The 2024 Presidential Election - Joe vs Trump - how will you vote?

[Edward64]

From the other thread, lot's of talk about Joe and being unhappy about him for various reasons.

Assuming it comes down to Joe vs Trump, and when it's Tue, Nov 5, 2024 ...

What will you do?

[Kodos]

I will vote for Joe early and often.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'll end up voting Trump, though I'd much rather be voting DeSantis.

[NobodyHere]

3rd Party for the moment.

[MJ4H]

easiest decision of my life

[molson]

Joe all the way.

I register Republican so I can vote in their important red state primaries (though we're trying to get an open primary law on the ballot) - I'll vote Haley there if she's still in it. Or Christie. Otherwise I'll probably leave that one blank.

[Michigania]

Joe. He's too old, but I won't ever consider voting for any Republican, for any office, until DT is 6-feet-under.

[Izulde]

Joe without any particular enthusiasm as has been my standard for every election in my lifetime. I'll probably never be able to vote in a general election for a Presidential candidate I'm enthusiastic about. Just a whole lot of anti-votes.

[Brian Swartz]

It's probably going to my biggest 'hold my nose' vote ever, but I'll vote for Biden again. The alternative is unacceptable.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It's probably going to my biggest 'hold my nose' vote ever, but I'll vote for Biden again. The alternative is unacceptable.

Pretty much how I feel, though if by some miracle Nikki Haley got the nod, I would vote for her. Trump and DeSantis would never be an option in any lifetime.

[molson]

My one conservative relative's expressed angst over "the Biden administration" is good proof to me that he's going a good job. And you are truly voting for an administration rather than a guy. It doesn't really matter to me if Biden spends most of a second term napping.

[GrantDawg]

It feels like a moderate, sane Republican would run away with this election. But then if you really think about, not only would someone sane never win the GOP nomination but Trump supporters would stay home instead of voting for anyone reasonable.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

It feels like a moderate, sane Republican would run away with this election. But then if you really think about, not only would someone sane never win the GOP nomination but Trump supporters would stay home instead of voting for anyone reasonable.

One thing I noticed in the polls is that Kennedy hurts a moderate Republican way more than it hurts Trump. Like Haley is ahead in most head-to-head matchups with Biden but actually falls behind in some states when Kennedy is added.

Biden is down to pretty much every candidate so I don't know if the moderate Republican will matter much. Especially if Kennedy stays in.

[Atocep]

I don't think incumbents trailing that this point in an election cycle tells us much. Obama was nearly down double digits around this time during his first term. If he's still trailing, and running, in 6 months dems should start to worry.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Obama was nearly down double digits around this time during his first term.

No he wasn't. He was consistently ahead of Romney with some tightening late.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

One thing I noticed in the polls is that Kennedy hurts a moderate Republican way more than it hurts Trump. Like Haley is ahead in most head-to-head matchups with Biden but actually falls behind in some states when Kennedy is added.

Biden is down to pretty much every candidate so I don't know if the moderate Republican will matter much. Especially if Kennedy stays in.

I wouldn't put too much faith in polls with 3rd party candidates added. The 3rd party candidates get way more votes in polls than they do general elections.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No he wasn't. He was consistently ahead of Romney with some tightening late.

6 months prior to this stage, but Obama was down 8 to a generic candidate and doing poorly with independents. He did better in head to heads. Romney was the favorite at this point back then, but wasn't a sure thing.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/148487/...ead-obama.aspx

By December he was tied with a generic candidate, but his approval ratings were sinking:

Battleground Poll: Obama vulnerable - POLITICO


Romney was a bad candidate and likely saved Obama in 2012. He had very little appeal outside of traditional evangelist republicans.

[RainMaker]

Just saying nothing close to how bad Biden is polling.

realclearpolitics.com

[RainMaker]

Like imagine how shitty a candidate you have to be to be down in every battleground state to Donald Trump.

[GrantDawg]

The same battlegrounds he barely won in 2020? How is it that surprising?

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

Agreed GrantDawg.

It's not about how bad of a candidate Biden is. It's about how bad of an electorate the United States has.

[RainMaker]

Same excuse after Hillary, another shitty candidate, lost.

[Brian Swartz]

I don't understand looking at Trump being relevant for as long as he has been and concluding that candidate quality is the primary problem. I'd much prefer it if it was the problem, because that's something easier to fix.

[flere-imsaho]

We have an electorate problem and an electoral system problem, and yeah maybe a candidate problem, though it's likely a byproduct of the first two problems.

This is the part that the Justice Democrats steadfastly refuse to understand.

But sure, let's bring out the whole "Bernie would have won!" argument. That'll be fun.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Same excuse after Hillary, another shitty candidate, lost.

Less shitty than the other candidates who lost the primary. Nobody is stopping anyone from running. Go win votes if you're such a great candidate.

[GrantDawg]

Largely because we give more power to trees and cows than actual people, we are way more likely to elect a fascist dictator than we are a Democratic Socialist.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Largely because we give more power to trees and cows than actual people, we are way more likely to elect a fascist dictator than we are a Democratic Socialist.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

We ain't India man.

India's far-right cow vigilantes bolster clout before high-stake elections

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't understand looking at Trump being relevant for as long as he has been and concluding that candidate quality is the primary problem. I'd much prefer it if it was the problem, because that's something easier to fix.

It seems to be a near-lethal (soon to be lethal?) combination of echo chamber beliefs/truths, party affiliation as personal identity, and religion.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Largely because we give more power to trees and cows than actual people, we are way more likely to elect a fascist dictator than we are a Democratic Socialist.

Exactly. You want more progressive candidates to have a chance? Stop whining and do these things:

• try to get ranked choice voting passed in more states
• establish evergreen GOTV organizations that will reliably get your candidates significant support
• go hard at deep-blue seats where no Republican is going to win anyway
• put up candidates in hopeless red seats (you never know when the GOP candidate will get arrested for chlid porn or something), especially when the mainline Democratic party declines to run someone, like idiots

Etc.... All much better than the quadrennial circle jerk about how Bernie is the best candidate, if only people would see....

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Less shitty than the other candidates who lost the primary. Nobody is stopping anyone from running. Go win votes if you're such a great candidate.

In what election?


Florida Democrats plan to cancel presidential primary, enraging Dean Phillips’ campaign - POLITICO

[flere-imsaho]

Sure, pick an outlier event to prove your point about systemic failures.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Sure, pick an outlier event to prove your point about systemic failures.

Not really an outlier. The Democratic Party in Tennessee, North Carolina, and Massachusetts have also refused to put challengers on their primary ballot.

Your argument is to gain votes but it seems like that's not really an option. They could run as a 3rd party, but people would cry about that "stealing" votes too.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't understand looking at Trump being relevant for as long as he has been and concluding that candidate quality is the primary problem. I'd much prefer it if it was the problem, because that's something easier to fix.

Eh, I dunno.

I mean, fixing candidate quality would require fixing the broken electorate, the two seem almost impossible to separate best I can figure, as the latter issue creates the former issue.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't understand looking at Trump being relevant for as long as he has been and concluding that candidate quality is the primary problem. I'd much prefer it if it was the problem, because that's something easier to fix.

If you can't beat Donald Trump, a notorious conman who brags about sexually assaulting women and is under numerous indictments, maybe you're running a shitty candidate.

This is the culmination of decades of liberal policy, though. The party abandoned working-class voters and got into bed with any corporation willing to throw some money their way. Tax cuts for the rich, handouts to insurance companies and banks, endless wars costing trillions, etc. It's not surprising that part of the electorate that is struggling will look to anyone for answers when the Democrats only offering is "we aren't as bad as the other guy". Most fascist and authoritarian regimes prop up from people desperately looking for answers.

That's not all Biden and Clinton's fault. But they are the embodiment of the past few decades of failure. Wrong about almost every major foreign policy issue and supporting policies that destroyed middle and working-class families. Can't blame the electorate for looking at any alternative, even if it's a reality TV show host who can barely read.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you can't beat Donald Trump, a notorious conman who brags about sexually assaulting women and is under numerous indictments, maybe you're running a shitty candidate.

Or, maybe the electorate sucks and just doesn't care a great deal about those negatives.

Your statement assumes that a lot of voters care about those issues enough for them to change their vote. The evidence I see is that voters care about who is on 'their' side, meaning aligning most with the policy proposals they want to happen, and don't really give a crap about much of anything else other than at the margins. The greatest determining factor of whether a candidate will get a person's vote, by far, is whether there is an R or a D in front of their name on the ballot.

The people on the ballot are chosen by the people after all. They aren't appointed. Your point about primary interference is noted, but any popular candidate is still going to be able to get on the ballot and win, almost every time. To the extent we have bad candidates, we have them because the people want them.

I don't want to speak for anyone specifically, but the impression I get is that we want to believe democracy can work in the modern world, so we look for things to blame other than people just sucking at picking those who govern them. It's a lot more comforting to blame it on systemic issues or a particular candidate. It also makes a lot less sense of what we see in practice IMO.

[flere-imsaho]

The Democratic Party merely moved with the electorate. Sure, it would have been great if they had stuck to all that pro-labor policy, but I don't know if you've noticed that that kind of thing hasn't gotten votes since Reagan, and it's still not clear it's going to get votes now, especially when the chunk of the electorate you might think would respond to pro-labor rhetoric is vastly more swayed by anti-"other" rhetoric peddled by the now-populist GOP.

The problem is the electorate, and the electoral system. The politicians are merely a result.

For example, if POTUS was elected simply on a nationwide tallied vote (no EC), maybe Sanders has a chance vs. Trump in 2016 if he can drive huge progressive and young voter turnout in solid blue cities in solid blue states where that kind of thing matters not an iota with the Electoral College.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you can't beat Donald Trump, a notorious conman who brags about sexually assaulting women and is under numerous indictments, maybe you're running a shitty candidate.

A large portion of the electorate lionizes characters like Gordon Gekko, Jordan Belfort, Patrick Bateman, Travis Bickle, and Tony Montana. If you can't understand why Trump did so well, that's on you.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

In what election?


Florida Democrats plan to cancel presidential primary, enraging Dean Phillips’ campaign - POLITICO

Neither party has primaries with an incumbent and in the rare instances when they have, they've lost the general.

[Atocep]

Under our current election system here's the entire list of incumbents that had a serious primary challenger:

Ford v Reagan - 76
Carter v Kennedy - 80
Bush 1 vs Buchanan - 92

Dean Phillips isn't a serious primary challenger. There's no reason to waste anyone's time, effort, or money holding a primary in Florida for him.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The people on the ballot are chosen by the people after all. They aren't appointed.

It's a mere footnote of a sidebar BUT this is what I've pointed out for years now when I hear the ridiculous grousing about "millionaires in Congress". Virtually all were millionaires before getting elected. The reason they're millionaires (okay, mega$ often but still) in office is because {gasp} that's who you picked. There's no corruption required, no conspiracy.

The overall topic comes back to a flawed electorate and my favorite political truism of the past several years: NO candidate gets elected without a certain number of votes from complete idiots.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The Democratic Party merely moved with the electorate. Sure, it would have been great if they had stuck to all that pro-labor policy, but I don't know if you've noticed that that kind of thing hasn't gotten votes since Reagan, and it's still not clear it's going to get votes now, especially when the chunk of the electorate you might think would respond to pro-labor rhetoric is vastly more swayed by anti-"other" rhetoric peddled by the now-populist GOP.

The problem is the electorate, and the electoral system. The politicians are merely a result.

There is no pro-labor rhetoric in this country despite strong support from the American public. Democrats have spent decades shitting on unions and working class. It used to get votes until Democrats decided they want that corporate money more.

There are tons of issues with popular support that Democrats won't touch. Minimum wage, pro-union legislation, school lunches, reproductive rights, paid family and medical leave, PR/DC statehood, and on and on. You don't think enacting (or attempting to enact) a bunch of these things would sway voters? We know issues matter. Just look at what the Dobbs decision has meant for recent elections.

Can you tell me what issues the Democratic Party are passionate about that differentiate them from Republicans? Issues they push and pass laws on? It seems like the party just sits around whining about how evil Republicans are how they're a threat to the country while doing jack shit about it.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's a mere footnote of a sidebar BUT this is what I've pointed out for years now when I hear the ridiculous grousing about "millionaires in Congress". Virtually all were millionaires before getting elected. The reason they're millionaires (okay, mega$ often but still) in office is because {gasp} that's who you picked. There's no corruption required, no conspiracy.

The overall topic comes back to a flawed electorate and my favorite political truism of the past several years: NO candidate gets elected without a certain number of votes from complete idiots.

They're millionaires because it's nearly impossible to win elections if you're poor. You need millions to even run for a House seat in this country. So unless you're independently wealthy or have a bunch of wealthy benefactors, you don't stand much of a chance. You can probably count on one hand the number of people who made it to Congress on a shoestring budget, and there are usually external factors that allowed that (like with AOC).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They're millionaires because it's nearly impossible to win elections if you're poor. You need millions to even run for a House seat in this country. So unless you're independently wealthy or have a bunch of wealthy benefactors, you don't stand much of a chance. You can probably count on one hand the number of people who made it to Congress on a shoestring budget, and there are usually external factors that allowed that (like with AOC).

Given how little a million is these days, I'm not sure that's really even a benchmark that bears noting. The fact that it's noted (I see that meme on an annual basis) says something about the flawed electorate. Hell, I want successful people in positions of making decisions, especially about money, that it's somehow a mark of shame is another example of how unsuited for decisions the general public actually is.

[miked]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you can't beat Donald Trump, a notorious conman who brags about sexually assaulting women and is under numerous indictments, maybe you're running a shitty candidate.

This is the culmination of decades of liberal policy, though. The party abandoned working-class voters and got into bed with any corporation willing to throw some money their way. Tax cuts for the rich, handouts to insurance companies and banks, endless wars costing trillions, etc. It's not surprising that part of the electorate that is struggling will look to anyone for answers when the Democrats only offering is "we aren't as bad as the other guy". Most fascist and authoritarian regimes prop up from people desperately looking for answers.

That's not all Biden and Clinton's fault. But they are the embodiment of the past few decades of failure. Wrong about almost every major foreign policy issue and supporting policies that destroyed middle and working-class families. Can't blame the electorate for looking at any alternative, even if it's a reality TV show host who can barely read.

You could run Ronald Reagan against Trump and the right would paint Reagan as a socialist who wants to let illegals rape your wife and collect your tax refund. Herschel Walker took 49+ percent of the vote in Georgia running against Warnock, a fairly vanilla candidate who has done 10000x more good than Walker for the world. If you think Newsome or Whitmer would be running away with the election, you are not very smart.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by miked

You could run Ronald Reagan against Trump and the right would paint Reagan as a socialist who wants to let illegals rape your wife and collect your tax refund. Herschel Walker took 49+ percent of the vote in Georgia running against Warnock, a fairly vanilla candidate who has done 10000x more good than Walker for the world. If you think Newsome or Whitmer would be running away with the election, you are not very smart.

I read a study a while back that showed that the right tends to align their views with their political leaders while the left tends to be more consistent in their views regardless of party leadership.

That's what kills dems when someone like Trump comes along. The right has no problem getting behind their leader because they've been conditioned to fear the left more than anything else on this planet. The left tends to want someone that checks every box for their own, personal beliefs and either don't vote or reluctantly vote if their candidate doesn't win a primary.

We're trending toward another 2016 where a good portion of the left wanted someone other than Hillary and after seeing how bad Trump was blamed those that voted for her for Trump winning.

Over 81 million people voted for Biden in the last election and, considering the hand he started with, he's checked a lot of boxes. I doesn't bother me to see people complain that he's too old or they'd prefer another candidate, but it's ridiculous to ignore his accomplishments coming out of the Trump Presidency, a pandemic, a nearly split Senate, and not having control of the House to close out his term. Compared to 2020, other than age, what makes him such a bad candidate now? He's not my ideal candidate and wouldn't make my top or even top 10, but I'm voting for him without hesitation. I'd prefer the person not actively trying to make my life worse not be in office.