  There was no strategy there.

There may be some strategy in turning it from a stupid unforced error into a chaotic distraction.   

The question is about Pete, not Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, chasfh said:

The question is about Pete, not Trump.

So why would *Pete* rather talks about talk about Trump's record than his psychosis? IDK. I can offer a couple of speculations:

  • Pete is a policy wonk, that's his wheelhouse so to speak.
  • It's clear the public and especially the media and double especially Trump's supporters have normalized his psychology pathology. What hope of getting more traction on that question after 9 yrs? SO, if people won't disqualify him for being literally evil/crazy, won't disqualify him for just continually making up alternate reality as he goes along every time his lips move, *maybe* you try to get people to see what he's doing (as opposed to what he is) hurts their interests. IOW, accept that Trump supporters do know and do actually like exactly who and what he *is* -- so take a different direction? Hail Mary there too of course since the whole GOP program since at least Gingrich has been to persuade the lower economic quartiles of the public to vote on culture instead of economic self interest and it's worked quite successfully.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...