The 2024 Presidential Election- The LONG General Election

[TGHusker]

3 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I still think it will not be Joe or Trump.

 

I really think it will be the most wide open election we have seen in our lives.

 

Of course, I am wrong about most things so...

To your point:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-allies-are-pushing-him-away-from-running-again-in-2024-to-avoid-a-disastrous-defeat-report-says/ar-AAQZJni?ocid=entnewsntp

Quote

 

• Trump aides are pushing him not to run again in 2024, The Atlantic reported.
• He has repeatedly indicated that he is considering another run for office, spooking some allies.
• They're focusing on the risk of his legacy being defined by defeat to dissuade him, the report said.

President Trump's allies are pushing to dissuade him from running for president again in 2024 and possibly being handed a second defeat, The Atlantic reported.

Trump has repeatedly indicated that he could seek the Republican candidacy in the next presidential election and has raised tens of millions of dollars from supporters to fund his political future.

The Atlantic reported that one of Trump's former campaign advisors, who spoke anonymously, said they planned to warn Trump that he could be known as a serial political loser if he fails again.

The person is planning to use the example of Adlai Stevenson — who lost two straight presidential elections in the 1950s — to dissuade him.

Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker and a Trump ally, told The Atlantic: "I don't think he wants to risk losing twice. Once, you can argue about the outcome. Twice, it becomes a repudiation."

 

 

[teachercd]

4 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

To your point:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-allies-are-pushing-him-away-from-running-again-in-2024-to-avoid-a-disastrous-defeat-report-says/ar-AAQZJni?ocid=entnewsntp

 

Maybe I am nuts but does anyone see a path for Trump to win?  I don't.

 

The people that did not vote for him last time are not all of a sudden voting for him this time (if he runs)

 

The new voters, that just turned of age, are probably not Trump voters and if they are it is not enough.

 

The older vote, did he get that?  Well a lot of those voters are gone.

 

The people in the middle, are they going to vote for Trump if they did not vote for him last time?

[knapplc]

TFG isn't running in 2024. There's zero chance he would have sold his D.C. hotel if he thought he might be in the White House again. 

[BigRedBuster]

On 11/22/2021 at 11:13 AM, teachercd said:

Maybe I am nuts but does anyone see a path for Trump to win?  I don't.

 

Unfortunately, I do.  If he runs, the Republicans are so screwed up and in love with the guy that he would probably win the nomination.  There have been other Republicans that even have said they won't run if he runs.

 

The Dems are so screwed up with Biden that there's a lot of Americans that are upset with them and won't want another Dem in office.

Ding ding ding....We get Cheetos man again and that would be disastrous for America.

[BigRedBuster]

I would agree with this. 
 

 

[TGHusker]

Krispy Kream Christie sharpening up his image in prep for 2024.

 

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-new-jersey-campaigns-barack-obama-election-2020-da8c2189595f06eb8023166efa5dfb01

Quote

Christie stood in for Democrat Hillary Clinton during Trump’s 2016 debate prep and was rewarded for his loyalty by being tasked with chairing the presidential transition. But after the election, Christie was fired from that role in a move seen as retribution for the elder Kushner’s prosecution. Still, Christie ultimately found his way back into Trump’s inner circle, heading the administration’s commission on opioid misuse, serving as an informal adviser and again helping with debate preparation last year.

But Christie describes Trump’s reaction to the 2020 election won by Democrat Joe Biden as a breaking point. In appearances and interviews, Christie says he was “incredibly disappointed and disillusioned” by Trump’s refusal to concede the election, which culminated in his followers’ violent storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6 in an effort to halt the certification of Biden’s win.

Christie now argues that the party must disavow Trump’s lies and move past his grievances if it wants to succeed. Voters, he argues, “want sanity and they want common sense.”

“As Republicans, we need to free ourselves from the quicksand of endless grievances. We need to turn our attention to the future and quit wallowing in the past. We need to face the realities of the 2020 election and learn — not hide — from them,” he writes in the book, calling on the party to rid itself of conspiracies and focus on providing voters with a positive alternative to Democratic policies.

Trump has started hitting back. In a statement this month, the former president said Christie was “just absolutely massacred by his statements that Republicans have to move on from the past.”

Christie dismissed the blowback. “Anybody can say whatever they want. These are my opinions. This is what I believe,” he says, and he is already pondering how a 2024 campaign might look different from 2016. His previous bid was heavy on town hall-style events targeted to voters in New Hampshire, home to the nation’s first presidential primary. Christie finished sixth there.

A second campaign, he said in the interview, would be different.

“You won’t just see me wandering around up there. One of the things that I learned was, when I ran the first time, is motion isn’t progress,” he said. “I’m going to be very deliberate about what I do, both in the runup to a decision and then certainly if I do decide to run, in how I conduct a campaign and try to make all the time I expend really count.”

For now, Christie appears to be reveling in the attention of being back in the political game after a hiatus that included a bout with COVID-19 that landed him in the intensive care unit. He’s working on a second book focused on “bringing the country together,” co-chairing a national Republican group focused on redistricting strategy and serving as a top fundraiser for the Republican Governors Association, a group he once led, giving him access to some of the party’s most consequential donors.

GOP strategist Mike DuHaime, a longtime Christie adviser who worked on Christie’s 2016 campaign, said it was too soon to be talking about a race so far off.

“You can only plot so much,” he said. “And there are so many other factors outside of our control that you just kind of have to say what you think and do what you think is right.”

 

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

On 11/22/2021 at 11:13 AM, teachercd said:

Maybe I am nuts but does anyone see a path for Trump to win?  I don't.

 

The people that did not vote for him last time are not all of a sudden voting for him this time (if he runs)

 

The new voters, that just turned of age, are probably not Trump voters and if they are it is not enough.

 

The older vote, did he get that?  Well a lot of those voters are gone.

 

The people in the middle, are they going to vote for Trump if they did not vote for him last time?

I think Trump would have a greater than 50% chance to win against Joe Biden and probably much, much higher (70%?) against a non-incumbant candidate.

 

Your assessment isn't wrong, but in the context of the electoral college Democrats face a 4-5% disadvantage. It's possible that a Democrat wins the national popular vote by 4.8% (8 million or so votes) and still loses.

 

In other words, despite Trump being the least popular person in politics, the structural advantages Republicans hold mean they may win the election no matter what. 

 

This is before we consider what state legislatures do in states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia, where they seem poised to subvert an election anyway.

 

In the game of politics, to put it simply, Republicans have won. It's sort of over at this point. 

[teachercd]

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I think Trump would have a greater than 50% chance to win against Joe Biden and probably much, much higher (70%?) against a non-incumbant candidate.

 

Your assessment isn't wrong, but in the context of the electoral college Democrats face a 4-5% disadvantage. It's possible that a Democrat wins the national popular vote by 4.8% (8 million or so votes) and still loses.

 

In other words, despite Trump being the least popular person in politics, the structural advantages Republicans hold mean they may win the election no matter what. 

 

This is before we consider what state legislatures do in states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia, where they seem poised to subvert an election anyway.

 

In the game of politics, to put it simply, Republicans have won. It's sort of over at this point. 

How have they won?

[Dr. Strangelove]

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

How have they won?

By the skin of their teeth, about 40k votes in 2020.

 

But the trends are not good for them. In 2016, for a Democrat to win the Presidency they needed to win the national popular vote by 2.5% or so. In 2020, it was 4.4%. In 2024, it's likely higher. They may need to win by 5%, maybe more, in order to win the Presidency. In a hyper-partisan environment, it's really difficult for one party to win by that many votes.. this trend is accelerating.

 

The political reality for Democrats in the Senate are even worse. By extension, because the Senate controls the Judiciary, they will dominate there too. 

 

Democrats will eventually battle their way back in the house, but at the end of each decade they will control fewer state legislatures and as such less house districts to gerrymander.

[teachercd]

13 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

By the skin of their teeth, about 40k votes in 2020.

 

But the trends are not good for them. In 2016, for a Democrat to win the Presidency they needed to win the national popular vote by 2.5% or so. In 2020, it was 4.4%. In 2024, it's likely higher. They may need to win by 5%, maybe more, in order to win the Presidency. In a hyper-partisan environment, it's really difficult for one party to win by that many votes.. this trend is accelerating.

 

The political reality for Democrats in the Senate are even worse. By extension, because the Senate controls the Judiciary, they will dominate there too. 

 

Democrats will eventually battle their way back in the house, but at the end of each decade they will control fewer state legislatures and as such less house districts to gerrymander.

Ahhh, thanks.  

[Dr. Strangelove]

19 hours ago, teachercd said:

Ahhh, thanks.  

Yup. If you're curious, you can read articles written by G. Elliot Morris of the Economist or Nate Cohn from the New York Times. There are probably many others as well.

 

Long story short, we're in a period of extreme partisanship. The leading indicators of partisanship are race and educational attainment. Educated voters, those most likely to vote for Democrats, are leaving states to move to big cities. Think of students from Ohio and Iowa moving to Chicago. Ohio and Iowa turn more red while the city of Chicago turns more blue.

 

When this plays out for the country as a whole, more states are turning red than states turning blue. Democrats will likely turn states like Arizona and Georgia blue (thanks to cities like Phoenix and Atlanta) but the tradeoff will be Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania which are turning red. 

 

Furthermore, since Democrats are increasingly concentrated in cities, they become much easier to gerrymander when it comes to congressional seats or state legislature seats. 

 

One last note - the divisiveness of America's politics is likely to get much, much worse. Elections aside, large cities produce most of the economic growth and provide most tax revenue for federal and state government. The gap between the economic fortunes of urban vs rural areas will continue to grow - as well the discontent between what the citizens of cities want to do with those tax revenues vs what they can actually accomplish with the electoral system in place. 

[teachercd]

13 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Yup. If you're curious, you can read articles written by G. Elliot Morris of the Economist or Nate Cohn from the New York Times. There are probably many others as well.

 

Long story short, we're in a period of extreme partisanship. The leading indicators of partisanship are race and educational attainment. Educated voters, those most likely to vote for Democrats, are leaving states to move to big cities. Think of students from Ohio and Iowa moving to Chicago. Ohio and Iowa turn more red while the city of Chicago turns more blue.

 

When this plays out for the country as a whole, more states are turning red than states turning blue. Democrats will likely turn states like Arizona and Georgia blue (thanks to cities like Phoenix and Atlanta) but the tradeoff will be Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania which are turning red. 

 

Furthermore, since Democrats are increasingly concentrated in cities, they become much easier to gerrymander when it comes to congressional seats or state legislature seats. 

 

One last note - the divisiveness of America's politics is likely to get much, much worse. Elections aside, large cities produce most of the economic growth and provide most tax revenue for federal and state government. The gap between the economic fortunes of urban vs rural areas will continue to grow - as well the discontent between what the citizens of cities want to do with those tax revenues vs what they can actually accomplish with the electoral system in place. 

Super good and simple explanation!  

[TGHusker]

Ok, 2022 is upon us and it will be all about the congressional races - or will it be.  Speculation will be high on who will announce first for a run at the 2024 presidential nomination.  This article notes 10 possible GOPers who could announce their campaign for 2024 as soon as the ink is dry on the last congressional ballot 

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/586002-the-10-republicans-most-likely-to-run-for-president

 

Trump, Pence, Cruz, Cotton, Christie, Noem, Halley,  DeSantis, Pompeo, Hogan.   Several of these say they won't run if Trump runs - that in my mind disqualifies them already. Not just because they are Trumpists but because they don't believe in themselves enough to overcome someone as flawed as Trump.  Gov Hogan from Maryland is the only one on the list I could support at this time. Pence is damaged goods to me, not because he stood up to the pressure of Jan 6, but because he didn't stand up to the pressure when the access Hollywood tapes came out in 2016. If he had, history would have been different.  Cotton is an opportunist, headline grabber, Cruz is well Cruz - nothing more needs to be said,  Christi is trying an image make over, Noem and Halley are differing to Trump, DeSantis is Trump 2.0, Pompeo is Trump's puppet.  That leaves me wt Hogan who isn't afraid to call out Trump & take on the trump lies and tell the truth and who wants to return the GOP back to the traditional GOP image and values of Lincoln, Ike & Reagan.  Hogan won the governorship in a blue state and of all of the GOPers would have the best opportunity to attract Democrats and Independents.  He also would have a uniquely single lane to run in - as someone on this list  who was never associated with Trump or a strong supporter of Trump.  Thus, while all of the Trump like or Trump light candidates duke it out trying to out trump each other, Hogan could get all of the votes of those who are ready to move on from the trump drama.  (Kind of the opposite of 2016 - when Trump let all of the other candidates try to out conservative each other while he picked up votes doing the unconventional things.)

[Archy1221]

6 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Ok, 2022 is upon us and it will be all about the congressional races - or will it be.  Speculation will be high on who will announce first for a run at the 2024 presidential nomination.  This article notes 10 possible GOPers who could announce their campaign for 2024 as soon as the ink is dry on the last congressional ballot 

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/586002-the-10-republicans-most-likely-to-run-for-president

 

Trump, Pence, Cruz, Cotton, Christie, Noem, Halley,  DeSantis, Pompeo, Hogan.   Several of these say they won't run if Trump runs - that in my mind disqualifies them already. Not just because they are Trumpists but because they don't believe in themselves enough to overcome someone as flawed as Trump.  Gov Hogan from Maryland is the only one on the list I could support at this time. Pence is damaged goods to me, not because he stood up to the pressure of Jan 6, but because he didn't stand up to the pressure when the access Hollywood tapes came out in 2016. If he had, history would have been different.  Cotton is an opportunist, headline grabber, Cruz is well Cruz - nothing more needs to be said,  Christi is trying an image make over, Noem and Halley are differing to Trump, DeSantis is Trump 2.0, Pompeo is Trump's puppet.  That leaves me wt Hogan who isn't afraid to call out Trump & take on the trump lies and tell the truth and who wants to return the GOP back to the traditional GOP image and values of Lincoln, Ike & Reagan.  Hogan won the governorship in a blue state and of all of the GOPers would have the best opportunity to attract Democrats and Independents.  He also would have a uniquely single lane to run in - as someone on this list  who was never associated with Trump or a strong supporter of Trump.  Thus, while all of the Trump like or Trump light candidates duke it out trying to out trump each other, Hogan could get all of the votes of those who are ready to move on from the trump drama.  (Kind of the opposite of 2016 - when Trump let all of the other candidates try to out conservative each other while he picked up votes doing the unconventional things.)

I’m curious on what makes DeSantis Trump 2.0?

[TGHusker]

8 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I’m curious on what makes DeSantis Trump 2.0?

Most of his rhetoric during the pandemic.   It has felt like he has been trying to be trump light to gain trump supporters.  My impression anyway.  Show me how he is different than Trump on policy, attitude, culture.