2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Yes you're right regarding the second scenario. If Biden was elected that in all likelihood he was going to pass the presidency to her in any event which would have made her ascension to the top job even more undemocratic than what it is now.
Ah yes, the standard conservative poster MO: say something dumb and/or wrong, get corrected, ignore the correction, come back several hours later and repeat the dumb and/or wrong thing like nothing happened.
Watching Trump's campaign go from a nearly-guaranteed win to a serious threat of losing in the course of just a single week has made my year.
the people in her own party, and the democratic voters in general, don't seem to mind too much
Don't go bringing the public into a discussion about what the public wants.
But yes, your comment pretty much sums it up. The debate as it exists in the conservative ecosystem is simply trying to stir up similar drama to the Sanders debacle going into the 2016 election.
I'm not sure to what extent they expected or thought a Biden exist was plausible, but they probably assumed a lot of Democrat infighting and jockeying if that came to pass. The Democratic party is very rarely one for walking in lockstep, and that no big drama ensued has likely taken the GOP by surprise more than anything. They really, really want that drama to exist.
And while not walking in lockstep is generally very healthy (the current state of the GOP serves as a stark reminder to what can be the outcome if you do), I think this time around I think people simply realized it would lead to an election loss.
Watching Trump's campaign go from a nearly-guaranteed win to a serious threat of losing in the course of just a single week has made my year.
lol watching Trump trying to wield his small dick energy over people that aren't in thrall to him is so much fun.
Only works on people who run on small dick energy too, obvs.
I don't have a particularly strong view on DEI one way or the other. I'm in favour of meritocracy, so I certainly don't think people should be hired over a more suitable/qualified candidate by virtue of being a member of a favoured group. However, historically, minority candidates have been overlooked in favour of less suitable/qualified candidates if those candidates were white and male. So, if DEI redresses that balance and ensures fairness, I am for it. If it results in quotas instead of a meritocracy, I'm against it. In practice, which of these it ends up being probably depends on the hiring practices of a given organisation.
Without any additional information, I think it's extremely misguided to pejoratively refer to someone who is not a white heterosexual male as a "DEI hire" on the assumption that the person was awarded the job for reasons other than merit.
Without any additional information, I think it's extremely misguided to pejoratively refer to someone who is not a white heterosexual male as a "DEI hire" on the assumption that the person was awarded the job for reasons other than merit.
I agree.
For this VP pick, at least we have some additional information.
Watching Trump's campaign go from a nearly-guaranteed win to a serious threat of losing in the course of just a single week has made my year.
Make no mistake. He's clearly losing now and has no current hope of stopping things from getting much worse. The republicans' best hope is to drop out, but that will go much worse for them than it did for the democrats. Trump is the only glue pretending to hold that splintered party together at this point.
I'll add a thought as it relates to politics specifically. I think the whole concept of a "DEI hire" for a party nominee is silly. The party puts forward the candidate it thinks has the best chances of winning. For one party, it might be a heterosexual white male who wants to execute drug dealers, for another, it might be a transgender blue female who wants to bus migrants in from Mexico. It's still a meritocracy - the person with the best chances of winning is the one that's put forward. Nobody is going to put a nominee on the ballot they think is a losing proposition for any reason, unless they're literally trying to throw the game.
Harris has already been on the highest vote total ticket of all time. If she wins the general she will do so by getting the 2nd or 3rd most votes ever for a presidential candidate. It’s not a Ford situation where a guy ended up being president even though most Nixon voters in 76 probably didn’t know who he was.
Make no mistake. He's clearly losing now and has no current hope of stopping things from getting much worse. The republicans' best hope is to drop out, but that will go much worse for them than it did for the democrats. Trump is the only glue pretending to hold that splintered party together at this point.
I don't think so. There are eons between now and November. IIRC, Trump had weak chances against Hillary....the MAGA cult runs strong.
I don't think so. There are eons between now and November. IIRC, Trump had weak chances against Hillary....the MAGA cult runs strong.
You are welcome to your incorrect opinion. Hillary would've won easily but the voting population didn't take Trump seriously and weren't properly motivated to vote. Post-election analysis showed clearly that was the issue: voter turnout.
There will be no motivation problems this time. And the maga cult has never been big, just loud.
I'll add a thought as it relates to politics specifically. I think the whole concept of a "DEI hire" for a party nominee is silly. The party puts forward the candidate it thinks has the best chances of winning. For one party, it might be a heterosexual white male who wants to execute drug dealers, for another, it might be a transgender blue female who wants to bus migrants in from Mexico. It's still a meritocracy - the person with the best
Agreed
Without any additional information, I think it's extremely misguided to pejoratively refer to someone who is not a white heterosexual male as a "DEI hire" on the assumption that the person was awarded the job for reasons other than merit.
Exactly. That was the point of my questions in post 7032.
Mentioning the Socratic method reminded me of this oldie:
In ancient Greece (469 - 399 BC), Socrates was widely lauded for his wisdom. One day an acquaintance ran up to him excitedly and said, "Socrates, do you know what I just heard about Diogenes?"
"Wait a moment," Socrates replied, "Before you tell me, I'd like you to pass a little test. It's called the Triple Filter Test."
"Triple filter?" asked the acquaintance.
"That's right," Socrates continued, "Before you talk to me about Diogenes let's take a moment to filter what you're going to say. The first filter is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?"
"No," the man said, "Actually I just heard about it."
"All right," said Socrates, "So you don't really know if it's true or not. Now let's try the second filter, the filter of Goodness. Is what you are about to tell me about Diogenes something good?"
"No, on the contrary..."
"So," Socrates continued, "You want to tell me something about Diogenes that may be bad, even though you're not certain it's true?"
The man shrugged, a little embarrassed. Socrates continued, "You may still pass the test though because there is a third filter, the filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about Diogenes going to be useful to me?"
"No, not really."
"Well," concluded Socrates, "If what you want to tell me is neither true nor good nor even useful, why tell it to me or anyone at all?"
The man was bewildered and ashamed. This is an example of why Socrates was a great philosopher and held in such high esteem.
It also explains why Socrates never found out that Diogenes was banging his wife.
Not all from the maga cult. And a very large number of them turned against him after Jan 6th. It was only the culties that dug in their heels. He's losing independents hand over fist these days. He had gained a lot of those because of lies about the economy.
And he lost to milk toast Joe Biden (which is a testament to how easy he was to beat if you just motivate people to get out and vote).
TIL! Interesting etymology on that one. Had no idea. Milk toast sounds really stupid now. haha
This line from webster's dictionary at least makes me feel a little better:
"Caspar's last name is fitting because milk toast is a weak, bland concoction of buttered toast served in a dish of warm milk."
milquesteak >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> milquetoast
Watching Trump's campaign go from a nearly-guaranteed win to a serious threat of losing in the course of just a single week has made my year.
we are still in a situation where it is incredible republicans have any chance at all for the presidency (no matter their candidate).
incumbency, a very good economy with the main previous problem quickly disappearing (over target inflation), healthcare inflation down historically post COVID, % of people covered by hcare at ATH, asset prices at ATH everywhere except bonds (asset owners vote more than non-asset owners), wages growing significantly more than inflation 18+months in a row, crime stats improving in most main urban centers.
propensity to vote increasing (historically beneficial to democrats) mainly because of expanded use of mail voting.
a median Dem vs a median gop should be a 90%+ proposition to win with these fundamentals.
given I don't think Trump is an especially good candidate for the gop (yes he might be able to cater to some demographics that usually republicans are bad with a little better, but losing highly educated men much more than usual and women, even married ones, much more than usual costs more) it can only mean that Biden was one of the worst possible candidates ever (since his cognitive problems became common knowledge) and even Harris isn't that good (still a lot better than Biden, to try to win).
Maybe Harris will steadily grow in the polls to reach the point where a median Dem with these fundamentals should be at (+3/4% national, even money or better in all purple states), but for now she isn't there (which is why the election is currently basically a coin flip).
but again it's insane it's a coin flip to begin with, unclear why the answer to this is "MAGA is a cult" and not "why aren't Dem crushing as they should given the fundamentals"
