2024 US presidential elections

[alhoon]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/one-week-...060047360.html

Those that predicted a huge wave of young voters for Harris have reasons to be concerned. Meanwhile, the polls have the two parties neck to neck when it come to battleground states. Harris is polling lower than Biden did at this point in 2020.
It is not clear who would win, not at all.

In that climate, it is certain that the Republicans will not just "Accept defeat" but challenge it like they did in 2020.
But do you think Harris will concede if she loses? I am not so sure. She's more combative than Biden and there have been irregularities she can take to the courts. I am not saying Harris will go to 2028 saying she won, but I fully expect her to push this to the courts for weeks.

[Kyriakos]

Is Trump now more likely to win, then?
The main argument in favor of that is that in the previous two elections the polls showed him doing a lot worse than he did on election day.

[Alastor]

Is Trump now more likely to win, then?
The main argument in favor of that is that in the previous two elections the polls showed him doing a lot worse than he did on election day.

It certainly seems that way. Unless pollsters have corrected for whatever their previous bias against Trump was, then with these numbers and that bias in place Trump is headed for a landslide. Definitely going to be a nailbiter this one.

[Legio_Italica]

But do you think Harris will concede if she loses? I am not so sure. She's more combative than Biden and there have been irregularities she can take to the courts. I am not saying Harris will go to 2028 saying she won, but I fully expect her to push this to the courts for weeks.

The Democrats still claim to have won in 2016 and cling to the Russiagate conspiracy theory. If they lose to Trump again, we can expect 2016 election denial and intense deep state retaliation against the Trump Admin like last time, coupled with 2020 riots on steroids and 2024 assassination attempts from the “defenders of democracy.”

Is Trump now more likely to win, then?
The main argument in favor of that is that in the previous two elections the polls showed him doing a lot worse than he did on election day.

In a normal country, Trump would win handily. He’s favored by huge margins on the issues most important to voters, and his opponent is viewed as the incompetent face of the current, unpopular Administration. On the other hand, most of the US government hates Trump for mucking up the foreign policy uniparty, and has done everything they can to make sure that doesn’t happen.

[mishkin]

In a normal country, Trump would win handily.

It's funny that you say this, after seeing his last meeting (with Hulk Hogan, Elon Musk, Melania...) I was thinking how an individual like that would be considered a pathetic demagogue histrion even in the most abject country in the world. In a normal country, Trump would be nothing more than an embarrassing celebrity.

[NorseThing]

There is no such thing as a normal country. Unless, you also believe in unicorns.

My guess is that there is a light edge to VP Harris in electoral votes and if it was left to a popular vote, VP Harris would win. Biden popularity is not a factor as his administration is walking out the exit doors in all cases that matter.

Like the Pope, I will make a choice from the lesser of two evils. I will probably vote for Trump as a known set of flaws is preferred to the unknown flaws of VP Harris. Win or lose it all repeats again in 4 years with hopefully a new set of candidates. Whether I am alive then or not, life of the nation will move on.

[Ludicus]

In a normal country..

In a normal country, there wouldn't be an AIPAC official for every congressman, with the sole mission of carefully reading all of their public statements.

[Laser101]

The Democrats still claim to have won in 2016 and cling to the Russiagate conspiracy theory. If they lose to Trump again, we can expect 2016 election denial and intense deep state retaliation against the Trump Admin like last time, coupled with 2020 riots on steroids and 2024 assassination attempts from the “defenders of democracy.”

That depends on what you mean by 'deep state retaliation', which could just as easily equal 'noncompliance with blatantly dictatorial actions'.
Although there's a pretty strong argument that there needs to be a substantial reduction of Presidential powers in general.

In a normal country, Trump would win handily. He’s favored by huge margins on the issues most important to voters, and his opponent is viewed as the incompetent face of the current, unpopular Administration. On the other hand, most of the US government hates Trump for mucking up the foreign policy uniparty, and has done everything they can to make sure that doesn’t happen.

And if Trump were a normal candidate who hadn't done things like threaten to send the military after his political opponents, maybe that would be the case.

[PointOfViewGun]

In a normal country, someone who doesn't understand the basic concept of tariffs would not be able to become a presidential candidate.

[Legio_Italica]

That depends on what you mean by 'deep state retaliation', which could just as easily equal 'noncompliance with blatantly dictatorial actions'.

I mean the whole of government efforts we saw during his first term dedicated to undermine and remove him from office, from the Russiagate conspiracy theory, to collaborating with media platforms to censor factual reporting on Joe Biden and interfere in the election on Biden’s behalf. I shudder to imagine what they’d do this time around, when nothing else will have worked and they’re desperate.

And if Trump were a normal candidate who hadn't done things like threaten to send the military after his political opponents, maybe that would be the case.

In a normal country, more people might remember Trump was already president before, or at least recall his “threat” already happened in 2020, when military units across the country were deployed to polling stations in case of civil unrest. I can’t imagine why no one accused state governors of fascist ambitions at the time, but I suspect it might be because it wasn’t Trump’s idea. If nothing else, it’s encouraging to me that Kamala’s only discernible position, aside from copying Trump’s policy ideas, is that he’s Hitler.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/...ction-day.html

[PointOfViewGun]

Disclaimer: Actually from the article:

No Uniforms, No WeaponsArmed troops won’t be guarding polling places on Tuesday.
Leaders in several states said the hundreds of Guard members activated by their governors will be wearing civilian clothes and won’t be carrying weapons. That’s true in Wisconsin, New Jersey and Nebraska, officials from those states say.
“Our service members are placed on state active duty, and they show up in civilian clothes to the polling stations, so any member of the community that is coming into a polling station isn’t going to be able to recognize that they are in the Guard,” said Brig. Gen. Robyn Blader, assistant adjutant general of the Wisconsin National Guard. “They are going to look like anyone else from the community.”

In a normal country, supporters of a particular candidate would not try to conflate national guard members helping with procedural work with threatens to use military force against US citizens deemed as enemies by a political party.

[Legio_Italica]

Disclaimer: Actually from the article:
In a normal country, supporters of a particular candidate would not try to conflate national guard members helping with procedural work with threatens to use military force against US citizens deemed as enemies by a political party.

What Trump said:

Interviewer: “There was an Afghan refugee charged with plotting a US Election Day massacre.”

Trump: “Nothing surprises me.”

Interviewer: “What about that, though? Are you expecting chaos on Election Day?

Trump: “No, I don't think so. Not from the side that votes for Trump.”

Interviewer: “But I'm just wondering if these outside agitators will start up on Election Day. Let's say you win. I mean, let's not -- let's -- let's remember, you've got 50,000 Chinese nationals in this country in the last couple of years. You have people on the terrorist watch list, 350 in the last couple of years. You've got, like you said, 13,000 murderers and 15,000 rapists. What are you expecting? Joe Biden said he doesn't think it's going to be a peaceful election day?”

Trump: “I don't think they're the problem in terms of Election Day. I think the bigger problem are the people from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they're the -- and it should be very easily handled by -- if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can't let that happen.”

From the article:

Governors have continued to activate National Guard troops in the final days leading up to the presidential election, which has been transformed by the coronavirus pandemic. Soldiers and airmen are supporting polling stations, leading cybersecurity missions, and even preparing for civil disturbances in the wake of what could prove to be a contentious election in which results might not be known for weeks.

Far left rioters caused billions of dollars in damage across the country in 2020. Local officials are bracing for violence this year and at least one governor has already activated the National Guard. Given Trump wouldn’t be taking office until January and has no control over the military, conflating his recommendation with using military force against his political enemies on election day isn’t just lazy partisan propaganda, it’s also impossible conjecture.

[PointOfViewGun]

What Trump said:
From the article:
Far left rioters caused billions of dollars in damage across the country in 2020, and local officials are bracing for violence this year. Given Trump wouldn’t be taking office until January and has no control over the military, conflating his recommendation with using military force against his political enemies on election day isn’t just lazy partisan propaganda, it’s also impossible conjecture.

The idea is not that Trump would somehow order the military to intervene during the election but that he sees this idea as a legitimate one against his political opponents. You know that very well too.

[Legio_Italica]

The idea is not that Trump would somehow order the military to intervene during the election but that he sees this idea as a legitimate one against his political opponents. You know that very well too.

Glad you agree the idea isn’t what Trump said.

[PointOfViewGun]

Glad you agree the idea isn’t what Trump said.

It is what Trump said though. You can try to dance around the issue all you want.

[Ludicus]

For the first time in fifty years, the Washington Post has decided not to endorse a presidential candidate. This is the most relevant news regarding the relationship between democracy and the media in recent times. With a Trump victory, had the Washington Post endorsed Harris, the multimillion-dollar contracts of the owner, Jeff Bezos, with the U.S. government would drop to zero. Amazon alone has a billion-dollar contract with the National Security Agency. Bezos has owned the Post for over a decade. The decision is surprising as it was made just ten days before the election. The "neutrality" of the Washington Post, breaking the tradition of endorsing candidates, would be highly commendable if it weren’t so opportunistic. Bezos anticipated the potential repressive thinking of a Trump administration. This anticipatory obedience thus aligns itself with and serves authoritarianism. Bezos tried to justify his decision in an article titled The hard truth: Americans don't trust the news media

I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy

Indeed, he had ten years to consider this, and only now has he acted.

[NorseThing]

Ludicus -- perhaps it is best to take Bezos at his word despite taking a decade or more to proclaim that media needs to be less biased. Sometimes people you do not trust can still make reasonable pronouncements. The fact that other media is jumping on this may indicate there is a bit of truth for us to take in here.

I am not a fan of ether major presidential candidates, but both have often stated some truths in this campaign. Though on the whole truth is the biggest loser in most close elections.