POTUS 2024 - Harris vs Trump - General Election Discussion

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Lathum

How bad of a candidate is Kari Lake that she’s 170k votes behind trumps total.

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The short and medium term issue for Dems is that if they can't hold the Midwest and they can't win enough Hispanics to convert the Sun Belt, then there's no path to 270 anytime soon.

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

As more demographic numbers roll in, I'm not sure that there's anything the Dems could have done. The anti-incumbency wave was just too strong. Any R was almost certain to beat any D.

Every statewide D candidate is winning or running ahead of Harris in those battleground states, some of them significantly so. Are they blaming the Biden/Harris administration in a way they aren't tying in their Senators and incumbent governors or as she just a really uninspiring candidate (with frankly a poor team on the ground from what I saw)?

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Every Democratic politician who still thinks it's most important to preserve decorum and play by the (political) rules, and that the "correctness" of their policies will win out in the long run and Republicans will return to normal needs to be thrown out of politics and replaced by people who actually believe in something and will fight for it.

Even then, it probably changes nothing. This is a right-wing country comprised mainly of poorly educated and self-interested people who probably aren't interested in those policies anyway.

I disagree. It wasn't just Josh Stein beating a clown in Mark Robinson here, Dems won every statewide race, including guys like Jeff Jackson beating a semi evil but really competent sitting congressman in Dan Bishop for AG. It's probably because of MAGA overreach here in the state but they also ran on values and competency and concrete things, I feel like nationally Trump/Fox/etc has successfully painted the Dems as a party that cares more about the rights of trans/LBGTQ people and illegal immigrants who aren't in the country than their wallet. Roe v Wade backlash did carry them in 2020 but we've now had 4 years of Dems in power to change it back (they couldn't) and where it really didn't affect the vast majority of people's personal lives. The niche special interest stuff plays well in the liberal elite echo chamber which is as bad as the MAGA echo chamber these days but people here care about their rent and items at the grocery store going up in price while their wages haven't kept up. Trump may have zero plan to fix that and will in fact make it worse, but he at least plays into people's anger at that, and maybe that was too much for an incumbent administration to overcome, but clearly they need to stop focusing mainly on flipping suburban white women while taking minority men and young voters for granted.

[PilotMan]

What part of the does the party in power play regarding grocery store pricing and wages? What direct control?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

What part of the does the party in power play regarding grocery store pricing and wages? What direct control?

They of course don’t but low information uneducated voters are easily convinced they do.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

What part of the does the party in power play regarding grocery store pricing and wages? What direct control?

Of course they don't, but voters have always been that way (and arguably Trump lost in 2020 because of economic factors outside his control too). A lot of the asset inflation is tied to the massive bank parachutes at the start of Covid and a lack of regulation on banks or VC moving in to the real estate market, but Dems have no interest in fixing that or trying to tie it to Trump because the money printer was going brrrr under him even though it was a very bipartisan decision. Money was poured into the system, it's found an outlet in an increasing stock market, crypto, and real estate and eventually it trickled down to increased consumer goods prices as well.

Explaining that to people is really hard, but somehow a significant enough chunk of voters in these close races were persuaded by the local politicians while Harris and the national party lost them to a demagogue who certainly isn't laying out detailed policy proposals. Why do you think she underperformed vs them in those key states?

[thesloppy]

I really wonder how much weight that one shitty gender-reassignment-for-prisoners ad carried. It was everywhere, even here in Oregon.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There are a lot more registered voters in 2024 than there were in 2020.

For instance, there are 300,000 more registered voters in North Carolina yet her vote total is just about even to 2020.

In Wisconsin she is up 35000 from 2020 but there are over 155,000 more registered voters before election day. And Wisconsin has same day registration which usually tacks on another 200k.

Basically if registered voters are up 5% in a state from 2020 and you're even or up only <1% from 2020, you're losing your base.

She's just shy of the record for most votes ever for a Dem in Wisconsin (just behind Obama in 2008). She's set the record for most votes for a Dem in NC.

Based on what you have said Dems have failed to turn out their base in WI every year since 2008. If that's the case it certainly isn't based on any specific position of Harris.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I really wonder how much weight that one shitty gender-reassignment-for-prisoners ad carried. It was everywhere, even here in Oregon.

Trump folks claim it was their best ad of the year. I haven't seen any data to support that, but they claim to have it.

[BishopMVP]

There are a bunch of voters who went for D's AND Trump over Harris in 4 key states (not sure on Arizona/Nevada, while Georgia had no statewide races), I find it hard to believe the answer is simply sexism when many of those Kamala underperformed are also women. But I'd really try to drill down on those split ticket voters in swing states and figure out why they did before making sweeping generalizations or assuming those states are now lost going forward.

[JPhillips]

I'd bet a lot of the split ticket voters see their state as doing better economically than the country. There's a lot of, I'm fine but the rest of the country is going to hell.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

What part of the does the party in power play regarding grocery store pricing and wages? What direct control?

Enforcing existing antitrust laws is a good start. Many economists have pointed out that monopolies and duopolies on essential items has lead to high prices. We basically found out that the high egg prices were caused by collusion among the biggest egg producers in the country. Not a peep from the FTC or DOJ.

As for gas, not letting the Saudis walk all over us would be good. Obama did a masterful job of putting pressure on them to keep prices low (which also hurt Russia). Biden was incredibly weak in that area.

Wages is trickier and a systemic problem. Increasing the minimum wage would help but Harris blocked that from happening. Enforcing existing laws antitrust laws as to create more competition from companies. Going after companies who commit systemic wage theft. And little things like getting rid of non-competes will help, but was done 3 years too late to make a difference.

[PilotMan]

I mean, that just sounds like Communism and government intervention in the free market. Surely, the R's wouldn't suggest those things. Imagine how they would have run on too much government intervention.

How are we going to pump more when the oil and gas industry is privatized? Sounds like more government overreach.

The minimum wage is completely dead. The Rs killed that too. It will never get raised again. Each state will set the bar now.

Obama had the luxury of international prices being high enough that it was cheaper to drill and produce locally. Now that the world has caught up to that, guess what? They have the market priced right where it's just about too expensive for the US to do that and make it worthwhile. The times aren't the same.

[RainMaker]

If you don't want to enforce existing laws, that's fine. Monopolies are not free market. And I don't think people would lose sleep over their groceries getting cheaper and their wages rising.

OPEC and the Saudis control a huge chunk of the oil supply in the world. Obama threatened the Saudis with more production stateside and by not selling them weapons if they cut supply. Using that leverage, the Saudis pumped out oil which brought the cost down a ton and really ravaged Russia. It's why the Russians wanted Trump to win so bad.

The minimum wage wasn't dead. It was up for a vote and Harris killed it as President of the Senate.

These are all things that could have been done that would have helped Americans.

[cuervo72]

Which vote was it where Harris killed this?

(If it’s this one, looks like she was for it, before the parliamentarian said no, and the WH/Manchin wouldn’t endorse overriding that: https://www.peoplesworld.org/article...-minimum-wage/ https://www.motherjones.com/mojo-wir...nt-at-least-1/ ; but sure, all Harris’s fault)

[RainMaker]

It was a provision in the COVID-19 bill from 2021 that would have increased the minimum wage to $15/hour.

[JPhillips]

I don't think misogyny is the primary reason Haris lost, but I do think we're not ready yet to elect a woman. If Clinton, Haley, and Harris aren't good enough it's hard to see anyone who is.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It was a provision in the COVID-19 bill from 2021 that would have increased the minimum wage to $15/hour.

It didn't get included in the COVID 19 package because the parliamentarian ruled it didn't fit the limitations for a reconciliation bill.

They tried to pass it on its own in May of 2021 and the GOP plus Manchin and Sinema blocked it. That's the bill where Sinema was laughing and made a big show of her no vote.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Good article, but I just want to point out something. It says "U.S. annual inflation has fallen to 2.4% in recent weeks, but the news came too late to change voters’ minds about their personal economy."


Serious question here, do people really think the average voter's opinion of the economy comes from the news? I have heard statements like this a good bit, but it is so wrong. their opinion on the economy comes from direct observation. They look at their checkbook, and what their friends and family are saying about their own checkbook. If they have more money and can pay the bills, then they are happy about the economy. If they are struggling to pay bills, they are not. Same with something like employment. If they have a job or they can find a job, employment is good. If they are out of work, and people they know are out of work, it is bad. They aren't reading as jobs report. You can shout from the roof top "unemployment is at an all time low", if they can't find a job they aren't believing you. You can say "inflation is down", but if they are paying $1400 in rent when I used to pay $900, they are going to say "bite me."

I agree but haven't we been doing this since forever?

There was a time a few years back when the stock market was hitting record highs for weeks at a time and that was supposed to be a symbol of the economy doing well. We always have these Wall Street vs Main Street conversations no matter what was going on in the family home.

I know folks don't want to hear it but it also matters who is struggling to pay their bills. For some, if they don't have more money, they are expected to get a second or third job or to cut out everything but ramen noodles. If they don't have a job, it is because they don't want to work.

[Brian Swartz]

I don't think it's new; I think it's just harder to accept this particular time because it played a role in there being a second Trump administration.

[Ghost Econ]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I agree but haven't we been doing this since forever?

There was a time a few years back when the stock market was hitting record highs for weeks at a time and that was supposed to be a symbol of the economy doing well. We always have these Wall Street vs Main Street conversations no matter what was going on in the family home.

I know folks don't want to hear it but it also matters who is struggling to pay their bills. For some, if they don't have more money, they are expected to get a second or third job or to cut out everything but ramen noodles. If they don't have a job, it is because they don't want to work.

I agree, it's just odd they vote for the people who want to cut their wages and make them get a third or fourth job and destroy any worker protections they have.

[GrantDawg]

It is because they don't pay attention enough to know that. In an ideal world people would actually educate themselves, weigh the issues, and make reasonable and rational decisions. But many of the people we are talking about work hard and just scrape by. They are getting most their news third hand from their family, friends and co-workers. Or maybe the Joe Rogan podcast while driving to work.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

Lol. So the message I am seeing from some is that Biden went too far to the left, that Biden just basically was enacting Bernie Sanders' agenda, and the voters yesterday rejected pro-labor and anti-business policies.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Lol. So the message I am seeing from some is that Biden went too far to the left, that Biden just basically was enacting Bernie Sanders' agenda, and the voters yesterday rejected pro-labor and anti-business policies.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

People don’t even know what they are voting for. I had five people today that as a group couldn’t tell me a single Trump policy besides making the economy better and fixing the border. That’s as specific as they could get.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Ghost Econ

I agree, it's just odd they vote for the people who want to cut their wages and make them get a third or fourth job and destroy any worker protections they have.

"They" are voting for anyone to cut their wages etc. "They" are voting someone who will make sure that their wages increase...by cutting the wages of those other "they's".

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by dubb93

People don’t even know what they are voting for. I had five people today that as a group couldn’t tell me a single Trump policy besides making the economy better and fixing the border. That’s as specific as they could get.

My boss was telling me how happy he was because inflation has been killing him. In the last four years, he has bought a $88k truck, a $65k camper which he had 6 months and traded for a $85k camper, built an indoor electronic golf course, and put in a $120k pool. I mean, inflation has him over the barrel.

[cuervo72]

Yeah, had a guy from school just say it was the border, the economy, and the “woke crap.” Waiting to hear if my non-binary kid or their mixed race girlfriend are part of his “woke crap.”

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

My boss was telling me how happy he was because inflation has been killing him. In the last four years, he has bought a $88k truck, a $65k camper which he had 6 months and traded for a $85k camper, built an indoor electronic golf course, and put in a $120k pool. I mean, inflation has him over the barrel.

The funny thing about his spending habits is that drastically increasing tariffs seems to be one thing that could hit him hard if he continues to buy things where most of the parts are imported.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by dubb93

The funny thing about his spending habits is that drastically increasing tariffs seems to be one thing that could hit him hard if he continues to buy things where most of the parts are imported.

The products and equipment we use mostly comes from China. The last tariff battle had us short on somethings, and increased the price dramatically on others. But somehow that was the Democrats being soft on China's fault.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by dubb93

People don’t even know what they are voting for. I had five people today that as a group couldn’t tell me a single Trump policy besides making the economy better and fixing the border. That’s as specific as they could get.

I disagree. They are voting FOR Trump and whatever comes with that while people who voted for Harris were voting AGAINST Trump. A CNN exit poll showed a +8 for people voting for Trump than against Harris. It was +25 against Trump than for Harris. That is actually down from the +38 when Biden won.

Don't get me wrong, I do think some people who voted for Trump because they know he would be against things that Harris proposed. But most on the right just don't see Trump as the lesser of two evils in the way I heard most Dems talk about Harris. This is where I think Rainmaker has a point. I understand why independents and Republicans Against Trump types would feel that way about Harris. The registered Dems need to figure out what so many in their party felt this way about one of their own.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

It didn't get included in the COVID 19 package because the parliamentarian ruled it didn't fit the limitations for a reconciliation bill.

She's the President of the Senate. She can just say I disagree and leave it in the bill. The Parliamentarian is an unelected person who has no power unless you give it to them. Republicans would absolutely ignore it if they were in the same position.

The choice was to follow what the Parliamentarian said or make the minimum wage $15/hour and improve the lives of millions. She chose.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ghost Econ

I agree, it's just odd they vote for the people who want to cut their wages and make them get a third or fourth job and destroy any worker protections they have.

Everyone has been cutting their wages if we're going back 50 years. The cost of school, housing, cars, and health care have soared for decades and not kept up at all with wages. That leaves a lot of frustrated people.

So they vote for someone like Joe Biden in 2020 because Trump wasn't improving their life. Biden doesn't do anything to improve their situation in 4 years either. So they either vote Trump or sit it out. They aren't policy experts or economists. They just know the one party isn't helping so maybe the other party will.

This is why we have a see-saw effect. In 2 years when Trump doesn't solve any problems, the Democrats will clean up in the midterms like almost every single opposition party does. And this will continue to happen because the actual problems people face can't be solved because both parties are so engrossed with corporate donors.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

She's the President of the Senate. She can just say I disagree and leave it in the bill. The Parliamentarian is an unelected person who has no power unless you give it to them. Republicans would absolutely ignore it if they were in the same position.

The choice was to follow what the Parliamentarian said or make the minimum wage $15/hour and improve the lives of millions. She chose.

It would have been Schumer's call, not Harris'. The Senate majority leader is responsible for the parliamentarian and president of the senate is a somewhat meaningless title unless there's a tie vote to break. Standard Senate procedure would have been a simple majority vote to overrule her and they didn't have the votes to even do that.

But I'm sure this is still Harris' fault somehow. Yet you give Trump a pass for Covid.

[Brian Swartz]

I noticed that 3% of voters chose 'None of these' in the Nevada Senate race. Does that mean if that option were to win an election, they would just be deciding to ... not have a Senator for the next 6 years?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

It would have been Schumer's call, not Harris'. The Senate majority leader is responsible for the parliamentarian and president of the senate is a somewhat meaningless title unless there's a tie vote to break. Standard Senate procedure would have been a simple majority vote to overrule her and they didn't have the votes to even do that.

But I'm sure this is still Harris' fault somehow. Yet you give Trump a pass for Covid.

This is not true. The presiding officer of the Senate (the Vice President) makes the decision. The parliamentarian is just an aide to them and has no functional power.

There was a stink over it when Obama was in power. Republicans didn't like when the parliamentarian ruled that repealing Obamacare wouldn't qualify under budget reconciliation. Cruz called for her to be fired but then realized it didn't matter because Biden got to make that call anyway. If it's any consolation to you, Cruz didn't understand the rules of the Senate either.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I noticed that 3% of voters chose 'None of these' in the Nevada Senate race. Does that mean if that option were to win an election, they would just be deciding to ... not have a Senator for the next 6 years?

Oddly, they apparently just ignore it and declare 2nd place the victor.

[JPhillips]

Biden did more for the left flank of the party than anyone since Roosevelt and all he got was hatred. Regardless of policy merits, I can guarantee that the next several election cycles will be far from what the left is looking for. Dems are moving back to the 1990s.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This is not true. The presiding officer of the Senate (the Vice President) makes the decision. The parliamentarian is just an aide to them and has no functional power.

There was a stink over it when Obama was in power. Republicans didn't like when the parliamentarian ruled that repealing Obamacare wouldn't qualify under budget reconciliation. Cruz called for her to be fired but then realized it didn't matter because Biden got to make that call anyway. If it's any consolation to you, Cruz didn't understand the rules of the Senate either.

It's 100% true. The last Senate Parliamentarian to be removed was Robert Dove, who was fired by majority leader Trent Lott.

We can even reference the Wikipedia page for the Parliamentarian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parlia..._States_Senate

The parliamentarian is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Senate majority leader.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Biden did more for the left flank of the party than anyone since Roosevelt and all he got was hatred. Regardless of policy merits, I can guarantee that the next several election cycles will be far from what the left is looking for. Dems are moving back to the 1990s.

It's ok the left flank will tell everyone that voted for Harris how it's their fault that we ended up with Trump.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

It's 100% true. The last Senate Parliamentarian to be removed was Robert Dove, who was fired by majority leader Trent Lott.

We can even reference the Wikipedia page for the Parliamentarian.

Parliamentarian of the United States Senate - Wikipedia

Because Dick Cheney was the VP! The VP is the presiding officer of the Senate. They hand that role over to someone in their party in the Senate when their party controls the Senate.

I don't know what you're trying to argue. The Senate was 50/50. Harris was the presiding officer and had the sole power to overrule the parliamentarian. It was a big story at the time. She chose not to. That was her choice. You don't need to defend her from something she willlingly chose to do.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Biden did more for the left flank of the party than anyone since Roosevelt and all he got was hatred. Regardless of policy merits, I can guarantee that the next several election cycles will be far from what the left is looking for. Dems are moving back to the 1990s.

You all moved as far right as a Democratic candidate ever has and got trounced. Maybe just nominate Trump next time instead of running on his policies.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Danny

Yes, sorry, I post quickly while watching my kids so my words are not very carefully chosen and as thought through. I absolutely do think gender has an effect on the outcomes in certain states that are close and important for the electoral college.

Maybe part of it is that she wasn’t a good female candidate. If she were a man, she’d be a senator right now not the VP.

[Edward64]

Frakking AZ and NV are still not called.

I know it doesn't matter now but they really need to reform whatever is stopping them from finishing the count.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Maybe part of it is that she wasn’t a good female candidate. If she were a man, she’d be a senator right now not the VP.

I dunno man, don't think the VP statement is fair. Presidents pick VPs for all sorts of reasons and its not because they are the "best or most qualified" but more because they believe "they are best to help the win" the election (and then everything else).

But yes, I do agree she got a free-ride from VP to Democrat nominee. Not saying that was good, bad, right, wrong etc. but just that it was a free-ride.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Maybe part of it is that she wasn’t a good female candidate. If she were a man, she’d be a senator right now not the VP.

Was Vance more qualified to be VP in 24 than Harris was in 20?

Also, was Trump more or less qualified to be Potus in 16 than Harris was in 20?

[cuervo72]

Ahh, it's probably because she was too young. Let's compare.

Age of VPs at start of VP:

Walter Mondale: 49 years, 15 days
George H. W. Bush: 56 years, 222 days
Dan Quayle: 41 years, 351 days
Al Gore: 44 years, 295 days
Dick Cheney: 59 years, 356 days
Joe Biden: 66 years, 61 days
Mike Pence: 57 years, 227 days
Kamala Harris: 56 years, 92 days

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I dunno man, don't think the VP statement is fair. Presidents pick VPs for all sorts of reasons and its not because they are the "best or most qualified" but more because they believe "they are best to help the win" the election (and then everything else).

But yes, I do agree she got a free-ride from VP to Democrat nominee. Not saying that was good, bad, right, wrong etc. but just that it was a free-ride.

Joe explicitly stated that he was looking for a woman the VP slot. So if Kamala had a penis then she never would've been picked for VP. She was a DEI hire.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Joe explicitly stated that he was looking for a woman the VP slot. So if Kamala had a penis then she never would've been picked for VP. She was a DEI hire.

So, that's worse than all the other guys who didn't say they were looking for a white guy with a penis (but still obviously were), as was the case of the 48 other Veeps?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Joe explicitly stated that he was looking for a woman the VP slot. So if Kamala had a penis then she never would've been picked for VP. She was a DEI hire.

Don't dispute that but my below statement is also true. DEI and "best to help win the election" are not mutually exclusive.

Presidents pick VPs for all sorts of reasons and its not because they are the "best or most qualified" but more because they believe "they are best to help the win" the election (and then everything else).

[JPhillips]

Nobody says Vance was a DEI hire even though Trump was only looking at men.