US Presidential Election 2024

[TxRover]

Asa Hutchinson drops out:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/asa-hutchinson-drops-2024-presidential-race-rcna120626

Haley makes bizarre announcement, after finishing third, suggests it’s now a two person race between her and Trump:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nikki-haley-raises-eyebrows-saying-third-place-finish-makes-primary-2-person-race

[TONTROOPER]

The ' ding-a-lings' will prevail and the bloated orange will secure the republican nomination.

He will lose the election.

[vikingTON]

5 hours ago, TxRover said:

The Iowa Caucuses last night had 110,298 votes cast. In the 2020 Presidential Election, there were 897,672 votes for Trump. So, if you assume that was all Republican voters, that’s roughly the top 12.3% of actual Republican voters…except there was a small number of Democrats who registered Republican for this election (you can flip-flop yearly, it only matters which Primaries you can vote in) to support Haley too. Now, you also have to adjust for Independents in the Presidential vote too, so the best guess there is using the 40/40/20 principle, thus Iowa has around 700,000 or so “true” Republican voters. Now we’re at about a maximum of 16-17% of the total Republican voters last night.

The voters at the Caucuses tend to be the most dedicated or hardline voters, thus the high percentage saying Biden didn’t really win. Trump actually told his supporters to vote even if it threatened their lives, so he pushed hard and still only got 51% of the votes.

Not withstanding absurdist statements by pontificating know-it-alls who blithely blather on while knowing jack shit about the electoral process, yesterday’s results were a definite warning shot for Trump. He really needs to move quickly to shore up his support with Republican moderates, but has rebuffed previous opportunities to do so by doubling down on his conspiracy and witch hunt messaging. At the same time, such movement isn’t without risks to his core support.

Here’s a nice, simple coverage: 

https://www.270towin.com/news/2024/01/16/trump-wins-iowa-caucuses-desantis-takes-second-ramaswamy-drops-out_1581.html

And a good breakdown of the results for Trump vs 2016:

https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/big-iowa-win-confirms-trumps-stranglehold-on-gop/

The biggest takeaway from this is an erosion of the Moderate support for Trump and a doubling down by Evangelicals on Trump V2.0…basically Trump is now almost entirely a Christian Nationalist candidate, and Christian Nationalist candidates just landed with a thud in recent elections.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-evangelical-christians-iowa-caucus-b2479115.html

This reliance upon Evangelicals is risky, as this community can be fickle, and might be quickly turned against Trump in some situations. For his next trick, Trump will likely have to tack Right on things such an abortion, an area where he’s tried to chart a more Centrist course. Failing to do so in an attempt to retain Moderate voters risks his near messianic stature among the Right as Democratic messaging will likely amplify his Centrist comments in an effort to split off some of his Evangelical support. Those who have failed to moderate their position between the Primaries and the General election have often done poorly, as the only thing in the middle of the road is dead animals.

Meanwhile, Mr. Doom and Gloom here is suggesting Independents might vote neither as a protest, while failing to acknowledge that 3-5% of voters in any Presidential election do that anyway, and instead mentioning the 2016 election, where the extra 0.7% of votes to other than the big two candidates made absolutely no difference.

The point of this thread is to discuss the upcoming election, not simply parrot a single candidate’s favourite performative nicknames, or to attack the U.S. as the fulcrum of evil in the world. Perhaps you should start your own thread if you wish to verbally masturbate over your fantasies of a multi-polar world with Putin and Xi running things instead of the corrupt oligarchs of the West, as you so have so lovingly described them.

We all await your onslaught of red dots, clown emojis and have our phrase Bingo Cards waiting.

 

^^^ verge of tears 

The reality is that Trump won across every demographic and all but one districts. It's an unprecedented blowout, but you keep pretending that the thoughtful moderate Republican voter will ride to the rescue in a highly partisan GE*. 

It's the equivalent of the Corbyn supporters trying to argue against the obvious disaster facing their mumbleclown candidate in 2019. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.*

Spoiler

They will not 

 

Edited January 16 by vikingTON

[Caledonian1]

20 minutes ago, virginton said:

It's the equivalent of the Corby supporters trying to argue against the obvious disaster facing their mumbleclown candidate in 2019. 

yup, you are so right once again.  Can't recall how their season went but you will be more aware than me no doubt.

[Wee-Bey]

Very weird to be doing a 'why his record breaking landslide victory last night spells trouble for Donald Trump' bit.

He's clearly winning the nomination, the vast majority of Republicans and the right will eventually rally round him, then it's down to the swing states. He's up in Georgia, Arizona etc but behind in the Wisconsins and Michegans that got him over the line in 2016.

Biden wins, just, on a low turn out. Appalling candidates, appalling system, appalling country.

[houston_bud]

4 hours ago, D Angelo Barksdale said:

Very weird to be doing a 'why his record breaking landslide victory last night spells trouble for Donald Trump' bit.

He's clearly winning the nomination, the vast majority of Republicans and the right will eventually rally round him, then it's down to the swing states. He's up in Georgia, Arizona etc but behind in the Wisconsins and Michegans that got him over the line in 2016.

Biden wins, just, on a low turn out. Appalling candidates, appalling system, appalling country.

I think your first sentence is a misrepresentation of what's been said. No one's saying that it spells trouble for him, rather highlighting some obstacles he'll face in winning the election.

[Bully Wee Villa]

Sadly, I can't see him not winning the election unless he dies. Or, maybe, Biden does.

[dirty dingus]

All the evangelical fruitcakes will see it as the second coming and go into full Armageddon mode and insist he invades the bat flu b*****ds from China.

Edited January 17 by dirty dingus

[GHF-23]

8 hours ago, D Angelo Barksdale said:

Very weird to be doing a 'why his record breaking landslide victory last night spells trouble for Donald Trump' bit.

He's clearly winning the nomination, the vast majority of Republicans and the right will eventually rally round him, then it's down to the swing states. He's up in Georgia, Arizona etc but behind in the Wisconsins and Michegans that got him over the line in 2016.

Biden wins, just, on a low turn out. Appalling candidates, appalling system, appalling country.

From the huge gift of the republicans finally catching the car on abortion and becoming unequivocal social weirdos, looking like they marginalised themselves for a generation to this in 14 months. Incredible 

Edited January 17 by GHF-23

[Lex]

The reality is that unless something unusual happens, Trump will win in November. The republican primaries is just an elongated coronation of him as their candidate. Unless Sleepy Joe does the right thing and step down - which doesn’t look likely - he will lose and it will be a landslide.

[ICTChris]

Biden wins narrowly IMO.

[btb]

12 minutes ago, Lex said:

The reality is that unless something unusual happens, Trump will win in November. The republican primaries is just an elongated coronation of him as their candidate. Unless Sleepy Joe does the right thing and step down - which doesn’t look likely - he will lose and it will be a landslide.

I'm not so sure, I'd expect (and hope) Trump's Marmite brand of politics will bring out the people to vote against him even without a charismatic Democrat candidate.

I'm also not sure whether a Trump-lite candidate would work for the Republicans as for me the main reason people voted for Trump in 16 & 20 is that he was not lite.

[BFTD]

On 16/01/2024 at 03:37, bigmarv said:

News that 68% of Republican crackpots in Iowa think that their cult leader had the election stolen from him in 2020.
So patriotic

I've a feeling that these polls aren't so much "stupid Yanks believe in baseless conspiracy theories" and more "stupid Yanks believe that democracy might stop giving them the victories that they want, so are turning to fascism".

It does say an awful lot that they can't be honest about it though, seemingly even with each other, like the folk who aren't racist but.

[bigmarv]

1 hour ago, BFTD said:

I've a feeling that these polls aren't so much "stupid Yanks believe in baseless conspiracy theories" and more "stupid Yanks believe that democracy might stop giving them the victories that they want, so are turning to fascism".

It does say an awful lot that they can't be honest about it though, seemingly even with each other, like the folk who aren't racist but.

I’ve lived in USA since 1995. Trump turned many normal people into complete crackpots.

My take is that they saw their flawed ideologies slipping away with the back to back Obama wins and got the shock of their lives when Trump came along and “won”. Then they were all in on Trump. He could/can do no wrong. 

There has never been anything like this bonkers cult. 

[TxRover]

16 hours ago, D Angelo Barksdale said:

Very weird to be doing a 'why his record breaking landslide victory last night spells trouble for Donald Trump' bit.

He's clearly winning the nomination, the vast majority of Republicans and the right will eventually rally round him, then it's down to the swing states. He's up in Georgia, Arizona etc but behind in the Wisconsins and Michegans that got him over the line in 2016.

Biden wins, just, on a low turn out. Appalling candidates, appalling system, appalling country.

No such claim, just a point that his 2016 coalition is not repeatable, he’s alienated a significant portion of the moderate group he pulled in for that run. While the increasing Hispanic support can patch some of that gap, he’s going to face a very interesting tightrope job to keep the zealots happy without driving others away.

3 hours ago, Lex said:

The reality is that unless something unusual happens, Trump will win in November. The republican primaries is just an elongated coronation of him as their candidate. Unless Sleepy Joe does the right thing and step down - which doesn’t look likely - he will lose and it will be a landslide.

That’s lazy reading of media stories and questionable polls for you, I’d disagree that either candidate can have any confidence right now,

3 hours ago, btb said:

I'm not so sure, I'd expect (and hope) Trump's Marmite brand of politics will bring out the people to vote against him even without a charismatic Democrat candidate.

That’s what most rational people hope/believe, but it doesn’t make it true, unfortunately. The bonus for those disliking Trump, is the continued efforts of Republicans nationwide to do terminally stupid things like put abortion measures on the ballot, or to disregard voter initiatives and try to roll them back.

2 hours ago, BFTD said:

I've a feeling that these polls aren't so much "stupid Yanks believe in baseless conspiracy theories" and more "stupid Yanks believe that democracy might stop giving them the victories that they want, so are turning to fascism".

It does say an awful lot that they can't be honest about it though, seemingly even with each other, like the folk who aren't racist but.

51 minutes ago, bigmarv said:

I’ve lived in USA since 1995. Trump turned many normal people into complete crackpots.

My take is that they saw their flawed ideologies slipping away with the back to back Obama wins and got the shock of their lives when Trump came along and “won”. Then they were all in on Trump. He could/can do no wrong. 

There has never been anything like this bonkers cult. 

The Strongman in charge is particularly appealing to the rapidly dwindling white majority in the U.S., especially the more poorly educated segments. A decent percentage of this is due to the dysfunctionality of Congress and the Courts over the past 20 plus years, as the older generation fight to hold back societal changes. The problem is many people are under the illusion that the Strongman they get will be like them, will make changes that benefit them, and haven’t realised they’re probably completely wrong.

However, there has been something like this before, look at the robber barons of the 1870-1920’s. That was a non-political version of what we might be facing here shortly, which allowed a chance to fight back over time. The Strongman getting into the top office in the U.S. now might not be so easily displaced.

You think it’s bad now, imagine if Congress remains dysfunctional and climate change heats up. With waves of refugees and serious internal issues, I question if the U.S. would make the tricentennial as is.

[BFTD]

12 minutes ago, TxRover said:

The Strongman in charge is particularly appealing to the rapidly dwindling white majority in the U.S., especially the more poorly educated segments. A decent percentage of this is due to the dysfunctionality of Congress and the Courts over the past 20 plus years, as the older generation fight to hold back societal changes. The problem is many people are under the illusion that the Strongman they get will be like them, will make changes that benefit them, and haven’t realised they’re probably completely wrong.

However, there has been something like this before, look at the robber barons of the 1870-1920’s. That was a non-political version of what we might be facing here shortly, which allowed a chance to fight back over time. The Strongman getting into the top office in the U.S. now might not be so easily displaced.

You think it’s bad now, imagine if Congress remains dysfunctional and climate change heats up. With waves of refugees and serious internal issues, I question if the U.S. would make the tricentennial as is.

Yeah, this is the bit about fascism that should make everyone think twice. If 'the left' or furriners genuinely terrifies someone - and why wouldn't we, considering how ubermensch we all are - establishing a system where might is the only bar to power isn't always going to pan out how they imagine.

It's only going to get worse when the Strongmen in question have easy access to military-grade robotics. Allowing them free reign to whatever they fancy seems like an atrocious idea for anyone who doesn't already have wealth beyond the dreams of avarice.

[bigmarv]

1 hour ago, TxRover said:

You think it’s bad now, imagine if Congress remains dysfunctional and climate change heats up. With waves of refugees and serious internal issues, I question if the U.S. would make the tricentennial as is.

One of the most striking paradoxes of the political right in Europe and USA. 
Climate change denial and the rejection of immigrants displaced (in many cases) by the effects of climate change. 
 

Not to mention the increased hurricane/tornado/flooding activity along the red neck riviera and the southern red states in general. 

Edited January 17 by bigmarv

[TxRover]

51 minutes ago, bigmarv said:

One of the most striking paradoxes of the political right in Europe and USA. 
Climate change denial and the rejection of immigrants displaced (in many cases) by the effects of climate change. 
 

Not to mention the increased hurricane/tornado/flooding activity along the red neck riviera and the southern red states in general. 

If you look at the 1870-1890 era, the 1% had 51% of the wealth, and used anti-immigrant, anti-Union and anti-minority campaigns to divide the poor. Voter suppression and monopoly business practices were also on the rise.

Now we have 38% and climbing for the top 1%, and we recognise the other events. The open question will be how does this 2nd Gilded Age end.

[Wee-Bey]

4 hours ago, TxRover said:

No such claim, just a point that his 2016 coalition is not repeatable, he’s alienated a significant portion of the moderate group he pulled in for that run. While the increasing Hispanic support can patch some of that gap, he’s going to face a very interesting tightrope job to keep the zealots happy without driving others away.

He doesn't need to repeat his 2016 coalition though, he just needs to win the required swing states. There's no tightrope required as the zealots are already on board.

[TxRover]

2 hours ago, D Angelo Barksdale said:

He doesn't need to repeat his 2016 coalition though, he just needs to win the required swing states. There's no tightrope required as the zealots are already on board.

Disagree. With the defection of some moderates not yet reflected in polls, it will be interesting to see how things shift as we move from Primaries to the General. The swing state approach you suggest would be true IF a he can retain those moderates that he lost in Iowa and is showing poor support with overall. The whole swing state/it’s all about Georgia/Nevada/Arizona/Pennsylvania/Wisconsin/Michigan kind of thing isn’t a valid approach until we get much closer to the General, especially with the pushes to put wedge issue proposals on the ballots.