2024 Presidential Election thread

[Tiger337]

5 hours 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. 

Not only that, but 43% of the conutry dislikes both parties so much that they don't identify with either one.

Edited Sunday at 11:15 PM by Tiger337

[mtutiger]

https://x.com/Redistrict/status/1855759244898828372

She improved margins more in Flint, Erie and Wausau than she did in a bevy of wealthy liberal enclaves.

Again, the preponderance evidence just points to the campaign being really effective in the battleground states relative to everywhere else. I don't care what the anonymously sourced Biden staffer types think, that's just the facts

Edited Sunday at 11:52 PM by mtutiger

[mtutiger]

https://x.com/SidKhurana3607/status/1855664216155496455

The fact that Western NC trended left while almost everywhere outside of the Atlanta suburbs, NW Michigan, and a few states out west is interesting

Maybe turnout effects, but these were the folks who dealt with a lot of lies about Helene, and are dealing with FEMA on the ground after an apocalyptic storm

[Edman85]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

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.   

FWIW, IIRC, my only Rona check went straight to charity.

[chasfh]

4 hours 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. 

 

I think I would take third parties more seriously if they ran candidates up and down the ballot in every state, instead of basically just running spoiler candidates at the top every four years.

As far as the logic of “sending a message”, as some advocates maintain, I’ll never see it that way. The last two third party candidates who won electoral votes were Strom Thurmond in 1948 and George Wallace in 1968. What kind of message did those results send that had any real lasting impact?

 

Edited Monday at 01:57 AM by chasfh

[CMRivdogs]

Maybe if a few so called Libertarians actually joined the party rather than being faux Republicans. It would be interesting to be able to see some actual coalition building in legislatures 

[gehringer_2]

5 hours ago, mtutiger said:

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.

 

Bingo

[gehringer_2]

3 hours ago, Edman85 said:

FWIW, IIRC, my only Rona check went straight to charity.

and they undoubtedly spent it, so WAD.

[ewsieg]

On 11/7/2024 at 1:53 PM, chasfh said:

I don't consider you far right. If you were you'd be all MAGA all the time, and I don't hear that from you.

But you did refer to me as "extreme left" which, by definition, means the outer edges or limits, meaning no ideology is more left-wing than mine, including communism, Marxism, and anarchism. Those ideologies would be right in my wheelhouse, or even to the right of me, if I am on the extreme left. Is that really what you meant to put across here?

I don't consider you as extreme left, rhetoric must have gotten the best of me. 

[Tigeraholic1]

Happy Veterans Day to my fellow Vets, thank you for your service. We as Americans should be ashamed of this behavior. Yes it is an old story but does not change the facts. 

 

https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/in-the-news/2023/jessica-scarcella-spanton/former-resident-95-year-old-veteran-slams

 

Tammaro had to leave his former home by March of this year, and just six months later, the city has contracted with Island Shores’ owner, a non-profit organization called Homes for the Homeless, to set up one of its more-than 200 migrant shelters around the five boroughs.

“I thought my suitcases were going to be on the curb,” Tammaro, who keeps a sense of humor despite the circumstances, said of when he received notice that he was no longer welcome at Island Shores. “If it wasn’t for my daughter, they would’ve been on the curb.”

 

Edited Monday at 03:01 PM by Tigeraholic1

[1776]

13 hours ago, chasfh said:

I think I would take third parties more seriously if they ran candidates up and down the ballot in every state, instead of basically just running spoiler candidates at the top every four years.

I can’t speak for every state, but in NC there is more often than not a number of LP candidates on the ballot every two years. For years, and in some cases today, fringe parties have to spend time and resources on gathering X number of signatures to qualify as a certified party. That takes time and money. I think in NC the party does well in getting as many candidates on the ballot as they do. 
Having been a registered LP member years back, I will be the first to admit that the LP has lots of issues that are self inflicted. The LP does run candidates that are comedy acts and don’t give voters the impression that the party is serious. That’s unfortunate. At the same time there have been some really good candidates through the years. 
Bottom line, $$$ is always going to be an obstacle for third parties. In my opinion, the more anxious voters are in an election, the less likely they are to take a chance on an alternate choice. Last week is the perfect example. 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

At least my I'll know that I voted for the candidate who didn't emulate having oral sex with a microphone. So I can feel good knowing that if nothing else.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Happy Veterans Day to all of our veterans out there. I respect all of our servicemembers and veterans, including those who were POWs and captured during war.

 

[Tigeraholic1]

Amazing shift

 

 

[1776]

23 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

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.

So again, Congress should work in a bipartisan way to balance the budget. Will it happen, in all likely hood, no. 

[1776]

Regarding the immigration conversation as it related to the election, it is reported that 20% of voters considered that as the number concern through this election cycle. The other top concern was inflation. Not surprising on either count. 

[Tigeraholic1]

3 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Regarding the immigration conversation as it related to the election, it is reported that 20% of voters considered that as the number concern through this election cycle. The other top concern was inflation. Not surprising on either count. 

Mayorkas was terrible at doing his job. Remember when Harris was supposed to be the border Czar for Biden? Tom Homan was 100% the right pick for the job. 

 

 

 

Mayorkas

[pfife]

She was never a border czar.  As evidenced by GOP impeaching Mayorkas and not Harris over border policy.

[gehringer_2]

22 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Mayorkas was terrible at doing his job. Remember when Harris was supposed to be the border Czar for Biden? Tom Homan was 100% the right pick for the job. 

 

 

 

Mayorkas

the approach was mostly wrong. If you want to slow the flow, the people coming need to understand they can't stay, not that it's harder to get across - there will always be ways to get across. And in fact we have little problem interdicting people who do cross, it has been that the process after they are interdicted is broken. The dems sort of went along with theoretical discussion that border 'security' was the problem because they didn't want to face changing the asylum system because it's a progressive marker. If you could close the border tight enough, you wouldn't have to face that the asylum system was broken. But 'sealing' the border is an illusion. You can't apprehend a crosser until they are in the US and as soon as they cross the line they can avoid being returned. That is where the bigger part of the problem has been for a long time now.

And this doesn't even touch on the fact that small business owners (largely GOP) don't want stricter employment enforcement either. A dirty little economic secret is that the large number of undocumenteds in the workforce creates a constant downward pressure on entry level wages across the economy and that's just peachy with the Chamber of Commerce.

Edited Monday at 04:53 PM by gehringer_2

[mtutiger]

8 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

the approach was mostly wrong. If you want to slow the flow, the people coming need to understand they can't stay, not that it's harder to get across - there will always be ways to get across. And in fact we have little problem interdicting people who do cross, it has been that the process after they are interdicted is broken. The dems sort of went along with theoretical discussion that border 'security' was the problem because they didn't want to face changing the asylum system because it's a progressive marker. If you could close the border tight enough, you wouldn't have to fact that the asylum system was broken. But 'sealing' the border is an illusion. You can't apprehend a crosser until they are in the US and as soon as they cross the line they can avoid being returned. That is were the bigger part of the problem has been for a long time now.

And this doesn't even touch on the fact that small business owners (largely GOP) don't want stricter employment enforcement either.

I'll say it again, immigration is going to be difficult to solve when there isn't really agreement on what the problem is in the first place.

Is the problem the border itself and making it more orderly? Is it the bureaucratic mess that is (both) the asylum process and the actual process to legally immigrate to the country? Or is it, from the Stephen Miller school of thought, that "we're full"? Also, how does the socioeconomic factors that exist in the origin countries factor in? Does this incoming administration have any plans there?

The punitive stuff is what excites some of the base folks, I know.... but it's ultimately not going to solve the problem in and of itself.

Edited Monday at 04:52 PM by mtutiger

[gehringer_2]

2 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

The punitive stuff is fun is what excites some folks, I know.... but it's ultimately not going to solve the problem in and of itself.

which is the sad part. So we 'blame' it all on the brown people when it's us that have created the framework within which they are just trying to do the best they can for themselves. If the country isn't going to let them in or stay, the first thing we need to do make sure the people in CA/SA understand the situation before they leverage probably everything the have to get here.

[Tigeraholic1]

12 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

the approach was mostly wrong. If you want to slow the flow, the people coming need to understand they can't stay, not that it's harder to get across - there will always be ways to get across. And in fact we have little problem interdicting people who do cross, it has been that the process after they are interdicted is broken. The dems sort of went along with theoretical discussion that border 'security' was the problem because they didn't want to face changing the asylum system because it's a progressive marker.

Bingo. Also, once the word gets out that the free meal ticket is over there will be no icentive to illegally cross. It was laughable when Biden tried to unconstitutionally allow illegals to marry americans to gain quicker citizenship.

[gehringer_2]

51 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Amazing shift

 

 

is it really, or is it just that the Biden/Obama voter didn't show up? If your people don't show up every sub group is going to look shifted to the other side. The real question is were minds changed or just voting reliability that changed.

[Edman85]

13 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I'll say it again, immigration is going to be difficult to solve when there isn't really agreement on what the problem is in the first place.

Is the problem the border itself and making it more orderly? Is it the bureaucratic mess that is (both) the asylum process and the actual process to legally immigrate to the country? Or is it, from the Stephen Miller school of thought, that "we're full"? Also, how does the socioeconomic factors that exist in the origin countries factor in? Does this incoming administration have any plans there?

The punitive stuff is what excites some of the base folks, I know.... but it's ultimately not going to solve the problem in and of itself.

Or is it the rise of authoritarianism across the world making the US a last hope for many caught in humanitarian crises?

[mtutiger]

17 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

is it really, or is it just that the Biden/Obama voter didn't show up? If your people don't show up every sub group is going to look shifted to the other side. The real question is were minds changed or just voting reliability that changed.

Differential turnout was absolutely an issue in this election, particularly in the safe states. NY, NJ, IL, etc.

But not surprised that a "For You" account didn't provide that additional context.