Mailwatch(ed) Forum

The questions I raised are not about a short-term effect, they are fundamental issues which affect the entire nature of the union.

So why did you mention inflation then?

Not all Americans live in South Carolina.

Lots more live in blue states and in cities within red states that are run by sane people who preside over good educations systems, raise the minimum wage and make practical accommodation with illegal immigrants that Europeans don't. The Governor of New Jersey allowed illegal immigrants to take driving lessons and get a driving license. That way they can take kids to school, and drive safely to better jobs. In Europe, we'd just let them crash and deport them.

And even the bad people who run Texas actually want you to have an affordable place to live and don't worry about you bringing the value of their house down. Hopefully that's changing here, but it's gone on far too long.

Inflation wasn't much different to Europe. The difference was the effort made to blame it on the government in the US because it hit first and was easily tied to QE and the stimulus. And because the president was a Democrat.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 8:26 pm The questions I raised are not about a short-term effect, they are fundamental issues which affect the entire nature of the union.

That's certainly true of the constitution- the Supreme Court, the blocking 40 from conservative states in the Senate and the astonishing way that politicians get to all but set their own district boundaries. But you also get ballot initiatives, which has cut through the bullshit on cannabis and increasingly has put anti-abortionists back in their box. Also expanded Medicaid.

So it's not all bad.

Looking back at the 2022 elections in Iowa, the Republican and Senator romped home to re-election. The full Dobbs horror wasn't evident then, but you'd expect to see some effect. I don't really buy that so many conservative women have suddenly turned against Trump. I think that poll is likely wrong. You're a top election predictor until you aren't. See Silver, Nate

Of the unexpectedly bad polls for Trump, the one that I think may be accurate is the one that has him being knocked back in Kansas. Still winning by 5 points, but that would be down from 15 points in 2020. Kansas has a more easily discernible moderate Republican group of voters who've voted for the Democratic governor twice and against the abortion amendment.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 8:35 pm So why did you mention inflation then?

What?
Are we in for another missing-the-point conversation?

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 8:48 pm

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 8:26 pm The questions I raised are not about a short-term effect, they are fundamental issues which affect the entire nature of the union.

That's certainly true of the constitution- the Supreme Court, the blocking 40 from conservative states in the Senate and the astonishing way that politicians get to all but set their own district boundaries. But you also get ballot initiatives, which has cut through the bullshit on cannabis and increasingly has put anti-abortionists back in their box. Also expanded Medicaid.

So it's not all bad.

The difference betwen waves and tides.

Well, the good things about America are also long term features, and it can surprise you. See Texas again- run by Republican climate deniers, but has enormously advanced wind power. If it's commercial, and the landowner wants to do it, no Nick Timothy type is allowed to fuck it up.

I didn't get your reference to inflation either.

It was a reply to TWT's point, which was (I think, possibly) about the Biden presidency.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 9:11 pm

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 8:35 pm So why did you mention inflation then?

What?
Are we in for another missing-the-point conversation?

It was you who mentioned inflation not me.

problems of drug abuse, inflation and the costs of medical care.

It seems we are...

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 8:40 pm Not all Americans live in South Carolina.

Lots more live in blue states and in cities within red states that are run by sane people who preside over good educations systems, raise the minimum wage and make practical accommodation with illegal immigrants that Europeans don't. The Governor of New Jersey allowed illegal immigrants to take driving lessons and get a driving license. That way they can take kids to school, and drive safely to better jobs. In Europe, we'd just let them crash and deport them.

And even the bad people who run Texas actually want you to have an affordable place to live and don't worry about you bringing the value of their house down. Hopefully that's changing here, but it's gone on far too long.

Inflation wasn't much different to Europe. The difference was the effort made to blame it on the government in the US because it hit first and was easily tied to QE and the stimulus. And because the president was a Democrat.

Someone I follow on X/Twitter made a point that he found living in Texas easier than living in California because of the high cost of rents in California.

Yes, it's a massive problem for California. Taxes on most people are not actually that much higher than other places, just at the top levels of income. And Texas has a very unprogressive tax system with no state income tax which means that less progressive property taxes can be surprisingly high.

Hopefully California is making progress on this now. But in fairness, the most expensive parts in the Bay Area do genuinely have a lot of very rich people who can afford to live there. And the nicer bits of Texas aren't as cheap as they were.

Not seen such heads being lost over one state poll in any election.

I know we are talking about the modern Republican Party but Jeez, one major assumption would be that their data isn’t as positive as they like to pretend.

Though I know that a great deal of hard work is being done, particularly by the Democrats, on traditional activities like voter ID and GOTV, it would be easy to conclude that American presidential elections consist virtually entirely of vast rallies of the supporters of both candidates in the seven or eight swing states that will decide the outcome. Which, to a political geek observer from the UK such as myself, is just a bit puzzling. Massed rallies seem to me to do absolutely nothing to influence the voters that either candidate needs to attract. By definition, as we saw in the UK with Jeremy Corbyn, they are basically the candidate preaching to the choir. Those people are already supporters, or they wouldn’t be there. So the apparent emphasis on huge election rallies is odd (IMO). Of course, American elections have been media-centred elections for many years - now more than ever - so there would seem to be a significant element of that day’s rally being mostly another opportunity for Trump (or Harris) to provide a sound bite for the national news bulletins that will reach the undecided voter. And media political advertising is insanely and disgustingly hostile on both sides against both protagonist candidates.

But it’s a very strange way to conduct elections.

Rallies let the candidate speak unopposed and unchallenged (usually). They keep to short, punchy slogans; which can't be filleted or over-analysed. They appeal to FOMO - all these people are having fun, why aren't I there? Also don't overlook the state identity - with a few exceptions I don't see that sort of loyalty to county or council area as there is to the state. Missouri might speak with one voice in a way that Staffordshire Moorlands likely doesn't.

mattomac wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 11:06 pm Not seen such heads being lost over one state poll in any election.

I know we are talking about the modern Republican Party but Jeez, one major assumption would be that their data isn’t as positive as they like to pretend.

Doing some reading around, the freak out appears to be not just because it’s 1 poll, but because this is a gold standard, independent poll when they’ve had weeks of Trump-favouring but weighted polls, and a lot of republicans genuinely expected to see Trump up by a good few percentage points. The fact he isn’t is a sign of how things could be going in all the swing/lean red states, because the voter make-up isn’t that dissimilar.

Some of them doubtless believed their own hype, and others have simply been in denial - probably resulting from a combination of sunk cost fallacy and just outright fear of sticking their heads over the parapet.

When the dam breaks, it’s going to cascade *fast*. It’s just none of them want to be the little boy shouting at the nude emperor.

Say what you will, someone has put a lot of work into that. What this says about the amount of spare time they have on their hands is a question I leave to others.

Stuart Stevens - a former senior GOP strategist but nowadays staunch Never-Trumper - predicted recently that even if Trump loses, he will almost immediately announce his 2028 candidacy. Not because he believes he would win necessarily, but simply to keep the lucrative grifting operation going for a few more years. Lottsa legal bills to pay, and lottsa rubes to shake down too.

Personally, I thinks it’s more likely that one of his idiot sons ends up attempting to become the nominee instead, which could easily spark a civil war within a pissed off and exhausted GOP.

According to News Agents, the Iowa poll is being put down to undecideds, who represent nearly 10 percent of the electorate, moving to Harris.
These are a curious bunch, 'not sure whether to vote for Trump or not, there's something I don't like about him.'