• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Race For 2024

I think you are perhaps projecting if you believe that Biden is heavily influenced by AOC.
Not just her, but the fauxgressive wing of the Democratic Party in general. Biden's B3 non-infratructure plan was just somewhat slimmed down Bernie $6T plan. Add BIF and B3, and you are almost at the number Bernie proposed, so there wasn't even that much slimming down.
I do think that he presents a more middle of the road face and has skillfully employed more progressive leaning cabinet members and appointees and staff.
He does present a moderate face, but is being manipulated into moving further Left than he was for the most of his career. Hence my Wormtongue metaphor.

He's smart. He knows what he's doing. And as frustrating as it is for many progressives not to move faster, it's a steadier, more assured way of accomplishing the goals of dragging the US out of the clutches of the demented right. Slow and steady change is the safest, most durable change. Wars are not fun and only make the same people even richer.
Wanting to spend trillions while inflation was at record highs (and was only brought down through significant interest rate increases) was neither smart nor "steady". Extending pandemic largess way too long wasn't smart either. Giving away money to the stratum of society already more well of than average (i.e. college graduates) was also not the best policy, esp. when he wants to do it by executive fiat rather than through proper legislative process.
You are incredibly naive if you believe that Biden is being manipulated.

I don’t reakkky quite get you: you seem to be criticizing Biden for not being sufficiently progressive and simultaneously criticizing him for embracing ideas you attribute to Bernie. A good leader doesn’t have to have all the good ideas. A good leader recognizes good ideas when authored by others and will implement them. I’m not certain if I’m just more engaged or if there’s just more access to such info, but I take it as a point of strength that the fingerprints of Biden’s cabinet, advisors and party members are clearly visible. To me, a good leader builds a coalition, collaborates, builds consensus.

I’m not sure what you don’t like about Biden’s programs other than price tag?
 
Very interesting, the claim that student loan forgiveness somehow exacerbated the inflation crisis -- despite never actually having been implemented.

And this from the same group of pundits who will look you in the eye and tell you that the modern college degree is useless and unnecessary...

Is this just magical thinking, or what?
 
Anti-vaccine activist Robert Kennedy Jr announces run for president | US politics | The Guardian - "Nephew of JFK and son of former attorney general launches long-shot challenge to Biden for Democratic nomination"

The first RFK was a former attorney general and New York Senator. JFK had appointed him as AG, and that provoked the Bobby Kennedy Law against Presidential nepotism. He was murdered by a Palestinian, Sirhan Sirhan, on account of his support for Israel.

RFK Jr.
... was once a bestselling author and environmental lawyer who worked on issues such as clean water.

But more than 15 years ago he became fixated on a belief that vaccines are not safe. He emerged as one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement, his work described by public health experts and members of his own family as misleading and dangerous.
Not surprisingly, when COVID-19 arrived, he became a big COVID-19 anti-vaxxer.
In 2021, Kennedy released a book, The Real Anthony Fauci, in which he accused the top infectious disease doctor of assisting in “a historic coup d’etat against western democracy” and promoted unproven Covid treatments such as ivermectin, which is meant to treat parasites, and the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine.

His push against the Covid vaccine has linked him with anti-democratic figures and groups. Kennedy has appeared at events pushing the lie that the 2020 presidential election was stolen and with people who cheered or downplayed the insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021.

A photo posted on Instagram showed Kennedy backstage at a July 2021 Reawaken America event with the Trump ally Roger Stone, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and anti-vaccine profiteer Charlene Bollinger. All three have promoted the lie about the 2020 election being stolen.
What kind of "Democrat" is this?
Kennedy has repeatedly invoked Nazis and the Holocaust when talking about measures aimed at mitigating the spread of Covid, such as mask requirements and vaccine mandates.
 
No Labels group raises alarms with third-party presidential preparations - The Washington Post - "It has money and name-brand political backers, and declines to describe either President Biden or Donald Trump as acceptable candidates"

Al Gore's Vice President, Joe Lieberman:
But that didn’t stop the Connecticut Democrat turned independent from joining a meeting Thursday in support of plans by the centrist group No Labels to get presidential ballot lines in all 50 states for 2024. The group calls its effort an “insurance policy” against the major parties nominating two “unacceptable” candidates next year.

No Labels could change the outcome of the 2024 presidential election - Deseret News
A third party preparing to run a centrist candidate for president next year has made it onto the ballot in Arizona.

The group No Labels met Arizona’s minimum signature requirement to be recognized for federal, statewide and legislative races in 2024, the state’s Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said last week.

...
No Labels has also met requirements for ballot access in Colorado and Oregon and has plans to expand to other states to field a candidate if Democrats and Republicans nominate “extreme” candidates next year.

Will a moderate Republican run for president in 2024? - Deseret News - "Former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan said he won’t run for president, and other potential moderates have little support"
LH:
“(T)he stakes are too high for me to risk being part of another multicar pileup that could potentially help Mr. Trump recapture the nomination,” he wrote.

The Republican Party has to move on from Donald Trump to “once again be a successful governing party,” Hogan said. “There are several competent Republican leaders who have the potential to step up and lead.”
 
AR Gov Asa Hutchinson? I like what Kyle Kulinsky calls him: Asa <snore>. Is he anything?

How the ‘No Labels’ Gambit Could Wreck the 2024 Election - The Bulwark - "The group says it doesn’t want its (as-yet-unchosen) third-party candidate to be a spoiler—but it also doesn’t say who all its funders are."

Fox News reports that No Labels is courting politicians like Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, and Susan Collins as it seeks to build a so-called “unity ticket.” Soothing as the sound of “unity” may be to ears tired of the divisive screeching of our politics, third-party presidential bids have been, without exception, fools’ errands. This one may be worse.
Conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans.

What might happen?
Third-party candidates have never come close to winning a presidential election. Even the immensely popular Teddy Roosevelt, the most successful third-party candidate ever, gained only 27 percent of the popular vote running in 1912 on his “Bull Moose” ticket. But he had a decisive effect on the election nonetheless: He split the Republican vote, and by taking 88 Electoral College votes he handed the presidency to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

We could see that party result flip in 2024, with a No Labels candidate taking enough electoral votes to cause the incumbent Democrat to lose to the Republican.
By vote splitting, what TR did back in 1912.
A second scenario: A No Labels candidate could collect enough electoral votes so that neither of the two major party candidates wins the 270 needed to capture the presidency outright.

That would throw the election to the House of Representatives, where the president would be selected in a balloting that gives one vote to each state delegation—26 needed to win. Each state’s ballot is settled by a vote of the representatives in that state’s delegation, so the party that has a majority in each delegation is expected to decide that state’s ballot.
So the Republicans would win by dominating many of the smaller states' delegations.
And there’s another dangerous possibility, one where the third-party candidate does not get any electoral votes but wins enough popular votes to skew the outcome away from what most voters want. In 2000, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, who didn’t even crack 3 percent of the national popular vote, received 97,488 votes in the Florida presidential election that George W. Bush won by 537 votes, almost certainly costing Al Gore the state’s Electoral College vote and the presidency.

No Labels seems serious enough to hire lots of signature collectors and to get on the ballot in AZ, CO, and OR, with plans for some 20 more states.
The leaders of No Labels may not be intending to elect Donald Trump or his Republican successor. But that could be the goal of some of their funders. While No Labels operates “dark money” PACs whose contributors are hidden, one of its backers has been billionaire Republican megadonor Nelson Peltz, a contributor to Georgia Republican Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, both defeated in 2020; election denier Sean Parnell, who was Trump’s original endorsed Senate candidate in Pennsylvania last year; Democrat-turned-Fox News contributor Tulsi Gabbard; and House Republican Majority Whip Steve Scalise. And the Daily Beast reported in 2018 that No Labels raised money from “recurring” megadonors including Trump supporter John Catsimatidis and Marc Rowan, a contributor to Lindsey Graham, Ron Johnson, and Mehmet Oz in the midterms.
 
The No Labels Third-Party Bid: A Plan that Will Re-elect Trump – Third Way
No Labels is planning to field a bipartisan “unity ticket” in 2024. They call it an “insurance policy,” claiming to fear “both major political parties could nominate divisive presidential candidates that a majority of the country finds unacceptable.” For No Labels, the moderate President Biden falls into this “unacceptable” category.
Third Way's author seems very skeptical.
  • History of Failure: Voters don’t back third parties. Since 1900, third-party candidates didn’t win enough electoral votes in sum to win one election.
  • The Polling Mirage: Third-party candidates poll well at first before plummeting; Gary Johnson hit 10% in 2016, Ross Perot 36% in 1992, John Anderson 26% in 1980. But by Election Day they had cratered and failed to win a single electoral vote.
  • Base Illusion: No Labels says a plurality of Americans identify as Independents. It’s actually 9% when partisan leaners are taken into account. That is not a base that can win.
  • Fantasy Map: No Labels has laid out their purported path to Electoral College victory in the map below. Among other imaginings, they claim their candidate could win solid blue states like Connecticut, Washington, and Minnesota. They argue an incumbent president would win only six states (plus DC). In their biggest stretch, No Labels claims they could beat Biden in his home state of Delaware.
I must note Few Americans Who Identify As Independent Are Actually Independent. That’s Really Bad For Politics. | FiveThirtyEight
 
Third Way's author suspects that this is an attempt to run a spoiler that will attract Democratic votes, thus helping the Republican candidate win.
  • 2016 Third-Party Voters went for Biden in 2020: According to AP Votecast, Biden won voters who had backed Jill Stein and Gary Johnson by 30 points. Such voters could peel away to the No Labels candidate in 2024 and hand victory to Trump.
  • “Double Haters” Went for Biden: Voters who do not like either major party candidate would tend to back Democrats in a forced choice. Biden won “double haters” in 2020 by 15 points. (Clinton lost those voters by 17 points in 2016.) Giving them a third-party choice clearly helps the GOP.
  • Biden is More Vulnerable in Close States: In 2020, Biden won six of the seven states where the margin was three points or less. Even a paltry third-party performance would put 79 Biden electoral votes at risk (GA, AZ, WI, PA, NV, and MI).
  • No Labels is Targeting Blue States: The No Labels map gives away the game: they project to win 2/3 of their electoral votes in states that Biden won in 2020. So, by their own admission, their prime targets are voters who would otherwise back the Democrat.
  • If it isn’t Trump, No Labels is Helping Elect a Trump Clone: Even if the GOP nominee isn’t Trump, it will almost certainly be a MAGA-aligned candidate. It’s preposterous to even imagine that a candidate like Larry Hogan or Liz Cheney could win that primary.
A candidate like Ron DeSantis.
 
Inside the turmoil roiling No Labels’ unity ticket presidential campaign - POLITICO - "The centrist group says its critics don’t give it proper credit. But ex-staffers say the organization is rife with problems."
But behind the scenes there is turmoil inside the organization. Interviews with 14 former employees—including five who left in the last few months—and four other people familiar with No Labels reveals a cutthroat culture, one where staffers are routinely fired or pushed out, have little trust in management, and believe the workplace environment can be difficult for minority and female colleagues.

...
The group has had its share of critics over the years. Political operatives, particularly on the Democratic side of the aisle, have warned that its projects, including the launch of a unity-ticket project, are a waste of funds. They accuse it of valuing the veneer of bipartisanship more than important legislation and of adopting quixotic causes and candidates.

In 2015, No Labels featured Donald Trump at its “problem solver” event in New Hampshire. This past spring, the group posted a tweet calling the Jan. 6 committee “a partisan exercise,” after which it endured a wave of public backlash, put out a clarifying statement, and then went dormant on Twitter for five months.
 
It may be much too early to bother, but to see if others were thinking of Gretchen, I checked the Presidential Election odds at Betfair.

Trump is 51% to be the GOP nominee, but would then be heavy underdog against Biden. DeSantis, while less likely to be nominated, would be heaviy favored against Biden. Less likely GOP nominees are, in order, Haley, Youngkin, Pence, Scott.

Sadly, Betfair shows the Ds as 80% to win the popular vote in November 2024, but only 44% to win the electoral vote. (This is due to the huge "waste" of D votes in NY and Calif rather than any deliberate gerrymandering.)

After Biden (68%), possible D nominees in order of likelihood are Harris, Newsome, M. Obama, Buttigieg, H. Clinton, followed by Whitmer in 7th place with almost a 2% chance to be nominee.
It's been over three weeks, so I'll give an update:

(1) RFK Jr. is now effectively tied with Gretchen Whitmer for the #7-Likely of D-Party nominee.

(2) Trump is significanty MORE likely to be the nominee -- after these indictments! -- than he was 3 weeks ago. This explains D-improvement following.

(3) Betting on the November 2024 Final for POTUS now gives 2-to-1 on Biden, 3-to-1 on Trump, 5-to-1 on DeSantis, 40-to-1 on Harris, 40-to-1 on Newsome.
 
Very interesting, the claim that student loan forgiveness somehow exacerbated the inflation crisis -- despite never actually having been implemented.

And this from the same group of pundits who will look you in the eye and tell you that the modern college degree is useless and unnecessary...

Is this just magical thinking, or what?
Magical thinking? Nope. It's part of the same concerted effort to devalue education in the US, starting with pre-K. We hear all the time about how 'broken' public education is in the US. Broken, btw, is just a lazy and simultaneously hyperbolic way to claim that we should just abandon the notion altogether. Because public education is 'broken,' we no longer need to invest money into public education. We'll syphon funds away from public education through charter schools, and by expecting public schools to fund expensive special education (I am NOT arguing against special education or its place in public education--I'm mostly riffing off of what I see in my community and extrapolating as I see variations of this theme elsewhere, We NEED excellent education, including special education!!!!). Homeschooling is encouraged, especially among certain fundamentalist religious groups. BTW, public schools are funded almost entirely on a per pupil spending formula so fewer students means less funding--but not necessarily fewer expenses. If a school district loses 50 students from its K-12 population to home schooling, and they are not all from the same one or two grade levels, they cannot really decrease the number of staff since the 50 are spread across 13 grade levels.

Higher education is now also being attacked, although somewhat less for community colleges and trade schools, which remain less expensive and for which faculty are less well compensated. State funding for higher education has dramatically decreased as a portion of the cost of tuition. English, as a major, is being dropped. Liberal arts have been attacked and devalued since Reagan. Instead, increasingly, the only majors that many people value are basically jobs training programs. In fact, when I returned to college the last time, I pursued courses I was interested in but I knew for reasons of geography and the fact that my husband was not willing to relocate, I would not be able to attend grad school and so, I became a lab tech, a job I specifically did NOT want but one which would pay well enough that we could afford to send our kids to college without the need for them to take out expensive loans. So, yeah, I bought into it as well. But if you read the subtext, you will see that we could not afford to send our kids to college on the wages of a tenured full professor, who often taught summer courses and received overload pay when he taught more than his usual already high load of coursework. Sure that would have been different if we had lived in a larger metropolitan area where I had more choices for jobs, but we don't. We DO live in a town with a relatively modest cost of living--just not many job opportunities.

I see this as a concerted effort to destroy the US confidence in education, in tandem with efforts to destroy faith in government. We're attacking it now, piece by piece: confidence in the US Supreme court is lower and falling. Both liberals and conservatives have fallen, hook line and sinker for the canard that if one disagrees with the decisions the Supreme Court hands down, it is evidence of corruption. If we disagree with the justices confirmed to our court system, it is because of corruption.

I'm not saying that there isn't corruption in politics or in policy making or even in our justice system (Hello Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh).
 
Murkins are Stoopid.
Trying to educate them is a waste of time.
Why bother?
/Republitard Party Platform
 
I see this as a concerted effort to destroy the US confidence in education, in tandem with efforts to destroy faith in government. We're attacking it now, piece by piece: confidence in the US Supreme court is lower and falling. Both liberals and conservatives have fallen, hook line and sinker for the canard that if one disagrees with the decisions the Supreme Court hands down, it is evidence of corruption. If we disagree with the justices confirmed to our court system, it is because of corruption.
I think it's the other way around -- when trust in the Court and the rest of the government is high, people grumble and shrug when it does things they don't agree with. But when confidence has been seriously eroded, as it was in the 1830's-1860's and in the interwar period, every major case or judicial appointment becomes a gritty public battle.

I agree with your other points, all too painfully considering my own job is likely on the chopping block. Don't worry, I work for the government: the process firing me will take them years. And maybe by then the young folks will get off their asses and wage that communist revolution they're always talking about.
 
What It Means for Trump’s Campaign to Start in Waco - Mar 25 - 'Holding his first rally near the site of an infamous federal raid could be seen as “a coded message to those on the extreme.”'
Every revolutionary movement needs martyrs. The modern U.S. militant right has long had its own, and the most important among them have been dead for three decades: the 70-plus men, women, and children killed in the spring of 1993 at the conclusion of a 51-day government siege at a compound outside the Central Texas city of Waco. They were members of an armed Christian sect, unfamiliar and isolated, and for many Americans, Waco was another footnote in the country’s long history of violence. In the worldview of right-wing militancy, however, Waco is foundational: a gory testament to the dangers of gun control and the deadly power of federal authorities. Waco fueled the rise of the militia movement in the 1990s and inspired the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995; it continues to influence contemporary militant thinking. All of this should be borne in mind when Donald Trump holds the first official rally of his 2024 presidential campaign in Waco on Saturday.
Donald Trump himself didn't mention it, but some right-wing militants did.
Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes — who was convicted last fall of seditious conspiracy for his role on January 6, 2021, the last time Trump called on his followers to defend him — told me in an interview before his arrest that he’d seen the “existential slaughter” of Waco as “a huge wake-up call.” Mike Vanderboegh, founder of the Three Percenters, another national militant group whose members were charged over January 6, viewed Waco similarly. It made him and other militia leaders believe they could be the government’s next victims. Before his 2016 death, Vanderboegh told the historian Robert Churchill of Waco: “It scared the crap out of us, and we couldn’t count on anybody but ourselves.”
I remember some online right-wingers long ago considering the siege of Waco to be some horrible persecution.  Waco siege
The Waco siege was cited by Timothy McVeigh as the main reason for his and Terry Nichols's plan to execute the Oklahoma City bombing exactly two years later, on April 19, 1995, as well as the modern-day American militia movement and a rise in opposition to firearm regulation.
 
Meanwhile, the clown car rolls on in Florida. Extreme pro-life candidate Ron DeSantis is about to sign a bill that will kill more prisoners in the future. It will satisfy his lust for sanctimonious revenge against people that don't convince everyone on a jury of their innocence. Still, they convinced some people. Meanwhile this will help him convince the majority of the GOP base that he is best one to replace Bozo as the head of the party.

Florida to allow death penalty with 8-4 jury vote instead of unanimously

 
Meanwhile, the clown car rolls on in Florida. Extreme pro-life candidate Ron DeSantis is about to sign a bill that will kill more prisoners in the future. It will satisfy his lust for sanctimonious revenge while convincing the GOP base that he is best one to replace Bozo as the head of the party.

Florida to allow death penalty with 8-4 jury vote instead of unanimously

He should have promised public executions by firing squad, and to let people draw for a chance to be in the squad. BYO murder weapon.
 
Back
Top Bottom