US Presidential Election 2024

[ProfessorDavey]

Not sure the analogy works. Trump looks like taking a majority of Republican registered votes in the primaries which is a vastly bigger number than Truss's electorate for leadership.

I agree that the Truss scenario was more extreme, but Trump received support from about 1% of the population of Iowa last night. Are those 1% even representative of the overall population in Iowa, let alone the country as a whole.

[ProfessorDavey]

He's already won a presidential election.

Due to vagaries of the complex electoral college system. He failed to win the popular vote in both 2016 and 2020, by approx. 3 million votes in the former and by over 7 million votes in the latter.

[Nearly Sane]

Due to vagaries of the complex electoral college system. He failed to win the popular vote in both 2016 and 2020, by approx. 3 million votes in the former and by over 7 million votes in the latter.

And he got 63m votes when he won, and 74m when he list so no resemblance to Truss's electorate.

[Aruntraveller]

I agree that the Truss scenario was more extreme, but Trump received support from about 1% of the population of Iowa last night. Are those 1% even representative of the overall population in Iowa, let alone the country as a whole.

Sounds like straws well and truly being clutched at.

Trump is ahead in the polls and given the nature of the electoral college system is currently on track to win albeit by a very close margin in the college.

I don't think you can rely on the voting public to deny Trump a victory, the courts need to act quickly to find a way to frustrate him. Even then he is a wily fox with a judicial system that favours him.

My advice I pinch (and slightly alter) from the glorious Bette:

“Fasten your seatbelts; we’re in for a bumpy 4 years"

[ProfessorDavey]

And he got 63m votes when he won, and 74m when he list so no resemblance to Truss's electorate.

Truss never got to the point when she actually stood in a general election, so we've no idea what proportion of the vote she might have got at that point. We are discussing the selection of an individual by, in effect, a party membership here.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree that the Truss scenario was more extreme, but Trump received support from about 1% of the population of Iowa last night. Are those 1% even representative of the overall population in Iowa, let alone the country as a whole.

It's not just 'more extreme', it's a nonsense. Truss become PM on the basis of her vote, Trump is at the start of a process during which there will be many more votes to become a candidate in an election  which will then be decided by millions of votes.

[Nearly Sane]

Truss never got to the point when she actually stood in a general election, so we've no idea what proportion of the vote she might have got at that point. We are discussing the selection of an individual by, in effect, a party membership here.

Which then only selects a candidate for a the Presidential election, not the PM. How else would a party choose its candidate?

[ProfessorDavey]

It's not just 'more extreme', it's a nonsense. Truss become PM on the basis of her vote, Trump is at the start of a process during which there will be many more votes to become a candidate in an election  which will then be decided by millions of votes.

But I'm talking about the current process - that to be selected as the presidential candidate. That is decided by a much smaller 'selectorate' than the electorate as a whole. Same as the election of Truss as Tory party leader. And sure Truss actually became PM, but that isn't my point - you could make the same argument about Corbyn in 2015 - elected as party leader by a small (albeit larger than Truss) electorate that isn't representative of the country as a whole, nor representative of Labour voters in general (in the case of Corbyn) or Tory voters in general (in the case of Truss).

[Nearly Sane]

But I'm talking about the current process - that to be selected as the presidential candidate. That is decided by a much smaller 'selectorate' than the electorate as a whole. Same as the election of Truss as Tory party leader. And sure Truss actually became PM, but that isn't my point - you could make the same argument about Corbyn in 2015 - elected as party leader by a small (albeit larger than Truss) electorate that isn't representative of the country as a whole, nor representative of Labour voters in general (in the case of Corbyn) or Tory voters in general (in the case of Truss).

Why would a party not select its own candidate?

Any choice then does go directly to the whole electorate unlike the UK elections. And the total number of registered Republican voters is 38m. You are not comparing like with like.

[Nearly Sane]

I note that next week in New Hampshire that registered independents can vote.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why would a party not select its own candidate?

That's up to them - my point is that hard core party members tend to be more extreme in their view than rank and file voters. Hence if you leave the choice to those members you are likely to select a more extreme leader/candidate etc. Whether a party cares about that is up to them, but elections tend to be won from the middle ground - the candidate/party that is perceived as less extreme tends to win.

And there is, of course, more than one way for a party to select its own candidate - you can leave it to party members or alternatively you can use another part of the party machinery - most obviously in the UK, MPs. While that might seem less democratic MPs will actually have worked with and genuinely know a candidate so are able to make a choice from actual knowledge. For party members typically they are putting their clothes of opinion on a clothes horse of a candidate that they, in reality, know nothing about. They certainly will have little idea whether that person is actually any good at the job.

[Nearly Sane]

That's up to them - my point is that hard core party members tend to be more extreme in their view than rank and file voters. Hence if you leave the choice to those members you are likely to select a more extreme leader/candidate etc. Whether a party cares about that is up to them, but elections tend to be won from the middle ground - the candidate/party that is perceived as less extreme tends to win.

And there is, of course, more than one way for a party to select its own candidate - you can leave it to party members or alternatively you can use another part of the party machinery - most obviously in the UK, MPs. While that might seem less democratic MPs will actually have worked with and genuinely know a candidate so are able to make a choice from actual knowledge. For party members typically they are putting their clothes of opinion on a clothes horse of a candidate that they, in reality, know nothing about. They certainly will have little idea whether that person is actually any good at the job.

Have you given up your ludicrous Trump/Truss  comparison then? All of the above seems off topic to that and the thread.

[Nearly Sane]

Speculation on Trump's running mate


https://theweek.com/politics/trump-vp-2024-haley-lake-stefanik-greene

[Nearly Sane]

Extraordinary

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68009461

[Nearly Sane]

Just imagine that, Trump and other Republican politicians courted the anti abortion movement in the US until it looked like being an electoral problem.





https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68027344

[Dicky Underpants]

Just imagine that, Trump and other Republican politicians courted the anti abortion movement in the US until it looked like being an electoral problem.





https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68027344

And I always thought that Trump was such a fervent Christian, and a firm believer in the sanctity of the fertilized human egg, infused at the moment of conception with an immortal soul.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh look, Trump being racist.




https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68049922

[Aruntraveller]

And then there were two:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/21/ron-desantis-drops-out-presidential-race

[Nearly Sane]

And then there were two:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/21/ron-desantis-drops-out-presidential-race

Well, there's really three, Haley, Trump, and the judiciary, and Haley won't be the one to stop Trump.

[Gordon]

That is one thing I find worrying about the US system: that their judges are political appointments, including those appointed by Trump who are members of their Supreme Court and who will imminently be faced with making decisions about whether Trump is a fit person to be on the ballot paper.

[Nearly Sane]

That is one thing I find worrying about the US system: that their judges are political appointments, including those appointed by Trump who are members of their Supreme Court and who will imminently be faced with making decisions about whether Trump is a fit person to be on the ballot paper.

They've become much more political in recent years. That said I'm not sure that the appountees to the Supreme Court are likely to favour Trump simply due to being appointed by him, rather their interpretations of the constitution are possibly more likely to favour him here.

To an extent, our judicial appts are political but with a small p.

[jeremyp]

Why would a party not select its own candidate?

Any choice then does go directly to the whole electorate unlike the UK elections. And the total number of registered Republican voters is 38m. You are not comparing like with like.

Anybody can register as a voter for the purpose of selecting a candidate in the US primaries. The exact qualifications and procedures vary state by state but you do not need to be a Republican party member to vote in your state's Republican primary. This is completely different to the way the Conservative Party selected Liz Truss.

[Maeght]

Anybody can register as a voter for the purpose of selecting a candidate in the US primaries. The exact qualifications and procedures vary state by state but you do not need to be a Republican party member to vote in your state's Republican primary. This is completely different to the way the Conservative Party selected Liz Truss.

Always wondered about that - seems a strange arrangement.

[jeremyp]

Always wondered about that - seems a strange arrangement.

Yes. And in some states they have an "open primary" which means you do not have to even declare that you are a Republican (or Democrat) to vote in the party's primary.

[Nearly Sane]

Anybody can register as a voter for the purpose of selecting a candidate in the US primaries. The exact qualifications and procedures vary state by state but you do not need to be a Republican party member to vote in your state's Republican primary. This is completely different to the way the Conservative Party selected Liz Truss.

Agree, but Prof D seemed to think it was comparable.