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...

I'm astonished that so many buy into the "too old" narrative. Neither are senile and that's what the VP, Leader of the House etc are for. They got by OK when FDR died.

It might be interesting to see how Hayley does re. a challenger to Trump. Not sure I'm any sort of fan of the sort of utterances she makes, but I reckon she'll eat him for breakfast given half a chance.

It's undeniable that people as old as Trump and Biden are not going to be as mentally sharp as people 30/40 years younger. Then add in that Trump/Biden are hoping to do perhaps the most stressful and mentally demanding job in the world. It's just weird that in virtually every job category going Trump/Biden will have been long retired by now, but in US politics it appears to be fine. In this country we wouldn't even allow Trump/Biden to do jury service!

We also know from Biden's behaviour that he simply isn't mentally fit to be President. Trump, also, isn't. Trump had fantastic campaigning energy for 2016 and 2020, but he's completely lost that now, age has caught up, and makes almost as many mix-ups as Biden. Seeing those two 'debate' next year will be a real tragedy.

navyblueshorts wrote:I'm astonished that so many buy into the "too old" narrative. Neither are senile and that's what the VP, Leader of the House etc are for. They got by OK when FDR died.

It might be interesting to see how Hayley does re. a challenger to Trump. Not sure I'm any sort of fan of the sort of utterances she makes, but I reckon she'll eat him for breakfast given half a chance.

Come on, Biden is clearly and obviously not up to it. There have been so many instances of him looking lost, bewildered, doddery etc. It's not a narrative it's a fact.

As for physically, when he was running for president first time he would faux jog onto the stage in an attempt to appear spritely(although not sure many fell for it), now he is so frail it's only a matter of when not if he collapses in public.

It's not a narrative, it's there for all to see!

However, we all get old it's a fact of life but my entire point is not to have a dig at him or even Trump although God knows Trump deserves it, just my astonishment there seems to be no-one else as viable candidates.

Duty281 wrote:It's undeniable that people as old as Trump and Biden are not going to be as mentally sharp as people 30/40 years younger. Then add in that Trump/Biden are hoping to do perhaps the most stressful and mentally demanding job in the world. It's just weird that in virtually every job category going Trump/Biden will have been long retired by now, but in US politics it appears to be fine. In this country we wouldn't even allow Trump/Biden to do jury service!

We also know from Biden's behaviour that he simply isn't mentally fit to be President. Trump, also, isn't. Trump had fantastic campaigning energy for 2016 and 2020, but he's completely lost that now, age has caught up, and makes almost as many mix-ups as Biden. Seeing those two 'debate' next year will be a real tragedy.

#shrug Your opinion. I'm not asking my political leaders to run 7 marathons in 7 days and I'd take (hope for wisdom/experience - in Biden's case, at least) over some juvenile blow hard.

Not that bothered really, except insofar as the outcome might affect the UK.

mountain man wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:I'm astonished that so many buy into the "too old" narrative. Neither are senile and that's what the VP, Leader of the House etc are for. They got by OK when FDR died.

It might be interesting to see how Hayley does re. a challenger to Trump. Not sure I'm any sort of fan of the sort of utterances she makes, but I reckon she'll eat him for breakfast given half a chance.

Come on, Biden is clearly and obviously not up to it. There have been so many instances of him looking lost, bewildered, doddery etc. It's not a narrative it's a fact.

As for physically, when he was running for president first time he would faux jog onto the stage in an attempt to appear spritely(although not sure many fell for it), now he is so frail it's only a matter of when not if he collapses in public.

It's not a narrative, it's there for all to see!

However, we all get old it's a fact of life but my entire point is not to have a dig at him or even Trump although God knows Trump deserves it, just my astonishment there seems to be no-one else as viable candidates.

It is not a "fact" that he's "not up to it". That's simply an opinion. I'd rather an elder statesman (which excludes Trump anyway as he's no statesman) who conducts things in a considered manner and who has necessary experience.

I completely agree in that it's amazing there aren't other apparently viable candidates out there, though.

No it's a fact he has looked lost, bewildered doddery etc which is what I said and it IS a fact as it has happened numerous times.

Hands up if you've never once looked lost, bewildered or doddery in your lifetime.

I've certainly looked lost and bewildered(currently that applied reading some comments here) but as far as I can recall(but then again maybe I wouldn't if I am senile ha) never doddery.

Then again I'm not 80 years old and I'm not running for president of USA, the most powerful person on earth apparently.

I was amazed that it's only Biden and Trump who seem to be the likely candidates but now I'm amazed so many don't seem to recognise the serious decline in Biden. Trump does at least appear fairly robust and although he comes out with remarkable nonsense he does at least seem to have his faculties intact.

mountain man wrote:No it's a fact he has looked lost, bewildered doddery etc which is what I said and it IS a fact as it has happened numerous times.

Could it be...shock, horror...that he's thinking, before he speaks?? Could it be...shock, horror...that too many are obsessed with media portrayals of people, rather than concentrating on what matters?

mountain man wrote:I've certainly looked lost and bewildered(currently that applied reading some comments here) but as far as I can recall(but then again maybe I wouldn't if I am senile ha) never doddery.

Then again I'm not 80 years old and I'm not running for president of USA, the most powerful person on earth apparently.

I was amazed that it's only Biden and Trump who seem to be the likely candidates but now I'm amazed so many don't seem to recognise the serious decline in Biden. Trump does at least appear fairly robust and although he comes out with remarkable nonsense he does at least seem to have his faculties intact.

It's amazing how many appear to be on Biden's close team, or family. The one's who see him, and work with him, every day at close quarters....

I'm not obsessed with how media portray the man, I can see it myself and make own judgement and in my opinion he's not up to it.

Other opinions are available.

mountain man wrote:I've certainly looked lost and bewildered(currently that applied reading some comments here) but as far as I can recall(but then again maybe I wouldn't if I am senile ha) never doddery.

Then again I'm not 80 years old and I'm not running for president of USA, the most powerful person on earth apparently.

I was amazed that it's only Biden and Trump who seem to be the likely candidates but now I'm amazed so many don't seem to recognise the serious decline in Biden. Trump does at least appear fairly robust and although he comes out with remarkable nonsense he does at least seem to have his faculties intact.

That is a particularly low bar to cross though. He's still the same lying narcissist with a very limited vocabulary that he always has been.

Can't quite get my head around the fact that Trump is a possible candidate given the criminal investigations (amongst so much else). Then again getting back into power is probably the only way he's staying out of jail. The damage he'd do, the revenge he'd seek if he did get back in would be terrible.

American politics has got increasingly tribal, and that isn't good. I know our lovely government has tried to do the same here but thankfully with only limited success, not that our politicians are much better

lostinwales wrote:

mountain man wrote:I've certainly looked lost and bewildered(currently that applied reading some comments here) but as far as I can recall(but then again maybe I wouldn't if I am senile ha) never doddery.

Then again I'm not 80 years old and I'm not running for president of USA, the most powerful person on earth apparently.

I was amazed that it's only Biden and Trump who seem to be the likely candidates but now I'm amazed so many don't seem to recognise the serious decline in Biden. Trump does at least appear fairly robust and although he comes out with remarkable nonsense he does at least seem to have his faculties intact.

That is a particularly low bar to cross though. He's still the same lying narcissist with a very limited vocabulary that he always has been.

Can't quite get my head around the fact that Trump is a possible candidate given the criminal investigations (amongst so much else). Then again getting back into power is probably the only way he's staying out of jail. The damage he'd do, the revenge he'd seek if he did get back in would be terrible.

American politics has got increasingly tribal, and that isn't good. I know our lovely government has tried to do the same here but thankfully with only limited success, not that our politicians are much better

That's partly because there really isn't that big a difference in policy, particularly economic policy, between the two parties. Their main arguments are over social issues that are mostly fringe things in Britain (e.g. abortion rights). The mainstream Democrats would be quite at home in a David Cameron Conservative party, and their radical left are defined by such radical ideas as free at the point of use healthcare.

The problem with US politics is that they've concentrated so much power with the President that nobody cares about the House. Smaller parties get elected in a similar system in the UK, and there are multiple independents in the US Senate, but 'third parties' in the US seem to focus on finding a magic 'third candidate' instead of trying to carve out a congressional role.

Biden's approval ratings sinking still further, with less than 11 months until the election. His net approval, according to an average of polls on 538, is minus 17.4%. Trump's net approval, at the same stage, was minus 11.3%. Biden's overall approval is below 40%, while Trump was able to maintain it at above 40% for most of his Presidency, including in the run-up to the election.

Trump lost with those better numbers, so Biden's going to have to work very hard to retain the Presidency.

RCP averages also showing Biden's net approval is minus 23% on the economy, minus 23% on foreign policy, minus 29% on immigration, and minus 30% on inflation. The country is deemed to be on the 'wrong track' by an average of 42% over it being on the 'right track', which is close to the worst numbers Trump's Presidency got during its duration (in the middle of 2020).

Still seems that the Democrats' best chance is without Biden, but that appears unlikely to happen.

First Republican primary is in Iowa in a month's time, followed by New Hampshire eight days after. Trump is leading in both states by around 25-30%, with Haley (thanks to some good debate showings) emerging as the leading challenger to Trump (but still a way off).

Unless one or both of them go feet up it'll be Biden v Trump. I guess Trump could find his legal "difficulties" make it too much to run but I suspect it'll be those two.

It'll be interesting to follow but really only in a morbid fancination way.

It's such a tragic indictment(how apt) that those two are supposedly the best America can come up with.

Trump still dominating Iowa, but Haley has closed to within 15% in the latest NH poll. She appears to be going better in what are termed the more moderate states.

The Colorado Supreme Court have removed Trump from the Presidential ballot in their state.

This will likely be overturned by the US Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, but if it isn't then other states will probably follow suit and the Republican nomination is blown wide open.

Duty281 wrote:The Colorado Supreme Court have removed Trump from the Presidential ballot in their state.

This will likely be overturned by the US Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, but if it isn't then other states will probably follow suit and the Republican nomination is blown wide open.

Constitutional amendment 14 Clause 3, which was inserted after the Civil War to automatically exclude those who had fought on the Confederate side from subsequently holding public office unless their exclusion was specifically overturned by Congress.
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

A few interesting points:
1 - The specified list of roles notably excludes President, although may cover the VP as they have a specific role in the Senate. The question then is whether the Presidency would be caught under the 'hold any office, civil or military...'. Trump's legal team are certainly going to argue that the Presidency is not covered, although that perhaps becomes difficult given that the oath of office says 'Office of the President of the United States'.

2 - Trump and his lawyers are already arguing that the Presidential oath of office does not say the President 'supports the Constitution' (it says quite a few things that are largely synonymous with this, but the word 'support' is absent). This one i think is a pretty weak argument, but is the sort of thing lawyers will always try. It is perhaps noteworthy that the military oath specifically says 'support and defend the Constitution'. The President pledges to 'preserve, protect and defend...'

3 - The strongest strand of Trump's legal argument is that his actions on January 6th did not rise to the level of 'engaged in an insurrection or rebellion...or given aide or comfort to the enemies...'. There's a fairly strong argument that he would have to be tried and found guilty of sufficient charges to reach that threshold prior to being disqualified. Against this argument is that the former Confederates were automatically excluded from holding office without recourse to the Courts and without individually being charged and found guilty of any crimes of insurrection or rebellion (both of which are poorly defined in US law)

4 - There is no clarity in how the disqualification is supposed to be applied anyway, although is on how it is removed. There's also a bit of a conflict in that the Constitution places election decisions at State level, but there are clearly legal issues around the Constitution involved in this case, which would normally push this to the Supreme Court. I actually think the initial Judge made quite a prudent ruling, in that they determined Trump had 'engaged in insurrection or rebellion' but that exclusion from running for President was not covered (i.e the 'above my pay grade' judgement that was always going to pass to higher Courts).

5 - Given the current make-up of Congress (currently an 8 member majority for the Republicans) and the Senate (51 Democrats + Independents that generally caucus as Democrats), there is no way Congress would vote to remove any disqualification.

The SCOTUS probably has two options - 1 is to say that this is an issue to be dealt with on a State by State basis (which would bring clarity at least to who makes the decision), or to determine that Trump's actions prior to and on January 6th do not rise to the level required to invoke the disqualification. To do this though, they will need to demonstrate that the Colorado judgement is factually incorrect based on the same evidence as already presented. I'm 80% certain they will overturn the disqualification.

Duty281 wrote:The Colorado Supreme Court have removed Trump from the Presidential ballot in their state.

This will likely be overturned by the US Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, but if it isn't then other states will probably follow suit and the Republican nomination is blown wide open.

Yes, it's probably much Colorado about nothing.

dummy_half wrote:

Duty281 wrote:The Colorado Supreme Court have removed Trump from the Presidential ballot in their state.

This will likely be overturned by the US Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, but if it isn't then other states will probably follow suit and the Republican nomination is blown wide open.

Constitutional amendment 14 Clause 3, which was inserted after the Civil War to automatically exclude those who had fought on the Confederate side from subsequently holding public office unless their exclusion was specifically overturned by Congress.
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

A few interesting points:
1 - The specified list of roles notably excludes President, although may cover the VP as they have a specific role in the Senate. The question then is whether the Presidency would be caught under the 'hold any office, civil or military...'. Trump's legal team are certainly going to argue that the Presidency is not covered, although that perhaps becomes difficult given that the oath of office says 'Office of the President of the United States'.

2 - Trump and his lawyers are already arguing that the Presidential oath of office does not say the President 'supports the Constitution' (it says quite a few things that are largely synonymous with this, but the word 'support' is absent). This one i think is a pretty weak argument, but is the sort of thing lawyers will always try. It is perhaps noteworthy that the military oath specifically says 'support and defend the Constitution'. The President pledges to 'preserve, protect and defend...'

3 - The strongest strand of Trump's legal argument is that his actions on January 6th did not rise to the level of 'engaged in an insurrection or rebellion...or given aide or comfort to the enemies...'. There's a fairly strong argument that he would have to be tried and found guilty of sufficient charges to reach that threshold prior to being disqualified. Against this argument is that the former Confederates were automatically excluded from holding office without recourse to the Courts and without individually being charged and found guilty of any crimes of insurrection or rebellion (both of which are poorly defined in US law)

4 - There is no clarity in how the disqualification is supposed to be applied anyway, although is on how it is removed. There's also a bit of a conflict in that the Constitution places election decisions at State level, but there are clearly legal issues around the Constitution involved in this case, which would normally push this to the Supreme Court. I actually think the initial Judge made quite a prudent ruling, in that they determined Trump had 'engaged in insurrection or rebellion' but that exclusion from running for President was not covered (i.e the 'above my pay grade' judgement that was always going to pass to higher Courts).

5 - Given the current make-up of Congress (currently an 8 member majority for the Republicans)  and the Senate (51 Democrats + Independents that generally caucus as Democrats), there is no way Congress would vote to remove any disqualification.

The SCOTUS probably has two options - 1 is to say that this is an issue to be dealt with on a State by State basis (which would bring clarity at least to who makes the decision), or to determine that Trump's actions prior to and on January 6th do not rise to the level required to invoke the disqualification. To do this though, they will need to demonstrate that the Colorado judgement is factually incorrect based on the same evidence as already presented. I'm 80% certain they will overturn the disqualification.

Some good points.

Trump's legal team will probably be focusing on the third point you made. The ruling notes that Trump "encouraged the mob to remain peaceful and to stay peaceful", then an hour later Trump urged "the mob to go home now"; so I imagine they'll be fixated on that.

I think the SCOTUS will overturn the disqualification because they're politically biased, and they'll find the facts/judgments to fit that ruling. I wouldn't be so sure of the ruling if they were biased the other way. If they left it to the individual states then it could get very messy.

I think it's been a profoundly stupid move from the Colorado Supreme Court, because they've given Trump, and his supporters, all the ammunition he needs until November. And optically it looks so politically motivated because Trump is currently leading the polls for both the Republican nomination and the General Election. I don't agree with Trump, but I don't think he should be prevented from running.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:The Colorado Supreme Court have removed Trump from the Presidential ballot in their state.

This will likely be overturned by the US Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, but if it isn't then other states will probably follow suit and the Republican nomination is blown wide open.

Yes, it's probably much Colorado about nothing.

Not bad, Julius, but not your best.

Meanwhile Kennedy's staying power is remaining. Two latest polls for November put Kennedy at 20% and 22% respectively. In a recent Ipsos poll Kennedy was only 12% off the lead.

With two grossly unpopular candidates set to face-off again, the time has never been better for a third party candidate to make a mark (apart from the last election, and the one before that!).

Chris Christie has ended his run, unsurprisingly. Probably didn't fancy struggling to scrape together 5% of the vote in Iowa and might as well throw it in now.

New Hampshire, the second Republican primary in just under two weeks, is bubbling up nicely. Trump, once in a commanding lead in the state of around 30%, has now seen his advantage trimmed to 7% and 4% in a couple of recent polls, with Haley closing in. Rather amusingly in the poll that had Haley just 4% behind was female voters preferring Trump by a greater margin than male voters.

If Haley's momentum continues in that state and she does pull off a win, it'll rattle Donald's cage and potentially open up the race, with anti-Trump Republicans rallying behind her.

No such worries for Trump in Iowa, the first primary due to be held on the 15th. He still has a lead of over 30%, with Haley and DeSantis in a close fight for second.

Duty281 wrote:Chris Christie has ended his run, unsurprisingly. Probably didn't fancy struggling to scrape together 5% of the vote in Iowa and might as well throw it in now.

New Hampshire, the second Republican primary in just under two weeks, is bubbling up nicely. Trump, once in a commanding lead in the state of around 30%, has now seen his advantage trimmed to 7% and 4% in a couple of recent polls, with Haley closing in. Rather amusingly in the poll that had Haley just 4% behind was female voters preferring Trump by a greater margin than male voters.

If Haley's momentum continues in that state and she does pull off a win, it'll rattle Donald's cage and potentially open up the race, with anti-Trump Republicans rallying behind her.

No such worries for Trump in Iowa, the first primary due to be held on the 15th. He still has a lead of over 30%, with Haley and DeSantis in a close fight for second.

Christie didn't have a prayer...Trump's biggest critic isn't going to win a race which requires Trump switchers to win..

As for the polls in Iowa big caveat is that it is a Caucus and people don't go to polling statons but lots of small gatherings where candidates merits are discussed and a winner chosen among the brethren..The make-up of these events is not always in line with polling.

New Hampshire is more important delegate wise for sure but winning Iowa gives huge momentum....If Obama hadn't have upset Clinton there in 08 he loses to her...Clinton won New Hampshire narrowly but Iowa gave thought to many that Obama could win....

Trump's problem along with his legal issues is that Candidates drop out after Iowa and he won't be getting any of the surplus votes.....You either are for Donny or against.

Trump wins Iowa and NH it will hit Haley and DeSantis donations so hard it will probably only be the Courts that stop the big man.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Chris Christie has ended his run, unsurprisingly. Probably didn't fancy struggling to scrape together 5% of the vote in Iowa and might as well throw it in now.

New Hampshire, the second Republican primary in just under two weeks, is bubbling up nicely. Trump, once in a commanding lead in the state of around 30%, has now seen his advantage trimmed to 7% and 4% in a couple of recent polls, with Haley closing in. Rather amusingly in the poll that had Haley just 4% behind was female voters preferring Trump by a greater margin than male voters.

If Haley's momentum continues in that state and she does pull off a win, it'll rattle Donald's cage and potentially open up the race, with anti-Trump Republicans rallying behind her.

No such worries for Trump in Iowa, the first primary due to be held on the 15th. He still has a lead of over 30%, with Haley and DeSantis in a close fight for second.

Christie didn't have a prayer...Trump's biggest critic isn't going to win a race which requires Trump switchers to win..

As for the polls in Iowa big caveat is that it is a Caucus and people don't go to polling statons but lots of small gatherings where candidates merits are discussed and a winner chosen among the brethren..The make-up of these events is not always in line with polling.

New Hampshire is more important delegate wise for sure but winning Iowa gives huge momentum....If Obama hadn't have upset Clinton there in 08 he loses to her...Clinton won New Hampshire narrowly but Iowa gave thought to many that Obama could win....

Trump's problem along with his legal issues is that Candidates drop out after Iowa and he won't be getting any of the surplus votes.....You either are for Donny or against.

Trump wins Iowa and NH it will hit Haley and DeSantis donations so hard it will probably only be the Courts that stop the big man.

You bloody love him, don't you?

superflyweight wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Chris Christie has ended his run, unsurprisingly. Probably didn't fancy struggling to scrape together 5% of the vote in Iowa and might as well throw it in now.

New Hampshire, the second Republican primary in just under two weeks, is bubbling up nicely. Trump, once in a commanding lead in the state of around 30%, has now seen his advantage trimmed to 7% and 4% in a couple of recent polls, with Haley closing in. Rather amusingly in the poll that had Haley just 4% behind was female voters preferring Trump by a greater margin than male voters.

If Haley's momentum continues in that state and she does pull off a win, it'll rattle Donald's cage and potentially open up the race, with anti-Trump Republicans rallying behind her.

No such worries for Trump in Iowa, the first primary due to be held on the 15th. He still has a lead of over 30%, with Haley and DeSantis in a close fight for second.

Christie didn't have a prayer...Trump's biggest critic isn't going to win a race which requires Trump switchers to win..

As for the polls in Iowa big caveat is that it is a Caucus and people don't go to polling statons but lots of small gatherings where candidates merits are discussed and a winner chosen among the brethren..The make-up of these events is not always in line with polling.

New Hampshire is more important delegate wise for sure but winning Iowa gives huge momentum....If Obama hadn't have upset Clinton there in 08 he loses to her...Clinton won New Hampshire narrowly but Iowa gave thought to many that Obama could win....

Trump's problem along with his legal issues is that Candidates drop out after Iowa and he won't be getting any of the surplus votes.....You either are for Donny or against.

Trump wins Iowa and NH it will hit Haley and DeSantis donations so hard it will probably only be the Courts that stop the big man.

You bloody love him, don't you?  

For a lawyer "Donny" and "Big man" wouldn't give you a great case to nail that assertion......I'm surprised at you !!

How about this beauty...

Trump.....30%
Biden......29%
Kennedy..18%

Ipsos as well who are a respected pollster..........Enjoy the weekend.

Iowa officially starts the race for the Presidency tonight, in temperatures well below freezing, with the first Republican Primary.

Trump should win by at least 25%. Of more interest is who comes second. DeSantis has polled second in this state for much of the year, but the most recent polling has Haley sneaking into second. Finishing third in Iowa would be a crushing blow for DeSantis, who has invested so much time and energy into the state.

Trump wins landslide in Iowa, all predictions is he will cruise to Rep nomination.

Trump 56000
DeSantis 23000
Haley 21000
Ramaswamy 8000

Oh dear....

Solid win for Trump. About as expected according to the polling. Got 51% and beat his nearest rival by around 30%. A record, apparently, for a Republican Iowa contest.

DeSantis will be relatively satisfied with second. Setback for Haley only coming in third. Even though she's come so far, she still has so far to go to bridge the gap to Trump. Ramaswamy finished a distant fourth, and has ended his campaign, endorsing Trump immediately. I imagine he'll be pushing hard to be Trump's running mate, and will likely run again in 2028. He made a bright start to his campaign but, unlike Trump in 2015/16, he was unable to weather the attacks on all sides.

Think the race is pretty much beyond reasonable doubt if Trump wins in New Hampshire in a week's time. If Haley wins we might have a race. Haley had closed the gap to 4%/7% with some polls in that state, but other recent polls have put Trump out to 14%/16% leads.

Just saw the breakdown of the vote by county. 99 counties in Iowa. Trump won 98. Haley won 1 and won it by 1 vote. DeSantis campaigned in all 99 counties apparently...didn't win a single one.

Duty281 wrote:Solid win for Trump. About as expected according to the polling. Got 51% and beat his nearest rival by around 30%. A record, apparently, for a Republican Iowa contest.

DeSantis will be relatively satisfied with second. Setback for Haley only coming in third. Even though she's come so far, she still has so far to go to bridge the gap to Trump. Ramaswamy finished a distant fourth, and has ended his campaign, endorsing Trump immediately. I imagine he'll be pushing hard to be Trump's running mate, and will likely run again in 2028. He made a bright start to his campaign but, unlike Trump in 2015/16, he was unable to weather the attacks on all sides.

Think the race is pretty much beyond reasonable doubt if Trump wins in New Hampshire in a week's time. If Haley wins we might have a race. Haley had closed the gap to 4%/7% with some polls in that state, but other recent polls have put Trump out to 14%/16% leads.

Just saw the breakdown of the vote by county. 99 counties in Iowa. Trump won 98. Haley won 1 and won it by 1 vote. DeSantis campaigned in all 99 counties apparently...didn't win a single one.

A record for a non incumbent...

1. Trump polled 48% in the final poll.....So it shows with 51% considering the weather was awful his supporters are more motivated.....

2. The 4th place finisher has just pulled out and endorsed Trump which means he sees a one sided contest and a job if Trump wins..

3. Rubio has endorsed Trump as well as the other Senator in Florida Rick Scott.......So DeSantis can't get endorsed in his own State which is a bad look.

4. Even worse DeSantis and Haley polled so close it is unlikely one will pull out making it look likely Trump takes New Hampshire..I imagine DeSantis was ready to pull out had Haley won their battle for second as there was presure on him to do so as he once polled highly...Not so easy to get Haley out.

Still not sure Trump will be the nominee.  Much can happen legally before Convention..

But it's going be a tough year for the USA with much civil unrest....Trump supporters like guns and there are a lot of them...

I read that a poll showed Haley well in front of Biden in a presidential race, but Trump and Biden pretty close. Would be quite funny if GOP chose a loser and missed out on a clear win.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Solid win for Trump. About as expected according to the polling. Got 51% and beat his nearest rival by around 30%. A record, apparently, for a Republican Iowa contest.

DeSantis will be relatively satisfied with second. Setback for Haley only coming in third. Even though she's come so far, she still has so far to go to bridge the gap to Trump. Ramaswamy finished a distant fourth, and has ended his campaign, endorsing Trump immediately. I imagine he'll be pushing hard to be Trump's running mate, and will likely run again in 2028. He made a bright start to his campaign but, unlike Trump in 2015/16, he was unable to weather the attacks on all sides.

Think the race is pretty much beyond reasonable doubt if Trump wins in New Hampshire in a week's time. If Haley wins we might have a race. Haley had closed the gap to 4%/7% with some polls in that state, but other recent polls have put Trump out to 14%/16% leads.

Just saw the breakdown of the vote by county. 99 counties in Iowa. Trump won 98. Haley won 1 and won it by 1 vote. DeSantis campaigned in all 99 counties apparently...didn't win a single one.

A record for a non incumbent...

1. Trump polled 48% in the final poll.....So it shows with 51% considering the weather was awful his supporters are more motivated.....

2. The 4th place finisher has just pulled out and endorsed Trump which means he sees a one sided contest and a job if Trump wins..

3. Rubio has endorsed Trump as well as the other Senator in Florida Rick Scott.......So DeSantis can't get endorsed in his own State which is a bad look.

4. Even worse DeSantis and Haley polled so close it is unlikely one will pull out making it look likely Trump takes New Hampshire..I imagine DeSantis was ready to pull out had Haley won their battle for second as there was presure on him to do so as he once polled highly...Not so easy to get Haley out.

Still not sure Trump will be the nominee.  Much can happen legally before Convention..

But it's going be a tough year for the USA with much civil unrest....Trump supporters like guns and there are a lot of them...

Agreed. Point four is a very good point.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I read that a poll showed Haley well in front of Biden in a presidential race, but Trump and Biden pretty close. Would be quite funny if GOP chose a loser and missed out on a clear win.  

Yes, one from CBS News had Trump beating Biden by 50-48% and Haley beating Biden 53-45% (DeSantis 51-48% Biden).

Very much an outlier for now for Haley, but it is an interesting conundrum for the Republicans. Trump more likely to fire up the base, Haley more likely to win the middle ground.

Mind you, if Haley won I wouldn't be surprised if Trump ran as an independent and gifted the Democrats a second term.

Duty281 wrote:Very much an outlier for now for Haley, but it is an interesting conundrum for the Republicans. Trump more likely to fire up the base, Haley more likely to win the middle ground.

Could be another sign of the strange dynamic in this election, where people seemingly desperately want anyone but the two front-runners, yet aren't doing much to stop them getting there.

In a normal universe, Trump would be disqualified (and would have been from the 2016 election, too) from standing, either legally or because no-one supports that brand of tw@t. In this parallel universe, however...

If he's the nominee and, God-forbid, the President again, the GOP better pray he has some sort of Damascene event, because if he's as bad as it seems he might be, they will own the consequences 100%.

A very interesting poll has come out in New Hampshire - Trump 40%, Haley 40%. From the American Research Group. The first poll to have not had Trump in the lead in New Hampshire.

The American Research Group are very much out on their own, however. Also worth noting that Ramaswamy has a vote of 4% on that poll, a vote which should go to Trump, and Christie (whose votes should go to Haley) isn't recorded.

St. Anselm's latest poll put Trump 14% ahead (with Christie recorded at 9% and Ramaswamy at 6%). The Boston Globe 16% ahead for Trump (down from 20%; without Christie and Ramaswamy).

The last poll from the University of New Hampshire put Trump 7% ahead, with Christie picking up 12% and Ramaswamy 8%. If those votes redistribute as expected, the lead could be as low as 3% for Trump.

So could be a tight finish in New Hampshire, which is six days away. Haley into 5/1 to win New Hampshire on Betfair.

What is unbelieveable almost is the worse Trump gets the more support he has. The quote he said that he could shoot someone and get away with it is not far off truth.
There seems to be nothing he says or does that his fanatical support won't lap up. Blatant lies during his rallies are then repeated by his supporters as gospel truth.

Only in America as they say.

mountain man wrote:What is unbelieveable almost is the worse Trump gets the more support he has. The quote he said that he could shoot someone and get away with it is not far off truth.
There seems to be nothing he says or does that his fanatical support won't lap up. Blatant lies during his rallies are then repeated by his supporters as gospel truth.

Only in America as they say.

Worth pointing out that all the numbers people talk about are percentages. Actual numbers is also interesting - the Iowa turnout was tiny. In 2016 there were 187K votes. This time around 110K.

mountain man wrote:What is unbelieveable almost is the worse Trump gets the more support he has. The quote he said that he could shoot someone and get away with it is not far off truth.
There seems to be nothing he says or does that his fanatical support won't lap up. Blatant lies during his rallies are then repeated by his supporters as gospel truth.

Only in America as they say.

I saw during the campaigning for Iowa he came out with this: "Even if you vote and then pass away, it's worth it."

lostinwales wrote:

mountain man wrote:What is unbelieveable almost is the worse Trump gets the more support he has. The quote he said that he could shoot someone and get away with it is not far off truth.
There seems to be nothing he says or does that his fanatical support won't lap up. Blatant lies during his rallies are then repeated by his supporters as gospel truth.

Only in America as they say.

Worth pointing out that all the numbers people talk about are percentages. Actual numbers is also interesting - the Iowa turnout was tiny. In 2016 there were 187K votes. This time around 110K.

Yes, the turnout was the lowest in a Republican Primary in Iowa since 2000, I believe. This was almost certainly down to the weather being minus twenty degrees Celsius...not helped by the vote not commencing until seven in the evening!

I can only think of two Candidates in the last 50 odd years that have not won Iowa or New Hampshire and got the nomination........McGovern and Clinton....

Tsongas I know beat Clinton in New Hampshire and Iowa......His problem was money and his inability to get over in the bigger States. Clinton being more photogenic and more charismatic helped him.....

McGovern's victory saw controversy and he was attacked at Convention by beasties such as Jimbo Carter as being illegitimate....I know his victory in California which is/was the biggest delegate State was slim and instead of being a delegate shareout it was winner take all and old timers weren't happy........To be fair it didn't get much better as McGovern's original VP had to leave the race after admitting he'd had electric shock therapy for Mental health issues....Sargent Shriver took over the slot and he was Arnie Schwarzenegger's father in law.....

History lesson was my pleasure...

Anyway I wouldn't worry too much about NH polling until the dust settles on Iowa....People like to back winners and Haley came third in Iowa....Trump will get a boost.

As for Christie New Hampshire is only four hours in a car from New Jersey so I imagine his inflated numbers there are due to repeat visits to Granite central and being a New Englander...As New Hampshire is known as the "live free or die" State (Christened during the war in which King George went from the 3rd to last) I suppose it's fitting the race starts or ends there !!

If Trump does take New Hampshire his team will tell him the same as all other Candidates are told after winning the first two.......Thank and dismiss your competition, call for unity and focus on Biden as if to tell GOP voters "You know I'm inevitable so why waste time"..

Trump does win New Hampshire.........That's all she wrote..

Only his legal troubles exclude or include him.....As the GOP has the majority on the Supreme Court his chances are better than even......as Crocodile Dundee once said..

The idea that "people like winners" is interesting. I don't doubt it, but they deserve everything they get if that's how they decide on whom should be their President. It's even 'funnier' that people don't seem to care how someone 'wins' and whether they're a cheat and/or a likely criminal. Still, can't lecture - we have Brexit on the back of proven illegal funding and yet that garnered precisely zero traction.

mountain man wrote:...Only in America as they say.

If only that were true. I seem to recall people such as Farage, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Cameron etc in the UK. I'd like to think that was a period of mass insanity and now in the past, but given they're all still around and still ****ing things up for all but themselves, I doubt it.

Interesting re-defination of New Hampshire Primary here by Politico.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/01/18/new-hampshire-nikki-haley-battle-00136196

Most seem to assume Haley's chances in NH are down to it's moderate nature.

GE electorate may well be moderate compared to other Dem-leaning states.

But it's Republican contingent is as MAGA/Trumpian as most other non-hardcore GOP states.

Latest Polling had Haley at 30% and Trump around 50% - with DeSantos around 6%.

So feels like it's just another Iowa, only Haley is taking a bigger share of the non-Trump or not-yet Trump vote.

Which is interesting when you think of Iowa as evangelical heartlands - which is meant to be the backbone of the current Trump coalition.