U.S. Federal Elections 2024, Presidential, Senate and U.S. House of Representatives

[17thfabn]

4 hours ago, Josh said:

What could be pivotal however is how the referendum effects Scott’s election: he has never won by much more than 2%, and that is roughly where polls have him now. In a similar vein, Cruz is now only low single digits ahead in a state that has a solid abortion ban. These represent the only pickup possibilities the Democrats have in the senate, in a year that heavily favors Republicans. WV is basically a given, and there are competitive races in MD, WI, PA along with the OH and WA seats that in firmly red states.

Honestly with any other presidential candidate this should have been a GOP senatorial blow out. It appears more likely to be a ~2 seat pick up instead (which is enough of course).

The Ohio U.S. Senate race is interesting. Just based on my observations, Senator Brown, who is "allegedly" a Democrat, is out spending his Republican rival by a wide margin. A lot of national money is said to be coming in from out of state for both sides. 

I say he is an alleged Democrat because in his commercials he talks about all the Republican policies he supports and never mentions Biden / Harris. He also attacks his opponent Bernie Moreno for being "used car salesman". His opponent owns car dealerships. 

I think the Republican Senate nominee is the weakest of the three that ran for the nomination. Trump had said initially that he would not endorse and would support who ever won the nomination. Then towards the end of the campaign Trump threw his support behind Moreno. Up to that point the race  had been pretty tight. Trumps thumb on the scale gave Moreno a clear victory.

Senator Brown has a record of being pretty liberal. By all rights he should be behind in the polls in Ohio. Most polls have him being comfortably ahead. 

If Moreno loses the race I place some blame on Trump. He shouldn't get involved in local politics where he doesn't understand the lay of the land. It didn't turn out well in George or Pennsylvania for the Republicans when he pushed for Hershel Walker and Dr. Oz. 

[Skywalkre]

Speaking of fun local races...

AZ is still a solidly moderate R state... that will likely see another D elected to the US Senate.  There was a local article I saw about a week ago highlighting how Lake is being completely ignored by various Trump and R PACs across the country.  No one will give her the time of day and above all no one will spend a dime on her behalf.  Polls have showed Gallego, a progressive his entire career until he started running for Senate, with a comfortable lead for the entirety of this election cycle so far.  I see a Gallego ad at least once a day.  I have yet to see a Lake ad this entire cycle.

It also doesn't help that apparently she's bad with the money she has raised.  There was a local piece highlighting the two campaign's funds back at the end of May.  Gallego had 4x what Lake had... but Lake's two biggest spending areas by a mile (like 40% of her funds each) were mailers and consulting.  Meanwhile Gallego was spending most of his money on digital/TV ads and fundraising.

[Josh]

Is AZ really solidly moderate R? Because the actual local party members seem to be rabidly MAGA. Perhaps AZ has a solid R leaning group of independent voters who turned off by extremists? Because the primary voters nominated Lake despite the fact she was obviously the most extreme and least electable candidate. Minimally the moderates seem to vote in primaries less, which is typical but this seems a rather extreme case.

Edited September 4 by Josh

[Josh]

The Trump campaign seems to be betting everything on GA and PA as a blocking move, based on spending. You do not need to watch the clip below (I didn’t), I post it only for the money figures spent on both states:

 

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp-video/mmvo218546757908

 

Two things occur to me: this basically self selects for a single EC path to victory, with winning both states being a requirement not an option, and it also ignores the possibility the Harris campaign outflanks them in NC which would give them the same number of EC votes as GA and open up a couple paths to 270 via the remaining blue wall and sun belt swing states.

[glenn239]

17 minutes ago, Josh said:

Two things occur to me: this basically self selects for a single EC path to victory, with winning both states being a requirement not an option, and it also ignores the possibility the Harris campaign outflanks them in NC which would give them the same number of EC votes as GA and open up a couple paths to 270 via the remaining blue wall and sun belt swing states.

Do I sense in the past week or two hints of buyer's remorse seeping into Blue territory?  After Biden was sacked there was hysterical sense of relief, but am I wrong in thinking that the joy is thinning off and the realization that Harris is a deeply flawed candidate is starting to percolate through the mystic?

Edited September 4 by glenn239

[Josh]

3 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Do I sense in the past week or two hints of buyer's remorse seeping into Blue territory?  After Biden was sacked there was hysterical sense of relief, but am I wrong in thinking that the joy is thinning off and the realization that Harris is a deeply flawed candidate is starting to percolate through the mystic?

I have always described Harris as about the second worst candidate the Dems could have put up. Had Biden backed out before the primary there likely would have been a lively race to see who got to slaughter Trump in the general. But while I’ve seen the polling picture plateau for Harris, the Democratic enthusiasm seems consistent so far. We’ll see if that continues through the election. Certainly polling wise, Harris probably brought ~5 points to the table overall and put several swing states back in play. That likely remains the case. Post debate l, she turned it from a walkover to a toss up. Trumps strategy of focusing on GA and PA made a lot more sense against Biden; that was an easy way to box him out.

[Skywalkre]

7 hours ago, Josh said:

Is AZ really solidly moderate R? Because the actual local party members seem to be rabidly MAGA. Perhaps AZ has a solid R leaning group of independent voters who turned off by extremists? Because the primary voters nominated Lake despite the fact she was obviously the most extreme and least electable candidate. Minimally the moderates seem to vote in primaries less, which is typical but this seems a rather extreme case.

I saw this stat just the other day... since the 50s we've voted for a D POTUS just twice ('96 and '20).  This state loved McCain (the quintessential moderate R on the Hill) when he served and still does.  Population shifts (from CA immigrants coupled to high COVID losses) still aren't enough to explain us suddenly shifting D.  Those pop shifts have probably made us more D than before, but certainly not made us majority (and this is shown in our legislature where Rs have controlled it... forever).

If you look closer at our party affiliation Rs are the biggest group... but Independents are right up there as well (the official stats out of the state are Rs 35%, Is 33%, Ds 30%).  I think it's safe to say most of those Independents are moderates who either used to be registered R or have always leaned R (I was in the latter for years).  MAGA, like they've done everywhere, are big enough to control the primaries but don't have a fucking clue what the gen pop thinks and wants and as such keeps pushing terrible candidates to the gen election. 

A perfect example of this is a clip in one of the anti-Lake ads here highlighting her comments at a speech where she was heckling McCain supporters to 'get the hell out'.  In a state like this that's just pure... idiocy (but that basically sums up the MAGA mindset).  As such in major races recently (POTUS, Gov, high level officials) you've had seemingly moderate Ds beat out nutjob MAGA Rs... and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Edited September 4 by Skywalkre

[Skywalkre]

6 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Do I sense in the past week or two hints of buyer's remorse seeping into Blue territory?  After Biden was sacked there was hysterical sense of relief, but am I wrong in thinking that the joy is thinning off and the realization that Harris is a deeply flawed candidate is starting to percolate through the mystic?

R-leaning media has certainly been trying to portray this... but I think the reality is both candidates have a fairly low ceiling and Harris just hit hers fairly quickly.  Between all the baggage of Trump and the struggles everyday Americans, even D-leaning ones, are suffering through that would weigh down any D candidate (or just suppress the support for any candidate) we have the effective tie that we do now (in the states that matter... no one seems to doubt Harris has a slight lead nationally).  Looking at the fundraising data as well would indicate that even if Harris is cooling, she was hot long enough to give her side an advantage in spending down the stretch.

[Josh]

Looks like Trump is going to force Johnson to add the SAVE Act to any continuing resolution and force a shutdown. That is likely political suicide that almost guarantees Republicans lose the House. The Dem senate will forward a clean bill to the House and any shutdown will almost certainly be largely blamed on Republicans just two months before an election. Johnson’s best hope is that his caucus is not unified enough to pass such a bill - but then that still leaves him cooperating with democrats to pass the clean resolution from the senate to avoid the shutdown. It’s lose-lose situation being forced on the party by Trump.

Edited September 5 by Josh

[17thfabn]

In the Ohio current Senator Brown (closet Democrat during 2024) and Republican challenger Moreno is finally heating up on the ad front. It appears to me that Brown had more money, and Moreno was saving his money for after labor day.

Brown over the summer was clearly out spending Moreno. His ads made two points:

1.) Moreno was an evil car salesman, and bad boss. (Moreno owned several car dealerships.)

2.) Senator Sherrod Brown is not a scary liberal / leftist Democrat. He is a moderate Democrat that supported all of Trump's most popular programs in a BIPARTISAN way! 

Many of his ads he is wearing a sports coat with patches on the elbows. He is presented as a kindly old professor. 

Senator Brown's ads have been very effective. 

Moreno's latest ads have been pretty good. He links Brown's voting record to many of Biden's most unpopular programs. A very good tactic in Ohio where Biden is unpopular. In the ads you hear Biden thanking his "buddy" Sherrod Brown for helping him get his programs passed. Imagine a tired shaky Joe Biden saying "I want to think my buddy Sherrod Brown". 

Voting Brown out should be easy in Republican leaning Ohio. But Moreno was to me the worst choice of the three running for the Republican nomination. It was a close race per the polls. Trump had said he would support whoever won the nomination. And then at the last minute endorsed Moreno. Of the three Moreno was the most "MAGA". A more moderate Republican would have done better in the general election. 

Edited September 5 by 17thfabn

[sunday]

1 hour ago, 17thfabn said:

In the Ohio current Senator Brown (closet Democrat during 2024) and Republican challenger Moreno is finally heating up on the ad front. It appears to me that Brown had more money, and Moreno was saving his money for after labor day.

(...)

I find funny that "brown" in English, and "moreno" in Spanish could have the same exact meaning when applied to people.

[rmgill]

I can't not think of Izzy Moreno when I hear the Moreno name. 

 

[NickM]

2 hours ago, rmgill said:

I can't not think of Izzy Moreno when I hear the Moreno name. 

 

Y know he got eaten by a T Rex, right?

[Ivanhoe]

5 hours ago, sunday said:

I find funny that "brown" in English, and "moreno" in Spanish could have the same exact meaning when applied to people.

The proverbial "distinction without a difference." 😊

[Skywalkre]

One way to see how terrible polls are... 

Saw one just now claiming 70% of Americans (guessing likely voters, they didn't specify) would watch the entire debate while 23% would watch some.  If that holds up I think the ratings/viewership for this debate will demolish ratings/viewership for every debate that's happened in my lifetime.  Call me skeptical that will be the case.

[Skywalkre]

Fifteen minutes into this debate and it's a complete waste of time.  My prediction is this does nothing to change the race...

[Murph]

Considering Trump is debating three people…..

[Skywalkre]

Eh, they called him out on one blatant lie he's used before and then pushed back when their own reporting didn't go along with another story he was pushing.  Boo-fucking-hoo that someone pushes back on the nonsense Trump normally spouts.

Where I think there's a point to be made is that they did seem to push Trump for firm answers while letting Harris get away without the same (though one pundit mentioned it felt like Trump was given way more time... I'll be curious to see what that breakdown was).

But, as one pundit so eloquently put it, you can't blame the refs when you're missing layups.  Trump, in typical fashion, shot himself in the foot on multiple occasions and missed some easy moments against Harris.  Several post-debate discussions are saying she laid a few traps and he took the bait.  That's all on him.

ETA - One pundit got a txt while on the air from an R in the Senate who apparently said "can you imagine what Nikki could have done to Harris if she was on that stage?"  Despite what folks on here think Trump didn't look good in the last debate and he didn't look good tonight.  Harris met the threshold needed but despite the celebrations from some of these post-debate analysis shows I'm not seeing this as a major win for her.  I'm still predicting this debate changes nothing.

Edited September 11 by Skywalkre

[DKTanker]

49 minutes ago, Murph said:

Considering Trump is debating three people…..

Did Trump not understand that would be the case?  I've been led to believe he did little to no prepping for the debate and we know he didn't participate in any of the GOP debates over the last year.  Perhaps if he had...but as he said, debates can only hurt him.

[Josh]

4 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Fifteen minutes into this debate and it's a complete waste of time.  My prediction is this does nothing to change the race...

Safe bet. That is how most debates work out; there is rarely a clear win. Just more of the same.

Now that the last major political event is over, heavy more accurate polling likely occurs. Though I suspect this years polling will be even further off than the last two presidential elections in one direction or the other.

[Josh]

2 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Eh, they called him out on one blatant lie he's used before and then pushed back when their own reporting didn't go along with another story he was pushing.  Boo-fucking-hoo that someone pushes back on the nonsense Trump normally spouts.

Where I think there's a point to be made is that they did seem to push Trump for firm answers while letting Harris get away without the same (though one pundit mentioned it felt like Trump was given way more time... I'll be curious to see what that breakdown was).

But, as one pundit so eloquently put it, you can't blame the refs when you're missing layups.  Trump, in typical fashion, shot himself in the foot on multiple occasions and missed some easy moments against Harris.  Several post-debate discussions are saying she laid a few traps and he took the bait.  That's all on him.

ETA - One pundit got a txt while on the air from an R in the Senate who apparently said "can you imagine what Nikki could have done to Harris if she was on that stage?"  Despite what folks on here think Trump didn't look good in the last debate and he didn't look good tonight.  Harris met the threshold needed but despite the celebrations from some of these post-debate analysis shows I'm not seeing this as a major win for her.  I'm still predicting this debate changes nothing.

I think if Niki was running the independent voters would have flocked to her.

I also think the MAGA voters would have stayed home. There is no half way in the Trump GOP; you are MAGA or RINO.

[Josh]

2 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Did Trump not understand that would be the case?  I've been led to believe he did little to no prepping for the debate and we know he didn't participate in any of the GOP debates over the last year.  Perhaps if he had...but as he said, debates can only hurt him.

I think everyone on this board will agree that Trump does not prep for debates. Call if a flaw or a strength, but it is not a thing he does.

[Rick]

Did not watch, but this synopsis sounded good. From the NavWeapons Forums website by poster kell553

NavWeaps Forums>The Politics Of War>
Trump/Harris Debate
kell553
1:55 AM - Today
 
Harris did a good job controlling her cackle. The week of prep paid off in that aspect (though we now wonder...with her off on debate prep and Joe eating ice cream on the beach...who's running the show). 
She also found Trump's triggers and pressed them. Especially when she questioned the people at his rallies.  You could tell that got under his skin. He does not like his supporters being disparaged.
Holding off on putting her policies in public until the last second (they were just posted to her website today) gave her the option to point to them but allowed Trump no time to look at them and come up with a plan to refute them.
No word salad (which makes me believe someone on her team knew the questions and prepped her for them). 

Trump was baited several times this way and he let himself get pulled off message. 
When he was on message it was pretty effective. Trump needs to stick to EBC. Economy. Border. Crime. 

Moderators interjected themselves into the debate too much. Particularly with follow up questions to Trump that were designed to put him on the spot or in a bad light. 
Kamala used the discredited "fine people" line again and the Mods did not call her on it.  They did object when Trump mention the Hattian's eating pets even though there is police video supporting that and its well documented the Hattians are decimating the local wildlife.
Overall I can call it a tie. Kamala did not come across as a bumbling cackle queen. Trump was pushed on the Defensive too much.
No ones mind was changed. 
There will not be a second debate. Kamala did good enough that there is no use in risking a bad follow-on performance.

Caveat...Being from Cali and having had Kamala as the State AG and Senator, I cant support her. She has always screwed up everything she has touched. She had all the political connections to rise up the ranks, but none of the capacity or capability to do the job. Her recent switch of positions on key subjects is nothing more than trying to push the few remaining undecideds into her camp. She has zero intention of any follow thru.
 

[Stuart Galbraith]

15 minutes ago, Rick said:

Did not watch, but this synopsis sounded good. From the NavWeapons Forums website by poster kell553

NavWeaps Forums>The Politics Of War>
Trump/Harris Debate
kell553
1:55 AM - Today
 
Harris did a good job controlling her cackle. The week of prep paid off in that aspect (though we now wonder...with her off on debate prep and Joe eating ice cream on the beach...who's running the show). 
She also found Trump's triggers and pressed them. Especially when she questioned the people at his rallies.  You could tell that got under his skin. He does not like his supporters being disparaged.
Holding off on putting her policies in public until the last second (they were just posted to her website today) gave her the option to point to them but allowed Trump no time to look at them and come up with a plan to refute them.
No word salad (which makes me believe someone on her team knew the questions and prepped her for them). 

Trump was baited several times this way and he let himself get pulled off message. 
When he was on message it was pretty effective. Trump needs to stick to EBC. Economy. Border. Crime. 

Moderators interjected themselves into the debate too much. Particularly with follow up questions to Trump that were designed to put him on the spot or in a bad light. 
Kamala used the discredited "fine people" line again and the Mods did not call her on it.  They did object when Trump mention the Hattian's eating pets even though there is police video supporting that and its well documented the Hattians are decimating the local wildlife.
Overall I can call it a tie. Kamala did not come across as a bumbling cackle queen. Trump was pushed on the Defensive too much.
No ones mind was changed. 
There will not be a second debate. Kamala did good enough that there is no use in risking a bad follow-on performance.

Caveat...Being from Cali and having had Kamala as the State AG and Senator, I cant support her. She has always screwed up everything she has touched. She had all the political connections to rise up the ranks, but none of the capacity or capability to do the job. Her recent switch of positions on key subjects is nothing more than trying to push the few remaining undecideds into her camp. She has zero intention of any follow thru.
 

 

This was literally a 30 second search.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cats-ducks-haitians-springfield/

False Evidence

In defense of the claim that Haitian immigrants were eating cats, some on X shared a video of purported bodycam footage of police arresting a Haitian immigrant in Springfield, Ohio eating a cat.

This video does not support claims about Haitians in any way. In reality, the video depicts a real incident involving the arrest of an American citizen (not a Haitian immigrant) in Canton (not Springfield), Ohio. The video concerns an Aug. 16, 2024, incident involving a woman named Alexis Telia Ferrell, who was accused of murdering and eating a cat.

There is no evidence that Ferrell is Haitian, and no reports filed at the time of her arrest mentioned anything about Haiti. According to court records viewed by Snopes, Ferrell has an extensive criminal record involving numerous arrests, but none of these charges involved any immigration-related violation.

Another piece of purported evidence for the claim of widespread Haitian goose-killing in Springfield concerned a single image of a Black man carrying a dead Canada goose:

Like the bodycam footage used as evidence for Haitian cat killing, however, this image does not come from Springfield. The photo can be found in a Reddit thread about Columbus, Ohio, and it was posted at least one month earlier than these viral claims. There is no evidence that this individual had any connection to Haiti.

Further purported evidence comes from far-right or conspiracy influencers providing "on the ground" coverage from Springfield, or from videos of local city council meetings in which alleged residents are seen complaining about the Haitian population. As far as eating animals is concerned, these videos all depict people repeating second-hand information, and are not independent corroboration of those viral claims.

 

Now if I can find that in 30 seconds, then why cant Trump find it in the 2 months he had to prepare for this debate? Because it was such a good story, and they wanted to use it. That its utter bollocks has nothing to do with it.

 

He lied again when the Central park 5 came up. Well they all admitted it, and the victim eventually died. Except, they didnt all admit their guilt, and even if they had, it woudl be academic, because the rapist eventually came forward and admitted it. All the charges were vacated. Except in the mind of Trump.

Oh, and the victim who surcumbed to her injuries? Is still very much alive, and is a motivational speaker. She made nearly a complete recovery, very gratifying considering she lost 80 percent of her blood in the attack.

https://historica.fandom.com/wiki/Trisha_Meili

 

[glenn239]

9 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Eh, they called him out on one blatant lie he's used before and then pushed back when their own reporting didn't go along with another story he was pushing.  Boo-fucking-hoo that someone pushes back on the nonsense Trump normally spouts.

My favorite part was when Trump said states would abort babies in the 7th, 8th, 9th month and even just after birth.  The fact checkers on ABC hotly disputed this, saying that abortion after birth was illegal.  But, apparently, the 9th month was ok, because they had nothing to say about that.