|
|
2024
Jan 5, 2024 17:33:40 GMT -7
Post by flyinghellphish on Jan 5, 2024 17:33:40 GMT -7
I see we are still living that fantasy a Dem/candidate not named Biden has a shot at beating Trump. Let it go. Breathe in the stench and madness of the next four years and then we all move on to whatever is next. YOLO! Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by bussit on Jan 5, 2024 18:01:42 GMT -7
I see we are still living that fantasy a Dem/candidate not named Biden has a shot at beating Trump. Let it go. Breathe in the stench and madness of the next four years and then we all move on to whatever is next. YOLO! I never understood this. If it was Trump vs Williamson, is the suggestion that people who were going to vote for a democratic will now vote for Trump? There is no way. The fact is that right or wrong, people's perception of Biden's presidency is not good, and I like just about any other Democrat's chances against trump. |
|
|
|
Post by ashell on Jan 5, 2024 19:19:59 GMT -7
We should all try to be more involved in local politics. You can ask why Biden didn't raise the minimum wage but with it making a big jump in all of these states, the question should be why not mine? this x10. plus ultra local politics - board / council / planning commission / whatever else your community offers - can often be a spring board to state level positions which can often lead to federal level positions. getting the best people in early and getting them experienced is an important step. |
|
|
|
2024
Jan 5, 2024 19:21:49 GMT -7
ashell likes this
Post by Don Swifty on Jan 5, 2024 19:21:49 GMT -7
Any current polling supporting this idea that Williamson would beat Trump? Or polling that any other specific candidate would? Unless and until I see/hear about reliable polling showing that Williamson or any other candidate currently running beats Trump or even just does better against Trump than Biden would I'm not taking this idea that she has a better chance of beating Trump than Biden at all seriously. It's all theory or pipe dream not based on any verifiable and objective facts. Since I've asked a few times without a response I'm just going to assume at this point it's because there is no polling showing Williamson beating either Biden or Trump. Something I don't understand is the suggestion in January '04 that Williamson has a better chance of beating Trump than Biden does when it's not even based on something as shakey as polling. It's not based on anything other than a dislike for Biden that seemingly is being projected out to suggest that everyone else feels the same and would instantly line up behind anyone but Biden given the chance when the fact is that even with his lack of popularity, no other candidate was able to make any kind of noticeable impact against Biden during the last three years. Bernie was able to create a horse race against Hilary in '16 and Biden in '20, but nobody this election cycle has been able to do what Bernie did. Trump was able to breakthrough in '16, but Williamson is no Trump, nor does anyone else in either party seem to have his ability to win using charisma and unconventional methods. I've read that prediction markets are now more accurate than polls when picking election winners. The one at the link below asking "Who will be the Democratic presidential nominee in the US Elections of 2024?" currently lists Biden at 76%, Buttigieg at 22%, and Gavin Newsom, Hilary, AOC, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris all with 1% each. Not even 1% is convinced Williamson will be the nominee since she's not even mentioned which can probably be extended to signify that nobody believes she can beat Trump enough to wager money on her. The market taking wagers on "What will be the party of the next President of the United States?" is currently favoring Republican, but it's been bouncing back and forth over the past year and is tightening up. A search for Marianne Williamson returns zero results. futuur.com/q/155043/who-will-be-the-democratic-presidential-nominee-in-the-us-elections-of-2024Another thing I heard on NPR was that this won't be an election won by swaying voters opinions, but will be won/lost on turnout. Both sides will be doing whatever they can to motivate their base to come out and hopefully motivate the less enthused - probably through fear of what will happen if the other guy wins. I don't think there's much danger in anyone not already inclined to vote for Trump doing so because they don't like the Dem candidate. More likely that those not satisfied with the Dem won't bother voting. I don't think Trump vs Williamson means that some Democrats would now vote for Trump, just that enough won't be motivated enough to vote for Williamson. Same could be said for Biden. It's only January so all that could change, but I just don't see any significant probability of Williamson suddenly surging after three years of opportunity to the point where she can not only beat Biden, but Trump as well. If it were going to happen it would have already done so. |
|
|
|
2024
Jan 5, 2024 19:43:19 GMT -7
via mobile
Post by ancientchad on Jan 5, 2024 19:43:19 GMT -7
She came in 3rd in a Congressional race in California where she lived... the only election she has ever stayed in till the end.
She's 71. Biden is 81.
As a Democrat I would prefer to have another option. But I am pleased with what Biden has accomplished. And if he wants another go at it, he's earned it IMO. If he gets a majority in both houses, I am confident HIS TEAM will accomplish great things.
And some of you should look into Ralph Nader and the 2000 Campaign. F'in shit show.
|
|
|
|
Post by higs on Jan 5, 2024 20:21:16 GMT -7
She came in 3rd in a Congressional race in California where she lived... the only election she has ever stayed in till the end. She's 71. Biden is 81. As a Democrat I would prefer to have another option. But I am pleased with what Biden has accomplished. And if he wants another go at it, he's earned it IMO. If he gets a majority in both houses, I am confident HIS TEAM will accomplish great things. And some of you should look into Ralph Nader and the 2000 Campaign. F'in shit show. As a Nader voter, I'm not sure how to take that. Don't worry, though. Indiana was going to go for Bush regardless of who I voted for. |
|
|
|
2024
Jan 5, 2024 20:37:55 GMT -7
via mobile
bussit likes this
Post by Filo on Jan 5, 2024 20:37:55 GMT -7
Bussit, I respect your opinion. You have been as steady with that belief as I have with mine, but respectfully I point to what Swift and The Ancient One are saying. That is the extended version of my feelings.
|
|
|
|
2024
Jan 5, 2024 20:48:41 GMT -7
Post by Don Swifty on Jan 5, 2024 20:48:41 GMT -7
She came in 3rd in a Congressional race in California where she lived... the only election she has ever stayed in till the end. She's 71. Biden is 81. As a Democrat I would prefer to have another option. But I am pleased with what Biden has accomplished. And if he wants another go at it, he's earned it IMO. If he gets a majority in both houses, I am confident HIS TEAM will accomplish great things. And some of you should look into Ralph Nader and the 2000 Campaign. F'in shit show. As a Nader voter, I'm not sure how to take that. Don't worry, though. Indiana was going to go for Bush regardless of who I voted for. I was a Nader voter in 2000 as well. Even with Nader getting a little over 5% of the vote in Oregon, Gore still won the state (as expected) and electoral college votes. |
|
|
|
2024
Jan 5, 2024 21:02:39 GMT -7
via mobile
Post by ancientchad on Jan 5, 2024 21:02:39 GMT -7
From CBS
"In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, Nader won 97,488 votes, while Al Gore lost the state (and, therefore, the presidency) by 537 votes to Mr. Bush. In five other states this was also true. And it still haunts Democrats – from bar rants to national discourse."
IF Gore wins, does 9/11 happen? And if it does, do you think we'd be looking for "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq? I don't f'in think so...
I remember seeing a clip of horrified Nader voters at his HQ Election Night.
Shit fucking matters man.
|
|
|
|
2024
Jan 5, 2024 21:09:29 GMT -7
Post by flyinghellphish on Jan 5, 2024 21:09:29 GMT -7
hopefully biden keeps up the rhetoric about trump, take some of the air back. he should be bashing him on the daily.
|
|
|
|
2024
Jan 5, 2024 21:29:59 GMT -7
Post by Don Swifty on Jan 5, 2024 21:29:59 GMT -7
From CBS "In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, Nader won 97,488 votes, while Al Gore lost the state (and, therefore, the presidency) by 537 votes to Mr. Bush. In five other states this was also true. And it still haunts Democrats – from bar rants to national discourse." IF Gore wins, does 9/11 happen? And if it does, do you think we'd be looking for "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq? I don't f'in think so... I remember seeing a clip of horrified Nader voters at his HQ Election Night. Shit fucking matters man. Nader wasn't the only third party candidate who drew votes away from Gore and in some cases Bush. I remember reading about another third party candidate in Florida who won over a thousand votes, so one could say if all of that candidates votes went to Gore he would've won Florida. Nader was just the third party candidate that everyone knew so he got all the blame. Pat Buchanan and the Libertarian took votes away from Bush as well so it's kind of impossible to say how it would have turned out without Nader (or the other third party candidates) on the ballot. Lotta of ins, lotta outs, lotta what have yous. According to Jim Hightower it's perhaps more accurate to blame Gore's Florida vote tally on the larger number of Dems and Liberals who voted for Bush over Nader: In an online article published by Salon.com on Tuesday, November 28, 2000, Texan progressive activist Jim Hightower claimed that in Florida, a state Gore lost by only 537 votes, 24,000 Democrats voted for Nader, while another 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. According to Hightower, 191,000 self-described liberals in Florida voted for Bush, while fewer than 34,000 voted for Nader.Had even a small fraction of those 499,000 Florida Dems and Liberals voted for Gore (or even Nader) instead of Bush, Gore would have easily won the state. Blaming Nader was the easy thing to do but why not blame all of those Dems and Liberals who voted for Bush? Gore ultimately lost because his campaign bought butter knifes to the Florida courts for the recount while Bush sent crates of automatic weapons and probably more importantly GOP hitman Roger Stone who knew how to use them and started the whole Brooks Brothers Riot. Gore would've won Florida if SCOTUS didn't order a stop to review of ballots and the recount. |
|
|
|
2024
Jan 5, 2024 21:36:17 GMT -7
Post by Don Swifty on Jan 5, 2024 21:36:17 GMT -7
hopefully biden keeps up the rhetoric about trump, take some of the air back. he should be bashing him on the daily. Heard something on the news this morning reporting he's starting to do just that. Supposedly once Trump's criminal trials start his numbers will start to drop. Any convictions supposedly will increase that effect. Even if the amounts are relatively small across the swing states and it only affects independents, it could be enough to lose it for Trump. Or not. Maybe once he goes to trial it just makes him stronger. All I'm sure of is that his daily press conferences outside of all the court houses will be used as political rallies and it's gonna be the biggest circus American politics has seen in decades. |
|
|
|
2024
Jan 5, 2024 21:40:33 GMT -7
via mobile
Post by bussit on Jan 5, 2024 21:40:33 GMT -7
The Nader thing was in the general election.
This is the democratic primary where we could nominate a much more viable candidate to run in the general.
These are totally different things.
What is this attachment to Joe Biden anyway? Who gives a flip who the dem candidate is as long as its someone who can win
|
|
|
|
2024
Jan 5, 2024 21:52:00 GMT -7
Post by Don Swifty on Jan 5, 2024 21:52:00 GMT -7
Nobody seems really attached to Biden but most seem to accept that like it or not, he's going to be the Dem nominee.
Just because Biden may not win it doesn't mean that any of the other Dems running against him in '24 could beat Trump.
If you don't give a flip about who the dem candidate is and you can't name a single alternative running in '24 with better polling numbers against both Biden and Trump it could be asked why you give a flip that the candidate is Biden.
No offense, but it seems like you're judging this as if it's still the recent past, Biden still hadn't announced his intentions to run for reelection, and there was a chance he wouldn't run and other candidates would jump in. It's January '04. No major candidate who might poll better against Trump than Biden are going to enter and none of the Biden opponents currently running have what it takes to win either the nomination or the general election. I'm willing to be proven wrong by links to polls showing otherwise, but I think you would've posted them by now if they existed.
|
|
|
|
Post by danimal on Jan 6, 2024 6:32:03 GMT -7
I apologize if I was being abrasive or condescending in this thread. Dry jamuary had me wound up yesterday I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by EddieBlake on Jan 6, 2024 7:32:20 GMT -7
It's hard not to get wound up, we're not really being presented many appealing futures and it's frustrating to live in this world.
|
|
|
|
Post by ancientchad on Jan 6, 2024 8:42:28 GMT -7
^ it always has been.
|
|
|
|
Post by flyinghellphish on Jan 6, 2024 8:48:44 GMT -7
I apologize if I was being abrasive or condescending in this thread. Dry jamuary had me wound up yesterday I think. I liked you yesterday. |
|
|
|
2024
Jan 6, 2024 10:17:41 GMT -7
via mobile
Post by bussit on Jan 6, 2024 10:17:41 GMT -7
Nobody seems really attached to Biden but most seem to accept that like it or not, he's going to be the Dem nominee. Just because Biden may not win it doesn't mean that any of the other Dems running against him in '24 could beat Trump. If you don't give a flip about who the dem candidate is and you can't name a single alternative running in '24 with better polling numbers against both Biden and Trump it could be asked why you give a flip that the candidate is Biden. No offense, but it seems like you're judging this as if it's still the recent past, Biden still hadn't announced his intentions to run for reelection, and there was a chance he wouldn't run and other candidates would jump in. It's January '04. No major candidate who might poll better against Trump than Biden are going to enter and none of the Biden opponents currently running have what it takes to win either the nomination or the general election. I'm willing to be proven wrong by links to polls showing otherwise, but I think you would've posted them by now if they existed. The New York Times-Siena College survey shows Donald Trump leading Biden in five of six swing states polled. If those numbers hold up and both men remain in the race, the indicted former president would in all likelihood return to the White House. But some have spotlighted a potential saving grace for Democrats. In addition to showing Trump ahead by an average of four percentage points, the poll asked voters about a race without Biden. An unnamed “Democratic candidate” shifts the race by 12 points on the margins, turning a four-point Democratic deficit against Trump into an eight-point lead, 48 percent to 40 percent. |
|
|
|
2024
Jan 6, 2024 12:05:44 GMT -7
Post by Don Swifty on Jan 6, 2024 12:05:44 GMT -7
Thanks for the link. I couldn't get past the pay wall to fully read, but I see that the article is from 6 November and the main photo at the top features Gavin Newsom. 2 month old political polling is about as relevant as a horse tip on a race that ran 2 month ago and Gavin Newsom has not only announced he isn't running, but like the rest of the party he's closed ranks behind Biden and is actively campaigning for him (and no doubt increasing his own profile for '28 at the same time). Did the article suggest Newsom (or any other prominent Dems) as being who they have in mind when they ask if people would vote for "unnamed?" Regardless, Newsom and anyone not currently running can be crossed off that list of potential "unnamed" candidates. Did the article reveal how the current Biden challengers are polling against both Biden and Trump?
An "Unnamed" candidate only highlights the fact that the electorate isn't happy with Biden, but since it's a hypothetical situation it doesn't really carry much weight. Devil's in the details. A survey in January '04 would carry some actual weight if instead of asking about "unnamed," it instead asked potential voters how they would vote in a Williamson/Trump contest. A West/Trump contest. A Phillips/Trump contest. Those numbers would mean something and could move the needle to give them more support if the polling was in their favor.
I just don't make the leap to interpret "unnamed" in a two month old survey to signify that any Democrat other than Biden would beat Trump. It just represents people's general unhappiness with Biden as the candidate. I'd bet by "unnamed" most people think of the candidates who aren't running in '24 but who they wish were; Newsom, Whitmer, Buttigieg, et. al. None of them are running though and none of them will run as long as Biden's in the race. As loyal Dems they're following party norms and waiting their turns for '28.
Where are the current or recent polls/surveys showing how those actually running against Biden for the nomination (as opposed to the hypothetical "unnamed" from 2 months ago) are doing now and would do against Trump in November? Are any of the three campaigns running against Biden releasing internal polling or pointing to external polling showing that they can beat Trump? If not, ask yourself why and what that means as far as their chances at beating Trump. Or convince "unnamed" to throw their hat in the ring. Maybe a write in campaign - "Write in "unnamed" for President. He/She/It, whoever they may be, beats Trump in the polls." Candidate "Unnamed" is as real as Candidate "Nobody." Nobody will lower your taxes. Nobody can fix the economy. Nobody tells the truth. Nobody bakes apple pie better than your mom. Vote for Nobody.
I understand the angst and worry over Trump winning, but it's probably a more successful strategy at this point of the process for those that are concerned about a Trump repeat when the current dem challengers to Biden poll in the low single digits and no new candidates are likely to enter the race to do like nearly everyone else who wants to see Trump defeated; close ranks and get behind the increasingly inevitable Trump opponent. I don't see thinking that anybody currently running other than Biden will beat Trump or better candidates will suddenly enter the race as an effective/realistic strategy. Complaining about Biden at this point isn't going to do anything to get Williamson the nomination, make Newsom or anyone else enter the race, and most importantly, contribute to beating Trump. Those opportunities came and went. Nobody broke out like Bernie did in the past . At this point it's like Linus waiting for The Great Pumpkin to arrive as Halloween is about to end. The polls are going to go back and forth between now and the election and as recent history has shown, polling isn't as accurate as it used to be and the polls/pundits predictions are increasingly way off. It sucks that there aren't any truly motivating candidates once again but at this point in the cycle it is what it is. Lament and stressing out over polls and the fact that nobody who stepped up to take on Biden succeeded and ain't nobody else gonna try isn't gonna change anything and to me only seems to contribute to personal stress.
|
|
