2024 Elections Thread

[ciao_yall]

Biden needs to call out these recent outrageous SCOTUS rulings and promise to get them reversed.

[mythbuster]

I've been seriously pondering who the Dems could call to replace Joe on short notice.

The best I can come up with is that it needs to be put to him as the ultimate Christ-like act of sacrifice for his country.

Then they need to call the one person who has immediate recognition by the public, knows how to stand up to Trump, who has beaten him before, and who can stand up to Putin as well.

Yep- We need to call Hillary.

I'm amazed that in all the NYT etc. discussions her name has never come up.

[Langue_doc]

Yep- We need to call Hillary.

I'm amazed that in all the NYT etc. discussions her name has never come up.

I too thought of her. A major reason for her loss was Bernie who scowled through the entire primary sessions (his scowl was quite obvious) and his followers who said "Bernie or bust" and kept their word.

In a Staring Contest With Democratic Voters, Joe Biden Hasn't Blinked
Around Mr. Biden, a siege mentality has set in post-debate, one at odds with the persistent concerns of voters who view him as too old to be effective.

He isn't just "too old" but visibly deteriorating physically and mentally. Jill had to lead him by the hand off the stage following the debate.

Calling on the governors and donors for support is futile when it's the voters who need to be reassured that Biden is still capable of governing.

Top Biden Officials Seek to Calm Donors: 'Breathe Through the Nose'
The senior Biden officials downplayed the political fallout of President Biden's debate performance but provided precious little new information.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Are you guys being sarcastic or serious about HC? Please tell me sarcastic.

[Parasaurolophus]

If Harris is bypassed, then the $200mil plus they've already fundraised is gone. Poof.

[kaysixteen]

1) Probably Uncle Joe would not be persuadable to stand aside in favor of HRC

2) Almost certainly Kamala Harris would not be.

3) Kamala's supporters would not be impressed if this actually were to be done.

4) HRC did not exactly beat Trump before, as the same Electoral College problems that nuked her, well, they're probably still there now.

5) HRC ain't no spring chicken either.

[dismalist]

Biden is 81.

The Donald is 78.

Hillary is 76.

Looks like our Brezhnev -- dead at 75 -- moment.

Followed by Andropov, dead at 69, then Chernenko, dead at 74.

We, too, seem to have a gerontocracy.

[AmLitHist]

I held my nose and voted for Hillary once; I can do it again. And as unimpressed as I am with Harris, I can vote for her, too. Hell, get Liz Cheney to change her party ID, with Adam Kinzinger as VP, and I'll vote for them. I don't hold with any of them individually, but at base I don't think any of them are evil. Trump, on the other hand (and his followers in my neighborhood). . . .

[Sun_Worshiper]

I held my nose and voted for Hillary once; I can do it again. And as unimpressed as I am with Harris, I can vote for her, too. Hell, get Liz Cheney to change her party ID, with Adam Kinzinger as VP, and I'll vote for them. I don't hold with any of them individually, but at base I don't think any of them are evil. Trump, on the other hand (and his followers in my neighborhood). . . .

I would vote for any of these people over Trump too, but the issue is who can win. There are lots of talented Democrats that could energize the electorate. I do not think Clinton is one of them.

[Langue_doc]

The Republicans are rooting for Biden because they know that Trump can beat him. During the last election, many Republicans voted for Biden, but this time, many Democrats are planning to stay home because a vote for Biden is actually a vote for Hunter and Jill. I did have misgivings about HRC in 2016 because of the spouses--hers and Huma's--having access to the White House interns.

How did we get to this stage where the president's infirmities have been so carefully shielded from the voters?!

Not sure if I posted the link to this article earlier:

Biden's Lapses Are Said to Be Increasingly Common and Worrisome
People who have spent time with President Biden over the last few months or so said the lapses appear to have grown more frequent, more pronounced and, after Thursday's debate, more worrisome.

As for his opponent,

Trump Continues to Delay Naming a Running Mate, Amid Biden Debate Fallout
Donald J. Trump has not named a running mate this week. He appears eager to avoid stepping on the controversy swirling around President Biden in the debate's aftermath.

Link to the shared article

The Point
Conversations and insights about the moment.

[ciao_yall]

The Republicans are rooting for Biden because they know that Trump can beat him. During the last election, many Republicans voted for Biden, but this time, many Democrats are planning to stay home because a vote for Biden is actually a vote for Hunter and Jill. I did have misgivings about HRC in 2016 because of the spouses--hers and Huma's--having access to the White House interns.

How did we get to this stage where the president's infirmities have been so carefully shielded from the voters?!

Not sure if I posted the link to this article earlier:

Biden's Lapses Are Said to Be Increasingly Common and Worrisome
People who have spent time with President Biden over the last few months or so said the lapses appear to have grown more frequent, more pronounced and, after Thursday's debate, more worrisome.

As for his opponent,

Trump Continues to Delay Naming a Running Mate, Amid Biden Debate Fallout
Donald J. Trump has not named a running mate this week. He appears eager to avoid stepping on the controversy swirling around President Biden in the debate's aftermath.

Link to the shared article

The Point
Conversations and insights about the moment.

I'd take Hunter and Jill over Jared, Ivanka and the rest of that crowd any day.

[Parasaurolophus]

Hmmm.... wrt the Canadian Conservative party leadership debates, and candidates' incompetence in French speaking-- why exactly is it, in a country where both languages are official, that a party leader-cum-would be PM, actually needs to speak both of these languages?  And two further questions: 1) roughly what percentage of Quebecois politicians outside of the Greater Montreal area, could competently debate in English?  and, 2) for those Anglocanadians raised in areas outside of the province of Quebec, in what are often, near as I can figure, essentially monolingual Anglophone environments, both familial and community-wide, how common would it be that the Canadian equivalent of k-12 ed provides an Anglophone child effective opportunity to develop French-language skills sufficient to debate in that language?

Sorry I missed this earlier.

In my lifetime, every single premier of Québec (including all of those from the sovereigntist Parti Québecois) have been perfectly capable of speaking coherent, if strongly accented, English. And their seats are usually in the Québec region, rather than Montréal and its environs (which have tended to mostly lean Liberal). I don't know what chunk of their MNAs did, but it would have been a significant chunk. And the federal sovereigntist party, the Bloc Québecois, is full of MPs who speak English perfectly well. Bloc leaders have even been credited with winning English-language debates several times in the past.

French used to be a mandatory language in K12 throughout the country. It got downgraded to "optional if available" in the west something like twentyish years ago. But, frankly, if you lead a federal party you should absolutely be capable of debating your opponents in both official languages. Although a monolingual PM is certainly possible, it would... not be good. You don't want to be PM with 30% of the country set against you just because you can't talk to them.

When Stephen Harper first took control of the newly united Conservative Party, he did not speak French. His first debate performance was dismal (though better than the leadership debate in question). But, to his credit, he really applied himself to learning the language, and a couple of years later, when he was back on the debate stage, he was more or less fluent. And he kept it up throughout his ten years in power. I wouldn't credit him with much, but definitely that. It was genuinely impressive.

As for the why? Well, it's complicated, and the reasons mostly have to do with (1) history, both distant and recent (on the recent side, the constitution act of 1982), and (2) Francophones are the country's largest minority, control the second-most populous (and quite economically important) province, and are a significant presence in several other provinces (including NB, which is the only bilingual province). But the big elephant in the room is that thirty years ago the country came within less than one percent of losing a secession vote. A PM who can't speak competent French is a gift to the secessionists, and that's a headache for Ottawa. Especially now, when Alberta and Saskatchewan are essentially rogue provinces.

[spork]

Gretchen Whitmer.

Someone from another swing state is named VP nominee.

Kamala Harris moves to Attorney General.

In his "I will not seek a second term" speech, Biden announces that he will nominate six new justices to the Supreme Court before November.

Whitmer promises to push for amending the Constitution to limit Supreme Court terms to twenty years.

[Ruralguy]

It really has to be Harris. Anything else is not really doable. Biden would also likely have to resign the presidency. That gives incumbency and cash to Harris. Also, can you really screw over the first black woman in such a high office and expect loyalty?  I like Joe. Im sorta myeh on Harris, but its her or Biden at this point due to process concerns. Not a preference. A necessity.

[apl68]

How did we get to this stage where the president's infirmities have been so carefully shielded from the voters?!

It's not unprecedented.  Few voters knew that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was wheelchair-bound until after his death.  It wasn't a cognitive impairment, but a great deal of the electorate at that time would have regarded it as disqualifying, and it was well-concealed from the public for that reason.  Of course that was at a time when the media were far less pervasive.