2024 Elections Thread

[Puget]

I'm really not sure you could script a better VP candidate if you tried!
Former HS teaching and football coach-Nation Guard veteran-midwestern-pheasant hunting (but strong on gun control)-dad-who's good on TV.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/06/us/politics/tim-walz-harris-vp-facts.html?smid=url-share

Last nights speeches reinforced my view that he was absolutely the right pick. He hit both the ton and message perfectly and came across as genuine and comfortable in his own skin (except for some endearing very midwestern embarrassment at the adulation of the crowd when he came out).

Maybe it won't matter much (VPs seldom do), but I think he'll really resonate with a certain type of R-leaning voter who can see themselves in him, and is sick and tired of everything being weird and negative, and just wants everyone to go back to being good neighbors (both the helping each other out and the mind your own damn business parts of that– which is genius framing).

In contrast, Shaprio's talk was. .. fine. Slightly above replacement level dem. He might have been fine. I wouldn't have been anything special.

[nebo113]

There are "people" online joking about Gus drying his tears with tampons.  I hope they fry in the fires of hell.

[ciao_yall]

There are "people" online joking about Gus drying his tears with tampons.  I hope they fry in the fires of hell.

My cousin-in-law is a very devout pro-life Christian... who worked for years with people with developmental disabilities.

If that garbage doesn't finally turn her off of Trump I don't know what will.

[Ruralguy]

Whether or not Walz is the "right" pick really can only be known the "morning" after the election (by which I mean, after its decided for sure, which is maybe more likely to be Saturday morning).  That is, unless there's some sort of landslide, and in either of the landslide options, its unlikely the VP pick would have been critical.
Will results show that the election was lost by 20K votes in PA? If so, then maybe he was not the best pick.

That being said, he's certainly not a bad pick, and can rally the troops. So he's the right guy for  getting people excited, The problem is, is he exciting the coasts? if he is, who cares. More important that he's exciting
PA (which is just barely not coastal). I guess we'll see.

Its rare that VP picks matter in quite this way, but they can matter. Probably Palin was the last one that may have been part of losing in 2008, but she wasn't critical, as far as we know, to losing or winning any particular state that mattered. Quayle the second time around may have mattered generally speaking, but again, not in a way that made any particular state hinge on it.  In 2000, since it hinged on so few votes, I suppose you could say either Lieberman or Cheney or both probably did matter in Florida. So, though the narrative is that it hasn't mattered in modern times, its actually not so clear, other than saying they likely weren't critical to a state since 1960, 2000 is debatable because of the weird circumstances.

[ciao_yall]

Its rare that VP picks matter in quite this way, but they can matter. Probably Palin was the last one that may have been part of losing in 2008, but she wasn't critical, as far as we know, to losing or winning any particular state that mattered. Quayle the second time around may have mattered generally speaking, but again, not in a way that made any particular state hinge on it.  In 2000, since it hinged on so few votes, I suppose you could say either Lieberman or Cheney or both probably did matter in Florida. So, though the narrative is that it hasn't mattered in modern times, its actually not so clear, other than saying they likely weren't critical to a state since 1960, 2000 is debatable because of the weird circumstances.

I say Lieberman would have decisively won Florida for the D's had it not been for the infamous butterfly ballot in Palm Beach which led to the phenomenon known as "Jews for Buchanan."

Even Pat himself said "No way I got that many votes in Palm Beach."

[Ruralguy]

That's probably correct. There's certainly enough evidence to suggest that is correct.

So, technically Lieberman did help, but then he didn't. Sigh.

[dismalist]

Shades of Lieberman - Cheney, 2000!

The only presidential debates I seriously paid attention to were Kennedy vs. Nixon. But I was a mere 10 years old. Many years later, I tuned into Bush vs. Gore. I zoned out after about 10 minutes, as I recall. Then -- why, I don't know -- I tuned into the debate between Lieberman and Cheney. God, these people are smart, I thought, certainly compared to the presidential candidates.

There hasn't been a vice-presidential debate so far, but I have an inkling that Vance vs. Walz would be one helluva a lot more stimulating than Kamala [joy and vibes] vs. the Donald [everybody else bad].

The Babylon Bee wrote that the both the Democratic and Republican conventions were all about Trump! Of course, the parties know what they're doing.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Any debate with Trump in it has the potential to be interesting. Who knows what crazy or awful thing he'll blurt out? Walz and Vance could be entertaining as well, especially when Walz reaches for low hanging fruit (it is scheduled for October 1st).

I haven't watched a debate in years though. I have my mind made up well in advance and I can catch the entertaining bits on youtube if I care to. I do sometimes watch debates between local pols though, since it can be hard to find much info about who the local folks are or what differentiates them from one another.

[Langue_doc]

Dear, oh dear!

Election Live Updates: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Suspends Campaign and Endorses Trump
Mr. Kennedy appeared onstage briefly with Mr. Trump at a rally in Arizona hours after Mr. Kennedy announced, in a news conference nearby, that he was pausing his troubled independent presidential bid.

[Sun_Worshiper]

RFK's endorsement could help Trump in a marginal way if the main effect is that most RFK supporters go to him. But could also hurt him if it turns off moderate swing voters. I'd lean towards the latter scenario, but I also don't think it will make a significant difference. Here's a pretty good breakdown of what the polls say: https://abcnews.go.com/538/momentum-rfk-jrs-endorsement-give-trump/story?id=113111150

RFK was already losing ground in the polls, as his supporters turned towards the major parties (typical for independent candidates). This was amplified when Harris came into the race and was likely to continue. We're also a long way out, with many news cycles ahead that could have more of an impact on the race than this.

[Langue_doc]

A guide to Donald Trump's four criminal cases

[Parasaurolophus]

He missed a trick. Should have nominated Gabbard as his runing mate.

[Ruralguy]

I truly do not understand Tulsi Gabbard.

[Sun_Worshiper]

I truly do not understand Tulsi Gabbard.

I think she feels shunned by the Democrats or she's looking for media attention and grift opportunities. Probably some combination of the two.

He missed a trick. Should have nominated Gabbard as his runing mate.

I remember that there was some chatter about her being his VP. I could imagine that her never-ending quest for media attention turned Trump off, if she was ever really in consideration.

[Langue_doc]

There's speculation--most likely unfounded-- that RFK Jr. might replace Vance.

In other news, Democrats are beginning to realize that so-called groups don't think alike or vote alike:

Can Democrats Win Back Latino Voters by Treating Them Like Everyone Else?
Democrats seem to be recognizing that Latinos have the same hodgepodge mix of priorities as other voters. Will that help them make up ground lost to Donald J. Trump?

The first few paragraphs:

When the Harris campaign released its first television ad targeting Latino voters, one word was conspicuously absent: Latinos.

Instead, the ad included subtle cues to voters that Vice President Kamala Harris, the child of immigrants, is one of them and cares about their issues. In 60 seconds, there are pictures of young brown-skinned children and families playing in parks, while a narrator with a slight Spanish accent tells Ms. Harris's family story.

Both Democrats and Republicans acknowledge that attracting Latino voters will be key to winning the White House this year. Latinos remain one of the fastest-growing groups of voters. They are disproportionately young and have less partisan loyalty than many other groups.

So it is especially notable that Democrats, four years after hemorrhaging Latino support, have not been offering a slew of overt appeals. Rather than ads filled with promises about immigration reform and Spanish phrases, Democrats have been focusing on economic messages, talking about the cost of housing and medication, or relentlessly hammering the promise of the American dream. In short, they are courting Latino voters by treating them like everyone else.

The change represents both a shifting political strategy and an evolving view of Latino identity. Rather than approach Latino voters as if they are an enigmatic niche group with a narrow set of interests, Democrats seem to be recognizing that Latinos have the same hodgepodge mix of priorities as other voters. With more than 36 million Latinos eligible to vote this year, they are firmly in the mainstream.

The approach is exemplified by one of the party's biggest Latina stars, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who, after repeatedly emphasizing economic class, did so again in her nationally televised speech during the Democratic National Convention last week, as she spoke about growing up as the daughter of a domestic worker, finishing her homework at other people's dining room tables.