US Presidential Election 2024

[Aruntraveller]

Why did the polls get it so wrong? They had the race as tight as a gnat's arse right up to the end, but Trump won comfortably, taking all seven swing states. Any ideas --"shy Republicans", maybe, like our shy Tories?

I did give a reason further up the thread. Research on men in the US showed that up to 1 in 4 of them would lie to their partners about how they would vote. If they can lie to their partners, I imagine they would have no qualms about lying to a polling organisation. That is more than enough to throw the polls off.

[SteveH]

I did give a reason further up the thread. Research on men in the US showed that up to 1 in 4 of them would lie to their partners about how they would vote. If they can lie to their partners, I imagine they would have no qualms about lying to a polling organisation. That is more than enough to throw the polls off.

So a slightly specialised version of shy Republicans.

[Nearly Sane]

Why did the polls get it so wrong? They had the race as tight as a gnat's arse right up to the end, but Trump won comfortably, taking all seven swing states. Any ideas --"shy Republicans", maybe, like our shy Tories?

I suspect more 'suspicious than shy. That certain parts of the Republican support are less responsive because they see pools as part of the 'deep state'.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why did the polls get it so wrong? They had the race as tight as a gnat's arse right up to the end, but Trump won comfortably, taking all seven swing states. Any ideas --"shy Republicans", maybe, like our shy Tories?

I'm not sure the polls did get it so wrong.

Most polls had the swing states tied within the margin of error of the polling (which is usually +/-3%), so typically all showed the results in these states as about Harris +2% through to Trump +2%. So in reality the polls failed to pick up a small (about 2%) bias in favour of Trump in the actual results. In most cases this would be seen as within their margin of error and wouldn't largely impact the result. But when those swing states were so marginal this made the difference between Harris winning and Trump taking all 7 swing states.

[Nearly Sane]

Statement from Bernie Sanders

[Aruntraveller]

Project 2025 - not at all unhinged:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/08/project-2025-kevin-roberts-book-burning-fbi-new-york-times

[jeremyp]

Since all of it is opinion, even if you think your opinion is better informed, calling it blatantly false, and using the word ten makes your point entirely specious, since your first sentence is a claim of fact. There are many people in the US who are worse off than they were in 2020, and you might try and argue that overall the economy is better but if you are struggling to pay basics that isn't very powerful.

It's fact

https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/historical-puzzle-us-economic-performance-under-democrats-vs-republicans

[SteveH]

It's fact

https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/historical-puzzle-us-economic-performance-under-democrats-vs-republicans

I've read that our economy does better under Labour than under the Tores, and not just since 2010, but I haven't got a link to the article, I'm afraid.

[Nearly Sane]

It's fact

https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/historical-puzzle-us-economic-performance-under-democrats-vs-republicans

You seem confused. You said that 'it was blatantly false' for someone having a feeling that the economy might do better under the Republicans in thus four year period, which means you were claiming it as a fact that it wouldn't. You can't then cite a 'tendency' as a fact about what will happen, and it doesn't deal with people feeling worse off than they were four years ago.

[Nearly Sane]

I've read that our economy does better under Labour than under the Tores, and not just since 2010, but I haven't got a link to the article, I'm afraid.

There's a number of different analyses but this one is interesting


https://theconversation.com/labour-are-much-better-at-running-the-economy-than-voters-think-new-research-162368

[Nearly Sane]

It was all Biden's fault, says Pelosi

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7m24zg85eo

[Aruntraveller]

It was all Biden's fault, says Pelosi

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7m24zg85eo

No. It was partly his fault, sure, but I would argue that a failure to counter Trump on the economy and immigration played a bigger role.

[Nearly Sane]

No. It was partly his fault, sure, but I would argue that a failure to counter Trump on the economy and immigration played a bigger role.

The Biden line works for someone trying to make this a one off but it's also pretty rich coming from Pelosi
 The responsibility for putting up a candidate incapable of running due to mental decline, and then keeping them in.role as President lies with the Democrat party not just Biden. And Pelisi is a significant voice in that. Her J'accuse should be done in front of a mirror.

I agree with your reasons why yhey failed but would add that foreign policy was also important. In both Ukraine and Gaza, the US had become a bystander bit somehow deeply involved. It did not look like a powerful nation.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

foetus, embryo, baby, child, teenager, adult ......
They are all man made labels used to describe different stages of human LIFE

As one of the few people on this board who has been pregnant, I feel I should speak up rather than skip this. The mother is also a human LIFE and pregnancy puts her LIFE at risk in a way that it does not put a man's life at risk.

Speaking of men - more and more evidence is emerging that a large proportion of young teenagers and women are pressured, groomed, coerced, dominated, assaulted, abused and raped by men, which could result in unwanted pregnancies, so presumably you agree it makes moral sense for you to prioritise your energies to stopping men from persuading, pressuring, coercing or grooming women into having sex with them in the first place that then results in these unwanted pregnancies? Once you have managed to change the behaviour of men, this will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and the need for women to have abortions due to men's behaviour. Currently this behaviour seems to have been rewarded in the USA by Trump being elected President.

If the sex was consensual and not due to pressure, coercion, rape etc and neither the man nor the woman exercised restraint so as not to risk an unwanted pregnancy, abortion seems to be permitted because it would be unfair to force a mother to go through the risks of pregnancy and childbirth while the other party to the conception, the father, does not suffer the same risks.

Apart from the obvious risks such as death during childbirth, there are also other routine health and social issues that cannot currently be predicted or prevented e.g. tears between the vagina and anus that can lead to incontinence, pregnancy diabetes, hormone fluctuations that can cause post-natal depression and sometimes psychosis, domestic abuse, lack of financial contribution or child care from the father or society so that the mother can work/ financially and emotionally support herself and the child without resorting to handouts, begging, prostitution or crime etc.

No one arguing for banning abortion seems to have demonstrated why the life of a foetus is more important than the health and ongoing issues faced by the mother, given the father faces no such risks nor is required by society to change his behaviour.

[Nearly Sane]

The Democrats and their assumption of getting younger voters


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0mzl7zygpmo

[Aruntraveller]

I've been communicating with some of my US friends. None of you know this person, but I know from how this is written she is mightily angry. I have no idea of the veracity of her words but having known her for 51 years I have very little reason to doubt them:

We knew that the vote was going to be close, but I had no idea that he would win with that significant margin. I don’t trust the election process right now for all the things that they did to make sure that the black vote was underrepresented. They redrew district lines and shut down polls in rural areas making it difficult for people to vote.
We don’t agree with anything that person has said since 2015 and I can’t believe how prejudiced our nation is that they wouldn’t vote for a Black woman.

[Nearly Sane]

I've been communicating with some of my US friends. None of you know this person, but I know from how this is written she is mightily angry. I have no idea of the veracity of her words but having known her for 51 years I have very little reason to doubt them:

So another stolen election but this time by the other side? Surely this just reflects the division in the US  and a general lack of belief in authority?

ETA - There are those in the Trump side arguing that the reduction in overall vote numbers is evidence that the 2020 election was a fix.

[Aruntraveller]

So another stolen election but this time by the other side? Surely this just reflects the division in the US  and a general lack of belief in authority?

It's difficult to explain how disturbing this is. The woman who wrote this is a very level-headed person, not a registered Democrat, and has in the past voted for candidates other than from the main two parties.  She now has a black son-in-law who has, I think, opened her eyes to some of the racism that she has missed through her life. Not that she was racist, but rather like a lot of us didn't realise the extent of racism bubbling along under the surface. As I say, I have no reason to doubt her words.

[Nearly Sane]

It's difficult to explain how disturbing this is. The woman who wrote this is a very level-headed person, not a registered Democrat, and has in the past voted for candidates other than from the main two parties.  She now has a black son-in-law who has, I think, opened her eyes to some of the racism that she has missed through her life. Not that she was racist, but rather like a lot of us didn't realise the extent of racism bubbling along under the surface. As I say, I have no reason to doubt her words.

That she thinks that is obviously not doubted but thar doesn't amount to evidence that the election was stolen.

[Nearly Sane]

Bill Maher on the Democrats and their reaction to the loss

https://youtu.be/BtCK-dMb-F8?si=lMxn83UaStbNi3VV

[jeremyp]

You seem confused. You said that 'it was blatantly false' for someone having a feeling that the economy might do better under the Republicans in thus four year period, which means you were claiming it as a fact that it wouldn't. You can't then cite a 'tendency' as a fact about what will happen, and it doesn't deal with people feeling worse off than they were four years ago.

It's fact. Democrat administrations do better than Republican ones on the economy. You might not like it, but it is true.

[Nearly Sane]

It's fact. Democrat administrations do better than Republican ones on the economy. You might not like it, but it is true.

It's nothing to with what either of us like. It's about voters in the US feeling they were worse off than 4 years and voting for something different.

[Nearly Sane]

Some interesting stuff on the religious vote


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20g1zvgj4do