The 2024 US Presidential Election

[Gori the Grey]

this man is contributing to the velocity of money in our economy

He is not, though. Once people read this book, and see how forcefully it speaks against wealth-acquisition, it will slow our economy down to an absolute crawl.

 

[Narz]

There is nothing wrong with being a bible salesman.

One shouldn't profit on fake news

 

[Remorseless1]

It's simply a way for Benedict Donald to raise money for his legal expenses. The self-proclaimed billionaire begs for other people's money.

I've read several reports on financial websites that Traitor Don is considering declaring bankruptcy to evade paying the half billion dollars in fines and interest. It would be the fifth time this century Don the Con would have done so.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Though that would come with the cost of no longer being able to project that he's a rich, successful guy, an image that it's harder to relinquish now than it was at the time of his earlier bankruptcies.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Though that would come with the cost of no longer being able to project that he's a rich, successful guy, an image that it's harder to relinquish now than it was at the time of his earlier bankruptcies.

Trump's supporters would not care about him declaring bankruptcy, nor would it diminish their image of him as a rich successful businessman. All that would happen is that they would shift their thinking to a martyr narrative... that he was forced into this position by unfair, illegal Democratic/Deep State/Fake News persecution... and they would then regard his bankruptcy filing as him being clever and beating the corrupt Deep State at their own game.

 

[Sommerswerd]

One also starts running into the Solomon problem. Cutting the baby in half isn't really a solution for every area of disagreement.

This isn't the Bible talk thread of course, but one of the points/morals of the "Solomon problem" was that cutting the baby is never the solution. Rather threatening to kill the baby is the way to expose the difference between the person who actually wants a solution and the person who will destroy/prevent/obstruct meaningful solutions from being reached if they can't get everything they want.

In this context, the Republicans very frequently have shrewdly used the Solomon approach to their disagreements with Democrats... ie., give us what we want or we will cause a default/shut down the government/hold up all spending on everything... and like the true mother in the Solomon parable, the Democrats cave, because they are the ones who care more about reaching a solution, even if the solution is totally against their true interests. Democrats care about saving the baby (the people/country), even if it means losing. Republicans care more about winning, even if it risks destroying the country. Like the false mother in the Solomon parable, their position is, if I can't have it, nobody can. Jan 6th was an illustration/example of this mindset.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Trump's supporters would not care about him declaring bankruptcy, nor would it diminish their image of him as a rich successful businessman. All that would happen is that they would shift their thinking to a martyr narrative... that he was forced into this position by unfair, illegal Democratic/Deep State/Fake News persecution... and they would then regard his bankruptcy filing as him being clever and beating the corrupt Deep State at their own game.

You're probably right.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Trump's supporters would not care about him declaring bankruptcy, nor would it diminish their image of him as a rich successful businessman. All that would happen is that they would shift their thinking to a martyr narrative... that he was forced into this position by unfair, illegal Democratic/Deep State/Fake News persecution... and they would then regard his bankruptcy filing as him being clever and beating the corrupt Deep State at their own game.

Fact-checking a claim Hilary Clinton made during the 2016 campaign, The Washington Post found that Trump had declared bankruptcy 6 times.

This isn't the Bible talk thread of course, but one of the points/morals of the "Solomon problem" was that cutting the baby is never the solution. Rather threatening to kill the baby is the way to expose the difference between the person who actually wants a solution and the person who will destroy/prevent/obstruct meaningful solutions from being reached if they can't get everything they want.

In this context, the Republicans very frequently have shrewdly used the Solomon approach to their disagreements with Democrats... ie., give us what we want or we will cause a default/shut down the government/hold up all spending on everything... and like the true mother in the Solomon parable, the Democrats cave, because they are the ones who care more about reaching a solution, even if the solution is totally against their true interests. Democrats care about saving the baby (the people/country), even if it means losing. Republicans care more about winning, even if it risks destroying the country. Like the false mother in the Solomon parable, their position is, if I can't have it, nobody can. Jan 6th was an illustration/example of this mindset.

Max Boot in his 2018 book noted, "Trump gave [his supporters] hope that he would blow up what they viewed as a dysfunctional political system - and that somehow something good would grow from the ruins." In Boot's view, the fact that Trump (et al) have no positive vision for this country is a feature and not a bug, to his cultists. 'Some men just want to watch the world burn.' Maybe something better will be built in the aftermath, and maybe not.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't think that is necessarily true.

Wishful thinking on your part. Yes, the decline varies by person but it is still there. If you can find some one off exception, it would only be more evidence that it is true.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Oh, I see. Your solution is driven by your political leaning. Would that be a fair statement? A solution that drives out 2 alleged partisans of your opposition party? And you'd have Roberts out next year. Would you grandfather that change in?

Term limits are a good thing in politics. It weeds out career politicians (like Diane Feinstein who should have been made to leave years ago) and introduces new people to the halls of power. Since such new rules would likely have to come from congress, I would assign the start date to the end of the SCOTUS session (June 30) of the year the legislation passes. No exceptions.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The issue here is not cognitive ability but the allegiance to far-right politics that, in the case of Alito and Thomas at least, are far outside the mainstream of civilized society.

If you want to fix the Court the simplest*way to do it is not to impose term limits but to have the President be elected by popular vote; if that were the case, then Thomas would be the only Justice presently put on the Court by a GOP President.

5 of the justices having been appointed by Presidents who lost the popular vote is the real problem, not the age and not really the "corruption" stuff either. For example, I think the complaints about Thomas basically receiving bribes are valid and he should be thrown off the Court by rights, but to the extent that critics are suggesting that he is accepting bribes in exchange for delivering conservative outcomes, I think that is incorrect. His ideology is the real problem.

*simple in the sense that it's an actual solution. Using Congress to pack the court by imposing term limits or adding justices simply allows for the GOP to do the same thing when it controls Congress. If the GOP had the Senate, House, and Presidency they'd have no shame whatever about, say, imposing a 1 year term limit on the Court and then changing it back to lifetime tenure as soon as they finished replacing all the liberal justices.

This is a somewhat related topic you reminded me of. I was thinking about this recently, and I'm thinking that we don't even have to immediately get rid of the electoral college, or switch to a pure popular vote to improve our democratic voting process in POTUS elections. We could just start by reducing the electoral college votes from 538 to 436, and get rid of the extra 2 EC votes that every states get for no reason other than to sort of act as proxies/symbols for the Senators. There really is no reason for each state to start with 2 extra EC votes. That switch alone would improve the system.

No, the situation where that was the solution was a very specific one!

(Not to mention, the baby didn't actually end up getting split!)

One of the extremes was the correct extreme and Solomon in his wisdom found the way to find that out.

Ironically appropriate characterization... It wasn't a matter of two extremes. It was a matter of the moderate, sensible position, ie mother get to keep her own baby and one extreme outrageous position, ie., lying, kidnapping sociopath gets to steal baby.

You can see the applicability to the current discussion.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Trump's supporters would not care about him declaring bankruptcy, nor would it diminish their image of him as a rich successful businessman. All that would happen is that they would shift their thinking to a martyr narrative... that he was forced into this position by unfair, illegal Democratic/Deep State/Fake News persecution... and they would then regard his bankruptcy filing as him being clever and beating the corrupt Deep State at their own game.

I think Trump should be prez; he's got more
Than you losers--more more, more galore.
He's got nothing, you say?
Deep State made it that way.
I think Trump should be prez, cuz he's poor.

 

[choxorn]

If it had been any other country in the world with this much oil and the election being decided by the vote of a guy who was appointed by one of the candidates' daddies, the US would have invaded it to "bring democracy" within six months.

Not to mention that the votes under dispute were in a state where the governor was also said candidate's brother, there was some screwery going on suggesting the other guy really should have won, and a recount was stopped by an actual riot.

Term limits are a good thing in politics. It weeds out career politicians (like Diane Feinstein who should have been made to leave years ago) and introduces new people to the halls of power. Since such new rules would likely have to come from congress, I would assign the start date to the end of the SCOTUS session (June 30) of the year the legislation passes. No exceptions.

A mandatory retirement age would probably make more sense than a term limit, the problem with term limits is if you make them too short you start losing the experience and institutional memory that comes with having some people who've been there a while and it ends up giving more power to unelected lobbyists.

 

[Core Imposter]

April3
Arizona:Trump +5.2
Nevada: Trump +3.2
Georgia: Trump +4.5
Pennsylvania: Trump +0.6
Michigan: Trump +3.4
Wisconsin: Trump +0.6
Minnesota: Biden +3.0
North Carolina: Trump +4.6

March22, 2024
Arizona: Trump +5.4
Nevada: Trump +4.3
Georgia: Trump +5.0
Pennsylvania: Trump +0.5
Michigan: Trump +3.9
Wisconsin: Trump +1.2
Minnesota: Biden +3.0
North Carolina: Trump +5.0

March10, 2024
Arizona: Trump +5.5
Nevada: Trump +7.7
Georgia: Trump +6.5
Pennsylvania: Biden +0.8
Michigan: Trump +3.6
Wisconsin: Trump +1.0
Minnesota: Biden +3.0
North Carolina: Trump +5.7
​

POLLSTER	DATE	SAMPLE	MOE	TRUMP (R)	BIDEN (D)	SPREAD
RCP Average	2/13 - 3/6	—	—	47.6	45.8	Trump+1.8

RCP Average

2/5 - 3/6

—

—

41.1

38.4

12.7

2.6

1.7

Trump+2.7

This Day In History: March 8, 2020: Biden +5.5 | March 8, 2016: Clinton +4.0

POLLSTER	DATE	SAMPLE	MOE	TRUMP (R)	BIDEN (D)	SPREAD
RCP Average	3/5 - 3/17	—	—	46.7	44.7	Trump+2.0

POLLSTER	DATE	SAMPLE	MOE	TRUMP (R)	BIDEN (D)	KENNEDY (I)	WEST (I)	STEIN (G)	SPREAD
RCP Average	2/5 - 3/19	—	—	41.3	39.0	11.2	2.2	1.6	Trump+2.3

This Day In History: March 22, 2020: Biden +7.4 | March 22, 2016: Clinton +9.8

POLLSTER	DATE	SAMPLE	MOE	TRUMP (R)	BIDEN (D)	SPREAD
RCP Average	3/7 - 3/31	—	—	46.6	45.8	Trump+0.8

POLLSTER	DATE	SAMPLE	MOE	TRUMP (R)	BIDEN (D)	KENNEDY (I)	WEST (I)	STEIN (G)	SPREAD
RCP Average	3/5 - 4/2	—	—	41.9	40.0	10.3	1.9	1.8	Trump+1.9

This Day In History: April 3, 2020: Biden +5.9 | April 3, 2016: Clinton +10.6

 

[Core Imposter]

The polls continue to tighten. But there hasn't been much movement. Very faint blue trend. But that's where I'd put the money, in fact, several betting markets have flipped to Biden since last look. RCP betting average still reflects a Trump edge, but it is shrinking.

Since last look Kennedy picked a VP who can help him with $$$ and will get him on the ballot in lots of states.

At this point, I doubt that Biden is going to want to debate. I don't think Trump will debate Kennedy. So, events that can move the polls will be unpredictable. I still expect Trump to pick Tim Scott, but this may be pure projection on my part.

 

[Comrade Ceasefire]

I'm still hoping for...
SmackDown All in the Family Tag Team
Joe & Hunter vs Don Snr & Don Jnr.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Trump tries to rig the election once again.

Trump and allies pressure Nebraska to change how it awards electoral votes​

By Daniel Strauss and Jeff Zeleny, CNN

Former President Donald Trump and his allies have ramped up pressure for Nebraska lawmakers to change the method the state divvies out electoral college votes, an effort that underscores just how narrow the race for 270 electoral votes could be in the November rematch with President Joe Biden. The proposed change would move the state to a winner-take-all allocation system from the current system that splits electoral votes between statewide winners and winners of congressional districts. The proposal appeared to have little traction until a last minute push by prominent Republicans placed national attention on the change.

Conservative activist Charlie Kirk kicked off the effort on Tuesday, sending a message on social media urging Nebraska Republicans to act. Hours later, Republican Gov. Jim Pillen voiced support for the change, after not making it a priority during his first 15 months in office.

Trump weighed in himself on Truth Social, saying that he too supported the change.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/03/politics/trump-allies-nebraska-electoral-votes/index.html

 

[EgonSpengler]

Trump tries to rig the election once again.

Trump and allies pressure Nebraska to change how it awards electoral votes​

By Daniel Strauss and Jeff Zeleny, CNN

Former President Donald Trump and his allies have ramped up pressure for Nebraska lawmakers to change the method the state divvies out electoral college votes, an effort that underscores just how narrow the race for 270 electoral votes could be in the November rematch with President Joe Biden. The proposed change would move the state to a winner-take-all allocation system from the current system that splits electoral votes between statewide winners and winners of congressional districts. The proposal appeared to have little traction until a last minute push by prominent Republicans placed national attention on the change.

Conservative activist Charlie Kirk kicked off the effort on Tuesday, sending a message on social media urging Nebraska Republicans to act. Hours later, Republican Gov. Jim Pillen voiced support for the change, after not making it a priority during his first 15 months in office.

Trump weighed in himself on Truth Social, saying that he too supported the change.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/03/politics/trump-allies-nebraska-electoral-votes/index.html

The whole Electoral College system deserves to be launched into the Sun anyway. An American shouldn't have to move - to another state or to another district - to have their vote for US President counted.

 

[Sommerswerd]

No Labels won’t run a third-party campaign after trying to recruit a centrist presidential candidate​

NEW YORK (AP) — The No Labels group said Thursday it will not field a presidential candidate in November after strategists for the bipartisan organization failed to attract a high-profile centrist willing to seize on the widespread dissatisfaction with President Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

“No Labels has always said we would only offer our ballot line to a ticket if we could identify candidates with a credible path to winning the White House,” Nancy Jacobson, the group’s CEO, said in a statement sent out to allies. “No such candidates emerged, so the responsible course of action is for us to stand down.”

The unexpected announcement further cements the general election matchup between the two unpopular major party candidates, Biden and Trump, leaving anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the only prominent outsider still seeking the presidency. Kennedy says he has collected enough signatures to qualify for the fall ballot in five states.

https://apnews.com/article/no-labels-2024-third-party-biden-trump-c7477857e1dd05535326b8850f4500a1

 

[Birdjaguar]

Dear Joe and Donald: Ideas for Shaking Up the 2024 Race
Bold moves could still remake the electoral map. Would Democrats relocate to swing states for Biden? Could Trump reboot his famous TV show?
BY JEFF GREENFIELD

Our two major presidential candidates drag with them liabilities weighty enough to make winning a daunting proposition. As with any embattled campaign, an intense, almost desperate, search is under way by each side for a strategic breakthrough that can bend the vectors, shift the narrative, forge new metaphors. With a relentless media ready to offer a microscopic examination of every campaign move, it’s critical for both Joe Biden and Donald Trump to take risks unthinkable in the past. Here, then, free of charge, is a bold suggestion for each to shake up the race and avoid merely re-running their 2020 campaigns.

Biden: The Great Relocation
In all probability, President Biden will win the popular vote (as Democrats have done in seven of the last eight presidential elections) by piling up huge pluralities in a couple of big states. He and Hillary Clinton each carried California by some five million votes— 4,999,999 of which were “wasted.” New York and Illinois provided Biden with more useless votes—two million and one million, respectively. The biggest Trump pluralities—some 600,000 in Florida, Ohio and Texas—did not come close. Assuming that Democrats cannot abolish the Electoral College between now and November, will they helplessly watch as a margin of millions turns into a win based on 44,000 votes in three states, as in 2020, or a loss based on 77,000 votes, as in 2016?

Instead, with enough money and determination, they can embark on a calculated diaspora, temporarily relocating a decisive number of loyal Democrats into critical swing states. It would begin by tapping into the skills of Hollywood creative community (which “tilts” to the left in the sense that the Titanic “tilted” into the Atlantic) to produce a series of TV ads and social media messages urging committed Dems to “Make the Move for Biden.” A platoon of extremely well-off supporters—a former Mayor of New York and a “Shark Tank” star come to mind—would fund the moves into Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and other battlegrounds at least 30 days before the election, as required, plus some extra time to document residency (a utility or rent bill, etc.). Some of those superfluous two million New Yorkers can slide over into Pennsylvania, while some of Illinois’s million wasted votes can cruise up the I-90 to Wisconsin. To prevent culture shock during their political sojourn, Chicagoans nesting in Kenosha would be sent deep-dish pizzas, while New Yorkers camping out in Scranton could get care packages from Zabar’s and Barney Greengrass. Ethically sketchy? Maybe. On the other hand, the Great Relocation makes it much more likely that the candidate who wins the most votes makes it to the White House.

Trump: ‘ The Apprentice, Vice Presidential Edition.’
When Trump first emerged as a presidential contender, most of us in the political world dismissed him out of hand, but a few perspicacious folks (my wife among them) noted that for tens of millions of Americans, Donald Trump was the hard-charging, in-command host of “The Apprentice.” His executive credentials were more potent and better known than any of his rivals trapped in the deflating work of governors and senators. In the 2024 campaign, it would be hugely helpful to Trump if voters were reminded of this role (as opposed to, say, his role as courtroom defendant). And there’s a perfect tool for doing this: the selection of his running mate. As the GOP convention approaches, Trump should decline to name his choice for vice president. As speculation mounts, he would defer all comment until his acceptance speech. When he speaks, he would remind America that FDR left the choice in 1944 to the con-gather vention. “But I’m going to do FDR one better,” he would say. “I’m not going to let professional politicians decide. I’m going to let you, the people decide!” Then he’d name half a dozen contenders or more.


PETER ARKLE

Sure, some states would have to change their rules to allow an unspecified running mate. But that would enable him to campaign around the county with a full complement of possible veeps. He can them each week on national television and eliminate one. (“You’re not hired,” he could say, “ but you’ll be in my cabinet.”) Just before the election, Trump can stage a prime-time event where the audience will choose from the remaining candidates. That event will dominate all of the pre-election coverage; Biden would be little more than an afterthought.

Scoff at these proposals if you wish. But as a prominent American once said: “The most difficult thing is the decision to act.” OK, it was Amelia Earhart, but still.

Jeff Greenfield has been a political correspondent and analyst for four TV networks.
Superfluous New Yorkers can slide over into Pennsylvania.