2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[Barrister]

Exactly what policies are the GOP (as a party) even running on?

Tariffs, deportation, unconditional support for Israel, ditch Ukraine (implied).

That's Trump though.

Down-ballot I can't see them running on much any kind of platform (other than I guess anti-trans).

[Barrister]

And they would have a mandate, wouldn't they? Anti trumpers aren't anti Trump just because he's personally repuganant, but so are his policies (what little are actually articulated). If he was privately horrible but had good policies he'd be less of a existential threat to American policies.

Regardless, You can't stop a movement by pruning. You have to dismantle it root and stem. Taking out Trump but leaving everything else just allows the next guy to take it further. A politically talented, rather then just a charismaticaly talented, person is much more dangerous. And they'll be next. Grachhus only leads the way, someone else has to come along to damn the republic.

Lots of people thought they could do "Trumpism without Trump".  That was certainly Ron de Santis's pitch.

I don't think the pro-tariff, anti-Ukraine stuff has any inherent appeal to GOP voters other than Trump's personal appeal.

[Tamas]

BB you are extremely wrong on this one. The current GOP is the Trump party as you yourself point out. Any seat they win is a Trump win. Any vote on them is a vote for Trump.

So let's worry about what happens when the only pro-democracy party left wins a big majority when we cross that bridge.

[HVC]

And they would have a mandate, wouldn't they? Anti trumpers aren't anti Trump just because he's personally repuganant, but so are his policies (what little are actually articulated). If he was privately horrible but had good policies he'd be less of a existential threat to American policies.

Regardless, You can't stop a movement by pruning. You have to dismantle it root and stem. Taking out Trump but leaving everything else just allows the next guy to take it further. A politically talented, rather then just a charismaticaly talented, person is much more dangerous. And they'll be next. Grachhus only leads the way, someone else has to come along to damn the republic.

Lots of people thought they could do "Trumpism without Trump".  That was certainly Ron de Santis's pitch.

I don't think the pro-tariff, anti-Ukraine stuff has any inherent appeal to GOP voters other than Trump's personal appeal.

Keeping the roman theme alive, you can only have one caesar   people failed at being trump because they were running against Trump.

[Barrister]

By the way we can not discount the idea of 82 year old Donald Trump running again in 2028 even after two straight defeats.

I just think a GOP that is otherwise strong except for a big defeat on the Presidential level, is more likely to collectively decide "we don't need this guy" rather than a GOP that is defeated up and down the ballot.

[Admiral Yi]

That's Trump though.

Down-ballot I can't see them running on much any kind of platform (other than I guess anti-trans).

This question made me think.  Do state reps ever run on a policy platform?  "Energy independence, yeah, that's MY thing!"

The president is the leader of the party.  He sets the agenda.

[Barrister]

That's Trump though.

Down-ballot I can't see them running on much any kind of platform (other than I guess anti-trans).

This question made me think.  Do state reps ever run on a policy platform?  "Energy independence, yeah, that's MY thing!"

The president is the leader of the party.  He sets the agenda.

So a few different thoughts.

On the one hand I was thinking of "Contract with America" - but that was in 94, an off-year election.

State-level reps certainly can run campaigns separate from the national party.  That's how JOe Manchin was able to survive for so long.  I'll admit a lot of senators and congressmen don't really do that however.

Finally - The idea of a written campaign policy seems to sadly have gone to the wayside.  To the extent a politician runs on a platform it's the themes they mention in campaign appearances, and the ads they run.  I don't think (but could stand to be corrected) that GOP candidates for congress of senate spend any time talking about tariffs or sucking up to Russia.  Deportations might be a different story.

[Admiral Yi]

FWIW the Republican ads I've seen in my district have been negative (defund the police) or constituent service stuff (I helped this nice old vet get an operation).  Really no mention of policies she supports. 

[grumbler]

The Republican candidate for Congress in my districts is primarily running on "the US economy is totally broken," "the US is no longer sovereign because the border," and "parents should be able to send their kids and the tax money to support them to any school of their choice."  He's go the usual bromides about strong defense and law and order, but his opponent has those as well.

[Barrister]

The Republican candidate for Congress in my districts is primarily running on "the US economy is totally broken," "the US is no longer sovereign because the border," and "parents should be able to send their kids and the tax money to support them to any school of their choice."  He's go the usual bromides about strong defense and law and order, but his opponent has those as well.

It's funny how things can be so common sense on one side of the border, yet seem completely crazy on the other.

The obvious example is health care.

But also on education... under our constitution, we have a public system, and a catholic system.  You can check a box on your taxes whether you want your school taxes to go to either.  And although you aren't guaranteed to be able to register with the catholic system (you may have to prove some connection to catholicism) basically you can freely choose to send your kids to either system (none of my kids are baptized catholics, and 2/3 go to the catholic system).

There are increasing moves to increase access to other separate schools (including evangelical, but also muslim, and non-religious) together with government funding, but because it's not in the Constitution access still falls behind the Catholic system.

[Grey Fox]

Alberta has a constitution?

[Barrister]

Alberta has a constitution?

Same one Quebec has.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/97548/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html

[HVC]

The catholic school board has to follow the same standards as the public board here (I learned evolution for example). Don't think this governor hopeful envisions the same stringent standards for the school options he wants to make available.

[Grey Fox]

Alberta has a constitution?

Same one Quebec has.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/97548/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html

We don't have Catholic school boards, we also don't get to choose.

[Barrister]

Alberta has a constitution?

Same one Quebec has.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/97548/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html

We don't have Catholic school boards, we also don't get to choose.

From wiki:

Formerly, school boards were divided between Roman Catholic and Protestant (called "confessional schools"). Attempts were made to set up a Jewish school board before the Second World War, but it failed partly due to divisions within the Jewish community. This confessional system was established through the British North America Act, 1867 (today the Constitution Act, 1867), which granted power over education to the provinces. Article 93 of the act made it unconstitutional for Quebec to change this system. Consequently, a constitutional amendment was required to operate what some see as the separation of the State and the church in Quebec.

The Quebec Education Act of 1988 provided for a change to linguistic school boards. In 1997, a unanimous vote by the National Assembly of Quebec allowed for Quebec to request that the Government of Canada exempt the province from Article 93 of the Constitution Act. This request was passed by the federal parliament, resulting in Royal Assent being granted to the Constitutional Amendment, 1997, (Quebec).

In the 1996–1997 school year, Quebec had 156 school districts including 135 Catholic districts, 18 Protestant school districts, and three First Nations districts. The school districts operated 2,670 public schools, including 1,895 primary schools, 576 general or professional secondary schools, and 199 combined primary and secondary schools.[1]

When public schools were deconfessionalized in 2000, Catholic and Protestant religious education classes along with nonreligious moral education classes continued to be part of the curriculum. Article 5 of the Quebec Public Education Act had been modified in 1997 so as to allow minority religious groups to be allowed religious education classes of their faith where their number were large enough, but this was removed in 2000. Then, in order to prevent court challenges by these same minority religious groups wanting specialist religious education in schools, the government invoked the notwithstanding clause, which expires after a maximum of 5 years. In 2005 the government of Premier Jean Charest decided not to renew the clause, abrogate Article 5 of the Public Education Act, modify Article 41 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and then eliminate the choice in moral and religious instruction that existed previously and, finally, impose a controversial new Ethics and religious culture curriculum to all schools, even the private ones. [citation needed] The ERC course has been taught starting in September 2008. Several court challenges have been launched against its compulsory nature.

From Constitution Act 1867

93 In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:

1.
Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union;
2.
All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec;
3.
Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen's Subjects in relation to Education;
4.
In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far only as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section.(50)
Quebec

93A Paragraphs (1) to (4) of section 93 do not apply to Quebec.(51)