news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[king_queen]

31 minutes ago, CandyCoatedClouds said:

Also just curious but were former presidential candidates that "lost" an election required to do free work like speaking out and holding public events after their loss to speak out against their opponent that won?

 

Was Al Gore being called upon to speak out about Bush? Was John Kerry being called out to speak about Bush? Was McCain called to speak out against Obama or Mitt Romney called to speak out? I was alive during these events but entirely too young to care so I'm not certain.

 

What i want to know is why Kamala keeps being called to speak out when she did all that during the campaign? AOC and Walz and Bernie are speaking out and doing press tours because they are elected officials. Harris is now a private citizen but everyone keeps calling on her to speak out and do work for free but I don't remember opponents who lost having do to that before.

Furthermore, where is this same energy for Jill Stein? 

[RihRihGirrrl]

My 401k app tracker finally updated this morning and I'm down 9% after the 2 day crash.....ugh I need to delete this app!

[ZeroSuitBritney]

The only protest that matters today is in DC

 

 

[Relampago.]

57 minutes ago, CandyCoatedClouds said:

Also just curious but were former presidential candidates that "lost" an election required to do free work like speaking out and holding public events after their loss to speak out against their opponent that won?

 

Was Al Gore being called upon to speak out about Bush? Was John Kerry being called out to speak about Bush? Was McCain called to speak out against Obama or Mitt Romney called to speak out? I was alive during these events but entirely too young to care so I'm not certain.

 

What i want to know is why Kamala keeps being called to speak out when she did all that during the campaign? AOC and Walz and Bernie are speaking out and doing press tours because they are elected officials. Harris is now a private citizen but everyone keeps calling on her to speak out and do work for free but I don't remember opponents who lost having do to that before.

Is anyone saying this? The narrative coming out of Tuesdays special election seemed to be "maybe we should just lock Kamala away in the Bay Area" after everyone overperformed her numbers dd  

 

I did say in the other thread that it would nice for her to join progressives and co-sign their narrative of pushing back against their oligarchy forming, since she still has an appeal to a sect of the Democratic base, but I'm not complaining if she disappears entirely either. Better that than entertaining great campaign advice from billionaires like Mark Cuban such as eliminating Lina Kahn or giving power back to these massive tech corporations  

[Thuggin]

The narrative I hear emerging is, even if Trump's tariffs don't end up being a good thing, Republicans in Congress will be a stronger bulwark against his policies that go too far than Democrats and that's why we need to elect more Republicans.  Maybe that explains why Republicans are still ahead in some of the 2026 midterms polling.

[ClashAndBurn]

44 minutes ago, king_queen said:

Furthermore, where is this same energy for Jill Stein? 

Jill Stein has actually come out and given speeches at protests. Kamala and Biden, being worse than worthless, have been seen at basketball games and Broadway shows and not much else.

 

I don't even like Jill Stein, and have never voted for her. But this derangement over someone who was never in a position to win the presidency over Trump, nor even took enough from Kamala to prevent her from winning because she got walloped badly enough on her own, is utterly ridiculous.  

[CandyCoatedClouds]

1 hour ago, Redstreak said:

Gore and Kerry never ran again, if kamala wants to disappear then actually do it. Don't come crawling back in 2028 because of "name recognition" after she's a big part of the reason we're currently where we are. And Gore spoke out fervently against the Iraq war after losing

She's literally the only reason we didn't lose worse tbh,Joe's internal polling was absolutely devastating. Also there was a lot of voter suppression and purging of certain types of voters so she may not have lost nearly as bad as people proclaim.

47 minutes ago, king_queen said:

Furthermore, where is this same energy for Jill Stein? 

I swear this woman crawls into a hole for the most part ( know she occasionally speaks out but not in any meaningful way) just to pop out and siphon votes from the democratic party.

17 minutes ago, Relampago. said:

Is anyone saying this? The narrative coming out of Tuesdays special election seemed to be "maybe we should just lock Kamala away in the Bay Area" after everyone overperformed her numbers dd  

 

I did say in the other thread that it would nice for her to join progressives and co-sign their narrative of pushing back against their oligarchy forming, since she still has an appeal to a sect of the Democratic base, but I'm not complaining if she disappears entirely either. Better that than entertaining great campaign advice from billionaires like Mark Cuban such as eliminating Lina Kahn or giving power back to these massive tech corporations  

I spend a lot of time on reddit and threads and I see it all the time. Constantly, where is Kamala? Why isn't she holding rallies? Why isn't she up there with Bernie and Tim Walz and AOC? Do you never see that?

[Relampago.]

19 minutes ago, CandyCoatedClouds said:

She's literally the only reason we didn't lose worse tbh,Joe's internal polling was absolutely devastating. Also there was a lot of voter suppression and purging of certain types of voters so she may not have lost nearly as bad as people proclaim.

I swear this woman crawls into a hole for the most part ( know she occasionally speaks out but not in any meaningful way) just to pop out and siphon votes from the democratic party.

I spend a lot of time on reddit and threads and I see it all the time. Constantly, where is Kamala? Why isn't she holding rallies? Why isn't she up there with Bernie and Tim Walz and AOC? Do you never see that?

Maybe for the reason I said, people want to hear from people they saw as leaders? Is it so bad to ask that of someone? I don't look at Reddit comments, nor Twitter comments, since they're all cesspools.
 

I don't know if this is the intention but it sounds like you're saying Harris is being treated unfairly, but I think if you're going to take up a mantle such as VPOTUS then accept a nomination to run as the party's nominee, people might look to your guidance for leadership and I think that's a fair assessment to have. Especially in the face of what people feel is an unprecedented evil in Trump. 

I'd be fine with her disappearing, she's damaged goods in my eyes. But if people want leadership, I can see why they'd ask that of her, as a "what do we do now?" type of question. I would feel disappointed if Bernie was silent after the election as well. 

[ClashAndBurn]

34 minutes ago, CandyCoatedClouds said:

I spend a lot of time on reddit and threads and I see it all the time. Constantly, where is Kamala? Why isn't she holding rallies? Why isn't she up there with Bernie and Tim Walz and AOC? Do you never see that?

There's a high likelihood she runs for president again, and would have the highest name recognition of any contenders so it's highly possible she wins the nomination. In fact, you could say that the nomination is hers to lose at this point. Democrats don't blame her for her loss (even though they really should) and are unfortunately willing to give her another chance so she can lose in a landslide to JD Vance in 2028.

[Communion]

2 hours ago, CandyCoatedClouds said:

Also just curious but were former presidential candidates that "lost" an election required to do free work like speaking out and holding public events after their loss to speak out against their opponent that won?

 

Was Al Gore being called upon to speak out about Bush? Was John Kerry being called out to speak about Bush? Was McCain called to speak out against Obama or Mitt Romney called to speak out? I was alive during these events but entirely too young to care so I'm not certain.

 

What i want to know is why Kamala keeps being called to speak out when she did all that during the campaign? AOC and Walz and Bernie are speaking out and doing press tours because they are elected officials. Harris is now a private citizen but everyone keeps calling on her to speak out and do work for free but I don't remember opponents who lost having do to that before.

This is a failed analogy because Republicans treat their losers like the pariah they deserve to be.

 

The GOP failed running the old establishment neocon so they pivoted in 2012 in trying to run a Wall Street big exec business guy. They actually try to learn from failure.

 

Obama ironically only was able to beat Romney by positioning himself as for unions and against free trade, framing Romney as the private equity guy who represented all the Wall Street investment types who celebrated shipping millions of middle class Midwest Americans' good-paying factory jobs overseas.

 

The very same Romney-kind of archetype centrist Dems are - for some reason - now trying to fashion the Democratic Party in the image of. 

 

I don't expect anything of Kamala, but also think it's malpractice for anyone to think someone as meritless and unqualified as her should ever hold public office again.

 

She shouldn't run for Governor of California. She shouldn't run for president in 2028. She should simply.. go away! Forever! Go join Uber's board or something!

[Thuggin]

Right wing pundits like Milo are saying men are depressed from email jobs and will be much happier working factory jobs. The hilarious thing is all these people like Milo, Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Saagar Enjeti, etc. who claim to speak for the "based, anti-woke" blue collar, working class men would never step foot in a factory  All of them live in the bluest cities within red states like Nashville, have their own cushy YouTube jobs, and would much rather attend a Broadway play or opera in an audience of urbanite coastal liberals than some Appalachian tailgate.

[Communion]

2 hours ago, king_queen said:

Furthermore, where is this same energy for Jill Stein? 

Neither Jill Stein nor Kamala Harris should run again for public office, tea!

[Capris Groove]

If this was France, the guillotine would be back on the Place de la République already. More hitting the streets, Americans!

Edited 20 hours ago by Capris Groove

[anti-bitch]

.

Edited 18 hours ago by anti-bitch

[GraceRandolph]

20 minutes ago, Thuggin said:

Right wing pundits like Milo are saying men are depressed from email jobs and will be much happier working factory jobs. The hilarious thing is all these people like Milo, Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Sahara Enjeti, etc. who claim to speak for the "based, anti-woke" blue collar, working class men would never step foot in a factory  All of them live in the bluest cities within red states like Nashville, have their own cushy YouTube jobs, and would much rather attend a Broadway play or opera in an audience of urbanite coastal liberals than some Appalachian tailgate.

I still remember when B Shapiro reviewed Wicked. He sounded like such a British cig. The dissonance is wild. 

[Communion]

5 minutes ago, anti-***** said:

But depending of how things go with Trump in the next years, if Vance positions himself to be more of the same that might not be a winning argument, just like it wasn't for Harris following Biden. But still she did come within one point of Trump in the popular vote even with that strategy. It's hard to believe Vance could be more popular than Trump.

 

And I'm not saying that to be a Harris fan, but just that once again the Dems best hope could be to have the pendulum swing in their corner if things get bad enough like in 2020. I would prefer Sanders or AOCof course but their nomination might only be possible if running independent.

I genuinely just don't think people can say they are informed on political realities if they think Harris deserves a now third shot at another failed presidential campaign. 

 

I really don't mean to come across as aggressive but it's this kind of identity fetishism that is why we are here today and liberals will never overcome and be freed from it unless the left pivots to harsh condemnation. 

 

And I think my point is proven in how neither you nor anyone else who entertains this idea  - (and I think there's a gradient of ppl like you just shrugging along and being fine with the idea vs her actual advocates who are doing the real dirty work) -  actually mentions what she brings to the table. The idea is literally she could win if we hope hard enough that voters will just like Trump and Vance less in 4 years. 

 

And no one can likely articulate what she would bring because there's nothing she would bring. She has no ideology. She has no worldview. She has no political talent. She's just a somewhat charismatic figure that donors like. And that somehow running someone who believes in nothing once again will pay off despite voters explicitly rejecting politicians who believe in nothing the last 2 times. 

[ClashAndBurn]

23 minutes ago, anti-***** said:

But depending of how things go with Trump in the next years, if Vance positions himself to be more of the same that might not be a winning argument, just like it wasn't for Harris following Biden. But still she did come within one point of Trump in the popular vote even with that strategy. It's hard to believe Vance could be more popular than Trump.

 

And I'm not saying that to be a Harris fan, but just that once again the Dems best hope could be to have the pendulum swing in their corner if things get bad enough like in 2020. I would prefer Sanders or AOCof course but their nomination might only be possible if running independent.

Pendulum swings shouldn't be considered sufficient. That's how you get horrendously bad choices for president like Biden was. That man should never have been president, because he has rendered generational damage to the entire party for decades to come.

 

When JD Vance ends up winning in 2028, it won't be because he's a fantastic candidate. But it'll be because the Democrats will fail to put up a compelling one themselves, and will instead force another Hillary Clinton/Kamala Harris-level of bad choice by nominating Josh Shapiro or Andrew Cuomo. Possibly even Harris again, even though I think they'll be too squeamish to nominate anyone other than a conservative white male Democrat to the left of Joe Manchin ever again for the rest of our lives.

[Wonderland]

41 minutes ago, Thuggin said:

Right wing pundits like Milo are saying men are depressed from email jobs and will be much happier working factory jobs. The hilarious thing is all these people like Milo, Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Sahara Enjeti, etc. who claim to speak for the "based, anti-woke" blue collar, working class men would never step foot in a factory  All of them live in the bluest cities within red states like Nashville, have their own cushy YouTube jobs, and would much rather attend a Broadway play or opera in an audience of urbanite coastal liberals than some Appalachian tailgate.

There was something so jarring about Charlie Kirk (of all people) saying Republicans are the party of welders and carpenters. Like, do we think he's ever picked up a hammer in his life?  

 

These influencers are exactly the same as those megachurch pastors who preach one life and then live a completely different and privileged life that none of their followers could ever lead.

[Lightbringer007]

 

 

[Communion]

14 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Pendulum swings shouldn't be considered sufficient. That's how you get horrendously bad choices for president like Biden was. That man should never have been president, because he has rendered generational damage to the entire party for decades to come.

 

When JD Vance ends up winning in 2028, it won't be because he's a fantastic candidate. But it'll be because the Democrats will fail to put up a compelling one themselves, and will instead force another Hillary Clinton/Kamala Harris-level of bad choice by nominating Josh Shapiro or Andrew Cuomo. Possibly even Harris again, even though I think they'll be too squeamish to nominate anyone other than a conservative white male Democrat to the left of Joe Manchin ever again for the rest of our lives.

Like at least the "Bernie 2024 (?)" people made an actual coherent argument of what about Bernie we thought he'd bring to the table to confront current realities.

 

In hindsight, it's funny that Biden was seen as one-up'ing and outsmarting Bernie during their final debate by committing to picking a black woman as his VP and the centrist media arguing Bernie wasn't meeting the moment by not similarly instantly committing to such.

 

Such ordainment basically, four years later in 2024, being seen by the mythical moderate voter we're meant to listen to, as what made Harris a "DEI Hire" and this allegedly enlightened voting bloc being far more similar to Sanders in his view than Biden and Harris. 

 

But sure, let's ordain a governorship and future presidential race 2 and 4 years in advance for a candidate most people don't actually really like or know! That'll work!

Edited 19 hours ago by Communion

[ClashAndBurn]

16 minutes ago, Communion said:

Like at least the "Bernie 2024 (?)" people made an actual coherent argument of what about Bernie we thought he'd bring to the table to confront current realities.

 

In hindsight, it's funny that Biden was seen as one-up'ing and outsmarting Bernie during their final debate by committing to picking a black woman as his VP and the centrist media arguing Bernie wasn't meeting the moment by not similarly instantly committing to such.

 

Such ordainment basically, four years later in 2024, being seen by the mythical moderate voter we're meant to listen to, as what made Harris a "DEI Hire" and this allegedly enlightened voting bloc being far more similar to Sanders in his view than Biden and Harris. 

 

But sure, let's ordain a governorship and future presidential race 2 and 4 years in advance for a candidate most people don't actually really like or know! That'll work!

Unfortunately, idpol lib-**** like that is exactly what plays well with people in Democratic primaries, so Biden wasn't even wrong to think that

 

That same stupid pledge also undermined his Supreme Court pick in the exact same way as well. Which is just so unfortunate, because she deserved so much more than to be belittled by conservatives as a DEI hire, and truly, nobody was more responsible for that than Joe Biden himself.

[Thuggin]

What is with the liberal obsession right now with "Mike Johnson caught on Grindr" or this Republican or that Republican? I'm assuming it's all fake tabloid slop.  Tbh it's only funny when it's about Lindsey Graham, and even he wouldn't be on Grindr. He's a Congressman; he goes for rentboys.

[anti-bitch]

41 minutes ago, Communion said:

I genuinely just don't think people can say they are informed on political realities if they think Harris deserves a now third shot at another failed presidential campaign. 

 

I really don't mean to come across as aggressive but it's this kind of identity fetishism that is why we are here today and liberals will never overcome and be freed from it unless the left pivots to harsh condemnation. 

 

And I think my point is proven in how neither you nor anyone else who entertains this idea  - (and I think there's a gradient of ppl like you just shrugging along and being fine with the idea vs her actual advocates who are doing the real dirty work) -  actually mentions what she brings to the table. The idea is literally she could win if we hope hard enough that voters will just like Trump and Vance less in 4 years. 

 

And no one can likely articulate what she would bring because there's nothing she would bring. She has no ideology. She has no worldview. She has no political talent. She's just a somewhat charismatic figure that donors like. And that somehow running someone who believes in nothing once again will pay off despite voters explicitly rejecting politicians who believe in nothing the last 2 times. 

I was just responding to the statement by Clash that Harris would lose to Vance in a landslide because I don't think JD has the same hold/appeal to the Maga base that Trump does, or even the name recognition compared to Donald's decades worth of television appearances. But anyway, maybe K would lose even worse then. It would be a race to the bottom I guess. Lol. I don't want that to be the option Democrats go forward with. I said before that if not Sanders, maybe Walz then, to get the working class vote.

 

29 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Pendulum swings shouldn't be considered sufficient. That's how you get horrendously bad choices for president like Biden was. That man should never have been president, because he has rendered generational damage to the entire party for decades to come.

 

When JD Vance ends up winning in 2028, it won't be because he's a fantastic candidate. But it'll be because the Democrats will fail to put up a compelling one themselves, and will instead force another Hillary Clinton/Kamala Harris-level of bad choice by nominating Josh Shapiro or Andrew Cuomo. Possibly even Harris again, even though I think they'll be too squeamish to nominate anyone other than a conservative white male Democrat to the left of Joe Manchin ever again for the rest of our lives.

I meant that Vance seems to be less popular than Trump. Like can he capture the Maga base in the same way? He just seems a lesser opponent. Sorry if I'm mistaken. And again, not saying it has to be Harris. See what I wrote in the response to Communion above.

[ClashAndBurn]

27 minutes ago, anti-***** said:

I was just responding to the statement by Clash that Harris would lose to Vance in a landslide because I don't think JD has the same hold/appeal to the Maga base that Trump does, or even the name recognition compared to Donald's decades worth of television appearances. But anyway, maybe K would lose even worse then. It would be a race to the bottom I guess. Lol. I don't want that to be the option Democrats go forward with. I said before that if not Sanders, maybe Walz then, to get the working class vote.

 

I meant that Vance seems to be less popular than Trump. Like can he capture the Maga base in the same way? He just seems a lesser opponent. Sorry if I'm mistaken. And again, not saying it has to be Harris. See what I wrote in the response to Communion above.

The counterpoint to this, I would add, is that no other Republican is as repellent and galvanizing to liberals as Trump is. If any other Republican is up on the ticket, liberals won't be as motivated to turn out either. We'd be back down to Obama era levels of disengagement because the liberals will be going back to brunch.

 

You think they'll turn out en masse for the most unpopular VP of all time? When Trump isn't on the ballot posing a unique existential threat?

[FameFatale]

This is so  the timing