The Race For 2024

[Elixir]

There are secular Americans, but a "secular movement"?
That's real close to an oxymoron. Sounds like "Anti-Union Workers Unite!!"

 

[Elixir]

I've read that Trump is choosing his VP, based on how many billionaires he has connections with and that doesn't surprise me at all.

Possibly but is that any worse than Brandon picking an empty headed woman of color just because it may appeal to dimwit voters?

I hope you have some degrees that are more elite than a law degree from the University of California, Swiz.
Otherwise your projection about a empty headed black woman shows your slip.

 

[Toni]

I found this editorial from Ezra Klein painfully insightful:

Opinion: This Isn't All Joe Biden's Fault

In February, I argued that President Biden should step aside in the 2024 election and Democrats should do what political parties did in presidential elections until the 1970s: choose a ticket at their convention. In public, the backlash I got from top Democrats was fierce. I was a bed-wetter living in an Aaron Sorkin fantasyland.

In private, the feedback was more thoughtful and frightened. No one tried to convince me that Biden was a strong candidate. They argued instead that he couldn’t be persuaded to step aside, that even if he could, Vice President Kamala Harris would lose the election and that if a convention didn’t choose Harris, passing her over would fracture the party. They argued not that Biden was strong but that the Democratic Party was weak.

I do not quite agree with Klein's ultimate conclusion. It's too late to do anything now, and that being the case, these "top donors" should really call ix-nay on the elated-bay oubts-day. But his analysis of what happened and why is right on the money. I sure hope someone is paying attention to what happened to derail this election for the Democrats, and taking some notes for the future. If there is a future. Well, there will be. I truly and genuinely believe that for as complacent, cynical, apathetic, and old as we have admittedly become, Americans will not tolerate a Trump dictatorship for very long at all. I'm not sure he can even keep his people, or his own brain, organized for long enough to make a serious attempt.

My husband and I have discussed and disagree about whether Biden would have run for a second term if Trump were not the presumptive candidate. My personal opinion was that he probably would not have while my husband was convinced he would be.

I think that both parties suffer from a similar problem: No obvious candidate to succeed Biden or Trump. Kamala Harris is pretty divisive among voters most likely to vote Dem. Passing her over would have indeed fractured the party and probably cost them a large number of voters of color. The GOP is in the thrall of Trump, unfortunately and more sane candidates have mostly left the party. Liz Chaney would have been formidable as a candidate. I would not have voted for her but she's not crazy, and is articulate. Oh, and blonde. Republicans love that in a female candidate.

Both parties need to do more/better to bring forward strong candidates for the highest offices.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I found this editorial from Ezra Klein painfully insightful:

Opinion: This Isn't All Joe Biden's Fault

In February, I argued that President Biden should step aside in the 2024 election and Democrats should do what political parties did in presidential elections until the 1970s: choose a ticket at their convention. In public, the backlash I got from top Democrats was fierce. I was a bed-wetter living in an Aaron Sorkin fantasyland.

In private, the feedback was more thoughtful and frightened. No one tried to convince me that Biden was a strong candidate. They argued instead that he couldn’t be persuaded to step aside, that even if he could, Vice President Kamala Harris would lose the election and that if a convention didn’t choose Harris, passing her over would fracture the party. They argued not that Biden was strong but that the Democratic Party was weak.

I do not quite agree with Klein's ultimate conclusion. It's too late to do anything now, and that being the case, these "top donors" should really call ix-nay on the elated-bay oubts-day. But his analysis of what happened and why is right on the money. I sure hope someone is paying attention to what happened to derail this election for the Democrats, and taking some notes for the future. If there is a future. Well, there will be. I truly and genuinely believe that for as complacent, cynical, apathetic, and old as we have admittedly become, Americans will not tolerate a Trump dictatorship for very long at all. I'm not sure he can even keep his people, or his own brain, organized for long enough to make a serious attempt.

My husband and I have discussed and disagree about whether Biden would have run for a second term if Trump were not the presumptive candidate. My personal opinion was that he probably would not have while my husband was convinced he would be.

I think that both parties suffer from a similar problem: No obvious candidate to succeed Biden or Trump. Kamala Harris is pretty divisive among voters most likely to vote Dem. Passing her over would have indeed fractured the party and probably cost them a large number of voters of color. The GOP is in the thrall of Trump, unfortunately and more sane candidates have mostly left the party. Liz Chaney would have been formidable as a candidate. I would not have voted for her but she's not crazy, and is articulate. Oh, and blonde. Republicans love that in a female candidate.

Both parties need to do more/better to bring forward strong candidates for the highest offices.

The Democrats did. While I wasn't high on Buttigieg due to his small city experience, he has proven to be quite intelligent. Senator Harris was an option as well. Biden lost the first few primaries/caucuses. He was far from the presumptive nominee.

The question is, would the results have been different if Sanders hadn't run.

 

[Toni]

I found this editorial from Ezra Klein painfully insightful:

Opinion: This Isn't All Joe Biden's Fault

In February, I argued that President Biden should step aside in the 2024 election and Democrats should do what political parties did in presidential elections until the 1970s: choose a ticket at their convention. In public, the backlash I got from top Democrats was fierce. I was a bed-wetter living in an Aaron Sorkin fantasyland.

In private, the feedback was more thoughtful and frightened. No one tried to convince me that Biden was a strong candidate. They argued instead that he couldn’t be persuaded to step aside, that even if he could, Vice President Kamala Harris would lose the election and that if a convention didn’t choose Harris, passing her over would fracture the party. They argued not that Biden was strong but that the Democratic Party was weak.

I do not quite agree with Klein's ultimate conclusion. It's too late to do anything now, and that being the case, these "top donors" should really call ix-nay on the elated-bay oubts-day. But his analysis of what happened and why is right on the money. I sure hope someone is paying attention to what happened to derail this election for the Democrats, and taking some notes for the future. If there is a future. Well, there will be. I truly and genuinely believe that for as complacent, cynical, apathetic, and old as we have admittedly become, Americans will not tolerate a Trump dictatorship for very long at all. I'm not sure he can even keep his people, or his own brain, organized for long enough to make a serious attempt.

My husband and I have discussed and disagree about whether Biden would have run for a second term if Trump were not the presumptive candidate. My personal opinion was that he probably would not have while my husband was convinced he would be.

I think that both parties suffer from a similar problem: No obvious candidate to succeed Biden or Trump. Kamala Harris is pretty divisive among voters most likely to vote Dem. Passing her over would have indeed fractured the party and probably cost them a large number of voters of color. The GOP is in the thrall of Trump, unfortunately and more sane candidates have mostly left the party. Liz Chaney would have been formidable as a candidate. I would not have voted for her but she's not crazy, and is articulate. Oh, and blonde. Republicans love that in a female candidate.

Both parties need to do more/better to bring forward strong candidates for the highest offices.

The Democrats did. While I wasn't high on Buttigieg due to his small city experience, he has proven to be quite intelligent. Senator Harris was an option as well. Biden lost the first few primaries/caucuses. He was far from the presumptive nominee.

The question is, would the results have been different if Sanders hadn't run.

Pete is quite intelligent. His record as mayor is somewhat spotty and I genuinely don’t see him getting elected. Adam Schiff, Cory Booker, Hakeem Jeffries, Gretchen Whitmer and a little down the line AOC or Jasmine Crockett, both of whom have the ‘it’ factor that I think Amy Klobuchar lacks, intelligent and accomplished as she is.

 

[Person19960]

There are secular Americans, but a "secular movement"?
That's real close to an oxymoron. Sounds like "Anti-Union Workers Unite!!"

Yeah, ha ha very funny.

You're supposed to have your answer, you're supposed to have living proof
Well, I am your answer, I am living

The Race For 2024:​

I do not believe that Biden needs to drop out, as I saw some headlines say he should step aside. I don't know what Dem would be better here.

I have a friend on Facebook saying "haha, could have had Bernie." Sigh, Yeah. Anyway.

@Toni to be honest, only Rep Jasmine Crockett has the media presence to get the masses behind [her][any Democrat] in the event that Biden does choose to step aside, but, I do not think she has enough experience. What I know of her qualifications is more about her beliefs and ideas than her past experience. BUT, does it matter?

Cory Booker does not have the likes, as it were. AOC has too many dislikes; and the others named just aren't star attractions. I am nervous about the options.

Pete Buttigieg... won't pull in the queer vote, so, I can't imagine him winning the hearts and minds of those who so dislike the LGBTQ+ community that they don't know that he and his lovely husband are kind of snobby. I for one am never going to get over their cancellation of an early, important, advertised meet-and-greet in a popular gay bar in the Northeast (Rhode Island, iirc).

The event was cancelled because Chasen was allegedly surprised and/or upset because the bar had a pole.

A dance pole, in a dance club, where dancing people go to dance. That's a LOT of gay bars! That's a lot of every kinds of bars! But, it was scandalous to Mr Pete's husband, so the story went. I don't know how many other East Coast queers got mad that anyone was surprised that a dance club had a dance pole, but it was outrageous for them to insinuate that the presence of a dance pole is in any way "undesirable" or "dirty" or "too adult." Convention People do not get to say that anything is too adult. But that's what happened.

Pete and Chasen are HRC kind of guys. Not Hillary. Yellow equals-sign = sticker HRC, the org.

Nice lawns aren't grassroots. idk

 

[TSwizzle]

Oh good lord;



He reminds me of Young Mister Grace from Are You Being Served

 

[Elixir]

 

[bilby]

We as a whole nation don't trust our own government enough to hand it that kind of unchecked power over our lives, no matter who's in charge.

I always find this particular US trope amusing, because Americans genuinely believe that they haven't already handed to their various governments more power over their daily lives than Europeans would ever tolerate.

They just don't notice.

You can own a gun (though it's perfectly OK for a policeman to kill you on the spot, if he thinks you might have one); But if you cross a street in the city centre, you are risking a fine.

You can be fined for not mowing your lawn. But that's OK, because an HOA isn't a government body (it just has litterally all of the characteristics of a government body, but it's not called government, so it doesn't count). You can't even go for a stroll in many places without being stopped and questioned by police, because walking is 'suspicious behaviour' (as is 'being black', 'being young', or 'being scruffy').

Americans think of themselves as free, despite being subject to more petifogging rules, and a more intrusive and less friendly policing regime, and having a far larger part of their population in prison, than any EU nation. They achieve this feat of belief by constantly re-defining "freedom" to mean the ability to vote for the petty officials who are permitted to oppress them.

And they will defend this concept of "freedom", in which everyone is free to obey the rules or go to jail (or be shot dead), against any hint that it's not actual freedom. I am 100% certain that they don't think "doing whatever you feel like doing, without anyone hassling or questioning you as long as you are not actively hurting anyone" has any part in freedom at all.

 

[Politesse]

We as a whole nation don't trust our own government enough to hand it that kind of unchecked power over our lives, no matter who's in charge.

I always find this particular US trope amusing, because Americans genuinely believe that they haven't already handed to their various governments more power over their daily lives than Europeans would ever tolerate.

They just don't notice.

You can own a gun (though it's perfectly OK for a policeman to kill you on the spot, if he thinks you might have one); But if you cross a street in the city centre, you are risking a fine.

You can be fined for not mowing your lawn. But that's OK, because an HOA isn't a government body (it just has litterally all of the characteristics of a government body, but it's not called government, so it doesn't count). You can't even go for a stroll in many places without being stopped and questioned by police, because walking is 'suspicious behaviour' (as is 'being black', 'being young', or 'being scruffy').

Americans think of themselves as free, despite being subject to more petifogging rules, and a more intrusive and less friendly policing regime, and having a far larger part of their population in prison, than any EU nation. They achieve this feat of belief by constantly re-defining "freedom" to mean the ability to vote for the petty officials who are permitted to oppress them.

And they will defend this concept of "freedom", in which everyone is free to obey the rules or go to jail (or be shot dead), against any hint that it's not actual freedom. I am 100% certain that they don't think "doing whatever you feel like doing, without anyone hassling or questioning you as long as you are not actively hurting anyone" has any part in freedom at all.

I can see how you arrived at those conclusions, but can't quite manage to travel there with you.

 

[Elixir]

We as a whole nation don't trust our own government enough to hand it that kind of unchecked power over our lives,

Maybe "we as a whole nation" don't trust our own government enough to hand it that kind of unchecked power, but "we as a whole nation" don't have that option anyway.
It's up to the SCOTUS, and we just saw that they don't have the kind of reticence about handing over that kind of unchecked power that "we"
do.
They are trying to time it so unlimited power accrues to Donald Trump, (who will make it perpetually his own) but never to Biden, who might be able to prevent them from handing that kind of power to the next billionaires' lackey in the WH if they hand it out too soon.
Now they have it neatly arranged so that if the lower court rules that Trump's actions were criminal, the SCOTUS can overturn that ruling if Trump wins the election, and let it stand if he loses (and loses the ensuing mini civil war), so Joe doesn't get up to any funny business (going around removing SCOTUS Justices or anything).

 

[Tigers!]

Not being totally cognizant with the US political system why isn't Karmala Harris being put forward as possible replacement for Biden? Isn't that why she is the VP?

 

[abaddon]

.... why isn't Karmala Harris being put forward as possible replacement for Biden? ...

She is. Doofuses are talking about replacing Biden with a less popular person. Kamala Harris is the next most popular person who might replace him. And the others who get mentioned are behind Harris.

We don't have a lot of hope but none at all if the Democrats do what they too often do and self-immolate. Republicans shrug and giggle when one of theirs fucks up. Democrats hang their heads and consider "maybe I should jump off a cliff". They need to stop doing that.

 

[ZiprHead]

Replacing any presidential candidate at this point has never been done before (other than death). Frankly, I don't know anyone who wouldn't get flustered with the constant stream of total bullshit coming out of Trump's mouth. It's hard to deal with total batshit crazy.

 

[barbos]

Both parties need to do more/better to bring forward strong candidates for the highest offices.

Both parties need to die, along with their media.

 

[barbos]

Replacing any presidential candidate at this point has never been done before (other than death).

That's an idea.Next time Biden wanders off, let him.

 

[barbos]

.... why isn't Karmala Harris being put forward as possible replacement for Biden? ...

She is. Doofuses are talking about replacing Biden with a less popular person. Kamala Harris is the next most popular person who might replace him. And the others who get mentioned are behind Harris.

We don't have a lot of hope but none at all if the Democrats do what they too often do and self-immolate. Republicans shrug and giggle when one of theirs fucks up. Democrats hang their heads and consider "maybe I should jump off a cliff". They need to stop doing that.

Biden did not fuck up. You did, YOU allowed him to run by voting for him in the primaries.

 

[Patooka]

Both parties need to do more/better to bring forward strong candidates for the highest offices.

Both parties need to die, along with their media.

Spoken like a true authoritarian. Not an insult, by the way. Your attitudes towards the democratic process and unshakable belief in Dear Leader dovetail such an ideology perfectly.

 

[barbos]

Both parties need to do more/better to bring forward strong candidates for the highest offices.

Both parties need to die, along with their media.

Spoken like a true authoritarian. Not an insult, by the way. Your attitudes towards the democratic process and unshakable belief in Dear Leader dovetail such an ideology perfectly.

You don't have democracy. Democracy implies free and independent press.

 

[Toni]

Both parties need to do more/better to bring forward strong candidates for the highest offices.

Both parties need to die, along with their media.

Yer jes jealous