Jump to content

2024 Presidential Election Thread - Let's keep the party going.


Recommended Posts

Posted
6 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

 

The baller thing to do here is proceed like the ruling never happened. Acting in his official capacity and in the best interests of the country and all. The perfect opportunity to put that bullshit SCOTUS ruling in play without bloodshed involved

 

Sadly that won’t happen. 

2 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Putting all of my hopes on the backup quarterback hasn't failed me yet!

Wait...

You didn’t watch much Texas OU in the past decade I take it

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think you'll find yourself in the minority in this instance.

dude, I'm almost always in the minority and also right more often than not. the best candidate is one that didn't exist. that candidate was the winner of the primaries when Biden pulled an LBJ and declined to run again. Since that didn't happen, it's Biden post-debate or brokered convention and a wildcard candidate 4 months out. SPIN THAT SHIT and move on.

Edited by troph
Posted
41 minutes ago, troph said:

The quintessential set of circumstances your dad would respond to with "you made your bed now you gotta sleep in it."

HOLY FUCK what a mess we've made of what could have instead simply been called a bad debate performance.

bob ross GIF

 

No, ma'am--don't bring me that shit.  Because that's not what you were saying three weeks ago.  During the debate, you were saying "we are in deep shit;" "Biden looks feeble."  At one point that night, you wrote "come on Joe if you can’t win this you’re done."  And then as the evening went on and it became clear that Biden wasn't going to win this, you wrote but yes Biden should drop out and Pete should be his replacement, 100% on board.

It wasn't just "a bad debate performance."  It was a catastrophic performance that indicated to everyone watching--including you--that Biden was not mentally capable of (1) being president or (2) beating Trump.

To argue now that we should have rallied around Biden and just dismissed it as "a bad debate performance" when you yourself did precisely the opposite is the height of disingenuousness.  

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted

I think G Elliot is going to really have to tweak 538’s formula for next time.  If he’s still saying it is a toss up (or even that Biden is leading) and the boots on the ground know that we are in Hail Mary mode and have to do unprecedented things for a chance to win, it really puts to lie that their model is worth anything.  

 

Someone pointed out earlier that it is more heavily weighted toward fundamentals this early before weighing more on polls later.  That might be the issue that gets heavily modified.  

Posted
10 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

If Harris were to ascend to POTUS, the Senate remains 50/50.  But as I understand it from ConLaw, Patty Murray as Pro Tem would be "President of the Senate" in name only, she basically runs the chamber day-to-day anyway in terms of floor logistics, while Schumer controls the votes/legislation.  Meaning she cannot vast a vote as a "tie-breaker."  She may cast her own as a duly elected Senator from the State of Washington.  But she doesn't "Get" an extra vote on top of that to break a 50-50 tie. 

With 5 months still left of this Congress, that would make those "Independents" and moderates on either side the most critical Senators since the Civil War.  Because there's literally no way to break a tie.  Everything just stalls. 

Harris could still appoint a VP, there's just enough time to get that person through.  But depending on who it is:

1.  Does that person necessarily have to be Kamala's running mate?  Can it just be somebody who can jump on the grenade to maintain Presidency of the Senate, spend a few months as VP cutting ribbons, and then be content to not be on the ticket and go back to being a House Rep. or even a Lt. Gov. of some solid blue state that doesn't have a 2024 cycle they need to campaign through? Maybe one of the lesser-known Cabinet members who has no ambition to run for high office down the road, and is promised a loyalty reward of a more cabinet position should Harris/XYZ win in November.  

2.  The GOP will delay any vote so as to maintain the 50/50 split as long as possible.  But it's worth putting somebody out there who guarantees in writing on national television by some sort of election law affidavit, they will not appear on the 2024 ballot.  they are just doing their patriotic duty to keep the Upper Chamber running smoothly until January, plus other cursory VP duties.  Could put McConnell's minions in a tough spot. Particularly if it's a woman or person of color.  

3.  Or does she keep the VP spot vacant, pick a running mate, and that person just campaigns and doesn't bother with the Senate at all?  Which could be trouble come November.  

4.  Risk appointing a VP replacement who is also the running mate as "extra prepared to hit the ground running in January", unlike Vance who has been a junior senator for 17 months.  It's a gamble because that person could get fucked with by the McConnell folks at hearing.  Or they could use it as the greatest free ad space in election history to beat down the dais.  

5.  Safe move would normally be.  Appoint a new VP who will also be your running mate, and just let the GOP delay it all they want---don't fight it while looking like you're fighting it.  Up until early voting starts.  Trouble this cycle would be, Kamala and this new appointed VP/running mate are still both relatively unknown to the country.  You can't wait until early voting, you gotta get the rest of America to know both of 'em and fast. 

It's the 50/50 split with nobody minding the store when EC certification comes around again on January 6th: 2025 Edition.  That's the one that should worry you.  

 

He wouldn't be resigning the presidency he would be removing himself as a candidate for reelection.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

No, ma'am--don't bring me that shit.  Because that's not what you were saying three weeks ago.  During the debate, you were saying "we are in deep shit;" "Biden looks feeble."  At one point that night, you wrote "come on Joe if you can’t win this you’re done."  And then as the evening went on and it became clear that Biden wasn't going to win this, you wrote but yes Biden should drop out and Pete should be his replacement, 100% on board.

It wasn't just "a bad debate performance."  It was a catastrophic performance that indicated to everyone watching--including you--that Biden was not mentally capable of (1) being president or (2) beating Trump.

To argue now that we should have rallied around Biden and just dismissed it as "a bad debate performance" when you yourself did precisely the opposite is the height of disingenuousness.  

We really need the "eyes" emoji. This post gets that.

Posted
2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

He wouldn't be resigning the presidency he would be removing himself as a candidate for reelection.

Well some people want him to do that and let her have the bully pulpit and basically running as an incumbent. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Firemans4Horn said:

We’re now at the George Soros and the unnamed monied liberal cabal is the reason Biden can’t win stage. In the 5 stages of grief I think this is between bargaining and depression.

Many of the donors involved in the pressure campaign are named in the NY Times article I linked on the last page. 

Posted
30 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I knew 2024 would be fucked but it’s crazy living through two ongoing coups simultaneously. 

We are speed running some 1960s shit

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:

We’re now at the George Soros and the unnamed monied liberal cabal is the reason Biden can’t win stage. In the 5 stages of grief I think this is between bargaining and depression.

Wrong.  Every stage is the "getting a nail-studded baseball bat rammed up our ass" stage.  That really distracts from any of the more subtle responses like bargaining or depression.

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

No, ma'am--don't bring me that shit.  Because that's not what you were saying three weeks ago.  During the debate, you were saying "we are in deep shit;" "Biden looks feeble."  At one point that night, you wrote "come on Joe if you can’t win this you’re done."  And then as the evening went on and it became clear that Biden wasn't going to win this, you wrote but yes Biden should drop out and Pete should be his replacement, 100% on board.

It wasn't just "a bad debate performance."  It was a catastrophic performance that indicated to everyone watching--including you--that Biden was not mentally capable of (1) being president or (2) beating Trump.

To argue now that we should have rallied around Biden and just dismissed it as "a bad debate performance" when you yourself did precisely the opposite is the height of disingenuousness.  

you don't participate in game threads here very often do you? no it's histrionics the night of the debate. wink wink.

find the progression of my thinking - and I'll readily admit my thinking is fluid and it changes so it's the progression that matters - instead you picked initial reactions and hold that against me. that's way more disingenuous LL than my fluidity and progression of thought.

that same night I posted about his waffle house comment "it's hard to debate a liar" and said that was a FANTASTIC response. Then the next day I watched and acknowledged his NC speech performance and said on this thread we need more of that, maybe he can come around. I started to come around to the spin approach in less than 24 hours.

I then typed out the spin response I would go with, saying something to the effect that Biden should go on the George Steph interview and say, "look, I'm old, I get it and I've slowed some, but I'm still in the game. arguing about golf was childish, but look I was flabergasted and the lies, man the lies. Look you can't respond to 20 lies in 60 seconds. I didn't do a good job, but hey, look, he's a con a convicted felon, rapist, insurrectionist and so let's talk about what matters, are we going to save democracy? if so America has to vote for me."

So within 24-48 hours I had shifted.

After that, I thought his interviews and oval office speeches were fine and noticed the media were latching on to one or two word mix ups which I think is entirely unfair.

But the drum beat wouldn't stop.

and here we are.

so next time you want to waste billable hours digging through my posts and quoting me, please - as a friend - get it right.

 

ps - I pulled you in there to say I agree dem voters think for themselves too it was agreeing with one of your earlier statements.  sorry if it pissed you off. you of all people should know I'm nothing if not genuine.

Edited by troph
Posted (edited)

Wrong.  Every stage is the "getting a nail-studded baseball bat rammed up our ass" stage.  That really distracts from any of the more subtle responses like bargaining or depression.

@NowThis says, "Wait, that's one of the stages of euphoric pleasure."

Edited by Goredho
  • Haha 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, troph said:

you don't participate in game threads here very often do you? no it's histrionics the night of the debate. wink wink.

find the progression of my thinking - and I'll readily admit my thinking is fluid and it changes so it's the progression that matters - instead you picked initial reactions and hold that against me. that's way more disingenuous LL than my fluidity and progression of thought.

that same night I posted about his waffle house comment "it's hard to debate a liar" and then the next day I watched and acknowledged his NC speech performance and said on this thread we need more of that, maybe he can come around. I started to come around to the spin approach.

I then typed out the spin response I would go with, saying something to the effect that Biden should go on the George Steph interview and say, "look, I'm old, I get it and I've slowed some, but I'm still in the game. arguing about golf was childish, but look I was flabergasted and the lies, man the lies. Look you can't respond to 20 lies in 60 seconds. I didn't do a good job, but hey, look, he's a con a convicted felon, rapist, insurrectionist and so let's talk about what matters, are we going to save democracy? if so America has to vote for me."

So within 1-2 days I had shifted.

After that, I thought his interviews and oval office speeches were fine and noticed the media were latching on to one or two word mix ups which I think is entirely unfair.

But the drum beat wouldn't stop.

and here we are.

so next time you want to waste billable hours digging through my posts and quoting me, please - as a friend - get it right.

 

ps - I pulled you in there to say I agree dem voters think for themselves too it was agreeing with one of your earlier statements.  sorry if it pissed you off. you of all people should know I'm nothing if not genuine.

First off--you're my friend and I love you.  If my words are heated, I apologize.  It's just this war and that lying sonofabitch Johnson.

Second, I pulled the receipts to show that you yourself recognized that it was not merely "a bad debate performance," and you've never tried to cast it as such.  Your suggested spin response of "look, I'm old, I get it and I've slowed some, . . ." acknowledged the catastrophic nature of the debate; it didn't try to minimize it. 

And I think it's very wrong to think that it could have been minimized as merely a bad debate performance.  Anyone trying to do so would've lost credibility. 

Third, the rally-around-the-candidate idea goes both ways.  And right now, somewhere around two-thirds to three-quarters of Democrats think Biden needs to drop out.  It's time for Biden to hear the will of the people and for his supporters to rally around Kamala Harris.  Only that is going to enable us to run an effective campaign against Donald Trump.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

Yeah Biden can say he won the primary fair and square which is true. Then new shit came to light or more old shit that was papered over by limiting his appearances came to light. If there's no enthusiasm to vote for him then down ballot will lose as well. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Aqua Buddha said:

Any chance this gets thrown into some mini primary or floor vote?  Still think Whitmer wins that.

IMO, that’s better option than an immediate nod to Harris. Don’t think it’ll happen though.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Texaus said:

IMO, that’s better option than an immediate nod to Harris. Don’t think it’ll happen though.

That's a first class ticket to black people abandoning you at the polls. You cannot skip over the first black female VP for a white woman. You may pull more independents but a good chunk that you need in a place like Georgia are gone if you skip Kamala. And you know who else wouldn't do that? Gretchen Whitmer. 

Edited by mdmost
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

First off--you're my friend and I love you.  If my words are heated, I apologize.  It's just this war and that lying sonofabitch Johnson.

Second, I pulled the receipts to show that you yourself recognized that it was not merely "a bad debate performance," and you've never tried to cast it as such.  Your suggested spin response of "look, I'm old, I get it and I've slowed some, . . ." acknowledged the catastrophic nature of the debate; it didn't try to minimize it. 

And I think it's very wrong to think that it could have been minimized as merely a bad debate performance.  Anyone trying to do so would've lost credibility. 

Third, the rally-around-the-candidate idea goes both ways.  And right now, somewhere around two-thirds to three-quarters of Democrats think Biden needs to drop out.  It's time for Biden to hear the will of the people and for his supporters to rally around Kamala Harris.  Only that is going to enable us to run an effective campaign against Donald Trump.

I stand by my assertions today that the performance - in and of itself - was not devastating to the candidate. Make no mistake it was a terrible performance, but debates really don't matter.  However, the response to the debate was what devastated Biden's chances. Maybe I can allow for an argument that it's semantics, but I don't think that's accurate.

and I said those things you quoted when the debate was ongoing that is true. I make no apologies for the fact that my thinking is malleable, I consider it one of my greatest attributes and it keeps me from getting stuck in faulty or myopic thinking. It can result in people erroneously drawing the conclusion that I'm contradicting myself. Well, for those with rigid thinking, I guess I understand. But that's not correct either.

My bottom line and then I'm taking a break....

The best candidate is not present and won't show up because Biden did not decline a second term. Done. we gotta deal with what we've got now.

what's left - spin the debate performance - which was in the works immediately same night - and the news cycle moves on enough that Biden is still the best chance.

that didn't happen. instead the drum beat grew louder.

now we are talking a brokered convention (that alone is SHOCKING), an untested candidate, hoping the campaign infrastructure will just pass over to Harris/???, scrambling down the home stretch (including very little time to test messaging or recover from mistakes), and confirmation that the ticket really is for sale to a handful of billionaires (as reported in the NYT today).

mother fucker this is not good and everyone seems like zoolander "just do it" and yeah, that's disconcerting to me.

now what will I do? I will do what is required and rally around the nominee and shut my trap when Biden is out and praise the nominee for their strengths. I'll give money, I may travel to GOTV, I'll do my part.

But until then, I think we royally fucked up our hand - a hand that very easily could have won and it remains to be seen if Harris can actually pull this off.

The fact that dozens of posters on this board can't see that as a reasonable position is pretty disheartening because I think it cuts to the very core of the problem of how we play politics on our side (many times to our detriment).

Edited by troph
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, mdmost said:

That's a first class ticket to black people abandoning you at the polls. You cannot skip over the first black female VP for a white woman. You may pull more independents but a good chunk that you need in a place like Georgia are gone if you skip Kamala. And you know who else wouldn't do that? Gretchen Whitmer. 

agreed don't piss them off. black women will save America (again).

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, troph said:

the performance - in and of itself - was not devastating to the candidate.

I agree, but "in and of itself" is doing a ton of work here.

3 minutes ago, troph said:

the response to the debate was what devastated Biden's chances

Hard disagree. What devastated Biden's chances is that the performance was a symptom of something unfixable.

He's had a fair chance to show the world otherwise, and his failure to do so has nothing to do with the media or "the response" and everything to do with reality. The reality is that he hit a wall sometime between the 2020 race and today. He can't campaign anymore, but I really appreciate how smoothly he and his cabinet have run the country. I would trust him for another four years, even with diminished capacity, but running a country is one thing and winning an election is a whole other thing.

I don't feel like he can win an election in this condition, and that's not the fault of "the response."

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Those of you saying a brokered convention would be better than Harris absolutely do not understand politics and are going to drive me to drink an unhealthy amount of alcohol.

it's brokered no matter what. Biden has the votes. The brokering is happening right now. The only question is whether it's brokered before the convention starts or on the floor while the world watches. Knowing the Dems, it'll be done in public for everyone to see.

Posted
Just now, wildcat09 said:

Those of you saying a brokered convention would be better than Harris absolutely do not understand politics and are going to drive me to drink an unhealthy amount of alcohol.

“Let’s blow up the coalition with a brutal floor fight and back room deal making so we can select somebody nobody voted for in the primaries.” 

God help my liver

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I don't feel like he can win an election in this condition, and that's not the fault of "the response."

you can't say that in a vacuum with any real meaning. you have to say that compared to something. none of us know what Harris/??? will look like. now instead of one problem, one wildcard we have to consider what are the wildcards and what problems might Harris/??? present. the Dem strategists will earn their money and then some if Harris wins because they've got about a year's worth of work to do in about 30 days or less.

Edited by troph
Posted
9 minutes ago, troph said:

now we are talking a brokered convention (that alone is SHOCKING), an untested candidate, hoping the campaign infrastructure will just pass over to Harris/???, scrambling down the home stretch (including very little time to test messaging or recover from mistakes), and confirmation that the ticket really is for sale to a handful of billionaires (as reported in the NYT today).

Ok--so here's the thing: once again I think the NYT is doing us all a disservice, because this isn't really the story.  And I infer that a fair amount of your frustration originates from this misleading NYT article.

It's not "a handful of billionaires" who think Joe Biden should stand down.  It's me.  It's the majority of posters on this thread.  It's somewhere in the neighborhood of 70% of Democratic voters.  And on the night of the debate, it was you.

And that demonstrates that it wasn't "a handful of billionaires" who caused 70% of Democratic voters and a whole bunch of Democratic officeholders to reach that conclusion.  That was the immediate conclusion that both you and I separately reached that night.  You have changed your mind on that; I haven't.  But regardless--neither you nor I came to that thought based on any billionaire.

The NYT speaks of elites because the NYT is elite and that's the only thing it can conceive of.  But elite opinion immediately after the debate was 100% to rally around Biden and minimize that debate disaster.  The shift since doesn't represent the hidden hand of some nefarious elites.  It is a demonstration of the will of the Democratic grass roots.

  • Hook 'Em 8
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Ok--so here's the thing: once again I think the NYT is doing us all a disservice, because this isn't really the story.  And I infer that a fair amount of your frustration originates from this misleading NYT article.

It's not "a handful of billionaires" who think Joe Biden should stand down.  It's me.  It's the majority of posters on this thread.  It's somewhere in the neighborhood of 70% of Democratic voters.  And on the night of the debate, it was you.

And that demonstrates that it wasn't "a handful of billionaires" who caused 70% of Democratic voters and a whole bunch of Democratic officeholders to reach that conclusion.  That was the immediate conclusion that both you and I separately reached that night.  You have changed your mind on that; I haven't.  But regardless--neither you nor I came to that thought based on any billionaire.

The NYT speaks of elites because the NYT is elite and that's the only thing it can conceive of.  But elite opinion immediately after the debate was 100% to rally around Biden and minimize that debate disaster.  The shift since doesn't represent the hidden hand of some nefarious elites.  It is a demonstration of the will of the Democratic grass roots.

Bullshit.

Posted
1 minute ago, troph said:

a year's worth of work to do in about 30 days or less.

Most of the strategy was going to be negative campaigning against Trump, so that stays the same. In fact very little would need to change other than signage and a few websites. There would be a huge enthusiasm bump and it also forces the republicans to scrap a ton of their work.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
7 hours ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Biden/Harris have the best odds of beating Donald. The media is doing a hell of a job right now 

Donald Trump GIF by Election 2016

Posted
Just now, Ghost of LL said:

Ok--so here's the thing: once again I think the NYT is doing us all a disservice, because this isn't really the story.  And I infer that a fair amount of your frustration originates from this misleading NYT article.

It's not "a handful of billionaires" who think Joe Biden should stand down.  It's me.  It's the majority of posters on this thread.  It's somewhere in the neighborhood of 70% of Democratic voters.  And on the night of the debate, it was you.

And that demonstrates that it wasn't "a handful of billionaires" who caused 70% of Democratic voters and a whole bunch of Democratic officeholders to reach that conclusion.  That was the immediate conclusion that both you and I separately reached that night.  You have changed your mind on that; I haven't.  But regardless--neither you nor I came to that thought based on any billionaire.

The NYT speaks of elites because the NYT is elite and that's the only thing it can conceive of.  But elite opinion immediately after the debate was 100% to rally around Biden and minimize that debate disaster.  The shift since doesn't represent the hidden hand of some nefarious elites.  It is a demonstration of the will of the Democratic grass roots.

I did not say a handful of billionaires are the only ones asking him to step down, I'm saying a handful of billionaires (to be fair there are probably dozens of 9 figure donors in that group too) used money to influence Senators and Congressmen to be vocal in asking him to step down.

I get you want him to step down. I get a lot of people want him to. I've never argued that, in fact I've conceded that left and right.

But you know why he is stepping down if he in fact is? because Senators and Congressmen are telling him to and the Party is not rallying around him, and that article suggests the big money has dried up and has been shifted to pay for the drum beat.

so tell me? if you disagree with that assertion, who is making him step down? and you can't say it's you, because we mean jack fucking squat here.

Posted
8 minutes ago, Zonahorn said:

“Let’s blow up the coalition with a brutal floor fight and back room deal making so we can select somebody nobody voted for in the primaries.” 

God help my liver

Yep. If this happens, it’s Joever

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Most of the strategy was going to be negative campaigning against Trump, so that stays the same. In fact very little would need to change other than signage and a few websites. There would be a huge enthusiasm bump and it also forces the republicans to scrap a ton of their work.

I disagree. I think there is a VERY heavy lift here, you didn't even mention defensive responses, but I DO agree most is negative campaigning and there would be a boost in enthusiasm, but I don't know if that will be offset by a new "anti-vote" among suburban white women, and others. to down play the amount of unknowns here does us all a disservice.

Posted

I swear. This thread is the only place I see on the entire internet where Biden is suddenly this feeble Lame Duck candidate that just HAS to be removed or else Trump will become dictator. Everywhere else, they're circling the wagons.

Bizarro world is here. Reality is not reflected in this thread. Get a clue.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Most of the strategy was going to be negative campaigning against Trump, so that stays the same. In fact very little would need to change other than signage and a few websites. There would be a huge enthusiasm bump and it also forces the republicans to scrap a ton of their work.

Republicans are confident now with a 78 year old who looked virile during an assassination attempt because they’re facing an old, forgetful codger.

They’ll be shitting their pants if they had to face a wildcard with message discipline. All their guns are pointed to Joe. They aren’t nimble enough to face anything else IMO other than a complete shit-tasting dud or a Hillary type figure with 30 years of political baggage.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
55 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Well some people want him to do that and let her have the bully pulpit and basically running as an incumbent. 

Dateline Whitehouse is speaking about:

  • the enthusiasm gap for volunteer workers in battleground states,
  • the fact that Nancy Pelosi has herself stepped aside when the burden of leadership was too great.
Posted
8 minutes ago, Zonahorn said:

“Let’s blow up the coalition with a brutal floor fight and back room deal making so we can select somebody nobody voted for in the primaries.” 

God help my liver

Specifically, back room deal making by people who have no real constituencies in the party! This isn't 1950; the delegates aren't actually important party officials who represent local interests or specific interest groups! It's just fuckin random Democrats who wanted to go to the convention because they're dorks and agreed to vote for Biden! Just tossing it to them and telling them to figure it out would be completely fucking insane and would destroy the party.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Dateline Whitehouse is speaking about:

  • the enthusiasm gap for volunteer workers in battleground states,
  • the fact that Nancy Pelosi has herself stepped aside when the burden of leadership was too great.

Oh fuck that. She stepped aside only after she lost the majority. Nancy is not trying to push Biden out for the good of the party or the good of America, she's doing this for the wealthy donors she's friends with.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I swear. This thread is the only place I see on the entire internet where Biden is suddenly this feeble Lame Duck candidate that just HAS to be removed or else Trump will become dictator. Everywhere else, they're circling the wagons.

Bizarro world is here. Reality is not reflected in this thread. Get a clue.

I mean this with all due respect, but I think that first paragraph inadvertently says more about you than it does about us.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, troph said:

I did not say a handful of billionaires are the only ones asking him to step down, I'm saying a handful of billionaires (to be fair there are probably dozens of 9 figure donors in that group too) used money to influence Senators and Congressmen to be vocal in asking him to step down.

I get you want him to step down. I get a lot of people want him to. I've never argued that, in fact I've conceded that left and right.

But you know why he is stepping down if he in fact is? because Senators and Congressmen are telling him to and the Party is not rallying around him, and that article suggests the big money has dried up and has been shifted to pay for the drum beat.

so tell me? if you disagree with that assertion, who is making him step down? and you can't say it's you, because we mean jack fucking squat here.

Donors play a part, of course.  But it's not just them.  It's volunteers.  And it's local party officials.  And they're all signaling that there is a massive enthusiasm gap.

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Oh fuck that. She stepped aside only after she lost the majority. Nancy is not trying to push Biden out for the good of the party or the good of America, she's doing this for the wealthy donors she's friends with.

She's doing it because she has the best political instincts of any Democrat of her generation.  And she sees an iceberg dead ahead.

I think you're giving her far too little credit when you ascribe her political instincts to some donors.

  • Hook 'Em 6


×
×
  • Create New...