Presidential predictions for 2024?

There's a good chance that the upcoming presidential election will be decided by the "double haters" - those who can't stand either Trump or Biden and who won't vote for either of them.

In 2020, Biden picked up votes from people who were no longer willing to stomach Trump. But in 2024, if a significant portion of those people decide to vote for a third candidate, all the indications are that this will work in Trump's favour in the head-to-head against Biden. Trump's supporters are mostly locked in; you'd have to be to continue to support Trump after everything he has done. The same can't be said for Biden's - or at least not for enough of them. For instance, if RFK Jr. is on the ballot in many states, he is likely to siphon votes away from Biden to a much greater extent than from Trump.

There is also talk about a No Labels ticket putting up a candidate, which is supposed to be a centrist alternative to Trump and Biden, although apparently they are having trouble convincing anybody who has a public profile to run on that ticket. Again, if it goes ahead, it is more likely to siphon votes away from Biden than from Trump.
 
What it may get down to is that anyone who has any money may feel that Biden may hurt their bank account more than Trump. RFK is nuts, Trump is a clown show, Biden is just going to keep promising to spend more money until he gets re-elected again.

Since the choices are so bad, it's bound to go down to the wire again and the winner is going to be disappointing no matter who it is. If Biden is elected the President may be President Harris by the end of the term.
 
I don't intend to vote.

This is, actually, one of the big questions about this election cycle: Many Trump voters have come out and said they won't vote for Trump; moreover, the totally not conservative but perpetually antiliberal sympathizers with conservative politics say they won't vote for Trump, either. Compared to 2016 and 2020, what will his vote total be?

A sharp drop would suggest those voters came through on their word.

A mild drop would suggest some of them voted for Trump, anyway.

A steady total (65-75m) or gain (>75m) would suggest those voters stuck with Trump despite saying otherwise.

It is hard to project the mitigation of lost voters by an influx of new voters, and will be hard to read in the polls because, as the saying goes, people lie to pollsters.¹

An even more fascinating question is what Trump voters do if Trump is defeated. While there is much talk of insurrection and violence, there is also some struggle among certain conservatives to distinguish Trumpism as separate from the conservatism that cultivated and raised it to power, would pretend to not support it, but is apparently willing to accept it.

After all, as a matter of voter behavior, the next in line are DeSantis and Haley; one is a southern-state governor and culture warrior who seeks to make teaching of history illegal, and the other is a former southern-state governor who falters in discussion of the Civil War that started in her state, refuses the human rights of women, and wants to be counted among Nazi sympathizers. It's not like an end of the Trump era would mean the underlying components go away; inasmuch as Trumpism is a brand experience↗, the underlying product it is and represents existed before, and will continue in the marketplace beyond Donald Trump.

It's like the time, some years ago, this guy I know wagged at me about not merely dismissing the views of others, and why it's other people's fault that someone votes for Trump, and just to go by the history since², Trump voters have remained fixated on certain issues the advice would have us look away from, such as supremacism and conspiracism.

Maybe people forget when major Republican figures, including former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, dabbled in antivax conspiracism a little over a decade ago. Or perhaps it's been long enough that they don't recall that the Christian nationalism now bearing such influence among Republicans has been influential for over thirty years.³

The actual vote totals will be an interesting reflection on question of who won't vote for Trump, including who say they won't vote.
____________________

Notes:

¹ It is, of course, a bit more subtle than that, but in certain questions, poll respondents are known to be unreliable.

² i.e., speak nothing of the forty-plus years preceding that, and we really shouldn't need to count back a bit over a century before that, even if it's there.

³ It's one thing if Dan Quayle came to his senses, and insofar as the entire world is lucky that he is the exception, he is still the exception. The former vice-president did, thirty years ago, pledge allegiance to the same Christian flag congressional Republicans now abide.​
 
This is, actually, one of the big questions about this election cycle: Many Trump voters have come out and said they won't vote for Trump; moreover, the totally not conservative but perpetually antiliberal sympathizers with conservative politics say they won't vote for Trump, either. Compared to 2016 and 2020, what will his vote total be?

A sharp drop would suggest those voters came through on their word.

A mild drop would suggest some of them voted for Trump, anyway.

A steady total (65-75m) or gain (>75m) would suggest those voters stuck with Trump despite saying otherwise.

It is hard to project the mitigation of lost voters by an influx of new voters, and will be hard to read in the polls because, as the saying goes, people lie to pollsters.¹

An even more fascinating question is what Trump voters do if Trump is defeated. While there is much talk of insurrection and violence, there is also some struggle among certain conservatives to distinguish Trumpism as separate from the conservatism that cultivated and raised it to power, would pretend to not support it, but is apparently willing to accept it.

After all, as a matter of voter behavior, the next in line are DeSantis and Haley; one is a southern-state governor and culture warrior who seeks to make teaching of history illegal, and the other is a former southern-state governor who falters in discussion of the Civil War that started in her state, refuses the human rights of women, and wants to be counted among Nazi sympathizers. It's not like an end of the Trump era would mean the underlying components go away; inasmuch as Trumpism is a brand experience↗, the underlying product it is and represents existed before, and will continue in the marketplace beyond Donald Trump.

It's like the time, some years ago, this guy I know wagged at me about not merely dismissing the views of others, and why it's other people's fault that someone votes for Trump, and just to go by the history since², Trump voters have remained fixated on certain issues the advice would have us look away from, such as supremacism and conspiracism.

Maybe people forget when major Republican figures, including former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, dabbled in antivax conspiracism a little over a decade ago. Or perhaps it's been long enough that they don't recall that the Christian nationalism now bearing such influence among Republicans has been influential for over thirty years.³

The actual vote totals will be an interesting reflection on question of who won't vote for Trump, including who say they won't vote.
____________________

Notes:

¹ It is, of course, a bit more subtle than that, but in certain questions, poll respondents are known to be unreliable.

² i.e., speak nothing of the forty-plus years preceding that, and we really shouldn't need to count back a bit over a century before that, even if it's there.

³ It's one thing if Dan Quayle came to his senses, and insofar as the entire world is lucky that he is the exception, he is still the exception. The former vice-president did, thirty years ago, pledge allegiance to the same Christian flag congressional Republicans now abide.

I think Biden will probably win and I also don't see any credible Republican politicians in the pipeline.

I didn't vote for Reagan back in the day but going back in time, were that possible, Reagan is the only Republican President that I would/could have voted for.

If there were such a thing, these days, as a Rockefeller Republican, they would get my vote. I'm sure, somewhere, there is a Democrat, currently, that could get my vote but it wouldn't be from the Progressive wing and it wouldn't be from the retro/geriatric wing (Biden).

Biden proposes (Warren influence) a 30% energy tax on Bitcoin miners. That's a disqualifier for me right there.

Everything his has done in office has been to create inflation rather than to fight it. Everything he has done has been to support unionism, and to increase spending rather than to address the ever growing debt.

There are "talking points" about his plan to lower the debt, fix infrastructure, "invest" in the future but it is all BS and all he has really done is to just try to buy votes with student loan "forgiveness", starting the narrative about "greedy" corporations, and other BS.

I could support, I guess, either someone like (D) Governor Whitmer or (R) Governor Sununu. Sununu is a little too slick for me but considering the alternatives, he would do I suppose.

I just can't get behind Biden's economic views (to the extent that he has any). I don't think he has any real understanding of economics in the first place. People can say, the economy is good, he spent less than Trump or whatever the talking points are but it's all BS.

My wallet would be lighter under Biden than under most anyone else.
 
Last edited:
What it may get down to is that anyone who has any money may feel that Biden may hurt their bank account more than Trump.
Well, except they may look at the economy right now, and the rate that inflation is dropping, and they may want that to continue. An often asked question is "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" And given the recession that hit at the beginning of COVID - most Americans are.
Since the choices are so bad, it's bound to go down to the wire again and the winner is going to be disappointing no matter who it is. If Biden is elected the President may be President Harris by the end of the term.
Biden has a 95% chance of living to the end of his second term. If Trump is elected, he has a 90% chance. So his VP pick is probably more important than Biden's. In addition, Trump has a family history of Alzheimer's - Biden does not.

https://theconversation.com/biden-a...t-presidents-term-demographers-explain-225153
 
Well, except they may look at the economy right now, and the rate that inflation is dropping, and they may want that to continue. An often asked question is "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" And given the recession that hit at the beginning of COVID - most Americans are.

Biden has a 95% chance of living to the end of his second term. If Trump is elected, he has a 90% chance. So his VP pick is probably more important than Biden's. In addition, Trump has a family history of Alzheimer's - Biden does not.

https://theconversation.com/biden-a...t-presidents-term-demographers-explain-225153
I'm not discussing Trump. I'm discussing Biden. He looks and acts like death warmed over.

Of course everyone is better off without Covid than with Covid. That has nothing to do with Biden.

You can keep inflating the money supply to keep the economy afloat (artificially) until you can't but that's not a sign of a great economic plan. This isn't just a critique of Biden, it's a critique of all current politicians.

People point to a good stock market but the main driver of price hasn't been profit or productivity. The P/E ratio just keep going up. That's just a function of retirement plans and government "printing" money. The companies aren't more profitable, the government is just flooding the market by increasing the money supply. We're just paying more for the same thing.

That's all that "Bidenomics" is doing.
 
I'm not discussing Trump. I'm discussing Biden.
You said "Since the choices are so bad." What do you think the choice will be in November?
You can keep inflating the money supply to keep the economy afloat (artificially) until you can't but that's not a sign of a great economic plan. This isn't just a critique of Biden, it's a critique of all current politicians.
Agreed. Unfortunately, it works. And people will always take an economy that works over an economy that wisely plans for the future but makes them poor now.
 
You said "Since the choices are so bad." What do you think the choice will be in November?

Agreed. Unfortunately, it works. And people will always take an economy that works over an economy that wisely plans for the future but makes them poor now.
I know who the choices are. I don't like any of the choices.

Regarding the economy. It's works until it doesn't work. It doesn't work well if you hold dollars (hence the interest in Bitcoin) but one day, it won't work. One day the dollar will be so debased that no one will buy government debt.

One day the interest rates will be too high for the government to pay even though without causing hyperinflation. I don't want to reward that kind of behavior (by ignoring it).
 
I think the better of two bad choices is for Biden to be reelected and (crazy as they are) for the Republicans to maintain control of Congress. Even that is iffy since the margin has gotten so narrow and those elections are local so even though it might be better to have a mixed government, those elections are based on local issues.

I personally wouldn't like to see a Democrat as President along with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate. One or the other, but not both.

If Trump and the Republicans were in control (of both chambers) the economic decisions would probably be fine. The world might end though...who knows?
 
I think moral hazard and the corrupting influence of "big money" in politics are the two most harmful aspects of our governmental system.
 
Well, a good indicator that Trump is screwed is that Liz Truss has endorsed him! And she wants Nigel Farage back in the UK government!! Ah, well, we were always skirting with a truly nuts right-wing fringe... bring on Labour to have a go for the next 5 years, and see if they can make slightly less of a mess of it!
And while being independently wealthy certainly helps (you have to feel sorry for those MPs who can't live on the £86k p.a. such that they need to take second jobs to feed their habits), we have at least limited the amount of money sloshing around the political system, and it doesn't appear quite so obviously corrupt as a result.
 
Voter Information & Behavior

The reality check is that things should not be this way. The reality check on that, however, is that should does not translate into is.

The social media summary is pretty straightforward: "Passive or news-ignorant Americans support Donald Trump," Matthew Sheffield↱ explains, "while people who actually read news support Joe Biden."

And, sure, prima facie, it's both, of course, and, no way. Because it is also true that I actually encountered an episode of this only weeks ago. So, sure, the coincidence of "news-ignorant" and "support Donald Trump" stood out, to me.

But it's not just the twitsum; it's also the lede; NBC News↱ explains:

Supporters of President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are sharply divided across all sorts of lines, including the sources they rely on to get their news, new data from the NBC News poll shows.

Biden is the clear choice of voters who consume newspapers and national network news, while Trump does best among voters who don't follow political news at all.

The stark differences help highlight the strategies both candidates are using as they seek another term in the White House — and shed some light on why the presidential race appears relatively stable.

The newspaper number is the standout; "among traditional news consumers", Biden wins 52-41; "those who don't follow political news" support Trump 53-27. But among those who cite newspapers as their main news source, Biden wins 70-21. Republican pollster Bill McInturff explained, "It's almost comic. If you're one of the remaining Americans who say you read a newspaper to get news, you are voting for Biden by 49 points."

Trump actually fares reasonbly well in this poll, winning among "YouTube/Google" consumers, "cable news" viewers, and news consumers drawing mainly from "social media"; he matches his "don't follow" in cable news (53-45), and gets slightly more support (55-39) from YouTube/Google consumers, but the Trump's strongest lead is among those who don't follow political news.

McInturff conducted the poll along with Democratic colleague Jeff Horwitt.

Trump's lead among those not following political news caught Horwitt's eye amid Trump's trial on charges related to allegations he paid hush money to quash news of an alleged affair from coming out during the heat of his 2016 presidential campaign and as he faces legal jeopardy in other cases that consistently make news.

"These are voters who have tuned out information, by and large, and they know who they are supporting, and they aren't moving," Horwitt said.

"That's why it's hard to move this race based on actual news. They aren't seeing it, and they don't care," he continued.

Third-party candidates also do well with this chunk of the electorate — a quarter of the 15% who say they don't follow political news choose one of the other candidates in a five-way ballot test that includes Kennedy, Jill Stein and Cornel West. Third-party supporters also make up similar shares of those who say they get their news primarily from social media and from websites.

But voting behavior among those groups suggests that Biden's stronger showing with those traditional media consumers puts him ahead with a more reliable voting bloc.

As a larger question of voter behavior, the results are not especially surprising. One of the harder things to discern is the relationship between so-called new media and an underlying reactionary cynicism fueled almost entirely by pretenses of doubt. The thing is, much rejection of traditional media focuses on its failures and inconsistencies, and while these are real problems, very little about new media even pretends such integrity. As a result, the most effective and persuasive information in those models is, in fact, the contagion of doubt.

The effect is unavoidable: Among traditional news consumers, Biden's numbers vary significantly, "while digital news consumers are far more in line with registered voters overall", i.e., "primarily traditional news consumers" have a more positive view of Biden than the uninformed, misinformed, and general rest of the market.

Perhaps the least surprising aspect of the poll is that "third-party candidates also do well" among the uninformed and new media consumers: "A quarter of the 15% who say they don’t follow political news choose one of the other candidates in a five-way ballot test that includes Kennedy, Jill Stein and Cornel West" and "also make up similar shares of those who say they get their news primarily from social media and from websites".

From a political perspective, it's a challenging poll result for the Biden campaign, and all the more so when the result makes no difference to the Trump campaign. But beyond that, it ought to be significant, at least to those who otherwise pretend to care about such things, how much influence ignorance and doubt are granted in the marketplace. In its way, these feel like the politics of surrender.
____________________

Notes:

@mattsheffield. "Passive or news-ignorant Americans support Donald Trump, while people who actually read news support Joe Biden." X. 29 April 2024. Twitter.com. 30 April 2024. https://bit.ly/3UnmfkF

Kamisar, Ben. "Poll: Biden and Trump supporters sharply divided by the media they consume". NBC News. 29 April 2024. NBCNews.com. 30 April 2024. https://bit.ly/4aYnvlj
 
With news so far seeming to suggest that Trump has far less of a campaign fund than Biden, and donations are not as forthcoming, seems Trump is now effectively promising Oil companies that they can write their own Executive Orders should he regain the White House... if they stump up a whopping USD 1 billion to his campaign.

"Trump promised to scrap climate laws if US oil bosses donated $1bn – report" - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/09/trump-oil-ceo-donation
"Trump turns to oil industry for $1bn towards campaign as they draft executive orders for him to sign" - https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/donald-trump-campaign-oil-executives-b2542606.html
"Literally willing to take bribes': Report of Trump promise to Big Oil fuels concerns" - https://www.alternet.org/trump-bribes-big-oil/

I'm not sure how much of this is legal, and it may warrant an investigation, but, well, that's a lot of money to convince people to vote for you... and screw the environment!
 
At what point do "campaign contributions" become bribes?

The point at which they exceed the legal limits. Since politicians also write the laws, and the Constitution upholds free speech, little gets done regarding campaign finance reform.
 
At what point do "campaign contributions" become bribes?
I have no idea. It's a murky area. Maybe the moment that the structure, the money in return for policies, is explicitly stated rather than just left unsaid? It may be in how the "deal" is stated, e.g. if he said: "this is what I'm going to do when I get in, and I'd appreciate your help getting me there in the form of $1bn donation to the campaign fund", then that's probably on safer ground than saying "give me $1bn donation to my campaign fund and I'll do what you want regarding energy policies."
But, honestly, no idea. It just seems to have a strong odour of corruption about it.
 
Back
Top