Voting in the 2024 presidential election theoretically started today (September 6). This is the day when North Carolina sent out mail-in ballots to any of its voters who requested one, the first state to do so.
Today is Sept 3 in Washington State. I did not know N.C. is three days ahead.
Voting in the 2024 presidential election theoretically started today (September 6). This is the day when North Carolina sent out mail-in ballots to any of its voters who requested one, the first state to do so.
Today is Sept 3 in Washington State. I did not know N.C. is three days ahead.
Ah, I missed that—I read “today,” hence my disagreement, but didn’t catch “September 6,” which is correct.
Yes, it has indeed been September 3rd here. All day.
Federal authorities in Philadelphia have seized more than 30 internet domains believed to be part of a wide-ranging, Russian-backed disinformation campaign aimed at influencing the outcome of the U.S. presidential election, Justice Department officials announced Wednesday.
The effort — which prosecutors say was run by a close ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin and colloquially referred to as “Doppleganger” — covertly targeted residents in swing states, including Pennsylvania, with misinformation made to look like it came from legitimate news sites or had been organically spread over social media.
The campaign also sought to enlist the aid of unwitting American influencers to spread Russian propaganda, investigators said.
“Protecting our democratic processes from foreign malign influence is paramount to ensure public trust,” said U.S. Attorney Jacqueline C. Romero in a statement. “As America’s adversaries continue to spew disinformation towards the American electorate, we’ll use every tool at our disposal to expose and dismantle their insidious foreign influence campaigns.”
The domain seizures Wednesday came as the Biden administration announced other steps aimed at dismantling the Russian influence effort — including criminal charges, filed in New York, against two employees of the Russian state TV network RT and Treasury Department sanctions against key actors.
Intelligence agencies have long warned that Russia is the primary threat to U.S. elections, even as other foreign actors have emerged as potential risks — including Iran, which federal authorities accused last month of hacking former president Donald Trump’s campaign and attempting to breach the campaigns of President Joe Biden and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris.
Since at least 2022, it said, three Russian public relations companies led the effort, under the direction of Putin’s administration.
Detailed strategy documents quoted by agents outlined plans to create a network of fake internet domains with names similar to those of legitimate news organizations such as The Washington Post and CNN.
In reality, agents said, those sites were littered with Russian propaganda aimed at reducing international support for Ukraine and push voters in the U.S. and other countries toward voting for Russia’s preferred candidates in their elections.
An indictment unsealed Wednesday alleges a Tennessee content creation company was the tool a team of Russian propagandists used to infiltrate U.S. audiences with Kremlin-backed messaging.
Two Russian nationals who worked for Russia Today, a Russian state-controlled media outlet, were indicted on accusations they funneled nearly $10 million to a Tennessee-based online content creation company to publish English-language videos on social media sites like TikTok, Instagram, X and YouTube. The company's more than 2,000 videos posted in the last 10 months have been viewed more than 16 million times just on YouTube, according to the indictment.
The indictment, unsealed in the federal court for the Southern District of New York, doesn't identify the Tennessee company, but descriptions in the indictment match those of Tennessee-based Tenet Media.
In case anyone thought Putin was sitting this one out.
In other news, Ms Liz Cheney of Wyoming is endorsing the Harris/Walz ticket. She said, in effect since this election is so close in the swing states it would be counterproductive to write in another person. It is more important to honor the American Constitution.
Harris did say she would be open to naming a Republican to her cabinet. I wonder if she could be one such candidate. She has a great background on Western State issues. And international issues.
Federal authorities in Philadelphia have seized more than 30 internet domains believed to be part of a wide-ranging, Russian-backed disinformation campaign aimed at influencing the outcome of the U.S. presidential election, Justice Department officials announced Wednesday.
The effort — which prosecutors say was run by a close ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin and colloquially referred to as “Doppleganger” — covertly targeted residents in swing states, including Pennsylvania, with misinformation made to look like it came from legitimate news sites or had been organically spread over social media.
The campaign also sought to enlist the aid of unwitting American influencers to spread Russian propaganda, investigators said.
“Protecting our democratic processes from foreign malign influence is paramount to ensure public trust,” said U.S. Attorney Jacqueline C. Romero in a statement. “As America’s adversaries continue to spew disinformation towards the American electorate, we’ll use every tool at our disposal to expose and dismantle their insidious foreign influence campaigns.”
The domain seizures Wednesday came as the Biden administration announced other steps aimed at dismantling the Russian influence effort — including criminal charges, filed in New York, against two employees of the Russian state TV network RT and Treasury Department sanctions against key actors.
Intelligence agencies have long warned that Russia is the primary threat to U.S. elections, even as other foreign actors have emerged as potential risks — including Iran, which federal authorities accused last month of hacking former president Donald Trump’s campaign and attempting to breach the campaigns of President Joe Biden and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris.
Since at least 2022, it said, three Russian public relations companies led the effort, under the direction of Putin’s administration.
Detailed strategy documents quoted by agents outlined plans to create a network of fake internet domains with names similar to those of legitimate news organizations such as The Washington Post and CNN.
In reality, agents said, those sites were littered with Russian propaganda aimed at reducing international support for Ukraine and push voters in the U.S. and other countries toward voting for Russia’s preferred candidates in their elections.
An indictment unsealed Wednesday alleges a Tennessee content creation company was the tool a team of Russian propagandists used to infiltrate U.S. audiences with Kremlin-backed messaging.
Two Russian nationals who worked for Russia Today, a Russian state-controlled media outlet, were indicted on accusations they funneled nearly $10 million to a Tennessee-based online content creation company to publish English-language videos on social media sites like TikTok, Instagram, X and YouTube. The company's more than 2,000 videos posted in the last 10 months have been viewed more than 16 million times just on YouTube, according to the indictment.
The indictment, unsealed in the federal court for the Southern District of New York, doesn't identify the Tennessee company, but descriptions in the indictment match those of Tennessee-based Tenet Media.
In case anyone thought Putin was sitting this one out.
I had literally forgotten about that but, yeah, it would actually be major news if Putin DID sit it out…
Harris did say she would be open to naming a Republican to her cabinet. I wonder if she could be one such candidate. She has a great background on Western State issues. And international issues.
I’ve been hearing speculation for a while that Cheney might be a possibility for a Republican appointee to a Harris cabinet.
Harris did say she would be open to naming a Republican to her cabinet. I wonder if she could be one such candidate. She has a great background on Western State issues. And international issues.
I’ve been hearing speculation for a while that Cheney might be a possibility for a Republican appointee to a Harris cabinet.
So long as they put her somewhere she can't do any harm. Being against Trump is about the only positive thing in her politics from what I've seen.
Harris did say she would be open to naming a Republican to her cabinet. I wonder if she could be one such candidate. She has a great background on Western State issues. And international issues.
I’ve been hearing speculation for a while that Cheney might be a possibility for a Republican appointee to a Harris cabinet.
So long as they put her somewhere she can't do any harm. Being against Trump is about the only positive thing in her politics from what I've seen.
I can see the advantage of having a rational voice with different political assumptions in the room, if it reduces the echo chamber effect. I'm not sure that Ms Cheney is such a voice.
I'll also note that there's a difference between keeping a Republican around to have someone to tell you when you're just about to accidentally piss off the average Republican voter for no good reason, and putting a Republican in charge of some major department.
The thing is, that Republican would know that she or he serves at the pleasure of the president and is responsible for implementing priorities and policies of the president. Presumably no Republican would take the job unless willing to live and work with those expectations, and presumably a competent president considering appointing a member of the opposing party to a high position would take into account what positions offered the highest chance of success and the lowest risk of conflict.
Mr. Obama appointed four Republicans to his cabinet. He kept Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense from the previous administration, and appointed Ray LaHood as Secretary of Transportation, Robert McDonald as Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense later in his term.
Given Cheney's experience in the Bush II administration, I can see her as Ambassador to the UN. This is a cabinet level position. On the other hand, given her experience in Western States issues she would be eligible for agency positions in the Department of Interior, like Department of Reclamation, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management. I think Deb Haagland will continue as Secretary of the Interior.
Given Cheney's experience in the Bush II administration, I can see her as Ambassador to the UN. This is a cabinet level position. On the other hand, given her experience in Western States issues she would be eligible for agency positions in the Department of Interior, like Department of Reclamation, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management. I think Deb Haagland will continue as Secretary of the Interior.
That is, if Harris is elected.
I'm hoping that a lot of Biden's cabinet will remain in place for a (still hypothetical) Harris administration. Some of this may be an outright necessity if Republicans gain control of the Senate. I would love to see Haaland stay on at Interior and Pete Buttigieg is probably the most dynamic Secretary of Transportation that we've seen in . . . well, ever. Harris should re-appoint acting Labor Secretary Julie Su, both because she'd be good at the job and because someone needs to extend the middle finger to the Senate for letting her appointment languish without a vote. (Fuck you, Joe Manchin!) Interestingly while Biden's lower-tier cabinet have been downright spectacular the more prestigious departments have been headed by some real duds. I'm thinking particularly of Garland and Blinken, though I'd probably put Austin on that list if there's room for a third name. Not disclosing his hospitalization to the White House should have been a career ender.
While I too think the Biden cabinet has been the most effective body in a long time, some of them may want to move on. They could likely get better paying jobs outside of government, some of them may want to retire.
Any president would want to put his/her stamp on the new cabinet. I would not want to preclude what Harris would want to do.
BTW, have others noticed that Malania Trump has not been on the campaign trail with DJT?
While I too think the Biden cabinet has been the most effective body in a long time, some of them may want to move on. They could likely get better paying jobs outside of government, some of them may want to retire.
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack seems like a prime candidate for retirement. He'll be 74 on Inauguration Day 2025 and will have been doing the SecAg thing for twelve years at that point. (Eight under Obama and four under Biden.)
The two staffers, according to a source with knowledge of the incident, are deputy campaign manager Justin Caporale and Michel Picard, a member of Trump’s advance team.
Caporale is a one time aide to former first lady Melania Trump who left the White House to work for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis before returning to the Trump campaign. He was also listed as the on-site contact and project manager for the Women for America First rally in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021 where Trump urged the crowd to “stop the steal” before some of them stormed the U.S. Capitol.
After Trump participated in a wreath laying ceremony on the third anniversary of the deadly bombing at Abbey Gate in Afghanistan that killed 13 U.S. service members, Trump visited Section 60 at the invitation of some family members and friends of the fallen soldiers.
ANC rules, that had been made clear to the Trump campaign in advance, say that only an official Arlington photographer can take pictures or film in Section 60. When an ANC employee tried to enforce the rules, she was verbally abused by the two Trump campaign operatives, according to a source with knowledge of the incident. Picard then pushed her out of the way according to two Pentagon officials.
My prediction is that the Trump campaign takes no measures to discipline these two and that the rest of the media will try to move on. NPR seems like an exception when it comes to this story, maybe because they were the first to break it. I also predict that the video footage Trump spokesgoblin Steven Cheung said would be released and exonerate the Trump team will be released by the first of Never.
Janet Yellen is in her mid 70s. Lloyd Austin has been dealing with cancer the last few years. Others seem to be up there too considering their pictures--I don't have time to look them all up today.
Personally, I am of the opinion it is time to let younger generations take over. Us boomers need to get out of the way.'
Yeah, it's a weird thing to have Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney, Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez and Bernie Sanders all lined up on the same side. But I don't know if that moves the needle for undecided voters or makes a few never Trumpers in swing states turn out for Harris rather than stay home.
That said, I don't understand much of anything about undecided voters.
I keep hearing chatter—some from sources I’d take as having an ear to the railroad track rather than just engaging as wishful thinking—that George W. Bush may endorse Harris, and that thought is being given as to optimal timing. Liz Cheney’s endorsement was expected, but Dick Cheney’s endorsement does make me wonder if W may indeed be planning to endorse Harris.
Back on the subject of the election ... The Washington Post has a piece (gift link) on how hard right influencers are criticizing the Trump campaign for trying to appeal to independents. Nick Fuentes is going to far as to urge his followers not to vote for Trump.
Republicans in disarray! (I looked up synonyms for "disarray" but can't find one that starts with R.)
I initially thought Fuentes would have his tantrum and then eventually come around to supporting Dear Leader again, but he's apparently having a full-blown crisis of faith. The tipping point seems to have been Trump admitting he lost the 2020 Presidential election.
Fuentes’ disgust with Trump only increased after the former president seemingly finally admitted that he lost the 2020 election, which contradicted everything Trump has said for the last four years and essentially destroyed the justification for the entire “Stop The Steal” effort. (Later in the same interview, however, Trump nevertheless called the election “a fraud.”)
“He says, ‘Oh, I lost by a whisker,'” Fuentes griped during his Tuesday night livestream. “So what was the point? What’s the point of any of it? You lost in 2020? Seriously? What are we even doing anymore? Then you’re a loser. You just lost. Then you lost to Joe Biden.”
Fuentes noted that if Trump knows that he lost the 2020 election, then he “deserves to be charged” by special counsel Jack Smith for his efforts to overturn the results of the election.
“That actually vindicates the DOJ charge against him!” Fuentes declared. “Because the charge is that he knew he lost but he lied to defraud the people.”
“So, why did we do Stop the Steal?” Fuentes demanded to know. “Why did anyone go to Jan. 6? Why is anyone sitting in jail? Why did anything bad happen to anybody? Why did everyone get censored? Why is everything bad that has happened to the people that were involved, why did that need to happen if you’re just going to walk it all back and say, ‘Oh, I lost’?”
“Well, it would have been good to know that before 1,600 people got charged,” he continued. “It would have been good to know that before I had all my money frozen, [was] put on the No Fly List, [got] banned from everything, lost all banking and payment processing. It would have been good to know that before I, in 2017, dedicated my life to this as an 18 year-old in college. It just feels like a big ripoff.”
“It just goes to show what a tremendous betrayal it is,” Fuentes said. “It’s just such a callous indifference to the sacrifices that his supporters made on his behalf.”
I think Fuentes' rant can be boiled down to "OMG! Who knew Donald Trump was dishonest?" and "I'd never have FA'd if I thought I'd ever have to FO!" In terms of actual votes the Groypers are fairly small, but in terms of having "jackboots on the ground" for voter intimidation or post-election violence they're a pretty big part of Trump's support network.
I keep hearing chatter—some from sources I’d take as having an ear to the railroad track rather than just engaging as wishful thinking—that George W. Bush may endorse Harris, and that thought is being given as to optimal timing. Liz Cheney’s endorsement was expected, but Dick Cheney’s endorsement does make me wonder if W may indeed be planning to endorse Harris.
It's interesting that essentially none of the pre-2016 elite Republican leadership (with the notable exception of Mitch McConnell) has endorsed Donald Trump in his 2024 presidential run. Most are simply staying silent, but a few have taken the important step of endorsing Kamala Harris, the only other person with a reasonable chance of winning the presidency.
“So, why did we do Stop the Steal?” Fuentes demanded to know. “Why did anyone go to Jan. 6? Why is anyone sitting in jail? Why did anything bad happen to anybody? Why did everyone get censored? Why is everything bad that has happened to the people that were involved, why did that need to happen if you’re just going to walk it all back and say, ‘Oh, I lost’?”
What a child this Feuntes is!
Could he not see how trump just says what's convenient for him at the time, and always has. Could he not see that trump is never loyal or kind to anyone, ever?
It's always been as clear as the nose on his face.
“So, why did we do Stop the Steal?” Fuentes demanded to know. “Why did anyone go to Jan. 6? Why is anyone sitting in jail? Why did anything bad happen to anybody? Why did everyone get censored? Why is everything bad that has happened to the people that were involved, why did that need to happen if you’re just going to walk it all back and say, ‘Oh, I lost’?”
What a child this Feuntes is!
Could he not see how trump just says what's convenient for him at the time, and always has. Could he not see that trump is never loyal or kind to anyone, ever?
It's always been as clear as the nose on his face.
By the looks of it he was 18 when Trump came into office. Not quite a child but pretty damn close. Think about all those naïve 18 year olds starting university who get love bombed into con evo churches and Christian Unions; I think this is similar. The guy fell for the con and is only now realising it.
It's interesting that essentially none of the pre-2016 elite Republican leadership (with the notable exception of Mitch McConnell) has endorsed Donald Trump in his 2024 presidential run. Most are simply staying silent, but a few have taken the important step of endorsing Kamala Harris, the only other person with a reasonable chance of winning the presidency.
“So, why did we do Stop the Steal?” Fuentes demanded to know. “Why did anyone go to Jan. 6? Why is anyone sitting in jail? Why did anything bad happen to anybody? Why did everyone get censored? Why is everything bad that has happened to the people that were involved, why did that need to happen if you’re just going to walk it all back and say, ‘Oh, I lost’?”
What a child this Feuntes is!
Could he not see how trump just says what's convenient for him at the time, and always has. Could he not see that trump is never loyal or kind to anyone, ever?
It's always been as clear as the nose on his face.
Yes, but Fuente’s familiarity with reality seems to be tenuous at best.
The Hill, citing new polling from Emerson College Polling, is saying Florida and Texas are moving towards being toss up states with Trump leading Harris within the margin of error.
If this is the case, having George Bush endorsing Harris could move Texas to lean Democrat status. I think Bush may announce his preference after the Harris/Trump debate on Tuesday.
The Hill, citing new polling from Emerson College Polling, is saying Florida and Texas are moving towards being toss up states with Trump leading Harris within the margin of error.
If this is the case, having George Bush endorsing Harris could move Texas to lean Democrat status. I think Bush may announce his preference after the Harris/Trump debate on Tuesday.
This is where it gets interesting. As things stand, Trump has a decent chance of winning, sadly. However if either Florida or Texas are not in the safe category it gets a lot more complicated. Essentially If either on of those goes Democrat and all other things being equal then Trump cannot win.
The Hill classifies Texas as a likely R state and Florida as lean R. The 270towin.com consensus map classifies both as likely R. If either becomes a toss-up it actually gets a lot simpler, because that's only going to happen after a bunch of the current swing states stop being toss-ups and lean D. And saying that a poll or two shows Texas and Florida within the margin of error is a long way from saying they're moving toward being toss-ups. If I traveled to the eastern edge of LA County I'd have gone a fair bit from my home on the coast, but I'd still have a ways to go before I got to Arizona.
People keep comparing Harris’ performance in the polls to how Biden was doing before he dropped out, or before the debate, but they should be comparing it to how Biden did in the 2020 election. By almost any measure, Harris is doing worse in the polls nationally, in swing states, and among black and Latino voters than Biden did in the 2020 (based on the actual election results and on exit polls for the racial/ethnic data).
This is largely because not only have Democrats been in power for four years when inflation has been higher than it has been in decades and housing has become even more unaffordable (whether or not it is their fault), but Harris has been the vice president during that time and even if VPs have little power, they are still expected to support the policies of the President.
People talked about Florida and Texas being in play in 2016 and 2020, when the Democratic candidate was doing better in the polls than Harris is. In both cases, neither state was very close.
Trump also manages to turn out voters who are unlikely to vote unless his name is on the ballot, so Democrats’ performance in midterms and special elections is unlikely to be a good indicator of the result. Polls have a very hard time reaching this kind of voter (and getting them to answer their questions) and determining whether they are likely to actually vote or not, which might explain why Trump outperformed the polls in 2016 and 2020.
This is going to be a very, very close election, and we probably won’t know the winner until days after Election Day.
The Hill, citing new polling from Emerson College Polling, is saying Florida and Texas are moving towards being toss up states with Trump leading Harris within the margin of error.
If this is the case, . . . .
I’d say that’s a big if at this point. Unless more polls start showing the same trends, I wouldn’t put too much stock in this one poll. Outliers are a thing.
@stonespring: I could not agree more. On election day in 2016 Fivethirtyeight's model gave Trump a 28.6% chance of winning, and we all know what really happened. Today they give him a 45% chance of winning this election. Nate Silver sold Fivethirtyeight and is doing his thing elsewhere now; his forecast is paywalled, but 270towin shows the electoral map he predicts here. He has Trump beating Harris in the electoral college 281-226, with 31 votes from Nevada, Michigan and Wisconsin too close to call.
Something I watch is where the campaign is going and spending money. Harris started her reproductive rights bus tour in Florida, not because her campaign thinks they're going to contest Florida but because abortion is on the ballot there in November, and they are highlighting her support for abortion rights for all women, something a fair number of undecided voters say is important to them (and it trolls Trump a little, but I think that's something they're mainly leaving to people like the Lincoln Project). Other than that, she's campaigning in battleground states. It's a waste of time and money to do anything else. IOW, wake me if she goes to Texas or her campaign buys ad time there.
Yet another moan from me about how much I wish we just had a popular vote for president. Candidates would have to campaign in LA County! If we were a separate state, we'd be the 11th-biggest one. Do presidential candidates have to give a shit about us? They do not. They can safely just ignore everyone in the four biggest states in the union.
@stonespring It is not about where Harris is relative to where Biden was at the same time in 2020. It is about momentum. Harris and Walz have moved the needle in every swing state. Trump has not gained any points anywhere that I know of. If they can move Texas or Florida that will be significant.
To the point of inflation and housing, Trump has no coherent plan to reduce inflation or increase housing. Economists say his Tarriff Plan will double inflation.
On the other hand, inflation has settled down. Wages have substantially increased. Harris has proposed an affordable housing plan that will be a boon for the construction industry.
All Trump has proposed is to deport undocumented workers and the Tarriff Plan.
It is entirely possible to read the situation in several different ways.
Firstly I don't think it's necessarily true that if Florida or Texas become bluer that other states also move in the same direction. They may be correlated, they may not.
Secondly polling error cuts both ways. Based on national polling averages, a standard error one way means Trump wins. The other way it's a Harris landslide. There's not actually much in it. It is a mistake to assume that polling errors will necessarily be in the same direction I.e. '2016 showed up it's hard to accurately count Trump supporters.' Equally it is a mistake to assume that polling companies over correct and make the opposite error in the next election. Although they often do.
And that's before we discuss national polls vs state polls.
I have views on what I think it happening and how I interpret the data. But, but, the numbers are very close so I am skeptical of anything said with certainty.
Which is a shame. I don't think Trump will win but I long for certainty.
Yet another moan from me about how much I wish we just had a popular vote for president. Candidates would have to campaign in LA County! If we were a separate state, we'd be the 11th-biggest one. Do presidential candidates have to give a shit about us? They do not. They can safely just ignore everyone in the four biggest states in the union.
It is kind of insane that it is 99% likely that Kamala Harris will receive more votes than Donald Trump, yet the presidential race is essentially a toss-up at this point.
To the point of inflation and housing, Trump has no coherent plan to reduce inflation or increase housing. Economists say his Tarriff Plan will double inflation.
On the other hand, inflation has settled down. Wages have substantially increased. Harris has proposed an affordable housing plan that will be a boon for the construction industry.
All Trump has proposed is to deport undocumented workers and the Tarriff Plan.
It should be noted that both of Trump's main policy proposals (tariffs and mass deportation) are massively inflationary. I'd like to see more straight reporting about this, not the kind of bothsidesism we've been getting.
The thing about the 2016 election was the potential Clinton voters became complacent. They thought she was a shoe in. There was no need to turn out for her. Her get out the vote campaign was not as highly organized as Harris campaign is now.
I am quite happy, though, that @stonespring is sticking with us. We need a counterpoint to our assumptions. Helps us to refine our points.
The thing about the 2016 election was the potential Clinton voters became complacent. They thought she was a shoe in. There was no need to turn out for her. Her get out the vote campaign was not as highly organized as Harris campaign is now.
I am quite happy, though, that @stonespring is sticking with us. We need a counterpoint to our assumptions. Helps us to refine our points.
Clinton 2016 65,844,610
Obama 2012 65,899,660
Trump 2016 62,955,340
Some might say that Hilary lost particular parts of the country as opposed to simply not having the numbers.
Her complacency was expecting minorities to vote for her when in fact she lost allot of the minority vote.
Whether Harris can bring them back simply by having brown skin remains to be seen but the anyone but Trump will probably be enough to get her over the line regardless if she is kept away from the public or in fact especially if she is kept away from the public.
Allegedly the Federal Reserve Board is going to cut (trim) interest rates on September 17-18. If the accompanying Summary of Economic Projections is in any way encouraging, it could be huge for Harris/Walz.
Trump's win had to do with winning the battleground states in 2016.
He won Florida by 1.2%. That was largely the white rural vote. He did not win in the urban areas.
North Carolina was 3.8% again it was the white rural area that voted for Trump.
He won Wisconsin by 7 points. It is thought the polls did not measure the Trump vote adequately in the rural areas.
He won Michigan by only 10,000 votes. Disaffected labor workers accounted for that.
He won Arizona by only 3.5 points, which was quite low considering how Arizona was very conservative at the time.
And he won Pennsylvania by 0.20 points. Again rural conservative areas.
The deal of it is, the Electoral College is winner take all in each state. If it was proportional, Clinton would likely have won.
Harris has always run as an underdog. When she ran as a prosecutor in California, the polls showed she was at just 6% initially. She knows how to come form behind.
Getting more states to apportion their Electoral College delegates in line with their popular votes is a way more realistic goal than converting the entire national election to a direct popular vote.
Getting more states to apportion their Electoral College delegates in line with their popular votes is a way more realistic goal than converting the entire national election to a direct popular vote.
Getting more states to apportion their Electoral College delegates in line with their popular votes is a way more realistic goal than converting the entire national election to a direct popular vote.
Getting more states to apportion their Electoral College delegates in line with their popular votes is a way more realistic goal than converting the entire national election to a direct popular vote.
The problem with the former is that it dilutes the power of those states implementing it to influence the result.
But isn't the point that we don't want any one state influencing the result (disproportionately)?
Yes, but the problem is that if, say, California agrees to go proportional but Texas does not that the electoral college tilts even more red than at present. The interstate compact only takes effect once enough states agree, which means there's no interim cost in the way there is for individual states going proportional.
Meanwhile, back on the campaign trail, Trump was asked “what specific piece of legislation” he would advance to make child care more affordable. His response (I don't think it can fairly be characterized as an "answer"):
It’s a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, that – because, look, child care is child care. It’s – couldn’t – you know, it’s something – you have to have it. In this country, you have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to, but they’ll get used to it very quickly – and it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care. That – it’s going to take care – we’re going to have – I – I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country.
I have no idea why he thinks that raising the prices Americans will have to pay for imported goods is going to make child care more affordable. I do know that it does not qualify as a specific piece of legislation.
Meanwhile, back on the campaign trail, Trump was asked “what specific piece of legislation” he would advance to make child care more affordable. His response (I don't think it can fairly be characterized as an "answer"):
It’s a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, that – because, look, child care is child care. It’s – couldn’t – you know, it’s something – you have to have it. In this country, you have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to, but they’ll get used to it very quickly – and it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care. That – it’s going to take care – we’re going to have – I – I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country.
I have no idea why he thinks that raising the prices Americans will have to pay for imported goods is going to make child care more affordable. I do know that it does not qualify as a specific piece of legislation.
Or even a sentence.
It remains galling that anyone would vote for this moron, but there you go.
Comments
Today is Sept 3 in Washington State. I did not know N.C. is three days ahead.
Yes, it has indeed been September 3rd here. All day.
And possibly related news from the Volunteer State.
In case anyone thought Putin was sitting this one out.
Harris did say she would be open to naming a Republican to her cabinet. I wonder if she could be one such candidate. She has a great background on Western State issues. And international issues.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/liz-cheney-who-called-harris-a-radical-liberal-in-2020-now-endorses-her/ar-AA1q1aOX?ocid=BingNewsSerp
I had literally forgotten about that but, yeah, it would actually be major news if Putin DID sit it out…
So long as they put her somewhere she can't do any harm. Being against Trump is about the only positive thing in her politics from what I've seen.
I can see the advantage of having a rational voice with different political assumptions in the room, if it reduces the echo chamber effect. I'm not sure that Ms Cheney is such a voice.
I'll also note that there's a difference between keeping a Republican around to have someone to tell you when you're just about to accidentally piss off the average Republican voter for no good reason, and putting a Republican in charge of some major department.
That is, if Harris is elected.
I'm hoping that a lot of Biden's cabinet will remain in place for a (still hypothetical) Harris administration. Some of this may be an outright necessity if Republicans gain control of the Senate. I would love to see Haaland stay on at Interior and Pete Buttigieg is probably the most dynamic Secretary of Transportation that we've seen in . . . well, ever. Harris should re-appoint acting Labor Secretary Julie Su, both because she'd be good at the job and because someone needs to extend the middle finger to the Senate for letting her appointment languish without a vote. (Fuck you, Joe Manchin!) Interestingly while Biden's lower-tier cabinet have been downright spectacular the more prestigious departments have been headed by some real duds. I'm thinking particularly of Garland and Blinken, though I'd probably put Austin on that list if there's room for a third name. Not disclosing his hospitalization to the White House should have been a career ender.
Any president would want to put his/her stamp on the new cabinet. I would not want to preclude what Harris would want to do.
BTW, have others noticed that Malania Trump has not been on the campaign trail with DJT?
Possibly too busy with her Memoir, due for publication on 24th September.
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack seems like a prime candidate for retirement. He'll be 74 on Inauguration Day 2025 and will have been doing the SecAg thing for twelve years at that point. (Eight under Obama and four under Biden.)
My prediction is that the Trump campaign takes no measures to discipline these two and that the rest of the media will try to move on. NPR seems like an exception when it comes to this story, maybe because they were the first to break it. I also predict that the video footage Trump spokesgoblin Steven Cheung said would be released and exonerate the Trump team will be released by the first of Never.
Personally, I am of the opinion it is time to let younger generations take over. Us boomers need to get out of the way.'
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/09/06/dick-cheney-for-harris-like-liz-cheney/75106303007/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/09/06/james-murdoch-endorses-kamala-harris-for-president/
That said, I don't understand much of anything about undecided voters.
I initially thought Fuentes would have his tantrum and then eventually come around to supporting Dear Leader again, but he's apparently having a full-blown crisis of faith. The tipping point seems to have been Trump admitting he lost the 2020 Presidential election.
I think Fuentes' rant can be boiled down to "OMG! Who knew Donald Trump was dishonest?" and "I'd never have FA'd if I thought I'd ever have to FO!" In terms of actual votes the Groypers are fairly small, but in terms of having "jackboots on the ground" for voter intimidation or post-election violence they're a pretty big part of Trump's support network.
It's interesting that essentially none of the pre-2016 elite Republican leadership (with the notable exception of Mitch McConnell) has endorsed Donald Trump in his 2024 presidential run. Most are simply staying silent, but a few have taken the important step of endorsing Kamala Harris, the only other person with a reasonable chance of winning the presidency.
What a child this Feuntes is!
Could he not see how trump just says what's convenient for him at the time, and always has. Could he not see that trump is never loyal or kind to anyone, ever?
It's always been as clear as the nose on his face.
By the looks of it he was 18 when Trump came into office. Not quite a child but pretty damn close. Think about all those naïve 18 year olds starting university who get love bombed into con evo churches and Christian Unions; I think this is similar. The guy fell for the con and is only now realising it.
Yes, but Fuente’s familiarity with reality seems to be tenuous at best.
If this is the case, having George Bush endorsing Harris could move Texas to lean Democrat status. I think Bush may announce his preference after the Harris/Trump debate on Tuesday.
Will this be worth a watch or will trump just stalk round her, glowering like a bear with piles?
This is where it gets interesting. As things stand, Trump has a decent chance of winning, sadly. However if either Florida or Texas are not in the safe category it gets a lot more complicated. Essentially If either on of those goes Democrat and all other things being equal then Trump cannot win.
If.
I'll watch with interest.
AFZ
This is largely because not only have Democrats been in power for four years when inflation has been higher than it has been in decades and housing has become even more unaffordable (whether or not it is their fault), but Harris has been the vice president during that time and even if VPs have little power, they are still expected to support the policies of the President.
People talked about Florida and Texas being in play in 2016 and 2020, when the Democratic candidate was doing better in the polls than Harris is. In both cases, neither state was very close.
Trump also manages to turn out voters who are unlikely to vote unless his name is on the ballot, so Democrats’ performance in midterms and special elections is unlikely to be a good indicator of the result. Polls have a very hard time reaching this kind of voter (and getting them to answer their questions) and determining whether they are likely to actually vote or not, which might explain why Trump outperformed the polls in 2016 and 2020.
This is going to be a very, very close election, and we probably won’t know the winner until days after Election Day.
Something I watch is where the campaign is going and spending money. Harris started her reproductive rights bus tour in Florida, not because her campaign thinks they're going to contest Florida but because abortion is on the ballot there in November, and they are highlighting her support for abortion rights for all women, something a fair number of undecided voters say is important to them (and it trolls Trump a little, but I think that's something they're mainly leaving to people like the Lincoln Project). Other than that, she's campaigning in battleground states. It's a waste of time and money to do anything else. IOW, wake me if she goes to Texas or her campaign buys ad time there.
Yet another moan from me about how much I wish we just had a popular vote for president. Candidates would have to campaign in LA County! If we were a separate state, we'd be the 11th-biggest one. Do presidential candidates have to give a shit about us? They do not. They can safely just ignore everyone in the four biggest states in the union.
To the point of inflation and housing, Trump has no coherent plan to reduce inflation or increase housing. Economists say his Tarriff Plan will double inflation.
On the other hand, inflation has settled down. Wages have substantially increased. Harris has proposed an affordable housing plan that will be a boon for the construction industry.
All Trump has proposed is to deport undocumented workers and the Tarriff Plan.
Firstly I don't think it's necessarily true that if Florida or Texas become bluer that other states also move in the same direction. They may be correlated, they may not.
Secondly polling error cuts both ways. Based on national polling averages, a standard error one way means Trump wins. The other way it's a Harris landslide. There's not actually much in it. It is a mistake to assume that polling errors will necessarily be in the same direction I.e. '2016 showed up it's hard to accurately count Trump supporters.' Equally it is a mistake to assume that polling companies over correct and make the opposite error in the next election. Although they often do.
And that's before we discuss national polls vs state polls.
I have views on what I think it happening and how I interpret the data. But, but, the numbers are very close so I am skeptical of anything said with certainty.
Which is a shame. I don't think Trump will win but I long for certainty.
AFZ
It is kind of insane that it is 99% likely that Kamala Harris will receive more votes than Donald Trump, yet the presidential race is essentially a toss-up at this point.
It should be noted that both of Trump's main policy proposals (tariffs and mass deportation) are massively inflationary. I'd like to see more straight reporting about this, not the kind of bothsidesism we've been getting.
I am quite happy, though, that @stonespring is sticking with us. We need a counterpoint to our assumptions. Helps us to refine our points.
Clinton 2016 65,844,610
Obama 2012 65,899,660
Trump 2016 62,955,340
Some might say that Hilary lost particular parts of the country as opposed to simply not having the numbers.
Her complacency was expecting minorities to vote for her when in fact she lost allot of the minority vote.
Whether Harris can bring them back simply by having brown skin remains to be seen but the anyone but Trump will probably be enough to get her over the line regardless if she is kept away from the public or in fact especially if she is kept away from the public.
He won Florida by 1.2%. That was largely the white rural vote. He did not win in the urban areas.
North Carolina was 3.8% again it was the white rural area that voted for Trump.
He won Wisconsin by 7 points. It is thought the polls did not measure the Trump vote adequately in the rural areas.
He won Michigan by only 10,000 votes. Disaffected labor workers accounted for that.
He won Arizona by only 3.5 points, which was quite low considering how Arizona was very conservative at the time.
And he won Pennsylvania by 0.20 points. Again rural conservative areas.
The deal of it is, the Electoral College is winner take all in each state. If it was proportional, Clinton would likely have won.
Harris has always run as an underdog. When she ran as a prosecutor in California, the polls showed she was at just 6% initially. She knows how to come form behind.
The mechanism I've seen for getting to the latter is reasonably plausible:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
The problem with the former is that it dilutes the power of those states implementing it to influence the result.
I’m assuming this is a typo. Trump won Wisconsin by 0.77 percentage points in 2016.
Of the ones I listed, it the Electoral College is winner take all.
Thank you for the correction.
But isn't the point that we don't want any one state influencing the result (disproportionately)?
Yes, but the problem is that if, say, California agrees to go proportional but Texas does not that the electoral college tilts even more red than at present. The interstate compact only takes effect once enough states agree, which means there's no interim cost in the way there is for individual states going proportional.
I have no idea why he thinks that raising the prices Americans will have to pay for imported goods is going to make child care more affordable. I do know that it does not qualify as a specific piece of legislation.
Or even a sentence.
It remains galling that anyone would vote for this moron, but there you go.