He looks like a president. He would be my pick for nominee if he wasn't from California. He's gonna get branded the socialist crazy liberal agenda if runs for president
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
He looks like a president. He would be my pick for nominee if he wasn't from California. He's gonna get branded the socialist crazy liberal agenda if runs for president
It's not so much about ending the filibuster itself, it's what they do with it.
Let the leopard start eating voters' faces, see how they like it. I think unironically the guardrails that existed in Trump's 1st term made his reelection possible. If he had been allowed to use the military on the populace during the BLM protests, or deport illegal immigrants to the extent he wished instead of just family separation, he might have been taken seriously, instead of the 'he's just bluffing' common refrain.
I think the primary attack from the right will be "look at California", but that's not likely to stick since there are plenty of places (like Florida under DeSantis) where crime and the cost of living are up. Also, if he runs in 28, he will be able to run against the Trump record, but not Trump himself. I think he would have a very good shot of beating Vance.
While it is something that would definitely eliminate him from being a candidate in most parties and among most voters, I actually think that it works in his favor among some of his constituency.
Trump potentially increased his vote total from last election, there is nothing he can do to lose supporters, a lot of blowback on social media, little blowback in the real world, even if they ended ACA, and banned abortion rights nationwide.
Vance will be a very strong candidate. He retains almost all of Trump's insanity while also possibly appealing to more balanced voters. He won't lose many of Trump's voters and could claim some of those who hadn't voted for him. Too early to say.
He hasn't, he lost about a million I think. Still insane.
Dems do need to govern better in the marquee states and cities, but they also need to somehow improve the public perception of how things are in those states and cities! The things I hear people say about NYC (just to cite one) are often far worse than the stats and my lived reality (ok, try not to rely too much on that). There needs to be an improvement in real governance, but there needs to be an even greater improvement in perception somehow.
I don't think they are done counting yet, so it could well surpass it, i think, we will see.
Understood and thank you.
But is that really what Trump had promised. Because all of that seems like a really tall order. Especially the drugs issue.
He won't have Trump's pull on voters which is entirely unique to Trump. Also, we still really don't know what Vance actually believes. He went from likening Trump to Hitler in 2016 to being his VP.
Sounds like he likes Hitler?
My friend has a first-gen immigrant uncle who is a retired(?) business prof in the St Louis suburbs. This guy refuses to visit NYC because "he will be stabbed".
He increased his vote total and lost in 2020! There were enough people who were repulsed by what he did in power to defeat him, and in 2018 after the failed ACA repeal attempt Dems won back the House.
10 million votes for Biden sat out of this election, and probably a sizeable chunk moved to Trump, most of them will be worst affected by his proposed policies. It's grim that you will have to pick up the pieces in the future, but trying to limit the damage has inherently not worked out. Their supporters were shielded from the worst and now fondly remember that term. Let them cut social security, let them cut medicare, let them cut medicaid, let them end the FDA, let them get polio reintroduced in the population by removing vaccine requirement. It's cruel and grim and heartless, but those union guys and latino men in low paying jobs won't never see Trump and the Republicans for what they are unless they see their livelihood taken away, without Democrats involved.
Do The Dems consider a Hispanic on the ticket in 2028? Cortez Masto or Ruben Gallego maybe as a VP? Being able to go onto Telemundo and speaking Spanish would be huge.
And not Bob Menendez, before someone say it!!!
And not Bob Menendez, before someone say it!!!
Nah. He's being kind to these voters. Biden prioritized working class voters and they still went back to Trump. He saved the Teamstars pension. He backed unions in union fights. He has invested billions and billions of dollars to bring back manufacturing which most of it went to red states. This was cultural. Dems have bent backwards for white working class voters for no return
Just look at the power structure of the Dem party apparatus - its largely a consortium of women and African-Americans. Latinos are underrepresented, which means we are not likely to see a Latino ticket. Republicans, by way of Cruz and Rubio's 2016 campaigns, are actually further along in this regard. Also, Cortez-Masto is half Italian.
It's nuts. Aren't St Louis suburbs statistically one of the worst areas of the country in terms of crime?
I'd like them to. But lesson from Harris/Clinton is stay from identity when nominating for president. Sole consideration for anyone on president or VP ticket is can this person win the battleground states particularly the blue wall. Whoever is VP essentially gets to become the next nominee so they have to be chosen with the consideration if they are viable in the battleground. I think Cortez would face simiilar challenges as Harris//Clinton. Ruben I don't have a feel for. He's more progressive but Kari Lake was such a horrible candidate that it didnt matter. I dont know how he would fare against a competent candidate
I'm loving the resurgence of The Onion.
I was really surprised to see turnout drop by around 15mil, but I think that goes to show how the issues of 2024 are very different to 2020. I feel that Dems were not as motivated to get out there this year because the issue set did not impact them as much. Yes, abortion was a big driver. But are college educated men, for example, all that impacted by the economy right now? I fall into that demographic and the economy is great for me. The economy is not great for many and I feel those people turned out for Trump.
In 2020, Trump's record low approval, COVID and Racial Justice drove voters to vote in record numbers.
Dems won't touch a minority female VP for another generation, even Whitmer might find it hard getting on any potential ticket as VP.
Just stop worrying about the identity thing, run the most macho WASPy ticket possible, or maybe a black man like Wes Moore at a push.
The guy has zero public speaking charisma though.
Agree. But picking someone who can win the blue wall, is also a type of identity politics in itself.
I don't think the VP "essentially gets to become the next nominee". They have to go though the primary process when the times comes. This year was an exception because of the timeline and hopefully the lesson was learned when anointing Clinton.
I think the Harris's sex was way down the list of issues with her and the current situation.
Hard disagree. Vance's best achievement in this election cycle was getting out of the way. He's awkward and doesn't have the juice.
My guess is, that he's not going to be the candidate in 2028.
I fear you're very much underestimating the level of misogyny in America.
Our country just happily elected an admitted abuser of women, for the second time. We've got pregnant women dying in Texas because doctors won't abort the dead babies causing the mothers to go septic.
We had grown men legitimately arguing that we couldn't trust a woman who is 60 years old because 'what if she flips out during her time of the month.'
Am I contending that her gender was the foremost reason for her loss? No. Was it a factor for many voters? I have no doubt.
I've cut down your post to the things that I think we can have a better discussion on.
I think there is a lot more nuance in whether a candidate is chosen for the diverse expreinces, perspectives, etc. that they bring. There are two main ways that "diversity" candidates are considered:
- Someone is chosen because of their identity, and that alone. Disregard all other attributes/qualities associated with the identity.
- Someone is chosen because of their identity, because that bring with it qualities that are associated with the identity.
You would certainly know more about crime than me. I live in the PNW, so there's crime here too but a different scale to in SoCal. I don't want to derail too far into the policing debate, but I do want to just dip my toes in so far as saying, policing is hard. Some PDs are heavily understaffed. Some local policies mean that some crimes are "let off the hook". On the other hand, some LEOs are abusing their power in public ways (e.g. any reports of police brutality). Trust in law enforcement also suffers when understaffing leads to triaging in call responses. I think there is genuine need to reform police culture, for the sake of community safety and community trust. We likely disagree on this also, but I don't think the answer is as simple as "more hardline policing". Side-note: I do find it ironic and a real case of cognitive dissonance that a convicted felon beat a DA/AG on the issue of crime. Dems can soul-search for how they ran this campaign, as well as the American public can also soul-search for what this means for the evolution of American values.
That last comment from me also somewhat responds to your last paragraph. If centrists or undecided voters are willing to dismiss Trump's continued rhetoric as locker-room talk, then centrists and undecided voters need to consider whether they want to stay in the same locker room as this guy. It's a nasty way to think about people, talk about people, and treat people. Another poster put it well - Trump's actions being given a pass like this signals the death of civility.
Things were bad and needed a change - who ever said that change needed to come from outside? Give the Democrats a chance to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps for a change
Almost every VP who seriously seeks the nomination*, wins it. It's a huge boost.
* a little bit of self-selection since maybe the ones who wouldn't get it , don't try as seriously.
They brand everyone a socialist crazy liberal. Biden and Hilary were branded that and they weren't from California. Obama was branded that and he was from Chicago, another liberal stronghold and obvious won in a landslide. I think that's a talking point without any real truth behind it.
@Morty_ weren't you the one who didn't think split ticket voting happened anymore?
No, only to the extent it would happen, are any of them running much above 5 point ahead of Harris?
Brown, Tester, and Osborn ran about 10 points clear (and all lost), all these ran between 2-6 points better iirc.
e -
There's more chance of them putting one of Netanyahu's sons on the ticket.
Huh, the era of split tickets is back then, definitely didn't expect that much of a split in Arizona, even with Lake being terrible and all.
there were literal trump-aoc voters 
there were literal trump-aoc voters
That doesn’t prove that? You can vote on one or the other, or both.
More than likely is there was a number of people who voted for AOC but didn’t vote for Kamela because of Gaza or not progressive enough or whatever other issues.
Likewise probably plenty of people who voted only Trump and ignored the other ballot issues.
The Democratic party of 2024 would probably consider this, and it's one of the biggest reasons they lost.
I think (sadly) Gaza wasn’t a key reason they lost overall - even in Michigan Harris was only 2% down on Biden and Trump was 2% up on 2020, and his policy on the Middle East would be far far worse than hers. The Gaza protest vote would have went to Stein, and she did worse than her last run in 2016 overall and the victory margins in each swing state were more than Harris and Stein’s combined vote share.
There’s specific counties were it is more evident, like Stein getting upwards of 18% but they are very small specific samples and really can’t be attributed to the overall outcome to the election.
A lot of America supports the Gaza policy, or at best is apathetic to it. Seems a vocal minority actually oppose it, with more with slight empathy of “that’s bad, but my gas prices are more important”
I think what this also says is that direct messaging within areas - aka knowing your audience - still carries some weight over mere party affiliation. That is something Dems need to take some inspiration from. That's also why ostrascising people like Sinema wasn't smart. Hell I'd even argue they should have kept Franken in place.