2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
inflation came out at 2.1 in the USA.
It's insane to think the USA economy is close to Goldilock (target inflation, low unemployment, raising real wages, stock market at all time high) and an absolute majority of American voters think things are going badly in the economy
Economy is not the only subject they got hugely wrong ….
The chips act was one of the best pieces of legislation passed in the last 10 years. The economy will continue to be great if Kamala wins. If Trump wins we collectively choose to ruin the US economy to pay for things like deportations, tariiffs, some form of new domestic police force etc.
Kamala is going to make America great again whether men like it or not.
I have found Politico to be the less biased mainstream source on the election this cycle, and for what it is worth they are reporting early voting patterns in PA are bad/terrible for republicans
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/31...
To be honest I am not sure I understand which useful issues if any we can gather from early voting, I don't understand how we can make claims before we have data on who goes to vote on election day.
But if any info can be distilled from those data, it looks bad for republicans
I have found Politico to be the less biased mainstream source on the election this cycle, and for what it is worth they are reporting early voting patterns in PA are bad/terrible for republicans
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/31...
To be honest I am not sure I understand which useful issues if any we can gather from early voting, I don't understand how we can make claims before we have data on who goes to vote on election day.
But if any
I don't know what to make of early voting trends either. If early voters are demographically highly similar to election day voters, then yes, it looks good for Kamala in states like Pennsylvania, but it isn't obvious to me that they will be highly similar.
I don't know what to make of early voting trends either. If early voters are demographically highly similar to election day voters, then yes, it looks good for Kamala in states like Pennsylvania, but it isn't obvious to me that they will be highly similar.
When I see the lines on election day the smart people vote early .
I hate the guy but the suggestion about what Trump meant about Liz Cheney seems like a reach. This is a bog standard criticism of hawks.
Trump says Liz Cheney should be 'shot in the face' by nine guns in sickening fantasy
Speaking to former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Trump said the daughter of former Republican VP Dick Cheney should have "guns trained on her face" due to her support for Kamala Harris.
"Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her," said Trump. "Let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face."
The audience were audibly very quiet, unaware of how to react, while Carlson stayed silent.
Source:
Trump says Liz Cheney should be 'shot in the face' by nine guns in sickening fantasy
It was a terrible thing to say and how he said it but I think his reference was to the fact her and her dad love wars and in war that is what you face. Though I get why folks interpret it another way. Sadly Trump does not have the White House Press to alter his comments to make them sound better like Joe had .
I still do not get this embrace of Liz and Dick Cheney by the Dems
I don't know what to make of early voting trends either. If early voters are demographically highly similar to election day voters, then yes, it looks good for Kamala in states like Pennsylvania, but it isn't obvious to me that they will be highly similar.
IMO the early voting trends don't tell us anything about the outcome. Too many cross-currents between Republicans being told to vote early this election vs their tradition of voting on election day.
It was a terrible thing to say and how he said it but I think his reference was to the fact her and her dad love wars and in war that is what you face. Though I get why folks interpret it another way. Sadly Trump does not have the White House Press to alter his comments to make them sound better like Joe had .
I still do not get this embrace of Liz and Dick Cheney by the Dems
When we have to start parsing words to explain why a Presidential candidate is openly discussing having guns trained on his political opponent's face then I think the debate has shifted too far away from the obvious reality that the man is simply unhinged.
It was a terrible thing to say and how he said it but I think his reference was to the fact her and her dad love wars and in war that is what you face. Though I get why folks interpret it another way. Sadly Trump does not have the White House Press to alter his comments to make them sound better like Joe had .
I still do not get this embrace of Liz and Dick Cheney by the Dems
I get it. war and theft are integral to Western values and the Cheneys have proven themselves adept at such acts. so ofc the Dems approve.
Trump says Liz Cheney should be 'shot in the face' by nine guns in sickening fantasy
In the context of her support for war this is not as extreme as the article is making it out to be. He’s saying her opinion might change if she were on the front line of a war. The level of description is maybe threatening but the concept isn’t. It’s not clear at all that he’s saying she should face a firing squad like some of the headlines are saying. Pretty sure he didn’t say she should be shot in the face either.
It was a terrible thing to say and how he said it but I think his reference was to the fact her and her dad love wars and in war that is what you face. Though I get why folks interpret it another way. Sadly Trump does not have the White House Press to alter his comments to make them sound better like Joe had .
I still do not get this embrace of Liz and Dick Cheney by the Dems
Yeah they definitely better people to give you talking points to parrot on how to minimize it because this is garbage.
IMO the early voting trends don't tell us anything about the outcome. Too many cross-currents between Republicans being told to vote early this election vs their tradition of voting on election day.
I would tend to agree intuitively but too many voices which i consider reasonable/credible are commenting those, so i feel like it's me not understanding how and why those data can be used
In the context of her support for war this is not as extreme as the article is making it out to be. He’s saying her opinion might change if she were on the front line of a war. The level of description is maybe threatening but the concept isn’t. It’s not clear at all that he’s saying she should face a firing squad like some of the headlines are saying. Pretty sure he didn’t say she should be shot in the face either.
Isn't Trump just saying "if it was her that had to go to war she would consider the matter differently" in a typical terrible Trump way?
It amazes me how little cutting gov't spending is talked about leading up to the last few elections as I think it is one of the best things a president can do for America today. Usually the amount of spending (as a % of GDP) that the gov't is currently doing is reserved for times of world war and major recessions, but here we are with fairly low unemployment and a growing economy and the gov't can't find a place it doesn't want to give money to.
I find it super interesting that we have one candidate in trump who is pro-economic-growth with tax cuts and cuts to gov't spending and another candidate who is trying to slow economic growth with tax increases and increasing the fed budget.
If anyone has a link to an article where an economist that isn't paid (directly or indirectly) by the gov't says kamala would be better for the economy long-term than trump please post it ITT or send it to me via PM. I would be super curious to read an argument for that if it exists.
In the context of her support for war this is not as extreme as the article is making it out to be. He’s saying her opinion might change if she were on the front line of a war. The level of description is maybe threatening but the concept isn’t. It’s not clear at all that he’s saying she should face a firing squad like some of the headlines are saying. Pretty sure he didn’t say she should be shot in the face either.
I get what you're saying but a sane, rational person running for President would understand there's no context in which discussing having guns pointed at your political rival's face is something that should be said out loud. It's up there with never mentioning the sexual attractiveness of your daughter. Or mentioning Hitler in anything other than a purely negative light...both of which ironically Trump has also done.
It amazes me how little cutting gov't spending is talked about leading up to the last few elections as I think it is one of the best things a president can do for America today. Usually the amount of spending (as a % of GDP) that the gov't is currently doing is reserved for times of world war and major recessions, but here we are with fairly low unemployment and a growing economy and the gov't can't find a place it doesn't want to give money to.
I find it super interesting that we have one candid
Because government spending is passed by congress not decided by the president and both parties know that whomever proposes to cut social security or medicare or defense expenses (and that's where most of the spending is) autoloses. Maybe defense and medicaid could be cut a little without autolosing, but even if they matter less than SS and medicare politically, they do matter in some swing states and in some swing districts enough that no party wants to pay the political price.
It's very simple, politics are clear on that, you propose cuts to those main programs (the only ones that matter enough to make a dent in federal spending), you lose.
Then there is the revenue side. Democrats are more willing to increase taxes of course, but even them are very very cautious about that, remember Biden claiming no one paying making less than 400k/year would pay more taxes and so on.
If you actually only intend to tax the richest people a bit more, revenue can be increased a tad but not enough to change the macro trends (unless you try to tax rich people a very lot more in which case you get other problems including losing rich people as donors for the democratic party which might matter).
Republicans are in complete "make-believe" about taxes with intentions to cut them more without cutting spending which is kinda insane on it's own but whatever.
Btw Trump is not proposing any significant cut in government spending.
I get what you're saying but a sane, rational person running for President would understand there's no context in which discussing having guns pointed at your political rival's face is something that should be said out loud. It's up there with never mentioning the sexual attractiveness of your daughter. Or mentioning Hitler in anything other than a purely negative light...both of which ironically Trump has also done.
I agree. He’s a psychopath and an ogre who shouldn't be anywhere near office but that doesn’t mean we get to start inventing things he said. He’s bad enough on his own and I don’t think it does anything good to reach like these headlines are doing.
I find it super interesting that we have one candidate in trump who is pro-economic-growth with tax cuts and cuts to gov't spending and another candidate who is trying to slow economic growth with tax increases and increasing the fed budget.
Why were Trumps growth numbers pre covid so low? It doesn’t seem like he has any idea how to get growth numbers up, hence the slowdown from Obama’s second term, which were supposedly awful when he was campaigning, Evan pre covid. I understand Trump will crush with people who don’t pay taxes or literally don’t understand tax brackets, but what about actual productive people who lives through the failure of trumps first term?
Why were Trumps growth numbers pre covid so low? It doesn’t seem like he has any idea how to get growth numbers up, hence the slowdown from Obama’s second term, which were supposedly awful when he was campaigning, Evan pre covid. I understand Trump will crush with people who don’t pay taxes or literally don’t understand tax brackets, but what about actual productive people who lives through the failure of trumps first term?
Per capita real gdp growth was identical under Obama and under Trump (and almost identical to the long term trend for the USA)
