2024 Election prediction/discussion

[lawpoke87]

He should but will not. Of course.

Dems hands are largely tied from making it a legitimate issue given their coverup regarding Biden’s mental state over the last few years.

I’m not ready to concede the popular vote to Harris. Still believe she wins it by 1-2 points but need to see a few more national polls before I commit to that number. National polls have been moving Trumps direction but he should be close to his ceiling. I don’t expect any further significant movement in his direction. Will be watching the national polls closely this next week.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Dems hands are largely tied from making it a legitimate issue given their coverup regarding Biden’s mental state over the last few years.

I’m not ready to concede the popular vote to Harris. Still believe she wins it by 1-2 points but need to see a few more national polls before I commit to that number. National polls have been moving Trumps direction but he should be close to his ceiling. I don’t expect any further significant movement in his direction. Will be watching the national polls closely this next week.

Medical tests by the government's Dr,(not their own) releasing taxes, and stricter absolute restrictions on stocks and business dealings while in office should be a requirement to hold office. First one you break takes you out of office. Mental health related to dementia exams should happen annually for younger Presidents, and every 6 months for presidents past the age of 65. Tighter restrictions & time limits on returning classified materials after you leave office should exist as well. They should be on penalty of law, with an immediate jail sentence if not met to the letter.

You do this, and enforce it strictly with every president, then we won't have documents out there to be bandied about. We will have a better idea about the mental and physical health of our President. And we will have a much surer idea of the President's susceptibility to graft & corruption. We have left things open to interpretation on many of these issues, but now it has come to bite us on the tail. If we have no sense of the honor system in our Presidential office holder's, we need to make it a requirement.

If we take out of the Presidents hands, and go as far as putting a President out of office or in jail once or twice, they will hold to these regulations a little more resolutely. All of this should be put in a Presidential Regulations Amendment. I guarantee it would have a better chance of passing than just about any other Constitutional Amendment.

Granted if there are signs of senility and/or dementia there will have to be a wide latitude of how to deal with it, after diagnosed. Early on, those problems don't necessarily hinder the President enough to have to step down. There should be some testing guidelines set, that the President has to meet, before he can be taken out of office. Those guidelines should be lenient. When he doesn't meet those guidelines late in the process of evaluation, it should be put to a large panel of doctors, (maybe 10 doctors well recognized in that field) and require a super majority of 7 out of 10 doctors to say that he must step down.


Side Note:

We should do something similar for the Supreme Court.

 

[lawpoke87]

Two solid polls out for Harris this am. Reuters and Morning Consult show Harris up 3 and 4 points respectively. No slippage there. Are those outliers or do they show a momentum shift?

 

[lawpoke87]

Medical tests by the government's Dr,(not their own) releasing taxes, and stricter absolute restrictions on stocks and business dealings while in office should be a requirement to hold office. First one you break takes you out of office. Mental health related to dementia exams should happen annually for younger Presidents, and every 6 months for presidents past the age of 65. Tighter restrictions & time limits on returning classified materials after you leave office should exist as well. They should be on penalty of law, with an immediate jail sentence if not met to the letter.

You do this, and enforce it strictly with every president, then we won't have documents out there to be bandied about. We will have a better idea about the mental and physical health of our President. And we will have a much surer idea of the President's susceptibility to graft & corruption. We have left things open to interpretation on many of these issues, but now it has come to bite us on the tail. If we have no sense of the honor system in our Presidential office holder's, we need to make it a requirement.

If we take out of the Presidents hands, and go as far as putting a President out of office or in jail once or twice, they will hold to these regulations a little more resolutely. All of this should be put in a Presidential Regulations Amendment. I guarantee it would have a better chance of passing than just about any other Constitutional Amendment.

Granted if there are signs of senility and/or dementia there will have to be a wide latitude of how to deal with it, after diagnosed. Early on, those problems don't necessarily hinder the President enough to have to step down. There should be some testing guidelines set, that the President has to meet, before he can be taken out of office. Those guidelines should be lenient. When he doesn't meet those guidelines late in the process of evaluation, it should be put to a large panel of doctors, (maybe 10 doctors well recognized in that field) and require a super majority of 7 out of 10 doctors to say that he must step down.


Side Note:

We should do something similar for the Supreme Court.

I can’t even start to comprehend the political fights and shenanigans caused by selecting doctors to kick a President or Supreme Court Justices out of office. I would rather see a mandatory retirement age for Presidents and Justices. We have a minimum age for running for President. Why shouldn’t we have a maximum age ?

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I can’t even start to comprehend the political fights and shenanigans caused by selecting doctors to kick a President or Supreme Court Justices out of office. I would rather see a mandatory retirement age for Presidents and Justices. We have a minimum age for running for President. Why shouldn’t we have a maximum age ?

You could select a bipartisan panel of 10 doctors every 8 years, and the selection is from a blind panel who only knows his or her qualifications. And the testing of the president would be overseen by that panel of doctors, or by an evaluator who only reads the answers given not seeing the person being evaluated. That doesn't avoid the nitty gritty that later those doctors on the panel have to vote on his removal. But the first steps become harder to throw tests with 10 doctors who overseeing the testing. We nominate presidents who are of an older age for their wisdom.

Do we make it 70 or younger for any term? That would eliminate Biden altogether, and it would eliminate the second term of Reagan & Trump. I'd be ok with that, seeing as how the main issues of senility or dementia would be dealt with in all three Presidents we have noticed it affecting their performance. That doesn't account for early onset though.

 

[lawpoke87]

You could select a bipartisan panel of 10 doctors every 8 years, and the selection is from a blind panel who only knows his or her qualifications. And the testing of the president would be overseen by that panel of doctors, or by an evaluator who only reads the answers given not seeing the person being evaluated. That doesn't avoid the nitty gritty that later those doctors on the panel have to vote on his removal. But the first steps become harder to throw tests with 10 doctors who overseeing the testing. We nominate presidents who are of an older age for their wisdom.

Do we make it 70 or younger for any term? That would eliminate Biden altogether, and it would eliminate the second term of Reagan & Trump. I'd be ok with that, seeing as how the main issues of senility or dementia would be dealt with in all three Presidents we have noticed it affecting their performance. That doesn't account for early onset though.

I believe 70 would be a good number. Each party spends $1B plus every four years to gain power and reap the financial rewards from holding office. As such, I’m highly skeptical that it’s possible to keep politics out of the selection of the doctors or influence on this doctors once selected. There’s just too much money and power riding on the decision to remove a President of Justice. Which is why I would prefer an objective line like age rather than a subjective one.

 

[Babe the Blue Ox]

Today's Updates:

NV - Harris +0.3%
WI - Harris +0.5%
PA - Trump +0.3%
MI - Trump +0.4%
NC - Trump +0.4%
AZ - Trump +1.8%
GA - Trump +1.9%


EC - Trump 296-242

The key is still the 3 in the middle - PA, MI, NC. The winner will need to take 2 of the 3.

 

[lawpoke87]

The vaccine did not prevent all strains of Covid. It did greatly inhibit the lethality of the virus and saved many lives, I'm sure that some of my family might have appreciated having the opportunity to get it if only they had lived the extra few months to get it.

Saying that it "didn't work" is kind of like saying your seatbelt didn't work when you in got whiplash in a car wreck.

The people who whined the most about the mandate were the people who understood science the least. (They happened to be the same people trying to pass off Ivermectin and Hydroxycloroquine as legitimate cure-alls). The fact that we even needed a mandate in the first place should tell you how big of A-holes they were, and how wrong they were about the "sideffects" of the vaccine that they were so deathly afraid of. Again, similar to people who complained for years about being forced to wear helmets on motorcycles or seatbelts in vehicles. They probably complain about car seats too.

I’m a bit surprised but the New York Supreme Court has also found the mandate to be unconstitutional for government employees and granted back pay and reinstatement. Reasoning the same as I set forth.

 

[watu05]

The problem with many of these polls is people won't answer them honestly. Women may not want to PO their conservative friends or husbands by saying Harris. Or some are too embarrassed to say Trump because of his behavior but will vote for him anyway. Yuck.

 

[lawpoke87]

The problem with many of these polls is people won't answer them honestly. Women may not want to PO their conservative friends or husbands by saying Harris. Or some are too embarrassed to say Trump because of his behavior but will vote for him anyway. Yuck.

100%. Which is why I advise looking at the aggregate of all the polls. Historically the most reliable metric. Still not foolproof as we saw in 2016.

I’m going to start talking about early voting numbers at the end of the week and what we can and cannot take from those

 

[astonmartin708]

100%. Which is why I advise looking at the aggregate of all the polls. Historically the most reliable metric. Still not foolproof as we saw in 2016.

I’m going to start talking about early voting numbers at the end of the week and what we can and cannot take from those

I don't personally think today's polling methods are very good and the problem is only getting worse. It's harder to get valid polls these days with fewer people answering strange phone numbers because of constant telemarketers / scammers.

The people you do get tend to be more representative of gullible populations who haven't learned to ignore random calls.

The inherent bias (I'm not talking political bias, but statistical bias) is probably greater in today's polls than it has ever been because to reach certain demographics, you rely on getting people who are enthused to respond. That in itself is biased towards the extremes of the population.

Exit polling, early vote counts in certain districts, etc... are all more statistically relevant in my opinion.

 

[lawpoke87]

Several polls out this am which shows Trumps momentum has stalled. In some cases ole mo appears to have switched to Harris. Is it a blip or a trend?

Emerson poll this am showing Ted Cruz only up 1 in the Texas senate race. Cruz isn’t likable and doesn’t campaign. Harris is in Texas on Friday to campaign with Allred. Texas would be a huge pickup for the Dems hopes to capture the Senate.

 

[lawpoke87]

Tulsa Mayoral….hard to get a read when no data is available. My gut tells me this race was over the minute Monroe and the Dem party decided to lock Keith out of party assets thus giving Keith an easy pivot to appear as the non-partisan candidate in hopes of attracting the Pub vote. A vote which will be much larger in the general than it was in the primary. I will blindly go with Keith fairly easily say +6.

 

[aTUfan]

Another Poll

For Trump. 47%
Against Harris 4

 

[astonmartin708]

Several polls out this am which shows Trumps momentum has stalled. In some cases ole mo appears to have switched to Harris. Is it a blip or a trend?

Emerson poll this am showing Ted Cruz only up 1 in the Texas senate race. Cruz isn’t likable and doesn’t campaign. Harris is in Texas on Friday to campaign with Allred. Texas would be a huge pickup for the Dems hopes to capture the Senate.

If Texas flips, people will lose their minds.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

If Texas flips, people will lose their minds.

I'm betting that doesn't happen.

 

[lawpoke87]

I'm betting that doesn't happen.

Texas won’t flip. Trump will win by 7 points. Cruz on the other hand is in some danger simply because he’s an awful campaigner. Seems Cruz is in trouble every cycle and somehow manages to survive. At the end of the day I assume Trump’s coat tails are long enough to see him through.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Texas won’t flip. Trump will win by 7 points. Cruz on the other hand is in some danger simply because he’s an awful campaigner. Seems Cruz is in trouble every cycle and somehow manages to survive. At the end of the day I assume Trump’s coat tails are long enough to see him through.

You seem awfully confident to give the popular vote to Trump by 7 points. I would be hesitant to give the popular vote to either candidate even by 4 or 5 pts, much less by 7 pts.

 

[lawpoke87]

You seem awfully confident to give the popular vote to Trump by 7 points. I would be hesitant to give the popular vote to either candidate even by 4 or 5 pts, much less by 7 pts.

I was talking about Texas not nationally. Trump won Texas by 9 points in 2016 and by a 5.5 points in 2020. I expect 2024 to land in the middle…7 points. Pretty confident about this prediction.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I was talking about Texas not nationally. Trump won Texas by 9 points in 2016 and by a 5.5 points in 2020. I expect 2024 to land in the middle…7 points. Pretty confident about this prediction.

In that case I wouldn't have even balked if you said 10%

 

[lawpoke87]

In that case I wouldn't have even balked if you said 10%

I’m still predicting Harris will win the national vote btw. Margin will be closer than 2020.

 

[aTUfan]

I’m still predicting Harris will win the national vote btw. Margin will be closer than 2020.

doesn't matter

 

[astonmartin708]

Texas won’t flip. Trump will win by 7 points. Cruz on the other hand is in some danger simply because he’s an awful campaigner. Seems Cruz is in trouble every cycle and somehow manages to survive. At the end of the day I assume Trump’s coat tails are long enough to see him through.

I would be very surprised to see that many people split their tickets in favor of Trump but against Cruz.

 

[aTUfan]

I would be very surprised to see that many people split their tickets in favor of Trump but against Cruz.

I didn't vote him when I lived on Texas

 

[lawpoke87]

I would be very surprised to see that many people split their tickets in favor of Trump but against Cruz.

Agree. Cruz is an awful candidate though and Allred is an ex UT football player. Don’t discount the UT connection.

 

[Babe the Blue Ox]

Today's Updates (Electoral Votes in Parenthesis):

WI - Harris +0.2% (10)
NV - Harris +0.3% (6)
MI - Harris +0.6% (15)
PA - Trump +0.1% (19)
GA - Trump +1.1% (16)
NC - Trump +1.2% (16)
AZ - Trump +1.4% (11)


EC - Trump 281-257 Harris needs to pull in PA to take the lead.

 

[lawpoke87]

Dems are becoming increasingly concerned. After Harris bombed her CNN town hall last night David Axelrod went off on her and her campaign. Reading the tea leafs today it’s fairly apparent the Trump campaign believes he’s slightly ahead and Harris people believe she’s trailing. Margin is small and there’s still time to turn this thing around but Harris needs to either become a better candidate (doubtful) or find some credible dirt on Trump to change the trajectory of the electorate (possible). There’s a story out there that’s being shopped to various outlets by the Dems but I’m hearing it’s not yet sourced. We will see.

 

[astonmartin708]

Dems are becoming increasingly concerned. After Harris bombed her CNN town hall last night David Axelrod went off on her and her campaign. Reading the tea leafs today it’s fairly apparent the Trump campaign believes he’s slightly ahead and Harris people believe she’s trailing. Margin is small and there’s still time to turn this thing around but Harris needs to either become a better candidate (doubtful) or find some credible dirt on Trump to change the trajectory of the electorate (possible). There’s a story out there that’s being shopped to various outlets by the Dems but I’m hearing it’s not yet sourced. We will see.

This cycle is so dumb. The shear amount of high ranking Republican officials who have come out against Trump including a number of his own former senior administration officials is staggering. Mitch McConnell just came out today saying he's "unfit for office" and "not very smart".

The Republican party is more interested in seizing power than they are actually putting the interests of the country first.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I think people changing their mind last minute over something that was said yesterday is silly. If you change your mind, and you really have a mind, it was changed long ago. You just admitted it today is all. No candidate will get my support or lack of support over a stupid statement in the last few weeks, unless it was so shocking and so revealing. That hasn't happened yet. The dems are just being the dems at a leftward angle of what the dems used to be, and the republicans are just being confused. The republicans are in the midst of an identity crisis, and it's name is Donald Jackass Trump. I would love to see how much the identity crisis goes away when Trump gets out of the spotlight. I honestly think Trump will linger for years to come.

 

[lawpoke87]

This cycle is so dumb. The shear amount of high ranking Republican officials who have come out against Trump including a number of his own former senior administration officials is staggering. Mitch McConnell just came out today saying he's "unfit for office" and "not very smart".

The Republican party is more interested in seizing power than they are actually putting the interests of the country first.

Any Dem but Harris beats Trump easily. Unfortunately the party was focused on maintaining power rather doing the right thing and concealed Biden’s cognitive ability until the nation saw it live on TV. They panicked and picked a person who was the worse candidate in the 2020 Dem primary. Somehow expecting her to be better four year later. She’s not. In fact she might be worse. She was chosen to be VP because she checked the Dem boxes. This mess is as much on the Dems as it’s on the Pubs. If the Dems would have done the honest thing we would be looking at Newsome as our next President. Instead we get Harris or Trump. Oh boy

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Any Dem but Harris beats Trump easily. Unfortunately the party was focused on maintaining power rather doing the right thing and concealed Biden’s cognitive ability until the nation saw it live on TV. They panicked and picked a person who was the worse candidate in the 2020 Dem primary. Somehow expecting her to be better four year later. She’s not. In fact she might be worse. She was chosen to be VP because she checked the Dem boxes. This mess is as much on the Dems as it’s on the Pubs. If the Dems would have done the honest thing we would be looking at Newsome as our next President. Instead we get Harris or Trump. Oh boy

They would have thrown a bunch of crap Newsome's way, and some of it would have stuck. You underestimate the crap flinging of both parties, if you say otherwise. Would he have been a better candidate, probably. Would he have had a better chance than Kamala, maybe. The fact that he was Governor of Cali is the biggest rock to be carrying in his campaign. If a rust belt state governor had run, they wouldn't have had that rock to carry.

 

[lawpoke87]

They would have thrown a bunch of crap Newsome's way, and some of it would have stuck. You underestimate the crap flinging of both parties, if you say otherwise. Would he have been a better candidate, probably. Would he have had a better chance than Kamala, maybe. The fact that he was Governor of Cali is the biggest rock to be carrying in his campaign. If a rust belt state governor had run, they wouldn't have had that rock to carry.

True but Newsome is slick and very well spoken. Charismatic as well. Basically everything Harris is lacking. The difference between him campaigning and Harris is night and day. California is certainly a negative but articulate candidates are at such an advantage in today’s world of social media clips.

 

[aTUfan]

True but Newsome is slick and very well spoken. Charismatic as well. Basically everything Harris is lacking. The difference between him campaigning and Harris is night and day. California is certainly a negative but articulate candidates are at such an advantage in today’s world of social media clips.

buyers remorse.

 

[astonmartin708]

Any Dem but Harris beats Trump easily. Unfortunately the party was focused on maintaining power rather doing the right thing and concealed Biden’s cognitive ability until the nation saw it live on TV. They panicked and picked a person who was the worse candidate in the 2020 Dem primary. Somehow expecting her to be better four year later. She’s not. In fact she might be worse. She was chosen to be VP because she checked the Dem boxes. This mess is as much on the Dems as it’s on the Pubs. If the Dems would have done the honest thing we would be looking at Newsome as our next President. Instead we get Harris or Trump. Oh boy

This is a dumb statement. “Any Dem but Harris…” okay let’s run Hillary again.

The problem is not Harris. It’s Republicans who would almost under no circumstance vote for a Democrat. (Like yourself). You have career officials in senior Republican leadership who have worked intimately with Trump coming out and tacitly saying that you are making a bad decision by not being more flexible in your viewpoints and calling him dumb (McConnell) and a fascist (Kelly).

Thirteen former Trump White House officials signed an open letter backing up former Trump chief of staff John Kelly, who told the New York Times that Trump fits the definition of a fascist.

“We applaud General Kelly for highlighting in stark details the danger of a second Trump term. Like General Kelly, we did not take the decision to come forward lightly,” the letter said. “We are all lifelong Republicans who served our country. However, there are moments in history where it becomes necessary to put country over party. This is one of those moments.”

 

[astonmartin708]

How many people on both sides of the aisle and ex military leaders have to tell you that you really need to keep Trump out of office before you will listen? Is it going to take a Nuremberg trial 15 years from now for you to admit you are wrong?

I know that’s me being hyperbolic but I really want you to be introspective and ask yourself, “how much would it actually take for me to admit that this guy who has co-opted my side of the aisle might be worse for our country than my traditional opponent’s party?” Could you ever see a hypothetical situation where you would actually admit that? What would it take?

How bad does your own side have to be to stop justifying your party’s inadequacies with this “both sideism”?

I have done this exercise for the Dems, and I can tell you that there are certain lines I will not let them cross. And I will listen to some closely tied Dem leaders if they come out against Kamala. If Schumer let’s say were to come out against her, I would probably listen to him and if the best person to defeat her was a Republican then I’m okay with that.

 

[lawpoke87]

This is a dumb statement. “Any Dem but Harris…” okay let’s run Hillary again.

The problem is not Harris. It’s Republicans who would almost under no circumstance vote for a Democrat. (Like yourself). You have career officials and senior Republican leadership who have worked intimately with Trump coming out and tacitly saying that you are making a bad decision by not being more flexible in your viewpoints and calling him dumb (McConnell) and a fascist (Kelly).

Thirteen former Trump White House officials signed an open letter backing up former Trump chief of staff John Kelly, who told the New York Times that Trump fits the definition of a fascist.

“We applaud General Kelly for highlighting in stark details the danger of a second Trump term. Like General Kelly, we did not take the decision to come forward lightly,” the letter said. “We are all lifelong Republicans who served our country. However, there are moments in history where it becomes necessary to put country over party. This is one of those moments.”

Fine….any Dem who was mentioned as a possibly candidate this cycle. Figured that was understood but obviously not. It’s 100% Harris. Let me repeat…it’s 100% Harris. Look at the early voting totals. Dems aren’t voting at near the rate they did in 2020 for Biden. Dems aren’t enthusiastic about her as a candidate. Harris is the same person who bombed in the 2020 Dem primary. Yet the Dems nominated her to run for President. This is on them. Let me be clear…..if Harris doesn’t win it’s because Dems didn’t get out to vote for her in the same numbers they voted for Biden in 2020. Why…because she’s an awful candidate. She was arguably the worst candidate in the Dem primary in 2020. Sh*t hasn’t changed.

 

[watu05]

BTW, Musk holding secret talks with Putin and doing favors for Xi: Wall Street Journal.

 

[lawpoke87]

To the “it’s not Harris” crowd, the LA Times and WaPo have both declined to endorse Harris for President. Wake up. It’s Harris. It’s always been Harris.

 

[astonmartin708]

To the “it’s not Harris” crowd, the LA Times and WaPo have both declined to endorse Harris for President. Wake up. It’s Harris. It’s always been Harris.

How many newspapers have declined to endorse Trump? Heck…how many major papers has he been endorsed by?

Also, WaPo said they wouldn’t endorse any candidate now or in the future.

And the LA times chief editor resigned in public protest because the paper’s new owner wouldn’t t allow the staff to go through with the endorsement they had planned

 

[astonmartin708]

Fine….any Dem who was mentioned as a possibly candidate this cycle. Figured that was understood but obviously not. It’s 100% Harris. Let me repeat…it’s 100% Harris. Look at the early voting totals. Dems aren’t voting at near the rate they did in 2020 for Biden. Dems aren’t enthusiastic about her as a candidate. Harris is the same person who bombed in the 2020 Dem primary. Yet the Dems nominated her to run for President. This is on them. Let me be clear…..if Harris doesn’t win it’s because Dems didn’t get out to vote for her in the same numbers they voted for Biden in 2020. Why…because she’s an awful candidate. She was arguably the worst candidate in the Dem primary in 2020. Sh*t hasn’t changed.

The worst candidate in the 2020 Democratic Primary is still better than the worst Republican candidate in human memory.