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

[hobbes2702 13029]

7 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Assuming everything you say could be proved to be true, and I don't really have reason to believe they wouldn't, the situation the Dems find themselves in is even more maddening.

1.  Their candidate Methuselah is someone who has aged out of being able to campaign much less be a defender of democracy against a would-be despot

2.  The least invasive alternative would be to replace him with the young VP, but they are an unviable candidate because they are a social experiment

3.  There are other bright young stars in the party that would be viable candidates, but they cannot be considered because that will piss off the people who wanted the social experiment as VP

4.  There is no coherent strategy and there are no contingencies.  We are just asked to remain calm, give them a vote and enjoy the band as democracy capsizes.

5.  When voters register their alarm, democrats call them morons and idiots for daring to wonder WTF is going on and not just voting mindlessly

None of those are the fault of Trump, the GOP, Fox News, Russia, CNN or dumb voters.  Those are all damming self-owns by the Democratic party and their constituents.  The only bright side I see at this point with what is looking like an increasingly likely Trump victory is that the leadership if not the whole of the Democratic party goes away.  Adios, motherfuckers.  Then hopefully something less impotently shitty can replace them/it.

Really weird post

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Y’all, a black man from Hawaii named Hussein beat a McCain and a Romney. Social experiment or not, Kamala was built for this moment, especially after Roe was overturned.  I mean, she will suck as President but I have all the confidence she can beat Trump in 2024. 
 

edited for derp on Bush

Edited July 2 by Hugo Stiglitz

[hobbes2702 13029]

4 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Quit being obtuse.  In today's media landscape, 95% of all likely voters will know her life story by Labor Day.

No they won’t, because they are more concerned with hawk tuah. 

[YGIFS 19449]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Biden and Harris can spend that money. Other candidates would have to start from scratch.

Yep, this.  It's the one loophole in federal elections.  The POTUS/VP candidates can use the money interchangeably.  And can even cut it up if they lose anyway they want.  A Senator can't just hand off $50mm to another candidate if the drop out or lose.  But yeah, another candidate emerges on the DNC ticket...they can't onboard that money.  It would have be refunded to the donors and then re-donated to the new ticket.  Not terribly difficult but will raise a lot of eyebrows, many will feel offended and not make the re-up, and it's absolute cannon fodder for the media.  

[hobbes2702 13029]

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Opinions like this are maddening when we literally have people posting anecdotal information about their peer group having people who would vote for someone other than Biden.

It's like yeah, we hear you but don't believe you... We think people will vote for a corpse because he's the incumbent and it's the "right thing" to do 

That’s precisely not what I said but ok.

[Satchel 6925]

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Opinions like this are maddening when we literally have people posting anecdotal information about their peer group having people who would vote for someone other than Biden.

It's like yeah, we hear you but don't believe you... We think people will vote for a corpse because he's the incumbent and it's the "right thing" to do 

I would caution anyone who thinks replacing Biden gives the Dems a better chance at victory across the board than that which currently exists, to tap the brakes. And overlooking VP Harris would simply de-energize the party’s most faithful voting bloc and all but ensure defeat. That’s just real talk. We have to think this through without be so reflexively emotional.

[troph 24781]

13 minutes ago, Js1 said:

There’s a lot of assumption that the Biden/Harris campaign team, full of vets who have run presidential candidates and signed on to run an incumbent re-election campaign, are just going to shrug their shoulders and say okay and go work for whoever the DNC declares is the Biden/Harris replacement when they get kicked to the curb.

Because none of the names thrown around have a national ready campaign apparatus ready to hit the ground hard in July 2024. 

this is why it's Biden no matter what. I can't believe this isn't understood. the party isn't running for office, a candidate is and he has his or her own enterprise - funders, staffers, key executives, operatives, intel, data, etc. etc. Yes the parties help their candidates and there are organizations through out the country that try to help but in the end, the candidate has his or her own apparatus and that isn't just seamlessly handed off with 4 months to go. it would be an epic disaster behind the scenes not to mention any sort of infighting seen publicly.

[David Dennison 18849]

56 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lol at everyone suggesting Biden wouldn’t run for a second term during the 2020 primary. 

LOL at anyone thinking Biden is going to step aside now.

[Js1 85275]

Just now, troph said:

this is why it's Biden no matter what. I can't believe this isn't understood. the party isn't running for office, a candidate is and he has his or her own enterprise - funders, staffers, key executives, operatives, intel, data, etc. etc. Yes the parties help their candidates and there are organizations through out the country that try to help but in the end, the candidate has his or her own apparatus and that isn't just seamlessly handed off with 4 months to go. it would be an epic disaster behind the scenes not to mention any sort of infighting seen publicly.

The media would have a field day. 

Today: Biden has to step down, he can’t run and win

Tomorrow: DEMS IN DISARRAY!!!

[Longhorn_Fan68 33859]

I'm guessing Doggett already has the nomination? If there's a green candidate or someone not R opposed to him they may be getting my vote. 

[hobbes2702 13029]

Just now, Js1 said:

The media would have a field day. 

Today: Biden has to step down, he can’t run and win

Tomorrow: DEMS IN DISARRAY!!!

Yup. We would gain a few young people who think Biden is too old and we would lose everyone in the middle that doesn’t pay attention to the details.

[Red Five 40837]

2 minutes ago, troph said:

this is why it's Biden no matter what. I can't believe this isn't understood.

Coin flip on the betting markets. Go make a fortune. 

[Biff Tannen 45665]

2 minutes ago, Satchel said:

We have to think this through without be so reflexively emotional.

Agree.  I admit, I'm fairly disturbed as well, but I think it just shows how freaked out everyone is about what the Rs have done.  I haven't seen anyone on the right screaming about how the dotard should step aside as a candidate.  They've been behind him for YEARS, even when it became clear what he was.  

It makes me crazy that somehow the Dems are to blame for having to fight against a cult that wants a dictator.  In a sane world, it would be like 80/20, Biden/dipshit.  But no, here we are, and let's all blame the Dems for the shortcomings of the right.

[hornmpa96 2618]

7 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Yep, this.  It's the one loophole in federal elections.  The POTUS/VP candidates can use the money interchangeably.  And can even cut it up if they lose anyway they want.  A Senator can't just hand off $50mm to another candidate if the drop out or lose.  But yeah, another candidate emerges on the DNC ticket...they can't onboard that money.  It would have be refunded to the donors and then re-donated to the new ticket.  Not terribly difficult but will raise a lot of eyebrows, many will feel offended and not make the re-up, and it's absolute cannon fodder for the media.  

How much of the money is actually in the Biden/Harris campaign as compared to PACs?

My understanding is the PACs can spend their money on any candidate so it’s not tied to Biden/Harris.

[hobbes2702 13029]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Agree.  I admit, I'm fairly disturbed as well, but I think it just shows how freaked out everyone is about what the Rs have done.  I haven't seen anyone on the right screaming about how the dotard should step aside as a candidate.  They've been behind him for YEARS, even when it became clear what he was.  

It makes me crazy that somehow the Dems are to blame for having to fight against a cult that wants a dictator.  In a sane world, it would be like 80/20, Biden/dipshit.  But no, here we are, and let's all blame the Dems for the shortcomings of the right.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Y’all, a black man from Hawaii named Hussein beat a McCain and a Romney. Social experiment or not, Kamala was built for this moment

lol.  this is dan quayle talking about how favorably he compares to jfk.

[Js1 85275]

3 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

How much of the money is actually in the Biden/Harris campaign as compared to PACs?

My understanding is the PACs can spend their money on any candidate so it’s not tied to Biden/Harris.

The Biden campaign takes way more direct dollars. The Trump campaign relies on PAC money to spend on legal bills 

[Snake Diggity 4619]

48 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

There hasn’t been a need for guardrails with Biden. He has been running a great administration. Arguably, the best one in the last 50 years. 

I agree the Biden admin has been effective, but just because an administration is running smoothly doesn’t mean Biden has been an effective leader, or even that he has been the leader.  His cabinet is full of competent people who could be working under their own authority.  We don’t have visibility into that; we did have visibility into Biden’s competency on the debate stage and it was clear he’s not fit.

Fwiw, I think the argument that Biden is an empty suit and that Harris/Buttigieg/Blinken/Austin/Sullivan are working as a Voltron President is valid, and a significant justification for continuing to support Biden even though he’s clearly unfit for office.

Edited July 2 by Snake Diggity

[6th Street 6390]

Team Joe, ride or die. LFG

[YGIFS 19449]

11 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

How much of the money is actually in the Biden/Harris campaign as compared to PACs?

My understanding is the PACs can spend their money on any candidate so it’s not tied to Biden/Harris.

Correct, the PAC's of any stripe can put any amount behind anybody at anytime---just takes a 2-page FEC filing.  But the Biden/Harris campaign onboards a lot, like tens to hundreds of millions a lot, from direct donations.  It would be an extreme headache and media fallout to restructure that.  Nothing like it has even been gamed out, let alone attempted in real life.  

[Biff Tannen 45665]

4 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

I agree the Biden admin has been effective, but just because an administration is running smoothly doesn’t mean Biden has been an effective leader, or even that he has been the leader.  His cabinet is full of competent people who could be working under their own authority.  We don’t have visibility into that; we did have visibility into Biden’s competency on the debate stage and it was clear he’s not fit.

Fwiw, I think the argument that Biden is an empty suit and that Harris/Buttigieg/Blinken/Austin/Sullivan are working as a Voltron President is valid, and a significant justification for continuing to support Biden even though he’s clearly unfit for office.

None of what you said is based in any kind of fact.  You, nor anyone else here, has any clue what is going on behind the scenes.

[David Dennison 18849]

We haven't even talked about how undemocratic it would be to change candidates after the presumptive nominee won all of the primaries with actual votes.

[Covri 6244]

18 minutes ago, Satchel said:

We have to think this through without be so reflexively emotional.

This is a live look at the CR since Thursday:

 

Spoiler

 

[YGIFS 19449]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

We haven't even talked about how undemocratic it would be to change candidates after the presumptive nominee won all of the primaries with actual votes.

Do you even Chicago, bro?  

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

Just now, Covri said:

This is a live look at the CR since Thursday:

 

  Hide contents

 

meanwhile, twenty percent of us are

Spoiler

 

[aggie08 21483]

Just now, David Dennison said:

We haven't even talked about how undemocratic it would be to change candidates after the presumptive nominee won all of the primaries with actual votes.

[David Dennison 18849]

Just now, YGIFS said:

Do you even Chicago, bro?  

LOL

Yeah, no.

[aggie08 21483]

The fear of feeling some sense of shame or embarrassment over who you vote for is a very real thing. 

Meanwhile, MAGA is completely shameless. It's their superpower, and it's why we're fucked.

[elfenix 34223]

I went and watched a good chunk of the Howard stern interview from just under 2 months ago and feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading the last few pages of this thread. I know we've all got a recency bias but there's no way he's declined that much in the last 7 weeks.  I'm inclined to think the performance was down to some combination of cold meds, too much debate prep, and the thing being at 9 pm Eastern. 

Edited July 2 by elfenix

[Js1 85275]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

too much debate prep

Should have just let Joe be Joe. 

[gmr548 16576]

18 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Haven't y'all noticed that Trump wasn't really gloating about the debate? Have y'all seen what undecided voters have said about it? Minorities have mostly been angry about whatever Trump meant by "black jobs" and most other undecideds already thought Biden was too old, so him being old didn't really change anything. This freakout is almost entirely among the center-left who finally realized we're in for a real fight, which was always the case and a better debate from Biden wouldn't have changed that.

The "most of the electorate thinks Biden is old as hell - too old to be POTUS - and saw exactly what they expected from both candidates" is really the one line of cope I tend to buy.

And the media tailspin surrounding it screams Beltway bubble bursting. NYT is a great example. I don't necessarily think today's NYT story on Biden is bad reporting, but running with that as the top story and the complete saturation of Biden takes in its editorial section over the fucking bender SCOTUS has been on over the past two business days is a choice that signifies their worldview just got rocked.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

29 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

LOL at anyone thinking Biden is going to step aside now.

I know he isn’t but a girl can dream… Dems are their own worst enemy forever and always 

[Bozo_Casanova 26436]

Biden should not have sought a second term, for the good of the country. No doubt he did what he thought best but he miscalculated and the consequences are dire.
As I see it, there are four paths remaining to prevent Donald Trump from returning to office.  Two could work. Two are unlikely to succeed. The one that has the greatest chance of success is the least likely, and the most likely scenario is the least likely to succeed.  They are as follows:

Scenario #1, Trial by Combat-

 Joe Biden gives a major, prime time speech announcing that serving our nation as president has been an honor, and after 52 years of public service the time has come for a new generation to lead. Thus, he will decline the nomination of the democratic party and release his delegates. He urges the party to allow the delegates to the convention to choose their nominee, and in the meantime will focus his energies on the job at hand without an endorsement. 
This scenario combines high drama with a late schedule to create spell binding televised drama, replete with gossip, fringe characters, high comedy, and so on. In the interim period, the GOP would be stuck at idle and in the dark, forced to lash out wildly without a clear target to attack. They would try, obviously, but the result would be high expense and little to show for it.
At the end, a clear winner emerges in a big, spectacular rite of public unity. No matter who it is, they have high credibility, momentum, high approval, sympathy, and the attention of the press and the public. They also have the leverage to demand a debate with Trump, with a live audience. The legitimate contenders here would be Pete, Harris, Whitmer, Newsom and Pritzger. My guess is that Pritzger, Pete and Whitmer all fall in behind Harris with Biden ceremonially endorsing at the end and Pete winning the Veepstakes. Whoever it is, the winner emerges with a 75% chance of winning. 

Scenario #2, The King is Dead -  Biden gives a major, prime time speech tearfully confessing that due to his failing health he is no longer able to fulfill the office of president. Harris takes office immediately. Harris addresses a joint session of congress the next night humbly asking for the support of the nation and to pray for President Biden who deserved better, after 52 years of service to the public than to by dragged through ash for the crime of getting old.
In his name, then, she lays out a bold agenda, including a public payer healthcare system, reform of drug laws, a  nationwide high speed rail system that will begin by connecting El Paso, San Antonio, Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin and Houston, and resolute opposition to Russian aggression.  As long as she has anything to say about it, the fortress of Democracy will remain just that.  Or something like that - as an incumbent, she wields immense prestige and credibility, and has a 60% chance of winning, despite some baggage.

Scenario #3, Succession - Biden declines nomination, pledges delegates to Harris. This is a very weak hand for her to play and the optics are terrible, but at least she's not Joe Biden and a majority of the voters are scared shitless. If she avoids major gaffes, she's probably got a 40% chance of winning. 

Scenario #4, Ahab and Nemesis - Biden stays in. the party rallies around him. He does the best he can. It would take a miracle for him to win at this point and even if he does, how long does he last? At best, he's looking at a 20-25% chance of winning this election and what happens next could be very ugly even if he does.  
 

Edited July 2 by Bozo_Casanova

[hobbes2702 13029]

4 minutes ago, elfenix said:

I went and watched a good chunk of the Howard stern interview from just under 2 months ago and feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading the last few pages of this thread. I know we've all got a recency bias but there's no way he's declined that much in the last 7 weeks.  I'm inclined to think the performance was down to some combination of cold meds, too much debate prep, and the thing being at 9 pm Eastern. 

I tend to agree. All the appearances both before and after have been nothing like that. There also was a real difference once he started talking shit to Trump instead of trying to get in pre-canned facts and figures.

[gmr548 16576]

13 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

We haven't even talked about how undemocratic it would be to change candidates after the presumptive nominee won all of the primaries with actual votes.

I'm a fence sitter on the replace Biden thing, always have been, but primaries are stupid and political parties are private organizations who write their own rules. If they want to replace a nominee that's their prerogative. Nothing undemocratic about it.

['stache 21795]

5 minutes ago, elfenix said:

I went and watched a good chunk of the Howard stern interview from just under 2 months ago and feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading the last few pages of this thread. I know we've all got a recency bias but there's no way he's declined that much in the last 7 weeks.  I'm inclined to think the performance was down to some combination of cold meds, too much debate prep, and the thing being at 9 pm Eastern. 

He's had at least two public appearances since then and looked fine for his age. But don't let that get in the way of a good ole fashioned "trump is bad, but...."

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Biden should not have sought a second term, for the good of the country. No doubt he did what he thought best but he miscalculated and the consequences are dire.
As I see it, there are four paths remaining to prevent Donald Trump from returning to office.  Two could work. Two are unlikely to succeed. The one that has the greatest chance of success is the least likely, and the most likely scenario is the least likely to succeed.  They are as follows:

Scenario #1, Trial by Combat-

 Joe Biden gives a major, prime time speech announcing that serving our nation as president has been an honor, and after 52 years of public service the time has come for a new generation to lead. Thus, he will decline the nomination of the democratic party and release his delegates. He urges the party to allow the delegates to the convention to choose their nominee, and in the meantime will focus his energies on the job at hand. 
This scenario combines high drama with a late schedule to create spell binding televised drama, replete with gossip, fringe characters, high comedy, and so on. In the interim period, the GOP would be stuck at idle and in the dark, forced to lash out wildly without a clear target to attack. They would try, obviously, but the result would be high expense and little to show for it.
At the end, a clear winner emerges in a big, spectacular rite of public unity. No matter who it is, they have high credibility, momentum, high approval, sympathy, and the attention of the press and the public. They also have the leverage to demand a debate with Trump, with a live audience. The legitimate contenders here would be Pete, Harris, Whitmer, Newsom and Pritzger. My guess is that Pritzger, Pete and Whitmer all fall in behind Harris, with Pete winning the Veepstakes. Whoever it is, the winner emerges with a 75% chance of winning. 

Scenario #2, Tragedy -  Biden gives a major, prime time speech tearfully confessing that due to his failing health he is no longer able to fulfill the office of president. Harris takes office immediately. Harris addresses a joint session of congress the next night humbly asking for the support of the nation and to pray for President Biden who deserved better, after 52 years of service to the public. In his name, then, she lays out a bold agenda, including a public payer healthcare system, reform of drug laws, a  nationwide high speed rail system that will begin by connecting El Paso, San Antonio, Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin and Houston, and resolute opposition to Russian aggression.  As long as she has anything to say about it, the fortress of Democracy will remain just that.  Or something like that - as an incumbent, she wields immense prestige and credibility, and has a 60% chance of winning, despite some baggage.

Scenario #3, Succession - Biden declines nomination, pledges delegates to Harris. This is a very weak hand for her to play and the optics are terrible, but at least she's not Joe Biden and a majority of the voters are scared shitless. If she avoids major gaffes, she's probably got a 40% chance of winning. 

Scenario #4, Ahab and Nemesis - Biden stays in. the party rallies around him. He does the best he can. It would take a miracle for him to win at this point and even if he does, how long does he last? At best, he's looking at a 20-25% chance of winning this election and what happens next could be very ugly even if he does.  
 

[Js1 85275]

1 minute ago, gmr548 said:

I'm a fence sitter on the replace Biden thing, always have been, but primaries are stupid and political parties are private organizations who write their own rules. If they want to replace a nominee that's their prerogative. Nothing undemocratic about it.

Never forget that 2016 was seen as “undemocratic” because the DNC favored a lifelong Democrat instead of a guy who is an independent and only shows up to be a Dem when he runs for election. 

[hobbes2702 13029]

5 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

I'm a fence sitter on the replace Biden thing, always have been, but primaries are stupid and political parties are private organizations who write their own rules. If they want to replace a nominee that's their prerogative. Nothing undemocratic about it.

Just because they can do all that stuff doesn’t means it’s not undemocratic 

[Dahobbs 17525]

12 minutes ago, elfenix said:

I went and watched a good chunk of the Howard stern interview from just under 2 months ago and feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading the last few pages of this thread. I know we've all got a recency bias but there's no way he's declined that much in the last 7 weeks.  I'm inclined to some combination of cold meds, too much debate prep, and the thing being at 9 pm Eastern. 

It was 100% the time thing. He looked fine the next morning. I'm also wondering if the whole all of our bases in Europe going on alert like two days later may have some connection as to why he would have been mentally exhausted at debate time. 

[aggie08 21483]

8 minutes ago, elfenix said:

I went and watched a good chunk of the Howard stern interview from just under 2 months ago and feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading the last few pages of this thread. I know we've all got a recency bias but there's no way he's declined that much in the last 7 weeks.  I'm inclined to think the performance was down to some combination of cold meds, too much debate prep, and the thing being at 9 pm Eastern. 

I hope this is correct (though, "it was past his bedtime" doesn't help matters much). I have to believe that his team wouldn't have possibly let him walk on that stage if they thought for a second that what we saw was a very possible outcome. He's obviously in noticeable decline, but hopefully not a free fall.

But, now he's left himself with no margin for error. I think everyone (among those with any chance of voting for him) will give him the opportunity to prove that it was just a really, really, really bad night, but he'll have to keep proving it over and over again until November.

[Creasy Bear 667]

5 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

do you also own a timeshare?

but seriously, this "simple" take is so fucking infuriating. it has never been more true than today that a vote for "neither of these guys" is a vote for trump. straight up. and I feel this take to be fairly disingenuous because the part most people are focusing on in the debate happened in the very beginning and Biden righted the ship as the debate progressed. It still wasn't great, but he wasn't Mitch McConnell'ing it and freezing for a full minute. and unless you're a doctor, gtfo with the I'm a brain expert take and I know what senility looks like. But, sure, we're once again faced with a choice of a "a candidate I don't like a whole lot" and the fucking devil incarnate who is hell bent on installing a dictatorship. same same. ffs.

I'm voting for RFKjr in protest of both of these candidates.  My hopes are that he garners enough support that 3rd party candidates might have a chance in the future. 

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

There’s a scenario where Biden delivers a surprise speech on Thursday. One where he boasts about his administrations accomplishments and then announces, under the triumphant backdrop of fireworks, that he is stepping aside from the election race for the good of the country. That he’s heard the cry from the nation for the next generation of leadership and he can think of no one better than his running mate to lead us into the future. A scenario where they turn an embarrassing debate performance into an emphatic passing of the torch. And much like March of 2020, the party would fall in line given the very public anointing.

But that would require the Democratic Party to have intelligent leadership, so instead we’ll get Biden and Stephanopolous buried on a holiday weekend.

[hobbes2702 13029]

2 minutes ago, Creasy Bear said:

I'm voting for RFKjr in protest of both of these candidates.  My hopes are that he garners enough support that 3rd party candidates might have a chance in the future. 

Well this is about as stupid as voting can get 

[aggie08 21483]

Just now, Creasy Bear said:

I'm voting for RFKjr in protest of both of these candidates.  My hopes are that he garners enough support that 3rd party candidates might have a chance in the future. 

Of all the years to support an independent candidate because of two lackluster choices from the major parties, you choose this one, when the independent candidate is somehow miraculously and substantially worse than Biden and Trump. 

Hero.

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

4 hours ago, Longhorn94 said:

the economy is great. people are better off than they were under Trump. the only problems we have with the economy are BECAUSE of Trump's policies and presidency. This election will be about a good economy, lowest unemployment in 50 years, WOMEN's RIGHTS, the fucking supreme court, and oh yeah DEMOCRACY. If those issues don't get the same 2020 voters plus a shitload of people who previously supported Trump to switch sides then we deserve the dystopian future that would be in store for us all with another Trump presidency. 

this is a stupid fucking argument at this point. Biden has had what many consider to be the most legislatively successful 3.5 years of any president in the last 50 years. He has a booming economy at his back and bright future ahead. 

That's what the election should be about, but it's not. This election is between two men who wouldn't be able to get a job at a gas station. One of them wants to convert us into Nazi Germany, and the other wants to continue being president for reasons he doesn't even understand. But the election can't be about the economy because Biden isn't capable of making the election about that.

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

1 minute ago, aggie08 said:

Of all the years to support an independent candidate because of two lackluster choices from the major parties, you choose this one, when the independent candidate is somehow miraculously and substantially worse than Biden and Trump. 

Hero.

He's still better than Trump. Everyone is.

[SizzleChest 8283]

5 minutes ago, Creasy Bear said:

I'm voting for RFKjr in protest of both of these candidates.  My hopes are that he garners enough support that 3rd party candidates might have a chance in the future. 

 

[Biff Tannen 45665]

6 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Well this is about as stupid as voting can get 

He was never voting for a Democrat. This is one for our side! /costanza

Edited July 2 by Biff Tannen

[Js1 85275]

5 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Of all the years to support an independent candidate because of two lackluster choices from the major parties, you choose this one, when the independent candidate is somehow miraculously and substantially worse than Biden and Trump. 

Hero.

Brain worms supporting brain worms