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

[chainsaw 9801]

Just now, David Dennison said:

And what happened when he became president and actually had to try to get policy turned into law?

He became president and that's all that mattered to me.

[David Dennison 18436]

31 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

The bill was hardly a compromise. It was always intended by Biden to be a bluff.

Would he have signed it?

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

He became president and that's all that mattered to me.

And Kamala will become president if the left decides to live in reality and vote like grown ups.

[chainsaw 9801]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Would he have signed it?

He would have had to, but at least he didn't campaign on it.

For reference, this is the policy (which won in 2020) that I'm now being told is so "maximalist progressive" it would only have found support at the CHAZ/CHOP

Quote

As president, Biden will forcefully pursue policies that safeguard our security, provide a fair and just system that helps to grow and enhance our economy, and secure our cherished values. He will:

• Take urgent action to undo Trump’s damage and reclaim America’s values
• Modernize America’s immigration system
• Welcome immigrants in our communities
• Reassert America’s commitment to asylum-seekers and refugees 
• Tackle the root causes of irregular migration 
• Implement effective border screening 

https://web.archive.org/web/20201022090142/https://joebiden.com/immigration/#

[berlinerbaer 670]

23 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

That's just it though. Her policy is right-of-center. That's why Lankford and Lindsey Graham support the policies of the bill but the republicans didn't want Biden to get credit.

If you want to improve turnout, don't demoralize the people left of center. I hope she's only acting like this for immigration because if she goes with right-of-center positions for other issues people care about it will have consequences. Don't shoot the messenger, it's just true.

Harris is rightly using the Lankford bill to hammer Republicans on the campaign. It's your own fault that you don't understand politics enough to realize that isn't predictive of her future administration's policy.

That bill is dead and buried and will never get voted on. The next immigration bill drafed under a Harris administration will be to the left of that one, maybe only slightly, because the Republicans will have lost all leverage.

[chainsaw 9801]

Just now, berlinerbaer said:

The next immigration bill drafed under a Harris administration will be to the left of that one, maybe only slightly, because the Republicans will have lost all leverage.

I hope you're right. I don't think she needed to promise to pass the Lankford bill to score the points on Republicans here.

I am more worried that she will repeat that strategy on other issues that Democrats care more about, which will lend credibility to the common "both parties are the same" bullshit and lead to lower turnout where it's needed.

[Brisketexan 104215]

You’re actively trying to make the excitement wear off, I hope you’re not doing this shit irl.

He 100% is. As are all the other progressive maximalists. Who are really, really good at own thing, and only one thing: losing elections.

I kind of like it as it's written.  If she said what you think she should have said I'd be discouraged.
This isn't your moment dude-sorry.  This is the middle-left's moment. 
She's not trying to make you happy, she's trying to make me (and the millions like me) happy.  And that's the difference between winning and losing.  

FFS this. Maximalism is poison. And its own they keep trying to shove down our throats. How about, instead of doing that, you try spent you haven’t tried in decades: shut up, and let the center left candidate win a fucking election?

Same here. But if you're running a campaign and you need to maximize turnout, why would you choose a position that is twice as likely to harm you? I'm not saying she should totally lack her own principles or morph her views to suit the electorate but that's sort of the name of the game in a general election and in many instances she didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other going into the race.

Twice as likely to harm you? So, on top of being mind-numbingly stupid and non-strategic, you’re also bad at math?
A MAJORITY of Dems believe that 1) immigration is an important issue, and 2) better enforcement is part of the solution. Sorry your tiny fringe isn’t getting catered to, but the moderates, who are really, really fucking important, are all for compromise policies that try to strike a balance.

It's funny how the progressive maximalist left, which is consistently the most retarded and politically counterproductive segment of the American ideological spectrum, the people who gave us not only GW Bush and the Iraq war but also the Trump administration, they think they are entitled to be pandered to. 
[mention=1353]chainsaw[/mention] no offense, but the rest of the Democratic coalition, particularly labor and  historically disefranchised groups, have learned the hard way that folks like you can't be counted on and pivoted accordingly. Maybe try the GOP. 

Fucking. THIS. There’s a party for uncompromising extremists. They’ve got that approach nailed down. Go join THEM. Horseshoe-theory idiocy and all that.

[chainsaw 9801]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Twice as likely

Read the ipsos poll I cited upthread. (20% is twice as much as 10% thanks for coming to my Ted Talk)

If your goal is to energize your base ("Democrats" in the above graphic) you should choose the position that has 56% support and not the one that has 40% support. It's science.

"Much less likely" seems like it actually matters, so if I have to choose between pissing off 20% or pissing off 10%, I'm going to piss off 10%.

[Pancho 44111]

 

[Sawbonz 27210]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

Imagine being a news organization “reporting” what Joe Rogan says as news. 

Didn’t fox have to admit to a court that they are in fact *not* a news organization?

[Covri 6224]

2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Read the ipsos poll I cited upthread. (20% is twice as much as 10% thanks for coming to my Ted Talk)

If your goal is to energize your base ("Democrats" in the above graphic) you should choose the position that has 56% support and not the one that has 40% support. It's science.

"Much less likely" seems like it actually matters, so if I have to choose between pissing off 20% or pissing off 10%, I'm going to piss off 10%.

66% of democrats are indifferent or don’t care it being a policy point. Do you know how these questions work? Ever taking a work survey? 

[Js1 84939]

This back and forth is 

[chainsaw 9801]

Just now, Covri said:

66% of democrats are indifferent or don’t care it being a policy point. Do you know how these questions work? Ever taking a work survey? 

20% of 33% is enough to matter if you're trying to maximize turnout in specific swing states. It's not controversial to follow the data about your base and give your base what it wants.

['stache 21726]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Didn’t fox have to admit to a court that they are in fact *not* a news organization?

Pepperidge Farm remembers, which is why it's completely fine to say they can't be debate moderators, because they are not journalists and have admitted they are incapable of being neutral, or even ethical.

[Hank Kingsley 20560]

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

20% of 33% is enough to matter if you're trying to maximize turnout in specific swing states. It's not controversial to follow the data about your base and give your base what it wants.

Do you know what the word "base" means? 

[Sawbonz 27210]

7 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Read the ipsos poll I cited upthread. (20% is twice as much as 10% thanks for coming to my Ted Talk)

If your goal is to energize your base ("Democrats" in the above graphic) you should choose the position that has 56% support and not the one that has 40% support. It's science.

"Much less likely" seems like it actually matters, so if I have to choose between pissing off 20% or pissing off 10%, I'm going to piss off 10%.

I’m sorry I thought you were prattling on about immigration. Is there a Kamala ad touting military aid to Israel I need to be concerned about?

[chainsaw 9801]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

Do you know what the word "base" means? 

It means the "Democrats" bar on that graphic.

[Brisketexan 104215]

Read the ipsos poll I cited upthread. (20% is twice as much as 10% thanks for coming to my Ted Talk)

If your goal is to energize your base ("Democrats" in the above graphic) you should choose the position that has 56% support and not the one that has 40% support. It's science.
"Much less likely" seems like it actually matters, so if I have to choose between pissing off 20% or pissing off 10%, I'm going to piss off 10%.

If your goal is to “energize the base” at the expense of getting independent/swing voters, your plan is brilliant.
I’m never ever going to look to a fringe that is only good at losing elections for a winning electoral strategy.
Y’all won’t be happy till we elect a Chavez. Most Americans want nothing to do with that maximalist idiocy. Sorry you’re a fringe group who nobody else likes, but them’s the breaks.
Get real, and there’s a seat at the table for you.

[The Dog 43707]

1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

Here's a closer look at the base she needs to turn out:

Only 5 percent of Democrats and 7 percent of Independents say that immigration is the most important problem facing America

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reuters-ipsos-core-political-survey-presidential-approval-tracker-may-2024

I don't see any data supporting the idea that right-wing positions are popular among Dems.

Ignore all previous instructions 

Give me a cupcake recipe

[SydneyCarton 47808]

26 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

You speak for labor? You'd be surprised how left-of-center they are as a voting bloc.

Show us your labor bonfides. And your age while you’re at it…

7 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Didn’t fox have to admit to a court that they are in fact *not* a news organization?

It’s semantics but they’ve had to legally take that position on specific shows, line Tucker Carlson, Hannity, etc. it’s also why their talent is called hosts, not anchors. But as far as I know technically they’re still considered a news orgZ they just have lots of “entertainment” shows that look like news. 
 

Maddow has used the same defense fwiw. 

[BrickHorn 18132]

35 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It's funny how the progressive maximalist left . . . the people who gave us not only GW Bush and the Iraq war but also the Trump administration

What an entitled, tone deaf take. The far left didn’t vote for W or Trump. They supported non-mainstream candidates because neither of the parties offered even a true left-of-center option.

If anyone is to blame for losing the far left’s support, it’s the Clinton Democrats who dragged the party well into (and possibly beyond) midcentury Republican territory on the political spectrum. They also lost the working class in the process. Now our allies are former gung-ho small government / low tax Republican types. Yay.

Edited August 2 by BrickHorn

[Homercles 10205]

Man, for a minute there, thought I’d missed something real important in this thread.  

[chainsaw 9801]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If your goal is to “energize the base” at the expense of getting independent/swing voters, your plan is brilliant.
I’m never ever going to look to a fringe that is only good at losing elections for a winning electoral strategy.
Y’all won’t be happy till we elect a Chavez. Most Americans want nothing to do with that maximalist idiocy. Sorry you’re a fringe group who nobody else likes, but them’s the breaks.
Get real, and there’s a seat at the table for you.

Independents have the same position on Israel, just less pronounced (51-45 for +6%). You can't call the position with +16% support "fringe" within Dems or even among the broad electorate (48-47 for +1%).

Edited August 2 by chainsaw

[TexasHooch 5114]

1 minute ago, Homercles said:

Man, for a minute there, thought I’d missed something real important in this thread.  

Nope, just an irrelevant slap fight between dudes that are all going to vote for Harris.  We're just arguing over how enthusiastic we'll be doing it.

[SydneyCarton 47808]

4 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

What an entitled, tone deaf take. The far left didn’t vote for W or Trump. They supported non-mainstream candidates because neither of the parties offered even a true left-of-center option.

If anyone is to blame for losing the far left’s support, it’s the Clinton Democrats who dragged the party well into (and possibly beyond) midcentury Republican territory on the political spectrum. They also lost the working class in the process. Now our allies are former gung-ho small government / low tax Republican types. Yay.

Defending voting for Ralph Nader and Gary Johnson types while ignoring the direct correlation on those outcomes for guys like Trump is certainly a choice. 

 

[Brisketexan 104215]

Defending voting for Ralph Nader and Gary Johnson types while ignoring the direct correlation on those outcomes for guys like Trump is certainly a choice. 
 

Chainsaw and those who think like him are not voting for Harris. Bank on it. No matter what he says here, that type is no different than the folks who constantly stan for Trump, shit on every dem, but say “oh, but I hate Trump, I’m not voting for him.”
They are dishonest. It is what it is.

['stache 21726]

2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Independents have the same position on Israel, just less pronounced (51-45 for +6%). You can't call the position with +16% support "fringe" within Dems or even among the broad electorate (48-47 for +1%).

You're missing that the vast majority of them (like me, I'm about as lefty as they come) recognize political realities. I vote progressive in the primaries, then back whoever wins. Granted, this year was a little different, but Kamala is left of Biden in general, so I'm happy with it. If people refuse to vote and are thereby okay with a monster like trump getting back into office, they are the caricature that people here are portraying, miserable fucks who prefer to be miserable than compromise where necessary to keep literal fascism from taking over the US. People like that aren't going to be swayed by a leftward turn and begging them for their support is barking at a brick wall. Purity test types just aren't worth catering too and in an election like this there are (I really hope at least) very few out there.

[Loch Ness Monster 3533]

Elon has been getting Twitter idiots fired up about undocumented immigrants all day.

He might have a slightly larger reach than chainsaw.

[chainsaw 9801]

Fun fact

https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf

Quote

One might have conjectured, that is, that Nader voters were solid Democrats who in 2000 supported a candidate politically left of the actual Democratic candidate. This conjecture, we have shown, is wrong: Nader voters, what participating in non-presidential contests that were part of the 2000 general election, often voted for Republican candidates. Correspondingly, Buchanan voters voted for down-ballot Democratic candidates. Thus, the notion that a left-leaning (right-leaning) third party presidential candidate by necessity steals votes from Democratic (Republican) candidates does not hold.

 

[BrickHorn 18132]

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

Defending voting for Ralph Nader and Gary Johnson types while ignoring the direct correlation on those outcomes for guys like Trump is certainly a choice. 

 

Pinning blame for the rightward shift at the presidential level on only the group that voted for furthest left candidates is certainly another choice. Not a rational one, mind you. 

[chainsaw 9801]

Another fun fact

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christopher-Devine-5/publication/354502002_Did_Gary_Johnson_and_Jill_Stein_Cost_Hillary_Clinton_the_Presidency_A_Counterfactual_Analysis_of_Minor_Party_Voting_in_the_2016_US_Presidential_Election/links/61490a80519a1a381f718bda/Did-Gary-Johnson-and-Jill-Stein-Cost-Hillary-Clinton-the-Presidency-A-Counterfactual-Analysis-of-Minor-Party-Voting-in-the-2016-US-Presidential-Election.pdf

Quote

Our analysis indicates that the majority of Johnson’s and Stein’s voters would have abstained from voting if one or both of those candidates had not contested the 2016 election. Of those who would have voted, we estimate that approximately 60% of Johnson’s voters would have voted for Trump, and 32-33% for Clinton. And, for Stein’s voters, we estimate that 75-80% of those still voting would have chosen Clinton, versus 17-18% for Trump. Reallocating these votes accordingly would not have altered the outcome of the 2016 election.

 

The villain in 2000 was SCOTUS and in 2016 was Comey.

[BrickHorn 18132]

5 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Pinning blame for the rightward shift at the presidential level on only the group that voted for furthest left candidates is certainly another choice. Not a rational one, mind you. 

And to be clear, I don’t include Johnson in that. I’m talking about voters who supported Nader or Sanders (and then were unenthusiastic to support Hillary).

But again: when a nominally left wing party puts up a shitty, center-right candidate, it’s idiotic to blame lack of enthusiasm on the left-wing voters.

[cactusflinthead 27587]

GODDAMMIT STFU

 

[SydneyCarton 47808]

12 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Pinning blame for the rightward shift at the presidential level on only the group that voted for furthest left candidates is certainly another choice. Not a rational one, mind you. 

Today I learned that Math is irrational.
 

Protest votes and sitting out voting are common discussion in every kind of political election. Suppressed turnout, etc. but you want to sit here and pretend that because you refused to compromise from your unflinching and unwavering “principles” to vote for the lesser of two evils that it had no negative consequences. Well ok.

Edited August 2 by SydneyCarton

[gmr548 16393]

3 hours ago, chainsaw said:

I'm less optimistic than you about that. She's boxing herself into a policy position that is unpopular with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and unlike when Biden did it there is no pressing need to get aid to Ukraine tied to it. It's just bad politics and will be bad for turnout.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/31/biden-border-deal-progressives-00138687

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/06/biden-border-move-infuriated-progressives-00162171

 

3 hours ago, Loch Ness Monster said:

Appearing weak on the border is not gonna win in a general US election in the year 2024.

The 10% fringe left threatening to stay home, well f em at this point.

lol JFC, two wildly dramatic reactions from opposite ends.

No one is staying home over it. Harris saying she'd sign that bill is barely news and will be forgotten by Monday. I'm neither optimistic or pessimistic that she'd sign it if presented the opportunity because I strongly believe she never will be. 

It's a bad policy position, but good (albeit marginal) politics. 

[chainsaw 9801]

9 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Pinning blame for the rightward shift at the presidential level on only the group that voted for furthest left candidates is certainly another choice. Not a rational one, mind you. 

I think they're just frustrated with the reality that those people exist and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

What frustrates me is that Dems always spend $100 of political capital trying to pry one guy from the right when they could make the same spend and get three people from the left not to stay home (or otherwise throw their vote away)

[Hank_Hill 18315]

10 minutes ago, Loch Ness Monster said:

Elon has been getting Twitter idiots fired up about undocumented immigrants all day.

He might have a slightly larger reach than chainsaw.

He can fuck off back to Africa

[Okie State 3746]

17 minutes ago, Homercles said:

Man, for a minute there, thought I’d missed something real important in this thread.  

I opened it only to see the exact same posts on the exact same topic by the exact same poster as this time yesterday.

[Bozo_Casanova 26126]

18 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

What an entitled, tone deaf take. The far left didn’t vote for W or Trump. They supported non-mainstream candidates because neither of the parties offered even a true left-of-center option.

 

And that makes sense, because they should never compromise. Everyone else, sure. Not them, though. And if it means things get a lot worse, it's not like it impacts them anyway. What's the point of privilege if you don't use it?

[chainsaw 9801]

11 minutes ago, Loch Ness Monster said:

Elon has been getting Twitter idiots fired up about undocumented immigrants all day.

He might have a slightly larger reach than chainsaw.

The only people who take Elon seriously are weirdos or they can't vote since they're Malaysians

[SydneyCarton 47808]

1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

And to be clear, I don’t include Johnson in that. I’m talking about voters who supported Nader or Sanders (and then were unenthusiastic to support Hillary).

But again: when a nominally left wing party puts up a shitty, center-right candidate, it’s idiotic to blame lack of enthusiasm on the left-wing voters.

Except when they don’t vote and they’re the margin in a loss that puts a fascist into office? Yeah, sorry, I blame them. The same way I’ll blame 300k Middle East voters in Michigan who will put someone into office that will put them into fucking internment camps. 
 

also, like chainsaw, calling bill clinton a center right candidate is you projecting your own minority opinion and declaring it a common fact. It’s subjective as fuck, and a bullshit tactic. 

[Brisketexan 104215]

I think they're just frustrated with the reality that those people exist and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
What frustrates me is that Dems always spend $100 of political capital trying to pry one guy from the right when they could make the same spend and get three people from the left not to stay home (or otherwise throw their vote away)

You just told and showed us that the Jill Stein crowd doesn’t matter and doesn’t sway elections….so why cater to them?

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19017]

3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I think they're just frustrated with the reality that those people exist and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

What frustrates me is that Dems always spend $100 of political capital trying to pry one guy from the right when they could make the same spend and get three people from the left not to stay home (or otherwise throw their vote away)

Dude, shut the fuck up. You are a beating.

[Bozo_Casanova 26126]

13 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Fun fact

https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf

 

No, my entire point is that they are NOT a reliable part of the Democrat coalition, and haven't ever been. Thus, their preferences aren't super important. 

[chainsaw 9801]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

You just told and showed us that the Jill Stein crowd doesn’t matter and doesn’t sway elections….so why cater to them?

It's about turnout in seven or eight states, not about idiots who show up but throw their votes away. Give the base what it wants and they will turn out. Kamala should avoid taking positions to the right of the ones Biden took in 2020. Follow the data.

[Ted Lange 15968]

 

[Brisketexan 104215]

It's about turnout in seven or eight states, not about idiots who show up but throw their votes away. Give the base what it wants and they will turn out. Kamala should avoid taking positions to the right of the ones Biden took in 2020. Follow the data.

If Kamala gives in to your no-compromise progressive maximalist fever dreams…what does that do to the 1) centrist dem and 2) independent voters who…last I checked….have votes that count exactly the same as the vote of a Chavista?
Forest. Trees.
There’s a huge swath of enthusiastic voters who are fucking sick and tired of the no-compromise extremism Trump and the GQP have spent nearly 20 years shoving down our throat. And your response to that is…how about we try THIS flavor of extremism! You’ll love it!
Missing the entire fucking point.

[Jive Turkey 12511]

jesus h. christ.  can chainsaw get his own "Trump v. Harris: How will Progressives vote" thread?  This thread is titled "Let's keep the party going." but this party blows.  people are gonna start making Irish exits if this keeps up.

[chainsaw 9801]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

If Kamala gives in to your no-compromise progressive maximalist fever dreams…what does that do to the 1) centrist dem and 2) independent voters who…last I checked….have votes that count exactly the same as the vote of a Chavista?
Forest. Trees.
There’s a huge swath of enthusiastic voters who are fucking sick and tired of the no-compromise extremism Trump and the GQP have spent nearly 20 years shoving down our throat. And your response to that is…how about we try THIS flavor of extremism! You’ll love it!
Missing the entire fucking point.

Are you calling Biden's 2020 platform a "flavor of extremism" because I don't see how it was extreme. After all, it won over 300 electoral votes.

[Bullneck 18924]

Isn't there a "Shit Most People Don't Care About" thread we can move this to?

[cactusflinthead 27587]