The Race For 2024

[Swammerdami]

Last October a poll found that 33% of Republicans and 41% of pro-Trump Americans agree that "because things have gotten so far off-track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country."

That's old news, but the craziness is so depraved I'm sure I'm not the only one growing numb. Remind ourselves of the craziness! And be aware that even if the side of reason gets electoral victory in November, that will NOT be the end of it.

 

[Elixir]

even if the side of reason gets electoral victory in November, that will NOT be the end of it.

I've been thinking (yes, it's possible) ...
It's likely that Trump will lose the general election and of course say it was stolen from him again. Focus will once more be on the certification of state electors' votes.
This time, though ...
The Capitol building must be well defended, and signs posted warning that lethal force will be used against anyone attempting to enter illegally.
And lethal force SHOULD be used, the minute Trump's goons get out of line.

 

[Swammerdami]

But just as al-Qaeda switched from a truck bomb to a large airplane (and would try something else next time), so the QOPAnon terrorists will change their approach. There will certainly be death threats (and perhaps killings) against relevant state-level officials and judges. IIUC some GOP state legislatures have already given themselves the power to declare an election as they see fit. The election is likely to be EXTREMELY close. Stealing just 1 or 2 states may be all Trump needs.

 

[Elixir]

There will certainly be death threats (and perhaps killings) against relevant state-level officials and judges.

There already are.

Stealing just 1 or 2 states may be all Trump needs.

That’s true, but the States most prone to being “stolen” are already in the Trump bag. I don’t think he can get away with it in AZ, GA, MI or WI. Maybe Pa, and that would be bad.

 

[Copernicus]

We are still at a stage where not a single primary has occurred. The general election won't really get going until the summer. At a later point, most voters will start taking the election seriously. Right now, it is an exercise in political junky jockeying in social media. Polls are notoriously unreliable, but they make great clickbait and magnets for news stories. The rich people who fund our elections have not yet committed themselves to which politicians can give them the things that they want or feel they need. Donald Trump has been beneficial to them in the past, but he brings instability. So I suspect that the bulk of the funding will go to Biden's campaign, not Trump's, assuming that he doesn't show vulnerability during the primaries. The money is important, because that will determine who can hire the best election support staff and propagandists. Public opinion among uncommitted voters will shift in a population that is closely split between conservative and liberal voters. To me, it sounds crazy that there are still people left who could vote for either Biden or Trump, but I keep reminding myself that I am not even close to being an average voter. Trump will need to campaign and spend money, if he is to beat Biden. When he campaigns, he turns a lot of voters off.

What I expect to happen is that the House will shift back to Democrats and the Senate to Republicans. The presidential race will likely be close, but won by Biden. If Nikki Haley is the Republican nominee--still a possibility--then I think that Biden would be more likely to lose. He is not a strong campaigner, and she will be the shiny new object for voters to consider. The fact that many Trump supporters "don't hate her" in interviews suggests to me that she will be fiercely defended by them, if they can't have Trump. Suburban women voters will shift strongly in her direction, unless they are turned off by her support for the anti-abortion fanatics. I predict that she'll moderate her positions in the general election.

 

[Elixir]

The fact that many Trump supporters "don't hate her" in interviews suggests to me that she will be fiercely defended by them, if they can't have Trump.

I think that if they can't "have" Trump they'll write him in. We're not talking about strategic thinkers here.

Suburban women voters will shift strongly in her direction, unless they are turned off by her support for the anti-abortion fanatics.

Which they will be, I believe.

I predict that she'll moderate her positions in the general election.

That's a virtual guarantee. Whether she's smart enough to come clear on the abortion issue, is doubtful.

 

[Copernicus]

The fact that many Trump supporters "don't hate her" in interviews suggests to me that she will be fiercely defended by them, if they can't have Trump.

I think that if they can't "have" Trump they'll write him in. We're not talking about strategic thinkers here.

Suburban women voters will shift strongly in her direction, unless they are turned off by her support for the anti-abortion fanatics.

Which they will be, I believe.

I predict that she'll moderate her positions in the general election.

That's a virtual guarantee. Whether she's smart enough to come clear on the abortion issue, is doubtful.

I think that she still doesn't have enough experience campaigning outside of South Carolina. Her clumsy handling of the Civil War issue was proof of that. However, if she manages to stay afloat during the first few primaries, she should start attracting more money and better advisers to handle her messaging. Right now, she is fighting to be seen as the acceptable alternative to Trump, so she has to take positions that don't drive away his cult followers. That's really hard to do, but it is interesting that his "birdbrain" nickname for her died out quickly. Trump seems to have had some difficulty in marginalizing her. We'll see how that rivalry plays out if she surprises people in the first few primaries.

 

[Elixir]

We'll see how that rivalry plays out if she surprises people in the first few primaries.

Popcorn-worthy but not consequential is my prediction.

 

[Swammerdami]

I still think prediction markets are as good a guess as any now. Thailand is barred from some prediction sites so I report only Betfair.

The D's are favored 74-22 to win the popular vote, but the Rs are favored 52-45 to win the electoral vote.

Trump is 82+% to win the R nomination, Haley 13%. Trump would be 50-50 to win in November, if the nominee. Haley perhaps 63%. (Remember that's conditioned on Haley being the nominee, which would be both effect and cause of increased favorability.)

Overall, Trump is 41% to be the next Prez; Biden 31%, Haley 8%. That adds to only 80% suggesting much uncertainty about who the nominees will be. Newsom (3%), M. Obama, RFK, Ramaswamy, Harris, DeSantis (1%) -- in that order -- fill in the 4-9 slots on the Likely-to-Win-Prez list.

I admire the Obamas greatly, but there are several reasons the touting of Ms. Obama is wrong, most notably that her defeat in November would be a certainty in the racist U.S.A.

Betfair modified its rule since 2020:

If the losing candidate does not concede, or if there is any uncertainty ... then the market will be settled on the winner decided by Congress, on the date on which the Electoral College votes are counted in a joint session of Congress.

 

[bilby]

To me, it sounds crazy that there are still people left who could vote for either Biden or Trump

"vote for" is propaganda, and this propaganda is incredibly effective, widespread, and pernicious.

In a representative democracy, voters vote against.

The purpose of democracy is to allow the people to oust an unpopular ruler, and to veto the worst of his proposed successors.

Politicians, most of whom have a serious case of narcissism (albeit not usually in the same league as Trump's), far prefer to claim that being elected implies widespread popular support and acclaim.

But it actually just means you are the least unpopular candidate from the rather ugly list of "people so pompous and arrogant that they genuinely want to be in charge".

The sooner voters realise this, and get out to vote against the worst candidate(s), the better. That process is literally the essence of democracy, which is the political system intended to allow people to dispose of bad rulers without having to go to the effort of killing them.

The seemingly simple and innocuous phrase, "vote for", is the worlds longest running, and most effective, voter suppression campaign.

You don't vote for the lesser of two evils; You vote against the greater of two evils.

 

[Copernicus]

To me, it sounds crazy that there are still people left who could vote for either Biden or Trump

"vote for" is propaganda, and this propaganda is incredibly effective, widespread, and pernicious.

In a representative democracy, voters vote against.

The purpose of democracy is to allow the people to oust an unpopular ruler, and to veto the worst of his proposed successors.

Politicians, most of whom have a serious case of narcissism (albeit not usually in the same league as Trump's), far prefer to claim that being elected implies widespread popular support and acclaim.

But it actually just means you are the least unpopular candidate from the rather ugly list of "people so pompous and arrogant that they genuinely want to be in charge".

The sooner voters realise this, and get out to vote against the worst candidate(s), the better. That process is literally the essence of democracy, which is the political system intended to allow people to dispose of bad rulers without having to go to the effort of killing them.

The seemingly simple and innocuous phrase, "vote for", is the worlds longest running, and most effective, voter suppression campaign.

You don't vote for the lesser of two evils; You vote against the greater of two evils.

I think that you've focused too narrowly on a special interpretation of what I meant with the words "vote for". All I meant in context was that I found it difficult to imagine that anyone was left who could be conflicted about whether to check a box for Biden or for Trump. How they arrived at the calculation--whether with a positive or negative view of the candidates--doesn't much matter. The election will just come down to those two names. Needless to say, this is America. So most eligible voters might not even bother to cast a ballot, preferring to let other people make the choice for them. The idea is that they can then blame other people, rather than themselves, for making a bad choice.

 

[bilby]

The idea is that they can then blame other people, rather than themselves, for making a bad choice.

Well, that's my point. That excuse only works if you start with the assumption that a vote is a positive choice of who should rule; But it's actually a negative choice of who should not.

There's a subtle but significant difference between the empty excuse "It's not my fault, I voted for the other guy!", and the far more solid claim "It's not my fault, I voted against this arsehole!".

 

[Copernicus]

The idea is that they can then blame other people, rather than themselves, for making a bad choice.

Well, that's my point. That excuse only works if you start with the assumption that a vote is a positive choice of who should rule; But it's actually a negative choice of who should not.

There's a subtle but significant difference between the empty excuse "It's not my fault, I voted for the other guy!", and the far more solid claim "It's not my fault, I voted against this arsehole!".

Let me be even clearer. I don't buy the lazy excuse that people who don't vote are somehow not responsible for the vote. If they don't vote, that is as good as voting for the candidate that eventually wins. In the case of Trump vs Biden, they take the position that both men are somehow equivalent, and I find that hard to imagine.

I recently returned from a trip that included both Ecuador and Peru--two countries that are politically unstable but have representative democracies. People in those countries are not only fined for not voting, but they are prohibited from using certain government services. For example, they can't get passports. I wish that the same were true in the US. If people have to vote, they pay more attention to the candidates that are running for office. Even if they make bad choices, they can't make lazy excuses for not taking responsibility.

 

[southernhybrid]

The idea is that they can then blame other people, rather than themselves, for making a bad choice.

Well, that's my point. That excuse only works if you start with the assumption that a vote is a positive choice of who should rule; But it's actually a negative choice of who should not.

There's a subtle but significant difference between the empty excuse "It's not my fault, I voted for the other guy!", and the far more solid claim "It's not my fault, I voted against this arsehole!".

Let me be even clearer. I don't buy the lazy excuse that people who don't vote are somehow not responsible for the vote. If they don't vote, that is as good as voting for the candidate that eventually wins. In the case of Trump vs Biden, they take the position that both men are somehow equivalent, and I find that hard to imagine.

I recently returned from a trip that included both Ecuador and Peru--two countries that are politically unstable but have representative democracies. People in those countries are not only fined for not voting, but they are prohibited from using certain government services. For example, they can't get passports. I wish that the same were true in the US. If people have to vote, they pay more attention to the candidates that are running for office. Even if they make bad choices, they can't make lazy excuses for not taking responsibility.

I agree, primarily because we have a huge problem with voter apathy in this country, especially among the poor and the young. When I was still working with poor, young women, many of whom were Black, hardly anyone voted. I begged and pleaded, explaining to them that voting was the only power they had in this country. I finally got one Black woman and her mom to register with my help. They were excited to vote for Obama. In the next election, I asked T, if she had voted and she told me she didn't because she had to work that day. I got angry with her, as we were close enough for me to express myself that way when appropriate. I told her that we had 3 full weeks of early voting in Georgia and since she only worked 3 to 4 long days a week, she had plenty of time to vote. Then she said she didn't know any of the candidates. It was a midterm election. I told her that all she had to do was vote D all the way down because as a young, Black female, the Rs would love to take away from her, while the Ds would at least protect the benefits she already had. Then I told her if she would watch the news once in awhile instead of Hip Hop Atlanta, she might know a few things about our elections. ( the girls were always watching Hip Hop ATL when they were doing laundry or folding the residents clothing. ) She promised me she would always vote from then on, but I have no idea if she kept her word. That is what one has to do around here to get young, and/or poor people to vote. The only one who voted regularly was a very smart, young Black woman who had a college degree, but she complained to me that her sister didn't vote. This was so common and I heard all the excuses like: My vote doesn't count. I don't like the candidates. I might be put on jury duty if I vote. WTF! One of my closest Black friends finally convinced her two middle aged kids to vote when Trump was running in 2016 for the first time in their lives. My older Black friends almost always vote, especially my closest one. My Generation X and atheist friends vote too. People say that we have voter suppression in Ga, but the truth is we have voter apathy. Maybe some people don't vote because they fear voter suppression. I don't know, but it's frustrating.

I do look at it differently from some of you. I do vote for people who I like, most of the time. I know that humans are a very flawed species, and we all make big mistakes in our lives, so I don't expect perfection from any candidate, but there is always one who is much better compared to the alternative. And, sometimes the alternative is horrific, or in the case of Trump, a narcissistic psychopath. You can call it whatever you want, but it's stupid to expect perfection or to expect to get everything you want.

Okay, That was a rant.

 

[TSwizzle]

People who don’t vote and don’t want to vote shouldn’t be held to ransom to vote. Besides, that would upset the ballot harvesting shenanigans, right? That would upset a few people.

 

[ZiprHead]

People who don’t vote and don’t want to vote shouldn’t be held to ransom to vote.

Why?

 

[Elixir]

People who don’t vote and don’t want to vote shouldn’t be held to ransom to vote.

Why?

Because it's so burdensome? Too high a price to pay just to replace one scoundrel with another?
The smell of cynicism around right wingers lately is like brimstone at the gates of hell. Freedum.

 

[Swammerdami]

To me, it sounds crazy that there are still people left who could vote for either Biden or Trump

"vote for" is propaganda, and this propaganda is incredibly effective, widespread, and pernicious.

In a representative democracy, voters vote against.
. . . The sooner voters realise this, and get out to vote against the worst candidate(s), the better. . . .
You don't vote for the lesser of two evils; You vote against the greater of two evils.

I think that you've focused too narrowly on a special interpretation of what I meant with the words "vote for". ... The election will just come down to those two names. Needless to say, this is America. So most eligible voters might not even bother to cast a ballot, preferring to let other people make the choice for them. The idea is that they can then blame other people, rather than themselves, for making a bad choice.

This comment reminded me of a famous George Carlin gig:



If you've not seen it, watch it now!

 

[Politesse]

People who don’t vote and don’t want to vote shouldn’t be held to ransom to vote. Besides, that would upset the ballot harvesting shenanigans, right? That would upset a few people.

Would you agree with the statement, "Voting is a privilege, not a responsiblity"?

 

[TSwizzle]

People who don’t vote and don’t want to vote shouldn’t be held to ransom to vote. Besides, that would upset the ballot harvesting shenanigans, right? That would upset a few people.

Would you agree with the statement, "Voting is a privilege, not a responsiblity"?

On a scale of one to ten, where ten is strongly agree and one is strongly disagree, I’d say about a five.