Jump to content

2024 Presidential Election Thread - Let's keep the party going.


Recommended Posts

Posted

I decided to do a compare/contrast of the 2020 NBC September poll, 2020 exits and 2024 NBC September poll

Biden 51-43 (+8) / actual was 51-47 (+4)
Black voters: Biden +85 / actual was +84
18-34: Biden +29 / actual was +24 (for 18-29, no 18-34 breakdown)
Women: Biden +20 / actual was +11
Whites with college degrees: Biden +10 / actual was +15
Independents: Biden +6 / actual was +9
Seniors: Biden +4 / actual was -4
White voters: Trump +9 / actual was +12
Men: Trump +5 / actual was +2
Whites without college degrees: Trump +23 / actual was +32

NBC's 2020 poll mostly missed the mark on women, whites without college degrees and seniors (in Trump's favor) and whites with college degrees (in Biden's favor)

2024 NBC poll: Harris 49-44 (+5)
Black voters: Harris +78
18-34: Harris +23
Women: Harris +21
Whites with college degrees: +21
Independents: Harris +8
Men: Trump +12
White voters: Trump +9
Whites without college degrees: +28

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

This was a point I wanted to make before, but I'd forgotten about, supporting the idea that the founding fathers were the intellectual equivalent of today's mediocre white male demographic among which Trump overperforms.

The point is that these guys were basically spending way too much time on the forums and podcasts of their time. Guys who loved the sound of their own voices and spent way too much time convincing themselves that their own (sometimes good, sometimes bad) ideas were deserving of becoming the law.

Arrested Development No GIF

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
44 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Can we really attribute its success to anything besides good fortune, military superiority, and a willingness to commit genocide?

And we had to fight a civil war for it to "endure" past like 70 years. I don't think any historian could look at the trajectory of this country and say "damn, I guess they're lucky they had the Electoral College and giving four senators to the Dakotas otherwise they'd have been screwed"

Wait, what?

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
17 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

 

IMG_3394.gif.50f0756dd4e63d8979eb39f17d7678d9.gif

I think that is a spectacularly bad take.  But I guess it’s conceivably possible that all the respected historians are wrong and you are correct.  

 

 

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Arrested Development No GIF

They weren't dumb, they weren't smart. They were average. Sorry if that offends you, but it's pretty clear.

Posted
6 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I decided to do a compare/contrast of the 2020 NBC September poll, 2020 exits and 2024 NBC September poll

Biden 51-43 (+8) / actual was 51-47 (+4)
Black voters: Biden +85 / actual was +84
18-34: Biden +29 / actual was +24 (for 18-29, no 18-34 breakdown)
Women: Biden +20 / actual was +11
Whites with college degrees: Biden +10 / actual was +15
Independents: Biden +6 / actual was +9
Seniors: Biden +4 / actual was -4
White voters: Trump +9 / actual was +12
Men: Trump +5 / actual was +2
Whites without college degrees: Trump +23 / actual was +32

NBC's 2020 poll mostly missed the mark on women, whites without college degrees and seniors (in Trump's favor) and whites with college degrees (in Biden's favor)

2024 NBC poll: Harris 49-44 (+5)
Black voters: Harris +78
18-34: Harris +23
Women: Harris +21
Whites with college degrees: +21
Independents: Harris +8
Men: Trump +12
White voters: Trump +9
Whites without college degrees: +28

The 2020 men thing is surprising

Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton were all wicked smart.

George Washington, while not an intellectual giant, had an inordinate amount of common sense and wisdom.

As I said, it's a hard truth.

They were wicked smart for their time, but would be pretty average today.

Posted
39 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

This was a point I wanted to make before, but I'd forgotten about, supporting the idea that the founding fathers were the intellectual equivalent of today's mediocre white male demographic among which Trump overperforms.

The point is that these guys were basically spending way too much time on the forums and podcasts of their time. Guys who loved the sound of their own voices and spent way too much time convincing themselves that their own (sometimes good, sometimes bad) ideas were deserving of becoming the law.

Laugh Lol GIF

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

The 2020 men thing is surprising

I used the Pew report, but there's no "definitive" numbers.

CBS had men Trump +8, women +15 Biden, black voters +75 Biden, 18-29 +36 Biden, independents +13 Biden, white college grads +3 Biden, white no college +35 Trump, seniors +5 Trump

So moral of the story - fuck if I know, but the NBC poll does not look far off 2020 in its sub-sample breakdowns, with Harris doing way better with women and college grads (uh duh, the 2 groups that have fled the GOP the fastest since Dobbs)

Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

No, they'd be wicked smart today, too.

I doubt that, and the shitshow they've left us with is pretty strong evidence of their mediocrity.

Posted
Just now, Js1 said:

I used the Pew report, but there's no "definitive" numbers.

CBS had men Trump +8, women +15 Biden, black voters +75 Biden, 18-29 +36 Biden, independents +13 Biden, white college grads +3 Biden, white no college +35 Trump, seniors +5 Trump

So moral of the story - fuck if I know, but the NBC poll does not look far off 2020 in its sub-sample breakdowns, with Harris doing way better with women and college grads (uh duh, the 2 groups that have fled the GOP the fastest since Dobbs)

It's easy to forget how popular a full-strength Biden could be especially when there's a mismanaged global pandemic. Men really did love the guy, compared to the generic D. But that love collapsed as he appeared more and more frail through his term.

Posted
2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

It's easy to forget how popular a full-strength Biden could be especially when there's a mismanaged global pandemic. Men really did love the guy, compared to the generic D. But that love collapsed as he appeared more and more frail through his term.

It collapsed as prices went up. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

They also provided a straightforward way to change it. If we can't, that's on us.

It was so straightforward half the states opted to secede a few decades later.

In retrospect, the compromises made to appease slavers have had terrible consequences on a multigenerational scale. Even things that, on their face, have nothing to do with white supremacy and enjoy overwhelming popular support are politically impossible due to the filibuster.

  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

It was so straightforward half the states opted to secede a few decades later.

In retrospect, the compromises made to appease slavers have had terrible consequences on a multigenerational scale. Even things that, on their face, have nothing to do with white supremacy and enjoy overwhelming popular support are politically impossible due to the filibuster.

It was a third of the states, but that's beside the point. They wouldn't have been states and there wouldn't have been a union without the compromises made in Philadelphia.

The filibuster is a Senate rule that can be changed by a simple majority vote. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

It was a third of the states, but that's beside the point. They wouldn't have been states and there wouldn't have been a union without the compromises made in Philadelphia.

The filibuster is a Senate rule that can be changed by a simple majority vote. 

The Senate owes its existence to the appeasement of slavers.

Posted
13 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

It was so straightforward half the states opted to secede a few decades later.

In retrospect, the compromises made to appease slavers have had terrible consequences on a multigenerational scale. Even things that, on their face, have nothing to do with white supremacy and enjoy overwhelming popular support are politically impossible due to the filibuster.

You realize the filibuster in its current form is literally a modern adaptation, right? And it could be changed with any majority vote. But that’s the founding father’s problem? 
 

Stop. Get Help.gif

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, chainsaw said:

What do you mean by this, exactly?

Are you going to attempt to argue that all of the modern democracies of the world haven’t attempted to emulate the framework that was created in the United States? 
 

Fuck this, I am not going to waste my fucking Sunday arguing with your ass. Just scream Genocide a few more times and then argue how the democratic party is fucking itself by not catering only to the hyper left progressive wing of the party that most people loathe and let’s just declare the Chainsaw hat trick, ok?

Edited by SydneyCarton
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You realize the filibuster in its current form is literally a modern adaptation, right? And it could be changed with any majority vote. But that’s the founding father’s problem? 
 

Stop. Get Help.gif

I mean, it did exist in some form from the beginning and was used frequently after 1850 once it got a name . It wasn’t a formal rule until 1917 and adapted in 1975 to three-fifths instead of two-thirds 

Posted
Just now, SydneyCarton said:

Are you going to attempt to argue that all of the modern democracies of the world haven’t attempted to emulate the framework that was created in the United States? 
 

Fuck this, I am not going to waste my fucking Sunday arguing with your ass. Just scream Genocide a few more times and then argue how the democratic party isn’t fucking itself by catering only to the hyper left progressive wing of the party that most people loathe and let’s just declare the Chainsaw hat trick, ok?

I'm trying to understand the point you wanted to make. I'm not sure I can agree that the framework has been emulated, but even if it has been emulated, is that proof that the framework is good? It all depends what you meant by "framework."

To bring this back to the topic of the thread, we are here stressing about an Electoral College tie due to the shortcomings of the founding fathers. I'm grateful that the polls are trending in a good direction, but also pissed this is even a realistic possibility.

Posted
3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The United States of America owes its existence to the appeasement of slave owners.

Well, that and pirates and puritans and a bunch of other people that created a series of oddball agreements and contradictions.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
6 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I mean, it did exist in some form from the beginning and was used frequently after 1850 once it got a name . It wasn’t a formal rule until 1917 and adapted in 1975 to three-fifths instead of two-thirds 

I said Current form man.

3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I'm trying to understand the point you wanted to make. I'm not sure I can agree that the framework has been emulated, but even if it has been emulated, is that proof that the framework is good? It all depends what you meant by "framework."

To bring this back to the topic of the thread, we are here stressing about an Electoral College tie due to the shortcomings of the founding fathers. I'm grateful that the polls are trending in a good direction, but also pissed this is even a realistic possibility.

Let’s try a different tact. Can you name a country whose history and form of government you admire and you believe they nailed it and got it all right? I’m being serious, can you name one? 
 

or do you just hate all of them and humanity as a whole? Because if it’s the latter then we are all exhausted by you showing up in a place with the closest thing you have to allies, people who agree America has a checked past and can and needs to do better, and have to listen to your careless bellyaching. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
5 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I'm trying to understand the point you wanted to make. I'm not sure I can agree that the framework has been emulated, but even if it has been emulated, is that proof that the framework is good? It all depends what you meant by "framework."

To bring this back to the topic of the thread, we are here stressing about an Electoral College tie due to the shortcomings of the founding fathers. I'm grateful that the polls are trending in a good direction, but also pissed this is even a realistic possibility.

Compromise is not a shortcoming. There would have been no union without the compromises made in Philadelphia. 

It's up to us to change it.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Can you name a country whose history and form of government you admire and you believe they nailed it and got it all right? I’m being serious, can you name one? 

History? No, everyone has skeletons.

Form of government? To my mind, the best available form of government is that of Ireland. It can be improved, but it's much more democratic that what we have here.

One could argue it was influenced by the US Constitution, but it's more closely related to the parliamentary system of the UK.

Edited by chainsaw
Posted
37 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I can’t wait to see how he’s going to try and tie this to Israel. 

Aww man you might as well have just said Beetlejuice

  • Haha 2
Posted
19 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Compromise is not a shortcoming. There would have been no union without the compromises made in Philadelphia. 

It's up to us to change it.

Not all compromises are shortcomings, but these compromises have continually fucked us.

Remember, the compromises made in Philadelphia took years to be ratified by different colonies. It wasn't some overnight thing, and I don't think the sky would have fallen if the colonies had told them to fuck off and get back to the drawing board. But it's pointless to speculate. We are where we are, and now someone like Trump has a higher than 10% chance of assuming office.

Posted
58 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I doubt that, and the shitshow they've left us with is pretty strong evidence of their mediocrity.

You are exhibiting the same forefather level of wisdom you are espousing on this thread.

Posted
2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Not all compromises are shortcomings, but these compromises have continually fucked us.

Remember, the compromises made in Philadelphia took years to be ratified by different colonies. It wasn't some overnight thing, and I don't think the sky would have fallen if the colonies had told them to fuck off and get back to the drawing board. But it's pointless to speculate. We are where we are, and now someone like Trump has a higher than 10% chance of assuming office.

It didn't take that long. The convention was in the summer of 1787. There was a presidential election in 1788.

We've had over two centuries to change the Constitution. We should probably do that.

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
Just now, SizzleChest said:

You are exhibiting the same forefather level of wisdom you are espousing on this thread.

Good thing I'm not trying to establish a government. I'm okay with being mediocre.

Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

It didn't take that long. The convention was in the summer of 1787. There was a presidential election in 1788.

We've had over two centuries to change the Constitution. We should probably do that.

I'd love that but it's all but impossible politically.

Posted
2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

LBJ got the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts passed.

Nothing is impossible politically. Get better at politics.

Yeah, but LBJ was a moron and would blast podcast bullshit in today's environment - chainsaw, probably.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

LBJ got the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts passed.

Nothing is impossible politically. Get better at politics.

He did and they've all been eroded because of the antidemocratic mechanisms these founding fathers put into the constitution.

Passing laws is one thing, but amending the Constitution as you're no doubt aware is a much higher hurdle to clear that doesn't happen very often without a bloody civil war preceding it

Posted
20 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

History? No, everyone has skeletons.

So you’re just a general threadshitter, got it. 
 

Quote

Form of government? To my mind, the best available form of government is that of Ireland. It can be improved, but it's much more democratic that what we have here.

One could argue it was influenced by the US Constitution, but it's more closely related to the parliamentary system of the UK.

You’re so close to getting it. Now answer who the UK copied for their parliamentary system of government. And who France copied. 
 

I’ve got to say, blaming a bunch of people over 250 years ago for our current governmental woes instead of us for failing to change and improve them is a hell of a stance for an allegedly far left progressive to take. Why don’t you just call yourself a nihilist and be done with it?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

So you’re just a general threadshitter, got it. 
 

You’re so close to getting it. Now answer who the UK copied for their parliamentary system of government. And who France copied. 
 

I’ve got to say, blaming a bunch of people over 250 years ago for our current governmental woes instead of us for failing to change and improve them is a hell of a stance for an allegedly far left progressive to take. Why don’t you just call yourself a nihilist and be done with it?

The 1706 Treaty of Union?

Posted
4 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

The 1706 Treaty of Union?

Good lord, you are so entombed by your purity test mindset, you can't even reason.  Maybe imma can start a thread for you that only you can read and post in.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, SizzleChest said:

Good lord, you are so entombed by your purity test mindset, you can't even reason.  Maybe imma can start a thread for you that only you can read and post in.

This is why I asked what the hell he meant by "framework" because it's a bit rich to point to the good parts of other governments and attribute the good parts to the founding fathers of the United States when the truth is most of it had developed elsewhere. We did not invent the broad principles of bicameralism or the separation of powers. At most we enjoyed some modest success with certain variations of those principles, and I can't think of a single successful country that has used the exact same variations as ours.

Posted
1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

I doubt that, and the shitshow they've left us with is pretty strong evidence of their mediocrity.


I mean you can make a Shakespeare’s Sister type argument that there were contemporary minds as brilliant as theirs that weren’t allowed to develop and / or have a voice, but to argue they were anything other than the among the brightest is patently wrong. Their writings and actions literally set the course for world history  

The shitshow we have now is a direct result of the compromises that had to be made to get the slave states into the union. Without them there is no United States, and GB likely retakes the former colonies within 20 years. With hindsight maybe that’s a better outcome, but that’s a moral/ethical argument and has nothing to do with relative intellect 

 

 



×
×
  • Create New...