news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[Sergi91]

2 hours ago, Achilles. said:

Media attacks and coconut memes are going to save this campaign.

People volunteering their time just to make sure Trump doesn't win again He, the MAGAs, and Project 2025 are the real enemy. 

[ClashAndBurn]

54 minutes ago, Sergi91 said:

People volunteering their time just to make sure Trump doesn't win again He, the MAGAs, and Project 2025 are the real enemy. 

The true enemies are Biden and his ride-or-dies for enabling Trump's return to the White House with a no-shot candidate. Hope that helps.  

[Redstreak]

@Vermillion what do you expect todays news cycle to be

[Armani?]

Which poll is this?

[GhostBox]

welp 🫡

[shyboi]

3 minutes ago, GhostBox said:

welp 🫡

 

i think the good sis ghostbox won yall, Biden is not only dropping, he probs secured the win in November 

 

let's pack it up and call it a day 

[GhostBox]

7 minutes ago, shyboi said:

 

i think the good sis ghostbox won yall, Biden is not only dropping, he probs secured the win in November 

 

let's pack it up and call it a day 

[Vermillion]

18 hours ago, Totami Legend said:

would kamala win against Trump? 

17 hours ago, shyboi said:

 

yes, no doubts. 

Plenty of doubts on my end.

 

She's the delay to a ship sinking with outside help to a lost cause.

 

Whereas Biden at this point is the captain and crew giving up and abandoning the passengers and lying to them that everything's fine.

 

The ship's still going to sink.

[Gottasadae]

23 minutes ago, GhostBox said:

welp 🫡

[Vermillion]

17 hours ago, bunnyeyes said:

I have direct tea on this— all I will say is Clinton had a lot of volunteers despite the DNC shenanigans the issue was mismanagement and entitlement by her team especially in battleground states 

Hindsight hypotheticals I normally don't engage with as wasted energy but since we're clearly approaching peak existential chaos I might as well.

 

I also have direct tea on this having worked on the Hill in 2016 and I've been consistent in saying (and not as a Hillary fan or even close) that even if she invested in and visited the battleground states intensely a year in advance she still would've lost. By a closer margin in the Electoral College, but she still would've lost.

 

There's about 20 reasons why that we can unpack if you have the energy. I don't at the moment.

 

I've consistently also felt that moderates severely downplay Hillary's faults on this forum and progressives severely downplay the level of outside factors in 2016, some of which were in her control and some of which weren't.

 

The problem is so many of those outside factors were relied upon so heavily by her defenders after the loss that many progressives don't bother engaging with enough of the data and facts on the ground on those outside factors as their (rightful) anger towards her and the damage she caused shuts down any conversation.

 

Doctoral theses have been written now about Bernie implying Trump supporters weren't inherently racist, endless studies on racial resentment causing cultural displacement, Bill Clinton's lingering NAFTA and Crime Bill legacy damage, the 2016 primary that will forever divide the Democratic party, Oleg Deripaska, Alfa Bank, Manafort and the polling data, the Access Hollywood tape being ignored because Hillary chose to stay with Bill and shamed Bill's victims, James Comey, Cambridge Analytica demographic microtargeting of Obama-to-Trump voters, the 4Chan/GamerGate/incel-to-Trump pipeline, the coal comments, the bleached email server, Jill Stein at the table with Putin. 

 

We can spend twenty pages unpacking all off of the above but I'm tired. You can start if you wish.

[Vermillion]

42 minutes ago, GhostBox said:

welp 🫡

Biden's  Still  Losing  The  Battlegrounds 

 

 That's  All  That  Matters 

[shelven]

Just what we needed, a single cherrypicked national poll that Biden's incompetent campaign will now use as "proof" that he's going to win the election  When you throw it into the average, Biden's still in a nearly unwinnable position, but I don't think a single member of Biden's campaign staff has ever heard the terms "polling average" or "aggregate" before, so

[Vermillion]

1 minute ago, shelven said:

Just what we needed, a single cherrypicked national poll that Biden's incompetent campaign will now use as "proof" that he's going to win the election  When you throw it into the average, Biden's still in a nearly unwinnable position, but I don't think a single member of Biden's campaign staff has ever heard the terms "polling average" or "aggregate" before, so

I have nothing to add to this right now except thank you.  

 

Again, exhausted with the gaslighting.  

[Vroom Vroom]

That press conference was meh to decent. It's a mistake by the media to focus on the times he obviously misspoke. The media hyper focused on every time Trump misspoke and the public eventually became numb to it. 
The real story is that a lot of his answers were rambling messes that didn't answer the questions 

 

It's starting to look like the dam is not going to break. Let's see what happens at the convention 

[Vermillion]

11 hours ago, Sannie said:

Leftists acting like they won't treat Kamala or any other replacement with the same moral indignation as they treat Biden.  

You know what, let's unpack this too.

 

From the focus groups, studies and polling that I've seen, leftists are tired of settling and won't vote for Biden based on the issues. 

 

Where moderates and independents are the ones raising the concerns on memory, age, and vibes. 

 

The latter's absolutely crucial to leftists and will certainly depress youth turnout but it's not the deciding factor elsewhere.

 

Kamala is to Biden's left. She just has no convictions on it.  Exhibit A is the endless anonymous quotes from her team wanting a more forceful Netanyahu pushback on a Gaza ceasefire.

[Redstreak]

 

[Hex]

The way the media is truly corrupting some of you into thinking Biden is more of a threat than Trump. I'm personally voting for the more sane administration. Don't really care who the figurehead is... these are our current options. Instead of constantly sh*tting the bed maybe we should be more focused on rallying against Christo-fascist extremism, Project 2025 and the Supreme Court's corruption. Just a thought 

[Vermillion]

@Blade With help from a member who I guess I'll keep anonymous (?) here is the updated list with new format. Deleted the past posts.

 

WITHDRAW BIDEN List

 

Representatives (D)

 

1. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (TX-37)
2. Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ-3)
3. Rep. Seth Moulton (MA-6)
4. Rep. Mike Quigley (IL-5)
5. Rep. Angie Craig (MN-2)
6. Rep. Mark Takano (CA-39)
7. Rep. Adam Smith (WA-9)
8. Rep. Joe Morelle (NY-25)
9. Rep. Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11)

10. Rep. Pat Ryan, (NY-18)

11. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, (OR-3)

12. Rep. Hillary Scholten, (MI-3)

13. Rep. Greg Landsman, (OH-1)

14. Rep. Jim Hines, (CT-4)

15. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA-3)

16. Rep. Ed Case (HI-1)

17. Rep. Eric Sorenson (IL-17)

18. Rep. Scott Peters (CA-50)

19. Rep. Greg Stanton (AZ-4)

20. Rep. Brad Schneider (IL-10)

 

U.S. Senators (D)

 

1. Sen. Michael Bennet (CO)

2. Sen. Peter Welch (VT)

 

Formerly in Politics (D)

 

1. Mayor Julian Castro (D-TX) (Sec HUD)
2. Rep. Tim Ryan (OH-23) (Vance won)

 

Power Players (D)

 

James Carville

George Clooney

[Vermillion]

1 minute ago, Hex said:

The way the media is truly corrupting some of you into thinking Biden is more of a threat than Trump. I'm personally voting for the more sane administration. Don't really care who the figurehead is... these are our current options. Instead of constantly sh*tting the bed maybe we should be more focused on rallying against Christo-fascist extremism, Project 2025 and the Supreme Court's corruption. Just a thought 

This entire argument was already addressed six ways to Sunday several pages ago with another member by several on this thread. 
 

I suppose you're welcome to repeat it so soon afterwards, but good luck getting a different response  

[Vermillion]

12 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

 

A more forceful Clyburn pushback is to not even address the hypothetical - the fact that he bothered says it all, imho.

[Redstreak]

16 minutes ago, Hex said:

The way the media is truly corrupting some of you into thinking Biden is more of a threat than Trump. I'm personally voting for the more sane administration. Don't really care who the figurehead is... these are our current options. Instead of constantly sh*tting the bed maybe we should be more focused on rallying against Christo-fascist extremism, Project 2025 and the Supreme Court's corruption. Just a thought 

Biden is a threat because he has no chance of winning, if you're conceding that the only way forward is with the two nominees we already have you're flatly admitting you don't mind if Trump wins

Edited July 12 by Redstreak

[Vermillion]

18 hours ago, bunnyeyes said:

If Kamala gets the spot who do we want for VP?

18 hours ago, khalyan said:

Beshear or Pocan 

18 hours ago, Achilles. said:

I think they should go for someone young. Do a generational change angle. Pete Buttigieg, Andy Beshear, Chris Murphy, Jon Ossoff, Gretchen Whitmer…
 

People will try to argue in favor of some old white man to "add experience" or whatever, but that's dumb because Kamala will be 60 on election day. 

18 hours ago, nadiamendell said:

Yeah, we don't need another potential old white man being president in the near future. 

18 hours ago, bunnyeyes said:

Whoever her VP is needs to be someone of substance. Kamala has the charm and charisma we need on the ballot but her record is wishwashy and the leaks from her camp don't paint the most flattering light. 

18 hours ago, Eat The Acid said:

They've no choice. Too much money at stake. It's Biden or Harris. 

17 hours ago, GhostBox said:

Josh Shapiro is who Kamala should pick (if Biden even steps down. I still doubt it) 

 

but Beshear would be cool too. 

VP dynamics completely scrambled with this new hypothetical in this short amount of time both on how they can hurt or harm the ticket. There's no precedent so a lot of the old rules are out the window.

 

Conventional wisdom says to pick the VP that can go on to run on their own but Dems already have a ton of baggage regarding demographic and generational interparty and intra party warfare, which the right is already excited to exploit.

 

There's who should be Kamala's VP and then there's who Kamala's team will want to pick as her VP. Two very different things.

 

The rules of current political science say that whoever is running can't have the stink of a recent loss. And no, Biden's three prior attempts to run for president don't count for that argument - different generation in different context. Ossoff absolutely is going to lose his upcoming Senate contest based solely on Georgia's new voter ID laws but also on not being able to ride Warnock's coattails of jaded black men any longer. So he's unfortunately off by default, imho. Same argument goes for Sherrod Brown.

 

Gretchen needs to run for President in 2028 or 2032 and not settle for VP despite the gap after being term limited. Pocan doesn't have the brand ID and Buttigieg will feel too forced for bigoted blue collar white male union members and will turn off black church goers that Kamala won't be able to dissuade otherwise in the cities of the Upper Midwest if she goes that route. There's also his disdain and blinders on for the residents of South Bend.

 

From working in campaigns and a somewhat cynical angle, Shapiro doesn't have all the Newsom elite stink but Beshear feels too forced in a play for rural voters. For similar reasons to all the above both Castro brothers are out.

 

So I'd have to tentatively pick Beshear.

 

[khalyan]

5 minutes ago, Vermillion said:

VP dynamics completely scrambled with this new hypothetical in this short amount of time both on how they can hurt or harm the ticket. There's no precedent so a lot of the old rules are out the window.

 

Conventional wisdom says to pick the VP that can go on to run on their own but Dems already have a ton of baggage regarding demographic and generational interparty and intra party warfare, which the right is already excited to exploit.

 

There's who should be Kamala's VP and then there's who Kamala's team will want to pick as her VP. Two very different things.

 

The rules of current political science say that whoever is running can't have the stink of a recent loss. And no, Biden's three prior attempts to run for president don't count for that argument - different generation in different context. Ossoff absolutely is going to lose his upcoming Senate contest based solely on Georgia's new voter ID laws but also on not being able to ride Warnock's coattails of jaded black men any longer. So he's unfortunately off by default, imho. Same argument goes for Sherrod Brown.

 

Gretchen needs to run for President in 2028 or 2032 and not settle for VP despite the gap after being term limited. Pocan doesn't have the brand ID and Buttigieg will feel too forced for bigoted blue collar white male union members and will turn off black church goers that Kamala won't be able to dissuade otherwise in the cities of the Upper Midwest if she goes that route. There's also his disdain and blinders on for the residents of South Bend.

 

From working in campaigns and a somewhat cynical angle, Shapiro doesn't have all the Newsom elite stink but Beshear feels too forced in a play for rural voters. For similar reasons to all the above both Castro brothers are out.

 

So I'd have to tentatively pick Beshear.

 

I agree with most of your comments, but Pocan comes from a Midwest swing state and appeals to progressives without alienating the center. Even if his national profile is smaller than the others, I still think he would be a potential smart choice for the spot. 

[Vermillion]

2 minutes ago, khalyan said:

I agree with most of your comments, but Pocan comes from a Midwest swing state and appeals to progressives without alienating the center. Even if his national profile is smaller than the others, I still think he would be a potential smart choice for the spot. 

I agree with the concept but not the candidate. Not sure how else to say this too, but from a branding perspective he seems too nice and a pushover. He isn't, but I can't see him being able to quickly build a national profile on top of that GP perspective.

[Vermillion]

Oh yeah, everyone's also forgetting the Heritage Foundation is planning to sue if Dems try to change their ballot with Kamala leading it.

 

Amid all the chaos I guess everyone forgot