U.S. Presidential Primaries 2024!

[FALightFighter]

15 hours ago, sunday said:

Is Hayley electable as President?

 

12 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

We are WAY early into this whole thing... so I can't fault her for believing she has an outside chance.  In my lifetime the front runners in an open race usually don't win the nomination and she does have one things going for her - she's not Trump.  We've now had 3 elections which have shown his brand is not appealing in the general election.  He won in '16 from an EC victory while losing the popular vote.  He lost handily in '20.  His picks across the country were overwhelmingly defeated in '22 and his involvement helped keep the Senate in D hands and blunting what should have been an R tsunami.  This applies to everyone that's not Trump, though, so when DeSantis finally enters the race she and everyone else will have a tough road ahead of them from what early polling is saying.

At this point in 2007, had anyone even heard of Barack Obama? I was sort of tied up in Iraq and don't remember the posturing this early.

[DKTanker]

19 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

I just hope it is not a repeat of 2016 where Trump won the Republican race only because the number of candidates allowed him to win with out a majority.

Trump attained the nomination in 2016 because his greatest rival, Ted Cruz, was kneecapped by his senate colleagues and the GOP writ large.  Even with Romney and his grandiose Trump denouncement speech of March 2016, he expressly failed to endorse the last standing impediment to Trump's coronation, Ted Cruz.  He basically said, we don't like you Donald Trump but we have no other answers.  And why was that?  It was because Ted Cruz and Donald Trump while running with the same basic platform, a platform anathema to the establishment status quo, the GOP establishment felt Cruz much more electable in a general election.  In other words, better to lose the general election with Trump than win it with Cruz. 
Such a tremendous backfire and the harm it caused and continues to cause haunts our nation still.

[sunday]

2 hours ago, FALightFighter said:

 

At this point in 2007, had anyone even heard of Barack Obama? I was sort of tied up in Iraq and don't remember the posturing this early.

I mean, Is she considered as a natural born citizen?

[17thfabn]

2 hours ago, sunday said:

I mean, Is she considered as a natural born citizen?

Her bio says she was born in South Carolina.   So yes natural born citizen.

[Murph]

Can I say I already have campaign fatigue?

[Josh]

12 hours ago, FALightFighter said:

 

At this point in 2007, had anyone even heard of Barack Obama? I was sort of tied up in Iraq and don't remember the posturing this early.

Haley has no chance. She is running for VP. The Obama comparison I don't think is valid because there weren't two very strong candidates already in play. IMO Hillary was never that popular as a Democrat, certainly among leftists. And much unlike Obama, Haley is a known entity without popularity, not an incredibly gifted orator (whatever else you think of him) who came out of no where. Haley is basically Harris in 2020 - single digits, dead on arrival, but possibly recycled for a general election depending on who wins the nom.

 

Desantis and Trump are obviously the ones to beat. Trump has a hard core collection of fans (yet) that won't vote for anyone else. Desantis is the popular flavor de jure that isn't Trump, and being everyone's second choice is a powerful place to be in as people withdraw from the race. The question will be how many people go into the primaries without dropping out first, and how many states still keep them on the ballot after they drop out (varies by state law). I think there's no way it isn't one of them, even this far out. Historically people with double digit leads this early really do have an advantage.

I still think Trump wins this. I think Desantis looks shiny and new because he's never had to exist on a national stage and picks culture war fights every other month, but I think as soon as he's speaking at rallies, he's not going to have the same charisma Trump won over his followers with (while I think he's lost his charm, he's already made followers for life). In any case, they will maul each other through the primary season.

 

I can't decide if Trump would run independent out of spite. I think he absolutely is that petty and vindictive (and always has been), but I think he's also lazy and hates losing - and running a spoiler campaign would take some work and accepting the inevitable loss. So I'd lean towards him just letting it go after the nom and talking from the sidelines about how He Would Have Done It Better.

Biden I think will run again unfortunately. The recent bills that have been passed and the success he's had organizing the western response to Russia I think have buoyed him. I think there is still a decent chance Newsome will primary him though. Hard to say who'd win but I'd lean towards Newsom, particularly as it likely no one else joins that race to divide the vote. If Biden *doesn't* run, then obviously Harris will - and will do even worse than last time. Newsom definitely runs, probably Stacy Abrams, Klobuchar is a fair bet, Whitmore...likely a few others; there will be blood in the water with no clear front runner. A non Biden 2024 will be a very wide Dem field.

 

In the general - Trump will lose. If Trump runs independent, the GOP loses as well.

If it comes down to Desantis, it's a hard call but honestly I still think the Democrat wins, for two reasons.

First: Roe vs Wade. That is going to be an albatross on GOP politics from basically here on out. It's simple an unpopular stance amongst the majority of voters, and it's a major issue for a large percentage of them (most especially young and female). I think that's going to be a negative ~2% of the women's swing/independent voters forever lost. Desantis will likely have to take a firm position on that issue to win the primary.

Second: he will eventually have to take a position on The Big Lie during the GOP primaries, and he will either have to alienate the large sect/arguably majority of GOP voters who subscribe to the election fraud conspiracy to win the primary or else roll the dice and admit no large scale fraud occurred in order to make himself a better sell in the general election. Big Lie candidates did not do well in 2022 with swing and independent voters.

So I think the chances of Desantis navigating those two questions successfully such that he wins the GOP primary *and* wins the general election are actually problematic enough that even Biden could be capable of muddling his way through. But really a coin toss in my mind this far out; anything could happen.


I think the senate obviously flips to GOP. There's at least half a dozen dem seats that are competitive and I can't see even a single opportunity for a GOP seat to flip. It's just a horrible map for the dems and they would need a walk over to prevail (Trump winning the nom or running independent would be the only chance, IMO).

I also think the House has a decent chance to flip Dem, because the seats that were picked up in CA and NY are going to be hard to defend, and there are enough of those alone to push control back to a hair thin Dem majority.

Edited February 23 by Josh

[Steven P Allen]

14 hours ago, Josh said:

First: Roe vs Wade. That is going to be an albatross on GOP politics from basically here on out. It's simple an unpopular stance amongst the majority of voters, and it's a major issue for a large percentage of them (most especially young and female). I think that's going to be a negative ~2% of the women's swing/independent voters forever lost. Desantis will likely have to take a firm position on that issue to win the primary.

As a matter of fact, the overturn of Roe v. Wade is a problem only among a certain class of voters; others--the ones who understand that murder is wrong--are delighted about it.  The relative size of these groups is not clear, polling in biased ways notwithstanding.

[Josh]

48 minutes ago, Steven P Allen said:

As a matter of fact, the overturn of Roe v. Wade is a problem only among a certain class of voters; others--the ones who understand that murder is wrong--are delighted about it.  The relative size of these groups is not clear, polling in biased ways notwithstanding.

The people who are delighted about Dobs already were reliable GOP voters anyway. Up until Dobs, a certain type of voter that felt strongly on the issue could still ignore it. Now they can't, and they will turn out to vote in situations they previously didn't and vote against national GOP candidates that they previous would not of, just because they know now a completely GOP controlled government will make a national abortion ban given the chance. Every poll has the majority of the country, about 2/3s, pro abortion in at least some cases and a similar number against overturning Roe vs Wade. If you don't believe in polling, so be it. But I think 2022 losses substantiate the polls and I think it isn't a one time occurance; the issue will forever turn off some swing voters to the GOP in every national election going forward.

Edited February 24 by Josh

[R011]

4 hours ago, Steven P Allen said:

 

As a matter of fact, the overturn of Roe v. Wade is a problem only among a certain class of voters; others--the ones who understand that women have a right to control their own bodies--are appalled about it.  The relative size of these groups is reasonably clear.  That the facts aren't as you'd prefer doesn't make them any less true.

And the dissonance goes both ways.  People who live or correspond where the opinion is majority or overwhelmingly pro-life or pro-choice don't understand that outside their bubbles, people might have opinions that differ without being religious or political fanatics.

[Angrybk]

5 hours ago, R011 said:

As a matter of fact, the overturn of Roe v. Wade is a problem only among a certain class of voters; others--the ones who understand that women have a right to control their own bodies--are appalled about it.  The relative size of these groups is reasonably clear.  That the facts aren't as you'd prefer doesn't make them any less true.

And the dissonance goes both ways.  People who live or correspond where the opinion is majority or overwhelmingly pro-life or pro-choice don't understand that outside their bubbles, people might have opinions that differ without being religious or political fanatics.

IMHO the US argument over abortion is driven by outliers on both sides, and we need to mutually agree on a definition for when a collection of cells becomes a human (which will probably never happen). I think most USAians think that a sperm cell isn't a person and a five-month-old fetus is a person, and would make exceptions for when the fetus would be faced with certain death if it was born, rape if it was "caught" early enough, etc.

I think (as somebody who's probably more on the Lib side than most posters here) that Roe v. Wade was a messed-up attempt to try to figure out that very thorny ethical problem via the Supreme Court, when it's actually a moral question. There's pro-lifers who don't want to control womens' bodies but who think that later-stage abortion is murder, and some psycho pro-lifers who think that a woman carrying an already-dead baby to term is a morally justifiable act. I also had a girlfriend who showed me a sonogram of her couple-months-into-it abortion (not mine) and she was just "yeah that sucked, sad face!"

[Sardaukar]

Who you'd think would be prime candidate as for Democratic Party?

[Angrybk]

40 minutes ago, Sardaukar said:

Who you'd think would be prime candidate as for Democratic Party?

I think the Dems candidates problem for the past several years is their age gap. Very few viable contenders in their 50s. 

[Sardaukar]

Just now, Angrybk said:

I think the Dems candidates problem for the past several years is their age gap. Very few viable contenders in their 50s. 

Would be amusing if they could not put up anyone but Biden.

[Josh]

3 hours ago, Sardaukar said:

Who you'd think would be prime candidate as for Democratic Party?

I don’t think there’s any clear contender, other than Biden if he runs just because he’s the incumbent. Sans Biden it is a very open field, though I’d bet more on one of several blue state governors, depending on who throws their hat in.

[seahawk]

7 hours ago, Angrybk said:

IMHO the US argument over abortion is driven by outliers on both sides, and we need to mutually agree on a definition for when a collection of cells becomes a human (which will probably never happen). I think most USAians think that a sperm cell isn't a person and a five-month-old fetus is a person, and would make exceptions for when the fetus would be faced with certain death if it was born, rape if it was "caught" early enough, etc.

I think (as somebody who's probably more on the Lib side than most posters here) that Roe v. Wade was a messed-up attempt to try to figure out that very thorny ethical problem via the Supreme Court, when it's actually a moral question. There's pro-lifers who don't want to control womens' bodies but who think that later-stage abortion is murder, and some psycho pro-lifers who think that a woman carrying an already-dead baby to term is a morally justifiable act. I also had a girlfriend who showed me a sonogram of her couple-months-into-it abortion (not mine) and she was just "yeah that sucked, sad face!"

The bible answer those questions.

[BansheeOne]

I keep saying that, but somehow neither side in the American debate seems interested in the biblical notion that an embryo only turns into a human being by receiving a soul after ca. three months ...

[Rick]

37 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

I keep saying that, but somehow neither side in the American debate seems interested in the biblical notion that an embryo only turns into a human being by receiving a soul after ca. three months ...

Psalm 22:9-10

Psalm 139:13-16 

Matthew 19:14

[sunday]

Some Christians accept the findings of real, modern science.

Others cease to be Christians, but keep trying to tell those that have faith how to live their faith.

Edited February 25 by sunday

[Ivanhoe]

13 hours ago, Sardaukar said:

Would be amusing if they could not put up anyone but Biden.

I don't see the PRC allowing anyone but Biden to get the nomination.

 

[Josh]

3 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

I don't see the PRC allowing anyone but Biden to get the nomination.

 

I don't see Santa Claus allowing anyone but Trump to get the GOP nomination either.

[Josh]

8 hours ago, Rick said:

Psalm 22:9-10

Psalm 139:13-16 

Matthew 19:14

I consider any made up literary work to be as accurate as the next one, so the The Gospel Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster is as relevant IMO.

[17thfabn]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

I don't see Santa Claus allowing anyone but Trump to get the GOP nomination either.

I don't see Trump getting the nomination unless it is a repeat of 2016 with the opposition split six ways to Sunday.

Edited February 25 by 17thfabn

[Rick]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

I consider any made up literary work to be as accurate as the next one, so the The Gospel Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster is as relevant IMO.

Well, since the Bible has always, and is, at the top of the non-fiction list, you should not have anything to worry about

[Skywalkre]

On 2/23/2023 at 4:08 AM, FALightFighter said:

At this point in 2007, had anyone even heard of Barack Obama? I was sort of tied up in Iraq and don't remember the posturing this early.

I'm in the same boat... I don't quite remember how the D primaries started out other than Hillary was the presumptive nominee.

I found this great wiki page that gives us exactly what we're looking for - how did the D candidates stand in the polls throughout the election?  Looking up elsewhere apparently Obama made his announcement he was running on 10Feb07 (I had no idea it was THAT early).  However, he was showing up in the polls in late '06.  Even that far back he was getting ~15-25% in the polls, far higher than what any of the long shots in the current R campaign are getting.  With that context, yeah... maybe Haley has no shot at all and it really is just between DeSantis and Trump. 

I'd love to go see if there are any pages giving similar data for R and D candidates in the last 30 years in open primaries to see how low the eventual winner ever was...  did anyone ever start at single digits in the polls and win the nomination?

[Skywalkre]

On 2/23/2023 at 4:50 PM, Josh said:

I can't decide if Trump would run independent out of spite. I think he absolutely is that petty and vindictive (and always has been), but I think he's also lazy and hates losing - and running a spoiler campaign would take some work and accepting the inevitable loss. So I'd lean towards him just letting it go after the nom and talking from the sidelines about how He Would Have Done It Better.

There was some reporting that Trump's current campaign has little to do with winning and more to do with shielding himself from prosecution (from grey areas about being a candidate and the simple fact prosecutors have to weigh carefully charging a candidate to not appear political).  Some took his complete lack of anything campaign related for over 3 months after his announcement to support this notion.

On 2/23/2023 at 4:50 PM, Josh said:

First: Roe vs Wade. That is going to be an albatross on GOP politics from basically here on out. It's simple an unpopular stance amongst the majority of voters, and it's a major issue for a large percentage of them (most especially young and female). I think that's going to be a negative ~2% of the women's swing/independent voters forever lost. Desantis will likely have to take a firm position on that issue to win the primary.

Second: he will eventually have to take a position on The Big Lie during the GOP primaries, and he will either have to alienate the large sect/arguably majority of GOP voters who subscribe to the election fraud conspiracy to win the primary or else roll the dice and admit no large scale fraud occurred in order to make himself a better sell in the general election. Big Lie candidates did not do well in 2022 with swing and independent voters.

It's telling how now that RvW has been overturned most R politicians don't want to talk about it.  There was some speculation, per the polling, that maybe voters were forgetting about it come the midterms but the results seemed to show that this is something that's going to stay (and per my exposure to what even I admit is left-leaning media it's still a major story to this day).

Regarding the 'stolen election' nonsense... googling this right now it appears DeSantis has been mostly quiet about this but at the same time has supported plenty of candidates who believe in it.  Will be interesting to see how he comes out on this because when he does make his announcement this will be something the media will hound him about (with good reason).  This was another issue that pollsters weren't sure about how serious voters would take it come the midterms but after what we saw anyone seriously still trying to campaign on the national scene arguing the '20 election was stolen is just asking to lose (and I'm thankful for that... to espouse that level of stupid you don't deserve to hold office).