news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[A Bomb]

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

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.

no wonder your takes on US politics are shallow and often wrong. Maybe focus on keeping neo Nazis out of power, and the blaming on immigrants   

[anti-bitch]

14 minutes ago, A Bomb said:

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. 

What an opinion police! Don't try to shut people up just because they think different than you. All voting and human activities ever have multiple reasons for them.

[Kassi]

4 minutes ago, Communion said:

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)

No one cares what little lists do-nothing "progressives" or leftist put together. 

 

Win more election first! 

 

[anti-bitch]

3 minutes ago, A Bomb said:

no wonder your takes on US politics are shallow and often wrong. Maybe focus on keeping neo Nazis out of power, and the blaming on immigrants   

My takes are not wrong just because you say so.

[A Bomb]

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

What an opinion police! Don't try to shut people up just because they think different than you. All voting and human activities ever have multiple reasons for them.

Jsjsjsjss ma’am this is the reality and it’s more knowledgeable about the history than just saying “sHe lOsT bEcAuSe wOmAn”. As if there wasn’t a large anti-Hillary voting bloc within the Democratic voter base itself! So yeah very wrong opinion, and shallow understanding of politics overall 

[anti-bitch]

1 minute ago, A Bomb said:

Jsjsjsjss ma’am this is the reality and it’s more knowledgeable about the history than just saying “sHe lOsT bEcAuSe wOmAn”. As if there wasn’t a large anti-Hillary voting bloc within the Democratic voter base itself! So yeah very wrong opinion, and shallow understanding of politics overall 

It could have been a factor in it, ONE FACTOR! I didn't say it was all because of it. You are the shallow one preaching from the mountain top that *this* what happened.

[Communion]

6 minutes ago, Kassi said:

No one cares what little lists do-nothing "progressives" or leftist put together. 

"My list tallying her procedural votes is right and your list tracking her votes on actual issues is wrong! She can be Progressive and support poor people being barred from higher education!!!!" 

 

[Rotunda]

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

My takes are not wrong just because you say so.

True, but they are often wrong 

[Communion]

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

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.

Sis, I'm not saying you can't follow American politics. You have the right to follow any news you want and even have any opinions you want. 

 

I just was pointing out how jarring it could come across to have someone from.an overtly white place and who actually isn't impacted by the daily realities of American politics to be scolding Americans about understanding the need to vote for only white politicians for their mass appeal. 

 

This gamification of politics via electoralism is why these things are jarring because it shows a gusto, even when likely unintentional, about like winning election models via the perfect algorithm of demographics and appeals for the sake of winning with little care to how such actually impacts the material reality of the average American. 

 

A significant portion of voters don't care if you found the most electable candidate if that candidate doesn't actually support anything they like or want!

Edited November 17, 2022 by Communion

[anti-bitch]

And I was talking about going with a straight white man because there is historical advantage for them. But then Obama's election made me think that does gender matter more than skin color. It's all about calculating who would get the most votes.

[Rotunda]

36 minutes ago, A Bomb said:

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. 

This is precisely why I don’t see Kamala getting that far. She’s nowhere near as prolific as Hillary and we’ve already tried the “everyone just lay down and give it to her” strategy and saw how it turned out. 
 

Kamala may be able to ride her name ID and Black support to some strong showings in southern primaries, but other notable Dems aren’t just gonna lay down and assume she has the nomination locked up like they did with Hillary. 

[Kassi]

18 minutes ago, Communion said:

"My list tallying her procedural votes is right and your list tracking her votes on actual issues is wrong! She can be Progressive and support poor people being barred from higher education!!!!" 

 

“Leftist tracker” 

 

Be ******* for real. Leftists rallied behind an establishment anti-immigrant, pro-gun, pro-Israel career politician and coronated him as their standard bearer. 

 

The jig is up, there’s no coming back from that. Plus, after moderate Ed Markey and now pro-fracking Fetterman, everyone knows leftism is an aesthetic. It’s over bestie. No one wants in the club.  

[anti-bitch]

1 minute ago, Communion said:

Sis, I'm not saying you can't follow American politics. You have the right to follow any news you want and even have any opinions you want. 

 

I just was pointing out how jarring it could come across to have someone from.an overtly white place and who actually isn't impacted by the daily realities of American politics to be scolding Americans about understanding the need to vote for only white politicians for their mass appeal. 

 

This gamification of politics via electoralism is why these things are jarring because it shows a gusto, even when likely unintentional, about like winning election models via the perfect algorithm of demographics and appeals for the sake of winning with little care to how such actually impacts the material reality of the average American. 

I'd love things to be better for you, for everyone. My thinking is that you need to get someone in power first and then could change things. I love Bernie Sanders but I fear he's never gonna get through the primary. And it is a game, unfortunately. Literally a popularity contest. You need someone with mass appeal. Joe Biden has done some good things, especially lately. Now he needs to double down on the student loan relief.

[Vroom Vroom]

Hillary lost because she ignored the Midwest and took Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan for granted. 
People in these states were desperate for help, look at Flint, Michigan, and they were ignored/belittled by the Obama administration. Hillary’s campaign didn’t seem interested in helping them either. 
 

They were so desperate for change that they voted for an outsider, since the establishment turned their backs on them. 

 

 

[anti-bitch]

9 minutes ago, Rotunda said:

True, but they are often wrong 

It's just opinions. And I'm willing to learn every day, every moment. If you guys had all the answers, Dems should have a massive majority in both houses right now. But they don't.

[ClashAndBurn]

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

I'd love things to be better for you, for everyone. My thinking is that you need to get someone in power first and then could change things. I love Bernie Sanders but I fear he's never gonna get through the primary. And it is a game, unfortunately. Literally a popularity contest. You need someone with mass appeal. Joe Biden has done some good things, especially lately. Now he needs to double down on the student loan relief.

It’s arguable that Joe Biden didn’t even want to do student debt relief, was pressured to by his staff and VP, and intentionally crafted it in the way that was most likely to fail so he could get the benefits of appearing like he cared about the youth vote, and then it would be after the election was over that it would be taken down for good.

[Rotunda]

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

And I was talking about going with a straight white man because there is historical advantage for them. But then Obama's election made me think that does gender matter more than skin color. It's all about calculating who would get the most votes.

@Communion is correct though. It’s hard for you to have an understanding of how identity politics shapes campaign strategy because you don’t have a direct experience to go off of. This isn’t to say that you can’t contribute to the discourse, but it is to say that your tales are likely to lack the nuance that comes from being intimately familiar with the ways Democratic campaigns play out.

 

 There is a subset of Democratic voters who believe that representational politics help bring out the base, and that nominating minorities into high positions helps boost turnout of loyal Democratic voters. There is also a non-zero number of voters who feel entitled to a certain amount of representation, because of the amount of power their demographic has in shaping Democratic elections. This is why you saw Biden making promises to nominate a woman to VP or a Black woman to SCOTUS. 

 

There are other Democratic voters who believe that straight white men are more palatable to swing/independent voters and that the party is best off courting them. And there are also Democratic voters who want to pivot largely away from representation issues and more into economic populism. And of course, there are people whose views don’t fall neatly into any of these boxes. 
 

Everyone has different views of what they want in a candidate, and everyone has different views on who they think is the most electable candidate. Sometimes those things match and sometimes those things don’t. The latter situation is how we end up with tickets like Biden-Harris.

[anti-bitch]

2 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

It’s arguable that Joe Biden didn’t even want to do student debt relief, was pressured to by his staff and VP, and intentionally crafted it in the way that was most likely to fail so he could get the benefits of appearing like he cared about the youth vote, and then it would be after the election was over that it would be taken down for good.

It would be sad if Joe just leaves it now. And I've been on about Gavin Newsom because I think he could be used in the same way, to get some progressive policies passed even if he's a moderate. But maybe by 2028 a progressive could actually win the primary.

[Rotunda]

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

It's just opinions. And I'm willing to learn every day, every moment. If you guys had all the answers, Dems should have a massive majority in both houses right now. But they don't.

This literally doesn’t mean anything. A bunch of ATRLers pontificating on elections has no bearing on what the nation chooses to do or on how the candidates or the party chooses to strategize. 
 

Politics is about managing competing interests, and even in this thread, a lot of us have competing interests.

 

My point isn’t that you’re wrong for only wanting a “straight white Christian man” to be on the ticket because it’s the safer bet. My point is that you don’t understand why there’s an expectation from Democratic voters that Dems put minorities in positions of power. Even Biden, as “generic” as he is, was explicit about signaling a commitment to diversity with his appointments and staffing. 

[Communion]

16 minutes ago, Kassi said:

Leftist tracker

 

Be ******* for real. 

"NANCY PELOSI AND AOC AND THEIR IDEOLOGICAL OVERLAP CAN BE DETERMINED BY HOW MANY TIMES THEY BOTH VOTED YES TO END OPEN FLOOR DEBATE!!!"

 

"BERNIE SANDERS IS NOT PROGRESSIVE BECAUSE I DONT LIKE THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS VOTES. AND BY SUBSTANCE I MEAN THE AESTHETIC LIKE ME CONTINUING TO CLAIM VOTING AGAINST A NEOLIBERAL CAPITALIST BILL THAT EXPLOITED WORKERS IS ANTI-IMMGRANT EVEN THOUGH ANY MATERIAL ANALYSIS SHOWS OTHERWISE AKA WHY IMMIGRANT LABOR GROUPS PROTESTED IT AND CONVINCED SANDERS TO VOTE NO!!!"

 

Sis, why do you wanna exploit immigrants so much? Are you pulling a Frenchy? Are you running a business and violating labor rights of your employees? You are from Texas, hmmm. This obsession to lie about a vote of Sanders teaming with activists to stop a pro-corporate labor bill that would exploit immigrant workers either shows you are the one obsessed with aesthetics or there's even more reason why you refuse to disclose your yearly income and job title. 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Communion

[anti-bitch]

4 minutes ago, Rotunda said:

@Communion is correct though. It’s hard for you to have an understanding of how identity politics shapes campaign strategy because you don’t have a direct experience to go off of. This isn’t to say that you can’t contribute to the discourse, but it is to say that your tales are likely to lack the nuance that comes from being intimately familiar with the ways Democratic campaigns play out.

 

 There is a subset of Democratic voters who believe that representational politics help bring out the base, and that nominating minorities into high positions helps boost turnout of loyal Democratic voters. There is also a non-zero number of voters who feel entitled to a certain amount of representation, because of the amount of power their demographic has in shaping Democratic elections. This is why you saw Biden making promises to nominate a woman to VP or a Black woman to SCOTUS. 

 

There are other Democratic voters who believe that straight white men are more palatable to swing/independent voters and that the party is best off courting them. And there are also Democratic voters who want to pivot largely away from representation issues and more into economic populism. And of course, there are people whose views don’t fall neatly into any of these boxes. 
 

Everyone has different views of what they want in a candidate, and everyone has different views on who they think is the most electable candidate. Sometimes those things match and sometimes those things don’t. The latter situation is how we end up with tickets like Biden-Harris.

I appreciate you elaborating on this. I really mean no harm! I'm not affected by what happens in the US, but I care about it regardless. And yeah, my straight white man theory is certainly just one view. But I think it could be kind of a Trojan horse strategy, but in a good way, like with Joe Biden there's been some progressive policies that passed through him. Like, what if you'd use Newsom in the same way and get a diversity VP. Ofc getting a progressive president straight up would be the best option.

[ClashAndBurn]

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

It would be sad if Joe just leaves it now. And I've been on about Gavin Newsom because I think he could be used in the same way, to get some progressive policies passed even if he's a moderate. But maybe by 2028 a progressive could actually win the primary.

Gavin Newsom is a California liberal. There is NOTHING more despised in the rest of the country outside of California than a coastal elitist like him. He will absolutely not even come close to winning, and Democrats would be foolish to nominate a hack like him after he was caught hobnobbing with other rich socialites at the French Laundry while the peasants were under forced COVID lockdowns and small businesses were closed.

 

Do you not understand what a disaster that would be? No, because you don’t live here and have no comprehension of how coastal elites are perceived outside of the cultural centers of California and New York that are the only regions Europeans really ever hear anything about.

[anti-bitch]

3 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Gavin Newsom is a California liberal. There is NOTHING more despised in the rest of the country outside of California than a coastal elitist like him. He will absolutely not even come close to winning, and Democrats would be foolish to nominate a hack like him after he was caught hobnobbing with other rich socialites at the French Laundry while the peasants were under forced COVID lockdowns and small businesses were closed.

 

Do you not understand what a disaster that would be? No, because you don’t live here and have no comprehension of how coastal elites are perceived outside of the cultural centers of California and New York that are the only regions Europeans really ever hear anything about.

I don't agree with the Dems lockdown policies in general. And I am aware of how much anti-California and NYC rhetoric there is in middle America. But still, he shouldn't be written off completely, whether it's about 2028 or '32 etc.. And Dems have an elitist reputation in general, so it's gonna be tough to brush that off no matter who's on the ticket.

[anti-bitch]

24 minutes ago, Rotunda said:

This literally doesn’t mean anything. A bunch of ATRLers pontificating on elections has no bearing on what the nation chooses to do or on how the candidates or the party chooses to strategize. 
 

Politics is about managing competing interests, and even in this thread, a lot of us have competing interests.

 

My point isn’t that you’re wrong for only wanting a “straight white Christian man” to be on the ticket because it’s the safer bet. My point is that you don’t understand why there’s an expectation from Democratic voters that Dems put minorities in positions of power. Even Biden, as “generic” as he is, was explicit about signaling a commitment to diversity with his appointments and staffing. 

I totally get the need for minority representation. But it might just take someone generic to run for president and then build a diversity team around him, again. At least in 2024. But yes, a diversity president would be the best outcome.

[Kassi]

41 minutes ago, Communion said:

"NANCY PELOSI AND AOC AND THEIR IDEOLOGICAL OVERLAP CAN BE DETERMINED BY HOW MANY TIMES THEY BOTH VOTED YES TO END OPEN FLOOR DEBATE!!!"

 

"BERNIE SANDERS IS NOT PROGRESSIVE BECAUSE I DONT LIKE THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS VOTES. AND BY SUBSTANCE I MEAN THE AESTHETIC LIKE ME CONTINUING TO CLAIM VOTING AGAINST A NEOLIBERAL CAPITALIST BILL THAT EXPLOITED WORKERS IS ANTI-IMMGRANT EVEN THOUGH ANY MATERIAL ANALYSIS SHOWS OTHERWISE AKA WHY IMMIGRANT LABOR GROUPS PROTESTED IT AND CONVINCED SANDERS TO VOTE NO!!!"

 

Sis, why do you wanna exploit immigrants so much? Are you pulling a Frenchy? Are you running a business and violating labor rights of your employees? You are from Texas, hmmm. This obsession to lie about a vote of Sanders teaming with activists to stop a pro-corporate labor bill that would exploit immigrant workers either shows you are the one obsessed with aesthetics or there's even more reason why you refuse to disclose your yearly income and job title. 

Girl, leftism is an aesthetic. It's a grievance list against Democrats. Even if Pelosi did "vote" for all of those things (that were never voted upon btw), there'd be another list. Or her efforts would be egregiously mischaracterized as a "Republican *insert topic* bill" like ya'll do with the ACA.

 

For example, if I say Bernie (voted present on the GND) and AOC (who advocated no one vote yes) are fake progressives because they doesn't support the Green New Deal

 

 

Leftists would have an excuse as to why their progressive heroes keep failing them.  It's an insider/outsider game of tribal politics. It's FAKE.