American Election 2024
- Thread starter Sbooker
- Start date
“Synthetic and manipulated” media is a huge concern of mine. I would rather forego the benefits of AI than risk the ramifications of it being used as a weapon against truth.I could have added this to my edit of my post last evening, but think the first part is important enough to stand alone.
From https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-edited-version-of-kamala-harris-campaign-ad/
"Elon Musk, a master of the memes, is planting his flag in deepfake territory—and risking backlash at a fraught political moment.
Musk, Tesla’s billionaire chief executive, on Friday shared on X an edited version of a campaign video for Vice President Kamala Harris purporting to be a parody. By doing so, he potentially breached his own social-media platform’s policy against sharing synthetic and manipulated media."
Since one of our administrators posted clips from questionable sources about Musk's being "tricked" into allowing his child to undergo transgender-related medical treatment when she was 16, I thought I should share her response to being "killed by the woke mind virus."
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(999x0:1001x2)/elon-musk-012924-tout-cb73d1e7fae447f0964cf6455c4af3d7.jpg)
Elon Musk’s Transgender Daughter Says He Was Not a Supportive Father, Present ‘Only 10% of the Time’
Elon Musk's transgender daughter, Vivian Jenna Wilson, is speaking about her father days after he said in an interview that she was "killed by the woke mind virus."people.com
ChrisC
Well-known member
They will need extra spray tan in Trumpland, because I assume the candidate is turning white with news like this:
$200M and 150k volunteers. A friend is/was part of Biden’s Core Finance team - I ask if he just counts money now versus beg?!
A Lead and a Favorability at 50% (Trump gets shot and has a well produced convention and cannot get near there. People just do not like him)
And even Mr Vance is having an Elegy about the Kamala candidacy
Kamala is unlocking the 2008 Obama Coalition.
$200M and 150k volunteers. A friend is/was part of Biden’s Core Finance team - I ask if he just counts money now versus beg?!
A Lead and a Favorability at 50% (Trump gets shot and has a well produced convention and cannot get near there. People just do not like him)
And even Mr Vance is having an Elegy about the Kamala candidacy
Kamala is unlocking the 2008 Obama Coalition.
Last edited:
Do I have it correct by saying most of those voters that favour Harris in the polls don’t really amount to much? It’s the small number in the 3 or 4 swing states that will determine the Presidency?
That's the optimistic view. One of Obama's taglines was the "Audacity of Hope." Ross Douthat's NY Times column over the weekend is titled "Kamala Harris and the Audacity of Desperation." Biden dropped out way too late for anyone else to be a viable option in terms of setting up campaign apparatus and raising enough money. The Democrats realize they need to make the best of the situation and have closed ranks and opened their wallets big time. Has Harris handled the situation well? Yes, so far, but there's a long way to go.
Obama was light on experience but had a lot of charisma and seemed more substantive. I don't see that in Harris, but ChrisC lives in SF and perhaps from closer examination over her career has a different view.
Yes. And the 2020 version of Biden was a much better fit for those Midwest swing states than Harris is. Harris has not gained as much in those states as she has in national polls. But she's still better than the 2024 version of Biden. I believe Harris will need to win the popular vote by at least 4% to win the Electoral College.
The modern era track record of incumbent vice presidents running for president is not great. Bush senior 1988 is the only winner in that scenario. Nixon 1960, Humphrey 1968 and Gore 2000 were all far more prominent and experienced than Harris and they all lost admittedly very close races.
Last edited:
jamesdeluxe
Administrator
An impressive reversal of fortune from ten days ago; however, I'm girding my loins in anticipation of the Dems snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
I'm always curious how non-Americans view our bonkers electoral college system, which may have been mildly appropriate 200+ years ago but now is decidedly undemocratic, resulting in certain votes being worth far more than others.
The effect of the Electoral College is far more complex than most people think. For any election if you rank the states by popular vote margin, the tipping point state is the one where if you assign all the states on either side of it to Democrats or Republicans (based upon popular vote being more D or R than the tipping point state), that state determines who gets the 270 electoral votes required to win.
So what jumps out here?
1) Since 1952 the bias toward either side is on average trivial. Before 2000 the last time popular vote winner was different from electoral college winner was 1888. So no one worried about this for a long time. "If it's not broke, why fix it."
2) Under the current system, if the election is close you only have to scrutinize or recount a a few states, notably Florida in 2000. There is less incentive for states dominated by one party to run up the margin of victory.
3) Note that the Electoral College was biased in favor of the Democrats during both of Obama's campaigns. So the current situation started with Trump. The 3.82% bias in 2020 is a big number and it could get worse with Harris instead of Biden.
4) The bias is thus not a simplistic large vs. small state situation. Between 2012 and 2016 California's votes became 8.7% more Democratic vs. US overall but so did Texas' votes by 8.5%. The point is that neither of those states changed its majority from one party to the other, but some of those medium sized Midwest states did. Key states becoming more Republican from 2012 to 2016: Iowa 13.4% (flip), Ohio 9.4% (flip), Michigan 7.9% (flip), Wisconsin 5.9% (flip), Pennsylvania 4.3% (flip).
5) The close states becoming more Democratic between 2012 and 2016: Arizona 7.3%, Georgia 4.5%. These states did not flip in 2016 but they did in 2020. The notable states that moved toward Obama between 2000 and 2008: Nevada 9.3%, Virginia 7.6%, Colorado 7.2%, North Carolina 6.4%
| Year | Tipping Point State | Electoral Votes | State Margin | National Margin | Elec. Coll. | Elec. Coll. | |
| Bias | ABS(bias) | ||||||
2020 | Wisconsin | 10 | 0.63% | 4.45% | -3.82% | 3.82% | |
2016 | Wisconsin | 10 | -0.76% | 2.10% | -2.86% | 2.86% | |
2012 | Colorado | 9 | 5.37% | 3.76% | 1.61% | 1.61% | |
2008 | Colorado | 9 | 8.95% | 7.27% | 1.68% | 1.68% | |
2004 | Ohio | 18 | -2.11% | -2.46% | 0.35% | 0.35% | |
2000 | Florida | 25 | -0.01% | 0.52% | -0.53% | 0.53% | |
1996 | Pennsylvania | 23 | 9.20% | 8.52% | 0.68% | 0.68% | |
1992 | Tennessee | 11 | 4.65% | 5.56% | -0.91% | 0.91% | |
1988 | Michigan | 20 | -7.90% | -7.73% | -0.17% | 0.17% | |
1984 | Michigan | 20 | -18.99% | -18.22% | -0.77% | 0.77% | |
1980 | Illinois | 26 | -7.93% | -9.74% | 1.81% | 1.81% | |
1976 | Wisconsin | 11 | 1.68% | 2.06% | -0.38% | 0.38% | |
1972 | Maine | 4 | -22.98% | -23.15% | 0.17% | 0.17% | |
1968 | Ohio | 26 | -2.28% | -0.70% | -1.58% | 1.58% | |
1964 | Washington | 9 | 24.59% | 22.58% | 2.01% | 2.01% | |
1960 | Missouri | 13 | 0.52% | 0.16% | 0.36% | 0.36% | |
1956 | Florida | 10 | -14.54% | -15.40% | 0.86% | 0.86% | |
1952 | Michigan | 20 | -11.47% | -10.85% | -0.62% | 0.62% | |
| since 1952 | -0.12% | 1.18% | |||||
| stdev since 1952 | 1.56% | 1.00% |
So what jumps out here?
1) Since 1952 the bias toward either side is on average trivial. Before 2000 the last time popular vote winner was different from electoral college winner was 1888. So no one worried about this for a long time. "If it's not broke, why fix it."
2) Under the current system, if the election is close you only have to scrutinize or recount a a few states, notably Florida in 2000. There is less incentive for states dominated by one party to run up the margin of victory.
3) Note that the Electoral College was biased in favor of the Democrats during both of Obama's campaigns. So the current situation started with Trump. The 3.82% bias in 2020 is a big number and it could get worse with Harris instead of Biden.
4) The bias is thus not a simplistic large vs. small state situation. Between 2012 and 2016 California's votes became 8.7% more Democratic vs. US overall but so did Texas' votes by 8.5%. The point is that neither of those states changed its majority from one party to the other, but some of those medium sized Midwest states did. Key states becoming more Republican from 2012 to 2016: Iowa 13.4% (flip), Ohio 9.4% (flip), Michigan 7.9% (flip), Wisconsin 5.9% (flip), Pennsylvania 4.3% (flip).
5) The close states becoming more Democratic between 2012 and 2016: Arizona 7.3%, Georgia 4.5%. These states did not flip in 2016 but they did in 2020. The notable states that moved toward Obama between 2000 and 2008: Nevada 9.3%, Virginia 7.6%, Colorado 7.2%, North Carolina 6.4%
Last edited:
The system was built to empower the minority. It was done that way specifically to empower rural voters, who'd never win anything via popular vote.
Three of the four 'parts' of the government favor the minority:
Senate, 2 per state regardless of population
President, the electoral college used to elect
Supreme Court, appointed by the president, in place by the EC.
One thing Trumpism has made clear, norms aren't enough. You're going to need specific laws, to force the branches of government to act as expected.
Three of the four 'parts' of the government favor the minority:
Senate, 2 per state regardless of population
President, the electoral college used to elect
Supreme Court, appointed by the president, in place by the EC.
One thing Trumpism has made clear, norms aren't enough. You're going to need specific laws, to force the branches of government to act as expected.
Tony that is something I'd really like to understand. Can you explain what the data is showing?
ShiftyRider
Member
FWIW 2016 was so close that Trump never would have won the Electoral College were it not for the Senate Majority Leader's strategy of refusing to act on Obama's Supreme Court pick. Maybe "there oughta be a law". (>0.00001% of voters chose Trump only cuz they wanted a Federalist Society justice)
And of course history has shown that Trump is too stupid to even come close to grasping this, as evidenced by his sabotaging GOP GOTV so both toss-up Georgia Senate seats were lost by his party on...(the truth is stranger than fiction)...Jan 5 2021.
There would not be a United States if the 1787 constitutional convention had not made compromises between small and large states.
This was the key concession to smaller states.
Disagree, as demonstrated above. If large states voted for one side by close margins and small states voted for the other side by large margins, the Electoral College would be a landslide in favor of the large states. You have to get into the weeds and look at which states are becoming more Democratic or more Republican over time and which of those are close enough to change which side gets the majority in each state. This process favored the Democrats some while Obama was running and has favored Republicans by much more during Trump's time.
Obviously disagree with the premise.
It's always problematic to ascribe an election result to one cause. But there is polling evidence that the status of the Supreme Court was more motivating to Republican than Democratic turnout in 2016. It's safe to say it will be the opposite this year.
Last edited:
Exactly.
I don't see the EC ever getting unwound. The minority would never agree.
Again, not a minority. It's a red vs. blue issue, and only since 2000, which was a case of "$#!& happens." The bias in 2016 and 2020 is a new issue, which is more serious, especially if it persists at its current high level.
There is a movement to end run the Electoral College via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It's stalled out now but look for Texas and Florida to ratify the first time a Republican wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college, as could have happened in 2012.
Last edited:
I thought it strange when we had something similar in our state government here in Queensland when I was a kid.
Bjelkemander - Wikipedia
Edit. I take that back. I’ve just read Tony’s posts above. I don’t have enough of a grasp on the system to have an informed opinion.
Last edited:
Some US states had that type of situation until a 1964 Supreme Court ruling.
jimk
Active member
I too thought the electoral college was set up to help empower smaller states (population-wise) so that the votes from states with large urban populations did not always dominate US election results. The founders thinking being that always having the issues and preferences of urbanites win over rural folks might not be best for the Union as a whole. But Tony's savvy comments seem to indicate more subtle effects.
Getting on a soap box for a second about American politics: I kind of believe in the old adage everything in moderation, including politics, but perhaps excepting skiing
.
In my career as a US Government Civil Servant we had legal restrictions on certain overt partisan political activity and conflicts of interest. We were discouraged from too much activism because of the idea that we were employed to serve all administrations, regardless of party, in a diligent and fair way. Same for our treatment of the public. The LAW was supposed to govern the decisions and rulings we made, not politics.
With this in my background I try not to get too excited about which way the political winds blow in America. We have a lot of checks and balances in our government that create inefficiencies, but more importantly tend to mitigate craziness. They weaken potential despots like Trump, and throttle impulsive and possibly reckless moves like the recent changes to the Supreme Court proposed by Biden.
Additionally, the emergence over the last 25 years of social media, universal internet connectivity, instant and 24/7 news channels, hyper-political talk radio, etc. has amped up the polarization of opinions/beliefs in our country. We have a super alarmist press. Sensational stuff sells papers and garners clicks.
I read the Wash Post for better or worse on a daily basis. It's very liberal. Even before the June 27 debate and the July 13 assassination attempt the Post published constant articles full of angst about the Republicans possibly defeating the Democrats in November. The Post's columnists put out one inciteful piece after the other about how a Trump victory meant the end of democracy. Obviously, there's a very fine line between reporting the facts and responsible balanced perspective. I can't help but put partial blame on the media for what happened in Butler, PA.
Getting on a soap box for a second about American politics: I kind of believe in the old adage everything in moderation, including politics, but perhaps excepting skiing
. In my career as a US Government Civil Servant we had legal restrictions on certain overt partisan political activity and conflicts of interest. We were discouraged from too much activism because of the idea that we were employed to serve all administrations, regardless of party, in a diligent and fair way. Same for our treatment of the public. The LAW was supposed to govern the decisions and rulings we made, not politics.
With this in my background I try not to get too excited about which way the political winds blow in America. We have a lot of checks and balances in our government that create inefficiencies, but more importantly tend to mitigate craziness. They weaken potential despots like Trump, and throttle impulsive and possibly reckless moves like the recent changes to the Supreme Court proposed by Biden.
Additionally, the emergence over the last 25 years of social media, universal internet connectivity, instant and 24/7 news channels, hyper-political talk radio, etc. has amped up the polarization of opinions/beliefs in our country. We have a super alarmist press. Sensational stuff sells papers and garners clicks.
I read the Wash Post for better or worse on a daily basis. It's very liberal. Even before the June 27 debate and the July 13 assassination attempt the Post published constant articles full of angst about the Republicans possibly defeating the Democrats in November. The Post's columnists put out one inciteful piece after the other about how a Trump victory meant the end of democracy. Obviously, there's a very fine line between reporting the facts and responsible balanced perspective. I can't help but put partial blame on the media for what happened in Butler, PA.
ShiftyRider
Member
Balanced perspective? Wow.
How about looking at the statements of the GOP after Jan 6? And their subsequent caving to Trump.
How about looking at Trump's inability to get along with the people HE CHOSE? Cabinet, VP, military, House Speaker, etc.
How about looking at the statements of the GOP after Jan 6? And their subsequent caving to Trump.
How about looking at Trump's inability to get along with the people HE CHOSE? Cabinet, VP, military, House Speaker, etc.
@jimk Nicely said.
I think it's commendable that we've got 4 pages in to a political thread without any argy bargy at all. I think the reason for that is the forum appears to be a well educated one.* Other forms of social media almost always descend into gutter commentary when politics are discussed.
*Nothing against those that don't have a formal after high school education as I'm one of them.
Edit. I was writing this while @ShiftyRider was posting.
I think it's commendable that we've got 4 pages in to a political thread without any argy bargy at all. I think the reason for that is the forum appears to be a well educated one.* Other forms of social media almost always descend into gutter commentary when politics are discussed.
*Nothing against those that don't have a formal after high school education as I'm one of them.
Edit. I was writing this while @ShiftyRider was posting.
You are aware that Trump views the Civil Service as the "Deep State," and wants to replace as much as possible of it with a patronage system based upon personal loyalty?
With regard to the mainstream media, I think Jimk's impression is accurate. I would guess that the current L.A. Times is more left wing than WaPo. This article by Nate Silver (who's no right winger) is the best analysis I've seen of the US media landscape: https://www.natesilver.net/p/twitter-elon-and-the-indigo-blob
Last edited:
It's a small group with opinion distribution that fits comfortably within Nate Silver's Indigo Blob. It might be a bit livelier with former admin's participation.
