2024 Elections Thread

[Ruralguy]

That would be assuming *they* view it as having been a mistake. Maybe some do. Maybe some don't.

[marshwiggle]

Hillary, could you give the "It's my turn, my turn" chant a rest? This is a democracy where we vote for the candiate we think would best represent us and the country. The presidency isn't a freebie that's awarded to someone because it's their turn. It's the qualifications that matter, and not the gender, skin-color, religion, body parts/anatomy, or the slew of other characterisitcs.

Clinton Rallies Democrats Behind Harris: 'This Is When We Break Through'
Eight years after failing to smash the "highest and hardest glass ceiling" in politics, Hillary Clinton urged her party to make Kamala Harris the nation's first female president.

Harris should win because of her qualifications. Focusing on her gender would be a turn-off for many voters.

The problem with your argument is that Hillary was the much more qualified candidate in 2016, and we all know how that turned out.

I will go so far as to say that her qualifications turned off a lot of voters, and these voters saw those qualifications as a liability.

In many elections, in many different jurisdictions in various countries, when a leader steps down and a former colleague, such as a cabinet minister, takes over, that person's "experience" is largely a result of having been part of the cabinet in the previous government. So, people dissatisfied with the previous government will often reject the new leader because of their participation in the previous government, i.e. their "experience". To the extent that Clinton experienced that, it's nothing unique to her (or even to the U.S.)

[spork]

The Harris campaign's new ad is a brilliant piece of electioneering. Whoever layered in the Beyonce song did top-notch sound work. It says nothing about policy specifics, but campaign ads rarely do.

And comedic kudos to Barrack Obama for successfully delivering a dick joke about Trump.

[Langue_doc]

Hillary, could you give the "It's my turn, my turn" chant a rest? This is a democracy where we vote for the candiate we think would best represent us and the country. The presidency isn't a freebie that's awarded to someone because it's their turn. It's the qualifications that matter, and not the gender, skin-color, religion, body parts/anatomy, or the slew of other characterisitcs.

Clinton Rallies Democrats Behind Harris: 'This Is When We Break Through'
Eight years after failing to smash the "highest and hardest glass ceiling" in politics, Hillary Clinton urged her party to make Kamala Harris the nation's first female president.

Harris should win because of her qualifications. Focusing on her gender would be a turn-off for many voters.

The problem with your argument is that Hillary was the much more qualified candidate in 2016, and we all know how that turned out.

I will go so far as to say that her qualifications turned off a lot of voters, and these voters saw those qualifications as a liability.

Hillary's campaign was more along the lines of "voting for me will break the glass ceiling" rather than her qualifications. Recall the 2016 convention which ended with a visul of the glass ceiling breaking (and also a scowling Bernie). Resorting to gender-specific appeals diminishes all women, especially those who had to work twice as hard as men to get to their current professional positions. Many voters, myself included, were also concerned about distractions such as her husband and the ex-spouse of Huma having the run of the White House, so had to clamp our noses shut when we voted. Hillary wasn't seen as a NY politician by most residents in the state as she moved to a Westchester suburb only after Bill's tenure and entered politics only after the move.

[spork]

Hillary was a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign. Her qualifications are/were irrelevant.

Have fun re-arguing Bush v. Gore while the country moves further toward fascist dictatorship.

[Langue_doc]

In other news,

Kennedy's Running Mate Suggests They May Drop Out of the Presidential Race and Endorse Trump
Former President Donald J. Trump said in a television interview that, under those circumstances, he would consider a role for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his administration.

That would be a match made in heaven--the anti-vaxxer and the "treat Covid with Hydroxychloroquine" medical expert. In earlier news, RFK Jr. wanted a position as the Health czar in the next administration, in exchange for his support.

[ciao_yall]

Hillary, could you give the "It's my turn, my turn" chant a rest? This is a democracy where we vote for the candiate we think would best represent us and the country. The presidency isn't a freebie that's awarded to someone because it's their turn. It's the qualifications that matter, and not the gender, skin-color, religion, body parts/anatomy, or the slew of other characterisitcs.

Clinton Rallies Democrats Behind Harris: 'This Is When We Break Through'
Eight years after failing to smash the "highest and hardest glass ceiling" in politics, Hillary Clinton urged her party to make Kamala Harris the nation's first female president.

Harris should win because of her qualifications. Focusing on her gender would be a turn-off for many voters.

The problem with your argument is that Hillary was the much more qualified candidate in 2016, and we all know how that turned out.

I will go so far as to say that her qualifications turned off a lot of voters, and these voters saw those qualifications as a liability.

Hillary's campaign was more along the lines of "voting for me will break the glass ceiling" rather than her qualifications. Recall the 2016 convention which ended with a visul of the glass ceiling breaking (and also a scowling Bernie). Resorting to gender-specific appeals diminishes all women, especially those who had to work twice as hard as men to get to their current professional positions. Many voters, myself included, were also concerned about distractions such as her husband and the ex-spouse of Huma having the run of the White House, so had to clamp our noses shut when we voted. Hillary wasn't seen as a NY politician by most residents in the state as she moved to a Westchester suburb only after Bill's tenure and entered politics only after the move.

Agree it wasn't a great campaign. It was all about her. And she didn't try too hard to campaign or make her case. All the ads were about DJT being a big jerk.

Yeah voters knew he was a big jerk. What else you got?

[marshwiggle]

Hillary, could you give the "It's my turn, my turn" chant a rest? This is a democracy where we vote for the candiate we think would best represent us and the country. The presidency isn't a freebie that's awarded to someone because it's their turn. It's the qualifications that matter, and not the gender, skin-color, religion, body parts/anatomy, or the slew of other characterisitcs.

Clinton Rallies Democrats Behind Harris: 'This Is When We Break Through'
Eight years after failing to smash the "highest and hardest glass ceiling" in politics, Hillary Clinton urged her party to make Kamala Harris the nation's first female president.

Harris should win because of her qualifications. Focusing on her gender would be a turn-off for many voters.

The problem with your argument is that Hillary was the much more qualified candidate in 2016, and we all know how that turned out.

I will go so far as to say that her qualifications turned off a lot of voters, and these voters saw those qualifications as a liability.

Hillary's campaign was more along the lines of "voting for me will break the glass ceiling" rather than her qualifications. Recall the 2016 convention which ended with a visul of the glass ceiling breaking (and also a scowling Bernie). Resorting to gender-specific appeals diminishes all women, especially those who had to work twice as hard as men to get to their current professional positions. Many voters, myself included, were also concerned about distractions such as her husband and the ex-spouse of Huma having the run of the White House, so had to clamp our noses shut when we voted. Hillary wasn't seen as a NY politician by most residents in the state as she moved to a Westchester suburb only after Bill's tenure and entered politics only after the move.

Agree it wasn't a great campaign. It was all about her. And she didn't try too hard to campaign or make her case. All the ads were about DJT being a big jerk.

Yeah voters knew he was a big jerk. What else you got?

The polls all predicted a massive victory for her. How could she possibly lose to the orange buffoon? Until it happened.

I'm amazed at how it seems the same optimism abounds this time around, *even after the previous experience.

And it's not clear that polling firms have changed their methodology to prevent a repeat.




*"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
 

[spork]

[...]

The polls all predicted

[...]

All the polls I saw gave Trump between a 1:15 and 1:4 chance of winning.

Brexit passed in the UK because half the electorate thought it wouldn't pass.

Now let's talk about Nixon's debate performance against JFK.

[Ruralguy]

Nate Silver got a lot of flack at the night time for *poorly predicting* the Trump victory in 2016.
But I recall him saying on NPT the Friday before the election something close to : "We give him a 25% chance, which means he really could win. Its not the most likely outcome, but it could happen."

It wasn't even as if a fluke occurrence happened. It was the less likely, but very possible outcome, happened.

Apply this to baseball players: The good hitters will only get a hit 25%- 33% of the time. At any one time at bat, if you said they'd likely get a hit, you'd be wrong. Yet, they get on base.

Enthusiasm helps, so I would encourage Harris to be enthusiastic (Trump too, if he wants to win). But even with the enthusiasm, its pretty much an even race, but Trump might have small advantage considering all battleground states. So, I'd say though talk of Trump landslide is quickly fading, he still has a pretty good shot. Much better than 2016, even with all that he did regarding Jan 6 and so forth.

(Hillary) Clinton was simply a bad candidate. She hated campaigning. Probably doesn't even like people all that much. Can't win that way, even if you are highly qualified. And she didn't.


 

[Sun_Worshiper]

Hillary, could you give the "It's my turn, my turn" chant a rest? This is a democracy where we vote for the candiate we think would best represent us and the country. The presidency isn't a freebie that's awarded to someone because it's their turn. It's the qualifications that matter, and not the gender, skin-color, religion, body parts/anatomy, or the slew of other characterisitcs.

Clinton Rallies Democrats Behind Harris: 'This Is When We Break Through'
Eight years after failing to smash the "highest and hardest glass ceiling" in politics, Hillary Clinton urged her party to make Kamala Harris the nation's first female president.

Harris should win because of her qualifications. Focusing on her gender would be a turn-off for many voters.

The problem with your argument is that Hillary was the much more qualified candidate in 2016, and we all know how that turned out.

I will go so far as to say that her qualifications turned off a lot of voters, and these voters saw those qualifications as a liability.

Hillary's campaign was more along the lines of "voting for me will break the glass ceiling" rather than her qualifications. Recall the 2016 convention which ended with a visul of the glass ceiling breaking (and also a scowling Bernie). Resorting to gender-specific appeals diminishes all women, especially those who had to work twice as hard as men to get to their current professional positions. Many voters, myself included, were also concerned about distractions such as her husband and the ex-spouse of Huma having the run of the White House, so had to clamp our noses shut when we voted. Hillary wasn't seen as a NY politician by most residents in the state as she moved to a Westchester suburb only after Bill's tenure and entered politics only after the move.

Agree it wasn't a great campaign. It was all about her. And she didn't try too hard to campaign or make her case. All the ads were about DJT being a big jerk.

Yeah voters knew he was a big jerk. What else you got?

The polls all predicted a massive victory for her. How could she possibly lose to the orange buffoon? Until it happened.

I'm amazed at how it seems the same optimism abounds this time around, *even after the previous experience.

And it's not clear that polling firms have changed their methodology to prevent a repeat.




*"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
 

The major polling outfits are constantly changing their approach in light of the last elections. After 2016, they weighted education and rural locations differently, for example. Nor did the forecasts based on polls all predict a massive victory for HC in 2016 - I think 538 gave Trump about a 30% chance to win.

That said, given selection bias, small sample sizes, and uncertainty about drawing weighting techniques from prior elections mean that we can't really count on polls to predict with great accuracy. The best that a poll can tell us in a close race is that the race is likely to be close.

Now, if we follow the logic that polling error will go the same way in 2024 that it did in 2016 or 2020, then Harris needs to be up by more than she currently is to make up for it. But polling errors are not very predictable, especially given the adjustments that pollsters make each cycle.

Nate Silver got a lot of flack at the night time for *poorly predicting* the Trump victory in 2016.
But I recall him saying on NPT the Friday before the election something close to : "We give him a 25% chance, which means he really could win. Its not the most likely outcome, but it could happen."

It wasn't even as if a fluke occurrence happened. It was the less likely, but very possible outcome, happened.

Apply this to baseball players: The good hitters will only get a hit 25%- 33% of the time. At any one time at bat, if you said they'd likely get a hit, you'd be wrong. Yet, they get on base.

Enthusiasm helps, so I would encourage Harris to be enthusiastic (Trump too, if he wants to win). But even with the enthusiasm, its pretty much an even race, but Trump might have small advantage considering all battleground states. So, I'd say though talk of Trump landslide is quickly fading, he still has a pretty good shot. Much better than 2016, even with all that he did regarding Jan 6 and so forth.

(Hillary) Clinton was simply a bad candidate. She hated campaigning. Probably doesn't even like people all that much. Can't win that way, even if you are highly qualified. And she didn't.


 

She ran a bad campaign, no question. But so did Trump. He is very lucky that (1) she was the only person in the world less popular than him and (2) voters often like to switch it up after two terms of one party.

[ciao_yall]

HRC did win the popular vote. It wasn't that many votes in the swing states that caused her to lose the electoral college.

HRC underperformed with white women. Pollsters thought they would turn out against Trump in greater numbers.

[marshwiggle]

The major polling outfits are constantly changing their approach in light of the last elections. After 2016, they weighted education and rural locations differently, for example. Nor did the forecasts based on polls all predict a massive victory for HC in 2016 - I think 538 gave Trump about a 30% chance to win.

That said, given selection bias, small sample sizes, and uncertainty about drawing weighting techniques from prior elections mean that we can't really count on polls to predict with great accuracy. The best that a poll can tell us in a close race is that the race is likely to be close.

Sampling difficulties are normal for polling firms. However, there is evidence that it wasn't just a problem of getting non-representative samples, but that people who were sampled weren't willing to express their actual preferences to pollsters.

That is a much bigger concern. If there's something in the script, or the chit-chat, or whatever else that makes people feel the person asking them questions is going to disapprove of their answer, then the polling firms are doing it wrong. That negates the whole value of polling.

HRC did win the popular vote. It wasn't that many votes in the swing states that caused her to lose the electoral college.

HRC underperformed with white women. Pollsters thought they would turn out against Trump in greater numbers.

So much for the identitarian conviction that people will automatically vote for someone of their own identity group.

Too bad many people seem incapable of understanding the fallacy in that.

[Ruralguy]

Weakness of candidates will "trump" anything else. So, I think what Ciao is saying is that she failed to appeal to "enough" white women, probably not because of specific issues (though maybe), but more that the candidate didn't convince them to vote for her as a stand in for issues they cared about.  So, identitarianism may have failed, but so did every other substantive issue.

[Sun_Worshiper]

The major polling outfits are constantly changing their approach in light of the last elections. After 2016, they weighted education and rural locations differently, for example. Nor did the forecasts based on polls all predict a massive victory for HC in 2016 - I think 538 gave Trump about a 30% chance to win.

That said, given selection bias, small sample sizes, and uncertainty about drawing weighting techniques from prior elections mean that we can't really count on polls to predict with great accuracy. The best that a poll can tell us in a close race is that the race is likely to be close.

Sampling difficulties are normal for polling firms. However, there is evidence that it wasn't just a problem of getting non-representative samples, but that people who were sampled weren't willing to express their actual preferences to pollsters.

That is a much bigger concern. If there's something in the script, or the chit-chat, or whatever else that makes people feel the person asking them questions is going to disapprove of their answer, then the polling firms are doing it wrong. That negates the whole value of polling.

That may have been true in the past, or it could just have come down to selection bias. Anyway, past is not necessarily an indicator of future, which is why the direction of polling errors are difficult to predict.

But, as I said in my post, polling is not precise enough for anyone to hang their hats on. It is a useful tool, but should not be taken as a bullet-proof prediction of how elections will turn out.