Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted
51 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Thank you that's very kind. 

There's a lot of work in the political science field on this topic and the easiest way to characterize it is that the VP pick matters, but not in the sense of delivering a discrete result from a place or group. Where it seems to have the greatest effect is in positively or negatively reflecting on the judgment and priorities of the Presidential candidate, in that it's a reflection of what they think is important. 
in other words - of course it helps if your VP is popular in a battleground state and how much is a matter of degree, BUT it's hard to find an example of a VP "delivering" a close or battleground state. Bentsen didn't deliver Texas, Gore didn't deliver (or subsequently win) Tennessee. Biden already had Delaware, but arguably helped a little in PA.
That said - the VP choice says a lot about the presidential candidate. 

  • Palin told the world McCain was desperate and would cater to the weirdos in the GOP.
  • Biden told older white people that Obama wasn't a revolutionary.
  • Cheney told the money guys that Bush was serious about playing ball. 
  • Kaine told America that Hillary couldn't handle a strong #2 and thought she had the election in the bag.
  • Vance tells coomers with waifu pillows that Donald Trump understands their loneliness. 


So, part of why I give a slight edge to Walz over Shapiro is that while Shapiro is very popular in a crucial state, Walz conveys the desire to return to normalcy - the idea that it's important to laugh off the madness and go do stuff and be nice people. Shapiro is good at the politics of the moment, but nobody loves those, and conveys to Democrats that this is a must win election, but at what cost?
 

it also becomes important in a race where Methuselah is one or more of the candidates.  Then you move from the vice president being a rare but potential successor - to “he’s probably gonna be the president once Trump strokes out on a hamburder!”

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Texas Flood said:

Pelosi wants to go for the kill and maximize down ticket voting. Kamala shouldn't overthink this.

Part of the benefit of running Harris is that she does poll better nationally, even if she is ultimately a point worse than Biden in terms of structural EC deficit, and that is correlated with success in the House. If Democrats can't win the WH, they have to get the House. I think it's the correct strategic view.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I have the misfortune of knowing about Ian Miles Cheong on another forum long before he became a Musk fluffer, dude is a legit neo nazi, he once described himself as a banana.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Pete's risky. 

Dems could lean into it, especially considering Team Dotard's response to Harris being, sigh, biracial. 

Like, "For fucks sake people, it's 2024. Yes he's gay. He's very gay. He's very good at being gay, like he's very good at everything he does, because he's basically a perfect human. Stop being monsters." Ok maybe not that but you get my point.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Drool 1
Posted
Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

I don't think Pete is as risky as Shapiro. 

But the issue is Pete is so talented in so many ways, you don't feel the urgency to pigeonhole him as VP in this moment. He is a policy wonk, great campaigner, quick learner. You could make an argument for him to be the Secretary of anything.  And he's still young. 

Buttigieg will have no hard feelings if he's passed up as VP. He will continue to work hard in whatever other capacity they find for him. 

I've advocated here for him to be Chief of Staff

Posted
2 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:

This Tim Walz interview with Ezra Klein is refreshing. He’s literally the anti-Greg Abbott. 
 

“I want Minnesota to be the best state to raise kids”

 

and he lists about 20 things they’ve done to improve the lives of mothers, kids and families. Abbott only pro-family agenda is to say “it could have been worse” 2 hours after Uvalde shooting. 
 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id1548604447?i=1000664114455

I've more or less landed on Walz as the VP pick if I were in charge. Very little downside, both legislative and executive experience to govern, can no doubt connect on the campaign trail in the Rust Belt and in the suburbs. 

But every serious contender is fine, certainly passable and a strong contrast against JD Vance lol.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, ROFL BOX said:

I will get the links if you want me to do the work, however I am surprised you aren't aware of Trump [after one of the many mass shootings that have occurred... this particular one during his term in office...] saying "Whe we do, what we have to do is take the guns.   We have to take the guns first & then let the courts settle it.  We take the guns."

 

Trump is the ONLY sitting PotIS to have ☆EVER☆ said anything like that.   EVER.  Not any Presidential candidate has said such a thing, even as a non-candidate & it was dug up from an old clip out of Forget-Landia.

But the 🍊🤡 says it & then the Qcumbers go deaf, deaf / dumb / blind 🙉 🙊 🙈.

 

:Edit: @Bozo_Casanova beat me to it.

 

4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Yup, and it was legitimately disturbing when he said it because it was another instance of him being perfectly willing to intentionally violate constitutional rights. I may not believe the 2nd amendment is anymore important than rights established in other amendments, but it is still a right. 

This is my tiresome thing about the TV News idiots. Those are huge stories that they didn't cover because it was so far off the template that they decided not to take them seriously. They all succombed to Trump fatigue which is antitheitcal to their profession.

Trump revealed he was anti-republic and had no regard whatsoever for his oath of office. What do they give us?

The country is so polarized. = Both sides.

 

4 hours ago, thepop said:

 

 

4 hours ago, Zonahorn said:

 

So many Dem speakers taking over where journalists failed and where hidebound political discourse crippled their party.  No more stuffy statements about "we are profoundly disturbed at the statements made by former President Trump and we abhor his words."

No. Now they just talk about what's obvious and speak their intelligent minds. Never thought I'd see it.

 

4 hours ago, YGIFS said:

This.  For 20 years, all the Democratic party had was Schumer who vaguely knew what was happening to James Carville basically.  Who, while brilliant and versed and articulate, still came across as a demonic troll.  

Now they've built a bench of about 10 'attack proxies' who can cover anything from Sunday morning shows to late night to opening act for rallies/fundraisers, to attack ads, and everything in between.  Pete, Shapiro, Walz, Crockett, Moskowitz, Rankin, Ted Lieu, Whitmer, et. al.  Seriously good communicators who go on offense while still knowing proper policy defense...and are engaging, even funny, while doing it.  That's a big gulf they just closed the last few years.  

Yep. The old pol's have their templates, too. 

You see all those dusty boxes in the back room? Get rid of 'em. We're starting over.

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

 

That is a really good answer. I disagree that Waltz hasn't shown the same thing, but that is an excellent answer. And I'd like to think citing actual scripture in a concrete way would move some Christian voters that have so far supported DT. I mean, I'd like to think it, but I don't. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 hour ago, Red Five said:

Isn't Harris doing sit-downs with the VP candidates this weekend? I doubt they gave the go ahead to put together a video like that.

And yeah, I'm sure it accidentally "leaked".

The shitty production and content are enough of a giveaway that the video wasn't produced or authorized by Harris's team. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

Too risky, especially when you have more qualified candidates.

Just not Shapiro. He sucks and is super risky. He won PA by a razor thin margin over a literal freak show that he outspent 3:1.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

Just not Shapiro. He sucks and is super risky. He won PA by a razor thin margin over a literal freak show that he outspent 3:1.

Shapiro won by 14 points. But Mastriano was a historically bad R candidate. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 5
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

 a Korean American joyfully and  PROUDLY parading around the arena with an American flag. 

 

Well this gif has never been more perfect 

image.gif.aed4d8c514ef8810cf2959e118e62d24.gif
 

edit: looks like this has been covered

Edited by Hank_Hill
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, GhostOfTomJoad said:

I think it's hilarious that  thumb-sucking, smooth brained murderer Kyle Rittenhouse thinks his endorsement moves the needle for any politician anywhere. 

True but I think it's more hilarious that Trump and his dick-sucking team spent their day in a panic, talking Rittenhouse into endorsing Trump, even while he's flailing in fundraising, dropping in the polls, and together with the new VP choice who looks the definition of an incel loser, spewing a completely incoherent message.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Chopper said:

"Comics for Kamala" zoom call announced

image.thumb.png.3b3f4f11db75a543a1f6de5f9715d1fd.png

This looks awesome, but you go to the bit.ly deal and the page is down.  Is there some super-secret way to register?  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Js1 said:

The pick can def hurt (Palin and Vance) or just do nothing (Kaine). I wouldn’t say a VP has down much geographically since 1960 anyhow. Mostly you’re just shoring up support among a demo you may not super strong with 

I don't agree with your dismissal of a geographical impact, though sometimes it's not as obvious as "X will bring his/her home state."  In the case of Al Gore, it was that simple.  Gore won Tennessee for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.  But in other cases, it's a bit more attenuated.  Kamala Harris definitely helped with Black voters, and in Georgia and Wisconsin that may have been determinative.  And Joe Biden helped with the white conservative Boomer population that were critical to Obama's win in Pennsylvania (which neighbors Delaware, and which shares a major media market with Delaware).

 

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

Historically it's a pass/fail. It's pretty well established that a true plus-VP candidate is very rare, but you can do your campaign real harm with a bad pick. See Palin, Sarah and potentially Vance, JD.

And I definitively don't agree with that.  I think Mike Pence was definitely a positive for Donald Trump.  I know this is hard to remember, but evangelicals were really very skeptical of Donald Trump.  Pence was pretty significant in getting them to swing over in his favor.

And as pointed out above, Joe Biden was a major positive for Obama.  There were plenty of white voters who were very iffy about a Black guy, particularly in the critical Upper Midwest states.  Biden was pretty important in shoring that up.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Texas Flood said:

Pelosi wants to go for the kill and maximize down ticket voting. Kamala shouldn't overthink this.

Pelosi wants to pump Waltz and then dump while his stock price is high because she knows it ain’t going to be him.
 

Classic Nancy 

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

@chainsaw this means you.

I supported the Longhorns even when they made bad choices, and I will support the Harris Campaign even if it makes bad choices.

I don't know how much clearer I need to be that you don't have to worry about my vote.

It's eye-opening to see how many people are superstitious enough to think that if there's people out there who see flaws in the campaign's strategic approach and talk about the flaws those people would be responsible for the underperformance of the campaign (and not, say, the flaws themselves). Nobody here has the power to influence the election.

I will give the Harris campaign some credit today for good choices. Outstanding decision to hire a proven winner, David Plouffe.

Also very smart to hire Terrance Woodbury, a polling expert who specializes in measuring attitudes among Black voters. Here's an example of his work

https://hitstrat.com/blacktrack-july-2022/

This move tells me she is serious about maximizing the Black vote and not simply taking them for granted, it tells me she's not too proud to admit she could use some help in understanding the demographic, and hopefully it means she will be prioritizing messaging about the issues where there's strong overlap with non-Black voters. We may also see targeted GOTV and messaging based on Woodbury's work. If it's in the budget she should find an equally competent Latino pollster, a group whose support of the Democratic party has been trending down.

She hired Brian Nelson as a policy advisor. It's hard to get a read on his policy beliefs, but if he is smart he will control any biases and listen to what the data is saying. He is from Biden's treasury department and his 2021 confirmation was contentious (50-49 party line vote so no there was need for Harris to cast the tiebreaker). She and him go way back so I'm not reading too much into this hire, just trying to surround herself with people she knows she can work with and can trust. No different really from assistant coach hiring decisions.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

She could choose Eric Trump as VP and I'm in 100%.

I'm just ready for all the speculation to end. All of her actual choices look good to me after seeing all the video you guys have posted. 

Onward to battle!

  • Haha 4


×
×
  • Create New...