The Kamala Harris presidential candidacy

[Unagi]

McCain needed to shore up his base, so he chose Palin for her age and conservative views...

...into Russia from her backyard.

[Kurth]

Harris is reclaiming Hispanics:

That's definitely not something I expected to see.

And women are through the roof. I expected that support, but this could be landslide territory.

What America are you living in? I'd like to move there.

We are so far away from "landslide territory" it might as well be on Mars.

The fact is, things are trending up right now, but there is a long, long, long way to go.

[Kraken]

A popular vote landslide is conceivable. Unfortunately that's not how we elect presidents.

[Jaymann]

Harris is ahead or tied in the battleground states. Women nationwide could bring in Georgia and North Carolina (the dreamland would be Florida). Also, see the definition of "could."

[YellowKing]

I think it could be considered a landslide (in modern terms) if Harris managed to make some crazy swing state flips - like taking Georgia, NC, even FL and sweeping most of the rest. I'm not putting that in the "likely" category but I don't think it's impossible. (Jaymann beat me to the punch on the states I'm thinking about, so we're on the same page).

[Kurth]

I think it could be considered a landslide (in modern terms) if Harris managed to make some crazy swing state flips - like taking Georgia, NC, even FL and sweeping most of the rest. I'm not putting that in the "likely" category but I don't think it's impossible. (Jaymann beat me to the punch on the states I'm thinking about, so we're on the same page).

There is NO way Trump is not going to win Florida. None. That's my lead-pipe lock of this election. Write it down.

[El Guapo]

I think it could be considered a landslide (in modern terms) if Harris managed to make some crazy swing state flips - like taking Georgia, NC, even FL and sweeping most of the rest. I'm not putting that in the "likely" category but I don't think it's impossible. (Jaymann beat me to the punch on the states I'm thinking about, so we're on the same page).

There is NO way Trump is not going to win Florida. None. That's my lead-pipe lock of this election. Write it down.

Also it's even more unlikely that Florida would matter. Like even in some extreme set of circumstances where Harris wins Florida, then she's almost certainly also winning states like GA and NC, such that Florida would just be running up the score.

[Isgrimnur]

Florida would just be running up the score.

And I would be fine with that. Give me a blue 1984.

[LawBeefaroni]

Harris is reclaiming Hispanics:

That's definitely not something I expected to see.

And women are through the roof. I expected that support, but this could be landslide territory.

What America are you living in? I'd like to move there.

We are so far away from "landslide territory" it might as well be on Mars.

The fact is, things are trending up right now, but there is a long, long, long way to go.

Yeah the manic swing from inevitable end of democracy to landslide isn't really reflective of reality.

It was a near thing before and it's a near thing now. And we're months away.

[msteelers]

We’re moving to NC from FL sometime in the next few weeks, so that’s at least two blue votes leaving FL and going to NC.

I don’t know how likely it is for NC to flip blue, but it feels more likely than FL at this point. That said, the conservatives near me aren’t nearly as fired up as they were during previous elections or even the first few years of Biden’s term.

[Kraken]

Florida would just be running up the score.

And I would be fine with that. Give me a blue 1984.

Trump losing his adoptive home state would be delicious.

One thing working in Dems' favor (besides general enthusiasm) is FL's highly unpopular new abortion ban. There are a lot of angry voters down there. Enough to flip the state? IDK. Enough to make it a nail-biter? Quite possibly.

[YellowKing]

The anti-abortion stuff is really unpopular in NC as well. In fact Robinson, who is about as extreme on the issue as you can get, had to backpedal and say he was OK with the 12-week ban currently in place, because he is behind 5+ points in the polls against Stein. If anything could turn NC blue again, it would be that issue.

[LordMortis]

One thing working in Dems' favor (besides general enthusiasm) is FL's highly unpopular new abortion ban. There are a lot of angry voters down there. Enough to flip the state? IDK. Enough to make it a nail-biter? Quite possibly.

Do social security collecting old protestant in name, but whatever it is called where God will give you money if you pray hard enough, count as people who give a shit about abortions? (I'm actually surprised to find out Florida is only the second agingist state in the union behind Maine)

https://www.prb.org/resources/which-us- ... he-oldest/

[Kurth]

Florida would just be running up the score.

And I would be fine with that. Give me a blue 1984.

Trump losing his adoptive home state would be delicious.

One thing working in Dems' favor (besides general enthusiasm) is FL's highly unpopular new abortion ban. There are a lot of angry voters down there. Enough to flip the state? IDK. Enough to make it a nail-biter? Quite possibly.

Have you been to FL recently? I don't spend much time in the Miami area, and I know that skews Dem, but I fly into Orlando and drive up to Jacksonville a couple times every year to see family who live just outside of Jacksonville. I'll just say that, anecdotally, it does not feel at all like that state is anywhere close to being a nail-biter. I'd love to be wrong, but I don't think so.

[ImLawBoy]

While the 2018 Senate race in FL was close (~10,000 votes), the 2022 governor's race and senate race were not particularly close. Seems to be trending away from Ds more than anything, but as others have said, if Harris wins FL it's already an epic rout.

[Kraken]

One thing working in Dems' favor (besides general enthusiasm) is FL's highly unpopular new abortion ban. There are a lot of angry voters down there. Enough to flip the state? IDK. Enough to make it a nail-biter? Quite possibly.

Do social security collecting old protestant in name, but whatever it is called where God will give you money if you pray hard enough, count as people who give a shit about abortions? (I'm actually surprised to find out Florida is only the second agingist state in the union behind Maine)

https://www.prb.org/resources/which-us- ... he-oldest/

You can't tar all old people with that brush. Just idly noodling some numbers...

TFG won FL by 372,000 votes in 2020. Doesn't seem insurmountable.

However, FL currently has 950,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats, with 3.5 million unenrolled.

In 2020, there were actually 100,000 more D's than R's, with 3.8 million unenrolled. Since then, the Dems have lost 1 million registered members while the R's have gained 40,000, and there are 300,000 fewer independents. Looks to me like a lot of Dems and D-leaning independents have bugged out.

If Dems lost when they had a small advantage in numbers, can they win when they have a huge deficit? Seems pretty unlikely. There are still enough independents to close that gap if a large majority of them vote blue...but apparently roughly 0.5 million more of them voted red than blue last time, so I wouldn't put much faith in that happening.

Of course, registered voters and actual voters are two different things so these numbers are only potentials. You gotta get them to the polls. The MAGAts are going to turn out in force, but what percentage of registered R's are in that bucket? Dems might be uncharacteristically motivated by a charismatic ticket and the abortion issue, and maybe more independents will break their way for the same reasons...but that's stretching. I think we can take FL off the table.

[LordMortis]

You can't tar all old people with that brush. Just idly noodling some numbers...

Not old people. Old pseudo evangelicals who moved to Florida in no small part because they don't want to pay state income tax on their social security and cashing in investments.

[Alefroth]

Bring on the new polling!

[Zaxxon]

Bring on the new polling!

Too early.

[Unagi]

Coal and Nuclear are already economically non-viable, and the explosion in renewable is doing the same for gas and oil.

Can you explain this to me, Pyperkub?

Specifically, the part where Nuclear is not economically viable?

I'm not really aware of that consensus being reached, but if you have information - I'd like to upgrade my software.

[Kraken]

Coal and Nuclear are already economically non-viable, and the explosion in renewable is doing the same for gas and oil.

Can you explain this to me, Pyperkub?

Specifically, the part where Nuclear is not economically viable?

I'm not really aware of that consensus being reached, but if you have information - I'd like to upgrade my software.

As I understand it, current-generation water-cooled reactors aren't economically viable because of the lengthy permitting time and expected decommissioning costs. They're competitive for the operational decades in between. A new generation of safer molten-salt reactors is being built worldwide, but not in the USA due to public opposition. That's just off the top of my head; maybe Pyper can set us straight.

[Jaymon]

Florida is not just trump, is also DeSantis, the man tried to fight the Mouse. He has been doing some loony crazy shit there as well, that might turn folks off voting R.

[hepcat]

That would suck if Trump had to take the stage with DeSantis. What happens if he doesn't give DeSantis fair warning about an appearance? Do you know how hard it is to get the right height platform shoes for these things on short notice??

Heh..."short notice".

[Pyperkub]

Coal and Nuclear are already economically non-viable, and the explosion in renewable is doing the same for gas and oil.

Can you explain this to me, Pyperkub?

Specifically, the part where Nuclear is not economically viable?

I'm not really aware of that consensus being reached, but if you have information - I'd like to upgrade my software.

Example:

With the price of renewables dropping precipitously, however, the project's economics have worsened. Some of the initial backers started pulling out of the project earlier in the decade, although the numbers continued to fluctuate in the ensuing years.

The final straw came on Wednesday, when NuScale and the primary utility partner, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, announced that the Carbon Free Power Project did not have enough utility partners at a planned checkpoint and, given that uncertainty, would be shut down. In a statement, the pair accepted that "it appears unlikely that the project will have enough subscription to continue toward deployment."....

...But none of those potential customers had advanced any project nearly as far as the Carbon Free Power Project, so it is now uncertain whether the company can build any commercial reactors before the decade ends.

The same is now true for nuclear power in general in the US. No large reactors are planned, and the last few projects of that sort were either canceled or ran horrifically over budget.

Ultimately, while there is a possibility Nuclear could be economically viable, the markets are changing so rapidly that the long-term risk of it NOT being economically viable given the massive capital outlay for startup is killing investment (and having some long term maintenance costs no matter if it's running or not, is probably a factor as well)

[hepcat]

Nuclear reactors are still the most cost effective power generation around. They're expensive to build, yes. But the maintenance cost for them is relatively inexpensive. And the output isn't even close when compared to every other means of generation.

I'm not sure I would call nuclear energy "non-viable".

Safety is usually the biggest concern you read about, but even with 3 major melt downs since the 1950s, it still has a safer track record than fossil fuels.

Edit: you added a few things to your post while I was typing. You do have a good point, but retrofitting nuclear plants to fulfill increased needs is a viable economic solution for increasing energy demand. Not to mention converting existing coal plants to nuclear plants at a reduced cost.

Would I like to see a completely safe alternative? Of course. But until then, I think nuclear is our best option for energy independence.

[Unagi]

I'm more-or-less of that opinion as well.

I like solar, wind, and I really like the idea of tidal power (suuper sexy) - but I can't deny that super long term; I'm guessing that perfecting nuclear is probably the end game.

"If businesses want to invest in it vs. renewables" is a different question than "if it's economically viable". right?

[Kraken]

Would I like to see a completely safe alternative? Of course. But until then, I think nuclear is our best option for energy independence.

Molten salt reactors are under development in several countries and could be deployed by the mid-2030s.

[Alefroth]

Coal and Nuclear are already economically non-viable, and the explosion in renewable is doing the same for gas and oil.

Can you explain this to me, Pyperkub?

Specifically, the part where Nuclear is not economically viable?

I'm not really aware of that consensus being reached, but if you have information - I'd like to upgrade my software.

As I understand it, current-generation water-cooled reactors aren't economically viable because of the lengthy permitting time and expected decommissioning costs. They're competitive for the operational decades in between. A new generation of safer molten-salt reactors is being built worldwide, but not in the USA due to public opposition. That's just off the top of my head; maybe Pyper can set us straight.

Isn't it also partly due to the high cost of insuring them?

[hepcat]

Molten Salt Reactors are definitely a promising upgrade to reactor technology. Hopefully they can iron out the problems sooner rather than later.

[Scraper]

Can we please change the name in the headline to Kamabla since the orange toddler seems to have settle on that? Anyone who finds that nickname amusing and proper behavior from a presidential candidate seriously needs to have their life choices examined.

[Zaxxon]

Can we please change the name in the headline to Kamabla since the orange toddler seems to have settle on that? Anyone who finds that nickname amusing and proper behavior from a presidential candidate seriously needs to have their life choices examined.

The best part is I've seen Trump reps asked multiple times to explain WTF that even means, and they've had absolutely nothing. It really is toddler-in-chief behavior, apparently not even borne of the most trivial of actual reality-based sources.

[hepcat]

I would love to hear Kamala and Walz just start referring to Trump and Vance as "Dannie and J.R."

[Grifman]

https://twitter.com/keithedwards/status ... NcXCfN8s1g

[YellowKing]

I think it's important to note that poll after poll shows RFK Jr taking votes away from Trump, not Harris. I know early on with Biden it was surmised that RFK Jr would draw from both candidates roughly equally. She leads Trump in two-way polls, but her margin grows significantly when RFK is added to the mix.

[Unagi]

My brain would frame that a little differently.

I think voters are of two general minds. OMG:Trump-Yes, and JustNotTrump

the ~42% is unchanged and will stay that way. The question is where does the other ~58% land.

With Biden, they went something like ~40% to Biden and ~6%RFK ~10%throw-hands-in-air

With Harris, the ~10% move to her -

I think it was just Biden that was taking votes away from Harris.

[YellowKing]

Yeah, that's a good way of looking at it Unagi. I didn't think about the percentage that were in the "stay home and pout" category.

[El Guapo]

Can we please change the name in the headline to Kamabla since the orange toddler seems to have settle on that? Anyone who finds that nickname amusing and proper behavior from a presidential candidate seriously needs to have their life choices examined.

The best part is I've seen Trump reps asked multiple times to explain WTF that even means, and they've had absolutely nothing. It really is toddler-in-chief behavior, apparently not even borne of the most trivial of actual reality-based sources.

I really can't even guess what Trump is getting at there. Is he trying to make her name sound more foreign / nonsensical? Did he just mispronounce her name and is running with it? Does he just find it funny because he's mentally 5?

[Zaxxon]

Can we please change the name in the headline to Kamabla since the orange toddler seems to have settle on that? Anyone who finds that nickname amusing and proper behavior from a presidential candidate seriously needs to have their life choices examined.

The best part is I've seen Trump reps asked multiple times to explain WTF that even means, and they've had absolutely nothing. It really is toddler-in-chief behavior, apparently not even borne of the most trivial of actual reality-based sources.

I really can't even guess what Trump is getting at there. Is he trying to make her name sound more foreign / nonsensical? Did he just mispronounce her name and is running with it? Does he just find it funny because he's mentally 5?

My guess is it's either Kama-blah (she's so blah), or some grotesque Kamala/Obama mash-up (even though one is a first name and the other a last; has he never mashed-up names before?). Either nets a 0/8 tentacles for burn level from me.

[Carpet_pissr]

I would love to hear Kamala and Walz just start referring to Trump and Vance as "Dannie and J.R."

I would not love that. Wasn't crazy about his couch comment either, but not a huge deal as long as he doesn't double down on that like Trump does. We want to follow MAGA's behavior and start name-calling? Race to the bottom?

To be clear, I am VERY on board with much more aggressive attacks than I have seen from Biden, and I have been seeing that from the Kamala campaign, but let's leave the childish bullshit to the other side. Speaking of the Kamala campaign, I wonder if due to the proximity of the election, is she just "inheriting" Biden's people? Seems a little late to get all new people up to speed, no?

[Carpet_pissr]

https://twitter.com/keithedwards/status ... NcXCfN8s1g

Important context:
how do they define "likely voters"
How many total respondents? 10? 10,000?
Margin of error is almost 5%, sooo IF their margin of error is correct (that's a different topic altogether) possibly:
Trump: 47%
Harris: 45%
RFK: ??

God I hate polls. I really think they do more harm than good a lot of the time.

Unless we can see a poll that is using the same group of people, over time, then the trends could definitely be informative, even if the numbers themselves are off (i.e. Kamala gained 10 points over 3 months from the same group of people).