Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

[Sommerswerd]

I mean, Trump's popular vote margin is basically the same as Biden's was in 2020. His electoral college margin is a little less thin but still just 1-3% in a handful of states. If Biden's margin was "very small" then this was hardly a blowout.

Trump is winning by about 5 million votes. Biden won by 7 million, so its not even close to Biden's margin.

In any case, Trump's win is substantial. Whether or not to call it a blowout is at least debatable I'd say. Biden's win in 2020 has definitely been described on these threads as a "landslide", "blowout" and similar. I think its a fair characterization of Biden's 2020 win and I may have said as much at some point at the time. So no, I don't think Biden's margin was "very small". In fact I seem to remember stating at some point on these threads that the "small margin" of Biden's win was "an illusion created by the electoral college" or something along those lines. I'll try to find the post.

EDIT: Found it

But that's not a useful metric because of how elections work in the EC dynamic. It always only takes one drop each to make a row of full glasses overflow, but it makes a big difference whether we are filling them with an eyedropper or a firehose.

I understand your point, the three closest States had relatively close margins in Biden's favor. Point taken. However that only matters because of the EC, which wasn't close. Those three states were close in popular vote, but the national popular vote wasn't close. So the election being "close" is an illusion created by the EC.

So on the one hand, if I say "The election wasn't close, Biden won by 7 million votes, with most votes in history and the highest percentage margin of victory in over 80 years", you will, understandably say "But vote totals don't matter, all that matters is the Electoral College". But then when I say "I agree, and the Electoral College wasn't close either", you then reply "But look at the vote totals!"

This is the point I kept making during the election about the national polls and the percentage margin lead that Biden had. I kept making the point over and over that if Biden had a certain percentage lead in the national polls, that would be a strong indicator of how he would fare in the electoral college, because the numbers are linked... and if Biden's lead slipped underneath a certain percentage, he would lose the EC, despite winning the popular vote, because again... one is predictive of the other. Once Biden's national polling lead got to a certain threshold, it was an indicator that the races in the close states would swing in his favor and vice versa.

The bottom line is Biden and/or "Not Trump" was way more popular, overwhelmingly so. That's why he won all the "close" states.

 

[Hygro]

Personally, I was surprised they didn't give incentives to re-industrialise Middle America.

Who is "they"? Because that's exactly what we've been doing the past few years.

 

[choxorn]

It is anyone's guess if he'll try to put a stop to the attempt at genocide.

He won't, and you are literally the only person on the planet who thinks he might. If it does stop while he's in charge it's only because Israel does enough genociding to be satisfied for at least the short term.

I recall his first instinct was to shut down air travel with the affected areas. It might have worked if done fast, might have stopped the spread, like SARS had been stopped. But he lacked authority to get it done. The opposition to that went so far as doing hug-any-chinese stunts to counter him...

jesse what the hell are you talking about

Trump is winning by about 5 million votes. Biden won by 7 million, so its not even close to Biden's margin.

In any case, Trump's win is substantial. Whether or not to call it a blowout is at least debatable I'd say. Biden's win in 2020 has definitely been described on these threads as a "landslide", "blowout" and similar. I think its a fair characterization of Biden's 2020 win and I may have said as much at some point at the time. So no, I don't think Biden's margin was "very small". In fact I seem to remember stating at some point on these threads that the "small margin" of Biden's win was "an illusion created by the electoral college" or something along those lines. I'll try to find the post.

EDIT: Found it

Smaller absolute margin, but similar percentage of the total votes cast, a lot fewer people voted this time around.

The only recent election I think could be reasonably characterized as a blowout is Obama's in 2008, something like a 7% popular vote win, winning the electoral college by nearly 200 and bringing big wins in the House and Senate with him. Every election since then has been, if not razor-thin, at least pretty close.

 

[Sommerswerd]

@Kyriakos I owe you an apology. In writing my previous post I went back for a prior quote of mine and stumbled upon my statements on the subject we were just discussing and I see now that I (and others) were skeptical that Biden won mainly because of the pandemic and his botched response to it. It was interesting to read, because from the conversation, I see that I originally shared your view, that the only reason Biden won was because of how bad things were in the US during the pandemic (due to Trump's frankly malicious complete mishandling of the pandemic). But then I went and checked the polling history, and I discovered that Biden had giant leads over Trump in all the polls, before the pandemic hit.

So now I'm going to have to revise my opinion again, having reminded myself of why I changed my mind in the first place. So I not only owe you an apology for saying that no one doubted that Trump's loss was not only, or primarily because of the pandemic (since I did myself), I also owe you a debt of gratitude, for helping me remember what was at the time a really enlightening discussion. So I'm sorry Kyr, and also Thank you.

Here are some of the posts:

My opinion is Trump would have got elected despite all the horrible things he's said/done because lots of my fellow Americans are incredibly stupid. I think what cost him the election was COVID and his (lack of) reaction to it. If that didn't happen, he's still in office imo.

I leaned towards that view as well... but given the failure to concede and all the allegations of voter fraud etc... I went back and looked... and realized that Biden was leading BIGLY in pretty much every poll, long before COVID became a major thing in the US, let alone the botched (non)response to it. So in retrospect I think that's just wishful thinking on the Republicans' part. He was losing regardless. COVID certainly didn't help, but he was going to lose anyway.

I'm in this camp. I think Biden would have won, by pretty much the same margin as he did, had Covid never emerged or had Trump handled it well. The vote for not-Trump in 2020 was set on November 9, 2016.

On that last bit I disagree. I think that if Trump had handled COVID well, he would have fared better in the election. I also think that between 2016 and 2020, Trump leaked support because of all the insanity during his reign. If he had behaved like a "normal" POTUS, he would have gotten the incumbency bump that incumbents usually get.

I would like to think you're right but don't forget that Hillary was also killing Trump in the polls.

No, she wasn't. Trump would regularly catch up to her in the polls, and sometimes even eclipse her. In fact, two months out from the election, it was actually Trump who was ahead in most polls. Also, her margins were way tighter with Trump all along, always either within the margin of error or close to it (1-6% leads), whereas Biden was more often polling with 7-10% leads and only very rarely did Trump ever post a poll showing him leading,

And the final, day before election polling showed her with a roughly 2-3% lead on Trump, which is exactly what she ended up getting.

So the polls were certainly wrong in predicting that she would win the Presidency, but they were right that she would win the popular vote.

 

[Farm Boy]

Worst $10 I have ever won.

Solid chuckle.

 

[Farm Boy]

Leads to the intriguing question of what shifts you think have occurred and are likely to continue, of course.

We have the scion of Republican politics barking about protectionist tariffs and subsidies(he's used FDR's existant legal infrastructure before). We have Democrats barking about free trade. The shift is that labor hasn't yet figured out figuring out that it's swapped sides, currently(this is muddied by far healthier regional economies totally hosing up the national wage picture by increasing minimum wages(with the best of intentions(that make regional sense))). They'll figure it out, then, once the endorsements shift, the appeasement of and hostility towards demographics will shift under party platform. That will be the slowest.

 

[Ajidica]

I know Trump was supported by thouse fraudsters. The relevant thing is, he is not dependent on them. Wait and see wether he "pays them back" anything or not. I'm waiting, don't think it can safely be predicted.

I think you are 100% wrong on this. They know how to brown nose Trump and tell him what he wants to hear. You really think Trump has any interest in the fine points of legal principles of anti-trust enforcement? Or just hear that she is a deep state Marxist appointed by Sleepy Joe and the Hoe?
In his first administration at no point can I remember him appointing anyone with solid "anti-elite" or "pro-worker" bona-fides that would make me think he would keep Khan. Can you point to any example in his first term?

Killing Solemani certainly pissed the iranians a lot. But didn't start a war or even cause any massive retaliation. That was when he blinked, there were attacks againts american bases in retaliation and he refused to escalate further. Smart move, btw, considering Iran's missile capabilities now demonstrated. But I think he blinked because he didn't want to have a major war on his hands, not because he was aware then that Iran was a very well-armed foe.

That covers Solemani, but what about Iran thinking acquiring a bomb is looking mighty attractive?

 

[innonimatu]

I think you are 100% wrong on this. They know how to brown nose Trump and tell him what he wants to hear. You really think Trump has any interest in the fine points of legal principles of anti-trust enforcement? Or just hear that she is a deep state Marxist appointed by Sleepy Joe and the Hoe?
In his first administration at no point can I remember him appointing anyone with solid "anti-elite" or "pro-worker" bona-fides that would make me think he would keep Khan. Can you point to any example in his first term?

It was under him that the federal cases against Google were started, wasn't it?
Trump has scores to settle with some of these big corporations. Why dump someone who's good at that?

We'll see.

 

[Ajidica]

It was under him that the federal cases against Google were started, wasn't it?

Unless we are talking about different cases, no, it was 2023.
The law that prompted it was passed in the congress sworn in in 2021.

United States v. Google LLC (2023) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Trump has scores to settle with some of these big corporations. Why dump someone who's good at that?

We'll see.

Because Musk, Thiel, et al don't want to set the precedent of anti-trust enforcement. Much safer to just cancel their government contracts or threaten them with IRS audits.
And again, Trump is potentially the least intellectually curious man on the planet. What makes you think he would be able to tell the difference between a person who knows their anti-trust law, and someone Musk says will really piss off woke globalist elites?

Bannon is perhaps one of the few people who might - might- want to keep Khan around, but if the last administration is anything to go by, Bannon lasts as long as Trump finds him funny.

 

[Kyriakos]

@Kyriakos I owe you an apology. In writing my previous post I went back for a prior quote of mine and stumbled upon my statements on the subject we were just discussing and I see now that I (and others) were skeptical that Biden won mainly because of the pandemic and his botched response to it. It was interesting to read, because from the conversation, I see that I originally shared your view, that the only reason Biden won was because of how bad things were in the US during the pandemic (due to Trump's frankly malicious complete mishandling of the pandemic). But then I went and checked the polling history, and I discovered that Biden had giant leads over Trump in all the polls, before the pandemic hit.

So now I'm going to have to revise my opinion again, having reminded myself of why I changed my mind in the first place. So I not only owe you an apology for saying that no one doubted that Trump's loss was not only, or primarily because of the pandemic (since I did myself), I also owe you a debt of gratitude, for helping me remember what was at the time a really enlightening discussion. So I'm sorry Kry, and also Thank you.

Here are some of the posts:

What do you say if I refund your apology, but only if you provide (as its replacement) a link to those discussions? ^^
I only have a vague recollection of them.
Anyway, no need of apologies - hm, unless I read something really awful in the link! :S

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

Who is "they"? Because that's exactly what we've been doing the past few years.

Yes but the electorate also thinks that the immigrants, illegal ones and recent legal ones, took most of those jobs.

In both Europe and North America, the citizens want reduced immigration and more selective immigration. Yes, the economy is the most important, and most voting citizens think that reducing immigration will have a positive effect on the economy.

 

[Voidwalkin]

We have the scion of Republican politics barking about protectionist tariffs and subsidies(he's used FDR's existant legal infrastructure before). We have Democrats barking about free trade. The shift is that labor hasn't yet figured out figuring out that it's swapped sides, currently(this is muddied by far healthier regional economies totally hosing up the national wage picture by increasing minimum wages(with the best of intentions(that make regional sense))). They'll figure it out, then, once the endorsements shift, the appeasement of and hostility towards demographics will shift under party platform. That will be the slowest.

This is not set in stone, but it appears to be trending that way, undeniably. Tariffs are not the sole reason, of course.

I dunno if it'll last. It'd really only take one Dem willing to meet the working class on its terms rather than theirs for reversal. The magnetic attraction Republicans offer is pretty weak and could plausibly fade through either through Dem action or Republican action.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's based* on patronage(yes Gori, every damn definition). It happens last but it steers the ship.

Anyone could get un****ed of brain, first.

Maybe aelf is right and evil will win.

It has before.

It will again.

*heh, base.

 

[Sommerswerd]

What do you say if I refund your apology, but only if you provide (as its replacement) a link to those discussions? ^^
I only have a vague recollection of them.
Anyway, no need of apologies - hm, unless I read something really awful in the link! :S

Kyr, I linked the whole discussion, minus the related discussion about the relative strength of Biden's win (which you can read if you click any of the links including that one post I mentioned that prompted the review).

 

[Hygro]

Yes but the electorate also thinks that the immigrants, illegal ones and recent legal ones, took most of those jobs.

In both Europe and North America, the citizens want reduced immigration and more selective immigration. Yes, the economy is the most important, and most voting citizens think that reducing immigration will have a positive effect on the economy.

No, you said you were surprised they didn’t give incentives to reindustrializa America.

 

[Farm Boy]

That's totally accomplishable. But you have to pay people what you demand they be paid. Then pay for it.

Seagrams it is.

For those wondering from last night. That was a new one for me. Wow, that stuff is 75% "neutral grain spirits(corn everclear?)" 25% whiskey.

I was boggling at how bad it was for being such an old brand that I finally mixed it with 7-Up tonight and it is much better. So mix it with something with fiz if you want to make the same first mistake later.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

Some employers prefer hiring undocumented migrants because you can pay them less and ask them to work more.

To the electorate, if the jobs were created, but were then filled by undocumented migratns, then what's the point?

 

[Ajidica]

That's totally accomplishable. But you have to pay people what you demand they be paid. Then pay for it.

I would dread to imagine what sort of revolt we would have seen against Biden if people had to pay for items their 'made in America' cost.
People forget how expensive things were in the 70s and 80s.

 

[Farm Boy]

The rest of the world won't be a ***** forever. We tried to help build them up with purpose, on purpose. It's really the only hope without the wars being our wars. It'll be paid for either way, wailing or not. Let us make our wars be against evil, not for.

 

[Hygro]

That's totally accomplishable. But you have to pay people what you demand they be paid. Then pay for it.

For those wondering from last night. That was a new one for me. Wow, that stuff is 75% "neutral grain spirits(corn everclear?)" 25% whiskey.

I was boggling at how bad it was for being such an old brand that I finally mixed it with 7-Up tonight and it is much better. So mix it with something with fiz if you want to make the same first mistake later.

Seagrams is incredible like that. Could it’s staying power simply be the abuse of wanting to retry it just to be sure you didn’t miss anything the first time?