2024 Presidential Election thread

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

It was the message and candidate, correct.

I don't think you understand my point. But we'll leave it there

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

One Biden staffer put it more simply: “How did you spend $1 billion and not win? What the ****?”

 

 

Maybe the staffer should ask their boss... 

Edited Sunday at 04:55 PM by mtutiger

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, 1776 said:

balanced budget,

Balance is not needed, a 'balanced budget' straight jacket would leave the government unable to do counter cyclical spending in the face of recession, in fact it would cause recessions to bottom much deeper than they other might. The Covid economic crash would have been twice the disaster if the Fed had not been able to open the taps. 

The problem with Federal spending in recent years is that a 'good' economy is never 'good enough' anymore. If you look at the State of Michigan, they put money in a 'rainy day' fund when the economy is good, spend it when it's bad. It is not possible for the Federal government to actually save money, its ledger can never go all the way to positive. it has to act on the below zero/debt side - spend a little more when things are down. spend less and let the debt close when times are good. But it's all been on one side for too long.  For instance the last 3 yrs of Obama's admin the economy was good enough they should have been paying down, but they didn't. The economy is good enough now we should be paying down - we aren't.  But another reason it doesn't happen is the GOP's "starve the government and drown in the bathtub" philosophy because that depends on pushing a constant debt crisis, which means they will never agree to raise taxes as part of a balanced plan to close the debt when the economy is good enough to support it.

Edited Sunday at 05:02 PM by gehringer_2

[mtutiger]

Trying to think about how best put this, but the message sent by the voters on Tuesday was about the environment more than anything else IMO. People were pissed off and wanted to punish the administration. That's it.

In that context, elevated with only 107 days to go, Harris spent a lot of time and money in the battleground states and, relative to the popular vote nationwide, outperformed in each of them by around 3.5%. And her presence likely saved at least three Senate seats and countless House members who would have been wiped out had Biden stayed the nominee.

Journalists in DC are gonna do what they are gonna do to get clicks... The Biden people (who are more guilty than literally anyone on this - many should never work in politics again as far as I'm concerned) are gonna go off record and play the blame game, because of course they are.

But the facts are the facts... Maybe there's changes here or there that could have been made, idk... I just don't see how you can look at the full picture and not see how much worse this result could have been.

[1776]

4 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Trying to think about how best put this, but the message sent by the voters on Tuesday was about the environment more than anything else IMO. 

Clarify one thing for me if you will. Are you referring to the political environment or the environment literally?

[Tigermojo]

I read an article yesterday about how elections around the world have been like this. People are blaming the high housing and grocery prices on their government. It hasn't mattered if it's left or right wing. Voters have flipped based on the global economy.

[mtutiger]

20 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Clarify one thing for me if you will. Are you referring to the political environment or the environment literally?

Political environment... Not just in the US, it has been toxic worldwide for incumbent parties 

[Kacie]

For me, post election, is how to move forward with people who exposed their true selves.  It isn't politics, or a difference of opinion.  I can't look at them the same way and just shoot the **** knowing what I know now.  A conversation can't be had, because truth, facts and reality just aren't a thing any more.  Of all the terrible things about Trump, that's probably the worst.  

[romad1]

2 minutes ago, Kacie said:

For me, post election, is how to move forward with people who exposed their true selves.  It isn't politics, or a difference of opinion.  I can't look at them the same way and just shoot the **** knowing what I know now.  A conversation can't be had, because truth, facts and reality just aren't a thing any more.  Of all the terrible things about Trump, that's probably the worst.  

Concur.  So many additional thoughts but putting them down here might destroy my keyboard.

[1776]

It will always be a puzzle to me why 50% of the country hates the other 50% politically and too often personally, but when a third or fourth party is on the ballot you’ll be lucky to see 2% of the electorate defect from the dumpster dive. 

[gehringer_2]

38 minutes ago, 1776 said:

It will always be a puzzle to me why 50% of the country hates the other 50% politically and too often personally, but when a third or fourth party is on the ballot you’ll be lucky to see 2% of the electorate defect from the dumpster dive. 

third parties can only work in proportional systems because nobody wants to run just be guaranteed to lose. Years ago we had a third party in SE Mi, that started local in A^2 and did win a seat or two on the city council, but couldn't break out of those limits.At the national level, Wallace, Jon Anderson and especially Perot had a lot of money and name recognition but didn't do much to further their agenda. Perot was a conservative but mostly helped a Dem get elected which I doubt was his intent. And that's the thing, most third parties are going to draw the most support from the side they are already most aligned with, thus splitting the vote and electing the side they have the biggest beefs with. That's just counter productive politics, but it's baked into the Constitution's structure.

Edited Sunday at 06:29 PM by gehringer_2

[CMRivdogs]

5 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

third parties can only work in proportional systems because nobody wants to run just be guaranteed to lose. Years ago we had a third party in SE Mi, that started local in A^2 and did win a seat or two on the city council, but couldn't break out of those limits.At the national level, Wallace, Jon Anderson and especially Perot had a lot of money and name recognition but didn't do much to further their agenda. Perot was a conservative but mostly helped a Dem get elected which I doubt was his intent. And that's the thing, most third parties are going to draw the most support from the side they are already most aligned with, thus splitting the vote and electing the side they have the biggest beefs with. That's just counter productive politics, but it's baked into the Constitution's structure.

Yep, as long as the Electoral College is set up as it has been since the states turned voting for the Chief Executive over to the voters rather than a group of "Wise Men" and the vast majority of the states made the distribution of the EC votes "winner take all"

Plus you could blame Messrs Jefferson and Adams for forming political parties in the first place. 

 

[mtutiger]

43 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

third parties can only work in proportional systems because nobody wants to run just be guaranteed to lose. Years ago we had a third party in SE Mi, that started local in A^2 and did win a seat or two on the city council, but couldn't break out of those limits.At the national level, Wallace, Jon Anderson and especially Perot had a lot of money and name recognition but didn't do much to further their agenda. Perot was a conservative but mostly helped a Dem get elected which I doubt was his intent. And that's the thing, most third parties are going to draw the most support from the side they are already most aligned with, thus splitting the vote and electing the side they have the biggest beefs with. That's just counter productive politics, but it's baked into the Constitution's structure.

The Electoral College inhibits third parties as well IMO

[gehringer_2]

14 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

The Electoral College inhibits third parties as well IMO

I believe the Constitution does not prevent states from voting their electors proportionally (there was a move to try to get Neb to do just that this cycle) but the problem isn't so much electoral college per se, but that the Constitution mandates any lack of a majority is thrown to the House, and in that vote all population based representation is lost and all large states are disenfranchised as there is only one vote per state. Thus every large state sees it in it's interest to elect it's electors on a winner take all basis to make sure someone is more likely to get a majority lest the mountain west's 15 people get to elect a president.....

Since the executive and legislative elections are fundamentally separate, there is no way to build a ruling coalition out of two parties that have a majority of the presidential vote between them but where a third has a plurality. And that is the question that would have to be wrestled with if the US went to direct election. The only workable way would be setup for a run-off election between the top two candidates if no-one got a majority because there no mechanism to apportion the Congress by presidential candidate vote. 

In truth,  whole system has to eventually crash though - the tension between so much Electoral power being non-population proportioned is going to bring the system down eventually, because at this point the small states will never allow an amendment to fix it. It's going to be like the NCAA, at some point the big states are going to dissolve the Union to get rid of the power of the little guys.

Edited Sunday at 07:34 PM by gehringer_2

[1776]

1 hour ago, CMRivdogs said:

Plus you could blame Messrs Jefferson and Adams for forming political parties in the first place. 

 

From the website: History

“But Thomas Jefferson, who was serving a diplomatic post in France during the Constitutional Convention, believed it was a mistake not to provide for different political parties in the new government. “Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties,’’ he would write in 1824.”

Jefferson was correct. It was inevitable this would be the path in time. 

[chasfh]

Third parties will never truly work in this country until we move to a parliamentary system, which, lol.

[1776]

Third parties could absolutely influence the direction of the two major parties if the majority of the population would get beyond the fear of voting outside the weathered and worn path. As far as “wasting” a vote logic goes, I’ll never see it that way. You can’t expect real change by pulling the same lever every two years. SOS wash rinse repeat. 
Had Perot not gotten off message from his economic points and avoided the off again-on again side show, he could have drawn more votes and moved the needle on third party possibilities going forward. 
Additionally, if there is one thing the Democrats and Republican parties agree on, it’s the fact that they don’t want any competition. Avoid a middle ground at all costs, literally. This is the only objective the two parties work together on. Yet after Tuesday’s election we are as polarized a nation as ever. It’s going to get worse. 

 

[1776]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

third parties can only work in proportional systems because nobody wants to run just be guaranteed to lose. 

There were numerous third party candidates that were on the ballots from every state last week. So the “nobody wants to run” isn’t true. The problem is that the system is so full of garbage now that voters are motivated to vote out of the fear that the worst of the two ****ty candidates will win. Think about that, being motivated by fear. And living in the United States no less. And again, it’s going to get worse and we didn't get here over night. 

[Edman85]

Looking ahead to 2026, I don't see any seats that seem easily flipable for the Dems.

[LaceyLou]

To whoever alerted me to the starter packs on Bluesky, THANK YOU.

For months 99% of my feed was MBTA alerts about routes I didn't even know existed, and now I have an actual feed with actual topics.

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, Edman85 said:

Looking ahead to 2026, I don't see any seats that seem easily flipable for the Dems.

Maine and NC are doable but not necessarily easy (Maine probably is easy if Collins actually steps aside). But beyond those two, it's tough sledding.

It's not hard to see the House flipping in a Trump Midterm, especially given that they more likely than not will gain seats despite losing he Presidency in a bad environment like this (especially with the modal outcome at this point being somewhere around 220 seats for the GOP)

Edited Sunday at 10:20 PM by mtutiger

[CMRivdogs]

Testing....

[mtutiger]

2 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I believe the Constitution does not prevent states from voting their electors proportionally (there was a move to try to get Neb to do just that this cycle) but the problem isn't so much electoral college per se, but that the Constitution mandates any lack of a majority is thrown to the House, and in that vote all population based representation is lost and all large states are disenfranchised as there is only one vote per state. Thus every large state sees it in it's interest to elect it's electors on a winner take all basis to make sure someone is more likely to get a majority lest the mountain west's 15 people get to elect a president.....

The fact that the absolute best case scenario for a third party vote in this country (ie. winning a few states) is that it would lead to the election being thrown to the House and the winner of being picked by state House delegation vote is a big reason I, personally, just can't do it.

Other people believe differently, and I understand it and respect it. But personally just couldn't do it... Until something epochal happens to our party system, I'll be choosing the least bad choice.

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, 1776 said:

Third parties could absolutely influence the direction of the two major parties if the majority of the population would get beyond the fear of voting outside the weathered and worn path. As far as “wasting” a vote logic goes, I’ll never see it that way. You can’t expect real change by pulling the same lever every two years. SOS wash rinse repeat. 
Had Perot not gotten off message from his economic points and avoided the off again-on again side show, he could have drawn more votes and moved the needle on third party possibilities going forward. 
Additionally, if there is one thing the Democrats and Republican parties agree on, it’s the fact that they don’t want any competition. Avoid a middle ground at all costs, literally. This is the only objective the two parties work together on. Yet after Tuesday’s election we are as polarized a nation as ever. It’s going to get worse. 

 

The start of a real third party movement in the country is going to have to start small, at the state and local level. Like there just massive barriers to entry to breaking into the two party system at the federal level, particularly the Presidential level, especially the way our system is structured.

It would also help if the most notable third parties in this country (the Libertarians and Greens) weren't run by incredibly unserious people who don't seem interested in building from the ground up. 

I do find the Forward Party concept  to be interesting (this group is associated with former Dem candidate Andrew Yang)... It has longer range plans on establishing itself as a credible third party but, for the time being, is allowing politicians of both parties to align with it. I don't know that it will work, but their approach is a lot smarter than we've seen from other third party movements.

Edited Sunday at 10:44 PM by mtutiger

[Tiger337]

6 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Balance is not needed, a 'balanced budget' straight jacket would leave the government unable to do counter cyclical spending in the face of recession, in fact it would cause recessions to bottom much deeper than they other might. The Covid economic crash would have been twice the disaster if the Fed had not been able to open the taps. 

 

They needed to spend on Covid, but they didn't do a good job of it.  There was no need to give hundreds of billions of dollars to people who didn't lose their jobs or otherwise didn't need the stimulus.  That surely contributed to the inflation which came later.