news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[Communion]

1 hour ago, anti-***** said:

 

I wanted to go back to this quote because don't you think the big city liberals in California would "deserve" to have Kamala as the governor? Lol. At least that way Dems would have to pick someone else for president nominee.

 

I've seen this logic but like.. I do need to reiterate for those who may be generally confused or misinformed by others' posts... Nothing is stopping Kamala Harris from running for POTUS in 2028 if she becomes the governor of California in 2026.

 

That is.. literally what she also did in 2016! She ran for the Senate in 2016 (in a similarly coronated run with no meaningful primary challenger) and by 2018 was hinting at her presidential run despite that it'd end her senate term early by 2 years if she won. 

 

There's no rules that someone holding one office can't run for another if their term would overlap. They just would leave that previous office! lol

 

Harris would 100% use even a successful coronation for California Governor as the basis for another, third presidential run.

 

It's actually wild and speaks to the mafia-style of California politics that someone who'd be aiming for a 3rd presidential campaign would have effectively never faced a meaningful primary at either the state or federal level because either 1) party politics cleared the floor for her or 2) she simply didn't make it to the voting stage. 

Edited Sunday at 03:14 PM by Communion

[anti-bitch]

22 minutes ago, superglowy said:

The Stock Market fiasco has been perversely fascinating to watch and it's morally conflicting to not want people to suffer but also wondering if this chain of events is necessary for Democrats to build towards a successful 2028. That, plus the schadenfreude of it all.

Yeah, and it looks like the drops last week still were not big enough to change Trump's mind, so.......

 

Actually, I don't wanna predict anything so I don't jinx it. Haha. 

[jakeisphat]

I honestly don't think the CA governorship is Kamala's target. It's pretty evident that all of these books coming out by journalists all say the same thing: Kamala believes she'd have won if she had more time + Biden wasn't in the picture. That tells me right there that she wants to go for it again and does not believe the loss placed a cap on her political career like it did for Hillary.

 

To me the governor talk is the "back-up" path for Kamala if she decides not to run for president. That way her final act will be becoming the first black woman ever elected governor in the U.S. if she gives up on the White House. The mere fact that she and Becerra run in the same circles and he announced his campaign for governor is also a lowkey sign that people behind the scenes are hearing she isn't serious about it.
 

2026 is much closer than 2028, so if she was seriously thinking of it she'd be doing more appearances in California and she is not. Since moving back she has only been to 1 major event and the other was a small gathering. Her next big event is as a panelist at a real estate conference in Australia where reporters are not allowed to ask her questions. That's not really the behavior of someone that is looking to launch a gubernatorial campaign in the next few months. 
 

She knows that based on the polling she has an advantage + that her 2028 rivals did not support the current chair of the DNC. Most of them endorsed Martin's opponent while Kamala chose to be neutral. And the DNC has continued to use her in videos and promo since the election. Even Pelosi said 2 weeks after the election that she could see Kamala among the candidates in 2028…

 

It couldn't be more obvious that running for governor is just Kamala's rebound plan should her presidential polling significantly drop over the next few months. 

[Princess Aurora]

On 4/4/2025 at 5:46 AM, jakeisphat said:

 

I think it probably changed a lot by now and 2028 is too far away at the moment.

Edited Sunday at 03:50 PM by Princess Aurora

[jakeisphat]

3 minutes ago, Princess Aurora said:

I think it probably changed a lot by now and 2028 is too far away at the moment.

What I don't like about that particular poll though, is that they included Bernie and Liz knowing they are not going to be candidates in 2028 at 86 and 78 years old after what just happened with Biden. Most of the other polls do not include them and instead include Josh Shapiro or Andy which are more likely. In those surveys, Kamala is 20+ points ahead on average and it's already been half a year since her loss. 
 

Aside from AOC and Walz, the other candidates that were viewed as Kamala's 2024 rivals are fading into oblivion. And Gavin is a non-factor considering he tanked his own reputation by going Joe Manchin:

 

Things could change of course, but history and the polling we have thus far make Kamala 2028 more likely than other scenarios.

[Communion]

The issues with polls is that a poll can't wield someone who is incompetent into being successful. 

 

This is what happened in the only time Kamala Harris has had to meaningfully campaign to voters to vote for her:

 

[ClashAndBurn]

4 hours ago, anti-***** said:

How can you say those things in the same sentence when Trump was found liable for sexual abuse of E. Jean Caroll. And all the other allegations about him. And how Netanyahu recently called him "the greatest friend Israel has ever had"?

 

And again, I'm not saying who to vote for. Just have the same standards for everyone.

Cuomo, Shapiro, and Newsom are easily three of the most evil men who've ever existed in this country's history. I'm not voting for any of them ever, absolutely not. I would rather drink bleach.

 

The Netanyahu quote means nothing when you're trying to persuade me to vote for a guy who, again, literally sought to do volunteer work with the IDF as his high school community service project.

[Chemist]

[VOSS]

 

[VOSS]

There are really not many appealing Dems in that poll 

 

I think I'd go with mark kelly

[Thuggin]

Pam Bondi said on Fox that Trump "was overwhelmingly elected by an overwhelming majority of the citizens".

I can't tell if this is peddling more election lies "the results weren't a majority, but if you exclude the illegal immigrants and paid Soros votes then Trump got an overwhelming majority" or them trying to put this idea in people's heads that it actually was an unprecedented popular vote blowout. I guarantee the median voter thinks Trump's 2024 popular vote margin was way bigger than Biden's 2020 margin.

[Thuggin]

It's interesting that Elon and Trump surrogates are now suggesting that the tariffs are temporary to negotiate "more free trade than ever". Is that what Trump believe too? Again, this flies right in the face of their claim that this is to bring manufacturing back

[ClashAndBurn]

3 hours ago, superglowy said:

We're getting close to our first one boys and girl, the first "I voted Republican/Trump BECAUSE it's better for Democracy/Human Rights' "Leftist"

 

This statement alone shows why people in this thread do not take any of the progressives posting here even a tiny bit seriously. It's all about your ego and hubris. Every rant and essay and 'Edgelord teen' style quip is because the Democratic Party/base will not validate or succumb to your ego and narcissism that your beliefs and intentions are the only valid ones and the only correct ones.

 

You would rather Trump be a permanent dictator, despite the fact he is a convicted rapist intent on destroying Gaza while destroying all of the hard earned rights and policies of the working class than have Democrats (who yes, are also shitty, and yes, let's weed out all the genocide enablers) simply because you want the party that won't validate you to suffer, and **** anyone else it hurts/destroys.

 

Now let me clarify, I absolutely take the Leftist movement/progressives seriously and hope they do indeed integrate and steer the party going forward, and I do believe a lot of the posters I'm talking about have good intentions at their core, but some of you all are really starting to lose it and starting to let this all seep in and, like I said before, I'm really starting to worry about some of y'all's mental health.

I'm not voting for a Diet Republican ever again like I did for Biden and Harris. Those three are even worse and by far more overtly evil and disgusting than any Democrat that's ever been nominated, and that's even including Joe Biden. If Democrats are stupid enough to nominate any of those three men, then they deserve to live under permanent Republican rule.

 

Honestly shocking how you're already trying to voter-shame me into accepting three of the worst Democrats to ever be proposed as presidential hopefuls three years early, though. I can respect the commitment to the bit.

[Vroom Vroom]

The last time a former Democrat vice president sought the democrat nomination and didn't get it was in 1920. If Kamala runs in 2028, she will get the nomination. 

Will Trump **** up the country so bad that Kamala will actually win an election? Unlikely, but by the end of Trump's first term Biden, who could barely speak a full sentence, became a winning candidate. Maybe there is still hope for her. 

I've given up on 2028 already 

[Thuggin]

1 hour ago, jakeisphat said:

What I don't like about that particular poll though, is that they included Bernie and Liz knowing they are not going to be candidates in 2028 at 86 and 78 years old after what just happened with Biden. Most of the other polls do not include them and instead include Josh Shapiro or Andy which are more likely. In those surveys, Kamala is 20+ points ahead on average and it's already been half a year since her loss. 
 

Aside from AOC and Walz, the other candidates that were viewed as Kamala's 2024 rivals are fading into oblivion. And Gavin is a non-factor considering he tanked his own reputation by going Joe Manchin:

 

Things could change of course, but history and the polling we have thus far make Kamala 2028 more likely than other scenarios.

This is the first time I've seen a poll where Obama is in the negatives. Our country really likes to root for the winning team

[Communion]

5 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

I'm not voting for a Diet Republican ever again like I did for Biden and Harris. Those three are even worse and by far more overtly evil and disgusting than any Democrat that's ever been nominated, and that's even including Joe Biden. If Democrats are stupid enough to nominate any of those three men, then they deserve to live under permanent Republican rule.

 

Honestly shocking how you're already trying to voter-shame me into accepting three of the worst Democrats to ever be proposed as presidential hopefuls three years early, though. I can respect the commitment to the bit.

The fact that simply saying this causes people who are not even American to have some insane style crash out's and mental breakdown of just screeching about "the mental illness of modern American progressivism!!!!111". 

 

Like we just had an election! We have tangible proof running as a diet Republican like Harris did does not work! 

[superglowy]

3 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

I'm not voting for a Diet Republican ever again like I did for Biden and Harris. Those three are even worse and by far more overtly evil and disgusting than any Democrat that's ever been nominated, and that's even including Joe Biden. If Democrats are stupid enough to nominate any of those three men, then they deserve to live under permanent Republican rule.

 

Honestly shocking how you're already trying to voter-shame me into accepting three of the worst Democrats to ever be proposed as presidential hopefuls three years early, though. I can respect the commitment to the bit.

I'm not trying to voter shame you my friend. I disagree with some of your positions, but genuinely respect your points and arguments. I enjoy our back and forth and vote or don't vote for who you want/belief you hold and in my response used you as an avatar to generalise progressives, which shouldn't have done.

 

I just believe a lot of the Moral pontification over the years from some posters in this thread is theatre and an attempt to add Morally justification to their decision not to vote/rage against Democrats because their own choices/view points aren't being championed (which again, not voting because of that last sentence is respectable) but they then grandiose their hatred of the Dems to the point that anyone rooting for the Democrats are 'Genocide loving, poor hating, idiotic cucks' and it causes any attempt to try and discuss the issues to just become an attempt to humiliate and bully users rather than having a enjoyable discussion.

[anti-bitch]

25 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Cuomo, Shapiro, and Newsom are easily three of the most evil men who've ever existed in this country's history. I'm not voting for any of them ever, absolutely not. I would rather drink bleach.

 

The Netanyahu quote means nothing when you're trying to persuade me to vote for a guy who, again, literally sought to do volunteer work with the IDF as his high school community service project.

No that wasn't about voting. Just the quote about "King Trump for life" sounds bizarre.

 

Trump said he wants to "clean out" Gaza. And there's a chance the peace talks with Russia fall through still. And what about his connection to Epstein, and all the other allegations? And no it shouldn't have to be a choice between lesser evils always. It's just strange to read you and @Communion talk more smack about Democrats than Trump often.

[ClashAndBurn]

2 minutes ago, Communion said:

The fact that simply saying this causes people who are not even American to have some insane style crash out's and mental breakdown of just screeching about "the mental illness of modern American progressivism!!!!111". 

 

Like we just had an election! We have tangible proof running as a diet Republican like Harris did does not work! 

"How DARE you not pledge your vote to Andrew Cuomo?!"

 

"How could you possibly not support having the literal IDF volunteer who covered up the stabbing murder of Ellen Greenberg in charge of the White House?!"

 

As for Newsom… literally just look at his friendly podcast interviews with Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon. He's literally staging an Ana Kasparian-style "why I left the left" as we speak, yet our loyalty is already being demanded for people who openly **** on us and everything we believe in.

[Ashley Banks]

I'm just not convinced that Kamala has a shot at the nomination in 2028. Has a Democrat ever run again after losing in the general? Even Al Gore didn't do that, and he had a much stronger argument for it.

 

She's leading the polls because of name recognition and recency bias. I don't think that lead will last another 3 years. I remember her 2020 campaign and would be very surprised if she could win a competitive primary. The people I'm really worried about are Newsom and Shapiro.

[Thuggin]

Just now, Ashley Banks said:

I'm just not convinced that Kamala has a shot at the nomination in 2028. Has a Democrat ever run again after losing in the general? Even Al Gore didn't do that, and he had a much stronger argument for it.

 

She's leading the polls because of name recognition and recency bias. I don't think that lead will last another 3 years. I remember her 2020 campaign and would be very surprised if she could win a competitive primary. The people I'm really worried about are Newsom and Shapiro.

People point to the fact that Trump lost and then got elected, but Trump was already elected President already before that  And he IS the Republican Party and has been since 2016. He has like 98% approval among his party. It's a completely different situation.

[ClashAndBurn]

6 minutes ago, superglowy said:

I'm not trying to voter shame you my friend. I disagree with some of your positions, but genuinely respect your points and arguments. I enjoy our back and forth and vote or don't vote for who you want/belief you hold and in my response used you as an avatar to generalise progressives, which shouldn't have done.

 

I just believe a lot of the Moral pontification over the years from some posters in this thread is theatre and an attempt to add Morally justification to their decision not to vote/rage against Democrats because their own choices/view points aren't being championed (which again, not voting because of that last sentence is respectable) but they then grandiose their hatred of the Dems to the point that anyone rooting for the Democrats are 'Genocide loving, poor hating, idiotic cucks' and it causes any attempt to try and discuss the issues to just become an attempt to humiliate and bully users rather than having a enjoyable discussion.

I'm just drawing my line in the sand right here and now. I could find it in myself to vote for Kamala DESPITE her campaigning with Liz Cheney. I swallowed my pride and ended up with egg on my face because she ended up losing humiliatingly anyway.

 

I wouldn't have done that if she had chosen Josh Shapiro as her running mate. He is horrible. In every possible way. If he's at the top of the ticket, I will honestly give up on the Democratic Party forever. Everything about him goes against everything I believe in. So that's how it should be, right? Cuomo and Newsom are similarly beyond evil, and I hate them just as much.

 

Well, at least we can already see what the bullying is going to look like in three years, so there's that I guess.

[Communion]

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

@Communion talk more smack about Democrats than Trump often

We've been on this forum for too long to constantly have to do this repeated cycle of people being insecure in their views that they inevitably lash out at those who are ideologically consistent. *My* priorities don't become skewed just because people decide to not pay attention to American politics based on who is in power.

 

Which is essentially what this is about. People resentful that like.. some people end up having to be right and some people have to end up being wrong.

 

See the posturing above of "oh so you think you're RIGHT?? THIS must be what it is about for you then!! That somehow proves you're bad!!!". Literally, yes, people who have consistent ideological worldviews are usually vindicated for having those worldviews when they end up being, y'know, right. 

 

Politicians who want to deny poor people healthcare, for instance, are bad people not by abstract moralism but by the material harm they factually commit.

 

It's not, my fault, for example as someone who wouldn't vote for someone who doesn't support M4A that both Biden-Harris-Trump were aligned in healthcare.

[superglowy]

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

No that wasn't about voting. Just the quote about "King Trump for life" sounds bizarre.

 

Trump said he wants to "clean out" Gaza. And there's a chance the peace talks with Russia fall through still. And what about his connection to Epstein, and all the other allegations? And no it shouldn't have to be a choice between lesser evils always. It's just strange to read you and @Communion talk more smack about Democrats than Trump often.

I agree with this also. A lot of progressive posters here are very hyperbolic and almost bullying in their pushing and expressing of their points while labelling other posters with disgusting labels, and it's presented as their 'moral positions', but I believe it really is for a lot of them as simple as stated above, that it's their ego bruised from their point of view not being validated and it causes any attempt lot of posters to side eye respecting a lot of this moral woe in this thread when it's used exclusively to bash other users/Dems then the minute Dems lost, it's rarely if ever brought up. Posters should have been losing their minds over the 'Trump strip in Gaza' news but instead it's simply "Well if the Democrats…" which says to me months of moral rage from some was really just an outlet to bash the party that won't do as they wish. 

[Chemist]