• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged 2024 Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Looking at recent polls I found this interesting graph .. it's from

J.L. Partners for DailyMail.com, Dec. 15-20, 984 likely voters (not much, but typical for these regular polls).



Basically Trump lost a lot. But Biden lost more. Very few would switch camps, but most of the lost voices go for someone else, with most often choice being "don't know yet". RFK is strongest independent with 4%.
With poll this small it's nothing really significant, but I think the idea of Biden simply loosing more to third option compared to Trump is solid.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Looking at recent polls I found this interesting graph .. it's from

J.L. Partners for DailyMail.com, Dec. 15-20, 984 likely voters (not much, but typical for these regular polls).

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_34789658eeb745dc6e.jpg[/qimg]

Basically Trump lost a lot. But Biden lost more. Very few would switch camps, but most of the lost voices go for someone else, with most often choice being "don't know yet". RFK is strongest independent with 4%.
With poll this small it's nothing really significant, but I think the idea of Biden simply loosing more to third option compared to Trump is solid.
Click to expand...

Now MAKE them vote for Trump OR Biden. Trump gets 40% Biden gets 45% and the rest is third parties still on the ticket or they do not vote.
 
The Atheist said:
Someone seems to have decided that alienating the progressive wing of the party is a good idea: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/25/democrats-house-centrists-progressives-republicans

I can't be sure, but my guess is that the progressive wing is very popular with people who will probably vote in 15 more elections, while those attacking them are of the Biden/Trump generation.

What could possibly go wrong?
Click to expand...

There's a strong sentiment amongst the senior leadership of the Democratic party that thinks a bad repug government would be better than a good progressive one. Something a lot of this forum's US posters are blinding themselves to.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Them. They would be lost. That's what you aren't hearing. When someone says "Biden is more electable than candidate X," they mean "I, Insert Name Here, will personally refuse to vote for candidate X even if it means Trump winning and/or whatever consequences I use to argue that you personally ought to vote for Biden."
Click to expand...

So you're worried so much about people who would, at best, not vote for anybody "deserting" your cause (which they were never with in the first place), that you would throw over your core principles and voters in a heartbeat? What then makes you better than the repugs?
 
Aside from the Trump related articles I linked in the Trump eligibility thread, this general article sets up all the factors in the 2024 election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election#Procedure

I linked the procedure part because:
In early January, the total Electoral College vote count is opened by the sitting vice president, acting in his capacity as president of the Senate, and read aloud to a joint session of the incoming Congress, which was elected at the same time as the president. Members of Congress are free to object to any or all of a state's electoral vote count, provided that the objection is presented in writing and is signed by at least one member of each house of Congress. If such an objection is submitted, both houses of Congress adjourn to their respective chambers to debate and vote on the objection. The approval of both houses of Congress are required to invalidate those electoral votes in question.[40]

If no candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote (at least 270), the president is determined by the rules outlined by the Twelfth Amendment. Specifically, the selection of president would then be decided by a contingent election in a ballot of the House of Representatives. For the purposes of electing the president, each state has only one vote.
Click to expand...
It's not clear to me what all is set up. But it links to this.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32717/12

which states
When an objection, properly made in writing and endorsed by at least one Senator and one
Representative, is received, each house is to meet and consider it separately. The statute states
that “[n]o votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously
made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.” However, in
1873, before enactment of the law now in force, the joint session agreed, without objection and
for reasons of convenience, to entertain objections with regard to two or more states before the
houses met separately on any of them.
Click to expand...
that is based on some 1800s law
 
Last edited:
Gulliver Foyle said:
There's a strong sentiment amongst the senior leadership of the Democratic party that thinks a bad repug government would be better than a good progressive one. Something a lot of this forum's US posters are blinding themselves to.
Click to expand...

Almost no one here agrees with that. I'm not a progressive, but not the least bit concerned about a prog president, because the Senate would keep them in check against any really left wing stuff that I'd be against. Thats unlike the GOP who won't keep Trump in check at all. They will all roll over and show their bellies metaphorically.

There isn't really a prog POTUS candidate out there that has any chance of winning the primary. Newsome is not a prog and he's basically the heir apparent right now. Nether is the current VP, but I don't see her even running.

If a prog did win, I'd still vote for them. OTOH I'm very worried of a 3rd party prog candidate acting as spoiler and getting Trump into the White House again.
 
lobosrul5 said:
... OTOH I'm very worried of a 3rd party prog candidate acting as spoiler and getting Trump into the White House again.
Click to expand...
We should pay attention to who any spoiler candidate is being funded by. This worries me more than an honest **cough, cough** race between Biden and Trump.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
There's a strong sentiment amongst the senior leadership of the Democratic party that thinks a bad repug government would be better than a good progressive one. Something a lot of this forum's US posters are blinding themselves to.
Click to expand...

This is one of those hyperbolic statements that I dislike intensely. You have absolutely no evidence of that at all. Don't just repeat it's true; present supporting evidence.

lobosrul5 said:
Almost no one here agrees with that. I'm not a progressive, but not the least bit concerned about a prog president, because the Senate would keep them in check against any really left wing stuff that I'd be against. Thats unlike the GOP who won't keep Trump in check at all. They will all roll over and show their bellies metaphorically.

There isn't really a prog POTUS candidate out there that has any chance of winning the primary. Newsome is not a prog and he's basically the heir apparent right now. Nether is the current VP, but I don't see her even running.

If a prog did win, I'd still vote for them. OTOH I'm very worried of a 3rd party prog candidate acting as spoiler and getting Trump into the White House again.
Click to expand...

Excellent reply. I'm not a 'progressive' either, but I'd absolutely vote for a progressive over any of the GOP candidates without a single hesitation.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
There's a strong sentiment amongst the senior leadership of the Democratic party that thinks a bad repug government would be better than a good progressive one. Something a lot of this forum's US posters are blinding themselves to.
Click to expand...

What planet are you on? Most of the senior leadership of the Democrats and their allies in the media are sounding the alarm that the next election could be the end of democracy if Trump wins. I applaud you a bit for seeing through the hyperbole on that score but you have way too cynical an attitude about US politics in general.
 
Now we are to vote on Trump and a VP without the insurrection bit decided. Then, after the election, 2/3 of house and senate reject Trump's claim he was not running an insurrection only a protest. The Trump VP becomes president and Trump retires. She then pardons him, but Trump still is not in. But he wins over Biden! Trump goes on victory tour and finally, the elction was not stolen.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
While it's good that strategies are being tested to overcome Biden's appalling ratings and lack of support from key groups, this just shouldn't be happening:
Click to expand...

I have a book called Stealth Democracy from two local authors. The premise is that people want as little as possible to do with day to day politics. They want the politicians do their stuff, but to hear as little as possible. Politics does not affect their daily lives and they work in some field, say service, that has no connection to politics. They do not care. But they have a vague idea that it should nevertheless be somewhat democratic. Stealth democracy. Not as open as it is now.

Not sure how you get accountability if everything is hidden behind some kind of curtain.
 
Brainster said:
What planet are you on? Most of the senior leadership of the Democrats and their allies in the media are sounding the alarm that the next election could be the end of democracy if Trump wins. I applaud you a bit for seeing through the hyperbole on that score but you have way too cynical an attitude about US politics in general.
Click to expand...

Right. Just because Trump says he's going to destroy Democracy doesn't mean he'll actually do it....
 
Biden gave an excellent first campaign speech.

"Whether democracy is still America's sacred cause is what the 2024 election is all about," Mr. Biden said. "The choice is clear. Donald Trump's campaign is about him, not America, not you. Donald Trump's campaign is obsessed with the past, not the future. He's willing to sacrifice our democracy to put himself in power. Our campaign is different."

By "trying to rewrite the facts" of Jan. 6, Trump is "trying to steal history the same way he tried to steal the election," Mr. Biden claimed.

"Trump's mob wasn't a peaceful protest; it was a violent assault," Mr. Biden insisted. "They were insurrectionists, not patriots. They weren't there to uphold the Constitution; they were there to destroy the Constitution."
Click to expand...
"Democracy is on the ballot. Your freedom is on the ballot," Mr. Biden said.

Mr. Biden said the "competing forces between solidarity and division is perennial, but this time, it's so different."

"You can't have a contest, can't have a contest if you see politics as an all-out war instead of a peaceful way to resolve our differences," the president said. "All-out war is what Trump wants."
Click to expand...

In contrast, Trump's latest rant was the most blatant case of projection I've ever seen:

Trump called Biden's record "an unbroken streak of weakness, incompetence, corruption and failure. That's why Crooked Joe is staging his pathetic fearmongering campaign event in Pennsylvania today."

Ahead of Biden's speech, the Trump campaign released an ad accusing Biden of being "the true destroyer of democracy" citing special counsel Jack Smith's investigation into Trump's actions on Jan. 6.
Click to expand...

This far in advance of the election, a lot of people don't pay that much attention to politics; they're too busy just living their lives. They may think or say they'll vote for some 3rd party, write in a name, or not even vote. But as the election nears and they know they have to make a decision, they pay closer attention. I think young people and minorities especially will realize that their future is really in their hands and they'd better choose what kind of future they want: a democracy or an authoritarian nut case who cares for nothing but his own power and money.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
Trump encouraged his supporters to try to prevent other people from voting. He told them that they should stay in the voting booths if necessary.

https://themessenger.com/politics/t...lice-poll-stations-dont-let-that-crap-come-in
Click to expand...

From your link:
Donald Trump called on his backers in Iowa to police voting booths in the presidential election this year.

"We have to secure the vote," he told them.

"You should all stay in the voting booths," he said. "You should stay there and watch. If you see bags of crap coming into the voting booths, you gotta stop it, you can't let it happen," Trump emphasized.
Click to expand...

Does anyone wonder what this bag of crap means by "bags of crap"?

He's once again encouraging his cult members to steal your vote, as he did on Jan 6. Enough is enough already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom