So actual election results mid-cycle are not evidence enough?
2024 U.S. Elections
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Whatever Biden loses among lefties and Arab Americans, he will gain through Israel supporters in the party who have said they will vote Trump if Biden buckles on Israel support.
I think Rob's answer below just about sums this up as succinctly as possible.
---
What makes you think these are new voters that Biden is gaining?
It sounds a lot more like Israel supporters that already voted for Biden in 2020 that are threatening to abandon current support of Biden if Biden isn't a stalwart enough supporter of Israel. I haven't seen any evidence Biden's stance is somehow gaining him any new voters like the right-wing Israel supporters that were gleeful when Trump moved the embassy.
He's not going to 'gain' much at all. The majority of both blocs you mention were around 70:30 D before all these shenanigans. He needs to maintain support of both groups, which is his problem, unless you're suggesting significant numbers of the R 30% will flip D. Steadfast support for both Israel and Ukraine could see him gain a little in the vet demographic though as they don't love trump.
There are no national elections mid cycle.
Maybe not but election results in Red States on topics that the GE will be fought on aren't going well for the GOP, and Trump is campaigning on some of those issues
I wonder if this is necessarily true. Don't you think there is a sizable portion of Trump's voters that wouldn't show up to vote at all, if he wasn't on the ballot for whatever reason? A lot of these people are ride or die for Trump, and in the unlikely case where he is not on the ballot, but still alive, I can't see him endorsing anyone else.
He needs to retain support of both groups or else make up for lost support from one with more support from the other, which would make this issue irrelevant in the end.
I think polls will underestimate dems again in a year, guess we just have to disagree on that one.
https://www.axios.com/2023/11/26/trump-obamacare-affordable-care-act
In other news, Trump attacking ACA again, republicans will 100% finish the job next time, dems should remind voters of that next year.
In other news, Trump attacking ACA again, republicans will 100% finish the job next time, dems should remind voters of that next year.
You raise an interesting point. Polling has been vs a generic candidate, not a generic candidate that Trump actively torpedoes. I don't know is the best answer I have.
The GOP have downstream problems for sure. Candidate quality (read purges) play a large part, and abortion especially is not helping them. In a national race though most of these votes simply don't matter; it comes down to very slim margins in a few states with two unpopular candidates who people will often be voting for because they don't like the other guy. The number of people voting 'on the issues' for the presidency is small in general, and even more miniscule this time around. If Dem voters really do decide to 'stay home' due to gaza or whatever, Biden has big problems.
Which is the issue. He can't really do the bold, so has to thread an impossible line for the former. Hopefully people will have forgotten/care less by the time the election rolls around.
He said he wanted to use the military for law enforcement too I think. A lot of people angry about that one.
Are you ignoring that a lot of women here don't want to be forced to carry to term an unwanted pregnancy? In your opinion how does that factor in to this inevitable republican victory.
Presidential candidate Vivek reduced to doing YouTube reaction videos.
If only national elections were a referendum on abortion as opposed to electing a candidate based on a myriad of issues. Yes, D should campaign on abortion. No, it's likely not enough.
From reading Twitter in the last week or so, I suspect a lot of Democratic partisans are aware of this, which is why there is a certain amount of panicky frustration.
The off year election winning streak in non-ridiculous states like Utah & Idaho have essentially acted as a referendum on abortion access. Some of the campaigns in swing states were focused almost solely on the Dobbs decision.
The thing is that the right will keep doing stupid shit like continue passing 6 week abortion bans on the regular, ensuring that the issue will remain front & center through next November.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The RvW overturn made state politics interesting, though I know very little about them outside of news and Idaho. I don't think it'll transfer nationally given D inability thus far to even progress legislation through the senate or bring it to the house at all. It's more of a state by state battle now. (Biden has also not made any structural moves to make DC or PR states, which he absolutely needed to do pre house shift. I don't understand why it wasn't the #1 Democratic priority, not to mention it was the right thing to do.)
Copium says that is a good poll. I like this poll.
ffs I wondered why Matt Gaetz was tweeting about this...
Abortion access affects basically everyone, the issue transcends mere state politics.
Biden should play the final Kentucky Dem ad...
with this spliced in...
in a minute long ad. It will be as effective as this...
I agree. I just don't think it will play out like that, or that Democrats nationally have shown themselves competent in doing anything about the issue. The anti abortion vanguard has come through referendums and gubernatorial intervention mostly and I think dems haven't even managed to advance a bill to the senate floor?
(on the subject of LBJ i saw this the other day)
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
What can the Dems really do? Nothing specific as Dobbs killed Roe. But they can use the national megaphone in ads & trumpeting the inevitable red state uber-restrictive abortion laws that will come in the next eleven months.
It'll be far more of the Repubs screwing themselves over thru tone deaf state legislative anti-abortion measures & the Dems merely highlighting & illuminating them nationwide. Kinda like not getting in the way of an opponent when they are actively killing themselves politically.
I do like Michael Beschloss. That's a great tweet.
4 more senators would definitely help bust a potential filibuster and appoint judges. Hindsight is easy, but they had multiple opportunities to codify roe v wade, politics were nowhere near as partisan as now.
Hope you’re right, but my gut dats it’ll hurt them downstream but not on the presidential ticket. (If the presidency is powerless to stop it, why should it affect the presidency) - If dems win both houses but lose the presidency to trump, which is far from impossible, things will get interesting.
If Trump wins, I think the House may keep the GOP as the majority too. The Senate will go to the GOP almost 100%.
And Trump will hire crazy batshit people (even more than the first time), yeah, it is concerning. In his first term, at least some of his appointments stood up to him at some point. He and his wing of the party will make sure that won't happen this time.
But, I don't believe the polls for now. So, hopefully, I am right not to when it comes.
Its tough to make predictions currently, as we don't know who some of the candidates will be. Senate might be tough to hold as it'll probably be 50-50, Manchins seat is gone, but candidate quality matters more in the Senate and the MAGA wing isn't putting up great candidates. (For example, putting Kari Lake up in AZ is dumb as hell, its gifting D's a likely seat) - Nobody looks particularly vulnerable thus far. I'm slightly bullish on the senate if they can keep the presidency, but it'll be pretty galling to see MTG or whatever other rat VP Trump picks presiding over the senate and casting deciding votes. A 50-50 GOP senate under majority leader turtle openly hostile to trump would be very interesting. I think we'd be at the closest point to impeachment we've ever been if he is intent on his craziness. (In fact, if Haley is VP I'd put money on Trump not seeing out his term.)
The house is tough to tell, the abortion thing is really helping dems there, but candidate quality doesn't particularly matter and anything can happen at this point.
Koch network endorses Haley.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/28/us/politics/koch-network-nikki-haley-endorsement-trump.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/28/us/politics/koch-network-nikki-haley-endorsement-trump.html
You really need to look closer to the Senate race. It would be almost a miracle to keep it at 50 : 50.
The votes weren’t there during the govt alignment under Obama, votes probably have never been there in the past 40 years. Should have tried, yes, but it would most likely have been a fool’s errand.
Abortion rights will be the number one issue for Dems & Indies & some Repubs.
10 bucks to a charity of the others choice on it? Not saying it’ll happen, but I don’t see any hugely vulnerable seats. In a D friendly environment where voters just dislike Biden I see it as plausible.
The time to do it was probably the Clinton era. I was reading this article a month or so ago which was pretty eye opening.
In 1975, when abortion was a newly established constitutional right, 19 percent of Democrats told Gallup that abortion should be legal in “all or most cases,” 51 percent said it should be legal in certain cases, and 26 percent said it should be illegal in all cases. Among Republicans, the numbers were strikingly similar: 18 percent said abortion should be legal in “all or most cases,” 55 percent said it should be in some and 25 percent said it should be illegal in all.
The same poll taken in 2021 showed more Democratic voters supporting abortion in “all or most cases” and more Republicans supporting it in none, with sizeable majorities in both parties — 91 percent of Democrats; 69 percent of Republicans — continuing to support abortion access in at least some cases.
50/50 senate with Mitch as leader under Trump is not at all very interesting, not in a good way.
They loathe each other, but Mitch will install new right wing judges, you can bet that at least one of the older conservative judges on the SCOTUS retires and replaced with a 30 year old heritage judge.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Republicans sure are happy that Trump is bringing up Obamacare again.
I disagree with you.
You don't think Montana, Ohio, and West Virginia are extremely vulnerable? We have not talked about the likes of Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Almost all of them would be classified as 'vulnerable' by most metrics, especially, if Trump wins.
Last edited:
WV is gone. All the rest are defendable in a normal year, and the polls for those senators look decent/good.
Normally i would worry about Wisconsin, since i don't trust the voters in that state at all, but GOP can't find anyone decent to run in 2024, so i don't think its much of a worry, Pennsylvania and Michigan have continued their shift back to blue, so i think they will be okay, Nevada they have an incumbent, everything is possible i suppose, but i think all those 4 holds.
WV is obviously gone, so it comes down to Ohio and Montana, not going to lie, dems holding both of those will be very difficult, Tester in particular would have to perform a miracle to stay in office.
The senate overall remains a problem for dems though, with democratic senators in red states almost being a thing of the past, they have to make up for it elsewhere, the problem is, a senate seat like WV is just GOP taking back what is supposed to be their seats, where can dems make up for that? Not in a blue state, and unfortunately, there are just more red states than there are blue states.
Dems can't afford to lose a single swing seat in the future, and thats just to break even, they can't afford to keep losing senate seats in states like Wisconsin and Maine, cause there isn't really anywhere else they can expand.
The senate is a rigged institution by design, it gives power to land over people, and should not exist.
One by one - Manchin is retiring, so WV is gone. (Similar to Tester below, no new Dem candidate is winning that seat)
Montana (what a beautiful place!) is tough but Tester is the best candidate they could have (won despite Trump winning by +16) and has incumbent advantage. Latest polls show wins for him and Trump.
Ohio has loads of polling and Brown is winning sometimes by double digits.
Arizona is one the GOP should win but probably won't as Lake is trash. Sinema is unpopular but if they can get rid of her, they're okay I think.
None of these are a sure thing for sure, but it's plausible in my book. Happy to disagree.
To be fair, they've been saying this about him for 12 years. Agree with your overall post; its why it astounds me that a Democratic priority wasn't statehood for both DC and PR. Both absolutely fair, and absolutely vital. The constitution itself is to blame for this; back at the founding, the 2 per state rule was added to appease some small state (can't remember which) as they threatened to torpedo the whole thing.
The only thing going for Dems is candidate quality and that Trump keeps blowing up the GOP by putting forward crappy candidates. (See Walker, Lake etc) - In a sane GOP they would hold the senate most cycles.
Was that ever an option with a 50/50 senate, with the likes of Sinema and Manchin? If dems had the numbers, surely they would have done it.
If they somehow claw a trifecta next year, and in a senate without those two, perhaps it could actually be done, it for sure has to be done, dems needs it to survive in this BS institution.