2024 US Presidential Election

First topic message reminder :

Thought we should have a thread on it, as Ron DeSantis is expected to launch his campaign on Twitter this evening. He's trailing Trump by a big margin for the Republican nomination, around 37% behind in the polling average. But there's a lot of time for things to change and the oddsmakers only have DeSantis as a 2/1 outsider, against Trump's 2/5. Doesn't appear to be any other serious contenders for the Republican nomination at this point.

Biden is expected to run again and defend his crown, but his advancing age (he's into his 80s now) and low approval ratings means he may be vulnerable to a Democratic challenger. The most likely challenger seems to be Robert Kennedy Jr. who has already announced his candidacy and has polled as high as 21%, but that was still 49% behind Biden. As such, Biden's a 2/9 clear favourite to be the Democrat nominee in 2024, but if he drops out for whatever reason then the race is wide open.

Only 531 days until the election...

Lowlandbrit wrote:...we could see the Republicans become the broad national working class party...

One would hope that this is only until that demographic realises they're still being screwed by Trump and his sycophants at their expense. Then again, I would have thought they'd have realised that already. A true triumph of hope over experience...

navyblueshorts wrote:

Lowlandbrit wrote:...we could see the Republicans become the broad national working class party...

One would hope that this is only until that demographic realises they're still being screwed by Trump and his sycophants at their expense. Then again, I would have thought they'd have realised that already. A true triumph of hope over experience...

I also read of Democrat voters either not voting, or voting for Trump, in protest of the Democrats' support for Israel in the current crisis. As if Trump would somehow be more pro-Palestine than Biden. Did they forget his 4 years as President?

I think in the end trump lost 2m voters from 2020. The story of the election being the Dems losing 15m, so not sure it says very much about the republicans broad appeal or trumps message cutting through, as much as the Dems running on continuity that many weren't happy with honestly.

As objective as any of us might try to be, there are always signs that we don't see simply because we don't want to see them. High inflation, a very unpopular incumbent, and his literal deputy trying to run as a change candidate - you're doing very well if you manage to win in those circumstances.

Credit where it's due to Trump and the team he assembled. He appealed to enough people where it mattered, and that's all there is to it.

Having said that, the worst thing for me is that he's completely unrepentant for anything he's ever done, yet he's back in the White House. I know we don't live in an ideal world, but there's like a fundamental injustice to that. All the meanness, the nastiness, the spitefulness, toward his fellow man has been rewarded. What a great example that is!

JuliusHMarx wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Lowlandbrit wrote:...we could see the Republicans become the broad national working class party...

One would hope that this is only until that demographic realises they're still being screwed by Trump and his sycophants at their expense. Then again, I would have thought they'd have realised that already. A true triumph of hope over experience...

I also read of Democrat voters either not voting, or voting for Trump, in protest of the Democrats' support for Israel in the current crisis. As if Trump would somehow be more pro-Palestine than Biden. Did they forget his 4 years as President?

Yeah. The Palestinians are ****ed because historical guilt over The Holocaust is giving the green light for the current Israeli regime to do anything whatsoever that they fancy. It doesn't matter who's in the White House re. that regional abattoir.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:As objective as any of us might try to be, there are always signs that we don't see simply because we don't want to see them. High inflation, a very unpopular incumbent, and his literal deputy trying to run as a change candidate - you're doing very well if you manage to win in those circumstances.

Credit where it's due to Trump and the team he assembled. He appealed to enough people where it mattered, and that's all there is to it.

Having said that, the worst thing for me is that he's completely unrepentant for anything he's ever done, yet he's back in the White House. I know we don't live in an ideal world, but there's like a fundamental injustice to that. All the meanness, the nastiness, the spitefulness, toward his fellow man has been rewarded. What a great example that is!

Yep. So much for the 'civilised world', eh?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:As objective as any of us might try to be, there are always signs that we don't see simply because we don't want to see them. High inflation, a very unpopular incumbent, and his literal deputy trying to run as a change candidate - you're doing very well if you manage to win in those circumstances.

Credit where it's due to Trump and the team he assembled. He appealed to enough people where it mattered, and that's all there is to it.

Having said that, the worst thing for me is that he's completely unrepentant for anything he's ever done, yet he's back in the White House. I know we don't live in an ideal world, but there's like a fundamental injustice to that. All the meanness, the nastiness, the spitefulness, toward his fellow man has been rewarded. What a great example that is!

This.
I know history is littered with bad people achieving popularity and success, but it's still distressing to see it happening. I'm convinced that most people will overlook evil if they are offered the promise of more money.

JuliusHMarx wrote:It also happened when Trump lost in 2020 but for some reason you didn't think it would happen if he lost again.

I did think it would happen again. That's why I said about Trump not being in power would hopefully mitigate the worst effects.

GSC wrote:I think in the end trump lost 2m voters from 2020. The story of the election being the Dems losing 15m, so not sure it says very much about the republicans broad appeal or trumps message cutting through, as much as the Dems running on continuity that many weren't happy with honestly.

That is indeed the story. That's why I said before the election that Trump didn't need to win new voters, if Democrat turnout was depressed. I'm not sure anyone expected it to be this low, but polls continually indicated that Republican voters had more enthusiasm - the polls were painting a much better picture for Democrats when it was sampling 'registered voters', but change to 'likely voters' and it was better for the Republicans.

Blame for that has to lie with Harris. She thought being anti-Trump and hammering an anti-Trump message would be enough, as in 2020. Difference was, Trump isn't currently in office and perceptions of him have improved over the past four years and people didn't see him as great a threat/negative. Harris needed to defend her record more and offer more campaign promises to electrify Democrat turnout, especially amongst younger and first time voters. As a candidate, she was terrible in interviews, but pretty good at campaign rallies. Chance missed.

I think they need to stop relying on celebrities so much as well. Think it's generally been shown that people don't give a toss about who some singer or actor is endorsing, yet the headlines of Taylor Swift's endorsement dominated the news, and some even claimed that it would seal the election for Harris. Laughable. Another celebrity who endorsed Harris - Cardi B? - was extremely unhelpful, when she complained about inflation and the state of the economy at a Harris rally. Might have worked if it were 2020.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:As objective as any of us might try to be, there are always signs that we don't see simply because we don't want to see them. High inflation, a very unpopular incumbent, and his literal deputy trying to run as a change candidate - you're doing very well if you manage to win in those circumstances.

Credit where it's due to Trump and the team he assembled. He appealed to enough people where it mattered, and that's all there is to it.

Having said that, the worst thing for me is that he's completely unrepentant for anything he's ever done, yet he's back in the White House. I know we don't live in an ideal world, but there's like a fundamental injustice to that. All the meanness, the nastiness, the spitefulness, toward his fellow man has been rewarded. What a great example that is!

It was a very tough election to predict. Whoever won, there would be factors we could look at in hindsight and say 'oh yeah, it was obvious x would win'. As you say, with Trump's win, we can look at the factors of inflation and Biden's unpopularity and four weak years of the Democrats. If Harris had won, we'd probably be looking back at Trump's age, January 6th, 2020 in general, roe v wade/the turnout of women voters, the debate, Walz's popularity v Vance, and maybe a million other things!

Maine's been called. Still waiting on Nevada and Arizona.

Those two states really need to sort themselves out. Florida counted 10 million or so votes in a few hours. Arizona/Nevada might take a full week to finalise a result, with much fewer voters. It's a joke. Thankfully, we're not in a scenario where the election result hinges on it, but we easily could have been.

Trump's lead in Arizona has grown since I last checked. He leads by about 5% with around 70% counted. Victory is pretty much assured there. And a Trump win in Nevada, first since 2004, like the popular vote, is a 99% probability at this point.

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:As objective as any of us might try to be, there are always signs that we don't see simply because we don't want to see them. High inflation, a very unpopular incumbent, and his literal deputy trying to run as a change candidate - you're doing very well if you manage to win in those circumstances.

Credit where it's due to Trump and the team he assembled. He appealed to enough people where it mattered, and that's all there is to it.

Having said that, the worst thing for me is that he's completely unrepentant for anything he's ever done, yet he's back in the White House. I know we don't live in an ideal world, but there's like a fundamental injustice to that. All the meanness, the nastiness, the spitefulness, toward his fellow man has been rewarded. What a great example that is!

It was a very tough election to predict. Whoever won, there would be factors we could look at in hindsight and say 'oh yeah, it was obvious x would win'. As you say, with Trump's win, we can look at the factors of inflation and Biden's unpopularity and four weak years of the Democrats. If Harris had won, we'd probably be looking back at Trump's age, January 6th, 2020 in general, roe v wade/the turnout of women voters, the debate, Walz's popularity v Vance, and maybe a million other things!

Exactly the views of a friend who worked in the civil service in the justice department, then moved in journalism, so knows far more about this world than me. We were chatting about the election a few days before. He said it was fascinating, not only because the election was so tight, but in both scenarios you could pretty much draw up the exact reasons Harris or Trump might have won/lost. It's just, no one could quite call who would.

I think it was Nate Silver who ran 80,000 simulations and Harris came out on top in 41,000 of them. So he gave her the narrowest lead in his EC prediction. Even then though, when Trump won in those simulations, it tended to be by bigger margins, sweeping more swing states by a few percent. As happened.

Even the experts were on a knife edge with who might win but could predict the manner of the wins and reasons it might happen.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls

There's some exit polling from NBC here.

I suppose the things that jump out are:

Trump won 46% of the Hispanic/Latino vote;
there was a clear gender split;
there wasn't much of a chasm in ages, 43% of 18-29 year olds voted Trump, compared to 49% of 65+, unlike the huge age divide we get in elections here;
there was a very clear educational divide, with 63% of those who have never been to college voting Trump v 38% of those with a PHD voting Trump;
4% of Democrats voted Trump v 5% of Republicans voting Harris (there's always a small number, but it's generally of little consequence);
there was no real divide/pattern in terms of income;
only 26% of atheists voted Trump v 63% of Christians;
56% of first time voters voted Trump;
80% of those who thought the economy was most important voted Trump/

GSC wrote:I think in the end trump lost 2m voters from 2020. The story of the election being the Dems losing 15m, so not sure it says very much about the republicans broad appeal or trumps message cutting through, as much as the Dems running on continuity that many weren't happy with honestly.

Both sides decided to make this a referendum on Donald Trump (despite Democrat warnings that it was comfortably their weakest angle in focus groups/polls apparently), and he came out the clear winner. But he's winning Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada, despite the same people on the same ballot having the Republican candidate for Senate losing. So for whatever reason Trump is more popular than 'Trumpism', and there were signs during the campaign that he knows the party needs him more than he needs the party, and isn't as interested in what they want as he was the first time. There could well be Republican politicians doing victory laps now, that find out the full-on Trump version of the Republican party isn't for them.

Duty281 wrote:Those two states really need to sort themselves out. Florida counted 10 million or so votes in a few hours.

I believe Florida was notoriously bad until the absolute shambles in 2000, at which point they overhauled it. California takes forever (which is why you may not see a final number for the popular vote this month), but it doesn't get as much attention because it's usually not close.

On the polling, I'll apologise to Atlas Intel. They were right, I was wrong. They were as close to the true oracle as any in this campaign. I think they were the final polling company to register a Trump win in the popular vote as well. I'll never doubt them again.

When looking at the swing states:

Arizona - Polling average was a 2%-3% Trump win. He's currently leading by 5%, that might come down a little.
Nevada - Polling average was around a 0.5% Trump win. He looks set to win by 2-4%, a little underestimated perhaps.
Georgia - Polling average was around a 1% Trump win. He currently has a 2.2% lead with only a handful of votes left.
North Carolina - Polling average was around a 1% Trump win. He currently has a 3.3% lead with only a handful of votes left.
Pennsylvania - Polling average was virtually a dead heat. Trump currently has a 1.9% lead and there's still around 100k to count, so I'd expect it to decrease a tad.
Michigan - Polling average had a 1% Harris lead. Trump currently has a 1.5% lead with around 75k to count, so I'd expect the lead to decrease a little.
Wisconsin - Polling average had a 1% Harris lead. Trump currently has a 0.8% lead with hardly anything left to count.

So I think the polling companies in the battleground states, overall when taken as an average, had a pretty good night. There's no egregious errors there. It's all within 2%-3%. It's certainly a lot better than 2016 and 2020!

Despite the criticism it gets, for supposedly ignoring some Democrat favoured polls, Real Clear Politics' averages were once again more accurate than FiveThirtyEight's.

The worst poll of the campaign was obviously the nonsense, from someone that was previously very highly respected in the polling fraternities, that showed a 3% Harris lead in Iowa...Trump won the state by 13%! Possibly the biggest margin of victory in the state of Iowa during a US Presidential Election, for either party, since 1972!

Trump won the EC by just under 80k in 2016. Biden won it by around 40k in 2020. Current margins indicate Trump's triumph this year will be around 180k-200k.

Lowlandbrit wrote:

GSC wrote:I think in the end trump lost 2m voters from 2020. The story of the election being the Dems losing 15m, so not sure it says very much about the republicans broad appeal or trumps message cutting through, as much as the Dems running on continuity that many weren't happy with honestly.

Both sides decided to make this a referendum on Donald Trump (despite Democrat warnings that it was comfortably their weakest angle in focus groups/polls apparently), and he came out the clear winner. But he's winning Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada, despite the same people on the same ballot having the Republican candidate for Senate losing. So for whatever reason Trump is more popular than 'Trumpism', and there were signs during the campaign that he knows the party needs him more than he needs the party, and isn't as interested in what they want as he was the first time. There could well be Republican politicians doing victory laps now, that find out the full-on Trump version of the Republican party isn't for them..

The campaigns may have tried to make it a referendum on Trump, but the voters decided it was a referendum on Biden/Harris (with Harris unwilling to throw Biden under the bus), and they lost.

This is a part summary of some of the things I have seen here and elsewhere:

Subject: Discussion of an Overseas Presidential Election
Commentator Types

One:
a> Claims to be Upholder of Democracy & Democratic Values.
b> Demands removal from the electoral vote of anybody whose vote he disagrees with.

Two:
a> Claims to be Upholder of Democracy & Morality.
b> Declares ill will and pain for anybody whose vote he disagrees with.
c> Declares ill will and harm to any nation that elects a leader he disapproves of.

Three:
a> Claims to be Upholder of Democracy & Morality.
b> Declares any choice of elected leader not in accord with his choice null and void.
c> Demands his inferiors pay for an overseas war to remove that elected leader and install the "proper" leader. If tens of thousands have to die then it is the price of democracy. If it results in nuclear annihilation and the end of all life on Earth then it is the price that has to be paid for democracy.

I say this without prejudice

Are you well?

No name Bertie wrote:If it results in nuclear annihilation and the end of all life on Earth then it is the price that has to be paid for democracy.

Duty, was that you who said that, you rascal?

Democracy will survive... we all hope. Should be a constant.

As for Bureaucracy, however, well that's like players coming and going in your football team. The unelected variables.

Putin praising Trump calling him a "courageous man". Always nice to get an endorsment from the good guys...

Nevada called for Trump overnight. Latinos appear to have been key to his win.

Just waiting for Arizona now. Trump's lead is 155k with around 900k to count. No way back for Harris in this state, but we'll wait for the lightning quick counters of Arizona, which I imagine consists of one old lady who takes a tea break every 20 minutes.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:If it results in nuclear annihilation and the end of all life on Earth then it is the price that has to be paid for democracy.

Duty, was that you who said that, you rascal?

Sorry, the only alt account I have on here is Galted's, and I lost the login details for that ages ago.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:If it results in nuclear annihilation and the end of all life on Earth then it is the price that has to be paid for democracy.

Duty, was that you who said that, you rascal?

Sorry, the only alt account I have on here is Galted's, and I lost the login details for that ages ago.

Duty's cricket & rugby knowlege is the envy of everyone on this forum and his political perspicaity unrivalled globally in both social and mainstream media.

Galted wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:If it results in nuclear annihilation and the end of all life on Earth then it is the price that has to be paid for democracy.

Duty, was that you who said that, you rascal?

Sorry, the only alt account I have on here is Galted's, and I lost the login details for that ages ago.

Duty's cricket & rugby knowlege is the envy of everyone on this forum and his political perspicaity unrivalled globally in both social and mainstream media.

Clearly that is the genuine Galted posting, as Duty would be able to spell 'knowledge' and 'perspicacity'.

mountain man wrote:Putin praising Trump calling him a "courageous man". Always nice to get an endorsment from the good guys...

To be fair, most world leaders have clearly been working on a Trump-speak handbook for this time round if you look at the response to the result.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Galted wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:If it results in nuclear annihilation and the end of all life on Earth then it is the price that has to be paid for democracy.

Duty, was that you who said that, you rascal?

Sorry, the only alt account I have on here is Galted's, and I lost the login details for that ages ago.

Duty's cricket & rugby knowlege is the envy of everyone on this forum and his political perspicaity unrivalled globally in both social and mainstream media.

Clearly that is the genuine Galted posting, as Duty would be able to spell 'knowledge' and 'perspicacity'.

Trooth.

Duty, with no polls to keep you busy, how have you been celebrating your guy's victory? Will you be heading over with Nigel for the inauguration?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty, with no polls to keep you busy, how have you been celebrating your guy's victory? Will you be heading over with Nigel for the inauguration?

I've got loads of Poles to keep me busy thanks, there's a building site just down the road which also offers a sprinkling of Latvians and Lithuanians (no pun intended).  No need to head over with Nigel as I'm sure he's already there, furthering the interests of Clacton and, as far as I'm concered, he can stay there as he's a gurning rubber-faced c*nt.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Duty, with no polls to keep you busy, how have you been celebrating your guy's victory? Will you be heading over with Nigel for the inauguration?

I will miss the polls. I don't support Trump, so won't be celebrating his victory.

Some take defeat better than others, I suppose.

Duty281 wrote:

Some take defeat better than others, I suppose.

That's his "I never have to speak to Netanyahu again" look.

It'll actually be interesting to see if it's Netanyahu or MBS who ends up getting Trump's ear on the Middle East. I read something about Trump being open to the idea of recognising Israeli sovereignty in the West Bank (!) But there's no way the Saudis would stand for that.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Some take defeat better than others, I suppose.

That's his "I never have to speak to Netanyahu again" look.

I think you have to refer to Commandant Lassard's speech in Police Academy to know what's going on there.  Either that or he's crapping himself again.

Galted wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Some take defeat better than others, I suppose.

That's his "I never have to speak to Netanyahu again" look.

I think you have to refer to Commandant Lassard's speech in Police Academy to know what's going on there.  Either that or he's crapping himself again.

Or both.

It's the good old days of the 1980s as far as I am concerned. Reagan making a joke about bombing Russia, and putting us a hair's breadth away from all-out nucleur war, as well as  calling Princess Diana, Princess David.
If you think Biden's as gone as Ron-you ain't seen nothing yet with Don Von Hits His Pants..
The1980s started with John Lennon being gunned down. My money's now on a controlled hit on Taylor Swift.

Here's the list of those who've said they're going to leave the US if Trump wins.

Alec Baldwin
Whoopi Goldberg
John Legend
Chrissy Teigen
Rob Reiner
Barbra Streisand
Cher
Nancy Pelosi
Hillary Clinton
Megan Rapinoe
Tom Hanks
Amy Schumer
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
Lady Gaga
Taylor Swift
Bill Gates
Jane Fonda
Madonna
Mark Ruffalo
Kim Kardashian
Bruce Springsteen
George Clooney
Hunter Biden
Oprah
Robert De Niro
Samuel L Jackson
Miley Cyrus
Bono
Travis Kelce
Bobbi Althoff
Rashida Tlaib
Stormy Daniels
Anthony Fauci
George Soros
Diddy
Eminem
Ellen
Sean Penn
Sharon Stone
Ashley Judd
Tommy Lee
Bryan Cranston
Billy Joe Armstrong

A few of them might have walked back on their word since or said they were only joking.
Forget who it was but someone said they'd drive their car off a cliff. Was it Cher?
Don't want any of them here... although I think Cyrus already has a place up the coast.

You'll be saying next that Trump told people to drink bleach to cure covid.

It would be worth a new president of the United States if it means there’s a chance that Bono might come to live in the United Kingdom. If it weren’t for he and Chris Martin representing liberal values for us all, well we’d be adrift!

All the people on that list can f**k off.

Especially Bryan Cranston, who ran a meth empire, and Meryl Streep, who sank the Belgrano and ruined our NHS.

JuliusHMarx wrote:You'll be saying next that Trump told people to drink bleach to cure covid.

You talkin' to me?

Wise words from the last episode of Blackadder, from the minute before they went over the top to face their certain doom in World War One.

Captain Blackadder: "How are you feeling, Darling?"

Captain Darling "Ahm - not all that good, Blackadder. Rather hoped l'd get through the whole show. Go back to work at Pratt & Sons; keep wicket for the Croydon gentlemen; marry Doris.
I made an entry on my diary this morning; It simply says..”Bugger”.

Arizona declares, so Trump has won all seven battleground states, finishing with a final score of 312-226.

Also overnight, Trump's popular vote total narrowly exceeded his 2020 total, by around 300k, with still 5% of the national vote to count. It means Trump has bettered his popular vote in each election.

Harris' vote is still around 10 million shy of Biden's, and 3.7 million behind Trump this year.

That’s a lot of people who don’t know the first thing about economics. The man himself doesn’t understand what a tariff is so god help ‘em.

House confirmed for the Republicans, so they have full political control (plus the Supreme Court) for at least the next two years. Maybe four depending on the midterms.

I wonder if incumbency will start to be looked on as a disadvantage? Of the last five Presidential elections, four have been won by the challenging party.

Duty281 wrote:House confirmed for the Republicans, so they have full political control (plus the Supreme Court) for at least the next two years. Maybe four depending on the midterms.

I wonder if incumbency will start to be looked on as a disadvantage? Of the last five Presidential elections, four have been won by the challenging party.

Incumbency is becoming a disadvantage in many elections the world over. I think generally on a subconscious level people expect the world to be a better place than it was 50 years ago and yet government after government on all sides fail to deliver and so get voted out cyclically.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:House confirmed for the Republicans, so they have full political control (plus the Supreme Court) for at least the next two years. Maybe four depending on the midterms.

I wonder if incumbency will start to be looked on as a disadvantage? Of the last five Presidential elections, four have been won by the challenging party.

Incumbency is becoming a disadvantage in many elections the world over. I think generally on a subconscious level people expect the world to be a better place than it was 50 years ago and yet government after government on all sides fail to deliver and so get voted out cyclically.

Yeah and more quickly. Seems to be much less tolerance these days. People used to allow at least the first term for a new government to settle in and establish major (macro) policy reforms, then hopefully successfully deliver them in the second term. Nowadays, if the emphasis during the first term is on lesser (though still important) issues and the macro stuff is delayed or perceived as not having been sufficiently addressed; then the electorate will come down on them like a tonne of bricks.

Note that we have shorter election cycles - only 3 years. So there is a justifiable argument to say that this is not a long enough time to establish the new policy settings. Made worse if the focus isn't right on the mark from the outset... i.e. cost of living, fiscal policy, immigration control, housing, energy, etc. Here, the government wasted their first year trying to sell The Voice and it backfired in their face as they ignored the big 5 above. So whilst well intended, their main focus and timing was poor.

They should have kept their eyes on the road and not made a diversion off to the side. Get the country in good shape first (especially after recovering from covid) spend taxpayer's money more wisely... then go for the 'feel good' stuff once the economic base had been stabilised. They'll be a minority government (at best) by next May... or could even get turfed out after one term.

Without bothering to check, I wonder if the lack of tolerance mentioned is a function of those States with a FPTP-type electoral system, and is less common when there's a PR-style system and likely, therefore, more focus on policies that have more universal agreement?

Good grief:

Gaetz is Trump pick for AG

navyblueshorts wrote:Without bothering to check, I wonder if the lack of tolerance mentioned is a function of those States with a FPTP-type electoral system, and is less common when there's a PR-style system and likely, therefore, more focus on policies that have more universal agreement?

Think the lack of tolerance is commonplace in both systems but the actual impact on the final outcome can certainly be different. The preferential PR system we have here is more complicated and tricky. Preference flows can vary wildly across different constituencies and quickly turn things upside down for the major two parties... to the point where things become so diluted and fragmented - at the expense of the major policies which may have some degree of universal agreement. It's probably more sensitive and more volatile than FPTP.

Also takes ages to tally it all up. As Duty noted; Florida was counted pretty quickly. A few weeks ago here in Qld... it reached "60% counted" in a small electorate in the same time (a few hours) then stalled for several days before the seat was actually called. And we're talking about c.50,000 votes v 11,000,000 votes in Florida. Can even take weeks and several recounts sometimes. So the PR system is slower and more agonising.