The Race For 2024

[thebeave]

Well thanks for the rambling non-answer.

You're welcome! If I were hired as a political consultant I'd spend hours researching your question. Instead my actual To-Do List more than drowns the 24 hours in a day.

I did offer Google terms if your interest in the answer to your question is sincere.

When I was a kid, women frequently lamented that it was tough them for them to be taken seriously in politics because people (mostly the male chauvanist pigs) were more focused on (metaphoically speaking) "how well a woman fills out her bra, than how well she fills out her resume". I'm thinking they were not wrong.

Since you pretend to imagine how I feel, despite my own words in contradiction; and impugn bad motives to someone you perceive as political enemy, I'm guessing you usually adhere to the Republicans. What do I win?

I'd vote for the D nominee no matter what, so details will have no effect on my November ballot. How about you? You'd vote for Boebert if she's the R nominee, but not MTG? Or vice versa?

I don't think your words contradict what I said and don't require me to do any imagining. You liked her "charisma" and "photogenic" look. You said you don't know or care about any of her accomplishments or even bothered looking them up. How am I wrong in characterizing you? Though, I will give you credit for waiting until after "International Women's Day" (yesterday) to make your sexist viewpoints known to the world. Well done, sir!

And no I don't "adhere to Republicans".

Beave: I really respect your opinion. I'm a moderate also (maybe a little to your left). I've probably voted for more republicans in my life than dems. Quite honestly, there wasn't much of a difference between the parties. I voted for Biden, but i was kinda like "meh". But I have to say that the difference today between the two parties today are stunning and extreme. Biden is desperately trying to shore up our alliances to stop the war in Ukraine and prevent war in Asia. He's putting together a budget that will lower the deficit through reasonable tax increases and cuts. He's trying to save our international supply chain which will be further wrecked if China attacks. The dems are pursuing reasonable environmental policies. They are trying to find ways to mitigate the water crisis (which is dire). They are trying to fight to protect women's bodily sovereignty. Restoring election confidence.

What are the republican priorities today? Tell me if you disagree, but it seems to me that their priority today from highest to lowest is: 1) lowering the deficit through smoke and mirrors (not increasing the ceiling which will increase the deficit and hurt American credit rating; 2) attacking the meanies at Disney; 3) investigating Hunter's laptop; 4) attacking woke meanies; 5) not sure.

I recognize that we have a lot of problems today. But to me, the choice is pretty dang clear whom I will vote for.

I'm not sure what I wrote that inspired you to write all this. I wrote that I don't "adhere to Republicans" , in response to Swammer's suggestion that I would vote for MTG or Boebert. Was I supposed to push back more on his ridiculous suggestion? I have made clear multiple times on this forum that I don't care for MTG, (for example, here...note Swammerdami liked my comment. Or here*). Perhaps I'm supposed to show I have MTG Derangement Syndrome and post about her 50 times so people know my stance?

With regard to my own politics, suffice it to say I am, and have always been since age 18, registered independent. I am more aligned with the political left on some things, and the right on others. I pretty much always disagree with those at the extremes of either side, and I have also voted for both Republicans and Democrats over the years. Its a derail and fairly long winded to go into any more detail about my own personal politics, so I'll just leave it at that. Suffice it to say, I am actually fairly mainstream and boring.

So, back to Gretchen Whitmer, do you agree with Swammerdami that its just sufficient for her to be photogenic and have charisma to get his vote for President? Frankly, I'm a little surprised that I seem to be the only one who has given him a little grief for his comments. Maybe people do agree with me, but are afraid to expose themselves agreeing with a "right wing ogre" like me.

* I made a comment in that link about MTG's beliefs not being exceptionally kooky, given the religiousity of our politicians in Congress. I mentioned Nancy Pelosi by name. Oddly enough, well after I posted that, Nancy Pelosi admitted she had a priest come to her SF house to do an exorcism after Paul's attack. Number three in line for the Presidency! So, put that in your pipe and smoke it!

 

[Copernicus]

So, back to Gretchen Whitmer, do you agree with Swammerdami that its just sufficient for her to be photogenic and have charisma to get his vote for President? Frankly, I'm a little surprised that I seem to be the only one who has given him a little grief for his comments. Maybe people do agree with me, but are afraid to expose themselves agreeing with a "right wing ogre" like me.

No, and I don't think people really care about her looks any more than they do about Gavin Newsom's looks. She is a woman, so it is easier to dismiss her than Newsom, although she strikes me as the better politician. She has a record of competence in office and knows how to win elections. Her weaknesses are that she has no foreign policy chops and little experience in the federal administration. I think that she would make a fine presidential or vice presidential candidate. I don't much like Newsom, but he does have experience at running a very large government organization and managing its economy. Both are Democrats, so their policies are in line with the direction that the country needs to move.

 

[Elixir]

do you agree with Swammerdami that its just sufficient for her to be photogenic and have charisma to get his vote for President? Frankly, I'm a little surprised that I seem to be the only one who has given him a little grief for his comments. Maybe people do agree with me, but are afraid to expose themselves agreeing with a "right wing ogre" like me.

I might agree with the Swammer, depending on who she was running against. I am not averse to agreeing with right wing ogres such as yourself. But there are other categories of right wing ogre with whom I might be reticent to express agreement in polite company.

 

[ZiprHead]

So, back to Gretchen Whitmer, do you agree with Swammerdami that its just sufficient for her to be photogenic and have charisma to get his vote for President? Frankly, I'm a little surprised that I seem to be the only one who has given him a little grief for his comments. Maybe people do agree with me, but are afraid to expose themselves agreeing with a "right wing ogre" like me.

No, and I don't think people really care about her looks any more than they do about Gavin Newsom's looks. She is a woman, so it is easier to dismiss her than Newsom, although she strikes me as the better politician. She has a record of competence in office and knows how to win elections. Her weaknesses are that she has no foreign policy chops and little experience in the federal administration. I think that she would make a fine presidential or vice presidential candidate. I don't much like Newsom, but he does have experience at running a very large government organization and managing its economy. Both are Democrats, so their policies are in line with the direction that the country needs to move.

Whitmer had one of the better responses to the corona virus. That's what pissed off the right-wingers in the state.

 

[Swammerdami]

So, back to Gretchen Whitmer, do you agree with Swammerdami that its just sufficient for her to be photogenic and have charisma to get his vote for President? Frankly, I'm a little surprised that I seem to be the only one who has given him a little grief for his comments.

I'm not surprised that you've misconstrued my comments. I'm not particularly looking for a photogenic President. But I AM hoping for an ELECTABLE D nominee. Biden is my favorite, but I'm afraid his age may make him unelectable.

The powers of Governor vary from state to state, and some say that even a Governorship with real power is a very different job from POTUS. It's widely agreed that the Governor of Texas is just a figurehead position; the election of the figurehead G.W. Bush worked out badly.

Presidents often surprise. Teddy Roosevelt was elected by the pro-business party but got pro-environment and anti-trust measures enacted. The GOP would have fought against these reforms if proposed by a Democratic President. Nixon was staunchly anti-Communist but achieved Detente. Again, Republicans in Congress would have been frightened of Detente proposed by a D. And Biden has never been considered a liberal, yet has proposed, and achieved much of, a progressive agenda. Do you see the point?

That's right.. The "leftish" pushes of the past two years EXCEED what would have been accomplished if Sanders or AOC were President.

That's why specific policies of Ms. Whitmer are of minimal interest. Biden has just strived to lead from a Democratic consensus, and that's good enough for me.

In the 20th century, being Independent and voting sometimes for the R and sometimes for the D made much sense. This changed with the rise of Newt Gingrich and FoxNews. It is very hard for many of us to understand how an intelligent well-informed citizen could even consider supporting the Party of Dysfunction, Hatred and Lies. Eradicating post-rational Republicanism should be a highest priority. We can hope that a sane right-wing party will then arise from the ashes.

 

[bilby]

We can hope that a sane right-wing party will then arise from the ashes.

The USA already has a sane right-wing party: The Democrats.

What it needs (if support for the insane far right-wing party finally disintegrates) is a sane left-wing party to balance the two-party system.

 

[Swammerdami]

If I lived in one of the socialist democracies, I'd likely be well to the right-of-center. In the 1980's I was far to the right of my American friends. I think it was Newton Gingrich and Kenneth Starr who helped me finally wake up to the realities of American politics.

(Gingrich once Shut-Down-the-Government out of spite because he didn't like the seat he was given on Air Force One.)

 

[lpetrich]

Kari Lake among 4 women Trump's considering for VP pick

KL ran for AZ Gov last year, and lost. She is a big Trumpie, and like DT, she blames her loss on a big conspiracy of election fraud.

"Trump is already gaming out the general election in November 2024 — and knows he has a massive weakness with the white suburban women he would need to beat President Biden."

He'll have to do more than that.

"But Trump friends say Lake carries a big downside: He wants no risk that his running mate could outshine him. Lake would be assumed to be angling for president from the day she entered the White House. She made a political trip to Iowa last month."

What a big baby. Someone who is afraid that someone will outdo him. So he'll want someone much like Mike Pence.

"Trump wants someone who is unfailingly loyal — and bland enough that they don't steal any spotlight."

The article then mentioned Nikki Haley, AR Gov Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and SD Gov Kristi Noem.

 

[lpetrich]

Trying to get additional support by selecting a Vice President with different features, that is an old tradition in US politics, though it's usually geographical. So I decided to research this issue.

Chronological List of Presidents, First Ladies, and Vice Presidents of the United States - Guides, Reference Aids, and Finding Aids (Prints and Photographs Reading Room, Library of Congress) and  List of presidents of the United States by home state and  List of vice presidents of the United States by home state

• G Washington VA -- J Adams MA
• J Adams MA -- T Jefferson VA
• T Jefferson VA -- A Burr NY
• T Jefferson VA -- G Clinton NY
• J Madison VA -- G Clinton NY
• J Madison VA -- E Gerry MA
• J Monroe VA -- DD Tompkins NY
• JQ Adams MA -- JC Calhoun SC

So the Founding Era Pres-Veep pairings had geographical ticket balancing.

 

[lpetrich]

• A Jackson TN -- JC Calhoun SC
• A Jackson TN -- M Van Buren NY
• M Van Buren NY -- RM Johnson KY
• WH Harrison OH -- J Tyler VA
• JK Polk TN -- GM Dallas PA
• Z Taylor KY -- M Fillmore NY
• F Pierce NH -- WR King AL
• J Buchanan PA -- JC Breckinridge KY

Jackson Era -- more GTB

• A Lincoln IL -- H Hamlin ME
• A Lincoln IL -- A Johnson TN
• US Grant IL -- S Colfax IN
• US Grant IL -- H Wilson MA
• RB Hayes OH -- WA Wheeler NY
• JA Garfield OH -- CA Arthur NY
• G Cleveland NY -- TA Hendricks IN
• B Harrison IN -- LP Morton NY
• G Cleveland NY -- AE Stevenson IL
• W McKinley OH -- GA Hobart NJ
• W McKinley OH -- T Roosevelt NY

Civil War Era and Gilded Age -- more GTB

• T Roosevelt NY -- CW Fairbanks IN
• WH Taft OH -- JS Sherman NY
• W Wilson NJ -- TR Marshall IN
• WG Harding OH -- C Coolidge MA
• C Coolidge MA -- CG Dawes IL
• H Hoover CA -- C Curtis KS

Progressive Era and Roaring Twenties -- more GTB

 

[lpetrich]

• FD Roosevelt NY -- JN Garner TX
• FD Roosevelt NY -- HA Wallace IA
• FD Roosevelt NY -- HS Truman MO
• HS Truman MO -- AW Barkley KY
• DD EIsenhower KS -- RM Nixon CA
• JF Kennedy MA -- LB Johnson TX
• LB Johnson TX -- HH Humphrey MN
• RM Nixon CA -- ST Agnew MD
• RM Nixon CA -- GR Ford MI
• GR Ford MI -- N Rockefeller NY
• J Carter GA -- WF Mondale MN

New Deal, Fifties Era, and Sixties Era -- more GTB

• R Reagan CA -- GHW Bush TX
• GHW Bush TX -- D Quayle IN
• B Clinton AR -- A Gore TN
• GW Bush TX -- R Cheney WY
• B Obama IL -- JR Biden DE
• DJ Trump NY -- M Pence IN
• JR Biden DE -- K Harris CA

Gilded Age II -- more GTB

In conclusion, most Presidents and VIce Presidents have come from different regions. There are some exceptions, like Bill Clinton and Al Gore coming from states that share a boundary, and Andrew Jackson and John Calhoun coming close, but it's much more common for the pair to come from halfway across the nation, and sometimes even from all the way across the contiguous states.

I only included winners in my analysis -- I would have to do more digging to find out what losing candidates did. I looked at the most recent elections and I did indeed find geographical ticket balancing in them.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Trying to get additional support by selecting a Vice President with different features, that is an old tradition in US politics, though it's usually geographical. So I decided to research this issue.

Chronological List of Presidents, First Ladies, and Vice Presidents of the United States - Guides, Reference Aids, and Finding Aids (Prints and Photographs Reading Room, Library of Congress) and  List of presidents of the United States by home state and  List of vice presidents of the United States by home state

• G Washington VA -- J Adams MA
• J Adams MA -- T Jefferson VA
• T Jefferson VA -- A Burr NY
• T Jefferson VA -- G Clinton NY
• J Madison VA -- G Clinton NY
• J Madison VA -- E Gerry MA
• J Monroe VA -- DD Tompkins NY
• JQ Adams MA -- JC Calhoun SC

So the Founding Era Pres-Veep pairings had geographical ticket balancing.

You can’t apply “ticket balancing” to the Founding Fathers because that’s not how the VP was originally elected.

 

[lpetrich]

You can’t apply “ticket balancing” to the Founding Fathers because that’s not how the VP was originally elected.

The original rule was that the VP was the Presidential candidate who got the second most votes, with each elector voting for two candidates. I will concede that ticket balancing does not fit the first three elections, in 1788, 1792, and 1796. In 1800, the election was done under the same rules, but this time, candidates ran as pairs, Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson with Aaron Burr, and Federalist John Adams with Charles Cotesworth Pinckney.

TJ and AB both got 73 electoral votes, JA 65, CCP 64, and another Federalist, John Jay, 1.

The election went into the House, and the Reps voted on TJ vs. AB. They went through 35 votes before some of AB's supporters decided not to vote. On the 36th vote, TJ was elected.

That led to the 12th Amendment, establishing the present practice of the EC voting on the President and VP separately. The next Presidential election, in 1804, was the first to follow this rule.

 

[Tigers!]

Well thanks for the rambling non-answer.

Rambling non-answers are the essence and heart of politics; If you don't like them, you have no business having anything to do with politics at all.

Indeed. See this episode of Yes Prime Minster to see how to talk to the press. Start at 1:45
Politicians talking to the press

 

[blastula]

Trump extends lead over DeSantis in new poll of possible GOP primary field

DeSantis, who has not yet announced his widely expected presidential campaign, has recently come under fire from Trump and other presidential contenders.

www.cnbc.com

"Meatball Ron" is working.

 

[Swammerdami]

do you agree with Swammerdami that its just sufficient for her to be photogenic and have charisma to get his vote for President? Frankly, I'm a little surprised that I seem to be the only one who has given him a little grief for his comments. Maybe people do agree with me, but are afraid to expose themselves agreeing with a "right wing ogre" like me.

Maybe they didn't take your side Because you totally misrepresented my views..

The Democratic nominee will get my November vote no matter how non-photogenic or non-charismatic he or she is. In the primaries my support will be conditioned on the three most important criteria: Electability in November, Electability in November and Electability in November,

I expressed this before, almost in these same words, yet you managed to twist my comment into something completely different. Shame on you! You pretend to have rational humanitarian values, yet you follow the methods of T****, FoxNews, the Carlson twit and other liars in reducing debate to a useless echo-chamber of fantasies and half-truths. Shame on you!

Michigan, Whitmer's state, was in the news recently:

The Michigan state legislature is poised to make history this week by repealing an anti-union “right-to-work” (RTW) statute enacted in 2012. This repeal is an important step toward empowering workers to address historic levels of income inequality and unequal power in our economy, and would mark the first time a state has repealed a RTW law in nearly 60 years.

For decades, Michigan boasted the highest unionization rate in the country—and relatively higher median wages resulted for the state’s workers. In this blog post, we find that as recently as 2005, Michigan’s unionization rate was 1.69 times the national rate, and the state’s median wage was 6% higher than the national median.

But after lawmakers passed RTW in 2012, Michigan’s unionization rates declined faster than in the nation as a whole, and the state’s relative median wage fell below the U.S. median. Attacks on Michigan workers’ rights have especially benefited the rich—declines in unionization rates have been accompanied by dramatic increases in income inequality, with half of all income in the state now going to the top 10%.

The repeal of RTW in Michigan—in tandem with Illinois voters approving a constitutional Workers’ Rights Amendment (which bans future RTW laws) in 2022 and Missouri voters overwhelmingly rejecting their legislature’s attempt to impose RTW restrictions in 2018—would also signal an important turning point after a decade of extreme anti-union state legislation in the Midwest that has suppressed wages and eroded job quality.

So-called right-to-work laws perpetuate inequality and result in lower wages and benefits for all workers

As Martin Luther King, Jr. pointed out in 1961, “right-to-work” is a “false slogan” because RTW laws provide neither rights nor work, and are in fact designed “to rob us of our civil rights and job rights [and] to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone.” Decades later, research bears out King’s contention that “wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower.”

@ thebeave -- What's your stand on RtW? You support RtW; did I guess right?

Many right-wingers describe themselves as "Independents" who sometimes "agree with liberals" because ... they enjoy certain illegal recreational drugs. (I'm Just.Asking.Questions here. Unlike some of us I won't invent a caricature and impute it falsely to a fellow Infidel.)

 

[Swammerdami]

Elections in America are increasingly urgent. If Gretchen Whitmer really is our best candidate but has said No, we must persuade her to change her mind. Draft her!

 

[Copernicus]

Elections in America are increasingly urgent. If Gretchen Whitmer really is our best candidate but has said No, we must persuade her to change her mind. Draft her!

Politicians routinely deny that they are interested in running for President until they are ready to announce such an intention at a time they choose. Reporters routinely ask the question of potential candidates and love to report the fact that the politician in question has ruled herself or himself out because the reporter got a firm denial of interest. This would be especially true of a governor trying to get important legislation passed.

 

[Swammerdami]

Elections in America are increasingly urgent. If Gretchen Whitmer really is our best candidate but has said No, we must persuade her to change her mind. Draft her!

Politicians routinely deny that they are interested in running for President until they are ready to announce such an intention at a time they choose. Reporters routinely ask the question of potential candidates and love to report the fact that the politician in question has ruled herself or himself out because the reporter got a firm denial of interest. This would be especially true of a governor trying to get important legislation passed.

All the more reason to draft her!

Am I wrong that she's the Democrat with best chances in 19½ months? I like Biden OK, but he'll be 82 years old at the next Inauguration.

 

[Copernicus]

Elections in America are increasingly urgent. If Gretchen Whitmer really is our best candidate but has said No, we must persuade her to change her mind. Draft her!

Politicians routinely deny that they are interested in running for President until they are ready to announce such an intention at a time they choose. Reporters routinely ask the question of potential candidates and love to report the fact that the politician in question has ruled herself or himself out because the reporter got a firm denial of interest. This would be especially true of a governor trying to get important legislation passed.

All the more reason to draft her!

Am I wrong that she's the Democrat with best chances in 19½ months? I like Biden OK, but he'll be 82 years old at the next Inauguration.

I don't know if she's the best. Whoever runs still has to rally black voters to the polls, and she doesn't have the same charisma in that segment of the voter base as Joe Biden. She probably couldn't beat him in a South Carolina primary, and she might even struggle for a win in Michigan. I think that Biden is the strongest candidate, if he can overcome his age problem. I personally would prefer to see Whitmer as our next president, but she isn't necessarily the most electable. Other potential rivals, for example, Buttigieg and Harris, strike me as much weaker candidates right now. However, there are a number of other politicians--senators, governors, and even congresspersons that might emerge as a popular choice. Warren, at a relatively youthful age of 73, looks likely to run, but her popularity seems to have peaked. Biden pretty much blocks everyone else while he leaves the door open for a reelection bid. And closing that door would turn him into a lame duck, so he isn't likely to close it soon.