Politics The Hangar Politics Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Lore said:
I don't think it's the "undecideds" that will decide it... Since America doesn't have mandatory voting, and has pockets of decided voters who are actively discouraged/prevented from voting through various means, the turnout of "decideds" matters more than what those who are undecided, particularly in swing states.
Click to expand...
It's a good way of putting it Lore. It's where my line of thought is coming from, Joe managed to get millions to turn up because he'd been a brilliant politician for so long so there were a lot of "Joe" people.

I think Kamala struggles to capture those same masses, though maybe she leans heavily into "Joe anointed me."

Or maybe I'm vastly underestimating her ability to galvanise the base.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

boncer34 said:
It's a good way of putting it Lore. It's where my line of thought is coming from, Joe managed to get millions to turn up because he'd been a brilliant politician for so long so there were a lot of "Joe" people.

I think Kamala struggles to capture those same masses, though maybe she leans heavily into "Joe anointed me."

Or maybe I'm vastly underestimating her ability to galvanise the base.
Click to expand...
It's largely driven by the level of enthusiasm for a candidate.

The result of 2016 was driven by one of the least inspiring and widely disliked democrat candidates simultaneously with Trump galvanising a small segment of the population who hadn't really been seen as relevant to US elections previously.

This year I think the deciding factor will be the extent to which fear of a Trump presidency and the potential for things like Project 2025 motivates people to get out and vote democrat. Conservative attacks on reproductive rights have been hugely unpopular and I'm sure that will form a big part of any democrat campaign.
 
Old Campaigner said:
It's largely driven by the level of enthusiasm for a candidate.

The result of 2016 was driven by one of the least inspiring and widely disliked democrat candidates simultaneously with Trump galvanising a small segment of the population who hadn't really been seen as relevant to US elections previously.

This year I think the deciding factor will be the extent to which fear of a Trump presidency and the potential for things like Project 2025 motivates people to get out and vote democrat. Conservative attacks on reproductive rights have been hugely unpopular and I'm sure that will form a big part of any democrat campaign.
Click to expand...
Only for those who are pro-choice. Which from memory has only climbed into a positive majority literally in the last 24 months or so.
 
boncer34 said:
Only for those who are pro-choice. Which from memory has only climbed into a positive majority literally in the last 24 months or so.
Click to expand...

My guess would be the shifting population demographic is starting to show up in some of these stats and voting habits.

www.statista.com

U.S. population by generation 2023 | Statista

After surpassing Baby Boomers as the largest generation group, Millennials now make up a major part of the U.S. population, although Gen Z is catching up fast.
www.statista.com www.statista.com
 
It's still very much line-ball. Harris was polling better than Biden in Pennsylvania which Biden was looking like losing. Add Shapiro to the ticket and Harris can afford to lose Georgia, Arizona and Nevada. If Harris holds Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, she wins.

I'm not sure I've seen enough from Trump to suggest he's actually going to do anything other than cash in and undermine democracy and handouts to rich people who supported him. I don't think he has enough of a message about what he will do for working class swing voters. And he didn't achieve anything in his first term to suggest he has any more ideas.

Trump was on the offensive against Biden, now he's going to have to go into hiding. He's already cancelling any more debates. I thought after the shooting there would be a big bump, but it was barely a blip. Biden's poor debate performance had more impact. If that impact is undone, we're back to pre-debate.

Vance was a big mistake, he just appeals to the same core voters already voting for Trump. Yuge mistake, biggest ever. That's where all the blame will go. I wouldn't be surprised if Vance is forced to withdraw and Trump pays Haley off to join the ticket.

Kamala Harris is $2.80, which is shorter than what Biden was ($3.10-$3.20) pre-debate.
 
boncer34 said:
Only for those who are pro-choice. Which from memory has only climbed into a positive majority literally in the last 24 months or so.
Click to expand...
It brings out the voters though, there’s been a number of pro choice wins even in pretty deep red states. In a system where voting is optional an issue that brings out otherwise apathetic voters is a big deal. It’s why Trump is doing what he can to downplay P25.
 
boncer34 said:
Only for those who are pro-choice. Which from memory has only climbed into a positive majority literally in the last 24 months or so.
Click to expand...
Something I was reading this morning indicated that the Republican policy platform has removed a reference to a nation-wide abortion ban. They're now saying they want to leave it to the states. It's not a complete about-face by any means, they're still ideologically anti-abortion, but it's interesting that they've weakened their stance on it a little.
 
boncer34 said:
It's a good way of putting it Lore. It's where my line of thought is coming from, Joe managed to get millions to turn up because he'd been a brilliant politician for so long so there were a lot of "Joe" people.

I think Kamala struggles to capture those same masses, though maybe she leans heavily into "Joe anointed me."

Or maybe I'm vastly underestimating her ability to galvanise the base.
Click to expand...
Putting a woman of colour against Trump is certainly going to put people to the test. When you're asked to choose between a white xenophobe and a mixed-race child of migrants, between a pussy-grabber and a feminist.

Biden or someone like him is basically the middle-ground candidate for people who like the status quo of a white man in charge that isn't loudly racist and sexist... but I don't know if that's going to inspire people to vote.

The turnout is probably higher when you have something to vote against, than when you have something to vote for, and when turnout is a deciding factor it could be to some benefit for both candidates.


I think it would test Australia too, in a different way, if we had an election between equivalent sorts of characters... but because we have mandatory voting we tend to put up two Bidens for election, instead of a Trump and a Harris.
 
Lore said:
Putting a woman of colour against Trump is certainly going to put people to the test. When you're asked to choose between a white xenophobe and a mixed-race child of migrants, between a pussy-grabber and a feminist.

Biden or someone like him is basically the middle-ground candidate for people who like the status quo of a white man in charge that isn't loudly racist and sexist... but I don't know if that's going to inspire people to vote.

The turnout is probably higher when you have something to vote against, than when you have something to vote for, and when turnout is a deciding factor it could be to some benefit for both candidates.


I think it would test Australia too, in a different way, if we had an election between equivalent sorts of characters... but because we have mandatory voting we tend to put up two Bidens for election, instead of a Trump and a Harris.
Click to expand...

It's hilarious that you instinctively jump into this idea that the majority look at candidates based on race or gender. That isn't what is important to most people. What is important is the economy and how fit the person is for the job. You act as if Obama wasn't elected twice and that it had everything to do with his race or gender. That's beyond ridiculous.

Hence why the majority, on all sides, were wary of Biden being "fit" for the role, in the sense that his ability to fulfil the duties required of a president, regardless of what/who is, was in question. This anxiety (regarding the fitness of the role) began to play in Trump's favour in that he was seen as more capable even in the minds of people who wouldn't have initially voted for him.

To add to this, America's issues at the moment extend further abroad, with two wars currently ongoing. The anxiety over Biden's fitness for the role has created a form of fatigue in the minds of the public where they perceive even a slight improvement in cognitive/mental competence than that seen in Biden as being something that would translate into an ability to calm their fears regarding the state of the world and the state of the economy/their ability to put food on the table/keep the heat on.

As an aside you will have some people who are deep into the paranoia of the government being hell-bent on control, or corruption within it, where they will gravitate towards the "underdog" they perceive is being most negatively treated by it, which in their eyes justifies their paranoia.

There are real issues in the US and the world right now with the majority just wanting someone who will drive them out of it. In the same way that Obama was seen as most capable before. To reduce it all to just what pigment someone is or what's in their pants is both disingenuous and a form of tribalism that is of the same ilk as the one being (rightly) criticised.
 
Call Me Cake said:
It's hilarious that you instinctively jump into this idea that the majority look at candidates based on race or gender. That isn't what is important to most people. What is important is the economy and how fit the person is for the job. You act as if Obama wasn't elected twice and that it had everything to do with his race or gender. That's beyond ridiculous.

Hence why the majority, on all sides, were wary of Biden being "fit" for the role, in the sense that his ability to fulfil the duties required of a president, regardless of what/who is, was in question. This anxiety (regarding the fitness of the role) began to play in Trump's favour in that he was seen as more capable even in the minds of people who wouldn't have initially voted for him.

To add to this, America's issues at the moment extend further abroad, with two wars currently ongoing. The anxiety over Biden's fitness for the role has created a form of fatigue in the minds of the public where they perceive even a slight improvement in cognitive/mental competence than that seen in Biden as being something that would translate into an ability to calm their fears regarding the state of the world and the state of the economy/their ability to put food on the table/keep the heat on.

As an aside you will have some people who are deep into the paranoia of the government being hell-bent on control, or corruption within it, where they will gravitate towards the "underdog" they perceive is being most negatively treated by it, which in their eyes justifies their paranoia.

There are real issues in the US and the world right now with the majority just wanting someone who will drive them out of it. In the same way that Obama was seen as most capable before. To reduce it all to just what pigment someone is or what's in their pants is both disingenuous and a form of tribalism that is of the same ilk as the one being (rightly) criticised.
Click to expand...
If you find it hilarious you should be laughing. Instead it seems I'm the one laughing (at the irony of your response)...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lore said:
Something I was reading this morning indicated that the Republican policy platform has removed a reference to a nation-wide abortion ban. They're now saying they want to leave it to the states. It's not a complete about-face by any means, they're still ideologically anti-abortion, but it's interesting that they've weakened their stance on it a little.
Click to expand...
Trump has definitely said the same at some stage in the past few months.
 
Call Me Cake said:
It's hilarious that you instinctively jump into this idea that the majority look at candidates based on race or gender. That isn't what is important to most people. What is important is the economy and how fit the person is for the job. You act as if Obama wasn't elected twice and that it had everything to do with his race or gender. That's beyond ridiculous.

Hence why the majority, on all sides, were wary of Biden being "fit" for the role, in the sense that his ability to fulfil the duties required of a president, regardless of what/who is, was in question. This anxiety (regarding the fitness of the role) began to play in Trump's favour in that he was seen as more capable even in the minds of people who wouldn't have initially voted for him.

To add to this, America's issues at the moment extend further abroad, with two wars currently ongoing. The anxiety over Biden's fitness for the role has created a form of fatigue in the minds of the public where they perceive even a slight improvement in cognitive/mental competence than that seen in Biden as being something that would translate into an ability to calm their fears regarding the state of the world and the state of the economy/their ability to put food on the table/keep the heat on.

As an aside you will have some people who are deep into the paranoia of the government being hell-bent on control, or corruption within it, where they will gravitate towards the "underdog" they perceive is being most negatively treated by it, which in their eyes justifies their paranoia.

There are real issues in the US and the world right now with the majority just wanting someone who will drive them out of it. In the same way that Obama was seen as most capable before. To reduce it all to just what pigment someone is or what's in their pants is both disingenuous and a form of tribalism that is of the same ilk as the one being (rightly) criticised.
Click to expand...
It's been a day and there's already heaps of racist memes on various conservative social media channels. It's a huge issue in the US and it'll absolutely sway some voters.
 
Old Campaigner said:
It's been a day and there's already heaps of racist memes on various conservative social media channels. It's a huge issue in the US and it'll absolutely sway some voters.
Click to expand...
Purely out of interest what are the conservative social media channels? Trumps one which the name escapes me, which other ones?
 
boncer34 said:
Purely out of interest what are the conservative social media channels? Trumps one which the name escapes me, which other ones?
Click to expand...
Rumble, probably X (formerly Twitter).
 
Call Me Cake said:
It's hilarious that you instinctively jump into this idea that the majority look at candidates based on race or gender. That isn't what is important to most people. What is important is the economy and how fit the person is for the job. You act as if Obama wasn't elected twice and that it had everything to do with his race or gender. That's beyond ridiculous.

Hence why the majority, on all sides, were wary of Biden being "fit" for the role, in the sense that his ability to fulfil the duties required of a president, regardless of what/who is, was in question. This anxiety (regarding the fitness of the role) began to play in Trump's favour in that he was seen as more capable even in the minds of people who wouldn't have initially voted for him.

To add to this, America's issues at the moment extend further abroad, with two wars currently ongoing. The anxiety over Biden's fitness for the role has created a form of fatigue in the minds of the public where they perceive even a slight improvement in cognitive/mental competence than that seen in Biden as being something that would translate into an ability to calm their fears regarding the state of the world and the state of the economy/their ability to put food on the table/keep the heat on.

As an aside you will have some people who are deep into the paranoia of the government being hell-bent on control, or corruption within it, where they will gravitate towards the "underdog" they perceive is being most negatively treated by it, which in their eyes justifies their paranoia.

There are real issues in the US and the world right now with the majority just wanting someone who will drive them out of it. In the same way that Obama was seen as most capable before. To reduce it all to just what pigment someone is or what's in their pants is both disingenuous and a form of tribalism that is of the same ilk as the one being (rightly) criticised.
Click to expand...

Not believing race and gender haven't played a big part in which candidates are selected and put forward is rather naive.
 
boncer34 said:
Purely out of interest what are the conservative social media channels? Trumps one which the name escapes me, which other ones?
Click to expand...
Trump’s is Truth Social, but you can find it on Twitter etc as well

I thought this was kinda funny

 
faible said:
They'll just keep referring to 'DEI Hires' instead of being obviously racist.
Click to expand...
That's pretty obviously racist and one of the things they're trying to stop their bigot cohorts saying.
 
I gotta say that JD Vance couch ****er thing going viral is very funny. If he has to do a Clintonesque public denial that he had sexual relations with a piece of furniture I’d just about die laughing
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Politics The Hangar Politics Thread

Similar threads

Sporno 4 Pyros
Sport The Essendon Board’s Paris 2024 Olympics Thread
2 3
Replies
63
Views
1K
Sporno 4 Pyros
Sporno 4 Pyros

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top