US Politics / Biden thread
Comments
-
Trump's only way of compensating for the Harris rally sizes is just to say it's not true over and over again. No doubt his cult will believe it, but I wonder if he does, really. It's so easily disproven.
0 -
This is what interests me. There is a deeply embedded part of the American psyche (mainly talking white, Christian Mid West/Southern states here) that values individualism over all else. You see if in the obsession with gun rights, low state intervention, hatred of universal healthcare, low taxation. There is the fundamental belief that the individual is sovereign and should be allowed to protect themselves at all costs, keep everything they earn and do as they choose.
Trump definitely taps into this in an extreme way, but you could argue the Republican party in general has always played on similar themes. I think what is different is that, in spite of this individualism, there are always times when America comes together for the common good, especially on an international stage. This seems to have been eroded under Trump, and for many Americans the individual now exists at the total expense of the collective. There seems to be this tacit agreement that a figurehead like Trump who acts with impunity has given people licence to do the same (do what you want, say what you want, stage a coup etc. as there will be no repercussions.).
As @briantrumpet says, there is definitely something of the cult like to this, but is seems even deeper than that, it is not just about following Trump but as though he has, through his own behaviour, given people the impetus to bring out their own worst traits.
0 -
As per the above, this is why I think Harris has chosen Tim Walz. He is kind of the antithesis of Trump and is likely to appeal to the kind of Mid Western voter that hasn't drunk the Trump Kool Aid. I think they are working on the theory that there are still a fair few voters who lean towards those individual ideals, but still place a great deal of value in patriotism and will be won over by Walz.
0 -
a lot of people in the usa have had years of declining earnings/prospects, globalisation, dying industries, consolidation of businesses/lenders by acquisition which squeezes out more jobs, reduces local investment, etc. etc., opioids, urban/rural decay, crime, religious fundamentalism, irrational gun culture, and a limited worldview
ripe for exploitation
trump built on the groundwork of many before him, reagan and the tea party crazies
trump gives them lies they really love to believe in, blames 'the elite' and various other 'thems' who are the cause of his followers woes, gives them revenge by attacking the elites' 'liberal' policies, abortion, gun control, rule of law, protection of human rights etc.
he's not going to solve any of their problems, but by claiming he's taking their side, they get revenge, they get to feel the righteous anger at the elites, media, liberals who are responsible for it all, and he tells them that if only they give him more power, he'll give them even more revenge
because they know their problems are never his fault, he can just keep on blaming others, his followers will adore him
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
Didn't Ed Balls do a good series of programmes about it.
0 -
Trumpland
Ed Balls travels to America's Deep South to immerse himself in the lives of those who put Trump in power, and learn how this reality TV businessman won them over.
0 -
-
RC, every US election is pretty much 50:50.
0 -
-
It wasn't that extreme.
0 -
...and Trump won so what does that prove? It's a toss up depending on the mood of the electoral college.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
The popular vote in 2016 was 48:46 Clinton:Trump.
I think this is a way to measure the Chasey coefficient. Remove 42% of the X-axis. Or 84% if it only went to 50 in the first place.
0 -
-
What now? Probability is the same as polling now?
You need to send your CV to the FT, because you have 110% probability of getting a job.
0 -
So the Nate silver 538 tracker put the % chance of Hilary winning heading into the vote at around 2 in 3.
That is literally all I am referring to.
currently the same tracker (he’s no longer wirh 538 following their acquisition) puts Harris around 52%, so barely different to a coin flip.
That’s it.
0 -
That's literally not what you literally said. Literally.
0 -
I've just had an insight into the Chaseybrain. It's got a lot of mirrors in it. A whole hall.
0 -
I am going to eschew all polling and politico opinions and as Bruce Dern says in 'The 'Burbs' "take my balls out of my wife's purse" and call it. No need for a toss of the coin, Harris is going to win and do so by a comfortable margin (not huge, but enough daylight to be convincing).
I am happy to be reminded of my hubris come November, should my bold prediction not come to fruition.
0 -
Can we have some uncertainty bounds on his uncertainty bounds.
The narrative on this seems silly, a while ago when Trump had a similar lead to the one Kamala is now enjoying, it was a nailed on Trump win.
Now it's anyone's to play for.
0 -
-
But the evidence from the past suggests the polling is useless as you’ve pointed out from 2016.
0 -
Why? There was a 1/3 chance trump won?
I’m a hazard a guess people aren’t reading the probabilities properly.
If you read Nate’s analysis he turns the polling into probabilities and the electoral college favours republicans so he sees it as genuinely 50/50
0 -
I think that is seriously underestimating Trump's appeal.
Trump is an awful candidate, for lots of genuine factual reasons. But his appeal is emotional, so it doesn't matter.
0 -
If there was nothing to be gained by campaigning, they wouldn't campaign. She's only been a candidate for a month. Trump has been sending his message out for 4 years.
The polls are slowly moving. There is a trend already. Which, tentatively, is a good sign.
0 -
Also worth keeping an eye on Elias - there are increasing numbers of cases of states trying to restrict voting options (as well as Electoral College ground-laying for shenanigans, amongst other things). Quite apart from the lunacy of having Trump as a viable candidate is the utter mess of not having a nationwide system of electing a national president. Remember when Bush got elected on the 'hanging chads' case, which has subsequently been widely acknowledged as having been mistaken.
Notice that a lot of these cases are in the ones where the election is likely to be decided by just a few thousand votes.
0 -
yes, it's concerning
since 2020 trump believers/enablers have been laying the groundwork for subverting the election in order to get the result they want, infiltrating the process, intimidating officials who refuse to comply
seems likely there'll be a lot of trouble if trump loses, because obviously if he says he won, that's a call to arms
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
I think Harris/Walz still have the momentum (certainly if rally enthusiasm & attendance is anything to go by). An interesting line from Walz is his crediting the GOP-of-old for helping build America, and saying the country needs it back from Trumpism... it gives waverers the excuse to lend their votes to the Democrats this time.
0 -
Nobody without a melting brain would use the phrase "which will take approximately like quickly". It might be cruel to try to provoke further mental deterioration, but Trump's brain is leaking into his diapers day by day, and the sooner more people can see his spiral into incoherence the better. If the 'debate' between Trump and Harris doesn't descend into farce, it should be quite an interesting event, given Harris's prosecutorial training and experience.
0 -
-
To be fair Biden lost his shit months ago and it didn't seem to bother many on here.
1
