2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

If the GOP leader was visibly dying on stage and got a vote of confidence from all former presidents and all current governors, you'd consider it a cult, and those who spoke out would be limited to Liz Cheney--type numbers.
That's what's happening this time. As a party (as much as a party exists in the US context), they are extraordinarily united in the face of reality staring them in the face.
 
berbatrick said:
If the GOP leader was visibly dying on stage and got a vote of confidence from all former presidents and all current governors, you'd consider it a cult, and those who spoke out would be limited to Liz Cheney--type numbers.
That's what's happening this time. As a party (as much as a party exists in the US context), they are extraordinarily united in the face of reality staring them in the face.
Click to expand...
Indeed, Dems tend to be even more united than GOP, be it politicians (we saw GOP rebellions in the House several times, or not being able to repeal Obamacare, while Dems generally do well even when they have very thin margins) or voters (a demented person will win dozen of states and 40%+ of votes).
 
berbatrick said:
On the other hand, her husband is the most popular political figure in the US, and these numbers have been pretty consistent. And the people who think she's a trans woman married to a trans man prostitute aren't going to decide the election. Even the people who remember her growing a garden to force SALAD on INNOCENT KIDS are so deep in Fox News, they aren't the election deciders.

Nobody expects a 11 point win, like that poll suggests. As the US gets more polarised purely along partisan lines, both parties have a 40 something percent floor (if biden continues, we might find what it is in November) and a low 50s ceiling. Trump's personal ceiling seems under 50%.

But Trump (and Biden) are hated more intensely than other politicians. You could argue, and you would be partially correct, that this is due to exposure, but it's also due to their personality, visible incompetence, etc.
In an election where the choice is the two most unpopular nominees in US presidential history, one party getting the chance to replace their dead weight with, by all accounts, a less repulsive option, would be a massive boost. And, again, if the stake is democracy itself, she needs to set her personal feelings aside. (just like voters apprently must support a genocide to defend democracy...)
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that the people answering the poll, and you apparently from your posts, are basing this entire thing off a fantasy. The fantasy that the wife of the "most popular political figure in the US" will do just as good as him or at least better than any other possible candidate. Its a fantasy because we have no actual evidence of how she might do in debates, traveling to 30 cities in 20 days giving speeches, under media scrutiny and forced to defend not only the flaws in the Obama admin that are more obvious now than they were in 2012 but every Democrat position since COVID as well. She has zero preparation for what she will face under those circumstances and no one has any idea how she would actually perform because she has shunned the limelight and any political activity.

In contrast, Whitmer and Newsom are seasoned veterans who are far more prepared for what 4 months of intense campaigning in this environment would require. Newsom already has a S-tier team that has been preparing for every GOP/Maga argument in the book for months and Newsom already can talk circles around any Trump or GOP spokesperson if given the chance. Whitmer is also very seasoned and while I haven't seen proof that her team is as on top of it as Newsom's, she will have much more appeal in swing states than Michelle (or probably Newsom) and she is also far better prepared for a Presidential run at the last minute than Michelle could ever be. It's just a fantasy based on people imagining Michelle to be the best candidate possible without any actual factual evidence that she would be if she were to actually be in the race.

Oh and Biden and Trump aren't the two most unpopular nominees, they would be the second and third most unpopular historically. Hilary is still the most unpopular nominee.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
The problem with this is that the people answering the poll, and you apparently from your posts, are basing this entire thing off a fantasy. The fantasy that the wife of the "most popular political figure in the US" will do just as good as him or at least better than any other possible candidate. Its a fantasy because we have no actual evidence of how she might do in debates, traveling to 30 cities in 20 days giving speeches, under media scrutiny and forced to defend not only the flaws in the Obama admin that are more obvious now than they were in 2012 but every Democrat position since COVID as well. She has zero preparation for what she will face under those circumstances and no one has any idea how she would actually perform because she has shunned the limelight and any political activity.

In contrast, Whitmer and Newsom are seasoned veterans who are far more prepared for what 4 months of intense campaigning in this environment would require. Newsom already has a S-tier team that has been preparing for every GOP/Maga argument in the book for months and Newsom already can talk circles around any Trump or GOP spokesperson if given the chance. Whitmer is also very seasoned and while I haven't seen proof that her team is as on top of it as Newsom's, she will have much more appeal in swing states than Michelle (or probably Newsom) and she is also far better prepared for a Presidential run at the last minute than Michelle could ever be. It's just a fantasy based on people imagining Michelle to be the best candidate possible without any actual factual evidence that she would be if she were to actually be in the race.

Oh and Biden and Trump aren't the two most unpopular nominees, they would be the second and third most unpopular historically. Hilary is still the most unpopular nominee.
Click to expand...

Was Hillary ever at -20 in 2016? Thats Biden's average net approval rating these days.
 
Rado_N said:
More people voted for her than Trump.
Click to expand...
Morty_ said:
Was Hillary ever at -20 in 2016? Thats Biden's average net approval rating these days.
Click to expand...

It's based on data on actual voting like this:

"53% say their vote is primarily against Clinton.
46% say their vote is more against Trump.
In both the 2008 election between Barack Obama and John McCain and the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, clear majorities of each candidate’s supporters said their vote was mainly for their candidates."
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...andidate-theyre-for-but-which-theyre-against/

"44% of Biden voters cast their votes for the Democratic nominee as a vote “against” Trump, rather than in support of the former vice president.
Only 22% of Trump’s supporters say their vote was mostly against Biden, the data suggests. "
https://www.masslive.com/politics/2...he-democratic-nominee-exit-polls-suggest.html

No candidate has ever been as unpopular as Clinton to have so many people voting against them rather than for the opponent.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
The problem with this is that the people answering the poll, and you apparently from your posts, are basing this entire thing off a fantasy. The fantasy that the wife of the "most popular political figure in the US" will do just as good as him or at least better than any other possible candidate. Its a fantasy because we have no actual evidence of how she might do in debates, traveling to 30 cities in 20 days giving speeches, under media scrutiny and forced to defend not only the flaws in the Obama admin that are more obvious now than they were in 2012 but every Democrat position since COVID as well. She has zero preparation for what she will face under those circumstances and no one has any idea how she would actually perform because she has shunned the limelight and any political activity.

In contrast, Whitmer and Newsom are seasoned veterans who are far more prepared for what 4 months of intense campaigning in this environment would require. Newsom already has a S-tier team that has been preparing for every GOP/Maga argument in the book for months and Newsom already can talk circles around any Trump or GOP spokesperson if given the chance. Whitmer is also very seasoned and while I haven't seen proof that her team is as on top of it as Newsom's, she will have much more appeal in swing states than Michelle (or probably Newsom) and she is also far better prepared for a Presidential run at the last minute than Michelle could ever be. It's just a fantasy based on people imagining Michelle to be the best candidate possible without any actual factual evidence that she would be if she were to actually be in the race.

Oh and Biden and Trump aren't the two most unpopular nominees, they would be the second and third most unpopular historically. Hilary is still the most unpopular nominee.
Click to expand...

bolded are valid points.

for the rest of it -

1. The people answering the poll are a representative sample of American voters. That's not a fantasy, by definition. you can claim they're lying or stupid, but the word "fantasy" is just wrong here. and my "fantasy" is based on that poll and others like it. if you mean it's their fantasy that Obama's wife will be as good, sure... but then my view that she should be the nominee isn't a fantasy! If the people believe it, it's clearly the strategic option.


2. I've already said many times that Whitmer is the best choice. Polling shows she's the best among existing politicians. But polling - the same body of evidence I;m using to say Whitmer is good - indicates M Obama is significantly better. Can't take one and totally ignore the other, you have to engage with it.

In 2016, polling consistently showed Bernie outperforming Hillary in a H2H vs Trump. He quit the primary in June with a double digit lead over Trump, hers was about 5 points less at that moment. The media and base still considered her, by far, the more electable option, and him as the extremist bet. We know what happened in November. It may be un-intuitive, it might go against your prior understandings of the electorate, but refusing to engage with all polling was a major part of the problem in 2016, and it shouldn't be done, ever again. It's literally what the GOP did in 2012 and 2020.
Last time, Biden held a narrow lead over Trump all the way from 2019 to the election. Bernie's lead was even narrower, though it was consistent too. The other candidates never had a consistent lead.
Biden was seen as electable, and so the base chose him. I cannot tell you how much I hate that decision, but it was a rational decision, unlike in 2016.


3. Defending the Obama admin - is better than defending the Biden admin, which is widely seen as a disaster. Again, the Obama admin is very defined by the very popular man. As much as leftists like me despise him, once again, I defer to reality as seen in consistent polling results, not to what public opinion ought to be.

I don't personally like any of them - I hate Biden, strongly dislike Newsom, dislike Kamala, and have no strong feelings about Michelle Obama or Whitmer. If elected, will perform a structurally evil role, and will do evil things as part of it.

I'm talking about winning and nothing else.
 
Last edited:
berbatrick said:
bolded are valid points.

for the rest of it -

1. The people answering the poll are a representative sample of American voters. That's not a fantasy, by definition. you can claim they're lying or stupid, but the word "fantasy" is just wrong here. and my "fantasy" is based on that poll and others like it. if you mean it's their fantasy that Obama's wife will be as good, sure... but then my view that she should be the nominee isn't a fantasy! If the people believe it, it's clearly the strategic option.


2. I've already said many times that Whitmer is the best choice. Polling shows she's the best among existing politicians. But polling - the same body of evidence I;m using to say Whitmer is good - indicates M Obama is better. Can't take one and totally ignore the other, you have to engage with it.

In 2016, polling consistently showed Bernie outperforming Hillary in a H2H vs Trump. He quit the primary in June with a double digit lead over Trump, hers was about 5 points less at that moment. The media and base still considered her, by far, the more electable option, and him as the extremist bet. We know what happened in November. It may be un-intuitive, it might go against your prior understandings of the electorate, but refusing to engage with all polling was a major part of the problem in 2016, and it shouldn't be done, ever again. It's literally what the GOP did in 2012 and 2020.
Last time, Biden held a narrow lead over Trump all the way from 2019 to the election. Bernie's lead was even narrower, though it was consistent too. The other candidates never had a consistent lead.
Biden was seen as electable, and so the base chose him. I cannot tell you how much I hate that decision, but it was a rational decision, unlike in 2016.


3. Defending the Obama admin - is better than defending the Biden admin, which is widely seen as a disaster. Again, the Obama admin is very defined by the very popular man. As much as leftists like me despise him, once again, I defer to reality as seen in consistent polling results, not to what public opinion ought to be.

I don't personally like any of them - I hate Biden, strongly dislike Newsom, dislike Kamala, and have no strong feelings about Michelle Obama or Whitmer. If elected, will perform a structurally evil role, and will do evil things as part of it.

I'm talking about winning and nothing else.
Click to expand...

1. I don't think you can confidently claim the poll is a "representative sample" when all they state is "The poll, which was conducted online, surveyed 1,070 U.S. adults nationwide." We don't really know enough to conclude the poll is actually representative since its only an online survey of 1000 people.

1b. It is absolutely fantasy because of everything you bolded. No one has any idea of how an actual Michelle Obama candidate would perform under any actual campaign conditions. So the Michelle Obama people are polling for isn't a real Michelle Obama candidate. They are essentially polling for a simulacrum manufactured in their own head about how they imagine a Michelle Obama candidate would be, which is almost certainly filtered through very rose colored glasses. Its not real like a Whitmer or Newsom candidacy which we have real examples for is.

2. Then I believe you are putting far, far too much weight into a handful of polls that we can't actually say with certainty are representative or meaningful and still victim to all the problems I've mentioned.

3. Michelle won't just have to defend Obama admin decisions, she'll have to defend or comment on Biden admin decisions as well. So will a Whitmer or Newsom for that matter and I am far more confident in how Newsom would answer criticism of a Biden admin decision than I am in how a complete unknown with zero experience like Michelle would answer.

To be honest, I can't tell if you are actually serious about this Michelle Obama angle or you are just using it as a sort of "gotcha" on the establishment Dems. As in, you don't actually believe the challenge to democracy and fascism that Proj 2025 and other signals pose so your argument is basically "Dems don't really believe this either because if they really believed it, they would just nominate Michelle Obama because of a few polls".
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
1. I don't think you can confidently claim the poll is a "representative sample" when all they state is "The poll, which was conducted online, surveyed 1,070 U.S. adults nationwide." We don't really know enough to conclude the poll is actually representative since its only an online survey of 1000 people.

1b. It is absolutely fantasy because of everything you bolded. No one has any idea of how an actual Michelle Obama candidate would perform under any actual campaign conditions. So the Michelle Obama people are polling for isn't a real Michelle Obama candidate. They are essentially polling for a simulacrum manufactured in their own head about how they imagine a Michelle Obama candidate would be, which is almost certainly filtered through very rose colored glasses. Its not real like a Whitmer or Newsom candidacy which we have real examples for is.

2. Then I believe you are putting far, far too much weight into a handful of polls that we can't actually say with certainty are representative or meaningful and still victim to all the problems I've mentioned.

3. Michelle won't just have to defend Obama admin decisions, she'll have to defend or comment on Biden admin decisions as well. So will a Whitmer or Newsom for that matter and I am far more confident in how Newsom would answer criticism of a Biden admin decision than I am in how a complete unknown with zero experience like Michelle would answer.

To be honest, I can't tell if you are actually serious about this Michelle Obama angle or you are just using it as a sort of "gotcha" on the establishment Dems. As in, you don't actually believe the challenge to democracy and fascism that Proj 2025 and other signals pose so your argument is basically "Dems don't really believe this either because if they really believed it, they would just nominate Michelle Obama because of a few polls".
Click to expand...

I think all those points about people imagining a fictional Michelle's presidency have less weight after Trump. The GOP base was asked, they said they liked him, he ran, they continued to like him, he made awful "gaffes", they liked him more, ....

About the 1st point - all polling has roughly that sample size and methodology. This one was by Ipsos or some other decent firm, not some unknown partisan outfit. They know, roughly, how to get a representative sample. And it's not the only poll suggesting she's popular.

For the last point - I mean it both sincerely and as a gotcha.
Sincerely, I understand the mentality that winning is paramount. So try everything! Run focus groups about this potential best candidate, see if there's a weakness there, see how it can be broken. Commission more polls. Her husband should talk to her if she's reluctant. Keep showing her these numbers and Proj 2025 side-by-side.
And as a gotcha: I see the party running their worst option after he had a public meltdown, and have concluded they don't give a feck about winning, and thus, are either insincere about 2025, or about defending democracy.* Taking this election seriously is the barest minimum...


*I said this here a few months ago after they supported some useless laws expanding the president's personal power, over immigration and deportation iirc. They know what's coming next, and are helping it along.
 
Last edited:
Do we know for sure these names being mentioned, like whitmer and newsom, actually want to be president now?

They would have to deal with an opponent not recognizing defeat, maybe a violent reaction. A congress incapable of doing anything and on top of that being seen worldwide as a genocide supporter. It doesn't sound like a great deal.
 
maniak said:
Do we know for sure these names being mentioned, like whitmer and newsom, actually want to be president now?

They would have to deal with an opponent not recognizing defeat, maybe a violent reaction. A congress incapable of doing anything and on top of that being seen worldwide as a genocide supporter. It doesn't sound like a great deal.
Click to expand...

Newsom? :lol::lol::lol:

There is nothing he wants more, i reckon.
 
maniak said:
Do we know for sure these names being mentioned, like whitmer and newsom, actually want to be president now?

They would have to deal with an opponent not recognizing defeat, maybe a violent reaction. A congress incapable of doing anything and on top of that being seen worldwide as a genocide supporter. It doesn't sound like a great deal.
Click to expand...
Newsom definitely. He has basically been running a shadow campaign just in case something happens to Biden, and has a team set in place. I do not like him though, despite him being a good talker.

Whitmer is loyal to Biden, and she has presidential aspirations. Not clear if she would try it this time, or let Newsom/Kamala lose and then run in 2028. However, it is hard to not run if given the chance, considering that lots will happen in 4 years and new candidates will emerge. You can go from hot shit to no one giving a shit about you very soon (see Beto O'Rourke).
 
Funny how 1 year ago we were looking for alternatives to Trump as he would unelectable because his legal problems and now we are looking for alternatives for Biden for his unnelectability
 
berbatrick said:
I think all those points about people imagining a fictional Michelle's presidency have less weight after Trump. The GOP base was asked, they said they liked him, he ran, they continued to like him, he made awful "gaffes", they liked him more, ....

About the 1st point - all polling has roughly that sample size and methodology. This one was by Ipsos or some other decent firm, not some unknown partisan outfit. They know, roughly, how to get a representative sample. And it's not the only poll suggesting she's popular.

For the last point - I mean it both sincerely and as a gotcha.
Sincerely, I understand the mentality that winning is paramount. So try everything! Run focus groups about this potential best candidate, see if there's a weakness there, see how it can be broken. Commission more polls. Her husband should talk to her if she's reluctant. Keep showing her these numbers and Proj 2025 side-by-side.
And as a gotcha: I see the party running their worst option after he had a public meltdown, and have concluded they don't give a feck about winning, and thus, are either insincere about 2025, or about defending democracy.* Taking this election seriously is the barest minimum...

*I said this here a few months ago after they supported some useless laws expanding the president's personal power, over immigration and deportation iirc. They know what's coming next, and are helping it along.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Trump example holds any weight. Trump had been inserting himself into the political dialogue for years before his candidacy with his birtherism and making stump speeches for cable news networks. He was also a known quality as a media figure with his many seasons on the Apprentice. He'd even been angling for a Presidential run for a long time. He and his people like Roger Stone considered running as the Reform party candidate in 2000 but rejected it because he wanted to win as a major party candidate. IIRC, the Roger Stone documentary had him talking about being President one day as early as 1988. So he long had political ambitions and had been crafting his media persona for decades with that in the back of his mind. That's pretty much the polar opposite of a Michelle Obama who has intensely stayed away from politics and the media. When Trump decided to run, he was already a completely known media figure. With Michelle, she really is still a blank slate that people can project all their hopes and dreams onto when responding to a poll rather than a known quality for a candidate.

Based on this discrepancy in the polling of her and other Dem potentials, I think its clear that the simulacra effect is happening here. Various parties have different ideas of what a Michelle Obama candidacy would be like so they can all answer in the positive even though those impressions might not match reality or even be contradictory. When those potentials collapse into a concrete reality, she will inevitable shed some supporters when the reality doesn't end up matching their impression of what it would be. So I don't take these polls seriously because of this.

I do agree that the Dems should be running focuses groups like never before and absolutely should not just make their decision on polls as they have erred to do in the past. They should even hire Frank Luntz to run them since he is the master of getting meaningful, actionable insight out of focus groups.

For your gotcha, I think that's too simplistic. You're missing a few options there like (C) Dem leadership is so immersed in their tiny bubble of delusion and hubris they still believe Biden is the best chance to beat Trump.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
I don't think the Trump example holds any weight. Trump had been inserting himself into the political dialogue for years before his candidacy with his birtherism and making stump speeches for cable news networks. He was also a known quality as a media figure with his many seasons on the Apprentice. He'd even been angling for a Presidential run for a long time. He and his people like Roger Stone considered running as the Reform party candidate in 2000 but rejected it because he wanted to win as a major party candidate. IIRC, the Roger Stone documentary had him talking about being President one day as early as 1988. So he long had political ambitions and had been crafting his media persona for decades with that in the back of his mind. That's pretty much the polar opposite of a Michelle Obama who has intensely stayed away from politics and the media. When Trump decided to run, he was already a completely known media figure. With Michelle, she really is still a blank slate that people can project all their hopes and dreams onto when responding to a poll rather than a known quality for a candidate.

Based on this discrepancy in the polling of her and other Dem potentials, I think its clear that the simulacra effect is happening here. Various parties have different ideas of what a Michelle Obama candidacy would be like so they can all answer in the positive even though those impressions might not match reality or even be contradictory. When those potentials collapse into a concrete reality, she will inevitable shed some supporters when the reality doesn't end up matching their impression of what it would be. So I don't take these polls seriously because of this.

I do agree that the Dems should be running focuses groups like never before and absolutely should not just make their decision on polls as they have erred to do in the past. They should even hire Frank Luntz to run them since he is the master of getting meaningful, actionable insight out of focus groups.

For your gotcha, I think that's too simplistic. You're missing a few options there like (C) Dem leadership is so immersed in their tiny bubble of delusion and hubris they still believe Biden is the best chance to beat Trump.
Click to expand...
Precisely this. Michelle Obama is the perfect ‘generic Democrat candidate’ which also crushes Trump in the polls. But when that generic candidate is replaced with a known generic candidate such as Harris, Newsom etc, they lose against Trump.

The moment Obama starts running, she won’t be a generic candidate anymore, and her poll numbers will drop.
 
Revan said:
The moment Obama starts running, she won’t be a generic candidate anymore, and her poll numbers will drop.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Personally, while I would 100% vote for her and generally like her, I don’t want her to run. I wouldn’t be happy if she’s the nominee. It’s time for our party and our country to move on from the Obama-Biden era, if not in 2025, then in 2028.
 
4bars said:
Funny how 1 year ago we were looking for alternatives to Trump as he would unelectable because his legal problems and now we are looking for alternatives for Biden for his unnelectability
Click to expand...
True enough.
Still, not funny haha though. Feckers!
 
Revan said:
Precisely this. Michelle Obama is the perfect ‘generic Democrat candidate’ which also crushes Trump in the polls. But when that generic candidate is replaced with a known generic candidate such as Harris, Newsom etc, they lose against Trump.

The moment Obama starts running, she won’t be a generic candidate anymore, and her poll numbers will drop.
Click to expand...

We can't know if they do or don't, if they don't even get a chance to campaign.

Of course now, with low name recognition, the other options aren't polling too well, few knows who they are.
 


...

oneniltothearsenal said:
Based on this discrepancy in the polling of her and other Dem potentials, I think its clear that the simulacra effect is happening here. Various parties have different ideas of what a Michelle Obama candidacy would be like so they can all answer in the positive even though those impressions might not match reality or even be contradictory. When those potentials collapse into a concrete reality, she will inevitable shed some supporters when the reality doesn't end up matching their impression of what it would be.

For your gotcha, I think that's too simplistic. You're missing a few options there like (C) Dem leadership is so immersed in their tiny bubble of delusion and hubris they still believe Biden is the best chance to beat Trump.
Click to expand...

I think the bold can work as a campaign strategy, and, in a limited way, was what Obama was. Hope and change was a vacuum that people could fill with their aspirations, even a significant number of Republicans, sick of 2 terms of W.
MAGA wasn't as blank a slate, but Trump had a vague blue collar jobs/protectionist appeal, a strongman appeal, a nativist appeal, a conservative appeal, and a moderate appeal in 2016. He'd said all sorts of contradictory stuff over the years, it didnt' matter.

For the last point, I think they read the same polls we do - and their leaked internal numbers were even worse. I think at least some of them are leaning on Biden to leave asap and do minimal damage. That's why we're getting these leaks from an otherwise soundproof White House.
But, the party, with Obama leading the effort, managed a 3-candidate drop-out-and-endorsement in the 24 hours leading up to Super Tuesday to remove the radical threat to their left. They need to harden up here.
 
maniak said:
Do we know for sure these names being mentioned, like whitmer and newsom, actually want to be president now?

They would have to deal with an opponent not recognizing defeat, maybe a violent reaction. A congress incapable of doing anything and on top of that being seen worldwide as a genocide supporter. It doesn't sound like a great deal.
Click to expand...

I suspect they do want to be POTUS, especially Newsom. Neither however, want to rock the boat too hard in case Biden decides he wants to stay in. Newsom may also be positioning himself as a potential VP in case Harris gets the nomination.
 
Raoul said:
I suspect they do want to be POTUS, especially Newsom. Neither however, want to rock the boat too hard in case Biden decides he wants to stay in. Newsom may also be positioning himself as a potential VP in case Harris gets the nomination.
Click to expand...

If Harris were to be the nominee, and she has political instincts, she won't pick Newsom, two Californians on the same ticket? Pick a swing-state governor or something, at least, jeez.
 
another point in favour of "large parts of the party don't give a single feck"

 
berbatrick said:
another point in favour of "large parts of the party don't give a single feck"

Click to expand...


"Few of the governors have to run for reelection this year, but more than a handful of them are eager to seek the presidency in 2028. And there’s no path for any of them then if Vice President Kamala Harris by then is President Harris seeking reelection. Moreover, if she runs a credible, last-minute race and loses narrowly this year to former President Donald Trump, it still may be difficult to deny her the nomination in four years."

I'm confused. Why are they worried about Harris getting the nomination in 4 years after losing now. I thought democracy was ending in 2024 if Trump won.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
I'm confused. Why are they worried about Harris getting the nomination in 4 years after losing now. I thought democracy was ending in 2024 if Trump won.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they're referring to the nomination for POTUS of the Newnited States. As per Project 2025, The Republican Empire will graciously agree to carve off a small portion of Maine to house the liberal elites. Beyonce (P) and Jeff Tiedrich (VP) will be installed as temporary incumbents ahead of a presumed 2028 election.

4bars said:
Funny how 1 year ago we were looking for alternatives to Trump as he would unelectable because his legal problems and now we are looking for alternatives for Biden for his unnelectability
Click to expand...

Weird thing is, I think Trump is still almost unelectable. I feel like Newsom or even Kamala would beat him pretty handily. Lower name recognition, but still vaguely sane and competent, options like Whitmer and Buttigieg would still be favourites. Even meme candidates like Michelle Obama would probably get it done.

It's almost impressive that the Democrats have managed to conjur up candidates who could lose to him in 2016 Hillary and 2024 Biden.
 
Last edited:
More coherent than the debate, but still weirdly quiet and slurring this words a bit, still ending his sentences midway, and then the massive laughable errors. This is him, recovered.



 
Martial'sEmergingSmile said:
Weird thing is, I think Trump is still almost unelectable. I feel like Newsom or even Kamala would beat him pretty handily. Lower name recognition, but still vaguely sane and competent, options like Whitmer and Buttigieg would still be favourites. Even meme candidates like Michelle Obama would probably get it done.

It's almost impressive that the Democrats have managed to conjur up candidates who could lose to him in 2016 Hillary and 2024 Biden.
Click to expand...


I agree, the only normal candidate that Trump had a chance was Biden. But now, the damage is done as Biden propelled him as electable against anyone new. One year ago Trump had no chance with any normal D. Now he is favourite against anyone but Biden is toast
 
berbatrick said:
if all the fascism, 2025, yada yada is credible, it's curious why it isn't seen as a bigger deal. here is a woman who, polls show, consistently, could stop what many people think is the end of democracy. yet these same people have been far more concerned about winning individual voters who don't like biden, than winning over one person who supposedly has a 10% vote advantage over biden.
Click to expand...
Facism yada yada. Spoken like a person who pretends to gives a shit.
 
Revan said:
How can he do that?



Not even Clarence Thomas will be able to justify that getting elected more than twice is constitutionally allowed.
Click to expand...

Nah, what they will do is pull a Putin. Some republican will run with Trump as VP, that will go to the supreme court - where they will rule that the 18th amendment does not prohibit a president to be elected as VP. They will then change the power-dynamic so that the VP is more powerful and the president is more ceremonial, or the president resigns, making the VP president. That then goes to the supreme court where Thomas argues "as the president was not elected, but rather appointed through mechanisms of the 25th amendment, the 22nd amendment does not apply". At which point the 22nd amendment becomes an irrelevance, and he can start arguing that the 22nd is itself unconstitutional as it is made irrelevant by other amendments, and goes against the "intention of the founders".


berbatrick said:
More coherent than the debate, but still weirdly quiet and slurring this words a bit, still ending his sentences midway, and then the massive laughable errors. This is him, recovered.



Click to expand...


Embracing the "wokeness" of the progessive wing of the democratic party, he now defines himself as a black woman. :lol:
 
Sky1981 said:
Who the feck runs US now? Sure as hell the man don't read what he signs, if he actually can still read anything smaller than teleprompter
Click to expand...
He can read, repeat, he can read anything smaller than teleprompter. Pause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.