The 2024 Presidential Nomination Thread

[RainMaker]

You don't need to remind me that Biden has been wrong on just about every foreign policy decision of the last 50 years. And while the support of a violent ethnostate is abhorrent, I do think their shift toward active genocide changes the game a bit. And the fact that Biden is so insistent on providing billions more for that genocide that he'll make concessions with Republicans.

As for young voters, maybe they didn't know much about the conflict. Maybe these events have caused them to read about the Nabka, the 6-day war, the concentration camps, forced sterilizations, illegal settlements, etc. It's a conflict that isn't widely taught in schools and reporting isn't prevalent on the ground due to Israel's policy of assassinating journalists.

Either way, people can make their own moral judgements about Biden and whether he is deserving of their vote. You can't run on "orange man bad" every year and expect people to keep giving a shit.

[JPhillips]

The left could learn a lot from the anti-abortion folks. They've spent basically my entire lifetime fighting for a policy that every poll shows is unpopular and they largely won. They didn't quit in the 80's when Reagan didn't ban abortion or in the 2000s when Bush didn't either. They chipped away at a policy they didn't like, moving things forward and not giving up when they faced setbacks.

You'll end up happy though because Trump will win things will get worse and you'll be able to crow about how right you were. Arguing with the left is as predictable and ultimately productive as fucking a cinder block.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The left could learn a lot from the anti-abortion folks. They've spent basically my entire lifetime fighting for a policy that every poll shows is unpopular and they largely won. They didn't quit in the 80's when Reagan didn't ban abortion or in the 2000s when Bush didn't either. They chipped away at a policy they didn't like, moving things forward and not giving up when they faced setbacks.

What poll shows a ceasefire as unpopular? Recent polls show it at nearly 70% of people support calls for one. Heck, polls show that Americans are against sending weapons to Israel too (43% to 31%). It's you and Biden that are taking the unpopular position.

And regardless, we're talking about genocide. Is your argument that the left should support genocide and hope to make it an even more unpopular position over the next few decades?

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You'll end up happy though because Trump will win things will get worse and you'll be able to crow about how right you were. Arguing with the left is as predictable and ultimately productive as fucking a cinder block.

I don't like Trump which is why I won't be voting for him either. But since as you say, Biden is doing the popular thing, there should be no worries about him losing this election.

[GrantDawg]

Ceasefire is popular, but support for Israel is still very popular as well. Every poll I have seen in the last two months has supported sending aid to Israel at over 50%. Only the far left and far right have strong anti-Israel opnions.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So democracy is at stake (just ignore 2000) and the best possible option to save it is a wildly unpopular 82-year-old man? I feel like if democracy was going to end, wouldn't you have made a better effort to put up a better candidate?

I didn't realize I had that kind of power. We're going to have a choice between Biden & Trump. You kind of have to live with it - that's how our system works.

And pointing to 2000 does not, I feel, make your point. Everyone who voted for Nader, gifting victory to Bush, shouldn't feel great about how the next 8 years turned out.

Seems like this strategy is doing great. Glad the future of democracy rests with him.

For the second time of asking, show me a different realistic Democratic candidate who is going to win those swing states. With evidence. I'll wait.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I didn't realize I had that kind of power. We're going to have And pointing to 2000 does not, I feel, make your point. Everyone who voted for Nader, gifting victory to Bush, shouldn't feel great about how the next 8 years turned out.

Recounts showed that Gore won Florida. Just saying the Democrats didn't really give a shit about "democracy" then so I'll take their righteous indignation with a grain of salt.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

For the second time of asking, show me a different realistic Democratic candidate who is going to win those swing states. With evidence. I'll wait.

I don't know because the party has locked out any possible challenger. I think if they had made an effort to promote younger politicians over the last decade, they would have some contenders. I think Kelly, Whitmer, JB, Shapiro, and a slew of others would be better candidates if the Dems had given them any sort of publicity.

But hey, maybe Biden is best and recent swing state polls are off. We will see how it works out for the Dems in November.

[Edward64]

Haley looking good in NH at 2nd. Guessing she'll be 3rd in Iowa.

Hope NH gives her a momentum surge like Joe got from SC.

New Hampshire Republican Presidential Preference Primary

[Ksyrup]

Haley is 30+ points behind Trump in her own state.

[flere-imsaho]

OK, it's not clear to me what you're arguing, RM.

If you're arguing that the Democratic party has kind of fucked itself here and shouldn't be in the precarious position it now finds itself in, then yes, I agree and I've been saying that they've been a useless bunch of idiots since at least the 90s.

If you're arguing that there's really no functional difference between the Democratic and Republican parties and so you should vote third party, or stay home, in 2024 to send a message to those idiots in the Democratic party, then I'd like to invite you to consider the issue with shooting off your nose to spite your face.

The reality of the American electoral system is that you're almost always voting for a compromised candidate or the lesser of two evils. I get the frustration that sometimes you vote for a candidate while holding your nose and then they win and crow about how they have a mandate, when really you just didn't want the other person. It would be nice to have a 5-point scale next to the person you're voting for on the ballot that gauges how much you really support them, from "I was literally this close to not voting at all" on one end to "yes, I really think you're a great candidate" on the other.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Recounts showed that Gore won Florida. Just saying the Democrats didn't really give a shit about "democracy" then so I'll take their righteous indignation with a grain of salt.

What are you talking about here? In what way did the 2000 election show that Dems didn't care about Democracy?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know because the party has locked out any possible challenger. I think if they had made an effort to promote younger politicians over the last decade, they would have some contenders. I think Kelly, Whitmer, JB, Shapiro, and a slew of others would be better candidates if the Dems had given them any sort of publicity.

You would hate every single one of those people if they got the nomination and/or elected.

[Radii]

I suspect I'm consuming a similar degree of leftist content that RM is, I don't have the heart to wade into the Israel/Palestine thread but typically agree with the line of posting I see from RM there. When it comes to voting and how to vote, I see a lot of strong aggression from leftists towards the idea of "vote blue no matter who", or the urgency to vote against Trump. Most of these folks don't vote at all or will vote 3rd party. Some choose to vote in local elections and ignore the national stage.

When I see a black or LGBT creator tell me that their lived experience is that the democrats talk a lot but don't actually do anything for them, so there's really no difference, I'm not going to try to argue that. But I feel like my white straight male privileged self can still vote for perceived harm reduction and be just fine, so I'll continue to do that.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

You would hate every single one of those people if they got the nomination and/or elected.

Perhaps marginally less so than Biden, but yes, you're definitely not wrong. (speaking for me, not RM)

[Atocep]

Kelly is another moderate Dem. He's younger and a military guy, which probably gives him broader appeal but I don't see a Kelly presidency being much different than Biden's. He's 100% with Israel and has praised the Biden administration's handling of it. He's also for a lot of the GOP border policies and is very moderate on climate.

I like Whitmer, but I don't see her beating Trump. I would say Dems should work to raise her profile ahead of 2028.

Pritzker would get absolutely hammered for his ties to Blagojevich and the backroom deals he was discussing on a FBI wiretap with him. It wouldn't be a problem for a GOP candidate, but some of the stuff he said on wire tap would quickly end a campaign for just about any Dem.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

You would hate every single one of those people if they got the nomination and/or elected.

I really don't have that high of expectations. Just can't be actively funding and aiding a genocide. That feels like an incredibly low bar.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

What are you talking about here? In what way did the 2000 election show that Dems didn't care about Democracy?

They won the election but let it be stolen because they didn't want to be seen as sore losers.

If you're doing the "democracy is at stake" argument, where were you 23 years ago when this actually happened?

[GrantDawg]

They fought through the legal system and lost. They had no other recourse.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

They fought through the legal system and lost. They had no other recourse.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

They should’ve had an insurrection, Jan 6th style only successful.

[GrantDawg]

And major studies showed that Bush would have won the recount. Gore would likely have won without the errors in voting, but there is no legal way they could have corrected those errors after the election.. You are just wrong again.
https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/polit...ies/index.html

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

Meanwhile, groups like Democracy Docket are constantly fighting to protect democracy and people's rights to vote, while Republicans try to put up every barrier they can to suppress people's votes. Republicans make it very clear that believe only people like them should be allowed to vote and have contempt for democracy and the will of the people. Your "both side"-ism flies in the face of every fact.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They won the election but let it be stolen because they didn't want to be seen as sore losers.

If you're doing the "democracy is at stake" argument, where were you 23 years ago when this actually happened?

What should've Gore done after he was shot down by the Supreme Court?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

And major studies showed that Bush would have won the recount. Gore would likely have won without the errors in voting, but there is no legal way they could have corrected those errors after the election.. You are just wrong again.
Who really won Bush-Gore election? | CNN Politics

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Literally says that if undervotes and overvotes were counted, Gore would have won. Gore didn't bother with overvotes because he is a moron (and Florida had some insane recount rules).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

They fought through the legal system and lost. They had no other recourse.

How is this any different than Trump? If he tried to pull some shenanigans, the legal system will step in and he will have no recourse. What's the concern here?

[GrantDawg]

They tried to stop the certification of the election by force. So no, it wasn't through legal means. And that article clearly says the recount would have been won by Bush. There was mo legal way to correct wrong ballots. The only way to fix the problems with that election was before it happened.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

They tried to stop the certification of the election by force. So no, it wasn't through legal means.

Brooks Brothers riot - Wikipedia

[GrantDawg]

"Taken as a whole, the recount studies show Bush would have most likely won the Florida statewide hand recount of all undervotes. Undervotes are ballots that did not register a vote in the presidential race."

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

Yes, Republicans tried to stop that recount by force. They hate democracy. What's your point?

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

"The studies also show that Gore likely would have won a statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes, which are ballots that included multiple votes for president and were thus not counted at all. However, his legal team never pursued this action.

The studies also support the belief that more voters went to the polls in Florida on Election Day intending to vote for Gore than for Bush"

[GrantDawg]

But there was no legal means to do that. You can't suppose a vote. The voting system was flawed and there was no legal means to correct it afterwards.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[larrymcg421]

Gore made strategic errors for sure, but the idea that the Democrats didn't fight in 2000 is just ridiculous and not a rational interpretation of what happened.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I really don't have that high of expectations. Just can't be actively funding and aiding a genocide. That feels like an incredibly low bar.

It took me five seconds of Googling to find the exact same "unequivocal support for Israel" line for every one of them. There's no doubt they would have the same position on Israel as Biden. If anything, some of them would be more pro-Israel than Biden.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

But there was no legal means to do that. You can't suppose a vote. The voting system was flawed and there was no legal means to correct it afterwards.

There is no legal means for Trump to remove our form of democracy. So what's the concern here?

And I'm sure Democrats made huge efforts to fix this flawed system and preserve democracy after it happened. Right?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

It took me five seconds of Googling to find the exact same "unequivocal support for Israel" line for every one of them. There's no doubt they would have the same position on Israel as Biden. If anything, some of them would be more pro-Israel than Biden.

I wouldn't vote for anyone of any party who aids supports a genocide. I do think Dems would have a better chance of winning running a younger, more coherent candidate that is not wildly unpopular.

[GrantDawg]

Trump has made it clear he is not going to allow the rule of law to get in his way this time. He is already creating a list of thousands of loyalists he is going to put in position in bureaucratic roles on day one that swear allegiance only to him. He is also preparing to remove military leaders to supplant with his cronies, and swears to remove barriers from using the military on domestic grounds. He is openly bragging about this, this is not some made up fear mongering. The restrictions he had in his last term are going to be gone if he wins again.


Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Much of that would be illegal and as you've implied, he would have no recourse in the courts.

[GrantDawg]

And if he ignores the courts, what recourse would anyone have? If his cronies are controlling the law enforcement, and the Senate refuses to remove him from office?

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There is no legal means for Trump to remove our form of democracy. So what's the concern here?

And I'm sure Democrats made huge efforts to fix this flawed system and preserve democracy after it happened. Right?

The fact that you're digging your heels in defending and downplaying Trump because you're upset Biden is doing what nearly any realistically electable official would be doing in Israel makes no sense to me.

I get you're upset over our support for Israel and it's a subject you're passionate about, but some of your arguments here are inconsistent, are moving goalposts, inaccurate, and sometimes just plain weird.

Dems aren't the only ones sounding the alarm on Trump and our democracy. Our allies, international organizations, watchdogs, historians, etc have all expressed concerns in one form or another. It is a scare tactic , but one to wake people up to the dangers of a man that is one step away from quoting Hitler, wants to be a dictator, and tried to violently overthrow our government.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I wouldn't vote for anyone of any party who aids supports a genocide. I do think Dems would have a better chance of winning running a younger, more coherent candidate that is not wildly unpopular.

Find me a realistic candidate that doesn't support Israel or Saudi Arabia? For something that you claim isn't a high bar it's awfully difficult to find realistic candidates that fit. So the choice is to vote for the candidate that aligns with your views closest or lose elections. That's something the progressives on the left still don't understand. Progress typically doesn't come in leaps and you have to take small wins where you can to build toward bigger wins.

[GrantDawg]

He has already had the test run. If the orders he gave at the end of his first term were obeyed, then he would have stayed in power then. He now knows who he needs to remove so no one gets in his way.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Trump has made it clear he is not going to allow the rule of law to get in his way this time. He is already creating a list of thousands of loyalists he is going to put in position in bureaucratic roles on day one that swear allegiance only to him. He is also preparing to remove military leaders to supplant with his cronies, and swears to remove barriers from using the military on domestic grounds. He is openly bragging about this, this is not some made up fear mongering. The restrictions he had in his last term are going to be gone if he wins again.

I'm on board with all you describe but before you get too panicked about it, just know that I'm also assuming it'll end up being more empty campaign promises so I'm not particularly excited about it either.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

And if he ignores the courts, what recourse would anyone have? If his cronies are controlling the law enforcement, and the Senate refuses to remove him from office?

But he would abide by the results of the 2024 election?

Law enforcement is already heavily right-wing and the makeup of the Senate isn't changing anytime soon. Weird that he's going to end democracy but not if he loses the election.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Find me a realistic candidate that doesn't support Israel or Saudi Arabia? For something that you claim isn't a high bar it's awfully difficult to find realistic candidates that fit. So the choice is to vote for the candidate that aligns with your views closest or lose elections. That's something the progressives on the left still don't understand. Progress typically doesn't come in leaps and you have to take small wins where you can to build toward bigger wins.

There probably isn't. Those countries have lobbied hard and call the shots here. Doesn't mean I need to vote for a war criminal.

I don't know what the big deal is. Sounds like you all think Biden is the best man and is doing everything right to win. One vote in Illinois is not going to change that. I'm sure he has it in the bag.

[Flasch186]

I think I’ve seen repeatedly people say least worst in this thread or lessor of compromised


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But he would abide by the results of the 2024 election?

Law enforcement is already heavily right-wing and the makeup of the Senate isn't changing anytime soon. Weird that he's going to end democracy but not if he loses the election.

He is going to try. They already have set the stage in several states.

[Edward64]

I (currently) believe Joe has the best odds of beating Trump. It's fine if you believe there are better suited Dem candidates that can beat Trump. Let's go through the nomination process. Moan, complain, whine all you want (and admittedly, some times with good reason) ...

... but at the end of the day, if Joe wins the Democratic nomination, you either support him or you don't (e.g. stay home, vote for Trump, vote for other 3rd party etc.). I support anyone's right to stay home or vote 3rd party. But that right may result in Trump being elected, and you will share part of the blame.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So what's the concern here?

Too bad this question wasn't asked in Germany in the 30's. A lot of folks knew "the leader" could be controlled and not really do anything. They were wrong.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But he would abide by the results of the 2024 election?

Did you miss it when he incited his followers to storm the capitol and disrupt the final processes of the election by force?

As one of his acolytes said, were it (January 6th) to happen again, the crowd storming the capitol would be a lot better armed.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Did you miss it when he incited his followers to storm the capitol and disrupt the final processes of the election by force?

As one of his acolytes said, were it (January 6th) to happen again, the crowd storming the capitol would be a lot better armed.

So why does the election matter if he isn't going to abide by the results? Kind of seems moot.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Too bad this question wasn't asked in Germany in the 30's. A lot of folks knew "the leader" could be controlled and not really do anything. They were wrong.

A far-right ethnostate might setup concentration camps and then commit a violent ethnic cleansing to expand their own lands if we aren't careful.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

A far-right ethnostate might setup concentration camps and then commit a violent ethnic cleansing to expand their own lands if we aren't careful.

Doesn't have to have the exact same reasons, nor end results. Don't feel bad if you can't see the danger, most Germans didn't either.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So why does the election matter if he isn't going to abide by the results? Kind of seems moot.

*whoosh*