graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,289
|
Post by graham on Jul 23, 2024 18:25:25 GMT
Reuters/Ipsos poll gives Harris a 2% lead over Trump.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jul 23, 2024 19:19:50 GMT
Bouncy bouncy!
|
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,289
|
Post by graham on Jul 23, 2024 20:41:26 GMT
Post next month's Democratic Convention , I would not be surprised to see polls showing Harris 10% ahead - though some of that will be froth which subsequently fades away.
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,131
|
Post by mboy on Jul 23, 2024 20:48:10 GMT
Trump won't be able to get away with lunacy like this now he's in a serious contest
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Jul 23, 2024 21:15:36 GMT
I think there’s a very good chance that Harris will bring back the natural Democrat advantage that there tends to be with the popular vote, but as we all know that doesn’t decide the election
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jul 23, 2024 21:56:07 GMT
In addition to Reuters giving Harris a 2% lead, as mentioned above, we also have this new poll.
|
|
|
Post by riccimarsh on Jul 23, 2024 22:00:38 GMT
Post next month's Democratic Convention , I would not be surprised to see polls showing Harris 10% ahead - though some of that will be froth which subsequently fades away. People are getting far far far too carried away about some supposed “Harris bounce” in my opinion. It may be real and persistent, but it equally well could be a short-term effect, or maybe entirely illusory and non-existent. 10% ahead would be almost unheard of in the current polarised political climate. You may be right, but I personally doubt it. We shall see. And November is absolutely ages away.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,588
Member is Online
|
Post by john07 on Jul 23, 2024 23:25:46 GMT
Given the slant of the Electoral College to the Republicans, what sort of lead in the popular vote would Harris need to win?
Remember that the Republicans have only Presidential Election popular vote win since the days of George H W Bush was elected in 1988. That is eight presidential elections and one Republican popular vote success in 2004 by George W Bush. Yes despite that they have won three out of eight Presidential elections over this period.
|
|
|
Post by riccimarsh on Jul 24, 2024 0:16:03 GMT
Donald Trump is actually quite a lot better at golf than I had anticipated, despite of course regularly criticising President Obama for the amount of golf he played, and claiming that he’d cease playing golf were he to become President…
I think we have a different thread for frivolous stuff about US politics such as this and other memes and tweets?? I couldn’t find it via the search “feature” though. If someone cares to revive that thread I’d rather post stuff like this there, to leave this thread for more serious discussion… up to the mods though, perhaps??
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,447
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 24, 2024 0:39:35 GMT
Given the slant of the Electoral College to the Republicans, what sort of lead in the popular vote would Harris need to win? This is the first Presidential election since the 2020 census, so will be the least biased since 2016* as the smallest amount of time has passed for populations to shift. *Census take part in year n*10+0 and the apportionment takes effect in year n*10+3.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,651
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jul 24, 2024 0:41:08 GMT
VP Kamala Harris was the person most likely to have come out of the 2nd Biden term as the weakest VP fighting for nomination in years. This particular stramash is her best chance of being selected as the Dem candidate (well, it is already set in stone). I have previously said that I think she is not someone I would support, I think she is trivial, self-centred, and an anti-Catholic bigot. All that said, she is not yet 60, is health-conscious and physically fit, so throws Donald Trump's pretended "healthiness" into a loop; she is coherent, able to challenge, has a very low-bar (set by President Biden's last debate performance) to cross, and is not going to let Donald Trump's nonsense go unchallenged. Given her previous profession as a Prosecutor, I have yet to see her at her professional best, so look forward to that. She is the candidate most likely to maximise the Trump base to turn out; she has to make herself the candidate most palatable to the Independents and not-Trump Republicans, so mustn't cleave too closely to the more leftwing agenda, whilst holding on to the Democrat base. If I was to advise her on VP picks, I would go for Jon Bel Edwards, the one man able to win successive terns as a Democrat in Louisiana (even under Trump), now out of office due to term limits: he is a Deep South, economically left-wing, socially pro-life, Democrat. He would appeal to traditional, pro-union, pro-Medicare, pro-God Voters who have switched to the Republicans in recent decades. She won't pick him, but she needs to woo him and have him as a face of her campaign. Despite the constant calls to "tack to the centre", she needs to tack to the left in economic terms, as many of those who switched from Sanders to Trump did so the basis of protecting traditional industries: she needs to lay out a strong strategy for areas threatened by industrial change. Donald Trump, for all his nonsense of being fiscally responsible, is a populist who threw money at problems, with no long-term plan; VP Harris can use the same money more wisely. It is the presentation - borrowing money for short-term gain, or doing so for capital investment. As we know, if I borrow money to buy somebody a gift, or to go on holiday, it is a fleeting endeavour, has no end point of profit, and just leaves me feeling worried about paying off the debt. If I borrow for capital investment - to, say, get a mortgage on a house - I end up with security and an eventual gain. As I hope our government properly invests (and I see encouraging signs), I would encourage Kamala Harris to promote heavy investment and to challenge Trump in debates about his Presidential practise of throwing money towards his friends.
|
|
|
Post by riccimarsh on Jul 24, 2024 0:44:44 GMT
VP Kamala Harris was the person most likely to have come out of the 2nd Biden term as the weakest VP fighting for nomination in years. This particular stramash is her best chance of being selected as the Dem candidate (well, it is already set in stone). I have previously said that I think she is not someone I would support, I think she is trivial, self-centred, and an anti-Catholic bigot. All that said, she is not yet 60, is health-conscious and physically fit, so throws Donald Trump's pretended "healthiness" into a loop; she is coherent, able to challenge, has a very low-bar (set by President Biden's last debate performance) to cross, and is not going to let Donald Trump's nonsense go unchallenged. Given her previous profession as a Prosecutor, I have yet to see her at her professional best, so look forward to that. She is the candidate most likely to maximise the Trump base to turn out; she has to make herself the candidate most palatable to the Independents and not-Trump Republicans, so mustn't cleave too closely to the more leftwing agenda, whilst holding on to the Democrat base. If I was to advise her on VP picks, I would go for Jon Bel Edwards, the one man able to win successive terns as a Democrat in Louisiana (even under Trump), now out of office due to term limits: he is a Deep South, economically left-wing, socially pro-life, Democrat. He would appeal to traditional, pro-union, pro-Medicare, pro-God Voters who have switched to the Republicans in recent decades. She won't pick him, but she needs to woo him and have him as a face of her campaign. Despite the constant calls to "tack to the centre", she needs to tack to the left in economic terms, as many of those who switched from Sanders to Trump did so the basis of protecting traditional industries: she needs to lay out a strong strategy for areas threatened by industrial change. Donald Trump, for all his nonsense of being fiscally responsible, is a populist who threw money at problems, with no long-term plan; VP Harris can use the same money more wisely. It is the presentation - borrowing money for short-term gain, or doing so for capital investment. As we know, if I borrow money to buy somebody a gift, or to go on holiday, it is a fleeting endeavour, has no end point of profit, and just leaves me feeling worried about paying off the debt. If I borrow for capital investment - to, say, get a mortgage on a house - I end up with security and an eventual gain. As I hope our government properly invests (and I see encouraging signs), I would encourage Kamala Harris to promote heavy investment and to challenge Trump in debates about his Presidential practise of throwing money towards his friends. Ah yes, the anti-Catholic bigot who has served as VP to the profoundly Catholic President Biden. Got it.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,651
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jul 24, 2024 0:52:05 GMT
VP Kamala Harris was the person most likely to have come out of the 2nd Biden term as the weakest VP fighting for nomination in years. This particular stramash is her best chance of being selected as the Dem candidate (well, it is already set in stone). I have previously said that I think she is not someone I would support, I think she is trivial, self-centred, and an anti-Catholic bigot. All that said, she is not yet 60, is health-conscious and physically fit, so throws Donald Trump's pretended "healthiness" into a loop; she is coherent, able to challenge, has a very low-bar (set by President Biden's last debate performance) to cross, and is not going to let Donald Trump's nonsense go unchallenged. Given her previous profession as a Prosecutor, I have yet to see her at her professional best, so look forward to that. She is the candidate most likely to maximise the Trump base to turn out; she has to make herself the candidate most palatable to the Independents and not-Trump Republicans, so mustn't cleave too closely to the more leftwing agenda, whilst holding on to the Democrat base. If I was to advise her on VP picks, I would go for Jon Bel Edwards, the one man able to win successive terns as a Democrat in Louisiana (even under Trump), now out of office due to term limits: he is a Deep South, economically left-wing, socially pro-life, Democrat. He would appeal to traditional, pro-union, pro-Medicare, pro-God Voters who have switched to the Republicans in recent decades. She won't pick him, but she needs to woo him and have him as a face of her campaign. Despite the constant calls to "tack to the centre", she needs to tack to the left in economic terms, as many of those who switched from Sanders to Trump did so the basis of protecting traditional industries: she needs to lay out a strong strategy for areas threatened by industrial change. Donald Trump, for all his nonsense of being fiscally responsible, is a populist who threw money at problems, with no long-term plan; VP Harris can use the same money more wisely. It is the presentation - borrowing money for short-term gain, or doing so for capital investment. As we know, if I borrow money to buy somebody a gift, or to go on holiday, it is a fleeting endeavour, has no end point of profit, and just leaves me feeling worried about paying off the debt. If I borrow for capital investment - to, say, get a mortgage on a house - I end up with security and an eventual gain. As I hope our government properly invests (and I see encouraging signs), I would encourage Kamala Harris to promote heavy investment and to challenge Trump in debates about his Presidential practise of throwing money towards his friends. Ah yes, the anti-Catholic bigot who has served as VP to the profoundly Catholic President Biden. Got it. Do you really think I would make such a claim without evidence? She is an ambitious woman, so would happily grasp the coattails of a winner, as she did with Joe Biden. Remember, she accused him of supporting racist bussing legislation, yet serves as his VP.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,588
Member is Online
|
Post by john07 on Jul 24, 2024 0:53:06 GMT
Given the slant of the Electoral College to the Republicans, what sort of lead in the popular vote would Harris need to win? This is the first Presidential election since the 2020 census, so will be the least biased since 2016* as the smallest amount of time has passed for populations to shift. *Census take part in year n*10+0 and the apportionment takes effect in year n*10+3. It still will not alter the fact that the Democrats will pile up huge majorities in New York and California but could still lose the electoral college. Hilary Clinton polled nearly 3 million more votes than Trump. In 2000, Al Gore took over half a million votes more than G W Bush. It's where your vote is that counts.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,651
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jul 24, 2024 0:57:35 GMT
Ah yes, the anti-Catholic bigot who has served as VP to the profoundly Catholic President Biden. Got it. Do you really think I would make such a claim without evidence? She is an ambitious woman, so would happily grasp the coattails of a winner, as she did with Joe Biden. remember, she accused him of supporting racist bussing legislation, yet serves as his VP. She challenged a judicial nominee on the grounds that he was a member of the Knights of Columbus, one of the biggest Catholic charities in the USA, as it upheld Catholic teaching. As a Democrat, you would think the fact this charity feeds, houses and funds the healthcare of more poor families than most states, she would laud them - yet, no, it was narrow ideology for her.
|
|
|
Post by riccimarsh on Jul 24, 2024 0:59:36 GMT
Ah yes, the anti-Catholic bigot who has served as VP to the profoundly Catholic President Biden. Got it. Do you really think I would make such a claim without evidence? She is an ambitious woman, so would happily grasp the coattails of a winner, as she did with Joe Biden. remember, she accused him of supporting racist bussing legislation, yet serves as his VP. ”An ambitious woman who would happily grasp the coattails of a winner”. Glad to know how you perceive successful black women. Nothing to do with past success, charisma, achievement or skill. Just grasping the coattails of an older white man. Feel free to provide your evidence of anti-Catholic bigotry at any time, btw. Edit: in response to your second post; care to name the Judge you are referring to??
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,447
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 24, 2024 1:03:14 GMT
This is the first Presidential election since the 2020 census, so will be the least biased since 2016* as the smallest amount of time has passed for populations to shift. *Census take part in year n*10+0 and the apportionment takes effect in year n*10+3. It still will not alter the fact that the Democrats will pile up huge majorities in New York and California but could still lose the electoral college. Hilary Clinton polled nearly 3 million more votes than Trump. In 2000, Al Gore took over half a million votes more than G W Bush. It's where your vote is that counts. The Dems need to learn from this year's Liberal Democrat and Labour campaigns on how to target your work to build votes where it's needed, not where it's not needed. But I expect the Dems to continue their philosophy of "we've got 85% of the vote in this state, one more push! Let's get to 90%!" and go from exactly 100% of the state's votes to excatly 100% of the state's votes. The Republicans are very adept at "50% plus 1".
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,447
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 24, 2024 1:06:33 GMT
Do you really think I would make such a claim without evidence? She is an ambitious woman, so would happily grasp the coattails of a winner, as she did with Joe Biden. remember, she accused him of supporting racist bussing legislation, yet serves as his VP. She challenged a judicial nominee on the grounds that he was a member of the Knights of Columbus, one of the biggest Catholic charities in the USA, as it upheld Catholic teaching. As a Democrat, you would think the fact this charity feeds, houses and funds the healthcare of more poor families than most states, she would laud them - yet, no, it was narrow ideology for her. Tutto nello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,588
Member is Online
|
Post by john07 on Jul 24, 2024 1:16:15 GMT
Do you really think I would make such a claim without evidence? She is an ambitious woman, so would happily grasp the coattails of a winner, as she did with Joe Biden. remember, she accused him of supporting racist bussing legislation, yet serves as his VP. She challenged a judicial nominee on the grounds that he was a member of the Knights of Columbus, one of the biggest Catholic charities in the USA, as it upheld Catholic teaching. As a Democrat, you would think the fact this charity feeds, houses and funds the healthcare of more poor families than most states, she would laud them - yet, no, it was narrow ideology for her. I always assumed that the Knights of St Columbus were the Catholic conterpart of the Freemasons?
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Jul 24, 2024 1:17:05 GMT
Ah yes, the anti-Catholic bigot who has served as VP to the profoundly Catholic President Biden. Got it. Do you really think I would make such a claim without evidence? She is an ambitious woman, so would happily grasp the coattails of a winner, as she did with Joe Biden. Remember, she accused him of supporting racist bussing legislation, yet serves as his VP. When it comes to running mates it’s far from unusual to find previous strong criticisms. We’ve seen it on the other side with JD Vance, also Mike Pence called Trump’s proposed Muslim ban during the 2016 primary campaign offensive and unconstitutional. Further back off the top of my head George Bush Senior called Ronald Reagan’s plans “voodoo economics” when they were competing in the 1980 primary
|
|