news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[Wonderland]

Also why is anyone taking Hasan's political takes seriously when he has that pit fetish profile pic that would fail the explicit avi ban on here

 

[ClashAndBurn]

4 hours ago, Redstreak said:

People downvoting me like I said she'd lose  I just think tonight showed she's not gonna be all that different from Biden and that's not a set of politics you're gonna win with long term

The only way there is a primary in 2028 is if Kamala loses this year. She'll ride the exact same incumbency train to the nomination that Biden did this year up until he humiliated himself on the debate stage

 

ive said it before, but 2032 could be the first time we have a free and fair primary where the DNC doesn't have their thumb on the scale in some form or fashion (2016 superdelegates, 2020 coordinated dropouts after SC) since 2008. That's assuming Walz doesn't want the job at the end of it, because he'll only be 68 then, which makes him a spring chicken by Dem leadership standards (about 10 years younger than Biden was in 2020). He's claiming an air of humility now, but in 8 years a lot could change.

[Wonderland]

Imagine the mess in 2032 if the primary is Tim Walz vs. Josh Shapiro vs. Gretchen Whitmer vs. AOC vs. Pete vs. Any other insurgent governor/senator who pops up over the next 8 years  

[Mordecai]

I replied to a comment on a pro-Trump video that said because the founding fathers were convicted criminals it shouldn't matter that Trump is one too (). The amount of braindead responses I got 

[Lil Mxnster]

Kamala's speech was good  A bit too centrist for my taste, though it did include leftist nods. The final part gave me chills: "Let's fight together and write the great next chapter!"  Overall, the most memorable speech at this DNC was Walz's by far, followed by Ocasio-Cortez and Buttigieg. A few of the ads were terrific as well 

[ClashAndBurn]

2 minutes ago, Wonderland said:

Imagine the mess in 2032 if the primary is Tim Walz vs. Josh Shapiro vs. Gretchen Whitmer vs. AOC vs. Pete vs. Any other insurgent governor/senator who pops up over the next 8 years  

Whitmer to date hasn't shown presidential aspirations. After her term as governor is up, she could very well retire and take up a commentator post at CNN or MSNBC. Or she could even run for the Gary Peters Senate seat IF he retires in 2026. Personally I'm afraid 2032 will be Shapiro's race to lose if he doesn't decide to primary Fetterman in 2028 instead.

 

AOC doesn't really have a constituency. The Bernie well has dissipated in addition to all the enthusiasm surrounding her in 2018. The Squad is splintering, not just due to AIPAC's decisive victories but also due to AOC's inability to even use the g-word except under extreme duress.

[Bears01]

Thoughts: I feel like IF Kamala wins, and all depending on how Congress looks, she truly will be Obama 2.0. Dems go back to getting their asses kicked downballot as the GOP has to finally ditch Trump as he can't stop losing them elections, and an uncertain future from the Dems going forward. 
 

I mean, I'll take it over project 2025 but we truly do need drastic and immediate changes in this country from the top down 

[Vermillion]

 

[Bloodflowers.]

 

Mother ate 

 

[Bloodflowers.]

9 hours ago, Communion said:

It's genuinely wild and might not get accurately depicted in history that part of why Democrats are able to sustain themselves and maintain a nonsensical and ideologically incoherent coalition for a decade or so has been because Republicans became so prone to overt cruelty that mainstream conservatives now openly mock autistic children. 

 

 

 

These 60 yo dinosaurs mocking a child, it's really getting weird now

 

[Chemist]

 

[Virgos Groove]

If NATOids and neocons are gonna drag us into another Cold War, can we at least get some new Bond movies or something?

 

Edited August 23 by Virgos Groove

[MAKSIM]

 

 

[Chemist]

7 hours ago, GhostBox said:

These are the same ones who come in here and only post negativity on a daily basis. This is nothing new. 

Your toxic positivity is way worse I am sorry. If it were for you, Biden would still be the nominee

 

[Wonderland]

Isn't it interesting that a lot of the best and most memorable speakers at the convention also happened to speak for the least amount of time for their respective slots  

[eyeroll]

My brain's at capacity for more critical thought of the DNC, so the main thing I keep thinking about is Michelle Obama's braided ponytail. Truly a highlight. Probably the only bipartisan development to emerge out of the entire election cycle so far. It's like a war crime to say she didn't absolutely rock that 

[State of Grace.]

 

Graphic images:

Spoiler

   

 

No wonder the racist genocide-supporting Libs in here are praising her speech. Keep rooting for this center-right warhawk. Keep claiming that you care about human rights. Keep calling anyone criticizing her a "Trump supporter" when she's running the most conservative Democratic campaign in ages. 

[MAKSIM]

8 hours ago, Bloo said:

Huh? What kind of strawman is this? Do you think it's easier to convince a conservative to ban guns domestically or stop spending billions of dollars on a war that doesn't involve us?

 

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. 

Yes I think it is equally difficult because you are not stating the conservative position at all. Conservatives are not supporting an arms embargo to Israel. You can say they're isolationist all you want. 

[Thuggin]

3 hours ago, Bears01 said:

Thoughts: I feel like IF Kamala wins, and all depending on how Congress looks, she truly will be Obama 2.0. Dems go back to getting their asses kicked downballot as the GOP has to finally ditch Trump as he can't stop losing them elections, and an uncertain future from the Dems going forward. 
 

I mean, I'll take it over project 2025 but we truly do need drastic and immediate changes in this country from the top down 

And this is why I don't understand why people seem to think that after Trump is defeated, the Republican Party could fall into irrelevancy. It is much much more likely for the Democratic Party to do that now that they've become the big tent party whose central identity is anti-Trumpism. Trump has massively moved this country to the right. In 2016 it was "build the wall" while Dems called those policies racist and inhumane. In 2024 it's "mass deportations" while Dems scramble to tout the most conservative plan to tackle the border yet. Along with all the other policies that have been abandoned: police reform, death penalty abolition, Medicare For All or public option, a ban on fracking.

 

Once Trump is gone, the anti-Trump Republicans will feel perfectly content switching back over to their party now that "character" and "decency" have been restored, provided someone who doesn't have the albatross of Trump association over their necks becomes the nominee even if they would carry out the same agenda Trump would. Meanwhile, the 2008 Democratic coalition is gone for good. Most of those middle and working class voters who made the switch from Democrat to Republican have been too effectively radicalized. They're not just anti-Biden or anti-Harris Republicans. They're now firmly anti-Democratic Party and everything it stands for.

 

And if you need any more proof that the future of the Democratic Party is precarious consider that if Nikki Haley were the Republican nominee right now - even if she were planning to pardon Trump and boasted all his same policies - no one here would question that she would not only win the Electoral College but probably the popular vote by at least a few points too. And then if Romney was the nominee and stuck to his values on conservatism and anti-Trumpism, do people think he would lose because he wouldn't get the support of MAGA Republicans? No, Republicans would still vote for him - they only care about power. And Democrats would have no problem voting for him either. They love pre-Trump Republicans now. Romney would beat Kamala by like at least 8 points.

[Bloo]

23 minutes ago, MAKSIM said:

Yes I think it is equally difficult because you are not stating the conservative position at all. Conservatives are not supporting an arms embargo to Israel. You can say they're isolationist all you want. 

I posted polling not long after that original post showing a sizable portion of Republican voters reject the funding of Israel. Of course that’s not everyone, but to say you can’t appeal to conservatives (who frequently lambast government spending) by cease spending on a war we aren’t directly involved with is laughable. More importantly, it’s a lazy excuse for Kamala and Dems to not adopt policy with broad support. 

[ClashAndBurn]

1 hour ago, Chemist said:

Your toxic positivity is way worse I am sorry. If it were for you, Biden would still be the nominee

 

Correct. And if Biden were the nominee and he delivered a meandering, slurred speech, it would be declared "the best convention speech any presidential nominee has ever delivered    " by the same folks faux stanning Kamala

[Bears01]

10 minutes ago, Thuggin said:

And this is why I don't understand why people seem to think that after Trump is defeated, the Republican Party could fall into irrelevancy. It is much much more likely for the Democratic Party to do that now that they've become the big tent party whose central identity is anti-Trumpism. Trump has massively moved this country to the right. In 2016 it was "build the wall" while Dems called those policies racist and inhumane. In 2024 it's "mass deportations" while Dems scramble to tout the most conservative plan to tackle the border yet. Along with all the other policies that have been abandoned: police reform, death penalty abolition, Medicare For All or public option, a ban on fracking.

 

Once Trump is gone, the anti-Trump Republicans will feel perfectly content switching back over to their party now that "character" and "decency" have been restored, provided someone who doesn't have the albatross of Trump association over their necks becomes the nominee even if they would carry out the same agenda Trump would. Meanwhile, the 2008 Democratic coalition is gone for good. Most of those middle and working class voters who made the switch from Democrat to Republican have been too effectively radicalized. They're not just anti-Biden or anti-Harris Republicans. They're now firmly anti-Democratic Party and everything it stands for.

 

And if you need any more proof that the future of the Democratic Party is precarious consider that if Nikki Haley were the Republican nominee right now - even if she were planning to pardon Trump and boasted all his same policies - no one here would question that she would not only win the Electoral College but probably the popular vote by at least a few points too. And then if Romney was the nominee and stuck to his values on conservatism and anti-Trumpism, do people think he would lose because he wouldn't get the support of MAGA Republicans? No, Republicans would still vote for him - they only care about power. And Democrats would have no problem voting for him either. They love pre-Trump Republicans now. Romney would beat Kamala by like at least 8 points.

Everything you said and I said is correct. 
 

However: Trump also has diehard loyalists that only vote when he's on the ballot. They're true "trumplicans". Believe me, I know many of them. They don't bother to vote or get politically engaged if Trump is not front and center directly. 
 

They'll need a new leader and future eventually 

[ClashAndBurn]

4 minutes ago, Bears01 said:

Everything you said and I said is correct. 
 

However: Trump also has diehard loyalists that only vote when he's on the ballot. They're true "trumplicans". Believe me, I know many of them. They don't bother to vote or get politically engaged if Trump is not front and center directly. 
 

They'll need a new leader and future eventually 

The point is that all the Never-Trump people the Dems decided were worth highlighting at their convention (while sidelining Palestinians out of nothing but pure, deep-seated racism) will abandon ship the instant they're allowed to rally around a Nikki Haley or Chris Christie candidate.

[Thuggin]

4 minutes ago, Bears01 said:

Everything you said and I said is correct. 
 

However: Trump also has diehard loyalists that only vote when he's on the ballot. They're true "trumplicans". Believe me, I know many of them. They don't bother to vote or get politically engaged if Trump is not front and center directly. 
 

They'll need a new leader and future eventually 

I feel like I just know way more people who "don't agree with everything Trump says but agree with enough where it counts because Biden is bad too". I know there probably are a decent chunk of Trump loyalists who would only vote for Trumpism, but do they really exceed the number of people in the Democratic coalition who would switch back to the Republican Party of Romney/McCain/Bush? I don't think so. And if anything, I think the Trump loyalists just disengage from the political process entirely rather than suddenly supporting Democrats.

[JoJo]

I still can't get over the fact that Kamala said that the US will continue to have the most lethal military in the world. I know that US presidents have always been warhawks, but lethal? Who wrote her speech? They couldn't have at least used the word strong?
 

She supported Biden's conservative border policy, defended Israel, and ranted about Iran, but said nothing substantial about the economy. The last part of her speech was just bizarre.