2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
It was kind of funny in 2016 when online progressives were saying Trump beating Clinton was a good thing because democrats would have to move left.
which progressives said this?
In order to win Presidential elections the Democratic nominee and party behind them have to moderate.
nah they don't have to, they want to
Approval of Bush , the part above. Approval of policy is approval of the person when an european is asked about an american president.
That's a stretch. Anyway, my point is that Trump would be but a fringe candidate in any European (EEC) country, and you have not refuted it with that. It's a hypothetical as to how a Trump-like candidate would be viewed domestically, so a poll about his foreign policy when he is US president is pretty irrelevant.
What also should be mentioned is that since the US is a de facto two-party system, it is good that the parties are coalitions.
In countries with multi-party systems political minorities can coalesce around smaller parties that can horse-trade for influence. In a two-party system this is only possible if the party is a coalition of views. A dependency on coalitions make it less likely for government to stomp all over you and it serves as a block for too much power in individuals or small groups.
The GOP has essentially abandoned this and gone down a very strict ideological path where adherence is all but required. Which means the US is, at least at the time of writing, down one coalition. This is very unhealthy for American politics.
lol @rick claiming the republican party shifted right when all measures tell us that republicans stayed in their place and democrats moved left every decade in the last 40 years.
Trans issues didn't even exist 20 years ago for anyone in the democratic party. You were a man living as a woman, it was your problem not certainly a topic for politics. This ALONE is an unprecedented shift to the radical maniacal left by democrats, with republicans staying normal (normal means "wtf trans?" as per the entirety of human history in every society until very feew years ago)
Clinton on immigration was like Trump.
On the deficit republicans moved FAR LEFT and democrats to the left as well. Clinton had the only surplus in what, 70 years?
Clinton wasn't pro gay marriage was he?
Can we stop the charade according to which republicans moved "far right"? can you guys stop lying on monumental issues at least once?
RNC just had a convention with a black ex-prostitute tatooed on her head as a speaker. Far right jfc
That's a stretch. Anyway, my point is that Trump would be but a fringe candidate in any European (EEC) country, and you have not refuted it with that. It's a hypothetical as to how a Trump-like candidate would be viewed domestically, so asking about his foreign policy when he is US president is pretty irrelevant.
ANY MAINSTREAM REPUBLICAN would be a fringe candidate in any european country except perhaps poland and hungary.
Most european countries are faaaaaaaaaaaar to the left of the USA which is why we suck compared to you on any relevant measurable element of society
ANY MAINSTREAM REPUBLICAN would be a fringe candidate in any european country except perhaps poland and hungary.
Most european countries are faaaaaaaaaaaar to the left of the USA which is why we suck compared to you on any relevant measurable element of society
Lol. So keen to suckle at the MAGA teat that you forgot where I'm from.
ANY MAINSTREAM REPUBLICAN would be a fringe candidate in any european country except perhaps poland and hungary.
Most european countries are faaaaaaaaaaaar to the left of the USA which is why we suck compared to you on any relevant measurable element of society
If Europe was so bad to live there , why so many immigrants tried to go there ?
The part that people like rick want to "forget" is that giving even 10 minutes per year of political space to "trans issues" is already being to the far left of every major party in the west 20 years ago.
It's incredible we even talk about the topic at all, if you lived politics 20 years ago or earlier. Incredible
You guys are also forgetting that this should be a slam dunk for democrats. It's incredible democrats aren't 95% to win the presidency.
Incumbency, one of the best economy in american history, a convicted felon to run against you. A normal party with a normal candidate and a normal platform would be autowinning.
That the result isn't absolutely written in stone right now is an indictment of the democratic party and the candidate. They are so
117% of hot-take projection statistics are fabricated out of thin air.
NBC News: Vance says Trump would veto a national abortion ban
Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-el...
Yeah, I'm sure undecided female voters will fall for this horesh*t.
Sry craise but china and the ussr hated each others more than they each hated the USA so it's more complicated than this.
They followed very different trajectory, with USSR being "less monstrous" than China the first 20-30 years of communism and then that reverseing after Xiaoping for China changed the rules of the game completly and forever.
Moreover the USSR killed a ton TO ESTABLISH communism. Then again after a while with Stalin.
China kil
I was simplifying. The point is that these two powers paid massive prices in order to achieve very modest gdp increases that were achieved much better in Western states.
I was simplifying. The point is that these two powers paid massive prices in order to achieve very modest gdp increases that were achieved much better in Western states.
When China pivoted under an undemocratic , totalitarian capitalist system ("with chinese characteristics"), it worked to achieve decent incomes (approx 10k per capita per year USD). Unlike the USSR which never achieved anything of the sort
Projecting 95% probability of any modern USA Presidential election after how close all recent elections have been is absurd.
2012 wasn't close and the economy was worse and the opposition candidate was far better (in the political sense of having a chance with the median voter).
2016 had no incumbency advantage, 2020 was republicans being crushed even if incumbent (but the unicum of covid played a role, perhaps).
That's a stretch. Anyway, my point is that Trump would be but a fringe candidate in any European (EEC) country, and you have not refuted it with that. It's a hypothetical as to how a Trump-like candidate would be viewed domestically, so a poll about his foreign policy when he is US president is pretty irrelevant.
A survey this year gave him 28% across an aggregate of countries (including non-European ones), which puts him slightly ahead of people like Xi Jinping and Putin. Countries that increase his score in this survey are mostly non-European. So, suffice to say that while he can find Europeans who accept him and probably even the odd fan, he is deeply unpopular.
That a man who confuses the Baltics for the Balkans has any support at all for his foreign policy in Europe is rather worrying, especially for a student of history.
And when I say Trump confused the Baltics for the Balkans, I don't mean he got the names wrong. I mean he sat down with Baltic leaders and castigated them for the Balkan wars.
A survey this year gave him 28% across an aggregate of countries (including non-European ones), which puts him slightly ahead of people like Xi Jinping and Putin. Countries that increase his score in this survey are mostly non-European. So, suffice to say that while he can find Europeans who accept him and probably even the odd fan, he is deeply unpopular.
That a man who confuses the Baltics for the Balkans has any support at all for his for
And how did Bush poll
