Primary Results-Election Speculation

[Lanman87]

Nikki Haley won the Vermont Primary and garnered 15-30% in most states on Super Tuesday. As far as I can tell, no incumbent president (I count Trump as an incumbent) has never lost a state in the Primaries and went on to win the general election.

The latest examples I can find are Ford in 1976, who lost several states to Reagan. Carter in 1980, who lost several states to Kennedy. George H.W. Bush never lost a state to Pat Buchanan in 1992 but Buchanan did win around 30% of the vote in many of the Primaries.

Ford, Carter, and Bush all lost the general election.

The fact that Haley got 10-42% in very conservative states is bad enough but in swing states she got 18 and 35% (AZ and VA). While I'm sure some of those votes are Democrats crossing over the fact remains that if even 15% of Haley voters stay home in the swing states on election day then Trump is in trouble.

Trump better hope that Biden remains in the race because his biggest advantage is that Democrats across the board aren't happy with Biden as the nominee. Trump needs more democrats to stay home on election day than republicans. If the Democrats switch to a younger, well liked candidate at or just before the convention that excites the democratic party and is attractive to swing voters then it will be a short night on election day.

I think Haley only has a future as a Presidential candidate is if a large number of Republicans end up regretting that he won the nomination. Which could happen if Trump gets his hat handed to him on election day or if he becomes President and makes such a mess of things that republicans choose to go with a more traditional republican candidate in four years. If Trump gets re-elected and does a great job as President then we will never hear from Nikki Haley again, except as a talking head on cable shows.

Conventional wisdom says that when you get your parties nomination you go hard to unify the party by appealing to the supporters of the other candidates and attract swing voters by campaigning closer to the political center. However, as we know, Trump isn't a conventional candidate.

 

[tango]

There's a fair possibility that all the monetary troubles baked into the system will turn into a serious headache for whoever is in office from 2025. It's always unfortunate that political cycles are short and monetary cycles don't necessarily align with them, so one government can create a strong or weak economy and the next government ends up taking the credit or the blame.

 

[Albion]

Nikki Haley won the Vermont Primary and garnered 15-30% in most states on Super Tuesday. As far as I can tell, no incumbent president (I count Trump as an incumbent) has never lost a state in the Primaries and went on to win the general election.

Except that Trump is not the incumbent. Biden is. At best, you're thinking this race has two incumbents, which defies the meaning of the word incumbent.

In addition, Trump lost the primary in Vermont and Biden lost the primary in American Samoa, so I don't think we can say that this unusual turn of events (if Vermont and Samoa are to be considered indicative of anything) tells us much about the winner come November.

Conventional wisdom says that when you get your parties nomination you go hard to unify the party by appealing to the supporters of the other candidates and attract swing voters by campaigning closer to the political center. However, as we know, Trump isn't a conventional candidate.

Well, not exactly. It is more common (among Republicans at least, and we're talking about Trump here) to have the presidential nominee choose a 'ticket-balancer' for VP, just as Trump did in choosing Pence (more conservative) and Bush, Jr. did in choosing Cheney (also more conservative than the presidential nominee). Those choices did not represent a move towards the political center.

 

[Josiah]

Among Republicans (and the few Democrats and Independents in a few states that could vote in the Republican Primary), it seems Haley was supported by 25% or so, Trump by 75% or so. CLEARLY, the overwhelming majority want Trump.

Most who ran against Trump didn't DISAGREE with him; they embraced the same views, policies and issues. Hardly a dimes difference between them on ISSUES. The thing has been TRUMP. It's HIM some Republicans did not embrace. And I think the 75/25 percent split shows that: most are okay with his name calling, etc., etc., etc; - indeed, want it back. Some want the policies and views he professed and perform - without the name calling, etc.

But it's irrelevant now. It looks like it's a repeat of two old unpopular men, either Biden or Trump. I didn't vote for either in 2016 or 2020 and probably won't again in 2024. But hey, we have a system in America.... and it's playing out. It's a system far from perfect but perhaps better than any alternative. And while 4 years of Trump embarrassed and offended me (and much of the world), in terms of what he DID - that I found good. I can survive 4 years..... I'll just turn off the sound whenever he speaks and no read any quotes from him. Ignore HIM as much as possible, focus on what he DOES. That's how to survive him. And yeah, we'd be worse off with another 2 years of Biden and 2 of Harris.



.

 

[Bluezone777]

I'd like to point out that Vermont doesn't require you to be registered in the party of the candidate you are voting for as the rules state you can only vote in one party's primary but it doesn't have to be the party you are registered as. I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats believing there was no real race for their party's candidate jumped ship to vote for Haley to make Trump lose in his party's primary simply because of how much they blindly hate the man. Now this doesn't mean this had to happened here but it puts enough reasonable doubt that this means Trump's ability to win the general is in question.

 

[Lanman87]

Except that Trump is not the incumbent. Biden is. At best, you're thinking this race has two incumbents, which defies the meaning of the word incumbent.

Among Republicans (and the few Democrats and Independents in a few states that could vote in the Republican Primary), it seems Haley was supported by 25% or so, Trump by 75% or so. CLEARLY, the overwhelming majority want Trump.

Most who ran against Trump didn't DISAGREE with him; they embraced the same views, policies and issues. Hardly a dimes difference between them on ISSUES. The thing has been TRUMP. It's HIM some Republicans did not embrace. And I think the 75/25 percent split shows that: most are okay with his name calling, etc., etc., etc; - indeed, want it back. Some want the policies and views he professed and perform - without the name calling, etc.

But it's irrelevant now. It looks like it's a repeat of two old unpopular men, either Biden or Trump. I didn't vote for either in 2016 or 2020 and probably won't again in 2024. But hey, we have a system in America.... and it's playing out. It's a system far from perfect but perhaps better than any alternative. And while 4 years of Trump embarrassed and offended me (and much of the world), in terms of what he DID - that I found good. I can survive 4 years..... I'll just turn off the sound whenever he speaks and no read any quotes from him. Ignore HIM as much as possible, focus on what he DOES. That's how to survive him. And yeah, we'd be worse off with another 2 years of Biden and 2 of Harris.



.

What is going to make or break Trump this year is how many of those 25% who voted for Haley will hold their nose and vote for Trump. This is not your typical republican nominating contest where people vote for their favorite in the Primary but will get behind any of the Republicans come the general election. Many republicans will not vote for Trump under any circumstances.

Trump is the most polarizing figure of my adult lifetime. Not only between Democrats and Republicans but within the Republican party itself. He may not understand it or admit it, but he needs the Haley voters in November, at least in the swing states. Every Haley voter could stay home in Nov in my state it wouldn't make a difference. But in Michigan, Ohio, Georgia, Arizona and so forth it matters a lot.

 

[Lanman87]

I'd like to point out that Vermont doesn't require you to be registered in the party of the candidate you are voting for as the rules state you can only vote in one party's primary but it doesn't have to be the party you are registered as. I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats believing there was no real race for their party's candidate jumped ship to vote for Haley to make Trump lose in his party's primary simply because of how much they blindly hate the man. Now this doesn't mean this had to happened here but it puts enough reasonable doubt that this means Trump's ability to win the general is in question.

That often depends on what other primaries are going on at the same time. If there is a contested local primary then folks are less likely to switch parties in the primary. I have know idea if that was the case in Vermont.

 

[Albion]

I'd like to point out that Vermont doesn't require you to be registered in the party of the candidate you are voting for as the rules state you can only vote in one party's primary but it doesn't have to be the party you are registered as. I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats believing there was no real race for their party's candidate jumped ship to vote for Haley to make Trump lose in his party's primary simply because of how much they blindly hate the man.

That often depends on what other primaries are going on at the same time. If there is a contested local primary then folks are less likely to switch parties in the primary. I have know idea if that was the case in Vermont.

In Vermont, there was only a presidential primary election being held this week.

The primaries for US Senate, House, state legislature, local offices, etc. will be held in August as usual.

 

[Albion]

I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats believing there was no real race for their party's candidate jumped ship to vote for Haley to make Trump lose in his party's primary simply because of how much they blindly hate the man. Now this doesn't mean this had to happened here but it puts enough reasonable doubt that this means Trump's ability to win the general is in question.

On the other hand, the Republican Party nominated two moderates (called RINOs by some) in the several elections prior to Trump--Romney and McCain--and not only did both of them lose convincingly, but both of them also gave up several weeks before Election Day.

Trump, if we remember, campaigned right up to Election Day, sometimes in a number of different states in a single day. And that's one reason he won.

So, yeh, if another patsy were put up again, dear Republicans,...it would mean losing again.

 

[Albion]

And while 4 years of Trump embarrassed and offended me (and much of the world), in terms of what he DID - that I found good. I can survive 4 years..... I'll just turn off the sound whenever he speaks and no read any quotes from him. Ignore HIM as much as possible, focus on what he DOES. That's how to survive him. And yeah, we'd be worse off with another 2 years of Biden and 2 of Harris.
.

...and there you've identified one big fact that is overlooked by many people who are disenchanted with Trump and/or are by nature Independents.

It's "President Kamala Harris" that anyone who votes for Joe Biden (OR votes or a third-party candidate) this year is actually voting for.

Biden is still almost a year away from being sworn in to a second term, assuming that he succeeds in being re-elected. Various reputable commentators have said that he's fading fast, so what are the chances that Joe Biden will serve out a term in office that begins in January, 2025 if he does defeat Trump this November? Very slim.

That doesn't necessarily mean that he'll die in office. Him being institutionalized or having Congress be forced to invoke the 25th Amendment are both "possibles." Either way, it's Kamala Harris who will then become President, and voters might as well face up to it when heading to the polls this year.

 

[Lamb]

...and there you've identified one big fact that is overlooked by many people who are disenchanted with Trump and/or are by nature Independents.

It's "President Kamala Harris" that anyone who votes for Joe Biden (OR votes or a third-party candidate) this year is actually voting for.

Biden is still almost a year away from being sworn in to a second term, assuming that he succeeds in being re-elected. Various reputable commentators have said that he's fading fast, so what are the chances that Joe Biden will serve out a term in office that begins in January, 2025 if he does defeat Trump this November? Very slim.

That doesn't necessarily mean that he'll die in office. Him being institutionalized or having Congress be forced to invoke the 25th Amendment are both "possibles." Either way, it's Kamala Harris who will then become President, and voters might as well face up to it when heading to the polls this year.

I don't really think the Democrats are voting FOR a person. In the last election, most of my husband's family voted for the party and only wanted Democrats to win, even though they complained heavily about old white guys winning.

 

[tango]

I don't really think the Democrats are voting FOR a person. In the last election, most of my husband's family voted for the party and only wanted Democrats to win, even though they complained heavily about old white guys winning.

There was a certain irony in the party that endlessly blathers on about diversity gradually shaking out the gay guy, the fake Cherokee, the black woman only to end up with another angry old white guy, who then blathered some more about diversity and put the black woman who fell at the first hurdle back on the ticket because, well, she's black and she's a woman (even if nobody can say what a woman actually is)

 

[Josiah]

It's SAD and UNFORTUNATE that often American elections are a choice between very bad candidates. "The lesser of two evils" seems to be the way a lot of elections go. I'm not sure this is how democracy is suppose to work... or WHY it seems to work this way (at least in the USA) but....



.

 

[tango]

It's SAD and UNFORTUNATE that often American elections are a choice between very bad candidates. "The lesser of two evils" seems to be the way a lot of elections go. I'm not sure this is how democracy is suppose to work... or WHY it seems to work this way (at least in the USA) but....



.

I remember during the 2000 campaign the question was often asked how a country of 300+ million people managed to figure that Bush and Gore were the best options for leader. I'm not sure anything has improved since then.

 

[Josiah]

I remember during the 2000 campaign the question was often asked how a country of 300+ million people managed to figure that Bush and Gore were the best options for leader. I'm not sure anything has improved since then.

Worse. Much worse.


.

 

[Albion]

It's SAD and UNFORTUNATE that often American elections are a choice between very bad candidates. "The lesser of two evils" seems to be the way a lot of elections go. I'm not sure this is how democracy is suppose to work... or WHY it seems to work this way (at least in the USA) but.....

Permitting, through the use of various devices, only the two main parties to 1) form and then 2) compete for most offices and in most states may be the way our own "democracy" operates. But it's not how most of the other ones do it.

Were the voters allowed to have more choices, what you're referring to might be less common.

 

[tango]

Permitting, through the use of various devices, only the two main parties to 1) form and then 2) compete for most offices and in most states may be the way our own "democracy" operates. But it's not how most of the other ones do it.

Were the voters allowed to have more choices, what you're referring to might be less common.

Maybe, maybe not. In the UK there are three main parties and all of them promise they will make things better and with few exceptions they do nothing of the sort. Because you need a majority of Parliament to form a credible government the result is that sometimes one of the main two parties (Conservative and Labour) get an outright majority and form a government. Other times the Liberal Democrats end up as kingmakers, although it doesn't always work out very well for them (for example when Nick Clegg lost virtually all credibility when he formed an alliance with David Cameron's Conservative Party, and ended up promoting the very policies he campaigned against on the election trail). In that election the only way any other group would have achieved a majority, and a tiny majority at that, would have been an unholy alliance of endless minor parties (SNP, Plaid Cymru, Green, etc) joining forces with Labour. The chances of a government with a tiny majority made up of such a hotchpotch of other parties actually getting much done is slim. Although maybe that's a good thing.

From what I gather of other European nations they get into situations where small extremist parties end up with disproportionate representation because they formed an alliance with a larger party.

I'm not sure the decision between Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer is a much more appealing choice than Donald Trump vs Joe Biden. I'd rather see Trump return than another four years of Biden (with some or all of it being Harris), but don't feel thrilled about Trump back in the White House.

A lot of the trouble is simply that the trillions thrown around during COVID have to go somewhere. Leaving that much money floating around causes price increases, and taking that much money back out of the system causes downturns. In many ways I don't think it matters much who wins the White House - sooner or later those chickens are coming home to roost and the electorate in general don't seem willing to think things through beyond "it all went south when X was in the White House" without considering what actually caused it to go south.

 

[Albion]

Maybe, maybe not. In the UK there are three main parties and all of them promise they will make things better and with few exceptions they do nothing of the sort. Because you need a majority of Parliament to form a credible government the result is that sometimes one of the main two parties (Conservative and Labour) get an outright majority and form a government. Other times the Liberal Democrats end up as kingmakers, although it doesn't always work out very well for them (for example when Nick Clegg lost virtually all credibility when he formed an alliance with David Cameron's Conservative Party, and ended up promoting the very policies he campaigned against on the election trail). In that election the only way any other group would have achieved a majority, and a tiny majority at that, would have been an unholy alliance of endless minor parties (SNP, Plaid Cymru, Green, etc) joining forces with Labour. The chances of a government with a tiny majority made up of such a hotchpotch of other parties actually getting much done is slim. Although maybe that's a good thing.

From what I gather of other European nations they get into situations where small extremist parties end up with disproportionate representation because they formed an alliance with a larger party.

Hmm. I wasn't specific about which other nations had how many functioning parties, but what you've described is a three-way system, so that's somewhat more flexible than ours.

And then you also referred to governing coalitions, which are more than what we have here where the occasional third party that makes it onto the ballot in most of the states still has no chance of participating in government.

 

[tango]

Hmm. I wasn't specific about which other nations had how many functioning parties, but what you've described is a three-way system, so that's somewhat more flexible than ours.

A three-way system is notionally more flexible but doesn't necessarily work very well for anyone. When Nick Clegg aligned with David Cameron it worked fairly well for the Conservatives because they got to form a government, they got to sacrifice Clegg in the process so it didn't work very well for him or his party.

If there were three major parties (in the US I'd be thinking of parties that would routinely expect to get maybe 25% of the seats as a minimum, with the balance shifting based on electoral dynamics) then government would require a decent coalition between them. If you have two parties routinely getting 48% and one minor party mopping up the scraps then that minor party ends up with a disproportionate influence on the whole thing.

And then you also referred to governing coalitions, which are more than what we have here where the occasional third party that makes it onto the ballot in most of the states still has no chance of participating in government.

The minor parties generally seem to have virtually no chance of going anywhere in the US. It's hard to see how that will ever change, especially when the two major parties are so divided and so their supporters are unlikely to risk voting for a third party however much they might like the third party to gain traction.

Something like a simple transferable vote would make a lot of sense but, since it would probably highlight how little people think of the major parties, it's hard to see it ever happening. If you could vote for a third party candidate but transfer your vote to a major party if/when the third party candidate was eliminated you'd have the freedom to vote Green/Democrat or Libertarian/Republican or whatever other combination met your preferences. If that ever happened it would be interesting to see how many votes did shift to parties like Green, Libertarian, Constitution etc.

 

[Lamb]

A three-way system is notionally more flexible but doesn't necessarily work very well for anyone. When Nick Clegg aligned with David Cameron it worked fairly well for the Conservatives because they got to form a government, they got to sacrifice Clegg in the process so it didn't work very well for him or his party.

If there were three major parties (in the US I'd be thinking of parties that would routinely expect to get maybe 25% of the seats as a minimum, with the balance shifting based on electoral dynamics) then government would require a decent coalition between them. If you have two parties routinely getting 48% and one minor party mopping up the scraps then that minor party ends up with a disproportionate influence on the whole thing.



The minor parties generally seem to have virtually no chance of going anywhere in the US. It's hard to see how that will ever change, especially when the two major parties are so divided and so their supporters are unlikely to risk voting for a third party however much they might like the third party to gain traction.

Something like a simple transferable vote would make a lot of sense but, since it would probably highlight how little people think of the major parties, it's hard to see it ever happening. If you could vote for a third party candidate but transfer your vote to a major party if/when the third party candidate was eliminated you'd have the freedom to vote Green/Democrat or Libertarian/Republican or whatever other combination met your preferences. If that ever happened it would be interesting to see how many votes did shift to parties like Green, Libertarian, Constitution etc.

I keep hoping for a more party system...would really love to see 5 to separate the groups more evenly, but that will never happen unless forced upon us.

This two party system stinks. Now we have another match between Trump and Biden and neither one is going to be the fix for our country. If Biden gets back in, he'll keep spending money and send us down into oblivion. If Trump wins, it's going to be impeachment again and again and nothing will get done. Who will save us?