How can Trump win? It’s simple. It’s all about Pennsylvania.
He can easily win back GA and AZ. It was practically a fluke that they went blue last time around. If he gets PA too, that’s game over. He wins the electoral college.
Let’s test that out. We’ll have the Harris side try really, really hard, and have the Trump side not bother trying at all.
And, he has a success record slightly better than a coin toss. Swiftboating worked, somewhat, because Kerry was the top of the ticket, his military cred was being touted (as opposed to W, who was just a brat), and they had months to plan it and roll it out.
I am not really seeing the Democrats making a huge issue of touting Walz’ military record, other than that he served for two and a half decades. There is really not much for the Rs to grab onto there.
I think we can expect the Rs to attempt every avenue of attack they can gin up. Right now, though, it looks like the Ds’ plan is simply to mock the Rs and laugh at their puny efforts. Which, yes, could backfire (everybody loves an underdog). But, if they keep the mockery light-hearted and aim it specifically at the candidates, it will be hard for the Rs to counter.
Of course, Trump disagrees with me on campaigning backfiring. He may not campaign every day, but he will keep on doing it a lot.
I wonder if he realizes the DDOS attack on his Musk interview tonight was a gift.
Think of all the gaffes Trump won’t make if his ancient 757 continues to be unreliable (old airliners are safe, so no need for morbid speculation).
I agree with what you are saying here and see the momentum is moving in favor of Harris/Walz. The convention is likely to keep it going and possibly help it pick up speed. Plus Trump will be sentenced shortly after and then the debates happen, which are not likely to help him. And he will likely continue to melt down mentally.
However, regarding LaCivita, the man is a clever, evil fuck. He also likely has Harlen Crow’s money backing his plans. His record may not be better than a coin toss but lightening can in fact strike twice.
As such I will remain optimistic about a Harris/Walz win but not cocky as some others seem to be at this point.
I remember the Swiftboat attacks, but I don’t remember any analysis that they were the reason (or a significant factor) for Kerry’s loss. I’m not saying they weren’t, but I don’t recall seeing data to that effect.
With Walz, the Right is going full steam attacking him for everything they can, and, to me at least, I don’t think they’ve landed any punches. What’s interesting is that in all the chatter about the Walz attacks, they seemed to have lost focus on Harris attacks.
I think this is where I finally got to, after the “There’s No Fking Way Trump Will Be The Republican Candidate” and then the “Whoops. Well Ok, There’s No Fking Way He Will Show Up To Debate Biden” threads.
So apologies for speed scrolling past the previous 450 posts, but I’m glad this one caught my eye. This is starting to bring back flashbacks of 2016.
Bingo.
“Say it louder, for those in the back”.
Really, though, '04 was a pretty ordinary election. '12, also, was rather run-of-the-mill. 2016, the rules changed drastically. 2020, the rules went out the window. And 2024 is a new thing that is different from the ones before it. Strategies that worked two decades ago are not very meaningful today.
All the people that told us to sit back and relax the last time Trump got elected, all the ones that told us it was in the bag-did any of them come back and apologize profusely? Did they say something that wasn’t a variation of “Yes, I told you ‘Don’t worry about it!’, but that had nothing whatsoever to do with what happened”?
Except… the paths to 270 are being analyzed ad infinitum by the statisticians… so it’s not an especially original or unexpected point. I can just as easily say, “If Harris wins Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, then that’s the election.” It’s also true.
Trump is not said to have a particularly easy path to 270 at this point. At the same time, no one would say he can’t win–yet.
Pretty much. They show a trend in Harris’ direction. If the trend stalls out exactly where it is now (2 to 3% ahead, on average, in states that matter), it will still be effectively a coin toss.
If (as is more likely) the trend keeps moving even just a little further along — if it doesn’t stall out until the average (not one poll, the average) in those three states is at 4% — then it isn’t a coin toss, I grant you. It’s a 70 to 80% chance of winning.
Which still means, 1 of every 4 rolls of the dice, LOSING. It happened in 2016.
I’m as giddy as anyone about how events are unfolding. I can’t stop smiling! I know we’d tired of hearing “let’s not get complacent.” I’m just trying to put that 9% in context. (And, I’d like to see 538 — or Nate Silver’s — rating for that polling outfit. Its name is new to me).
I’ve been reading Morris Ekstein’s Rites of Spring, about Europe in the early 20th Century. He has a description of how the Nazi Party took over Germany that frighteningly overlays all too perfectly how Trump formed a triumphant cult inside our country over the last decade.
Early on, to arouse a sense of belonging, of “community,” the party began to emphasize the importance, above everything else, of ritual and propaganda - the flags, the insignia, the uniforms, the pageantry, the standard greetings, the declaration of loyalty, and the endless repetitions of slogans. Nazism was a cult. The appeal was strictly to emotion. The assault was on the senses, primarily visual and aural. The spoken word took precedence over the written. …
The Nietzschean invocation to “live dangerously” became the sole commandment of Nazism. To live dangerously means, of course, consciously to court objection and resistance, to transgress against accepted social norms, to reject inherited morality. To live dangerously means never to accept the status quo; it means to act the adversary constantly; it means to exaggerate, to provoke. It means permanent conflict.
Ekstein’s book was published in 1989 - he couldn’t have known about Trump. Yet he’s writing as if he could see the future, see the 1930s repeating themselves. He tried to warn moderns of the perils of another cult forming and using the same tools and following the same patterns. We need to heed that warning. Never get complacent. This may be our last chance.
Update: according to 538 (feel free to compare with RealClearPolitics, Nate Cohn/NYT, or Silver Bulletin), the average for WI is now at 3.6%; for MI, also at 3.6%; and for PA, at 1.8%.
So, two out of the three states have almost reached that “cautiously optimistic” level…but we need all three to drag us out of “coin toss” country overall. Pennsylvania is the problem (at this time).
Yep, great quote. This is exactly why I have repeatedly said the psychology of Trumpism is almost exactly the same as Nazism in the early 1930s.
I would say a couple key differences, quantitative and qualitative, are as follows:
- I would say that the level of intensity with which Nazism was sold and then implemented, if compared to Trumpism, is about 10 to 1 in the absolute (not proportional to country size). Further, Nazism used an entirely new iconography and was sold as a revolutionary movement, whereas Trumpism coopts mostly traditional American iconography (the flag, “patriots,” etc.) and is sold as an update to traditional Americanism and Conservatism. In a word, Trumpism is amateur hour, comparatively.
- An even bigger difference is that whereas Hitler wanted to persecute specific internal enemies (the Jews primarily, followed by communists, etc.) but actually wanted to unite Germany around his rule, Trumpists want to maintain conflict non-MAGA forever while pursuing an isolationist foreign policy. Hitler was more interested in battling external enemies (Jews, Bolsheviks, Slavs) with the goal of taking territory (Lebensraum), whereas MAGA seems content just to fuck around and find out. Again, in terms of getting big, evil shit done, there is no real comparison.
If Trump were to win in 2024, he would do a lot more damage than in 2017-2021, but I don’t think he’d be successful in setting up an effective dictatorship. I think he’d face a home-grown revolution in short order.
I don’t personally buy the dice analogy (for either 2016 or 2024), but that is an epistemological (maybe even an ontological) issue, not a statistical one. (Unique events cannot be “rolled out” as in an analysis of backgammon moves.)
If you’re talking about the recent Bullfinch battleground state polls: Both 538 and Silver Bulletin have seen fit to include them in their models. 538 used to show their pollster ratings, but they stopped once Biden dropped out for some reason.
Oh dear, Dopers. Did you catch any of Trump’s interview with fascist fraud Elon tonight?
It sounded like two children, not especially smart ones, talking about things they didn’t understand.
But that’s not what’s the big deal about this. No. Trump was talking slushy mushy the whole time. Some are saying it sounded as though he had his dentures out (I’ve never heard anything about him wearing dentures). That’s the most charitable explanation.
So add “sounding weak” to “looking weak.” The flop sweat cycle keeps rolling.
And yet that very claim has been made several times in this thread.
I posted the quotes more as an explanation of the past - and the present - than as predictions of a possible future. I hate to think of Trump winning. You’re correct nevertheless that a dictatorship is virtually inconceivable.
A dictatorship, though, can be overthrown. Hitler’s Reich was overturned in 12 years. Just by using the existing system, the damage Trump could do to and through the court system alone might linger for decades. His actions would resemble a computer worm hopping from node to node; an infection so deep and insidious that a dozen sane administrations couldn’t eradicate them all.