2024 ELECTION THREAD

Well if they believe in Santa Claus’s I guess they can believe in Vance ability to do that too and vote trump .
Which no one ever was able to but Vance could ?
Maybe Vance is the new messiah.

Concern of what ?
To believe Harris had so much power during Biden presidency ( so that she can get all the blame from Republican pov) that Vance would had even more influence over trump to counter is craziness ?

If those voters are dumb enough to believe this they were already ready to vote for trump in the first place .

If Trump were to win and Vance were to gain a Jafar-like hypnosis over Trump by becoming his most trusted advisor, then that’s actually a legitimate danger…

Trump is susceptible to a variety of manipulation and influence; and Vance is clearly capable of wielding it. Vance is an intellectual giant by comparison.

I have stats as of today. For 538.com, Nate Silver (NS) and oddly from myself. I have created a spreadsheet that analyzes polls in the 7 swing states. My data was created in 4 segments to date. After Biden stepped down and before Walz was announced as VP, After Walz was announced and before the DNC, after the DNC but before the debate, and after the Presidential debate but before the VP debate (today). I only used Likely Voter Polls and if a pollster had both Heads Up (HU) and Multi-Candidate (MC) I used only the MC. If a pollster has more than one poll in a segment I use only the latest one (even if it is HU and the early one is MC). The other thing I have done (that neither 538 or NS are doing) is calculate the likely 3rd party candidate votes based on the MC polls. The reason I did this is to be able to analyze two things: 1) if the election were held today what % of the undecided votes would Kamala need to win each state and 2) based on Trump's 2020 rates of undecided voters going for him who would win if that happened again this year (both if Kamala lost votes at the same rate as Biden and if Kamala's numbers held). Here goes...

The 538 and NS numbers are compared with their data from the presidential debate as are mine.

AZ: I have Trump up by 1.3%, 2.1% MC, 3.1% Un (Kamala +0.3% since Debate, -1.6% after DNC, basically even prior to DNC). 538 & NS have Trump up by 1.5% 538 (Kamala -0.8% since Debate) & NS (Kamala +0.4% since Debate). In order to win Kamala needs 72% of the undecideds. If this goes the way of the 2020 election Trump would win by 2.7%.

GA: I have Trump up by 1%, 1.8% MC, 3.2% Un (Kamala -0.3% since Debate, +1.3% after DNC, -1% after Walz, -1% after Biden). 538 has Trump up by 1.2% (Kamala -0.6% since Debate), NS also has Trump up by 1% (Kamala +0.4% since Debate). In order to win Kamala needs 65% of the undecideds. If this goes the way of 2020 election Trump would win by 1.6%.

MI: I have Kamala up by 1.7%, 2.4% MC, 3.5% Un (Kamala +0.6% since Debate, -1.2% after DNC, +1.9% after Walz, +0.4% after Biden). 538 has Kamala up by 1.9% (Kamala no gain since Debate), NS has Kamala up by 2.1% (Kamala -1% since Debate). In order to win Kamala needs 25% of the undecideds. If this goes the way of the 2020 election Trump would win by 1.7% (or 1.1% if Kamala maintains her poll number).

NC: I have Trump up by 0.4%, 2.4% MC, 1.5% Un (Kamala +1.8% since NC scandal, -2.1% after Debate until NC Gov scandal, +0.2% after DNC, +1% after Walz, -1.3% after Biden). 538 has Trump up by 0.6% (Kamala -0.8% since Debate), NS has Trump up by 0.5% (Kamala -0.6% since Debate). In order to win Kamala needs 66% of the undecideds. If this goes the way of the 2020 election Trump would win by 1.8% (or 1.5% if Kamala maintains her poll number).

NV: I have Kamala up by 1.3%, 1.3% MC, 3.3% Un (Kamala +1.6% since Debate, -0.2% after DNC, +1.4% after Walz, -1.5% after Biden). 538 has Kamala up by 1% (Kamala +0.8% since Debate), NS has Kamala up by 1.8% (Kamala +1.3% since Debate). In order to win Kamala needs 25% of the undecideds. If this goes the way of the 2020 election Kamala would win by 0.1%.

PA: I have Kamala up by 1.1%, 1.5% MC, 1.8% Un (Kamala +0.9% since Debate, -0.7% after DNC, -1.9% after Walz because Shapiro wasn't chosen..., +2.3% after Biden). 538 has Kamala up by 0.6% (Kamala no gain since Debate), NS has Kamala up by 1.2% (Kamala +0.9% since Debate). In order to win Kamala needs 17% of the undecideds. If this goes the way of the 2020 election Trump would win by 0.4% (or 0.2% if Kamala maintains her poll number).

WI: I have Kamala up by 2%, 1.6% MC, 2.4% Un (Kamala +0.3% since Debate, -1.4% after DNC, +1.1% after Walz, +2% after Biden). 538 has Kamala up by 1.7% (Kamala -0.9% since Debate), NS also has Kamala up by 2% (Kamala no gain since Debate). In order to win Kamala needs 7% of the undecideds. If this goes the way of the 2020 election Trump would win by 2.4% (or 1.4% if Kamala maintains her poll number).

This is what I am seeing:
1) If the election was held today and the results are what we see in the polls then Kamala would win 277 to 261 assuming Kamala wins both NE2 and ME2 (she is up by 0.5% in 2 polls)
2) The polls are in 3 groups in each state: Great for Trump, right in the middle, Great for Kamala. It is likely that some of the pollsters are skewing for political reasons. In a state like MI there is only one pollster that veers right in each segment and 3 or 4 that veer for Kamala in each segment so my guess is Kamala takes MI by 3% or 4%. In other states it is more balanced where it could go either way (though AZ and GA recently have been skewed right).
3) The Undecided % is far lower now than in 2020 (by about 1% at this time). In addition the MC vote will likely be more than in recent elections. This could actually make the polls more likely to be correct. It also may be that Trump is making his undecided gains now and in MI, PA, and WI the % of undecideds going for him is not as good as 2020.
4) In the States in which Kamala is leading (MI, NV, PV, WI) the undecideds are moving towards Kamala in a big way. In MI and NV she is gaining more undecideds than Trump since the debate. In PA it is basically the same as Trump. And though she lost ground at 538 in WI (and Trump outgained her 2:1 with undecideds) NS had the gains as basically even. In the States that Kamala is now trailing (AZ, GA, NC) Trump is currently gaining more ground than Kamala in undecideds. But on the bright side Kamala is still gaining ground. So the undecideds are splitting and not going all to Trump.
5) I have heard that polls this year are less likely to have undecideds veer towards Trump on election day. I hope that is true (and it looks like it is true in states that Kamala now leads in).
6) I doubt the VP debate will skew things. The CBS poll tonight has it a virtual tie at 42% Vance to 41% Walz with 17% thinking it was a tie.

Maybe it’s my centrist bias, but I think it would be way better for this to happen than the same to happen with Pence as his VP.

That being said, don’t think that’s how Trump works. Trump follows what the last person in the room with him says. That’s why his first administration was so schizophrenic.

Just want to say I’m really enjoying your work and methodology Mr. Rick. Probably one of the highest quality posters in this thread.

Unbelievable. These are the words you choose to describe the other side of the political aisle? Shouldn't you set an example as a moderator and not literally demonize? You wonder why this place resembles Thunderdome sometimes, look no further.

I’m not sure if any of Trump’s previous advisors have been as clever *and* ambitious as Vance.

In fairness this poster has had this attitude for the last 15 years. Should they pretend otherwise now that they are a moderator? As long as they aren't biased in moderating, I dont see anything wrong with presenting their honest opinion.

And I agree that this is a horrible way to view politics. But the fact this person is a moderator is not relevant at all.

Pompeo, Miller, Banon, Barr, even Kushner, I mean these are all pretty charismatic and ambitious guys. Maybe not as clever, but the thing about being VP is you have no official duty and only as much of a role as the president allows. Vance could be completely sidelined on day 1 with no implication towards the structure of Trump’s administration.

Charisma and ambition are one thing; the ability to quickly analyze and adapt is another. Vance has both. Who knows what he might be capable of with that baseline of raw intellect in the prime of his life. I can recognize he is formidable. Analysis is not based on my personal wishes. He’s still a ****ing *******, but now he’s a scary *******.

I wanted Walz to crush. It was a tie at best.

Seems like you believe he has extremely sinister motives. Assuming he had he well being of the nation at interest, it seems like these would all be good qualities. Who wouldn't want a leader with good intentions who is quick to analyze and adapt?

Maybe someone just has a dream of flying spaceships to Mars, and believes a Trump presidency is the best bet to dismantle the regulatory state that is a giant impediment to this dream.

I mean you might be right. If what he said in the debate is all lies, then it’s really scary to have a political opponent that can deftly change his views based on who he is talking to.

The thing is though that winning a debate is a lot different from having good interpersonal skills, which I think he lacks and his debate performance makes it difficult to evaluate. Just seeing how he interacts with people in less prepared and structured settings makes me doubt that he could be that person to puppetmaster behind the scenes.

Assuming his positions were sincere, I’d much prefer his vision of the Republican party to Trump’s. However, Trump will never be willing to share the spotlight, so he’ll probably be saying something crazy within the day to undercut Vance and remind people of just how unhinged he is. He will always feel the need to put people in his place if threatened, which is why I think he won’t even want a positive media cycle for Vance to overshadow him.

100%
The nyc conman was hoping on hope Vance would get annihilated.

Oh don’t misunderstand my musings. I don’t think this will have any overarching effect on voters. I’m just personally marking how dangerous of a man Vance is, not only in his willingness to say things that he doesn’t believe but also in his ability to say them believably.

Lying and promote knowingly fake stories of Haitians people eating cats and dogs is for the good of the nation ?
Ok I got it ….

Vance is there for one reason only .
To overturn the next election with dubious means like not certifying the election (or any other means the supreme court will agree too) in 2028 , if they win in 2024.

Can anyone watch that Whitney Webb interview about Vance and Thiel, fact-check the 836 claims she made, clear up any vital information she may have gotten wrong and explain where more context is needed? Thanks in advance.

trump is getting older though, and at his age every year can bring significant changes

yes, as a democratic until very recently.

This makes no sense. Do you think MAGA voters are going to abandon Trump because Vance was too bipartisan or moderate? Or is it more likely that some traditional conservatives and folks on the fence will get on board because of Vance's performance?

It's disgusting and creepy how JD Vance lies so convincingly.

Vance spend the whole time trying to credit Trump for things he had nothing to do with

I remember clearly Trump said "blame it on me" them trashing the border bill

They don't comprehend the idea that "republicans fall in line"