POTUS 2024 - Harris vs Trump - General Election Discussion

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Dicksville Notch went 3-3. In 2020 it went 5-0 for Biden. This strangely makes me very worried.

If it makes you feel better, all 6 voted for Haley in the primaries.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

As long as he's able to tweet

Oh for the love. I hadn't considered tweets. Now I'm picturing an increasingly-declining Trump, sending tweets with more and more nonsense in them, and the cult-ish portion of his base believing/following it. That part could be more of a hot mess than anyone can even really predict.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

What's your alternative take, then?

The Republican Party of the 90s was a lot different than the one that supports Trump across a fairly wide range of issues, and was also a lot different in terms of how it conducted itself. IMO your take isn't 'not rocket science', but the sort of claim that's much closer to the opposite of the truth than the actual reality of the matter.

Trumpism came about when Republican voters rejected what the Republican Party had become; they specifically chose him over the many competing 'establishment/order' candidates that competed with him in 2016, most of whom joined Trump afterwards, some of which never did. Look at people like John Kasich and Joe Scarborough, both of whom detest Trump, as examples of what the mid-90s GOP was. It's not even close to Trumpism.

[Brian Swartz]

Anecdotal observation from my voting today, with all the usual grains of salt required:

- I've voted at the same location at a similar time on election day the last few cycles.

- I was voter #530; one of the volunteers remarked 'we're on 530 already?'. I don't think I've ever been as high as 400 before at a similar time, and I think I actually voted earlier if anything this time than I did in the record-setting '20 election. That's another tiny piece in favor of my sense, which has been it's all about turnout and I think turnout is going to be exceptionally high. I guess I just console myself in knowing I cancelled out one of Trump's margin in my area. It wouldn't surprise me if it took 90M+ popular votes to win this. That's my hot take.

- I'm not confident. My best guess is we get our first woman president in a close but clear result over the modern wanna-be Caesar but without the actual accomplishments of the historical one. The various potential 'nuclear' scenarios bother me almost as much as a second Trump presidency.

- Probably the worst part for me is it feels like 'do I ingest rat poison or cyanide'? I don't want either one of these candidates to be president. I won't be happy with either result. What I really want is to wake up from the national nightmare it feels to me we are on. I usually feel at least some form of satisfaction or hope after voting. This time, I'm just semi-depressed. I'll go on with life almost entirely the same way regardless of who wins, but it's just a very strong sense of 'what a disaster that this is what it's come to' from an American nation point of view.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Edward64

T-0 ...

Light at the end of the tunnel. Hoping for a clear decision by tonight/morning but likely drag along for several weeks for contested BS in 1-2 battleground states.

Either way, approx. 50% of the country will be vindicated soon, the other 50% will know it was all hopium.

In a perfect world, I'd go with a Dem sweep for Presidency, House and Senate in that order of priority (... and I'd like to see how well Jeffries handles the madhouse). This will give Kamala all the leverage she theoretically needs to do her stuff.


... and in 2028 I'm ready for a palatable GOP Presidential candidate that I can consider vs writing off right away.

I hope you are right. If you are I hope we don't see the "we have a mandate from the people" and go extreme left, IMHO about as crazy as the extreme right just not as dangerous.

If Harris wins I think she'll be left/center which will turn the far left against her for the next election. She'll be blamed for "doing nothing" as R's in congress sabotage any meaningful legislation. The danger to democracy will be put on hold for 4 years and at that time? Who knows.

I'd like the GOP to get past MAGA/Trump and return to some sanity, but I'm not holding my breath. I miss having a choice between candidates that argue issues and how to deal with them.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I hope you are right. If you are I hope we don't see the "we have a mandate from the people" and go extreme left, IMHO about as crazy as the extreme right just not as dangerous.

If Harris wins I think she'll be left/center which will turn the far left against her for the next election. She'll be blamed for "doing nothing" as R's in congress sabotage any meaningful legislation. The danger to democracy will be put on hold for 4 years and at that time? Who knows.

I'd like the GOP to get past MAGA/Trump and return to some sanity, but I'm not holding my breath. I miss having a choice between candidates that argue issues and how to deal with them.

Not one president has gone "extreme left" in recent history, it's just a myth the right pushes to move the center their way. Obama and Biden have been fairly right-center on most things, and even the stuff they were left on, the public has been in favor of (like the ACA).

For as long as I've been alive, the D candidates only talk about "reaching across the aisle" and silly things like that, where the R candidates were like, screw everyone else, we win it's our time...no compromise.

[Swaggs]

No way that Don Jr., Eric, and Laura give up the gravy train of income and fame that come from being in politics. I think Trump will at least continue to fundraise for awhile afterwards, whether he wins or loses, and that some or all of those three will move towards running for offices themselves. Much easier than running legitimate businesses.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Today's GOP is fundamentally the same one birthed by Newt & his "Contract with America" cronies in 1994. The only thing that's changed over the past 30 years is a) the filter's been stripped away with the help of more media outlets including social media and b) national candidates who were willing and able to present a less populist image (the "good ones" above), have aged out or been driven away.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That is complete nonsense.

I dunno, Newt doesn't exactly seem like some dude that feels lost and out of place in the current Republican party...

Newt Gingrich Can‘t Believe Wives Are Told They Can Vote Differently Than Husbands

[Arles]

That's not really what he said. Here's his quote:
“How do you run a country where you walk around saying wives should lie to their husbands, husbands should lie to their wives?” asked Gingrich

He's not saying wives should vote the same as their husband - he's saying wives shouldn't lie to their husband about who they voted for. The irony is Newt cheated on multiple wives and was one of the most dishonest people in politics.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Arles

That's not really what he said. Here's his quote:
“How do you run a country where you walk around saying wives should lie to their husbands, husbands should lie to their wives?” asked Gingrich

He's not saying wives should vote the same as their husband - he's saying wives shouldn't lie to their husband about who they voted for. The irony is Newt cheated on multiple wives and was one of the most dishonest people in politics.

True. Although my point wasn't necessarily to criticize him for what he said. My point is that he's alive and well in the current Republican party, rather than wondering what's become of it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The Republican Party of the 90s was a lot different than the one that supports Trump across a fairly wide range of issues, and was also a lot different in terms of how it conducted itself. IMO your take isn't 'not rocket science', but the sort of claim that's much closer to the opposite of the truth than the actual reality of the matter.

Trumpism came about when Republican voters rejected what the Republican Party had become; they specifically chose him over the many competing 'establishment/order' candidates that competed with him in 2016, most of whom joined Trump afterwards, some of which never did. Look at people like John Kasich and Joe Scarborough, both of whom detest Trump, as examples of what the mid-90s GOP was. It's not even close to Trumpism.

On what policies did Kasich and Scarborough differ from Trump and the modern Republican Party? The only one I can think of is economic nationalism and maybe foreign policy, which is now supported by both parties.

They're considered better because they don't like Trump. But they believe and vote for the same things. They just don't like that he has no filter.

[Atocep]

The question that escapes them is why would a wife feel the need to lie about who they voted for.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by miked

Not one president has gone "extreme left" in recent history, it's just a myth the right pushes to move the center their way. Obama and Biden have been fairly right-center on most things, and even the stuff they were left on, the public has been in favor of (like the ACA).

For as long as I've been alive, the D candidates only talk about "reaching across the aisle" and silly things like that, where the R candidates were like, screw everyone else, we win it's our time...no compromise.

And none of them will because the party is working at the behest of donors. Like I always here how the Dems are commies and extreme leftists but can anyone provide a single example of a policy they've advocated for or pushed this century?

It's a center-right party that is running the most conservative campaign since maybe Clinton in 1996. I don't understand what the fear is over.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

No way that Don Jr., Eric, and Laura give up the gravy train of income and fame that come from being in politics. I think Trump will at least continue to fundraise for awhile afterwards, whether he wins or loses, and that some or all of those three will move towards running for offices themselves. Much easier than running legitimate businesses.

Is Trump in Russia by 12/1 to avoid all the legal cases coming with a loss?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

True. Although my point wasn't necessarily to criticize him for what he said. My point is that he's alive and well in the current Republican party, rather than wondering what's become of it.

As much of a POS as he was, he was still light years better than Trump. The republicans used to be guys like Reagan, both Bush's, Dole and McCain. Old white dudes who respected a civil decorum of policy debates. Most tried to keep the super Christian side at bay with lip service but really dug into the fiscal side.

Now we have Trump who doesn't respect anyone (including himself) and has no core beliefs. He's a redneck Jesus where the people that vote for him know next to nothing on his policies.

So I would say it is a much different setup than the 80s, 90s and even early 00s for republican voters. I can't wait until we no longer see him anyway associated with the party. But who knows when that will be.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

Is Trump in Russia by 12/1 to avoid all the legal cases coming with a loss?

Hopefully 12/2 Vlad has sent him to the front lines for the liberation of Ukraine

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

They're considered better because they don't like Trump. But they believe and vote for the same things. They just don't like that he has no filter.

I don't agree. Along with many areas of foreign policy which you mentioned and is a major shift, constitutional law is a huge difference. So are a variety of areas of economic policy. By themselves those are just a considerable chunk of what government actually does.

The current GOP would not support things like the Contract With America. They don't care about limited government anymore. They used to champion things like Dan Quayle working with Ted Kennedy on bills where they found common agreement, actually having a budget which Congress hasn't done in decades now, free trade, and on and on it goes. You didn't get 'let's build a wall and have Mexico pay for it'. They were in favor of a far greater degree of cooperation on judicial appointments, in contrast to the current approach of undermining most of our institutions at every conceivable opportunity. They'd look at the corruption of Rostenkowski and similar, the House Bank Scandal, and all the rest and think 'the problem here is that we didn't think of it first'. There was a point when things like refusing to vote on Garland's SCOTUS nomination were not done.

Between that era and now, both parties have shifted to the wings, the center has grown, and we've become more polarized, to the benefit of pretty much nobody.

[Arles]

I think some of the policies are similar, but the process is completely different. I would also say I feel this current iteration of Trumpism has really leaned into the christian right on social issues. I think he realized the easiest way to get elected is to go far right of even Bush and Dole on things like abortion, access to birth control and the LGBTQ issues. That was never a big part of republican campaigns (esp with guys like McCain, Romney, W and HW).

I'm also 100% sure that Trump has zero interest in fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget (Newt's big crusade under Clinton). Trump is really nothing like any prior republican candidate on most issues they campaigned on. He's willing to set the world on fire if that means he gets 4 more years - with no care about the long term damage. If you gave truth serum to guys like McCain, W, HW and even Newt, they would all state that they thought their policies were better for the long term health of the country (even if their logic was questionable). I'm not sure Trump even knows his policies and cares even less about how they impact the US after his term.

[RainMaker]

Reagan committed treason. HW did despicable things in the CIA and pardoned those who committed treason. His son killed a million innocent people and thousands of American soldiers to prop up a few businesses. McCain was a bloodthirsty corrupt Senator. Dole was Nixon's hatchet man (he called Watergate fake news!) who denigrated Kerry's service and was basically the McConnell of the 90's. He pushed for a constitutional amendment banning abortion and wanted to ban many birth control methods (IUD, morning after).

These people all shared the same views. Those social issues just weren't as prominent as they are today because the parties differed much more on economic matters which the parties have mostly come to an agreement on today.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't agree. Along with many areas of foreign policy which you mentioned and is a major shift, constitutional law is a huge difference. So are a variety of areas of economic policy. By themselves those are just a considerable chunk of what government actually does.

The current GOP would not support things like the Contract With America. They don't care about limited government anymore. They used to champion things like Dan Quayle working with Ted Kennedy on bills where they found common agreement, actually having a budget which Congress hasn't done in decades now, free trade, and on and on it goes. You didn't get 'let's build a wall and have Mexico pay for it'. They were in favor of a far greater degree of cooperation on judicial appointments, in contrast to the current approach of undermining most of our institutions at every conceivable opportunity. They'd look at the corruption of Rostenkowski and similar, the House Bank Scandal, and all the rest and think 'the problem here is that we didn't think of it first'. There was a point when things like refusing to vote on Garland's SCOTUS nomination were not done.

Between that era and now, both parties have shifted to the wings, the center has grown, and we've become more polarized, to the benefit of pretty much nobody.

The only cared about "limited government" when a Democrat was President. They didn't mind spending under Reagan, HW, or W. "Fiscal conservatism" was always just an excuse to block any Democratic policy and was never a position they actually believed in.


They did differ in immigration, I'll give you that. Both sides are in agreement on immigration today and are far to the right of anyone back in the 80's and 90's.

[Arles]

So you think McCain, Reagan, HW, W and Romney were basically the same as Trump? That's wild to me. But I get the left thinks everyone on the right is a criminal of some sort.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

Is Trump in Russia by 12/1 to avoid all the legal cases coming with a loss?

Except in the most wild Kamala landslide scenario, good luck with Trump conceding defeat by 12/1. Unless you meant 2025.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

So you think McCain, Reagan, HW, W and Romney were basically the same as Trump? That's wild to me. But I get the left thinks everyone on the right is a criminal of some sort.

No, I think all of them were far worse and did far more damage to America. They just had a filter which is what most people care about over policy.

Has Trump done anything as bad as kill a million innocent people to prop up the stock of some oil companies and defense contractors? Reagan literally did the thing that people think Trump will do with Russia but far worse.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by miked

Not one president has gone "extreme left" in recent history, it's just a myth the right pushes to move the center their way. Obama and Biden have been fairly right-center on most things, and even the stuff they were left on, the public has been in favor of (like the ACA).

For as long as I've been alive, the D candidates only talk about "reaching across the aisle" and silly things like that, where the R candidates were like, screw everyone else, we win it's our time...no compromise.

Oh I tend to agree but in most elections, no matter how close, no matter which party, we tend to get the "mandate" claim. It could be the candidate or it could be a faction of their party. For many years the left claimed the right was going to do x,y, and z but common sense and history said it wouldn't happen. Nobody would have believed in 2016 with Trump running that we'd end up where we are, but... here we are.

[Arles]

Every president has killed millions of "innocent people" and "propped up the stock market" at the expense of working people. Clinton was probably worse than any republican in that regard. I'm not sure what you are getting at here? The primary job of the president is to protect the US and help the economy - that usually comes at the expense of someone globally.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

Every president has killed millions of "innocent people" and "propped up the stock market" at the expense of working people. Clinton was probably worse than any republican in that regard. I'm not sure what you are getting at here? The primary job of the president is to protect the US and help the economy - that usually comes at the expense of someone globally.

What millions of people did Trump kill?

[JPhillips]

I think we're going to know a lot pretty early in the evening. The states I'm watching are PA, NC, and GA. If Trump wins all three, it's his night. If Harris wins one, I expect it will be days before we know the overall winner. If Harris wins two, it's hard to see Trump winning. If Harris wins all three, it's over.

[RainMaker]

Isn't PA one of those slow states because they aren't allowed to process ballots early? Way less people are voting by mail so maybe it won't be as long a wait but I feel like they're always one of those slow ass states.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What millions of people did Trump kill?

We just going to ignore the elephant in the room here?

[Arles]

Yeah, I mean that shouldn't be too hard.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Isn't PA one of those slow states because they aren't allowed to process ballots early? Way less people are voting by mail so maybe it won't be as long a wait but I feel like they're always one of those slow ass states.

Not sure, but I just saw something about GA being able to post about 80% of its vote relatively early tonight. So we should know GA pretty quickly.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by dubb93

We just going to ignore the elephant in the room here?

That doesn't count!

[Lathum]

PA is going to be a slog if it’s close. They can’t start counting until 7am this morning. Georgia was able to count in advance and we should have a good feel for them by around 8:00 from what I’m seeing.

[Arles]

They said here in Arizona it could take 12 days to count all the votes. It's like we are the old time west using horse and buggy.

[JPhillips]

Everyone in the GOP is praising FL, but they took 12 days from the election to certification in 2020. So long as the margin isn't super close any state can report enough to know what happened on election night. The problem is when the margins get so close that the outstanding mail and provisional ballots could potentially change the result.

It takes CA forever to finally stop counting, but the vast majority of results at all levels are known sometime overnight because the margins aren't close.

[JPhillips]

In both NV and AZ there are a ton of unaffiliated voters. GOP vs. Dem numbers look good for Trump, but what's up with the unaffiliated?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In both NV and AZ there are a ton of unaffiliated voters. GOP vs. Dem numbers look good for Trump, but what's up with the unaffiliated?

In Nevada, I think they added automatic registration and it just makes you unaffiliated unless you choose a party after or vote in a primary.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

- Probably the worst part for me is it feels like 'do I ingest rat poison or cyanide'? I don't want either one of these candidates to be president. I won't be happy with either result. What I really want is to wake up from the national nightmare it feels to me we are on. I usually feel at least some form of satisfaction or hope after voting. This time, I'm just semi-depressed. I'll go on with life almost entirely the same way regardless of who wins, but it's just a very strong sense of 'what a disaster that this is what it's come to' from an American nation point of view.

Just curious, who did you wish you could have voted for?

[GrantDawg]

This thread needs a laugh:



[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by dubb93

We just going to ignore the elephant in the room here?

COVID? I don't really consider that something Trump did. It was a global pandemic that killed millions around the world regardless of government.

Do you really think an 80's or 90's Republican would have treated it different? Do you remember what Reagan and HW did with AIDS?

[GrantDawg]

Truth Social stock just dropped so hard they halted sales.


edit: Looks there was a slight drop at 2, then around 10 minutes ago it drop 15%.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

COVID? I don't really consider that something Trump did. It was a global pandemic that killed millions around the world regardless of government.

Do you really think an 80's or 90's Republican would have treated it different? Do you remember what Reagan and HW did with AIDS?

I think there was a lot less information at the time about AIDs. If you don’t think Trump mismanaged COVID and cost American lives then I don’t know that anyone can have this conversation with you.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by dubb93

I think there was a lot less information at the time about AIDs. If you don’t think Trump mismanaged COVID and cost American lives then I don’t know that anyone can have this conversation with you.

First time?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by dubb93

I think there was a lot less information at the time about AIDs. If you don’t think Trump mismanaged COVID and cost American lives then I don’t know that anyone can have this conversation with you.

They did know. They were happy it was only killing gay people and even wanted to use it as an anti-gay political message. They only started caring and acknowleding it when Nancy's friend died and heterosexual people were getting infected through blood transfusions.

Reagan drastically cut Medicaid, the HHS budget, and killed a ton of programs. They even cut federal funding for kids despite it not saving any money. And of course dismantling mental health facilities which most people know about that we have still not recovered from.

Trump didn't do a good job or anything but this idea he was worse than 80's and 90's Republicans is a myth. They held the same views and would have handled it the same way. Heck, Reagan probably would have been ecstatic at first that it was killing people poor people and those in urban areas.

[cuervo72]

Melania’s been wearing sunglasses inside all day today. pic.twitter.com/4Wv3PwyA2h

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) November 5, 2024

(I mean, it's probably her, but man, would have sworn it wasn't!)

[thesloppy]

I'd bet the house that's not her. She physically can't smile that wide.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

Isn't PA one of those slow states because they aren't allowed to process ballots early? Way less people are voting by mail so maybe it won't be as long a wait but I feel like they're always one of those slow ass states.

Yes. They had 82% of votes counted on election day last time.

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

COVID? I don't really consider that something Trump did. It was a global pandemic that killed millions around the world regardless of government.

Do you really think an 80's or 90's Republican would have treated it different? Do you remember what Reagan and HW did with AIDS?

COVID itself, obviously not Trump's fault. I think his reaction to it is far worse than anything Reagan or either of the Bushes did and it's not even close. AIDS is not a comparable comparison IMO.

The whole lumping of all these people together has as much validity (close to zero) as the whole 'all liberals are socialists/communists who hate America' tripe. I understand why you don't like any of them, but they weren't realistically going after your vote anyway.

For myself, I enthusiastically voted for Republicans in the 90s consistently. My views have changed since then, but I'd still do so if similar politicians were an option now. I'd happily take that over either party that we currently have: I'd probably also vote for 90s Democrats over the versions we have now.

An example of what has changed: the Michigan Republican Senate primary. Mike Rogers (MAGA) against Justin Amash ('traditional Republican' and one of the best public servants of my lifetime IMO). I cheerfully voted Amash. He got destroyed, so I voted not for Slotkin but against Rogers in the general. It was not a close call. There is a stark difference between what conservatism in general was 20 years ago and the MAGA version.

As I've said before, I will not be voting Democrat again after this election unless they reform themselves, and I won't be voting Republican either. This is my last protest vote, and it's only because of Trumpism. They can demonstrate they are worthy of me overlooking my disagreements with them, which at least means a minimal level of responsible statesmanship, or I'll vote third party the rest of my life. Not that they really should care or that I'm particularly important, but it's the one thing I have that I can lean on to say 'what both of you are doing is completely unacceptable'.

[Atocep]

I saw Trump finally gave way to his impulses last night and called Pelosi a bitch at a rally.

[RainMaker]

This would seemingly be good news for Democrats in Nevada. A lot of people speculated that the early advantage Republicans had was because they made a huge push to vote early. That seems to be what happens as their election day vote is down considerably from 2022.

It's probably impossible to decipher whether that means Harris can win Nevada but that is something she needed to have happen based on the early vote totals.



[GrantDawg]

The bad news in Nevada is that they are are rejecting more ballots than usual because of signature matching problems. They say that it is mostly younger voters that don't generally have consistent signatures.