2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

WI_Red said:
Ok, so what is the answer? For me there are 2 options to prevent your scenario:

1. Prevent him from running/being on the ballot
2. Convince voters to vote for Biden over him

How is option 1 not an equivalent blow to democracy?
Click to expand...
Not every election has the same consequences.

I'm not saying that he can't / shouldn't run, but a third party candidate, even with the best of intentions, can only be a spoiler in the 24 race for president. It would take quite the narcissism to run knowing that outcome might happen, but running anyway. When the dust settles, that third party candidate will have played a role in having our democracy perhaps permanently altered. There's no getting around that. The blame is not zero sum.
 
WI_Red said:
That's exactly my point! It is the job of Biden and the Dems to make a case for why West's voters should vote for Biden. HOWEVER, that case should not be to label a candidate "a threat to American democracy" just because they are running.
Click to expand...
But this time they will be exactly that as the result can basically be presaged months & months out.

You would hope that the candidate would see past their narcissism & do what is best for the country. Let's get past this cycle then go crazy with viable third parties.
 
calodo2003 said:
But this time they will be exactly that as the result can basically be presaged months & months out.

You would hope that the candidate would see past their narcissism & do what is best for the country. Let's get past this cycle then go crazy with viable third parties.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong here, didn't the 3rd party vote have an impact on the Clinton campaign in 2016? I'm sure I read/saw something that stated that the majority of the 3rd party votes benefitted Trump overall
 
Red in STL said:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, didn't the 3rd party vote have an impact on the Clinton campaign in 2016? I'm sure I read/saw something that stated that the majority of the 3rd party votes benefitted Trump overall
Click to expand...
I get 2000 & 2016 confused as to their respective effects on the elections. I want to say that Nader didn't have an influence & Stein did.
 
MrMarcello said:
Nader received over 97k votes in Florida. Give Gore 540 of those votes and he wins the state. A handful of states were also close enough that Nadar votes received affected the EV allocation to Bush or Gore, but all of those states were at least 2k votes gap.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections/2000
Click to expand...
Trying to find the articles I read proclaiming Nader’s votes would have broken more for Bush than Gore in Florida, can’t remember which think tanks / pollsters were involved.

If I am completely wrong here, it just adds to the argument that key elections with existential issues at play don’t need to entertain narcissistic third party candidates; common sense alone should prevail in the short term. After such elections go the way of preserving democracy, then third party representation should be discussed & hopefully implemented after our current system of electioneering is changed.
 
calodo2003 said:
don’t need to entertain narcissistic third party candidates;
Click to expand...

I think is quite rich calling narcisitic from a democratic POV just because this third party affects the democrats

A Healthy democracy shouldnt be just 2 parties. If democrats would like to convince the green party voters, mybe they should be closer to the green party demands

In the end, the problem is not the greens but the GOP who are threatening democracy
 
calodo2003 said:
After such elections go the way of preserving democracy, then third party representation should be discussed & hopefully implemented after our current system of electioneering is changed.
Click to expand...

Isn't this just another way of saying "never"? There will always be more elections, and someone will always think this particular election is the most important one. Also, who will be discussing third party representation here? The two parties that have zero interest in relinquishing any power? It just doesn't seem realistic.
 
How about letting people vote for the person they want to be president?

You can't expect the FPTP non-proportional system to change with either of the two main parties in power. Futile.
 
4bars said:
I think is quite rich calling narcisitic from a democratic POV just because this third party affects the democrats

A Healthy democracy shouldnt be just 2 parties. If democrats would like to convince the green party voters, mybe they should be closer to the green party demands

In the end, the problem is not the greens but the GOP who are threatening democracy
Click to expand...
And how to ensure that the GOP does not gain control of the White House to ensure Trump does not win is to coalesce behind the Dem candidate, not run pointless campaigns which will only fracture support on the left side of the political divide. Pragmatism should rule the day this presidential election.
 
nimic said:
Isn't this just another way of saying "never"? There will always be more elections, and someone will always think this particular election is the most important one. Also, who will be discussing third party representation here? The two parties that have zero interest in relinquishing any power? It just doesn't seem realistic.
Click to expand...
No, this is not that. I don’t often ascribe to the constant ‘most important election of our times’ hyperbole, but this time it rings quite true.

I would gladly welcome a viable third party candidate in any & all elections; we don’t have that luxury this cycle. As you allude to, there is a structural disadvantage to third parties even existing in current political cycles. Let’s burn the whole election processes down, raze them, & start anew. I’m all for that, let’s just get passed this troublesome one now.
 
calodo2003 said:
And how to ensure that the GOP does not gain control of the White House to ensure Trump does not win is to coalesce behind the Dem candidate, not run pointless campaigns which will only fracture support on the left side of the political divide. Pragmatism should rule the day this presidential election.
Click to expand...

The function of a minority party(es), specially in US that are not capable to win the presidency, at least not nowadays, is to put on the political agenda what is important for a 2-5% of the voters that might vote for the green party. Who would not like this portion in a narrow elections? The green party is forcing the democrats to be more to the left at least in environmemtal policies to try to convince the voters to vote democrats and for me this is positive. If the democrats fails on that, they are the only ones to be blamed while the ones that will jeopardize democracy is the MAGAGOP. Blaming the green party for another party being a derranged is not correct
 
4bars said:
The function of a minority party(es), specially in US that are not capable to win the presidency, at least not nowadays, is to put on the political agenda what is important for a 2-5% of the voters that might vote for the green party. Who would not like this portion in a narrow elections? The green party is forcing the democrats to be more to the left at least in environmemtal policies to try to convince the voters to vote democrats and for me this is positive. If the democrats fails on that, they are the only ones to be blamed while the ones that will jeopardize democracy is the MAGAGOP. Blaming the green party for another party being a derranged is not correct
Click to expand...
And the third parties an become spoiler parties & that can have deleterious effects in key races like the one in 2024. A bit of pragmatism is needed in the 2024 presidential election. We can't afford to feck this up. But it is easy to sit from afar & try to proactively Monday morning quarterback this & not look objectively at the situation at hand but offer platitudes.
 
calodo2003 said:
And the third parties an become spoiler parties & that can have deleterious effects in key races like the one in 2024. A bit of pragmatism is needed in the 2024 presidential election. We can't afford to feck this up. But it is easy to sit from afar & try to proactively Monday morning quarterback this & not look objectively at the situation at hand but offer platitudes.
Click to expand...

If we can't afford to feck this up, maybe a better candidate than Biden is needed and a better party than the Dems (who have been in power 60% of the last 30 years no less) should stop Trump. Therefore they are posing a threat to democracy as standing in the way for a more viable candidate that can effectively stop Trump. See how easy it is?

I understand the plead for pragmatism and real politik, which is present in every election at both sides. You'll also have to understand that a lot of people would want something better than what the current two party system of candidates are offering. Most democracies in the world work like that, and not all of them are falling apart.

In order to win candidates and parties are supposed to convince people, not peer pressure them.
 
calodo2003 said:
And the third parties an become spoiler parties & that can have deleterious effects in key races like the one in 2024. A bit of pragmatism is needed in the 2024 presidential election. We can't afford to feck this up. But it is easy to sit from afar & try to proactively Monday morning quarterback this & not look objectively at the situation at hand but offer platitudes.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Bottom line is if the third party candidate is against what The GOP stand for and very against Trump they know that they will not win. What good is forcing Democrats more to the left if you actually get the GOP and Trump elected? Whatever initiatives the third party spoiler wants Democrats to "get too faster" get even farther from reality in that scenario.

GOP will always push back against climate initiatives. They will force through more of their conservative judges to hamper civil liberties cases and the like for decades. That is reality. It isn't hyperbole. It has implications for the entire world. Scientists tell us that we are running out of time or are already out of time to get serious on the climate. There is only one party in the US that is even remotely inclined to advance climate based policies.

A third party candidate can have all the ideals they want and that is their right. But, reality does not stop for ideals.
 
Krakenzero said:
If we can't afford to feck this up, maybe a better candidate than Biden is needed and a better party than the Dems (who have been in power 60% of the last 30 years no less) should stop Trump. Therefore they are posing a threat to democracy as standing in the way for a more viable candidate that can effectively stop Trump. See how easy it is?

I understand the plead for pragmatism and real politik, which is present in every election at both sides. You'll also have to understand that a lot of people would want something better than what the current two party system of candidates are offering. Most democracies in the world work like that, and not all of them are falling apart.

In order to win candidates and parties are supposed to convince people, not peer pressure them.
Click to expand...
Sure, that all sounds good, but also Pollyanna-ish. The players in the race were determined years ago, the current electoral process is restrictive, & left leaning third party candidate will most likely serve to be a spoiler & give the election to Trump.

The next 18ish months are not a time for trite platitudes when we know what will occur if Trump regains the WH. He's told us as such. Soon will be the time to not run a pointless third party & coalesce behind Biden, just like the right will do with Trump.

There's plenty of time to discuss electoral changes after this election. Not having a third party in 2024 isn't going to condemn such to never be possible in the future. We just don't need to feck around as we know what will happen. Pragmatism / realpolitik should be the MO to get past this specific flavor of MAGA with Trump at the helm.
 
calodo2003 said:
There's plenty of time to discuss electoral changes after this election. Not having a third party in 2024 isn't going to condemn such to never be possible in the future. We just don't need to feck around as we know what will happen. Pragmatism / realpolitik should be the MO to get past this specific flavor of MAGA with Trump at the helm.
Click to expand...

History (and specifically the better party of recent history) says otherwise. There's always a monster right next corner. That's at the core of the system.

Again, I understand the plead as Trump is as dangerous as they come. But that way of framing democracy is an inevitable race to the bottom. Which should be evident right now as we are pretty much staring at the bottom.
 
calodo2003 said:
And the third parties an become spoiler parties & that can have deleterious effects in key races like the one in 2024. A bit of pragmatism is needed in the 2024 presidential election. We can't afford to feck this up. But it is easy to sit from afar & try to proactively Monday morning quarterback this & not look objectively at the situation at hand but offer platitudes.
Click to expand...

The quarterback reference killed me :lol:

I get you from the first post, dont get me wrong, but i am not a big defender of democracy as it is understood in modern democracies, and 1 of the several reasons is the tendency of most of the big western countries to become a bipartidist system where the 2 main parties share the power and the elections are decided more for the ones that are against the other party than the ones that vote for the party.

I hate the sentence of "useful vote" because is the excuse that the big parties promote and there is never a third alternative. I think that we should vote for who we believe they represent our closes values , also blank voting as a protest vote. That this might benefit the furthest on ideology party? Well is what it is. Another time might be the opposite

About the quarteback reference and the general tone of the message, if i understood well is that is easy for me because i am north american? Well, i had this conversations many times in my country as it happens way more often to have a 3rd (and 4th, 5th....) party that might shift elections. And i am always of the same opinion.

Besides, what happens to the US affects the whole world

Then, lets say that we should cast a useful vote and ignore the green party to stop trump. But what happens if there is a desantis type in 2028 or anothe MAGAGOP in 2032, etc... because that already happened with Bush. Then when is the turn of the 3rd party to be allowed to be voted?

To be honest, voting for democrats would make me puke ideologically speaking even if GOP is worse
 
It could easily become a four party system. Both parties could do with a split. The Dems have pensioners who are basically a bunch of Reaganites dictating policy and who are frustratingly cowardly in their approach. All fart and no shit.

The Repubs have a majority of christofacist dumbfecks who will literally belive every lie they hear while seemingly trying to legalize child (sexual) exploitation. No platform except for a financial policy akin to a mob looting a Footocker and a constitutional amendment to make a woman have their rapists baby.
 
4bars said:
The quarterback reference killed me :lol:

I get you from the first post, dont get me wrong, but i am not a big defender of democracy as it is understood in modern democracies, and 1 of the several reasons is the tendency of most of the big western countries to become a bipartidist system where the 2 main parties share the power and the elections are decided more for the ones that are against the other party than the ones that vote for the party.

I hate the sentence of "useful vote" because is the excuse that the big parties promote and there is never a third alternative. I think that we should vote for who we believe they represent our closes values , also blank voting as a protest vote. That this might benefit the furthest on ideology party? Well is what it is. Another time might be the opposite

About the quarteback reference and the general tone of the message, if i understood well is that is easy for me because i am north american? Well, i had this conversations many times in my country as it happens way more often to have a 3rd (and 4th, 5th....) party that might shift elections. And i am always of the same opinion.

Besides, what happens to the US affects the whole world

Then, lets say that we should cast a useful vote and ignore the green party to stop trump. But what happens if there is a desantis type in 2028 or anothe MAGAGOP in 2032, etc... because that already happened with Bush. Then when is the turn of the 3rd party to be allowed to be voted?

To be honest, voting for democrats would make me puke ideologically speaking even if GOP is worse
Click to expand...
This is a good question but it is framed the wrong way. What are that third parties goals? What is currently stopping them from getting those goals? Public opinion? No one is actively forcing these people not to run third party. They can. They just won't win. And they in turn actively are likely forcing their own stated goals and objectives for the future to be even farther out of reach.

Lots of people do not like incremental progress. But the reality is unless there is another Civil war or some other catastrophic attack that decimates the existing structures of the country. There is no way a third party candidate is going to get the Presidency here. They MAYBE could get a district or something and get to the House. But even then what are you going to do with it?

It is complete fantasy to think there will be a formal "split" of parties here without a huge catalyst like war or massive natural disaster etc.
 
Hamnat said:
This is a good question but it is framed the wrong way. What are that third parties goals? What is currently stopping them from getting those goals? Public opinion? No one is actively forcing these people not to run third party. They can. They just won't win. And they in turn actively are likely forcing their own stated goals and objectives for the future to be even farther out of reach.

Lots of people do not like incremental progress. But the reality is unless there is another Civil war or some other catastrophic attack that decimates the existing structures of the country. There is no way a third party candidate is going to get the Presidency here. They MAYBE could get a district or something and get to the House. But even then what are you going to do with it?

It is complete fantasy to think there will be a formal "split" of parties here without a huge catalyst like war or massive natural disaster etc.
Click to expand...

I agree, but this reason is not valid in my values to ask to not vote them because favours Trump. As i said in posts above the current function of a third party in US is pushing the other too closer to their policies if they want to get a chunk of the 2-5% thst i read they are supposed to be voted in the presidentials
 
If I was american I probably wouldn't vote in elections anymore. Sure I would've voted at first, because after all I had to pick the lesser of two evils, but I wouldn't spend my entire life voting for people I don't like just because the other guy is worse. That wouldn't feel like democracy, but more like a hostage situation.
 
maniak said:
If I was american I probably wouldn't vote in elections anymore. Sure I would've voted at first, because after all I had to pick the lesser of two evils, but I wouldn't spend my entire life voting for people I don't like just because the other guy is worse. That wouldn't feel like democracy, but more like a hostage situation.
Click to expand...

I think that's a false choice. Right now, it's one massive evil that has wrecked the supreme court, women's and gender rights for decades to come vs one of the more progressive (albeit really old) democratic presidents I have seen in my lifetime. We really are at a good vs. evil spot right now (as we were in the last election).
 
MarylandMUFan said:
I think that's a false choice. Right now, it's one massive evil that has wrecked the supreme court, women's and gender rights for decades to come vs one of the more progressive (albeit really old) democratic presidents I have seen in my lifetime. We really are at a good vs. evil spot right now (as we were in the last election).
Click to expand...
It's not about choice, it's about having to do something you don't like so many times that eventually you stop caring about it altogether. OK, sure, I would probably vote against trump, but overall I would be pretty disconnected from politics and not give many fecks either way.
 
The 'Just give up' sentiment leans into the whole "both sides" are just as bad trope which is clearly and demonstrably false.
 
Hamnat said:
The 'Just give up' sentiment leans into the whole "both sides" are just as bad trope which is clearly and demonstrably false.
Click to expand...
Only if you want to twist it that way to somehow discard the feelings of people who don't feel represented at all in a democracy. I don't like Biden, I don't like his policies and overall I don't like his party. But somehow I'm expected to spend a life time supporting this party with my vote. Yeah, thanks but no thanks, as I said I like my democracy pluralistic and not feel I'm the hostage of one party because the other guys are insane.
 
I didn't believe this a few months ago, but now i'm at the point that i'm starting to think Trump is not only GOPs strongest bet in the primaries, but also in the general, especially considering DeSantis, the more "electable" one, has tanked, not only with republican voters, but also with independents.

Thats not to say i think Trump has a very good chance to win, but a better chance than the rest, i don't really see anyone else for the GOP who has a chance in the rust-belt states, Trump is the only one who flipped them in the past, and did not lose them by much in 2020 either.

Now, Trump isn't going to win a high turnout election, he has definitely not gotten more popular since 2020, but if dems gets complacent, it could turn out badly.
 
calodo2003 said:
Trying to find the articles I read proclaiming Nader’s votes would have broken more for Bush than Gore in Florida, can’t remember which think tanks / pollsters were involved.

If I am completely wrong here, it just adds to the argument that key elections with existential issues at play don’t need to entertain narcissistic third party candidates; common sense alone should prevail in the short term. After such elections go the way of preserving democracy, then third party representation should be discussed & hopefully implemented after our current system of electioneering is changed.
Click to expand...

Nader made a name fighting for consumer protection, he became famous with his book "unsafe at any speed", which was against car manufacturers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsaf...esigned-In_Dangers_of_the_American_Automobile

I doubt that many of those who voted for Nader would prefer Bush to Al Gore. Al Gore was an advocate of serious measures against climate change back in 2000 ( car manufacturers and oil companies did not like this). In March 2001, shortly after taking office, President George W. Bush announced the U.S. would not implement the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

My opinion is that Nader was a nice guy, but unfortunately, he was the reason Gore lost (which also led to the idiotic Iraq invasion). Nader's decision to run for president made him one of the "useful idiots".
 
frostbite said:
Nader made a name fighting for consumer protection, he became famous with his book "unsafe at any speed", which was against car manufacturers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsaf...esigned-In_Dangers_of_the_American_Automobile

I doubt that many of those who voted for Nader would prefer Bush to Al Gore. Al Gore was an advocate of serious measures against climate change back in 2000 ( car manufacturers and oil companies did not like this). In March 2001, shortly after taking office, President George W. Bush announced the U.S. would not implement the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

My opinion is that Nader was a nice guy, but unfortunately, he was the reason Gore lost (which also led to the idiotic Iraq invasion). Nader's decision to run for president made him one of the "useful idiots".
Click to expand...
There's evidence (that I'll look for later) that the Nader vote in FL would have broken in slight favor of Bush, but I cannot remember the source of this. I remember being a little surprised when I read the article.

Totally agree with your last paragraph. Imagine the world if there never was a W presidency.
 
calodo2003 said:
No, this is not that. I don’t often ascribe to the constant ‘most important election of our times’ hyperbole, but this time it rings quite true.

I would gladly welcome a viable third party candidate in any & all elections; we don’t have that luxury this cycle. As you allude to, there is a structural disadvantage to third parties even existing in current political cycles. Let’s burn the whole election processes down, raze them, & start anew. I’m all for that, let’s just get passed this troublesome one now.
Click to expand...

We said this in 2016 and in 2020, now we are saying this in 2024. Maybe we will never get past troublesome candidates?
 
Tom Tiffany, apparently one the strongest contender for the senate race next year, for GOP, will not run.

I guess they will probably end up with David Clarke then, should be a victory for dems.
 
calodo2003 said:
There's evidence (that I'll look for later) that the Nader vote in FL would have broken in slight favor of Bush, but I cannot remember the source of this. I remember being a little surprised when I read the article.

Totally agree with your last paragraph. Imagine the world if there never was a W presidency.
Click to expand...

Yes, the world today would be a totally different place with Al Gore as President. US would be the greatest advocate of serious measures against climate change, which is probably the biggest threat to humans today. In 2001, US was the winner of the Cold War, the liberator of all those countries in Eastern Europe. And after the 9/11 attacks, the whole world was sympathetic to US, and against Islamic fundamentalism.

Bush destroyed all that by invading Iraq, a completely stupid, unnecessary, and criminal war. And of course, Bush did everything the oil companies wanted which did not help the environment.

All that because Nader wanted... really what did Nader want? It was clear that Nader would not be elected as President, so what was the point? And this happened after 5 years of Republicans battling Bill Clinton by any means, Republicans voting against everything. It was already evident that the Republican Party is evil. Is it remotely possible that Nader did not realize that he will take votes from Democrats and help the Republicans?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.