2024 Elections Thread

[ciao_yall]

Elections are hardly ever about individual issues. They're about bundles of issues, not to say the revolution.

Harris seems to be a successful California politician. And in California, none of her policy stances would be at all controversial.

Her problem is that California is not the United States.

CA is 12% of the US population, the 5th largest economy in the world, and a diverse population politically, ethnically and even economically.

You can't get any more US than CA, even though a few Iowa farmers wish otherwise as they tap on their Apple computers and eat lettuce grown in the Central Valley.

[Ruralguy]

Understood, but California is a done deal for the Democrats. If there were any threat to CA, there'd be a difference in how Dismalist and others answer these sorts of questions.

Its not about Iowa farmers (don't get me started on our brain-dead primary system). Its about Detroit and Philly suburbs, and how they balance out the more conservative exurban areas in those states. It hasn't been that way forever, and probably won't be forever in the future (anyone remember "Florida, Florida, Florida?") . But that's the way it is in the moment.
I'm not saying she should totally re-design to match the rustbelt, but she and her followers should realize that the reaction to certain policies may not always be enthusiastic as it is in places like CA or even certain patches of the East and Midwest.
 

[RatGuy]

Honest question -- it seems that every election year I hear stories touting "this new young voting bloc is going to be a game-changer," and I'm starting to hear this again. Is that true? Do we have any cogent analysis of these new voters? Or are they just gonna vote the way their parents do?

Also, re: Harris -- in my deeply red area, I'm hearing so much "Harris has put a lot of innocent black men behind bars, so I'm voting for Trump because he's on the side of the black man." I don't know how that's getting any traction, but here we are.

[jimbogumbo]

I think more than in any election I can recall the choice of VP is going to make a difference. It is all about the swing states this time. JD Vance was not a big plus re swing states, where as Shapiro or Kelly would be huge.


Fun California fact: it voted R for prez in every election from 1952 thru 1988. Didn't switch to D until Clinton in 1992.

[Ruralguy]

The data is confusing because everyone confuses data or uses what behooves them in the moment. I think what they are getting at is that the 18-40 something section of the electorate represent a larger % of the *potential electorate* than a few years ago, but it is not at all certain that 2024 will shape up to be a growing share of the actual vote. Just about a month ago, a large share of folks in that age range said they would not vote. But I think some feel that is likely to change with Harris likely replacing Biden. We don't really know that, nor do we know that it would be favor of the Democrats (I think new registrations tend to favor conservatives).  Also, we know from all the news in our profession that the number of 18-20 something section of that group is about to drop precipitously, so I don't think any jump in Gen Z'ers or younger are likely to matter in 2028 as compared to older (although the relative number of Boomers will also decrease due to death and incapacitation).

I think surveys show that *in general* younger voters have different opinions of the effectiveness of government and their role in solving problems (this is true for younger conservatives as well). I have not seen anything that examines specifically how one's political identifications correlate with those of parents.

[Ruralguy]

No VP choice has led to the voters actually choosing that VP's state in a way that made difference to the election since 1960 (and even then, we don't know for sure that picking Johnson was the reason). Of course, its been attempted (Kaine in 2016, Ryan in 2012, maybe Edwards in 2004).

[Sun_Worshiper]

^^^ Yup VP rarely matters much. Could make a small difference here, but probably only marginal at best. But the VP announcement tends to get a lot of media attention and can bring a little short-term benefit in the polls.

[jimbogumbo]

States that matter this time: GA, PA, MI, AZ, NV, WI, MN. I said "more than in any election I can recall" which actually is 1960. Harris as P is a good start for GA and NV, but AZ, PA, MI, MN and WI will, imho, be influenced quite a bit by the VP pick. If we learned anything from 2016 and 2020 it is that right now you have to focus on the margins, which electorally are those swing states.

[Ruralguy]

Yes, but the issue here is that we don't know in advance which 100,000 votes will matter most. So, you wing it, and hope your choice matters enough to make a difference. Its really impossible to tell whether, say, Shapiro or Kelly would be a better choice. Shapiro is probably a little less risky, at least in terms of what happens next if the ticket wins (AZ Dems might then lose a senate seat). Kelly is more of a textbook central casting VP choice though.

[Sun_Worshiper]

^^^ Hopefully they are doing a little more than winging it. Lots of internal polling should be going on right now to figure out where the marginal benefits will be most helpful - AZ or PA. But in general, yes there is going to be a lot of guesswork.

Btw, AZ has a Democratic governor so I think she'd be able to appoint a replacement for Kelly.

I'd also add NC to the list of states that Harris could put into play, although the VP probably doesn't matter much in that context. And it would be a reach for the Dems.

[mythbuster]

Jimbogumbo: "Fun California fact: it voted R for prez in every election from 1952 thru 1988. Didn't switch to D until Clinton in 1992."

If you look at CA governors its even more R centric. Starting with Reagan (1967-75), there have been 8 different governor terms (Jerry Brown twice). Only half of those terms were Dems.. Jerry twice, Grey Davis (recalled), and now Gavin.

California brand Republicans did VERY well in the state for a very long time. Unfortunately for the rest of the country, CA Republicans would be considered solidly Dem most other places because of social views.

[Ruralguy]

Hobbs can appoint a replacement for Kelly only until a special election is held, which has to be in 2025 if Kelly were to become VP in January 2025. That person who wins the election would fill the remaining three years of the Senate term. Remember, when McSally was appointed, she lost her election, so, appointments dont always keep the job after the next election. Its a concern. Basically, hed have to be a very conpelling pick in order to take such a risk.

Both he and Shapiro are a bit to the right of Harris, though on different issues.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Hobbs can appoint a replacement for Kelly only until a special election is held, which has to be in 2025 if Kelly were to become VP in January 2025. That person who wins the election would fill the remaining three years of the Senate term. Remember, when McSally was appointed, she lost her election, so, appointments dont always keep the job after the next election. Its a concern. Basically, hed have to be a very conpelling pick in order to take such a risk.

Both he and Shapiro are a bit to the right of Harris, though on different issues.

I see. Makes sense.

[Langue_doc]

Biden sidesteps hard truths in first speech since quitting race

Some paragraphs from the article:

In a rare televised address from the Oval Office on Wednesday night, his first public comments since he abruptly ended his re-election bid on Sunday, he spoke of his accomplishments. He spoke of his humble roots. He sang the praises of the American people. He said the future of American democracy lies in their hands.
What he didn't do, despite saying he would always level with Americans, was provide a direct explanation for the biggest question of the day.
He didn't say why he has become the first incumbent president to abandon a re-election bid, just a few months before voting begins.
And that is what the history books will be most interested in.
He hinted at it. He talked around it. But he never tackled it head on. It was left for the American people to read between the lines.
"In recent weeks," Mr Biden said, "it's become clear to me that I need to unite my party."
He then echoed what has become a growing chorus among Democrats - that it was time to "pass the torch" to a new generation.
While he said his accomplishments, which he listed in detail, merited a second term in office, he added that "nothing can come in the way of saving our democracy – and that includes personal ambition."
Left unsaid was the cold, hard reality that he resigned because it was becoming increasingly clear that he was going to lose to Donald Trump in November. And that is an outcome that those in his party universally view as catastrophic.
Trailing in the polls, embarrassed by a miserable debate performance and with a growing chorus in the Democratic Party calling for him to step aside, there was no clear path to a Biden victory.

The article continues:

Republican groups have been flooding the airwaves in key battleground states, in an attempt to define Ms Harris in their terms, not hers. According to research by the Associated Press, Trump's side is slated to outspend their Democratic counterparts 25-to-1 over the course of the next month.
One advertisement had been saying Ms Harris was complicit in covering up the president's "obvious mental decline".
Mr Biden's speech offered a nationally televised, primetime opportunity to provide a rebuttal to the attacks against his vice-president and to firmly address concerns about his ability to continue to fulfil his presidential duties.
It was an opportunity he mostly passed on.
Towards the end of his speech, the president did talk up his running mate. He said Ms Harris was "experienced, tough, capable" and an "incredible partner for me and a leader for our country".
They were strong words, but there weren't many of them. He spent more time discussing Benjamin Franklin than he did his vice-president – the person he endorsed on Sunday, and the one who will be the most important torch-carrier for his legacy in the months ahead.
With little cover from the president, Ms Harris and her team will have to decide whether, and how, to respond to the withering Republican attacks in the coming days.

[spork]

The Trump echo chamber is just throwing spaghetti at the ceiling, hoping something sticks. The most important sentence in Biden's speech, in my opinion, was "But nothing, nothing can come in the way of saving our democracy and that includes personal ambition."

Biden spoke for what, 11 minutes? LBJ, when he announced that he would not seek re-election, spoke for about 40 minutes I think. Nixon's resignation speech was ~ 16 minutes. Brevity is better.