U.S. Federal Elections 2024, Presidential, Senate and U.S. House of Representatives

[Josh]

The Florida Supreme court upheld the states six week abortion ban, but also allowed the referendum (60% threshold) to take place in November. Those two things together are probably a little damaging for Republicans in the state. At this point Florida is fairly red, so I do not see a major national impact on the presidential level, but I could easily see this playing badly for Rick Scott, who won by less than 1% in 2018. Florida is a lot more red six years later, but these abortion referendums tend to generate a lot of voter turnout (though whether that would really matter in a presidential year is a coin toss at best). But it certainly is a sub optimal decision for the GOP: an unpopluar law stands, and the ability to take it away is enabled.

Edited April 1 by Josh

[Skywalkre]

On 3/31/2024 at 2:11 PM, Josh said:

I think that is a fair assessment - both that VPs are meaningless and that money is more a of a measuring stick than an effector. I miss the old 538 site; they actually used small donation money as an adjustment variable in one of their polling average models because they felt it was a good gauge of enthusiasm. And as much as people like me say that Dems are not enthusiastic for Biden (anecdotally, I have not done a study or anything), the money donations seem to indicate that if they are not enthusiastic for Biden, they are at least a bit enthusiastic for not Trump. But I think the flip side of that is that Trump voters might have just been exhausted by all the various donation drives (stop the steal, player cards, indictment donations, meme stock, bibles, etc). There probably is still enthusiasm to vote but perhaps less enthusiasm to spend yet more money.

I suspect November is going to be impossible to predict this year; there are just too many outlining variables.

Yeah, it's a shame what became of 538.

Speaking of folks not caring yet, back on Super Tuesday there was a front page post on reddit highlighting a poll where the pollsters initially asked what folks thought of Trump.  He got his x% for support... and then the pollsters apparently pointed out various things he's said/done in the last few months.  His support dropped like 10-15%.  Your average voter just isn't paying that much attention yet (and probably won't til right before the election).

[Skywalkre]

A few thoughts on the initial post...

On 3/11/2024 at 10:42 AM, 17thfabn said:

Joe Biden

...

Many believe he is just a figure head and behind the scenes administration officials are really running the country. 

...

inflation

The figurehead thing is something I've only seen on far Right sites/outlets.  Despite the derision the MSM gets here on TN there are still plenty of reporters out there who try to give an honest assessment of things.  We've seen that with coverage of Biden's deteriorating physical condition.  I have yet to hear any serious notion that Biden is just a figurehead/puppet getting his orders/strings pulled from elsewhere.  Yes, he's an elderly individual who has his cognitive moments... but so is Trump and the same folks (especially here on TN) don't play up Trump's miscues at all.  Just... typical double-standard BS.

As for inflation, Biden hasn't done all that much to impact it.  He will definitely get held accountable by voters for it, though.  It's just an unfortunate reality of our system that voters always hold the people currently sitting in DC at fault for bad economic times regardless of their role.  If anyone should be held accountable it's Trump more than Biden.  His actions in the last year of office helped fan the flames of inflation.

On 3/11/2024 at 10:42 AM, 17thfabn said:

Donald Trump

...

He is an insurrectionist. If January 6th 2021 was in insurrection, it was the most inept insurrection in history. You can find plenty of quotes by other politicians on the left saying the same things Trump said on January 6th. You can interpret them favorably or unfavorably based on your political leanings. As far as I know there is no smoking gun where Trump said go riot at the capitol.

I've always said he bears full responsibility for Jan 6 for one simple reason - he held a rally over the lie of a stolen election.  That lie was evident weeks before the rally happened.  If he had an ounce of humility (which he doesn't) he would have cancelled that rally.  He still went on with it.

But, for the sake of argument let's throw out Jan 6.  Let's say it never even happened! 

Here on TN folks love to point out the missteps, fuck-ups, and general stupidity of the Left.  There are certainly plenty of those things to point out.  Yet, almost on a daily basis, we have folks still referencing and believing in the blatantly idiotic notion that 2020 was stolen and voter fraud is widespread... and no one here on TN says a damn thing.  Believing in the stolen election is still a litmus test to be a true believer.  Trump has ostracized major politicians and world leaders over acknowledging that Biden won in 2020. 

It goes without saying (but the sad reality is it has to keep being said) that there have been countless investigations, court proceedings, analysis... and they all point out that Biden actually won.  Yet... we don't hear a peep here on TN to point out how ridiculous it is to believe in this nonsense.

It's one thing to believe in something that's blatantly stupid (which, if it's a view the Left holds would lead to plenty of mockery here on TN and rightfully so).  But the stolen election BS is more than that.  Lots of the MAGA crowd believe this as well.  This has led to widespread harassment of elected officials for committing the heinous act of doing their damn jobs.  We've had a massive surge of early retirements and folks leaving the election field work from said harassment (which has probably actually weakened our elections given the loss of all that expertise/experience/knowledge).  There have been prosecutions and jail time doled out across the country for said harassment.  Law enforcement resources have to be wasted to prosecute dimwits who believe something that's been shown to be false repeatedly... and TN just goes along and says nothing.

It's beyond ridiculous at this point.  So many posters here sitting all high and mighty pointing out the stupid of one side of the spectrum while saying nothing about the blatant stupid on their own side (if not encouraging it).

So, yeah... I have no sympathy for a politician (and you're absolutely right, he is one despite what he says) who has fueled divisiveness in this country over a fucking lie (and I damn well have no respect for the dumbfucks who still believe this nonsense).

[Josh]

What I always found amazing is that until fairly recently, no one was willing to point out that Trump has displayed about as much evidence of cognitive decline as Biden. Even physically, Trump likely is not his equal. Biden fell off a bike; I’d bet my life savings Trump couldn’t get on one. Trump’s loud, larger than life personality overshadows the fact he is over 80, obese, and never exercised in his life while eating predominantly fast food. What is most surprising is that even the mainstream media still rarely raises the issue; it is basically something left to late night talk show supercuts (and the most recent Biden video displayed at the hearings of the special council looking into biden’s classified documents). Trump has always covered his verbal mistakes (like mistaking Haley for Pelosi or Biden for Obama) as being his sense of humor, like he does for anything objectionable he says. But the degradation seems pretty clear, and he was not the sharpest tool in the box even when he was president (I can post a supercut for anyone who doubts this, but my personal favorites are him failing to fold an umbrella and drawing changes to a weather map in sharpy). I fully expect the Biden campaign to use its financial advantage to ram this point home, especially as we get later into the campaign.

 

Biden is a horrible candidate of questionable capabilities. Trump somehow is vastly worse candidate - he has equally questionable capabilities, with no morals or ethics of any kind, along with a proven track record of hiring the worst people for his administration (and I think even most MAGAites would agree with that last part). Trump will not have any effective minders or handlers to mitigate his degradation if he takes office; it will be a crew of “loyalists” telling him what he wants to hear so they can pursue their own policy - like last time, but worse.

 

It would of course be far more optimal if neither of them ran, but here we are. 

Edited April 3 by Josh

[lucklucky]

 

[Markus Becker]

Mr. AK Guy Brandon Herrera is running to become a Congress Critter and his campaign is creating a lot of valuable entertainment. 

 

[Josh]

Trump declares abortion a state issue, which IMO is a stupid middle of the road position to stake out. He says he proudly undid Roe v Wade in the same video, giving Dems as easy sound bite to replay in most any national level race, while at the same time sparring with pro-lifers in the GOP. I wonder why he felt the need to say anything; his usual strategy is to be vague as possible so no one can pin him to specifics. It seems odd he would commit to a such specific position on one of the most contentious issues, especially this early on.

[glenn239]

25 minutes ago, Josh said:

Trump declares abortion a state issue, which IMO is a stupid middle of the road position to stake out. 

The Dems were hoping abortion would be the #1 issue in November.  Trump's policy makes that difficult or even impossible.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

The Dems were hoping abortion would be the #1 issue in November.  Trump's policy makes that difficult or even impossible.

Trump is still claiming credit for Roe v Wade, and that is enough to run on regardless of whatever his ever changing personal take on abortion is. All he is doing is alienating part of his base; everyone knows he is the sole reason abortion is even on the ballot. Expect the Comstock Act to play heavily in presidential ads by summer.

[Josh]

And in Arizona, yet another conservative state court trips on it’s own dick and hands democrats an issue to fight on, in a swing state that likely will already have a referendum on abortion. I think the GOP seriously just lost AZ this year, both the EC and the senate seat (not that Lake was a strong candidate to begin with).

Like the IVF ruling in Alabama, it makes me question what the fuck these judges think they will accomplish with radical rulings.

Edited April 10 by Josh

[Ssnake]

Maybe they rule on princple, and to hell with the political consequences.

 

I don't think the topic can or should be solved from the bench. There simply is no right answer to the abortion issue. Politicians have to work out a compromise that balances conflicting interest to a point where a pragmatist majority can tolerate it. You can't let yourself be taken hostage by the extreme ends of the opinion spectrum.

Abortion within the first 12...15 weeks, possibly with mandatory counseling, seems to be a solution that most pwople elsewhere seem to be able to get behind.

[sunday]

If you Germans could impose zero tolerance in Nazism to the point of even banning swastikas in plastic models of planes, then I do not see how forbidding the killing of babies in their mother's wombs need some kind of pragmatist consensus.

[futon]

It's the modernistic culture throughout the West that puts the unborn babies at the expense of the convenience of adults and more si as the means become increasingly accessible. Premature or "premature" unprotected sex.. abort. Mated "successfully" with an undesireable, casual or not, partner.. abort. Some early indications of possible handicap in infant.. abort. 

Culture isn't centered on baby and child upbringing. It's centered on the conveniences of the adults in their immediate circumstances which includes sex satisfaction. So practical courses of actions result from the culture. 

[Ssnake]

It's not just a matter of convenience. Yes, in some cases it may boil down to that, but it's precisely these simplifications that make a meaningful conversation about this topic with USians so difficult. Society needs to find a balance to protect the unborns' lives - and I agree, this absolutely needs to be considered - with the rights of women to have some say in the matter as well - because the fathers of these unborns often enough abscond at the first chance, and are basically never held to account for their irresponsible behavior.

There may be circumstances beyond comfort and convenience that play a role, and it's impossible to capture them all in a law. So, as the pragmatic solution, abortion could be permitted during the initial three months of the pregnancy.

 

And it's not just about making it legal. It also must be possible for the women to access such facilities. Where this is denied, abortions will still be carried out, but then often enough without proper medical supervision, risking these women's lives in the process. If you think that all life must be protected, you can't ignore that. So, maybe we can simply agree on the basic fact that there is no simple answer to this matter. And if there's no simple answer, simplistic solutions won't lead anywhere, and neither philosophy nor logic will prevent you from situations where your solution will conflict with at least one ethical guideline.

In such a situation, damage containment is the next best strategy. Try to find the least harmful overall way to balance conflicting interests.

[futon]

It's the adult's conveniences that bring it to a normalized. Some of these conveniences are regarded as "necessary" due to the culture. There will still be cases where abortion is really necessary as oppose to "necessary", but the number of those cases is surely less than 10% of the amount of abortions that actually goes on. 

[Josh]

5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Maybe they rule on princple, and to hell with the political consequences.

Well their self contained principles, certainly.

 

5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I don't think the topic can or should be solved from the bench. There simply is no right answer to the abortion issue. Politicians have to work out a compromise that balances conflicting interest to a point where a pragmatist majority can tolerate it. You can't let yourself be taken hostage by the extreme ends of the opinion spectrum.

Well the pro life part of the debate hardly seems to be that accommodating, and routinely makes the fact that it wants to regulate everyone else, quite loud.

 

5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Abortion within the first 12...15 weeks, possibly with mandatory counseling, seems to be a solution that most pwople elsewhere seem to be able to get behind.

But that is not at all the position of most pro life advocates, and by extension the GOP.
I would say that the only reason Trump can get away with saying "states rights" is because he's Trump; any other Republican would be crucified.

Edited April 10 by Josh

[Josh]

3 hours ago, futon said:

It's the adult's conveniences that bring it to a normalized. Some of these conveniences are regarded as "necessary" due to the culture. There will still be cases where abortion is really necessary as oppose to "necessary", but the number of those cases is surely less than 10% of the amount of abortions that actually goes on. 

Have you ever impregnated someone?

[17thfabn]

24 minutes ago, Josh said:

Have you ever impregnated someone?

Rather a bizarre question. Just finished a "Young Sheldon" marathon. Sounds like a Sheldon question.

[rmgill]

11 hours ago, Josh said:

Trump declares abortion a state issue, which IMO is a stupid middle of the road position to stake out. He says he proudly undid Roe v Wade in the same video, giving Dems as easy sound bite to replay in most any national level race, while at the same time sparring with pro-lifers in the GOP.

Only if you don't understand the Constitution. Then, SURE it is a stupid position. 

But wasn't it Obama who tried to invoke that different rules make sense for different parts of the country? 

Roe v Wade was constitutional law made up out of whole cloth. Lets try it on again. Right to privacy from ANY restriction? Ok, we can play that. 

Where else does the right to privacy prevent any restriction on any other right, codified or not under federal law? Not finance. 

Not anything else medically. The Biden admin asserted that EVERYONE's Medical privacy and right to choose a course of medical planning for say covid was precisely the states business to control and mandate. 

What about with regards to other treatments or certain drugs? Can anyone use Ibogane in the US for treating PTSD? Nope. Not allowed. not legal. Not private. 

What about firearms? Nope, the feds stick their nose in to the exercise of that right. 

Where else does the right to privacy assert? Just abortion? To the 9th month and beyond? How utterly absurd. 
 

11 hours ago, Josh said:

I wonder why he felt the need to say anything; his usual strategy is to be vague as possible so no one can pin him to specifics.

Because it takes it away and pulls out from the position that he wants to invoke a federal ban. By making it a states issue means it's not federal. Which is exactly what the court said in the recent decision. 

 

11 hours ago, Josh said:

It seems odd he would commit to a such specific position on one of the most contentious issues, especially this early on.

Maybe he understands the Constitution better than Democrats and other folks do? 

Remember when the democrats were upset that he wasn't MANDATING action on Covid by businesses? I remember that. He wasn't dictatorial enough for the Democrats. 

Try again Josh. 

[rmgill]

42 minutes ago, Josh said:

Have you ever impregnated someone?

Have you? Seems amazingly close to the "If you don't have a uterus you can't have an opinion".

OK. If oyu don't own armor or guns you can't have an opinion over the law. 

[futon]

3,700,000 born babies. 800,000 abortions. Total pregnancies 4,500,000. For every six pregnancies, one is aborted. There's no way one of six is of tragic necessity. 

[Josh]

1 hour ago, 17thfabn said:

Rather a bizarre question. Just finished a "Young Sheldon" marathon. Sounds like a Sheldon question.

I think it is a little relevant if onus going to have an opinion on the matter. I think it changes your point of view a little.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Only if you don't understand the Constitution. Then, SURE it is a stupid position.

I’m confident Trump has never read the constitution and in any case my criticism was based on voters. I am totally fine with him taking that stance; I think it is the worst position he could stake out.

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

But wasn't it Obama who tried to invoke that different rules make sense for different parts of the country?

no idea, is Obama running this year? Because if he was I suspect he’d wipe everyone else off the map.

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Roe v Wade was constitutional law made up out of whole cloth. Lets try it on again. Right to privacy from ANY restriction? Ok, we can play that. 

Where else does the right to privacy prevent any restriction on any other right, codified or not under federal law? Not finance. 

Not anything else medically. The Biden admin asserted that EVERYONE's Medical privacy and right to choose a course of medical planning for say covid was precisely the states business to control and mandate. 

What about with regards to other treatments or certain drugs? Can anyone use Ibogane in the US for treating PTSD? Nope. Not allowed. not legal. Not private. 

What about firearms? Nope, the feds stick their nose in to the exercise of that right. 

Where else does the right to privacy assert? Just abortion? To the 9th month and beyond? How utterly absurd.

The majority of the country doesn’t feel that way. Let’s just leave it up to a vote. How about that?

 

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Because it takes it away and pulls out from the position that he wants to invoke a federal ban. By making it a states issue means it's not federal. Which is exactly what the court said in the recent decision. 

that might work if in the same statement you didn’t explicitly take credit for Dobbs, and by extension all of the lawsuits that it perpetuated. IVF being illegal is on Trump; Arizona’s new law is on Trump. No one is going to interpret it any other way when he proudly takes ownership of Dobbs. And I’m glad that he does; that makes it easy.

 

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

 

Maybe he understands the Constitution better than Democrats and other folks do?

Trump has never read the constitution or the Bible and you are a simpleton if you truly believe that and that drives your voting. If you believe he’s better for you, ok, if you believe he could quote the Bible or the constitution, you’re a high functioning idiot.

 

 

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Try again Josh. 

I shall. As I said above, if you like his politics I will give you that. But if you think he cares about you or has a conscience, then you’re a fucking idiot.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Have you? Seems amazingly close to the "If you don't have a uterus you can't have an opinion".

OK. If oyu don't own armor or guns you can't have an opinion over the law. 

Yes. I have. It didn’t happen; it was a miscarriage. But I definitely was happy the state didn’t get a say in how it was handled or whether my girlfriend was a murder.

i own both guns and armor. Stop deflecting.

[seahawk]

I do not understand how you can be in favour of mass murder.