Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, YGIFS said:

Reagan, Trump, Biden, Buchanan.  All exhibited signs of old age

Edith Wilson was running Woodrow’s admin by the end of the 1910s

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I would think polling for someone like Whitmer would be difficult now considering the average person on the street has never heard of her.

Mmm, polling Whitmer.

  • Like 1
Posted
32 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

You keep saying this and I dont understand why. 99% of voters have no clue who she is. Is it just because she’s from Michigan and you think she can win that state?  I’m genuinely curious. What has she done that has wowed you so much?

Here's a good interview with her from January.

Margaret Brennan is insufferably confrontational, but Gretchen does a great job of fighting her without coming across as angry.  I couldn't have held my tongue, considering there is no way she pushes Republicans like that.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Edith Wilson was running Woodrow’s admin by the end of the 1910s

Good point.  I forget we was pretty young when he left office, but was quite ill.  You could same something similar about Eleanor Roosevelt.  

I don't know how, but my maternal cousin got very close with Nancy Reagan over the years.  Was a pall-bearer at her funeral.  He told me she confided him a few years before the end, that 18 months between back half of '87 and '88, James Baker discretely came back to the White House and between him and Nancy...basically ran the Oval.  

It's the paradox of the office.  When it was substantially less powerful as the framer's intended, it was run by relatively middle-aged men of military experience and vigor with small teams.  Now that we've spent over a century expanding the scope of the office's power and blowing up its staff and influence to inconceivable numbers, we keep running old guys who try to hide the fact that they have that big a team and support network.  50 year old President used to just sit down and write the State of the Union up as a 4-5 pager and have it sent up to Capitol Hill.  Now we got 70-80 year olds who have to take a week off to prep for a live performance and then get a blood transfusion afterward. 

Posted
35 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

You keep saying this and I dont understand why. 99% of voters have no clue who she is. Is it just because she’s from Michigan and you think she can win that state?  I’m genuinely curious. What has she done that has wowed you so much?

She’s the 5* QB recruit who dazzled in high school but hasn’t taken a meaningful snap since arriving on campus. The starter is struggling and nobody wants the backup. The backup couldn’t win the starting job so they’re not good enough. We want the prize recruit! They’ll save us!

She has the benefit of being somewhat of an unknown so in our minds she can still be whatever we hope she’ll be. Get to know a candidate and Dem voters will turn on them because they’re not just exactly perfect. They want the next shiny new toy.

I think there’s some of that going on. Don’t get me wrong, I think she’s got great promise. I like her and I’ll enthusiastically support her if they go the mini-primary route and she wins the nomination. And the fact that she’s a relative unknown could be an advantage because the Trump team will have to scramble to devise a strategy against her. Of course Trump’s boorish approach to negative campaigning doesn’t take a lot of time or thought. But they’ve spent so much time building a campaign against “senile” Joe Biden, forcing them to abandon that would toss a wrench into their gears. (Still, the phrase “crooked Gretchen Whitmer” would be blasted out from Trump about 5 seconds after her nomination.) But the unknown aspect could also be a benefit amongst undecided voters who might also see in her whatever they want to see.

Posted
46 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Well, they wouldn't do that. Biden would resign or say he's stepping down as the party's nominee. It needs to be a coordinated effort that doesn't freak people out. You remove him forcefully, it causes a massive problem. 

In terms of massive how much more massive a problem is a DJT second term?  After the SC decision he’s basically a King round 2.  FML

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

She has the benefit of being somewhat of an unknown so in our minds she can still be whatever we hope she’ll be. Get to know a candidate and Dem voters will turn on them because they’re not just exactly perfect. They want the next shiny new toy.

She’s Generic Dem, which always polls great until they start to get defined 

Posted

The success of a two woman black/white ticket comes down to the following equation. Is..

Additional black voters + additional women voters + additional male non-black voters who value competency > the number of male misogynists + the number of racists against black people.

I think that it would energize the campaign, create a ton of press, and attract just enough new voters to offset the racists and misogynists. But hey, I'm an optimist.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

In terms of massive how much more massive a problem is a DJT second term?  After the SC decision he’s basically a King round 2.  FML

In terms of people fleeing the Democratic Party and just not voting. People are pretty pissy little creatures who like to take their ball and go home. Look at the pro-Palestinians people in Michigan who have a lot more to lose than you or I if Trump is in power. But because Biden sided with Israel, they just won't vote or so they tell us. They're ready to burn it all down if they don't get their way. That's going to be a pretty prevailing sentiment going forward if Biden remains. Well, I just won't vote...so Trump wins. 

And yes a Trump term is worse. But the people who don't follow it that closely don't see it yet. That's why you have to change the narrative from Biden is old to Trump is a piece of shit and here's Kamala to tell you in great detail why that's the case. Joe Biden certainly did a poor job of that during the first debate. If he remains in the race, there will not be a 2nd or 3rd debate. Trump doesn't have to debate him. He already won what he needed to by Biden's performance. 

Edited by mdmost
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
Just now, mdmost said:

In terms of people fleeing the Democratic Party and just not voting. People are pretty pissy little creatures who like to take their ball and go home. Look at the pro-Palestinians people in Michigan who have a lot more to lose than you or I if Trump is in power. But because Biden sided with Israel, they just won't vote. 

And yes a Trump term is worse. But the people who don't follow it that closely don't see it yet. That's why you have to change the narrative from Biden is old to Trump is a piece of shit and here's Kamala to tell you in great detail why that's the case. Joe Biden certainly did a poor job of that during the first debate. If he remains in the race, there will not be a 2nd or 3rd debate. Trump doesn't have to debate him. He already won what he needed to by Biden's performance. 

Here’s the thing.  There’s so much dirt on Trump people have become numb to it.  Not us, but many of the people that matter.  The very few voters who may be undecided OR the far greater number of voters who have their choice but need to get off their ass and vote.  Biden needs to get his voters out, they all know Trump is trash.  But I’m afraid the version we saw at the debate is just gonna turn a lot of his voters off.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, mdmost said:

In terms of people fleeing the Democratic Party and just not voting. People are pretty pissy little creatures who like to take their ball and go home. Look at the pro-Palestinians people in Michigan who have a lot more to lose than you or I if Trump is in power. But because Biden sided with Israel, they just won't vote. 

And yes a Trump term is worse. But the people who don't follow it that closely don't see it yet. That's why you have to change the narrative from Biden is old to Trump is a piece of shit and here's Kamala to tell you in great detail why that's the case. Joe Biden certainly did a poor job of that during the first debate. If he remains in the race, there will not be a 2nd or 3rd debate. Trump doesn't have to debate him. He already won what he needed to by Biden's performance. 

I’m 100% at Team Kamala at this point. Younger candidate, less baggage (no debate flub, no Biden crime family, etc., brings a new perspective, energizes black and female voters. Who are the most reliable. Could get the youth vote back with her softer approach towards Palestine and just being younger in general. She’s been killing it by being the voice of pro-choice, which has helped her numbers in swing states and with swing voters.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
24 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Here's a good interview with her from January.

Margaret Brennan is insufferably confrontational, but Gretchen does a great job of fighting her without coming across as angry.  I couldn't have held my tongue, considering there is no way she pushes Republicans like that.

 

I got through 9 minutes and I know for damn sure the interviewer is a raging cunt. But Whitmer seemed fine. That said, and maybe she does so later in the interview, I would like her to call out the R bullshit and lies more. If she were to get the D nod, she’d have my vote. Just like anyone else that gets the D nod. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Here’s the thing.  There’s so much dirt on Trump people have become numb to it.  Not us, but many of the people that matter.  The very few voters who may be undecided OR the far greater number of voters who have their choice but need to get off their ass and vote.  Biden needs to get his voters out, they all know Trump is trash.  But I’m afraid the version we saw at the debate is just gonna turn a lot of his voters off.  

I think there are a ton of people out there who dislike Trump, but think “he’s already been president before. How bad could it be?”

Dems need a nominee who can articulate exactly how bad it can be. Biden is not doing that at all.
  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
Just now, Red Five said:


I think there are a ton of people out there who dislike Trump, but think “he’s already been president before. How bad could it be?”

Dems need a nominee who can articulate exactly how bad it can be. Biden is not doing that at all.

That's exactly how people think. There's continuity if Trump is back in. He did it before, the economy was okay until Covid, yeah a lot of people died but my 401K was good and gas was cheap. Yes, it's low information stuff but you can shift that message back to "this is why he's bad for the country". 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

If Whitmer wins an actual vote, what about keeping Harris on the ticket?  It makes the block women happy.  Harris wouldn’t like it but tough shit.  She’s take it anyway.

Posted
1 minute ago, Aqua Buddha said:

If Whitmer wins an actual vote, what about keeping Harris on the ticket?  It makes the block women happy.  Harris wouldn’t like it but tough shit.  She’s take it anyway.

Harris has to be top of ticket. Optics of being passed up for a white woman are un-recover-from-able and will squander black women turnout where it's needed.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted (edited)

If Biden actually resigns, which I don't think is going to happen, then Harris is 100% the nominee. If he opts to pull out of the race, I still think she should be the nominee due to much of what has already been stated, but I could see a brokered convention go a different way. I'd actually prefer the 1st option. 

Also, all this talk from Biden about not dropping out feels exactly like coaches who say they are not taking another coaching job, and then within a week they do. 

Edited by Mo Horn
Posted
59 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Reagan, Trump, Biden, Buchanan.  All exhibited signs of old age, even Eisenhower towards the end.

Reagan left office at 77, almost 78.
Trump was 74 when he left office.
Eisenhower, Jackson, Buchanan ... all right at age 70 when they left office.

Biden is already over 80 and Trump, if you factor in the fat, is probably the same biological age.

I'm around a lot of old people thanks to my parents.  A tip to the young:  Get everything done that you want to get done in life by age 80.  Your 70s can be really nice, but kinda slow, but you're still there and you can still do stuff.  And some people can keep going into their 80s.  But things start breaking and a lot of people in their 80's are just hanging on.

It's not a good time to take on a four year assignment, even if you are trying to keep yourself out of jail or keep someone else out of the White House.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

Irrefutable Fact #1. Harris is the only one with access to the money. That means she has to be on the ticket.

Once you accept that, you move on to

Irrefutable Fact #2. Harris has a stronger claim to the throne than anyone else. I'm not saying she is the best candidate, but I am saying that being VP is the strongest possible resume for being president.

Once you accept that, you move on to

Irrefutable Fact #3. There is no satisfying explanation for putting anyone besides Harris at the top of the ticket. By "satisfying explanation" I mean a narrative that black voters and especially black women will believe. Even if it's 100% true.

Once you accept that, you move on to

Conclusion: Harris absolutely must be at the top of the ticket.

It's beyond debate.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Pancho said:

“I can’t identify myself as a woman. Men hate that, and women who hate women hate that, which I believe is most women.”

- Selina Meyer

You know what VP stands for?

07F61621-EB47-483B-8A97-34A2CBBFB7B2.jpeg.e56b00acbc7145637f069d67befb5b92.jpeg

Posted
20 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

Also, all this talk from Biden about not dropping out feels exactly like coaches who say they are not taking another coaching job, and then within a week they do. 

It's what every candidate does. When was the last time you heard "Well, I'm thinking about dropping out. In fact I probably will, pretty soon. Just need to get my ducks in a row, you know? I'll get back to you." 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, South Austin said:

You’re on the wrong message board.

Hey there's still plenty debate about who her running mate could be. I was bullish on the young rep from Philadelphia until I heard Katie Hobbs would appoint Mark Kelly's replacement in AZ if it's him.

And I think a white non-Buttigieg male would be the best choice for VP.

Posted
6 minutes ago, Red Five said:

It's what every candidate does. When was the last time you heard "Well, I'm thinking about dropping out. In fact I probably will, pretty soon. Just need to get my ducks in a row, you know? I'll get back to you." 

This. We're firmly in "He gone" territory. MSNBC out front shoulda told ya.

Posted
19 minutes ago, Texas Jeff said:

Reagan left office at 77, almost 78.
Trump was 74 when he left office.
Eisenhower, Jackson, Buchanan ... all right at age 70 when they left office.

Biden is already over 80 and Trump, if you factor in the fat, is probably the same biological age.

I'm around a lot of old people thanks to my parents.  A tip to the young:  Get everything done that you want to get done in life by age 80.  Your 70s can be really nice, but kinda slow, but you're still there and you can still do stuff.  And some people can keep going into their 80s.  But things start breaking and a lot of people in their 80's are just hanging on.

It's not a good time to take on a four year assignment, even if you are trying to keep yourself out of jail or keep someone else out of the White House.

Reagan’s decline wasn’t just old age sundowning mental decline. He had help from dementia/alsheimers. 
 

For Jackson and Buchanan, what was the average male lifespan at that time and how close were they to it compared to Biden today?  I guess I should also ask if mental acuity has improved over the years as we’ve lived longer, or it’s just that now we have health care to outlive our brains. 

Posted

The VP for Harris can’t be a no name. That creates too much to overcome. I also believe it can’t be Newsome. Too California. Kelly is a maybe, but between Whitmer and Kelly Whitmer brings the Midwest and creates the “woman power” message to energize women everywhere. It needs to be Whitmer. I think a white male would be a mistake. Lean into the woman power messaging. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
10 minutes ago, Red Five said:

It's what every candidate does. When was the last time you heard "Well, I'm thinking about dropping out. In fact I probably will, pretty soon. Just need to get my ducks in a row, you know? I'll get back to you." 

Sure, not the point I was making. Just that I'm hoping it turns out the same way. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Rex Kramer said:

- No name recognition and attachment to Dem establishment is a plus. 
- She governs a purple battleground state and will carry it easily.
- Kidnapping attempt by Maga is huge. 
- She is tough and smart. 

How many times do you have to be told these things?  Outside of an unwilling Obama, in a vacuum she is by far the best candidate. 

The kidnapping story is fucking insane and 99% of people don't know about it.  They would if she's the nominee, though, and it reminds people about how crazy the MAGA crowd is.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 hours ago, Pimphand said:

Harris is even dumber than current state Biden and even at his zenith of health he was never very smart.

I think this post makes you an authority on dumb.

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

Harris has to be top of ticket.

R votes R, D votes D, and the folks in the middle who apparently don't understand they are voting on their basic right to vote just want an alternative between a fossil and a criminal.

Kamala gets the war chest, steps into the candidacy easily and carries the black and women votes. Prefer Whitmer but Harris has the money this late in the race.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Irrefutable Fact #1. Harris is the only one with access to the money. That means she has to be on the ticket.

Once you accept that, you move on to

Irrefutable Fact #2. Harris has a stronger claim to the throne than anyone else. I'm not saying she is the best candidate, but I am saying that being VP is the strongest possible resume for being president.

Once you accept that, you move on to

Irrefutable Fact #3. There is no satisfying explanation for putting anyone besides Harris at the top of the ticket. By "satisfying explanation" I mean a narrative that black voters and especially black women will believe. Even if it's 100% true.

Once you accept that, you move on to

Conclusion: Harris absolutely must be at the top of the ticket.

It's beyond debate.

Fuck it.  I’m in.  Let’s ride…

 

edit: badly wanted to troll with ‘what about Michelle?!?!’

Edited by ChiTownDoc
  • Haha 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Reagan’s decline wasn’t just old age sundowning mental decline. He had help from dementia/alsheimers. 
 

For Jackson and Buchanan, what was the average male lifespan at that time and how close were they to it compared to Biden today?  I guess I should also ask if mental acuity has improved over the years as we’ve lived longer, or it’s just that now we have health care to outlive our brains. 

Yes, Reagan did have legit dementia in the last ~18 months of his term as I stated above when Nancy confided the same to several in her inner circle.

There's no hard and fast rule.  We all know a 90 year old who is still sharp as hell and very little trouble with either long-term or short-term memory.  And we all know a 60-year old who remembers what they gave you Christmas in 1984 and has no fucking idea what state in which state they are currently residing.  Before he died, in his 60's, my father's cognitive reasoning and knowledgeable recall actually got stronger (and he was one of the sharpest people I've ever known).  In her 60's, my mother spent a significant amount of time trying to tell me I was born on May 23rd, not May 27th despite her reading my driver's license and birth certificate as she mumbled "Oh, these governments don't know better than a mother."  

As for our older presidents in the 1800's and even up until FDR.  Yes, the mental health care/diagnostics was for shit.  But remember, just because the lifespan was much lower, it was due in large part to infant mortality skewing the results and so many kids dying from shit we easily vaccinate our way out of these days.  If you were a male living until 40, you had an extremely high chance of making it to 50, also to 60, and then fading at 70/80.  Biden is in good shape physically, I think he can make it to 90 with no problems.  But I guess to sum up a long Lobo rant, I've known lots of lazy 50 year olds who go downhill pretty fast.  I've known lots of 90 year olds who still push themselves to learn and move.  But I ain't never known an 80 year old who works 16 hours a day, 7 days a week-so what the fuck do we know?  

Posted
2 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Yes, Reagan did have legit dementia in the last ~18 months of his term as I stated above when Nancy confided the same to several in her inner circle.

There's no hard and fast rule.  We all know a 90 year old who is still sharp as hell and very little trouble with either long-term or short-term memory.  And we all know a 60-year old who remembers what they gave you Christmas in 1984 and has no fucking idea what state in which state they are currently residing.  Before he died, in his 60's, my father's cognitive reasoning and knowledgeable recall actually got stronger (and he was one of the sharpest people I've ever known).  In her 60's, my mother spent a significant amount of time trying to tell me I was born on May 23rd, not May 27th despite her reading my driver's license and birth certificate as she mumbled "Oh, these governments don't know better than a mother."  

As for our older presidents in the 1800's and even up until FDR.  Yes, the mental health care/diagnostics was for shit.  But remember, just because the lifespan was much lower, it was due in large part to infant mortality skewing the results and so many kids dying from shit we easily vaccinate our way out of these days.  If you were a male living until 40, you had an extremely high chance of making it to 50, also to 60, and then fading at 70/80.  Biden is in good shape physically, I think he can make it to 90 with no problems.  But I guess to sum up a long Lobo rant, I've known lots of lazy 50 year olds who go downhill pretty fast.  I've known lots of 90 year olds who still push themselves to learn and move.  But I ain't never known an 80 year old who works 16 hours a day, 7 days a week-so what the fuck do we know?  

I got dementia reading this post.  I think.  

  • Haha 6
Posted
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

She’s the 5* QB recruit who dazzled in high school but hasn’t taken a meaningful snap since arriving on campus. The starter is struggling and nobody wants the backup. The backup couldn’t win the starting job so they’re not good enough. We want the prize recruit! They’ll save us!

No. She’s a lightly recruited high school champion who rewrote the record book at Purdue, but Mel Kiper doesn't love her because she’s on the short side and doesn't project as a pro-style QB. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Yes, Reagan did have legit dementia in the last ~18 months of his term as I stated above when Nancy confided the same to several in her inner circle.

There's no hard and fast rule.  We all know a 90 year old who is still sharp as hell and very little trouble with either long-term or short-term memory.  And we all know a 60-year old who remembers what they gave you Christmas in 1984 and has no fucking idea what state in which state they are currently residing.  Before he died, in his 60's, my father's cognitive reasoning and knowledgeable recall actually got stronger (and he was one of the sharpest people I've ever known).  In her 60's, my mother spent a significant amount of time trying to tell me I was born on May 23rd, not May 27th despite her reading my driver's license and birth certificate as she mumbled "Oh, these governments don't know better than a mother."  

As for our older presidents in the 1800's and even up until FDR.  Yes, the mental health care/diagnostics was for shit.  But remember, just because the lifespan was much lower, it was due in large part to infant mortality skewing the results and so many kids dying from shit we easily vaccinate our way out of these days.  If you were a male living until 40, you had an extremely high chance of making it to 50, also to 60, and then fading at 70/80.  Biden is in good shape physically, I think he can make it to 90 with no problems.  But I guess to sum up a long Lobo rant, I've known lots of lazy 50 year olds who go downhill pretty fast.  I've known lots of 90 year olds who still push themselves to learn and move.  But I ain't never known an 80 year old who works 16 hours a day, 7 days a week-so what the fuck do we know?  

We're all about the same here, which means we're all dealing or have dealt with older relatives.  We all know they never get better.  The only plateau and then decline again.  We know that Biden is a confused old man who has gotten worse since 2020 and 2022 and we also know that Trump is 2-3 years away from having full on dementia.  

Not everyone ages like Rita Moreno or Warren Buffett.  They are the exceptions.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No. She’s a lightly recruited high school champion who rewrote the record book at Purdue, but Mel Kiper doesn't love her because she’s on the short side and doesn't project as a pro-style QB. 

Or she’s the rifle armed qb with a bad mullet, mustache and attitude.   Of course her potential opponent is Tanya harding

Edited by closetohumping
  • Haha 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No. She’s a lightly recruited high school champion who rewrote the record book at Purdue, but Mel Kiper doesn't love her because she’s on the short side and doesn't project as a pro-style QB. 

Baker Mayfield redux?

Posted
15 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No. She’s a lightly recruited high school champion who rewrote the record book at Purdue, but Mel Kiper doesn't love her because she’s on the short side and doesn't project as a pro-style QB. 

Putting in Kamala now is analogous to emptying the bench late in the 4th quarter of a blowout loss in basketball. She is the Boban Marjanovic of politics if you will. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Putting in Kamala now is analogous to emptying the bench late in the 4th quarter of a blowout loss in basketball. She is the Boban Marjanovic of politics if you will. 

The sports analogy is she's an assistant coach and always will be.  Sure, someone might hire her as a HC but they'll be reminded why she's an assistant.



×
×
  • Create New...