Presidential Election 2024

[mister d]

At some point, the focus will be on who is the most electable and not who has the best ideas for what some of us feel are the track this country should be on.

Well ... I'd argue the money behind the system prioritizes the former to explicitly avoid the latter.

[Giff]

At some point, the focus will be on who is the most electable and not who has the best ideas for what some of us feel are the track this country should be on.

Well ... I'd argue the money behind the system prioritizes the former to explicitly avoid the latter.

I think you're right for sure and that's why the two-party system sucks.

[Shirley]

At some point, the focus will be on who is the most electable and not who has the best ideas for what some of us feel are the track this country should be on.

Well ... I'd argue the money behind the system prioritizes the former to explicitly avoid the latter.

I think you're right for sure and that's why the two-party system sucks.

I'm not convinced the party focuses on who's most electable. It's a factor. But both parties absolutely also care about fealty to the party as much or more than electability. The GOP absolutely didn't want Trump even though he was by far the most interesting (and I guess that's pretty close to "electable") candidate in 2016. But they knew he didn't really give a shit about the GOP. Of course, he still doesn't, but they (nearly) all lick his boots anyway.

[mister d]

At some point, the focus will be on who is the most electable and not who has the best ideas for what some of us feel are the track this country should be on.

Well ... I'd argue the money behind the system prioritizes the former to explicitly avoid the latter.

I think you're right for sure and that's why the two-party system sucks.

It just kinda seems like "most electable" is cover for what they're really doing. Biden wasn't the most electable candidate last time and definitely isn't this time.

[Shirley]

It just kinda seems like "most electable" is cover for what they're really doing. Biden wasn't the most electable candidate last time and definitely isn't this time.

He might be this time only because if they replace him, it's essentially saying that he wasn't a good president. And if he wasn't a good president, why vote for a Democrat when they're responsible?

So, while I didn't like him as the choice last time and I wish we weren't stuck with him this time, I think it's the right play. Anyone else is a huge risk.

[DaveInSeattle]

Biden wasn't the most electable candidate last time and definitely isn't this time.

Since he's the only one running, he definitely is the "most electable" Dem.

[mister d]

"Biden was a great bridge out of Trump, but he's fucking 80-something and with his full agreement and blessing its time to move towards the future." You can't exactly say "... move towards the future with _______" because that would be anointing a candidate and we know the Dems don't do that. But there doesn't need to be a primary fight because politicians call it a career on their own all the time without irreparably harming the party in that next election. All it takes is Biden telling the party or the party telling Biden its over and we move on.

[DSafetyGuy]

I guess there's no lasting effect from the screwing with abortion rights.

[Johnnie]

when Buttigieg and Klobuchar drop out of the race to endorse Biden when Sanders was surging.

Lol.

Sanders got 20 percent in South Carolina the week before Buttigieg and Klobuchar dropped out. That was even worse than Sanders had done there in 2016. (26 percent.)

(And neither Buttigieg nor Klobuchar even reached 9 percent in South Carolina - showing that they just didn't have any pull with the black voters who make up a large part of the Dem base. But yeah, it's a mystery why they dropped out after that.)

You mean when Jim Clyburn threw his support behind Biden and saved his campaign?

It was a Democratic Establishment box out. Come on, man.

[Johnnie]

You also can't ignore that waging a primary campaign against a sitting, incumbent President would have disastrous consequences, for both the "rebel" candidate and the Party. Look how well it worked out in 1980.

Biden ain't perfect, by a looooooooooong shot, but unless he decides not to run again, it's who the Dem's are stuck with.

Biden wasn't the most electable candidate last time and definitely isn't this time.

Since he's the only one running, he definitely is the "most electable" Dem.

Please pick a consistent argument.

[Shirley]

"Biden was a great bridge out of Trump, but he's fucking 80-something and with his full agreement and blessing its time to move towards the future." You can't exactly say "... move towards the future with _______" because that would be anointing a candidate and we know the Dems don't do that. But there doesn't need to be a primary fight because politicians call it a career on their own all the time without irreparably harming the party in that next election. All it takes is Biden telling the party or the party telling Biden its over and we move on.

I do agree that the only way it works to replace Biden is if he steps up on his own and bows out. The problem then is that I'm not sure there's someone ready to step in. The party (and probably Biden) would want to go with Harris, but I think she'd get stomped and we can't take that risk. Not in this election. (I retract that if somehow the GOP kicks Trump off the ballot and they end up going with Haley or similar. Harris would have a shot then.)

[Johnnie]

"Biden was a great bridge out of Trump, but he's fucking 80-something and with his full agreement and blessing its time to move towards the future." You can't exactly say "... move towards the future with _______" because that would be anointing a candidate and we know the Dems don't do that. But there doesn't need to be a primary fight because politicians call it a career on their own all the time without irreparably harming the party in that next election. All it takes is Biden telling the party or the party telling Biden its over and we move on.

I do agree that the only way it works to replace Biden is if he steps up on his own and bows out. The problem then is that I'm not sure there's someone ready to step in. The party (and probably Biden) would want to go with Harris, but I think she'd get stomped and we can't take that risk. Not in this election. (I retract that if somehow the GOP kicks Trump off the ballot and they end up going with Haley or similar. Harris would have a shot then.)

This is true. We will EAT SHIT and LIKE IT.

It's going to be fun in 2028 when it's Newsom & Buttigieg.

Ya know, supposing there isn't a Trump victory and total takeover of the Pentagon by his hand-selected Generals that will declare fealty to him and not the Constitution.

[GoodKarma]

It's going to be fun in 2028 when it's Newsom & Buttigieg.

Jared Polis is going to run as well.

[DaveInSeattle]

You also can't ignore that waging a primary campaign against a sitting, incumbent President would have disastrous consequences, for both the "rebel" candidate and the Party. Look how well it worked out in 1980.

Biden ain't perfect, by a looooooooooong shot, but unless he decides not to run again, it's who the Dem's are stuck with.

Biden wasn't the most electable candidate last time and definitely isn't this time.

Since he's the only one running, he definitely is the "most electable" Dem.

Please pick a consistent argument.

It is consistent. Running against an incumbent President is proven to be a losing battle, so no "serious" Dem is gonna do it (RFK Jr is neither serious, or a Dem). Therefore, Biden is it.

Yeah, it sucks, but that's the way it is. Hoping that someone more "electable" jumps in to primary him just isn't going to happen.

[mister d]

Isn’t this another deal that can’t be decoupled? Running against an incumbent is a losing battle because the party fights anyone who runs against an incumbent. There’s no inherency to that logic any more or less than “it’s impossible to win as a woman”. It was impossible to win as a black dude until a candidate who propelled himself did it.

(And if that’s ok and you’re accepting that as inherently built in, you should probably have the same hatred for the party I/we do. These obstacles exist in large part because “our” party ensures they do.)

[TT2.0]

We like trump because he will lose

Yeah, that's what we said during the 2016 primaries. I have zero confidence Biden beats Trump if they are the nominees in 2024, right now it's a coin toss if you look at the polls.

This exactly. Why do yall think America is in a hurry to reelect someone who is seemingly losing his mental capacity right before our eyes? The democrats need to be running a non biden candidate or i think anyone could win if he looks bad enough campaigning and debating.

Biden has some definite mental decline, but I think it's slightly overblown. The guy has always been a huma gaffe machine with no ability to control himself from saying stupid shit.

not trolling, and definitely not advocating for trump, but watching biden talk feels for all the world like the beginning of dementia. I watched it happen to my dad. I think in a year hes gonna be a major cognitive problem, but apparently im a troll for mentioning it as an electability consideration. I really think the party needs to force him not to run again or it will be disasterous

[Johnnie]

It reads like circular logic to me.

"Don't you know that we'll cripple our chances to win if we force a primary of an incumbent?? We'll look weak and could lose!"

And in the same breath:

"Oh Jeez, would you look at that. No one challenged the incumbent. Looks like he's our best candidate and the most electable!"

This feels like it's from a damn political comic strip.

[DaveInSeattle]

Isn’t this another deal that can’t be decoupled? Running against an incumbent is a losing battle because the party fights anyone who runs against an incumbent. There’s no inherency to that logic any more or less than “it’s impossible to win as a woman”. It was impossible to win as a black dude until a candidate who propelled himself did it.

(And if that’s ok and you’re accepting that as inherently built in, you should probably have the same hatred for the party I/we do. These obstacles exist in large part because “our” party ensures they do.)

Ok...maybe your right...maybe someone could primary Biden, beat him, and then beat Trump in the General.

But who? Who is going to take that challenge, and pull it off? Anyone who tries, and then loses, will be persona non grata in the party for the rest of their career. Hell, Kennedy only survived because he was a Kennedy.

Yeah, Biden's too old. He should retire...which I thought he was going to do. But he's not...so here we are.

[EnochRoot]

The notion that Biden and Trump are a toss up is so freakin LOL I simply refuse to take part in this discussion.

[The Sybian]

Isn’t this another deal that can’t be decoupled? Running against an incumbent is a losing battle because the party fights anyone who runs against an incumbent. There’s no inherency to that logic any more or less than “it’s impossible to win as a woman”. It was impossible to win as a black dude until a candidate who propelled himself did it.

(And if that’s ok and you’re accepting that as inherently built in, you should probably have the same hatred for the party I/we do. These obstacles exist in large part because “our” party ensures they do.)

Ok...maybe your right...maybe someone could primary Biden, beat him, and then beat Trump in the General.

But who? Who is going to take that challenge, and pull it off? Anyone who tries, and then loses, will be persona non grata in the party for the rest of their career. Hell, Kennedy only survived because he was a Kennedy.

Yeah, Biden's too old. He should retire...which I thought he was going to do. But he's not...so here we are.

I don't think anyone was arguing for a primary, that's a recipe for disaster. Biden should have announced years ago that he wasn't going to run for reelection, and the Party should have pressured him into that decision. It's way too late now.

[rass]

Perry Johnson is a big puss, huh?

[mister d]

This is probably going to be the best possible illustration of what I mean by "some people are going to see both sides trying to fuck them and just abstain, and that doesn't make them anti-woman or evil". If this doesn't make it click, we'll probably never understand each other on this point.

[degenerasian]

it expired because of objections from the Republicans was it not? how is that both sides?

[A_B]

it expired because of objections from the Republicans was it not? how is that both sides?

Manchin, too, but he's worse anyway.

[The Sybian]

it expired because of objections from the Republicans was it not? how is that both sides?

Implication that it's Biden's fault. Start to read a couple of comments, and that's how people read the Tweet.

[Johnnie]

The vast majority of people want nothing more than Facebook meme level solutions to complex problems.

They don't want to research things for themselves. They want to place blame on the easiest area possible.

It's not that hard to figure out why it's like this.

[Steve of phpBB]

it expired because of objections from the Republicans was it not? how is that both sides?

Manchin, too, but he's worse anyway.

Yeah, this seems to be a classic example of "90 percent of Democrats are willing to do what I want, and 0% of Republicans are willing to do what I want, therefore both parties are bad."

[degenerasian]

Then it's about campaigning. Again, Democrats are too big tent, big gesture politics and not campaigning that the Republicans are literally stealing from children. The Republicans campaign on the ground, that's why they win sometimes.

[mister d]

Yeah, this seems to be a classic example of "90 percent of Democrats are willing to do what I want, and 0% of Republicans are willing to do what I want, therefore both parties are bad."

Steve, we're both a safe distance from worrying about living below the poverty line, but I'd love to hear you explain your math to someone who isn't so lucky.



(And "blame Manchin" is tired. If Manchin ever stood in the way of something the party truly cared about, there would be ramifications because everyone, even Dem senators from red states, have lines they aren't allowed to cross.)

[Steve of phpBB]

Yeah, this seems to be a classic example of "90 percent of Democrats are willing to do what I want, and 0% of Republicans are willing to do what I want, therefore both parties are bad."

Steve, we're both a safe distance from worrying about living below the poverty line, but I'd love to hear you explain your math to someone who isn't so lucky.



(And "blame Manchin" is tired. If Manchin ever stood in the way of something the party truly cared about, there would be ramifications because everyone, even Dem senators from red states, have lines they aren't allowed to cross.)

Maybe I'm missing something, but wasn't a continuation of the child tax credit (which the Dems forced through in the first place) supported by a vast majority of Democrats and approximately no Republicans?

Anyway, in the past year or so since we last discussed this, have you come up with any specific examples of what the Dems could do to force Manchin to vote certain ways?

[mister d]

We've done this a million times. (1) Its not a message board poster's job to know how to leverage a sitting senator but that doesn't mean the alternative is blind acceptance that it just can't be done because (2) there's a long history of parties getting individuals to fall in line through incenting or threatening or anything in between. If any of these were true drop-dead issues for Biden or the party, they'd find a way or they'd destroy the person/people stopping it from happening rather than chalking it up as another time that aww shucks the Dems couldn't work around ol' WV Joe.

Because remember, the party does know how to fight members. You see it every time a progressive speaks up and it was implied right here a week ago that anyone who dare primary Biden would be fucked to hell. Its that they don't actually care enough to fight that fight and if you're one of the ones affected, why are you finding child care or taking a day off of work to vote for the people whose policies have gotten you there. To expect them to ranges somewhere in the range of naive to callous.

(There's probably an irony is saying "hey, we can't be expected to get Manchin to fall in line" while at the same time imply voters should do exactly that. Both sides are using the only leverage they have, the difference is in the stakes.)

[Steve of phpBB]

Both sides are using the only leverage they have ...

This is right. And this is why the Dems cannot force Manchin to do anything. Because they have no leverage over him.

Unlike most House members or even other Senators, Manchin doesn't need anything from the Dem establishment. He doesn't need their money, and he certainly doesn't need their political support - to the contrary, he is politically so much better off when he bucks the party. (Remember that Manchin just may be the most liberal-compared-to-his-voters member of Congress.)

And even if the Dems had some really big power over Manchin, Manchin would still have the upper hand because he can always just switch parties. Or resign. Or run for President.

It sucks, but from 2021-23, the Dems needed Manchin way more than he needed the Dems. And by keeping Manchin on their side of the aisle, the Dems got through at least two major pieces of progressive legislation (including the child tax credit expansion that reduced child poverty so much) and countless judges. Hell, just today, the Senate approved ACORN's former lawyer for a seat on the federal bench. That probably wouldn't happen without Manchin remaining a Democrat - .

At any rate, given that we've been through this so many times but you *still* cannot identify anything that would actually force Manchin to switch his vote, shouldn't that tell you that maybe there really isn't anything? And yeah, we're just guys yammering on a message board, but we both follow enough political accounts on Twitter that if there were something out there, someone would have suggested it.

[brian]

It looks like the House is going to impeach Biden and in doing so will accomplish jerking off their extreme base and pissing off moderates. The complete incompetence of GOP leadership is the only blessing in these shitty times

[The Sybian]

It looks like the House is going to impeach Biden and in doing so will accomplish jerking off their extreme base and pissing off moderates. The complete incompetence of GOP leadership is the only blessing in these shitty times

They are going to open an impeachment inquiry. They are going to need to try to find some sliver of something to hang an impeachment on. I think they will keep it at the inquiry stage and make a ton of viral clips saying "Biden is so corrupt we have to have a Congressional impeachment inquiry." They'll milk the fuck out of the inquiry, because they only need the appearance of Biden being corrupt, they don't want to actually have televised hearings that expose they have nothing. Unless, of course, they find something. I mean, they spent 5 years of a Special Counsel investigation on Hunter to come up with an underpayment of taxes.

[brian]

It looks like the House is going to impeach Biden and in doing so will accomplish jerking off their extreme base and pissing off moderates. The complete incompetence of GOP leadership is the only blessing in these shitty times

They are going to open an impeachment inquiry. They are going to need to try to find some sliver of something to hang an impeachment on. I think they will keep it at the inquiry stage and make a ton of viral clips saying "Biden is so corrupt we have to have a Congressional impeachment inquiry." They'll milk the fuck out of the inquiry, because they only need the appearance of Biden being corrupt, they don't want to actually have televised hearings that expose they have nothing. Unless, of course, they find something. I mean, they spent 5 years of a Special Counsel investigation on Hunter to come up with an underpayment of taxes.

The GOP has been calling Biden corrupt for a decade now? How does an impeachment inquiry where they don’t pull the trigger move the needle at all? If anything, it makes them look weak and Biden stronger. “See, the House looked into it and they didn’t find anything”

You’re also ascribing a level of competence and confidence in McCarthy that is completely unwarranted. The inmates are running that particular asylum and they want payback for the Trump impeachments and will find any sham pretense to do so.

In doing so, I think it will only strengthen Biden’s appeal and his election argument that the Dems are the only adults in the room.

[Nonlinear FC]

Totally agree with brian on this.

They have nothing and McCarthy is simply serving the MAGA wing of the party.

[sancarlos]

If they can get people to say “they’re all corrupt”, that can only work in Trump’s favor.

And, I’ve heard people say it.

[mister d]

They have nothing and McCarthy is simply serving the MAGA wing of the party.

If they can avoid nominating Trump, isn't the danger that the party that's infinitely better at messaging outside their base is able to frame MAGA as fringe while still getting most of their vote?

[brian]

They have nothing and McCarthy is simply serving the MAGA wing of the party.

If they can avoid nominating Trump, isn't the danger that the party that's infinitely better at messaging outside their base is able to frame MAGA as fringe while still getting most of their vote?

That’s the fear for sure. But that assumes this non-Trump nominee doesn’t willingly embrace the MAGA torch to try and keep Trump’s base in the fold.

Whatever you think about Trump, he inspired a lot of previous non-voters to the polls. Will a candidate other than Trump be able to engage those people?

There’s a scenario where without Trump at the top of the ballot and with the Dem/centrist base still invigorated by Dobbs and repudiating MAGA once and for all that the GOP gets crushed in 2024.

I’m not saying that’s going to happen but it’s not as extreme a possibility as say Trump winning a landslide against Biden.

[DaveInSeattle]

Will a candidate other than Trump be able to engage those people?

I'll answer that...no. Trump is a cult of personality, and those don't transfer.