2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

Raoul said:
Not sure why Fox keep inviting Pete on since he mops the floor each time.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Mayor Pete is not going to be the VP. He is too confident and articulate. Likely will spend the next four years positioning himself for POTUS.

In an off chance that Kamala wins this November, he'll still be young enough for the '32 cycle.
 
WI_Red said:
Found out today my dad is considering voting for Trump. He can't articulate why and just parrots Fox News talking points (Trump has nothing to do with P2025, Trump is bad but how do we not know Kamala has raped someone or comitted 4 billion crimes, etc. etc.). He is a good man, but the MAGA brain rot is real and he spends very little time (if any) watching TV. Most of this is from reading online and, most likely, from the YouTube algorithm. I am at a loss for words.
Click to expand...

Pretty much all my fam in Texas, though they've always been GOP through and through. Most of them couldn't stand Trump in 2016 but have been swayed by their peers, in the pews, and whatever media they digest.
 
Mike Smalling said:
I assume the question is whether the respondent has a favorable view of each candidate. It is possible for someone to hold a favorable view of both.
Click to expand...
I'd love to take a journey to the thoughts of a person who has a favourable view of both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

On second thought, maybe I wouldn't actually.
 
Insanity said:
Yeah, Mayor Pete is not going to be the VP. He is too confident and articulate. Likely will spend the next four years positioning himself for POTUS.

In an off chance that Kamala wins this November, he'll still be young enough for the '32 cycle.
Click to expand...
That's not the reason why he's unlikely to be the VP candidate
 
Shouldn't he try and win some kind of elected office?
 
Ubik said:
Shouldn't he try and win some kind of elected office?
Click to expand...
Been there and done that, he's a member of the current government and if Harris wins he'll be a member of the next one as well, probably at a higher level
 
Ubik said:
Shouldn't he try and win some kind of elected office?
Click to expand...
If his ambitions are to become a president, that would be a good idea, considering that most presidents had some experience as high-elected officials (governor or congress). There are some cases where they did not have that though (Hoover was secretary of commerce, Eisenhower, Grant and Taylor from military).
 
Red in STL said:
Been there and done that, he's a member of the current government and if Harris wins he'll be a member of the next one as well, probably at a higher level
Click to expand...
He was a mayor in races with below 15,000 voters! If he just wants a cabinet career, good for him.
 
Ubik said:
Shouldn't he try and win some kind of elected office?
Click to expand...

Its not as if he's been trying all this time and not winning. He went from mayor straight into the Presidential campaign (where he finished ahead of Harris), then immediately into Transportation Secretary under Biden. At this point he has already established himself at the national level ahead of most Governors and Senators, and would be a leading Presidential candidate if Biden announced last year he wasn't running. Therefore at this point, it wouldn't make much sense for him to go backwards by becoming a Governor since going forward, he will either be a VP or SecState; and if she loses, he will be one of the leading contenders in 2028.
 
Raoul said:
Its not as if he's been trying all this time and not winning. He went from mayor straight into the Presidential campaign (where he finished ahead of Harris), then immediately into Transportation Secretary under Biden. At this point he has already established himself at the national level ahead of most Governors and Senators, and would be a leading Presidential candidate if Biden announced last year he wasn't running. Therefore at this point, it wouldn't make much sense for him to go backwards by becoming a Governor since going forward, he will either be a VP or SecState; and if she loses, he will be one of the leading contenders in 2028.
Click to expand...
He is not in the recently rumoured shortlist of 3 people for VP, and he does not have any foreign expertise to become Secretary of State, so unlikely he gets that job.

Bear in mind that Harris herself does not have a lot of expertize in foreign policy, so I think she will keep Blinken and co.
 
Revan said:
He is not in the recently rumoured shortlist of 3 people for VP, and he does not have any foreign expertise to become Secretary of State, so unlikely he gets that job.

Bear in mind that Harris herself does not have a lot of expertize in foreign policy, so I think she will keep Blinken and co.
Click to expand...

That's just a rumored list and doesn't have any bearing on what Harris will actually do. On SecState, that won't matter as no one thought Pete was a transportation expert 4 years ago, and DoT has a budget 4x bigger than State.
 
Ubik said:
Shouldn't he try and win some kind of elected office?
Click to expand...
I imagine he thinks an exercise in finding out whether his popularity among the cable news addicted is shared by voters at large is a risk not worth taking when the aforementioned group may potentially be enough to find him pushed in to senior positions without any need for public approval.
 
DOTA said:
I imagine he thinks an exercise in finding out whether his popularity among the cable news addicted is shared by voters at large is a risk not worth taking when the aforementioned group may potentially be enough to find him pushed in to senior positions without any need for public approval.
Click to expand...
The primary voters of South Carolina long for a capable Fox News surrogate.
 
Raoul said:
That's just a rumored list and doesn't have any bearing on what Harris will actually do. On SecState, that won't matter as no one thought Pete was a transportation expert 4 years ago, and DoT has a budget 4x bigger than State.
Click to expand...
Sure, but SecState is generally regarded as the most important secretary. The idea is that the secretary of state will be meeting foreign ministers, prime ministers and presidents of other countries (including powerful adversaries), will be able to solve conflicts, and in general, has massive personal connections and essentially has a long experience in diplomacy. It is not something that can be instantly built (unless you are serving under Trump where rules do not matter).

I just do not see a relative noob in foreign policy choosing a relative noob in foreign policy as secretary of state. Together with the secretary of defense, they are positions that require proven professionals, not just popular orators.
 
Revan said:
Sure, but SecState is generally regarded as the most important secretary. The idea is that the secretary of state will be meeting foreign ministers, prime ministers and presidents of other countries (including powerful adversaries), will be able to solve conflicts, and in general, has massive personal connections and essentially has a long experience in diplomacy. It is not something that can be instantly built (unless you are serving under Trump where rules do not matter).

I just do not see a relative noob in foreign policy choosing a relative noob in foreign policy as secretary of state. Together with the secretary of defense, they are positions that require proven professionals, not just popular orators.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't matter to be honest. Pete has more than demonstrated the temperament for any job in government, including President, which is why he's in the mix as a VP contender. I'm confident he would match or outperform any current state employee. That said, Harris would probably go with Susan Rice or Jake Sullivan.
 
Raoul said:
It wouldn't matter to be honest. Pete has more than demonstrated the temperament for any job in government, including President, which is why he's in the mix as a VP contender. I'm confident he would match or outperform any current state employee. That said, Harris would probably go with Susan Rice or Jake Sullivan.
Click to expand...
If Blinken is replaced, those two are the most likely choices to be the new SecState.
 
Ubik said:
He was a mayor in races with below 15,000 voters! If he just wants a cabinet career, good for him.
Click to expand...
He made a good career move. Indiana is deep red. He went from small-town mayor to a national profile. He wouldn't be able to have won a statewide position there. So he would have had to move to a blue state then launch a campaign there for some statewide office as a transplant.

He made absolutely the right career trajectory moves so far. He is one of the top names now in the Democratic party, he just needs to make more inroads with the base I feel to be a top tier candidate. Without having that I ran a state (Governor) or I was a Senator on his resume, I think he needs a tangible connection to minority voters other than showing up at a black church while campaigning.

He kind of is the blueprint for talented Democrats trapped in a Red state elevating their profile the right way.
 
Raoul said:
It wouldn't matter to be honest. Pete has more than demonstrated the temperament for any job in government, including President, which is why he's in the mix as a VP contender. I'm confident he would match or outperform any current state employee. That said, Harris would probably go with Susan Rice or Jake Sullivan.
Click to expand...
I agree he could do any job, being the most articulate politician the Dems likely have, I think he might be a good pick for DHS, the Dems messaging on the border is not great and he could improve that 10-fold
 
Red in STL said:
That's not the reason why he's unlikely to be the VP candidate
Click to expand...
It'll be one of the considerations. You don't a VP pick who can outshine the presidential nominee. Kamala is not a very good speaker. She is likely to pick a docile, nice guy type.
 
Insanity said:
It'll be one of the considerations. You don't a VP pick who can outshine the presidential nominee. Kamala is not a very good speaker. She is likely to pick a docile, nice guy type.
Click to expand...
IMO he's not getting picked as a VP because he's gay, I'm not sure the American electorate is ready yet for the first female president, and one of color to boot, and a gay man as VP at the same time, sad but probably accurate
 
Red in STL said:
IMO he's not getting picked as a VP because he's gay, I'm not sure the American electorate is ready yet for the first female president, and one of color to boot, and a gay man as VP at the same time, sad but probably accurate
Click to expand...
I don't doubt that is one of the reasons too.
 
Let's say Trump wins and takes full advantage of the Supreme Court deciding any official act is, by definition, legal. That cannot apply to Trump acting unconstitutionally though, right?

If he acts unconstitutionally (by declaring the next election won't happen), he won't have committed a crime but that wouldn't make his declaration lawful?
 
Frosty said:
Let's say Trump wins and takes full advantage of the Supreme Court deciding any official act is, by definition, legal. That cannot apply to Trump acting unconstitutionally though, right?

If he acts unconstitutionally (by declaring the next election won't happen), he won't have committed a crime but that wouldn't make his declaration lawful?
Click to expand...
What makes you think this Supreme Court would even entertain making such a decision. Of course they would find a way to allow it.
 
Frosty said:
Let's say Trump wins and takes full advantage of the Supreme Court deciding any official act is, by definition, legal. That cannot apply to Trump acting unconstitutionally though, right?

If he acts unconstitutionally (by declaring the next election won't happen), he won't have committed a crime but that wouldn't make his declaration lawful?
Click to expand...
Feck knows, but that was my understanding. Essentially, the president cannot be persecuted, but they can be impeached/removed, and also if they give unlawful order, those orders do not necessary need to be obeyed. The president is not in charge of elections, or when the elections will be done, so such an order would just be ignored. The lines become blurry where they could potentially order unlawful stuff to do in their chain of command (for example asking his attorney general to persecute a political opponent, or let's go more extreme, asking his secret service to kill a political opponent).
 
WI_Red said:
Found out today my dad is considering voting for Trump. He can't articulate why and just parrots Fox News talking points (Trump has nothing to do with P2025, Trump is bad but how do we not know Kamala has raped someone or comitted 4 billion crimes, etc. etc.). He is a good man, but the MAGA brain rot is real and he spends very little time (if any) watching TV. Most of this is from reading online and, most likely, from the YouTube algorithm. I am at a loss for words.
Click to expand...

I spoke with a very liberal woman 2 weeks ago and she said exactly the same about his dad. And is definitely not an outlier

We are here laughing at MAGA and we call them rednecks, wackos etc...but there is a lot of good normal man and woman that will end voting for Trump
 
GiddyUp said:
At this point I would be very comfortable with prominent democrats saying everyday on national tv that Trump raped little girls with Epstein.
Click to expand...

These prominent democrats dealt with Epstein or know some democrats that did also, so they are all interested in brush it under a rug
 
Frosty said:
Let's say Trump wins and takes full advantage of the Supreme Court deciding any official act is, by definition, legal. That cannot apply to Trump acting unconstitutionally though, right?

If he acts unconstitutionally (by declaring the next election won't happen), he won't have committed a crime but that wouldn't make his declaration lawful?
Click to expand...
That's essentially a task for the lower courts to determine what is and what isn't an offical act, this will be back at the SC at some point
 
You must log in or register to reply here.