POTUS 2024 - Biden vs Trump - General Election Discussion

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

And so with that information, the choice one makes to vote 3rd party or sit home when you would not support one of the two candidates under any circumstances is support for the ultimate winner. It just is.

Ehhhhh ... I've sat out at least one Presidential, feeling that no meaningful difference in expectations existed between the two candidates. Neither was fit to hold the office, my conscience did not allow me to cast a vote for either.

Elections in general, I've regretted votes I cast. I've never once regretted a vote I didn't cast. And off hand I can't think of a single candidate that I intentionally didn't vote for that ever managed to earn that support in a future election, they've all pretty well remained as unsupportable as I initially found them.

Regardless of party affiliation, I'd put this sort of thing under the heading of "only you face yourself in the mirror every morning", which is something I had a good bit of angst about after the terms of a couple of politicians who massively underwhelmed.

[larrymcg421]

If Ralph Nader doesn't run, does Al Gore win?

If Jill Stein doesn't run, does Hillary Clinton win?

This is the best way to look at it if we're trying to decide whether a third party vote is hurting one major candidate or helping the other.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Incorrect. There's a recent poll in Michigan that shows the race even. Two in Wisconsin. A number of others in various states show the race well within the margin of error. It's leaning Trump right now as I mentioned, but that's all it is. It's a very close election, and there is quite a bit of time until voting happens, but if it happened right now it's very possible Biden would win. Odds against him to be sure, but far from a certainty he'd lose.

I think the issue is that Trump should be an incredibly easy person to beat. That if the party had elevated one of their popular Governors (especially in the Midwest), this race would be a lock. That running Biden is a massive unnecessary risk if you truly believe Trump can bring about the end of democracy (and why I don't think people who say that really believe it).

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Bottom line, I stand by my stance that there was no reasonable expectation that Biden wouldn't run again if he won in 2020. The default expectation would absolutely be that he would. Even people like Ford and Carter, when highly unpopular, run again. It's what politicians do.

He did sort of hint at it in 2019. But like you said, it's tough to give up that kind of power once you get it.

All I can say is the party got what it wanted and I don't know why so many Democrats are upset. Julian Castro repeatedly brought up the age issue in the 2020 primary and was basically blacklisted from the party. The DNC immediately threw a primary challenger to Dean Phillips congressional seat when he spoke up.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The dems should have run a candidate that would have destroyed Trump. Not Biden who they knew was in decline.

As for Reagan level win I forgot you're not great with hyperbole.

- I see no evidence any such candidate exists
- As of hyperbole, I prefer to give people the respect to assume they mean what they say. I could just assume you (or others) are being hyperbolic when they say they don't like Trump or they think Biden is going to lose or whatever. There's no good way to automatically draw that line, esp. in internet conversations.

I did not pick 'three out of hundreds', I characterized a lot of them in general. I stand by that conclusion.

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

think the issue is that Trump should be an incredibly easy person to beat. That if the party had elevated one of their popular Governors (especially in the Midwest), this race would be a lock. That running Biden is a massive unnecessary risk if you truly believe Trump can bring about the end of democracy (and why I don't think people who say that really believe it).

I think the fact that there is a certain ironclad amount of support for him (and to a degree any candidate) demonstrates that's not true. I think this primarily an electorate problem, not a candidate problem. I think for some (I don't say this about anyone specific here as I don't know those particulars) it's simply an emotional response, and one that we've seen ever since the 2016 campaign. There's just a 'oh come on, it's Trump', and all the ways he's horrible and how could anyone vote for him etc. We see lots of those types of posts around here, and I think at a certain point there's a basic unwillingness to face the fact that this is where the country is. People look at Trump and Biden and a lot of them think Trump's better. There was some clear-eyed viewing of that on the forum after seeing the numbers that voted Trump in 2020, but that sort of faded back in general 'lol Trump is so absurd' and denial again.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

If Ralph Nader doesn't run, does Al Gore win?

If Jill Stein doesn't run, does Hillary Clinton win?

This is the best way to look at it if we're trying to decide whether a third party vote is hurting one major candidate or helping the other.

Does Biden win if Jo Jorgensen doesn't run? Does Bill Clinton win if Ross Perot doesn't run?

I think the problem with that thinking is assuming those votes were the candidates to begin with. Does a Jo Jorgensen voter vote Trump if she's not on the ballot? Or do they just sit the election out?

Maybe it's a case for ranked choice voting. But also, if your candidate loses a vote to Jill Stein, maybe they should do better.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think the fact that there is a certain ironclad amount of support for him (and to a degree any candidate) demonstrates that's not true. I think this primarily an electorate problem, not a candidate problem. I think for some (I don't say this about anyone specific here as I don't know those particulars) it's simply an emotional response, and one that we've seen ever since the 2016 campaign. There's just a 'oh come on, it's Trump', and all the ways he's horrible and how could anyone vote for him etc. We see lots of those types of posts around here, and I think at a certain point there's a basic unwillingness to face the fact that this is where the country is. People look at Trump and Biden and a lot of them think Trump's better. There was some clear-eyed viewing of that on the forum after seeing the numbers that voted Trump in 2020, but that sort of faded back in general 'lol Trump is so absurd' and denial again.

I think it's the opposite. 2016 was a fluke because the Democrats ran a terrible candidate and it has scared the shit out of everyone since. But if you look at everything after, you realize Trump is a bad politician and incredibly unpopular.

Himself, his party, and his handpicked candidates got beat in 2018, 2020, and 2022. Many of those losses were in swing states and by sizable margins. His disapproval numbers are sky high still. It has even become a tactic by Democrats to boost the Trump candidate in the primary because it would lead to an easier opponent.

The only reason this race is in question is because the Democrats chose a highly unpopular candidate with dementia.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Does Biden win if Jo Jorgensen doesn't run? Does Bill Clinton win if Ross Perot doesn't run?

If Jorgenson wins all three states where her margin was more than the difference, then it would be 269-269 and Trump would win the tiebreaker. Arizona and Georgia are very likely, but Wisconsin is less certain.

But sure, if you were someone who ranked the candidates - Jorgenson, Trump, Biden - and you voted Jorgenson, then you cost Trump a vote and made it easier for Biden to win.

The Clinton-Perot thing has been debated quite a bit. Perot did definitely run as a fiscal conservative, but he also split the anti-unpopular incumbent vote. When Perot dropped out of the race, Clinton received the biggest boost in the polls, jumping from 3rd to 1st place.

I think the problem with that thinking is assuming those votes were the candidates to begin with. Does a Jo Jorgensen voter vote Trump if she's not on the ballot? Or do they just sit the election out?

I think it's clear that there's a mix of third party voters who would've stayed home and who would've voted for the candidate closer to their policy preferences. How that percentage breaks down differs based on the circumstances of the election and the candidates.

It's hard to argue that of the 97,000 Nader voters in Florida, Gore wouldn't have made up the 538 vote margin needed to win. 2016 is more difficult to analyze because you also have to figure out the breakdown of Johnson voters.

[RainMaker]

I don't think Al Gore was owed Nader's votes. They ran very different campaigns and were far apart on the issues. Gore ran almost as a Republican and nominated one of the most Conservstive Democrats as his running mate.

There were also candidates from all sides on that ballot. Heck, the Communist candidate got like 1500 votes.

I think ranked choice is a fine solution for elections but this idea that candidates are owed votes from people seems undemocratic to me.

[larrymcg421]

We can argue about the language "owed" forever. I don't really care about that.

If Ralph Nader didn't run, Al Gore would've won. (There's not a reasonable argument otherwise here.)

If Jill Stein didn't run, Hillary might've won.

Both candidates could've and should've run much better campaigns. There's no doubt about that. But that doesn't change the belief in many people's eyes that the country would be better off if Gore and Hillary had won. And I wish more people had thought about that instead of voting for Nader and Stein.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Wouldn't have normally bothered, but Will has much more patience for comedy than I have at this point so I saw some of the Stephanapolous attempted hatchet job.

How anyone could ever again even possibly consider ABC anything other than the p.r. arm of the cabal pulling the strings is mindboggling.

[Edward64]

Didn't watch it. But if left leaning r/politics is any indication, it ranged from not enough to just okay. Or in other words, Joe is still in trouble.

[cuervo72]

Thread by @drvolts on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

We can argue about the language "owed" forever. I don't really care about that.

If Ralph Nader didn't run, Al Gore would've won. (There's not a reasonable argument otherwise here.)

If Jill Stein didn't run, Hillary might've won.

Both candidates could've and should've run much better campaigns. There's no doubt about that. But that doesn't change the belief in many people's eyes that the country would be better off if Gore and Hillary had won. And I wish more people had thought about that instead of voting for Nader and Stein.

And if Trump doesn't run, Hillary would be President too.

I don't understand the hatred to 3rd party candidates. Same people talking about the importance of maintaining a democracy, but only if you vote for the 2 candidates a handful of billionaires have approved for you. This isn't Iran.

It should be easier to get on a ballot and candidates should have to earn your vote.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

How anyone could ever again even possibly consider ABC anything other than the p.r. arm of the cabal pulling the strings is mindboggling.

One way is to not believe there is a 'cabal pulling the strings' in the first place.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And if Trump doesn't run, Hillary would be President too.

I don't understand the hatred to 3rd party candidates. Same people talking about the importance of maintaining a democracy, but only if you vote for the 2 candidates a handful of billionaires have approved for you. This isn't Iran.

It should be easier to get on a ballot and candidates should have to earn your vote.

It's a 2 party system and we haven't had a single candidate put a serious dent in it and I don't see that changing. Even 3rd party candidates in congress caucus with and vote in line with one of the 2 major parties because they'd be useless otherwise.

If we had a 3rd party candidate win, what would they be able to accomplish with minimal congressional support unless they eventually pick a side and fall in line? They can't force congress to write the legislation the want to see come across their desk. You either work with one side or you end up trying to compromise with both.

[Brian Swartz]

I hope those in Congress who are pushing for Biden to drop out have a serious plan for a replacement, and not just 'eh, we'll figure it out when we get there'.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I hope those in Congress who are pushing for Biden to drop out have a serious plan for a replacement, and not just 'eh, we'll figure it out when we get there'.

See below, Zogby has his idea. More details in article.

How to Replace Biden & Beat Trump: Longtime DNC Member Jim Zogby Proposes Process to Pick New Nominee | Democracy Now!

My goal was to not allow this to be left to the fates: Joe Biden steps down, and Lord knows what we do. I was trying to lay out a process that would create an organized and very democratic and transparent process to choose a new nominee. It would basically compress the primary process into a month.

There are 400-plus members of the Democratic National Committee. It would convene, nominations would be open, and we would get a requirement that anyone who wanted to be nominated for president or run in this primary would have to have the signature of 40 sitting members of the Democratic National Committee, including at least four from each of the four regions of the party. Now, since there’s only 400-plus members, very few people could actually do that. It would be people that we know. It would be Governor Whitmer, it would be Cory Booker, it would be Kamala Harris and Governor Newsom and Governor Pritzker and maybe Governor Shapiro from Pennsylvania — people who already have a constituency and have states with members, enough members on the DNC that they would be able to get the required 40 in a week’s time.

Really no idea how good this idea is but sounds good to me. But the longer it takes for Joe to step down, the harder it'll be through Nov.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

It'll take a semi-miracle for him to come back from his Stockdale moment. But then, that did happen in 2019 with South Carolina. So, there is hope.

I don't have regular TV, but if not already, he needs to be appearing at public events, take questions, maybe appear on Sun talk shows etc. to show that the Jun debate was an aberration. Do several of these successfully and then maybe many of supporters & undecided will be somewhat mollified.

... and I'll add, take a cognitive test.

Definitely a 2-edge sword. If you fail, I'm not sure it can truly be kept confidential. But if you pass, it'll be great to publicly proclaim it. Unfortunately, odds are it'll be the former and not latter.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And if Trump doesn't run, Hillary would be President too.

I don't understand the hatred to 3rd party candidates. Same people talking about the importance of maintaining a democracy, but only if you vote for the 2 candidates a handful of billionaires have approved for you. This isn't Iran.

It should be easier to get on a ballot and candidates should have to earn your vote.

I would have no problem with third parties if it required 50% of the vote to win the election. I don't care if there's a later runoff or an instant runoff format.

The 2010 Maine Governor's race is an example. Paul LePage won with 37.6%. He won not because most of Maine preferred him, but because the rest of the candidates split the vote in a way that made 37.6% enough. Maine wisely adopted ranked choice after this.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Really no idea how good this idea is but sounds good to me.

I think it's a terrible idea. Needing the approval of DNC members to run? No thank you. Nowhere in that is the will of the people involved in choosing the nominee.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think it's a terrible idea. Needing the approval of DNC members to run? No thank you. Nowhere in that is the will of the people involved in choosing the nominee.

That's how it is now. Primaries aren't exactly run democratically. Especially the 2024 one.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think it's a terrible idea. Needing the approval of DNC members to run? No thank you. Nowhere in that is the will of the people involved in choosing the nominee.

fwiw, that's a fairly common thing at the local/state level for the GOP in Georgia now. Prevents "stealth candidates" which are an issue for both parties here tbh.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's how it is now. Primaries aren't exactly run democratically. Especially the 2024 one.

Not to nearly this degree, they are still mostly democratic.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Not to nearly this degree, they are still mostly democratic.

How are delegates, superdelegates, no debates, cancelled primaries in many states and punishing anyone who runs against the incumbent a democratic process?

[JPhillips]

There's rarely an open primary against an incumbent. The only times there have been the incumbent has lost.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Edward64

... and I'll add, take a cognitive test.

Definitely a 2-edge sword. If you fail, I'm not sure it can truly be kept confidential. But if you pass, it'll be great to publicly proclaim it. Unfortunately, odds are it'll be the former and not latter

Trump’s top advisor Stephen Miller is starring in recruitment ads for Project 2025 https://t.co/AyuAbyz7aU pic.twitter.com/WHIr2qs87e

— Biden-Harris HQ (@BidenHQ) July 6, 2024

Instead of a cognitive test, how about one simple question to the candidates, is your senior advisor and speechwriter trying to overthrow the government?

[RainMaker]

I think it would be smart that the guy tasked with saving the country can draw a clock.

[GrantDawg]

That House Democrars call sounded like a train-wreck. Some big names are calling for Biden to step aside, including Ted Lieu, the Democratic Caucus Vice Chair.

Edit: Lieu denies he said anything on the call and looks like Wa-Po, who reported Lieu saying that, is retracting.

[Edward64]

"It was pretty brutal"

Several top House Democrats say Biden should step aside during leadership call | CNN Politics

The number of lawmakers who explicitly said Biden should not be the Democratic nominee was greater than the number who spoke up for him to stay, according to one of the sources. Among those who opposed Biden as the nominee were Reps. Mark Takano, Adam Smith, Jim Himes, Joe Morelle, Jerry Nadler and Susan Wild, according to three sources.

Five lawmakers have publicly called for Biden to withdraw from the presidential race: Reps. Lloyd Doggett, Seth Moulton, Raúl Grijalva, Angie Craig and Mike Quigley.

Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters and Bobby Scott spoke in support of Biden, according to one of the sources.

One of the concerns expressed during the nearly two-hour call was that Democrats will lose their chance at the House majority if Biden is the candidate, one of the sources said, adding that it was generally acknowledged the nominee should be Vice President Kamala Harris.

“It was pretty brutal,” a senior Democratic aide told CNN, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the private conversation among House leaders.

[Passacaglia]

I'm starting to hope this is all a weird sort of ruse to get stubborn old people to identify with him and vote for him

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

"It was pretty brutal"

Several top House Democrats say Biden should step aside during leadership call | CNN Politics

Unless they can start naming the anonymous sources I'm taking articles like these with a grain of salt.

Sounds like CNN it stirring up the pot for clicks.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Unless they can start naming the anonymous sources I'm taking articles like these with a grain of salt.

Sounds like CNN it stirring up the pot for clicks.

I'm pretty sure huffpost is running a 24/7 smear campaign to get Biden to resign. Roommates, cousins, house members, senators, janitors all have came out and questioned Biden's age, but almost all of those salacious statements never have a name attached. Just some very fine people have said......makes you wonder.

[RainMaker]

Maybe they don't want Trump to be President again and saw what 51 million other people saw at the debate.

[RainMaker]

I do find it ironic how much influence Trump has had on the general public. Now we have some diehard Biden fans calling everything fake news, complaining about the deep state, and even pretending this is all some 4D cheese from Biden. Don't think there's enough passion to storm D.C. in January but definitely going to see some rigged election stuff come November.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Maybe they don't want Trump to be President again and saw what 51 million other people saw at the debate.

Maybe they should smear Trump instead, then.

[HerRealName]

It does suck that Trump is mostly getting a free pass for all of his insane, fascistic ramblings but that's the result of Biden falling flat on his face at the most important campaign event so far.

I don't see how Biden can win. That debate performance is fully downloaded into the public perception. He can't recover from that. No amount of middling Sunday morning interviews is going to change that perception.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

Maybe they should smear Trump instead, then.

They have written negatively about him for 8 years.

[Lathum]

I do think the fact that Trump ridiculously claimed he knows nothing of project 2025 this weekend shows his campaign knows how toxic it is and that as we get closer to the election and more people are paying attention it can hurt him.

If only the dems had a candidate that could press him on it.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I do think the fact that Trump ridiculously claimed he knows nothing of project 2025 this weekend shows his campaign knows how toxic it is and that as we get closer to the election and more people are paying attention it can hurt him.

If only the dems had a candidate that could press him on it.

It is the same thing as trying to leave the National Abortion Ban out of the Republican platform. It is a play to moderates knowing he has the far right all marching in goose-step.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I do think the fact that Trump ridiculously claimed he knows nothing of project 2025 this weekend shows his campaign knows how toxic it is and that as we get closer to the election and more people are paying attention it can hurt him.

If only the dems had a candidate that could press him on it.

They definitely got some bad numbers about the project and are trying to distance themselves quickly.

[JPhillips]

The RNC platform is basically just a long Trump truth social post.