Wonderland Posted April 3 Posted April 3 1 hour ago, GraceRandolph said: Nikki Haley & Uninstructed voters hit 15% of Republican turnout and equal ~90,000 votes Both sides have a base problem and whoever can mend it the best (or poach from the other side) will take the presidency 1 1
Wonderland Posted April 3 Posted April 3 3 hours ago, Redstreak said: One thing I don't think is discussed and maybe should be are changes in party vote totals compared to past primary performances as gauge for enthusiasm. If you look at 2020 when trump ran completely unopposed as a direct incumbent and with no real reason to bring out voters, there were more total votes cast in that primary versus now where there are actually options to entice more people to vote It's also interesting when you consider that those 2020 primary numbers were achieved during the initial Covid-19 waves; which you'd think would depress turnout (though admittedly, Republican voters were probably less concerned about that) and make it an easy target to beat for him. For whatever reason, there was a much bigger push by Trump and his team to get people to turn out for him in the 2020 primary though. I think their goal back then was to try and embarass/scare Democrats by getting more primary votes despite having no opponent. They seem to have just given up on that this time around - probably because they don't have the money 1
GraceRandolph Posted April 3 Posted April 3 1 hour ago, Wonderland said: Nikki Haley & Uninstructed voters hit 15% of Republican turnout and equal ~90,000 votes Both sides have a base problem and whoever can mend it the best (or poach from the other side) will take the presidency 1
Vermillion Posted April 3 Posted April 3 10 hours ago, thesegayz said: Being a single issue voter over abortion is as stupid as being a single issue voter over the "genocide" in Gaza. Only thing is, one side actually wins. Air quotes for genocide. Nice. It's one hell of a "one issue" for those kinds of voters. Gaza's the biggest reason I don't proselytize to stay-homes, third-partiers, or write-ins anymore. It feels…ghoulish? Is that the word? Why are tens of thousands of dead Palestinians acceptable collateral, the majority of whom didn't even vote for Hamas in 2006? 1
GraceRandolph Posted April 3 Posted April 3 8 hours ago, Wonderland said: It's also rather impressive considering the Democratic primary has ~20k less voters participating at the moment than the Republican primary. What is somewhat of a concern is that in the largest counties he isn't overperforming his statewide average. He still has a lot of work to do if he wants to bring the "Uninstructed" voters back into the fold. But he does have options at the same time. Haley overperformed in most of those areas despite being dropped out for a month or so now. Surely if you're voting for her at this point you aren't planning to vote for Trump in November. You really think most Haley voters won't go with Trump or a Libertarian candidate or RFK?
Vermillion Posted April 3 Posted April 3 15 hours ago, 19SLAYty9 said: It's going to be a kii come 2028 when Kamala loses the primaries in IA, NH, & NV back to back and pulls a "I meant to do that! Sc will decide this race! Like it did Joe!” Only for her to lose that too 15 hours ago, Wonderland said: They're somewhat trapped as if they can't find another candidate of colour then Kamala will go full nuclear when she's losing and claim the only difference is racism 15 hours ago, 19SLAYty9 said: Do we realistically have any reason to believe they'll actually support her? I'm not particularly convinced Joe even wants Kamala to be the nominee in 28 14 hours ago, Vroom Vroom said: Do I think SC democrat voters will support Kamala? Definitely. Since she was vice president they will push the electability argument like Biden did in 2020. I do not see her doing well nation wide. She could easily be Dan Quayle 2.0. She will be extremely vulnerable *** A lot can happen between now and 2028. She could potentially be the incumbent by that time and attempt to shut down all primaries There's way too much to unpack here and I won't get to all of it. I was dreading when we'd start having in-depth Kamala 2028 conversations for multiple reasons, starting with the fact that inevitable mistakes and hubris on her end as well as from the DNC in addition to…yes, racism and sexism, will greatly deepen existing fissures in the current core constituency in the Democrats base, black women. Even if Kamala's seen as vulnerable, Gretchen attempting a 2028 run against her (I didn't realize she was term-limited) will do damage to her even if she tries to run again. Then there's the entire primary angle the DNC managed to paper over (because of MSM turning to incumbents as a default) with moving the first-in-the-nation to South Carolina while New Hampshire was spitting fire and Nevada was confused, which will breed resentment, which is part of a larger conversation about Democrats losing Latinos while being perceived (face-value only!) as catering too much to blacks, and not just on the right. Then there's the entire working-class white angle and crafting language of appeasement while not being blamed for it like Obama managed to do electorally (not so much legislatively, but that was a very different time). Then there's the entire identity politics conversation that brings back the dreaded Hillary angle then Warren vs. Bernie angle. It's a delicate dance on not overplaying her hand on that angle while recognizing its potency. The right's going to say something even when (not if) Kamala tries to downplay it while running only to entirely blame it while losing. It comes down to Kamala doing poorly enough early enough on that the DNC determines it's worth the risk of alienating certain constituencies to cut their losses and move from Kamala to Gretchen, but that will breed resentment narratives that will hurt the latter, which will be a conflict that will get more mainstream coverage then when 2020's candidates were told by Obama's advisors to drop out en masse to take out Bernie because he was doing too well, a story that deserved ten times as much coverage and never got it.
Vermillion Posted April 3 Posted April 3 14 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said: You really think most Haley voters won't go with Trump or a Libertarian candidate or RFK? Current projections I've seen (I don't have the energy to pull links) say the majority of Haley voters aren't willing to go for Biden, Trump, or RFK. It all comes down to the portion of still undecideds, and how these numbers have shifted by the convention and after the convention. Then there's the entire shy Trump voter effect from 2016 that derailed national polling (not so much in the swing states) which plays heavily into this being voters that have already decided to hold their nose for Trump but won't admit it publicly.
Vermillion Posted April 3 Posted April 3 3 hours ago, Wonderland said: Nikki Haley & Uninstructed voters hit 15% of Republican turnout and equal ~90,000 votes Both sides have a base problem and whoever can mend it the best (or poach from the other side) will take the presidency Who hurts Trump more then? Nikki voters adamant they won't vote for him (that aren't lying to pollsters like they were in 2016 according to multiple analyses) or RFK? I didn't major in poli-sci but this is a multiple black-swan, negative partisanship election, with about a dozen asterisks attached, where base turn-out is infinitely more important than pulling from the edges and/or center. Death, jail, and convention uprisings all plausible. Biden's team has realized that because he's unwilling to budge on Gaza they have to give up on increasing youth turnout (which put Joe over the edge in the Upper Midwest in 2020! (on false promises apparently) Let's not ignore that!)) and instead pull more from the center which is a huge mistake. After the courts struck down big portions of loan forgiveness, their leading issue is now Roe and their PAC's will now triple-down on suburban white women. Biden's Latino outreach is still abysmal and that's not even accounting for racist Cubanos or self-absorbed Tejanos in oil country. Trump's problem with RFK according to most swing state models is bigger than his problem with Nikki voters - mostly because of the Covid vaccine. Which is why (thanks mostly to Ron DeSantis) Trump gave up entirely on marketing Operation Warp Speed which used to be the central marketing point of his campaign last year. The biggest problem for both sides every election remains the tens of millions that have never voted and don't plan to, but MSM never addresses that head-on because it's too complicated and they need easier-to-digest clickbait and a horse race for their existing viewers/readers.
Vermillion Posted April 3 Posted April 3 10 hours ago, Wonderland said: All these swing states having abortion amendments has me worried. It's feeling very all or nothing this cycle and a loss in these states will be devastating 7 hours ago, ClashAndBurn said: This reads like they've already accepted they're going to lose. That can't possibly be the case if they're going all-in on flipping Florida, though…. Right? @Espresso 7 hours ago, Redstreak said: I read this as "we thought winning was a given in 2016 so we didn't feel the need to try, here we're gonna fight like we think we're losing.” if they think losing is assured I doubt they'd be investing money into building 30 campaign offices in Michigan https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2024/03/29/michigan-dems-opening-30-campaign-offices-tout-ground-game/73141755007/ @Wonderland Ron DeSantis won the Florida governorship in 2020 in a landslide, the same year that a minimum wage increase amendment won in the state by 61 percent. That's the comparison people are rightfully bringing into the conversation on Democrats attempting to do for Roe in Florida and Arizona what Karl Rove successfully did for Bush with gay marriage in 2004, which brings me to @ClashAndBurn's point about going "all in" on Florida which I don't think is entirely accurate. We'd need to define "all-in" first-off, then make comparisons and contrasts between Roe and the minimum wage as it serves an argument about voters splitting tickets between candidates and their pet causes, which gets back to my original point about populism on the right, which has been typically understood in the modern context to mean culturally right and economically left, which will entirely explain why an abortion ballot initiative in Florida could finally be the first to lose. It'll be almost entirely thanks to highly driven and motivated Cubanos in Miami that could plausible cancel out any young female vote Biden's clearly targeting. @ClashAndBurn All these campaign managers making it about themselves is just making me nauseous. This quote reads like she was trying new resume and LinkedIn language an hour prior while dodging the obvious elephants in the room like Gaza. The entire interview is maddening but to extrapolate that to the entire campaign operation? I mean, I get it, but these quotes just strike me as a tell on her part. Someone on Team Biden has to be aware of issue-splitting from candidates on tickets and I sure as hell hope they aren't cocky enough to ignore it. Based on what I'm seeing in Texas I'm not so sure.
Vermillion Posted April 3 Posted April 3 @ClashAndBurn I'm going to amend what I just said. The Washington Post needs more than a quote from one donor. There's multiple problems with this profile but I have problems with her offering to do one in the first place and then her endless dodges here. Then again this was in the Style section, apparently? Julie Chavez Rodriguez is not Robby Mook. Not even close. And that's a good thing. Can we extrapolate that this donor's speaking for other donors? Possibly. That your perception of going "all-in" on Florida is because they're flailing elsewhere? I mean, that's down to one donor that appears to be ambulance chasing, but also stating the obvious. The numbers speak for themselves.
Vermillion Posted April 3 Posted April 3 He's desperate for the NYAG money since there's no other MAGA billionaires willing to front him the reaminder after the bond and he can't stand the clause in the Truth Social merger that says he has to wait to access his shares and wants to cash out before the rest of its value is gone, the majority of which already is. Everyone and their grandmother knew this was going to happen
wastedpotential Posted April 3 Posted April 3 14 minutes ago, Espresso said: It'll be interesting to see how large of a cohort these anti-Trump primary protest voters are in the broader "Republican" coalition. They're certainly more motivated to vote in a primary than the average Trump voter so it's very highly likely that this is a disproportionately large chunk of the vote, but 22% in Wisconsin is nothing to sneeze at. 1
Recommended Posts