The Accolade-Acceptance Thread

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Bloomers really don’t seem to understand how discontented people are with the state of the country right now. That all blows back on Harris and has huge implications for her level of support.

I’d say the alarm bells went off last week with more and more polls showing Trump up in parts of the Rust Belt trio. National polls this weekend showing Harris leading by two or less were also concerning. I don’t think she can win with numbers like that.

I thought Trump would beat Biden comfortably. Harris came in and it seemed like she’d caught lightning in a bottle, so I honestly was very optimistic she could win comfortably.

Not now. It appears like Trump is turning the tide. I’d give him a higher chance than her, at this point. As I’ve said often, the country is just constantly being pulled towards him.

What was the turning point in your opinion?

It’s what I said all along. There have been no flagship events like debates that force the American people to compare Trump to someone capable.

I thought Trump would beat Biden comfortably. Harris came in and it seemed like she’d caught lightning in a bottle, so I honestly was very optimistic she could win comfortably.

Not now. It appears like Trump is turning the tide. I’d give him a higher chance than her, at this point. As I’ve said often, the country is just constantly being pulled towards him.

We started with Harris consistently leading all battlegrounds.

Then, the race shifted so that Harris and Trump were going back and forth leading in the Sunbelt, but Harris maintained persistent edges in the Rustbelt.

Now, Harris is beginning to more consistently lose in the Sunbelt while the Rustbelt states are producing more and more “pure tossup” polls.

Yet people will continue to argue the race hasn’t shifted and Harris is the clear favourite?

Look folks: If Trump is favoured in Georgia, Arizona, and North Carolina (which polling shows he is), Harris must win the three Rustbelt states. Polling now shows that this is a less consistent possibility than it was previously. This race is in scary territory if she can’t be counted on to win all three.

Because non-white voters are quite culturally conservative and over time have fallen prey to the idea that Democrats are “too woke” on things like gay rights, trans issues, student loan forgiveness, etc.
 
Meanwhile, Democrats are no longer sounding as accommodating on the border/immigration as they once sounded, so it is effectively giving immigrant communities “permission” to vote Trump. The conventional wisdom is that Harris needs to sound harsher on illegal immigration, but I wonder if it’s not effectively trading one group of voters for another.

At least that’s my take. Could be garbage.

Part of Harris’ strategy is what some call a “rose garden campaign” —- using the trappings of the presidency to get good coverage and show leadership. She will have many opportunities to do that this week.

This is what I've been trying to communicate to people. Rallies only do so much at this point. They're fun and great for enthusiasm, but Harris is basically getting every day a new way to show she's presidential. She did a speech with Zelesnky last week, she was at FEMA yesterday, Iran statement today. This stuff is way more consequential to the swing voters/public at large imo because it gives them confidence in her that she can lead. Another rally doesn't really do anything extra for her, while this stuff does.

Doesn’t this mean that every day she gets to show that she is essentially an incumbent, which is not actually good right now?

Why does incumbency have to be explicitly bad to you?

Not always. But “incumbency” means “Team Biden” this cycle, and Team Biden is demonstrably less popular than Team Harris.

I like seeing her with her VP seal and her jacket doing hurricane briefings and all the rest, but I’m the choir. How does someone in a swing neighbourhood whose costs have skyrocketed feel when they see Kamala as a person who currently seems to be in charge? I’m just not convinced it’s a silver bullet when it’s really a lot more complicated.

I’m not even a doomer and I made it into this person’s signature, so I wouldn’t take it personally.

My stance is that I urge caution and understanding around the fact that Trump has a very strong chance of winning. I still believe Kamala is ever so slightly favoured, but the uncertainty is huge. If that measured stance makes me a doomer, I’ll wear the badge.

I was one of the few in 2016 who acknowledged Trump’s strong chance of winning too, even though you can see from my final predication that I gave Hillary Clinton the edge. It’s about being clear-eyed and not over-confident.

Meanwhile, we’re taking lectures from somebody who was 11 back in 2016, has no idea what the feelings were like in the thick of the campaign, and today claims that Kamala Harris has her race locked up—with a 2% polling lead, the head-to-head numbers tightening according to all data metrics, and an opponent who has consistently outperformed polls.

Is it possible she outperforms polls instead? Absolutely! But we don’t know. So we have to take the polling at face value and look at all the numbers together. If we do, we see an incredibly close race with the EC a coin-flip. Slight edge to whichever side you want to bias according to your assumptions around turnout and the EC/PV split.

I don’t know what I’m missing here!

As long as they are surgical about what they attack him on.

It needs to be about belittling him and making him look stupid for the weird sh-t he focuses on, not on how scary he is or how offensive he can be.

Her line in the debate about how Trump is clearly having a difficult time processing his loss was priceless. That’s exactly the way to do it. Make him look weak, small, and motivated only by his insecurities.

People feel that capitalism isn’t working, but they don’t realize that’s what the problem is so they mostly just blame the incumbent. I feel like we will be looking at a long period of political instability where we switch back and forth between parties and presidents.

Part of Harris’ strategy is what some call a “rose garden campaign” —- using the trappings of the presidency to get good coverage and show leadership. She will have many opportunities to do that this week.

This is what I've been trying to communicate to people. Rallies only do so much at this point. They're fun and great for enthusiasm, but Harris is basically getting every day a new way to show she's presidential. She did a speech with Zelesnky last week, she was at FEMA yesterday, Iran statement today. This stuff is way more consequential to the swing voters/public at large imo because it gives them confidence in her that she can lead. Another rally doesn't really do anything extra for her, while this stuff does.

Doesn’t this mean that every day she gets to show that she is essentially an incumbent, which is not actually good right now?

How many polls are people going to look at and say “it’s just one poll” before they turn around and realize “oh damn, it was actually a lot”?

At this point, the preponderance of evidence is showing the race turning back towards Trump. As I’ve said numerous times now, Trump benefits considerably from the fact that there are no marquee events between now and election day forcing voters to directly compare him with Harris side by side. People want to complain about the status quo and blame the Democrats. If voters can ride that feeling through ‘til the end without thinking critically, it will be very easy for them to do it—there is no second presidential debate to give them a reality check.

If Harris wins, I increasingly believe it will be with just 276 votes, plus or minus North Carolina. Arizona is gone. Georgia doesn’t look good either.

There is no built-in event forcing the American people to take in the contrast between Harris and Trump. Distance from the first debate paired with tribalism and unease around how Western late-stage capitalism is unfolding will send the race back into a toss-up.

That’s the ironic thing. If capitalism is in decline, why are we so interested in doubling down on it?

Voters are dumb and blame the party in power. They know things aren’t working but they don’t understand why.

There is no built-in event forcing the American people to take in the contrast between Harris and Trump. Distance from the first debate paired with tribalism and unease around how Western late-stage capitalism is unfolding will send the race back into a toss-up.

I told you all, the doomers have nothing but vibes backing them up, no solid evidence.

You can read doom into my measured feelings all you like, but all you have to do is look at Hillary Clinton’s trendlines in the polls. She peaked after each debate and came back down to earth every time. Why wouldn’t that happen for Harris?

There is no built-in event forcing the American people to take in the contrast between Harris and Trump. Distance from the first debate paired with tribalism and unease around how Western late-stage capitalism is unfolding will send the race back into a toss-up.

The race reminds me of 2016 a bit. Whenever there are big events that provide contrast between the Democrat and Trump, the Democrat rises and peaks. Whenever the story of the race is static with less going on, the Democrat's numbers fall and we revert to a stalemate.

We're falling back towards a stalemate. I'm not sure what events are on the calendar that would help Kamala draw a big contrast. I'm inclined to believe that by election day, things will be a coinflip.

So are we back to discounting the polls because we don’t like what they say?

Yes. Things are shifting back to Trump slightly, though I still think she’d win against the fundamentals in a very close finish if the election were held today.

Bad. Capitalism is failing as wealth concentrates in the hands of land owners. We are seeing a sort of urban serfdom taking hold in and around many of North America’s major cities. It’s easy to say “just move,” but for many people, this is where their jobs are and where their families are. Something’s gotta give.

[Skill and Chance]

Here because I correctly saw a Trump plurality PV win with dramatic Latino improvement as a plausible to likely outcome from very early on and saw only modest Trump improvement with black voters as likely post-Harris switch.  Also here because I correctly saw Biden as having a significant "Catholic advantage" in the NE which Harris couldn't replicate.  I never thought it was worse for Trump than a toss up, even right after the Harris switch. 

Furthermore, I correctly estimated that polling error would be very similar to 2016 but less than 2020.  I did have some hesitation after the MSG rally- thought it was an error but not game over and then at least partially canceled out by Biden's own garbage comments in the final week.  And Puerto Ricans did swing notably less toward Trump than other Latino groups.

[riverwalk7]

Here because I correctly saw a Trump plurality PV win with dramatic Latino improvement as a plausible to likely outcome from very early on and saw only modest Trump improvement with black voters as likely post-Harris switch.  Also here because I correctly saw Biden as having a significant "Catholic advantage" in the NE which Harris couldn't replicate.  I never thought it was worse for Trump than a toss up, even right after the Harris switch. 

Furthermore, I correctly estimated that polling error would be very similar to 2016 but less than 2020.  I did have some hesitation after the MSG rally- thought it was an error but not game over and then at least partially canceled out by Biden's own garbage comments in the final week.  And Puerto Ricans did swing notably less toward Trump than other Latino groups.

Very early on the cycle you had the PV-EC gap mostly disappearing, and only CA, NY, TX, FL, NM, NJ, AZ, NV or something trending right relative to the PV.

[有爭議嘅領土 of The Figgis Agency]

-Nonwhites largely don't have notable swings against Biden but Dems struggle with turnout of key constituencies like black voters and young voters. This is the main narrative of the 2024 election

-Houston metro swings simillarly to Dallas/Austin/San Antonio metros.

-A ton of US House districts end up in the Trump+0-10 range; there is a relative lack of Biden+0-10 seats. The median US House Presidentially is to the left of the NPV though

I agree more with these ones.

I think these hot takes were correct for the most part. There was a general pattern of reduced D turnout in heavily nonwhite areas (everywhere really) that exceeded local R gains. And the entire Texas Triangle swung R by a lot- with decreased D turnout in urban cores.

[Schumer can go f*** himself!]

Snowlabrador, forumlurker, and Riverwalk were all vindicated.

No, they were still doomer trolls.  Broken clock and all that