Merged 2024 Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
538 unveiled its 2024 forecasting model this morning and it gives Biden a 53% chance of winning the election. The key to how we win in this model is our strength in MI, PA, WI, the blue wall states which get us to 269 Electoral College votes, or check as I’ve been calling it.

Assuming we win MI, PA, WI, winning either AZ, NC or NE-2 (our state targets) gets us to 270 or as I’ve been calling it, checkmate . Regardless of this initial 538 data run, I think we are most likely to win AZ and NC due to the extremism of AZ’s Kari Lake and NC’s Mark Robinson, who are likely to bring down the entire GOP brand in both states; and NE-2, the blue dot, where current polling has us ahead. There is a lot of data nerdery in this new 538 model but the bottom line is that it currently favors Biden, which is where I believe the election has been for some time now.
Click to expand...
https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/biden-makes-gains-in-4-new-polls
 
Delvo said:
By itself, yes. But adding another element to it, by treating it as a sign of how the general election would go, or would have gone, does make such a claim. If it weren't built in as a premise, then there wouldn't be a call for a counter to it. If I say "prove to me that cars can be plaid", I'm claiming that the default position is that cars aren't/can't-be plaid.

I did over & over again back when it was relevant. For right now, I don't have anything in particular to say about him myself, and none of what I've said about the present situation has had anything to do with him. I'm only answering invalid fallacious points that others keep bringing him up for such as "he didn't win the primary so he wouldn't win the general".
Click to expand...

“He didn’t win the primary” is a valid counterpoint to anyone claiming he could win the general. You can’t win the championship if you don’t make it through the playoffs.

Anyone claiming that a primary loser is a viable general election candidate needs to offer something better than “I don’t like how the primaries work”.

Either way, this is an irrelevant tangent to what I’m asking, which is with whom Biden should have or should be replaced that is a better candidate against Trump. Not any great answers so far.
 
johnny karate said:
“He didn’t win the primary” is a valid counterpoint to anyone claiming he could win the general.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. Your counterpoint rests on the assumption that primary voters and general election voters would be receptive to the same candidates. They are by definition very different groups of people. The argument that has been put forth for the last couple of election cycles is that the primary process has become counterproductive to general election victories, as evidenced by the continuous stream of spineless moderate policy wonks with the charisma of wet paper bags who get trounced by xenophobic ****gibbons, and the only response is "well, just wait until the ****gibbons get even *****ier, then we'll surely win!"

I could get into what I feel the DNC should change to put forth more successful candidates (largely: stop defending incumbents from primary challengers, that's how the turds are supposed to be fished from the punchbowl and new blood is supposed to enter the party. Pledge full support to whoever wins instead), but that would be off the current topic which is Biden's nomination. Which, incidentally, I'm with you on - he's the incumbent, the economy's doing great, he's had a boring but perfectly acceptable presidency, there's zero reason to go with somebody else, but bidin' with Biden is not without risks. Dude is ancient, and sudden strokes are a thing. If he or Trump kicks it before November, anything could happen.
 
Last edited:
Apparently Trump was WAY more butthurt about the conviction than previously reported. Per Politico:
He has been obsessed in recent weeks with harnessing the powers of Congress to fight on his own behalf and go to war against the Democrats he accuses of “weaponizing” the justice system against him.

It’s a campaign he orchestrated in the days after his May 31 conviction on 34 felony counts in New York, starting with a phone call to the man he wanted to lead it: Speaker Mike Johnson.

Trump was still angry when he made the call, according to those who have heard accounts of it from Johnson, dropping frequent F-bombs as he spoke with the soft-spoken and pious GOP leader.
Click to expand...

The GOP is going to attempt a few ill advised moves like allowing presidents to move local charges to federal courts (Despite Trump not being POTUS), and revisit a MTG proposal that Johnson previously said was unworkable.
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
No it isn't. Your counterpoint rests on the assumption that primary voters and general election voters would be receptive to the same candidates. They are by definition very different groups of people. The argument that has been put forth for the last couple of election cycles is that the primary process has become counterproductive to general election victories, as evidenced by the continuous stream of spineless moderate policy wonks with the charisma of wet paper bags who get trounced by xenophobic ****gibbons, and the only response is "well, just wait until the ****gibbons get even *****ier, then we'll surely win!"
Click to expand...

I'm not making an argument about the productivity or effectiveness of the primary system. I'm making an argument about a candidate's ability to win elections. Sanders was trounced in the primary. There needs to be a better explanation than "Primaries suck" to make a compelling argument that he could win a general election.


I could get into what I feel the DNC should change to put forth more successful candidates (largely: stop defending incumbents from primary challengers, that's how the turds are supposed to be fished from the punchbowl and new blood is supposed to enter the party. Pledge full support to whoever wins instead), but that would be off the current topic which is Biden's nomination. Which, incidentally, I'm with you on - he's the incumbent, the economy's doing great, he's had a boring but perfectly acceptable presidency, there's zero reason to go with somebody else, but bidin' with Biden is not without risks. Dude is ancient, and sudden strokes are a thing. If he or Trump kicks it before November, anything could happen.
Click to expand...

Politics is inherently risky. You never know if your candidate is going to win. And so far, no one has a presented a less risky alternative to "Bidin' with Biden".
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
I'm not making an argument about the productivity or effectiveness of the primary system. I'm making an argument about a candidate's ability to win elections. Sanders was trounced in the primary. There needs to be a better explanation than "Primaries suck" to make a compelling argument that he could win a general election.
Click to expand...
No there doesn't, because Clinton didn't win either. She lost to a clown. If the Democratic party was this general election-winning juggernaut churning out titans of centrism who would soar into office once past the primary that'd be one thing. You could argue that whatever the primary is doing, it's doing it well. But that's not what we're seeing. The best they can put out these days is barely competitive with literal damn Nazis. You don't need to justify "I think we can do better" when your standards are that low.

[ETA] To be clear - Benie would not have won the general either because he's a shouty old man who turns every question into an impromptu rant about Wall Street. He may be absolutely right in his grandpa rage, but it's not something that would have rallied people like Trump's angry racist rants did, and he didn't really have anything else to offer. However, the fact that Bernie didn't win the primary does not reflect on his potential performance in the general, because the primary machinery is pretty flawed in its own right.
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
No there doesn't, because Clinton didn't win either. She lost to a clown. If the Democratic party was this general election-winning juggernaut churning out titans of centrism who would soar into office once past the primary that'd be one thing. You could argue that whatever the primary is doing, it's doing it well. But that's not what we're seeing. The best they can put out these days is barely competitive with literal damn Nazis. You don't need to justify "I think we can do better" when your standards are that low.
Click to expand...

No one said the Democratic party was a "general election winning juggernaut" and no one said that winning a primary means you will win the general election.

And none of this has anything to do with the point I'm making.

Again - and I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer - if we're floating potential replacements for Biden, it is perfectly fair to consider their ability to win elections. Sanders lost the primary. A record of losing elections does not bode well for his ability to win future elections.

And to be even more clear, pointing out this fact does not obligate me to make a positive case for the efficacy of the primary system.

The obligation remains on the person claiming and/or defending the claim to make a positive case that Sanders is viable option to Biden.
 
The Trump visit to DC today underlines the singleminded vision Trump and pals have been keeping up since Jan 6th. It's a revolution and they are not giving up until Trump wins and releases all the MAGA folk in prison.

All the other politics of congress everyday...budgets and speakers....is secondary to this mission.
 
johnny karate said:
I'm not making an argument about the productivity or effectiveness of the primary system.
Click to expand...
But what you are saying has that built in as an unexamined premise.

I'm making an argument about a candidate's ability to win elections.
Click to expand...
And that's exactly the problem: bundling two thoroughly different tasks together under the category "elections" as if that made them the same. It's like saying anybody who's good at welding must also be good at making soufflés because those both involve torches. What it takes to do one task is not the same as what it takes to do another.
 
Delvo said:
But what you are saying has that built in as an unexamined premise.

And that's exactly the problem: bundling two thoroughly different tasks together under the category "elections" as if that made them the same. It's like saying anybody who's good at welding must also be good at making soufflés because those both involve torches. What it takes to do one task is not the same as what it takes to do another.
Click to expand...

Your opinion has been duly noted.

I’m still not seeing a positive case being made for why Sanders is now or ever was a viable option to replace Biden.
 
johnny karate said:
Warren finished third in the 2020 Democratic primary and Newsom has a 47% disapproval rating in his own state. I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that either one of them are popular.
Click to expand...

Nor is Biden.

I see his current disapproval rating at 59%. I think he'd take 47% in a heartbeat.

Pixel42 said:
ISTR several polls last year which showed Biden was the only Democrat contender who stood any chance of defeating Trump. So insisting they should have picked someone else seems a bit ... odd.
Click to expand...

Ah, so polls are reliable again?

sir drinks-a-lot said:
Five months out, Donald Trump has a clear lead. :popcorn6
Click to expand...

45% tie is a clear lead?

Were you reading a different Economist?
 
Dr.Sid said:
Thanks !
Click to expand...

If you click through to the 538 forecast, they currently have it 53% chance Biden wins, 47% chance Trump wins. Not much better than a coin flip. And I am not encouraged by the sound of this secret sauce:

To forecast the election, we rely primarily on polls asking voters whom they support. However, our forecast also incorporates various economic and political indicators that aren’t related to polling but can be used to make rough predictions for the election. For example, we have calculated an index of economic growth and optimism on every day since 1944, gathered historical approval ratings for every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt and derived a formula for predicting state election outcomes using these and other local factors. We also tested whether incumbent presidents do better when they run for reelection (they do) and whether all of these factors are less predictive of voters’ choices when political polarization is high (they are).
Click to expand...

They've got data going back to 1944, which is still only 20 presidential election cycles. That's not even close to enough samples to draw any kind of statistically significant results.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom