11
The big picture: Who is favored to win the presidency?
(www.natesilver.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
11 points (62.2% liked)
politics
19241 readers
1719 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I was a big pusher of the idea that Biden should drop out after the first debate, and that Harris would be the only possible replacement, since she had already won on a ticket with Biden and, as VP, was his understudy anyway.
There was a lot of pushback from people then, but a handful of people argued against it because they claimed that the heartland of America was simply too sexist to vote for a woman. It explained what happened in 2016, and they said it would happen again.
I'm wondering if they were right. And the difference between 2020 and 2024 is that enough people in the wrong EC states will simply never vote for a woman as President.
I was fucking pissed as hell (and remain pissed) that the democrats didn't have a real primary. I think Harris was an extremely weak pick and wouldn't have survived it. Trump cannot be allowed to be president so Democrats should have found their best candidate.
And I disagree, somewhat, about gender... I'd hope it'd be irrelevant but it sadly isn't - but Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate and Harris isn't a great candidate either. Gender is playing a role, but a good candidate (like Warren) could definitely overcome it.
I really thought Mayor Pete would have been a good candidate. He's a bulldog in debates with Republicans, but we'd probably end up with a similar problem. The obvious choice then probably would have been Gavin Newsom, but that dude just seems like such a slick, slimy douche. But I guess that would have been an advantage.
Nate Silver's last Silver Bulletin makes the interesting point that Harris has higher likeability ratings, but she has very little clear messaging. Trump's pretty clear about what he's going to do, even if it's appalling, illegal, or harmful. And as Nate says, he has clear "personal injury attorney" messaging: I'm a slimy, aggressive asshole, but I'm your slimy, aggressive asshole. Kamala's messaging appears to be (at the surface level), we can't go back, but we're going to go forward in a different way, and I'm not Joe Biden, but I'm not not Joe Biden, but, hey, I'm not Trump! I.e., he's pointing out how muddled her messaging is.
It's sad to say, but Buttigieg's sexuality is as big a challenge in a general election as Harris' gender - maybe moreso. He's smart, tenacious, and would be a good leader. I would vote for him over Trump. But too many voters in swing states can't see beyond the fact that he's gay.