How can Donald Trump win at this point?

Politics & Elections
,
2562

I’ve seen this point a few times before, and I just don’t get it. 1% of a large population is a lot of people, to be sure. But you’re starting with a lot of people! IOW, 1% is 1%. It’s as daunting or easy as 1% is. If I’m trying to turn 1% of 500,000 people or 10,000,000 people, it’s…1 out of every 100 people.

It’s tougher to establish the infrastructure to reach a large, far flung population than otherwise. But that’s the infrastructure they have in place. If 1% is an unobtainable flip, it’s not because you’re starting with lots of people, right?

2563

It’s about how many additional voters you need to turn out. The vast majority of voters on both sides are already in the bag. You (mostly) don’t need to worry about them. The election in swing states is won or lost by how many of “your” voters who otherwise wouldn’t have voted you can motivate to the polls. And each additional voter has a per-unit real and opportunity cost.

2564

I think flurb answered this well in their previous two posts. When you’re trying to squeeze out blood from a stone — those last few voters who can put you over the top in a close race — “infrastructure” is less important than time and money (and if these, TIME is the more important). The raw numbers (hundreds? Thousands?) are more important than percentages.

Just this morning, my county Democrats office handed me a clipboard and put me in charge of knocking on 25 doors (here in Wisconsin). It doesn’t matter if the Dem headquarters is a tiny shack or a grand palace, nor if they have one clipboard or a million (your “infrastructure”)… I only have time to do 25 doors this morning, and then I have to get back to my own life. That won’t change no matter what state I live in — but if I live in a state where 1% means “ten thousand votes,” my effort could make the difference …

….but if I live in a state where 1% means “a hundred thousand votes,” my same effort is less likely to matter.

2565

The polls are said to have been off in 2020, during which cycle Trump performed better than the polls. So, in general, the polls have been reweighted by the pollsters so as not to make the same mistake. Which leads to the theory that Trump might underperform the polls this year. He did underperform by significant amounts in some of his primary races earlier in the year.

But I am not relying on this possibility for my optimism at this point. The Dems have a much, much better turnout machine in place and a lot more money. We know that there are a lot of new voter registrations that favor us, and Harris polls better in terms of enthusiasm among Dems than Trump does among the Pubs. So I am expecting more races to break our way than not.

2566

You could literally say this to any pundit or commenter about anything they opine about the election. It doesn’t really make sense.

Well, here you are right. I have to give the fascists credit for tenacity, but that’s exactly how Hitler was able to take power in 1933–ten years after his failed Beer Hall Putsch.

I don’t think my OP was completely wrong, however–more just the scale of things. Trump has been his own worst enemy this election and has failed gain new voters while triggering the endorsements of Republicans for Harris, etc. OTOH, the nazis he already had have stuck by him no matter what. Such is America in 2024.

2567

That’s the only non-deluded response any of us can have.

2568

I know, but I’m not telling.

2569

(cued to a five-second relevant joke)

2570

I found a link supporting this, but I wonder if there is some cherry-picking going on. Sure, right after the nominee changes from an unpopular one to a popular one, you are going to see some registration by people who like the new nominee. Also, some of that link is about women registering more than men, but what matters is their party, not their gender or race. To (yes, I know this next phrase is rightly mocked in some contexts) do my own research, I looked here:

Pennsylvania Party Registration Totals and Changes, Jan. Through Sept. 2024

The party changes look quite bad for Democrats – both year to date, and last week alone. For the week ending September 30, 2024, 2,803 voters changed from Democratic to Republican, and only.1,301 went from Republican to Democratic. Year to date, 54,308 went from Democratic to Republican, and only 21,995 went from Republican to Democratic.

What about new registrations? I do not see that by itself, but total Pennsylvania registered voter numbers, as of June 24, 2024, (before nominee switch) can be seen here:

Internet Archive Backup.

Using my last two links, I find:

June 24, 2024

Democratic registered voters - 3,893,339
Republican registered voters - 3,517,502
Democratic registration advantage - 375,837

September 30, 2024

Democratic registered voters - 3,941,347
Republican registered voters - 3,608,032
Democratic registration advantage - 333,315

So – not a total disaster for Democrats, but Pennsylvania data suggests that any Harris enthusiasm registration bump was brief and relatively minimal.

Other states? Not sure. I can find newspaper articles proving whatever I want :frowning:

2571

Luke beesley, who basically launched his career by interviewing people at trump rallies (basically a younger klepper), took to the streets again recently and the mash up of his interviews is so depressing.

The relevance to the OP is that, when it comes to trump’s base, there is no way you can persuade them. No facts will ever do it, playing recordings of trump won’t do it.

2572

To be fair, that’s true of either base. That’s why they are the base. If you could change their vote they would be much less basey.

2573

No that’s not true of either base.
I’m a progressive, but show me facts that tell me I’m wrong on something, I change my opinion. And certainly if you can show me someone I support is a crook and a liar, then they lose my support.

Being in a voting base does not mean “vote for that person no matter what”.

2574

Indeed so. The traditional political bases were centered on issues to a much greater extent. Still are, at least among Democrats. Individual politicians can (and have) lost considerable support due to personal issues. People support them more for the political platform than the individual. There’s no shortage of examples across parties - Richard Nixon, John Edwards, Al Franken, etc, to name a few.

What we’re seeing in MAGA is a prospective demagogue - somebody whose base centers around an individual rather than any coherent political stances. Personal issues don’t matter to that base nearly to the same degree because they’re really there for the person more than the political platform.

2575

There are people who will vote R or D no matter what. Some in my family. Some I’m sure in yours. You are fooling yourself if you think that everyone on your side are noble and informed. That’s throwing out human nature. The base is the base because it’s nearly impossible to move them. It’s right there in the name.

2576

My thought about it not being a huge surprise if it flips is NOT to spend money on it. Neither side is spending much there and exactly right, it is an expensive state. One could argue that with a huge amount of money more than team Trump it might be worth it, but I’m not.

My thought is just that it is close enough that with abortion and pot being on the ballot turnout may favor a D surprise. Especially if the systemic error goes D ward this time, which it might. And there is a GOTV associated with those initiatives I believe.

2577

I’m still not getting it, so it must be me. In a state where 1% means 100,000 votes, your effort will likely be matched by a bunch of other people unavailable in a smaller population. There are more voters, more volunteers, more dollars, more everything. And 1% is 1%, whether it’s to flip voters or encourage participation.

Sorry if I’m being dense. But the dismissal of larger populations as do-able compared to smaller ones always sounds to me like getting 100,000 people in a room and convincing every single one to behave a certain way. No, it’s like getting 10,000,000 people in a room and convincing one out of every hundred. You still only have to convince 1%, same as if it was 10,000 or 1,000.

2578

This is some of the worst “both sides”-ing I’ve seen in recent months and that’s saying a lot.
You think at a Harris rally you’d be able to find people handwaving a litany of crimes that Harris has committed as all conspiracies? (It doesn’t even get to that point of course on the left wing; people get booted for very small infractions) And that all the economic, crime data etc are all conspiracies too?

As mad as politics in the UK can get, we’re still in a shared reality on most data. MAGA is not normal politics.

2579

Texas is not in play, Harris is behind 6%. What is exciting is that it is ONLY 6%.

But Florida clearly is, not just due to trumps teeny 2% lead, due to the fact abortion and pot are on the ballot.

Yep.

2580

There are not necessarily more of these things available, at least not as a proportion of the state’s population. The Harris campaign is a nationwide organization, raising and spending money and deploying staff and resources centrally from campaign HQ. Any dollar that goes to one state is a dollar that isn’t going to another. As a Texan, I can tell you that for years now national Democrats’ practice has been to use Texas as a piggybank – raise millions of dollars at lavish Houston and Dallas fundraisers to send to other, more competitive states. (Republicans do the same thing with New York and California.)

Of course, each state has its own party organization with it’s own donors, volunteers, etc. The Florida Democratic Pary has been notably decimated in recent years, losing every statewide office. The problem with losing is that it tends to compound itself – volunteers get dispirited and stay home, donors don’t see any point in throwing away their money on a losing cause.

Maybe! I’m certainly not saying that Florida couldn’t flip. I’m doubtful that organizing around the initiatives alone would be sufficient to reverse Trump’s three-and-a-half point win from 2020, but it would be great if it did. I’d be even more thrilled of Senator Rick Scott could get turned out.

2581

Oh, I get it. These are the people who would have been wearing brown shirts in Deutchland in the early 30s and doing worse thereafter.