🦄 The Casual 2024 Presidential Election

Status
Not open for further replies.

wco81

Ars Legatus Legionis
30,478
Did Trump touch the third rail? In a recent interview he talked about cutting "entitlements" and hasn't really walked it back. In previous campaigns he staked out a position to not cut Social Security or Medicare, to differentiate himself from the rest of the GOP.

After watching Republicans fight losing battles over entitlement reform — in 2008, for example, Barack Obama’s campaign outspent John McCain on the issue by a factor of 150 to 1 — Trump decided to avoid the political turkey shoot entirely.


“I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid,” Trump said in Iowa in 2015.


But now, thanks to an unforced error, Trump has effectively opened the 2024 general election campaign with a return to the third rail he sought to abandon almost a decade ago. Asked in a CNBC interview Monday whether he’d changed his outlook on how to handle entitlements, Trump argued in a word salad-heavy answer that “there is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting and also the theft and the bad management of entitlements.”


It’s not obvious from his answer whether he’s had a material change of heart on Social Security, because it’s not obvious what he means at all. In early 2020 he made a similar comment that he quickly walked back, that he would “at some point” look at cutting entitlements; nothing came of it. But this time, his campaign immediately recognized he had stepped on a land mine. A campaign spokesperson tried some cleanup on Monday, arguing that Trump will “continue to strongly protect Social Security and Medicare in his second term.”


By then, though, it was too late. Trump suddenly found himself on the defensive, in the position so many prior GOP nominees have been in. He had given up the tactical advantage he had used to swamp his GOP rivals in the 2016 primary, back when he recognized that, when it came to entitlement reform, the only winning move is not to play.


At the time, he hammered Ben Carson on wanting to get rid of Medicare and said that Paul Ryan had “been so anti-Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.”


He followed the same tack in his current primary campaign, insisting that Social Security cuts are off the table. During a January rally in New Hampshire, Trump went so far as to attack Nikki Haley as a return to the days when the GOP establishment had its eye on entitlement cuts.


“[She] supported Paul Ryan’s plan to destroy Medicare … Do you remember that?” Trump said in the run-up to the first-in-the-nation primary. “That was Paul Ryan throwing granny off the cliff. We’re not doing that.”



In case there were still any lingering doubts about where he stands, a section of his campaign website underscored his message. “Under no circumstances should Republicans vote to cut a single penny from Medicare or Social Security,” it reads.


All of that is out the window now. Trump’s comments on cutting entitlement spending sounded the starting gun on a line of attack that Trump has never really had to contend with.
Read in POLITICO: https://apple.news/A5ryVwlbHSMKAJez826VZAg

Trump may also be leaning into abortion restrictions.

Since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, he has largely avoided articulating a clear position — his stance seems to be coalescing around support for a 15-week or 16-week national ban.


But his strategic ambiguity isn’t sustainable in an election where abortion rights are center stage. This isn’t 2016, when he had yet to appoint three Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade and his Republican primary rivals were attacking him for his formerly pro-choice stance.


In 2024, he owns Dobbs. And, thanks to his recent remarks, Democrats will make sure he owns the longstanding Republican position on entitlement reform. It’s a rough, but somehow familiar, way to kick off the general election.
 
What the MSM won't be telling you today... Dropout Nikki Haley won 13.2% of the primary vote.

When "Uncommitted" captured (ironically) 13.2% of the vote in Michigan, we had a week of BIDEN IS DOOMED headlines.

It remains to be seen what those Republican holdouts mean. It looks a bit like Trump might actually put some off by being a sore winner, they were ideological internal enemies and will forever remain so now he's the nominee presumptive.

Whereas it was obvious what Biden could do to win back his "uncommitted" because that was a specific protest about an issue that it's going to get harder and harder for him to stick to his position on.
 

wco81

Ars Legatus Legionis
30,478
Whereas it was obvious what Biden could do to win back his "uncommitted" because that was a specific protest about an issue that it's going to get harder and harder for him to stick to his position on.
There's not much he can do. Anything less than supporting "Israel's right to exist" will blow back with potential losses of Jewish votes.

There's no universe in which US doesn't at least do its regular annual aid of billions to Israel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: linnen

Technarch

Ars Legatus Legionis
12,521
Subscriptor
There's not much he can do. Anything less than supporting "Israel's right to exist" will blow back with potential losses of Jewish votes.

There's no universe in which US doesn't at least do its regular annual aid of billions to Israel.

Biden's been making some moves behind the scenes to distinguish his support for Israel from support for Netanyahu. Recipients of U.S. foreign aid have until 3/25 to ensure that that aid is being used in accordance with international law. We'll see when that actually gets enforced.
 

Shavano

Ars Legatus Legionis
64,082
Subscriptor
Biden's been making some moves behind the scenes to distinguish his support for Israel from support for Netanyahu. Recipients of U.S. foreign aid have until 3/25 to ensure that that aid is being used in accordance with international law. We'll see when that actually gets enforced.
Netanyahu's making that increasingly hard to distinguish and the Israeli media are rallying round him even though his incompetence created the situation he's now exploiting to his advantage.
 

Peldor

Ars Legatus Legionis
10,806
You figure that, given time, he'll do this type of gaff again, but the next time he might piss off his rabid followers. Seems odds are in our favor on this considering the volume of gas in that bag.
Maybe, though Trump's main schtick for policy is not actually having one: just a string of platitudes that his policy will be the best policy. That health care was going to be better and cheaper for everyone. We can safely assume he's nailed it down by now, right?
 

linnen

Ars Tribunus Militum
2,684
Subscriptor
You figure that, given time, he'll do this type of gaff again, but the next time he might piss off his rabid followers. Seems odds are in our favor on this considering the volume of gas in that bag.
Nah. The cuts will always be on the undeserving. In spite of evidence that Trump only care for the adulation of his base, not their lives, MAGA supporters are convinced that Trump will only screw over liberals and minorities. The voters for the "Face-Eating Leopards" continue to vote for face-eating leopards even when their faces are being eaten.

See also John Steward's latest piece on Republican 'patriots' fully supporting Trump being a dictator and otherwise ending democracy.
 

Shavano

Ars Legatus Legionis
64,082
Subscriptor
Nah. The cuts will always be on the undeserving. In spite of evidence that Trump only care for the adulation of his base, not their lives, MAGA supporters are convinced that Trump will only screw over liberals and minorities. The voters for the "Face-Eating Leopards" continue to vote for face-eating leopards even when their faces are being eaten.

See also John Steward's latest piece on Republican 'patriots' fully supporting Trump being a dictator and otherwise ending democracy.
"Patriot" doesn't mean what you used to think it did. Now it means ready and willing to overthrow the United States system of democratic government and install a right wing dictator. It has meant that for some time now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheGnome
There's not much he can do. Anything less than supporting "Israel's right to exist" will blow back with potential losses of Jewish votes.

There's no universe in which US doesn't at least do its regular annual aid of billions to Israel.

If US Jewish voters stick with Israel once Netenyahu has finished its conversion to fascist authoritarianism they'll never vote for a Democrat again anyway.
 

Shavano

Ars Legatus Legionis
64,082
Subscriptor
  • Like
Reactions: trapine
There needs to be a country where Jews can flee to to escape fascism. The best they can hope for is that will be the United States.

Yeah, but when they get there they'll probably want a government that doesn't cozy up to fascists. (I have a suspicion that despite the antics of AIPAC there's enough of the Jewish left in the US that would stick with a Democrat who firmly stood up to Netenyahu and publicised the shit he's getting up to with the courts, media and criminalising of protests, and that most of the Israel ride or die voters are actually the hard right Christian evangelicals anyway).
 

Louis XVI

Ars Legatus Legionis
11,161
Subscriptor
If US Jewish voters stick with Israel once Netenyahu has finished its conversion to fascist authoritarianism they'll never vote for a Democrat again anyway.
I can't imagine a better way to start the morning than being Jewsplained. (It's entirely possible for a US Jewish voter to 1) be committed to Israel, and 2) opposed to Netanyahu, and 3) consistently vote Democratic. Many, perhaps even most, of us fit this profile.)

I know there's the barest connection between this and the election, but perhaps the railing against Israel stuff would better fit in the railing against Israel thread?
 
Last edited:

Happysin

Ars Legatus Legionis
100,895
Subscriptor++
TIL that Florida and Texas are swing states, and NY and California aren't.
We've been talking about Florida being a swing state since 2000, but in reality it's been consistently moving more conservative every cycle*. Texas has been a theoretical "get" for Democrats as we saw the demographic change there, but we didn't account for migration of conservatives to Texas, and local GOP efforts to reach out to various Hispanic voters.

Texas could still be a purple state if Dems could get some nonvoters to vote, but as of now, that's a "wishes were fishes" item.

I think Georgia, is way more interesting. If Dems win Georgia, they (we) likely have won the whole thing.


*Technically, Florida has been moving more Republican for longer than 2000, but before then, Democrats at least had a solid machine politics setup that helped them keep power.
 

karolus

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
9,591
Subscriptor++
We've been talking about Florida being a swing state since 2000, but in reality it's been consistently moving more conservative every cycle*. Texas has been a theoretical "get" for Democrats as we saw the demographic change there, but we didn't account for migration of conservatives to Texas, and local GOP efforts to reach out to various Hispanic voters.

Texas could still be a purple state if Dems could get some nonvoters to vote, but as of now, that's a "wishes were fishes" item.
There is also the gerrymandering—sometimes extreme—to account for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: linnen

poochyena

Ars Scholae Palatinae
3,313
Subscriptor++
TIL that Florida and Texas are swing states, and NY and California aren't.
You must not have been paying attention to any election in the past 20 years then I guess? Florida has flipped back and forth a lot in the past 2 decades and Texas has been won by less than 10 points in last 2 elections
There is also the gerrymandering—sometimes extreme—to account for.
Not really a thing in presidential elections.
 

abernat

Ars Centurion
379
Subscriptor
You must not have been paying attention to any election in the past 20 years then I guess? Florida has flipped back and forth a lot in the past 2 decades and Texas has been won by less than 10 points in last 2 elections
Fine, I'll do my homework.

2020: FL, TX both red
2016: FL, TX both red
2012: TX red; FL blue
2008: TX red; FL blue
2004: FL, TX both red
2000: FL, TX both red (thank you Supreme Court)
1996: TX red; FL blue
1992: FL, TX both red

So - TX is consistently a red state. "Less than 10 points" is still solid red; if we had a miraculous GOTV effort it might turn blue. Florida went for Obama, but the past two elections was a solid red, and current politics is ... how do we say it ... conservative.

But - all that misses my point, which is that putting both Florida and Texas on a poll as "swing states that Biden is losing" is disingenuous at best. Why didn't they include CA and NY? Or, if you want to be slightly more subtle, Colorado and New Mexico?
 

LTParis

Ars Legatus Legionis
22,943
Subscriptor
Not great news for Biden

View attachment 76418
https://abcnews.go.com/538/trump-leading-polls-plenty-time-biden-catch/story?id=108062780
There is still time for the numbers to shift, but likely only be ~8 points. The election will be very close.
I am not sure how valid these current polls are right now. To start that Biden is down nationally -2% seems absurd. That would represent a 6.5% national drop. And yeah, that just really isn't happening.

We have a long way to go till November, but it will not be easy. It won't take much to shift the outcome given how close some of these states were in the first place. But I think we are going to see somewhat similar national poll numbers, especially given in the past 4 years more Trump voters have died, and more GenZ will be eligible. And any offset in sentiment will be just shifted by those two factors.

I will say I have been exploring for the past 6 years the real possibility to move. Beyond the fear of a Trump re-election (and the ending of our elections and democracy) there are just so many ills here that it makes it hard to conceivably want to stay. I sure hope that Dems get re-energized and the independents understand how much is at stake here.
 

poochyena

Ars Scholae Palatinae
3,313
Subscriptor++
Fine, I'll do my homework.

2020: FL, TX both red
2016: FL, TX both red
2012: TX red; FL blue
2008: TX red; FL blue
2004: FL, TX both red
2000: FL, TX both red (thank you Supreme Court)
1996: TX red; FL blue
1992: FL, TX both red

So - TX is consistently a red state. "Less than 10 points" is still solid red; if we had a miraculous GOTV effort it might turn blue. Florida went for Obama, but the past two elections was a solid red, and current politics is ... how do we say it ... conservative.

But - all that misses my point, which is that putting both Florida and Texas on a poll as "swing states that Biden is losing" is disingenuous at best. Why didn't they include CA and NY? Or, if you want to be slightly more subtle, Colorado and New Mexico?
A state being consistently red or blue is irrelevant in determining whether it is a battleground state or not. Its based on how close the results are. Texas, in the last election, was won by Trump by less than 6 points. in 2018 Ted Cruz won the senate by only 2.5%
Why didn't they include CA and NY?
Because Trump lost those elections by over 10 points.
Or, if you want to be slightly more subtle, Colorado and New Mexico?
Because Trump lost those elections by over 10 points.
 

abernat

Ars Centurion
379
Subscriptor
You’re missing my point, which is that the states were selected to make it look like Trump had a significant lead. 9 “battleground” red states vs 3 “battleground” blue states. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. It’s the same as the maps of blue vs red by land area rather than by population - by cherry picking data they are conveying a misleading message.
 

poochyena

Ars Scholae Palatinae
3,313
Subscriptor++
You’re missing my point, which is that the states were selected to make it look like Trump had a significant lead. 9 “battleground” red states vs 3 “battleground” blue states. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. It’s the same as the maps of blue vs red by land area rather than by population - by cherry picking data they are conveying a misleading message.
The states were picked because the results were within 10 points in 2020. Its not a conspiracy against Biden.
 

poochyena

Ars Scholae Palatinae
3,313
Subscriptor++

abernat

Ars Centurion
379
Subscriptor
Conspiracy is a pretty strong term. I'd have used the more standard "attempts to make the race look close to increase ad revenue", but you do you.

And thanks - nothing in that chart said "states within 10 points". For the record:

Alaska (technically)
Arizona
Florida
Georgia
Iowa
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
Nevada
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
Wisconsin

CNN's web site (not that I like them, but first google hit whatever) says these are also "battleground" for their definition:
Colorado
Virginia

Honestly, I've lost the plot here, other than "grrr battleground and close race gets eyeballs". But - that chart above was definitely missing "battleground" or 10 point states. I'm curious (and am too tired to look up) what the polls are in the missing ones

Alaska
Iowa
Maine
Ohio

... and we'll agree to ignore Colorado because the final spread was way over 10 points. And I'm still laughing at Texas being a battleground state. I think it's less "battleground" and more "well, that's what the electoral college gets you - winning 99/1 or 50.1/49.9, doesn't matter, winner takes all". But that is a horse that is thoroughly dead and does not need to be re-beaten.
 

ProphetM

Senator
29,154
Subscriptor++
I am not sure how valid these current polls are right now. To start that Biden is down nationally -2% seems absurd. That would represent a 6.5% national drop. And yeah, that just really isn't happening.

As a resident of Nevada, the list makes me feel pretty good, because regardless of how close the races were, Nevada hasn't gone red for 20 years and it's only getting more liberal as time passes. A 5 point lead by Trump is pure fantasy, so adjusting for reality makes things look very good indeed for Biden across the board.

Polls are just garbage now.
 

elliptic

Ars Praefectus
5,121
Subscriptor
Re. polls: In July 1988, a Gallup poll had Dukakis leading Bush by 17 points. A month later, Bush was leading by 5 points. As you know, Bush won handily. Polls are meaningless this far from an election.

That was the first election where I could vote. I voted for Dukakis. :\
 
Last edited:

Louis XVI

Ars Legatus Legionis
11,161
Subscriptor
Re. polls: In July 1988, a Gallup poll had Dukakis leading Bush by 17 points. A month later, Bush was leading by 5 points. As you know, Bush won handily. Polls are meaningless this far from an election.

That was the first election where I could vote. I voted for Dukakis. :\
Yeah, I can think of few less productive uses of time than panicking about polls right now.

(Dukakis was my first vote, too. Sigh.)
 

poochyena

Ars Scholae Palatinae
3,313
Subscriptor++
Polls are just garbage now.
This is said every election cycle, and yet, polls are as accurate as ever every time outside of a very few isolated incidents.
Honestly, I've lost the plot here, other than "grrr battleground and close race gets eyeballs". But - that chart above was definitely missing "battleground" or 10 point states. I'm curious (and am too tired to look up) what the polls are in the missing ones

Alaska
Iowa
Maine
Ohio
How exactly are you defining what a battleground state is?
You can go to their website and see the polls yourself
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/ohio/Its all, you guessed it, above a 10 point spread in favor of Trump. How many times do I need to repeat myself?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Bardon

wco81

Ars Legatus Legionis
30,478
The polling gap can be expressed in terms of vote shares relative to the 2020 votes.

Trump is getting 97% of his 2020 votes.

Biden is only getting 85% of his 2020 votes.

So a lot of people who voted for Biden is expressing buyer's remorse. Supposedly many POC thinks they were better off under Trump than Biden, which is ridiculous, as if they conveniently forgot 2020.

Even then the first 3 years of Trump vs. first 3 years of Biden, it's about a wash economically.

Obviously high inflation in Biden's second year and prices are approximately 20% higher than at the start of 2021.

But job growth and GDP have been much better in the last 3-4 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bardon

linnen

Ars Tribunus Militum
2,684
Subscriptor
The Hill article that Diabolical recommended in the House Divided - Shutdown thread has an interesting bit that Republicans are balking at finding election security measures.

House Republicans pushed to eliminate funding for election security grants as part of a partisan proposal last year, but Senate negotiators called for $75 million for the item in an initial proposal that passed out of committee with bipartisan support in the summer.
 

DarthSlack

Ars Legatus Legionis
20,769
Subscriptor++
The Hill article that Diabolical recommended in the House Divided - Shutdown thread has an interesting bit that Republicans are balking at finding election security measures.
They're concerned that it would allow non-Republicans to vote. And that it would make it harder to overthrow the election after Trump loses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.