2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[garbon]

The Democrats needed to be energized, they are now, and cynical internet denizens need to do their best to shit all over it.

Yeah, it is really odd. How dare people get excited and thus maybe feel like voting?

[Valmy]

Looking forward to seeing good poll numbers in a few weeks.

[crazy canuck]

Looking forward to seeing good poll numbers in a few weeks.

Harris has already made up the polling deficit Biden had.  So I assume you are expecting even better polling results?

[Valmy]

Looking forward to seeing good poll numbers in a few weeks.

Harris has already made up the polling deficit Biden had.  So I assume you are expecting even better polling results?

Yes, after the convention I want a nice lead in the swing states.

[crazy canuck]

Looking forward to seeing good poll numbers in a few weeks.

Harris has already made up the polling deficit Biden had.  So I assume you are expecting even better polling results?

Yes, after the convention I want a nice lead in the swing states.

That would be nice, but probably unrealistic.  Trumpism has taken hold of about half your nation.  From what I understand the key to victory in this election is getting people who would not normally vote, interested in voting this time around. 

And despite the fact old folks like us need to update our definitions of "brat" by all reports Harris is taking over the social media battle where it counts - appealing to people who normally pay no attention to politics, wouldn't care about Sheilbh's careful analysis of all the reasons holding a better process would have been better, and will come out and vote.

[Sheilbh]

What kind of process would you or Obama like?

No idea - it'd need to be worked out. I think have different campaigns, a few debates, lots of polling and focus groups and maybe do something like state level conventions for a few key states before the convention.

Just some things to test the candidates and let everyone make an informed decision. Harris may be the best candidate to beat Trump - but at the minute all we know is the 2020 campaign which wasn't great and her debate with Pence which was fine (not great, not terrible). Take a look at the options, preview the lines of attack, kick the tires on her national campaign strategy - all the normal reasons you'd want a selection process.

There is a general election to run. The more time the better to get on message, get the ground game out, get voters enthused. Time is a luxury, why waste it?

On the side, and what I think Yi sort of raised, what process are you imagining? At the convention the people who matter are the state electors and delegation by delegation they've made their choice. Would it be better to have that process drawn out over weeks?

There was a really bad decision in Biden running again and it was leading to catastrophe. The Democrats got a reprieve and had a chance for a do-over. I just think you should take the chance to really try to work out who is the best placed candidate to beat Trump not rush to a decision.

I think getting this pick wrong will have a bigger impact between the convention and election day than wasting a month before the convention. Obviously I really hope that hasn't happened.

And on the delegates, I think in this scenario more than any other it would be a case of the party decides.

I remember all the outrage when he took over and how this and that platform will take over, then everyone went the lazy route and stayed under the thumb of an insane South African aristocrat.

It's still the platform journalists use - so if you need to communicate to journalists or want to read what's going on via social media then it serves its perhaps. Meta do not want that near Threads and Substack haven't been able to make Notes into something.

I don't think that many people will find your question compelling.  No one is claiming that Biden is in no fit state to govern except the some right-wing nutjobs that have been claiming that since he got the nom in 2020.  Multiple presidents have continued to serve in office without running for re-election.

I'd find that more convincing if it wasn't very similar to the line about him running for president before the debate.

Of those presidents how many stepped down as their party's nominee because of their health? Again I think at an earlier stage Biden could have positioned this more easily as "I've served as a bridge, it's time to hand on to the next generation" or "I don't have my party's support". After that debate and three weeks of speculation, we know why he's stepping down. I think there will be questions about how he's performing and has performed as president given that he's had to step down from his campaign because of the visible state of his health.

If it is just that one story in the WSJ, or the one in Politico about him basically being really sharp from 9-4 but not great out of hours, then it's not a risk. If there is a drip drip drip of stories, I think there's a risk it becomes like Clinton's emails and Harris is the candidate least able to disown it/distance herself.

And the issue isn't the right-wing talking points. That bit of the electorate is gone - it's the press read by the reality-based community the Democrats need to win (just like with the emails, it was the NYT etc - and like with Clinton I slightly worry they'll go out of their way because they feel they maybe dropped the ball on investigating this pre-debate).

And despite the fact old folks like us need to update our definitions of "brat" by all reports Harris is taking over the social media battle where it counts - appealing to people who normally pay no attention to politics, wouldn't care about Sheilbh's careful analysis of all the reasons holding a better process would have been better, and will come out and vote.

I'm  not totally sure on social media. I think you can be too online as a campaign. It can be very up and down and mean you're speaking to an engaged but small audience - I think the big surge in people volunteering is a better sign.

And FWIW my point isn't that it would swing one single vote. It's that the party had the chance and should have taken it to make sure, confidently and actively that they've got the best candidate possible to beat Trump and not rallied, loyally, for the easiest default option. I think it's a risk - it may work out and I hope it does. I think the Trumpy candidates have lost every election since 2016 so I really hope that holds.

[Admiral Yi]

No idea - it'd need to be worked out. I think have different campaigns, a few debates, lots of polling and focus groups and maybe do something like state level conventions for a few key states before the convention.

Just some things to test the candidates and let everyone make an informed decision. Harris may be the best candidate to beat Trump - but at the minute all we know is the 2020 campaign which wasn't great and her debate with Pence which was fine (not great, not terrible). Take a look at the options, preview the lines of attack, kick the tires on her national campaign strategy - all the normal reasons you'd want a selection process.

Other candidates running is not a process, it's other candidates running.

[Sheilbh]

Other candidates running is not a process, it's other candidates running.

Oh I've no idea then - do some state conventions, have an open convention, look at online voting who knows. I don't think the formal way of doing it matters that much.

[Admiral Yi]

Oh I've no idea then - do some state conventions, have an open convention, look at online voting who knows. I don't think the formal way of doing it matters that much.

These things are all proxies for the will of the people.  The same thing surveys measure.  It appears to me surveys are being conducted at a furious pace.

The only thing missing then is in house opposition research.  Things about Kamala that are not broadly known but which could negatively impact her in the general.  She ran a child sex ring in California.  She sold heroin to get through law school. 

Except the negatives on Clinton and Biden were not secrets. 

[crazy canuck]

Other candidates running is not a process, it's other candidates running.

Oh I've no idea then - do some state conventions, have an open convention, look at online voting who knows. I don't think the formal way of doing it matters that much.

Why?  What is wrong with the delegates who have already been elected making their choice?  And if those delegates decide to back Harris based on what is already known, why should there be a need for anything more?

Your argument is sounding a lot like wanting more process for its own sake.

[garbon]

 

They should have spent time navel gazing while the narrative built up that the Democrats were in chaos and couldn't agree on a candidate. That does not sound like a winning plan.

[Tamas]

They should have spent time navel gazing while the narrative built up that the Democrats were in chaos and couldn't agree on a candidate. That does not sound like a winning plan.

Yeah Harris may not be the best possible candidate but you can't try and find the best candidate without hurting the chances of any candidate in the process.

My only worry is the Dems switching into Hillary 2016 mode. "well it was her turn and come on she is running against trump. This is sorted"

[Valmy]

We need people who want the office to run in order for there to be a process though. Nobody is fighting for it.

As I said, the Democrats are well trained. So off we go.

[garbon]

They should have spent time navel gazing while the narrative built up that the Democrats were in chaos and couldn't agree on a candidate. That does not sound like a winning plan.

Yeah Harris may not be the best possible candidate but you can't try and find the best candidate without hurting the chances of any candidate in the process.

My only worry is the Dems switching into Hillary 2016 mode. "well it was her turn and come on she is running against trump. This is sorted"

I don't see any signs they are being complacent about the threat Trump poses.

[Admiral Yi]

My only worry is the Dems switching into Hillary 2016 mode. "well it was her turn and come on she is running against trump. This is sorted"

I think Kamala is pretty much a carbon copy of Hillary.  Kamala as veep is sort of a default if we don't agree on anyone else.  She has overwhelming support and a huge organizational and fundraising advantage.  Endorsements have piled in.  She's polling well.  Exactly like Hillary, why would anyone in their right mind run against her?  You're guaranteed to lose.

In terms of "process" the only concrete step I could see taking is not automatically handing over the Biden organization and funds to Harris.  Which is maybe not a terrible thing to do.