Presidential predictions for 2024?

[Seattle]

Well, you've got a 50/50 chance of being right, I guess.
I'll go for Biden, and then in a few pages time I'll post one for Trump, and then later an outside shot like Biden's replacement, or Trump's replacement. Then when the winner comes in I can point, like any magician, to where the actual result was correctly predicted.

Seriously, though, I'd like to think that the majority of Americans are like me and can see how despicable a human being Trump is, and the threat he poses to the way of life that I'd like to lead were I in America, and the actual threat that he poses to me as a European! But then I have to also realise that America is a deeply divided nation, and rather than trying to bring the country together Trump is widening and deepening the split, on the assumption that the majority will be on his side of that divide when the die is cast. Perhaps most American's are like me, but if they are then they may not be in the locations that will give the Democrats the win.
So, in all seriousness, I predict that if Trump wins then he will lose the popular vote by quite a margin, even if he wins the electoral count comfortably.

To the extent that my "call" matters at all, it's the last prediction that matters. Things change. It doesn't look like Biden is going to step down. We're 2 months out so it's still a difficult call but, to me, it looks like the handwriting is on the wall.

Most people don't care for Trump, even the majority of those who will vote for him, so that's not really the issue.

The issue is that a majority want anyone but Biden and a majority of the population aren't "crazy" or cult-like. Biden was elected to be a caretaker and as someone who was "anyone but Trump". He could (and should) have played out that role. He also should have only run for the one term while the party groomed a younger candidate. That didn't happen.

Biden is way too old and frail. He has done little to combat inflation, nothing to reduce spending. To the contrary he wants to forgive student debt, give first time homebuyers money, wants to limit rent increases (that never works), talks about unions, taxing unrealized capital gains, wants to double the capital gains tax.

At least half of the country wants none of those things. Trump is dangerous, no doubt, so this isn't really about Trump. It's just about Biden not being acceptable.

The news focuses on Trump everyday (understandable) but Trump is who he is. He never was acceptable to most from the beginning. That's not going to change. It's just that many find Biden even less acceptable going forward.

It's a terrible choice. People focus on their personal finances and that gives Trump the edge.

If Biden had stepped down and Whitmer (for example) had stepped up, it could have swung things largely away from Trump. It doesn't look like that is going to happen.

The only issue in the press is not understanding how many people just aren't going to vote for Biden and it's not because they are crazy even though the MAGA base are "crazy".

Talking about "Bidenomics" is a losing game. Of course inflation is lower than right after the Covid shutdown but the credit that Biden wants to take for the current economy is just based on more and more spending and monetizing the debt. That's not sustainable.

 

[James R]

The choice in the upcoming election is to vote for (a) the rapist convicted felon who tried to overturn a free and fair election, first by applying pressure to try to corrupt officials and then, when that didn't work, by force; or (b) a guy who made public service his life's work and who values the rule of law.

Faced with this choice, Seattle is for Trump, because Seattle's personal finances are the main thing that matters.

 

[Seattle]

The choice in the upcoming election is to vote for (a) the rapist convicted felon who tried to overturn a free and fair election, first by applying pressure to try to corrupt officials and then, when that didn't work, by force; or (b) a guy who made public service his life's work and who values the rule of law.

Faced with this choice, Seattle is for Trump, because Seattle's personal finances are the main thing that matters.

I'm not for Trump. Maybe you don't understand the concept of "calling an election"?

However, it isn't uncommon for people to not be for the candidate that isn't good for their personal finances, virtue signalling notwithstanding. It's even more uncommon to support a candidate when you didn't agree with their understanding of the economy.

A new poll shows that 2/3's of Democrats think that Biden should drop out. James disagrees however, so there's that. I'm sure James is being fair minded regarding the candidate that he refers to as the rapist though.

 

[James R]

I'm not for Trump.

So given the choice presented to you, you're for Biden. Good to hear. That was not the impression I got from your previous post.

Maybe you don't understand the concept of "calling an election"?

How likely do you think it is that I don't understand the concept of calling an election?

Seriously, why bother with that kind of nonsense? What do you think you're gaining?

However, it isn't uncommon for people to not be for the candidate that isn't good for their personal finances, virtue signalling notwithstanding.

I agree.

It's even more uncommon to support a candidate when you did agree with their understanding of the economy.

Did you mean to write "didn't agree...", there?

You might be a one-issue voter, Seattle, to whom only the economy matters, but there are (a) other one-issue voters whose priorities are different from yours and (b) voters who weigh up the policies of the candidates, taking multiple issues into account. There are also those who consider the personal characters of the candidates in making their choice.

A new poll shows that 2/3's of Democrats think that Biden should drop out. James disagrees ...

Did I say I disagree with that? I did not. Try asking me.

I'm sure James is being fair minded regarding the candidate that he refers to as the rapist though.

A court of law found that he raped a woman, on a balance of probabilities.

Not "fair minded" enough for you?

 

[Seattle]

So given the choice presented to you, you're for Biden. Good to hear. That was not the impression I got from your previous post.

How likely do you think it is that I don't understand the concept of calling an election?

Seriously, why bother with that kind of nonsense? What do you think you're gaining?

I agree.

Did you mean to write "didn't agree...", there?

You might be a one-issue voter, Seattle, to whom only the economy matters, but there are (a) other one-issue voters whose priorities are different from yours and (b) voters who weigh up the policies of the candidates, taking multiple issues into account. There are also those who consider the personal characters of the candidates in making their choice.

Did I say I disagree with that? I did not. Try asking me.

A court of law found that he raped a woman, on a balance of probabilities.

Not "fair minded" enough for you?

It's wasn't a criminal court and it wasn't rape.

Yes, it appears that you don't understand calling an election since you stated that Seattle was for Trump. Later you were "glad to hear" that I'm for Biden. I'm for neither but that has nothing to do with calling an election.

 

[geordief]

It's wasn't a criminal court and it wasn't rape.

So we are not allowed to refer to rapists as such if they have not been convicted of rape in a criminal court?

For you rape means putting your prick and cuming inside a woman's vagina against her will ? Only that?

Any other circumstances you would deign to refer to as rape? Just old fashioned rape for conservatives?

 

[Sarkus]

So we are not allowed to refer to rapists as such if they have not been convicted of rape in a criminal court?

For you rape means putting your prick and cuming inside a woman's vagina against her will ? Only that?

Any other circumstances you would deign to refer to as rape? Just old fashioned rape for conservatives?

To be clear: Trump was found by a court in New York to be liable for the sexual assault and battery of E. Jean Carroll, not rape.

That the court was civil and not criminal is why he is still walking free, and why he doesn't have a criminal conviction for what he did. It's also important to note that being a civil court there merely needed to be a propensity of evidence toward that finding rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" as required in a criminal trial - i.e. the bar is much lower. In this case the jury adjudged the evidence to weigh on the side of him having carried out the act.
Since it was not a criminal court but a civil one, it is also probably more correct to say, rather than "he is guilty of X", that he was "found liable for X".

Now, as to whether it was rape or not, the suit was brought under Article 130 of the New York Penal Code that includes battery, sexual assault, and rape. However, the strict legal definition of rape in place means that it is only rape if it involves the penis, not finger, and since Carroll couldn't recall/prove/convince that it was definitely the former, her suit was on the grounds of sexual assault and battery.

So, strictly speaking, Trump was found liable for the battery and sexual assault of E. Jean Carrol, and not rape.

However, Judge Kaplan, presiding, wrote the following comment: “The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ”.

So ultimately whether you side with Trump as rapist or as sexual assaulter/batterer will be determined by how you understand the term "rape".

 

[Yazata]

Certainly calling an election three months before the election actually occurs (the official call will be when the ballots are counted) is iffy by its nature. Things can change dramatically between now and then.

So... what could change to turn the election around?

There are force majeure things like Trump being assassinated or Biden having a medical crisis that kills or incapacitates him.

Other than that, the democrats have used up most of their options.

They can't really run on their record, which is quite unpopular with most of the public: The stagflation economy, crime, riots and revolving door prosecutors and demands to defund the police, the open border and some ten million illegals competing with low wage locals for jobs, housing and public services, the sordid and dangerous state of many once iconic large cities, the devastating effect of free-trade globalism on many midwestern industrial towns, attacks on parental rights, the division of society into competing factions defined by race/gender, attempts to organize censorship of dissenting opinion and many more issues where democrats (and old-style big-business republicans) are moving contrary to the will of most of the people.

Lawfare hasn't worked and has only succeeded in highlighting a two-tier justice system that lets some connected people get away with anything, while it's been thoroughly weaponized against political rivals. Tens of millions of Americans aren't comfortable with a legal system more appropriate in China or a banana republic.

So what's left for the democrats to unleash in the next three months?

Expect a constant focus on Trump's supposedly unlikeable personality. Expect an emphasis on abortion, which is perhaps their most popular issue. Both of those issues will no doubt appeal to the democrats' new base of young, single college-indoctrinated females. Expect a constant emphasis on Trump as an "existental danger to our democracy" while ironically most of the real danger to democracy is coming from them.

But they have already had all that turned up to ten, and it isn't turning things around for them.

Replacing Biden atop the ticket would indeed remove the senility issue which would help the democrats. But it wouldn't address any of the real issues for the nation where they remain unpopular. If the new candidate tried to disavow and step back from any of it, it would cause open rebellion among the party's activist base.

 

[billvon]

It's wasn't a criminal court and it wasn't rape.

It was rape. The judge explained several times that what he did meets the common definition of rape. That's why his saying "I didn't rape her; she's crazy" is slander. That's why he wouldn't give a DNA sample, because he knew it would match the semen on her dress.

In fact, two separate, independent juries determined that Trump lied when he said he didn't rape her.

You can vote for whoever you want, of course. But if you vote for Trump, you are voting for a rapist. You should admit that to yourself.

 

[geordief]

It was rape. The judge explained several times that what he did meets the common definition of rape. That's why his saying "I didn't rape her; she's crazy" is slander. That's why he wouldn't give a DNA sample, because he knew it would match the semen on her dress.

In fact, two separate, independent juries determined that Trump lied when he said he didn't rape her.

You can vote for whoever you want, of course. But if you vote for Trump, you are voting for a rapist. You should admit that to yourself.

I haven't noticed Trump or his acolytes suing anyone or any publishers over describing him as him a rapist.

A tacit acceptance that the shoe fits -or that his reputation is already in the gutter?

Everyone knows he is a rapist.
He does .His wife and family do.
His political cronies do.
Those about to vote for him also do.

He fucked around and found out(found out that people are really quite accepting of rapists where they are "their rapists")

 

[Seattle]

The bottom line, as I see it, is that Trump will be elected. If Biden steps down, the odds switch toward the Democrats.

In other words, Biden won't be President in 2025, one way or another.

 

[Yazata]

Rumors are setting the internet on fire this afternoon. It's all coming from unnamed "reliable sources", which might be Biden insiders or maybe people who want him out and are trying to pressure him.

Supposedly Biden will announce that he is stepping down from the 2024 nomination this weekend (people are saying Sunday). He will NOT be resigning from the Presidency and his term in office will run until this coming January.

And supposedly he will not endorse Kamala, but will release his delegates in what the democrats are calling an "open primary" conducted not among democratic voters but rather among the convention delegates. There are said to be maybe three others besides Kamala who are being considered in this rushed and extremely ad hoc process.

Kamala is said to be already vetting VP candidates to be her running mate.

 

[Sarkus]

If true then this will possibly screw the Democrats, although hopefully not. There are many Democrats who will feel disenfranchised by the election of the new candidate when they have voted in the Primaries for Biden. They knew he was an elderly statesman well past his prime, but they still voted for him over any other candidate - and now they're being told that they can't have him and must back whoever someone else tells them to.

So not a great starting position.

But... this can be rectified and built upon strongly with the right selection of candidate and then strong messaging from Biden and everyone else, but specifically Biden. There'll only be a couple of months after the nomination until the actual election with which to push the nominee front and centre to all the undecideds / Trump-hating Republicans etc.
One thing I hope they avoid is a messy internal fight, but conduct themselves with decorum, not stooping to mud-slinging, name-calling, as per Trump's MO. Set themselves apart on that score, at least.

But that's only, of course, if the rumours are confirmed.

Ah, interesting times.

 

[C C]

If true then this will possibly screw the Democrats, although hopefully not. There are many Democrats who will feel disenfranchised by the election of the new candidate when they have voted in the Primaries for Biden. They knew he was an elderly statesman well past his prime, but they still voted for him over any other candidate - and now they're being told that they can't have him and must back whoever someone else tells them to. [...]

Still don't feel any confidence from the below. If he doesn't get angry about yesterday's attempted coup and nip it in the bud over the next 2 or 3 days, then he's going down at some point before August 19th.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(July 19) Biden Plans to Resume Campaigning

Election Highlights: Biden Maintains Public Defiance as More Lawmakers Call for His Exit From Race

The president and his campaign insist he will return to the campaign trail, but in private, some people close to Mr. Biden say he has begun to listen more seriously to the calls for him to drop out.

www.nytimes.com

INTRO: President Biden vowed on Friday to return to the campaign trail next week, maintaining his public defiance even as people close to the president said they believe he has begun to waver privately about whether to stay in the race against former President Donald J. Trump.

As Mr. Biden isolates because of Covid at his beach house in Delaware, the crisis engulfing his presidency is playing out in two very different environments — among his closest advisers and family behind closed doors, and in front of the cameras, with the world watching.

Publicly, Mr. Biden and his campaign advisers are giving no ground. In a statement, he said he was eager to campaign again so that he could “continue exposing the threat of Donald Trump’s Project 2025 agenda while making the case for my own record.” Jen O’Malley Dillon, the chair of the president’s campaign, said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that “he’s in it to win it.” (MORE - details)
_

 

[parmalee]

So, strictly speaking, Trump was found liable for the battery and sexual assault of E. Jean Carrol, and not rape.

However, Judge Kaplan, presiding, wrote the following comment: “The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ”.

So ultimately whether you side with Trump as rapist or as sexual assaulter/batterer will be determined by how you understand the term "rape".

Still, it's pretty damn unsettling that even after Kaplan's ruling and clarification there are still people who, for reasons I can only speculate upon, will argue that Trump is somehow not a rapist on the basis of the language and that it was a civil case, and not a criminal one.

(To be clear, I am not talking about you here. Your clarification is helpful.)

 

[Seattle]

Still, it's pretty damn unsettling that even after Kaplan's ruling and clarification there are still people who, for reasons I can only speculate upon, will argue that Trump is somehow not a rapist on the basis of the language and that it was a civil case, and not a criminal one.

(To be clear, I am not talking about you here. Your clarification is helpful.)

We know who you are talking about. It's not hard to figure out.

 

[James R]

It's wasn't a criminal court and it wasn't rape.

Clearly your understanding of the word "rape" is different from mine. Sexual intercourse without consent is rape, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, it appears that you don't understand calling an election since you stated that Seattle was for Trump.

Bizarre.

 

[James R]

It's also important to note that being a civil court there merely needed to be a propensity of evidence toward that finding rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" as required in a criminal trial - i.e. the bar is much lower.

The standard in civil matters is "on a balance of probabilities", which sounds to me like a higher standard than a mere "propensity of evidence". But I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind.

"Balance of probabilities", to my mind, means "greater than 50% chance".

As in: a court found that there was a greater than 50% chance that Trump raped E. Jean Carroll.

 

[Seattle]

Clearly your understanding of the word "rape" is different from mine. Sexual intercourse without consent is rape, as far as I'm concerned.


Bizarre.

Just saying "bizarre" is meaningless, and lazy.

There was no criminal court that proved sexual intercourse without consent. By the way, this doesn't mean that I like Trump and condone his behavior. It does mean that he isn't a convicted rapist. He lost a civil trial and owes money. He hasn't been convicted of rape just as OJ was never convicted of murder although he did lose in a civil court.

Is that "bizarre" too?

 

[James R]

Yazata,

Wow. It sounds like you've really drunk the Republican kool aid.

Other than that, the democrats have used up most of their options.

They can't really run on their record, which is quite unpopular with most of the public: The stagflation economy, crime, riots and revolving door prosecutors and demands to defund the police, the open border and some ten million illegals competing with low wage locals for jobs, housing and public services, the sordid and dangerous state of many once iconic large cities, the devastating effect of free-trade globalism on many midwestern industrial towns, attacks on parental rights, the division of society into competing factions defined by race/gender, attempts to organize censorship of dissenting opinion and many more issues where democrats (and old-style big-business republicans) are moving contrary to the will of most of the people.

This sounds like it came straight from Fox News.

The US economy isn't in "stagflation". On many measures, it is doing quite well.

I'm not sure what particular "crime" and "riots" you're thinking about, if it's anything specific. Are crime and riots actually up, based on data, or is this just what somebody told you to believe?

Revolving door prosecutors? What are you referring to? Trump's legal cases? Or something else?

Interesting that you use the term "illegals" to describe people. That demonisation of a particular demographic is a deliberate ploy to sow dissent and anger in the US populace. Anger must be stirred against a target group, and it's easy to pick a target group that is already hugely disadvantaged. This sort of thing is straight out of the authoritarian playbook. Moreover, are these "illegals" really competing for your job, or housing? As for public services, "illegals" often don't have access to those in the way you do.

Which "once iconic large cities" are you sad about? Is it really Joe Biden's fault if those cities are "sordid and dangerous"?

It sounds like you're against free trade and globalisation. Do you think Trump will fix that? And those divisions in society that you mention? Do you think Trump will bring Americans closer together? How concerned do you think he is about issues like gender equality? Recall that this is the "grab 'em by the pussy" guy. Or is it that you're with Trump and you believe that such things get too much attention as it is? Old-fashioned conservatism is what you'd prefer?

What "attempts to organise censorship" are you blaming on the Democrats, specifically?

The problem with all of these arguments is that, to the extent that they vaguely reference real issues, they suggest that those issues have one (or one main) simple cause. Fix the Presidency and the problems will all magically disappear? I don't think so. I don't think Trump will fix any of the things you've mentioned. In many cases, he'll make things worse.

Lawfare hasn't worked and has only succeeded in highlighting a two-tier justice system that lets some connected people get away with anything,

Like Trump with his hand-picked ideological judges, including on the Supreme Court, you mean?

...while it's been thoroughly weaponized against political rivals.

Such as women with unwarranted pregnancies.

Tens of millions of Americans aren't comfortable with a legal system more appropriate in China or a banana republic.

Maybe Americans should have thought about that before they voted in Trump 1.0. Look what that did to the Supreme Court. Utter disaster.

You don't imagine that Trump and his captured Republicans will be content to stop with their dismantling of American democratic institutions there, do you, if he is re-elected?

So what's left for the democrats to unleash in the next three months?

Expect a constant focus on Trump's supposedly unlikeable personality.

Supposedly? Are you a bit of a fan, Yazata?

What is it about Trump's personality that appeals to you? His narcissism? His "strong man dictator" persona? His misogyny? His cronyism? His propensity for telling lie after lie, unashamedly? All of the above?

Expect an emphasis on abortion, which is perhaps their most popular issue.

Not an issue you care about - women's basic rights to bodily autonomy?

Both of those issues will no doubt appeal to the democrats' new base of young, single college-indoctrinated females.

You know, I invariably find that men who refer to woman as "females" regard woman more as objects than as people. The term "females" seems to have been popularised by incels and "pick up artists". Now, apparently, it's becoming more mainstream.

What was that you were complaining about earlier? Competing factions divided by gender? Yet here you are, dividing to your little heart's content, because god forbid that mere "females" should have any power or rights, particular in regards to men. "Females" used to know their place, but now they're all uppity. They need to put back in their place, and Trump will be Misogynist in Chief. You hope?

Expect a constant emphasis on Trump as an "existental danger to our democracy" while ironically most of the real danger to democracy is coming from them.

Oh yes. Those hordes of single college-indoctrinated females trying to rip democracy apart. What a danger!

Also strange coming from a man who claims to value education. Why are you anti-college, all of a sudden? Is it because Trump and his Republicans, along with Faux News, told you that colleges are left-wing radical breeding grounds?

Replacing Biden atop the ticket would indeed remove the senility issue which would help the democrats. But it wouldn't address any of the real issues for the nation where they remain unpopular. If the new candidate tried to disavow and step back from any of it, it would cause open rebellion among the party's activist base.

You wouldn't want any "activism", would you? Not unless it involves stacking the Supreme Court with a few more Trumpian conservatives.

What happened to you, man? When did they get to you?