POTUS 2024 - Harris vs Trump - General Election Discussion

[RainMaker]

There's also a pretty sharp contrast between a Navy Captain who went on to become an astronaut and a dork like JD Vance.

[Mota]

Well we see the GOP's strategy, they are trying to impeach Harris. Obviously they are very afraid.

[RainMaker]

Do the betting markets have any odds on Trump backing out from his VP pick?

JD Vance is making history as the least liked VP nominee (non-incumbent) since 1980 following his/her party's convention. He's the first to have a net negative favorable rating.

Not surprising given how weak he ran in Ohio in 2022. Far worse than the average Ohio Republican. pic.twitter.com/hlZziePkKe

— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) July 24, 2024

[Lathum]

Trump will never drop Vance, that would mean admitting he was wrong and that is not in his DNA

[thesloppy]

That's hilarious. I thought Vance would be the pick since he had his head so far up Trump's ass for the last couple months, but I really had no idea how little charisma he had until he thrust himself onto the stage. A la DeSantis.

[Atocep]

Someone must have told Elon that Tesla sales are down since he started pushing Trump.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

double dola:

I understand not wanting Harris. She's actually pretty far down my list of preferred candidates. But I literally don't understand the criticism that what is happening is undemocratic.

Voters elected delegates, most of whom were pledged to Biden.
Biden withdraws before the convention and frees up his delegates.
Most of them have indicated that they will vote for Harris.
The DNC is allowing anyone to compete for delegates

What am I missing?

Let's be real, it would be political suicide to go up against Harris once Biden withdrew and gave her his support. At best, you'd be off the list for any future democrat post/position if she won. At worst, you'd be branded a racist the second you campaigned against a black woman that was given all this support. All for something that has virtually no chance of happening (you getting more delegates than Harris).

The idea that Harris had to "compete for delegates" is pretty laughable. The way I would frame it is "voters knew they had Harris on the ticket and Biden was old and frail. In essence, a vote for him was a vote for Harris potentially being president down the line. We just removed the "potentially"."

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by Arles

Let's be real, it would be political suicide to go up against Harris once Biden withdrew and gave her his support. At best, you'd be off the list for any future democrat post/position if she won. At worst, you'd be branded a racist the second you campaigned against a black woman that was given all this support. All for something that has virtually no chance of happening (you getting more delegates than Harris).

The idea that Harris had to "compete for delegates" is pretty laughable. The way I would frame it is "voters knew they had Harris on the ticket and Biden was old and frail. In essence, a vote for him was a vote for Harris potentially being president down the line. We just removed the "potentially"."

Do you think it's racist to refer to Harris as a DEI candidate?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

So if he had a debilitating stroke you would feel the same way? Primary voters chose the ticket knowing Harris was the backup to a very frail old man and they process is playing out.

I think the stroke scenario is different.

In terms of what they voted for, no they didn't vote for the 'ticket'. Nobody votes for VPs until the general, they aren't on any primary ballot. The presidential candidate is the only thing that's selected there.

There were lots of other options here after Biden dropped out than the 'just let the delegates decide'. A full nationwide primary is likely not possible logistically, but there could have been polling done to decide who people want, in the same way that which candidates make the debates in a large primary is chosen. They could have had, for example, democrats in state legislatures vote for who that state would support. At least those people are elected, unlike delegates. They could have done any number of other things in the limited time available. I'm sure much smarter people than me could come up with better ones.

What did they do? Eh, let the delegates pick. The people get no say in who their candidate is. I am not buying that for one second.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think the stroke scenario is different.

In terms of what they voted for, no they didn't vote for the 'ticket'. Nobody votes for VPs until the general, they aren't on any primary ballot. The presidential candidate is the only thing that's selected there.

There were lots of other options here after Biden dropped out than the 'just let the delegates decide'. A full nationwide primary is likely not possible logistically, but there could have been polling done to decide who people want, in the same way that which candidates make the debates in a large primary is chosen. They could have had, for example, democrats in state legislatures vote for who that state would support. At least those people are elected, unlike delegates. They could have done any number of other things in the limited time available. I'm sure much smarter people than me could come up with better ones.

What did they do? Eh, let the delegates pick. The people get no say in who their candidate is. I am not buying that for one second.

You have 2 months until early voting starts and you have to give your candidate a chance. There isn't a great choice here since Biden waited so long. Every day that draws the process out lowers your chances of winning. It's not ideal, but 99% of complaints right now seem to be from non-democrats.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Someone must have told Elon that Tesla sales are down since he started pushing Trump.

Did he push out some post or something?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think the stroke scenario is different.

In terms of what they voted for, no they didn't vote for the 'ticket'. Nobody votes for VPs until the general, they aren't on any primary ballot. The presidential candidate is the only thing that's selected there.

There were lots of other options here after Biden dropped out than the 'just let the delegates decide'. A full nationwide primary is likely not possible logistically, but there could have been polling done to decide who people want, in the same way that which candidates make the debates in a large primary is chosen. They could have had, for example, democrats in state legislatures vote for who that state would support. At least those people are elected, unlike delegates. They could have done any number of other things in the limited time available. I'm sure much smarter people than me could come up with better ones.

What did they do? Eh, let the delegates pick. The people get no say in who their candidate is. I am not buying that for one second.

and people would have been just as critical of the process.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

What did they do? Eh, let the delegates pick. The people get no say in who their candidate is. I am not buying that for one second.

That's how primaries work for both parties. Neither party has ever had a direct vote for their candidate to my knowledge.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Did he push out some post or something?

Said he won't be dontating to Trump's campaign and that he doesn't support a "cult of personality". Which is record etting levels of irony.

[Brian Swartz]

As discussed previously, no it isn't how they work. Delegates and electors in the electoral college vote for who the voters in the state selected. Not whoever they feel like.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Said he won't be dontating to Trump's campaign and that he doesn't support a "cult of personality". Which is record etting levels of irony.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

WOW!

That is......telling

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

As discussed previously, no it isn't how they work. Delegates and electors in the electoral college vote for who the voters in the state selected. Not whoever they feel like.

But you realize that guy has now backed out......

So what exactly should they do other than the logical choice of choosing his running mate.

[Brian Swartz]

I'm not in any way upset at the delegates for choosing Harris. What bothers me is the choice being given to them in the first place.

Originally Posted by Atocep

You have 2 months until early voting starts and you have to give your candidate a chance. There isn't a great choice here since Biden waited so long. Every day that draws the process out lowers your chances of winning. It's not ideal, but 99% of complaints right now seem to be from non-democrats.

Some of the options I mentioned could be done in less than a week. I agree with not dragging it out, but I would say the fact that Democrats not complaining about it is one of the most ... I want to say something like 'damning' but not really that as I don't like the connotations. It's just like what was mentioned before about them not wanting Biden to run and then not giving a crap when he did and primaries were cancelled and similar. They were perfectly fine dragging out the whole drama for weeks after the debate, so I don't buy the 'give the candidate a chance angle' a bit.

It tells me they don't really care about democracy.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

As discussed previously, no it isn't how they work. Delegates and electors in the electoral college vote for who the voters in the state selected. Not whoever they feel like.

It is precisely how it works. It's undemocratic but your vote never really mattered in the first place.

[Brian Swartz]

No it isn't. That's just false.

Give me one example of delegates voting contrary to the way the people in their state voted.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'm not in any way upset at the delegates for choosing Harris. What bothers me is the choice being given to them in the first place.



Some of the options I mentioned could be done in less than a week. I agree with not dragging it out, but I would say the fact that Democrats not complaining about it is one of the most ... I want to say something like 'damning' but not really that as I don't like the connotations. It's just like what was mentioned before about them not wanting Biden to run and then not giving a crap when he did and primaries were cancelled and similar.

It tells me they don't really care about democracy.

And every option you've put forward would have been pushed to the 5th circuit and held up indefinitely because none of those options have ever been part of the political process of choosing a Presidential candidate. Delegates have been.

[Brian Swartz]

Delegates choosing someone their state didn't choose also has never been part of the process. There is no answer that ever has been part of the process. Since this is historical territory, there are two choices:

- Find a way to do it democratically
- Find a way to do it undemocratically

Option B was chosen.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Delegates choosing someone their state didn't choose also has never been part of the process. There is no answer that ever has been part of the process. Since this is historical territory, there are two choices:

- Find a way to do it democratically
- Find a way to do it undemocratically

Option B was chosen.

By having delegates choose a candidate and moving forward the GOP can't weaponize the 5th circuit to shut things down. They can, and likely will, sue to stop it but it's already in motion and they can't put that cat back in the bag. Getting a halt put to what you're doing before anyone is selected because they went judge shopping probably seals things for Trump. The courts selecting a President isn't democratic either.

[Brian Swartz]

Just to add, there is zero doubt in my mind what the general reaction of the board here would be if this kind of thing were happening on the Republican side. There's tons of history to back that up. It's absolutely mindboggling to me that this isn't an obvious, huge issue to people here. I think if it were any other situation other than 'we must beat Trump by any means necessary' then it would be.

I guess I'm the one who's out of touch. Not the first time.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Just to add, there is zero doubt in my mind what the general reaction of the board here would be if this kind of thing were happening on the Republican side. There's tons of history to back that up. It's absolutely mindboggling to me that this isn't an obvious, huge issue to people here. I think if it were any other situation other than 'we must beat Trump by any means necessary' then it would be.

I guess I'm the one who's out of touch. Not the first time.

People are biased and want Trump to lose. News at 11.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Atocep

By having delegates choose a candidate and moving forward the GOP can't weaponize the 5th circuit to shut things down.

Why? How would that be any different? Again, people have absolutely gone ape in recent cycles about even the possibility of 'faithless electors'. This is exactly that thing. If you can sue over any of those other ideas, you can sue over this one.

[dubb93]

People have the same democratic ability to call for Kamala to step down as they did for Joe. You honestly think if Kamala was getting the same feedback from the party that Joe was getting that we wouldn’t have a change? March in the streets about it. You have options.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Why? How would that be any different? Again, people have absolutely gone ape in recent cycles about even the possibility of 'faithless electors'. This is exactly that thing. If you can sue over any of those other ideas, you can sue over this one.

They can sue, but since someone is chosen they can't stop Kamala from campaigning and dems moving forward with her as the candidate. Mike Johnson has said they're going to sue. If dems were trying to find a way to vote for a candidate the 5th circuit would certainly shut it down which now means you have no candidate and no way of choosing one.

We moved away from party caucuses choosing Presidential candidates for good reason. It had nothing to do with the will of the people and more about fulfilling promises and giving in to blackmail. We had blind, speechless William Crawford nominated at one point which is what eventually led to John Quincy Adams being President.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

No it isn't. That's just false.

Give me one example of delegates voting contrary to the way the people in their state voted.

1952 and 1968

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Atocep

They can sue, but since someone is chosen they can't stop Kamala from campaigning and dems moving forward with her as the candidate. Mike Johnson has said they're going to sue. If dems were trying to find a way to vote for a candidate the 5th circuit would certainly shut it down which now means you have no candidate and no way of choosing one.

That doesn't make any sense. If they can just choose Kamala via delegates, they can just choose someone any other way. If the courts can shut down those alternative methods then they can also shut down the nominating process on the 'faithless delegates' grounds.

[Masked]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That doesn't make any sense. If they can just choose Kamala via delegates, they can just choose someone any other way. If the courts can shut down those alternative methods then they can also shut down the nominating process on the 'faithless delegates' grounds.

Are you confusing the party nomination process (delegates) with the selection of electors for casting a vote in the Electoral College. Delegates have always been able to switch at the conventions in order to select the party's nominated though there has not been a brokered convention in a long time. Though, every year candidates back out, endorse a rival, and pledge their delegates to that rival.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

No it isn't. That's just false.

Give me one example of delegates voting contrary to the way the people in their state voted.

2012

Gingrich and Santorum released their delegates before the convention.

Santorum earned 245, received 9 at the convention.
Gingrich earned 138, received 0 at the convention.

[GrantDawg]

2008. Obama did not win enough delegates to secure the nomination. Clinton released her delegates, or Obama would have been selected by super-delegates.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[SirFozzie]

In honor of reports that the GOP has already tried to file for impeaching Harris...

I give you the:

GOP BOT2.024 Code upgrade

(FIND) Biden; (REPLACE) Harris

(ADD) Racism

(ADD) Sexism

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

In honor of reports that the GOP has already tried to file for impeaching Harris...

I give you the:

GOP BOT2.024 Code upgrade

He can’t impeach himself for not realizing she was black until now. And someone does have to pay so this all seems legit.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Arles

Let's be real, it would be political suicide to go up against Harris once Biden withdrew and gave her his support. At best, you'd be off the list for any future democrat post/position if she won. At worst, you'd be branded a racist the second you campaigned against a black woman that was given all this support. All for something that has virtually no chance of happening (you getting more delegates than Harris).

The idea that Harris had to "compete for delegates" is pretty laughable. The way I would frame it is "voters knew they had Harris on the ticket and Biden was old and frail. In essence, a vote for him was a vote for Harris potentially being president down the line. We just removed the "potentially"."

She competed for delegates in the same way that Alabama competes for points against Coastal Carolina.

Just because she won quickly and handedly does not mean that she didn't compete.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

I think that we are all (and I certainly include myself in this) just having trouble processing that the Dems seemed to handle a delicate situation in a politically smart way. Like, where's the two-week process that divides the party, depresses the base, turns off swing voters, and leads to 500 NYT articles?

[albionmoonlight]

For those wondering, this seems to be the process they are going to use:

FYI, the proposed Rules for the 2024 DNC will give potential Democratic presidential candidates until next Tuesday to gather pledges of support from at least 300 delegates (out of ~4000), no more than 50 from one state, one pledge per-delegate. Timing of roll call depends on whether it's contested.

[Lathum]

I find it comical the gop is telling the dems how to pick their nominee. Imaging if the script was flipped. The right would be losing their minds. As it is you can tell they are desperate and scared shitless.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

1952 and 1968

Or technically, earlier this month?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rnc-rol...f-states-2024/

But Haley announced last week she would be releasing those delegates and encouraged them to vote for Trump at the convention. State party rules dictate whether Haley's delegates are bound to her or whether they're free to vote for a different candidate since she withdrew from the presidential contest.

In Iowa, for example, Trump, Haley, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswaky secured delegates after the caucuses. But under state party rules, since Trump was the only candidate nominated at the convention, the entire 40-person delegation voted for him.

[CrimsonFox]

Bet you a million dollars that the GOP eventually starts putting out ads about Kamala's emails

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

She competed for delegates in the same way that Alabama competes for points against Coastal Carolina.

Just because she won quickly and handedly does not mean that she didn't compete.

Coastal Carolina would win of course...

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Coastal Carolina would win of course...

Wrong thread, I think you're looking for EA College Football 25

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

As discussed previously, no it isn't how they work. Delegates and electors in the electoral college vote for who the voters in the state selected. Not whoever they feel like.

This is incorrect. There is no law forcing the delegates and electors to vote for a particular person. They can in fact vote for who ever they would like at the convention or electoral college, and it does happen. The guard against this is that the candidate that won the vote to pick the delegates or electors vet the people they pick to represent them.

[JPhillips]

I don't understand the complaint. Are the delegates supposed to vote for Biden even though he has withdrawn? Or are you saying they should be free to vote for whomever they choose? That's what is happening, just most of them are choosing to support Harris.

How else should things work?

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Wrong thread, I think you're looking for EA College Football 25

Thanks

[albionmoonlight]

There's a funny thing--not sure if it is just American or if it is more universal--where no one (on either side) likes to just admit that they want a certain policy outcome.

Arguments are almost always fashioned along the lines of "I believe in [abstract procedural principle] that [would just so happen to result in my preferred policy outcome]."

We see it in everything from barroom discussions to Supreme Court opinions.

One of the things I find refreshing about Jon on this board is that he's one of the few people who just argues for the result he wants without adding this extra layer of "actually, I'm more concerned about . . . " to it.

[Flasch186]

There was that one time in fofc where someone stated and defended to the death that if something wasn’t explicitly stated then you couldn’t surmise it, like say the underlying intention of a policy, legislation or even code word/statement.

Good times


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Atocep]

I wonder what it could be that has some unity party supporters claiming Kamala isn't eligible for the presidency.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't see the difference between party and country here. It's as fundamental as anything could be to be able to choose the candidate. Otherwhise we might as well have the vote be based on party only and then have the winning party just pick the candidate after the election. The people deciding who they want to represent/be nominated from their party is as basic as it gets. It simply makes no sense to defend the idea of general-election democracy, but not primary-process democracy. Undermining one is undermining the other.

The difference between party and country is one of membership. It's the responsibility of "the party" to decide on the candidate, and the people vote on the candidates available. It doesn't mean people would vote on the party at all, it means the party needs to find a candidate who will win. Moreover, the process for determining who gets to call each party "their" party is flawed, and there's no good way to improve it. I've voted Democrat in every election but one, when I voted Libertarian, but I've never voted in a Democratic primary. Meanwhile, people who have split their vote much more down the middle, or even people who vote straight Republican, vote in them. I admit to some bias, in that I honestly don't care who wins the Democratic primary, since I know I'll prefer them over the Republican. But, even if I voted Democrat every election, it's not "my" party -- it's just the party I happen to prefer. I think the idea that "the people" should choose a party's candidate is a mentality created by a two-party system. If there were five or more parties, the idea of a primary for each of them would feel ridiculous.

The number of people comfortable calling for Biden to 'do the right thing' in nullifying in historic fashion the process that selected him in the first place - twice - is just mystifying. Many of them could probably care less, and quite possibly they shouldn't, but those people have lost quite a bit of respect from me in terms of how much I value their opinions.

This feels extremely disingenuous. He wasn't selected "twice", I think the other time you're referring to was for the 2020 election - that was a different thing. As for the time he was selected in 2024, are you seriously saying that choosing a different nominee from an election where he was virtually unopposed is "subverting democracy" to you?