2024 Elections Thread

[Parasaurolophus]

I don't know to what extent Harris comes prepackaged with votes. But it does seem to me that, if people in the know were hiding Biden's state from the public, then when they turn around and say by the way, we had no confidence in the VP and don't support her in this time of crisis which is exactly why her job exists in the first place...


Well, that sounds pretty bad to me. Basically, it's a confession that her being VP is a lie, too.

[kaysixteen]

Good point, but it presupposes Harris was/is in the know wrt Biden's condition.  She and her surrogates would probably argue that she has not been, and that right quick.

[kaysixteen]

One more thing today, wrt whether the Canadian prime min candidates ought to be bilingue enough to debate in both English and French.   I get and had not earlier considered para's args as to why they ought to be such, but consider the following contra arg: Canadian party X has two leadership candidates for party leader election.  Candidate A has a first-class resume, both in domestic and foreign policy credentials, experience, etc., and has an unquestioned A+ character... but is totally monolingual in English.  Candidate B is a Trump-esque scumbag who just happens to be fully bilingual.   I confess I am hard-pressed to see why, in such a leadership race, B should be preferred to A... or am I missing something?

[Sun_Worshiper]

Sure, Drumpf is a truly awful candidate, but consider those two caveats I mentioned above:

1) Biden has a repeat performance at the upcoming Sept debate

2)or, Biden has even a Moscow Mitch-style health moment say in Oct.

I am not a  Wimbeldon fan, but I believe the phraseology is 'game, set, and match'.

Now to the other point, viz., Biden does stand aside now, but somehow, some way, a VP Harris desiring the nomination is denied it.  Then, well, what say the millions of (mostly) Black women Democrats, the most loyal and deepest core element of the Demo base, to that action?

I agree with you that Biden is risky. I wish he would withdraw from the race. I also agree that Harris is the only other viable option for a host of reasons. She would carry some risks too.

Biden has a solid shot (not a sure shot, but a solid shot) if the economy is cooperative and if he can keep his senior moments to a minimum. The public knows they don't like Trump, they know that Biden is old, and they know that groceries are expensive. If that candidates' bad qualities cancel each other out and if people decide they are happy with the economy, then Biden could become the favorite.

I don't know to what extent Harris comes prepackaged with votes. But it does seem to me that, if people in the know were hiding Biden's state from the public, then when they turn around and say by the way, we had no confidence in the VP and don't support her in this time of crisis which is exactly why her job exists in the first place...

Well, that sounds pretty bad to me. Basically, it's a confession that her being VP is a lie, too.

Maybe, but are people paying that much attention at this point or connecting the dots at that level? I doubt it. Most Americans - especially the swing voters - are not that engaged with politics.

And Biden's people have been taking shots at Harris for years. The two camps don't seem to have a good relationship for reasons that don't have so much to do with her competence (or lack thereof).

[kaysixteen]

Another point I read today, I believe in The Bulwark, namely that there is a double standard here, and that Trump and Biden are just treated differently, and that that is just not going to change.  And, that, whatever people like us know about Trump, the veracity of his debate remarks, the lies of him and his surrogates, etc., the overwhelming majority of Trump voters are not privy to this information (I know, I have many of these in my own church), and not just Trump voters, but many low-info voters in swing states, do not know any or most of this information, and are not going to get it.   We need to plan a campaign against Trump, thus, with these understanding.

[ciao_yall]

I don't know to what extent Harris comes prepackaged with votes. But it does seem to me that, if people in the know were hiding Biden's state from the public, then when they turn around and say by the way, we had no confidence in the VP and don't support her in this time of crisis which is exactly why her job exists in the first place...


Well, that sounds pretty bad to me. Basically, it's a confession that her being VP is a lie, too.

Alternatively they knew Biden wanted to run again and it wasn't necessary to make him step aside.

They were hoping he would keep things together enough to avoid the circular firing squad of an open primary.

[ciao_yall]

Another point I read today, I believe in The Bulwark, namely that there is a double standard here, and that Trump and Biden are just treated differently, and that that is just not going to change.  And, that, whatever people like us know about Trump, the veracity of his debate remarks, the lies of him and his surrogates, etc., the overwhelming majority of Trump voters are not privy to this information (I know, I have many of these in my own church), and not just Trump voters, but many low-info voters in swing states, do not know any or most of this information, and are not going to get it.   We need to plan a campaign against Trump, thus, with these understanding.

Everyone knows Trump is a nutcase. It's old news. His supporters either "appreciate his honesty" or support the R's enough that they don't care.

[kaysixteen]

You are simply wrong.  I have seen this myself, when church members talk over the sunday afternoon fellowship lunch table, about this or that rightist news source that tells them that the accusation of this or that Trump statement was a lie, is itself a hell-spawned lie.   What can I do about this?  These are simply not people who think 'Trump is a nutcase', but will vote for him anyhow because somehow they like what he says when he lies to them.   Really, they are not.

[ciao_yall]

You are simply wrong.  I have seen this myself, when church members talk over the sunday afternoon fellowship lunch table, about this or that rightist news source that tells them that the accusation of this or that Trump statement was a lie, is itself a hell-spawned lie.  What can I do about this?  These are simply not people who think 'Trump is a nutcase', but will vote for him anyhow because somehow they like what he says when he lies to them.  Really, they are not.

There is something about feeling like you have the "real" truth. If the world is saying Trump is evil, and someone else says "shhh, they are all wrong" then there is a sense of power.

Even if the facts are clear, people become so invested in their own righteousness that they won't see the truth.

Cults are like that. "Nobody out there understands you. But we do."

[Langue_doc]

There's no point in discussing politics as noone's going to change sides because of your arguments. Write to your elected representatives, on a daily basis, if needed.

NYT Editorial Board:

The Democratic Party Must Speak the Plain Truth to the President

The first few paragraphs:

For voters who held out hope that President Biden's failure to communicate during last month's debate was an aberration, the intervening days have offered little comfort.

Donald Trump's candidacy for a second term poses a grave threat to American democracy. Mr. Biden, instead of campaigning vigorously to disprove doubts and demonstrate that he can beat Mr. Trump, has maintained a scripted and controlled schedule of public appearances. He has largely avoided taking questions from voters or journalists — the kinds of interactions that reveal his limitations and caused him so much trouble on the debate stage. And when he has cast aside his teleprompter, most notably during a 22-minute interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Friday, he has continued to appear as a man in decline.

The president, elected in 2020 as an antidote to Mr. Trump's malfeasance and mendacity, is now trying to defy reality. For more than a year, voters have made it unquestionably clear in surveys and interviews that they harbor significant doubts about Mr. Biden's physical and mental fitness for office. Mr. Biden has disregarded the concerns of those voters — his fellow citizens — and put the country at significant risk by continuing to insist that he is the best Democrat to defeat Mr. Trump.

Since his feeble debate performance, multiple polls have shown that both Mr. Biden's approval rating and his chance of beating Mr. Trump have markedly dropped from their already shaky levels. In response, he has adopted a favorite theme of the floundering politician, insisting that the polls are wrong in showing that his presidency is historically unpopular. Even if the polls were off by historic amounts, they would still show overwhelming skepticism about his fitness. The latest Times/Siena poll showed that 74 percent of voters think that Mr. Biden is too old to serve, an increase of five percentage points since the debate and not a figure that can be attributed to some kind of error or bias.

He has denied that age is diminishing his abilities, not even bringing up the subject in a lengthy letter to congressional Democrats issued on Monday. In that letter, he insisted that he is the candidate best equipped to defeat Mr. Trump in November — thereby dismissing the potential candidacy of Vice President Kamala Harris or any other younger, more vigorous Democrat, and in effect asking the American people to trust him instead of their own lying eyes.

It's not enough to blame the press, the donors, the pundits or the other elite groups for trying to push him out, as he did in the letter. In fact, to use his own words, "the voters — and the voters alone — decide the nominee of the Democratic Party." But Democratic leaders shouldn't rely solely on the judgment of the few voters who turned out in this year's coronation primaries. They should listen instead to the much larger group of voters who have been telling every pollster in America their concerns for a long time. Mr. Biden has to pay attention to the will of the broader electorate that will determine the outcome in November.

At times, Mr. Biden has seemed to hover on the verge of self-awareness, as when he reportedly told Democratic governors last week that he needs to sleep more, work less and avoid public events after 8 p.m. But he has resisted the obvious conclusion that a man who needs to clock out at 8 should not attempt to perform simultaneously two of the world's most difficult and all-consuming jobs — serving as president and running for president.

From the grass roots to the highest levels of the party, Democrats who want to defeat Mr. Trump in November should speak plainly to Mr. Biden. They need to tell him that his defiance threatens to hand victory to Mr. Trump. They need to tell him that he is embarrassing himself and endangering his legacy. He needs to hear, plain and clear, that he is no longer an effective spokesman for his own priorities.

If you didn't watch The Daily Show last night, it's probably online--the first 15 minutes or so are the fun part.

[spork]

You are simply wrong.  I have seen this myself, when church members talk over the sunday afternoon fellowship lunch table, about this or that rightist news source that tells them that the accusation of this or that Trump statement was a lie, is itself a hell-spawned lie.   What can I do about this?  These are simply not people who think 'Trump is a nutcase', but will vote for him anyhow because somehow they like what he says when he lies to them.   Really, they are not.

Probably won't help, but you could show them this:

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-dementia-evidence-overwhelming-top-psychiatrist-1881247

[apl68]

You are simply wrong.  I have seen this myself, when church members talk over the sunday afternoon fellowship lunch table, about this or that rightist news source that tells them that the accusation of this or that Trump statement was a lie, is itself a hell-spawned lie.  What can I do about this?  These are simply not people who think 'Trump is a nutcase', but will vote for him anyhow because somehow they like what he says when he lies to them.  Really, they are not.

There is something about feeling like you have the "real" truth. If the world is saying Trump is evil, and someone else says "shhh, they are all wrong" then there is a sense of power.

Even if the facts are clear, people become so invested in their own righteousness that they won't see the truth.

Cults are like that. "Nobody out there understands you. But we do."

The cultlike aspect of so much Trump support is the most disturbing thing about it.  I can't help wondering whether he is serving as a dry run for the Antichrist.

It's worth noting that for the majority of potential Trump voters who aren't cult supporters, the fact that the Democrats and the Biden administration have been so dishonest about Biden's mental condition greatly undermines trust in that direction.  There are a great many people who aren't Trump cultists who nonetheless feel they have reason to question whether the opposition is really any more trustworthy.

[jimbogumbo]

God help me, but I am in agreement with Senator Graham. Presidential candidates, and anyone in the line of succession should undergo rigorous cognitive testing such as Sanjay Gupta recently took.

[Parasaurolophus]

One more thing today, wrt whether the Canadian prime min candidates ought to be bilingue enough to debate in both English and French.   I get and had not earlier considered para's args as to why they ought to be such, but consider the following contra arg: Canadian party X has two leadership candidates for party leader election.  Candidate A has a first-class resume, both in domestic and foreign policy credentials, experience, etc., and has an unquestioned A+ character... but is totally monolingual in English.  Candidate B is a Trump-esque scumbag who just happens to be fully bilingual.   I confess I am hard-pressed to see why, in such a leadership race, B should be preferred to A... or am I missing something?

I don't think that's wrong. But it hasn't come up, because (1) a huge chunk of MPs are sufficiently able to operate in French that it's more a matter of brushing up, rather than learning from scratch, and (2) there's strong self-selection going on for leadership positions (most MPs are just telephone poles and will stay that way forever; most of the contest is between people who have occupied ministerial or shadow-ministerial positions, and they're not your run-of-the-mill low-education Joe Blow.

Plus, our scumbags are bilingual, too. See: Pierre Poilièvre (who, incidentally, appears to have been involved in some capacity in the voter suppression scandal of 2011, although he was never properly investigated; personally, I think he was behind it, but that's pure speculation/conspiracy).

[Wahoo Redux]

Another point I read today, I believe in The Bulwark, namely that there is a double standard here, and that Trump and Biden are just treated differently, and that that is just not going to change.  And, that, whatever people like us know about Trump, the veracity of his debate remarks, the lies of him and his surrogates, etc., the overwhelming majority of Trump voters are not privy to this information (I know, I have many of these in my own church), and not just Trump voters, but many low-info voters in swing states, do not know any or most of this information, and are not going to get it.   We need to plan a campaign against Trump, thus, with these understanding.

Everyone knows Trump is a nutcase. It's old news. His supporters either "appreciate his honesty" or support the R's enough that they don't care.

Or they like the things he says, the "shit hole" countries and "bad hombres" comments, his insistence that the "liberals" are after their "way of life," and Trump's threats of violence.  These resonate with a lot of people who think this same way.