2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[Josquius]

reading 30% of the electorate has already voted in fake Georgia. Quite amazing.

Less reliably I've seen claims, no sign of the source, exit polls are showing a rough 55-45 split for Harris 

[PJL]

Weren't postal votes more in favour of Biden last time? Given that and the percentages, not sure if that is as good as it seems.

[HisMajestyBOB]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/10307
subsection (c)

Can I pay someone to not register to vote?

[Admiral Yi]

Weren't postal votes more in favour of Biden last time? Given that and the percentages, not sure if that is as good as it seems.

Those are early in person voters, not mail ins.  You can't do exit polls on mail ins.

I also think mail ins should skew Harris.

[HisMajestyBOB]

The media, once again, has made Trump The Story of the election, which cannot help but bolster him. Especially as there is no pushback to anything. Every single thing he does (or doesn't do) get huge coverage and airtime. Meanwhile, Harris could be doing events 24/7 and it wouldn't garner much beyond, "Where's Kamala?". It is maddening. To quote Will Ferrell's character Mugatu from Zoolander, "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"

I agree. I've said before there's always a lot of attention on social media and the media on the far right and that is important, but I think the biggest issue is that (still! after 8 years) the mainstream media don't know how to cover Trump. I think they're livestreaming entire rallies less often now, but I think it's a real failure and I think particularly an editorial failure. I've mentioned before but a chronic inability to distinguish news and newsworthy, plus (especially NYT) absurd circumlocutions.

At this point, I don't think it's fair to say they don't know how to handle Trump. I think they, or perhaps more accurately their owners, are hedging their bets at best and quietly supportive of Trump at worst. See, for example, the owners of the LA Times and the Washington Post shutting down the editorial boards' endorsements of Harris.

[Admiral Yi]

How exactly would you guys like the media to cover Trump?

[PJL]

How exactly would you guys like the media to cover Trump?

That's the point, by not reporting on Trump, unless it is genuinely newsworthy and not just click-baity. Unfortunately the system promotes click-bait. Of course back in the day in the pre-WWW days, this would have been called headline grabbing. So not sure if the internet is to blame for this, but the media business model definitely is.

[Barrister]

How exactly would you guys like the media to cover Trump?

So I was just on Twitter and saw some "For me" post about how CBC/CTV gives a "Total pass" to the Conservatives, but gives "unlimited bashing" to Trudeau.  I was like "are you fucking kidding me"?

I think the US media did a lot of soul-searching after 2016 - they would just air Trump rallies without critique just because they got great ratings (and not without reason - they were even then so bizarre they were compelling to watch).

But by now - a lot of people just want the media to repeat back to them whatever view they want.  And sure, you can watch Fox News or MSNBC to get exactly that.  But I think the media, in 2024, is trying to cover Trump in as honest and accurate way as they can.

[Barrister]

How exactly would you guys like the media to cover Trump?

That's the point, by not reporting on Trump, unless it is genuinely newsworthy and not just click-baity. Unfortunately the system promotes click-bait. Of course back in the day in the pre-WWW days, this would have been called headline grabbing. So not sure if the internet is to blame for this, but the media business model definitely is.

I think it's the opposite problem with Trump - he says something "news-worthy" almost every time he opens his mouth.

Like when he said he needs generals to be like Hitler's generals.  Or that the constitution should be suspended.  Or where he called Democrats "the enemy within".  Or where he just randomly danced to music for 39 minutes.  Or how he'll replace income tax with tariffs.  I could keep going on.

The media is just supposed to ignore that shit?

[Sheilbh]

I think the key is editorial judgement. I've said before but what is news is not necessarily newsworthy. I think covering every outrageous bullshit statement Trump says is not the right approach - frankly it's dog bites man at this stage. But each time it is covered seriously, which sucks the oxygen out of the room, and we have the standard debate of "has he finally gone too far?"/"do his supporters care?"/"is claiming Haitians are eating pets finally the moment Trump became presidential?"

Similarly I always feel like fact checking is a way to be chaste - but not yet. You still get to report all the salacious details but with a furrowed brow.

Just because something is news does not make it newsworthy and frankly I feel like the very serious people in newsrooms could probably do with chatting to the editors of tabloids and celebrity pages on how to cover Trump. A lot of what he's doing is basically calling paparazzi that he'll be at x restaurant and then stage a row with someone. He's from that world and he's moved into politics and it's like no-one has any antibodies.

Also I don't think other presidential campaigns get their rallies shown in their entirety - again news but not newsworthy and a lot of free airtime for Trump to talk, unmediated. Cover him like other presidential candidates - don't get sucked into just basically letting him turn the political pages into the gossip pages.

[Admiral Yi]

That's the point, by not reporting on Trump, unless it is genuinely newsworthy and not just click-baity. Unfortunately the system promotes click-bait. Of course back in the day in the pre-WWW days, this would have been called headline grabbing. So not sure if the internet is to blame for this, but the media business model definitely is.

Can you give me an example of some coverage that is not newsworthy?

What I see a lot of is Trump says something outrageous like I will arrest all Democrats when I win, or I will pull the broadcast licenses of every media source except Fox, and the media passes that on.  Is that click bait? 

[PJL]

That's the point, by not reporting on Trump, unless it is genuinely newsworthy and not just click-baity. Unfortunately the system promotes click-bait. Of course back in the day in the pre-WWW days, this would have been called headline grabbing. So not sure if the internet is to blame for this, but the media business model definitely is.

Can you give me an example of some coverage that is not newsworthy?

What I see a lot of is Trump says something outrageous like I will arrest all Democrats when I win, or I will pull the broadcast licenses of every media source except Fox, and the media passes that on.  Is that click bait?

When Trump says something outrageous, he's gaming the system. That suggests that system itself it at fault and needs patching to remove gamey outcomes.

[Barrister]

That's the point, by not reporting on Trump, unless it is genuinely newsworthy and not just click-baity. Unfortunately the system promotes click-bait. Of course back in the day in the pre-WWW days, this would have been called headline grabbing. So not sure if the internet is to blame for this, but the media business model definitely is.

Can you give me an example of some coverage that is not newsworthy?

What I see a lot of is Trump says something outrageous like I will arrest all Democrats when I win, or I will pull the broadcast licenses of every media source except Fox, and the media passes that on.  Is that click bait?

When Trump says something outrageous, he's gaming the system. That suggests that system itself it at fault and needs patching to remove gamey outcomes.

I really feel like this is wrong.

Same as when Sheilbh says "what is news is not necessarily newsworthy".  eh - actually I think that's exactly what "newsworthy" means.

I get it.  I hate Trump.  I wish US voters would have sent him packing years ago.

But when he says something crazy - that's newsworthy.  You can't expect the media to just ignore it.

[Admiral Yi]

When Trump says something outrageous, he's gaming the system. That suggests that system itself it at fault and needs patching to remove gamey outcomes.

He's gaming his voters, who get more pumped up with every outrageous statement.  That's on the voters, not "the system."

His outrageous statements are newsworthy in that they are an indication of his future plans and his character.  I would like to know more of those things, not less.

[Barrister]

At a certain level we can't protect the voters from themselves.  If they really want to vote for a crazy candidate then pretending the candidate isn't crazy isn't helping matters.