2024 Presidential Election thread

[Tiger337]

11 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Not sure why you involved me in this, I really don't care about what happens at a California Libertarian Convention 

No, I am talking about one of them running as a third party candidate in the presidential race.  

The part where I mentioned you is just a joke.  Every time I have an idea, people say it's not going to work.  It reminds of the Tigers forum and somebody always has a trade idea or a free agent which gets shot down as a terrible idea.  I am that guy in the political forum.  😀 It's OK though.  I am aware of my lack of political knowledge.  

[gehringer_2]

58 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

We know that Justin Amash is real.  

I just looked up Mapstead and Rectenwald and they are real.  

I am all for one of the Libertarians running as an Independent and stealing a few Republican votes.  Now, of course it would be better if they voted for Biden instead, but nobody who would vote for a Libertarian would consider a Democrat.  

Waitning for MTU to come here and tell me that's not how it works!

I looked up Rectenwald and he sounds like a real prize. 🌰🌰🌰🌰

What would be even better than an Libertarian to muddy the water for Trump and the current GOP would be a good old fashion segregationist. That would split the MAGA vote better than probably anything else. 

Where is a Geroge Wallace or David Duke when you actually could use one?

Edited February 26 by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

24 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I looked up Rectenwald and he sounds like a real prize. 🌰🌰🌰🌰

What would be even better than an Libertarian to muddy the water for Trump and the current GOP would be a good old fashion segregationist. That would split the MAGA vote better than probably anything else. 

Where is a Geroge Wallace or David Duke when you actually could use one?

Libertarianism definitely does attract some nut jobs.  The Wallaces and Dukes now make up part of the core of the Republican party, so you won't get them running as independents 

Amash is not bad.  He has spoken out against Trump though, so he won't get anywhere in an election.    

Edited February 26 by Tiger337

[Mr.TaterSalad]

One of the Downriver Democratic State Reps Jaime Churches, from the Woodhaven area, is now also voting uncommitted in the primary.  She's no far left type either. By my count I believe there are now 4 State House Reps that are now publicly expressing support for voting uncommitted. Jaime Churches from Downriver, Alabas Farhat from Dearborn, Abe Aiyash from Detroit/Hamtramck, and Dylan Wegela from Garden City. 

[Motown Bombers]

The US is facing the greatest domestic threat since the civil war and democrats are busy virtue signaling over a foreign war the US isn’t involved in. 

[chasfh]

16 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Judging from the responses, I gather that term limits are not good for Democrats.  😀  So, if that's the case, I am sorry I mentioned it!  How about "term" limits for the Supreme court? 

Not exhaustive, but example:

https://judiciariesworldwide.fjc.gov/judicial-tenure

 

[chasfh]

15 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

But that isn't why. The why is simply the political reality that he is politically unpopular and may struggle to be re-elected even against the worst challenger in US history. I can't guess all the reasons the public has not embraced him. Age is certainly one but probably not the only. Lee has that part dead on. We can sit here as Biden supporters and claim it is unfair and irrational because his leadership and accomplishments are solid, but that and $5 gets us a Vente to share. The why doesn't matter, it appears he is not going to be a strong candidate for re-election. An open primary would have floated a Newsome or Whitmer or Landrieu or Josh Shapiro, or Buttigieg whose vote getting ability would have been proven by the process.

All that said, it's early and maybe Biden will summon the physical energy and verbal discipline to campaign successfully, dispel the public's reservations and win big. Maybe.

If Biden is the wrong guy, then I’ll ask the same question we always ask people in the Tigers forum who say Harris should have signed a big free agent or traded for top players who will help us win a pennant this year: who would you want now? Name some names. And don’t get all mad like some people there and say, I don’t know, I’m not the GM, he is, it’s his job to figure that out, not mine! 😉

Also, if you don’t mind, I’ll dig into my pocket for the extra five bucks and buy you your own Vente. Lips that touch your coffee cup will never touch my cup. 😁

[chasfh]

15 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

It's literally not because in 2016 there was no incumbent. If Obama was able and running for a 3rd term, I would not have voted for Bernie Sanders or Clinton or anyone other than Obama. With that said, voting for Sanders was one of my most regrettable voting decisions I ever made.

Shoulda wrote:

lol “literally” 

[pfife]

Any Michiganders or Michiganians take advantage of new in person early voting now available to us?   

I think this will become my preferred method esp when the GOP controls stuff.   However I didn't go this year to see so I'll be regular in person tomorrow.

I dont trust Republicans with my mail in absentee ballot.   

[chasfh]

15 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

Back to the EC, the gentlemen who devised the system did so out of compromise. It during a time when only white male property owners could vote. They didn't trust the rabble to make a direct decision on who should hold the highest office in the new nation. There were no political parties and the state legislatures for the most part chose the electors.

That whole system and premise is long gone. Most states now require all electors vote for the person receiving a plurality of the votes in their state. To me, that's not democratic. It effectively disenfranchises half the voters in the state. Why should I even bother to vote in most states since the outcome is already decided before the election.

This is why I’ve written in Michelle Obama the last few elections: Illinois is already in the bag for the Democrats because at the end of the day, the Constitution requires each state to throw out the votes of every citizen who showed up to cast them, then select as few as three people to replace them, and give these people the power—nay, the requirement—to cast 100% of the only votes in the entire state that count for a one candidate or the other.

Stupid ****ing slavery.

Edited February 26 by chasfh

[chasfh]

15 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

By now Harris has had a long time to make some kind of positive impression in her own party and can't seem to. Not a good sign.

Ironic that Biden was all over the Obama admin and Harris is almost completely AWOL. So either a) Biden doesn't trust her because 1) she not competent 2) he's afraid she will upstage him  b) She won't play good soldier.

I have no idea which of these things, some of which would be Biden's fault and some of which would be Harris', may be true, but the Harris vice presidency has not been a big hit.

In her defense, having an impactful vice president is not always, perhaps not even usually, a good thing. Ask me about a guy named Cheney some time.

[chasfh]

13 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

I heard him stumble across a word once …

[mtutiger]

I don't really have any opinion on the uncommitted vote in Michigan other than I think the dialogue surrounding it and just I/P in general has often given the impression that the entire state revolves around what the people of Dearborn think about the issue. And it tends to ignore that there are voters in other part of Michigan (hell, other parts of Metro Detroit for that matter) for which the issue may not have the same salience or may just view it differently anyway.

For instance, people write off places like Nothern Michigan, The Thumb, the UP because "they're red", but there will still be thousands of votes that come in from that part of the state in the Democratic Primary. Does the "uncommitted" campaign have the same level of salience for them as it does for Metro Detroit? How about West Michigan? SW Michigan?

Michigan is a diverse state, and I think the dialogue on all of this has made the state seem way more one-dimensional than it is. 

Edited February 26 by mtutiger

[Motown Bombers]

I currently don't have a state house rep. There's a special election in April. I emailed the candidate who won the Democratic primary and will win the special election on whether she is voting for Biden or uncommitted. Her response determines whether I vote in April. 

[chasfh]

9 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Libertarianism definitely does attract some nut jobs.  The Wallaces and Dukes now make up part of the core of the Republican party, so you won't get them running as independents 

Amash is not bad.  He has spoken out against Trump though, so he won't get anywhere in an election.    

Remember the old board? There were a high percentage of posters there who loudly and proudly copped to being Libertarian. It definitely seemed a lot cooler back before people came to understand exactly what a Libertarian system would entail.

Libertarianism is great for people born on third base who believe their government’s sole job should be to prevent anyone from blocking the plate.

Edited February 26 by chasfh

[chasfh]

8 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I don't really have any opinion on the uncommitted vote in Michigan other than I think the dialogue surrounding it and just I/P in general has often given the impression that the entire state revolves around what the people of Dearborn think about the issue. And it tends to ignore that there are voters in other part of Michigan (hell, other parts of Metro Detroit for that matter) for which the issue may not have the same salience or may just view it differently anyway.

For instance, people write off places like Nothern Michigan, The Thumb, the UP because "they're red", but there will still be thousands of votes that come in from that part of the state in the Democratic Primary. Does the "uncommitted" campaign have the same level of salience for them as it does for Metro Detroit? How about West Michigan? SW Michigan?

Michigan is a diverse state, and I think the dialogue on all of this has made the state seem way more one-dimensional than it is. 

The another thing I try to remember is that the primary process provides the luxury of casting a grandstanding vote within a forum in which the cost of doing so is so low as to be basically nonexistent, and where the benefit is social media fame. That’s not so true of the general election, and come November, I would expect that all these grandstanders will cast their vote in a serious manner, with the possible exception of one high-profile newsmaker in Congress.

[gehringer_2]

14 minutes ago, chasfh said:

In her defense, having an impactful vice president is not always, perhaps not even usually, a good thing. Ask me about a guy named Cheney some time.

No arg about that, but in the context of whether Harris is potential successor material for the Dems the nature of her VP tenure matters. A poor VP tenure put an end to Dan Quayle's political career, a strong one rehabilitated Biden's.

[Motown Bombers]

12 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I don't really have any opinion on the uncommitted vote in Michigan other than I think the dialogue surrounding it and just I/P in general has often given the impression that the entire state revolves around what the people of Dearborn think about the issue. And it tends to ignore that there are voters in other part of Michigan (hell, other parts of Metro Detroit for that matter) for which the issue may not have the same salience or may just view it differently anyway.

For instance, people write off places like Nothern Michigan, The Thumb, the UP because "they're red", but there will still be thousands of votes that come in from that part of the state in the Democratic Primary. Does the "uncommitted" campaign have the same level of salience for them as it does for Metro Detroit? How about West Michigan? SW Michigan?

Michigan is a diverse state, and I think the dialogue on all of this has made the state seem way more one-dimensional than it is. 

Here's the problem I have with the uncommitted vote. You have a state rep above virtue signaling about a foreign war the US didn't start, doesn't have troops on the ground, and doesn't control. She's sending a message about "genocide" (she doesn't even know what genocide means apparently) and then expects everyone to vote for Biden in November. What of the message is not received? Then what? You said in February there was this genocide and you can't support Biden to send a message, well now you should support Biden even though you said he was doing a genocide? This is 2016 all over again. The Bernie Bros spent the whole virtue signaling. Most came around but enough voted for Jill Stein or stayed home and threw the election to Trump. There's no doubt that if Trump wins and start stripping away rights, Jamie Churches will be the first to be outraged and fundraise off of it. We are facing an unprecedented threat and Democrats are off virtue signaling and having purity contests yet again. This is why Democrats lose so often. I guarantee more of these never Trump Haley voters will come around on Trump than uncommitted voters coming around on Biden. 

[gehringer_2]

12 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Libertarianism is great for people born on third base who believe their government’s sole job should be to prevent anyone from blocking the plate.

Yup. It's a movement that has always been co-opted by monied industrial or financial interests like the Koch's who basically use it as another propaganda arm for building 'reasonable' laissez-faire/deregulated economic policy arguments for unreasonable corporate behavior.

[mtutiger]

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

The another thing I try to remember is that the primary process provides the luxury of casting a grandstanding vote within a forum in which the cost of doing so is so low as to be basically nonexistent, and where the benefit is social media fame. That’s not so true of the general election, and come November, I would expect that all these grandstanders will cast their vote in a serious manner, with the possible exception of one high-profile newsmaker in Congress.

100%. The line presumably exists as an outlet for voters to express discontent and it's fine in theory.

Where a lot of the angst comes from is that the media (while for the most part ignoring that Trump only posted 59% in SC of all places) will likely make hay out of any number that is posted to that line. Coupled with the stakes of Trump winning being really high, that obviously has people concerned

But ultimately, I just don't it matters much.... they are going to have a lot of work to do regardless before November, and much of the uncommitted vote would either be there or can be won back IMO

[Motown Bombers]

 

[mtutiger]

11 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Here's the problem I have with the uncommitted vote. You have a state rep above virtue signaling about a foreign war the US didn't start, doesn't have troops on the ground, and doesn't control. She's sending a message about "genocide" (she doesn't even know what genocide means apparently) and then expects everyone to vote for Biden in November. What of the message is not received? Then what? You said in February there was this genocide and you can't support Biden to send a message, well now you should support Biden even though you said he was doing a genocide? This is 2016 all over again. The Bernie Bros spent the whole virtue signaling. Most came around but enough voted for Jill Stein or stayed home and threw the election to Trump. There's no doubt that if Trump wins and start stripping away rights, Jamie Churches will be the first to be outraged and fundraise off of it. We are facing an unprecedented threat and Democrats are off virtue signaling and having purity contests yet again. This is why Democrats lose so often. I guarantee more of these never Trump Haley voters will come around on Trump than uncommitted voters coming around on Biden. 

It'll probably seem like I'm contradicting my last post, but I cannot disagree with the idea that this mostly comes across as a virtue-signaling exercise.

Edited February 26 by mtutiger

[CMRivdogs]

36 minutes ago, pfife said:

Any Michiganders or Michiganians take advantage of new in person early voting now available to us?   

I think this will become my preferred method esp when the GOP controls stuff.   However I didn't go this year to see so I'll be regular in person tomorrow.

I dont trust Republicans with my mail in absentee ballot.   

When we lived there and qualified to vote as a senior citizen that was my preferred method. Head over to the locality's registrar's office on a morning off and get it done. It beat having to negotiate all those folks who had nothing else to do on Election Day but stand around and hold a sign on the actual day.

Even in 2020 when everyone dropped out just before the Dem Primary day they allowed me to change my vote. 
Now I put my faith in the Postal Service

[Motown Bombers]

Just now, mtutiger said:

It'll probably seem like I'm contradicting my last post, but I cannot disagree with the idea that this mostly comes across as a virtue-signaling exercise.

Virtue signaling or purity contest, whatever you want to call it, it's more games played by Democrats when faced with a threat nobody currently alive has ever seen in this country. Republicans fall in line and Democrats fall in love. I'm keeping a list of all these Democrats who are supporting uncommitted and they can just piss the hell right off. 

[Motown Bombers]

6 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

When we lived there and qualified to vote as a senior citizen that was my preferred method. Head over to the locality's registrar's office on a morning off and get it done. It beat having to negotiate all those folks who had nothing else to do on Election Day but stand around and hold a sign on the actual day.

Even in 2020 when everyone dropped out just before the Dem Primary day they allowed me to change my vote. 
Now I put my faith in the Postal Service

I did early in person Saturday. It was really easy and convenient. It was set up at city hall. Filled out the card and got my ballot and then was directed to another room. There were two blacks guys blocking the entrance to voting area, looked like a father and son. They were talking and shaking hands with a blonde woman and was thinking to myself when are they going to get the hell out of the way. I then realized the woman they were talking to was Jocelyn Benson. I was like I have to get in on this and almost started throwing people aside like Trump at the G20. I shook her hand but she seemed to be in a hurry so I just said hello and she moved on. I wanted to ask if she was voting uncommitted.