Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

[Lexicus]

A guy who tells you you'd have both in a perfect world can't be presumed to have called it bad, or it would in no form exist.

This is nonsense. Saying we would have race-based affirmative action in a perfect world in no way cancels out the things you said about actually-existing affirmative action. To take a related example, many liberals who are staunch anticommunists will say something like "communism would be great in a perfect world".

I'm also unsure if you realize it's fairly common to encounter people who think progressives get weird and destructive on identity issues. You've previously stated you think the trailer park may vote mostly Dem, which does make me question how wide-ranging your experience is.

I stated that Democrats generally perform better among low-income voters than the GOP does, which is true. I said nothing whatever about the trailer park, if you think low-income voter = trailer park that's an issue with your experience, not mine.

Incidentally, I've actually canvassed for Democrats in several trailer parks in NH and PA. Have you ever knocked doors for a political candidate before?

I check poll averages.

Oh, well, so do I and none of them are showing Kamala -2. Kamala -2 isn't what you get by averaging the most prominent averages either. So name names: what polling averages are you checking to get Kamala -2 with no bar of uncertainty?

 

[EnglishEdward]

I wonder what's going on in Nevada. Been blue by 3 for both Clinton and Biden, now breaking even in polling.

My best guess is that the anti-abortion Mormons living there are less content with the
democrats lead by Kamala Harris than when led by the Roman Catholic Joe Biden.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I hope everyone in the thread who references a poll indicates which poll (or polling aggregator) it is. Where it's possible, I like looking at exactly how the question was phrased, like to see how accurate that poll was in previous cycles, etc. Not necessarily to challenge claims made on its basis (though sometimes that), but just so I can get my own sense of what it indicates about the race.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Real Clear Politics ("rcp") has shown Harris catching up since her candidacy was announced. For any who don't already know, rcp is a poll aggregating site that also has conservative/Republican leaning political news.

According to the site, in the head-to-head polling, Biden was down around 3% (47.8% Trump to 44.8% Biden) when he dropped out and since that time Harris has closed it to 0.7%, with Trump still leading. However, worth noting is that the polling averages have been consistently more heavily slanted in Trump's favor, primarily due to two polls. The first is the Rasmussen poll, which as has been pointed out repeatedly, is unmitigated trash and nothing more than Republican propaganda, mostly for FOX News. The other is the Harvard-Harris poll, which I admit I haven't done much research on and don't know much about yet, other than that it has been consistently many points divergent from most other polls in Trump's favor and so seems to be a bit of an outlier. The combination of those two polls is doing the heavy lifting in terms of holding up Trump's numbers.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-harris

FWIW, rcp also does a "5 way" poll aggregation, where they include Kennedy, Stein and West along with the two major candidates. As of right now, that aggregation actually has Harris with a slight lead

https://www.realclearpolling.com/po...4/trump-vs-harris-vs-kennedy-vs-stein-vs-west

EDIT: Another factor worth considering, is that although Biden dropped out on Sunday 7/21, there were at least a few days to a week before it was universally accepted that Harris was taking over as the nominee and she wasn't "officially" dubbed the presumptive nominee (via pledged delegate counts) until this past Friday. So the polls that closed before 7/26 are arguably too stale to be still relevant. Looking at it that way, Harris has made a little more positive gains than it may appear at first blush.

The bottom line is that Harris has been trending upwards, while Trump seems to be holding steady.

 

[EnglishEdward]

IMO the Donald Trump made a tactical mistake in appointing someone who merely reinforces, instead of complements, his own politics.

As stated previously, I think that Kamala Harris will pull ahead once she has appointed a competent and complementary candidate for VP.

 

[Gori the Grey]

And we may need to factor into our thinking that polls have lately tended to undervalue Ds, by a point or two.

The only poll that counts is the one on Nov. 5. Vote!

 

[Sommerswerd]

IMO the Donald Trump made a tactical mistake in appointing someone who merely reinforces, instead of complements, his own politics.

As stated previously, I think that Kamala Harris will pull ahead once she has appointed a competent and complementary candidate for VP.

At the time Trump named Vance as his running mate (which apparently was a last minute decision, or at least one that Trump kept secret until virtually the last minute) it seemed to have tactical merit, because Joe Biden had just faceplanted in the debate. Trump's goal was likely to energize his existing supporters, rather than try to broaden his support to new voters. Trump's campaign didn't need new voters because Biden's voters were so disaffected, and demoralized, they just needed to motivate Trump's supporters.

Also, none of the three "finalist" potential picks Trump's campaign had announced were from states (OH, FL and ND) that Trump needed a boost to win. He didn't need any evangelical cover, like he was seeking with Mike Pence. What may have really stood out about JD Vance for Trump was that he was young and good on TV, and possibly nearly as important, Vance had completely flip-flopped from being a staunch Never-Trumper to a Trump loyalist. Vance's display of a willingness to abandon his prior-expressed principles to ingratiate himself to Trump was probably a big factor in Trump considering him for VP.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Does JD Vance use eye shadow?

 

[Sommerswerd]

The only poll that counts is the one on Nov. 5. Vote!

Well, I'm going to harumph a bit about that, since you just posted this:

I hope everyone in the thread who references a poll indicates which poll (or polling aggregator) it is. Where it's possible, I like looking at exactly how the question was phrased, like to see how accurate that poll was in previous cycles, etc. Not necessarily to challenge claims made on its basis (though sometimes that), but just so I can get my own sense of what it indicates about the race.

You go on all about wanting to hear/see sources so you can analyze and so forth... I post nice links and background for you... and you respond by dismissing polls as not mattering? The nerve! My smelling salts!

 

[Voidwalkin]

Oh, well, so do I and none of them are showing Kamala -2. Kamala -2 isn't what you get by averaging the most prominent averages either. So name names: what polling averages are you checking to get Kamala -2 with no bar of uncertainty?

At the time of writing, it was about 1.8. Polls released over the weekend have dropped it to approximately 1 point Trump lead on NYT, RCP, and the Hill. A disappointing showing in a race that shouldn't be close. I maintain a lack of class rhetoric is what keeps it so.

This is nonsense. Saying we would have race-based affirmative action in a perfect world in no way cancels out the things you said about actually-existing affirmative action. To take a related example, many liberals who are staunch anticommunists will say something like "communism would be great in a perfect world".

The things I said... like what? That it's simplistic? Or that its results are unspectacular? Both true. If you go out to eat, want Coke, but are only offered Pepsi, you might still take it.

I stated that Democrats generally perform better among low-income voters than the GOP does, which is true. I said nothing whatever about the trailer park, if you think low-income voter = trailer park that's an issue with your experience, not mine.

I made the statement that we both knew which way the trailer park would go, to which, you replied you didn't, and gave your expectation that they would vote along lines comparable to other low-income demographics.

There's no other way to interpret your remark in that context. Assuredly, the trailer park does not go Dem. It is the most noteworthy political shift of this generation.

Incidentally, I've actually canvassed for Democrats in several trailer parks in NH and PA. Have you ever knocked doors for a political candidate before?

For Obama, vs Romney. I was huge on Obama. It was the beginning of Ohio's red turn, as I found out.

I ran into a wall of disillusionment and cynicism I seldom overcame. Obama's banking crisis response, which I defended, and still do, to an extent, clearly broke trust, in hindsight. It created the perception of the corporate Dems, which persists to present day. Outsourcing and automation, here too, proceeded without a satisfactorily substantive response.

Retrospectively, that lack of class politics created the lane for MAGA. It still does. Mistake of the generation, and still ongoing.

 

[EnglishEdward]

At the time Trump named Vance as his running mate (which apparently was a last minute decision, or at least one that Trump kept secret until virtually the last minute) it seemed to have tactical merit, because Joe Biden had just faceplanted in the debate.

I have the suspicion that it was a last minute decision; prompted by the assassination attempt, to
deliver the message that ~there is no point in killing me as I have somewhat who will follow through~.

Thing is I think that Donald Trump neglected to contingency plan/war game (or more likely ignored his team's
input) the always significant possibility that Joe Biden might become ill, die, be replaced or otherwise withdraw.

It all is a bit ironic, for once Donald Trump had been telling us all the truth that lazy Joe Biden was too old,
and Donald Trump's downfall might be that people believed him.

History may record that the timing of the Biden withdrawal, waiting till Trump had designated his VP, was a masterpiece.

 

[Lexicus]

I made the statement that we both knew which way the trailer park would go, to which, you replied you didn't, and gave your expectation that they would vote along lines comparable to other low-income demographics.

There's no other way to interpret your remark in that context. Assuredly, the trailer park does not go Dem. It is the most noteworthy political shift of this generation.

*shrug* I don't think you know which way "the trailer park" votes except insofar as "the trailer park" is a shorthand for a collection of stereotypes and prejudices you hold in your head.

The trailer park goes nonvoter, statistically speaking. Like any other low-income group. And this may shock you, but there are plenty of places in this country where people of color live in mobile homes.

A disappointing showing in a race that shouldn't be close. I maintain a lack of class rhetoric is what keeps it so.

Obama's banking crisis response, which I defended, and still do, to an extent,

Okay, idk where to even start with this. Obama's banking crisis response was the neoliberal pro-corporate garbage that Bernie was campaigning against. This calls into question what you even mean by "class rhetoric". Is it just keeping on with the same policy substance while paying lip service to "working class" concerns?

Outsourcing and automation, here too, proceeded without a satisfactorily substantive response.

The irony here as in many other policy areas is that those most damaged by the market fundamentalism that shapes US economic policy also tend to be the most vociferous opponents of any move away from market fundamentalism as the guiding logic of US policy.

Another instance of American empire (or more specifically, the anticommunist propaganda apparatus which serves the empire) eating its own children...

 

[Sommerswerd]

Does JD Vance use eye shadow?

Everyone uses makeup on TV, so... maybe?

 

[Voidwalkin]

*shrug* I don't think you know which way "the trailer park" votes except insofar as "the trailer park" is a shorthand for a collection of stereotypes and prejudices you hold in your head.

The trailer park goes nonvoter, statistically speaking. Like any other low-income group. And this may shock you, but there are plenty of places in this country where people of color live in mobile homes.

Plenty, in the South, but our discussion was about poor white Rust Belt voters. Your average trailer park in the Midwest is very white. They go red, and they do vote. I was born in one, and it makes me sad to see how the people I grew up with have drifted.

The irony here as in many other policy areas is that those most damaged by the market fundamentalism that shapes US economic policy also tend to be the most vociferous opponents of any move away from market fundamentalism as the guiding logic of US policy.

Another instance of American empire (or more specifically, the anticommunist propaganda apparatus which serves the empire) eating its own children...

I don't disagree.

Okay, idk where to even start with this. Obama's banking crisis response was the neoliberal pro-corporate garbage that Bernie was campaigning against. This calls into question what you even mean by "class rhetoric". Is it just keeping on with the same policy substance while paying lip service to "working class" concerns?

I understood his support of the bailout, fearing a general collapse of the system. I didn't understand the lack of regulation, lack of scrutiny of rating agencies and SEC conflicts of interest, or lack of prosecution. Wallstreet reform was expected, but not delivered.

Today, if the Dems are to regain trust, you'd need something that substantially changes the day to day. The goal, for Harris, imo should be to restore trust in the idea that the state can be an effective vehicle for change, and that her leadership(and her leadership alone) can drive it to positive places.

To that end, off the top of my head, I might suggest a 4 day workweek, state mandated minimum vacation days for full time employees, state subsidized adult re-training.

 

[Cutlass]

I understood his support of the bailout, fearing a general collapse of the system. I didn't understand the lack of regulation, lack of scrutiny of rating agencies and SEC conflicts of interest, or lack of prosecution. Wallstreet reform was expected, but not delivered.

Today, if the Dems are to regain trust, you'd need something that substantially changes the day to day. The goal, for Harris, imo should be to restore trust in the idea that the state can be an effective vehicle for change, and that her leadership(and her leadership alone) can drive it to positive places.

To that end, off the top of my head, I might suggest a 4 day workweek, state mandated minimum vacation days for full time employees, state subsidized adult re-training.

What many find hard to understand is that populists turned to Republicans, after Democrats proved to be too conservative. Even though none of the things populists seem to want are things that the Republicans will deliver. In fact, it was the clear and absolute opposition of Republicans to regulations to address the banking crisis which was it's cause, and which prevented new regulations after the crash. It only takes a couple of the more conservative Democrats to side with Republicans on key votes to kill any reform. Line Lieberman killed the better parts of Obamacare. So populists, by making conservatives stronger, are making their goals more unattainable.

 

[Lexicus]

What many find hard to understand is that populists turned to Republicans, after Democrats proved to be too conservative. Even though none of the things populists seem to want are things that the Republicans will deliver. In fact, it was the clear and absolute opposition of Republicans to regulations to address the banking crisis which was it's cause, and which prevented new regulations after the crash.

This is factually untrue, the policy decisions most directly connected with the 2008 crisis occurred under the Clinton administration, and the weakness of Dodd-Frank was in fact caused much more by the penetration of the Democratic Party by financial interests than by Republican opposition.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hi!

 

[Narz]

Does JD Vance use eye shadow?

Noticed that too, draws more attention to his tiny eyes.

 

[Lexicus]

Walz let's gooooooooooo

 

[KMRblue1027]

Well that's fun news to come back after a 4 day vacation. I was super hoping for Walz.