POTUS 2024 - Harris vs Trump - General Election Discussion

[Lathum]

Pelosi didn't exactly give Biden a ringing endorsement this morning

[Ghost Econ]

Something something pot and kettle

[RainMaker]

It feels like they're all playing a weird game. They can't call Biden out because they fear retaliation and scorn from the establishment. But they also know when he loses in November, the floodgates are going to open and so many bad stories are going to come out about his condition from staffers that they sort of want to position themselves as not too supportive.

At this point it seems like their best option is to move on to trying to save what they can of the Senate and House. Polls look incredibly good for them in those areas but Biden is going to drag down that whole ticket so saving what they can should be a priority.

Then again, maybe they find it easier to be in the minority.

[RainMaker]

Supposedly the recent internal Dem polling is incredibly bad so that's why you're going to see some politicians distance themselves. I'm sure New York has narrowed a lot, but I highly doubt it's in play. Seems more that people in vulnerable House districts are just asking for help because Biden is dragging them down.

Just a moment...

[Lathum]

All because of the hubris of a feeble old man.

[Ksyrup]

I was just going to say that I saw something about NY possibly moving toward a toss-up. Jesus.

What's happening with the Dems on this issue is the same as the way the GOP has given way to Trump to the extent that the party and process has proven to be much more important than doing what's right/necessary for the country. Except the crucial difference is that for the GOP, Trumpism drives votes (at least for Trump himself) whereas the Dems are falling in line behind a guy bleeding support. Now, it's certainly not good or fair or right (or whatever way you want to characterize it) that a convicted felon, twice-impeached, civilly adjudged rapist, would-be authoritarian and all-around POS like Trump appears impervious to losing enough support to imperil his campaign, while Biden's issues are brought on by Father Time (through no fault of his own), but... here we are.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

would-be authoritarian

I'm gonna just ignore the rest of the stuff & focus on one particularly important point that I'm pretty sure you're overlooking: you just hit on one of the primary (conscious & sub-conscious) appealing points for many Trump voters.

Many of us want someone who is willing to use their power for good ... and you're badly overlooking just how much many of us look forward -- more than just about anything honestly, or certainly at least equal to -- to seeing a very large stick used 'bout the head & shoulders of what we see as some of the worst people to ever step foot on the planet.

That authoritarian thing? That's a plus, not a minus.

[Ksyrup]

I completely understand that, comrade.

[cuervo72]

It's been too long I forget who all the "worst people" are.

Is my non-binary kid one of these worst people? Their mixed-girlfriend? That's what I want to know. (Pretty sure I know what others under that authoritarian umbrella think.)

[Ksyrup]

It's whomever they decide to hate at whatever point they have the power/authority to [deport/punish/imprison/kill] those people. You know, making American great again, and all that jazz.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Many of us want someone who is willing to use their power for good ...

And you're not afraid that a person given that power will abuse that power?

Especially a felon who has also been found civilly liable for sexual abuse. Not to mention that sham university he ran. Oh and he let a mob ransack the capitol violating his presidential oath.

But I'm sure things will turn out fine.

I really wish both parties weren't dumpster fires right now.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That authoritarian thing? That's a plus, not a minus.

Here's the thing; one of the implied effects of authoritarianism is the people putting him in office losing that voice - if actual authoritarianism happens. I know you personally have made a number of statements over the years about some of things we've lost as a nation, the republican structure of the government, the importance of those distinctions, etc.

If modern conservatives have reached the point where they just think we need a king, they should just come out and say that, that they want to abolish what remains of the Constitution, shred the thing and 'start over', whatever that means. What you can't have is as any concept of maintaining our present freedoms and institutions and that kind of thing also. You have to pick one or the other.

[JPhillips]

Jon's totally fine shredding the Constitution and starting over with a dictator. He's been very clear that he favors that over democracy.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by KSyrup

agree with you that these are all choices we (collectively) make. Everyone is free to vote for whomever they want. That's all theory, except for a few percent of people who (for a variety of reasons, most of which are largely determined independent of each other - meaning, there's no broad collective group consensus to those votes) decide not to vote for an R or a D.

Then what's the point of the angst about third parties? If we are going to dismiss the idea of some voters changing their behavior, why not say that about all voters? What gives us the right to apply a special standard to those specific voters?

Originally Posted by KSyrup

The reason why I say this is "theory" and not reality is that what you're proposing will never happen

I don't expect it to happen either, but I reject the categorization as theory. It's a 100%, demonstrable-by-logic possibility. If you really fully take the idea that people are just going to do what they have done and it's not gonna change no matter what, it would seem to me the rational thing would be to advocate for a complete change in form of government because we can't expect people to make a reasonable choice on their own behalf.

[Lathum]

Rob Reiner and Clooney both calling for Biden to step aside. This is snowballing fast.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I really wish both parties weren't dumpster fires right now.

We definitely agree on that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Rob Reiner and Clooney both calling for Biden to step aside. This is snowballing fast.

Clooney I guess saw him recently at an event and said he was pretty much cooked mentally. Did see Fetterman threaten his wife for it which shows how much Dems take any dissent in the party.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Rob Reiner and Clooney both calling for Biden to step aside. This is snowballing fast.

Well, if "Meathead" said it then I'm sure Biden will listen.

[thesloppy]

We've been waiting for 20 years for Jon to define any of the things and/or people that he insists are ruining his life. The fact that he can't or won't should speak for how serious those concerns are.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Here's the thing; one of the implied effects of authoritarianism is the people putting him in office losing that voice - if actual authoritarianism happens.

We're not dealing with that abuse already? C'mon. Some good old fashioned political persecution would be nothing more than overdue payback.

If modern conservatives have reached the point where they just think we need a king, they should just come out and say that, that they want to abolish what remains of the Constitution, shred the thing and 'start over', whatever that means.

I'm pretty sure you could find me saying that democracy has been proven to be a failed experiment. If not, feel free to consider this as that very thing. I'm not alone in that frankly, I'm just more okay with saying it aloud than most.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

We've been waiting for 20 years for Jon to define any of the things and/or people that he insists are ruining his life. The fact that he can't or won't should speak for how serious those concerns are.

One time the immigrant door dash driver forgot his fries when he ordered five guys.

[stevew]

Kamala needs to step up. It’s time to take the presidency

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Then what's the point of the angst about third parties? If we are going to dismiss the idea of some voters changing their behavior, why not say that about all voters? What gives us the right to apply a special standard to those specific voters?



I don't expect it to happen either, but I reject the categorization as theory. It's a 100%, demonstrable-by-logic possibility. If you really fully take the idea that people are just going to do what they have done and it's not gonna change no matter what, it would seem to me the rational thing would be to advocate for a complete change in form of government because we can't expect people to make a reasonable choice on their own behalf.

Once again - you are using terms like logical and rational as if because that's the case, it necessarily follows that people will do the rational/logic thing. And I'm saying, the only thing that's stopping people from doing that is... human nature! That makes it a quaint/naive theory or whatever terminology doesn't offend you. Everyone getting the Covid jab was a 100% demonstrable-by-logic possibility, too. We saw how that went.

[RainMaker]

History shows that people who clamor for authoritarianism think they'll be the boot, but end up just licking it before getting stomped out by it.

Any authoritarian regime would be focused strictly on benefiting a select few people financially. They do not plan to associate with most of the public and they don't really care about the silly culture wars. And they sure as shit aren't deporting millions and fucking over big business that call the shots anyway. There's a reason both sides have nearly identical views on immigration now but refuse to pass anything.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by KSyrup

you are using terms like logical and rational as if because that's the case, it necessarily follows that people will do the rational/logic thing

No I'm not. I'm talking about how to assess the situation, not in any way expecting people to necessarily behave rationally. I once again invite you to answer the question I opened my last post with; why are we singling out third-party voters if voters are just gonna do what voters are gonna do anyway?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We're not dealing with that abuse already? C'mon. Some good old fashioned political persecution would be nothing more than overdue payback.

No, we aren't at all dealing with that, and the point is as RainMaker points out that you can't control an authoritarian regime; it is very likely to be authoritarian in ways you don't want, and contrary to the interests you want to put it in place for (regardless of what those are). That's just ... how that kind of thing works.

Regardless, thanks for clarifying your views on our current system. It's the opposite of many things I've seen you say in the past, so I'll try to keep that in mind in the future.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

No I'm not. I'm talking about how to assess the situation, not in any way expecting people to necessarily behave rationally. I once again invite you to answer the question I opened my last post with; why are we singling out third-party voters if voters are just gonna do what voters are gonna do anyway?

I don't understand the question. I'm not "singling out" anyone. I was simply pointing out that a certain small percent of the electorate do vote 3rd party, but not in any ways that are cohesive or are useful to transform our system into a 3+ party system. The remainder - the vast majority of voters - automatically default to either/or D and R.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

No, we aren't at all dealing with that

Then we hardly have any common ground to base much conversation on I'm afraid. And I'm not even a Trump guy to the extent I would have voted for him in the primary. Had zero intention of doing so, did not do so, and said freely before the field was eliminated that I hoped he'd stand down for someone better.

So if we're that far apart, just imagine the disconnect that exists between what you said there and genuinely enthusiastic Trump voters.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't understand the question. I'm not "singling out" anyone. I was simply pointing out that a certain small percent of the electorate do vote 3rd party, but not in any ways that are cohesive or are useful to transform our system into a 3+ party system. The remainder - the vast majority of voters - automatically default to either/or D and R.

How else would you transform the country away from a 2-party system that doesn't involve voting for 3rd parties?

[Ksyrup]

Much like for the white Christian nationalists, Trump is just the conduit I assume. I mean, yes, there are some people who truly believe he's some sort of savior, but for a lot of more practical people who want to transform this country into something it's never been (which is why the MAGA thing is so ironic), I assume it's just a transactional affinity.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How else would you transform the country away from a 2-party system that doesn't involve voting for 3rd parties?

Voting for 3rd parties in the way we do now does nothing to transform our system. Hence, we're still a 2-party system despite the 3rd party options we've had for decades that attract a miniscule number of voters every year. You need real options - parties that attract mainstream voters away from R and D in large numbers - and that has to start with people who would otherwise be identified as R or D breaking off and creating viable party options.

The only notable 3rd party to put a dent in the popular vote in the past 100 years was Ross Perot, and he wasn't a party, he was a personality. We haven't come close to trying to replicate a European-style multi-party electoral system. The people apparently don't want it, and R/D certain don't want any other competition.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Voting for 3rd parties in the way we do now does nothing to transform our system. Hence, we're still a 2-party system despite the 3rd party options we've had for decades that attract a miniscule number of voters every year. You need real options - parties that attract mainstream voters away from R and D in large numbers - and that has to start with people who would otherwise be identified as R or D breaking off and creating viable party options.

The only notable 3rd party to put a dent in the popular vote in the past 100 years was Ross Perot, and he wasn't a party, he was a personality. We haven't come close to trying to replicate a European-style multi-party electoral system. The people apparently don't want it, and R/D certain don't want any other competition.

So how do you do it? How do voters who want more than 2 shitty choices put pressure on the system? Because voting seems like the best way. Yeah their candidate won't win, but it's a way for the other 2 parties to not ignore them.

And I disagree on Perot being just a personality. His platform was centered around issues that the other two parties had come to a consensus on (free trade, deficit spending, corruption, direct democracy). Those were important issues to some voters at the time and he was the only one who held that position.

Yes, a 3rd party vote today will not lead to that candidate winning. But it does put pressure on the other 2 parties to listen to those voters. And if they don't (like Hillary), they can enjoy crying for the rest of their life about the evil Russians or whatever.

[GrantDawg]

I have already said this before, but if there was ever a year someone could have capitalized on an independent run, it was this year. Instead, we have a brain-wormed nut job trading off his family name
The answer to how we move beyond a two party system is ranked choice voting. That is the only realistic way it is ever going to happen.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

Another Dem congressman (that makes 9) calls for Biden to step aside, along with the first Dem senator to officially go on record. Meanwhile, Axios is reporting that Chuck Schumer is leaving the idea that Biden might be replaced open in his conversations with donors.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

The answer to how we move beyond a two party system is ranked choice voting. That is the only realistic way it is ever going to happen.

As mentioned previously, Australia has had ranked choice voting for a long time and they still have two dominant parties that the public generally thinks are crap. That doesn't solve the problem. The only way to change it is for the electorate itself to change.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So how do you do it? How do voters who want more than 2 shitty choices put pressure on the system? Because voting seems like the best way. Yeah their candidate won't win, but it's a way for the other 2 parties to not ignore them.

And I disagree on Perot being just a personality. His platform was centered around issues that the other two parties had come to a consensus on (free trade, deficit spending, corruption, direct democracy). Those were important issues to some voters at the time and he was the only one who held that position.

Yes, a 3rd party vote today will not lead to that candidate winning. But it does put pressure on the other 2 parties to listen to those voters. And if they don't (like Hillary), they can enjoy crying for the rest of their life about the evil Russians or whatever.

Not unless there is some large movement of voters. Right now the way it works, it's just a calculus by each major party as to whether a 3rd party hurts or helps them in any given swing state. That's it. It only pressures one off the two major parties in a specific, limited scenario that makes a difference in an election. And, the only pressure it puts on the 2 major parties is for them to make it HARDER for 3rd parties to gain traction. It's not like they want the competition.

How do we do it? It won't happen - not in my lifetime. It's kinda like making a generational change in behavior. Take smoking, for example. Except you don't just need some people to change their behavior, you need a lot of them, AND you need them to all do it at roughly the same time so that it amounts to some sort of critical mass affecting the system.

[larrymcg421]

In Australia, the Green Party has received double digit % in 4 of the last 5 elections. Third parties combined for more 32% of the first ballot vote in the most recent election, and they won 16 seats in the 151 member legislature. Third parties are far more vibrant there than they are here.

[GrantDawg]

Got to start somewhere...

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

I would like to see a strong 3rd party in the US.

But for today, now, 2024 it won’t happen. Start in 2025 but right now, a vote for 3rd party won’t help Joe/Dems and therefore directly or indirectly helps Trump.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We're not dealing with that abuse already? C'mon. Some good old fashioned political persecution would be nothing more than overdue payback.

This is fucking stupid. Trump was involved with over 4,000 lawsuits even before running for President. He's always been a crook. You just don't care about law and order.

[BYU 14]

How can anyone not think either of these two candidates are better than Chase Oliver, the libertarian nominee.

America would have their eyes opened if he was allowed to debate Weekend at Bernie's Biden and the Orange Clown criminal. Of course it still wouldn't matter in the end because of how broken our political system is.

[RainMaker]

Oliver has some bad views but is miles better than Biden and Trump. I was going to skip the race but might throw him a bone.

[Edward64]

Nice recap of what’s been happening to Joe and the feedback he’s getting.

I think odds have gone up significantly that he’ll step down (in)voluntarily. Kamala would be the consensus replacement right now. I’m sure she’s been asked the what-if question, wonder how she replied?

Biden’s political position is rapidly deteriorating as criticalÂ*newsÂ*conference looms | CNN Politics

[Brian Swartz]

I think the odds have gone down. He made a very clear statement that would not be happening.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think the odds have gone down. He made a very clear statement that would not be happening.

I thought it was pretty much a done deal as well, but there are more and more cracks in his support showing. As much as they are trying to shore things up, it looks like there i still some make or break things coming up, like this life press conference today. I expect it will go fine and it will smooth some jitters, but if it goes poorly or they cut it very short it might start getting very messy. Or messier than it already is.

[Mota]

I heard Trump interview with Hannity yesterday and his first ideas are great, but then he continues to talk, and his rants get crazier and crazier as he goes. Eventually all the worst countries in the world are taking their prisoners out of jail and flying them into the USA, where they are greeted by Biden personally and given voting ability.

He reminds me of my old boss, who got everywhere in his career because he spoke very confidently, even though most of what he said was completely made up on the spot. Our job as his inner circle was to keep pointing him in the right directtion, and provide him with factual data to keep him on track, because we'd be the ones left to clean up his mess afterwards if we let him stray too far. Trump obviously does not have that.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think the odds have gone down. He made a very clear statement that would not be happening.

On PredictIt, Biden shot up to .60 (and Kamala down to .27) after the letter a couple days ago. The recent news has shifted to Kamala at .44 and Biden at .40

[Brian Swartz]

Either I'm completely wrong, or those people making such bets are. I would put the chances of Biden resigning as Democratic nominee in the single digits.

[QuikSand]

Right now on PredictIt, a real-money prediction site, it's:

Trump 61
Harris 23
Biden 21

https://www.predictit.org/markets/de...ntial-election

I think that's a massive gut (over)reaction by the panicky class, underestimating the levers that would need to be pulled perfectly to make a candidate swap here. While I think it's tempting to say that a Trump win seems super secure, I think the value there is Biden - not that I think he wins, but I think the ship gets at least somewhat righted, and he bumps back to the lower tier of what we expect in a two-party system, somewhere north of 40.

[Atocep]

Project 2025 vs Gay Furry Hackers is somewhat under the radar right now for how funny the entire exchange has been.