2024 General Election - Trump vs Kamala Harris

[IsntLifeFunny]

1 hour ago, chef said:

 

 

I'm really over the ridiculousness of states' rights on these things.  Feels at times like we're living in Shakespearean city states of Bourgogne or Genoa. Items like this and so much more need a national standard.  It for a national election after all.  The original compromises made to form the Union continue to bite us in the ass.

 

The degree which our country has layers is also what protects it to a certain degree. State's rights were the origin point of not having an autocracy.

[IsntLifeFunny]

That doesn't mean I agree with all of the bullshit state's rights arguments, but it's the reason they were created. They've now added problems to the deck, but the origin point is the same.

Edited October 31 by IsntLifeFunny

[Titandan]

5 hours ago, Mythos27 said:

How can you believe this even after seeing how she's done very little to court the pro-palestine vote? All she had to do to gain those voters in droves was signal that she would be different than Biden on the Gaza issue. She's done the opposite. The truth is that she viewed Shapiro as a social climber and someone who would try to upstage her to set up his own future run while she viewed Walz as a team player that could be her attack dog. We'll see  if her calculation was correct but the reasoning you are attributing to her is objectively incorrect. 

How do you "court" the Pro-Palestinian vote without marginalizing the Jewish vote?  I think her taking up Walz was a political one appealing to a more radical left wing of the DNC.  Shapiro is quite a bit more moderate and less popular with the younger leftist demographic.  One of my friends was part of the UCLA Pro-Palestinian protest earlier this year.  He wanted Walz but was convinced that the VP pick was going to be Shapiro.  He was ecstatic that she picked Walz. 

I think it would have made much more sense to go more moderate but the Dems seem to think going further left makes more sense.  Don't understand why.  Why not select a RFK Jr. or Tulsi Gabbert?  Really puzzling to me.

The only way it makes sense to me is that the DNC consistently de-platforms the candidate that they cannot control.  Bernie, RFK Jr., and Tulsi never had a real shot. 

[oldschool]

lol This add is hilarious

 

https://x.com/NickKnudsenUS/status/1852025474228113904

[Starkiller]

13 minutes ago, Titandan said:

The only way it makes sense to me is that the DNC consistently de-platforms the candidate that they cannot control.  Bernie, RFK Jr., and Tulsi never had a real shot.

Bernie had significant, but still minority, appeal amongst Dems. RFK and Tulsi have no appeal. Neither of them were “deplatformed”, they just were unpopular.

Edited October 31 by Starkiller

[Titandan]

2 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

Bernie had significant, but still minority, appeal amongst Dems. RFK and Tulsi have no appeal.

Tulsi performed better than Kamala during 2020 primaries lol 

[Starkiller]

42 minutes ago, Titandan said:

Tulsi performed better than Kamala during 2020 primaries lol 

Kamala dropped out before any votes were cast due to a lack of funds and probably deciding that her odds weren’t good enough to continue. A lot of the blame went to her sister’s poor managing of the campaign, which you can also fairly blame on Kamala picking her to run it in the first place.
 

That doesn’t mean that Tulsi outperformed her. All she did was stay in the race longer. She was not competitive at any point on the race.

Edited October 31 by Starkiller

[ctm]

RFK Jr is an anti-vax clown even his own family won't support.

Tulsi Gabbard has done her be to undermine Ukraine.  Take it from there.

[rns90]

Most people know that Tulsi Gabbard was a Republican who only switched over to the Democratic side because Hawaii is a heavily Democratic state.

 

So, anyone who points out that Gabbard is representative of most standard Democrats is pretty much full of shit or clueless.

[Number9]

On 10/30/2024 at 12:53 PM, 9 Nines said:

While I think this election will seal the death of public polls, the current polls continue showing a trend that has been noticed in other polls.  Harris is capturing more of the White vote than Biden did, especially in suburban areas.  She leads in the White vote in Urban areas about the same as Biden did, but she has grown the lead among White suburbans. Also, while not leading them, she has reduced Trump's lead with non-college Whites.  Multiple polls in different regions are showing those trends.

If you go by the polls, it'll be a blue tsunami.

Undecided's will overwhelmingly vote for Harris.

Harris had the money to put into the down ballot.

[Titandan]

9 minutes ago, rns90 said:

Most people know that Tulsi Gabbard was a Republican who only switched over to the Democratic side because Hawaii is a heavily Democratic state.

 

So, anyone who points out that Gabbard is representative of most standard Democrats is pretty much full of shit or clueless.

I thought Tulsi was a moderate Dem.  The DNC went so far left that Tulsi was politically homeless.  I personally don't think she belongs in the Republican Party but I'll gladly trade her for the Cheney's.  

[Number9]

15 minutes ago, ctm said:

RFK Jr is an anti-vax clown even his own family won't support.

Tulsi Gabbard has done her be to undermine Ukraine.  Take it from there.

He's obviously a low-talented buffoon who lived under the shadow of his daddy, with his Kennedy money.

[OzTitan]

7 hours ago, IrishTitansFan said:

Without sounding like a right-wing moron (And I understand the reasons for it and why they don't want it changed)

 

The fact you don't require ID at the polls to vote in some states is crazy to me. So to is the fact that postal voting is so accessible and that there are special postal vote booths just sitting their on the street????

 

In Ireland, you have to register to vote which requires a PPS (Social Security) number (Can only get one of these by personally attending a Police Office with ID and proof of address among other documents, then they send you a polling card. You then have to bring your ID to your designated polling station to vote and it is checked there.

 

To vote by post you have to have a special reason that has to be accepted by the Government, this is often just students in college or Army members and isn't common. If you aren't in the country at the time of voting (living abroad or on holiday), you can't vote.

To me, it just joins a long list of quirks with the US electoral system, like the results of extreme gerrymandering and the electoral college in general. I find it hard to justify hyper focusing on fixing one thing without trying to fix it all (unless proven to be an actual major problem, which I don't think not requiring strict ID checks actually is in the real world).

 

I'd also say (possibly incorrectly since I don't actually know your system) that unlike the US, Ireland doesn't really have the same level of focus on gaming and exploiting the system before someone even registers to vote. Suppressing votes is a serious concern in the US because it is a viable strategy for a campaign/party to focus on. The common ground between Dems and Repubs doesn't even extend to basic first principles (e.g. who should have the right to vote) in some cases, it is a different environment than most.

Edited October 31 by OzTitan

[Mythos27]

3 hours ago, LongTimeFan said:

This is such an old talking point that doesn't exist in the real world. Anyone can get an id and they don't need it mailed to them. They need to show up in person.

What talking point? Just because they can go get it that doesn't mean that the government can't provide it if they're requiring it to vote. We also have these things called computers and phones where someone can possibly video call with whoever is distributing them to confirm their identity. There are a ton of creative solutions but curiously, when a real conversation about making it possible but accessible takes place, people like you who supposedly really want it come up with a bunch of road blocks. It's almost as if the whole point of you pushing it is to make sure that certain people can't vote. Not like voter suppression isn't on page one of the GOP playbook. 

[Mythos27]

1 hour ago, Titandan said:

How do you "court" the Pro-Palestinian vote without marginalizing the Jewish vote?  I think her taking up Walz was a political one appealing to a more radical left wing of the DNC.  Shapiro is quite a bit more moderate and less popular with the younger leftist demographic.  One of my friends was part of the UCLA Pro-Palestinian protest earlier this year.  He wanted Walz but was convinced that the VP pick was going to be Shapiro.  He was ecstatic that she picked Walz. 

I think it would have made much more sense to go more moderate but the Dems seem to think going further left makes more sense.  Don't understand why.  Why not select a RFK Jr. or Tulsi Gabbert?  Really puzzling to me.

The only way it makes sense to me is that the DNC consistently de-platforms the candidate that they cannot control.  Bernie, RFK Jr., and Tulsi never had a real shot. 

 Yes, Walz appeals more to the left wing of the DNC. That's certainly a potential factor to choose him. Again, my point wasn't to say that Walz was necessarily the right choice (though I did personally prefer him) but rather to point out that saying she didn't choose Shapiro to appeal to palestenian voters makes 0 sense. Glad we could square that one away.

 

Tulsi and RFK are NOT on the left. Tulsi has been grifting and drifting towards the right for years. There is just way more money is sucking up to Trump and feeding MAGA people the same warmed over bullshit they've been fed by others for years now. RFK is just a loon tbh, I can't take anything that guy says seriously. I don't event think he's helped Trump much and could end up hurting him in the states where he couldn't get himself off the ballot.