news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[FameFatale]

 

[anti-bitch]

38 minutes ago, Rotunda said:

If you want an Obama-Lite person to be the face of the Dems, you’re better off going with Ossoff than Pete (who will likely be viable for something by 2028). 
 

He’d check a new box (first Jewish Pres/VP), is young, can “appear” both progressive and establishment, resides in a swing state, and is actually liked by Black people. 

But there's no need to check any boxes now. In 2024 our best hope is gonna be a straight white man, and most likely in 2028 still. Let's be realistic. In the 2030's it could be different because white people will become a minority in the country and the amount of LGBTQ people will continue to grow.

Edited November 17, 2022 by anti-bitch

[Sergi91]

31 minutes ago, Rotunda said:

If you want an Obama-Lite person to be the face of the Dems, you’re better off going with Ossoff than Pete (who will likely be viable for something by 2028). 
 

He’d check a new box (first Jewish Pres/VP), is young, can “appear” both progressive and establishment, resides in a swing state, and is actually liked by Black people. 

I think Ossoff is a great candidate and obviously better than Pete. 

[Miles.]

34 minutes ago, Rotunda said:

If you want an Obama-Lite person to be the face of the Dems, you’re better off going with Ossoff than Pete (who will likely be viable for something by 2028). 
 

He’d check a new box (first Jewish Pres/VP), is young, can “appear” both progressive and establishment, resides in a swing state, and is actually liked by Black people. 

!  All of this.

[anti-bitch]

And I think Hillary would have won if she was man. There's still so many men who don't wanna be ruled/lead by a woman ever, thus won't vote for one.

Edited November 17, 2022 by anti-bitch

[Kassi]

 

 

 

Does anyone else already feel exhausted by just the mere thought of non-stop, ongoing investigations into nonsense? 

 

Well that's probably how most of the American people will be feeling for the next two years. And why I always told @ClashAndBurn that this will only boost Biden's chances in 2024. 

 

At least the Jan 6th investigations had a narrative hook and a juicy plot: Insurrection! Democracy! Conspiracy! Secret Service!. It was like a season plucked right out of a Shonda Rhimes series. Meanwhile, House Republicans are just planning to do boring Benghazi style hearing all the way to 2024.  

[Rotunda]

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

But there's no need to check any boxes. In 2024 our best hope is gonna be a straight white man, and most likely in 2028 still. Let's be realistic. In the 2030's it could be different because white people will become a minority in the country and the amount of LGBTQ people will continue to grow.

A few things: 

 

1- Ossoff is a straight white man 

 

2- Saying we don’t need “boxes” while specifically advocating for a straight white man ignores the fact that “straight white man” is a literal box you’re asking people to check 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Rotunda

[anti-bitch]

8 minutes ago, Rotunda said:

A few things: 

 

1- Ossoff is a straight white and a man 

 

2- Saying we don’t need “boxes” while specifically advocating for a straight white man ignores the fact that “straight white man” is a literal box you’re asking people to check 

I should have said straight, white and Christian. And you're rights it's a box, the biggest box of all. But it's also the default option. And I'm just saying that we need to calculate whatever option is the best for any given time. The candidate's image matters more than the policies, I think. And I mean in the sense of who's gonna get more votes.

Edited November 17, 2022 by anti-bitch

[Rotunda]

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

I should have said straight, white and Christian. And you're rights it's a box, the biggest box of all. But it's also the default option. And I'm just saying that we need to calculate whatever option is the best for any given time. The candidate's image matters more than the policies, I think. And I mean in the sense of who's gonna get more votes.

National elections come down to voters in a handful of swing states. After inaugurations their breakdowns will be: 

 

Arizona (Female Governor, Bisexual Female Atheist Senator) 

 

Michigan (Female Governor, Female Senator)

 

Georgia (Black Senator, Jewish Senator)

 

Pennsylvania (Jewish Governor, Disabled Senator)

Wisconsin (Lesbian Senator) 

Nevada (2 Female Senators, 1 Latina, 1 Jewish)

Edited November 17, 2022 by Rotunda

[anti-bitch]

16 minutes ago, Rotunda said:

National elections come down to voters in a handful of swing states. After inaugurations their breakdowns will be: 

 

Arizona (Female Governor, Bisexual Female Atheist Senator) 

 

Michigan (Female Governor, Female Senator)

 

Georgia (Black Senator, Jewish Senator)

 

Pennsylvania (Jewish Governor, Disabled Senator)

Wisconsin (Lesbian Senator) 

Nevada (2 Female Senators, 1 Latina, 1 Jewish)

I just wonder if that's gonna fly nationwide. And possibly people have different standards for the president than any other official. There was a white backlash in 2016 after having Obama elected for two terms. But I guess Joe is on lock for 2024, so we won't get to choose until 2028.

[Kassi]

Well, it was a good run ya'll.

 

 

 

Considering Dems won't be able to pass anything #majah through the House from here on out, it might be my time to tune out of politics after 15 years of hyper engagement.

 

Now progressives will get to live out their fantasy of a Pelosi-less House and all of the consequences that brings. 

[Price of Fame]

11 minutes ago, Kassi said:

Well, it was a good run ya'll.

 

 

 

Considering Dems won't be able to pass anything #majah through the House from here on out, it might be my time to tune out of politics after 15 years of hyper engagement.

 

Now progressives will get to live out their fantasy of a Pelosi-less House and all of the consequences that brings. 

You should be happy,

 

hakeem Jeffries probably replaces her and he is just outright anti-progressive 

[GhostBox]

1 hour ago, FameFatale said:

 

This will backfire on them ?

[GhostBox]

literally the only person who can keep the Ohio senate seat blue. 

[Kassi]

7 minutes ago, Price of Fame said:

You should be happy,

 

hakeem Jeffries probably replaces her and he is just outright anti-progressive 

Why would I be happy? The reason she was my #1 is because everything about her mission and actions (AIDS activist in the 80s, single payer advocate in the 90s, anti-war/pro-immigration/pro-labor/pro-union/pro-climate, etc in the '00s) proved that she was THE progressive warrior.

 

Literally no one else passed this test. Not even anti-immigration and pro-gun Bernie, the standard bearer for so-called progressive politics in the 2010s. 

 

It wasn't that she was anti-AOC or the anti-Squad that I liked about her, cause she wasn't. It's that she showed them how to GET THINGS DONE. Which is all that matters at the end of the day. Hakeem Jeffries better not bring drama just for it's sake. The CPC is 90+ members and their votes count too.

[Communion]

Just now, Kassi said:

Why would I be happy?

Usually those who hate poor people are glad when centrists like Pelosi and Jeffries maintain power. 

[Communion]

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

I should have said straight, white and Christian. And you're rights it's a box, the biggest box of all. But it's also the default option. And I'm just saying that we need to calculate whatever option is the best for any given time. The candidate's image matters more than the policies, I think. And I mean in the sense of who's gonna get more votes.

Sis, don't you live in Finland? Who is "we"? The largest bloc of voters in America is non-voters so we should probably be looking at whatever politician would actually have both the moral conscious and strong will to support policies that are popular everywhere besides the halls of Congress. 

[Kassi]

1 minute ago, Communion said:

Usually those who hate poor people are glad when centrists like Pelosi and Jeffries maintain power. 

Oh brother. Not this "centrist" crap again.

 

 

 

 

 

[Kassi]

I'm in the same boat as this take. 

 

 

EYE personally preferred a professional deal broker and expert negotiator like Pelosi.

 

But progressives have been saying they hate the behind closed doors stuff. And would, instead, prefer the different factions duke it out in public like Republicans (e.g. John Boehner, Paul Ryan houses), so they may just get their wish.

[Kassi]

Oh, progressives hated Pelosi's policy of backing sitting members regardless of their ideological sway?

 

Well, now Jeffries just might make clear who are his favorites and who aren't. 

[A Bomb]

Hillary didn’t win because she ran on being owed the presidency, and was extremely damaged with the literal decades of being vilified by Republicans. Clearly 2016 was a year of a anti-establishment sentiment after the multiple failures, and broken campaign promises of the Obama admin. Anyone stating anything different is completely ignorant, and are wasting their time discussing politics at this point. 

[A Bomb]

Also Pete, and Kamala might squeak out a Democratic primary win, but they will never be president

[anti-bitch]

5 minutes ago, Communion said:

Sis, don't you live in Finland? Who is "we"? The largest bloc of voters in America is non-voters so we should probably be looking at whatever politician would actually have both the moral conscious and strong will to support policies that are popular everywhere besides the halls of Congress. 

I meant that I wanna include myself in the process of choosing/campaigning for the next presidential candidate even from the outside because it has global ramifications. I'd like to be a part of the collective "we." I could do some pro-blue social media influencing. And I think the US political scene is the most contentious but also the most interesting in the world. But then again, there might not really be a choice until '27/'28. And it does come down to numbers in elections, the raw amount of votes, that's why I talked about calculating. And Gavin Newsom's certainly got some numbers in California. I'm not saying it has to be him, just throwing his name in there because someone said things look barren for Dems in the future. Not exactly.

[Kassi]

 

 

It's the mother of 5/beloved grandmother aesthetic mixed with the Pelosi family mob ties. No one's doing it like her. 

 

It's giving Lady Olenna

 

 

[Communion]

23 minutes ago, Kassi said:

Oh brother. Not this "centrist" crap again.

 

 

 

 

 

Nancy Pelosi (California, District 12)

Progressive Sponsor Score: 0.00%

Progressive Voting Score: 26.6%

Total Progressive Score: 19.9%

 

House Dem Progressive Rank: 146th (146/220)

 

Notable Anti-Progressive Stances:

- Does not support the Medicare For All Act of 2021 (HR 1976)

- Does not support the Green New Deal (HR 332)

- Does not support abolishing the death penalty

- Does not support the College for all Act of 2021 (HR 2730)

- Does not support expanding the Supreme Court

- Does not support the Defending the Human Rights of Palestinian Children and Families Act (HR 2590)

- Does not support the proposed 10% budget cut to the Department of Defense

- Does not support reinstating incarcerated people the right to vote

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gPBdBrqVCbtuy7f1bjOdCDUzEv5RqbbU1yYAr3KoHYE/edit#gid=1289123714 (rankings may update to reflect next congressional session and midterm results)