2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins

I was watching Pod Save America tonight and they agreed her weak point would be immigration. However they brought up something I completely forgot. Trump killed the Immigration legislation for the election. She has the perfect rebuttal baked into all their attacks. She can play all of the clips of that GOP congressman whom led the negotiations and flip it back on Trump.

They are going to be stumbling around with "DEI" and "look at a woman laughing" attacks.
 
Revan said:
Thing is, she started the last primaries as the establishment choice (cause Biden was considered too old back then too). And then she was polling below 1% and had to withdraw before the Iowa caucuses. Forget the likes of Klobuchar, Warren etc, but even the likes of Buttigieg (who no one has ever heard before) did far better than her. Then she got the VP job by essentially being a black woman. And now gets the nomination without ever earning it.

For all the GOP are trying to destroy the democracy (which I kind of agree), nominating as president someone who no one in the vote base ever wanted is not a strong argument on 'saving the democracy'. A bit stronger than nominating a demented puppet, but not very very strong.
Click to expand...
Obama picked Biden, who did terribly in the 2008 primaries, as his VP. Would it have been an affront to democracy if Obama had died and Biden became president? I don't think so. Did Biden win in 2020 primaries for any other reason than 'he was Obama's VP'? I don't think so.

That's just how VP works.
 
erikcred said:
But if you say "Just so depressing that neither party can put a human you’d admire up for the presidency" and "By politician I admire I mean one who is ethical and will do what’s best for the country", you seem to imply that Harris is not someone who's ethical and will do what's best for the country, at least in your opinion.

I found it fascinating because it's the whole "both sides are the same" or "all politicians are corrupt" view that greatly benefits actually corrupt politicians while hurting those who you may disagree with or find mind numbingly boring, but are trying to do their best for the country.
Click to expand...
I find it fascinating that you think finding someone uninspiring is the same as equating them to Donald Trump. Maybe you're coming into this with an agenda your looking to fit my comments into?

There's a wide world between these things.

I wish for leaders like MLK, JFK and RFK again. It seemed like them being killed scared anyone from trying to run in a similar vein.

I've not heard that Harris is such a person but if they are I'm happy to look into it.

Obama wasn't that person, he talked anti-war but he wasn't.

Sanders was prevented from winning the nomination by the DNC, perhaps the closest we've gotten though he's done almost nothing in his political life, I hear, as far as bills in Congress.

I would have voted for Sanders.

I'll vote for Harris.

Perhaps politics is just too complicated, and needful of financing, in the US for a modern politicans to actually stand up for the people against the various vested interests, mostly business interests. I won't pretended I've devoted a lot of time to figure out how to fix politics and what happens when an actual amazing human tries to interface with it.
 
Raoul said:
My only issue with Cooper is he can't seem to talk properly. Buttigieg and Newsom do. Cooper sounds a bit old and antiquated, which in addition to his southern accent, may not connect at the national level.

Click to expand...

It’s funny you say that because I’ve always thought that he didn’t sound very southern.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
Obama picked Biden, who did terribly in the 2008 primaries, as his VP. Would it have been an affront to democracy if Obama had died and Biden became president? I don't think so. Did Biden win in 2020 primaries for any other reason than 'he was Obama's VP'? I don't think so.

That's just how VP works.
Click to expand...
But Biden won the primaries (with a lot of support from the establishment). Harris never did, in fact, the one time she tried, she was polling the same as the likes of Williamson or other people no one remembers their name.

VP is not necessarily the successor (outside of that presidency), especially if the P was extremely unpopular. And Biden, despite that I think his presidency has been quite decent, is very unpopular.
 
Last edited:
Bert_ said:
I did. Maybe something has gone over my head but 40k joining a zoom call doesn't seem newsworthy, let alone impressive. Why did the CEO need to get involed? Is he the only one that can increase the limit of people allowed to join?
Click to expand...
A short notice fundraiser / campaign motivator Zoom call set up for 1000 black women unexpectedly hit 40,000 black women and raised around $1.5 million in a few hours. I don’t see why it isn’t newsworthy.

And they contacted the Zoom CEO because she’s the vice president & they needed the Zoom changed from a “call” to a “webinar” set up on the fly to accommodate the numbers.
 
Revan said:
But Biden won the primaries (with a lot of support from the establishment). Harris never did, in fact, the one time she tried, she was polling the same as the likes of Williamson or other people no one remembers their name.

VP is not necessarily the successor (outside of that presidency), especially if the P was extremely unpopular. And Biden, despite that I think his presidency has been quite decent, is very unpopular.
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree with everything you said here. Biden has been a decent president, at least until the end of 2023. The war in Gaza and the deterioration in his health in recent months (plus the higher than usual inflation in 2022-23) have overshadowed that. It’s unfortunate. But elections are also about momentum, and he has not had any momentum in recent months.
 
Revan said:
VP is not necessarily the successor (outside of that presidency), especially if the P was extremely unpopular. And Biden, despite that I think his presidency has been quite decent, is very unpopular.
Click to expand...

Vicepresidents who run in primaries usually win them. Bush, Mondale, Gore, Biden. Exceptions are Pence (who ran against the former president), Quayle (who ran 8 years after being VP).

If there were a primary now Harris would almost certainly win it. For better or worse, being given VP gives you this boost.
 
Revan said:
Call it lack of charisma, call it being not very likeable, call it not being able to relate with people.

Thing is, she started the last primaries as the establishment choice (cause Biden was considered too old back then too). And then she was polling below 1% and had to withdraw before the Iowa caucuses. Forget the likes of Klobuchar, Warren etc, but even the likes of Buttigieg (who no one has ever heard before) did far better than her. Then she got the VP job by essentially being a black woman. And now gets the nomination without ever earning it.

For all the GOP are trying to destroy the democracy (which I kind of agree), nominating as president someone who no one in the vote base ever wanted is not a strong argument on 'saving the democracy'. A bit stronger than nominating a demented puppet, but not very very strong.
Click to expand...
This isn't really true? Biden was the frontrunner from the start, Harris didn't really have any major backers outside of California.
 
Ubik said:
This isn't really true? Biden was the frontrunner from the start, Harris didn't really have any major backers outside of California.
Click to expand...
Probably, you might be right. I remember people having Biden or Harris as the establishment choice, with Warren and Bernie from the left wing of the party (albeit Warren was not as left as Bernie). Biden obviously had the name recognition being the VP or a very popular president but he was old, and he was Joe Biden, which had many people doubt him. Remember Harris starting attacking him in one of the debates, to suddenly get attacked by Tulsi and essentially that was game over for her.

Been a long time, but I do not think Biden was the party's designated choice (like Clinton was in 2016). He became the choice only when Harris had to leave, Bloomberg was clear that cannot win, and Bernie was looking to get the nomination. Then there was the coordinated attack where everyone else left the primaries (except Warren, whom if had left would have given an advantage to Bernie) and endorsed Biden, essentially giving him the nomination. My memory might be wrong but I think Biden became the choice more to stop Bernie rather than the party really wanting him.
 
I still cant get over a fact a past US president and a nominee for another term is writing posts like he's a 8 year old.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
How is this guy still a nominee of a major party for president of the United States? How?! What a failure by this country.
Click to expand...
It's a failure of US society, a failure of democracy and, what's worse, a model that many right wing parties in many countries are now following.
 
lsd said:
How come so many people including black people believe this nonsense Tulsi Gabbad babe out with about Kamala jailing 1500 black men for slimming weed and laughing about it.

I've seen so many people saying they won't vote for her because of this even though it's been proven not to be the case and the fact it was Tulsi Gabbsrd who said it in the first place should have been enough of a sign it was false
Click to expand...

This did not come from Tulsi Gabbard, this was information she circulated that I'm assuming first originated from what Josh Dubin talked about on JRE.

Do we know if this is incorrect? From what I remember, Dubin mentioned specify cases of wrongful conviction where the DA's office according to him tried to squash evidence that would have exonerated prisoners.
 
I cant imagine a more depressing job than being Trumps campaign manager.
 
You’d have to take some comfort in how badly Trump and Republicans in general are taking Biden’s withdrawal.


They will have their own data and you’d have to presume that it’s shaken Trump. They seemed to have counted their chickens when hiring Vance, I saw commentary on Vance and basically saying that he’s been hired because he will do all the illegal and unconventional things that Pence wouldn’t do. He’s got no purpose in terms of the election itself so it wouldn’t be a surprise if he’s replaced before November. His entire purpose was to facilitate Trump’s worst actions and a lot of that will be how he protects himself personally from the legal trouble he is in and how he plots his revenge against those that he sees as responsible for it.


Harris definitely isn’t an exciting candidate but then neither was Biden. You would hope that ultimately on November now the panic of a senile candidate is over, there will be enough willing to vote against Trump and see Harris as a safe pair of hands of four years before the next election which should be the first in a post-Trump era.
 
I mean, it's good Biden isn't going for re election and all, but the outcome is still pretty sad for democracy.

One party sticks to their default candidate for a third straight election.

The other party will effectively skip a proper nomination process and go with the VP by default. On the back of an election where a former VP beat the encumbent president and the election before that, the Democrats literally rigged their own nomination to give it to the wife of a former president.

Hard to imagine a democracy being more rigged than this before we call it all a downright sham.
 
ManUtd1999 said:
How is this guy still a nominee of a major party for president of the United States? How?! What a failure by this country.
Click to expand...
Because he presents himself in terms that large swathes of the country, understand, even if they don't really believe. He grunts and groans and throws vocal grenades/tirades, that many people think are near the mark, but many others think, 'this guy is telling the truth'. He has a 'bad boy' history, which would hurt others but not Trump, he wallows in it. He appeals to people who for years have felt they have been lied to, played, used and abused by others... Who precisely, they are not quite sure of...so Trump helpfully points them in the right direction?

The fact is that truth has been lost in recent decades in all aspects of life, not just politics, nobody, well very few nowadays, trust any body's truth... but their own. In the words of a famous 'boyzone' song ..."no matter what they tell us, no matter they say.... what we believe is true".

Trumps big hit was his declaration about "Fake News", this had resonance well beyond the GoP, indeed well beyond the shores of the US; bias, prejudice, misinformation, misdirection, in some case out right lies, were being uncovered/recognised (seemingly) all over; never before had the saying about 'lies spreading around the world before truth got its pants on' had more relevance and he was the archspreader. In many cases, Trump's 'play-book' became like that of many of the (so called) 'free- press' had been putting out for a while, stories that maybe contained a grain of truth, but were for the most part encased in hyperbole, disinformation etc. The 24/7 news cycle had arrived, we didn't have 'new readers' anymore but 'news editors' abounded.... Trump latched on to this, quicker than most.

However its not only in the US. Farage/REFORM in the UK has gained a foothold in the 'mother of parliaments'. If the new PM Keir Starmer puts a foot wrong he will be hounded by Farage, even though Starmer has a large majority, there are elements in his party which may well rebel at times and Farage will be on hand to 'stir the pot'. Expect much from Farage that is the same as his hero Trump, use the truth sparingly, but always ensure it speaks to whatever it is he wants to say, or whatever point he wants the public, outside of parliament, to hear on the news headlines..
 
Last edited:
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...

Here she is, at the border...

merlin_189876933_149377e0-db7e-4acf-a0f9-5588fd79f1d3-superJumbo.jpg


"pole" numbers? Young man?

What in the world?
 
B20 said:
I mean, it's good Biden isn't going for re election and all, but the outcome is still pretty sad for democracy.

One party sticks to their default candidate for a third straight election.

The other party will effectively skip a proper nomination process and go with the VP by default. On the back of an election where a former VP beat the encumbent president and the election before that, the Democrats literally rigged their own nomination to give it to the wife of a former president.

Hard to imagine a democracy being more rigged than this before we call it all a downright sham.
Click to expand...

Its more so due to Biden's stubbornness to think that despite his age and diminishing cognitive abilities, that he would have the ability to beat Trump again. The rush to nominate Harris was simply a time issue that developed overnight in the absence of any others interested in challenging her.
 
Brwned said:
That’s just a very selective reading of things. Biden is not charismatic - not in the same league as the two other examples mentioned, Trump and Obama - yet he won. If you look at the leaders around the world, you’ll find some completely lacking in charisma now like Starmer, just like you’ve found throughout history. Reagan is very memorable, but his VP wasn’t. George Bush went on to be president anyway. Same for Obama and Biden. And George Bush wasn’t charismatic like Obama, much like Reagan’s predecessor Jimmy Carter.

What’s really being said here is that Trump is not an exception, but is now the new norm. That argument was plausible before Biden beat him. The reality is that despite the fact that Biden was a historically unpopular president in obvious mental decline, he was within touching distance of Trump. That’s with him having negative charisma at this point. The bar to beat Trump isn’t that high, charisma is not remotely essential. It would just make people like voting for the candidate more, it wouldn’t stop them from voting for them. That was true of Biden 4 years ago.
Click to expand...
I mean, it's a simplification lacking nuance for sure, but not selective reading. You're literally doing the same above.

You talk about Starmer being elected despite lacking charisma. But you omit that he was up against another politician completely lacking in charisma, in Sunak. It was a competition between uncharismatic leaders to begin with. While Sunak also had the burden of 13 years of Tory rule, where services and standards in this country have all but collapsed while corruption increased, on his shoulders. He didn't have a clean slate like Starmer. Additionally, Sunak and the Tories were flanked on the right by Britain's version of Trump (a charismatic politician but otherwise contemptible human being) in Farage. And all those reasons were why the polls consistently predicted a Labour landslide for months ahead of the elections.

None of that context applies to the US election and there's basically no analogy to be made here between Starmer vs Sunak and Harris vs Trump. The latter is a close contest in a 2-party presidential system and the leader's charisma will play far more of a part than the UK elections.

Biden winning in 2020 is indeed a better example. Again charisma is very important but not everything. Trump administration had just come out of 4 years in government, where not only was he a very polarising leader but he was also burdened by the COVID crisis and his administration's response to it. A lot of voters are fickle/thick and attribute to an administration everything that happens during its term, regardless of whether its within its control or not. And despite that he only narrowly lost to Biden (51.3% vs 46.8%). But now the current admin (of which Kamala is a part of as VP) is burdened by the effects of inflation and high interest rates in the post-COVID and war-in-Ukraine world. And she's not even as popular as Biden was in 2020, never mind Trump.
 
gaffs said:
Here she is, at the border...

merlin_189876933_149377e0-db7e-4acf-a0f9-5588fd79f1d3-superJumbo.jpg


"pole" numbers? Young man?

What in the world?
Click to expand...

It's Trump. He is an imbecile who happily boasts that he has never read a book. He is without doubt the thickest and most ill-informed President in history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.