General Election 2024 Biden vs Trump (1 Viewer)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

As we head toward the summer and the National Party Conventions, it might be handy to have a thread focused on the upcoming matchup of current President Biden vs Former President Trump.
As of April 28,2024 , CNN's poll shows Trump leading. Yet polls are not always accurate and they are constantly changing.
Feel free to use this thread for all things relating to Biden vs Trump.
*
*

CNN Poll: Trump maintains lead over Biden in 2024 matchup as views on their presidencies diverge

Donald Trump continues to hold an advantage over President Joe Biden as the campaign – and Trump’s criminal trial – move forward, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. And in the coming rematch, opinions about the first term of each man vying for a second four years in the White House...

www.yahoo.com

 

[SamAndreas]

I contribute and will vote for the democrat, but I'm helping far more than any person that thinks the fence sitters are going to be convinced by denying the obvious. People see through the lies. It would be more convincing to admit that Biden has declined, and may not survive another term, but we have a capable VP that will finish the term, and that person won't destroy democracy.

Who isn't admitting that he's old? There isn't anything more than that to this.

This idea that the he's suddenly be driven off by the chattering class, that's what's asine.

Did you see what Bernie Sanders said about it? He admitted that Biden is old in the nicest possible way.

Sanders didn't suggest driving him off, nor will I.

 

[Lapaz]

They aren't definitive or conclusive evidence. They are only a snapshot of what probable percentage of people might probably being thinking right at the moment the poll was conducted. They tell us nothing about future probability and they aren't designed to tell us about future probability.

People who use them for that don't understand what polls are useful for and what they are not.

Yes and as I told you my observations for this election show that not very many people seem to be fence sitters or undecided.


The debate was only evidence of Biden having a bad debate.


Just because you can only see it as conspiracy, doesn't make it conspiracy. I've explained why it's not. You have not explained why it has to be conspiracy. You're just saying it is.


Nope. Never thought or said any such thing. You're the only one of us that his hung up on conspiracies.

The only thing CNN is doing is trying to save their arses by increasing their viewership to increase their revenues. The result is that they are hurting Biden and helping Trump, but that's not the intention, that's just the side effects of their desperation to increase their revenues. They are trying to draw in more conservative viewers, because that's the only place for them to grow their audience. They've take a right turn to do that, but it's not politically motivated. It's profit motivated.

Of course it isn't definitive. Nothing is definitive, but it is evidence. I don't think you understand polls. They are meant to provide evidence of the beliefs of the whole by sampling a few. Do you believe any polls of other opinions?

By observation, I didn't mean observation of fence sitters. My anecdotal observations of a few people around me is far worse than polling results. By observation, I meant observation of Biden. The debate was bad, but Biden has had other bad moments, and they are occurring more frequently. I don't recall him ever having any such moment 4 years ago, yet he has had several recently.

What do you think a conspiracy is? How would most pollsters get similar results without conspiring together, unless they are not using alchemy?

You said CNN setup the results of their panel by selecting people that would yield the result that they were moving away from Biden. If they did that, then they are either trying to help Trump or hurt Biden. Both strain credulity.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Who isn't admitting that he's old? There isn't anything more than that to this.

This idea that the he's suddenly be driven off by the chattering class, that's what's asine.

Did you see what Bernie Sanders said about it? He admitted that Biden is old in the nicest possible way.

Sanders didn't suggest driving him off, nor will I.

People are falling for one of the oldest tricks in the book, divide and conquer. I read that Congressional Democrats and party leadership have decided that a decision would be made today and that would be the end of the internal debate.

I hope that's true, because the Democrats need to be unified again. This squabbling can't go on.

 

[Lapaz]

Who isn't admitting that he's old? There isn't anything more than that to this.

This idea that the he's suddenly be driven off by the chattering class, that's what's asine.

Did you see what Bernie Sanders said about it? He admitted that Biden is old in the nicest possible way.

Sanders didn't suggest driving him off, nor will I.

I haven't heard many people that are against making the switch acknowledge that he doesn't seem like he will survive another term. Do you admit that it seems that way? I wish more of the the leadership would admit that they are concerned, but are confident that Harris would finish the term and do well if needed. People don't want to say that, because it is morbid, but that's what the sitters need to hear.

I heard an interview with Sanders yesterday, and came away thinking how sharp he is, and how much better we would be with him as our candidate. I heard Bernie say Biden is currently the party nominee, but he didn't say he should remain the nominee. He said Biden can beat Trump if we would focus on the issues, which I agree is possible, but Biden has been doing that for months, and it hasn't made a difference. It is only in the last couple of weeks that people have started calling to replace Biden. Bernie didn't join the chorus, but he didn't deny that it might be needed.

 

[Lapaz]

People are falling for one of the oldest tricks in the book, divide and conquer. I read that Congressional Democrats and party leadership have decided that a decision would be made today and that would be the end of the internal debate.

I hope that's true, because the Democrats need to be unified again. This squabbling can't go on.

Not true. We're not dividing the people that are planning to vote for the democrat. We are trying not to seem disingenuous about the evidence of Biden's frailty to win-over the sitters. I think they see the truth. Lawyers admit to the things that are obvious to gain credibility with jurors, in hopes of convincing them about the less obvious. In this case, the jurors are the fence sitters.

 

[Taurus]

People are falling for one of the oldest tricks in the book, divide and conquer. I read that Congressional Democrats and party leadership have decided that a decision would be made today and that would be the end of the internal debate.

I hope that's true, because the Democrats need to be unified again. This squabbling can't go on.

Yeah. People, including us, talk about when the GOP will eat itself yet one by one, they all kneel and lick Trump's boots. They'll do 180* turns on every issue, deny they ever said things they're on tape saying, deny their own eyes and yours, all to be a lickspittle for a collection of mental illnesses that wears spray tan.

It's pathetic, mind-boggling yet incredibly effective. A 6-3 SCOTUS, continual victories on core issues, the embedded paradigm of the untouchable rich it's impressive how the Right has managed to win so often despite losing elections.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I don't think you understand polls. They are meant to provide evidence of the beliefs of the whole by sampling a few.

I know that and have said as much. You left out they are only evidence of the probable beliefs of people and you left out that a poll conducted today gives us no idea what next week or next month will bring.

Do you believe any polls of other opinions?

Only as probable and only in the moment in time the poll was conducted.

By observation, I didn't mean observation of fence sitters. My anecdotal observations of a few people around me is far worse than polling results.

That's a you issue then. I know a very large number of very diverse people and they collectively have been an 100% accurate indicator for presidential elections going back to 2008. That doesn't mean they will be accurate again, but just based on track record, I put more stock in the people I know than polls. I though Obama would lose both times, the people I know indicated he'd win. I thought Trump would lose in 2016, they indicated otherwise. I thought Biden would lose in 2020, they indicated otherwise and changed my mind about Biden losing. I thought the abortion ballot measures in Kansas and Ohio would fail, they indicated they would both pass resoundingly.

Right now they are indicating Trump loses badly. I don't know if that will happen and I'm not counting on it. I do know they have been a more accurate predictor than polls have, especially the past two years.

By observation, I meant observation of Biden. The debate was bad, but Biden has had other bad moments, and they are occurring more frequently.

There's 1,440 minutes in a day, 10,080 in a week. How many minutes of Biden do you see in a day or a week? None of us see Biden for enough time to rationally or objectively draw the conclusions you're drawing.

I don't recall him ever having any such moment 4 years ago, yet he has had several recently.

Maybe you're memory is faulty, because the only thing I see that's new is the obvious physical aging and a little slower to articulate his thoughts.

What do you think a conspiracy is? How would most pollsters get similar results without conspiring together?

Seriously? You do know they can see the same results of other polls like you do, right? You do know they don't all conduct polls at the same time, right?

You said CNN setup the results of their panel by selecting people that would yield the result that they were moving away from Biden. Ig they did that, then they are either trying to help Trump or hurt Biden. Both strain credulity.

You just don't listen do you? They are trying to draw in more conservative viewers. They are very open about that. It's not a conspiracy to help or hurt anything but their quarterly earnings report.

If you want to see the world for what it is better, you need to take off the black and white glasses you're wearing.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Not true.

Yes it is true that right now the Democratic party is divided and infighting. It's also happening on this board. You can deny it, but that doesn't change the reality of it.

In this case, the jurors are the fence sitters.

No. In this case, the jurors are women, millions and millions of pissed off women. There aren't enough fence sitters to sway this election. We're in a new era with new rules. You're trying to win a modern NFL game by running a 1910's, no-forward passes, style of offense. You're having the same problem pollsters are having. The dynamics of elections changed when Trump won in 2016 and again when Roe was overturned in 2022. You haven't adjusted to those changes and neither have pollsters.

 

[SamAndreas]

I haven't heard many people that are against making the switch acknowledge that he doesn't seem like he will survive another term. Do you admit that it seems that way? I wish more of the the leadership would admit that they are concerned, but are confident that Harris would finish the term and do well if needed. People don't want to say that, because it is morbid, but that's what the sitters need to hear.

I heard an interview with Sanders yesterday, and came away thinking how sharp he is, and how much better we would be with him as our candidate. I heard Bernie say Biden is currently the party nominee, but he didn't say he should remain the nominee. He said Biden can beat Trump if we would focus on the issues, which I agree is possible, but Biden has been doing that for months, and it hasn't made a difference. It is only in the last couple of weeks that people have started calling to replace Biden. Bernie didn't join the chorus, but he didn't deny that it might be needed.

Lapaz, the solution for this dilemma you have dreamed up is written in the US Constitution, there it's established that we will have a Vice President.

Nowhere in the Constitution is it said that the chattering class gets to decide when that hand off to the VP will occur.

 

[Lapaz]

Yes it is true that right now the Democratic party is divided and infighting. It's also happening on this board. You can deny it, but that doesn't change the reality of it.


No. In this case, the jurors are women, millions and millions of pissed off women. There aren't enough fence sitters to sway this election. We're in a new era with new rules. You're trying to win a modern NFL game by running a 1910's, no-forward passes, style of offense. You're having the same problem pollsters are having. The dynamics of elections changed when Trump won in 2016 and again when Roe was overturned in 2022. You haven't adjusted to those changes and neither have pollsters.

I guess it depends on what you mean by dividing. Disagreement about whether to switch candidates or anything else is healthy. It doesn't lead to disagreeing nor division about the goal to beat Trump.

I am admitting what most people see, but are afraid to admit since it appears to weaken us. I think it is you that isn't adjusting, because you're stuck on the idea that it can't be done, because it hasn't been done in the modern era. It is just the opposite. In this modern era it would be far easier to hold a nationwide primary online, which would be inexpensive. The democratic party doesn't have to have paper ballots to select its candidate. It knows the system is secure. It also knows ranked choice would allow this to be done once. The biggest challenge is the funding, but I've heard $100M has been set aside by big donors for this eventuality. I know I would increase my donations to support the cause.

 

[Lapaz]

I know that and have said as much. You left out they are only evidence of the probable beliefs of people and you left out that a poll conducted today gives us no idea what next week or next month will bring.


Only as probable and only in the moment in time the poll was conducted.


That's a you issue then. I know a very large number of very diverse people and they collectively have been an 100% accurate indicator for presidential elections going back to 2008. That doesn't mean they will be accurate again, but just based on track record, I put more stock in the people I know than polls. I though Obama would lose both times, the people I know indicated he'd win. I thought Trump would lose in 2016, they indicated otherwise. I thought Biden would lose in 2020, they indicated otherwise and changed my mind about Biden losing. I thought the abortion ballot measures in Kansas and Ohio would fail, they indicated they would both pass resoundingly.

Right now they are indicating Trump loses badly. I don't know if that will happen and I'm not counting on it. I do know they have been a more accurate predictor than polls have, especially the past two years.


There's 1,440 minutes in a day, 10,080 in a week. How many minutes of Biden do you see in a day or a week? None of us see Biden for enough time to rationally or objectively draw the conclusions you're drawing.


Maybe you're memory is faulty, because the only thing I see that's new is the obvious physical aging and a little slower to articulate his thoughts.


Seriously? You do know they can see the same results of other polls like you do, right? You do know they don't all conduct polls at the same time, right?


You just don't listen do you? They are trying to draw in more conservative viewers. They are very open about that. It's not a conspiracy to help or hurt anything but their quarterly earnings report.

If you want to see the world for what it is better, you need to take off the black and white glasses you're wearing.

Evolution is only probable. Medications are only probable. These things become more and more probable as time goes on and more samples are taken. Biden has been losing for months. It is a fantasy to think it will change. That debate performance is a gigantic problem to overcome. The party hyped it because they knew how important it was, and should've expected this consequence for failing so badly. It is not impossible for Biden to win, but I don't like his odds given the evidence, and I believe a change is much more likely to yield the result of beating Trump.

Biden has always had gaffs, but send me a clip from 4 years ago where his sentences were incoherent? I'd love evidence that my memory is wrong.

Also, does this notion that CNN is trying to draw in more conservative viewers mean that you believe CNN is either trying to help Trump or hurt Biden, or do you just believe CNN is being dishonest? It sure seems like you don't trust the traditional sources that democrats have always trusted. Sounds a little like the fake media news.

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[LA - L.A.]

Evolution is only probable.

No, evolution definitely exists. We have lots of definitive, objective proof of it.

Medications are only probable.

No, medications definitely exist. We have lots of definitive, objective proof of them.

These things become more and more probable as time goes on and more samples are taken.

That's not how statistical probability works at all.

Biden has been losing for months. It is a fantasy to think it will change.

Biden has been trailing in polls. To equate that to losing is what's fantasy. Polls don't predict or forecast. They only tell what people are probably thinking and only in the very moment the poll was taken.

In most polls Biden and Trump are both within the margin of error, which means they are actually even in the poll. That's how polls work. They aren't a football scoreboard.

That debate performance is a gigantic problem to overcome.

For you and others who think like you. It isn't a problem at all for others who don't think like you. Historically, debates don't have any impact on election outcomes.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I guess it depends on what you mean by dividing. Disagreement about whether to switch candidates or anything else is healthy.

It's not healthy at all after primary voting has concluded.

It doesn't lead to disagreeing nor division about the goal to beat Trump.

Are you not paying attention? Have you forgotten all those "sitters" you're trying to convince to vote for Democrats. If they exist to the percentage you think they do this infighting is a problem. This kind of fighting makes them nervous and isn't going to convince them to vote for the Democratic candidate.

I am admitting what most people see, but are afraid to admit since it appears to weaken us.

Dude, how about you trust people when they tell you what they honestly think instead of assuming you know something you can't know.

Neither one of us no what most people see.

What I don know is that you keep jumping from point to point. I talk about how polls are struggling to adapt to new dynamics and you jump to some rambling about something I said nothing about. You respond to what I say by jumping to something completely different. It worked for Monty Python, not so much for you.

 

[SamAndreas]

I guess it depends on what you mean by dividing. Disagreement about whether to switch candidates or anything else is healthy. It doesn't lead to disagreeing nor division about the goal to beat Trump.

I am admitting what most people see, but are afraid to admit since it appears to weaken us. I think it is you that isn't adjusting, because you're stuck on the idea that it can't be done, because it hasn't been done in the modern era. It is just the opposite. In this modern era it would be far easier to hold a nationwide primary online, which would be inexpensive. The democratic party doesn't have to have paper ballots to select its candidate. It knows the system is secure. It also knows ranked choice would allow this to be done once. The biggest challenge is the funding, but I've heard $100M has been set aside by big donors for this eventuality. I know I would increase my donations to support the cause.

Wow, I had no idea I would be saying this today.

Welcome to Mars!!! Come on in, plenty of room, grab a chaw and seat for the show, it's about to begin.

You're in for a treat, my 7th cousin Stingray Sam is the lounge singer. He really wow's them in the audience.

 

[Lapaz]

It's not healthy at all after primary voting has concluded.


Are you not paying attention? Have you forgotten all those "sitters" you're trying to convince to vote for Democrats. If they exist to the percentage you think they do this infighting is a problem. This kind of fighting makes them nervous and isn't going to convince them to vote for the Democratic candidate.


Dude, how about you trust people when they tell you what they honestly think instead of assuming you know something you can't know.

Neither one of us no what most people see.

What I don know is that you keep jumping from point to point. I talk about how polls are struggling to adapt to new dynamics and you jump to some rambling about something I said nothing about. You respond to what I say by jumping to something completely different. It worked for Monty Python, not so much for you.

Dude, you don't know either. All you can know is what you witness. I don't know if you're paying attention either. Those sitters are less likely to vote for someone they think can't do the job, otherwise they wouldn't be sitting when the alternative is horrible. They aren't going to choose to vote for Trump because of democratic dissension about who should be the candidate. I believe that is a party that is seriously thinking of winning, rather than just sticking their head in the sand or believing nothing can be done. I haven't jumped. I've been very consistent. I've addressed the polls repeatedly. I trust they are close, which would lead to a landslide loss. You believe pollsters are applying alchemy, and I've told you for all to be so consistent would require a conspiracy, which is my deduction. Then you say, I didn't raise conspiracy, so I had to address that.

 

[MT15]

People see through the lies. It would be more convincing to admit that Biden has declined, and may not survive another term, but we have a capable VP that will finish the term, and that person won't destroy democracy.

What lies? I think everyone here agrees with what you said. Nobody is lying about anything.

The differences are some of us are concerned about these pie-in-the-sky schemes to change the outcome of already finished presidential primaries and the chaos of a brokered convention, not to mention the horrible political outcome if Harris is passed over.

We don’t think Biden has declined in any way enough to throw caution to the wind and start over in the middle of July of an election year.

 

[MT15]

It knows the system is secure. It also knows ranked choice would allow this to be done once.

What system? We don’t have a system for a nationwide electronic primary. The DNC also cannot just imperially decide to go with ranked choice, no matter how much that makes sense. Good grief.