2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

Raoul said:
A Newsom/Whitmer ticket would be hard to beat imo. Both relatively young and ascendant governors who would make Trump look extremely old and antiquated.
Click to expand...
The trouble with Newsom is that this election will be won or lost in the rustbelt and a Californian will struggle to make the breakthrough there. Having Whitmer on the ticket would help, but it might actually be more effective if she was at the top of it.
 
Last edited:
Ekkie Thump said:
I'll answer Crockett.

1. Preferably Whitmer or Newsom​
2. By being the Democratic nominee come convention​
3. By re-employing Bidens's apparatus through the DNC and, as seems to be feasible, transferring campaign funds to same.​
4. This is a softball. A random person has not been selected. Whitmer is the incredibly popular governor of a swing state she carried by more than 10%. She is an incredibly powerful, brave woman who speaks to the issues and has her finger on the pulse of middle America yadayadayada.​
Click to expand...
Whitmer is such an obvious choice. For all the no name recognition, the thing is that she actually has name recognition where it matters. She will easily win Michigan, and then she just needs to win the two nearby states of Penn and Wisconsin and that’s it. Even if she doesn’t win Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, as long as the wins those three states (and no surprises in Minnesota, Maine or New Hampshire), the elections will be won.

She is also doing better in polls than any other plausible Dem candidate.
 
Revan said:
Whitmer is such an obvious choice. For all the no name recognition, the thing is that she actually has name recognition where it matters. She will easily win Michigan, and then she just needs to win the two nearby states of Penn and Wisconsin and that’s it. Even if she doesn’t win Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, as long as the wins those three states (and no surprises in Minnesota, Maine or New Hampshire), the elections will be won.

She is also doing better in polls than any other plausible Dem candidate.
Click to expand...

She is probably third in line though, if Biden steps down, Harris and then Newsom are the favorites.

Wish she also had run a "shadow campaign" like Newsom right now.
 
Revan said:
Whitmer is such an obvious choice. For all the no name recognition, the thing is that she actually has name recognition where it matters. She will easily win Michigan, and then she just needs to win the two nearby states of Penn and Wisconsin and that’s it. Even if she doesn’t win Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, as long as the wins those three states (and no surprises in Minnesota, Maine or New Hampshire), the elections will be won.

She is also doing better in polls than any other plausible Dem candidate.
Click to expand...
I agree but the missus strongly believes America won't vote for a woman...so there's that to overcome too.

Whitmer/pete ticket would be proper
 
Revan said:
Whitmer is such an obvious choice. For all the no name recognition, the thing is that she actually has name recognition where it matters. She will easily win Michigan, and then she just needs to win the two nearby states of Penn and Wisconsin and that’s it. Even if she doesn’t win Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia, as long as the wins those three states (and no surprises in Minnesota, Maine or New Hampshire), the elections will be won.

She is also doing better in polls than any other plausible Dem candidate.
Click to expand...
I agree. If Biden drops out, Whitmer should be the nominee for the reasons that you outline here.

The advantage of Newsom over Whitmer is his gender.
 
maniak said:
Some pretty funny 180s in this thread.
Click to expand...

Certainly. Before Biden had to be voted yes or yes even if it was a genocide guy and there is no way that it could be asked to be substituted in these premises. Now that is too old is should be advisable to change him

Genocide candidate ---> Change? ---> no way!! out of the question! hold the line against Trump
Too old ---> Change? ---> yes please. We will not hold the line against Trump

False equivalence (but funny) ---> being old is worse than being a genocide POTUS seems like it
 
4bars said:
Certainly. Before Biden had to be voted yes or yes even if it was a genocide guy and there is no way that it could be asked to be substituted in these premises. Now that is too old is should be advisable to change him

Genocide candidate ---> Change? ---> no way!! out of the question! hold the line against Trump
Too old ---> Change? ---> yes please. We will not hold the line against Trump

False equivalence (but funny) ---> being old is worse than being a genocide POTUS seems like it
Click to expand...

The only thing that matters is stopping Trump. Today is the first point it looks even remotely viable that Biden might step down if the news about him musing out loud to allies if he should stay or go is true - of course that changes the calculus.
 
Morty_ said:
She is probably third in line though, if Biden steps down, Harris and then Newsom are the favorites.

Wish she also had run a "shadow campaign" like Newsom right now.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not, she would not even be in consideration. She would do worse than Biden.
 
I think it is more likely now than unlikely that Biden will drop out. All the recent press briefings and somewhat ambiguous stance by even likes of Pelosi, who had offered more support to even the living corpse that was Feinstien, point towards the same.
 
This should help his decision making...

atldKpT.png
 
Raoul said:
The debate format was extremely favorable to Biden - no audience and the ability to turn off mikes did not favor Trump at all. Biden simply didn't show up with a functioning brain, and in the process, squandered any advantage the debate format offered.
Click to expand...
I agree, the one thing that everyone thought would happen that didn't, was Trump losing his shit
 
Raoul said:
This should help his decision making...

atldKpT.png
Click to expand...
Say it quietly but it feels like the tide might be turning. It’s not a decision that can be delayed through so we will know in the next couple of weeks.
 
Pexbo said:
Say it quietly but it feels like the tide might be turning. It’s not a decision that can be delayed through so we will know in the next couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

Suspect a decision will be made in the next few days.
 
Raoul said:
Suspect a decision will be made in the next few days.
Click to expand...

Sadly it may drag on as his family are telling him to stay in the race. I think its going to take an intervention by a delegation of respected Dems who will have to travel to the WH to tell him that its over.
 
Reading the excuses for his shitty debate performance (jet lag, etc) is annoying. Who the feck thought a busy schedule ahead of an important event would be good on a man in his 80s?
So, either his handlers are stupid, or Joe is just fecked. In either case he should get the fcuk out of the way.
 
SirAF said:
The only thing that matters is stopping Trump. Today is the first point it looks even remotely viable that Biden might step down if the news about him musing out loud to allies if he should stay or go is true - of course that changes the calculus.
Click to expand...

I think avoiding genoicides matter too. At least in my scale. Why not Stop Trump and stop genocides? Seems like now we want to stop trump and remove someone that participates in genocides as a perk (who know how another candidate will be with Israel)

But seems that now that it really exists alternatives that can try to beat trump. Those alternatives were not discussed to remove a genocide participant from the race. Genocide was not enough important to consider it. Which is quite telling of certain priorities and red lines
 
4bars said:
I think avoiding genoicides matter too. At least in my scale. Why not Stop Trump and stop genocides? Seems like now we want to stop trump and remove someone that participates in genocides as a perk (who know how another candidate will be with Israel)

But seems that now that it really exists alternatives that can try to beat trump. Those alternatives were not discussed to remove a genocide participant from the race. Genocide was not enough important to consider it. Which is quite telling of certain priorities and red lines
Click to expand...

Another Democrat likely wouldn't make things tangible better for the Gaza situation - and we know Trump would back Israel. Thus, it remains logical and pragmatical to assume the position that beating Trump is all that matters right now.
 
If Biden drops out, does Harris have the capacity to turn this back in the Dems favour? Newsom probably doesn't sell to the rust belt, it's hard to know where they go if not Biden. What a state US politics is in!
 
groovyalbert said:
If Biden drops out, does Harris have the capacity to turn this back in the Dems favour? Newsom probably doesn't sell to the rust belt, it's hard to know where they go if not Biden. What a state US politics is in!
Click to expand...

Remains to be seen, but at least gives them a chance, same with Newsom.
 
SirAF said:
Another Democrat likely wouldn't make things tangible better for the Gaza situation - and we know Trump would back Israel. Thus, it remains logical and pragmatical to assume the position that beating Trump is all that matters right now.
Click to expand...

Another D likely wouldn't make things tangible better for Gaza. It is discussed here also that another D might not make tangible better their options to beat Trump....But is being discussed. Why? Because Biden is seen with 0 possibilities so a substitute is better as at worst has 0 possibilities also but maybe some possibilities?. The same with Gaza. any D would not do worse but maybe some possibilities?

Pragmatically seems that anyone is better than Bidem to beat trump and to do better in Gaza

The thing is that it was never considered to switch him because of Gaza, what equated, genocide doesn't matter much to many people
 
For the American posters on here:

Why generally do you think American floating voters/ independents whatever you want to call them...

Not see Trump as the existential threat in the same way he's seen on here?

MAGA will MAGA. Seems the rest of the party bar a tiny minority have followed the power. Democrats seem generally terrified that Trump and the GOP pose a genuine and unique threat to democracy.

So why are these swing voters not convinced and what could be done to convince them?
 
Pretty sure at this point he'll get replaced, none of the post-debate firefighting has moved the conversation on and the polling reality will hit home quickly enough. Dumb that it's gone on this long at all, though.
 
groovyalbert said:
If Biden drops out, does Harris have the capacity to turn this back in the Dems favour? Newsom probably doesn't sell to the rust belt, it's hard to know where they go if not Biden. What a state US politics is in!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't get too concerned with the idea that a candidate has to come from the rust belt. If whoever replaces Biden connects with the public to any meaningful degree, it will reflect in all the necessary swing states.
 
Raoul said:
I wouldn't get too concerned with the idea that a candidate has to come from the rust belt. If whoever replaces Biden connects with the public to any meaningful degree, it will reflect in all the necessary swing states.
Click to expand...

Not needing to come from there, but certainly needing to connect with that part of the States is a prerequisite to winning an election these days. Any idea who could do that for the Dems?
 
africanspur said:
For the American posters on here:

Why generally do you think American floating voters/ independents whatever you want to call them...

Not see Trump as the existential threat in the same way he's seen on here?

MAGA will MAGA. Seems the rest of the party bar a tiny minority have followed the power. Democrats seem generally terrified that Trump and the GOP pose a genuine and unique threat to democracy.

So why are these swing voters not convinced and what could be done to convince them?
Click to expand...

Independents and even some libs are turned off by inflation, the cost of living, and criminals getting in through a porous southern border. That's not something the Dems can fix, which is why a demagogue like Trump has been able to gain more traction than 4 years ago. The idea that Trump is an existential threat isn't going to resonate much outside the Dem bubble.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
And Biden is the Democratic nominee, and nothing anyone does can possibly change that. He won the primary election, didn’t he? Yet, for almost a week now, lots of calls on him to step down.

My point is that we should have more talks about Trump’s conviction in a court of law. Why no one is calling for Trump to be replaced after being found guilty? Why it’s always one sided? That’s my point. Be consistent either way.

I wouldn’t mind if Biden and Trump are replaced by two other candidates, but I’m tired of seeing the double standards.
Click to expand...

Since you're all about double standards, the Trump hush money criminal trial was a case of 'selective prosecution.' Alvin Bragg pursued a vendetta against Trump, exemplifying the notion of "show me the man, and I'll show you the crime." The state cannot pursue criminal prosecution against someone out of hostility or in retaliation for their political activity; it's unconstitutional.

The core of the case was that Trump falsified business records by taking campaign finance expenditures and paying Stormy Daniels. Trump's camp labeled these payments as legal expenses. However, the prosecution argued that these were campaign finances not reported as such, constituting a campaign violation.

A comparable case the district attorney could have prosecuted but didn't, likely due to political bias, involves Hillary Clinton. In 2022, the Federal Election Commission determined that the Hillary Clinton campaign committed a campaign finance violation. They found that in 2016, the same year as Trump's case, the Clinton campaign paid for the Steele Dossier, which contained scandalous and supposedly incriminating allegations against Trump. The Clinton campaign reported those payments as legal expenses. The FEC stated these were campaign finance expenses, thus violating campaign finance law.

This presents a strikingly similar set of facts concerning two candidates for President in 2016. Yet, Alvin Bragg selectively prosecuted Trump for falsifying business records to cover up a campaign finance violation while ignoring Clinton's similar actions. Clinton's campaign headquarters was in New York City, so Bragg cannot even claim a lack of jurisdiction.

The sad thing is, Trump would have never had victory within his grasp if the Democrats had (i) presented a normal candidate not named Biden last year and (ii) not pursued legal actions against Trump based on novel theories. Instead they decided to give him oxygen and boxed themselves in with a supposed Trump-beater, and now here we are.
 
africanspur said:
For the American posters on here:

Why generally do you think American floating voters/ independents whatever you want to call them...

Not see Trump as the existential threat in the same way he's seen on here?

MAGA will MAGA. Seems the rest of the party bar a tiny minority have followed the power. Democrats seem generally terrified that Trump and the GOP pose a genuine and unique threat to democracy.

So why are these swing voters not convinced and what could be done to convince them?
Click to expand...
I think some are taking a shortsighted view of the situation.
 
africanspur said:
For the American posters on here:

Why generally do you think American floating voters/ independents whatever you want to call them...

Not see Trump as the existential threat in the same way he's seen on here?

MAGA will MAGA. Seems the rest of the party bar a tiny minority have followed the power. Democrats seem generally terrified that Trump and the GOP pose a genuine and unique threat to democracy.

So why are these swing voters not convinced and what could be done to convince them?
Click to expand...
An important point about a lot of those voters is that they don't absorb "news" like we do. If you are in this thread and posting and asking questions and politically "interested" enough to read others opinions and discuss them. You are more "tuned in" than some of these voters claiming to be independent.

Then there are the more cynical that somehow still think "both parties are the same" despite the actual positions on issues etc. Targeted campaigns can reach some of these people. They are convincible sometimes. These types need direct interaction, grassroots campaigns and get out the vote efforts can reach them.

Then there are people that are only influenced by their personal "issue". They don't care about international affairs, they may actually be the types to say all foreign aid etc. is a waste of their money. All they see is grocery bill, gas prices doesnt matter the larger economic issues pushing those things. They can overlook things like "racism" of a party or candidate. They can justify not voting, or voting for someone that is a horrible person if they think the one issue they care about might improve.

Most of this pool of voters you need targeted campaigning for. Meet them where they are however you can reach them. Talk about what they care about even if the larger things like the other guy is a complete fraud and planning to put racists and more criminal friends all over the government and courts. That isnt going to move them if they only care about the price of their grandmas medicine. And I am not saying those are not important issues at all. Some people just dont think big picture.
 
slyadams said:
Absolutely not, she would not even be in consideration. She would do worse than Biden.
Click to expand...
In consideration to be Biden’s replacement? Of course she would be. Whether one thinks that is a good idea or not is a separate discussion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.