U.S. Presidential Primaries 2024!

[Strannik]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

If you think any non MAGA person should leave the Republican party and part with the sinking ship that is the Trumpist absorbed GOP, I'm hardly going to disagree.

I think people should escape this D/R duopoly asap.  If it takes Trump as a wrecking ball to break this system - I'll take it.

You don't complain about rust and shit on the implement to achieve the greater good.

[Josh]

19 minutes ago, Strannik said:

I think people should escape this D/R duopoly asap.  If it takes Trump as a wrecking ball to break this system - I'll take it.

You don't complain about rust and shit on the implement to achieve the greater good.

Trump isn't a solution to the two party system; he's merely staged a hostile take over of one of the parties. I'll grant you he does want to take a wrecking ball to the executive branch of federal government by making all departments and employees political appointees subservient to the president (him), but inevitably that just means the next Democratic president can rebuild it back to whatever they want as well.

[Josh]

30 minutes ago, Strannik said:

You don't know what "yellow journalism" is?  This is the meaning - she is using standard cheap tabloid style scummy propaganda gotcha slogans.

I've heard the term, but sans the "journalism" part I assumed a different meaning given the context and your previous posts.

[Strannik]

4 minutes ago, Josh said:

I've heard the term, but sans the "journalism" part I assumed a different meaning given the context and your previous posts.

Fine.  Although that was quite a reach to connect it with China related racial slur.  And it's not like she is the most anti-China among that crowd.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Strannik

[Strannik]

11 minutes ago, Josh said:

Trump isn't a solution to the two party system; he's merely staged a hostile take over of one of the parties. I'll grant you he does want to take a wrecking ball to the executive branch of federal government by making all departments and employees political appointees subservient to the president (him), but inevitably that just means the next Democratic president can rebuild it back to whatever they want as well.

The way I see it's literally impossible to break the duopoly without a charismatic leader who is either a billionaire or has selfless billionaire friends.  And even then it's very hard to achieve under the usual circumstances. 

Luckily current state of economic/fiscal affairs is not the "usual" one.  The proof is actually in Trump: in the normal times his brusque, brutish and clownish charisma would never compensate his wonderfully horrible character and specious business renome, yet here we are.  Why?  Because people are tired of bs, they sense it, they see politicians lie day in/out and so they voted for a charlatan  who at least says truth 50% or not afraid to break PC taboos.

Do you remember how agog MSM were when Trum actually attempted to do what he has promised?  Isn't it just a perfect indicator of politician's expected integrity- omg, he actually meant it!

 Anyway, back to your "Dema will rebuild" - maybe, but hopefully not.

Look at the current Israel/Gaza war, well more like massacre.  Before saying something against AIPAC or Israel would brand you as anti semite with all the consequences  and now this bs taboo is broken, lots if folks are speaking out and I bet you this won't be put back into the bottle.

Trump fucked up his 1st term, but I read this time they plan to make sure there will be no regime guardians, pardon  me, I meant  "adults in the room" and perhaps, just perhaps some positive things would be allowed to happen. 

Which would give impetus to the 3rd party or independent candidate after to follow up.  Because at least half of the Dems are not happy about their party and if the party doesn't change then maybe we will see defections (from both sides) into something like Common Sense Party.

Pardon the rant 😉

[Josh]

What exactly did Trump accomplish outside of some executive orders and tax cuts? What was his impact to the system?

As for destroying the two party system, first Trump clearly isn't that and second I'd argue you need to actually come up with a *better* system if you're going to tear down the previous one, or else nothing is gained. Trump's long term goal seems to be...Trump.

[Strannik]

17 minutes ago, Josh said:

What exactly did Trump accomplish outside of some executive orders and tax cuts? What was his impact to the system?

As for destroying the two party system, first Trump clearly isn't that and second I'd argue you need to actually come up with a *better* system if you're going to tear down the previous one, or else nothing is gained. Trump's long term goal seems to be...Trump.

I said he wasted his 1st term.

And I said he is an implement.  I wish there was a sane, progressive (in a true meaning of the word, not voke) and somewhat honest candidate, but there is none.

Btw, why do you think Rs are so pro Trump?  Or let me rephrase  - how desperate one has to be for a gulp of fresh air to vote for him?

And the "better" argument - that's a standard fallacy trope of "throwing away your vote" if voting 3rd party.  And so it never happens.  Awfully convenient, no?

[Josh]

1 minute ago, Strannik said:

Btw, why do you think Rs are so pro Trump?  Or let me rephrase  - how desperate one has to be for a gulp of fresh air to vote for him?

I think voting for Trump requires a steady diet of conservative media with no exposure to anything else, combined with a certain level of naivety to believe an obviously narcissistic billionaire who was formerly a registered democrat has any interest in conservative politics or helping the working class.

[Strannik]

26 minutes ago, Josh said:

I think voting for Trump requires a steady diet of conservative media with no exposure to anything else, combined with a certain level of naivety to believe an obviously narcissistic billionaire who was formerly a registered democrat has any interest in conservative politics or helping the working class.

So essentially up to 40% of voting public is brainwashed/deluded due to self selected information choices?   But I thought Fox is no longer supporting Trump. 

It seems too simplistic. 

[Strannik]

As for GOP DEBATE- apparently not many care:

 

[Josh]

5 hours ago, Strannik said:

So essentially up to 40% of voting public is brainwashed/deluded due to self selected information choices?   But I thought Fox is no longer supporting Trump. 

It seems too simplistic. 

I think there is and continues to be a large disaffected portion of the US population who voted for Trump in 2016 because they had valid concerns that were not being addressed and they wanted to crash the system (and Hillary was the worst candidate in a couple decades). That said, I do believe anyone who continued to vote for him in 2020 had unrealistic expectations.

Edited November 10, 2023 by Josh

[Strannik]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

I think there is and continues to be a large disaffected portion of the US population who voted for Trump in 2016 because they had valid concerns that were not being addressed and they wanted to crash the system (and Hillary was the worst candidate in a couple decades). That said, I do believe anyone who continued to vote for him in 2020 had unrealistic expectations.

Since they are willing to vote for Trump, it's safe to deduce Biden has failed to address their concerns, right? 

So, what upside do they have with him in his second term? That he will finally lose it and starts blabbering on a stage in front of cameras?  And why Dems are so afraid to select somebody else? 

[seahawk]

Trump won the debate. And it is beautiful to see that he is winning without doing any of the normal party chores a candidate has to go. He should run as an independent and smash the Demorats and the GOP.

[Josh]

8 hours ago, Strannik said:

Since they are willing to vote for Trump, it's safe to deduce Biden has failed to address their concerns, right? 

No doubt, I just don't think Trump has either. My impression is that a lot of Trump voters like his style and charisma more than the details of his policies, for those voters that are driven by the man and not the party (I think there are still plenty of Republicans who just would vote down any Democrat, and especially Biden, regardless of which R candidate was running).

For this election I don't think anyone is expecting improvement - we've seen both candidates at work. People are voting for who they think will make things less worse.
 

8 hours ago, Strannik said:

So, what upside do they have with him in his second term? That he will finally lose it and starts blabbering on a stage in front of cameras?  And why Dems are so afraid to select somebody else? 

Biden's main attraction is that he's not Trump. I think Trump is the only Republican he could possibly beat, because Trump himself is also old and falling apart mentally. I think most every corner of the Democratic party would rather have anyone but Biden, but since Biden is running, the party elite were afraid to have a bruising primary battle. Traditionally, US political parties have almost always backed their incumbent president, with only a few challenges here and there (technically there was a challenger and is a new challenger now, but not a serious one).

 

It will be another razor thin margin of voting, barring one of the candidates dropping out for health reasons.

[Strannik]

7 hours ago, Josh said:

No doubt, I just don't think Trump has either. My impression is that a lot of Trump voters like his style and charisma more than the details of his policies, for those voters that are driven by the man and not the party (I think there are still plenty of

In my thirty years of observing POTUS elections it was always about charisma and 1-2 issues which usually never get fulfilled anyway.  And this is for the 40-50% that are independent/willing to cross party lines.

How many times for instance Rs promised to take care of illegal immigration or Ds to fix healthcare.

So nothing new here other than perhaps a much stronger image of a maverick that he is projecting. And saying shit is of course not the dame as doing it, but he clearly is willing to break establishment policies and taboos (sometimes in violation of laws) and had tried in few instances to actually fulfill his promises.

Maybe that's why people vote for him because they (hopelessly) want the policies that elites who capture the both parties refusing to execute?

 

7 hours ago, Josh said:

1.  Biden's main attraction is that he's not Trump. I think Trump is the only Republican he could possibly beat, because Trump himself is also old and falling apart mentally.

2. I think most every corner of the Democratic party would rather have anyone but Biden, but since Biden is running, the party elite were afraid to have a bruising primary battle.

3. Traditionally, US political parties have almost always backed their incumbent president, with only a few challenges here and there ...

You don't think your #1 is in direct contradiction with #2?

What if Trump drops out - health or whatever?  Then Ds are toast according to your logic.  This just doesn't make sense.

And that's  on top of the polls that are not exactly flattering to Biden

So, where is exactly a downside to a non-Biden candidate?

Unless there is a surprise Biden dropping out and a surprise candidate replacing him.

Re:#3  you would think Sanders/Clinton thing would have taught Ds, but apparently the party leadership has very specific goals on mind...

Edited November 10, 2023 by Strannik

[Josh]

2 hours ago, Strannik said:

In my thirty years of observing POTUS elections it was always about charisma and 1-2 issues which usually never get fulfilled anyway.  And this is for the 40-50% that are independent/willing to cross party lines.

Actually I’m in agreement with you on that.

 

2 hours ago, Strannik said:

How many times for instance Rs promised to take care of illegal immigration or Ds to fix healthcare.

sometimes it almost seems like there’s a gentleman arrangement where both sides spot each other not because they are opposed, but because they both want to keep their respective bases riled up. I don’t believe that, it hits just petty politics and divided government, but if there were conspiracy theories to this effect it would not surprise me.

 

2 hours ago, Strannik said:

So nothing new here other than perhaps a much stronger image of a maverick that he is projecting. And saying shit is of course not the dame as doing it, but he clearly is willing to break establishment policies and taboos (sometimes in violation of laws) and had tried in few instances to actually fulfill his promises.

No argument. I would just say my impression is that any norms he broke were for things he personally wanted and not those of his voters. I think there is a cynical Republican or two on this board that recognizes that about him and simply is willing to use that as a means to end. I can appreciate someone who is at least conscious of that, but I don’t think many people on the R side appreciate that Trump would love to tear the constitution up and be president for life.

2 hours ago, Strannik said:

Maybe that's why people vote for him because they (hopelessly) want the policies that elites who capture the both parties refusing to execute?

I think it is less complicated than that in most cases, but I’ve already attempted to guess at voter motives far more than I should.

2 hours ago, Strannik said:

 

You don't think your #1 is in direct contradiction with #2?

No, because #1 is more of a voter decision and #2 is more of a party/potential candidate decision. I think Newsom is definitely maneuvering to be a fallback or run in 2028, but he doesn’t want to pick a fight with an incumbent president who’s all in.

2 hours ago, Strannik said:

What if Trump drops out - health or whatever?  Then Ds are toast according to your logic.  This just doesn't make sense.

honestly yes I believe that Trump dropping out who screw Biden. And I think Biden dropping out would screw Trump. In my opinion, they are both the weakest potential candidates of their respective parties.

2 hours ago, Strannik said:

And that's  on top of the polls that are not exactly flattering to Biden

he’s definitely struggling and that is why many Ds want him gone, myself included. That said the most recent election seems to indicate that the polls might not be a fair metric. Historically that has usually been the case over a year away.

2 hours ago, Strannik said:

So, where is exactly a downside to a non-Biden candidate?

nothing as far as I’m concerned.

2 hours ago, Strannik said:

Unless there is a surprise Biden dropping out and a surprise candidate replacing him.

one can only hope. Ditto Trump, for that matter.

2 hours ago, Strannik said:

Re:#3  you would think Sanders/Clinton thing would have taught Ds, but apparently the party leadership has very specific goals on mind...

Sanders and Clinton were not incumbents, unless you mean Bill Clinton, who easily won his second election.

[Strannik]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

sometimes it almost seems like there’s a gentleman arrangement where both sides spot each other not because they are opposed, but because they both want to keep their respective bases riled up. I don’t believe that, it hits just petty politics and divided government, but if there were conspiracy theories to this effect it would not surprise me.

the simpler explanation would be: they don't bother because fixing these issues properly is hard, especially decoupling the HC from work perks - could possibly hurt some regular folks who would experience the decrease in quality, budget would incur significant costs, but still not impossible and not doing it is not excusable. 

Fixing immigration imo, is an order of magnitude easier, but "the business of America is business" and Rs have been screwing their base for that reason for several generations now...

1 hour ago, Josh said:

...any norms he broke were for things he personally wanted and not those of his voters. I think there is a cynical Republican or two on this board that recognizes that about him and simply is willing to use that as a means to end. I can appreciate someone who is at least conscious of that, but I don’t think many people on the R side appreciate that Trump would love to tear the constitution up and be president for life.

Oh, we have already established that he is a narcissist whose life examination belongs in the psych textbooks, so par for the course... 

 

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Quote

Maybe that's why people vote for him because they (hopelessly) want the policies that elites who capture the both parties refusing to execute?

I think it is less complicated than that in most cases, but I’ve already attempted to guess at voter motives far more than I should.

I honestly don't see any other possible explanation.  If you are an independent/independent minded D or R and after voting D/R a few times still seeing your life continue to go to shit and multiple prezs/congresses are just paying lip service - you likely become really desperate and if a charismatic charlatan comes to town what do you got to lose?

1 hour ago, Josh said:

No, because #1 is more of a voter decision and #2 is more of a party/potential candidate decision. I think Newsom is definitely maneuvering to be a fallback or run in 2028, but he doesn’t want to pick a fight with an incumbent president who’s all in.

here I am not sure I am following - are you saying that D hopefuls are afraid to incur Biden's wrath by challenging him? 

But even if he wins primaries, they could come back for the next term (he is not Hillary, likely he would be a non-figure  in 4 yrs) or (and I am not really familiar with the internal party power shenanigans) are you saying that Biden would be able to kill their future in the party? 

And even if so, why would party leadership tie themselves to a high risk candidate despite being incumbent.  Dem base supposedly supports fresh blood according to the polls 2:1, so no danger there.  Just seems to me that Ds elite are totally illogical and self defeating.

With Rs it's completely different - Trump beats all others on charisma, grass root support is overwhelming and passionate (reasonable or not, and what is a reason in that situation anyway?) 

 

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Sanders and Clinton were not incumbents, unless you mean Bill Clinton, who easily won his second election.

You are right, it's just HC was positioned as basically an heiress and incumbent.  Almost a Freudian slip from my side 

Edited November 11, 2023 by Strannik

[Josh]

With regards to Biden not being primary challenged by a major competitor…the fear isn’t Biden’s revenge (Trump’s revenge is definitely a concern in the GOP) . The concern is that Biden as the incumbent is just popular enough that any attempt to unseat him wounds him or the potential candidate that replaces him enough that the GOP wins. Like it or not, he has more name recognition than any democrat that isn’t Obama, Hillary, or Bernie. All of which are non starters for different reasons. So sure, you could tear into Biden…but if you lost against him or you lost the general election, you would be known as the Democrat who gave Trump the election. That’s a huge pucker factor. If Biden had done the right thing and stepped down, I think a lot of people would have challenged Kamala. But no one wanted to try to unseat the incumbent because failure at any juncture ends your political career and dooms your party. It is a lot easier to hope Biden wins and wait to run in 2028 as a savior of what Trump will unleash if he wins, than challenge Biden now and be remembered the one who fucked things up.

 

Voters obviously feel a bit differently. But the party elite, and more over anyone with the clout to run against Biden, aren’t risking that primary fight.

 

The GOP ironically is in the opposite position: it has a bunch of establishment people willing to fight for the nomination, but a voter base unwilling to accept them.

 

A truly batshit crazy election even by US standards. I think after this, Trump is no longer a candidate and things swing a little closer to “normal “, though polarization will continue to accelerate due to the media.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Josh

[Strannik]

1 minute ago, Josh said:

With regards to Biden not being primary challenged by a major competitor…the fear isn’t Biden’s revenge (Trump’s revenge is definitely a concern in the GOP) . The concern is that Biden as the incumbent is just popular enough that any attempt to unseat him wounds him or the potential candidate that replaces him. Like it or not, he has more name recognition than any democrat that isn’t Obama, Hillary, or Bernie. All of which are non starters for different reasons. So sure, you could tear into Biden…but if you lost against him or you lost the general election you would be known as the Democrat who gave Trump the election. That’s a huge pucker factor. If Biden had done the right thing and stepped down, I think a lot of people wouhave challenged Kamala. But no one wanted to try to unseat the incumbent because failure at any juncture ends your political career and dooms your party. It’s a CB lot easier to hope Biden wins and wait to run in 2028 as a savior of what Trump will unleash if he wins.

So you are of an opinion that Biden has an agency and can not be persuaded by it's own ilk?

And even if so - aren't the risks (as Dems paint 2nd Trump's term as a coming of Antichrist) are worthy to disregard all the usual blame game worries/politics?

Anyway, that's just another argument why I want to see this duopoly gone for good...

[Josh]

41 minutes ago, Strannik said:

So you are of an opinion that Biden has an agency and can not be persuaded by it's own ilk?

And even if so - aren't the risks (as Dems paint 2nd Trump's term as a coming of Antichrist) are worthy to disregard all the usual blame game worries/politics?

Anyway, that's just another argument why I want to see this duopoly gone for good...

Yes, I think Biden is risking his party’s position in an act of shear hubris. And as the incumbent president he’s just hard enough to primary that no significant challenger is going to waste their political career trying.

I think another dynamic no one is talking about yet but that any long term political strategist is thinking about is: a post Trump GOP. Republicans have been losing in every non Trump election since 2016. 2020 was actually the best show, even if Trump lost. Traditionally Republicans have done better off presidential years, but that has been reversed ever since 2016. I believe the stats show that this is because there’s a large number of people who vote for Trump who are more loyal to him than they are to the GOP. Some are independents, some are registered Republicans, believe it or not something like 8% were Obama voters. But after Trump is gone, and it seems hard to imagine this isn’t his last election win or lose, there are probably a lot of Republican leaning voters from 2016 and 2020 that just stop voting. Or at least who’s vote is up for grabs.

The big Democratic names know that. They can pick a fight now, and take a lot of risk, or they can easily swoop into the president’s office in 2028 whether Trump wins or loses and let Biden take the loss, if necessary.

 

ETA: basically as a consequence of demographics and Trump polarization of the electorate, once Trump is gone the Republican Party likely collapses. If not in 2028, then post 2030 census when demographics further erode rural state voting power in the House and Electoral college.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Josh

[Strannik]

31 minutes ago, Josh said:

ETA: basically as a consequence of demographics and Trump polarization of the electorate, once Trump is gone the Republican Party likely collapses. If not in 2028, then post 2030 census when demographics further erode rural state voting power in the House and Electoral college.

And that's when likely at least two parties will appear instead of GOP.

I always think if Trump could managed so easily to hijack GOP with all his negatives why can't there be a better Trump.  He could not only take over and remake GOP, but get indies and some Dems and win by a landslide. Alas...

Another question - why isn't there a maverick in Dem party.  Looks to me as Dems are as loyal in their allegiance as North Koreans

 

Edited November 11, 2023 by Strannik

[Josh]

2 minutes ago, Strannik said:

And that's when likely at least two parties will appear instead of GOP.

I always think if Trump could managed so easily to hijack GOP with all his negatives why can't there be a better Trump.

He could not only take over and remake GOP, but get indies and some Dems and win by a landslide. Alas...

Another question - why isn't there a maverick in Dem party.  Looks to me as Dems are as rigid as North Koreans.

 

I think it’s important to note that Trump is not a third party - he’s just a hijack of an existing party. I don’t expect his eventual demise, now or a decade from now, to create third parties. It will harden some GOP voters and make some not vote, but historically the US has had periods of one party being dominant, and I expect that to happen post trump rather than a new party asserting itself.

[Strannik]

16 minutes ago, Josh said:

and I expect that to happen post trump rather than a new party asserting itself.

Under normal circumstances I would agree as Dems are more mainstream and acceptable to electorate.  But in the time of continued diminishing economic climate for 75+%  population and possible strategic level implications war within 5-8 yrs the normal pattern of events likely won't be taking place...

[Josh]

27 minutes ago, Strannik said:

Under normal circumstances I would agree as Dems are more mainstream and acceptable to electorate.  But in the time of continued diminishing economic climate for 75+%  population and possible strategic level implications war within 5-8 yrs the normal pattern of events likely won't be taking place...

However you feel about FDR, people in need dug his fireside chats. I doubt tax cuts are going to resonate in an economic decline regardless of economic theory; the voting tendency will be to each the rich.

[Strannik]

11 hours ago, Josh said:

However you feel about FDR, people in need dug his fireside chats. I doubt tax cuts are going to resonate in an economic decline regardless of economic theory; the voting tendency will be to each the rich.

You'll need to unpack this.

I feel like you are assuming/suggesting that tax cuts (which Rs are generally fond of) will be a game changer.  They won't  be, can't be sustained in the current fiscal climate without higher inflation and I never implied that in my previous post.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Strannik