news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[suneclipse121]

20 minutes ago, Bloo said:

Not to be rude, but how many convention speeches have you watched? She sounded no different from Hillary in 2016 or Biden in 2020. The whole, "We have more in common than we have differences among us," schtick is so generic ChatGPT probably would have written it if you asked it to write a DNC convention speech.

Lmao I think someone else said it but she was so much better than Clinton and Biden combined. She easily came across stronger and had more bite than either of them. I'm not saying she was Obama level but she's the closest anyone has been since. 

Edited August 23 by suneclipse121

[Bloo]

4 minutes ago, CamCam said:

You say "generic", but I call it "normalcy". After the catastrophe (and aftermath) that was Trump & his influence on both the nation & its reputation, including but not limited to:

- theatrics

- continuous acts of self-serving

- blatant disregard for life (as shown with how he handled the pandemic)

- irresponsibility that threatens the well-being of the country

people are tired of not only the lack of decorum, but also lack of stability. Kamala's smartest choice this campaign was to lean into doubling down on security so that people at the very least know have a sense of confidence. She addressed multiple platforms, successfully strengthened her position while emphasizing Trump's ineligibility to run, and spoke with enough conviction to speak to the American people's need for assurance & promise. It's like a car—sure, one with  flashy features is appreciated, but after that one experience with a lemon, a reliable car is all that matters.

 

Liberal voters like normalcy. Independents and most voters, in general, hate politicians and that’s one of the reasons they voted for Trump. Sure, it’s a “normal” speech. But “normalcy” was Biden’s entire pitch in 2020 while the country was on fire, in economic ruin, and plagued by a virus that killed 400k Americans and Biden won by 44,000 votes across three states.

 

Normal isn’t a winning argument. Generallty, liberals think it is a compelling reset button that average voters crave for. But the myth of the “moderate voter” has been debunked ad nauseum. Voters care a great deal about policy and Kamala didn’t do a good job of broadening her appeal beyond liberally-minded voters that were already going to vote for her.

 

For instance, your point about “self-serving” politicians is moot because the average voter thinks all politicians are naturally self-serving. So a politician speaking with an indoor voice to deliver an overly polished and overly rehearsed speech doesn’t comfort them much. They interpret them as a “normal politician” and a “normal politician” to them is self-serving.

 

Tim Walz’ speech was immeasurably better and did a better job of normalizing populist policy in a commonsense manner. His rhetoric will appeal to different voters and might bring in new voters. Kamala’s speech failed to do that.

[WildAmerican]

I'm pretty sure she didn't mention the historical nature of her candidacy at all. I always feel like Hillary laid it on pretty thick. interesting approach. she def needs to lead with her vision over identity.

[Oxygen]

Kamala did a fine job with her speech, albeit her active/passive voice when speaking about Israel and Gaza respectively was frustrating. 
 

It’s now the time to get the job done and keep Trump out of office  

[Redstreak]

8 minutes ago, Sannie said:

It just depends on the policy. Leftist policies like universal healthcare (packaged with a different name) are very popular. Leftist policies like "kill all Jews in Israel" are not.

This is literally just right wing framing

[Gov Hooka]

10 minutes ago, WildAmerican said:

i'm gonna donate to the MI Dem party bc of this brb

let's see if it helps to counteract the facts I'll be letting the people of Ann Arbor and the people of my community in Rochester Hills and Canton know. 

[Vroom Vroom]

This election kind of reminds me of the most recent season of all stars. 
 

I rooted for Angeria the whole season. Angeria slayed the first 3/4ths of the season, but everyone on the internet told me that she was one note and that Roxxy was going to win, even though Roxxy was kind of flopping in the first 4-5 episodes. Near the end of the season Roxxy started doing better and the internet convinced me that Angeria was going to lose. During the finale I had accepted that Roxxy was going to get the crown, but then at the last second, Ru crowned Angeria! I was too shook to even celebrate. But I thanked god that Angeria won the pointless charity season instead of the overrated Roxxy Andrews 

[Bloo]

1 minute ago, suneclipse121 said:

Lmao I think someone else said it but she was so much better than Clinton and Biden combined. She easily came across stronger and had more bite than either of them. I'm not saying she was Obama level but she's the closest anyone has been since him. 

Not really? Biden, sure, but Biden could barely speak in 2020.

 

You can say a lot of things against Hillary’s political instincts. But she mocked Donald Trump relentlessly in 2016.

[FameFatale]

We need a hearing 

 

 

[Bethenny Frankel]

I swear, some people are never happy with anything. Kamala had a GREAT speech. You can't get everything you can in politics, and I'm sorry, but the average American voter is an idiot and most of you are too.

 

[wastedpotential]

7 minutes ago, Bloo said:

Conservatives in America are very isolationist in terms of foreign policy. A weapons embargo has a very easy sales pitch to conservative voters. Nobody on the left is advocating for a weapons ban because we all know that that's not remotely winnable given our country's gun culture. 

I don't think it's necessarily wise to paint all conservatives with the same brush stroke regarding isolationism and an embargo. There are some true isolationists who want to wall the US off from the world and keep all the weapons in the country for the day the Chinese attempt to land soldiers in San Francisco Bay, then there are conservatives who don't care much about foreign policy but are glad to see dead brown children, there are those whose preacher tells them to support Israel and that's all they care about the issue, and then there's the group who own stock in defense contractors who are glad to see their bottom lines improve. There are some conservatives who'd agree with a weapons embargo (though I doubt many do so on moral grounds), but the majority either don't care, like the chaos, or actively profit from the shipments. The party of Bush may have been subsumed by MAGA, but there are still several tens million Republicans who strongly hold to neocon warmongering. 

[Tovitov]

1 minute ago, Bloo said:

Not really? Biden, sure, but Biden could barely speak in 2020.

 

You can say a lot of things against Hillary's political instincts. But she mocked Donald Trump relentlessly in 2016.

Im of the opinion that Hillary is actually a good public speaker, so many people just dont like her. 

[toxicgenie]

2 minutes ago, Gov Hooka said:

let's see if it helps to counteract the facts I'll be letting the people of Ann Arbor and the people of my community in Rochester Hills and Canton know. 

Weird behavior.

Go knock yourself out! Hopefully you're busy doing that and spare us your presence here.

[BOOMBAYAH]

Random question, but do you think she avoids discussing LGBTQ+ rights as explicitly as before—like only saying 'love who you love' instead of specifically mentioning 'gay,' 'lesbian,' 'trans,' etc.—because it's become a non-issue in Democratic politics, or because it might be too polarizing and could cost her votes? I was thinking about how, in the last election, Biden would explicitly say 'protect Black trans women,' but now, it feels almost unimaginable for him or Kamala to say something like that today.

[Mariah4life]

That was her best speech to date. She was strong and passionate. Way to show up and save your best for last! Can't wait to vote

[on the line]

8 minutes ago, Wonderland said:

Not Beyonce being a no show after all that hype  

 

I really think they should have made it more clear she wasn't going to be there as it already sets up a tone of disappointment before Kamala even comes out

Who was the special guest?

[Kylizzle]

Just now, BOOMBAYAH said:

Random question, but do you think she avoids discussing LGBTQ+ rights as explicitly as before—like only saying 'love who you love' instead of specifically mentioning 'gay,' 'lesbian,' 'trans,' etc.—because it's become a non-issue in Democratic politics, or because it might be too polarizing and could cost her votes? I was thinking about how, in the last election, Biden would explicitly say 'protect Black trans women,' but now, it feels almost unimaginable for him or Kamala to say something like that today.

I was very surprised she didn't mention trans people at all her in speech, but as a trans woman I haven't seen evidence that she is compromising on trans rights so I don't really mind her not bringing it up. I hope it isn't indicative of anything else though.

[Pikachoo]

17 minutes ago, Vermillion said:

Not seeing any stats on Dobbs motivation and the Kamala switch-out good enough yet to rebut the theory that without a ceasefire at the minimum by October Kamala will lose Michigan.

according to NYT/Siena cross tabs of registered voters in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina

 

most important issue this election:

economy: 22%

abortion: 14%

immigration: 13%

inflation/ cost of living: 7%

character/ competence of candidate: 6%

state of democracy/corruption: 5%

equality/inequality: 4%

polarization/division : 3%

dislike of opposing candidate: 3%

health care, gun policies, israel/palestine, taxes, racism, = 1%

crime, russia/ukraine, climate change, election integrity, education,  <1%

 

 

 

Edited August 23 by Pikachoo

[Wonderland]

1 minute ago, on the line said:

Who was the special guest?

I bet it was that Curry video endorsement that was a complete non-factor in the schedule  

[Gov Hooka]

2 minutes ago, toxicgenie said:

Weird behavior.

Go knock yourself out! Hopefully you're busy doing that and spare us your presence here.

Yep! Unlike y'all here making shameful excuses for the political party enacting a genocide… 

[Bloo]

5 minutes ago, wastedpotential said:

I don't think it's necessarily wise to paint all conservatives with the same brush stroke regarding isolationism and an embargo. There are some true isolationists who want to wall the US off from the world and keep all the weapons in the country for the day the Chinese attempt to land soldiers in San Francisco Bay, then there are conservatives who don't care much about foreign policy but are glad to see dead brown children, there are those whose preacher tells them to support Israel and that's all they care about the issue, and then there's the group who own stock in defense contractors who are glad to see their bottom lines improve. There are some conservatives who'd agree with a weapons embargo (though I doubt many do so on moral grounds), but the majority either don't care, like the chaos, or actively profit from the shipments. The party of Bush may have been subsumed by MAGA, but there are still several tens million Republicans who strongly hold to neocon warmongering. 

Sure. I should have been more precise. However, a very large chunk of conservatives adhere to isolationist foreign policy and that is true of our funding of the ongoing genocide—more importantly, preventing the funding of this ongoing genocide appeals to Independents as well:

 

 

[Bethenny Frankel]

Just now, Pikachoo said:

according to NYT/Siena cross tabs of registered voters in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina

 

most important issue this election:

economy: 22%

abortion: 14%

immigration: 13%

inflation/ cost of living: 7%

character/ competence of candidate: 6%

state of democracy/corruption: 5%

equality/inequality: 4%

polarization/division : 3%

dislike of opposing candidate: 3%

health care, gun policies, israel/palestine, taxes, racism, = 1%

crime, russia/ukraine, climate change, election integrity, education,  <1%

 

 

 

exactly, even with the uncommitted voters not voting for Biden in 2020 now, Biden still wins Michigan. Some people truly don't look at the numbers. You can have all the sympathy for Palestinians that you want, myself included, but the average idiot American voter is going to care about what's happening in America FIRST, not in another country

 

[suneclipse121]

Just now, Bloo said:

Not really? Biden, sure, but Biden could barely speak in 2020.

 

You can say a lot of things against Hillary's political instincts. But she mocked Donald Trump relentlessly in 2016.

Hillary doesn't have that natural charisma that Harris has. Clinton has always been a mediocre orator. She's a policy wonk to her core but she's not moving anyone with her speeches. Harris makes a much stronger case against Trump than Clinton ever did partially because she thought she would win. Harris is running like an underdog and seems to have done her homework on not repeating the same mistakes Clinton did. 
 

Harris is more relentless in her attacks against Trump. She's not letting him breathe. And you can tell it's getting to him. Just look at his Fox News call tonight lol 

[Redstreak]

5 minutes ago, BOOMBAYAH said:

Random question, but do you think she avoids discussing LGBTQ+ rights as explicitly as before—like only saying 'love who you love' instead of specifically mentioning 'gay,' 'lesbian,' 'trans,' etc.—because it's become a non-issue in Democratic politics, or because it might be too polarizing and could cost her votes? I was thinking about how, in the last election, Biden would explicitly say 'protect Black trans women,' but now, it feels almost unimaginable for him or Kamala to say something like that today.

It just doesn't feel like that hot of a topic in this cycle

[SlayianaGrenade]

1 minute ago, Bethenny Frankel said:

exactly, even with the uncommitted voters not voting for Biden in 2020 now, Biden still wins Michigan. Some people truly don't look at the numbers. You can have all the sympathy for Palestinians that you want, myself included, but the average idiot American voter is going to care about what's happening in America FIRST, not in another country

 

It's crazy cause anytime we bring this up it's down votes galore. The truth really hurts leftist. I'm always gonna support freeing Palestine but the delusion is astonishing!