2024 Elections Thread

[Ruralguy]

I can't see  Trump (a) admitting he was wrong (by dumping Vance)
                   (b) taking on someone (RFK,JR) who is about as much of a media hound as he is, and possibly a shade
                       nuttier, if not scarier.

[Langue_doc]

Election Live Updates: U.S. Army Issues Statement Criticizing Trump Campaign Over Cemetery Dispute
The statement said Trump's staff "unfairly attacked" an Arlington National Cemetery employee.

The first few paragraphs:

The Army on Thursday criticized the conduct of members of former President Donald J. Trump's campaign in a statement about a confrontation at Arlington National Cemetery this week, in which campaign staff clashed with a cemetery employee who was trying to enforce a prohibition on political activity.

Participants in the Trump campaign's wreath-laying ceremony on Monday "were made aware" of that prohibition, but "an A.N.C. employee who attempted to ensure adherence to these rules was abruptly pushed aside," the statement said. "Consistent with the decorum expected at A.N.C., this employee acted with professionalism and avoided further disruption."

It added, "This incident was unfortunate, and it is also unfortunate that the A.N.C. employee and her professionalism has been unfairly attacked." A Trump spokesman had disparaged the employee and claimed she was "clearly suffering from a mental health episode."

As for the nutty RFK,

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Sawed the Head Off a Whale and Drove It Home, Daughter Says
Three decades later, an environmental organization is calling for an investigation.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Trump would have to be on a political suicide mission to take RFK as his VP. And, like RG said, he'd never dump Vance at this point.

[Sun_Worshiper]

It is truly amazing that Trump, even after all his criminal and treasonous activities, his general idiocy, and his obvious cynicism and grifting, running a train wreck of a campaign, could still win and is perhaps even the frontrunner.

If you take a step back and look at it as an analyst, this reality tv show that we call America is really delivering a fascinating season finale.

[kaysixteen]

Indeed.   So let's ask the hard question: HOW THE HELL IS THIS MAN POSSIBLY A SERIOUS, MAJOR-PARTY NOMINEE, FOR ******PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES***********???????  How did this occur?

[Ruralguy]

Ai think in the last 40 ish years people began to see the "opposite" party as "the enemy," and thus it didn't matter if the nominee was a buttoned up straight-laced guy like Romney, or a just a jerk with no real sense of the job---just a blob of publicity seeking. As long as the guy represented "not the enemy," they'd vote for him. Of course, Trump himself was more than just that. Really a cult leader. The cult leader is always right because what he does defines what is right. Obviously it means there are enough people enamored with that, or just so pissed off with the other side that they'd rather vote for "that" than a Democrat.

I don't know why there aren't more Cheneys or Kinzigers or Romneys willing to be critical. Either they morph into sycophants or run away scared. I get why they wouldn't necessarily back Harris, but I can't see how someone with a real sense of integrity could back Trump.

[poiuy]

In addition to the points made upthread, one reason that perplexing candidates end up as the presidential nominee is that very few people vote in the party primaries.
 
According to this site, about 80% of eligible voters do not participate in primaries. So a very few people pick the very important candidates.  Some suggestions like ranked choice voting might provide a solution but that idea has not gained much traction.

Then why do perplexing candidates win the election?  There is the electoral college system. 
Then there is the issue of low voter turnout overall.  Voter turnout is higher in presidential elections but many of those may not vote for downstream candidates.

Add to that some robust voter suppression efforts going on in several states. 

Add these up, and US presidential candidates who win the popular vote can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

ETA:  Despite the recent polling boost for one party, I am very anxious about the November election.  Even if the President outcome goes one way, there is the matter of winning the House, the Senate, Governor posts, State Attorneys General, State Supreme Courts, all the way up and down. Conservatives appear to have been training and positioning people in key areas for decades, while calling out the Liberals for 'deep state'.

[AmLitHist]

Are there truly no remaining Republicans (so-called--either old school or MAGA) with any sense of decency left anymore?  If so, where are they for crap like this? It seems some are telling him to knock it off because it might hurt his electability, but I don't see anyone expressing the kind of rage I used to expect from the Moral Right of years past.

[poiuy]

Are there truly no remaining Republicans (so-called--either old school or MAGA) with any sense of decency left anymore?  If so, where are they for crap like this? It seems some are telling him to knock it off because it might hurt his electability, but I don't see anyone expressing the kind of rage I used to expect from the Moral Right of years past.

There seem to be very few such as you describe.  There is likely much more money to be made by stoking culture wars and it gets you out of having to do any of that inconvenient public service. And if and when you finally leave politics, you can make big bank through a RW media career.
Imagine being nostalgic for the good old days of the Moral Right /s 

[Sun_Worshiper]

In addition to the points made upthread, one reason that perplexing candidates end up as the presidential nominee is that very few people vote in the party primaries.
 
According to this site, about 80% of eligible voters do not participate in primaries. So a very few people pick the very important candidates.  Some suggestions like ranked choice voting might provide a solution but that idea has not gained much traction.

Then why do perplexing candidates win the election?  There is the electoral college system. 
Then there is the issue of low voter turnout overall.  Voter turnout is higher in presidential elections but many of those may not vote for downstream candidates.

Add to that some robust voter suppression efforts going on in several states. 

Add these up, and US presidential candidates who win the popular vote can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

ETA:  Despite the recent polling boost for one party, I am very anxious about the November election.  Even if the President outcome goes one way, there is the matter of winning the House, the Senate, Governor posts, State Attorneys General, State Supreme Courts, all the way up and down. Conservatives appear to have been training and positioning people in key areas for decades, while calling out the Liberals for 'deep state'.

Dems should win the House and lose the Senate, given the maps, even with Rs doing everything they can to nominate terrible Senate candidates.

[marshwiggle]

Ai think in the last 40 ish years people began to see the "opposite" party as "the enemy," and thus it didn't matter if the nominee was a buttoned up straight-laced guy like Romney, or a just a jerk with no real sense of the job---just a blob of publicity seeking. As long as the guy represented "not the enemy," they'd vote for him.

Yup. This is a problem with a two-party system. In Canada, while there may only be two parties that have a chance of forming the government, there are a few more that will win seats, and may form the balance in a minority situation, so voters have more than just a binary choice. It allows more nuance in positions on individual issues, and even variation between which issues matter more to each party. Voters often may like the position of party A on some issue, party B on some other issue, but prefer their candidate for party C.

As Thomas Sowell said,
"There are no solutions; only trade-offs."

With a two-party system, the trade-off is too stark to promote reflection. When there are more parties, the trade-offs are a bigger part of the thought process for voters.

[apl68]

Trump has a very disturbing cult following, all right, but the great majority of those who will vote for him aren't cultists.  They just feel, for whatever reasons--and there are different ones for different voters--that he's the lesser of two evils. 

Me, I don't believe that I can vote for anybody at the national level in good conscience.  So I won't, and I urge anybody who will listen not to support either candidate either.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Trump has a very disturbing cult following, all right, but the great majority of those who will vote for him aren't cultists.  They just feel, for whatever reasons--and there are different ones for different voters--that he's the lesser of two evils. 

Me, I don't believe that I can vote for anybody at the national level in good conscience.  So I won't, and I urge anybody who will listen not to support either candidate either.

I get that you can't get enthused about either candidate and I also understand that many of the folks voting for Trump are not cultists, but come on with this "I can't take a side with good conscience" stuff. This guy has ruined the Republican party and done enormous damage to American democracy. He literally tried to overturn the last election by extrajudicial and violent means (how directly he can be legally tied to the violence at the capital is questionable, but obviously he egged it on including with all the lies about voter fraud). Harris has policies you don't like - ok I get that - but come on man, do what you can to help us move past this guy so that we can get back to some normalcy in the country.

Or don't. It is your choice of course. But I will never understand this principled stand against taking a side when one of the candidates is so clearly a menace.

[Puget]

Trump has a very disturbing cult following, all right, but the great majority of those who will vote for him aren't cultists.  They just feel, for whatever reasons--and there are different ones for different voters--that he's the lesser of two evils. 

Me, I don't believe that I can vote for anybody at the national level in good conscience.  So I won't, and I urge anybody who will listen not to support either candidate either.

I get that you can't get enthused about either candidate and I also understand that many of the folks voting for Trump are not cultists, but come on with this "I can't take a side with good conscience" stuff. This guy has ruined the Republican party and done enormous damage to American democracy. He literally tried to overturn the last election by extrajudicial and violent means (how directly he can be legally tied to the violence at the capital is questionable, but obviously he egged it on including with all the lies about voter fraud). Harris has policies you don't like - ok I get that - but come on man, do what you can to help us move past this guy so that we can get back to some normalcy in the country.

Or don't. It is your choice of course. But I will never understand this principled stand against taking a side when one of the candidates is so clearly a menace.

Amen. If you live in a completely non-competitive state then fine, do whatever you want. But if your state is competitive you need to recognize that not making a choice IS a choice. You don't get to abrogate responsibility just because you aren't happy with the choice.

[dismalist]

You don't get to abrogate responsibility just because you aren't happy with the choice.

The probability of an individual voter determining the outcome of even a State election is zero. It matters not how I vote.

Forcing choice and its expression is a Left tactic to suggest and instill mass solidarity, which would affect the outcome of an election.

Forget about it.

As I've said for eight years, the only issue the Democrats have is Trump.