• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: 2024 Election Thread part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
A bit of context

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...s-history-patterns?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

I’ve been thinking about a famously orange-skinned former presenter of trashy TV programmes, who lives on a luxurious coastal estate. He has a history of racist and Islamophobic remarks, of blaming asylum seekers for bringing disease into the country and ranting about the “supercilious metropolitan elite”. He swept into a rightwing political party and refashioned it in his image, presenting himself as the antidote to politics-as-usual, whipping up culture wars and using the platform to boost his planet-sized ego.

I am, of course, describing the British former politician Robert Kilroy-Silk.
Click to expand...

And then goes on to some of the other populist politicians and the difference in conditions between those of the 1930s and now (people are being failed but not because of war)
 
320 for Trump certainly seems extreme. Even all 7 main battleground states only add up to 312. 290ish is more like it.
Realclearpolling.com shows 111 electoral votes in tossup states. The no-man land is wide.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/elections/president/2024/battleground-states

Trump did bottom out and is gaining again, both in polls and betting markets. It's getting closer to pure 50:50 again. Probably RFK voters ?
 
Dr.Sid said:
Trump did bottom out and is gaining again, both in polls and betting markets. It's getting closer to pure 50:50 again. Probably RFK voters ?
Click to expand...


RFK backing out helped Trump slightly, but it can't account for Trump's continued gains relative to Harris. My guess is that the initial enthusiasm that Harris enjoyed by replacing Biden is subsiding.
 
jt512 said:
RFK backing out helped Trump slightly, but it can't account for Trump's continued gains relative to Harris. My guess is that the initial enthusiasm that Harris enjoyed by replacing Biden is subsiding.
Click to expand...

FWIW Ladbrokes (adjusting for the vigorish) has it approx 55-45 in favour of Trump.
 
GlennB said:
FWIW Ladbrokes (adjusting for the vigorish) has it approx 55-45 in favour of Trump.
Click to expand...


Which is in line with the Real Clear Politics betting-market average (which does not include Ladbrokes) odds of 52:47.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
Yet there were others, like that stupid guy who had his own model favouring Clinton by 99% saying he would eat a bug on TV if Trump won.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that guy was a charlatan but, to his credit, he did publicly eat a bug.
 
Very good point imho, how the media has been slowly but steadily rotten by Trumps idiocy and lies.

How come no one has challenged Trump ever on his obvious lie, ignorance or complete lack of basic knowledge about tariffs (taxing foreign nations). Just this single, easy to identify point. Not a chance.

 
angrysoba said:
This is a bizarre way of looking at things. In my own humble opinion, talking as though a Harris victory is inevitable is the biggest mistake of all. People also made similar mistakes with Brexit and Clinton. They assumed the way the votes would go and did not turn out. A co-worker of mine here in Japan said he had no need to send a postal vote because his home state of Michigan always went to Democrats.
Click to expand...

Real talk?

I don't think some people can separate the concept of what they want to happen and what they think will happen. There is a toxic version of positivity or affirmation or something like that that really does have some people acting like acknowledging the possibility that things might not go your way really DOES in some cosmic sense make it more likely.

It's why I'm, at best, skeptical of "narratives" especially in politics. A lot of politics right now is hurt by people who are more interesting in writing a story then in just looking at what is happening. The real world doesn't have pacing and character arcs and dramatic irony. Nothing is going to happen in reality because it would make for a better narrative.

It's like sports fans and their utter (and insufferable) obsession with jinxes and curses.
 
arthwollipot said:
The debate will kindle fire again.
Click to expand...
That depends on how she handles it. If she continues with the current approach of not really seeming like there's anything in particular she wants to do with the office once she's in it (except occasionally sounding like just another wishy-washy republicanoid standard-issue corporatist Democrat), she'll sink herself. If she starts fighting for popular policies & distinguishing herself from Biden, she can easily shoot up higher than before and win by a wide margin.

Surveys often contain more information than just a single aggregate number for each candidate. The NYT one that shows she's stopped rising and even sunk a tiny bit also shows that most of undecided voters say they just haven't heard enough from her yet about her policies & goals.

GlennB said:
FWIW Ladbrokes...
Click to expand...
WIW=0. Gewd gawd, the gamblers' obsession with injecting gambling into everything lately is bizarre.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Real talk?

I don't think some people can separate the concept of what they want to happen and what they think will happen. There is a toxic version of positivity or affirmation or something like that that really does have some people acting like acknowledging the possibility that things might not go your way really DOES in some cosmic sense make it more likely.

It's why I'm, at best, skeptical of "narratives" especially in politics. A lot of politics right now is hurt by people who are more interesting in writing a story then in just looking at what is happening. The real world doesn't have pacing and character arcs and dramatic irony. Nothing is going to happen in reality because it would make for a better narrative.

It's like sports fans and their utter (and insufferable) obsession with jinxes and curses.
Click to expand...

The best argument I can think of that might conserve some of that idea in a rational way is that by telling Trump voters they will lose so badly the self-fulfilling prophecy is that Trump voters will end up so despondent that they won’t even vote.

Yet even that falls apart the moment that we realize that Trump voters are not listening to anything but their own media, friends, family and churches urging them to the polls. They aren’t getting their talking points from MSNBC, ISF or even the New York Times. They are more likely getting their news from Russia than anyone in the US.
 
Ignore the polls. Ignore the news. Ignore the cheerleading from both camps. Ignore the doom prophecies from everywhere.

This election is and always has been a coin toss. It's going to come down to a few white, affluent suburbas outside of the large cities in the "swing states". (no Electoral College defenders, rural votes still mean ****, just like they have for 100 years).
 
Allan Lichtman is a history professor at American University and has accurately predicted the results of US presidential elections since 1984, with the exception of the 2000 race which saw Al Gore win the popular vote but lose to George W Bush. Lichtman has been called the “Nostradamus” of US presidential elections. He uses a 13-point formula to pick the winner and this year he's predicting Kamala Harris will win.
Lichtman accurately forecast Trump’s unheralded 2016 election triumph over Hillary Clinton at a time when most opinion polls indicated a contrary outcome. He also correctly forecast that Trump would be impeached during his presidency – which he was, twice. The Guardian article link
Click to expand...
 
He's been right about pretty much every election going back to the 1800s, actually. At least according to the Wiki (I know, not the best source). But yes, of course he can only predict if Harris will get 270+ electors, not whether Dump and SCOTUS will manage to steal the election.
 
We are in a constant

"Everything about what we know says this..."

"But Trump has been an outlier"

loop ever since 2016.

Trump shouldn't have won 2016 by exactly everything we're saying here.

Again nobody knows if 2016 was a red herring or a canary in the coalmine and we won't for a while.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom