POTUS 2024 - Biden vs Trump - General Election Discussion

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

For instance, when I was a law student, all law students were pissed at how badly we were treated during the bar admittance process and how ridiculously tedious and arbitrary the things were that kept people from getting cleared. Then, once we were cleared and passed the bar, all of a sudden we were like, "the bar admittance process is too easy. No one else should be admitted!"

I think we're seeing the same phenomenon with minorities. Seems like the thought is that minorities would stick together and it's basically white people who want to keep the "others" out of the country but part of what's fueling the GOP right now is minorities wanting to keep immigrants - even from their own background/country - out. We're here, but we don't need any more of us here. Shut it down.

I will respectfully disagree with you here (bolded section).

My response, so not to clutter up this thread, is below

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Biden's Immigration Reform

[cuervo72]

Do you remember 2016?

Do you see the EXACT same headlines from 2016?

It's the EXACT same playbook.

What about this don't you get? pic.twitter.com/PeKbaz96xJ

— Don Winslow (@donwinslow) July 4, 2024

[CrimsonFox]

ALso to parallel Hillary is the obvious similarity that then Hillary was forced on us as the Democratic candidate. Now that Trump has forced himself as the republican candidate hopefully the same result will happen but I'm still holding out for God's wrath lightning bolt.

[Ghost Econ]

Dragged to a neighborhood fireworks show by our daughter so she can hang with friends. This neighborhood has probably spent 20-30k on fireworks.

But at the start they did a prayer, pledge of allegiance and sand the national anthem. Then a group started a Let's Go Brandon chant. The rich white suburbs are so oppressed.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Do you remember 2016?

Do you see the EXACT same headlines from 2016?

It's the EXACT same playbook.

What about this don't you get? pic.twitter.com/PeKbaz96xJ

— Don Winslow (@donwinslow) July 4, 2024

The excuses are starting early.

[Edward64]

Happy that Joe got a big vote of confidence.

Democratic governor says Biden ‘fit for office’ after president meets with group of state leaders | CNN Politics

The meeting between Biden and the dozens of state leaders followed a call held by Walz earlier in the week in which some governors expressed surprise that they had not heard from Biden about his disastrous debate performance.

“Yes, fit for office,” the governor said in response to a question from a reporter, shortly after the closed door meeting between Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and nearly every Democratic governor in the country.

“We always believe that when you love someone, you tell them the truth. And I think we came in and we were honest about the feedback that we were getting. We were honest about the concerns that we are hearing from people,” Moore said.

I'm not convinced there is as much unanimity as portrayed right now. Give it some time and see if anything leaks out.

But okay ... game (still) on and looking forward to the ABC, not-live interview by former Obama press secretary. Can get anymore soft ball than that. Get out into the public and do the public townhalls, show people you can carry yourself well and answer questions coherently, and hopefully you can turn the tide (... or pass the torch).

[Edward64]

A little more from the meeting from Axios.

Just a moment...

Governors gave "blunt" feedback to the president about concerns they are hearing about his age and fitness for office, the source briefed on the meeting said.

But the president indicated "little wiggle room" in dropping out of the 2024 race, the source said.

Vice President Kamala Harris participated in the meeting as well.

I'm reading in-between the lines as the Governors telling Joe he has to do X, Y, Z and that if he doesn't do that successfully by a certain date, then he'll get another visit.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I will respectfully disagree with you here (bolded section).

My response, so not to clutter up this thread, is below

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Biden's Immigration Reform

The polls show it. This is why Dems were caught off-guard in places like South Florida and Texas because Latinos were voting GOP in increasing numbers. Some of it is buying into the culture war stuff, but that has crossover into the immigration thing. There were a number of exit polls from the 2022 mid-terms that confirmed certain minorities wanted GOP-style immigration measures put in place.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

But okay ... game (still) on and looking forward to the ABC, not-live interview by former Obama press secretary.

Clinton aide and eventual Communications Director.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The polls show it. This is why Dems were caught off-guard in places like South Florida and Texas because Latinos were voting GOP in increasing numbers. Some of it is buying into the culture war stuff, but that has crossover into the immigration thing. There were a number of exit polls from the 2022 mid-terms that confirmed certain minorities wanted GOP-style immigration measures put in place.

If you get a chance, please post your polls. I would be very interested to see if there is a distinction made on legal vs illegal immigration.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Clinton aide and eventual Communications Director.

Thanks for the correction

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If you get a chance, please post your polls. I would be very interested to see if there is a distinction made on legal vs illegal immigration.

This should help. Not sure if it answers your specific question but there a lot of interesting data to mull over.

Latinos' Views on the US-Mexico Border Migrant Situation | Pew Research Center

[RainMaker]

Something not brought up is that Hispanics don't rate immigration as high as they used to. Polls show they care a lot about the economy, inflation, homeownership, and stagnant wages.

And from an immigration standpoint, both parties hold nearly identical positions these days. Biden recently tried to pass Trump's immigration plan. It just feels like an issue where there isn't going to be much difference.

[RainMaker]

I guess another question to be asked is who exactly is running the country? I'm guessing after the election we'll get a lot of stories and books about the past couple years.

The Conspiracy of Silence to Protect Joe Biden

Those who encountered the president in social settings sometimes left their interactions disturbed.Longtime friends of the Biden family, who spoke to me on the condition of anonymity, were shocked to find that the president did not remember their names. At a White House event last year, a guest recalled, with horror, realizing that the president would not be able to stay for the reception because, it was clear, he would not be able to make it through the reception.

Saying hello to one Democratic megadonor and family friend at the White House recently, the president stared blankly and nodded his head. The First Lady intervened to whisper in her husband’s ear, telling him to say “hello” to the donor by name and to thank them for their recent generosity. The president repeated the words his wife had fed him. “It hasn’t been good for a long time but it’s gotten so, so much worse,” a witness to the exchange told me. “So much worse!”

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Dutch

This should help. Not sure if it answers your specific question but there a lot of interesting data to mull over.

Latinos' Views on the US-Mexico Border Migrant Situation | Pew Research Center

I have read this report. Similar to the Gallup link, Pew does not delineate between legal & illegal when they ask the questions below. Pew conflates both into "migrant situation" or "migrants seeking to enter" and does not give people to state their opinion on legal immigration.

(see first graphic on pg 1)

My basic premise is:

1) Polls should clearly differentiate between legal & illegal. And polls should ask opinion on both in the same study (e.g. same population, same methodology etc.).

2) Because Gallup & Pew polls do not allow people to state their opinion on legal immigration (while polling on "migrant situation"), these polls do not tell the real story of how people feel about illegal & legal immigration

3) I contend people (hispanics, whites, blacks etc.) will be more critical of illegal immigration vs legal immigration. Or in other words, people will be more welcoming of legal immigration vs illegal immigration

As an example, the first question in the graphic:

% who say the large number of migrants seeking to enter the US at the border with Mexico is (Crisis/Major Problem/Minor Problem/Not a Problem) for the US

To really understand people's view on immigration, should have been 2 questions similar to:

% who say the large number of illegal immigrants seeking to enter the US is (Crisis/Major Problem/Minor Problem/Not a Problem) for the US

% who say the large number of legal immigrants seeking to enter the US is (Crisis/Major Problem/Minor Problem/Not a Problem) for the US

Therefore, the point I was trying to make in my response to Ksyrup is people/minorities are much more critical of illegal immigration and much less so of legal immigration.

[Ksyrup]

I don't think they want any competition, illegal or not. Unless they are family/friends, of course.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't think they want any competition, illegal or not. Unless they are family/friends, of course.

And that is where we'll agree to disagree. I think there is a significant difference but unfortunately, I have not found one poll that asks those 2 basic questions.

[Ksyrup]

Gotta love the south. I'm watching the local news and they're interviewing people who attended a 4th of July parade/festival, and this one older lady says, "It's a celebration of who we used to be, not necessarily what we are now."

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Edward64

And that is where we'll agree to disagree. I think there is a significant difference but unfortunately, I have not found one poll that asks those 2 basic questions.

Just a moment...

If this doesn't scream, "Now that I'm here I don't want people like me who aren't here right now to negatively affect my standing in the US," I don't know what does.

[Saul Goode]

Pretty cool that rainmaker got published in the NYT!!! Congrats!! I'm sorry bud, I'm about to out you.

NYT article by a right winger named Matthew Walther titled, “Why I Don’t Vote. And Why Maybe You Shouldn’t Either.”



"This is just very sad and frankly just what the Autocracy Doctor ordered," she tweeted. "Not voting is a vote to let others decide your fate, and we know that many elections are decided by relatively few votes. The goal of many autocracies is 'demobilization': people detaching from politics so they don't resist."


Walther voted in both 2020 and 2022. (His Michigan voting record was posted by Timothy Burke on Bluesky.) In fact Walther wrote an entire essay about voting.



The ruling class is terrified they are about to lose all their power. 90 hit pieces about how Biden's 2nd roommates's cousin wants him to drop out, threatening genocide from profession scumbag, Kevin Roberts, president of the fascist heritage foundation (trump's backers). Buying and rigging the court for Trump to have unlimited power.
The new buttery males is but he's old!!!

[RainMaker]

I don't want Trump to win which is why I prefer the Democrats run a candidate who isn't historically unpopular and suffers from dementia.

You got the man you wanted to run against Trump, not sure what you're complaining about.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Gotta love the south. I'm watching the local news and they're interviewing people who attended a 4th of July parade/festival, and this one older lady says, "It's a celebration of who we used to be, not necessarily what we are now."

Me, next year.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Gotta love the south. I'm watching the local news and they're interviewing people who attended a 4th of July parade/festival, and this one older lady says, "It's a celebration of who we used to be, not necessarily what we are now."

Oh, when did you move to Vicksburg?

[Brian Swartz]

Here's my take on it:

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I guess another question to be asked is who exactly is running the country? I'm guessing after the election we'll get a lot of stories and books about the past couple years.

The Conspiracy of Silence to Protect Joe Biden

Olivia Nuzzi on Trump: Vibrant, alive
Olivia Nuzzi on Biden: Hideously unnatural

Pardon me for suspecting she's not on the level pic.twitter.com/x1tLUzrN1J

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 5, 2024

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Olivia Nuzzi on Trump: Vibrant, alive
Olivia Nuzzi on Biden: Hideously unnatural

Pardon me for suspecting she's not on the level pic.twitter.com/x1tLUzrN1J

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 5, 2024

You do know the debate was on TV for everyone to see?

[Brian Swartz]

A few points I didn't get around to responding to:

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

ou don't have to keep up this charade about them being some honorable branch of government that ieeps the otuer branches in check.

It has nothing to do with them being honorable. I'd say they have historically been more honorable than Congress for example, but it's not about saying 'SCOTUS is great'. It is about the balance. Congress already has a great deal of oversight via impeachment after the fact, the executive appoints justices and the Senate approves them. If they were also able to just decide the Court is wrong whenever they feel like it, there's no point in having a Court at all.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I think there was a reasonable assumption then that he was not going to run again if he won. There was definitely a wink and a nod from his campaign at the time, and based on his age it only seemed logical that he wouldn't.

Completely disagree. No sitting President has declined to run again since LBJ in 1968, and if he hadn't been hugely unpopular due to the Vietnam War I doubt very much that happened. The time for this discussion was a year ago, not now. At least that far back, significant numbers of Democrats and Independents were questioning Biden's capacity to serve another terms and saying they didn't want him to run again. Other alternatives didn't step forward. There's a process for them to do it, they didn't. The party didn't demand it, the voters didn't demand it.

That was the time to do this, and there was every opportunity to do it if people thought it was necessary.

Originally Posted by Danny

Trump numbers just dont really matter. Hes getting his votes regardless. Biden has to get more votes.

This whole sentiment is just plain not true. A certain amount of Trump's and Biden's support isn't going anywhere. This happens in all elections, and some candidates like Trump have a measure more unpersuadable voters in their camp, but as always the election isn't determined mostly by that. It's determined mostly by turnout and by persuadables.

Originally Posted by Atocep

Voting 3rd party in a 2 party system is a wasted vote, regardless of what rational those who do so want to use.

Nope. You can use the same logic to say voting for either of the two parties is voting to accept the candidates those parties are putting forward. You're saying that's fine and we shouldn't have any different choices. Someone who doesn't vote or votes third party is not supporting Trump, no matter how many times people say it. Supporting Trump consists of voting for him, and from a voting standpoint nothing else whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Danny

Barring a Trump medical emegency I think Trump vs Biden is over.

Not singling you out, there's been a lot of this, Biden is a long shot, etc ... I see no evidence for that in the polling. I see no evidence a lot of Democrats are going to stay home and not vote because of Biden. Everything I see says it's a close race that is tilting a small bit to Trump at the moment but is far from determined. There was not huge movement after the debate.

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I still haven't heard a good response to how the Dems explain to African-American voters why they passed over Kamala for a white guy.

Trump's team is probably already working on statements responding to that possibility.

The Democrats might lose no matter who they pick, but if they lose black voters, they'll never win another election again.

I really don't understand this kind of thing. Like everyone else they had a chance to pick a candidate and primary Biden. Harris had her chance in the '20 primary, and I think there's virtually no chance of Democrats losing their votes long-term over this kind of thing.

[Brian Swartz]

On all the 'any other candidate with a pulse could win', that just makes no sense to me.

1. Some of Biden's unpopularity will stick to them. A sizable amount of it, for similar reasons that Bush 43s did to McCain. When you're the successor to whatever, you get the baggage of the whatever.

2. The chaos that would result will not help either.

3. Partly because of the above reasons, I think any speculative polling about 'would you rather have candidate X run' is highly unrepresentative of what they would actually do.

A lot of people have talked - rightly - about the need to save democracy. You don't do that by tossing aside the choice of the people - regardless how stupid you think it was - for the party and injecting someone else. Pulling Biden out now, regardless of how it happens, would be very likely to be destructive. We'll never know, it's a hypothetical, but I would put it upwards of 80% that Biden vs. the field of whoever might replace him, Biden outperforms anyone that the move might be made for.

Best case scenario is that he wins and resigns. I don't expect A to happen, and I don't think B happens if A does, but there's no other path forward that looks reasonable to me.

[Ksyrup]

You can say a third party vote is not a vote for Trump, but the practical effect is assisting him. That's undeniable and pretty much semantics since elections are a zero sum game. Thinking otherwise is just mental gymnastics to make yourself feel better. Now, you might be in a state like I am, where a vote for Biden OR third party isn't going to swing the state either way - Trump wins KY handily. But in terms of pure popular vote, Trump wins by either gaining your vote or you not voting for [insert Dem candidate here]. You may not be "supporting" him but you've given him what he needs. It's only you who cares that you don't have a Trump 2024 flag flying in your driveway - not him.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Just a moment...

If this doesn't scream, "Now that I'm here I don't want people like me who aren't here right now to negatively affect my standing in the US," I don't know what does.

Reading through the article, it again conflates legal & illegal and just mentions "immigrants".

However, numerous passages "hints" at the Latino's being against illegal (not legal) immigration and the negative consequences to them personally (because again, the article/studies do not clearly delineate).

Latinos, who will represent nearly 15% of all eligible voters in the November presidential election, are increasingly supportive of the type of restrictive immigration policies that former President Trump is proposing and President Biden is considering.

Washington College political science professor Flavio Rogerio Hickel Jr., one of the study's authors, tells Axios that Latinos wish other Americans could see the distinctions between them and recently arrived immigrants.

Abeyta says some Latinos have concluded the discrimination they face for being confused as undocumented immigrants is too overwhelming and their priority is protecting their families first

I chuckled at below highlighted quote. That's step #2. Step #1 is breaking down the surveys by legal vs illegal.

But the data analyzed in the surveys doesn't break down Hispanic responses by race and doesn't capture nuanced racial perceptions, says Hernández, a Fordham University law professor who suggests separating responses from Afro-Latinos and Latinos who identify as white.

Please note. I'm not saying there isn't any negative sentiment against legal immigrants. I'm saying it'll be much less when compared to illegal immigrants. And MSM and these polls that do not make the distinction and conflates the two, resulting in confusion and increased negative sentiments towards legal immigrants as a whole.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

You can say a third party vote is not a vote for Trump, but the practical effect is assisting him. That's undeniable and pretty much semantics since elections are a zero sum game. Thinking otherwise is just mental gymnastics to make yourself feel better. Now, you might be in a state like I am, where a vote for Biden OR third party isn't going to swing the state either way - Trump wins KY handily. But in terms of pure popular vote, Trump wins by either gaining your vote or you not voting for [insert Dem candidate here]. You may not be "supporting" him but you've given him what he needs. It's only you who cares that you don't have a Trump 2024 flag flying in your driveway - not him.

I agree with you.

[Ksyrup]

Restrictive immigration policies, to me, means cutting back on letting in normal immigrants who are currently and would otherwise be upstanding, productive members of society. They are not now illegal, and they haven't arrived and snuck over the border to be illegal.

I'm sure they are even more against illegals - because, hey, it's illegal! - but they are fine with drastically cutting back the number of legal immigrants allowed in. People just like they were.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Completely disagree. No sitting President has declined to run again since LBJ in 1968, and if he hadn't been hugely unpopular due to the Vietnam War I doubt very much that happened. The time for this discussion was a year ago, not now. At least that far back, significant numbers of Democrats and Independents were questioning Biden's capacity to serve another terms and saying they didn't want him to run again. Other alternatives didn't step forward. There's a process for them to do it, they didn't. The party didn't demand it, the voters didn't demand it.

Your argument is history? Let's talk history. Biden is the oldest President to ever hold office, and he was that on the day he swore in. He was a year older than Reagan when he left office, and what was he suffering with in his final years? Oh, yeah, dementia. To say that something "hasn't been done since 1968" (which since there are so few Presidents, not exactly that long ago) makes it some how unheard of for an incumbent President not to run, then the same logical means having a 81 year old incumbent run is even more preposterous because it has never been done.


As for the rest of your statement, of course the time to do this was a year ago. Really, two years ago, some time after the mid-terms. He could have waited to make it official, because once he announces that he is basically a lame duck, but the internal planning should have started then. The fact he didn't was a major mistake, and we are watching it play out live.


As for the idea replacing him doesn't guarantee a win, of course it doesn't. Anyone that gets picked is going to get an immediate bump because of the "new, shiney!" factor, then will get the full press tear-down treatment. The fact the person was not pick by the people will be a major handicap. The only way that would be overcome is if they some kind of huge likeables, and no major scandal really tars them. I can't think of anyone who fits that bill that would realistically run. I can say with certainty Harris does not.



I will say in my opinion, that replacing Biden is the right thing to do. I don't see him lasting a full term at this point, and I think he has become a liability as President in his condition right now.