news 2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️

[ClashAndBurn]

Hahahahahahah, remember this?

 

 

[Armani?]

On 5/30/2022 at 7:04 PM, chessguy99 said:

Michigan lost a seat, so they took out one of the seats around Detroit. Her new district is the safest in Michigan, and contains much of Tlaib's old district. Since it still contains Dearborn, she should have no problem.

Bakari Sellers made a PAC to try to get rid of her 

[rihannabiggestfan]

3 hours ago, Armani? said:

Bakari Sellers made a PAC to try to get rid of her 

He's such trash (and trash deserves to be - at the very least - defeated), but what else do we expect from a bigoted Zionist anti-Palestinian? ?

 

and the fact that his good-for-nothing, corrupt, apartheid-stanning ass endorsed Nina proves that even a broken clock gets it right twice a day

Edited June 1, 2022 by rihannabiggestfan

[chessguy99]

10 hours ago, GhostBox said:

???? but fox news said this was it. The smoking bomb shell 

The jury had three Clinton donors on it, who were never going to convict no matter what evidence was presented. 

[chessguy99]

6 hours ago, Armani? said:

Bakari Sellers made a PAC to try to get rid of her 

Which candidate is the PAC backing? The best possible challengers either didn't run or withdrew already. Still the district is mostly her old district that she won by over 30 points two years ago. 

[GhostBox]

5 hours ago, chessguy99 said:

The jury had three Clinton donors on it, who were never going to convict no matter what evidence was presented. 

Literally any jury is going to have people who donated to campaigns or voted for someone.  But hey by all means if the gop really wants to run on and use their power on “let’s investigate Hillary more” (as Marsha Blackburn said) please do ?

[rihannabiggestfan]

6 hours ago, chessguy99 said:

The jury had three Clinton donors on it, who were never going to convict no matter what evidence was presented. 

"The embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic party for so long" strikes again

[rihannabiggestfan]

"Why don't you like me? I'm not Trump!"

 

 

[That Bad Eartha]

I will say you can tell he must be at least genuinely considering something with student debt (even though if he does anything, which I doubt, it won't be enough) because the news media has been working overtime publishing Op-Eds about how he shouldn't or it is unfair to certain people 

 

We're really trapped in such a hellish cycle

[Vermillion]

 

[ClashAndBurn]

23 minutes ago, That Bad Eartha said:

I will say you can tell he must be at least genuinely considering something with student debt (even though if he does anything, which I doubt, it won't be enough) because the news media has been working overtime publishing Op-Eds about how he shouldn't or it is unfair to certain people 

 

We're really trapped in such a hellish cycle

I have a feeling that in October, he'll say it needs to be done legislatively and if you want good things, we need to elect more Democrats, knowing the likely outcome is total annihilation at the ballot box even though we can't possibly vote any harder than we already have and are.

 

Moderate Dems are the ones who are going to stay home, just like they did in 2016 and the two previous midterm elections before then. But it's us who will get the blame as always.

[Bloo]

11 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

I have a feeling that in October, he'll say it needs to be done legislatively and if you want good things, we need to elect more Democrats, knowing the likely outcome is total annihilation at the ballot box even though we can't possibly vote any harder than we already have and are.

This is exactly what's going to happen. He'll "try" by pushing it through Congress without challenging the filibuster and then say we need 60 Democrats to get anything through. We obviously won't get anywhere close to that (Democrats would be likely to keep their 50-50 majority) and then they'll rush back to that strategy in 2024.

 

Biden should just go ahead and announce he's not running in 2024. Remember, after midterms are over and done with, the 2024 presidential primaries begin.

[ClashAndBurn]

1 minute ago, Bloo said:

This is exactly what's going to happen. He'll "try" by pushing it through Congress without challenging the filibuster and then say we need 60 Democrats to get anything through. We obviously won't get anywhere close to that (Democrats would be likely to keep their 50-50 majority) and then they'll rush back to that strategy in 2024.

 

Biden should just go ahead and announce he's not running in 2024. Remember, after midterms are over and done with, the 2024 presidential primaries begin.

The thing is, every other Democrat polls worse than Biden, so we're kind of stuck with him.  

 

Like... our other realistic options for the foreseeable future are Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg. And the Progressives' only potential standard-bearer, besides Weekend-at-Bernie-ing the corpse of Bernie Sanders, is... Ro Khanna, who has made the exact same missteps and miscalculations every step of the Biden presidency as Jayapal.  

[Bloo]

9 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

The thing is, every other Democrat polls worse than Biden, so we're kind of stuck with him.  

I disagree with this interpretation. Biden has support among Democratic voters because he's the Democratic president that beat Trump. That's it. If Biden said he was going to resign and is looking forward to new leadership and what the next generation can bring, the partisan base would open up a bit and focus on finding someone new. Biden's support was only ever based on his ability to beat Trump, not because he himself rallies support because of who he is. So if you swap him out with another milquetoast Democrat, it'd more or less be the same. Kamala might be an exception because she's just pretty insufferable and phony in terms of her personality. But I have not seen anything to convince me Biden as a personality actually brings on support from Democrats besides the fact that he beat Trump. Many still think Biden was the only one able to beat Trump in 2020 and I think that's why he has whatever support he has.

 

Quote

Like... our other realistic options for the foreseeable future are Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg. And the Progressives' only potential standard-bearer, besides Weekend-at-Bernie-ing the corpse of Bernie Sanders, is... Ro Khanna, who has made the exact same missteps and miscalculations every step of the Biden presidency as Jayapal.  

Why are we thinking "realistic"? This is the same problematic metric that said Biden was the only candidate worth considering. We need to have an open mind and see who's ready to take charge. That can't happen if we just settle for Biden because polls. Someone outside the political fray but that is informed and cares about the issues would be a welcome change in my opinion.

[ClashAndBurn]

2 minutes ago, Bloo said:

I disagree with this interpretation. Biden has support among Democratic voters because he's the Democratic president that beat Trump. That's it. If Biden said he was going to resign and is looking forward to new leadership and what the next generation can bring, the partisan base would open up a bit and focus on finding someone new. Biden's support was only ever based on his ability to beat Trump, not because he himself rallies support because of who he is. So if you swap him out with another milquetoast Democrat, it'd more or less be the same. Kamala might be an exception because she's just pretty insufferable and phony in terms of her personality. But I have not seen anything to convince me Biden as a personality actually brings on support from Democrats besides the fact that he beat Trump. Many still think Biden was the only one able to beat Trump in 2020 and I think that's why he has whatever support he has.

 

Why are we thinking "realistic"? This is the same problematic metric that said Biden was the only candidate worth considering. We need to have an open mind and see who's ready to take charge. That can't happen if we just settle for Biden because polls. Someone outside the political fray but that is informed and cares about the issues would be a welcome change in my opinion.

I'm going with "realistic" as in "what will the primary voting base of the party ultimately nominate?" The answer is, they are not bold and are almost always as safe and milquetoast in their choices as they can be. The only time they weren't really was picking Obama, but they could afford to take that risk of nominating a black man due to how utterly destroyed the Republican Party had become by George Bush (which, ironically, seems to be what's happening with the Democrats under Joe Biden as inflation seems to be incinerating every ounce of hope this country had left in the future). Even as uninspiring and bland as Ro Khanna is, he'd be a bridge too far for the conservative black voters of South Carolina (who are apparently the only constituency you need to have the field completely cleared for you), and simply put, he doesn't have the name recognition to beat Harris in a primary.

 

The problem with Buttigieg is that... policy-wise, he's EVERYTHING that the neoliberal establishment could possibly want as a technocrat's dream candidate: Rhodes scholar, McKinsey price fixer, Lieutenant/Intelligence Officer in the Navy (Reserve), you name it! He's only "not safe" because of his sexual orientation, which makes him unelectable in most states in the country, especially but not limited to those without a coastline.

 

Harris, as far as the primary electorate is concerned, is pretty much owed the next presidential nomination as Hillary Clinton was. The Party knows they'll lose with her, but at this point I think they're prepared to lose for a good while due to how toxic their brand has become. In 2028, the nomination is guaranteed to her if she wants it, and most any progressive who runs against her in any primary will be branded as a sexist and a racist. I saw an artical in NYMag that even said that even Buttigieg wouldn't challenge her in a primary because he knows it'd be her race to lose.

 

As for 2024, I think barring an absolute shellacking where Dems lose mostly every competitive Senate race, Biden runs again. And I think he still runs even in that scenario knowing fully well that every other candidate that would be in the running would do even worse than him. Incumbency is the edge he would have that no other Dem would have. Even still, I predict that Biden loses, regardless of whom the Republican is, even if it's Trump, and pretty much DEFINITELY if it's DeSantis.

[ClashAndBurn]

Also, Biden polls higher than other Democrats not because people like him, but because the rest of the party is found to be insufferable and are utterly HATED by independents. Democrats will have a high approval of anyone with a D next to their name. Even now, he's got what? 80% approval or something among Democrats?

[Bloo]

8 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

I'm going with "realistic" as in "what will the primary voting base of the party ultimately nominate?" The answer is, they are not bold and are almost always as safe and milquetoast in their choices as they can be. The only time they weren't really was picking Obama, but they could afford to take that risk of nominating a black man due to how utterly destroyed the Republican Party had become by George Bush (which, ironically, seems to be what's happening with the Democrats under Joe Biden as inflation seems to be incinerating every ounce of hope this country had left in the future). Even as uninspiring and bland as Ro Khanna is, he'd be a bridge too far for the conservative black voters of South Carolina (who are apparently the only constituency you need to have the field completely cleared for you), and simply put, he doesn't have the name recognition to beat Harris in a primary.

 

The problem with Buttigieg is that... policy-wise, he's EVERYTHING that the neoliberal establishment could possibly want as a technocrat's dream candidate: Rhodes scholar, McKinsey price fixer, Lieutenant/Intelligence Officer in the Navy (Reserve), you name it! He's only "not safe" because of his sexual orientation, which makes him unelectable in most states in the country, especially but not limited to those without a coastline.

 

Harris, as far as the primary electorate is concerned, is pretty much owed the next presidential nomination as Hillary Clinton was. The Party knows they'll lose with her, but at this point I think they're prepared to lose for a good while due to how toxic their brand has become. In 2028, the nomination is guaranteed to her if she wants it, and most any progressive who runs against her in any primary will be branded as a sexist and a racist. I saw an artical in NYMag that even said that even Buttigieg wouldn't challenge her in a primary because he knows it'd be her race to lose.

 

As for 2024, I think barring an absolute shellacking where Dems lose mostly every competitive Senate race, Biden runs again. And I think he still runs even in that scenario knowing fully well that every other candidate that would be in the running would do even worse than him. Incumbency is the edge he would have that no other Dem would have. Even still, I predict that Biden loses, regardless of whom the Republican is, even if it's Trump, and pretty much DEFINITELY if it's DeSantis.

Again, I still don’t like this thinking. It’s extremely pessimistic and doesn’t feel productive. Thinking Buttigieg and Harris are the only feasible options is just far too pessimistic. New faces can come into the fold that make noise. At worst, we can have candidates that at least help galvanize momentum around a set of important issues, which is why I strongly dislike the form of political forecasting which just surrenders to the elite. I want to see more progressive people running even if their shot at winning is marginal because it could maybe build momentum. Bernie’s campaigns were both failures in terms of its ultimate electoral outcome. But, it made the progressive movement mainstream and helped normalize the term “Democratic Socialism” even. Remember when capitalism was seen as less favorable than socialism among Dem primary voters in 2020? That wouldn’t have happened if it weren’t for Bernie’s losing campaigns and I think that means something. Maybe not in the immediate future, but change is unfortunately slow more often than not. 
 

Galvanizing the progressive left is an important cause and just ceding to Kamala or Pete because it’s realistic does nothing towards any of the issues I’m worried about. That’s why I’m frankly not a fan of reducing all discussion of the future to that pessimism. Sure, it’s maybe necessary to ground our expectations a bit so we don’t feel too defeated. But we have to hope for more. Otherwise we are doomed. 

[rihannabiggestfan]

14 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Also, Biden polls higher than other Democrats not because people like him, but because the rest of the party is found to be insufferable and are utterly HATED by independents. Democrats will have a high approval of anyone with a D next to their name. Even now, he's got what? 80% approval or something among Democrats?

 

There's only one (D) who isn't hated by a supermajority of Independents and who hasn't already been president for 2 terms  [and he's technically an (I) just like they are]

[ClashAndBurn]

3 minutes ago, Bloo said:

Again, I still don’t like this thinking. It’s extremely pessimistic and doesn’t feel productive. Thinking Buttigieg and Harris are the only feasible options is just far too pessimistic. New faces can come into the fold that make noise. At worst, we can have candidates that at least help galvanize momentum around a set of important issues, which is why I strongly dislike the form of political forecasting which just surrenders to the elite. I want to see more progressive people running even if their shot at winning is marginal because it could maybe build momentum. Bernie’s campaigns were both failures in terms of its ultimate electoral outcome. But, it made the progressive movement mainstream and helped normalize the term “Democratic Socialism” even. Remember when capitalism was seen as less favorable than socialism among Dem primary voters in 2020? That wouldn’t have happened if it weren’t for Bernie’s losing campaigns and I think that means something. Maybe not in the immediate future, but change is unfortunately slow more often than not. 
 

Galvanizing the progressive left is an important cause and just ceding to Kamala or Pete because it’s realistic does nothing towards any of the issues I’m worried about. That’s why I’m frankly not a fan of reducing all discussion of the future to that pessimism. Sure, it’s maybe necessary to ground our expectations a bit so we don’t feel too defeated. But we have to hope for more. Otherwise we are doomed. 

It's hard not to be pessimistic when practically every other candidate (besides Bloomberg) could at least have been described as a somewhat decent person. And the Democrats decided to go with the guy who openly said he has scorn for young people and doesn't have an ounce of empathy for them. I've always despised Joe Biden, and yet the Democratic electorate adored him and voted for him overwhelmingly because he was the Obama guy and thought he'd be conservative/normal enough to not alienate the white voters that didn't even vote for him anyway.  

[Bloo]

11 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

It's hard not to be pessimistic when practically every other candidate (besides Bloomberg) could at least have been described as a somewhat decent person. And the Democrats decided to go with the guy who openly said he has scorn for young people and doesn't have an ounce of empathy for them. I've always despised Joe Biden, and yet the Democratic electorate adored him and voted for him overwhelmingly because he was the Obama guy and thought he'd be conservative/normal enough to not alienate the white voters that didn't even vote for him anyway.  

The Democratic electorate does not adore Biden. All the data from the 2020 primary showed voters went to Biden because they felt most confident he could beat Trump assuredly. Bernie failed to suggest otherwise and wouldn't even make the case against Biden's electability. The 2020 primaries were a referendum on Trump, not a glowing endorsement of Biden. Even now, countless polls show that Democratic voters hope someone besides Biden runs for the Democratic nomination. A (fairly) recent poll showed 51% of Dems want someone besides Biden to be the nominee (https://www.newsweek.com/over-half-democrats-want-party-back-alternative-biden-2024-poll-1678772). In 2021, when Biden's approval with Democrats was just shy of 90% (for context, it's barely above 70% now), he had a 41%-41% split in terms of whether Democratic voters wanted him to run again (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/11/01/poll-shows-democrats-want-replace-biden-ballot-2024-look-why/).

 

Biden is not popular among Democratic voters. They voted for him to beat Trump. That is all. Even in 2020, Democratic voters weren't enthusiastic about him and the data empirically showed that. All the momentum was about getting rid of Trump. In fact, Biden's own wife would make comments about how unexciting Biden is but beating Trump was priority #1. If you're a Dem voter and that is your number 1 priority, well, Biden did it (albeit, barely).

 

I think you're surrendering far too much to pessimism. Many Democrats are furious with Biden's lackluster performance and Biden is starting to take notice of that himself. So to think that the base is enthralled with Biden when his approval among Democrats is embarrassingly low is just not an accurate picture. Remember, approval and enthusiastic support are not the same thing. The former is a much more neutered expression.

 

Does the future look super bright for the left? No. But, we have to try our best to maintain momentum in whatever way possible. So, yeah, I would love to see a primary challenge or presidential bid from someone more to the left of the party just to push the conversation forward. Electoralism is not a surefire approach anyway and we may as well try to claim space for ourselves in that world.

[Vermillion]

 

[Pop Art]

I almost choked on my saliva when I saw this just now.

 

 

I can't even think of a word to describe this person. "Clown" feels too comical, but I guess that's the closest I can think of.

[Communion]

27 minutes ago, Espresso said:

 

The fact that it's probably easier to pray that the college one went to is found to have defrauded their students and thus all debts would end than pray Biden just forgives the debt for all. 

 

Lemme investigate my alma mater. 

[Vroom Vroom]

If Biden did not run (that is a big if, he seems pretty set on running), the nomination would go to Kamala or Hillary (the reboot no one asked for)
Buttigieg does not have the experience needed to win the nomination. He needs to at least win a state wide election first, good luck doing that in Indiana. 

The most realistic match up would be Biden running against Desantis. Unless Trump actually ran. Trump running and winning would be the biggest political comeback of all time and make Biden’s whole presidency a complete failure, since Biden’s only foreseeable accomplishment has been getting Trump out of office 

[rihannabiggestfan]

Ideally, Kamala would pull a Alben W. Barkley and fail to become the Democrat nominee despite being Vice President for a Democrat President. But hopefully someone less bad would be the Democrat nominee in that case. 

 

(I don't think people who ran and won zero delegates should even be allowed to be Vice President tho)

Edited June 1, 2022 by rihannabiggestfan