2024 Presidential Election thread

[mtutiger]

51 minutes ago, smr-nj said:

and there are many qualified women who could vie to be the next president of the United States, but I’ve seen it with my own eyes twice now and no matter how a percentage of the population will say that that candidate losing had nothing to do with the fact that she was a woman, but I know that’s a big fat lie, as  I’ve seen it and heard it.  There are many who just absolutely will not vote for a woman all because of a chromosome. You can sugarcoat it with a lot of doubletalk and frankly, a huge helping of condescending nonsense….. but we see what it is.

my personal take on it is that it’s an embarrassment, an insult, an extremely discouraging in a country that always bangs its own drum about how it is of the people, by the people , and for the people, …. but just not ones with breasts.

Elections in the United States are cyclical and dependent on a lot of external factors, including the economy, incumbency and many other things.

Hillary and Kamala were put in tough positions in each of their elections.... I honestly didn't realize at the time when Hillary was running (in part because I was blinded by thinking we were better than electing the teevee star to become POTUS) at how, historically, difficult it is for a party to win three consecutive terms. That just doesn't happen in this country. She wasn't perfect, I voted for her and wanted her to win, but I understood that.

Kamala's situation was much different... I think she did everything she possibly could but, after seeing how the results came in on election night and how uniform the swing was almost everywhere, it reads like she was pissing into the wind. And that if it were Josh Shapiro or JB Pritzker, they would have been pissing into the wind too. There's a broader global context here - inflation hit everywhere in 2022 and 2023, and in 2024, it has been lethal for sitting governments. And that's more likely than not what happened here. She wasn't the perfect candidate, but in terms of how she carried it out, I just cannot find a whole lot of fault (no matter how much some protest)

I am 36 years old and I think we will get there, perhaps not too far into the future.... but I do think we need to note that Clinton and Harris both were in tough situations when they ran

[oblong]

Kamala was in a situation that's unheard of in our history.

It's also hard for sitting VP's to win.  And for the reasons you outlined, Hillary was a pseudo sitting VP given she was a member of the party and a former cabinet official.

The only thing the dems could have done better would been for Biden to announce after the 2022 mid terms that he wasn't running again.  That proved to be a fatal flaw.  

[chasfh]

9 hours ago, oblong said:

I’m surprised we didn’t get more stories or talk about JD Vance’s lack of experience.  You have to go back to Agnew to find a VP with the same lack of government experience.  He was only Gov of Maryland for 2 years.  Prior to that you could go back to Charles Dawes, under Coolidge. He had some non cabinet level jobs but never Governor or congress.  

Lack of experience is the big feature here, not just at the VP level but also at the cabinet and departmental levels. It will substantially reduce pushback on harebrained executive directives, due to the inconvenient application of technical expertise. With that removed, it’s full steam ahead on moving fast and breaking things.

 

Edited November 21, 2024 by chasfh

[oblong]

Just now, chasfh said:

Lack of experience is the big feature here, not just at the VP level but also at the cabinet and departmental levels. It will substantially reduces pushback on harebrained executive directives, due to the inconvenient application of technical expertise.

I wasn't thinking though in terms of attacks by the dems... just general historical observations.  The stain of Trump being Trump clouded some historical things happening that normally would have been fodder for someone like me.  First person nominated 3 straight cycles by his party.  2nd person to win non consecutive terms.... that kind of thing.  First person born in the 80's nominated for a major ticket (dammit, we skipped the 70s!)... when was the last time we had someone with a beard on a ticket?

 

[chasfh]

2 minutes ago, oblong said:

I wasn't thinking though in terms of attacks by the dems... just general historical observations.  The stain of Trump being Trump clouded some historical things happening that normally would have been fodder for someone like me.  First person nominated 3 straight cycles by his party.  2nd person to win non consecutive terms.... that kind of thing.  First person born in the 80's nominated for a major ticket (dammit, we skipped the 70s!)... when was the last time we had someone with a beard on a ticket?

 

What I’m trying to put across is Trump putting cronies and lackeys in jobs of running departments they have zero knowledge or understanding of. Without anything as inconvenient as experience getting in the way, Trump can direct them to do the worst things possible that will lead to perdition, and the cronies and lackeys will have neither the expertise nor the inclination to reject such directives.

As for J.D.: if he shaves the beard, he risks looking like the poster boy for incels.

[oblong]

of course FDR was nominated 4 straight times....

[CMRivdogs]

41 minutes ago, oblong said:

of course FDR was nominated 4 straight times....

And it was basically because of FDR that Congress enacted term limits. The Republicans didn't want what would have basically a third term for Truman

[gehringer_2]

6 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

And it was basically because of FDR that Congress enacted term limits. The Republicans didn't want what would have basically a third term for Truman

Truman lived all the way through Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson. Imagine if none of them had ever been president...

[mtutiger]

8 hours ago, oblong said:

The only thing the dems could have done better would been for Biden to announce after the 2022 mid terms that he wasn't running again.  That proved to be a fatal flaw.  

That would have been ideal.... honestly he could have did as late as Fall 2023 and it would have helped at least. 

But he didn't.

[smr-nj]

28 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

That would have been ideal.... honestly he could have did as late as Fall 2023 and it would have helped at least. 

But he didn't.

And yet, had Kamla been nominated through convention, the bottom line is she’d still be a woman (and I’ll be sad until the day I die), but that simple fact is obviously a showstopper for nearly everybody in this country.
 

i’ve actually been hoping that I hadn’t gone through my adult life being so obviously blinded by bull**** being dealt to me & other women by the powers that be.

So, perhaps you all want to be honest with your daughters and granddaughters now and let them know that they are not equal partners in this country. Might save them a lot of heartache later on. 

[Archie]

2 hours ago, smr-nj said:

And yet, had Kamla been nominated through convention, the bottom line is she’d still be a woman (and I’ll be sad until the day I die), but that simple fact is obviously a showstopper for nearly everybody in this country.
 

i’ve actually been hoping that I hadn’t gone through my adult life being so obviously blinded by bull**** being dealt to me & other women by the powers that be.

So, perhaps you all want to be honest with your daughters and granddaughters now and let them know that they are not equal partners in this country. Might save them a lot of heartache later on. 

I believe the US would elect a woman POTUS.  They have elected women for decades in other positions. Blaming Harris loss on being a woman is wrong. It doesn't take much to see Harris was a god awful candidate. If anything she does a disservice to all women and everyone could see how bad she was even her blind followers of the democrat party. Then there was Hilary who hated by most people on both sides and is pure evil.  I think we will see a female POTUS in next two or three elections and it might even be a Republican.

Democrats have really turned the country off on their war against women by supporting men who compete in women's sports

[smr-nj]

50 years later than other “civilized” countries in the world?

Am I supposed to applaud our citizens? Lmao. 
and just because you say she was a bad candidate, and that people hated Hillary, I’m gonna tell you right now. You do not speak for a whole Lotta women in this country.

So please don’t blow smoke up my ass.

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, smr-nj said:

And yet, had Kamla been nominated through convention, the bottom line is she’d still be a woman (and I’ll be sad until the day I die), but that simple fact is obviously a showstopper for nearly everybody in this country.

A longer campaign could have benefited her under the right circumstances, though I'm not sure those circumstances were likely to be there. Maybe the strategy would have been different in a longer campaign, but Harris decided to play it pretty close to the vest - possibly to keep mistakes to a minimum, but that also means that more exposure might not have helped her if unless she took a less scripted kind of approach because everyone had heard the script by 3 weeks in. And I would still come back to that fact that while  Biden said all the right things about supporting her, for 3 1/2 years he did nothing to put her in a positive light on the national stage. I think that was critical and by 2023 there was no way to fix that. If a woman is going to be elected, it's going to be someone whom the public has already established some kind of long term rapport with. Harris never got  that chance as VP so her poorly executed run in 2020 was the public's main reference going in.  Ironically, Hillary had exactly the needed length of history, but in her case too much of that public history had been somewhat checkered and re-adjudicated by Fox news, so the long backstory ended up working against her.

[smr-nj]

A woman evidently needs to be 100 times better than any male candidate. Please. It’s so very obvious. We are not on a level playing field.

[gehringer_2]

13 minutes ago, Archie said:

elections and it might even be a Republican

There may be a certain  "Nixon goes to China" aspect to it. It's cultural conservatives who have bailed on Democratic woman nominees. If the GOP nominates a woman she is much better inoculated against that. And of course it is paradoxical in that while I think it's going to be much easier for a GOP woman to win a first Presidential election, it will still be much harder for a woman to be nominated in the GOP.

Edited November 22, 2024 by gehringer_2

[1776]

5 minutes ago, smr-nj said:

A woman evidently needs to be 100 times better than any male candidate. Please. It’s so very obvious. We are not on a level playing field.

So what’s your take on Hillary getting more votes than Trump in 2016? Level playing field? 

[smr-nj]

8 minutes ago, 1776 said:

So what’s your take on Hillary getting more votes than Trump in 2016? Level playing field? 

More men voted for her in 2016. This time around, more men voted for Trump. In both elections women percentage of votes  was higher for both Clinton and Harris.

seems like the population has regressed in their way of thinking.

[1776]

The longer the Democratic Party holds on to the belief that Harris didn’t win because of her gender/color, the longer it will be before they learn from the huge mistake they made in believing Harris was a viable candidate. 
If she runs in 2028, she’ll likely be the first out of the primaries…again.  
 

[smr-nj]

Mansplaining.

Awesome. 😂

[pfife]

I don't agree with notions that Kamala Harris was a bad candidate.   I thought she was great and wish she was president elect.

[Tigeraholic1]

50 minutes ago, 1776 said:

The longer the Democratic Party holds on to the belief that Harris didn’t win because of her gender/color, the longer it will be before they learn from the huge mistake they made in believing Harris was a viable candidate. 
If she runs in 2028, she’ll likely be the first out of the primaries…again.  
 

No one wants to talk about how she dropped out in 2020 before 15 other democrat candidates. I still wonder how anyone thought after installing her this year was a smart, strategic move.

Edited November 22, 2024 by Tigeraholic1

[pfife]

14 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

No one wants to talk about how she dropped out in 2020 before 15 other democrat candidates. I still wonder how anyone thought after installing her this year was a smart, strategic move.

Yeah but youre a proven liar so no one should believe your posts

Edited November 22, 2024 by pfife

[romad1]

Is JD Vance a bad candidate?  He's going to be the vice president like Kamela is right now.   Will he be the nominee in 2028?

[LaceyLou]

11 hours ago, smr-nj said:

A woman evidently needs to be 100 times better than any male candidate. Please. It’s so very obvious. We are not on a level playing field.

As I have said since 2015, it's worse than that... people seem to believe that a man with 6 bankruptcies and multiple business failures is better because of all of his 'business experience.' And in all those years, not one of his supporters has addressed this. His talent seems to be to convince people that he's a lot better in general than he is.

And yes, women are often treated differently in the workplace, in the ER-just about anywhere. We've still got a ways to go.

That said, I do think the US will catch up eventually and elect a woman as President. We may not live to see it, unfortunately. 

[1776]

9 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

No one wants to talk about how she dropped out in 2020 before 15 other democrat candidates. I still wonder how anyone thought after installing her this year was a smart, strategic move.

It’s called denial. Given some space maybe the left will open their eyes and accept the fact that she wasn’t a viable candidate. Maybe…