The 2024 Presidential Nomination - GOP Debate #1 (Aug 23, 2023)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I had to look him up. A billionaire? Who graduated from a law school named after his family? An interesting pick.
I would personally pick Mark Kelly, but I doubt he would run. Newsom is already running without running. Whitmer would be a choice I would like but probably wouldn't win the nomination.

He's been one of the best governors in the country. Pulled Illinois out of some bad financial issues and has passed some popular legislation. He's also a pretty savvy politician which is lacking on the Democrat side. And it doesn't hurt that he can fund a chunk of his own campaign.

Shapiro and Whitmer would be good choices as well. As JPhillips said, the Dems have a deep bench of popular governors. Problem is that what makes them popular is also what would make the establishment fight against them.

[QuikSand]

Perfect video illustrating how Vivek Ramaswamy made his fortune on grifting investors.

People are catching on that he's a smooth talking psychopathic snake oil salesmanpic.twitter.com/z1pHEQmwet https://t.co/bx9de7XCOd

— Financelot (@FinanceLancelot) August 30, 2023

fun stuff

[PilotMan]

All great except that the right now believes that con men are actual business men who were smart enough to know how to make money. If someone else was hurt by them, then that's on them. Because the business (con) man was smarter and knew what he was doing. Furthermore, the supporter wasn't hurt by the businessman which makes it all ok, because they were smart enough to not be swindled and taken advantage of them. They place themselves on the same level as the con man, they are smart, you are dumb, the conman is great at business, he has my full support.



This is exactly how trump's supporters view him, and the only people who have been hurt and taken advantage of are the dumb ones who should have known better, and they are the enemy. It's the new mindset of the new right.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

All great except that the right now believes that con men are actual business men who were smart enough to know how to make money. If someone else was hurt by them, then that's on them. Because the business (con) man was smarter and knew what he was doing. Furthermore, the supporter wasn't hurt by the businessman which makes it all ok, because they were smart enough to not be swindled and taken advantage of them. They place themselves on the same level as the con man, they are smart, you are dumb, the conman is great at business, he has my full support.



This is exactly how trump's supporters view him, and the only people who have been hurt and taken advantage of are the dumb ones who should have known better, and they are the enemy. It's the new mindset of the new right.

All while they're buying Trump bucks and donating to build the wall.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Atocep

All while they're buying Trump bucks and donating to build the wall.

Be that as it may, he is dead right and that is how they see the world. Everyone else, including politicians, educators, scientist are all stupid and they are much smarter than them because they have "common sense." How they define common sense is much like how most people define "old wives tales."

[thesloppy]

When pressed most of these same folks will also admit that they know Trump lies constantly, but is also somehow telling only truth about crucial issues, if you're 'smart' enough to interpret him.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

All great except that the right now believes that con men are actual business men who were smart enough to know how to make money. If someone else was hurt by them, then that's on them. Because the business (con) man was smarter and knew what he was doing. Furthermore, the supporter wasn't hurt by the businessman which makes it all ok, because they were smart enough to not be swindled and taken advantage of them. They place themselves on the same level as the con man, they are smart, you are dumb, the conman is great at business, he has my full support.

This is exactly how trump's supporters view him, and the only people who have been hurt and taken advantage of are the dumb ones who should have known better, and they are the enemy. It's the new mindset of the new right.

Exactly. It's pretty telling that none of the candidates attacked Vivek for being a con artist.

[Galaril]

New poll out Trump 40% Biden 39% and Green Party 3 %. Won’t say I to.d people so but yeah we are going to get a mad man as president next year.

[Brian Swartz]

It's over a year until the election. If it looks that way in the spring, that's when I would start getting concerned.

I don't want to presume, but my impression is that the idea of Trump winning again is so catastrophic that it causes a primal reaction in some people, over-riding the way they would normally look at a situation if it were 'Generic Politician Y' running or something.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's over a year until the election. If it looks that way in the spring, that's when I would start getting concerned.

I don't want to presume, but my impression is that the idea of Trump winning again is so catastrophic that it causes a primal reaction in some people, over-riding the way they would normally look at a situation if it were 'Generic Politician Y' running or something.

True.

[Swaggs]

Count me in the "I need to see it to believe it" column with elections post-Roe v Wade being overturned. There have been a number of statewide elections (plus the 2022 midterms) that have indicated that voters are still energized and where the polls have underestimated margins. Trump, Nikki Haley, Nancy Mace and a handful of others seem to be banging the drum that it is a losing issue, but the GOP base seems to want to take things further in that direction by making laws more restrictive and punitive to doctors and mothers.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Count me in the "I need to see it to believe it" column with elections post-Roe v Wade being overturned. There have been a number of statewide elections (plus the 2022 midterms) that have indicated that voters are still energized and where the polls have underestimated margins. Trump, Nikki Haley, Nancy Mace and a handful of others seem to be banging the drum that it is a losing issue, but the GOP base seems to want to take things further in that direction by making laws more restrictive and punitive to doctors and mothers.

GOP insiders and strategists are expecting heavy losses as long as Trump is on the ballot or directing the party. I saw one quoted as saying 2024, 2028, 2032, or until he's dead"

The special elections and statewides you mention are also far more accurate of a gauge of where things are than polling. I'm not saying it's a given, but Trump plus Roe is going to be incredibly difficult for the party to overcome.

[GrantDawg]

I wish I had you guy's faith in that.

[thesloppy]

I am anxious as hell too, but why would you choose to believe polling accuracy, down to the point, given like the last 10 years as evidence?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I am anxious as hell too, but why would you choose to believe polling accuracy, down to the point, given like the last 10 years as evidence?

I promise you, my nerves are not solely based on polling.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I promise you, my nerves are not solely based on polling.

Ditto.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I am anxious as hell too, but why would you choose to believe polling accuracy, down to the point, given like the last 10 years as evidence?

Speaking only for myself, I don't believe it down to the point. I do think that, while not as accurate as it used to be, the polls are still a heck of a lot more accurate than somebody's intuition or gut feeling. They've still been quite close in the last two presidential elections for example.

Personally, I think the most sensible thing to do is combine the polls with what happens in special elections and such. As many have observed, the 'grocery store stupid' argument, i.e. inflation, is really a great equalizer here. The number of people who just don't care about anything else if they don't like the economic situation is ... not small, and people vote on that more for presidents than they do for congressmen or state referenda. That's ... not wise, but it's what happens. I think it's Biden's election to lose, but also that most of what could make him lose it is not in his control. It's very likely to tip on whether people have confidence in the economy when it comes time to vote.

If things have improved enough by then, and I expect they will, I have very little doubt he wins. If they haven't, all bets are off.

[larrymcg421]

I believe that poll is a roughly accurate reflection of who people say they will vote for in 2024. There are a very large number of undecideds. Biden has much more potential to win those voters, and I think it's not particularly close.

[Lathum]

Also need to remember while most dems and independents don't want Biden to runs, if he does and it is against Trump it will be at worst a repeat of 2020 and they will all vote him.

Majority of Americans, including a lot of Rs know how awful a second Trump term would be.

[Sweed]

That there is even a discussion going on about Trump tells me how bad/dangerous things are. The trouble with the "Trump candidates" all lost is they, for the most part, didn't lose by much. None of these elections should have been close, hell none of these candidates should have made it on the ballot.

While I try to comfort myself with the idea that the middle/undecided and independents (me) will go with Biden knowing how bad a second Trump term would be, I'm not counting on it. Hell in my state, Iowa, the majority don't think Trump has done anything wrong. They may be to the point of not totally supporting him, but he's not a D so he gets their vote. He will win here and it won't be close.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I am anxious as hell too, but why would you choose to believe polling accuracy, down to the point, given like the last 10 years as evidence?

Is this a widely held view... that recent years have basically discredited polling overall?

[Atocep]

I want to add that I think Trump made a mistake by skipping the debate. He's best at sucking all the air out of a room and allowing other candidates to stand out on their own in any way goes against what works for him. He's still easily the favorite but he's lost a little ground and he doesn't want GOP voters to get comfortable with alternatives.

Edit: to add, I'm not sure he has the energy to campaign heavily this time around. He loves his rallies, but I don't think he wants anything to do with an actual campaign at this point. He wants to fundraiser, hold rallies, and sit back and win with as little effort as possible in the hopes of being able to eventually kill off these indictments.

[GrantDawg]

That Haley number is interesting:

CNN/SSRS ‘24 general election trial heats:

Trump 47%
Biden 46%

DeSantis 47%
Biden 47%

Haley 49%
Biden 43%

Pence 46%
Biden 44%

Scott 46%
Biden 44%

Biden 46%
Ramaswamy 45%

Christie 44%
Biden 42%https://t.co/sONmyvLsaT

— Steve Kornacki (@SteveKornacki) September 7, 2023

[Lathum]

Great poll for Biden

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Great poll for Biden

He's gottem right where he wants them. Things will really take off when he loses three-four more points.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

He's gottem right where he wants them. Things will really take off when he loses three-four more points.

You realize 60% of the participants were right or right leaning independents?

[GrantDawg]

...would be for the GOP primary poll that was also part of this survey. For that, they would have wanted a larger pool of R's, because they were asking many questions specific to the GOP primary. But for the "Biden vs...." general election match-ups, here's the methodology: pic.twitter.com/pMkKgtJODN

— Steve Kornacki (@SteveKornacki) September 7, 2023

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

That Haley number is interesting:

It is.

Ready for the GOP field to get whittled down to 3-4 and hope she makes it.

[Lathum]

Confusing because the original release clearly states oversampling of republicans and right leaning independents.

[Lathum]

Just heard on the radio the GOP has won the popular vote once since 1992. That is astonishing.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Just heard on the radio the GOP has won the popular vote once since 1992. That is astonishing.

Yep, and the one time they won it in that period was by just 2.5%

[Brian Swartz]

Modern polling is always complicated. It's unfortunately never as simple as 'pick 2000 people at random and report what they said' since a sizable amount of any such group is never voting anyway and/or isn't representative in a zillion other ways.

[Swaggs]

And the GOP has only gotten more than 50% of the vote once since 1988. And just barely, George W. Bush got 50.7 in 2004.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

And the GOP has only gotten more than 50% of the vote once since 1988. And just barely, George W. Bush got 50.7 in 2004.

Which is weird because Kerry was actually pretty close to winning in the electoral college despite losing the popular vote.

[Thomkal]

Loved seeing/hearing most of the fans at the Iowa/Iowa St game boo and give the finger to Trump, DeSantis, and Vivek today

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Loved seeing/hearing most of the fans at the Iowa/Iowa St game boo and give the finger to Trump, DeSantis, and Vivek today

But i was told they spread rose petals and showered him with love?

[GrantDawg]

Yup, only true love:

NEW: Iowans flicking off Trump at the Iowa-Iowa state game today. �� pic.twitter.com/OiYAr8J3da

— Cryptid Politics ������ (@CryptidPolitics) September 9, 2023

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Loved seeing/hearing most of the fans at the Iowa/Iowa St game boo and give the finger to Trump, DeSantis, and Vivek today

Incivility is unquestionably a thing to celebrate.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by whomario

But i was told they spread rose petals and showered him with love?

Only in Dinesh's new book, due out next month!

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Incivility is unquestionably a thing to celebrate.

Those assholes deserve every ounce of it.

[Ghost Econ]

I mean, appeasement with Nazis worked well the last time so....

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Incivility is unquestionably a thing to celebrate.

So if someone bullies you and constantly treats you like shit you just take it?

I suspect I know the answer but figured I would ask anyway.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Incivility is unquestionably a thing to celebrate.

Normally I would agree with you on this Brian, but the entire Republican Party as it stands today wants to overthrow the govt and rule forever-so yeah I'm okay with it here.

[jbpostbot]

sometimes you just gotta call an asswhite an asswhite

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Incivility is unquestionably a thing to celebrate.

Should we be civil if they win and start implementing project 2025?

[Lathum]

Video: See the moment Biden press conference ends abruptly in Hanoi, Vietnam | CNN Politics

This guy isn't going to win, and certainly can't govern for another 5.5 years. If the Dems don't get it together Trumps going to win and destroy the nation.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Those assholes deserve every ounce of it.

I think virtues like civility are important not because people deserve it. They only mean anything and have value when we use them with people who don't deserve it. It's like free speech. Popular speech doesn't need protection because nobody ever wants to ban it. It's the unpopular speech, the people saying the things we don't like, that reveal whether we think it's a principle worth defending or just a bunch of hot air.

Originally Posted by Ghost Econ

I mean, appeasement with Nazis worked well the last time so....

Godwin's Law Alert. Also, see next response ...

Originally Posted by Lathum

if someone bullies you and constantly treats you like shit you just take it?

Nope. I'm not advocating relaxing in the slightest politican opposition to politicians who are advocating policies and demonstrating behaviors we disagree with. We can and should do all of those things ... and still treat those people decently. As mentioned above, not based on them deserving it or not, that's irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Atocep

Should we be civil if they win and start implementing project 2025?

Yes, the same way the ones who think Democrats are traitors worse than ISIS should also do so.

If we say (and I do) that what passes as conservatism in the US today is dangerous to the republic, corrosive and destructive to the institutions and ideals of democracy, elements of public behavior are morally reprenhensible, and all the rest of that, we cut the ground from underneath our feet if we aren't being examples of how people who disagree with each other politically should treat each other. Jumping down in the pit with them just minimizes the distinction and abandons a portion of the moral high ground.

[Edward64]

I think it's overstated, in the pic below, I see 5 people with fingers up and 3 of them are using middle, and the other 2 are using index (for whatever reason).

But I'm overall okay with the middle finger. Not because "the other guy started it first" or "both sides" rationale but because (1) he put himself out there in public, campaigning (2) I believe boo's should be allowed on the campaign trail unless it disrupts like in a debate, town meeting scenario (3) a finger is not much different from booing and (4) ultimately I don't believe it rises to level of not being civil. What may have been the standard(s) back 20-30 years ago has change and boos and fingers are relatively mild nowadays. There's no going back to those days.

What does cross the line for me are going to a person's home to protest (SCOTUS), disrupting a family meal (okay with business meals) and things like that.

https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/sta...985697/photo/1

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think virtues like civility are important not because people deserve it. They only mean anything and have value when we use them with people who don't deserve it. It's like free speech. Popular speech doesn't need protection because nobody ever wants to ban it.

I'm going to stop you right there. A lot of the country has said "hey, maybe we should be nicer to LGBTQ people" and the Republican response has been "no, let's ban, ostracize, and/or kill them." That's one example.

The ship on civil society sailed years ago, maybe when a Republican President told half the population that they were "with the terrorists". Your desire to bring it back is admirable, but you're swimming against the tide, here.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

If we say (and I do) that what passes as conservatism in the US today is dangerous to the republic, corrosive and destructive to the institutions and ideals of democracy, elements of public behavior are morally reprenhensible, and all the rest of that, we cut the ground from underneath our feet if we aren't being examples of how people who disagree with each other politically should treat each other. Jumping down in the pit with them just minimizes the distinction and abandons a portion of the moral high ground.

This is the core of your misunderstanding.

The issue isn't that Republicans are dangerous to the republic, corrosive and destructive to the institutions and ideals of democracy, etc.... Although that is all true.

The issue is that the right-wing that will be empowered should they succeed electorally in 2025 has stated explicitly that they will dramatically curtail the personal liberties of anyone they don't like, up to and including killing them.

Republican politicians in power are already an existential threat for a lot of Americans. Civility isn't going to solve that. Civility didn't save those police officers on Capitol Hill, and wouldn't have saved Mike Pence if the mob got a hold of him.