2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[FunkMonk]

Teamsters went from 44% support for Biden to 34% for Harris.

Hmm. Harris presumably has the same pro-Union policies as Joe. I wonder why they aren't supporting her by the same margins.

[grumbler]

Teamsters went from 44% support for Biden to 34% for Harris.

Hmm. Harris presumably has the same pro-Union policies as Joe. I wonder why they aren't supporting her by the same margins.

Sure is a mystery.

[Sophie Scholl]

Teamsters went from 44% support for Biden to 34% for Harris.

Hmm. Harris presumably has the same pro-Union policies as Joe. I wonder why they aren't supporting her by the same margins.

Sure is a mystery.

The mystery, to me, is whether the hate is more due to her gender or her ethnicity? Racism or misogyny? Which holds the greater sway? 

[grumbler]

The mystery, to me, is whether the hate is more due to her gender or her ethnicity? Racism or misogyny? Which holds the greater sway? 

Misogyny.  They supported Obama.

[Valmy]

The Obama era is long in the past now.

Racism is now not just accepted but embraced. Who they were in 2012 is not necessarily who they are now.

[Tonitrus]

Even in just pure political terms, they may be thinking Trump is more malleable/easier to influence.

[Josquius]

Teamsters went from 44% support for Biden to 34% for Harris.

Hmm. Harris presumably has the same pro-Union policies as Joe. I wonder why they aren't supporting her by the same margins.

Sure is a mystery.

The mystery, to me, is whether the hate is more due to her gender or her ethnicity? Racism or misogyny? Which holds the greater sway? 

Likely intersectionality. Add in a dash of the California elite stuff too. She does carry 'wokier' vibes.

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/19/jd-vance-factually-challenged-morally-deficit

As the Wall Street Journal reporters explored the original rumor about pets in Springfield, a Vance spokesperson came up with a police report in which a resident had claimed her pet might have been taken by her Haitian neighbors.

But when a reporter checked it out by going to Anna Kilgore's house, she told him that her cat, Miss Sassy, had returned a few days after having gone missing.

Imagine that: not stolen, not eaten, Miss Sassy was found safe – in Kilgore's own basement.

Afterwards, with the help of a translation app, Kilgore did the right thing: she apologized to her Haitian neighbor. That apology was a touch of human decency amid the ugliness.

[Razgovory]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/19/jd-vance-factually-challenged-morally-deficit

As the Wall Street Journal reporters explored the original rumor about pets in Springfield, a Vance spokesperson came up with a police report in which a resident had claimed her pet might have been taken by her Haitian neighbors.

But when a reporter checked it out by going to Anna Kilgore's house, she told him that her cat, Miss Sassy, had returned a few days after having gone missing.

Imagine that: not stolen, not eaten, Miss Sassy was found safe – in Kilgore's own basement.

Afterwards, with the help of a translation app, Kilgore did the right thing: she apologized to her Haitian neighbor. That apology was a touch of human decency amid the ugliness.

I was the going to post this story!  Anyway,  This is the police report that Vance's people gave the press and conservatives clearly are hyping up.


The words in the actual police report say "No evidence to support this claim".  Why would you post this with phrases like "Receipts motherfuckers!", when it demolishes your claim?  Why would JD Vance's people give this to the press?  Did they not actually read it?  I find this very confusing.

[garbon]

Yeah it is also mind boggling. Their tether to reality has been snapped.

[Tamas]

The words in the actual police report say "No evidence to support this claim".  Why would you post this with phrases like "Receipts motherfuckers!", when it demolishes your claim?  Why would JD Vance's people give this to the press?  Did they not actually read it?  I find this very confusing

Their fans will not read the actual receipt, so why not.

[The Minsky Moment]

When the 2008 election was called for Obama, I remember thinking: maybe this will teach my party some very important lessons. You can't nominate people, like Sarah Palin, who scare away swing voters. You can't actively alienate every growing bloc of the American electorate—Blacks, Latinos, the youth—and you can't depend solely on the single shrinking bloc of the electorate—Whites. And yet, four years later, I am again forced to reflect on a party that nominated the worst kind of people, like Richard Mourdock, and tried to win an election by appealing only to White people. The 2008 election, it seems, taught Republicans precious little . . .

The party's problems start with an inability to connect with non-white voters. The Republicans electoral confidence depended on their belief that a lack of enthusiasm from Democrats would push turnout among white voters to 2004 levels. But this was a pipe dream: Blacks and Latinos are growing segments of the population; whites are shrinking, and the racial composition of the 2004 electorate is a thing of the past. To win, the Republicans must turn the tide with non-white voters.

The unfortunate reality is that attracting non-white voters is about far more than communication—political ads in Spanish are great but won't move the dial absent fundamental platform changes. Republicans lose minority voters for simple and obvious reasons: their policy proposals are tired, unoriginal, or openly hostile to non-whites . . .

On immigration, Republicans are similarly tone deaf. I became a conservative in large part because I felt that the Right was far more honest about the real state of the world. Yet a significant part of Republican immigration policy centers on the possibility of deporting 12 million people (or "self deporting" them). Think about it: we conservatives (rightly) mistrust the government to efficiently administer business loans and regulate our food supply, yet we allegedly believe that it can deport millions of unregistered aliens. The notion fails to pass the laugh test. The same can be said for too much of the party's platform.

JD Vance 2012
More here: https://web.archive.org/web/20140305032241/http://centerforworldconflictandpeace.blogspot.com/2012_11_01_archive.html

2012 is more than a decade old, it's true. And I have always supported the ideas that politicians should be entitled to some degree of inconsistency; it's hard to grease the wheels of useful compromise without permitting some hypocrisy.

But the degree to which Vance is willing to compromise any principle he might have, to say anything that he thinks might advance is career is startling even for a professional politician.

[The Minsky Moment]

The words in the actual police report say "No evidence to support this claim".  Why would you post this with phrases like "Receipts motherfuckers!", when it demolishes your claim?  Why would JD Vance's people give this to the press?  Did they not actually read it?  I find this very confusing.

Do a quick glance as this guy's X feed and then the feed of the guy he quoted. Then some other accounts that are being retweeted on these feeds.  The underlying content is 85% the same.  They are all just posting and retweeting the same stuff.

These "independent journalists" are just drones shoving out the same copycat propaganda and then putting a little spin on it ("RECEIPTS MF*S") to try to draw a little incremental traffic.  Just platoons of lazy parasites milking monetization out of the ignorant MAGA millions doomscrolling their way through X to get their daily fix of fake outrage. Collectively though the impact is to amplify the most lunatic conspiracy theories because that's what gets more clicks and "engagement."  The cats and dogs story didn't lift off despite being obviously bonkers, it spread BECAUSE its bonkers.

The media version of Gresham's Law is firmly in place.

[Josquius]

I guess the way these guys work is somebody calling about it is evidence enough and no evidence to prove something is just as good as no evidence to disprove it?

When the 2008 election was called for Obama, I remember thinking: maybe this will teach my party some very important lessons. You can't nominate people, like Sarah Palin, who scare away swing voters. You can't actively alienate every growing bloc of the American electorate—Blacks, Latinos, the youth—and you can't depend solely on the single shrinking bloc of the electorate—Whites. And yet, four years later, I am again forced to reflect on a party that nominated the worst kind of people, like Richard Mourdock, and tried to win an election by appealing only to White people. The 2008 election, it seems, taught Republicans precious little . . .

The party's problems start with an inability to connect with non-white voters. The Republicans electoral confidence depended on their belief that a lack of enthusiasm from Democrats would push turnout among white voters to 2004 levels. But this was a pipe dream: Blacks and Latinos are growing segments of the population; whites are shrinking, and the racial composition of the 2004 electorate is a thing of the past. To win, the Republicans must turn the tide with non-white voters.

The unfortunate reality is that attracting non-white voters is about far more than communication—political ads in Spanish are great but won't move the dial absent fundamental platform changes. Republicans lose minority voters for simple and obvious reasons: their policy proposals are tired, unoriginal, or openly hostile to non-whites . . .

On immigration, Republicans are similarly tone deaf. I became a conservative in large part because I felt that the Right was far more honest about the real state of the world. Yet a significant part of Republican immigration policy centers on the possibility of deporting 12 million people (or "self deporting" them). Think about it: we conservatives (rightly) mistrust the government to efficiently administer business loans and regulate our food supply, yet we allegedly believe that it can deport millions of unregistered aliens. The notion fails to pass the laugh test. The same can be said for too much of the party's platform.

JD Vance 2012
More here: https://web.archive.org/web/20140305032241/http://centerforworldconflictandpeace.blogspot.com/2012_11_01_archive.html

2012 is more than a decade old, it's true. And I have always supported the ideas that politicians should be entitled to some degree of inconsistency; it's hard to grease the wheels of useful compromise without permitting some hypocrisy.

But the degree to which Vance is willing to compromise any principle he might have, to say anything that he thinks might advance is career is startling even for a professional politician.

Its funny. Most people with age (until senility kicks in anyway) tend to become wiser and more balanced in their views. Starting at an extreme black and white stance on things they come to realise winning a shouting match isn't the best way to get anything done.
This guy....has gone the other way.

[Razgovory]

I have not gotten one iota wiser, and you know it!