Harris Vs Trump 2024 US Presidential election - read the warning in the OP posted 18/09/24

LOL going by your post anyone would think Harris had won the election. As I said earlier, it's shades of Jeremy Corbyn saying he'd lost the election but won the argument. How did that go?

I already showed you that pollsters have mentioned that trans issues were often simply not asked about in election polls. So them being at the bottom of the issues mentioned may be a consequence of the questions asked, rather than of people's opinions.

However I'm rarely a single issue voter, and I wanted the Democrats to win, despite their position that transgender demands take priority over women's rights. As a European, I think Trump is a disaster in a number of other ways, so... But I'm sure that people in the US know at least as much about about Trump as I do, and they still decided not to vote for Harris, so the question is why.

I mean, I could say "Oh, Americans, they're all stupid", as many on here have done - but I think that's, well, stupid. It would be more useful to ask why people saw all the stuff about Trump and still would not vote for the Democrats? Trump's vote didn't go up, Harris' fell. So the failings are within the Dems.

If they put that down to people being stupid instead of undertaking self-reflection, they are making a huge mistake, IMO. First impression is that they are so high on their own self-righteousness that they are indeed doing just that.

But if we do the same over here, without a say in the election, that is even stupider of us, because we don't have to keep up morale among the troops.

So. Useful questions IMO are:
- Did the mixed messages (not to say lies) about the mental capabilities of Joe Biden harm Harris?
- Do you think denying sex as a category helped or hindered?
- Do they have anything to offer as a policy for working class voters? She mentioned education reform, which IMO was good, but her very repetition of that made it seem like it was all she had.
- Do you agree that there needs to be discussion about immigration? Etc etc

So the Democrats should just vote in a different electorate then? 🙁

I mean - to some extent I agree: in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve. But Trump didn’t win thanks to a massive red wave. He won because too many people stayed home for Kamala.

So, in practical terms, unless the Democrats look seriously at why that was (and saying “Bad voters!!” doesn’t help) what’s going to change?

Because maybe Trump will be such a disaster that at some point his party will be voted out in anger - but if your best electoral strategy requires the other guy to be so bad that it simply becomes “Anyone but him”, that could mean a LONG wait first.

If you wish to be a success in the world, promise everything, deliver nothing. ...

Napoleon Bonaparte.

It's the same problem as ever, the Democrats try and govern clean while the GOP are fine to get down and dirty, Biden's approval rating has been down for 3-ish years, but still never went big on policies or executive orders or tackling the supreme court, it all became so passive (similar to Obama's last term), meanwhile the GOP will have no problem stuffing the courts, running up a stonking debt and throwing pork everywhere. This meant Harris trying to defend that record and more of the same (even if metrics like GDP, inflation and job numbers back her up, it never seemed to resonate with voters to the levels needed), remembering that the election ended up 49/50.

Biden was and is still a better choice then trump, so was Harris, however, age caught up visibly with Biden and he should have marked himself as a 1 and done candidate much earlier and allow someone else to build up their audience and offer alternatives (which is possible when the GOP had the house). I don't think Harris would have won a contested primary.

trump will get about 18 months then become a lame duck, there won't be any covid to hide the budget numbers behind (it was a massive deficit before COVID, but the electorate seem to have given him a pass there). One wonders if trump will have properly learned from awful responses to disasters and events or will continue to dig deep on stupid.

How many votes did Trump get in the popular vote in 2020?

I'm viewing the US elections in the context of the rise of right-wing parties here in the EU.

They go in for the same message, "everything is crap, the government is too lazy/stupid/unwilling to do anything about it, vote for us and we'll sort all this out in five minutes". Besides they trash-talk wokeism, feminism, the LGBTQ community and anything green or progressive.

But their core message and their biggest selling point is racism. Talk ceaselessly about migrants, especially anyone with darker skin and the "wrong" religion.

And something none of these parties ever do is present any actual solutions, they just pander to racism and xenophobia. And it always works. Like Pavlov's dogs when the bell rings.

This is what Trump did and it always works. Today's voter is as ignorant, uninformed and gullible as they were a hundred years ago. People have learnt nothing and they will still march right off the cliff when their Führer tells them.

These people had it screamed in their faces and they don't care. I see no blame on Harris. I just see people enthusiastically dancing to the tune of the dog whistle. I will accept no other explanation, because it was clear as day.

At least they'll finally find out how tariffs work.

Biden got 81m votes in 2020, Trumps vote only increased slightly. The Democrats who turned out in 2020 didn’t this week. Kamala level with Hillary’s national vote almost so either Biden vote is outlier or candidate selection is not right.

100% he will, whether it be his own sons or the other weirdos.

We have 4 years of “leopards at my face” memes to come.

Childcare is childcare. And you have to have it, in this country.

Any more questions ? 😀

Yes.

What does that mean, with respect to the question asked?

The Point about the child care question was to demonstrate Trumps absence of cogent policies during his campaign.

He was asked that, at a Republican townhall, and couldn't give a semblance of an answer. And of course we had his 'concepts of a plan' nonsense about Healthcare (that he promised 8yrs ago would be ready on day 1). His tarriffs policy only proved he didn't understand them.

The two candidates were being rated differently in this respect continually throughout the campaign.

The Lancet published estimates of deaths in Iraq which have since been pretty much discredited:

The Iraq Body Count project (IBC), who compiles a database of reported civilian deaths, has criticised the Lancet's estimate of 601,000 violent deaths out of the Lancet estimate of 654,965 total excess deaths related to the war.
An October 2006 article by IBC argues that the Lancet estimate is suspect "because of a very different conclusion reached by another random household survey, the Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004 (ILCS), using a comparable method but a considerably better-distributed and much larger sample." IBC also enumerates several "shocking implications" which would be true if the Lancet report were accurate, e.g. "Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued" and claims that these "extreme and improbable implications" and "utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas" are some of several reasons why they doubt the study's estimates. IBC states that these consequences would constitute "extreme notions".
Later statements in a 2010 article by IBC say that the "hugely exaggerated death toll figures" from the 2006 Lancet report have "been comprehensively discredited" by recently published research.

Jon Pedersen of the Fafo Institute and research director for the ILCS survey, which estimated approximately 24,000 (95% CI 18,000–29,000) war-related deaths in Iraq up to April 2004, expressed reservations about the low pre-war mortality rate used in the Lancet study and about the ability of its authors to oversee the interviews properly as they were conducted throughout Iraq. Pedersen has been quoted saying he thinks the Lancet numbers are "high, and probably way too high. I would accept something in the vicinity of 100,000 but 600,000 is too much."

Debarati Guha-Sapir, director of the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters in Brussels, was quoted in an interview for Nature.com saying that Burnham's team have published "inflated" numbers that "discredit" the process of estimating death counts. "Why are they doing this?" she asks. "It's because of the elections."

And given that Hamas is still a main source of information for any estimates of deaths in Gaza, I'd be even more dubious than about Iraq.

LOL going by your post anyone would think Harris had won the election. As I said earlier, it's shades of Jeremy Corbyn saying he'd lost the election but won the argument. How did that go?

The Tories continued to populate their party with freaks and loons and have went on to suffer the greatest election loss ever recorded in parliamentary history.

I know. What's your point - do you think that make Jeremy Corbyn right about that? He's gone too - you do know that, don't you? He led the party to a loss against an already unpopular, divided Conservative party. In fact if he'd stayed at the head of Labour, it's quite possible that the Tories would still be in power.