Trump is winning big with his base, but there’s no sign that he's broadening support
Trump is winning big with his base, but there’s no sign that he's broadening support
Donald Trump appears close to invincible in the early Republican primaries and caucuses, but his strength among general election voters remains unclear.
You're viewing a single thread.
He doesn't have to broaden support to win. Biden just has to lose support.
In 2020, Biden won 81,283,501 to 74,223,975.
But the popular vote doesn't count.
What put him over the top were:
Georgia - 2,473,633 to 2,461,854 = 11,779 votes. Pennsylvania - 3,459,923 to 3,378,263 = 81,660
Michigan - 2,804,040 to 2,649,852 = 154,188 Wisconsin - 1,630,866 to 1,610,184 = 20,682
Arizona - 1,672,143 to 1,661,686 = 10,457Biden didn't win by 7,059,526 votes. All those extra votes in places like California and New York didn't count.
He won by 278,766 votes in 5 key states. That's it.
Now, since we aren't pushing hard on vote by mail this year, how many voters do you think will disengage and not vote?
God that’s fucking depressing! Thanks for putting it in perspective.
If it makes you feel better, he killed his own boombooms with his demented policy choices
Biden won because of the youth vote, millennials and gen z out numbered boomers and silent generation for the first time.
But this year he's only up 4 points in the 18-34 demo.
It's fucking insane seeing so many people insisting we can't talk about these issues while there's still time to fix it.
Biden just doesn't want to actually do things that would get him votes. Even something basic like doing interviews, it's like the 2024 Biden campaign is just going to be hiding him in a closet while the media talks about how bad trump would be and all of Bidens aides claim he's a completely different person off camera
I really don't think it will be enough this time. And it's fucking terrifying
Just a note that polling of Millenials and younger is known to be wildly inaccurate since we don't follow traditional news media, so extrapolating a sample to a state or national value is functionally guesswork.
This is why polling stated Obama wasn't going to be re-elected and everyone was expecting a big Romney win.
Not sure where you're getting that. FiveThirtyEight's presidential model doesn't solely rely on polling, but it's the prominent factor, and it was bang on that year.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/07/nate-silver-election-forecasts-right
That was an in person speech I attended by the unofficial god of polling, Angus Reid.
Don't know what you heard in a speech, but Angus Reid's own organization accurately predicted the popular vote that year:
And his group was the outlier.
Anyways I was sharing firsthand knowledge here that isnt acknowledged on the web. That speech has no public recording.
No polling agency talks about why the uncertainty used to be +/-3% and its now often +/- 6 to 10%.
You're just looking for irrelevant gotchas.
It's not exactly a "gotcha" when we just have to take your word for it that this happened.
A: Makes a claim
B: Requests source.
A: You're just looking for irrelevant gotchas. Anyway, she lives in Canada.
I mean, you might be totally correct and relating a factual experience with total objectivity. But you gotta admit that's what it sounds like.
Got a source for that "everyone was expecting a Romney win" thing?
Yeah, an in person speech by Angus Reid.
Sources are usually verifiable.
Yeah, sorry. This wasn't a public speech, but I was there in person. There might be a recording of it, but again, not public.
Cool. So one guy at a speech delivered in private that you can't verify in any way said that everyone expected Romney to win.
No, he said why the polling was off and why most polls were projecting a Romney win.
Romney lost once the binders full of women comment happened. Similar to Hillary's deplorables comment.
Saying things like "Well, they're totally different off camera" sank both Dole and Clinton as well.
Pics or it didn't happen.
Add to that the lack of will to do debates...
Neither are doing primary debates, and there's no way a general debate happens.
We won't see either even attempt to answer a difficult question, and they'll both still fuck up the easy ones.
Biden I get, the sitting President doesn't have to debate.
In Trump's case, he has nothing to gain by it, so that also makes sense.
Once they lock down the candidacy though, there had better be debates.
It's tradition to do 3, last time they only did 2.
I'd be surprised if they do 1, especially if either of them answer a difficult question.
So much shit has been thrown out the window already.
The game isn't to be the best person to fix America. The game is not fucking up.
They tell people what they think online and on tv, you don't need a debate. The only thing that can happen to old men like Trump and Biden on a debate stage is them fucking up.
A massive win on stage wouldnt change their base or sway people more than pundits hammering your point eloquently for you, but a fuck up would end them, so they don't go.
not doing interviews? he told us he likes chocolate chip cookies. what more do you want?
Keep in mind that it's still February. The election is in November. If he did all of that now, the energy it generates would be worn off by then. Hopefully the strategy is to gear up the campaign in summer.
You're right...
Got to remember Biden is 81 years old and isn't capable of campaigning for a long time...
Surely nothing bad will happen if he waits till the last minute. And it's not like being able to work for 7 months is a constitutional requirement to be president.
/S
Even with the /s, this is insane. Campaigning is all about marketing, and timing is critical in marketing. Christ.
Yes, everyone knows with a capable, young, intelligent, and capable candidate, the trick is to hide them to the last second as a surprise.
So then hiding Biden has nothing to do with his lack of ability.
This is totally normal!
That's why no one is bothering to talk about the election right now and political stump speeches and advertising doesn't start till Halloween.
His opponent is currently making appearances while juggling trial dates and is nearly as old. Covid was a good excuse to keep Biden hidden last election, but he's going to have to be much more visible this time.
Wasn't Biden on Seth myers literally last night?
The unannounced 5 minute part where two celebrities talked about how great he is while he sat there looking at stuff other than the person talking?
So you haven't watched it yet?
He talks about the great agenda he has for 2020, spends most of his time waiting on cues he goes early on, talks about being buddy buddy with the leader of China, and rambles on about how America is the greatest country in the world after saying it's not.
Didn't have any problems with stuttering, but it looked like a video you make with an elderly family member during the holidays to send to everyone that doesn't visit the nursing home.
I refuse to believe anyone watches that shit show and came away confident in Biden.
But yeah, before the post got taken down, I even commented on it how it's more than I thought we'd get, and also makes sense why his campaign team is hiding him.
Which is why you suddenly see all these sockpuppet accounts posting about how bad Biden is.
I have to let this out, and your comment was the trigger. Lucky you.
Three things are pissing me off in this election in particular.
- Undecideds. There's supposed to be this huge center (well, 30%) of unaffiliated "undecided" voters. Who TF are these people, who look at the modern Republican party and at Trump, and go: "hmmm. I just don't know. Do I vote for the bland old guy, or the fascist, philandering, traitorous tax-avoiding old guy who's under inditement in several states? I just don't know!"
- Primaries. Lots of liberals - myself included - are furious with Biden about his support of Israel in this ethnic cleansing. The primaries should be the place where we can express our displeasure, and is almost the only forum we have to exert (generally) direct electoral pressure. But we can't, because doing so harms Biden's chances in the general election by sowing discord - c.f. the very relevant Bernie Bros, who refused to vote for Hillary even after Bernie threw in with her.
- Biden's cabinet. Whoever is in charge of his PR is doing a shit job. I learn more on Lemmy about Biden's accomplishments than I do in the general news. Biden's doing a good job in many areas, but Joe Public doesn't know because Biden's PR staff have their heads up their asses.
It's utterly insane; the electoral college needs to be dumped, there's no doubt about that, and adoption of approval voting, or ranked choice -- almost anything would be better. But even with these issues, the US managed to work for 200 years, until the past few election cycles, and it's just gotten insane.
The undecideds are people who aren't paying attention. It's easy to not be sure who you'll vote for when your opinion is based on whatever stray bits of politics pop up around you despite your best efforts to remain ignorant. And those people are just as likely to run into lies and propaganda, but won't have the knowledge required to spot the inaccuracies.
The problem is, I don't believe they are all sock puppets. It would be foolish to think that people on the left aren't as susceptible to disinfo as people on the right. Plus the complaints are totally valid. Biden is too old, he is supporting Israel's genocide, he is just barely a centrist, and he will just enable the status quo instead of affecting real positive change in the country. What's at stake is much more dire. I'm willing to wait another 4 years to try again for a more progressive candidate rather than gamble now on a less than 1% chance of a slightly better candidate and a 99% chance of trump and the likely end of free and fair elections.
All true. In the US, you don't have to win a majority to win the election.
But I highly doubt that Democrats are going to sit this one out.
And if they just show up to the same degree as in 2020, Trump still needs to broaden support in the key swing states to actually win them. If he's not doing it nationally, chances are he's not doing it in the battlegrounds.
Without vote by mail, they won't show up to the same degree. Trump's vote was driven by in person votes, Biden by vote by mail.
That's not going to be true this year. And like I showed, the margins in those key states is super slim.
Georgia - Trump +6 to +9
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/georgia/Pennsylvania - Trump +2 to +5
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/pennsylvania/Michigan - Trump +2 to +3
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/michigan/Wisconsin - Trump +2 to +3
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/wisconsin/Arizona - Trump +3 to +6
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/arizona/Biden can't win without these states and if the election were today?
Whatever the polls say, do you have any idea what a mess the GOP in Michigan is? We're having a primary and two competing caucuses because we have two heads of the state party and they are bankrupt. There is a lawsuit to sell their headquarters to pay their bills. And we came out for abortion rights big time in 22, which Republicans continue to shoot themselves in the fucking head with.
There is zero ground game. I can't believe it's even possible for Trump to win here, polls be damned.
I've been watching and it's absolutely hilarious, none of which is going to impact the general election.
If none of it matters in the general then nothing matters. Money doesn't matter. Organization and unity don't matter. I'm not an expert, but I just don't believe you are correct. For decades I've heard how important ground game is. Heard Hillary's (among others) loss blamed on it.
I just don't see how that can be right.
Hillary didn't just lose because of a lack of "ground game" she lost because of instead of campaigning in states she needed to win, she did a victory lap and only went to states she was already locked in to win.
She took winning for granted and only cared about beating Obama's vote, because she still held a grudge.
Hillary didn't just lose because of a lack of "ground game" she lost because of instead of campaigning in states she needed to win, she did a victory lap and only went to states she was already locked in to win.
That's another way of saying "lack of ground game".
Clinton had organizers in Michigan and Wisconsin, but she failed to visit the states personally which voters saw as taking them for granted.
When the election rolled around, they did not.
Which was especially stupid for her given how Wisconsin showed a willingness to vote R in statewide elections over and over. She SHOULD have been there.
You make it sound like something they couldn't do.
Not something they deliberately choose to ignore
That's the difference. Hillary had all the campaign resources and money to win, hell, she took a bunch from senate races thru a fucked up DNC "donor sharing" program.
Then blew all that money traveling Blue states so people would clap for her.
She didn't just fuck up her race, she fucked up the house and senate as well.
Details and specifics matter
The other responder is correct. This is exactly what I was referring to. Why split hairs between a failure of the local party and self-sabotage resulting in no ground game?
I could copy paste what I told them, but it's probably easier for you to just scroll down since it sounds like you already read it
No need, it's just as pointless as it was the first time when you responded to him.
No idea why you responded then, but feel free to keep responding I'll never see them
Michigan became a wierd place last week.
On top of GOP issues, a few dems started fighting against biden for the primary
GOP sinking means MI probably turns blue, right?
Biden win here in 2020. Democrats took full control of state government in 22 for the first time since 1983. Arguably the biggest failure of the "red wave."
Will that hold? I don't know but while there are pockets of strong support for Trump, we don't seem to like his endorsed candidates one bit. Given their disarray, I don't see a path to victory for them. But we do have a very large Muslim population which is currently upset with Biden, so it's not all roses.
It's neat how we kept DeJoy in charge at the post office after his fuckery in the last election.
Why that asshole has not been removed is still beyond me.
But I highly doubt that Democrats are going to sit this one out.
I sense there are a lot of young progressives screaming about "genocide" in Gaza who are going to sit it out, not able to grasp the big picture.
Scare quotes around genocide? Really?
It's questionable whether what is happening in Gaza is genocide from a legal perspective. Regardless, being concerned with Gaza but sitting out this election and not voting is asinine. Biden may not being doing enough to help stop the humanitarian crisis and him in office may not save any lives in Gaza, but I can guarantee Trump in office will get more people killed. Trump will happily use US military resources to flatten Gaza, and brag about it. Claims that Biden is facilitating or supporting genocide in Gaza ultimately benefits Trump and will doom the Gazan Palestinians if Trump gets in office.
questionable whether what is happening in Gaza is genocide from a legal perspective
Firstly, no it isn't. Secondly, resorting to "a legal perspective" so that you can choose the specific definition that makes it technically kinda not qualify if you squint hard enough is a really shitty, bad faith debate tactic. The stated wishes and goals of average, mainstream Israelis is to kill all Palestinians, burn Gaza to the ground, and take it over. That's genocide, plain and simple.
I'm not a legal expert and I doubt you are as well, but if you search the 'net there are plenty of articles from respectable news sources covering debates and discussions over whether it's legally genocide or not. I'm not going to debate it with you; I'll leave it up to those who are qualified to determine if it is truly genocide, and pursue war crimes charges as necessary. I never said it was morally correct what Israel is doing. The morality or lack thereof of their actions is separate from the legal definition of genocide. Furthermore, and quite ironically, the 1988 Hamas Charter specifically states as a goal to obliterate Israel in language that rhymes with genocide. While it certainly doesn't justify what Israel is doing right now, Hamas would be doing the same to Israel right now if it was within their capabilities. Israel could have taken over Gaza long ago, if it really wanted to do it. What's going on right now in Gaza is the result of Hamas launching an offensive with no strategic or worthy goals, against an enemy they knew they had no chance of winning against. It's a pretty good assumption that some portion of the cries of genocide are the result of foreign propaganda to both garner support for Hamas and the continuing disruption and outside influence of US politics.
not a legal expert and I doubt you are as well, but if you search the 'net there are plenty of articles from respectable news sources covering debates and discussions over whether it's legally genocide or not. I'm not going to debate it with you; I'll leave it up to those who are qualified to determine if it is truly genocide, and pursue war crimes charges as necessary. I
That's exactly my point. The "legal definition", if for some reason it doesn't apply, is just an excuse to avoid confronting the atrocities we are complicit in committing. If the "legal definition" isn't met, then it's simply wrong. Some court case isn't what determines whether it's "truly genocide", it's that Israel, with our support, is and has been trying for decades to eradicate an entire people and culture.
a pretty good assumption that some portion of the cries of genocide are the result of foreign propaganda to both garner support for Hamas and the continuing disruption and outside influence of US politics.
I do agree with this, and it's really unfortunate. But yeah, if I was Hamas I would use the fact that Gazans are being genocided to drum up support too, it's a pretty good argument. To avoid creating a situation where Hamas looks like the good guys, I think the best thing to do would be to, you know, stop murdering Palestinian children.
The “legal definition”, if for some reason it doesn’t apply, is just an excuse to avoid confronting the atrocities we are complicit in committing. If the “legal definition” isn’t met, then it’s simply wrong. Some court case isn’t what determines whether it’s “truly genocide”, it’s that Israel, with our support, is and has been trying for decades to eradicate an entire people and culture.
I don't think proving actual genocide is a prerequisite or requirement for bringing war crimes charges and holding people accountable. For example, if in war a military unit/leader/solider executes a group of unarmed civilians, it can be pursued as a war crime as it's intentionally targeting and harming civilians, but executing one group of civilians in this fashion isn't genocide, even if they were a specific race, religious sect, etc. Undoubtedly if there was a pattern of this occurring and there was provable support from leadership, it would be considered genocide. Genocide, like other terms like suicide, homicide, germicide, etc., has a specific meaning. Morality is much more subjective, and hence I'd call Israel's action quite immoral. Israel may indeed want to eradicate Gaza as a territory or political unit, however that doesn't mean it's genocide. Otherwise we could call Russia's desire to eradicate or annex Ukraine genocide. And after I write all this, I realize I'm debating the meaning of genocide. But I digress.
a pretty good assumption that some portion of the cries of genocide are the result of foreign propaganda to both garner support for Hamas and the continuing disruption and outside influence of US politics.
I do agree with this, and it’s really unfortunate. But yeah, if I was Hamas I would use the fact that Gazans are being genocided to drum up support too, it’s a pretty good argument. To avoid creating a situation where Hamas looks like the good guys, I think the best thing to do would be to, you know, stop murdering Palestinian children.
On all this we can agree. I don't want innocent civilians killed, either. I take issue with the term genocide and the way it's being used, especially in the context of the US supposedly "promoting or supporting" genocide. That's simply not true. It's a complicated landscape and as we've been discussing this I see there is a ceasefire being pursued diplomatically by the Biden administration. I think the way the term genocide is being used here and elsewhere cheapens it and compromises the severity and seriousness of the term.
Depends if the Democratic leadership decides to go for we can totally flip Texas for reals this time AGAIN. Ignoring all of the increasingly purple formerly hard blue states in the rust belt.
Don't forget that the ROC had a catastrophic midterm. Also Jan 6th and Roe/Wade were no jokes and will continue to not be joking.
It's also February. November is coming but alot can change and people can decide to vote after summer. Most people think it's a decision that can be made later.
Most of those votes weren't for Biden though they were against trump. Trump is still trump last I checked so I will vote against him again and hope for the best