Jump to content

2024 US Election Megathread 🇺🇸🏛️


khalyan
Lee!!
Message added by Lee!!,

It was decided based on feedback from the spring 2023 town hall to transition this thread back to being election specific. With the Civics section being able to house specific threads on many issues, we think having a generalized politics thread is not completely necessarily anymore. 
 

With that said, please continue to be respectful and remember that you do not always need to respond to everyone. 

Recommended Posts

Democrats tried to add condemnation of the Nazis for being the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” to the resolution :deadbanana:

 

It’s like a Congress full of kindergarteners

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 19.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Espresso

    5931

  • ClashAndBurn

    1877

  • GhostBox

    1561

  • Communion

    1080

Top Posters In This Topic

But if the House was controlled by Dems, going by that hypothetical, leadership would dismiss having any vote to denounce fascism as empty symbolism and a waste of time. 

 

Solely from the standpoint of I don't know...the homeless or healthcare crises, they'd be right, but they're not addressing those either. And so much right now from them otherwise is empty symbolism. So we're back where we started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I get why that resolution is called the “horrors of socialism” at least. The US is horrified at the thought of poor people being emancipated globally.


spacer.png

Edited by DAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also like how that resolution quotes James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Nothing more American than revering abusive slaveowners it seems!

 

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Espresso said:

But if the House was controlled by Dems, going by that hypothetical, leadership would dismiss having any vote to denounce fascism as empty symbolism and a waste of time. 

 

Solely from the standpoint of I don't know...the homeless or healthcare crises, they'd be right, but they're not addressing those either. And so much right now from them otherwise is empty symbolism. So we're back where we started.

The resolution also ignores that many of the “horrors of socialism” were inflicted by American sanctions, coups, and general promotion of regional instability that upended those governments, but you know. Whatever serves the hollowness of capitalist greed I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imho...Dem primary order (I'm personally against caucuses) should be (and this all is likely moot given the legal challenges)....

 

if you factor in $ needed, small vs. large while not alienating WWC, media market price, demographics, building momentum with not too many delegates too early.....

 

1) Michigan

2) Nevada

3) New Hampshire

4) North Carolina

5) California

6) Georgia

7) Arizona

8) Pennsylvania

9) South Carolina

10) The rest

 

South Carolina as the first in the nation is idiotic, and the virtue signaling from the KHive on socials that you're racist if you don't support it is gaslighting bullshit to hide his abysmal early primary performance. The argument that all South Carolina black voters are moderate Democrats is lazy and BS too - the data shows the ones that vote only, and to not even entertain engaging those young black voters that don't is, again, part of the problem and why we're in this dire predicament.

 

The argument against Georgia as #1 for being too expensive of a media market is legitimate imho, as well as the arguments that North Carolina, Michigan, and New Mexico are all too large right out of the gate for campaigns to cover corner-to-corner in time, with far too many delegates too early. The problem is there's no proper barometer state that's not too big or too expensive regarding Dem primaries, which gets to a larger argument about demographic shifts and party ID anyways.

 

There's a vulnerability to being transparent about the weaknesses with the white-working class playing into this too, but there still needs to be a small state that's crucial, imho. Iowa's outworn it's welcome and the last straw was the 2020 meltdown but New Hampshire's my compromise.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Espresso said:

1) Michigan

2) Nevada

3) New Hampshire

4) North Carolina

5) California

6) Georgia

7) Arizona

8) Pennsylvania

9) South Carolina

10) The rest

There is of course again no reason to have SC close to anywhere the top half. It's not even indicative of black voter wishes given that Biden's performance in the state was defined by a fall in turnout amongst black voters and a suspicious increase in white voters in the Dem primary. 

 

Any state that hasn't been won nationally by Dems in like 2 decades should be moved to the backhalf. I remember a great graphic from the 2020 primary where states where laid out like a Candyland game board, going from highest to lowest that highlighted the absurdity of Dems trying to win R+15 states, but this does the job:

52LBj7ctqN98tSl72bTSHGRxUDYd9P0aBGpLgTuR

 

There's nothing that South Carolina offers that *spins wheel* Maryland similarly can't check all the boxes for. Black voters and Americans exist outside of the South. Democrats suggesting that the only black voters they want to hear from are those within one specific region (GA, NC, and SC would *all* be Southern states) is silly. Black voters in Maryland, that has a higher percentage of black residents than either NC & SC, have different priorities than black voters in South Carolina and that diversity of thought should be allowed and shown.

Edited by Communion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with all these propositions is that they don’t cynically “reward” South Carolina for explicitly saving Joe Biden’s 2020 candidacy and helping crush the surge of Bernie Sanders from his Nevada victory that went either largely ignored by the beltway press or treated with such histrionics as to be compared to the rise of Hitler.

 

That is ultimately why SC is moving to the front of the line, and it helps that the DNC chairman is literally the guy from there who lost massively to Lindsey Graham despite the millions upon millions of dollars donated to him.

 

The idea is that it’ll also give Kamala Harris a massive advantage over whatever “progressive” candidate that grifts hundreds of millions in grassroots money only to come nowhere close to doing even half as well as either of Bernie’s failed campaigns. Ironically it also will serve the process of hurting Pete Buttigieg in any primary he’s not the only establishment option.

Edited by ClashAndBurn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Biden really this scared of a challenger from the left? No major candidate is even running against him and this change will probably stop anyone that was even considering it. A president running for reelection should have no authority in picking the location of the first primary. 

If someone wants to run against Biden, they should be given a fair opportunity to make their case for the presidency 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.