2024 Election - Trump vs. Harris, important downballot

[Valdhammer]

They...did though. The House wasn't the holdup for legislation, that was the Senate due to Manchin and Sinema being shit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_U...ives_elections

222:213, with Speaker Pelosi presiding.

Thanks for the correction - I must have been thinking of 2022.

[Xyonai]

Well, most Democrat politicians are themselves resolutely right-wing in most aspects. The only difference is that the Republicans are far-right and increasingly unhinged about it. And even if they weren't, it's hard to promote yourself as a left-wing politician in the US without being branded a socialist by most of the population that absolutely hates the term even if they couldn't define it. It's one thing for the Republicans to call you communists all day -they're going to do that whatever happens-, but it's something else for voters to start actually believing it

They're definitely being too safe about it tho, and shit like gracefully accepting the endorsement of Dick fucking Cheney instead of telling him to pound sand definitely doesn't help either.

Yeah, Dems are more than comfortable running a conservative America, though conservative in the 'Things are fine right now, why bother rocking the boat at all?' kinda way. Really the epitome of the Aloof Centrist who only really answers the call to action because someone's making them do it, and then will only do so reluctantly and with the promise of headpats for being a good boy.

It'd be nice if we could change this attitude, but big Dem Donors despise Progressive movements and work -very- hard to stifle up and comers.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for the correction - I must have been thinking of 2022.

All is forgiven; we're all unwitting victims of COVID's time dilation effect.

[Edge-]

Thanks for the correction - I must have been thinking of 2022.

I mean, people told you they didn't lose it...if they didn't lose it, they won it lol.

Also there was no reasonable chance of codifying Roe v. Wade when Democrats held that slim margin in 2020 - the filibuster threat exists which means they'd need 60 votes in the Senate to overcome that and that was never happening. Everyone paying attention to politics at the time made that abundantly clear to folks - even when we just assumed Manchin would be the primary shitlord in the Senate for that term. Just like there was no reasonable chance Manchin would support ending the filibuster threat, either.

- - - Updated - - -

“I come from a large family ― I’m the youngest of nine ― and I know a lot about women,” Lake said Wednesday. “I’m a daughter myself, and I want to make sure we have the choice of what our abortion law is in the state of Arizona.”

“I want to make sure UVF is protected,” Lake added. “I have many friends who are here, they’re my friends today because of UVF. And I have many of my friends who have had children and experienced the joy of motherhood and parenthood because of UVF.”

Kari Lake, continuing her, "I'm a moderate now! I swear!" act, might have confused UHF and IVF in her debate with her Democratic competitor.

Maybe she's been spending so much time contesting the results of her 2022 election loss she didn't have time to review her talking points well enough before the debate.

[Valdhammer]

I mean, people told you they didn't lose it...if they didn't lose it, they won it lol.

Also there was no reasonable chance of codifying Roe v. Wade when Democrats held that slim margin in 2020 - the filibuster threat exists which means they'd need 60 votes in the Senate to overcome that and that was never happening. Everyone paying attention to politics at the time made that abundantly clear to folks - even when we just assumed Manchin would be the primary shitlord in the Senate for that term. Just like there was no reasonable chance Manchin would support ending the filibuster threat, either.

But there’s a reasonable chance that the number of women showing up to vote this election will be 100% larger than ever before in history? Because that’s basically what the poster I was responding to was arguing.

[Edge-]

But there’s a reasonable chance that the number of women showing up to vote this election will be 100% larger than ever before in history? Because that’s basically what the poster I was responding to was arguing.

That's not what they were arguing? I went back and saw nothing remotely hinting at "100% larger turnout" anywhere going back pretty far in the exchange.

There's plenty of data supporting Democrats overperforming since Roe v. Wade, especially when the topic of abortion itself is on the ballot.

There's been plenty of discussion around how polling has been softer and Democrats have overperformed in a great many elections. That's hardly a "this is in the bag" argument/sentiment and I don't think anyone here is remotely arguing that. But we're not entirely sold on the DOOM AND GLOOM narrative either. It's a hard race, it's not one to sleepwalk on, but it's not Joever.

[Valdhammer]

That's not what they were arguing? I went back and saw nothing remotely hinting at "100% larger turnout" anywhere going back pretty far in the exchange.

There's plenty of data supporting Democrats overperforming since Roe v. Wade, especially when the topic of abortion itself is on the ballot.

There's been plenty of discussion around how polling has been softer and Democrats have overperformed in a great many elections. That's hardly a "this is in the bag" argument/sentiment and I don't think anyone here is remotely arguing that. But we're not entirely sold on the DOOM AND GLOOM narrative either. It's a hard race, it's not one to sleepwalk on, but it's not Joever.

Christ. The capacity for nuance in here is null.

The poster in question was arguing with me that I am basically a moron because I don’t understand how important the woman voters will be this election. But, as it happens, I happen to know a bit about voting trends by gender in this country, and even though abortion and other issues dear to women have been on the ballot for 40 years at no point in time did the number of women voters exceed the number of men voters by more than 11%.

With an election that is a statistical tie, like the one we’re having now, for women to tip the scales, they would have to vote in much greater numbers than ever before. 11% more than men won’t cut it. 2022 was just under 11% and Republicans still won the House. That percentage needs to be closer to 20 or 30%.

So how reasonable is it to believe that all else being equal the number of women voters increases by such a large margin?

It cannot all just come down to women is my point. Harris needs to also win a really solid portion of men, and there in lies the problem.

[cordrann]

Christ. The capacity for nuance in here is null.

The poster in question was arguing with me that I am basically a moron because I don’t understand how important the woman voters will be this election. But, as it happens, I happen to know a bit about voting trends by gender in this country, and even though abortion and other issues dear to women have been on the ballot for 40 years at no point in time did the number of women voters exceed the number of men voters by more than 11%.

With an election that is a statistical tie, like the one we’re having now, for women to tip the scales, they would have to vote in much greater numbers than ever before. 11% more than men won’t cut it. 2022 was just under 11% and Republicans still won the House. That percentage needs to be closer to 20 or 30%.

So how reasonable is it to believe that all else being equal the number of women voters increases by such a large margin?

It cannot all just come down to women is my point. Harris needs to also win a really solid portion of men, and there in lies the problem.

The vast majority of the electorate didn't view abortion as legitimately on the ballot in the past. If the same people who voted in 2020 also vote in 2024, Harris gains 3 points among women and loses 3 among men then the Democrats receive a larger vote share than they did in 2020. There is no reason to be this pessimistic. The Electoral College is a toss-up at this point.

[Valdhammer]

The vast majority of the electorate didn't view abortion as legitimately on the ballot in the past. If the same people who voted in 2020 also vote in 2024, Harris gains 3 points among women and loses 3 among men then the Democrats receive a larger vote share than they did in 2020. There is no reason to be this pessimistic. The Electoral College is a toss-up at this point.

See, I disagree that “vast majority” of people didn’t view abortion as being on the ballot before. 2016 was literally a million times more consequential for reproductive rights than 2024. Anyone capable of basic arithmetic and with familiarity of the human lifespan could and should have predicted that the president elected in 2016 would nominate at least 2 justices. And that would mean bye-bye Roe if Trump won.

It’s too fucking late now unless Dems sweep the Senate, House, and the presidency, which isn’t happening. 2016 was the time to show up in numbers and the number they showed up in was, in relation to men, the same as it was for decades prior.

[Edge-]

See, I disagree that “vast majority” of people didn’t view abortion as being on the ballot before. 2016 was literally a million times more consequential for reproductive rights than 2024.

Objectively, yes. But that's not how Democrats really viewed that election. It's like that time Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass the law so people can see what's in it." and Republicans dishonestly tried to say she was trying to pass bills without Americans knowing what was in them.

Instead, she was talking about a situation like the ACA - which saw huge opposition, especially from Republicans, for years and years until those folks "saw what was in it" and suddenly started liking it - because the personally saw the effects and consequences.

Just like Democratic voters, in the wake of Roe's overturning, have been are seeing the effects and consequences. Which is generally what is attributed to Democrats pretty consistently outperforming polls/expectations as of late.

Anyone capable of basic arithmetic and with familiarity of the human lifespan could and should have predicted that the president elected in 2016 would nominate at least 2 justices. And that would mean bye-bye Roe if Trump won.

The Average American Voter(TM) is neither that tuned-in or do they really thing in longer-term strategic political terms. Voters vote very much, generally, on the immediate and how they're feeling, not looking 5-10 years into the future.

[Elegiac]

See, I disagree that “vast majority” of people didn’t view abortion as being on the ballot before. 2016 was literally a million times more consequential for reproductive rights than 2024. Anyone capable of basic arithmetic and with familiarity of the human lifespan could and should have predicted that the president elected in 2016 would nominate at least 2 justices. And that would mean bye-bye Roe if Trump won.

It’s too fucking late now unless Dems sweep the Senate, House, and the presidency, which isn’t happening. 2016 was the time to show up in numbers and the number they showed up in was, in relation to men, the same as it was for decades prior.

It being objectively more consequential doesn’t have any bearing on the mood of the electorate, and the fact of the matter is that the mood is a lot more energized on the pro-choice side of things than it was prior to Dobbs.

It’s also discounting the self-harm that election denial narratives do. Which was, again, not the case in 2016.

[Edge-]

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/11/e...ntl/index.html

Weirdly, the Kremlin is confirming that Donald sent Putin some Covid test kits, which Donald has said is "FAKE NEWS".

Now I don't necessarily believe the Kremlin, but I do believe Woodward, so I'm curious what the Kremlin's angle on this is.

[Valdhammer]

Objectively, yes. But that's not how Democrats really viewed that election. It's like that time Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass the law so people can see what's in it." and Republicans dishonestly tried to say she was trying to pass bills without Americans knowing what was in them.

Instead, she was talking about a situation like the ACA - which saw huge opposition, especially from Republicans, for years and years until those folks "saw what was in it" and suddenly started liking it - because the personally saw the effects and consequences.

Just like Democratic voters, in the wake of Roe's overturning, have been are seeing the effects and consequences. Which is generally what is attributed to Democrats pretty consistently outperforming polls/expectations as of late.



The Average American Voter(TM) is neither that tuned-in or do they really thing in longer-term strategic political terms. Voters vote very much, generally, on the immediate and how they're feeling, not looking 5-10 years into the future.

Well, can you blame me for not feeling optimistic if that’s what the average American voter is like?

In 2016 I didn’t yet have children and I had all my time to myself, so I did a bunch of door knocking and other reach-out work to get people to show up to vote, and the number of women who lectured me on why they’re not voting for Hilary was incredible. They knew what they were risking but “principles” came first.

I hope and pray I am wrong, but my faith in the average American voter is nonexistent.

[Sunseeker]

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/11/e...ntl/index.html

Weirdly, the Kremlin is confirming that Donald sent Putin some Covid test kits, which Donald has said is "FAKE NEWS".

Now I don't necessarily believe the Kremlin, but I do believe Woodward, so I'm curious what the Kremlin's angle on this is.

Putin suspects Donald will lose, and is cutting him loose. Donald did what Putin needed at the time, and does not suspect he will be of further use. At the same time, many Trumpers dont see this as a bad thing, they like Russia for all the wrong reasons, and therfore dont see Trumps actions as a betrayl. Any actions Trump takes that are favorable to Russia are inherently unfavorable to the US, who they fundamentally dont like because liberals are of course, secretly behind everything.

Either way, Putin wins. If Donald owns it, his followers think hes a bigly smart man. If he denies it, his followers think the evil liberals are behind it. If Donald loses, Putin wins, if Donald wins, he'll still suck Putins dick for a dollar.

So yeah, why not admit it? The only losers here are the American people, the fuck does Putin care about them?

[Doomcookie]

I'm not even voting this year. Don't worry, I don't live in a battleground state.

That doesn't really answer the question.

You pretended to be a Democrat, while actually being a proven Trump supporter. You have been somewhat concerned with everything the Dems have done during each election cycle, but never concerned with all of the things your guy does.

Care to explain the years of lies and false pretenses?

[Edge-]

https://x.com/Acyn/status/1844828672886521965

Trump: Did you see she did a town hall yesterday and used a teleprompter? You don't use teleprompters. We don't use teleprompters

First off, no there were no teleprompters. Obviously.

Second off -



This is Donald at today's event where he said he does not use teleprompters. You'll not two prominent teleprompters on either side of thee stage.

[Xyonai]

Today, I am announcing that as president, I will create a bipartisan council of advisors to give feedback on policy and inform my administration.

Our democracy needs a healthy two-party system.

On a related note to my earlier diatribe, I feel like I'm going to pull my fucking hair out. Obama tried this exact shit a decade ago and got -nothing- from it, and Republicans have only become more deranged and contrarian in the years since.

[Edge-]

Really great example of why Donald tends to be far more popular than many would think: People who like him frequently have the same total lack of understanding of the policies he discusses. Donald doesn't understand how tariffs work, and apparently neither do a lot of folks supporting him who just assume other countries pay them and spend zero effort confirming this fact or questioning whether their assumption is true.

The Average American Voter(TM) has a very, very, very, very minimal, at best, understanding of general policies and the operations of government.

[Valdhammer]

On a related note to my earlier diatribe, I feel like I'm going to pull my fucking hair out. Obama tried this exact shit a decade ago and got -nothing- from it, and Republicans have only become more deranged and contrarian in the years since.

Mitch McConnell stated publicly that doing ANYTHING that may make Obama look good was a nonstarter. And he only got more popular and powerful after that. Republicans don’t want a healthy 2 party system. They want a white, Christian, totalitarian system like their best buddy Vladimir has.

[Xyonai]

Mitch McConnell stated publicly that doing ANYTHING that may make Obama look good was a nonstarter. And he only got more popular and powerful after that. Republicans don’t want a healthy 2 party system. They want a white, Christian, totalitarian system like their best buddy Vladimir has.

Like the only thing I can really glean from this as being smart in the least is using it as a way to squeeze the insane idiots out of the Republican party by isolating their influence. But I don't think that's going to do shit anyway, and this whole act will probably be tossed out the window when Dems lose the 2026 midterms. Just like what happened with Obama.

[Edge-]

Like the only thing I can really glean from this as being smart in the least is using it as a way to squeeze the insane idiots out of the Republican party by isolating their influence. But I don't think that's going to do shit anyway, and this whole act will probably be tossed out the window when Dems lose the 2026 midterms. Just like what happened with Obama.

This is basically the only explanation I can figure: They figure they have Democratic voters on lock so they're trying to either flip some folks on the margins or are trying to activate conservative voters who won't vote for Donald but also don't want to vote for a Democrat either.

I can't say I'm a big fan or think it's the best play, but this is the ritual every 4 years - Democrats second-guessing strategy and tactics just before the election from all sides.