Rotunda Posted July 24 Posted July 24 Are we going to have to deal with the same three users arguing in bad faith until November? Chile I could have stayed in the base for that…
Rotunda Posted July 24 Posted July 24 1 minute ago, GraceRandolph said: Political parties are SUPPOSED to be "divided" the GOP is a ******* cult and not something we should emulate. Being divided would actually be emulating the GOP
PrettyHurts Posted July 24 Posted July 24 5 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said: Political parties are SUPPOSED to be "divided" the GOP is a ******* cult and not something we should emulate. i see what you're saying. i personally don't think of the democrats and republicans as all that different in terms of goals. i'm just explaining why the democrat elites made the decisions they did in order to strengthen their chances of winning.....which were looking GRIM before joe dropped out
NausAllien Posted July 24 Posted July 24 4 minutes ago, PrettyHurts said: the idea that beshear, who many people literally do not know, is more likely to beat trump than kamala, the current vice president who has been on the national stage for a decade+ is a little silly It really isn't. No one knew about Obama before the Dem primary. He was just a Senator from Illinois. He appeared from nowhere but managed to defeat a woman EVERYONE knew about, a former First Lady. And then went to have one of the biggest victories of the modern era, flipping states that haven't voted for a Democrat in a long time. I don't know if Beshear can be like Obama, but for what I've seen he has a lot of potential. Why not give him a chance? The best you're getting with Kamala is a toss up and y'all know it. There are people out there that could give a more solid victory.
Happylittlepunk Posted July 24 Posted July 24 It's too late for a primary we legit have Les than 100 days until we all have to vote for a new president. Williamson needs to get over it. It's too late now! The time has come for Kamala to make her move and pick a VP that can help her where she lacks strength. 2
Rotunda Posted July 24 Posted July 24 1 minute ago, NausAllien said: It really isn't. No one knew about Obama before the Dem primary. He was just a Senator from Illinois. He appeared from nowhere but managed to defeat a woman EVERYONE knew about, a former First Lady. And then went to have one of the biggest victories of the modern era, flipping states that haven't voted for a Democrat in a long time. I don't know if Beshear can be like Obama, but for what I've seen he has a lot of potential. Why not give him a chance? The best you're getting with Kamala is a toss up and y'all know it. There are people out there that could give a more solid victory. If Biden had announced this like a year ago nobody would be disagreeing with you. Unfortunately, we do not have time. Obama did not go from someone with no name ID outside of Illinois to president in 100 days. This thread is not some KHive hideaway. We are not the equivalent of that one Nancy Pelosi stan who will be singing Kamala's praises endlessly. It's a logistical issue. 1 1
Butters Posted July 24 Posted July 24 (edited) 14 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said: Again, the outcome of an open process is most likely going to select Kamala anyway for institutional and logistical reasons, but it would battle test her and force her to solidify her positions on issues and make her a better candidate against Trump. "battle testing" Kamala is absolutely not worth the division that would be sown within the Democratic party and their voters. The optics of her party members/rivals scrambling to coalesce around her right after giving arguments on why she wouldn't be a good president, two months before the election would be so awful. This is a non issue. No one is going to seriously challenge her give it up Edited July 24 by Butters 1
shelven Posted July 24 Posted July 24 4 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said: but it would battle test her I truly can't tell how much of your posting the last few days has been trolling vs. how much has been genuine, but if this is genuine, an open convention where Marianne is the main challenger would not "battle test" Harris in any way Like I ask this non-rhetorically: what specific things would you like to see happen in this open convention you've been begging for over the last 72 hours? Because you can put in as many technical formalities into the process as you want, but it won't change the fact that basically the entire Democratic congressional caucus has endorsed Harris and she's raised an absolutely obscene amount of grassroots money since Biden dropped out. The delegates won't take anybody else seriously no matter what circus hoops you make the candidates jump through. You can force them to debate, you can let them all give grandiose televised speeches, but it would all be waved off as a waste of time and a joke at this point. Every notable Democratic politician who theoretically could have meaningfully challenged Harris before the party got behind her - mainly Whitmer, Shapiro, Beshear, Newsom - endorsed her within literal minutes of Biden's announcement. Nobody forced them not to challenge her; they just realized that it didn't make sense in these circumstances to spend the next 4 weeks in a rushed, chaotic fight for the nomination. Anybody left who hasn't already endorsed Harris would not present her with a remotely meaningful challenge, so there's literally no point wasting time, money and effort going through the motions. Seeing any benefit in a contested convention at this point is either a result of trolling or deep delusion. 6 1
Communion Posted July 24 Posted July 24 29 minutes ago, shyboi said: so yall think Kamala have a real chance against Trump? Yes. I think those who claim she doesn't should articulate what they think is how Biden won in 2020. I know not everyone is as mentally ill as I with niche specific memory for the oddest political facts and thus I don't bother putting my foot on someone's neck when they say something wrong - except that one user whose posts all go "leftists and MAGA (same thing)" and didn't know black people lived in Wisconsin - but almost felt compelled to when seeing someone on here say that Kamala would struggle to win over Republicans like Biden could. ...everyone is aware right that Trump increased his share of the Republican vote from 2016 to 2020, right? That the Lincoln Project and Never Trump Republicans are frauds and were more likely to leave the top of the ticket blank than vote for a Democrat in 2020? Biden's win in large part was due to shocking increases in youth turnout due to the sense of urgency around COVID. Democrats are at their strongest when they have their progressive base running at full gear and energized. Clinton didn't lose because she failed to appeal to moderate whites who voted for Obama once or twice. She lost because enough working class black voters felt like the country had stagnated and Dems weren't doing any campaigning to re-engage them across Milwaukee, Detroit, and Philadelphia. The Clinton strategy was literally articulated as "for every one rural voter in Western PA we lose, we'll pick up two moderate Republicans in suburbs on the skirts of Pittsburg". She...lost both and actually then also even lost voters in urban and city centers part of the forgotten-about base. 7 1
GhostBox Posted July 24 Posted July 24 I wish the convention was tomorrow that way we can stop the Williamson dream boners in here 💀 3
Blade Posted July 24 Posted July 24 Imagine the MAGA meltdowns if Taylor performs at the DNC They can't even argue in good faith that the Dems are using "Hollywood" to buy votes because botched celebrities Kid Rock and Hulk Hogan were at the RNC. 1 1 1
Communion Posted July 24 Posted July 24 Not to spam but I would recommend people follow whatever black socialist voices out of Wisconsin they can find to get a better understanding of what is the throughline that actually determines if Dems win the EC or lose it. I've followed Malaika since 2016 when she started reporting on the very negative sentiment on the ground in Milwaukee. 3 1
19SLAYty9 Posted July 24 Posted July 24 1 hour ago, GraceRandolph said: She looks like she's coked out of her mind 1
whiteferrari Posted July 24 Posted July 24 Might be delusional but I can really see Kamala taking it, none of my friends were interested in voting until this happened 8
karron0624 Posted July 24 Posted July 24 1 hour ago, NausAllien said: It really isn't. No one knew about Obama before the Dem primary. He was just a Senator from Illinois. He appeared from nowhere but managed to defeat a woman EVERYONE knew about, a former First Lady. And then went to have one of the biggest victories of the modern era, flipping states that haven't voted for a Democrat in a long time. I don't know if Beshear can be like Obama, but for what I've seen he has a lot of potential. Why not give him a chance? The best you're getting with Kamala is a toss up and y'all know it. There are people out there that could give a more solid victory. You realize Obama was well know by the time he ran. Someone correct be if im wrong, but he had already spoken at the DNC, toured the 40 states as a senator, including doing a tour of Tennessee(my home state which is deep red) of all places helping other Senators run (and was here for three weeks traveling the state), was already involved in national politics, etc. Beshear has done none of that and is only known by a lot of us in here because we are politically minded. 3
ClashAndBurn Posted July 24 Posted July 24 1 hour ago, Mike91 said: Yes. It's not 2016 anymore and, as I explained before, Millenials and Gen Z are the largest voting blocs now. No one is saying it will be easy, but she absolutely has a chance. I personally think she will win the election. She's not Hillary. People weren't excited about Hillary at all, only at the prospect of having the first woman president. That wasn't enough to carry her through and/or heal the divisions in the party after her primary with Bernie. They're the largest voting blocs, but people here are advocating that she throw them away by choosing an ultra-Zionist running mate who would be even worse on Israel-Palestine than Biden when he ultimately ends up running for president in 2032. Shapiro would not energize anyone outside of Pennsylvania, and might actually depress turnout in Michigan. 2
kwek_kwek Posted July 24 Posted July 24 I think what makes Kamala different from Hillary or Trump is that she's more relatable to the public. She does not always act high and mighty. And that can make her win the election. 4
Happylittlepunk Posted July 24 Posted July 24 6 minutes ago, kwek_kwek said: I think what makes Kamala different from Hillary or Trump is that she's more relatable to the public. She does not always act high and mighty. And that can make her win the election. Yep that was always Hilary biggest issues is that she seemed so high and mighty every time she did an interview and would speak down too you for questioning her decisions. 1
Mike91 Posted July 24 Posted July 24 So what is the downside to Tim Walz? Is he a p.o.s genocide supporter too? He kinda won me over with his his interview earlier.
GhostBox Posted July 24 Posted July 24 8 minutes ago, nooniebao said: I mean that's horrible but people are fed up with this and the infighting. We don't have time for these antics anymore. thats why you are seeing such enthusiasm around Harris right now. Everyone knows its make or break time. the goal is to win and then sure let's have a family fight. 1 3
NausAllien Posted July 24 Posted July 24 1 minute ago, GhostBox said: the goal is to win and then sure let's have a family fight. This is a HUGE mistake. Your end goal cannot be to JUST win. If that's ALL you care about, you'll end up with a failed government like Biden's (according to RCP 68% of Americans think it's in the wrong track). And in 2028, Republicans will come back stronger than ever. Why do you think Trump is polling so well this cycle? Because a majority of people do not like what Biden during her presidency. A lot of them will still not vote for Trump, but the fact someone with his rap sheet is even COMPETITIVE should be a WAKE UP CALL FOR DEMOCRATS. It's not JUST about winning. It's about doing something. It's about helping people. It's about trying to make the world a better place. 1
bad guy Posted July 24 Posted July 24 1 hour ago, Sannie said: It's not 2016 and this isn't HRC. Also, there was no one as influential or as powerful celebrity-wise in 2016 as Taylor is in 2024. Her endorsement will matter. And really, it's not even the endorsement that is the big deal here, it's the spreading of info to her white, suburban fanbase that is needed to win. She needs to let them know how important this election is for THEIR safety and their rights as women. The last time Taylor spoke out about a Republican candidate they ended up keeping their seat. I just think celebrity endorsements are highly overrated. At the end of the day people are gonna vote based on whether or not they feel like a candidate is fighting for them. If Kamala can convey that with policy to back it up, then that is how to effectively combat Trump. Not if a billionaire singer says "vote for her". If anything I feel majority voters reject celebrities telling them what to do because they know they have nothing to lose regardless of the outcome. I will say Trump choosing JD Vance and not a younger female moderate Republican was extremely stupid on his part regarding the suburban women vote. 2
Recommended Posts