2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[Sheilbh]

"Siri, please show the psychological impact of wanting to beat the Tories for 14 years."

Admirable American optimism that any Democrats can have any type of confidence ever after 2016.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The simple truth is Kamala can campaign, if you had been following Biden closely, he no longer could. Kamala is an upgrade over Biden, it isn't blind optimism by the Dems to see that. And it is quite obvious the Trump campaign is both upset and worried about the switch, and feel far less confident.

Trump despite his many personal negatives, has decent political instincts. He has well known that while you have to ape pro-life views to be a Republican elected official, many of the more extreme pro-life views are far outside the mainstream of American society, and are politically damaging. Trump knows that Roe being overturned was a case of a dog finally catching the car, and not a political positive for the GOP. He has been trying to distance himself from that ruling for years, it was apparently one requirement of his VP selections that all of them be willing to water down their pro-life views. I've heard rumors one reason Tim Scott was passed over is he wasn't willing to be flexible on his.

JD Vance's views are on the other hand very malleable, his website removed a lot of abortion stuff after he was selected. If you follow JD's progression as a public figure, his views also changed dramatically when he decided to go from being a conservative author to an actual politician in 2022. Tim Scott on the other hand is from a religious background where he deeply believes in the pro-life stuff, it isn't just politics for him.

Kamala is far better situated to attack trump over abortion than Biden was--remember Biden was often a lukewarm figure on abortion for most of his career.

Trump also was quite obviously worried about losing suburban women in 2020, but a big problem Trump has always had is none of his political instincts or rhetorical habits are good at appealing to suburban women. I think a big issue his campaign is going to have is the typical attack lines Trump will want to use against a female candidate are not going to help on that front, and may even cause more losses.

Trump has never been able to capture as many suburban women as he did in 2016, and it is an open question if the math works for him winning the EC at all without them, Trump has broadened his appeal to "independents" vs 2020, but only a touch, Trump's polling is still mostly stuck around where it has been since the 2020 cycle. Which means there has always been an opportunity for the Democrats to just scoop up the voters that were out there but Biden-skeptical.

[crazy canuck]

"Siri, please show the psychological impact of wanting to beat the Tories for 14 years."

Admirable American optimism that any Democrats can have any type of confidence ever after 2016.

I have never seen you this far out of touch with what is actually happening.  The Democrats did after all win the 2020 election.  The Democrats know that they lost in 2016 when they thought they had it in the bag.  The Democrats just one week ago were about to throw in the towel because they had a presidential candidate that was clearly incapable of being president.  All that has now changed But you keep denying the facts on the ground In favour of your pet project, that there should've been a different process.

[Sheilbh]

I think you're totally misreading me to be honest because I'm not sure what facts on the ground I'm denying?

I'm not even sure there should have been a different process. My pet project is that the party made a decision to endorse very quickly - I think there was a false sense of urgency - and they may regret it. We won't know until there's bad period which there will be because no campaign is a triumphant march to the White House.

Biden going is huge as is having someone who can campaign more actively and deliver lines more sharply (I also think being willing to campaign on abortion hard is a big thing too). But clinching the nomination and the convention will always be the two most positive news cycles and we shouldn't mistake that or excitement and relief as the new normal. Things need to settle so we can see the underlying change.

My contention is that politicians aren't sovereign rational individuals making up their own mind separately, I think there was a broadly collective decision at the top of the party (as in 2016, as with Biden). And I think there was an alternative.

[Norgy]

So it is Trump, the felon, and Vance, the fraudster "hillbilly" against Harris, the cat lady with the coconut trees.

This is, well, just surreal. No wonder we older people reminisce about the past.

[crazy canuck]

I think you're totally misreading me to be honest because I'm not sure what facts on the ground I'm denying?

I'm not even sure there should have been a different process. My pet project is that the party made a decision to endorse very quickly - I think there was a false sense of urgency - and they may regret it. We won't know until there's bad period which there will be because no campaign is a triumphant march to the White House.

Biden going is huge as is having someone who can campaign more actively and deliver lines more sharply (I also think being willing to campaign on abortion hard is a big thing too). But clinching the nomination and the convention will always be the two most positive news cycles and we shouldn't mistake that or excitement and relief as the new normal. Things need to settle so we can see the underlying change.

My contention is that politicians aren't sovereign rational individuals making up their own mind separately, I think there was a broadly collective decision at the top of the party (as in 2016, as with Biden). And I think there was an alternative.

So now you're delving into conspiracy theory, combined with a very odd assertion that there is a false sense of urgency.

There is certainly urgency. And how do you explain the fact that no other contender has come forward because without that your whole premise fails.  It's impossible to have another process with contenders if there are no other contenders.  It just turns out that pretty much everybody else is reading the situation differently than you.   That's not a conspiracy that's just that everybody else sees it differently.  In other words, you might be the one who isn't viewing this situation accurately.

[garbon]

So it is Trump, the felon, and Vance, the fraudster "hillbilly" against Harris, the cat lady with the coconut trees.

This is, well, just surreal. No wonder we older people reminisce about the past.

Rose colored much?

[garbon]

I think you're totally misreading me to be honest because I'm not sure what facts on the ground I'm denying?

I'm not even sure there should have been a different process. My pet project is that the party made a decision to endorse very quickly - I think there was a false sense of urgency - and they may regret it. We won't know until there's bad period which there will be because no campaign is a triumphant march to the White House.

Biden going is huge as is having someone who can campaign more actively and deliver lines more sharply (I also think being willing to campaign on abortion hard is a big thing too). But clinching the nomination and the convention will always be the two most positive news cycles and we shouldn't mistake that or excitement and relief as the new normal. Things need to settle so we can see the underlying change.

My contention is that politicians aren't sovereign rational individuals making up their own mind separately, I think there was a broadly collective decision at the top of the party (as in 2016, as with Biden). And I think there was an alternative.

So now you're delving into conspiracy theory, combined with a very odd assertion that there is a false sense of urgency.

There is certainly urgency. And how do you explain the fact that no other contender has come forward because without that your whole premise fails.  It's impossible to have another process with contenders if there are no other contenders.  It just turns out that pretty much everybody else is reading the situation differently than you.   That's not a conspiracy that's just that everybody else sees it differently.  In other words, you might be the one who isn't viewing this situation accurately.

I have been feeling a little toward his argument as I believe he feels to NYTimes coverage of British politics.

[Sheilbh]

So now you're delving into conspiracy theory, combined with a very odd assertion that there is a false sense of urgency.

There is certainly urgency. And how do you explain the fact that no other contender has come forward because without that your whole premise fails.  It's impossible to have another process with contenders if there are no other contenders.  It just turns out that pretty much everybody else is reading the situation differently than you.   That's not a conspiracy that's just that everybody else sees it differently.  In other words, you might be the one who isn't viewing this situation accurately.

I think Biden endorsing Harris very shortly after withdrawing more or less ended any alternative - and those candidates deciding either it wasn't the right time or they didn't have a chance (which I think was basically inevitable after Biden's decision - unless there was a huge reaction against Harris in the immediate aftermath).

But I don't think they're just individuals. I think those decisions will have been in the context of senior Democrats talking to each other constantly every day since the debate about how to get Biden to step down and what to do if he does. I think in part, with previous discussions of blitz primaries, they concluded they needed to do it quickly, unity and avoiding the risk of division was very important and Harris is a good enough candidate (and has been vetted).

The thing I started with is that I think if that last assessment turns out to be wrong, they might regret the other two. And I don't know if it will but I think the last one is more important and will have more of an impact than the other two.

Edit: I've realised I've accidentally been channelling Kamala Harris - the presidential nomination didn't fall out of a coconut tree

[grumbler]

So, how likely is the SCOTUS to put out a ruling that Harris is not eligible to be a candidate due to "process" or some such?

Not, but very likely to take away Biden's campaign funds from her.

They aren't Biden's funds.  They are the funds of the Biden-Harris campaign. They've always been as much her funds as his.

The USSC is unlikely to get involved because no one who would file such a suit has any standing.

[crazy canuck]

So, how likely is the SCOTUS to put out a ruling that Harris is not eligible to be a candidate due to "process" or some such?

Not, but very likely to take away Biden's campaign funds from her.

They aren't Biden's funds.  They are the funds of the Biden-Harris campaign. They've always been as much her funds as his.

The USSC is unlikely to get involved because no one who would file such a suit has any standing.

You are of course correct in your legal interpretation, but I'm not so sure the US Supreme Court will care about long recognized legal principles like standing.

[Sheilbh]

I have been feeling a little toward his argument as I believe he feels to NYTimes coverage of British politics.

God I'm very sorry

Although I  think I am in line with the NYT ("How Democrats learned to love the smoke-filled room again") or, say, Axios (https://www.axios.com/2024/07/23/inside-harris-sprint-democratic-nomination). I don't think that stuff is bad or perjorative - in this situation it's necessary (and any other process would be the same).

[grumbler]

You are of course correct in your legal interpretation, but I'm not so sure the US Supreme Court will care about long recognized legal principles like standing.

It's always a concern that the Republican Party Supreme Court feels no compulsion to follow the law and precedent, but
1.  The case would have to work its way up the chain of District, Circuit, and RPSC before the RPSC could make a ruling.  That would take many months.
2. The RPSC isn't in session anyway, and doesn't reconvene until October 7th.  Even if they considered the case and ruled that same day, all that would happen in the worst case is that they would remand the decision on standing back down to the district court.  Then, there would have to be a trial before the verdict could be reached, and the District Court wouldn't even be able to schedule such a trial before the election.

[FunkMonk]

I don't think it's "conspiracy theory" to suggest senior leaders in an organization have had discussions for weeks on an important issue and then made a consensus decision.

Conspiracy theory is when a person connects falling off their bike to INFLATIONARY BIDENOMICS and Canada doing well in Copa America.

[Norgy]

So it is Trump, the felon, and Vance, the fraudster "hillbilly" against Harris, the cat lady with the coconut trees.

This is, well, just surreal. No wonder we older people reminisce about the past.

Rose colored much?

I suppose.
I think I have seen a lot of politicians and parties going down the wrong path in my lifetime. Don't mistake that for me not supporting Harris.

The world needs the US. And it needs a United States not run by Project 2025 and a felon. I think most of us are just as invested in this as you are, garbon.

My political views, well, they are probably suspect to many here. But this is not a political view. It is an existential one. I support Harris. And I really hope she can win. At this point, after watching the RNC clips and reading the speeches, I would support a fucking living doll instead of Trump.