POTUS 2024 - Biden vs Trump - General Election Discussion

[RainMaker]

There were some right-wing pollsters that had New Jersey tied (lol) and some other favorable results. They might be dumb enough to buy into that hype now that they don't have anyone with a clue running the RNC.

[RainMaker]

Not a campaign expert but I think calling the biggest city in a state you absolutely need to win "horrible" is a bad strategy.

[Qwikshot]

Probably wants it in Florida

[Lathum]

The bottom half of Jersey, except maybe Camden, is MAGA country. I live in a deep red town and these people are nuts.

I can see a combination of them thinking there will be less turnout and more support from black voters where they think it is in play.

Trump problem is EVERYWHERE he goes the MAGA faction will show up, so it gives him, and probably the morons running the RNC, a false senso of popularity in areas where it really doesn't exist.

Best case scenario for Biden is Trump wastes his time in states he has little chance to carry thus resulting in him spending less time in the 6-7 swing states.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Trump problem is EVERYWHERE he goes the MAGA faction will show up, so it gives him, and probably the morons running the RNC, a false senso of popularity in areas where it really doesn't exist.

I wonder about this too. Trump's campaign is potentially paying rally goers, inflating donation numbers and trying to convince their base that they are the silent majority in any way possible, and you wonder how susceptible they are to huffing their own farts.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Not a campaign expert but I think calling the biggest city in a state you absolutely need to win "horrible" is a bad strategy.

But that was just code.

You're trying to remind the GOP-leaning white suburbanites about how the "inner-city Blacks" have made the city "horrible" so they will hold their nose and vote for Trump.

[albionmoonlight]

dola and/or remind rural MAGA Wisconsin that they need to come out to vote because you know those "horrible" Milwaukee people are gonna rig the inner-city voting machines.

[GrantDawg]

Trump only got 22% of the vote in Milwaukee. He doesn't have much to lose by talking bad about the city. That 22 % probably holds the same opinion.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Trump only got 22% of the vote in Milwaukee. He doesn't have much to lose by talking bad about the city. That 22 % probably holds the same opinion.

That's roughly what I was thinking.

I mean, you'd make hay virtually statewide talking shit about Atlanta ... cause that's pretty much how at least 150 (of 159) counties feel about it too.

[thesloppy]

I mean you could do the same thing in Oregon, but it would still be stupid. Internet tells me Wisconsin's population is 30% rural.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Trump only got 22% of the vote in Milwaukee. He doesn't have much to lose by talking bad about the city. That 22 % probably holds the same opinion.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

The last few elections prove pretty clearly that if people get out and vote in Milwaukee and, to a lesser extent, Madison, Democrats win the state. If people are apathetic and stay home in those cities, Republicans win the state.

This is how you end up with Senators as disparate as Baldwin and Johnson.

So, I'm all for Trump insulting Milwaukee if it riles up more people to come up and vote.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I'd bank on firing live bullets at protestors though. Almost had that last time. Who stops them next time?

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's a far stretch from locking up liberals in camps and mass exterminating them as flere insinuated.

Ah, so you're OK with a little unfocused mass murder of American citizens. Got it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So, I'm all for Trump insulting Milwaukee if it riles up more people to come up and vote.

That requires them to not realize they're in a hopeless abyss.

I'm not sure how much longer that myth can be sustained.

[albionmoonlight]

This writer suggests that Biden should replace Kamala Harris as his VP running mate with Hillary Clinton.

Opinion | Democrats are wrestling with an age-old problem. Enter Clinton? - The Washington Post

This idea is like a fractal. The more I look at it, the more ways I can see what a horrible idea it is. Like you can zoom in forever and keep seeing more and more awfulness.

Maybe the writer is an old Mondale fan and wants Biden to lose literally every state so Mondale's Reagan map does not look so bad.

[Ksyrup]

It's behind a paywall, but I'm not sure I could stomach reading it.

As a relative newbie to Independent status, it amazes me that Democrats have managed to get anyone elected in the past 40 years, at any position. Whereas before this kind of stuff would make me laugh, now it just pisses me off.

This kind of crap feels like a full-circle, Trump-esque "double down" on what people don't like about you. Most of the country can't believe we're running 2 old white guys, and the answer for the Dems is an old white woman who is the only person to have lost an election to Trump? About the only premise I buy is that Harris should be replaced, but like everything else about this election, we're already too far down the path to change the inevitable.

At the risk of sounding like RM and others here, I do agree with the idea that it's hard to square a message of "Democracy is threatened by another Trump presidency" with "Political norms in our nominating process mean more than finding the ideal candidates to beat Trump." It should have started like 2 months after Biden won. The Dem machine should not have given Biden the decision. You don't humiliate the guy, of course - he's owed more than that - but the back-room discussions and messaging should have occurred to negotiate an exit strategy for Biden and potential candidates early on. It's not that hard to find a reasonable exit strategy for an 82 year old, you know?

And if he resisted, you simply don't give him the space to make that challenge. You move on. In the same way the GOP has moved on with Trump, the Dems could have moved on without Biden. It would have signaled yet another way in which Dems are different from the GOP and serious about governing above politics.

Alas, here we are... articles touting Hillary as a VP candidate.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

About the only premise I buy is that Harris should be replaced, but like everything else about this election, we're already too far down the path to change the inevitable.

I don't think this article has any kind of weight and it has zero chance of happening. I also agree that Harris doesn't really help the ticket at this point, but I'm not convinced removing her really helps the ticket either. It would smack of Biden firing a black woman and then replacing her with whom? Unless it is say Stacey Abrams (which then you have ask why?), he is going to piss off a group he needs. Democrats only win on the strength of the black female vote. It is their strongest and most stable voting block. The only way to remove Harris is if she voluntarily stepped down, and then it would have to be some solid reason for doing so.

[larrymcg421]

This happens every so often, as far back as 2016, where someone brings up Hilary should get the nomination or VP or whatever else, and then that allows people to dunk on Dems. "Why are they so dumb for wanting to run Hilary again?"

"Dems" don't want to run Hilary again. That is not a serious proposal by anyone with any kind of power, just some dumb column writer.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

This writer suggests that Biden should replace Kamala Harris as his VP running mate with Hillary Clinton.

Opinion | Democrats are wrestling with an age-old problem. Enter Clinton? - The Washington Post

This idea is like a fractal. The more I look at it, the more ways I can see what a horrible idea it is. Like you can zoom in forever and keep seeing more and more awfulness.

Maybe the writer is an old Mondale fan and wants Biden to lose literally every state so Mondale's Reagan map does not look so bad.

The writer is...not a Mondale fan, unless she swung quite a bit to the right since. Also:

During the 2018 Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination, Parker wrote a column advancing the theory that the alleged victim, Christine Blasey Ford, was mistaken in her identification of Brett Kavanaugh, and that there must be a doppelgänger.

Other recent opinion pieces:

"Democrats weaponizing flags to intimidate Alito is an embarrassment"
"Harrison Butker doesn’t only kick footballs" -The NFL should have defended the Kansas City kicker’s right to speak his mind.
"Biden’s abortion push reeks of desperation"
"Christine Blasey Ford is no hero, if justice is the measure" -Even if Justice Kavanaugh’s accuser believes her own story, in the absence of evidence or corroboration, a measure of doubt is called for. (revisited this topic, I guess)
"For the country’s sake, Vice President Harris should step aside"
"Why I ordered 200 incandescent lightbulbs"

I'm not sure I'd follow her ideas if I were the Democrats?

[Danny]

From the standpoint of winning, Biden and Harris were great choices for the previous election. But as some of you have said, the plan absolutely had to be for them to step aside years ahead of this election and plan around the next candidate. Harris could certainly go after that if she chose to (though highly unlikely to end up winning the primaries given her lack of wide spread popularity).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

As a relative newbie to Independent status

Is this just for 2024 or a more permanent thing?

It should have started like 2 months after Biden won. The Dem machine should not have given Biden the decision. You don't humiliate the guy, of course - he's owed more than that - but the back-room discussions and messaging should have occurred to negotiate an exit strategy for Biden and potential candidates early on. It's not that hard to find a reasonable exit strategy for an 82 year old, you know?

And if he resisted, you simply don't give him the space to make that challenge. You move on. In the same way the GOP has moved on with Trump, the Dems could have moved on without Biden. It would have signaled yet another way in which Dems are different from the GOP and serious about governing above politics.

I personally don't buy this. 2 months in, the Democrat political apparatchik had no chance to convince Joe they were going to replace him in 2024.

Arguably last Fall 2023 would have been a good time. But even then, which other candidate had better chance of beating Trump. Which other candidate wouldn't be entrapped one-way-or-another with/against Israel or Ukraine or the GOP House dysfunction or less experience than Joe.

Joe's got a pretty good record. With the economy/markets turning, he has a decent shot regardless of what polls currently say. IMO the only thing that can stop him is (1) him appearing like an old blundering fool who can't or struggles to remember important things (2) losing the independent vote.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

But even then, which other candidate had better chance of beating Trump.

Pretty much any semi-normal Democrat under the age of 70 has a better chance of beating Trump in 2024.

He's a historically unpopular President whether you think he deserves that distinction or not. And he'll be 82 in November. An age that is only going to see an increase in mental decline over the next 4 years.

Ironically, both parties picked the one candidate that could lose to the other. I can't think of an election that saw two candidates that were this unpopular running against each other. It's like neither side wants to win.

[Kodos]

Trump v. Clinton

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Is this just for 2024 or a more permanent thing?

.

If there's one thing the past 8 years have taught me, it's that political parties suck. I voted for a 3rd party for President since 2004 (until 2020), so I was already on my way out of party affiliation. The only useful reason to remain affiliated one way or the other is to be permitted to vote in a primary (at least in KY). But frankly, that's not a good enough reason. We decided after January 6th there was no way we could remain affiliated with the GOP. So we changed to Independent. I don't see that ever changing - really no reason to, especially living here.

[Edward64]

Ah sorry. When you said "newbie" I assumed from past couple years on.

[Edward64]

More Jun 27 debate rules. I like the mic muting.

Microphones will be muted throughout the debate except for the candidate whose turn it is to speak. While no props or pre-written notes will be allowed on the stage, candidates will be given a pen, a pad of paper and a bottle of water.

Some aspects of the debate – including the absence of a studio audience – will be a departure from previous debates. But, as in the past, the moderators “will use all tools at their disposal to enforce timing and ensure a civilized discussion,” according to the network.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

More Jun 27 debate rules. I like the mic muting.

I've been calling for this for years. If Around the Horn can do it, then why not a presidential debate?

[JPhillips]

Give them the questions ahead of time. The job isn't, or at least shouldn't be, who can say the most the fastest.

[Lathum]

These are unserious people with no interest in actually governing.

Just a moment...

[Atocep]

Tonight Trump was comparing himself to Al Capone again over the indictments and then said Capone would have had Mike Lindell killed because his ads are annoying. He then went on to challenge Biden to a cognitive test and called the White House doctor that gave him his test Ronny Johnson.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Lathum

These are unserious people with no interest in actually governing.

Just a moment...

Trump is talking to his Johnson? oh dear. Is the little guy no longer able to perform?