Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I know you’re not referring to me sir. 

She took an obvious and easy chance to dunk on Trump irrefutably on a topic and you’re literally grabbing handfuls of sand to rub into your vagina. You’re the one sobbing. 

She can dunk on him about it without promising to bring it back and sign it. All she had to say was "you had your chance, you blew it, and when I am elected and we take back the House we are going to pass a comprehensive immigration reform that aligns with the America that I know"

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

I saw someone say during the French 2-round elections that the first time you vote with your heart, the second time you vote with your brain. This is presumably what the primary system in America is supposed to be: vote for your ideological sweet heart during the primary, then get pragmatic and vote against what you definitely don't want in the general election.

 

This time a billion 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
12 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I want this momentum to continue, but it's still a long road ahead and when the excitement has worn off is when the real work will begin.

You’re actively trying to make the excitement wear off, I hope you’re not doing this shit irl.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Js1 said:

This time a billion 

Large groups of people don't have brains. Trump maximizes his turnout by giving his base exactly what it wants secure in the knowledge that "Never Trump" republicans still bend the fucking knee.

Kamala doesn't need to have left wing policies to turn out the base, but she does have to avoid falling into the trap of trying to appease the right because it won't win any votes from the right and it will curb enthusiasm within her base.

4 minutes ago, Covri said:

You’re actively trying to make the excitement wear off, I hope you’re not doing this shit irl.

I'm talking to like five guys on the internet. Joe Rogan, I am not.

Edited by chainsaw
  • Fuck You 1
Posted

That’s it. I was gonna go vote for Kamala. I even bought me some Chuck Taylors. Guess I’m gonna go return them and not vote at all. 

  • Haha 4
Posted
1 minute ago, YChang said:

That’s it. I was gonna go vote for Kamala. I even bought me some Chuck Taylors. Guess I’m gonna go return them and not vote at all. 

Fv9sso8aUAEpQJH?format=jpg&name=small

  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Kamala doesn't need to have left wing policies to turn out the base, but she does have to avoid falling into the trap of trying to appease the right because it won't win any votes from the right and it will curb enthusiasm within her base.

!Left != Right

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

She can dunk on him about it without promising to bring it back and sign it. All she had to say was "you had your chance, you blew it, and when I am elected and we take back the House we are going to pass a comprehensive immigration reform that aligns with the America that I know"

Let me translate what your quoted statement reads to me, who at this point is a rabid democratic voter who is donating time and money:

 

”Fuck you, I have no desire to comprise and meet in the middle.” Which turns off so many voters you can’t even comprehend, obviously. You have to be like 24 years old. 

Edited by SydneyCarton
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

!Left != Right

The "border bill" was everything the right wanted. That's a right-wing policy for no reason at all (only five percent of Democrats had immigration as their top issue). I hope it doesn't become a pattern, because that will have negative consequences.

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

Let me translate what your quoted stammer reads to me, who at this point is a rabid democratic voter who is donating time and money:

 

”Fuck you, I have no desire to comprise and meet in the middle.” Which turns off so many voters you can’t even comprehend, obviously. You have to be like 24 years old. 

The bill was hardly a compromise. It was always intended by Biden to be a bluff.

  • Fuck You 3
Posted
Just now, SydneyCarton said:

Let me translate what your quoted stammer reads to me, who at this point is a rabid democratic voter who is donating time and money:

 

”Fuck you, I have no desire to comprise and meet in the middle.” Which turns off so many voters you can’t even comprehend, obviously. You have to be like 24 years old. 

Not to mention, there's a party running on obstructionism already: The republicans. There are so, so, sooooo many people out there in the country who are tired of extreme division and just want a functioning government that is willing to forego ideological purity for the sake of making the damn machine run again. We've basically been without a functioning government for 16 fucking years now, as politics has become a game of not letting the "wrong side" get victories.

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

The bill was hardly a compromise. It was always intended by Biden to be a bluff.

Again, perfect illustration of your lack of understanding but ceaseless certainty: it wasn’t a bluff. It was a political effort to remove a glaring fucking weakness from his campaign. That’s called politics. He needed to stop being hammered. 
 

now the people hammering the left on it are your ilk, as you project weakness to Harris on the topic and ignore her dunking all over Trump. You’re a real asset. 

Edited by SydneyCarton
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

I kind of like it as it's written.  If she said what you think she should have said I'd be discouraged.

This isn't your moment dude-sorry.  This is the middle-left's moment. 

She's not trying to make you happy, she's trying to make me (and the millions like me) happy.  And that's the difference between winning and losing.  

If he can’t win he wants everyone to lose. That’s what he has repeatedly demonstrated. That or he’s on the take with GRU. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, TexasHooch said:

I kind of like it as it's written.  If she said what you think she should have said I'd be discouraged.

This isn't your moment dude-sorry.  This is the middle-left's moment. 

She's not trying to make you happy, she's trying to make me (and the millions like me) happy.  And that's the difference between winning and losing.  

That's just it though. Her policy is right-of-center. That's why Lankford and Lindsey Graham support the policies of the bill but the republicans didn't want Biden to get credit.

If you want to improve turnout, don't demoralize the people left of center. I hope she's only acting like this for immigration because if she goes with right-of-center positions for other issues people care about it will have consequences. Don't shoot the messenger, it's just true.

  • Fuck You 2
Posted

There is at least 1 thing about every candidate that I "very likely" find negative, does that prevent me or 99.3% of other rational human beings from voting for them, no.

The only way everyone would get to vote for a candidate that didn't have at least one position, that wasn't 100% aligned with their view, is if we had 100+ people running for president.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Chips O'Toole said:

I don't think "weird" was the endgame for that messaging, I expect it to shift to "strange" or "off-putting" and eventually end up at "backwards" to sync with the overall message.  Or that's what I think they should do. 

The biracial stuff is only going to land with their hardened base, yet again. For like the 5000th time, it appears that winning this election in a legitimate manner was never really plan A for these people, and all they believe is necessary to regain power is to keep their base angry and loyal. I'm not a concern troll or conspiracy person at all, I'm just having a hard time connecting the dots and not seeing an overall plan that wasn't intended to end in blatant election fuckery at the very least. 

The fundamental problem here is this.  Republicans haven't really known how to win a national election in the face of a decent candidate for 20 years or more.  By this, I mean pre-Trump Republicans.

Trump only knows how to be Trump.

Because Hillary was such a shit candidate, turnout was low and Trump won electorally as kind of an accident with his energized and crazed base.  Although astoundingly large, Trump's base doesn't get him the whole election.  He's going to have to swing some people from undecided or independent or hope for a low turnout.  The more conventional Republicans may understand the problem, but they don't know how to fix it.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

There is at least 1 thing about every candidate that I "very likely" find negative, does that prevent me or 99.3% of other rational human beings from voting for them, no.

The only way everyone would get to vote for a candidate that didn't have at least one position, that wasn't 100% aligned with their view, is if we had 100+ people running for president.

Same here. But if you're running a campaign and you need to maximize turnout, why would you choose a position that is twice as likely to harm you? I'm not saying she should totally lack her own principles or morph her views to suit the electorate but that's sort of the name of the game in a general election and in many instances she didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other going into the race.

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

That's just it though. Her policy is right-of-center. That's why Lankford and Lindsey Graham support the policies of the bill but the republicans didn't want Biden to get credit.

If you want to improve turnout, don't demoralize the people left of center. I hope she's only acting like this for immigration because if she goes with right-of-center positions for other issues people care about it will have consequences. Don't shoot the messenger, it's just true.

Left of center is overwhelmingly fine with what she saying. You’re left of Sinistral. You have to squint east to see Port. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It's funny how the progressive maximalist left, which is consistently the most retarded and politically counterproductive segment of the American ideological spectrum, the people who gave us not only GW Bush and the Iraq war but also the Trump administration, they think they are entitled to be pandered to. 

They are happiest when they're unhappy. We all know people like that, these guys just apply it to politics. Deep down they'd rather have the right wing win so they can rage on the internet and organize protests. 

Edited by Huckleberry
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

She can win Florida and compete in Texas if the Democratic base turnout is high. The honeymoon period will end by the convention. A substantial part of the base will regress to apathy if the policies and messaging are right-wing. Sorry if that's not what you want to hear, but that doesn't make it false.

You speak only for yourself.  You may have a slight bit of insight into people who think like you, but the people who think like you are a small minority of voters relative to the number who are ready to vote to break this cycle of right/left fringe brinksmanship.

Sorry if that’s not what you want to hear, but that doesn’t make it false.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

That's just it though. Her policy is right-of-center. That's why Lankford and Lindsey Graham support the policies of the bill but the republicans didn't want Biden to get credit.

If you want to improve turnout, don't demoralize the people left of center. I hope she's only acting like this for immigration because if she goes with right-of-center positions for other issues people care about it will have consequences. Don't shoot the messenger, it's just true.

Fucking A man, this isn't the primary.  This is the general fucking election.  The middle (and sure, even the Trump disliking Right) is what matters.  Drive turnout?  Give me a fucking break. The independents and  conservative leaning independents outnumber far left progressives by a large margin. If the bed-wetting wing of liberals want to stay home and risk Trump for another 4 years, fuck 'em.    The cost of courting you at this point is too high.

I like her moderate tone, both on it's face and as a strategy.  Clearly you don't, so the choice is clear.  Hold your nose and vote for Harris or bend over and get reamed by Trump.  

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It's funny how the progressive maximalist left, which is consistently the most retarded and politically counterproductive segment of the American ideological spectrum, the people who gave us not only GW Bush and the Iraq war but also the Trump administration, they think they are entitled to be pandered to. 

@chainsaw no offense, but the rest of the Democratic coalition, particularly labor and  historically disefranchised groups, have learned the hard way that folks like you can't be counted on and pivoted accordingly. Maybe try the GOP. 

You speak for labor? You'd be surprised how left-of-center they are as a voting bloc.

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
4 hours ago, YGIFS said:

There was a pretty high-up guy in our entourage who is gay.  Kinda open, kinda closeted if that makes sense.  He's just in that age bracket where he feels he can't quite be one or the other, depending on the audience (50-55yo).  Did a lot with UT System on projects with Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Education, and Dept. of Defense.  So we're having drinks and we've completed our higher-level FBI backgrounds but they'll still be asking us shit tomorrow (like about drugs), and he brought up a good point.  We were talking about old spy movies where the bad guys would try to steal our nuclear or weapons secrets by finding a closeted gay guy to squeeze for intel under threat of outing him to his superiors.  And how that was a really serious avenue for both sides for decades.  And now, it doesn't even come up.  He said, he was once in D.C. and to clear the air he told the interviewer, "Just to be up front, I'm also homosexual."  Guy laughed and said, "There's 40 people in your group...it'd be weird if you didn't have a gay person on your team.  Then we'd think you were really hiding something."

Or in The Good Shepherd, where MI5 flat murdered Michael Gambon for being gay and thus a security risk.

Posted
17 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

That's just it though. Her policy is right-of-center. That's why Lankford and Lindsey Graham support the policies of the bill but the republicans didn't want Biden to get credit.

If you want to improve turnout, don't demoralize the people left of center. I hope she's only acting like this for immigration because if she goes with right-of-center positions for other issues people care about it will have consequences. Don't shoot the messenger, it's just true.

A left of center immigration policy is going nowhere in this country. Pretending otherwise is just pandering to voters.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

You speak for labor? You'd be surprised how left-of-center they are as a voting bloc.

Yeah, SEIU and AFSCME thank you for supporting Ralph Nader and Jill Stein. It's important that your hands stay clean. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

A left of center immigration policy is going nowhere in this country. Pretending otherwise is just pandering to voters.

The data hasn't shown that. Biden campaigned on a left of center immigration policy in 2020 and he won.

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
Just now, chainsaw said:

The data hasn't shown that. Biden campaigned on a left of center immigration policy in 2020 and he won.

And what happened when he became president and actually had to try to get policy turned into law?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

And what happened when he became president and actually had to try to get policy turned into law?

He became president and that's all that mattered to me.

Posted
31 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

The bill was hardly a compromise. It was always intended by Biden to be a bluff.

Would he have signed it?

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

He became president and that's all that mattered to me.

And Kamala will become president if the left decides to live in reality and vote like grown ups.

  • Hook 'Em 8
Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

Would he have signed it?

He would have had to, but at least he didn't campaign on it.

For reference, this is the policy (which won in 2020) that I'm now being told is so "maximalist progressive" it would only have found support at the CHAZ/CHOP

Quote

As president, Biden will forcefully pursue policies that safeguard our security, provide a fair and just system that helps to grow and enhance our economy, and secure our cherished values. He will:

  • Take urgent action to undo Trump’s damage and reclaim America’s values
  • Modernize America’s immigration system
  • Welcome immigrants in our communities
  • Reassert America’s commitment to asylum-seekers and refugees 
  • Tackle the root causes of irregular migration 
  • Implement effective border screening 

https://web.archive.org/web/20201022090142/https://joebiden.com/immigration/#

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

That's just it though. Her policy is right-of-center. That's why Lankford and Lindsey Graham support the policies of the bill but the republicans didn't want Biden to get credit.

If you want to improve turnout, don't demoralize the people left of center. I hope she's only acting like this for immigration because if she goes with right-of-center positions for other issues people care about it will have consequences. Don't shoot the messenger, it's just true.

Harris is rightly using the Lankford bill to hammer Republicans on the campaign. It's your own fault that you don't understand politics enough to realize that isn't predictive of her future administration's policy.

That bill is dead and buried and will never get voted on. The next immigration bill drafed under a Harris administration will be to the left of that one, maybe only slightly, because the Republicans will have lost all leverage.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 3
Posted
Just now, berlinerbaer said:

The next immigration bill drafed under a Harris administration will be to the left of that one, maybe only slightly, because the Republicans will have lost all leverage.

I hope you're right. I don't think she needed to promise to pass the Lankford bill to score the points on Republicans here.

I am more worried that she will repeat that strategy on other issues that Democrats care more about, which will lend credibility to the common "both parties are the same" bullshit and lead to lower turnout where it's needed.

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
You’re actively trying to make the excitement wear off, I hope you’re not doing this shit irl.

He 100% is. As are all the other progressive maximalists. Who are really, really good at own thing, and only one thing: losing elections.
I kind of like it as it's written.  If she said what you think she should have said I'd be discouraged.
This isn't your moment dude-sorry.  This is the middle-left's moment. 
She's not trying to make you happy, she's trying to make me (and the millions like me) happy.  And that's the difference between winning and losing.  

FFS this. Maximalism is poison. And its own they keep trying to shove down our throats. How about, instead of doing that, you try spent you haven’t tried in decades: shut up, and let the center left candidate win a fucking election?
Same here. But if you're running a campaign and you need to maximize turnout, why would you choose a position that is twice as likely to harm you? I'm not saying she should totally lack her own principles or morph her views to suit the electorate but that's sort of the name of the game in a general election and in many instances she didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other going into the race.

Twice as likely to harm you? So, on top of being mind-numbingly stupid and non-strategic, you’re also bad at math?
A MAJORITY of Dems believe that 1) immigration is an important issue, and 2) better enforcement is part of the solution. Sorry your tiny fringe isn’t getting catered to, but the moderates, who are really, really fucking important, are all for compromise policies that try to strike a balance.
It's funny how the progressive maximalist left, which is consistently the most retarded and politically counterproductive segment of the American ideological spectrum, the people who gave us not only GW Bush and the Iraq war but also the Trump administration, they think they are entitled to be pandered to. 
[mention=1353]chainsaw[/mention] no offense, but the rest of the Democratic coalition, particularly labor and  historically disefranchised groups, have learned the hard way that folks like you can't be counted on and pivoted accordingly. Maybe try the GOP. 

Fucking. THIS. There’s a party for uncompromising extremists. They’ve got that approach nailed down. Go join THEM. Horseshoe-theory idiocy and all that.
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Twice as likely

Read the ipsos poll I cited upthread. (20% is twice as much as 10% thanks for coming to my Ted Talk)

reuters%20ipsos%20foreign%20affairs%20gr

If your goal is to energize your base ("Democrats" in the above graphic) you should choose the position that has 56% support and not the one that has 40% support. It's science.

"Much less likely" seems like it actually matters, so if I have to choose between pissing off 20% or pissing off 10%, I'm going to piss off 10%.

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

Imagine being a news organization “reporting” what Joe Rogan says as news. 

Didn’t fox have to admit to a court that they are in fact *not* a news organization?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2


×
×
  • Create New...