It was as decisive as it could be in Iowa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Printable View
It was as decisive as it could be in Iowa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Agree it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
Trump will certainly win the nomination no matter what, but Iowa was a pretty weak showing. If Biden only got 50% of the primary vote, with the remainder going to Marianne Williamson and (whatshisname from North Dakota) everyone would be freaking out right now. Plus turnout was very low. And Iowa is supposedly a Trump stronghold.
Not true. It was the biggest margin of victory ever:Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Warm
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-i...in-of-victory/
We appear to have two different assessments of the result.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
One is based on historical data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
That seems like a weak analogy given Trump is not the incumbent and his two main opponents are far more substantial than those two non-entities. If he'd got 51% against Asa Hutchinson and Doug Burgum you might have a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Warm
For comparison, Biden received 51.6% of the votes in Democrat primaries last time, and generally less than this in the earlier contests before most of his opponents dropped out. In South Carolina, which started his comeback, be got 49%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Result...tial_primaries
The low turnout argument for discounting the Iowa result relies on some very heroic assumptions. The obvious cause was very cold weather, so you have to assume that this mainly affected non-Trump supporters but not Trump supporters. You also have to assume the national polls showing Trump with a commanding lead among Republicans are totally wrong.
For all practical purposes, Trump is an incumbent. He’s the presumed nominee, so to have soft support - 50% have a different 1st choice- is a bad sign. If Biden only gets 50% in a primary, as an incumbent, that’s equally bad.
The weather has nothing to do with anything. It’s cold in Iowa every winter. The issue is voter enthusiasm, weather is just a convenient excuse. Motivated voters would wait in line for 6 hours to vote (and in some places, they do). Enthusiasm is high among MAGA but that’s only 30% of voters. The voter base gets larger every year, as our population grows. But Republican turnout was lower in Iowa this year than it was in 2022, 2020 and 2016.
Biden was not the incumbent, and few people expected him to win the nomination. Biden was not the presumptive nominee in 2020. Trump is the presumptive nominee this year, and always has been.Quote:
For comparison, Biden received 51.6% of the votes in Democrat primaries last time, and generally less than this in the earlier contests before most of his opponents dropped out.
We may be talking past each other here, since it seems like you are arguing against points I’m not making. IMO Trump is 100% definitely the nominee, but at this early point in the process, his support looks weak among non-MAGA Republicans and Independents. Since national elections are won by extremely small margins, that’s a bad sign for Trump.
I don’t understand your comment. I have been saying that Trump will be the Republican nominee for basically forever. DeSantis and the other jokers never even had a chance, right from the beginning it was a doomed mission.Quote:
. You also have to assume the national polls showing Trump with a commanding lead among Republicans are totally wrong.
I think you are assuming incorrectly that all my comments were directed at you, rather than other posters. It's a discussion, not a duologue.
The problem is that it's hard to find a benchmark for comparison because no defeated President has ever run again. It's true that it's not like a normal open primary, but nor is is like a normal incumbency situation because incumbents rarely have any significant internal opposition. As far as I can recall, the last time this happened was in 1980 when Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter.
Hardly. Biden was the most favoured nominee in virtually all polls, except for the period when he did badly in the early primaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Warm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...tial_primaries
Can I suggest the issue, albeit on slim evidence so far, is that there is a decline in the number of Republicans who are choosing Trump as their nominee, even if it doesn't change the result. If this trend were to be repeated in the election, Trump yet again will fail to beat Biden on the numbers, assuming these two are the candidates.
So yet again we have to consider the Electoral College as the decisive agency, but again only if Trump has the delegates from whichever State he wins, assuming he does win them. It is not yet clear if those States that have changed the way they process the Vote will try to deny voters their choice and choose Trump delegates to go the Electoral College. It may matter in fine margins in States where the winner takes all, but it seems to me this time round that unless there is a serious decline in Biden's vote in every State, I don't see how Trump can win, though I am sure he will claim it has all been rigged if he doesn't.
Will New Hampshire tell us anything new?
If Trump doesn't dominate, it will tell us something new.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Off-Piste: I imagine some living in New Hampshire right now would rather be in Florida, but do people in Florida ever go to New Hampshire?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
And, who is worse: Trump or Kinski?
The terrifying reign of Klaus Kinski, the most evil actor who ever lived (yahoo.com)
Kinski never controlled a government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Neither did Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
The key question is whether those who were supporting other candidates will turn out for Trump now their first choices have dropped out. He should get almost all of Ramaswamy's supporters given he's very MAGA. De Santis was also running as MAGA, but more competent and less baggage, so I think it's likely Trump will get the majority of his supporters as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I know you are an incorrigible wishful thinker, but it's interesting that you are so intent on looking for signs of weakness in Trump's support while ignoring all the signs of weakness on Biden's side. The polls are showing Trump leading in the key swing states, while most Democrats would prefer that Biden not be running again.
Kinski never had nuclear codes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
This message gets hammered over and over in the media, yet no one suggests an alternative. If not Biden, then who?Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
I understand the thrust of your post, but I would still suggest that Trump cannot win the popular vote, because there is no evidence that it has increased since 2020.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
There are some as yet unknown factors, the most obvious being the court cases that one hopes will be dealt with before November. Another is that I am not sure we know yet if those States that have changed the way they process elections would dare to so brazenly find ways to give Trump the Electoral College delegates if he has clearly lost, setting aside any claims of rigging he will undoubtedly make.
The polls mean little, because they merely reflect some opinion right now. Theresa May was persuaded to hold a General Election in 2017 when the polls gave her party a clear lead. She led a catastrophic campaign that trashed the Commons majority she had and left her with a hung Parliament that crushed her career. The polls were wrong.
Yes, Republicans have learned what went wrong in 2020 and may find ways to reduce Democrat voters by shredding the polls, but the fact remains that Trump must gain millions of new voters to stand a chance of taking States.
If Biden has a weakness, it is his lack of charisma. On the other hand, they both have records on which to stand, and Biden's record is superior to Trump's, though whether or not the broadcast media and other sources underline this I cannot say. The opportunity for Trump to alienate people through his Hubris - if he is the nominee he will declare himself President before a single vote has been cast- could turn people off, while Biden retains his dignity.
Another unknown is whether the 'youth vote' if there is such a thing, will be challenged because of the age of the two candidates, because of the US support for Israel -probably less of a factor than some think in terms of outcome- but I have heard on tv elderly Republicans who don't like Trump say they will just stay home, and that could be something some younger votes do too.
It is too early to say, and too many rogue factors may yet flip what some think, or want to be a re-match. But I stand by my basic point: Trump begins from a position of weakness, and I don't see any strengths in his voter support, I see no significant growth, it is as static and stagnant as his brain.
If Biden announced he wasn't running again alternatives would emerge. I don't think too many thought Bill Clinton or Obama would be two-term Presidents when they announced their candidacies. Do you really think the Democrat Party is in such poor shape that it has no alternative to running an 80 year old with a 38% approval rating?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
Even if you discount the polls showing Trump leading in swing states, it's hardly a good reflection on Biden that an opponent with so many negatives is competitive only 10 months out. Trump won't win the popular vote, but that's irrelevant. Lack of enthusiasm for Biden won't help Democrat turnout and he seems to have lost a lot of support from Independents.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ll/ar-AA1ncndR
The big problem with Biden isn't lack of charisma, it's age. He seems to lack mental sharpness and energy and that's only going to get worse through a gruelling campaign and then four more years if he was to win. Most of the current problems may have been due to circumstances beyond his control, but too often he comes across as passive and ineffectual in response. Successful Presidents tend to be defined by how well they respond to adverse developments.
I think the other big problem for Biden is that real wages (after inflation) have fallen over his Presidency, whereas they rose over Trump's term. This may explain a lot of Biden's weakness among Independents and why they may have a rosier view of the economy under Trump, notwithstanding the Covid recession.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_re...ourly_earnings
I don't like Trump any more than you guys, but beating him will require hard-headedness, not wishful thinking. Trump has benefited consistently from opponents underestimating his chances and taking solace in explanations about why he was finished or couldn't win. This seems to be happening again.
The primary process has already begun. There have been no credible challengers. Again, who? If someone wants to step up and lead, where the hell are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Joe Biden is old?! This is the first I've ever heard it mentioned!
Completely agree it sure does,because they calling can't come up with any alternatives. And also the media keeps forgetting The Republican Nominee Donald Trump is old as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
Ron DeSantis cancelled his campaign for president,and bent the knee and his leader Donald Trump's ass by endorsing him.
That's a circular argument because credible challengers almost never run against an incumbent. The odds are against them winning and they'll risk splitting the party and losing the general election. This has happened every time an incumbent has faced a serious challenge in recent history (1968, 1976 and 1980).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-b...b0800d579d8f64
I'm not suggesting that someone should have challenged Biden, but that he should have recognised the realities of his age and bowed out voluntarily last year. The argument that nobody else could beat Trump may have been credible in 2020 but it doesn't seen credible now.
Here's a fact for you. No US President with an approval rating as low as Biden's at this stage of the cycle has won reelection since Harry S Truman. Scroll down for the comparative charts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...proval-rating/
Who could beat Trump? Give me a name of a Democrat who could beat Trump in 2024. Not one has stepped up.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Yet Truman won, and he wasn't running against someone who had tried to overthrow the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
You can find stats to support any angle you wish to take. The 2022 midterms did not go as the polls predicted. They also did not match previous midterms. Biden had a low approval rating then, but Democrats retained control of the Senate and Republicans only just gained a majority in the House.
Joe Biden!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
More on the numbers
"GOP senators say there is less enthusiasm for former President Trump among Republican-leaning voters compared to 2016, a drop in voter energy that was apparent when only 15 percent of Iowa’s registered Republicans showed up for Monday’s caucuses"...
Senate GOP fears drop in Trump enthusiasm, energy (yahoo.com)
But as the link also argues, voter enthusiasm could be a factor in the turnout -but who does this benefit in the swing states?
The President Of The United States Joe Biden.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
Wrong. The polls overall were reasonably accurate, but most pundits chose to ignore them because of historical experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ling-accuracy/
Over-extrapolating from single data points is not usually a good idea.
According to this poll a generic Democrat could do 12% points better than Biden.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...n-alternative/
Aren't you the same guy who was previously bemoaning the fact that both parties couldn't find younger and better candidates than Biden and Trump?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Name a viable Democratic candidate. We can't vote for a generic candidate. Seems to me that stepping forward to run for office is an essential quality of leadership.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
You are sounding like Mr Fanti - repeating the mantra "but nobody's stepped forward" and ignoring the counter-argument that they would if Biden stepped aside. Are you seriously saying that if Biden had a heart attack tomorrow there would be no viable alternative?
Here's some possibilities that were mentioned previously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
I've repeated the question because I haven't seen an answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
If it's so obvious any other candidate would do better, why is it so hard to identify one? Of course people would choose an imaginary ideal candidate over reality.
If Biden had a heart attack tomorrow, I'm not sure there would be a viable alternative, because no one has stepped forward.
Newsome has said repeatedly that he supports Biden and is not interested in running at this time. He's one of very few Democrats who has actually supported Biden unequivocally. And the simple fact that he is from California would alienate lots of swing voters.
I've heard of no presidential aspirations from Whitmer. I've never even heard of Murphy.
I think I was. But my post was about the contest between Biden and Trump. Of course I would prefer a generational change in the US, but it is not my country and it is up to the Americans to get a grip. It matters to the rest of us for all the usual international political and economic reasons, plus, though it is not my favourite country -Canada in that region wins all the contests- I don't want to see the US decline under a lunatic like Trump or his supporters, because I fear a degree of social conflict in the US becoming more common and violent.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
A deeper view concerns the fate of Liberal Democracy, a set of political views and arrangements that has created a political space for people that in so many other systems are closed off, banned, or become arenas of violence and hate. It is not perfect, and it has of course evolved since the days of Hobbes and Locke, but it is when compared to the alternatives that one sees the importance of having both stable government based on the rule of law, and civil society free to act without the interference of the State.
In these fraught times, and as a riposte to morons like Trump, but also New Wave Fascists like the late Roger Scruton (an Orban fan) I link the lecture Quentin Skinner gave in Stanford which offers an explanation of 'our' political heritage and why it matters so much. The lecture itself is just over an hour, and is typical of the kind of clear presentation Skinner is famous for, being one of four outstanding political philosopher from the UK (followed by Alan Ryan, John Gray and John Dunn).
A Genealogy of Liberty: A Lecture by Quentin Skinner - YouTube
I guess they'd have to prop him up like in Weekend at Bernies, then. According to your logic, the only alternatives would be Marianne Wilkinson and Dean Phillips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo
And your alternative seems to be anyone but Biden, which is incredibly naive. Biden got elected because he was essentially the ultimate compromise Democrat, and he pretty much remains that.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
This sums up the problem with Trump voters: a man who not only used the Office of President to enrich himself and his family through more visits to his own golf courses than any other President in history, and the 'Abraham Accords' which really were just Jared Kushner's business deal; and the mere idea he is out there for the 'people' when he has nothing but contempt for the American people and their political system.
If she can't see what is right in front of her, if she is prepared to simply ignore the facts, how can one persuade her or people like her to vote for a better person? The only consolation may be that she remains in a minority of Americans, but a minority that can affect election outcomes in swing states. Depressing.
"Tina Lorenz, who said she had supported Donald Trump since 2016, was among those who voted for the former president on Tuesday.“He is representing the American people. He is not out for himself. He’s not out for political gain. He’s not out for financial reasons. He doesn’t need money, he doesn’t need fame and fortune. He already has all of that,” Lorenz, 63, said.
“He is out there for the average person. And that’s what’s happening, we’ve become so polarized, that there’s nobody out there for just regular people.”"
Trump takes aim at Haley in combative New Hampshire primary victory speech | Donald Trump | The Guardian