It would not be possible for him to win in '24 unless a good amount of people who voted for him in '16 and then turned on him in '20 came back around. There would not be enough new voters in 8 years to counter balanced that.
Why does this seem to rub you the wrong way?
Chris Hayes, now an anchor on MSNBC, spent some time talking to undecided voters in your fair state in 2004. One of his takeaways was that many of them just had no concept of “issues” at all.
The site’s security certificate is expired, but the article is here.
Undecided voters don’t think in terms of issues. Perhaps the greatest myth about undecided voters is that they are undecided because of the “issues.” That is, while they might favor Kerry on the economy, they favor Bush on terrorism; or while they are anti-gay marriage, they also support social welfare programs. Occasionally I did encounter undecided voters who were genuinely cross-pressured–a couple who was fiercely pro-life, antiwar, and pro-environment for example–but such cases were exceedingly rare. More often than not, when I asked undecided voters what issues they would pay attention to as they made up their minds I was met with a blank stare, as if I’d just asked them to name their favorite prime number.
What? I’m asking you for evidence for your claim.
This is an incredibly important (though disheartening) observation.
I read the article you cited, to see if Chris Hayes offered any recommendations. He says this:
As far as I can tell, this leaves Democrats with two options: either abandon “issues” as the linchpin of political campaigns and adopt the language of values, morals, and character as many have suggested; or begin the long-term and arduous task of rebuilding a popular, accessible political vocabulary–of convincing undecided voters to believe once again in the importance of issues. The former strategy could help the Democrats stop the bleeding in time for 2008. But the latter strategy might be necessary for the Democrats to become a majority party again.
Here’s the explanation:
There was a popular phrase used by pundits back in the days of the GW Bush.-Kerry election.:
“which candidate would you feel more comfortable sharing a beer with?”.
Bush won that question easily, because he was folksy and Kerry seemed more stiff and standoff-ish.
Believe it or not, we Dopers and msnbc’s Chris Hayes are not representative of the average voter. And the attitude of shock that “oh my god!!! How can it be that some people don’t think about the issues!!!” shows how elites and academics can be totally wrong, and out of touch with reality.
The reality is that LOTS of people just don’t care. They vote based on a gut level feeling of “Do I like this guy? Would I drink a beer with him?”
On that level, Trump wins their vote.He’s a famous and familiar celebrity.He performs well on stage, looking strong, with broad shoulders, and exhuding confidence. You vote for him without listening to him.
Biden, on the other hand, looks gaunt and unimpressive.You have to listen carefully to his ideas, and think, to make a reasoned, logical decision to vote for him.
Thinking is hard work.
Trump will win in November.
I’m sorry, what? You don’t think the Democratic party has put its fundraising machine, its signature gathering abilities, canvassing, and calling, and so on, behind Joe Biden to get him on the ballot, provide local support, etc.?
The people complaining about a repeat of Trump vs. Biden should be looking squarely at the Republican voters, not the Democratic voters. As I said above, Biden is a totally normal, if older, incumbant, with good wins to run on. Why would the Democratic party or Dem primary voters look at anyone else?
Trump has been a mess of a president, and has hurt the party in many elections since he’s been out of office. If voters are looking for a new option, it would be on the Republican side, not the Democratic side.
If you slightly rephrase this to which of these two would I like to pick up at the airport in my taxi, I’m not in doubt. Biden would probably be polite, nice to speak to and would tip well. Trump would be smelly, rude and would cheat on the bill if he could.
Also, ironically, neither Trump nor W Bush drink beer (or any alcohol). I guess I’d rather have a beer with someone who drinks beer.
Between Gore and Kerry, there wasn’t a single Democratic presidential ticket from 1992 to 2004 where one of the candidates wasn’t popularly derided as “stiff.” Biden deserves some credit for helping finally break that 16-year curse.
Biden is sober as well.
Also, I’d rather have a beer with someone who will split the tab fairly (Biden), rather than the guy who will order a bunch of food and shit and then skip out on the bill at the end of the night (Trump)
Everybody who voted for Trump in 2016 could have voted for him in 2020 and he could have still lost. Trump got more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016. He did not necessarily lose because people turned on him.
If you were in a socioeconomic position where you were a regular attendee at Davos, you might.
(It’s my sense that Davos attendees tend to occupy a rather rarefied economic level. I welcome correction on that.)
Every president above the line had two terms and everyone below the line was a one-term president
Very rudimentary approach, but not looking great for Biden
I think Davos attendees can be fairly characterized as occupying privileged positions of economic or political power. But unless they’re crazy dictators like Putin or Milei or clinically insane like Musk, I would think that a healthy America and a stable world order would be at least as important to them as to the rest of us, if not more so. Trump himself of course is too stupid and self-serving to know or care.
Fair enough. Just so you remember that a vote is a chess move, not a valentine, you should be okay.
I am sure you are familiar with the tactic called Gish Gallop: It is so much easier to lie than to debunk a lie, and when you have spent ten times the energy it took to set up a lie debunking it, they just repeat it again and you have to start anew, it gets frustrating. And it is so difficult to debunk a lie the other part wants to believe, because it fits so well in their worldview ( → prejudices).
So yes, absolutely, by all means, we can do better pointing out where and when misinformation happens. But it is tedious, exhausting, demoralizing, frustrating… and too often fruitless. It is like, idk, fighting evil with goodness, or going high when they go low. It seems like an unfair fight, righteous as it may feel. Your chance of losing is 90%. Which reflects the chance I gave Trump to win upthread if he is still alive in 11 months.
On that note-
Trump misleadingly claimed that “they accept Democrats to vote” in New Hampshire’s Republican primary. Only people registered as Republican or undeclared can vote in the primary, and the deadline for Democrats to switch their party affiliation was Oct. 6.
Trump falsely suggested that he won both general elections in New Hampshire in 2016 and 2020. He lost both races.*
He falsely claimed that former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley “doesn’t win” in general election polls against President Joe Biden. In 17 polls over the last three months, Haley topped Biden in eight polls and fared better against Biden than Trump in seven of them.*
Trump claimed Democrats “want to raise your taxes times four,” but neither Biden nor Democratic leaders in Congress have supported such an idea. The Tax Policy Center said Biden’s 2024 budget would, on average, increase after-tax incomes for low-income households and “leave them effectively unchanged for middle-income households.”
Trump also repeated false claims about illegal immigration and the 2020 election that we’ve addressed many times before.
If it is true, and I agree it sometimes is, I think several things may explain people voting for Trump, against Trump, then for Trump again.
They prefer voting against incumbents because they did not personally benefit from their actions.
They blamed Trump for January 6 but have now decided he is less blameworthy. Or they have come to believe Trump has been unfairly treated by the media or courts.
They blame Biden for inflation or do not like some of his policies. Or they now dislike him more than Trump for whatever reason.
More of their news is filtered through peers, bubbles or unobjectionable sources than it was four or five years ago.
They objected to Trump for specific reasons that have now faded or become less important than other issues they value, such as Covid, identity politics, immigration policy or social conservatism.
Even though….
That’s because MAGA is a cult that blames Navarro’s conviction on “the Deep State”. It’s why Trump has around a 40% chance of winning in November, a frightening prospect, and the result of a combination of MAGAts and ignoramuses who will vote for any “R” because they feel it will make them richer – and in the process, inflict suffering on those they hate (win-win!).
The offsetting factor is the combination of “D” voters plus those who won’t vote for a deranged aspiring dictator who will be even less likely to leave office after 2028 than he was in 2020.
