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

[Red Five 40897]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

All I want is if Biden drops out sometime in the next two weeks for everyone on this board to coalesce behind the nominee. No matter who it is. 
 

Somehow I don’t think that will happen. 

Bullshit. The actual nominee? Whoever that is, everyone here will totally support that person against Dotard. 

I mean, I'm assuming it won't be Barry Switzer. 

[Js1 85596]

2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Bullshit. The actual nominee? Whoever that is, everyone here will totally support that person against Dotard. 

I mean, I'm assuming it won't be Barry Switzer. 

Will we support him/her? Yes.
Will there still be a lot of bitching bc it’s not someone’s preferred candidate? Oh you better believe it.

Will the Russian and Chinese bot campaigns use that bitching to create a narrative of Dems in disarray?

[David Dennison 18950]

Pretty sure Dems are in disarray isn't just a right wing narrative at this point.

[Captain Obvious 524]

"Dems in disarray" is right up there with "Trump lies" or "Trump is a horrible human being" in terms of being played out.  None of the aforementioned things should phase anyone at this point and won't move the needle no matter how many people/bots tweet it into the abyss.

[Js1 85596]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Pretty sure Dems are in disarray isn't just a right wing narrative at this point.

[gmr548 16617]

17 hours ago, YGIFS said:

 I’m putting in my paperwork for Mexico or Israel next week. 

Bold choices if you're interested in functioning democracies.

17 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I wonder what's going on in one of the normal timelines.

Hillary wins in 2016, nothing of significance is accomplished in Congress. Reelected in 2020 despite very meh approval/favorability because the Republicans run Ted Cruz. We have like five SCOTUS justices because the Republicans simply refuse to confirm for a Democratic president and have never relinquished control of either house of Congress. I don't know who Republicans are running right now but it isn't Ron DeSantis, who still flames out in the primaries, but they are favored because Democrats are carrying the blame for a more sluggish post-COVID recovery (and inflation still escalated in a similar but maybe slightly less extreme manner that this timeline). Gavin Newsom won a lackluster but still messy Democratic primary.

15 hours ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

What sucks is we all did this math in 2020 (the actual one. Not today, joe).  We were like “maybe he'll just serve one term?” “I think that what he said.  Didn’t he say that?”

I don't recall him actually saying word for word he'd be a one term president, but there was definitely implication that he was a candidate to stabilize the situation and pass the baton.

14 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

If his narcissism costs us our democracy, I will take the runniest shit on his grave when he dies in 2026.

I get this, but if Trump wins it's the 46% of the electorate that votes for him that deserves the blame.

14 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Holy hell, the football recruiting threads make this look like a picnic.

 

Have you no decency, sir? Don't football the CR in the offseason. I'm here because to get away from the football and recruiting boards.

2 hours ago, Pancho said:

Bloomberg News/Morning Consult Poll Released today 

This is a very weird poll. Gaining in GA, NC, WI, and MI, but a nosedive in PA does not make sense. Frankly at this moment gaining anywhere does not make sense, but especially the way it's laid out here.

I'm also assuming this does not account for third parties.

[gmr548 16617]

 

36 minutes ago, Js1 said:

 

Trump continuing to be unable to improve upon 45-47% of the vote for the most part. 

This is the main reason I'm not a full doomer yet. Trump's 2 for 2 in getting 46% of the electorate. Maybe he gets to 47% this year with lower turnout. We've seen that means an extremely tight election that can go either way so my baseline hasn't changed too much and probably wouldn't with a new nominee until either 1.) Trump starts polling consistently close to 50%, especially in battleground states; or 2.) The Democratic nominee opens up a major lead (feels impossible at this point, Dems really are a mess).

Trump is a favorite at this juncture. Democrats are at that stage in the game where, after fucking around with an inferior opponent for three quarters, they just gave said opponent a gift of a turnover and are staring up at a 10 point deficit on the scoreboard in the early 4th quarter. For the first time all game, the opponent's in game win prob spikes into 70%-80% territory.

Democrats are the better team, they can win. But they need to turn it around and fans in the stands are feeling that the momentum (sorry Tom) is starting to trend toward that not happening. Might need the opponent to help you out a bit with a blown coverage or bad turnover or something. I wouldn't really be surprised either way.

Edited July 6 by gmr548

[F250 28825]

This thread is giving me flashbacks of the Charlie Strong era.

 

[mdmost 43055]

4 minutes ago, F250 said:

This thread is giving me flashbacks of the Charlie Strong era.

 

You make the joke, I had flashbacks to Charlie's first press conference with that Biden debate performance. 

[Red Five 40897]

You just look over there at all that malarkey and it’s just all about hey Jack I’m not kidding around here.

[ChiTownDoc 21173]

Fuck, I’m feeling good reading this page.  Switzer for President and Charlie Strong redux.  More Kool Aid please…

[mdmost 43055]

You look at reversing Trump era tax cuts over there and it's just all about the tradition of us finally beating Medicare. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

 

Longhorn great G Elliot saying the numbers match the vibes.  Bigger upside and downside for Harris.  Now Biden is at a disadvantage, but mild.  Trade that for an unknown?

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

Meanwhile, G Elliot’s actual model still says Biden win 49 times out of 100. Odd. 

[mdmost 43055]

[Red Five 40897]

 
Longhorn great G Elliot saying the numbers match the vibes.  Bigger upside and downside for Harris.  Now Biden is at a disadvantage, but mild.  Trade that for an unknown?

Do it. Bank on undecideds or double haters or whatever saying “well, she’s not a criminal, and I’m pretty sure she doesn’t have dementia and will be able to finish out a four year term.”

[softlynow 1840]

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

Bullshit. The actual nominee? Whoever that is, everyone here will totally support that person against Dotard. 

I mean, I'm assuming it won't be Barry Switzer. 

[softlynow 1840]

18 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Do it. Bank on undecideds or double haters or whatever saying “well, she’s not a criminal, and I’m pretty sure she doesn’t have dementia and will be able to finish out a four year term.”

Hell, with her you can run Operation Let Trump Speak, just about hide her in Nixon's bowling alley and you've got a shot. Just make sure the public only hears "what can be, unburdened by what has been" a few times. And maybe get Sorkin to write her a half dozen new catch phrases.

If she becomes the nominee, what are the odds Drumpf throws out the n-word, maybe just once to test the waters? 

[Art Vandelay 1712]

7 minutes ago, softlynow said:

If she becomes the nominee, what are the odds Drumpf throws out the n-word, maybe just once to test the waters? 

If Harris is the nominee, you can expect a deluge of racist, sexist and misogynistic comments from MAGA land, and probably some from Trump himself. Hopefully, that would only drive more women and blacks to the polls to vote blue.

[Bozo_Casanova 26577]

This is just beltway bedwetters

 

[F250 28825]

1 hour ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Fuck, I’m feeling good reading this page.  Switzer for President and Charlie Strong redux.  More Kool Aid please…

[Biff Tannen 45747]

5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This is just beltway bedwetters

 

[Pato del Muerto 52610]

5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This is just beltway bedwetters

 

Should be the old guy or the old liar. Trump may be 3 years younger but he also has a several thousand Big Mac lead. 

[tx 3 putt 77494]

 

[Pancho 45044]

Just unbelievably and openly racist 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28804]

5 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Just unbelievably and openly racist

Well, yeah. That’s the brand. 

[Art Vandelay 1712]

9 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Just unbelievably and openly racist 

As I was saying...

[ChiTownDoc 21173]

Feature, not a bug etc…

[mdmost 43055]

And that is how you galvanize black Americans who may not like her to vote for her if she's the nominee. She can have all the credentials in the world, Attorney General and Senator from one of the largest states in America. Vice President. Yet because of her race she is deemed less worthy and someone who only got to her position because of her race. Let them say the quiet parts out loud. 

[softlynow 1840]

22 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Just unbelievably and openly racist 

 

That's a glass half-empty (and understandable) take on this tweet. The half-full take is Kamala may be president. Take a moment from doomscrolling and allow yourself to believe, even just to calm the nerves.

[B00M 6468]

24 minutes ago, mdmost said:

..and someone who only got to her position because of her race. Let them say the quiet parts out loud. 

During the 2020 primaries, didn’t she call Joe a racist (repeatedly?) and then get picked to be his VP anyway… because reasons… and then get put in charge of the border, his most politically damaging policy, where she appeared to do nothing? Regardless of her true qualifications, regardless of what she did or didn’t accomplish at the border, she’s taken it on the chin in the media the last few years. Would I vote for her over Trump, of course. Does she bring in independents Biden can’t? Maybe? 

[Sawbonz 27594]

48 minutes ago, mdmost said:

only got to her position because of her race

And gender

15 minutes ago, B00M said:

During the 2020 primaries, didn’t she call Joe a racist (repeatedly?)

Did she rape anybody?

[DixonHur 11393]

Harris is not the answer, but she might be all we get.

[WhatTheBuck 28804]

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Harris is not the answer, but she might be all we get.

Who’s the answer? Who’s guaranteed to win? We should pick them. 

[David Dennison 18950]

10 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Who’s the answer? Who’s guaranteed to win? We should pick them. 

He's term limited.

[DixonHur 11393]

Just now, WhatTheBuck said:

Who’s the answer? Who’s guaranteed to win? We should pick them. 

I've been pretty clear about who I think is the best option, so I'm not going bore everyone by rehashing that.

But while no one is guaranteed, I think certain people have better chances of winning, and one or more of them should be considered.

Independents are the key.  I think many are planning on voting neither right now.  Either by not voting, or voting RFK Jr.

[SimonBolivar 10960]

13 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Harris is not the answer, but she might be all we get.

I think she is absolutely the answer. She's not my #1 pick but she's not 80, she's different, and she's not Trump. Everything America claims to be asking for right now.

[WhatTheBuck 28804]

20 minutes ago, B00M said:

During the 2020 primaries, didn’t she call Joe a racist (repeatedly?)

No. In fact she even said, “I do not believe you are a racist.” She criticized him for opposing busing. He countered that he didn’t oppose it, just that he opposed it being mandated by the Dept. of Education. She argued that if it’s not mandated at the local level the Feds should step in. He argued his long history supporting civil rights, etc. I thought it was a pretty weak effort on her part to attack him. But that’s politics. Obviously he didn’t hold it against her. 

[DixonHur 11393]

3 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

I think she is absolutely the answer. She's not my #1 pick but she's not 80, she's different, and she's not Trump. Everything America claims to be asking for right now.

I hope you're right.

My fear is that she's tainted by Biden.  When was the last time a VP was elected to replace a President?  GHWB?

If people, and by people I mean independents, are looking for change why would they vote the VP?

Plus, wasn't she appointed as Biden's Border Czar?  That could be an easy target for the GOP to exploit.

[David Dennison 18950]

4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I hope you're right.

My fear is that she's tainted by Biden.  When was the last time a VP was elected to replace a President?  GHWB?

If people, and by people I mean independents, are looking for change why would they vote the VP?

Plus, wasn't she appointed as Biden's Border Czar?  That could be an easy target for the GOP to exploit.

Al Gore would have replaced Bill, but there was some unpleasantness at the Supreme Court.

Shocking.

[Js1 85596]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Al Gore would have replaced Bill, but there was some unpleasantness at the Supreme Court.

Shocking.

And he kept Bill at arm’s length despite his popularity 

[DixonHur 11393]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Al Gore would have replaced Bill, but there was some unpleasantness at the Supreme Court.

Shocking.

Ironically, I was a big Clinton fan, but voted for Bush over Gore.

It took just over 9 months for me to begin regretting that decision.  Of course I was in Texas so my vote didn't really matter anyway.

[OU Sucks 8916]

47 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

I think she is absolutely the answer. She's not my #1 pick but she's not 80, she's different, and she's not Trump. Everything America claims to be asking for right now.

Plus she can call herself a Black woman and be correct.

[David Dennison 18950]

21 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Ironically, I was a big Clinton fan, but voted for Bush over Gore.

It took just over 9 months for me to begin regretting that decision.  Of course I was in Texas so my vote didn't really matter anyway.

That was the last vote I ever cast for a Republican.

[chainsaw 9877]

2 hours ago, Pancho said:

Just unbelievably and openly racist 

 

credit where it's due, they are finally admitting Obama was qualified

[Satchel 6949]

5 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

credit where it's due, they are finally admitting Obama was qualified

Is the prevailing view among the magalitia that DEI is synonymous with a lack of qualifications?

[Pancho 45044]

DEI =. The new hard R

[mdmost 43055]

3 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Is the prevailing view among the magalitia that DEI is synonymous with a lack of qualifications?

Yes. DEI means black people, women, and other minorities are getting positions where qualifications are needed simply because they are a minority and not based on merit. Plus, it means a white person didn't get the job who would have because of merit (they're white). They tried to claim that was why Boeing is having so many problems. So any black people, women, and other minorities in positions in companies must be DEI and not merit. So yes, whining about DEI makes you a racist. 

Edited July 7 by mdmost

[chainsaw 9877]

2 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Is the prevailing view among the magalitia that DEI is synonymous with a lack of qualifications?

Yes. Often worse.

There's gonna be a reckoning of all the racist and sexist shit they were saying about Harris. "Joe and the Ho" will not help them with women voters already pissed about Roe.

[Biff Tannen 45747]

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

f people, and by people I mean independents, are looking for change why would they vote the VP?

I thought they were just looking for someone not old?