2024 Presidential Election -- new thread for the final week

What will be the outcome of the 2024 Presidential Election


  • Total voters
    86
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
FWIW -
Yeah, I was referring to national level candidates. State and local politics are entirely different animals. There are countless examples of local/state GOP candidates in blue states running ahead of Trump.
Except that NC isn't a blue state, it's a Red state. Going blue only once since 1980 (Obama in '08)
 
Don't we have about 35% of people not belonging to the red/blue teams?
Nominally yes. But that 35% includes a mix of truly independents, nominally independents who consistently vote for one party, third-party folks, and strategic independents (like those who do so to be allowed voting flexibility in the primaries). And in NV, young people who got labeled as independents because of the state's new automatic registration policy (which registers all new ID as independent unless they specify).
 
Don't we have about 35% of people not belonging to the red/blue teams?
Just because they don't wear the jersey, doesn't mean that aren't cheering for that team. I'm "unaffiliated" but I look at it like college sports. I like one party that is in the clear minority and never gets the attention it deserves (NC State/Libertarian) and as for the two the hog all the attention I really really dislike one party (UNC) and tolerate the other one but am often disappointed by them because they just aren't likeable (Duke)
 
FWIW -

Except that NC isn't a blue state, it's a Red state. Going blue only once since 1980 (Obama in '08)
I didn't say NC was a blue state. I was talking about other states (like Vermont and Massachusetts, which frequently elect GOP candidates for local/state office).

NC is an example in the other direction: a purplish/red state that often elects Dems in local/state elections.
 
FWIW -

Except that NC isn't a blue state, it's a Red state. Going blue only once since 1980 (Obama in '08)
It's a blue state when it comes to electing a governor. The state went around 100 years before electing a Republican governor at one point.
 
It's a blue state when it comes to electing a governor. The state went around 100 years before electing a Republican governor at one point.
170 seats in the NC Legislature...there was one year where there were SIX (6) Republicans in the NC House and Senate and a few years where Democrats swept the US House with zero Republicans winning at all.

The nationalization of local politics has really messed things up and been a detriment to bipartisanship and political diversity in each party.
 
170 seats in the NC Legislature...there was one year where there were SIX (6) Republicans in the NC House and Senate and a few years where Democrats swept the US House with zero Republicans winning at all.

The nationalization of local politics has really messed things up and been a detriment to bipartisanship and political diversity in each party.
That says a LOT more about the gerrymandering of our state than about any political trends in our state.

We are the poster child for really terrible lines.
 
Just stumbled across Chris Matthews giving his impressions to the MSNBC crew yesterday. He's specifically talking about Pennsylvania, but he could just as easily been talking about the South in general. I know what he says is exactly what I've been hearing from many folk who voted for Trump despite hating him.


Whether you like or don't like what he's saying, I believe it's impossible to deny the reality of it at this point.
 
That says a LOT more about the gerrymandering of our state than about any political trends in our state.

We are the poster child for really terrible lines.
This was in the '50s and '60s, so different times. A lot of Democrats in NC were far more conservative than Republicans in California and up north. If you wanted to be in politics you had to be a democrat, it didn't matter if you were conservative you just ran as a conservative Democrat. Can't do that now.
 
I like Bernie ok but he’s separating himself from reality here. We say the Dems have messaging issues and here he is undermining them. Which party has pushed for the child tax credit? Which party has established worker protections? Which party has strengthened labor unions? Which party has openly opposed right to work laws? Which party has overseen an increase in manufacturing jobs over the last 4 years?

Meanwhile, here is the list of unfulfilled plans from Trump’s first term. This is what the working class voted back in.

View attachment 18603

Not sure I understand the complaint about undermining the democrat's messaging now that the election is over (Sanders was very locked in with the Democrat's during the campaign). Identifying a reason for a loss and using that as a rally point for future organizing is appropriate in the wake of a defeat, and certainly more productive than the "Harris ran a perfect campaign" solipsism that is abundant on TV and online.

I agree Bernie overstates the case against the Dems (particularly under Biden), and the GOP's record for working people speaks for itself. But it's also true that Harris retreated from an economic populist message early on in her campaign. Per an Atlantic piece today that was on the advice of her brother-in-law, Uber general counsel Tony West (who, incidentally, was also the architect of the recent ballot initiative in California that compelled gig workers to be classified as independent contractors and not employees). That's when you start seeing Mark Cuban, a literal billionaire, acting as a prominent campaign surrogate. Her being cagey about the fate of Lina Khan in a Harris admin was also not helpful on that front, nor was her public disavowal of single payer, nor was the overall campaign strategy of courting suburban professionals and disaffected Republicans. IMO the overall approach prevented her and Walz from effectively conveying the economic message.

To the extent the critique is: "Democrats need to be more consistent with signaling their support for working people and then delivering the goods if they want to win back the voters they've lost," I think it's correct. I am skeptical that shift is possible given the institutional commitments of the Democratic Party.
 
I didn't say NC was a blue state. I was talking about other states (like Vermont and Massachusetts, which frequently elect GOP candidates for local/state office).

NC is an example in the other direction: a purplish/red state that often elects Dems in local/state elections.
Maryland is another example. Hogan was a pretty popular Republican governor. But when he decided to go national and run for senate, he lost. Though there is a lot more nuance to that they I am providing, including the fact that he is a Seminole and lost to a Duke alum.

New Jersey used to do the same thing often. Tom Kean was a very moderate Republican governor in the 80s (New Jersey and You, Perfect Together - those were great ads!). Now his son is in the house and has gone full MAGA. NJ also had Whitman and Christie as Republican governors. The campaigning has already started for next year's governor race - lots of big names lining up.
 
This was in the '50s and '60s, so different times. A lot of Democrats in NC were far more conservative than Republicans in California and up north. If you wanted to be in politics you had to be a democrat, it didn't matter if you were conservative you just ran as a conservative Democrat. Can't do that now.
Oh apologies. I didn't realize we were in the WayBack Machine.

I don't have much knowledge of that era of NC state politics, though I should. I'm familiar with Yellow Dog Democrats, and I think that's where my civics class left it.
 
Just stumbled across Chris Matthews giving his impressions to the MSNBC crew yesterday. He's specifically talking about Pennsylvania, but he could just as easily been talking about the South in general. I know what he says is exactly what I've been hearing from many folk who voted for Trump despite hating him.


Whether you like or don't like what he's saying, I believe it's impossible to deny the reality of it at this point.
Its simple as this, the ruling party over the current national crisis is more likely than not to lose the next election. You can point out all sorts of facts and details on why this person or that person is unqualified or a bad choice. If none of those details have any direct adverse effect on voters, they do not care. This is a "me first" country. What have you done for me lately? Aww, sucks about whatever problem that is, but what about me? This how this country votes. Me first.
 
Oh apologies. I didn't realize we were in the WayBack Machine.

I don't have much knowledge of that era of NC state politics, though I should. I'm familiar with Yellow Dog Democrats, and I think that's where my civics class left it.
It was all based on Civil War era politics. Being a Republican in the South - for about 100 years - was not an option. For obvious reasons. Across most/all of the Southern states.

The Civil Rights movement marked the beginning of the switch. It took a bit for the parties to eventually swap power, but that's when things essentially flipped.
 
Too early for the 2028 thread?
Reported.

I want to thank everyone for participating. I always learn a lot in these threads and find the wealth of knowledge here to exceed many news sources. And occasional warnings/infractions notwithstanding, I think it is hard to find a more civil place on the internet for a political discussion than we had here. Kudos, we have some fantastic posters from a variety of political perspectives.

I agree with Jason that the time to close this out is rapidly approaching though. The goal of DBR, as I have always understood it, is to be a friendly sports pub. I would rather our anger be channeled towards UNC than each other.

I also understand those who feel that politics is more important than mere sports. And perhaps that is true. But when Duke fans are arguing with other Duke fans, instead of rallying together against our opponents, then I think DBR is failing its basic purpose.

LGD. 9F.
 
Not sure I understand the complaint about undermining the democrat's messaging now that the election is over (Sanders was very locked in with the Democrat's during the campaign). Identifying a reason for a loss and using that as a rally point for future organizing is appropriate in the wake of a defeat, and certainly more productive than the "Harris ran a perfect campaign" solipsism that is abundant on TV and online.

I agree Bernie overstates the case against the Dems (particularly under Biden), and the GOP's record for working people speaks for itself. But it's also true that Harris retreated from an economic populist message early on in her campaign. Per an Atlantic piece today that was on the advice of her brother-in-law, Uber general counsel Tony West (who, incidentally, was also the architect of the recent ballot initiative in California that compelled gig workers to be classified as independent contractors and not employees). That's when you start seeing Mark Cuban, a literal billionaire, acting as a prominent campaign surrogate. Her being cagey about the fate of Lina Khan in a Harris admin was also not helpful on that front, nor was her public disavowal of single payer, nor was the overall campaign strategy of courting suburban professionals and disaffected Republicans. IMO the overall approach prevented her and Walz from effectively conveying the economic message.

To the extent the critique is: "Democrats need to be more consistent with signaling their support for working people and then delivering the goods if they want to win back the voters they've lost," I think it's correct. I am skeptical that shift is possible given the institutional commitments of the Democratic Party.
Given how unsuccessful Democratic messaging has been, I as a Democrat am totally fine with the establishment being undermined right now. Democrats need to change if they want to win elections. An echo chamber talking about Kamala running a great campaign and talking down to Trump voters is going to get is President Vance in four years.

(FWIW, I think Kamala ran a very good campaign. I think it is clear now that the deck was stacked against her in ways that it would have taken a miracle to overcome. She wasn't perfect -- she should have distanced herself from Biden more -- but she did pretty damned well otherwise. The economy, the timing and circumstance of her nomination and bad Democratic strategy and messaging for the last 8 years weren't things she could necessarily control. And they all contributed to her loss, IMO.)
 
Just stumbled across Chris Matthews giving his impressions to the MSNBC crew yesterday. He's specifically talking about Pennsylvania, but he could just as easily been talking about the South in general. I know what he says is exactly what I've been hearing from many folk who voted for Trump despite hating him.


Whether you like or don't like what he's saying, I believe it's impossible to deny the reality of it at this point.
I didn't have high hopes because Matthews' midwit status is well documented, but I couldn't get two minutes into that clip before pausing it. His point was that the Democrats have an open border and have let millions of undocumented people enter and have only themselves to blame for that policy. That's certainly the GOP line, and I am sure that belief led many to vote for Trump, but it's not the policy and it's not reality.

What Matthews is describing is a problem of messaging and perception, not policy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top