POTUS 2024 - Biden vs Trump - General Election Discussion

[albionmoonlight]

I concede that neither Hillary Clinton nor Jeb Bush have perfect records. I further concede that both of them have made mistakes.

[RainMaker]

I think the best result would be Biden winning the EV but losing the PV to Trump.

[Atocep]

If we eliminate politicians based on stances 20 or more years ago were not left with many politicians. Which I guess may not be a bad thing. And I'm not advocating for Jeb or Hillary btw.

I think most decisions have a statute of limitations, per say, and more recently policy is a better guide than digging up old stuff. I was 100% against the Iraq War and was definitely in the minority of people serving at the time to have that stance. I don't think it's very relevant anymore.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think the best result would be Biden winning the EV but losing the PV to Trump.

100% agree. We'd likely see the end of the electoral college in a hurry. The months of inevitable lawsuits would be awful though.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Atocep

100% agree. We'd likely see the end of the electoral college in a hurry.

John Kerry was not too many votes in Ohio away from losing the PV but winning the EC.

Coming right on the heels of W. Bush losing the PV but winning the EC, that might have been enough for bipartisan EC reform.

Alas.

[albionmoonlight]

FWIW, I think that both parties are too wedded to the idea that the GOP would generally lose the popular vote.

Who know what would happen if both parties campaigned hard in Florida, New York, Texas, California, etc.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

If we eliminate politicians based on stances 20 or more years ago were not left with many politicians. Which I guess may not be a bad thing. And I'm not advocating for Jeb or Hillary btw.

I think most decisions have a statute of limitations, per say, and more recently policy is a better guide than digging up old stuff. I was 100% against the Iraq War and was definitely in the minority of people serving at the time to have that stance. I don't think it's very relevant anymore.

We're not talking about a bridge that went over budget or a subsidy that didn't work out the way it was expected. We're talking about one of the worst foreign policy decisions in American history. Something that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, thousands of Americans, and cost trillions of dollars. Not to mention the long term blowback we are still experiencing today from that decision.

That should be disqualifying for anyone who took part in it. Can't keep letting politicians fail upwards.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We're not talking about a bridge that went over budget or a subsidy that didn't work out the way it was expected. We're talking about one of the worst foreign policy decisions in American history. Something that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, thousands of Americans, and cost trillions of dollars. Not to mention the long term blowback we are still experiencing today from that decision.

That should be disqualifying for anyone who took part in it. Can't keep letting politicians fail upwards.

Where's the line? We could have continued pushing Bob Menendez upward until he was indicted in 2015.

I align with Bernie on most issues, but he was also in the back pocket of the NRA and voted against thr Brady bill and other gun control measures until he was confident enough in his other funding and support to break away from them. He was also for mandatory minimums for non violent and other crimes at one point.

Any politician that's been around long enough has bad decisions on their record. Picking one instead of looking at where they are on a more recent timeline is going to get you better politicians than treating it was an elimination game where the best move is not to play.

[RainMaker]

I think we all make our own lines. Half a million innocent civilians and a few trillion dollars of wasted taxpayer money would be a line for me.

But we were talking about competence. I just don't see how you can look back at Hillary and see a competent politician. She was bad as a Senator and bad as a political candidate. And while she shouldn't be judged for her husband's actions (although she supports his policies), Bill did lead us to where we are with Putin. I can't think of a more incompetent politician than Hillary Clinton in the modern era.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

FWIW, I think that both parties are too wedded to the idea that the GOP would generally lose the popular vote.

Who know what would happen if both parties campaigned hard in Florida, New York, Texas, California, etc.

Not sure campaigning changes much of anything honestly, nor has it in years.

Minds are largely made up well in advance of anything, only turnout really seems to be affected any more

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not sure campaigning changes much of anything honestly, nor has it in years.

Minds are largely made up well in advance of anything, only turnout really seems to be affected any more

I mostly agree with this. It's less about convincing people to vote for you and more about giving your base a reason to go out and vote for you.

There are still pockets that you can sway though. Trump is pushing hard on youth voters it seems by bringing up the TikTok ban and such. Biden shifted far right on immigration to try and lure some never Trumpers over. Not sure if it'll work but the campaigns must see something there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Not sure if it'll work but the campaigns must see something there.

That's called justifying your existence (and your salary)

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not sure campaigning changes much of anything honestly, nor has it in years.

Minds are largely made up well in advance of anything, only turnout really seems to be affected any more

But isn't that the main focus of campaigns? Getting your people to turn out while suppressing the other sides turnout is campaigning. Changing people's mind is always there and nice to think about, but not what really makes campaign's successful. It is trying to get people motivated to show up.

[JPhillips]

There aren't a lot of persuadable voters, but in this environment even one percent of the electorate in one state may be enough to swing the election. I know national campaigns are more likely to try and sway voters than they were.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

But isn't that the main focus of campaigns? Getting your people to turn out while suppressing the other sides turnout is campaigning. Changing people's mind is always there and nice to think about, but not what really makes campaign's successful. It is trying to get people motivated to show up.

Not traditionally, IMO that's much more of a fairly modern construct (though we could certainly debate when it became the only real function).

I suspect that the 24 hour news cycle played a huge role

(we can skip any debate over that choice of phrase, I know it ain't "news", I'll happily stipulate it as just a convenient euphemism to identify when I meant)

[Brian Swartz]

I think campaigning still has an impact. The number of persuadable voters isn't most of the electorate, but's it's a significant number and many of them just vote based on 'feeling'. If one candidate spent more time in your area, or you see more people talking about them postively versus the others ... a slight puff of breeze can push you one way or the other.

I don't think that's good. I do think it's real, though I have no hard data to back it up and I think it would be very hard to acquire that one way or another.

There's a non-trivial amount of people who just plain don't consume news media. And yeah, a lot of them don't vote ... but some of them do.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think campaigning still has an impact. The number of persuadable voters isn't most of the electorate, but's it's a significant number and many of them just vote based on 'feeling'. If one candidate spent more time in your area, or you see more people talking about them postively versus the others ... a slight puff of breeze can push you one way or the other.

I don't think that's good. I do think it's real, though I have no hard data to back it up and I think it would be very hard to acquire that one way or another.

There's a non-trivial amount of people who just plain don't consume news media. And yeah, a lot of them don't vote ... but some of them do.

In 2022, less than 20% of congressional races had a final margin below 10%, only 9% of races were within 5% margin.

While I don't see nearly as much stuff as I used to, I haven't seen anything in years that suggests anything other than get out the vote stuff actually matters to even move 1% of a vote. And the least effective thing of all is the fool's errand of hoping anyone does that "talking positively", no, you want to move the needle at all then you hope your opponent generates negative conversation. People, en masse, vote against rather than for, and those are also the ones with the best hope of getting them to show up.

Very few candidates are all that bright when it comes to things like campaigning or specifically campaign spending (tho frankly I'm not sure those qualifiers are required, the statement holds pretty well by itself afaic), they typically go with what their high paid handlers tell them to do ... and those handlers by a vast majority have no interest greater than generating revenue for themselves. They want to win, sure, but that's really more to serve to create future jobs than anything else.

Ultimately, my realism rant aside, where we disagree completely is on the persuadable voters in any single election and their quantity being of significance.

[Edward64]

Take it FWIW.

I do agree vast majority of older voters have made up their minds by now (unless Joe has an "Admiral Stockdale" moment in the debates). But there are always the group of independents that haven't finalized their choice and new voters, est. swag of 5% of voters. I also believe there are some issues where the difference is so stark between the candidates but yet so important to some voters, that it'll make a difference (e.g. abortion rights, immigration, Ukraine, saving democracy etc.)

So yeah, IMO campaigning & messaging are still important, but only in those key swing states.

41 Million Members of Gen Z Will Be Eligible to Vote in 2024Â* | CIRCLE

In recent years Gen Z has been a major force in civic life, leading social movements and voting at higher rates than previous generations did when they were the same age. In the next presidential election, 40.8 million members of Gen Z (ages 18-27 in 2024) will be eligible to vote, including 8.3 million newly eligible youth (ages 18-19 in 2024) who will have aged into the electorate since the 2022 midterm election. These young people have tremendous potential to influence elections and to spur action on issues they care about—if they are adequately reached and supported by parties, campaigns, and organizations.