2024 Presidential Election Thread - Let's keep the party going.

[gmr548 16,681]

54 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

I mean there always is that. Evangelicals are not real Christians in some sense, at least not this 75% of them that seem to be in the Trump bubble.

But it is still bizarre and blows my mind. It would be one thing if they were holding their nose and voting for him because they just hate abortion that much...but no. They see him as some kind of divinely favored figure. Despite everything.

White Southern American Christianity was on the front lines defending slavery, Jim Crow, and now Trump. To take any position other than the one that results in the most regressive, stratified society would be inconsistent with historical norms. I don't know why this has surprised anyone. They have been telling us who they are for 200 years.

[UTGrad98 2,331]

1 minute ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I have shared ancedotes on here about educated, white women with daughters in high school/college who are still voting for Trump becuase reasons. I am also not too sure about my fellow white women.

I think a lot of them are just shitty people if I am being honest. There is a dark part of me that hopes they feel the pain they are putting on other people. I am not proud of that feeling, but there it is.

Its ok to feel that way. I do. Unfortunately that's how most people learn but usually its on their deathbed after they have been shitty people their entire lives, voted for horrible policies and candidates and/or influenced thousands if not millions of people to do the same. See dead Koch brother. 

[The Dog 44,770]

One reason pollsters might be failing to pick up what and Seltzer picked up in Iowa, is a lot of women are afraid to say they are voting for Harris. Sharing stories yesterday after knocking doors in Pennsylvania, can't tell you the number of canvassers who had wives standing in the background while speaking to the husband and having them mouth something to the effect that they were voting for Harris. Or if they answered the door, they pretended to not say who they were voting for out loud and then whispered they were voting for Harris. It's kind of heartbreaking actually.

[GhostOfTomJoad 9,483]

Yeah, my boss who is an awesome, badass bitch (in the best possible way), wears some wild, hippie-esque clothing in the office and generally celebrates the Keep Austin Weird-vibe broke my heart on Friday. We were both WFH and on the Teams call I noticed in the corner of her desk she had a shiny new Trump 2024 Yeti. Her husband's high up in construction so I guess I shouldn't be that surprised, but they also have a daughter who's a HS senior and for the life of me I just can understand that disconnect.

[quigley 1,565]

14 hours ago, Js1 said:

This is certainly not the first poll to show Harris doing very well with college educated voters. Not sure if GEM’s complaint is the weighting or the margin. But this is a demo Dems have done better and better with. Dems overall won that demo +10 in 2020

 

52 minutes ago, Js1 said:

She talked about it on MSNBC and mentioned the from the ground up enthusiasm for Harris, considering neither campaign has been in Iowa. She mentions that Harris’ entrance gained her new voters and expanded the voting base, mostly from senior and middle aged women 

 

Yeah, so that's the one obvious problem with Selzer's strategy. We don't know here response rate and whether we can trust it is reflective of the voting population of Iowa.

 

 

4 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I dunno, do you think flat earthers deserve grace for their views?

well, he now has early onset dementia, so he doesn’t think much on the subject. And I don’t talk to him about politics or policy in general for all the obvious reasons. 

So farmers are attune to the weather so I doubt there's one who's a flat-earther. Also, your rhetorical flourishes are diminish when you verge to edge cases.

Farmers comprise a significant voting population in Iowa. The point was me trying to explain why farmers may have switched to Trump to Harris. I was giving people who I've known my whole life the opportunity be on the right side of history because of self-interest and in spite of their abhorrent views (and behavior). With county level data after the election, we may see that I'm wrong or right, don't know. 

I'm sorry to learn about your father-in-law. Mine is in the same situation.

 

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,616]

33 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

At this point, I'm convinced that he has no idea Fox is getting paid by the Harris campaign (or subsidiaries) to run the ads.

 

 

 

 

Assisting with his stolen election lie cost Fox three quarters of a billion alone in the Dominion suit. Not good enough for Man Baby. 

[quigley 1,565]

17 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Meanwhile:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would love it if Marge is right!

[SydneyCarton 49,321]

3 minutes ago, UTGrad98 said:

Its ok to feel that way. I do. Unfortunately that's how most people learn but usually its on their deathbed after they have been shitty people their entire lives, voted for horrible policies and candidates and/or influenced thousands if not millions of people to do the same. See dead Koch brother. 

Yeah, disagree with your math there, Lou. I don’t think most people on their deathbed and say “you know, I was a real shit bird and voted for some really bad policies.” I think shitty people go out just like they lived, doing whatever necessary to think they did good and if there is a heaven they’re getting in…and probably have relatives around willing to go along with that lie. 

[quigley 1,565]

18 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Well yeah, they've got to worry about you going around planting pipe bombs around DC again.

DC will be fortified this time.

[aggie08 21,732]

4 minutes ago, The Dog said:

One reason pollsters might be failing to pick up what and Seltzer picked up in Iowa, is a lot of women are afraid to say they are voting for Harris. Sharing stories yesterday after knocking doors in Pennsylvania, can't tell you the number of canvassers who had wives standing in the background while speaking to the husband and having them mouth something to the effect that they were voting for Harris. Or if they answered the door, they pretended to not say who they were voting for out loud and then whispered they were voting for Harris. It's kind of heartbreaking actually.

If this election results in thousands of women divorcing their mediocre, overbearing husbands, I'd call that a win.

[Biff Tannen 46,060]

13 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

There is a dark part of me that hopes they feel the pain they are putting on other people. I am not proud of that feeling, but there it is.

How else are they going to learn?

[Gatorubet 30,626]

4 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I have shared ancedotes on here about educated, white women with daughters in high school/college who are still voting for Trump becuase reasons. I am also not too sure about my fellow white women.

Try having those older white women  be a part of your normal dating age pool demographic when they trend Trumpy in our very Republican state.  

I have legitimate non-dirty old man reasons for sometimes dating younger women here.  All of Jefferson parish and most of Orleans Lakeview area are all very maga.  Which almost always means most of their friends relatives and neighbors are too.  After several experiments giving people the benefit of the doubt, I no longer do that as it is a waste of time.

That said, I hear the same thing from liberal women in very Trumpy areas. I dated an age appropriate lady from Tennessee for a while and she said she’s essentially not dating anymore because every man she meets is a huge Trump supporter.   

What I’m trying to say is we’re missing making money on creating a political themed dating app. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,407]

2 hours ago, quigley said:

Osborn in NE has a good shot too based on the IA.

How confident are we that Osborn will be a somewhat reliable 'D' vote in the Senate and not pull a Munchkin or 'Dangerous Creature'?

[SydneyCarton 49,321]

5 minutes ago, quigley said:

 

 

Yeah, so that's the one obvious problem with Selzer's strategy. We don't know here response rate and whether we can trust it is reflective of the voting population of Iowa.

 

 

So farmers are attune to the weather so I doubt there's one who's a flat-earther. Also, your rhetorical flourishes are diminish when you verge to edge cases.

Farmers comprise a significant voting population in Iowa. The point was me trying to explain why farmers may have switched to Trump to Harris. I was giving people who I've known my whole life the opportunity be on the right side of history because of self-interest and in spite of their abhorrent views (and behavior). With county level data after the election, we may see that I'm wrong or right, don't know. 

I'm sorry to learn about your father-in-law. Mine is in the same situation.

 

 

Edge cases? Buddy I’ve got some bad news for you. Like 10% of millennials believe in flat earth. 
 

https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/conspiracy-vs-science-survey-us-public-beliefs

 

Sorry to hear about your FIL as well. Life can be brutal. 

[SydneyCarton 49,321]

1 minute ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

How confident are we that Osborn will be a somewhat reliable 'D' vote in the Senate and not pull a Munchkin or 'Dangerous Creature'?

Ahem. 
 

No one knows shit about fuck 

[speed817 19,844]

7 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

If this election results in thousands of women divorcing their mediocre, overbearing husbands, I'd call that a win.

Bumble is gonna be wild lol

[Fudge Nuggets 19,407]

2 hours ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

They can all pry the last bag of Cool Ranch Doritos from my cold dead hands

Those used to be my go to for snack chips.  That was until that smallish bag shown in the picture went up to $5.99.  Haven't bought a bag in over two years; fuck 'em.

[Js1 86,913]

4 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

How confident are we that Osborn will be a somewhat reliable 'D' vote in the Senate and not pull a Munchkin or 'Dangerous Creature'?

We just need him to be a D vote for majority leader, but he would be a headache. But he can be placated with good union legislation, veterans support, legal weed, etc 

 

14 minutes ago, quigley said:

Yeah, so that's the one obvious problem with Selzer's strategy. We don't know here response rate and whether we can trust it is reflective of the voting population of Iowa.

We are all skeptical of Harris up 3 in Iowa, but her track record speaks for itself. She knows her state. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,616]

46 minutes ago, G650 said:

Beets, bears, Battlestar Galactica

Cylons might actually be even less intimidating than sleestacks.

[quigley 1,565]

1 minute ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

How confident are we that Osborn will be a somewhat reliable 'D' vote in the Senate and not pull a Munchkin or 'Dangerous Creature'?

All I care about is judges for the first two years of the (potential) Harris term. Judicial votes (non-SCOTUS) don't get a lot of press. Hopefully he votes with the Dems on those.

2026 Senate map is a little better so Dems hopefully won't need him.

[SimonBolivar 11,014]

8 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

How confident are we that Osborn will be a somewhat reliable 'D' vote in the Senate and not pull a Munchkin or 'Dangerous Creature'?

Better than the person he's running against.

[Pato del Muerto 53,325]

19 minutes ago, The Dog said:

One reason pollsters might be failing to pick up what and Seltzer picked up in Iowa, is a lot of women are afraid to say they are voting for Harris. Sharing stories yesterday after knocking doors in Pennsylvania, can't tell you the number of canvassers who had wives standing in the background while speaking to the husband and having them mouth something to the effect that they were voting for Harris. Or if they answered the door, they pretended to not say who they were voting for out loud and then whispered they were voting for Harris. It's kind of heartbreaking actually.

How is she picking up these voters but other polls are not?

[quigley 1,565]

10 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Edge cases? Buddy I’ve got some bad news for you. Like 10% of millennials believe in flat earth. 
 

Well, if they're hot, i'd probably listen (am i doing this right?)

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,279]

12 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Try having those older white women  be a part of your normal dating age pool demographic when they trend Trumpy in our very Republican state.  

I have legitimate non-dirty old man reasons for sometimes dating younger women here.  All of Jefferson parish and most of Orleans Lakeview area are all very maga.  Which almost always means most of their friends relatives and neighbors are too.  After several experiments giving people the benefit of the doubt, I no longer do that as it is a waste of time.

That said, I hear the same thing from liberal women in very Trumpy areas. I dated an age appropriate lady from Tennessee for a while and she said she’s essentially not dating anymore because every man she meets is a huge Trump supporter.   

What I’m trying to say is we’re missing making money on creating a political themed dating app. 

Man, you need to date ladies that live in the FQ, Garden District, or Uptown.  

[Surly Bevo 25,654]

7 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

Fox News

[Gatorubet 30,626]

6 hours ago, aggie08 said:

If this election results in thousands of women divorcing their mediocre, overbearing husbands, I'd call that a win.

I had a long time practice with a female partner.   It was very common to have husband’s coming in the office who attempted to control every aspect of their wives’ personal injury case.  They would be outraged when we would not discuss their wife’s case until we had specific approval from their wife. 

We always made a special opportunity to break off the wife at sometime and let her know that in our state the recovery from personal injury pain and suffering is what we call separate property, and 100% hers even though we are a community property state.    The husband would always talk about “our check” or even “my settlement”.

I would tell them I have this discussion with every client, but if they were thinking about leaving their spouse for a divorce or just a brief separation to work things out we could mail the settlement check to parents or one of your siblings or girlfriends. We also said we were happy to issue two checks, with a smaller check for a couple grand they could go down to the bank and cash right then after calling our office, if they needed cash for any reason, “like some of our clients used to take a vacation by themselves or separate from their husband to think things out”

Oh yeah, we had takers. 

 

Edited November 3 by Gatorubet

[Js1 86,913]

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

How is she picking up these voters but other polls are not?

Because she’s not making assumptions about the electorate makeup or weighing the results. Collect, export, publish. Do I think pollsters are intentionally fudging numbers? No, but they’re massaging data to meet priors or assumptions. 

Also could be Iowa specific with their specific abortion ban. 

Also she’s not scared of being wrong, because she has a reputation. Her worst miss was 2008 (Obama +17 and he won +9.5)

[Gatorubet 30,626]

4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

How is she picking up these voters but other polls are not?

It’s more that she is not adding any weight to the hard data. Everybody is trying to find the magic way and the perfect number for how hard you put your thumb on the scale. She does not put her thumb on the scale.

[TwiceHorn 31,981]

6 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

How is she picking up these voters but other polls are not?

Good question, but I think it's a justification for not overweighting Trump.

[quigley 1,565]

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

We are all skeptical of Harris up 3 in Iowa, but her track record speaks for itself. She knows her state. 

 

2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

How is she picking up these voters but other polls are not?

Yeah, we're skeptical that she's got the special sauce allows her to know what people are thinking. But it may be that the "balanced" prior voting strategies that many other high profile pollsters are employing don't capture changing attitudes of voters (reframing abortion as "reproductive health" has moved older white women apparently).

That said, even if she's off A LOT and Trump takes Iowa by 2, it's a great predictor of Dem success other places and in the Senate and House.

[Js1 86,913]

Atlas Intel is dumping polls every day to skew the averages. 

[hobbes2702 13,348]

28 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

White Southern American Christianity was on the front lines defending slavery, Jim Crow, and now Trump. To take any position other than the one that results in the most regressive, stratified society would be inconsistent with historical norms. I don't know why this has surprised anyone. They have been telling us who they are for 200 years.

I know people like to pretend that it’s the people not the religion that are at fault, but when something teaches you to ignore all logical reasoning in favor of “feels”, that has trickle down consequences on the way you process other things in life.

[Jersey Man10 3,748]

[immamac 44,197]

1 hour ago, TexasHooch said:

Something just occurred to me.  I've voted against Trump 5 times now- 3 generals and 2 primaries.  I'm getting more and more optimistic that I'll never have to do it again.

You won't have to do it again regardless of the outcome. You won't get a chance to vote against Trump if he wins. 

4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

How is she picking up these voters but other polls are not?

They are, and they are weighting and biasing them out of the results set. The demographics being used and weights attributed to them are completely bogus. When every demographic you have is nearly 50-50 its no longer a demo you can weight with, yet everyone thinks "college educated white people" are a demographic. Its fucking stupid and the reason "Hispanic" vote has been perplexing for decades. 

Polls are bad, because we don't know who actually voted for who or why. Anyone can make up random shit and we have no idea who or what voted which way. 

[quigley 1,565]

5 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Man, you need to date ladies that live in the FQ, Garden District, or Uptown.  

You're suggesting that anyone that posts here date women? Are you a traitor to your gender?

[atomheartbevo 90,538]

1 hour ago, Valmy77 said:

I mean there always is that. Evangelicals are not real Christians in some sense, at least not this 75% of them that seem to be in the Trump bubble.

But it is still bizarre and blows my mind. It would be one thing if they were holding their nose and voting for him because they just hate abortion that much...but no. They see him as some kind of divinely favored figure. Despite everything.

26 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

White Southern American Christianity was on the front lines defending slavery, Jim Crow, and now Trump. To take any position other than the one that results in the most regressive, stratified society would be inconsistent with historical norms. I don't know why this has surprised anyone. They have been telling us who they are for 200 years.

Don’t count out the grifters pretending to be evangelicals or pretending to br Christians in general. I’m sure being photographed while putting a hand on Trump and “praying” for him is worth several grand in donations at least. It’s a wonder that fights haven’t broken out over who gets to touch Trump when religious leaders “pray” for him.

We know a percentage of those people are grifters based on how many have been caught in the past. We just don’t know who the True Believers are and who the grifters are.  Well, we could probably tell them by the houses they own and the cars they drive. 

[Js1 86,913]

2 minutes ago, Jersey Man10 said:

 

[South Austin 53,151]

2 minutes ago, Jersey Man10 said:

 

 

[hobbes2702 13,348]

7 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

The FCC can eat a dick

[Valmy77 13,567]

I am grateful whatever magic Donnie possesses it doesn't appear very transferable.

[Constant 6,834]

3 minutes ago, Jersey Man10 said:

 

[Gatorubet 30,626]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Also she’s not scared of being wrong, because she has a reputation. Her worst miss was 2008 (Obama +17 and he won +9.5)

if her model outweighs voter enthusiasm It at least tells us which side has enthusiastic voters.   and as Obama was the first African-American presidential nominee of a major party, I imagine that picked up more than a few people who wanted to appear more progressive but just we’re not gonna vote for the black guy.   If anything, that might be something she does not pick up.    But as all of this now has the Dobbs factor, everybody is taking a best guess. 

Turning down get out the vote volunteers seems like a pretty significant sign of enthusiasm to me

[Pato del Muerto 53,325]

8 minutes ago, Jersey Man10 said:

 

Plenty of time left to energize and motivate.  Like 55 days. Sorry, I meant 55 hours. Hours. 

Edited November 3 by Pato del Muerto

[immamac 44,197]

Exit polls are typically far more accurate because most people don't feel like lying immediately after they cast their vote. This year even the exit polls will be wrong because of people wanting no backlash etc. 

I was at a Halloween party with 30 people I've known for almost 16 years. We all at least get together annually and have all moved various places and are in different places than we were in college where all the girls met waitressing at Grins in San Marcos. Grins girls and their husbands and the subsequent friends that got peripherally sucked into this group and we've never talked politics through more than 4 election cycles it's never really been a thing. This year even though everyone knows who voted for kamala no one said it out loud. It's uncouth, it's not socially normal to talk about who or how you vote. I don't have a problem with it, but many people treat it as a very personal choice that no one else needs to know about. 

this year you will have a significant number of people who have never voted before and part of the reason they went to vote is a commercial or a campaign to get them to vote which includes "no one will ever know who you voted for in the booth" 

the amount of votes against Trump by people who may even represent him in their social circles is going to be vast and measurable. The amount of votes for Trump amongst the prior Biden voters and Hillary voters is going to be bear 0 or unmeasurable. 

anyone who thinks differently is actually at odds with reality. 

[South Austin 53,151]

3 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Turning down get out the vote volunteers seems like a pretty significant sign of enthusiasm to me

Meanwhile Elon has to pay for MAGAs to vote.

[Valmy77 13,567]

I don't know if NBC did anything wrong there but it is puzzling to me how many of Trump's appointments are still around in 2024. Any of Obama's appointments make it to 2020?

[Js1 86,913]

2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Plenty of time left to energize and motivate.  Like 55 days. Sorry, I meant 55 hours. Hours. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,407]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

This is why you can’t assume all the new voters this cycle who were eligible to but didn’t vote in 2020 are Trump voters. 

My initial reaction would be the total opposite.  If you were able to vote in 2016 or 2020 and didn't but are voting in 2024 I assume you are fed up with dotard's bullshit and are acting in a way to finally drive a stake through his "heart".

[Surly Bevo 25,654]

51 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Meanwhile:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh for fucks sake, nobody is stealing anything.  Your party and its orange buffoon of a leader put your electability along with democracy and women out on the curb like it was garbage and now you are surprised when it's gone?

[Dahobbs 18,181]

16 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

How is she picking up these voters but other polls are not?

Many pollsters try to solve the low response rates problem by over sampling certain demographics. But when you mold your sample to fit pre-determined assumptions, you'll be incapable of detecting changes in a true random sample. Their results are only accurate to the extent their assumptions are accurate.