USA thread (former name USA Presidential Elections 2024)

A difficult position for DeSantis. If he enters the race and loses significantly (as polls currently indicate), he could sideline himself in the party, as happened to Cruz and Rubio. Becoming vice president could give him pole position for the 2028 race, but that requires Trump’s potential second term to go well (uncertain) and might still not be enough (as Pence’s example shows).

A possible boost for DeSantis is the upcoming midterm elections: if MAGA-wing candidates, who narrowly won tough primaries with Trump’s support, lose in the Senate and gubernatorial elections, and at the same time DeSantis overperforms in the Florida gubernatorial election (e.g., a 60-40 level victory), voices questioning Trump’s authority could increase. Trump pushed through controversial Republican candidates in Arizona (governor and senate), Pennsylvania (governor and senate), Ohio (senate), and Georgia (senate), among others.

Abortion rights became an interesting interim barometer this week when the people in Republican-leaning Kansas voted down a proposal that would have allowed the state legislature to restrict access to abortion in the future. The proposal was defeated by a margin of 41-59, despite being held during the primary season when voter turnout is lower (especially among Democrats). It’s difficult to say how much abortion will ultimately affect individual state-level elections, but profiling oneself as being in favor of a complete ban on abortion can be a difficult strategy for Republicans - and anything else does not please religious core supporters. It was easy for Republicans to oppose abortion rights as long as they knew that the right would not disappear anyway.

8 Likes

This might be slightly off-topic, but I have to address Trump’s character.

If voters elect Trump, and he wins, how far does Trump have to go for a large portion of his supporters to think that this is no longer okay? What about the Capitol riot? Didn’t that cause any significant backlash among Trump’s supporters? Didn’t it occur to them that this isn’t normal and how Trump is connected to all of this?

In short: voters vote and the chaos continues (if he becomes president), so what is the action that would open the eyes of his hardened supporters and fans? Is there such a thing? In a way, like in Russia, where the more war and successes there are, the greater the leader, etc.? Trump indeed seems to be popular when things are going badly in the US, if I’m not completely misinterpreting.

The fact that he PRAISES Putin’s tactics as GOOD should be the ultimate alarm bell. If it is, then do the fans have blinders on and stereos in their ears, unable to see the forest for the trees?

7 Likes

Given that the majority of GOP voters still completely baselessly believe that Biden cheated in the 2020 elections, it’s no wonder they didn’t turn against Trump over the Jan 6 events. Those revolutionaries who stormed the Capitol believe they were carrying out the will of the people there. I dread what will happen in 2024, and if Trump rises to power again, what will ultimately happen to American democracy. What’s also frightening is how deeply this undemocratic sentiment runs within the GOP. For example, Supreme Court Justice Thomas’s wife used her position to try to change the election result.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2022/06/10/ginni-thomas-election-arizona-lawmakers/
and Republicans are replacing election certification officials who voted in favor of certifying the election results.

This article might give a taste of a possible future:

I never thought I’d respect Dick Cheney for anything, but this takes guts in the current Republican party:

6 Likes

Ok, this thread just exploded. Excellent. I won’t comment on the democracy part this time, it’s almost midnight (and I completely missed that it flew by while writing this quick snippet).

(It might be that the thread should be split into “betting” and “who will win” separately, it would keep it cleaner)

But for quick comments (this time in a betting sense, sorry):

DeSantis is indeed an interesting wildcard, worth keeping an eye on. If he gets strong enough support but Trump looks like he’ll win, the VP seems clear… and with that, the next elections, regardless of who became president… he wasn’t a (total) loser, after all. And if the man plays his cards right, he doesn’t have to wait for “the next elections” if he’s interested in being president for, say, a term and a half.

If Trump drops out (for one reason or another), small bets on others besides DeSantis… quite nice.

On the Democratic side, the situation is completely hopeless. Kamala? Unless Biden clearly gives her power and clout, there’s no real hope. This, however, could happen IF there’s a crushing defeat in “six months” and Biden knows he has to give up a second term (for one reason or another). Then (will?) she be bolstered…

But Kamala is a pretty awful option… a shame, such a capable person. But Clinton in 2016 was just as incomprehensible… as if a woman was a bad option, pfft.

Then things get interesting in a betting sense, meaning the Democrats.

It’s probably a pretty strong assumption (on my part) that the Democrats will win anyway, because the recent problems will at some point push things over the line, people will vote because they have to. Too much “setback” in reasonableness, especially for women.

Then it’s a nice situation in a betting sense (if I were right until 2024 :smiley: ).

Thought experiment:
If you bet 100e on a top Democratic candidate today, with pretty good odds because of Trump…
Later the situation changes, a better candidate is found or there’s too much dirt, 100e on the next one…
And quite likely you’ll have to change your mind again in the primaries, the betting sum is then free.
One would think that with these setups, one can adjust a “winning bet”. As long as someone like Trump doesn’t win, of course :D.

Well, I rambled too much this time, sorry. The analyses above are just so tough that we mere mortals have to handle things by gut feeling…

Well said. These old neoconservative Republicans (Bush, Cheney, Romney, etc.) are starting to look good compared to the current party…

2 Likes

The plot thickens. Trump released a video that strongly resembled election campaign material after the FBI raided his Mar-a-Lago estate. If his candidacy in the primary wasn’t certain before, I’d say it’s certain now. The findings of the investigation could then determine whether it strengthens or weakens Trump’s chances. However, based on previous investigations, one might wonder if there even is such a “smoking gun” that would weaken the faith of Trump’s supporters.

Republicans’ reactions to the raid have, as expected, been very strongly in favor of Trump, DeSantis included.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/08/desantis-trump-fbi-00050462

2 Likes

There was some discussion in the coffee room about the upcoming elections and the Republicans’ sure victory in the next presidential election. It seems there isn’t any proper, available data analysis yet for these elections. There’s the betting market and our own reflections. So, let’s take a closer look at what the betting market collectively thinks right now, keeping in mind that the trading volumes are still small, of course.

First, a disclaimer: I am not a gambler of any sort. The only time I placed a bet with an investment mindset was on Biden in the last election, and even that didn’t go quite as planned (discussed in the Investment Mistakes thread). Otherwise, I’m just a casual player for fun. I follow the political betting market almost purely because it helps me understand, as one piece of the puzzle, where things stand.

Republicans

Currently, on Betfair, DeSantis’s odds for president are 4.3 and Trump’s are 4.5. My understanding is that these have a 97% payout, so based on that, DeSantis’s probability of becoming president is estimated by bettors at 23%, and Trump’s at 22%. Bets can also be placed on the Republican presidential candidate: Trump at 2.28 and DeSantis at 3.1, meaning probabilities of 43% and 31%.

So, Trump’s probability estimate for president, assuming he is the candidate, is about 50%. We are talking about a conditional probability. On the other hand, DeSantis’s probability estimate for president, assuming he is the candidate, is over 70%!

The latter conditional probability estimate seems wild to me, especially since in that scenario, Trump has lost the primaries. Since Trump never loses, the elections in that case would be dishonest and corrupt. Is there a scenario where Trump, in this case, does not support DeSantis?

It seems to me that the only truly good option for the Republicans would have been for Trump not to run but to leisurely support DeSantis without interfering too much in the campaign. In that case, I might be able to buy that DeSantis would currently be a 70% favorite in the presidential election itself.

Correction

The Democrats’ betting breakdown would fit better with the rest of the pending chatter about Democratic candidates. But one correction to the Biden text: I was very puzzled by the conflicting thoughts of the betting market and FiveThirtyEight on the Senate elections. However, there may not be a major discrepancy, because 538 straightforwardly counts independents, who are practically aligned with Democrats, as Democrats, as do all commentators. But apparently, betting is stricter: from that perspective, the Senate currently has 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 Independents (who are practically Democrats). So, if Democrats practically get a 51-49 majority including the current two independents, the interpretation in betting is apparently that “no party gained a majority.” Or at least that’s how I understood it when I read the fine print.

Thus, 538 and the betting market seem to be on the same page after all: Democrats have a surprisingly good chance of retaining the Senate. The overturning of Roe was a Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans, as @Observer astutely mused earlier.

12 Likes

After my previous Unibet message, I’ve been eyeing that odds, and now some air has already been taken out of it; the Senate odds for Democrats are only 5.25. It’s good that you also clarified the difference in independents; I also read the fine print but wouldn’t have understood how significant its impact is.

1 Like

I also looked at the distribution that the fivethirtyeight model currently offers:

If/when it is truly the case that Democrats need at least 53 seats to get a majority according to the betting market’s definition (51 “pure” seats and two current, aligned independents, one of whom is Bernie Sanders), I calculated from that distribution that their model gives Democrats about a 17.5% chance of getting at least 53 seats. If this were also the betting market’s estimate, with a 90% payout, the odds would be 0.9/0.175=5.15. So, the interpretation is likely correct. Betting does not want any ambiguity. In its eyes, Sanders is not a Democrat. In practice, he is.

By the way, that model already gives Democrats a 60% chance of retaining control of the Senate with at least 50 seats! The trend has been upward for many weeks.

10 Likes

Haven’t read the thread, but it probably affects Trump’s continuation in office

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1558141378990833664?s=20&t=qlvSRoGRvPxYLYAQD2k0fQ

5 Likes

Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris is the 57-year-old Vice President of the USA. She is the first woman in her position, as well as the first whose parents are of African and Asian descent.

A native Californian, Harris graduated from law school in San Francisco in the late 80s. The first major milestone in her upward career was a surprising election victory in California’s District Attorney race in 2004. As District Attorney, Harris was relentlessly tough, successfully closing many loopholes used by violent criminals’ defense attorneys and securing convictions at a high rate. Harris gained a controversial reputation in the state for trying to eradicate chronic truancy by even taking parents to court for it. Harris saw truancy as a significant breeding ground for crime, and succeeded in curbing it.

In 2010, Harris won the California Attorney General election against her Republican opponent with a strong finish. Early in her term, the nation’s highest court warned California about inhumane overcrowding in its prisons, but during Harris’s tenure, fewer inmates were released in the state than before. The number of wrongly convicted individuals increased during Harris’s time. Legal scholars criticized Harris and her prosecutors for using various technicalities to block new trials in cases of unclear convictions. Harris also received criticism for emphasizing the importance of prisoners as a state labor reserve, using them in very dangerous jobs.

Harris also received much praise for her strong actions in areas such as environmental protection and the defense of sexual minorities. Harris was the first in the federal government to pass a categorical ban on the “gay panic defense.” This was an illogical but widely used argument in defense of hate crimes, where violence was justified as self-defense against a sexual advance from a same-sex victim.

As a Senator

Harris entered the 2016 Senate election as a strong favorite and was elected with a large majority, at the same time as Trump was elected president. In the spring of 2017, Trump fired FBI director Comey, and Harris gained national attention for her investigations into the case. Among other things, she grilled Attorney General Sessions on the matter in the Senate, and he later admitted to being nervous during the grilling.

The following year, Harris put Kavanaugh, who was nominated for the Supreme Court and accused of harassment in his youth, through the wringer. His Senate hearings were followed with unprecedented intensity in live TV broadcasts.

Based on the enthusiastic feedback Harris received for her sharp, legal attacks against the Trump administration, she announced her presidential bid remarkably early, in January 2019. Harris was even considered a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, receiving a record amount of campaign donations on the first day.

In the first primary debate in June 2019, Harris fiercely attacked Joe Biden, who had entered the race in April, claiming that Biden did little to eradicate racial segregation in the 70s. Harris gained a boost in her poll numbers from the debate, while Biden was seen as having badly fossilized. In the August debate, Biden, well-prepared, launched a counterattack, tearing Harris’s record as Attorney General to shreds. That marked the beginning of Harris’s steep decline. The spirit within the Democrats then, and still today, was to criticize the inhumanities of the justice system, and Harris’s tough history did not fit this narrative. In December, Harris threw in the towel, and in March 2020, after Biden secured decisive victories against Bernie Sanders, she shifted her support to him. Around the same time, Biden pledged to choose a woman as his vice-presidential running mate, and after the murder of George Floyd, Harris was the clear frontrunner. In August, Biden announced his choice.

As Vice President

The Constitution does not precisely define the duties of the Vice President. They preside over the Senate without a vote, except in the case of a 50-50 tie, a situation that has, naturally, occurred an unprecedented number of times this term.

In the last century, the Vice President’s role was often quite ceremonial, although a few made a sudden dive into the deep end. This century, however, began with perhaps the most influential Vice President of all time, Dick Cheney, who practically led the Bush administration’s foreign policy based on the war on terror, actively operating in energy policy as well. His successor, Biden, was also an exceptionally strong and active Vice President. Mike Pence became a wallflower in the Trump administration, his sole purpose being to secure the religious right wing, only to find throughout the term that Trump, who successfully sold his ardent faith and diamond-like knowledge of the Bible to evangelicals, no longer needed him even for that.

At the beginning of Biden’s term, I expected Harris to be a strong Vice President. I thought the arrangement would be built from the start with the understanding that Biden would not seek re-election. This way, Harris would be in a strong position to become the party’s candidate in 2024, and Biden would support her.

I could not have been more wrong. Biden, who knows domestic and foreign policy down to its roots, has enthusiastically kept the reins in his hands, barely delegating anything to Harris, except for the thankless border security issue, which has eroded Harris’s support to a much lower level than Cheney and Biden had at the same stage. Even Pence was clearly more popular.

And the unpopularity is not solely due to an invisible role and terrible task assignment. The Biden administration’s popularity has generally slipped downhill. In addition, once in power, Harris’s speech has become convoluted and difficult to follow. At times, even those who follow politics have found it difficult to find a common thread in her comments. To the average person, it’s gibberish. Not even a perfect assist, the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe, gained momentum for Harris; instead, the woman fumbled an open opportunity in a CNN interview after the decision. The media company’s YouTube channel is strongly Democratic territory, but the comment section for that appearance is almost exclusively negative. A fierce counterattack was expected, but not delivered. Judge for yourselves if you have 10 minutes.

A growing number of people now see Harris as a gray, helpless, uptight, by-the-book lawyer with whom they wouldn’t go for a beer. Bookmakers put her chances of becoming the next president at around five percent. The strategic opportunity to build her into a frontrunner for the next election has slipped through the sand.

44 Likes

@Kale-possu I wish this kind of quality analysis could be found in the Finnish media as well.

Regarding the candidate speculation, Trump published a campaign-like ad on his social media platform:

Undeniably, Trump’s message would certainly appeal to Americans at the moment.

4 Likes

Trump may be unable to participate in the 2024 presidential election. The former president, who has survived two impeachments and dozens of lesser scandals, may have made a mistake that will cost him the right to run for president and could potentially (probably, even) land him in jail for violating federal law, specifically for violating the Espionage Act.

On Aug. 12, the Justice Department unsealed the search warrant executed at the FBI’s recent search of Mar-a-Lago—the resort, occasional wedding venue, and primary home to former President Donald Trump. The warrant authorizes the seizure of materials “constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. 793, 2071, or 1519.”

18 U.S.C. § 793 is the Espionage Act.

On August 8, 2022, the FBI searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. The purpose of the search was to find secret and confidential documents missing from the White House, particularly documents related to nuclear weapons.

Early reports that the F.B.I. search of former President Donald J. Trump’s residence in Florida related to an investigation into whether he had unlawfully taken government files when he left the White House focused attention on an obscure criminal law barring removal of official records. The penalties for breaking that law include disqualification from holding any federal office.

Confidential, secret, and top-secret documents were found in the search.

“In its initial review of materials within those boxes, NARA identified items marked as classified national security information, up to the level of Top Secret and including Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Program materials.”

Specifically, the following types of documents were found:

A preliminary triage of the documents with classification markings revealed the following approximate numbers: 184 unique documents bearing classification markings, including 67 documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL, 92 documents marked as SECRET, and 25 documents marked as TOP SECRET.

Information found in the documents at Mar-A-Lago may jeopardize the identities of US agents abroad.

Among nearly 200 “unique documents bearing classified markings,” FBI agents found records marked as “HCS” – a reference to clandestine human sources and some of the most guarded information in the government’s intelligence arsenal

Human source information is so guarded because it often indicates the material came from a person recruited by American intelligence who is typically a foreigner, frequently someone who has access to the foreign government’s intelligence, their classified information, their leadership, defense secrets

The target must have been a honeypot for foreign intelligence services. A Russian spy has allegedly infiltrated Trump’s inner circle at Mar-A-Lago.

https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1563247608562196480

Possibly related or unrelated, but the CIA admitted in October 2021 that an unusually large number of foreign intelligence sources have been arrested or disappeared.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/05/us/politics/cia-informants-killed-captured.html

This may be the scandal that Trump can no longer navigate. The best defense so far has been Trump’s claim that all documents have been declassified.

Mr. Trump has offered no details, but if he is saying he made a blanket, oral invocation that all the files he took to Mar-a-Lago were unclassified, without making any formal, written record, that would be difficult to prove or disprove. Even if there is no evidence that Mr. Trump followed normal procedures for declassifying certain types of information, his lawyers could argue that he was not constitutionally bound to obey such rules.

This is unlikely to hold up in court, as declassification in the US is a process where several individuals can express their opinions, and if the document to be declassified affects an individual, that person must be informed in advance of the declassification. Furthermore, nuclear secrets may be involved, the declassification of which may not be possible solely through a presidential announcement.

On Friday, Mr. Trump’s office claimed that when he was president, he had a “standing order” that materials “removed from the Oval Office and taken to the residence were deemed to be declassified the moment he removed them

Are there formal procedures for declassifying information?
Yes. The 2009 executive order directs the head of the department or agency that originally deemed information classified to oversee declassification reviews, and it sets some standards for them.
The executive branch has regulations laying out the process that should be followed, such as a requirement to make sure that other agencies and departments with an interest in the secret are consulted. There are also procedures for the removal of classification markings on documents.

Furthermore, if the aforementioned “standing practice” for declassifying documents cannot be proven, Trump cannot retroactively (as a private citizen) claim that this was the practice when he was president.

Were the documents at Mar-A-Lago classified, or had their classification been removed? If a document is not classified, a private individual can access it through a US FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request. One person has already requested to see the unclassified documents. By law, the federal government must provide unclassified documents to the requester upon request.

The act explicitly applies only to government agencies under the executive branch. These agencies are required by several mandates to comply with public solicitation of information. Along with making public and accessible all bureaucratic and technical procedures for applying for documents from that agency, agencies are also subject to penalties for hindering the process of a petition for information.

https://twitter.com/CalltoActivism/status/1559608582764728320

We look forward to seeing how the case progresses.

19 Likes

Let’s see what happens with that mess, but it strongly smells like a political witch hunt whose purpose is specifically to try and oust Trump from the candidacy, partly because Democrats know they would most likely get trounced in the elections, and partly because their candidate selection is of the “best-before date expired, reserves are featherweights” variety.

1 Like

Trump’s idiosyncratic hoarding of classified documents would have already led to indictments and trials for anyone else. It’s baffling how messed up the US still is because of one con artist loved by the far right. It’s especially ironic that one of the accusations Trump repeated against Clinton in his own campaign was the use of her private email. It’s downright hilarious that now the same man has had boxes of classified material seized that he shouldn’t have.

Trump would plunge the entire planet into new chaos, so let’s hope, especially here in Finland, that the next US president is not Trump.

25 Likes

The FBI is not a political police force, but the central criminal investigation agency of the United States. Its duty is to investigate crimes, regardless of who committed them.

9 Likes

Well, Clinton’s mess was ultimately buried quietly, even though it was investigated on the same grounds (classified material in an inappropriate place) for which Trump is now being skewered. It’s not political at all. And yes, Clinton’s thrashing was also political. Both sides do exactly the same thing.

And looking at Trump’s time versus today, could we get a little more of that Trump chaos? This current situation is, frankly, much more acidic. If China starts to act up there… But no more about this, it easily turns into a silly argument again. I state my opinion that political influences are certainly involved, let’s see how the soup develops.

2 Likes

It’s a rather strong assumption that those two cases are completely identical and thus the outcomes should be the same. Yet, Trump’s own officials (who were changed multiple times) didn’t pursue the Clinton case despite the boss’s “demands”? To the same list, one could then add Ivanka & Jared, who, like Clinton, used private email but somehow got off scot-free. That, too, is likely political.

10 Likes

Let me correct this a bit…

The case of Clinton, Ivanka, and Jared Trump concerned the use of personal email for communication.

The Donald Trump case involved the illegal transfer and storage of classified documents in Trump’s personal “archive.” And indeed, they were found by the boxful.

Donald Trump is still accused in numerous courts, and somehow this scoundrel always manages to wiggle his way to safety. Trump is not yet on Putin’s level, when it comes to the deaths in his own country caused by his command and blessing, but those too have not been avoided. And he was not indicted for that far-right mobilization either. And somehow Trump’s tentacles still stir up extremist elements even in Finland. It is very difficult to understand.

18 Likes

Well, it was similar in that “top secret” material went through private email. So, classified information was stored in a space that should not have been used for it. In that sense, it was similar. Yes, there were no physical documents, but digital ones. Still, practically no difference.

There’s no point in quibbling about the other issues because all the reporting (on both sides) has been so heavily biased that digging out the facts is a huge undertaking.

But it’s clear that Trump is seeking candidacy, and the other side doesn’t look favorably upon this, and all means are allowed to thwart it, because the fear is that the election result will be at least completely open. Perhaps sometime in the future, we will unambiguously know how much of this is legally sound and how much political maneuvering has been involved, but it seems clear that at least until the next presidential election, there will be at least two versions of every story, and it will be up to the listener to guess where the truth lies between them.

3 Likes