2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins

Conversely, it underscores the absurdity of getting excited about voting for someone when you don’t know what their policies are, all because they’re not Trump.
The current frenzy surrounding her has quite a unique but also disconcerting feeling, and shows the desperation that reigned in the Democratic camp until Biden was pushed out. Now everybody just wants to believe, no questions asked.

Under normal circumstances no one would've paid her any attention, let alone chosen her as a presidential candidate and she'd have disappeared into political nothingness. Now she's a quasi Messiah.

From an outsider point of view, this whole convention is nothing short of a circus I'll never understand.
 
Really believe some people had made their mind up on Harris before any of this kicked off, and nothing will change that until she is (hopefully) a really good President.
I'm sure you can find posts on here from me that bemoaned her as an option because she polled worse than Biden, and had largely been notable by her absence in the past 4 years.

I'm happy to acknowledge that at the very least I was wrong about her ability to put together a campaign (at historically short notice), find a message, stick to that message, deliver excellent speeches consistently and most importantly bring together all of the factions (except the obvious) of the democratic party in a way that is extremely encouraging.

Is she the most qualified candidate most likely to be best placed to beat Trump? I don't know. I wouldn't have thought so and again as the record probably shows would have preferred Whitmer or Newsom.

But ignoring her achievements and capability over the course of the last month just reeks of refusing to admit you might have been wrong. I was. It's okay.

Maybe the enthusiasum wanes and she narrowly loses a few key states and we all look back and blame her. But nothing I've seen in the last month suggests that.
 
Kamala Harris's acceptance speech tonight was fantastic. She has risen to the occasion. She is the antidote to Trump's toxicity. Every night of the DNC has featured brilliant speeches and messages of unity and hope and moving forward, leaving these shitty Trump years forever behind us.

It will be fun to read the new polls. The thing to keep in mind about polls is not what they say at the moment (e.g., Harris is +4 in NV) but how the polls move. Whatever the flawed methodology is used by pollsters with bad reputations, as along as they are consistent in their flawed methodology, the shifts in their numbers are relevant, whereas the snapshot is not. So, for instance, Rasmussen might be saying Trump was up by +5 last week, and this week he's +2. The value to take away is he's down 3 points. It matters less that Rasmussen says Trump is up +2 and NYT says Harris is up +4 in the same state, and matters more that in 3 or 4 polls Harris up +16 and Trump is down 9 (I am just throwing out placeholder numbers here).

The pollsters with better reputations provide a better snapshot, but there are so many shoddy pollsters out there that it makes it more difficult to gauge voters' opinions rather than less, with each subsequent poll unless you chart the trends. That said, Harris is trending upwards and outperforming expectations, shoring up traditional Democratic support that was thought to eroding, and winning the majority of "independents".

Harris also raised 4X the amount Trump raised in the last cycle. It's not in the bag, but it's looking very, very good for Harris.
 
Is it me or does polling seem to be a bit all of the place? With the added uncertainty of 3rd party candidates (JFK Jr. in particular), it is really difficult to draw any conclusions, other than it was a good thing Biden dropped out.

I also see a lot of headlines like "J.D. Vance is the most unpopular human in the history of the planet", but does it really matter all that much? It's a missed opportunity for Trump, but I don't see Vance actively dragging him down, when it comes to the actual votes.

The polls are all over the place. But, wow. That’s just amazing.
It's because polls are like footballers, but some are Bebe and others are Berbatov. The time, money, effort, and methodology of how polls are conducted greatly influences their outcome, and there are hundreds of polls being cited with wildly different quality.

She won’t because as powerful as she is, politics is real power and she’s not going to alienate a significant percentage of her fanbase who are Republican or Trump supporters or who’s family members are.
People said that she would never support LGBTQ because it would alienate her base - and then she came out with full throated support. She left that neutrality behind in 2019 with the "Lover" album. Swift endorsed Biden-Harris in 2020, so why wouldn't she support Harris solo in 2024? Quote:

The change we need most is to elect a president who recognizes that people of color deserve to feel safe and represented, that women deserve the right to choose what happens to their bodies, and that the LGBTQIA+ community deserves to be acknowledged and included. Everyone deserves a government that takes global health risks seriously and puts the lives of its people first. The only way we can begin to make things better is to choose leaders who are willing to face these issues and find ways to work through them.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/taylor-swift-endorse-kamala-harris.html
 
I said nothing about the vibes, substance of the speech is the same, personal story + women’s right + USA character as a country/Trump attacks + hawkish foreign policy.

And it’s kinda funny that the ‘special guest’ turned out to be a nothingburger, and a Palestinian Democrat still didn’t get to speak over Leon Panetta.
I think you should review Panetta's resume before dismissing him like that. Congressmen for 16 years, director of the Office of Management and Budget, Secretary of Defense, White House Chief of Staff, Director of the CIA. He was there to add gravitas but to also remind people that the Democrats got Bin Laden, not the Republicans.

As to the Palestinian Democrat, they were most likely denied a speaking role because the past several days of negotiating were fruitless. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators tried to disrupt and embarrass the nominating convention, and a couple times tried to stage "protests" from the convention floor itself - all after very publicly vowing to not support "Killer Kamala" and claiming "Genocide Joe" will live in infamy. In short, they were not to be trusted, they overplayed their hand, and the theme was of unity and thanking the selflessness of Biden in stepping down for the good of the country - all themes that could very easily and very embarrassingly and disastrously been destroyed by a live microphone and an agenda.

That said, Gaza was mentioned several times over the convention and it was made abundantly clear that the Democrats want the war to end, acknowledging the suffering and tragedy, but also demanding the hostages are returned - while reiterating that we will stand by our allies and face up to Iran et al. I think it was the middle way
 
His complete inability to make small talk is quite fascinating. It's almost relatable to me.

"So, how long have you worked here?"
"And how long have you worked here?"
"How long has this place been here?"

:lol:
It's so painful to watch. Guy has no charisma.
 
His complete inability to make small talk is quite fascinating. It's almost relatable to me.

"So, how long have you worked here?"
"And how long have you worked here?"
"How long has this place been here?"

:lol:
I'm astounded by how of an absolute disaster he's revealing himself to be.
 
I think you should review Panetta's resume before dismissing him like that. Congressmen for 16 years, director of the Office of Management and Budget, Secretary of Defense, White House Chief of Staff, Director of the CIA. He was there to add gravitas but to also remind people that the Democrats got Bin Laden, not the Republicans.

As to the Palestinian Democrat, they were most likely denied a speaking role because the past several days of negotiating were fruitless. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators tried to disrupt and embarrass the nominating convention, and a couple times tried to stage "protests" from the convention floor itself - all after very publicly vowing to not support "Killer Kamala" and claiming "Genocide Joe" will live in infamy. In short, they were not to be trusted, they overplayed their hand, and the theme was of unity and thanking the selflessness of Biden in stepping down for the good of the country - all themes that could very easily and very embarrassingly and disastrously been destroyed by a live microphone and an agenda.

That said, Gaza was mentioned several times over the convention and it was made abundantly clear that the Democrats want the war to end, acknowledging the suffering and tragedy, but also demanding the hostages are returned - while reiterating that we will stand by our allies and face up to Iran et al. I think it was the middle way
I know who Panetta is, the issue here is his speech and appearance only appeal to a very specific demographic, the beltway foreign policy makers and adjacent military/civil servants in that circle, Clinton carted a parade of generals and foreign policy experts on stage in 2016 and it did nothing to her cause.

Palestinian Democrats, on the other hand, is a real issue right now for the party. The bulk of the resistance were alleviated with Biden gone, but those flames were fanned again the past couple of days in those circles. When you have Kyle Kulinski criticising the hawkish content of her speech, and Hasan Piker being ejected live to 60k people after criticising the move to not include a Palestinian speaker, someone vetted and vouched for by your own state Congressman like Frost, it’s a problem. Her team might have made the calculation that Jews are the more important part of her calculation, we will see, but not throwing this bone to the Uncommitteds in this particular manner will have ramifications.
 
I watched the speech just now. I thought it was a certainly well written speech. I thought she delivered it well - but not great. She just doesn’t have that “it” factor when she speaks. By no means bad, still very good, though.
 
I know who Panetta is, the issue here is his speech and appearance only appeal to a very specific demographic, the beltway foreign policy makers and adjacent military/civil servants in that circle, Clinton carted a parade of generals and foreign policy experts on stage in 2016 and it did nothing to her cause.

Palestinian Democrats, on the other hand, is a real issue right now for the party. The bulk of the resistance were alleviated with Biden gone, but those flames were fanned again the past couple of days in those circles. When you have Kyle Kulinski criticising the hawkish content of her speech, and Hasan Piker being ejected live to 60k people after criticising the move to not include a Palestinian speaker, someone vetted and vouched for by your own state Congressman like Frost, it’s a problem. Her team might have made the calculation that Jews are the more important part of her calculation, we will see, but not throwing this bone to the Uncommitteds in this particular manner will have ramifications.
I don't see it that way at all. I don't know what your level of familiarity is with American politics and elections, seeing as you're in Melbourne, but the party decides which planks go into their official platform. This is done after a bunch of negotiating and horse trading. The point of the convention is to present a unified front with the goal of attracting as many voters as possible. The way Gaza was handled at the convention appeals to the most voters as it is in line with their views. On a recent survey of issues most important to Democratic voters, Gaza didn't make the top 10.

I think people who are not American (don't know if you are) misunderstand the relationship between Israel and America, because it is very different from Israel's relationships with European countries. WWII was a war of choice for us, while it was existential for Europe, and we chose to fight due in no small part to the plan to exterminate the Jewish people. There are more Jews and people of Jewish descent in the USA than anywhere except Israel.

Add to that the evangelical streak running through America that is part of the same Judeo-Christian framework, and it's a unique and strong bond. I don't see that ever changing, and no one with Presidential ambitions will ever go on national TV and denounce Israel or make it appear we are abandoning Israel. That is not the same as reigning in Israel's actions and calling its leaders to task, which does happen all the time, but where that's not going to happen is at the DNC.
 
I don't see it that way at all. I don't know what your level of familiarity is with American politics and elections, seeing as you're in Melbourne, but the party decides which planks go into their official platform. This is done after a bunch of negotiating and horse trading. The point of the convention is to present a unified front with the goal of attracting as many voters as possible. The way Gaza was handled at the convention appeals to the most voters as it is in line with their views. On a recent survey of issues most important to Democratic voters, Gaza didn't make the top 10.

I think people who are not American (don't know if you are) misunderstand the relationship between Israel and America, because it is very different from Israel's relationships with European countries. WWII was a war of choice for us, while it was existential for Europe, and we chose to fight due in no small part to the plan to exterminate the Jewish people. There are more Jews and people of Jewish descent in the USA than anywhere except Israel.

Add to that the evangelical streak running through America that is part of the same Judeo-Christian framework, and it's a unique and strong bond. I don't see that ever changing, and no one with Presidential ambitions will ever go on national TV and denounce Israel or make it appear we are abandoning Israel. That is not the same as reigning in Israel's actions and calling its leaders to task, which does happen all the time, but where that's not going to happen is at the DNC.
This is a post of mine a couple of days ago

There’s no trust between both sides, and the DNC is pageantry, they aren’t risking the chance of whoever the speaker is going off script and refer to the event in Gaza as a genocide.

Realistically speaking, the legs of the movement were swept out from under them the moment Biden left the race. The reaction I’ve seen online is pretty much favourable to Harris in a ‘vote-and-see’ kind of way, so you aren’t in a position to bargain if you have no leverage. Lamentable as it is, the Uncommitted cause just doesn’t have the disruptive potential of PUMA, and to lesser extent, Bernie or Bust.
I get the point of convention, I know how your political process work. I have participated in US political discussion on this site since 2015 and savvy enough about it to make a pretty penny out of it in 2020. And, with the caveat that I’m not too old to not participate in online culture, I can say that the reaction to this little snub has been universally negative for people that have enthusiastically turned to Harris since the drop out. Is it enough to turn them off voting for her in November? Probably not, and her team is banking on it, but that chance went down when you’ve shown that you have nothing but contempt for them that even a minimal demand is not met. Paying lip service about a ceasefire rings hollow when you are refusing them a platform with a vetted speech. Nobody is naive enough to think the US will alter its relationship with Israel, most people who are calling for an arms embargo probably know deep down it’s not gonna happen and they only hope to negotiate down from that, but when you dont afford them even the courtesy of pretending to care, it only emboldens the more extreme elements in the movement, those who are more interested in critiquing power than having it, and have no qualms about pulling you down to share in that fate.
 
Just now catching Kamala's speech. She put no wrong foot forward, not a great sspeech but very, very good.

It will be interesting to see what the convention bump will be.
 
I don't see it that way at all. I don't know what your level of familiarity is with American politics and elections, seeing as you're in Melbourne, but the party decides which planks go into their official platform. This is done after a bunch of negotiating and horse trading. The point of the convention is to present a unified front with the goal of attracting as many voters as possible. The way Gaza was handled at the convention appeals to the most voters as it is in line with their views. On a recent survey of issues most important to Democratic voters, Gaza didn't make the top 10.

I think people who are not American (don't know if you are) misunderstand the relationship between Israel and America, because it is very different from Israel's relationships with European countries. WWII was a war of choice for us, while it was existential for Europe, and we chose to fight due in no small part to the plan to exterminate the Jewish people. There are more Jews and people of Jewish descent in the USA than anywhere except Israel.

Add to that the evangelical streak running through America that is part of the same Judeo-Christian framework, and it's a unique and strong bond. I don't see that ever changing, and no one with Presidential ambitions will ever go on national TV and denounce Israel or make it appear we are abandoning Israel. That is not the same as reigning in Israel's actions and calling its leaders to task, which does happen all the time, but where that's not going to happen is at the DNC.
I think generally this is correct, but I can't believe how much it has (rightly) been eroded in the past year. I went to a really Jewish university (American Jews) and so loads of my best friends have really built their lives around their religion. Tbh, I always found the solidarity and community of how tight the Jewish community was to be inspiring and impressive as a devout atheist. Anyway, to a man and woman they're disgusted by what Netanyahu has perpetrated, and it has really challenged their lifetime beliefs. Almost all did the birthright trip, and many have travelled many times back to Israel. There's a massive reverance that I saw towards Israel. But that's been hugely eroded. They're also terrified of what this means for the future, given several were in Israel in the early 00s and lived with the threat of bombings everyday.

Point being: I really think that Biden/Harris can end weapons sales (certainly all offensive ones) and not feel any blow back. These people are 40s/50s now, we're not young, but all support ending this massacre.

The evangelicals are by definition crazy. There's no point in having a discussion with anyone who is naive enough to believe a word of that insanity.
 

Democrats signal voting rights bills will top the agenda if Harris wins


Desperately needed imo. I hope she mentions this in her remarks. A lot of other initiatives get stalled or killed because of state strangleholds. Will be difficult since Dems will have to have full control for this but worth it.

That's great news, I hope they're successful. There's still the two party system, the life long election of Supreme Court judges, the electoral college, etc. but if they can at least change that, it could already be a huge blow for the GOP's future chances. I mean, it's becoming more and more obvious that Trump in reality was a very weak candidate. If he loses the election, he's likely finished and will leave the Republicans in a complete mess. Dealing with that and losing some edge they had thanks to gerrymandering and voter suppression could provide the Democrats with some much needed continuity.
 
That's great news, I hope they're successful. There's still the two party system, the life long election of Supreme Court judges, the electoral college, etc. but if they can at least change that, it could already be a huge blow for the GOP's future chances. I mean, it's becoming more and more obvious that Trump in reality was a very weak candidate. If he loses the election, he's likely finished and will leave the Republicans in a complete mess. Dealing with that and losing some edge they had thanks to gerrymandering and voter suppression could provide the Democrats with some much needed continuity.
Back in 2020

What Biden pledged: “One thing the Senate and the president can do right away is pass the bill to restore the Voting Rights Act. … If they don’t, I’ve been saying all along, it’s one of the first things I’ll do as president if elected. We can’t let the fundamental right to vote be denied.”

What he’s done: Biden’s attempts to muster momentum for legislation strengthening voting rights fell flat, even after he backed abolishing the filibuster to pass it. The president later signed the Electoral Count Act, which clarified the counting and certification process for electoral votes, but the administration has made little major headway on an issue that Biden made a central element of his 2020 campaign.

Judging by Biden’s reelection announcement video, voting rights will play a prominent role in his 2024 run as well. But there’s little apparent ability to do much in the interim that would help make good on his initial pledge.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/26/biden-2020-campaign-promises-report-card-00093779

Back in 2015 -

Barack Obama has once again called on Congress to restore the Voting Rights Act and make it easier for Americans to vote, in a letter to the New York Times Magazine.

The letter comes more than a week after he marked the 50th anniversary of the 1965 act by asking Congress to pass new, broader legislation to address recent efforts to impede Americans’ voting rights. “I am where I am today only because men and women like Rosanell Eaton refused to accept anything less than a full measure of equality. Their efforts made our country a better place,” Obama wrote in Wednesday’s letter.

“It is now up to us to continue those efforts. Congress must restore the Voting Rights Act. Our state leaders and legislatures must make it easier – not harder – for more Americans to have their voices heard. Above all, we must exercise our right as citizens to vote, for the truth is that too often we disenfranchise ourselves.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/12/voting-rights-act-barack-obama-congress
The democrats always run on this.
 
Do we need to hear from him? He's not really the future anymore, unless the election goes tits up, and nor is he a beloved party leader like Pelosi/Clintons/Obamas that the type of folk who attend the DNC apparently love to hear from.
How so?
 
That's great news, I hope they're successful. There's still the two party system, the life long election of Supreme Court judges, the electoral college, etc. but if they can at least change that, it could already be a huge blow for the GOP's future chances. I mean, it's becoming more and more obvious that Trump in reality was a very weak candidate. If he loses the election, he's likely finished and will leave the Republicans in a complete mess. Dealing with that and losing some edge they had thanks to gerrymandering and voter suppression could provide the Democrats with some much needed continuity.
People say it will kill the republican party and secure democratic power for decades. I think it is far more likely that, over time, republicans will realise there is no power left in pandering to the extreme right wing and they will need to go back to some form of late 20th century conservatism and focus on actual governance again to win back the middle. Fox News might even realise it too.
 
People say it will kill the republican party and secure democratic power for decades. I think it is far more likely that, over time, republicans will realise there is no power left in pandering to the extreme right wing and they will need to go back to some form of late 20th century conservatism and focus on actual governance again to win back the middle. Fox News might even realise it too.

Yes, I expect that, too. But I don't think this transition will be an easy one. They indoctrined a significant part of their voter base and personally I think the whole MAGA crowds are conditioned in a way that it will be difficult to mobilize them with "traditional" campaigns - even less so when the opportunists will continue telling those people what they want to hear because they smell the chance to take Trump's place. On the other hand, continuing what Trump started might turn out to not be suitable to gain a majority. The Republicans maneuvered themselves into this dilemma and I think even if they draw the right conclusions from it, it will take a long while until they have sorted this out.

Plus, even if they manage to stay relevant by abandoning these ultra right wing positions, it means that they are far less dangerous than right now. I definitely prefer somebody like Bush in the oval office to a lunatic and ticking timebomb like Trump.
 
I definitely prefer somebody like Bush in the oval office to a lunatic and ticking timebomb like Trump.

Sort of? He did start a couple of wars that ended up directly or indirectly killing a few million people. Trump has done less damage, at least right up until the moment he goes full crypto-fascist. If he's left with one term, Bush was the worse president (in the "did the most bad" sense, not the least competent sense). If Trump gets a second term...
 
I think you should review Panetta's resume before dismissing him like that. Congressmen for 16 years, director of the Office of Management and Budget, Secretary of Defense, White House Chief of Staff, Director of the CIA. He was there to add gravitas but to also remind people that the Democrats got Bin Laden, not the Republicans.

As to the Palestinian Democrat, they were most likely denied a speaking role because the past several days of negotiating were fruitless. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators tried to disrupt and embarrass the nominating convention, and a couple times tried to stage "protests" from the convention floor itself - all after very publicly vowing to not support "Killer Kamala" and claiming "Genocide Joe" will live in infamy. In short, they were not to be trusted, they overplayed their hand, and the theme was of unity and thanking the selflessness of Biden in stepping down for the good of the country - all themes that could very easily and very embarrassingly and disastrously been destroyed by a live microphone and an agenda.

That said, Gaza was mentioned several times over the convention and it was made abundantly clear that the Democrats want the war to end, acknowledging the suffering and tragedy, but also demanding the hostages are returned - while reiterating that we will stand by our allies and face up to Iran et al. I think it was the middle way
if anyone had any doubts about the democrat supporters lack of empathy for palestinian suffering....
 
Really believe some people had made their mind up on Harris before any of this kicked off, and nothing will change that until she is (hopefully) a really good President.
I'm sure you can find posts on here from me that bemoaned her as an option because she polled worse than Biden, and had largely been notable by her absence in the past 4 years.

I'm happy to acknowledge that at the very least I was wrong about her ability to put together a campaign (at historically short notice), find a message, stick to that message, deliver excellent speeches consistently and most importantly bring together all of the factions (except the obvious) of the democratic party in a way that is extremely encouraging.

Is she the most qualified candidate most likely to be best placed to beat Trump? I don't know. I wouldn't have thought so and again as the record probably shows would have preferred Whitmer or Newsom.

But ignoring her achievements and capability over the course of the last month just reeks of refusing to admit you might have been wrong. I was. It's okay.

Maybe the enthusiasum wanes and she narrowly loses a few key states and we all look back and blame her. But nothing I've seen in the last month suggests that.

Totally agree. For whatever reason, she was pushed aside under Biden. I think we all thought that it would be more of a partnership, where he handed over the reigns to her, but it didnt seem to happen in that way. Certainly not in the first couple of years. Some snippets seem to be coming out to suggest she has been more active in the last year - maybe that is because of Bidens decline?

I always thought that those polls that suggested she was unpopular always tallied with Bidens favorability. She just had to get out from under him.

I think the big difference with her now and in her run in 2020, was she was running to the left in 2020 and I don't think it quite fit with her bio and who she is. She seems more at home being a centrist Democrat - the prosecutor who fights for the middle class, for unions and for social issues. She showed a lot of foreign policy knowledge too.

I think she is best placed to build the coalition to beat Trump. She is the only one that could take him on in GA, NV, AZ, while also being able to hold the blue wall.