Biden presidency and 2024 election campaign

[Skids]

It was way off when Trump got up in 2016.

Hillary was $1.05 and Trump was 100/1 8 weeks before the 2016 election.

The only other time (since 1866) punters have got it wrong was in 1948, when Truman got up at 8/1.

[What'sinaname]

Any chance if he gets in he tries to revoke the 22nd amendment or suspend future elections in order to stay in power? Not sure it'd be possible, but I have no doubt he'll try it if he thinks he has a chance.

Where is this level of nutterism coming from? The guy is, what 78? He doesn't want to stay in power. He wants to win, so he can go out as a winner.

Kamala is talking about it's time to turn the page. Turn what page? From democrats to......democrats. She campaigns as if Trump is in office or that she's had no say in the past 4 years. Despite saying she's been involved in every decision that Biden has made.

The left are amazingly idiotic. They were on a good thing.

1. They swapped to Kamala - tick
2. She campaigned by focussing on the good, the joy - tick
3. She went ahead in the polls - tick

Then the polls dipped, and suddenly they became two faced, and abandoned what go them ahead and went all psycho. Now it all Nazi, fascist, garbage. If America want name calling, well hello, that's Trump's brand. Kamala can't out-Trump Trump.

[Pies4shaw]

^ There is no "left" in US politics. There's just a slightly less-right party. It's more like Hanson versus Dutton than a proper choice. The Democrats are a party of big business - they just chuck in a few "rights" into their discourse to give the liberal middle-class a bone.

[David]

The latest US election controversy: did Donald Trump suggest one of his critics should face a firing squad? (spoiler: not really; you don't generally get to hold a rifle in that situation.)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... p-dictator

[Liz Cheney] is a radical war hawk. Let's put her with a rifle standing there with 9 barrels shooting at her. Let's see how she feels about it when the guns are trained on her face. They're all war hawks when they're sitting in Washington in a nice building saying "Oh gee, let's send 10,000 troops into the mouths of the enemies."

This is how dictators destroy free nations. They threaten those who speak against them with death. We cannot entrust our country and our freedom to a petty, vindictive, cruel, unstable man who wants to be a tyrant. #Womenwillnotbesilenced

I love that hashtag at the end – so perfectly cynical.

For her part, Kamala Harris has responded by calling Liz Cheney "incredibly courageous" and a "true patriot". Here's some more on Cheney and what she actually supports:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... e-big-lie/

Dick Cheney’s lies were not the result of intelligence failures. US intelligence over the previous year had assessed that Saddam did not have a worrisome WMD program. Government scientists had concluded that the aluminum tubes in question were not usable for weapon-grade enrichment. And the CIA had discredited that Prague report. Yet none of this inhibited Cheney and President George W. Bush. They spent months dishing out an assortment of false statements—including the untrue claim that Saddam was in league with al-Qaeda—to grease the way to war. They succeeded. Bush won the support of Congress and the American public for his massive blunder in Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq toppled Saddam’s dictatorship but it yielded a geo-strategic and deadly mess in the region. About 200,000 Iraqi civilians died in the ensuing years due to the war. More than 4,000 American soldiers lost their lives in the war.

One lesson of the Iraq war is that a big lie can work. Liz Cheney, who was deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs during this stretch, supported the war—and has defended it ever since. (She co-wrote a 2015 book with her dad on US foreign policy.) She even insisted that one of the main lies of the Bush-Cheney fraudulent case for war—that there had been a significant connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq—was true. (She also hawkishly defended a sordid chapter of that sordid war: torture, saying it was “libelous” to call waterboarding “torture.”)

It might be pretty convenient and hypocritical coming from Trump – who's more than happy to support the murder of tens of thousands of Palestinians from the comfort of Florida, and no doubt will continue to authorise lethal drone strikes and bombings if he gets back into office – but I trust that most of us haven't been so relieved of our senses that we can't appreciate (or, for that matter, agree with) the basic point he was making.

[David]

A good analysis here of what a Trump or Harris presidency might look like (framed as a pitch to "Never-Trump" Republicans to vote Democrat, but nonetheless fairly even-handed in its analysis):

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/a-message- ... ters-still

If you listen to Donald Trump, the agenda he has planned for a second term is not at all ambiguous. There are five main planks.

• Significant across the board tariffs that he says he can implement without involving Congress
• Mass deportations
• Expanding domestic energy production
• No new wars and a direct negotiation with Putin over Ukraine
• Using the Department of Justice to target his political foes

He also mentions random things he says plans to do (no tax on tips!), but when it comes down to it, tariffs, migrants, and “liquid gold” are what he talks about in every speech and every interview. When he said he wanted to be a “dictator on day one,” that was the policy agenda he said he would implement with his imagined autocratic powers.

He also makes a strong case for why Harris will be able to get virtually nothing done in her first term due to the likelihood of a Republican majority in both houses.

[David]

Polling averages in swing states (according to RealClearPolitics):

Arizona: Trump +2.7
Georgia: Trump +2.6
North Carolina: Trump +1.7
Nevada: Trump +1.7
Pennsylvania: Trump +0.4
Wisconsin: Harris +0.1
Michigan: Harris +0.6

If he wins all of the states he's currently leading in according to those averages, Trump would be on 286 electoral college votes, 16 more than the 270 he needs. But if Harris wins Pennsylvania as well as Wisconsin and Michigan, she gets to 270 vs his 268 – the narrowest possible victory.

It could even be 269 all if the latter comes to pass and Nebraska's second district (narrowly won by Biden in 2020) falls to Trump, in which case the House of Representatives would elect the president. But Harris is currently well ahead in polling there.

[Pies4shaw]

^ All of which is meaningless, as to which, see here:

https://abcnews.go.com/538/trump-harris ... =115283593

The position is that, on the polls - and having regard to historical polling errors, both candidates poll as if they have about an equal chance of winning the election on a range of simulations. All of the margins in those swing States are less than the margin of polling error, so it's just a coin toss.

[David]

That makes sense, thanks P4S.

Here's a good article on why Harris's campaign has been so underwhelming:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/fault-li ... -candidate

Harris, as I’ve noted before, has been a politician in my life since I moved to San Francisco in the two-thousands, and I’ve always been struck by how she never really seems to be able to just plant her feet and directly answer a question. Perhaps this might contribute to some sense of distrust among undecided voters, but, in that same period of time, Harris has gone from her former role as the district attorney of San Francisco to a tight contest for the Oval Office. If responding to questions with feigned but believable thoughtfulness was all that mattered, Lindsey Graham would be President.

Harris’s wishy-washiness on the trail, however, might carry into her Presidency if she wins. Faced with a probable Republican Senate and a thin majority in the House, she will likely be stymied from passing any substantive legislation. I do not think she will undo the entirety of Biden’s more left-leaning economic politics, and I believe she will commit herself to boosting the care sector and abortion rights. Whether she gets any of this passed is another concern, and, though I don’t think it’s particularly fair to blame the President for the obstructions of other parts of the government, Harris also was the Vice-President for the past four years, a fact that she seems to want the American public to selectively forget. If we’re hoping for strong executive action on abortion and the border and we’re being told by Harris that the country is facing a crisis on both fronts, it does seem reasonable to ask why the Biden-Harris Administration didn’t take more action, especially given that Harris has not really explained how she will be any different than her former boss.

So that’s where Democrats stand a few days before the election: Trump is worse than ever and Harris will just have to do. The anxiety of the past few weeks in liberal circles doesn’t feel like a response to the polls, which haven’t changed in any significant way, but, rather, to the realization that Harris just isn’t the candidate we thought she might be just a few months back. It’s fine for everyone to just admit that Harris doesn’t represent anything other than four more years without Trump. Even her own unofficial campaign slogan—“We’re Not Going Back”—admits as much.

[stui magpie]

I've read in a couple of places that there's potentially a sneaky number of silent Republicans who can't stand Trump but won't say so for fear of being ostracised in their community. Now, that may be just wishful thinking on the part of Democrat leaning media, but if true it could result in unexpected swings away from Trump compared to what the Polls say. Lets see what happens.

What's keeping him the race, apart from his rusted on fan base and despit being batshit crazy, is his record on the economy and illiegal immigration was better than what Biden/Harris were able to do. Apparently.

Americans had 8 years of Obama, 4 years of Trump with Covid interfering, then 4 years of Biden. The swing voters will vote on WIIFM, not out of party loyalty, so Trump has more than a chance, as strange as it seems from afar.

[Jezza]

The latest polling of Iowa is intriguing. Both are reputable pollsters so this will be interesting either way.

Selzer has Harris leading 47-44.

Emerson has Trump leading 53-43.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story ... 354033007/

https://emersoncollegepolling.com/novem ... harris-43/

[David]

Seems like something best taken with a grain of salt – Iowa went for Trump by over 8% in 2020, and the Emerson poll lends weight to it being an outlier. Otherwise, they don't seem to conduct many polls there for some reason; even California and New York have been polled more times this election cycle.

[lazzadesilva]

The latest polling of Iowa is intriguing. Both are reputable pollsters so this will be interesting either way.

Selzer has Harris leading 47-44.

Emerson has Trump leading 53-43.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story ... 354033007/

https://emersoncollegepolling.com/novem ... harris-43/

That is a huge disparity. I’m sure the poll that ends up being correct will be the one to watch next time!
The Emerson lead to Trump is amazingly big for any poll in Iowa.

[lazzadesilva]

The left are amazingly idiotic.

Usually I get called an idiot for being a Collingwood fan but this is a step up for me to be called an idiot for being a left winger! I will wear that with pride like I do with being a Collingwood idiot to some stupid people

[David]

That is a huge disparity. I’m sure the poll that ends up being correct will be the one to watch next time!
The Emerson lead to Trump is amazingly big for any poll in Iowa.

It's actually very similar to the final result last time around – in 2020 Trump won Iowa with 53.09% vs Biden on 44.89%.

[Jezza]

Iowa has usually voted to the right of the three rust belt states since 2004. Pennsylvania being the exception in 2012.

So if the Selzer poll in Iowa is correct, then I'd anticipate the other three states winning by at least 5+ points.

2004
= Michigan (Kerry won by 3.4%)
= Pennsylvania (Kerry won by 2.5%)
= Wisconsin (Kerry won by 0.4%)
= Iowa (Bush won by 0.7%)

2008
= Michigan (Obama won by 16.4%)
= Wisconsin (Obama won by 13.9%)
= Pennsylvania (Obama won by 10.3%)
= Iowa (Obama won by 9.5%)

2012
= Michigan (Obama won by 9.5%)
= Wisconsin (Obama won by 6.9%)
= Iowa (Obama won by 5.8%)
= Pennsylvania (Obama won by 5.4%)

2016
= Michigan (Trump won by 0.2%)
= Pennsylvania (Trump won by 0.7%)
= Wisconsin (Trump won by 0.8%)
= Iowa (Trump won by 9.4%)

2020
= Michigan (Biden won by 2.8%)
= Pennsylvania (Biden won by 1.2%)
= Wisconsin (Biden won by 0.6%)
= Iowa (Trump won by 8.3%)

Given Selzer's reputation, I'm keeping an open mind, but it's hard to believe the swing towards Harris will be that big.