Elections What's your final prediction in who wins in the US 2024 election?

[curryjunkie]

Yeah, I mean what's the deal with that?

Zelensky went to see him. Why?

zelensky went to see the man who could be re elected and control military aid to ukraine...its not hard to figure out ...

 

[curryjunkie]

Trump will win a landslide victory wtf are you people even talking about?

Oh wait you're listening to media (owned by and biased towards who ???) trying to make you believe it's close. I don't think it is. But I guess we'll see.

real @Starman vibes here..

 

[Andy Capp]

If the election were held tomorrow, Harris would win a competitive decision. 5 weeks in the context of modern society is a long time, though. Especially in a race this tight. And I doubt either side has played all their cards yet.

On a side note, makes me wonder what happens if/when KH wins a close race.

Do you really have to wonder?

 

[Bob Gray]

Sorry if that was too subtle. There have been many Democratic politicians seen as being potential presidential nominees who have been abandoned after scandals. Republicans' unwillingness to hold Trump to any standards is not normal.

The Access Hollywood tape alone would end a Democratic politician's career. As would the Daniels thing. And obviously more serious stuff like trying to extort another country or trying to overthrow the gov't would get even more serious consequences.

There have been Republicans ruined by scandal too. Its not new.

All your points are basically reducing everything to "My side good guys..other side bad guys". Your side watches better news. They're less biased, etc. Its all bullshit that you don't notice because you're so deep in the tank.

The fact that you're arguing the access hollywood tape would have killed a Democrat is laughable. Even 30 years ago Bill Clinton was shoving cigars up a young white house aids vag, and he cruised to easy re-election. That was literally in office, not decades earlier.

 

[fingercuffs]

Anything "could" happen, but we're talking about bases and under what circumstances they'll vote for someone else. I don't believe anything has happened with Trump that would deter his base. I also don't think a democrat doing or being accused of any of the same things would deter their base.

If some horror story akin to half of the scandals of Mandarin Molester Messiah came about with Kamala it would deter me. That isn't to say I'd fall into his tiny puppet hands but it would give me pause for thought. This is why I'm shaking my head at my friends in Virginia who have already voted, all manner of shady shit could come out about her or her staff. I'm waiting till the last second, there's no takey backsies after you've cast your vote and we're not just voting for a candidate, we're voting for the team we think can get shit done best.

 

[Bob Gray]

If some horror story akin to half of the scandals of Mandarin Molester Messiah came about with Kamala it would deter me. That isn't to say I'd fall into his tiny puppet hands but it would give me pause for thought. This is why I'm shaking my head at my friends in Virginia who have already voted, all manner of shady shit could come out about her or her staff. I'm waiting till the last second, there's no takey backsies after you've cast your vote and we're not just voting for a candidate, we're voting for the team we think can get shit done best.

And theres people that would vote for Trump in 2016 and not in 2020, because of Trump being Trump. I'm not saying nobody changes their mind about Trump based on any number of reasons. At this point the conversation has veered well away from the point that I made originally.

Both sides have people that just wont budge. If you're not one of them, cool.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There have been Republicans ruined by scandal too. Its not new.

What's new is Trump specifically being immune, and it's related to the maturation of a longer-term trend--which is the combination of the establishment of an alt-info sphere that is unmoored from reality and widespread distrust on the right of any neutral information sources.

All your points are basically reducing everything to "My side good guys..other side bad guys". Your side watches better news. They're less biased, etc. Its all bullshit that you don't notice because you're so deep in the tank.

I think you're interpreting it through that lens because of your own bias.

The fact that you're arguing the access hollywood tape would have killed a Democrat is laughable. Even 30 years ago Bill Clinton was shoving cigars up a young white house aids vag, and he cruised to easy re-election. That was literally in office, not decades earlier.

Agreed that if there was something totally different, the reaction would have been different, but I think it's delusional to deny that something like that tape would have ended a Democratic politician's career.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If some horror story akin to half of the scandals of Mandarin Molester Messiah came about with Kamala it would deter me. That isn't to say I'd fall into his tiny puppet hands but it would give me pause for thought. This is why I'm shaking my head at my friends in Virginia who have already voted, all manner of shady shit could come out about her or her staff. I'm waiting till the last second, there's no takey backsies after you've cast your vote and we're not just voting for a candidate, we're voting for the team we think can get shit done best.

Exactly. Liberals generally regard politicians as somewhat interchangeable because they are more ideological minded and much more likely to trust neutral sources of information. If Harris gave indication that her character was low, people would move on to Walz or someone without a second thought. The expectation for a liberal politician is that they're going to competently carry out liberal policy goals. Trump fans see value in Trump himself being in office. Neither group of people really understands the other because of that difference in outlook (which is why Republicans seem more likely to defend Menendez or Adams--they just can't comprehend liberals turning on them because of evidence of corruption, and they think it must be related to some disloyalty).

You can also see it with Biden. Liberals generally think he's been doing a good job--helped engineer an incredibly fast recovery from the pandemic recession and then a soft landing from the resulting inflation spike, strengthened environmental protections, strengthened the safety net, stayed out of big drama, has done well in terms of foreign policy, etc.--but when it looked like he was heading for a loss, he was abandoned without really a second thought.

Good piece that gets into some of these differences and more by the most thoughtful far-right pundit working now:

Liberals Read, Conservatives Watch TV

Explaining why Trump emerged on the right, why only liberals debate filibuster reform, how anti-vax became a partisan issue, how David Shor is half right, "Dems are the real racists" and much else.

www.richardhanania.com

 

[HomeCheese]

There have been Republicans ruined by scandal too. Its not new.

All your points are basically reducing everything to "My side good guys..other side bad guys". Your side watches better news. They're less biased, etc. Its all bullshit that you don't notice because you're so deep in the tank.

The fact that you're arguing the access hollywood tape would have killed a Democrat is laughable. Even 30 years ago Bill Clinton was shoving cigars up a young white house aids vag, and he cruised to easy re-election. That was literally in office, not decades earlier.

I think the story didn't break until after his reelection and his career has never been the same. It cost Al Gore the Whitehouse too. Had the story broke before the election he probably would not have won though the economy was booming and the national budget was looking better than it has since.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think the story didn't break until after his reelection and his career has never been the same. It cost Al Gore the Whitehouse too. Had the story broke before the election he probably would not have won though the economy was booming and the national budget was looking better than it has since.

There have also been changes in the movement since--which I think is really obvious. The left is just way less tolerant of that kind of thing than it used to be, and the right is way more tolerant of it than it used to be. And educational polarization of the type we've seen lately is much newer than people realize.

 

[Bob Gray]

I think the story didn't break until after his reelection and his career has never been the same. It cost Al Gore the Whitehouse too. Had the story broke before the election he probably would not have won though the economy was booming and the national budget was looking better than it has since.

You could right about the timeline. I honestly dont remember. But Clinton was practically Trump, just actually with charisma, intelligence, and he didn't have the personality of a child. Nothing could stick to stick to that dude. His horndog behavior was quite well known even before he was president and he had a multitude of scandals.

Even so, if he could have run again in 2000, he would have easily cruised to re-re-election at the time.

 

[Bob Gray]

What's new is Trump specifically being immune, and it's related to the maturation of a longer-term trend--which is the combination of the establishment of an alt-info sphere that is unmoored from reality and widespread distrust on the right of any neutral information sources.

I think you're interpreting it through that lens because of your own bias.

Agreed that if there was something totally different, the reaction would have been different, but I think it's delusional to deny that something like that tape would have ended a Democratic politician's career.

I don't think he's immune, I think it's not the smoking gun you believe that it is. Everyone talks hyperbole sometimes. "They never do...." , "They always think...". There are certainly scenarios we could create that would stop even a die hard base. Just that none of the things you're talking about are one of them.

What is my bias? I haven't voted republican since McCain.

 

[MLarson]

Do you have any specific predictions about what will happen?

Not particularly but it's a hunch.

And I think you it too.

 

[fingercuffs]

And theres people that would vote for Trump in 2016 and not in 2020, because of Trump being Trump. I'm not saying nobody changes their mind about Trump based on any number of reasons. At this point the conversation has veered well away from the point that I made originally.

Both sides have people that just wont budge. If you're not one of them, cool.

I mean if the Access Hollywood tape didn't swing female voters towards Hillary I don't know what would, haha. No wonder he paid off Stormy but who knows if that would have made a difference either.

 

[ShadowRun]

I thru k it’s 50/50 Harris was ahead a little (in my mind) but the more she talks off script and does interviews I feel she will sink. It’s all about referendum on both candidates.

 

[Bob Gray]

I thru k it’s 50/50 Harris was ahead a little (in my mind) but the more she talks off script and does interviews I feel she will sink. It’s all about referendum on both candidates.

I think it's equal parts hilarious and sad that the best thing for either candidate is to just stop talking and hope the other one never shuts up.

I go back and forth whenever one of them opens their mouth. Her recent interviews are terrible and she is so far out of her league I actually start to feel bad for her.

 

[fingercuffs]

Exactly. Liberals generally regard politicians as somewhat interchangeable because they are more ideological minded and much more likely to trust neutral sources of information. If Harris gave indication that her character was low, people would move on to Walz or someone without a second thought. The expectation for a liberal politician is that they're going to competently carry out liberal policy goals. Trump fans see value in Trump himself being in office. Neither group of people really understands the other because of that difference in outlook (which is why Republicans seem more likely to defend Menendez or Adams--they just can't comprehend liberals turning on them because of evidence of corruption, and they think it must be related to some disloyalty).

You can also see it with Biden. Liberals generally think he's been doing a good job--helped engineer an incredibly fast recovery from the pandemic recession and then a soft landing from the resulting inflation spike, strengthened environmental protections, strengthened the safety net, stayed out of big drama, has done well in terms of foreign policy, etc.--but when it looked like he was heading for a loss, he was abandoned without really a second thought.

Good piece that gets into some of these differences and more by the most thoughtful far-right pundit working now:

Liberals Read, Conservatives Watch TV

Explaining why Trump emerged on the right, why only liberals debate filibuster reform, how anti-vax became a partisan issue, how David Shor is half right, "Dems are the real racists" and much else.

www.richardhanania.com

I mean Joe has been in public service for 50 years so knew the job and I think in general he's a nice man. The only thing to veer me from him really was his age. But maybe if the GOP had their shit together (I'm talking Gaetz, Trailerpark-Green, Cruz and Boetart) and they had a better candidate I could have gone that way literally because he doesn't have 4 years left in him doing the most important job in the world.

But yeah. If something were to happen with her, I think we're in better hands with Walz than Vance.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't think he's immune, I think it's not the smoking gun you believe that it is. Everyone talks hyperbole sometimes. "They never do...." , "They always think...". There are certainly scenarios we could create that would stop even a die hard base. Just that none of the things you're talking about are one of them.

OK, but that's still very unusual. I don't think there's any evidence to support your assertion that Democrats would be equally dismissive of similar transgressions against taste, decency, and law, and there is a lot of evidence against it. If you think it's just human nature, you should reconsider.

What is my bias? I haven't voted republican since McCain.

Come on.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Not particularly but it's a hunch.

And I think you it too.

I think it's insane as you wrote it, but maybe you think like lowering the income threshold for Medicaid counts as destroying America or something so I'd like to see something more concrete.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I mean Joe has been in public service for 50 years so knew the job and I think in general he's a nice man. The only thing to veer me from him really was his age. But maybe if the GOP had their shit together (I'm talking Gaetz, Trailerpark-Green, Cruz and Boetart) and they had a better candidate I could have gone that way literally because he doesn't have 4 years left in him doing the most important job in the world.

But yeah. If something were to happen with her, I think we're in better hands with Walz than Vance.

It's not about Walz in particular. Just the idea that liberals generally see politicians as more or less interchangeable because they want liberal policy, and it doesn't matter much who implements it. The right by nature tends to be more personally connected to leaders.