Jump to content

U.S. Presidential Primaries 2024!


Skywalkre

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

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

Why would the PRC want the POTUS whose administration has been the toughest on them in the last two decades to get the nomination (and have a decent chance to win)?  There are folks who are arguing the top levels of the PRC are all kinds of dysfunction... but this takes it to a new level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 952
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

1 hour ago, 17thfabn said:

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

I think that seems likely though. I think if it was just Desantis, he would more likely win. But it seems clear there will be at least a couple serious contenders as well as several more non serious ones.

Edited by Josh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Why would the PRC want the POTUS whose administration has been the toughest on them in the last two decades to get the nomination (and have a decent chance to win)?  There are folks who are arguing the top levels of the PRC are all kinds of dysfunction... but this takes it to a new level.

Because Hunter laptop! Even though Biden has not rolled back a single Trump era policy vis a vis China and instituted a tech ban that went rather far outside what Trump had ever even proposed…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

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.

 

That is a good point that I hadn’t considered. It’s probably in his personal legal interests to be a presidential candidate post nomination even if he loses (or at least it is likely he perceives it as so - honestly I think he’s correct). He certainly never cared about the GOP, so it’s not like he cares if they are thrown under the bus once they have outlived their usefulness. I’d lean towards him swallowing his pride and running independent if he doesn’t get the nom, taking that into account.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Josh said:

 

That is a good point that I hadn’t considered. It’s probably in his personal legal interests to be a presidential candidate post nomination even if he loses (or at least it is likely he perceives it as so - honestly I think he’s correct). He certainly never cared about the GOP, so it’s not like he cares if they are thrown under the bus once they have outlived their usefulness. I’d lean towards him swallowing his pride and running independent if he doesn’t get the nom, taking that into account.

I'm trying to find information on "Sore Loser Laws" which prevent some one from running in a  primary then running as an independent or third party if they lose.

In one of the debates during the 2016 Republican primaries the candidates where asked if they would pledge not to run third party and support the parties nominee. All agreed except....... guess who?  Yes, Trump.

It looks like most states have sore loser laws. This article is from 2015. So laws may have changed, and there have been legal challenges. 

"According to a 2011 Georgetown Law Review article by Emory associate law professor Michael Kang, all but three states have such laws on the books – though Kang’s research was focused more on congressional elections, he told CNN in an email."

https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/13/politics/trump-third-party-run-barriers/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Why would the PRC want the POTUS whose administration has been the toughest on them in the last two decades to get the nomination (and have a decent chance to win)?  There are folks who are arguing the top levels of the PRC are all kinds of dysfunction... but this takes it to a new level.

Is it true that you use WH talking points for crib notes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Is it true that you use WH talking points for crib notes?

If it was so easily disproved you could have just mentioned how I was wrong instead of relying on that pathetic insult shit like you always turn to.

This administration has kept up the tariffs put up by Trump.  They've added the semiconductor ban and are working on expanding that further.  Biden himself has been adamant about us coming to the defense of Taiwan and there's been bipartisan support in Congress the last few years to increase and shift defense spending to the Pacific (technically this last part isn't him).

So... fill me in, genius.  How was my statement wrong?

Edited by Skywalkre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

I'm trying to find information on "Sore Loser Laws" which prevent some one from running in a  primary then running as an independent or third party if they lose.

In one of the debates during the 2016 Republican primaries the candidates where asked if they would pledge not to run third party and support the parties nominee. All agreed except....... guess who?  Yes, Trump.

It looks like most states have sore loser laws. This article is from 2015. So laws may have changed, and there have been legal challenges. 

"According to a 2011 Georgetown Law Review article by Emory associate law professor Michael Kang, all but three states have such laws on the books – though Kang’s research was focused more on congressional elections, he told CNN in an email."

https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/13/politics/trump-third-party-run-barriers/index.html

Interesting. I’ll have to research the subject more. In any case, I think all that such laws would prevent is the candidate being on the ballot-I’m pretty sure you can still run a campaign as a write In candidate, though that obviously reduces one’s chances of winning enormously. However senator Murkowski won just such a campaign in Alaska, I think six years ago. For Trumps purposes, being a write in candidate with no realistic chance of winning would still achieve his goals of spiting Desantis (or whoever his main opponent ends up being) and allowing him to portray any indictment or prosecution as a political effort to sideline him. It does rather complicate any DOJ investigation, certainly, though weather it would work as an absolute shield through 2024 is questionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

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?

Obama got his launch to Democrat prominence when he delivered the 2004 DNC keynote.  At the time he was running for an Illinois Senate seat. When he announce for president, he had been a senator for less than two years.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harold Jones said:

Obama got his launch to Democrat prominence when he delivered the 2004 DNC keynote.  At the time he was running for an Illinois Senate seat. When he announce for president, he had been a senator for less than two years.  

Which means the powers that be in the Democrat Party were looking long term to bring him along. How many state Senators are there in the U.S.?Just in Ohio, Kentucky & Indiana combined there are around 120. To have some one who wasn't a U.S. Senator or governor give the speech is a big boost for that person.

If I remember correctly, Bill Clinton gave a DNC keynote speech when he was a little known governor of Arkansas. This raised his national prominence. Was one of the first big steps to him being president. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the way to play the abortion issue is to point out that if you want to fix the problem, you need to go reeeeeeeing to your state legislature, because the Feds have said "nuffink to do wiv us".

So if someone wants to make it a national election issue, that can be shown to have exactly no relevance in any state that has legislation which matches their whiney preference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not going away at the Federal level anytime soon.  Litigation is still being done to further curtail it (there's a current major case challenging the FDA approval of a pill-based abortion that's been legal for several decades) and D candidates will continue to make it a rallying point that they'll push for Fed legislation to codify abortion rights (which they failed to do all those decades it was legal).

If anything this isn't the end of the issue... it's just the beginning.

Edited by Skywalkre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's beyond stupid. There are far more important issues to deal with at federal level. For example, one could start with codifying a national standard for police training, and even if you can't enforce it, you could score local police forces using suitable criteria to shame them into improving.

You might even take the FBI as a baseline standard. 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DB said:

Surely the way to play the abortion issue is to point out that if you want to fix the problem, you need to go reeeeeeeing to your state legislature, because the Feds have said "nuffink to do wiv us".

So if someone wants to make it a national election issue, that can be shown to have exactly no relevance in any state that has legislation which matches their whiney preference.

No, because GOP judges are already doing things like preventing medications used for early terminations (well within say the FLA 15 week law) from being available nationwide. To the extent the GOP has any consistent platform in MAGA times (it hasn’t bothered to publish a platform in the last two elections), it is allowing guns nationwide and banning abortion nationwide (states rights died with Roe on this issue) and the Evangelical faction will hold them to it or withdraw support. It’s a very black and white choice.

Edited by Josh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything, the country is swinging further away from the GOP on the issue:

 

https://www.prri.org/research/abortion-attitudes-in-a-post-roe-world-findings-from-the-50-state-2022-american-values-atlas/?cid=eml_firstread_20230224

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/

 

The evangelicals will make every GOP candidate die on this hill, and it will be a drag on Republicans in all swings states. The GOP has won the popular vote once in two decades; I’d bet heavily that extends past 2030 even if they get the White House by EC yet again.

Edited by Josh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt that the education system is doing an effective job of objectifying people and convincing three generations now that they are disposable.  The system also has succeeded in removing any semblance of responsibility from women, who claim to want control over their bodies but willingly and gleefully throw it away as soon as they spread their legs.   The entire issue is a function of leftist ideology eliminating the value of human life.

However, there remain enough of us who realize that trend and resist being changed from humans into commodities to be disposed of when inconvenient.

And, for the record, I am a faithful Christian, but I am no "Evangelical," as that word has been changed into an epithet.  Funny how the left works that way:  demonization of people who are inconvenient--like babies, the aged and infirm in nursing homes, and political rivals--through the method of twisting the meaning of words. 

Good job sticking with your program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steven P Allen said:

And, for the record, I am a faithful Christian, but I am no "Evangelical," as that word has been changed into an epithet.  Funny how the left works that way:  demonization of people who are inconvenient--like babies, the aged and infirm in nursing homes, and political rivals--through the method of twisting the meaning of words. 

Good job sticking with your program.

If Evangelical has been demonized, it is because the Evangelical movement politicized itself in the 80's. Had it not remade itself into a political movement and attempted to apply its morals to US law, no doubt it would be ignored by politicians on the left. One rarely hears anything political about the Catholic Church, which has very similar moral beliefs, because Rome doesn't politicize its footprint in the US. IMO, the Evangelical movement made its own bed a long time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steven P Allen said:

There is no doubt that the education system is doing an effective job of objectifying people and convincing three generations now that they are disposable.  The system also has succeeded in removing any semblance of responsibility from women, who claim to want control over their bodies but willingly and gleefully throw it away as soon as they spread their legs.   The entire issue is a function of leftist ideology eliminating the value of human life.

However, there remain enough of us who realize that trend and resist being changed from humans into commodities to be disposed of when inconvenient.

Do believe in birth control as a reasonable method of preventing abortions and would you approve of simply making it free and available to anyone who asked for it to prevent abortions? Or is spreading ones legs the unacceptable behavior in the first place? Do men have any responsibilities in that regard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Do believe in birth control as a reasonable method of preventing abortions and would you approve of simply making it free and available to anyone who asked for it to prevent abortions? Or is spreading ones legs the unacceptable behavior in the first place? Do men have any responsibilities in that regard?

I'm not Steven.

Birth control is acceptable.

I don't approve of making the government confiscate money from taxpayers to provide birth control to anyone who asked for it.

"Spreading ones legs" outside of marriage is one among many unacceptable behaviors, both for men and for women. But your side of the debate is the side that wanted to remove all of the stigma from poor choices.

I want to do X meme.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DB said:

It's beyond stupid. There are far more important issues to deal with at federal level. For example, one could start with codifying a national standard for police training, and even if you can't enforce it, you could score local police forces using suitable criteria to shame them into improving.

You might even take the FBI as a baseline standard. 🤣

You mean set FBI at zero and see how much better other law enforcement services are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DB said:

It's beyond stupid. There are far more important issues to deal with at federal level.

Not if you believe, as many do, that abortion is murder.  It's hard to argue that almost any other issue is as important s stopping hundreds of thousands of child murders per year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Josh said:

If Evangelical has been demonized, it is because the Evangelical movement politicized itself in the 80's. Had it not remade itself into a political movement and attempted to apply its morals to US law, no doubt it would be ignored by politicians on the left. One rarely hears anything political about the Catholic Church, which has very similar moral beliefs, because Rome doesn't politicize its footprint in the US. IMO, the Evangelical movement made its own bed a long time ago.

Oh, the RCC in the US has certainly made itself political.  ust read some of Murph's cpommentary if you doubt it.  It's just that it's mostly come down of the correct side of the politcal divide so most media don't mention them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, R011 said:

Oh, the RCC in the US has certainly made itself political.  ust read some of Murph's cpommentary if you doubt it.  It's just that it's mostly come down of the correct side of the politcal divide so most media don't mention them.

Catholics don't  seem to have ever developed an equivalent to the "Moral Majority" or have political operatives on the level of Jerry Falwell and all of the various decedents there of (Billy Graham, Franklin Graham, etc). I can't think of any Catholic equivalent of those personalities. That said I would expect their voting habits and opinions to be broadly similar.

Edited by Josh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Josh said:

Catholics don't  seem to have ever developed an equivalent to the "Moral Majority" or have political operatives on the level of Jerry Falwell and all of the various decedents there of. I can't think of any Catholic equivalent. That said I would expect their voting habits and opinions to be broadly similar.

Why should there be?  There's already a political Party suppotring the Church's official secular agenda.  There used to be very active and imfluential Catholic organizations pushing their moral egenda, but the Church decided that "social justice" was more important while most Ammerican Catholics decided they weren't interested in the Church's teachings, just the ritual when convenient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...