Who should Democrats run in 2024?

warpus said:
But let's say he just wants to end up on the ballot and doesn't care about the debates for whatever reason. Let's say he makes a movie mocking the debates and points out how they're not really debates anymore. Or whatever, that part doesn't matter so much. What do you have to do to actually end up on the ballot, as a Non-Republi/Democrat?
Click to expand...
He would have to be 35 years old and register as a candidate in every state he wants to run in.
 
warpus said:
What's the requirement for running for president? Say that Quentin Tarantino (first American born person who came to mind) wanted to run independently (or as the leader of some new party that he created) and be on the ballot for people to pick. What does he need to do to qualify and to get to that stage?
Click to expand...

Each state has its own requirements for getting on a ballot in that state's vote for president (typically need a certain number of signatures). There are hundreds of candidates every election if you count all the people who only got on one state (or few) ballot(s). So to win, should get on all (or vast majority) of ballots, something the two major parties are more equipped to handle, and that's not even getting into the other money aspects of getting enough votes to be competitive, let alone actually winning.
 
Who in 1990 would have predicted Bill Clinton, or in 1974 Jimmy Carter? It’s too early to say, and I’d bet any name mentioned now—assuming Biden opts not to run—none of the names here would end up on the future ticket.
 
Birdjaguar said:
He would have to be 35 years old and register as a candidate in every state he wants to run in.
Click to expand...

Bamspeedy said:
Each state has its own requirements for getting on a ballot in that state's vote for president (typically need a certain number of signatures).
Click to expand...

Ah okay, so it seems like you need to be born in the USA, be 35 years old or over, and also need to register in each and every state, and that means 50 separate potential ways of being eligible for each one, although it seems like the common method is to walk around collecting signatures.

So it seems to me that if you are a multimillionaire who is born in the USA and over 35 years old, you could hire a team for every state to go around and collect the required signatures, and then assuming that pans out, you end up on the ballot and you can in theory become president, although in practice it seems almost impossible. Is there a minimum number of states you have to be eligible in? Or is it every single one?

Google seems to say 10,000 signatures needed, but I have no idea if that's right. It seems low. Collecting 10,000 signatures in every state seems very doable for somebody famous. Just hire teams to walk around and enough people will sign it, assuming you are not hated across the board like Kevin Spacey or something.

Could this hypothetical candidate put out a national TV campaign asking people to mail in signatures? If that's possible then you might not have to do any walking.

Just thinking ahead for when I'm re-born as an American, but also curious how all of this works
 
warpus said:
Ah okay, so it seems like you need to be born in the USA, be 35 years old or over, and also need to register in each and every state, and that means 50 separate potential ways of being eligible for each one, although it seems like the common method is to walk around collecting signatures.

So it seems to me that if you are a multimillionaire who is born in the USA and over 35 years old, you could hire a team for every state to go around and collect the required signatures, and then assuming that pans out, you end up on the ballot and you can in theory become president, although in practice it seems almost impossible. Is there a minimum number of states you have to be eligible in? Or is it every single one?

Google seems to say 10,000 signatures needed, but I have no idea if that's right. It seems low. Collecting 10,000 signatures in every state seems very doable for somebody famous. Just hire teams to walk around and enough people will sign it, assuming you are not hated across the board like Kevin Spacey or something.

Could this hypothetical candidate put out a national TV campaign asking people to mail in signatures? If that's possible then you might not have to do any walking.

Just thinking ahead for when I'm re-born as an American, but also curious how all of this works
Click to expand...

Every state is different for number of signatures. 10,000 is a requirement in MA and SC, all other states has a different set number of signatures required.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates
(second table, requirements for independents)

Yes, to get on all the ballots you will need help, either hiring people or volunteers. The two main parties already have the infrastructure in place to do this.

You could be on one state's ballots and not any others. Even if you won that state, all you will get is that state's electoral votes, so you'll lose the election. I suppose theoretically if you got on only the 11 states with the largest electoral votes and won every single one of them you could win the election. Not likely to happen.
 
amadeus said:
Who in 1990 would have predicted Bill Clinton, or in 1974 Jimmy Carter? It’s too early to say, and I’d bet any name mentioned now—assuming Biden opts not to run—none of the names here would end up on the future ticket.
Click to expand...
I'm betting Amy Klobuchar will run. She will throw staplers at everyone until they agree to vote for her, and her slogan will be IT'S KLOBBERING TIME
 
I honestly don't understand the conception that Biden won't run in 2024. It's just a bizarre mindset to me. No President in modern times has ever been like "naw, I'm good." Granted, it's 2 years away, but it's gonna be Biden vs. Trump 2.0. I mean, it just... is.
 
RobAnybody said:
I honestly don't understand the conception that Biden won't run in 2024. It's just a bizarre mindset to me. No President in modern times has ever been like "naw, I'm good." Granted, it's 2 years away, but it's gonna be Biden vs. Trump 2.0. I mean, it just... is.
Click to expand...
He strikes me as too old and his 2020 run very much had a 'passing the torch' vibe.
 
@Bamspeedy Ah, so the number of states needed is only so that you can get enough electoral votes to win.. I've studied the electoral votes and how they work to some degree so I can understand that, so thanks for explaining

Seems like one day some famous person might be like "Screw this, I'm running", and throw $20 million at it and get some rich friends to chip in. If both the Republicans and Democrats have a crappy candidate and a popular hot actor shows up as an option, it seems that it's at least feasible as a scenario in which they'd probably lose, but maybe get some sort of momentum going for the next election.

Do you even need to have a political party to run under or can you just scrap all of that and run on your platform? Seems like political party is not a requirement, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I bet no rich person wants to get involved in politics that directly since they're already rich and prefer to control politicians from the shadows. But I'm just spitballing here
 
Ajidica said:
He strikes me as too old and his 2020 run very much had a 'passing the torch' vibe.
Click to expand...
Ok, but do you think it strikes *him* as "too old"?
EDIT: Like, when has that ever happened? That a sitting President was like "oh, wow, I'm too old to run again"?
DOUBLE EDIT: If Trump wins the R nomination, well before Biden will have to make such a decision, do you envision Biden being like "hey, I'll step down, & let someone else run against him"?
 
Last edited:
warpus said:
@Bamspeedy Ah, so the number of states needed is only so that you can get enough electoral votes to win.. I've studied the electoral votes and how they work to some degree so I can understand that, so thanks for explaining

Seems like one day some famous person might be like "Screw this, I'm running", and throw $20 million at it and get some rich friends to chip in. If both the Republicans and Democrats have a crappy candidate and a popular hot actor shows up as an option, it seems that it's at least feasible as a scenario in which they'd probably lose, but maybe get some sort of momentum going for the next election.

Do you even need to have a political party to run under or can you just scrap all of that and run on your platform? Seems like political party is not a requirement, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I bet no rich person wants to get involved in politics that directly since they're already rich and prefer to control politicians from the shadows. But I'm just spitballing here
Click to expand...

Ross Perot. Billionaire ran as 'indepependant' in 1992 (in 96 ran as Reform Party, less successfully).
 
It’s Biden and if you want him to win you better do opt let’s go Brandon.

If for whatever reason he doesn’t win it’s Gavin Newsom or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Newsom is a huge winner, only republicans think he’s bad. Newsom beat coronavirus and legalized the gays. And Ocasio-Cortez are you kidding me, when ever again can we elect a hot skinny 34 year old Latina to turn 35 before taking office? She’s perfect! She speaks the truth, she’s great on the issues, she knows how to run a campaign, she’s super educated, she’s the good woke.
 
Al Gore
✔ younger than either Biden or Trump
✔ name recognition associated with the good times of the 90s
✔ sort of outsider status while still being a known quantity
✔ would be stronger on climate change than any other candidate
 
Hygro said:
Newsom is a huge winner, only republicans think he’s bad. Newsom beat coronavirus and legalized the gays. And Ocasio-Cortez are you kidding me, when ever again can we elect a hot skinny 34 year old Latina to turn 35 before taking office? She’s perfect! She speaks the truth, she’s great on the issues, she knows how to run a campaign, she’s super educated, she’s the good woke.
Click to expand...

AOC? She strikes me as woke indeed, meaning she's prone to simplistic, quick, feelgood "solutions". Like her Green New Deal or the fact that she supports "defund da police".

I wouldn't trust her. But that's me, and I'm glad I'm not American. At least our president has little real power and has been elected to be a representative clown more than anything else.
 
Sarin said:
AOC? She strikes me as woke indeed, meaning she's prone to simplistic, quick, feelgood "solutions". Like her Green New Deal or the fact that she supports "defund da police".
Click to expand...
You not liking (or even not agreeing) with solutions doesn't make them bad. That's a value judgement, with nothing else behind it.
 
Gorbles said:
You not liking (or even not agreeing) with solutions doesn't make them bad. That's a value judgement, with nothing else behind it.
Click to expand...

The arguments that they're bad, however, make them. And there are plenty. Hidden costs of production, maintenance and recycling of "renewable" energy sources and electromobiles, for example, make them at current status situational at best. Defund the police has proven to be dangerous, irresponsible move that only increases crime rates and leads to politicians only hiring private security to cover their butts and decriminalizing theft in order to cover up rising crime rates (looking at you, California).

What I don't see is politicians trying to push actual solutions like reducing the emission outsourcing by moving production from countries with cheap wages and less ecological regulations, focusing on nuclear energy and reuse of spent nuclear fuel or putting police on proper professional footing by making them go through several years of academy training and then paying them appropriately to the required education and danger that they're facing. Because all these are long term, less visible and above all else expensive solutions.
 
Sarin said:
The arguments that they're bad, however, make them. And there are plenty. Hidden costs of production, maintenance and recycling of "renewable" energy sources and electromobiles, for example, make them at current status situational at best. Defund the police has proven to be dangerous, irresponsible move that only increases crime rates and leads to politicians only hiring private security to cover their butts and decriminalizing theft in order to cover up rising crime rates (looking at you, California).
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that holds up to statistical analysis (Washington Post, article headline is "Over the past 60 years, more spending on police hasn’t necessarily meant less crime").
What I don't see is politicians trying to push actual solutions like reducing the emission outsourcing by moving production from countries with cheap wages and less ecological regulations, focusing on nuclear energy and reuse of spent nuclear fuel or putting police on proper professional footing by making them go through several years of academy training and then paying them appropriately to the required education and danger that they're facing. Because all these are long term, less visible and above all else expensive solutions.
Click to expand...
While I agree nuclear power is something that should be being invested in, it takes a lot of investment and time. It's something that needs to be in-progress for a certain amount of time to actually start affecting any problems. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be started, but we also need solutions that pay dividends in the shorter and medium terms. Renewable energy is often situational, but that doesn't mean it's a non-starter.

And with regards to running a candidate, pushing hard for nuclear is easy to exploit. So something like green measures are an easier sell, even if in the longer-term, nuclear investment is still important. The worse option is to do neither; to advocate for neither.
 
Gorbles said:
I'm not sure that holds up to statistical analysis (Washington Post, article headline is "Over the past 60 years, more spending on police hasn’t necessarily meant less crime").

While I agree nuclear power is something that should be being invested in, it takes a lot of investment and time. It's something that needs to be in-progress for a certain amount of time to actually start affecting any problems. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be started, but we also need solutions that pay dividends in the shorter and medium terms. Renewable energy is often situational, but that doesn't mean it's a non-starter.

And with regards to running a candidate, pushing hard for nuclear is easy to exploit. So something like green measures are an easier sell, even if in the longer-term, nuclear investment is still important. The worse option is to do neither; to advocate for neither.
Click to expand...

Of course the money has to be spent right. Hiring more thugs, when your problem is thuggish police force, won't solve anything. Try to look at civilized countries, how it works there. Of course, even if you'd establish proper police academies right now, the politicians currently in power would only see expenses while benefits would become apparent only in subsequent terms, which is why they don't have incentive to do that and push for something that would only look good.

Yes, building a nuclear reactor takes time. So the sooner you start, the better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom