President Trump

M Gaudino said:
he won the last election?
Click to expand...
No one wants him now due to age, right? So being centre of the road politically/policy-wise isn't enough.

There's no such thing as centre of the road right now anyhow.

There's no centre of the road between "will attempt to subvert democracy if we lose " vs. "won't subvert democracy".
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
I think your original post HAS already been answered so I don't see a need to go back to it. Maybe my answer didn't appeal but it's still the correct answer.

The reason the economy and immigration are "the two key issues" is because they are the two key issues with the 1/2 GOP who respond to such surveys, whereas Democrats have a wider variety of issues they care about -- including abortion, and the defen(c)se of democracy.

So add 50% of two issues and 50% of, say six issues, and we are going to get, nationally, a result that suggests the two most important things to voters are those two things. But not necessarily to Democrats.

The political strategist at my work doesn't understand the maths of this either, much to my frustration (I do a lot of survey work for a living), so don't worry that you don't.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the quick Maths lesson but if you reread my original post my comments about immigration and the economy being the main issues, related to Trump/Republican supporters and potentially swing voters. The former a point you agree is the main issue for the GOP supporters.

So it was not a case of misunderstanding any Maths, as the views of democrats was completely irrelevant to my point.

As I say I don’t claim to be an expert on this topic and I have not posted to ‘win’ an argument ‘score’ points just to share information as it was relevant in the context of ‘categorising’ groups of Trump Supporters.

My comments were paraphrasing the likes of Frank Luntz (the famous pollster and identifier of political trends/opinions) and Anthony Scaramucci (former White House communication director) who both think Kamala Harris has not made the argument on the economy/immigration strong enough to the electorate or specifically to voters who maybe are uncommitted/undecided.
 
Last edited:
franksinatra said:
Thank you for the quick Maths lesson but if you reread my original post my comments about immigration and the economy being the main issues, related to Trump/Republican supporters and potentially swing voters. The former a point you agree is the main issue for the GOP supporters.

So it was not a case of misunderstanding any Maths, as the views of democrats was completely irrelevant to my point.

As I say I don’t claim to be an expert on this topic and I have not posted to ‘win’ an argument ‘score’ points just to share information as it was relevant in the context of ‘categorising’ groups of Trump Supporters.

My comments were paraphrasing the likes of Frank Luntz (the famous pollster and identifier of political trends/opinions) and Anthony Scaramucci (former White House communication director) who both think Kamala Harris has not made the argument on the economy/immigration strong enough to the electorate or specifically to voters who maybe are uncommitted/undecided.
Click to expand...
Fair enough; I misunderstood. That said, the reason she hasn't made the case or whatever is because (a) there's no emotional case to make -- the facts are very clear (hence why she's focused on more hot-button specific issues like "housing"), and (b) the swing voters are a small number rendered irrelevant if her base turns out. For three-plus years I've said the same thing: turnout, turnout, turnout. If her and Trump's base both turn out, she wins, because blues outnumber reds. So her money and energy is better spent making her supporters more enthusiastic about HER than by trying to convince the already-skeptical that she has some special plan to soothe their fears about immigrants. This issue of inspiration to pull the lever was obviously a major problem with Biden.
 
franksinatra said:
Thank you for the quick Maths lesson but if you reread my original post my comments about immigration and the economy being the main issues, related to Trump/Republican supporters and potentially swing voters. The former a point you agree is the main issue for the GOP supporters.

So it was not a case of misunderstanding any Maths, as the views of democrats was completely irrelevant to my point.

As I say I don’t claim to be an expert on this topic and I have not posted to ‘win’ an argument ‘score’ points just to share information as it was relevant in the context of ‘categorising’ groups of Trump Supporters.

My comments were paraphrasing the likes of Frank Luntz (the famous pollster and identifier of political trends/opinions) and Anthony Scaramucci (former White House communication director) who both think Kamala Harris has not made the argument on the economy/immigration strong enough to the electorate or specifically to voters who maybe are uncommitted/undecided.
Click to expand...
If someone is going to vote for Trump on election day because "they believe Harris hasn't made a strong enough argument on the economy/immigration" it's highly likely those people were either already swaying towards Trump anyway, and/or are just too fucking stupid to realise the consequences the orange racist **** winning a second term.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Swing voters aren't necessarily undecided on Trump vs. Harris -- they're undecided on whether they are going to show up to the polls and actually vote. They may be "Never Harris, but I don't like Trump either" or "Never Trump, but I don't know Harris so well" so its about grassroots getting those people to get off their keisters and show up. For those who definitely plan to vote there are almost no undecided "swing" voters.
Click to expand...
I think this is 100% correct. One inherent danger being that a strong lead for Kamala in the polls may mean some voters don't think they 'need' to turn out.
 
M Gaudino said:
if either side could produce a middle of the road centre president im sure theyd get swing voters.

november will be about which side is the least mental.
Click to expand...
Harris is middle of the road. She’s still to the right of the Tories. Just because the GoP have tried to move the Overton window three miles to the right doesn’t mean the Dems have become more left wing.
 
M Gaudino said:
if either side could produce a middle of the road centre president im sure theyd get swing voters.

november will be about which side is the least mental.
Click to expand...
If it were simply about having the least mental candidate literally anyone would beat Trump by a country mile.
The problem is the 70 million people who are too dumb to realise that Trump is not only mentally unfit to run a country, he’d be too stupid to run a bath.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
If someone is going to vote for Trump on election day because "they believe Harris hasn't made a strong enough argument on the economy/immigration" it's highly likely those people were either already swaying towards Trump anyway, and/or are just too fucking stupid to realise the consequences the orange racist **** winning a second term.
Click to expand...

A lot of the data suggests it’s a bit more nuanced than that.

We have seen over here how the red wall has collapsed previously and voted for the Conservatives and how Labour, to again power, have to appeal to voters from the middle right ground.

There will be a hardcore of voters who will vote Trump regardless of what he does, how he behaves but I’m sure, just like over here, there are those without steadfast beliefs who can be swayed by putting the right arguments together and appealing to their concerns.

The New York Times wrote an article on the swing voters, highlighting that many consider themselves moderates, many despise Trump, but are still open to voting for him, and many of these voters don’t think they really ‘know’ Harris or what her vision is.

The leading pollsters suggest who wins the election will come down to 150,000 votes across the swing states, to dismiss those swing voters, as not able to be influenced, could be costly.
 
Last edited:
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Fair enough; I misunderstood. That said, the reason she hasn't made the case or whatever is because (a) there's no emotional case to make -- the facts are very clear (hence why she's focused on more hot-button specific issues like "housing"), and (b) the swing voters are a small number rendered irrelevant if her base turns out. For three-plus years I've said the same thing: turnout, turnout, turnout. If her and Trump's base both turn out, she wins, because blues outnumber reds. So her money and energy is better spent making her supporters more enthusiastic about HER than by trying to convince the already-skeptical that she has some special plan to soothe their fears about immigrants. This issue of inspiration to pull the lever was obviously a major problem with Biden.
Click to expand...

Yes thanks again for your post. Like I say I am not an expert on this topic so happy to read, learn and for the things I’ve read to be challenged.
 
Trump's statement on Ukraine yesterday confirmed what we already knew. Basically, If Trump wins - Ukraine is finished - probably NATO too as Moldiva and the Baltics won't be defended against Putin either.
How any of my ex US military friends, most with with some level of traditional Republican leaning could vote for this aresehole is simply beyond me.
 
BlueAnorak said:
Trump's statement on Ukraine yesterday confirmed what we already knew. Basically, If Trump wins - Ukraine is finished - probably NATO too as Moldiva and the Baltics won't be defended against Putin either.
How any of my ex US military friends, most with with some level of traditional Republican leaning could vote for this aresehole is simply beyond me.
Click to expand...
And if anyone thinks it’s just rhetoric from him and he wouldn’t do what he says on Ukraine, you only need to look at Afghanistan where he effectively surrendered to the Taliban by releasing thousands of terrorists then withdrew support for the Afghan government leaving Biden with an impossible situation that was unrecoverable without restarting a major war.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
It definitely had an impact, but we'll never know for sure why Comey did what he did, and who told him to do it. Voter apathy certainly help her.
Click to expand...
It probably nudged the needle by a point or two but in reality Hilary should never have been that close. When you look back her campaign was very much in cruise control and they took far too much for granted. They massively underestimated how disliked the Clinton brand was outside of the Washington bubble. And they massively underestimated how much Trump was controlling the news cycle and drowning her out. You look now how carefully the Harris team act in ensuring they don't appear to be part of the Washington elite. The Walz pick is what Hillary didn't have, he brings that normal person vibe. And JD is a massive own goal on appealing to normal people.
BlueAnorak said:
Trump's statement on Ukraine yesterday confirmed what we already knew. Basically, If Trump wins - Ukraine is finished - probably NATO too as Moldiva and the Baltics won't be defended against Putin either.
How any of my ex US military friends, most with with some level of traditional Republican leaning could vote for this aresehole is simply beyond me.
Click to expand...
Trump appeals to dumb ass rural voters who often don't vote and hopes that the traditional white collar gop vote will hold their nose. That was the coalition that won in 2016. His problems this time appear to be with those white collar gop voters.
 
Gareth Barry Conlon said:
It probably nudged the needle by a point or two but in reality Hilary should never have been that close. When you look back her campaign was very much in cruise control and they took far too much for granted. They massively underestimated how disliked the Clinton brand was outside of the Washington bubble. And they massively underestimated how much Trump was controlling the news cycle and drowning her out. You look now how carefully the Harris team act in ensuring they don't appear to be part of the Washington elite. The Walz pick is what Hillary didn't have, he brings that normal person vibe. And JD is a massive own goal on appealing to normal people.

Trump appeals to dumb ass rural voters who often don't vote and hopes that the traditional white collar gop vote will hold their nose. That was the coalition that won in 2016. His problems this time appear to be with those white collar gop voters.
Click to expand...
In 2016, Trump was a relatively blank canvas when it came to most voters, and 'Drain the Swamp' was a very effective campaign slogan with voters who were fed up or apathetic towards the Washington elites. Many of the relatively sane voters who took a punto on him first time round don't seem to be falling for that rhetoric this time around, because they now know that 'Drain the Swamp' means 'get rid of anyone who won't kiss the ring and replace them with one of his hand-picked, underqualified lackeys (how Lewis DeJoy ended up as head of the USPS, I'll never know).

The real issue this time are the cult members who will seeming do anything to put Trump back in the chair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top