2024 Elections Thread

[Parasaurolophus]

As for Trump... Of course it was a torrent of lies, but I actually think he acquitted himself well, in his own way. He conveyed the impression that he has it together, which is the kind of reassurance Republicans want and need.

Is this a joke?

No. It's me putting on my Trump supporter/Republican/Ariana Grande-voter hat, which is how you need to evaluate these things (obviously I agree that he's a disastrous monster whose re-election would be a catastrophe. But Republicans don't think so, and I don't think last night changed their minds). I don't think any of them will look at last night and think "Nah, I couldn't possibly vote for him, I'd better vote for Harris instead."

In other words, I don't think the needle really moved at all. Which is par for the course for debates. Biden's catastrophic performance was an anomaly. You have to remember that the audience, expectations, and standards are different for each candidate. Trump's are so low that it's hard for him to to meet them.

[marshwiggle]

Partisans (of any party) having trouble putting themselves in the mindset of partisans of other parties, (except to say "they're evil or stupid"), much less in the minds of undecided/non-partisan voters. All they can say is "WE'RE BETTER THAN THEM!!!" which is pretty lame to anyone who isn't on the same "team".

One of the advantages Trump has is that his flaws are so widely known that there's nothing anyone can bring up about him that will be more shocking than what is already out there. Which means that trying to dissuade people from voting for him requires NOT repeating all of that, and focusing on policy, and what the alternative is in terms of policy. That's really hard for people immersed in their own echo chamber.

[lightning]

As for Trump... Of course it was a torrent of lies, but I actually think he acquitted himself well, in his own way. He conveyed the impression that he has it together, which is the kind of reassurance Republicans want and need.

Is this a joke?

No. It's me putting on my Trump supporter/Republican/Ariana Grande-voter hat, which is how you need to evaluate these things (obviously I agree that he's a disastrous monster whose re-election would be a catastrophe. But Republicans don't think so, and I don't think last night changed their minds). I don't think any of them will look at last night and think "Nah, I couldn't possibly vote for him, I'd better vote for Harris instead."

In other words, I don't think the needle really moved at all. Which is par for the course for debates. Biden's catastrophic performance was an anomaly. You have to remember that the audience, expectations, and standards are different for each candidate. Trump's are so low that it's hard for him to to meet them.

I'm old enough to remember when Al Gore destroyed Dubya in a debate. I almost felt bad for George. It's not that Robot Gore was brilliant. George was just a buffoon and a nervous wreck on top of everything else. Republicans declared that Dubya won that debate. Like you say, debates don't change anyone's minds about anything, today or even yesteryear.

[Parasaurolophus]

As for Trump... Of course it was a torrent of lies, but I actually think he acquitted himself well, in his own way. He conveyed the impression that he has it together, which is the kind of reassurance Republicans want and need.

Is this a joke?

No. It's me putting on my Trump supporter/Republican/Ariana Grande-voter hat, which is how you need to evaluate these things (obviously I agree that he's a disastrous monster whose re-election would be a catastrophe. But Republicans don't think so, and I don't think last night changed their minds). I don't think any of them will look at last night and think "Nah, I couldn't possibly vote for him, I'd better vote for Harris instead."

In other words, I don't think the needle really moved at all. Which is par for the course for debates. Biden's catastrophic performance was an anomaly. You have to remember that the audience, expectations, and standards are different for each candidate. Trump's are so low that it's hard for him to to meet them.

I'm old enough to remember when Al Gore destroyed Dubya in a debate. I almost felt bad for George. It's not that Robot Gore was brilliant. George was just a buffoon and a nervous wreck on top of everything else. Republicans declared that Dubya won that debate. Like you say, debates don't change anyone's minds about anything, today or even yesteryear.

Or, indeed, when Clinton crushed Trump.

Every once in a while they do make a difference. Biden destroying himself, for example. But yeah, I don't think this was one of them. I'm happy to be wrong, though!

[kaysixteen]

The real problem seems to me to be that it is really impossible to debate someone when you do not agree about wha the facts are.   The ABC moderators did a much better than average job of fact-checking, but they obviously could not have been expected to mention every one of Trump's lies, and even when they did mention the truth, Trump supporters will almost certainly just believe him anyhow, rather than the lamestream fake news mass media.  So exactly how many people are there who might actually be expected to become convinced to vote for Harris, let alone change their votes from Trump to Harris, based on any debate?

[secundem_artem]

My next grant application will not include a research protocol, but it will certainly mention that I have a concept of a protocol and all I need is the money.

[Puget]

Even poor Ross Douthat had to agree Harris won (gift link) https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/11/opinion/harris-trump-debate-winner-loser.html?unlocked_article_code=1.J04.giJP.zWVzWkiFPgiN&smid=url-share

My next grant application will not include a research protocol, but it will certainly mention that I have a concept of a protocol and all I need is the money.

Science Bluesky (which is quickly gaining some of the mojo of old science twitter) was nothing but versions of this meme last night.

[ciao_yall]

I would hope the GOP party faithful would see DJT in all his madness and question whether their party is capable of anything.

They can't find a reasonably non-embarassing standard-bearer for their party?

Like when you see one cockroach... you know there are more.

[marshwiggle]

The real problem seems to me to be that it is really impossible to debate someone when you do not agree about wha the facts are.   The ABC moderators did a much better than average job of fact-checking, but they obviously could not have been expected to mention every one of Trump's lies, and even when they did mention the truth, Trump supporters will almost certainly just believe him anyhow, rather than the lamestream fake news mass media.  So exactly how many people are there who might actually be expected to become convinced to vote for Harris, let alone change their votes from Trump to Harris, based on any debate?

I think this is asking the wrong question.
Hard-core partisans for either party, i.e. "the base", will vote for their candidate regardless. The people who will decide the election is those who will consider both sides. Those people are perfectly aware of all of the bad things about Trump.

The question that many people ask, which is missing the point:
"WHY WOULD ANYONE VOTE FOR TRUMP, GIVEN ALL OF THESE BAD THINGS ABOUT HIM?"

The question people should be asking:
"GIVEN ALL OF THESE BAD THINGS ABOUT TRUMP, WHAT IS THERE ABOUT VOTING FOR HARRIS THAT WORRIES THEM AS MUCH OR POSSIBLY EVEN MORE?"

I'd love to see research on the most offensive things each party/candidate stands for in the eyes of middle-of-the-road voters.

People (from either "side") who think all of the negative baggage is on the other side are seriously delusional.
It's much easier to tell themselves that people who vote for the other side are evil or stupid.

It's like the old saw about someone who has had several romantic relationships that didn't last, with the other person always saying "It's not you; it's me."

Reality check: "It IS about you."

[ciao_yall]

According to a Trumpist family member...

1) Pro-life!!!!!
2) What if it was true that even ONE immigrant ate ONE dog?
3) Harris was wearing a wireless mc disguised as an earring.
4) Did I mention the innocent unborn?

[marshwiggle]

According to a Trumpist family member...

1) Pro-life!!!!!
2) What if it was true that even ONE immigrant ate ONE dog?
3) Harris was wearing a wireless mc disguised as an earring.
4) Did I mention the innocent unborn?

Writing off all pro-life arguments and/or positions as evil or stupid is short-sighted and morally inconsistent with defending hardline positions against capital punishment.

[dismalist]

Today I came across a fascinating paper on the Marginal Revolution website:

Latent Polarization

These guys claim that individuals are getting better at identifying who their favored groups are [and I might add that politicians have perhaps gotten better at recognizing how these are defined]. The important point is that 'favored' is defined across many, many issues. E.g., used to be [1980's] that religious affinities were poorly correlated with political parties, income did OK, but now its religion and other ideology, and nothing else. Thus, the median voter theorem does not hold. One would not expect politicians to move to the center.

If true, it's not the political or primary or first-past-the post system defeating us. These systemic elements are granting us our wishes. In the present election it looks like both parties are playing to their own crowds -- rationally so.

It's sufficient to read the introduction to get an idea of what is being done.

[dismalist]

Today I came across a fascinating paper on the Marginal Revolution website:

Latent Polarization

These guys claim that individuals are getting better at identifying who their favored groups are [and I might add that politicians have perhaps gotten better at recognizing how these are defined]. The important point is that 'favored' is defined across many, many issues. E.g., used to be [1980's] that religious affinities were poorly correlated with political parties, income did OK, but now its religion and other ideology, and nothing else. Thus, the median voter theorem does not hold. One would not expect politicians to move to the center.

If true, it's not the political or primary or first-past-the post system defeating us. These systemic elements are granting us our wishes. In the present election it looks like both parties are playing to their own crowds -- rationally so.

It's sufficient to read the introduction to get an idea of what is being done.

The last World Values Survey used in the above analysis is from 2017. By chance today I came across some right winger's analysis of the 2024 race, but using the most recent New York Times/Sienna poll. He focuses on class, as I would, even though the Latent Polarization paper claims religion and ideology [importantly multivariable] was dominant by 2017. We don't know how this may change over the future, though we do know about the past. Anyway, the poll and this guy's approach are something like the formal stuff in the above paper. He summarizes:

1. Biden's net job approval (approval minus disapproval) is -34 among working-class voters but +8 among college-educated voters (class gap = 42 points).

2. Trump's net favorability among working-class voters is +10; among college voters it's -29 (class gap = 39 points). Harris' favorability is -16 among the working class but +16 among the college-educated (class gap = 32 points).

3. While both working-class and college-educated voters have negative views about the state of the economy (only fair or poor), working-class voters are far more negative. Their net rating (excellent or good minus only fair or poor) is -67 compared to –35 among the college-educated (class gap = 32 points).

4. When asked which candidate could do a better job handling the issue they care about the most, working-class voters prefer Trump over Harris by 20 points while college voters prefer Harris over Trump by 15 points (class gap = 35 points).

5. The same question was asked about handling the economy specifically. Working-class voters think Trump would do a better job by 27 points; college-educated voters prefer Harris by 9 points (class gap = 36 points).

6. On handling immigration, working-class voters prefer Trump by 24 points while college voters prefer Harris by 11 points (class gap = 35 points).

7. And on democracy, working-class voters think Trump would do a better job handling the issue by 9 points, while college-educated voters overwhelmingly prefer Harris by 28 points (class gap = 37 points).

8. The poll asked separately for Trump and Harris whether they would be a safe or risky choice for the country. Working-class voters' net assessment (safe minus risky) for Trump is +5 while for college grads it is -33 (class gap = 38 points). For Harris, her net safe/risky among the working class is -21 compared to +16 among college graduates (class gap = 37 points).

9. Finally, voters were asked whether the next president should represent a major change or minor change (or no change at all) from Biden. Almost all voters wanted at least some change but working-class voters were far more likely to want major change. Working-class voters' net change preference (major minus minor change) was +46 but among college voters it was just +1 (class gap = 45 points).

There's your us and them folks. [Me, I'm with the working stiffs. :-)]

[kaysixteen]

Lemme ask the question I have been thinkin' on, and trying to ask people whose knowledge I think makes them likely perhaps to be able to intelligently and knowledgeably answer it: how does one go about demonstrating to Trump voters why it is a bad choice to vote for him, why many of the things about him and about Harris that he and his acolytes and sycophants are saying are false, etc.?

[dismalist]

Lemme ask the question I have been thinkin' on, and trying to ask people whose knowledge I think makes them likely perhaps to be able to intelligently and knowledgeably answer it: how does one go about demonstrating to Trump voters why it is a bad choice to vote for him, why many of the things about him and about Harris that he and his acolytes and sycophants are saying are false, etc.?

I think you ask the wrong question.

A well respected libertarian economist wrote on his blog that intellectually he wished "a plague on both your houses", but that emotionally he felt happy when there was good news about Trump and sad when there was bad news about Trump. I'm the same way. Question is why.

"I Can Tolerate Anything Except The Outgroup,"

His suggested answer was that "Kamala Harris is an American leftist. American leftists are my outgroup. Trump and Vance are American populists. I disagree with their views, in some cases more than I disagree with the views of American leftists, but I have nothing against them, just as I have nothing against believing Catholics or Orthodox Jews or Black Muslims or believers in Christian Science.

Trump and his movement are my fargroup. [They are far, far away, like Hamas. Nobody cares of their bad things.] They are being attacked by my outgroup. My enemy's enemy [is my friend]."

Now, I personally hardly have an ingroup. But when I vote Trump I know I will make my outgroup unhappy, which will make me happy!

I have no clue whether all this psychologizing is correct or not, but it is plausible and rational given that an individual cannot determine the outcome of a national election. The parties know this. That's why they don't answer your question, and instead appeal to emotion.

Leave me alone with the policies! It's the emotions that matter, the vibes.