2024 Elections Thread

[Parasaurolophus]

Will the Republican threat to sue to ensure that Biden stays on the ballots, especially the 'swing' states, have legs?

Since the deadlines haven't passed, I doubt it. This is why it was not a good idea to wait until after the convention.

This was absolutely the right move. I, for one, do not believe he is capable of presidenting, let alone campaigning. But more significantly, it was clear he wasn't capable of reassuring everyone who'd lost faith in him. Democrats have a real chance now.

[ciao_yall]

Will the Republican threat to sue to ensure that Biden stays on the ballots, especially the 'swing' states, have legs?

Doubtful.

[Sea_Ice]

Will the Republican threat to sue to ensure that Biden stays on the ballots, especially the 'swing' states, have legs?

Doubtful.

Given a quick perusal of the various knee-jerk reactions they've had so far, my take is that they're just flinging mud in hopes something sticks.

[Antiphon1]

Will the Republican threat to sue to ensure that Biden stays on the ballots, especially the 'swing' states, have legs?

Doubtful.

Given a quick perusal of the various knee-jerk reactions they've had so far, my take is that they're just flinging mud in hopes something sticks.

The Republicans have already tried to cancel the September Presidential debate.  Curiouser aand curiouser. 

[Sun_Worshiper]

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Harris tanked in 2020, has never been particularly popular, and is not associated with any swing state. She's starting her campaign while Trump's is already well underway. And a lot of voters are unhappy with the status quo, which she represents.

On the other hand, she could be a breath of fresh air that energizes the base and put states like Georgia and North Carolina back into play - and her VP could help with another swing state. And suddenly Trump is the old guy in the race, not to mention the crazy and awful guy that most voters dislike.

It is a roll of the dice, but I am cautiously optimistic.

[marshwiggle]

Will the Republican threat to sue to ensure that Biden stays on the ballots, especially the 'swing' states, have legs?

Doubtful.

Given a quick perusal of the various knee-jerk reactions they've had so far, my take is that they're just flinging mud in hopes something sticks.

The Republicans have already tried to cancel the September Presidential debate.  Curiouser aand curiouser. 

My take on that, (admittedly as someone from outside the US), is that it was a smart move on Trump's part to point out that Harris isn't even the official candidate yet, so the focus is on the Dems. Whatever infighting and panic there is among them over the next few weeks is all good for him. Once the dust settles, he can re-evaluate. (The one thing Trump does better than anyone else is read the mood of the crowd.)

[ciao_yall]

Will the Republican threat to sue to ensure that Biden stays on the ballots, especially the 'swing' states, have legs?

Doubtful.

Given a quick perusal of the various knee-jerk reactions they've had so far, my take is that they're just flinging mud in hopes something sticks.

The Republicans have already tried to cancel the September Presidential debate.  Curiouser aand curiouser. 

Of course. She will mop the floor with him.

[jimbogumbo]

John Scalzi's take: https://whatever.scalzi.com/2024/07/22/biden-harris-trump-and-2024/

[apl68]

Biden steps down

Best for the party, and certainly best for him.  It's good that he was able to be persuaded to see reason without going down fighting. 

[Ruralguy]

I'm with Scalzi, more or less, though if this was meant as some huge fake out of Republicans, it won't last long, and a better fake out would be for Biden to resign and give Harris the gift of incumbency. Also, Republicans are demanding it, which we all know means that they don't really want it or expect it to happen!

[marshwiggle]

I'm with Scalzi, more or less, though if this was meant as some huge fake out of Republicans, it won't last long, and a better fake out would be for Biden to resign and give Harris the gift of incumbency. Also, Republicans are demanding it, which we all know means that they don't really want it or expect it to happen!

This worries me:

You may or may not think this is a reductive observation, but if you do, I suspect you may be a straight white person who decided not to vote for Clinton "because of her emails," or because she was "unlikeable," or whatever, i.e., you were looking for any reason not to vote for the candidate who was actually qualified for the job, in order to vote for the unfathomably shitty person the other side hauled up out of the incompetent depths, who had no platform besides his own cretinous id and still does not. It's 2024, I'm done pretending that sexism and racism, implicit or explicit, aren't huge fucking motivators for the white people vote here in the US.

The refusal to acknowledge that there are any substantive reasons for moderate voters to reject Clinton in 2016 or Harris in 2024 is arrogant at best, and self-destructive at worst. The extreme progressive stuff that the Democrats have assented to in order to please the activists do not sit well with lots of middle-of-the-road voters. The more the party and the media present Harris as the absolutely unquestionable second coming, the more chance there is for them to be disappointed on election night like in 2016.

[Ruralguy]

The last month, and especially the last two weeks have seen a lot of turmoil.
I don't think the approach towards Harris is so much that she's the "second coming" so much as that the Democratic party needs a fairly definite nominee, and the sensible choice (accepting that it could be an imperfect choice) is the VP of the President who decided not to run. There has been a fair amount of coverage of her previous run for President and its lack of wide appeal, leftward stances, etc..  True, not everyone understands, or at least they don't say, that there isn't much evidence of wide appeal of Harris, just that there is a bit of a do-over here and that we are more or less where we were around June 1. But that wasn't a great position for the Democrats.

[ciao_yall]

I'm with Scalzi, more or less, though if this was meant as some huge fake out of Republicans, it won't last long, and a better fake out would be for Biden to resign and give Harris the gift of incumbency. Also, Republicans are demanding it, which we all know means that they don't really want it or expect it to happen!

This worries me:

You may or may not think this is a reductive observation, but if you do, I suspect you may be a straight white person who decided not to vote for Clinton "because of her emails," or because she was "unlikeable," or whatever, i.e., you were looking for any reason not to vote for the candidate who was actually qualified for the job, in order to vote for the unfathomably shitty person the other side hauled up out of the incompetent depths, who had no platform besides his own cretinous id and still does not. It's 2024, I'm done pretending that sexism and racism, implicit or explicit, aren't huge fucking motivators for the white people vote here in the US.

The refusal to acknowledge that there are any substantive reasons for moderate voters to reject Clinton in 2016 or Harris in 2024 is arrogant at best, and self-destructive at worst. The extreme progressive stuff that the Democrats have assented to in order to please the activists do not sit well with lots of middle-of-the-road voters. The more the party and the media present Harris as the absolutely unquestionable second coming, the more chance there is for them to be disappointed on election night like in 2016.

"Extreme progressive stuff" like.. sensible gun control, pro-choice, compassion for immigrants, religious freedom for non-Christians, a peaceful world order, environmental protections, the rule of law for all?

You mean... what the majority of Americans support??

Dude, have you been paying attention???

[clean]

No... OPEN borders & forgiving student loans are topics that I hear the most.

Open boarders isnt viewed as compassion it is viewed (by the vocal parts of my family anyway) as 'changing the rules'.  there are rules in place to allow immigration and they feel that the rules have been thrown out.

Student loan forgiveness... I keep getting asked, "how do you feel about Biden forgiving student loans of all of these people, when you worked and paid yours off?"   I have retorted that much of the forgiveness was geared to those that were poor to start with and probably should have been given more aid, OR those that entered forgiveness programs based on public service that were mismanaged by the government or the loan processors.   This isnt exactly 'forgiving student loans' as much as it is 'correcting the errors in the programs that should not have existed... That many of these loans should have been paid off by the terms of the agreement entered. 

But some things you just can not argue, except to ask 'what is the proof of that?"  For instance, that countries are opening prisons and mental health wards to send their undesirables. 

It is hard to defend that Chinese are clearly coming in .... It is not like they moved to Honduras first and were unhappy there, or could not support themselves.   It is hard to argue that some of these are not a Fifth Column. 

Unfortunately, it is hard to be with my family as they have bought the MAGA/FAUX news line... from the oldest (my father) to the youngest (my about to graduate college niece).   
My mother and sister in law will at least take up the challenge to try to question things... ("they want abortion until the 9th month"  I point out that the only examples I can find were because of extreme birth defects where the child would not survive, and they look that up, but will then counter that 'health of the mother' arguments can be defended on economic reasons by doctors.

Anyway, I can not listen to Fox news much, but they have it on all the time and even in the car through their radio package. 
(Though CNN - the 'Clinton News Network' was just as bad, and they would watch that, argue with it and then think that they got a balance.  ABC, NBC and CBS are all democrat mouthpieces - though I m not sure I can particularly argue with that these days, and Im not sure which they think is the worst offender --- though I agree that Chuck Todd was not neutral!) 

[apl68]

I'm with Scalzi, more or less, though if this was meant as some huge fake out of Republicans, it won't last long, and a better fake out would be for Biden to resign and give Harris the gift of incumbency. Also, Republicans are demanding it, which we all know means that they don't really want it or expect it to happen!

This worries me:

You may or may not think this is a reductive observation, but if you do, I suspect you may be a straight white person who decided not to vote for Clinton "because of her emails," or because she was "unlikeable," or whatever, i.e., you were looking for any reason not to vote for the candidate who was actually qualified for the job, in order to vote for the unfathomably shitty person the other side hauled up out of the incompetent depths, who had no platform besides his own cretinous id and still does not. It's 2024, I'm done pretending that sexism and racism, implicit or explicit, aren't huge fucking motivators for the white people vote here in the US.

The refusal to acknowledge that there are any substantive reasons for moderate voters to reject Clinton in 2016 or Harris in 2024 is arrogant at best, and self-destructive at worst. The extreme progressive stuff that the Democrats have assented to in order to please the activists do not sit well with lots of middle-of-the-road voters. The more the party and the media present Harris as the absolutely unquestionable second coming, the more chance there is for them to be disappointed on election night like in 2016.

I believe marshwiggle's correct here, and have considered trying to explain some reasons why.  But this place is such an echo chamber that it just feels futile.  All I can say is that some of us don't feel we can support either party in this election at the national level in good conscience.  I've felt that way for the past several election cycles.  And for those who feel that they must vote for somebody, the "lesser of two evils" decision isn't as clear-cut as some seem to think it is.