The Race For 2024

[Emily Lake]

I think your assumptions are wrong, there've been a few polls out there that show that if Michelle Obama were running, she would have the absolute best chance to beat trump. Are you somehow under the impression that Michelle Obama is not a black woman? Or is it possible that you're trying to find an easy out by brushing aside the dislike of Harris as being vacuous and bigoted instead of recognizing that people don't much like her as a person, regardless of her sex or melanin content?

There are those who have non-demographically driven rationales for liking Ms Harris. And there are those who have demographically driven dislike of Ms Harris.

Of course. There are also those who have a non-demographically driven rational for disliking Harris, and those who have demographically driven like of Harris. Not sure what your point is other than to attempt a false dichotomy, perhaps?

Is the latter who pose an unfair (in a rational world) to a successful candidacy.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

In a close election, the loss of bigot and misogynist votes could be sufficient to lose the election.

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

I dunno. I mean, sure, maybe. I guess I find it weird for a staunch democrat to acknowledge that there's enough bigotry and misogyny within your own party to make a material difference.

 

[Emily Lake]

The other candidate wants to be a dictator and the Supreme Court just gave him their blessing.

Why is it so hard to avoid ridiculously disingenuous hyperbolization? Can you not defend your position and your candidate without such rhetoric?

Why is it so hard to understand that it's not hyperbole? Have you looked at Project 2025? And remember that it's just how much of the quiet part they have said out loud?

Given that neither Trump nor the Supreme Court developed Project 2025, I'm not quite sure what point you're making.

While we're at it though, what are your thoughts on Biden's Congressional Progressive Caucus Progressive Proposition Agenda for 2025 that will turn American into a socialist country and destroy our economy?

This explains a lot about you and your posts. None of it to your credit.

Credit from you would lower my score.

 

[thebeave]

Though, come to think of it, it's easy to imagine the stink the Republicans would raise about such a maneuver. "Lock her up"! Hypocritical yes, but they're obviously not afraid of a little bit of hypocrisy, and they have short memories, anyway. Dick Cheney, who's that?

I don't know why I'm defending this notion, Newsom would be quite possibly the worst possible pick for VP. He's well liked here of course, but doesn't the rest of the country hate the guy?

I think Newsom might be the only Democrat that would be a worse choice than Biden. He's not even all that well-liked in Cali.

Yep. I looked at his polling numbers earlier today. Its about 50% approve of the job he's doing, and 50% disapprove. You can pretty much guarantee that of the ones that approve, 45% would approve of a dead cat running the state as long as there was a (D) after its name.

 

[Emily Lake]

Honestly, I think the DNC is fucking it up. They're so stuck on "who gets the Biden money" that they're not willing to do the right thing and replace Biden with a candidate that is competent and in good health.

How on earth democrats think they have a chance of beating Trump with Biden is a mystery to me. We're well into own-goal territory now.

 

[thebeave]

I think your assumptions are wrong, there've been a few polls out there that show that if Michelle Obama were running, she would have the absolute best chance to beat trump. Are you somehow under the impression that Michelle Obama is not a black woman? Or is it possible that you're trying to find an easy out by brushing aside the dislike of Harris as being vacuous and bigoted instead of recognizing that people don't much like her as a person, regardless of her sex or melanin content?

There are those who have non-demographically driven rationales for liking Ms Harris. And there are those who have demographically driven dislike of Ms Harris.

Of course. There are also those who have a non-demographically driven rational for disliking Harris, and those who have demographically driven like of Harris. Not sure what your point is other than to attempt a false dichotomy, perhaps?

Is the latter who pose an unfair (in a rational world) to a successful candidacy.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

In a close election, the loss of bigot and misogynist votes could be sufficient to lose the election.

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

I dunno. I mean, sure, maybe. I guess I find it weird for a staunch democrat to acknowledge that there's enough bigotry and misogyny within your own party to make a material difference.

Not too surprising. When Kamala dropped out of the primary back in 2020 due to lacklaster support, she blamed it all on racism and sexism. I think that's been such a standard go-to response for her to use against her "conservative" critics for so long, that she forgot she was talking about her own party this time!

 

[TSwizzle]

Honestly, I think the DNC is fucking it up. They're so stuck on "who gets the Biden money" that they're not willing to do the right thing and replace Biden with a candidate that is competent and in good health.

I don't know if this is accurate but I heard that there is some weird rule that any money raised for the Brandon/Harris campaign cannot be used for another campaign. If this is accurate then perhaps this is a sticking point.

 

[laughing dog]

I think your assumptions are wrong, there've been a few polls out there that show that if Michelle Obama were running, she would have the absolute best chance to beat trump. Are you somehow under the impression that Michelle Obama is not a black woman? Or is it possible that you're trying to find an easy out by brushing aside the dislike of Harris as being vacuous and bigoted instead of recognizing that people don't much like her as a person, regardless of her sex or melanin content?

There are those who have non-demographically driven rationales for liking Ms Harris. And there are those who have demographically driven dislike of Ms Harris.

Of course. There are also those who have a non-demographically driven rational for disliking Harris, and those who have demographically driven like of Harris. Not sure what your point is other than to attempt a false dichotomy, perhaps?

Is the latter who pose an unfair (in a rational world) to a successful candidacy.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

In a close election, the loss of bigot and misogynist votes could be sufficient to lose the election.

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

I dunno. I mean, sure, maybe. I guess I find it weird for a staunch democrat to acknowledge that there's enough bigotry and misogyny within your own party to make a material difference.

In a general election, it would be bigots snd misogynists (explicit ones or ones with implicit bias) within the ranks of the party and independents/undecided. Given the nature of the Electoral College, in a close election it wouldn’t take that many. For example, HRC lost WI by a little less than 23,000 votes which means if 11,500 (out of 2.8 million Wi bites)would based solely on misogyny, she had taken the state. Analogous narrow margins in MI, PA and she wins the POTUS.

Kamala Harris has the potential double shammy of gender and race. So in a close election, she faces a real obstacle.

 

[thebeave]

And yet, Obama (who is black BTW) won by a landslide in 2008 and by a sizable margin in 2012 as well. And Hillary won the popular vote in 2016 (as we are constantly reminded about here). Had she campaigned more strategically she could have easily won the EC as well. Blaming racism and sexism for losing is pretty weak these days. Even Obama was asked in a 2008 interview with 60 Minutes whether he would blame racism if he didn't win, and he said no, that he would put the blame on himself for not putting out the right message.

 

[Toni]

To be fair: The power structure of the GOP wants to so severely change the USA that it in effect will destroy our democracy, severely limit women’s rights an led greatly curtail the rights of immigrants and persons of color while expanding the ability of corporations to trash the environment.

For example... ? Do you have insight to this grand plan in some way? Or is this more a case of what you think the slippery slope of some general GOP positions would lead to?

I don’t know how many times people can point you to Project 2025 and have you refuse to read it or believe it or look to the number of those most closely involved with Project 2025 who were in the Trump
Administration. It’s not like they’ve been keeping any of this a secret or that it’s hard to find on the internet.

They are quite forthright in their plans. Here is the Wikipedia entry:

Project 2025 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

We can explain this all to you but you will have to understand it for yourself.

 

[Politesse]

The other candidate wants to be a dictator and the Supreme Court just gave him their blessing.

Why is it so hard to avoid ridiculously disingenuous hyperbolization? Can you not defend your position and your candidate without such rhetoric?

Why is it so hard to understand that it's not hyperbole? Have you looked at Project 2025? And remember that it's just how much of the quiet part they have said out loud?

Given that neither Trump nor the Supreme Court developed Project 2025, I'm not quite sure what point you're making.

While we're at it though, what are your thoughts on Biden's Congressional Progressive Caucus Progressive Proposition Agenda for 2025 that will turn American into a socialist country and destroy our economy?

Ah, yes. Finally a "liberal" perspective on the question.

 

[laughing dog]

And yet, Obama (who is black BTW) won by a landslide in 2008 and by a sizable margin in 2012 as well. And Hillary won the popular vote in 2016 (as we are constantly reminded about here). Had she campaigned more strategically she could have easily won the EC as well. Blaming racism and sexism for losing is pretty weak these days. Even Obama was asked in a 2008 interview with 60 Minutes whether he would blame racism if he didn't win, and he said no, that he would put the blame on himself for not putting out the right message.

I am not saying Ms. Harris will lose because she she is a black woman. I am saying that in a close race, it is a relevant factor to consider.

I showed that in 3 states, it would have taken about less than 0.5% of the vote to change the election in 2016. We will never know what factors would have shifted that 0.5%, but I understand a Magatard would handwave the realistic possibility that misogyny played a role in HRC's loss but why do you?

 

[Politesse]

Though, come to think of it, it's easy to imagine the stink the Republicans would raise about such a maneuver. "Lock her up"! Hypocritical yes, but they're obviously not afraid of a little bit of hypocrisy, and they have short memories, anyway. Dick Cheney, who's that?

I don't know why I'm defending this notion, Newsom would be quite possibly the worst possible pick for VP. He's well liked here of course, but doesn't the rest of the country hate the guy?

I think Newsom might be the only Democrat that would be a worse choice than Biden. He's not even all that well-liked in Cali.

I have never heard of this "Cali", but I'm sure the opinions of those who live there, wherever it is, do not reflect those of my fair state and Gavin's.

 

[ZiprHead]

The other candidate wants to be a dictator and the Supreme Court just gave him their blessing.

Why is it so hard to avoid ridiculously disingenuous hyperbolization? Can you not defend your position and your candidate without such rhetoric?

Why is it so hard to understand that it's not hyperbole? Have you looked at Project 2025? And remember that it's just how much of the quiet part they have said out loud?

Emily Lake clearly has missed all of the latest Supreme Court rulings that were a power grab for the courts and provided a route for the anti-government regulatory big business wing to stroll into SCOTUS with their brand new line item veto pen. She is unfamiliar with Project 2025. Emily Lake allegedly supports birth control and abortion rights, but wants to do it "the right way". In general, my daughter is growing up in a world that'll be more hostile to her because of people like Emily Lake.

I made numerous links for Emily to peruse. Apparently, however, Emily feels she is smarter than all those legal experts and thinks they are exaggerating. Trump is all bluster and would never actually do those heinous things he says he want to do. Maybe she believes Trump will really only be dictator for a day, as if just one day makes it okay.

Her niavete is dangerous. And there's a lot out there like her.

 

[Elixir]

Realistically, all MSM except Fox has been saying Trump is unfit to lead since 2015. I don't disagree with them. I just think that Biden is also unfit to lead

That is a ridiculous false equivalence.
What threat does Joe Biden pose?
Has he shown in the inclination to overthrow the government?
Has he mobilized the Justis department to his personal political advantage?
Has he mismanaged a pandemic?
Is the stock market under performing?
Is 3% inflation (and declining) hurting your piggy bank?
Just what makes you think there’s some equivalence with a career criminal mobster who has been convicted of fraud numerous times as well as sexual assault… And has more than several dozen handfuls of pending criminal indictments looming over his head?
Ridiculous!
You can’t see how easily kompromatted Trump is and Biden isn’t?
No help for that kind of willful blindness.

 

[ZiprHead]

What's even more interesting is that the ruling itself is agnostic with respect to which president - it applies to any and all presidents. So if you really want to stick to your guns on your bespoke chicken-little interpretation, allow me to point out that by your logic, the Supreme Court has given BIDEN their blessing to be a dictator too.

Yes, it has. I don't see anyone saying it doesn't. It's just he's not the type to actually use that power.

Lol, honestly. The blinders are magnificent. Why on earth do you think that Democrats are all saints and Republicans are all sinners?

No one said that.

If the Supreme Court has made dictatorships legal within the US, I am quite certain that BOTH parties would be anxious to install themselves forever.

Biden has explicity rejected the unethical action a president could do under the new Supreme Court pardigm. Please, do keep up.

 

[ZiprHead]

To be fair: The power structure of the GOP wants to so severely change the USA that it in effect will destroy our democracy, severely limit women’s rights an led greatly curtail the rights of immigrants and persons of color while expanding the ability of corporations to trash the environment.

For example... ? Do you have insight to this grand plan in some way? Or is this more a case of what you think the slippery slope of some general GOP positions would lead to?

Jesus fucking christ. You've been given links to Project 2025 numerous times. Read the fucking thing before you comment.

 

[ZiprHead]

Honestly, I think the DNC is fucking it up. They're so stuck on "who gets the Biden money" that they're not willing to do the right thing and replace Biden with a candidate that is competent and in good health.

I don't know if this is accurate but I heard that there is some weird rule that any money raised for the Brandon/Harris campaign cannot be used for another campaign. If this is accurate then perhaps this is a sticking point.

This is true.

 

[Elixir]

Why on earth do you think that Democrats are all saints and Republicans are all sinners?

Because they act that way? Republicans are led by a corrupt sleazebag who has already tried to do it without SCOTUS’ help, and now will certainly consolidate power of all three branches under his vengeful hand if elected or is able to steal the office.
As you point out, Joe could “fix it” today if he wanted, but doing so while final immunity rulings have yet to be made would be pretty risky, since SCOTUS will rule against immunity if the subject is Biden and for it if Trump needs off the hook.
He would certainly want to wait and see if he can win fair and square before calling Seal Team Six, assuming he is “just like Trump” and really only wants to be king so he can keep his corrupt pussy grabbing ass out of jail.
Oh, wait, I forgot; he doesn’t have 88 felony counts in three districts hanging over his head… plus a record of prior convictions - never mind.

Biden, for whatever his faults, plays by the rules of the existing book, and does not re-write rules to excuse his own past and future crimes.

 

[Patooka]

This charade can’t go on for much longer. Brandon is going to be sidelined pretty soon.

Vice President Trump will have to carry on.

I'm old enough to remember when your orange Jesus thought Nikki Haley was in charge of Whitehouse security on Jan6. But you keep on derping as though Brandon is the senile one.

 

[Elixir]

If the Supreme Court has made dictatorships legal within the US, I am quite certain that BOTH parties would be anxious to install themselves forever.

Biden has explicity rejected the unethical action a president could do under the new Supreme Court pardigm. Please, do keep up.

It’s really disappointing that we have to indulge in dispelling arguments from ignorance before even entering civil dialogue.