The 2024 Presidential Election- The LONG General Election

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I'm aware of why inflation is different for different areas of the world. 

I’m gonna very strongly disagree here 

[Dr. Strangelove]

2 hours ago, TGHusker said:

I get your point and agree but it doesn't always work  - Jimmy Carter was an incumbent but perhaps Ted Kennedy might have been a better option for the Dems back then - but whoever it was - they were going to lose to the Reagan tidal wave.  GHWB was an incumbent - but people may have been getting tired of 12 years of Reaganism.  There is no such tidal wave forming this time around.  I would think the Dems have  someone on their bench who can step up to the plate and pinch hit and do better.  Calf Gov Newsom is trying to hint himself into the race but there are other qualified governors as well.  

Jimmy Carter had a recession during his term as well as George Bush Sr. Had they not had those issues, they both probably win.

 

An incumbent almost always has an advantage - it's just a few percent, but it's normally enough to carry an election. It's important to remember that most voters aren't that plugged in or that online. They evaluate their personal situation and vote accordingly. Unless there's a recession next year - where any democratic candidate would lose - Biden is probably a very slight favorite.

 

Attempts to put in a new candidate would throw away this advantage and would almost certainly give any Republican candidate the advantage, considering the systemic and electoral college advantages any Republican candidate would enjoy.

 

This election is going to come down to 4 or 5 states that are going to be decided by 1% or less. Throwing out the slight advantage of an incumbent in hopes that voters are more motivated for a new candidate in these states is an extremely risky strategy. I can't see a candidate they could possibly nominate that motivates voters enough to overcome this. There simply aren't many undecided voters in the states that matter to win over anybody new.

[Dr. Strangelove]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

I’m gonna very strongly disagree here 

Considering your worldview on Climate Change, Ivermectin, choice in political candidates, and numerous other factors, I find myself undisturbed by this revelation.

[TGHusker]

3 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Jimmy Carter had a recession during his term as well as George Bush Sr. Had they not had those issues, they both probably win.

 

An incumbent almost always has an advantage - it's just a few percent, but it's normally enough to carry an election. It's important to remember that most voters aren't that plugged in or that online. They evaluate their personal situation and vote accordingly. Unless there's a recession next year - where any democratic candidate would lose - Biden is probably a very slight favorite.

 

Attempts to put in a new candidate would throw away this advantage and would almost certainly give any Republican candidate the advantage, considering the systemic and electoral college advantages any Republican candidate would enjoy.

 

This election is going to come down to 4 or 5 states that are going to be decided by 1% or less. Throwing out the slight advantage of an incumbent in hopes that voters are more motivated for a new candidate in these states is an extremely risky strategy. I can't see a candidate they could possibly nominate that motivates voters enough to overcome this. There simply aren't many undecided voters in the states that matter to win over anybody new.

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. 

[Dr. Strangelove]

9 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. 

I personally hope that democrats are smart and pass the mantle onto a younger generation of candidates post 2024. Pelosi did the right thing passing the torch to Jeffries. So I do totally understand the issues with Biden's age. It's the reason I supported a different candidate during the primary. 

 

The issue with national candidates is finding somebody younger that is also closer to the political center. They also need to come from a state or area of the country that matters - Georgia, Pennsylvania or Texas. I don't know who those candidates are at the moment but I hope Democrats find moderate choices from them. 

[Lorewarn]

Hard for me to think the GOP has more than a 40% chance regardless of who the candidate is on either side when I think about the millions of Gen Z voters who weren't old enough in 2020.

[TGHusker]

8 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

I think about the millions of Gen Z voters

If you can get them motivated to vote. 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[BigRedBuster]

He's so trying to get the MAGAt anti-vax vote.  

 

 

 

 

 

[TGHusker]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Where his lips moving?   If yes - question answered. 

[Dr. Strangelove]

5 hours ago, TGHusker said:

If you can get them motivated to vote. 

Agreed. The youth vote has always been a presumed savior for democrats but the 18-24 turnout is always among the lowest. 

 

13 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

Hard for me to think the GOP has more than a 40% chance regardless of who the candidate is on either side when I think about the millions of Gen Z voters who weren't old enough in 2020.

The main issue is that the election hinges on 4 or 5 swing states. Every other state is unlikely to change. In 3 of them: 

 

Arizona - In 2022 the Arizona GOP nominated the worst candidates imaginable. Kari Lake for governor, who played into Trump's (now criminal) assertion that the Dems stole the election. She dabbled in other conspiracies and was otherwise terrible in all fronts. She lost by a sliver, 17k votes and just .7% overall. In the Senate, the GOP nominated Blake Masters, a terrible candidate. He still got 46.5%, while a Libertarian candidate siphoned off a lot of his support.

 

Georgia - In 2022, Hershal Walker showed just how terrible a candidate is and can still be viable. After faking being a cop, FBI agent, possessing a secret COVID spray to cure you, his environmental policy of moving bad air to China for good air, and literally so many insane statements it's hard to fathom. He pushed his Democrat opponent into a runoff election before losing by 1.8%.

 

Wisconsin - in 2022 they re-elected climate change denying, COVID conspiracy loving, crackpot Senator Republican Ron Johnson, winning by 1%.

 

The real point is, no matter how crazy the Republican candidate for President is in 2023 - and you can bet your house they will be a crackpot - their base of support in important swing states automatically gives them a chance to win them. The worst candidate imaginable has a floor of support at 48.5% in all 3 states, making them all toss ups and thus the 2024 election a toss up.

 

If Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler fused into a single entity and rose from the depths of hell itself, if they have an R next to their name on a ballot, they have a 45% chance of winning as a base.

[BigRedBuster]

 

[knapplc]

Wow. Orange Man Bad had a night for the ages last night. Here's a couple more gems.

 

 

[Scarlet]

4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

So all those real Christian faith leaders in the audience never once think in silence that "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" might apply here?

[Dr. Strangelove]

On 9/16/2023 at 12:52 PM, knapplc said:

Wow. Orange Man Bad had a night for the ages last night. Here's a couple more gems.

 

 

This guy is like a 10 cent rise in gas prices from becoming President again.