The 2024 Presidential Election- The LONG General Election

[Dr. Strangelove]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Looks like we have another person that proves voters do change their mind. 

I'm pretty sure I've said many times that in the aggregate, voter preferences do not change enough to win elections. Individual voters change their mind in small numbers, particularly those plugged into politics enough to post about it on the internet. 

 

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Voters who reached 18 and voted Democrat are now 45-55 and vote Republican.  Hence they changed their mind.   Cross tab polling data has shown for decades that Democrats win the young vote and Republicans tend to win the older vote.   People aren’t just born older.   Over time they change their mind of how to vote. 

This is much less true today than it was 40 years ago. Partisanship has increases dramatically since the 1980s. You're kind of the poster child for believing in your political beliefs even when they're completely disconnected from reality. It's kind of funny you, of all people, are posting about voters changing their minds. 

 

Also, to be clear, voters vote preferences stick once they reach their mid 20s. Young people do change their minds but it's becoming less common, voting preferences are becoming more rigid.

[teachercd]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Welp, it was my option #1.  Restate his devotion and love for dear leader.

 

 

That was the presser???

 

Okay...lame.

 

 

[Lorewarn]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Looks like we have another person that proves voters do change their mind. 

 

 

Individual voters never changing their mind wasn't ever the premise put forth.

[TGHusker]

18 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Well, Reagan WAS a democrat 

 

 

I don't think Trump or Biden would be that quick witted in answering that question.  But you know, Reagan said the Dem party left him.  Now he would say that the GOP party left him.  In many ways, not all, he is closer to the Dems than current GOP. On Russia and Ukraine he'd stand with the Dems to support Ukraine.   Reagan was for humane immigration reform - thus the 1986 Immigration reforms.  2 of the biggest issues of this day, Reagan would have been on the Dem side.

 

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672

Quote

 

Nowadays (TG: from 2013 article), conservative commentators like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh often invoke the former president as a champion of the conservative agenda. Sean Hannity of Fox News even has a regular segment called "What Would Reagan Do?"

Simpson, however, sees a different person in the president he called a "dear friend."

Reagan "knew that it was not right for people to be abused," Simpson says. "Anybody who's here illegally is going to be abused in some way, either financially [or] physically. They have no rights."

Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter, agrees. "It was in Ronald Reagan's bones -- it was part of his understanding of America -- that the country was fundamentally open to those who wanted to join us here."

Reagan said as much himself in a televised debate with Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale in 1984.

"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally," he said.

 

The bold would have put him in the crosshairs of the ungodly (yes I said ungodly - anyone who hates his neighbor is ungodly) GOP leaders and cult members.  Today's GOP has no compassion and no sense of mission of being the 'City on the Hill' so often quoted by Reagan. 

[Archy1221]

41 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

 

I'm pretty sure I've said many times that in the aggregate, voter preferences do not change enough to win elections. Individual voters change their mind in small numbers, particularly those plugged into politics enough to post about it on the internet.

And I’ve told you many times that voters change their minds enough to switch states from red to blue and blue to red.   It’s why we have swing states and some of those swing states have changed in and out over time too.  

[Archy1221]

43 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

You're kind of the poster child for believing in your political beliefs even when they're completely disconnected from reality. It's kind of funny you, of all people, are posting about voters changing their minds. 

Well I would counter by saying I have voted for a Democrat governor and a Republican Governor (more of these) over the course my voting timeline.  I even voted once for a Blue Dog House candidate in 2006 I believe because the R candidate was terrible.  Would you be able to say the same?   Or have you voted party line throughout?  When have you crossed party lines in a national election?  
 

I would say I am not the poster child for your incorrect line of thinking.   You would need to find someone else.   

[teachercd]

46 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Individual voters never changing their mind wasn't ever the premise put forth.

I actually started all this and that was my premise.  I mean, you can't have "lots" of people changing their mind if it doesn't start with an individual.  

 

Unless everyone just changed their mind at the exact same second, which does happen...just look at the game threads.  

[Dr. Strangelove]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

And I’ve told you many times that voters change their minds enough to switch states from red to blue and blue to red.   It’s why we have swing states and some of those swing states have changed in and out over time too.  

This is fundamentally untrue.

 

Colorado, for example, didn't switch from swing state to becoming solidly blue because of Democrats changing the minds of Reagan voters from the 1980s. Colorado is blue because young, college educated people have moved into the state from other states essentially out numbering them. Texas is turning blue not because Democrats are mass changing the minds of Republican voters who've lived in the state for decades, it's because people are moving there and are beginning to outnumber them. The same thing is true for other swing states that are now Red, such as Iowa or Ohio. College educated voters are leaving those states, making them redder and redder over time. States change largely because of demographic shifts over time, not because huge swaths of the electorate suddenly change their political views.

 

What Trump and the MAGA movement have successfully done is awaken huge swaths of voters who didn't care much or participate in politics prior to 2016. By mobilizing an easily manipulated cohort of voters, he has cultivated a powerful political movement that allows him to be competitive in elections. This has also contributed to the red shift in former swing states.

 

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Well I would counter by saying I have voted for a Democrat governor and a Republican Governor (more of these) over the course my voting timeline.  I even voted once for a Blue Dog House candidate in 2006 I believe because the R candidate was terrible.  Would you be able to say the same?   Or have you voted party line throughout?  When have you crossed party lines in a national election?  
 

I would say I am not the poster child for your incorrect line of thinking.   You would need to find someone else.   

I've told you previously I voted for Ben Sasse in 2020 because his opponent was terrible.

 

Additionally, you currently believe that Biden is part of a large corruption scandal despite huge swaths of evidence - admitted to even by Republicans - that it is largely made up, without evidence, and includes no crimes. But you believe in this in order to reconcile your own support for corrupt candidates as a two time Trump voter. This makes you a poster child for extreme partisanship studied by academics who are amazed that voters can construct their own reality, devoid of facts or a basis in reason, in order to fit the world around their poor political preferences.

[BigRedBuster]

 

[Moiraine]

6 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Voters who reached 18 and voted Democrat are now 45-55 and vote Republican.  Hence they changed their mind.   Cross tab polling data has shown for decades that Democrats win the young vote and Republicans tend to win the older vote.   People aren’t just born older.   Over time they change their mind of how to vote. 

 

 

Can you point me towards this data? Below is all I can find. If it was even in the mid-90s, I’m surprised Democrats won often 20 years later when the population is top heavy and older people have a higher % of people voting. A lot of them switching to Republican doesn’t seem accurate to me. 

 

 

 

 

and I’ll add to what others have said. They’re anecdotes but my mom, who was a lifetime Republican through her 60s, has not voted for a Republican president since she voted for Bush in 2000. She kept voting for other Republicans for awhile, but because of Trump she refuses to vote for any Republicans now. 

[TGHusker]

42 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Colorado, for example, didn't switch from swing state to becoming solidly blue because of Democrats changing the minds of Reagan voters from the 1980s. Colorado is blue because young, college educated people have moved into the state from other states essentially out numbering them. Texas is turning blue not because Democrats are mass changing the minds of Republican voters who've lived in the state for decades, it's because people are moving there and are beginning to outnumber them. The same thing is true for other swing states that are now Red, such as Iowa or Ohio. College educated voters are leaving those states, making them redder and redder over time. States change largely because of demographic shifts over time, not because huge swaths of the electorate suddenly change their political views.

 

What Trump and the MAGA movement have successfully done is awaken huge swaths of voters who didn't care much or participate in politics prior to 2016. By mobilizing an easily manipulated cohort of voters, he has cultivated a powerful political movement that allows him to be competitive in elections. This has also contributed to the red shift in former swing states.

This is very true.  In my state of Oklahoma, we have seen it become more and more red over the years.  When I moved here just prior to Tom's 1st victory over OU in 1978 - which I enjoyed rubbing it in to my new Okla friends - but I digress,  Okla was solidly, firmly a Democrat run state. Dem Congressman Carl Albert was the Speaker of the US House - 3rd in line in 1972.  Things began to change in 1980 with Reagan and his coattails.  In recent elections, Oklahoma has become the reddest of red states.  We have elected a Trump want-to-be business guy as governor, a crackpot is now US Senator Mullen, and all kinds of MAGA crazies on the state level.  I think the evangelical vote was the biggest reason the state turned more red - plus the state wide country commissioner scandal that rocked the state in the early 80s turned many way from the heavily Democratic run local and state govt's.  The Dem party continued tilt leftward accelerated the process,  It took 20-30 years but now Okla is a one party state - this time all Red. 

 

Interesting article on how Okla went from solid blue to solid red.    I think as Tulsa and OKC grow we may see a moderation - maybe not all the way back to purple but going that direction.  Urbanization tends to point that direction. 

https://projects.oudaily.com/oklahomapolitics/

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, TGHusker said:

This is very true.  In my state of Oklahoma, we have seen it become more and more red over the years.  When I moved here just prior to Tom's 1st victory over OU in 1978 - which I enjoyed rubbing it in to my new Okla friends - but I digress,  Okla was solidly, firmly a Democrat run state. Dem Congressman Carl Albert was the Speaker of the US House - 3rd in line in 1972.  Things began to change in 1980 with Reagan and his coattails.  In recent elections, Oklahoma has become the reddest of red states.  We have elected a Trump want-to-be business guy as governor, a crackpot is now US Senator Mullen, and all kinds of MAGA crazies on the state level.  I think the evangelical vote was the biggest reason the state turned more red - plus the state wide country commissioner scandal that rocked the state in the early 80s turned many way from the heavily Democratic run local and state govt's.  The Dem party continued tilt leftward accelerated the process,  It took 20-30 years but now Okla is a one party state - this time all Red. 

 

Interesting article on how Okla went from solid blue to solid red.    I think as Tulsa and OKC grow we may see a moderation - maybe not all the way back to purple but going that direction.  Urbanization tends to point that direction. 

https://projects.oudaily.com/oklahomapolitics/

Nebraska has had two Democrat Governors in my life time.  There is no way in hell one could win right now.  Heck, our current Republican one had to go all MAGA to actually win.

[commando]

20 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Nebraska has had two Democrat Governors in my life time.  There is no way in hell one could win right now.  Heck, our current Republican one had to go all MAGA to actually win.

during Ben Nelsons term Nebraska won 3 national titles.   maybe we need to make nebraska great again and elect a democratic gov.

[Guy Chamberlin]

The RNC is obviously stuck with Trump, but are voters, donors, and Party operatives considering who Trump will appoint if elected?

 

We are watching him on trial, represented by bargain basement lawyers who don't understand the basics of their own profession. These are the only people who will work for him at this point. Trump alienated all the adults he put in his cabinet in 2016, and the quality of his appointments quickly dwindled as he replaced them with unquestioning loyalists. 

 

I'd like to think at some point Trump supporters could see through the Witch Hunt and watch these trials simply for the ineptness of Team Trump, and realize that these are the kind of people who will be making decisions for Team America. 

 

If God wants Donald Trump, why does He not surround him with worthy apostles instead of low-rent douchebags?

[Archy1221]

3 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

 

Additionally, you currently believe that Biden is part of a large corruption scandal despite huge swaths of evidence - admitted to even by Republicans - that it is largely made up, without evidence, and includes no crimes. But you believe in this in order to reconcile your own support for corrupt candidates as a two time Trump voter. This makes you a poster child for extreme partisanship studied by academics who are amazed that voters can construct their own reality, devoid of facts or a basis in reason, in order to fit the world around their poor political preferences.

My previous voting for Trump had no bearing on what The Big Guy is/has gone through.   It wasn’t an issue in 2020 because people like you proclaimed the laptop to be Russian Disinformation despite the IC agencies telling you differently.   Your extreme partisanship prevents you from acknowledging basic facts.  
 

Your poor political choices also made you believe and probably currently still do that Russia was the cause of the 2016 Trump win and that he collided with Russia.  Your extreme political partisanship keeps you voting for the old man who can’t remember anything.   Unlike you, I will be writing in a candidates name (Ron DeSantis).   You will be voting for a mush brain with a 38% approval rating who gave us an extremely awful border situation and foreign policy disasters.  Congrats!!!!!