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

[locodos 5,229]

6 minutes ago, immamac said:

"Too gay" 

For Republicans?  Because that's really saying something

 

[jimmyjazz 45,162]

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Also the entire state delegation in the House votes, it’s not that state won = automatic vote for that candidate. So House races matter a lot.  Peltola winning AK-AL is a vote for Biden and not Trump because she’s delegation of 1, despite Trump winning Alaska.

House races would matter bigly at that point. Gerrymandering has ensured even swing states like Wisconsin have a GOP-lean in their delegation. Trump could win NV, but it’s built to be 3-1 Dem

Wisconsin - currently 5-2 R with an R vacancy (though 2 of those seats are pretty middling R, so it could theoretically be 4-4 in a good year)

Michigan - 7-6 D

Pennsylvania - 9-8 D

NH - 2-0 D

Arizona - 6-3 R 

Etc, etc. 

Appreciate all this info.  I will now commence drinking and watching The Open.

[tx 3 putt 75,222]

1 hour ago, Dnaguy said:

The Leroy Jenkins strategy in which you take no outside input to inform your decisions. 
Bold, maybe.

Stupid, yes.

Losing strategy. We’ll see? [probably though]

if I had 81 mil votes the last election, I’m saying come at me Bro

its not like trump has become even a little likable and the entire party wants to go hard right 

 

they’re both too old and losing it. May the best vegetable win 

[MrBig 5,160]

47 minutes ago, immamac said:

It's not a conspiracy theory. He's been mush brained for a while but could at least pull his shit together for major events and scripted talking points. 

The NATO summit presser was BARELY passable. It was fucking sad. He didn't completely fuck it, but it was embarrassing and showed significant weakness at the global scale. This isn't conspiracy theory nonsense. This is confirmed by the majority of the presser questions being about his mental fitness and not NATO related. It was bad. 

Biden looks terrible and the fact that it’s a legal issue for him to stay in to get on the ballot doesn’t dismiss the fact that a lot of voters think he is going to drop dead so they don’t even want to vote. 

I’m not even a Kamala fan but I’d rather have her than Biden if it’s the only way to have him step down. Dems who are not united about her being the candidate can lean into the whole “if you think we hate her now, wait until y’all get a load of her!” to annoy the fuck out of MAGA. It helps push voter turnout on the idea that Kamala annoys the fuck out of the GOP with all of her laughing and unburdenedness. 

 

[immamac 41,615]

Just now, MrBig said:

Biden looks terrible and the fact that it’s a legal issue for him to stay in to get on the ballot doesn’t dismiss the fact that a lot of voters think he is going to drop dead so they don’t even want to vote. 

I’m not even a Kamala fan but I’d rather have her than Biden if it’s the only way to have him step down. Dems who are not united about her being the candidate can lean into the whole “if you think we hate her now, wait until y’all get a load of her!” to annoy the fuck out of MAGA. It helps push voter turnout on the idea that Kamala annoys the fuck out of the GOP with all of her laughing and unburdenedness. 

 

The main issue at hand is Biden. The eventual nominee after Biden actually doesn't matter. 

[mdmost 42,316]

Anyone else sitting around today wondering what this Saturday will bring us given how different things became after last Saturday? Is Saturday the new Tuesday?

[Biff Tannen 45,013]

Just now, mdmost said:

Anyone else sitting around today wondering what this Saturday will bring us given how different things became after last Saturday? Is Saturday the new Tuesday?

I’m drinking a mimosa in the Reno airport. You saying I should be eating a bird instead?

[tx 3 putt 75,222]

The grift never ends …

 

[Biff Tannen 45,013]

4 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

The grift never ends …

 

That’s an affront to The Sandlot. 

[chainsaw 9,573]

Didn't even need one stitch and now he's a martyr?

[Underdog 28,118]

I'm sure some of those profits will go towards the firefighter's family because Trump is that generous. 

[locodos 5,229]

Just now, tx 3 putt said:

Welcome back my friends to the grift that never ends

 

 

[Leeroy Jenkins 2,338]

2 hours ago, Dnaguy said:

The Leroy Jenkins strategy in which you take no outside input to inform your decisions. 
Bold, maybe.

Stupid, yes.

Losing strategy. We’ll see? [probably though]

Not my strategy!

[mdmost 42,316]

13 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Worth watching. 

 

In a perfect world, Mayor Pete would be the Democratic nominee because he's more than capable of dispatching a light weight moron like Trump. He could stand in a debate and annihilate Trump's lies point by point. But he's gay and we're a nation of bigoted assholes. So we instead get the feeble old man who can't debate any longer. And we'll have to like it, it seems. 

[Hawndoh 2,331]

1 minute ago, mdmost said:

In a perfect world, Mayor Pete would be the Democratic nominee because he's more than capable of dispatching a light weight moron like Trump. He could stand in a debate and annihilate Trump's lies point by point. But he's gay and we're a nation of bigoted assholes. So we instead get the feeble old man who can't debate any longer. And we'll have to like it, it seems. 

People have been annihilating Trump's lies for years. It does not make a difference. For whatever reason he is allowed to lie as much as he wants. 

[Biff Tannen 45,013]

Just now, Hawndoh said:

People have been annihilating Trump's lies for years. It does not make a difference. For whatever reason he is allowed to lie as much as he wants. 

I do think mayor Pete has a unique ability to project calm, confidence, and plain reason in the face of the nonsense this country has become. If he were the nominee, I would bet he would win the popular vote by 10s of millions. Not that it would matter because yay electoral college. But he would be my top pick to defeat any Republican in this race, especially the dotard. 
 

But alas

[tx 3 putt 75,222]

Why is Trump anti 2A ?????

 

[tx 3 putt 75,222]

Who knows how things fall out but she’s a strong possibility for future races ….

 

[ChiTownDoc 20,841]

9 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Why is Trump anti 2A ?????

 

I’m laughing at that idiots clothing choices.  Khakis.  Blue blazer fitted like a parka.  MLB cap.  I can only assume sketchers kicks…dress for sucksass.  

Edited July 20 by ChiTownDoc

[mdmost 42,316]

11 minutes ago, Hawndoh said:

People have been annihilating Trump's lies for years. It does not make a difference. For whatever reason he is allowed to lie as much as he wants. 

At the debates? To his face? Biden's not going to do it now. He did a great job of it in 2020 and it helped him win an election. Biden couldn't refute much of anything now. Mayor Pete could sit up there, not getting angry or raising his voice, and calmly tell people every single lie and why it's a lie. That's my point. Biden can't deliver that rebuttal anymore. It should be really easy to destroy Trump in public to his face. Maybe it makes little difference. If anything, I hope they shove Pete out there as much as possible. 

[ChiTownDoc 20,841]

Trump has successfully gaslit the vast majority of us.  It’s exhausting.  But fuck anyone giving up, have to keep fighting him and his merry band of assholes.  

[Nicole44 21,954]

3 minutes ago, mdmost said:

At the debates? To his face? Biden's not going to do it now. He did a great job of it in 2020 and it helped him win an election. Biden couldn't refute much of anything now. Mayor Pete could sit up there, not getting angry or raising his voice, and calmly tell people every single lie and why it's a lie. That's my point. Biden can't deliver that rebuttal anymore. It should be really easy to destroy Trump in public to his face. Maybe it makes little difference. If anything, I hope they shove Pete out there as much as possible. 

It’s a chance for a rebrand. People Pete’s age/Gretchen’s age. JD Vance pick (his age) also a factor in why he was selected. Parties need to go young or younger 35-60. A chance to cut some of the chaff off both parties. This age group I feel a lot more hopeful about than 60-80. I just feel like it’s time. Time for the next generation to speak and share their ideas. Not be beholden to the Boomers. The elders of the society. The ones that were that age in the 70’s and 80’s. We need this badly. I’m not suggesting throwing Pelosi and Schumer away I’m just saying it is time for others to have more power. More say. Let’s try new things and try them a different way. 

[Aqua Buddha 14,107]

32 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Who knows how things fall out but she’s a strong possibility for future races ….

 

If by "future," you mean the one in November, yes.  

She does a great job of leaning into the issues rather than tap dancing around them.  She's honestly the most talented pol I've seen since Obama.

[mdmost 42,316]

If you retire to Michigan, we're going to have to get a restraining order put out against you to protect Gretchen. 

[tx 3 putt 75,222]

Any trumper, please explain this to me …..

 

[ChiTownDoc 20,841]

26 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

It’s a chance for a rebrand. People Pete’s age/Gretchen’s age. JD Vance pick (his age) also a factor in why he was selected. Parties need to go young or younger 35-60. A chance to cut some of the chaff off both parties. This age group I feel a lot more hopeful about than 60-80. I just feel like it’s time. Time for the next generation to speak and share their ideas. Not be beholden to the Boomers. The elders of the society. The ones that were that age in the 70’s and 80’s. We need this badly. I’m not suggesting throwing Pelosi and Schumer away I’m just saying it is time for others to have more power. More say. Let’s try new things and try them a different way. 

Lol.  It will never be ‘our time’ until we vote.  We just talk shit then go eat mushrooms and cry online.  

[Voluminous Banality 1,032]

14 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Any trumper, please explain this to me …..

 

Assuming that these numbers are accurate, net oil and petroleum exports increased under Trump by roughly 9 quadrillion Btu in the 3 years between 2017-2020 (3 quadrillion Btu per year). Under Biden, it increased by around 1.2 quadrillion Btu in the 3 years from 2020-2023 (0.4 quadrillion Btu per year). So more than 7 times the net increase annually under Trump as under Biden, which you would expect given their respective policies.

Not making a political point, just a statistical one. People need to learn how to read charts better. For a New York Times contributing writer, that is either an embarrassing misinterpretation or an egregious misrepresentation of the data.

Edited July 20 by Voluminous Banality

[ChiTownDoc 20,841]

7 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Any trumper, please explain this to me …..

 

Facts don’t matter.  I hate ‘X’ and he will persecute ‘X’ to the fullest.  Done.  

[Dnaguy 11,565]

9 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Any trumper, please explain this to me …..

 

Facts don’t matter anymore.

How does no one get this?

A democrat could have record oil production, reduce the deficit, reduce crime to record levels, and propose the most draconian boarder security measure ever….. and it wouldn’t make a shit.

Because yeah….. 

[Nicole44 21,954]

5 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Lol.  It will never be ‘our time’ until we vote.  We just talk shit then go eat mushrooms and cry online.  

Mushrooms make you sad I guess? I’m cool with my caramels and gummies. I have voted every election since 18. I have never voted straight ticket. It’s our time damnit! Lol. I really do think that we should moving forward (assuming there is a future) have early conventions and mini-primaries to decide our candidates. It might be awkward at first. But I think it will get more people to vote if they could see the process at a convention and not just rah rah rah shit. Gives you more skin in the game and groups would have to bargain out in the open. 
 

we are at 35 Democratic members of Congress now. It’s not a blue wave…more of a leaky faucet that floods the house. I think though Monday will be end game. Unless he signals he will be dropping out tomorrow night. 

[Dahobbs 17,180]

30 minutes ago, Voluminous Banality said:

Assuming that these numbers are accurate, net oil and petroleum exports increased under Trump by roughly 9 quadrillion Btu in the 3 years between 2017-2020 (3 quadrillion Btu per year). Under Biden, it increased by around 1.2 quadrillion Btu in the 3 years from 2020-2023 (0.4 quadrillion Btu per year). So more than 7 times the net increase annually under Trump as under Biden, which you would expect given their respective policies.

Not making a political point, just a statistical one. People need to learn how to read charts better. For a New York Times contributing writer, that is either an embarrassing misinterpretation or an egregious misrepresentation of the data.

It isn't a misinterpretation at all. The US was net importer under Trump. It did not become a net exporter until Biden's term. It is also simultaneously true that trend started prior to Biden's term. And it even started before Trump's term. 

See chart below. The downward trend in net imports started in G.W.'s second term, and continued fairly consistently through Obama's terms, Trump's term, and now Biden's. The real conclusion is that Presidents don't actually have that much of direct effect on the economy. But, if others are trying to credit Trump for this, it is absolutely fair to show that the US wasn't a net exporter until Biden. Oh, and that blimp upward in Biden's term is clearly Covid related. 

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttntus2&f=a

 

Edited July 20 by Dahobbs

[troph 23,995]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I’m drinking a mimosa in the Reno airport. You saying I should be eating a bird instead?

[Schulz2.0 28,626]

4 hours ago, troph said:

so are you.

half the population (plus or minus a few percentage points) doesn't vote. about 2/3 of them don't even pretend. The other 1/3 actively look for reasons not to vote. He's a nutjob, he's too old, for that reason, I'm out. that plus or minus a few percentage points is the election. motivation to GOTV is paramount. anti-trump with a net-negative biden isn't a safe bet. last time it was anti-trump and neutral biden and he won.  and before anyone assume I'm anti-biden, I'm not. I'm livid it looks like his admin isn't getting a second term whether by losing or by stepping down.

I'll vote for whomever the Democrats' nominee is. That's the same as almost everyone posting in this thread. Some of us are trying to get the point across that a lot of the youth and independents votes Biden had in 2016 aren't going to be there in 2020. It's a losing hand.

[Voluminous Banality 1,032]

25 minutes ago, Voluminous Banality said:

Assuming that these numbers are accurate, net oil and petroleum exports increased under Trump by roughly 9 quadrillion Btu in the 3 years between 2017-2020 (3 quadrillion Btu per year). Under Biden, it increased by around 1.2 quadrillion Btu in the 3 years from 2020-2023 (0.4 quadrillion Btu per year). So more than 7 times the net increase annually under Trump as under Biden, which you would expect given their respective policies.

Not making a political point, just a statistical one. People need to learn how to read charts better. For a New York Times contributing writer, that is either an embarrassing misinterpretation or an egregious misrepresentation of the data.

For those like Steven Rattner who don't know how to read a chart, this is what the chart is really showing. I don't even care about the point he is trying to make, but the horrendous data presentation cannot be abided.

[Dahobbs 17,180]

2 minutes ago, Voluminous Banality said:

For those like Steven Rattner who don't know how to read a chart, this is what the chart is really showing. I don't even care about the point he is trying to make, but the horrendous data presentation cannot be abided.

Stop with your bullshit. I already corrected you. If you're going to be pedantic about correcting data presentation, at least don't be so fucking lazy about it and actually pull the full data set. 

Edited July 20 by Dahobbs

[LCHorn 2,529]

I’ve been trying to keep up with this thread while traveling for the last week and the biggest recurring conflict appears to be @troph’s refusal to admit that Biden needs to step down.  @troph, have you come around?

[Voluminous Banality 1,032]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Stop with your bullshit. I already corrected you. 

It's not bullshit. Your'e not understanding the chart. Net exports between 2017-2020 rose by approximately 9 quadrillion Btu. Between 2020-2023, they rose by approximately 1.2 quadrillion Btu. I'm not even making a political point. I'm just responding to a statistical pet peeve. It's literally statistics 101.

[tx 3 putt 75,222]

 

pieces of shit 

[Underdog 28,118]

Go, Bob, go! 

 

[troph 23,995]

1 minute ago, LCHorn said:

I’ve been trying to keep up with this thread while traveling for the last week and the biggest recurring conflict appears to be @troph’s refusal to admit that Biden needs to step down.  @troph, have you come around?

there's no other choice right now. I said that in my rants. he has to step down. I was talking about how fucked up the media, the party and yes I've come around to agree the biden campaign have been to create this problem. the dems have a long history of shitting the bed and eating their own. add an old guy that won't step down early enough to avoid this mess and we have a grade A, grass fed, angus prime time cluster fuck that I don't think we can recover from.

[Dahobbs 17,180]

Just now, Voluminous Banality said:

It's not bullshit. Your'e not understanding the chart. Net exports between 2017-2020 rose by approximately 9 quadrillion Btu. Between 2020-2023, they rose by approximately 1.2 quadrillion Btu. I'm not even making a political point. I'm just responding to a statistical pet peeve. It's literally statistics 101.

I don't understand if? Look at my prior post with the full data. You have no idea what the actual data says because you havent fucking looked at it. Net exports have been increasing at a consistent rate since 2005. It has fuck all to do with Trump. The only reason Biden's numbers look worse is because of a slight blimp upward during covid followed by an immediate return to the same multi decade trend. 

[troph 23,995]

2 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Go, Bob, go! 

 

needs to be said by everyone a 1000 times. then pivot to the ask for the vote and explain how deep deep deep shit we are in if we don't stop him.

[Dahobbs 17,180]

Here, @Voluminous Banality, I'll post it for you again:

Again, I think you missed the point of the original tweet. People are trying to credit Trump for something that has fuck all to do with him. The tweet merely makes the point that the US wasn't a net exporter until Biden's term. Because it wasn't. That's a fact. Not a misrepresentation. Of course, the general trend really has nothing to do with Biden and nothing to do with Trump. It just part of a long term change brought about largely by the fracking revolution. 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28,604]

49 minutes ago, Voluminous Banality said:

Assuming that these numbers are accurate, net oil and petroleum exports increased under Trump by roughly 9 quadrillion Btu in the 3 years between 2017-2020 (3 quadrillion Btu per year). Under Biden, it increased by around 1.2 quadrillion Btu in the 3 years from 2020-2023 (0.4 quadrillion Btu per year). So more than 7 times the net increase annually under Trump as under Biden, which you would expect given their respective policies.

Not making a political point, just a statistical one. People need to learn how to read charts better. For a New York Times contributing writer, that is either an embarrassing misinterpretation or an egregious misrepresentation of the data.

You seem to be misunderstanding the point he’s making. The point is that under Biden, production is higher than it’s ever been. So when Trump says it’s not, he’s lying. As always. 

[Voluminous Banality 1,032]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't understand if? Look at my prior post with the full data. You have no idea what the actual data says because you havent fucking looked at it. Net exports have been increasing at a consistent rate since 2005. It has fuck all to do with Trump. The only reason Biden's numbers look worse is because of a slight blimp upward during covid followed by an immediate return to the same multi decade trend. 

Yes, you don't understand it. You posted a chart showing petroleum imports drastically decreasing between 2017-2020 and then decreasing at a slower rate after 2020:

That corresponds to a rapid INCREASE in net exports or DECREASE in net export deficit from 2017 followed by a much SLOWER increase in net exports from 2020-2023:



In other words, the chart you posted perfectly supports the statistical (non-political) point I was making. If you still don't understand it, that's okay. Have a good day.

[Voluminous Banality 1,032]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Here, @Voluminous Banality, I'll post it for you again:

Again, I think you missed the point of the original tweet. People are trying to credit Trump for something that has fuck all to do with him. The tweet merely makes the point that the US wasn't a net exporter until Biden's term. Because it wasn't. That's a fact. Not a misrepresentation. Of course, the general trend really has nothing to do with Biden and nothing to do with Trump. It just part of a long term change brought about largely by the fracking revolution. 

 

I didn't miss the point of the tweet. To answer in the terms that you are using, in 3 years, Trump got us 90% of the way to becoming a net exporter of petroleum. In the next 3 years, Biden pushed us the final 10% across the line. You are right, of course, that it's not all about Trump and Biden, but this data hardly supports chest-beating over Biden's over-performance in this regard.

[Dbeasy 14,756]

10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't understand if? Look at my prior post with the full data. You have no idea what the actual data says because you havent fucking looked at it. Net exports have been increasing at a consistent rate since 2005. It has fuck all to do with Trump. The only reason Biden's numbers look worse is because of a slight blimp upward during covid followed by an immediate return to the same multi decade trend. 

You are either being disingenuous or are truly missing the point. Someone pointing out that the US became a net exporter under Biden is a meaningless stat because he didn’t increase production much compared to the previous four years. As you yourself said, that’s just been the trend. Biden hasn’t done anything. And he shouldn’t get any credit for doing anything special, other than continuing the trend. But in fact, his trend has been worse than the previous four years, not better. 

That’s the critical point. It’s a completely misleading conclusion by the guy tweeting. You said “it’s fair to point out….”   But, it’s not fair to point that out. It’s completely misleading. 

[Dahobbs 17,180]

Just now, Voluminous Banality said:

Yes, you don't understand it. You posted a chart showing petroleum imports drastically decreasing between 2017-2020 and then decreasing at a slower rate after 2020:

That corresponds to a rapid INCREASE in net exports or DECREASE in net export deficit from 2017 followed by a much SLOWER increase in net exports from 2020-2023:



In other words, the chart you posted perfectly supports the statistical (non-political) point I was making. If you still don't understand it, that's okay. Have a good day.

The chart I posted is net imports, not total imports. It is literally just the flip side of your graph. Stop focusing on 2017 and look at the full trend. It is a multi decade trend. Taking one small portion of a multi decade trend is going to distort the analysis with randomness. The larger sample size makes clear what is happening. Anyone with the barest familiarity with statistics would understand this. 

[Dahobbs 17,180]

Just now, Dbeasy said:

You are either being disingenuous or are truly missing the point. Someone pointing out that the US became a net exporter under Biden is a meaningless stat because he didn’t increase production much compared to the previous four years. As you yourself said, that’s just been the trend. Biden hasn’t done anything. And he shouldn’t get any credit for doing anything special, other than continuing the trend. But in fact, his trend has been worse than the previous four years, not better. 

That’s the critical point. It’s a completely misleading conclusion by the guy tweeting. You said “it’s fair to point out….”   But, it’s not fair to point that out. It’s completely misleading. 

The point of the tweet is that Trump shouldn't get credit for it if Biden doesn't get credit for the US actually becoming a net exporter. The tweet is factually accurate. Misleading is saying that Trump increased net exports by 9 quadrillion barrels when it had fuck all to do with him. That's what's fucking misleading. 

[Voluminous Banality 1,032]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

The chart I posted is net imports, not total imports. It is literally just the flip side of your graph. Stop focusing on 2017 and look at the full trend. It is a multi decade trend. Taking one small portion of a multi decade trend is going to distort the analysis with randomness. The larger sample size makes clear what is happening. Anyone with the barest familiarity with statistics would understand this. 

Correct, it's literally the flip side which I literally just said. It's evident that you neither understand the original tweet nor anything I've posted, so this is a good place to end the exchange.