2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

Mike Smalling said:
Of course - you can also choose Moderaterne :drool:

Joking aside, what I meant was, do we really need Dansk Folkeparti, Danmarksdemokraterne and Nye Borgerlige on the far right, and Enhedslisten, Alternativet and Frie Grønne on the far left? There are far too many dopes on the debate stage. Listening to Pernille Vermund pretend to know anything about nuclear power, or Sikandar Siddique challenging the right to own property, makes me want to hurt myself.
Click to expand...

Fadøls Lars:lol:

But really, I actually do think we need them. Not because I necessarily agree with them (and in the case of Vermund I find her repulsive), but so that everyone feel there's an option that represents their views.
 
Hopefully this failure hurts LaRose in the upcoming senate race, primaries and/or general election.
 
Rob said:
You're American, right?

Has there never been a movement among voters or a discussion in the media regarding if more choices on the ballot would make sense?
Click to expand...

Movement I would say not really, at least to my knowledge. Discussion in the media, I'd say the only time I think it was seriously discussed was with Ross Perot's candidacy in 1992 and even then it was focused on Perot the individual and not on any systemic change to the two party system. The major thing is usually it gets brought up in the context of a (single) third party which is then dismissed as being unviable because a (single) third party would simply help the other opposing side. Changing the US Congress system to something more like a Parliamentary system where getting something like 2% of votes guarantees representation in the national congress has never really been discussed outside of college classrooms. Both parties have too much money and power and self-interest now and things are too tribal for me to see it happening anytime soon, if ever. I think the 1990s would have been the time for such a thing as now things are two divided along two tribal lines.

Personally, I think those types of multi-party systems make a lot more sense and function better but too many people in the US are tied to an almost religious worship of a 200+ year-old document that people truly believe is perfect and could never be improved upon by us modern day thinkers.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Movement I would say not really, at least to my knowledge. Discussion in the media, I'd say the only time I think it was seriously discussed was with Ross Perot's candidacy in 1992 and even then it was focused on Perot the individual and not on any systemic change to the two party system. The major thing is usually it gets brought up in the context of a (single) third party which is then dismissed as being unviable because a (single) third party would simply help the other opposing side. Changing the US Congress system to something more like a Parliamentary system where getting something like 2% of votes guarantees representation in the national congress has never really been discussed outside of college classrooms. Both parties have too much money and power and self-interest now and things are too tribal for me to see it happening anytime soon, if ever. I think the 1990s would have been the time for such a thing as now things are two divided along two tribal lines.

Personally, I think those types of multi-party systems make a lot more sense and function better but too many people in the US are tied to an almost religious worship of a 200+ year-old document that people truly believe is perfect and could never be improved upon by us modern day thinkers.
Click to expand...

AFAIK there are about 5 main blocks in the european political spectrum: traditional socialists-socialdemocracies (with unions/redistribution issues at the top and center), progressive movements (usually youth, more focused in the identity/representation/rights agenda), center liberal parties (sometimes colliding with CDU), traditional conservative parties, and far right corporativism.

Most parties have representation and on election time they try to mobilize their base and make pacts on general issues with the blocks closer to their political vision in order to either govern or win the ballotages. It's a system that makes sense to me and shouldn't be THAT difficult to recreate in the US if it wasn't for:

A) The multiple deadlocks attached to their current system;
B) The virtual inexistence of a traditional socialdemocracy in the US, mainly due to the Cold War.

EDIT: Some european countries also have a sixth political group, which is territorial/regional autonomies that can gravitate more to the left or to the right of the political spectrum depending on the country. I don't think this would be the case in the US though.
 
Last edited:
oneniltothearsenal said:
Movement I would say not really, at least to my knowledge. Discussion in the media, I'd say the only time I think it was seriously discussed was with Ross Perot's candidacy in 1992 and even then it was focused on Perot the individual and not on any systemic change to the two party system. The major thing is usually it gets brought up in the context of a (single) third party which is then dismissed as being unviable because a (single) third party would simply help the other opposing side. Changing the US Congress system to something more like a Parliamentary system where getting something like 2% of votes guarantees representation in the national congress has never really been discussed outside of college classrooms. Both parties have too much money and power and self-interest now and things are too tribal for me to see it happening anytime soon, if ever. I think the 1990s would have been the time for such a thing as now things are two divided along two tribal lines.

Personally, I think those types of multi-party systems make a lot more sense and function better but too many people in the US are tied to an almost religious worship of a 200+ year-old document that people truly believe is perfect and could never be improved upon by us modern day thinkers.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.

That tribal line would evaporate if you had, like, 10 or more parties, I think.

But you’re probably right. Unless a revolution happens and you stop acting like a very, very old piece of paper is the holy grail, it’s unlikely to change.
 
Best scenario, in chronological order:

1. Trump wins Republican nomination.
2. Biden wins elections with a larger margin than 2020.
3. Trump goes to prison.

As things stand today, this is quite possible.
 
frostbite said:
Best scenario, in chronological order:

1. Trump wins Republican nomination.
2. Biden wins elections with a larger margin than 2020.
3. Trump goes to prison.

As things stand today, this is quite possible.
Click to expand...

I can’t believe that before I see it. Something will go wrong.
 
Krakenzero said:
AFAIK there are about 5 main blocks in the european political spectrum: traditional socialists-socialdemocracies (with unions/redistribution issues at the top and center), progressive movements (usually youth, more focused in the identity/representation/rights agenda), center liberal parties (sometimes colliding with CDU), traditional conservative parties, and far right corporativism.

Most parties have representation and on election time they try to mobilize their base and make pacts on general issues with the blocks closer to their political vision in order to either govern or win the ballotages. It's a system that makes sense to me and shouldn't be THAT difficult to recreate in the US if it wasn't for:

A) The multiple deadlocks attached to their current system;
B) The virtual inexistence of a traditional socialdemocracy in the US, mainly due to the Cold War.
Click to expand...

I think those two are spot on. The problem with the current system is those 5 groups are folded into both parties in an inextricable way. First 3 are mostly Dem and the last two plus a little of the 3rd are Rep.

I know a few speculated on separation. Fukuyama had this book years ago Our Posthuman Future that speculated Dems could split into new age environmental types and tech liberals while Reps could split into religious conservatives and corporate conservatives and there could be realignment around new agey liberals allying with religious conservatives against tech libs and corporate Reps over bio-futuristic issues but I dont think things developed in a way that makes that possible now.

George Packer wrote this a few years ago on the Four Americas which I think is fairly accurate but doesn't lend itself to actual multiple parties without any structural reform.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-packer-four-americas/619012/

Overall I think the current system needs to change to a Parliamentary system to really make these splits viable.

Rob said:
Thanks for the reply.

That tribal line would evaporate if you had, like, 10 or more parties, I think.

But you’re probably right. Unless a revolution happens and you stop acting like a very, very old piece of paper is the holy grail, it’s unlikely to change.
Click to expand...

I agree about the tribal part if there could be a split into 5-10 actual parties but really there needs to be a re-assessment of the Constitution first which doesn't seem possible in the near future.

I'm sure historians like @Carolina Red or @nimic could provide some further opinions on this but I think that despite how rational it seems to us, too many are like that Jason guy in the tweet @calodo2003 linked who ends his interview by saying the Constitution has been around forever and values that based on age of the document alone as if that grants it extra credibility.
 
Rob said:
Thanks for the reply.

That tribal line would evaporate if you had, like, 10 or more parties, I think.

But you’re probably right. Unless a revolution happens and you stop acting like a very, very old piece of paper is the holy grail, it’s unlikely to change.
Click to expand...
oneniltothearsenal said:
I agree about the tribal part if there could be a split into 5-10 actual parties but really there needs to be a re-assessment of the Constitution first which doesn't seem possible in the near future.

I'm sure historians like @Carolina Red or @nimic could provide some further opinions on this but I think that despite how rational it seems to us, too many are like that Jason guy in the tweet @calodo2003 linked who ends his interview by saying the Constitution has been around forever and values that based on age of the document alone as if that grants it extra credibility.
Click to expand...
I dunno if I’m your guy here. I guess you’d call me a constitutionalist, or Federalist, in the language of those times. As a ‘historian’ I respect the fact that the Constitution is literally our government. We can’t just do away with it without another full blown Constitutional Convention like the one we had to replace the Articles of Confederation.
 
frostbite said:
Best scenario, in chronological order:

1. Trump wins Republican nomination.
2. Biden wins elections with a larger margin than 2020.
3. Trump goes to prison.

As things stand today, this is quite possible.
Click to expand...
1. Trump wins Republican nomination.
2. Trump wins elections with 5 millions less in the popular vote
3. Biden and Hillary goes to prison by order of king Trump
 
Carolina Red said:
I dunno if I’m your guy here. I guess you’d call me a constitutionalist, or Federalist, in the language of those times. As a ‘historian’ I respect the fact that the Constitution is literally our government. We can’t just do away with it without another full blown Constitutional Convention like the one we had to replace the Articles of Confederation.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't necessarily require a convention. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires two parties or plurality voting. This article makes a strong case that proportional voting would naturally lead to a multiple party system. Of course, congress passing this doesn't seem possible at the moment but theoretically it could happen if enough people wanted it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/two-party-system-broke-constitution/604213/
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
It wouldn't necessarily require a convention. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires two parties or plurality voting. This article makes a strong case that proportional voting would naturally lead to a multiple party system. Of course, congress passing this doesn't seem possible at the moment but theoretically it could happen if enough people wanted it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/two-party-system-broke-constitution/604213/
Click to expand...
That part of my post was referencing the other poster’s comment about how we “act like a very, very old piece of paper is the holy grail”.

And yes, the Constitution says nothing about parties. They came about in the US after its creation.
 
WPMUFC said:
Totally normal politics in florida. Next thing he'll be saying is that they no longer need elections because "i'm going to win any way"
Click to expand...
Yep, my home state is basically ground zero for terrible politics nowadays.
 
calodo2003 said:
Fascist move engineered to give him an campaign talking point?

Click to expand...


I don't really get this. Can an elected oficial singlehandedly remove another elected official from his/her office, without a really long and restricting process with several branches of the state participating in order to prove his/her wrongdoings? Sounds antidemocratic and illegal as hell.
 
The irony is that Ronnie boy should scare just about any people, especially the ones that are against government overreach. I can't remember any state Governor going this far, let alone with the help of a legislature willing to change and bend the rules for him.
 
Even though its Wisconsin, a swing state, dems should feel good about keeping that senate seat next year, as republicans are scrambling trying to find anyone even half decent to run against Tammy Baldwin.
 
Redplane said:
The irony is that Ronnie boy should scare just about any people, especially the ones that are against government overreach.
Click to expand...

Republicans have never been about limited government and stopping government overreach, they claim "limited government" when it affects them, but if the government targets people they dont like they are fine with it.

Watch the GOP go straight ahead with a federal ban on abortion if they ever get a trifecta again, despite being the party of "state rights".
 
Morty_ said:
Republicans have never been about limited government and stopping government overreach, they claim "limited government" when it affects them, but if the government targets people they dont like they are fine with it.

Watch the GOP go straight ahead with a federal ban on abortion if they ever get a trifecta again, despite being the party of "state rights".
Click to expand...
Exactly. Rules for thee, not for me. I even notice in the workplace those subscribing to that political model expect the same there. Break the rules for everyone like them, crack the whip on everyone else.
 
People think the GOP are evil and dumb, but i think they are just evil, and rather smart, actually.

See, making life miserable for many in a certain state with abortion laws etc. only leads to those who disagree leaving, the midwestern and rural states are only getting increasingly red, and it doesn't have as much to do with turnout as it has to do with people leaving.

Each state only gets two senators, so even if they are toast at the presidential and house level, they will be able to hold the US government hostage forever with the senate in their hands.

And then, after a couple of election cycles, they will blame current democrats for not things getting done, even though they are the ones blocking it, and they will get the white house back due to the EC.
 
Morty_ said:
People think the GOP are evil and dumb, but i think they are just evil, and rather smart, actually.

See, making life miserable for many in a certain state with abortion laws etc. only leads to those who disagree leaving, the midwestern and rural states are only getting increasingly red, and it doesn't have as much to do with turnout as it has to do with people leaving.

Each state only gets two senators, so even if they are toast at the presidential and house level, they will be able to hold the US government hostage forever with the senate in their hands.
Click to expand...
The control of the Senate is equal since 1980 (22 years v. 22 years). The Senate is not where they have had historical advantages, the House overwhelmingly is (22 years v. 8 years since 1996).
 
Morty_ said:
Each state only gets two senators, so even if they are toast at the presidential and house level, they will be able to hold the US government hostage forever with the senate in their hands.
Click to expand...
Spoiler alert: they won't.
 
calodo2003 said:
The control of the Senate is equal since 1980 (22 years v. 22 years). The Senate is not where they have had historical advantages, the House overwhelmingly is (22 years v. 8 years since 1996).
Click to expand...

Yeah, and dems had the advantage in the house before that again, time changes, the 1980s was a different environment than now.

You can't deny that rural dems are dying out in the senate, it happens election after election, there is only so much Georgia and Arizona can make up for that.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
Spoiler alert: they won't.
Click to expand...

Semi-permanent majority in the senate for GOP is very much a possibility after next year, dems will have few if any seats to pick up in 26 and 28 to make up for probably losing the senate next year.
 
Morty_ said:
Yeah, and dems had the advantage in the house before that again, time changes, the 1980s was a different environment than now.

You can't deny that rural dems are dying out in the senate, it happens election after election, there is only so much Georgia and Arizona can make up for that.
Click to expand...
You seem to doom-monger on the Senate as the fulcrum through which the Repubs will thrive, starting in 2024. The pathway for a hold in the Senate by the Dems isn't as far fetched as it once was. The map in 2026 is then more positive for Dems.

A speculated rural Dem reduction in numbers can be thwarted by the youth & immigrant vote in the coming years.
 
calodo2003 said:
You seem to doom monger on the Senate as the fulcrum through which the Repubs will thrive, starting in 2024. The pathway for a hold in the Senate by the Dems isn't as far fetched as it once was. The map in 2026 is then more positive for Dems.

A speculated rural Dem reduction in numbers can be thwarted by the youth & immigrant vote in the coming years.
Click to expand...

"More positive" says a lot, considering dems have virtually no pickup opportunities in 26 except perhaps one, and they might lose a seat also, so its neutral.

Dooming? No, democrats wins the popular vote by bigger and bigger margin, and gets less and less return for it in the senate, also at the presidential level, but even more so at the senate level.
 
Morty_ said:
"More positive" says a lot, considering dems have virtually no pickup opportunities in 26 except perhaps one, and they might lose a seat also, so its neutral.

Dooming? No, democrats wins the popular vote by bigger and bigger margin, and gets less and less return for it in the senate, also at the presidential level, but even more so at the senate level.
Click to expand...
Go back a calendar year & it was widely surmised that the Senate would go to the Repubs by the political cognoscenti but didn't for a couple of reasons. Nothing is set in stone a year out. Nor three. We have quite possibly entered into a new political epoch in the past year.

It is Dems not running the House which is where damage is truly done imo (mostly through key inactivity & virulence by the Repubs in there). It has been shown that bipartisanship can exist in the Senate.
 
calodo2003 said:
Go back a calendar year & it was widely surmised that the Senate would go to the Repubs by the political cognoscenti but didn't for a couple of reasons. Nothing is set in stone a year out. Nor three. We have quite possibly entered into a new political epoch in the past year.

It is Dems not running the House which is where damage is truly done imo (mostly through key inactivity & virulence by the Repubs in there). It has been shown that bipartisanship can exist in the Senate.
Click to expand...

Meh, i was not surprised at all that dems picked up a senate seat, i expected that, since the map was that good for them, did not care about the nonsense polls that came out in October.

But one seat pick up with a map like that still wasn't good, i was hoping for more.

On the contrary, the senate is where all ills happens, thats where the minority gets to rule over the majority with judges, judges that rule for life like kings, nothing to be done about it.

The senate is a threat to democracy, it must be abolished somehow.
 
Morty_ said:
Meh, i was not surprised at all that dems picked up a senate seat, i expected that, since the map was that good for them, did not care about the nonsense polls that came out in October.

But one seat pick up with a map like that still wasn't good, i was hoping for more.

On the contrary, the senate is where all ills happens, thats where the minority gets to rule over the majority with judges, judges that rule for life like kings, nothing to be done about it.

The senate is a threat to democracy, it must be abolished somehow.
Click to expand...
Don't disagree with the last statement, but the Senate was essential in Biden's leg. accomplishments this term. The House is using Hunter's cock as a photo talking point these days.
 
calodo2003 said:
Don't disagree with the last statement, but the Senate was essential in Biden's leg. accomplishments this term. The House is using Hunter's cock as a photo talking point these days.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and nobody outside their base cares.

Hunter Biden did not work in 2020, nor in 2022, so who cares, they will in all likelihood lose the house next election anyway.
 
Morty_ said:
Yeah, and nobody outside their base cares.

Hunter Biden did not work in 2020, nor in 2022, so who cares, they will in all likelihood lose the house next election anyway.
Click to expand...
It was a comparison between the current iterations of each leg. chamber.

Anyhoo, segues right into this screeching cnut...

 
calodo2003 said:
It was a comparison between the current iterations of each leg. chamber.

Anyhoo, segues right into this screeching cnut...

Click to expand...


I get that.

Anyway, i don't even care about impeachments hearing, there is no scenario where this is positive for the GOP.

Also, Jeanine is an insane person who should be locked up in a mental institution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.