2024 Election Thread

[French Rage]

She's not even the most problematic Senator from Cali....

Probably because she's not a Senator from California.

 

[RaceBoarder]

Probably because she's not a Senator from California.

Well Balls... That's a valid point, lol...

 

[dxmnkd316]

Please tell me this is a joke.

Oh god, it's not.

TBF it isn't a formal announcement, it was a response to a question. This is elder abuse, like Strom Thurmond (although she is 15 years younger).

She still has her faculties intact and it's a two-year commitment. Big whoop.

Pelosi is one of the few olds that seems to still have it. She's not going to be leader. Probably won't even sit on committees.

 

[Bronco]

She still has her faculties intact and it's a two-year commitment. Big whoop.

Pelosi is one of the few olds that seems to still have it. She's not going to be leader. Probably won't even sit on committees.

Then what's the point of being there if you don't work on something? At least do something to earn your bribe money.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Then what's the point of being there if you don't work on something? At least do something to earn your bribe money.

She's the best fund raiser Dems have had in ages.

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

She's the best fund raiser Dems have had in ages.

Not a bad whip either

 

[dxmnkd316]

Not a bad whip either

Exactly. New leaders need training wheels for a year or two. Jeffries will quickly transition but it's still nice etc have someone to move the needle when you really need it.

 

[Handyman]

Not a bad whip either

Bingo. She knows how to play the game and is still "all there" so she can teach the next gen how to play it as well.

 

[Kepler]

Not a bad whip either

twss

 

[Chuck Murray]

And don't forget the primary challenger will pick up like 10% of the vote in the first primary, because no one really ever shows up to the primaries when your party is the incumbent to vote for the incumbent with any fervor, whereas the challenger will have a small cadre of motivated nutjobs, and then people will make a big deal out of it, even though it will as much as an impediment to the incumbent as a fly hitting your windshield.

FWIW the primary challenger on your side is gonna end up with WAY more than 10% of the vote in the first primary (NH) because Magoo isn't on the ballot as of today, and the deadline passed a week ago. So it would take some extraordinary developments for (say) RFK Jr. not to get well over 50% of the votes in a narrow and undermotivated primary field, unless a HUGE amount of the Dem voters writes in Magoo's name.

It will be very interesting (and FUN) to see how the MSM spins RFK's looming victory in the first-in-the-nation primary. Considering (1) we still really don't know who won the 2020 Iowa caucuses for your side, and (2) Magoo finished 5th in NH in 2020, I figure someone down in Perma-DC will come up with a game plan, set the narrative, and any one of six candidates NOT named Bernie Sanders will emerge as the nominee when the dust settles. "Democracy" right??

 

[French Rage]

As proof that hope strings external and blind squirrels occasionally do find nuts, you are correct in that Biden not being on the ballot will help RFK Jr to some level. A low interest vote typically helps the opposition, and voters have a habit of choosing among the names explicitly listed in front of them, working in RFK Jr's favor. Of course, this is not exactly a race for dog catcher; it is a race for POTUS, and Biden is not exactly a name people are unaware of; and the upcoming presidential race is not something that voters are exactly unaware of; and I am assuming other NH primary races will also pull people to the polls, albeit not at general election or non-incumbent primary levels; and people have a habit of not switching horses in midstream, like it or not; so that, and the existence of write-in votes, will work in Biden's favor. Of course, the question comes down to which factors working in which favors work the strongest. It also comes down to how much support an inexperienced fringe conspiracy theory crackpot truly has, even as a protest vote. I would wager very little, you would wager more, we will have to see who is correct.

And one could also argue if Biden's strategy to not appear on the NH ballot, in support of moving the first primary to SC, was a smart one. Even if he truly believes for completely altruistic motives that moving the first primary to SC is the right thing to do, not having one's name on the ballot in early races, with the most eyeballs, certainly cannot help. Of course, it is still one race, for very very few delegates, and Biden does not exactly need those early wins to get name recognition or the front-runner title the way that a candidate in a non-incumbent primary would, so one could also argue the result is very much a blip in the overall primary race. I would wager the latter, you would wager the former, we will have to see who is correct.

So to this point, you have actual arguments. I would still hold they are faulty arguments, and that they will not come to fruition for reasons I listed above, but one can certainly say they are still arguments. Of course, you then had to work in your "victim of the mean MSM" complaint. I am sure the MSM will not have to do much to spin a race for a handful of delegates where only one candidate, and not the most important one, was on the ballot; that very description of it pretty much lists how inconsequential it will be in the overall scheme of the primary, so no real spin or water-carrying is needed. And I guess you also still feel that some conspiracy of the lizard people or something allow Biden to win the nomination in 2020, and not, you know winning over 50% of the primary vote and the vast majority of delegates, which last I checked is how you, you know, win things. So we will have to see if your prediction comes to be, but based on how you already have your follow-up whines ready to do, I'm guessing you have very little confidence in them.

 

[joecct]

It is my understanding that the DNC will not count the delegates from IA or NH.

For those of you old enough to remember -- March 31, 1968.

 

[MissThundercat]

It is my understanding that the DNC will not count the delegates from IA or NH.

For those of you old enough to remember -- March 31, 1968.

[citation needed]

 

[St. Clown]

[citation needed]

LBJ stated that he would not run for re-election. I don’t know how that plays into the delegates question of two small states that more often than not vote Republican in the general election.

 

[unofan]

LBJ stated that he would not run for re-election. I don’t know how that plays into the delegates question of two small states that more often than not vote Republican in the general election.

Just saying, that also applies to South Carolina. Of the 4 traditional early voting states, Nevada is the bluest and even it's violet at best.

Just because Iowa and NH as a whole tend to be red doesn't mean the primary voters/caucusgoers are. A dem in Iowa or NH is basically the same as a Democrat in MN or Mass., they're just outnumbered.

 

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Christie today says nj allows abortions up to nine months. Mika explains those are for medical emergencies only, asks him for numbers.

Christie speechless

 

[Chuck Murray]

LBJ stated that he would not run for re-election. I don’t know how that plays into the delegates question of two small states that more often than not vote Republican in the general election.

LBJ Announced He Wouldn’t Run Again. Political Chaos Ensued | HISTORY

LBJ faced long odds in November; his top aides feared that he might not even win re-nomination. With his public approval rating at around 36 percent, LBJ had barely survived a surprisingly strong primary challenge from antiwar Sen. Eugene McCarthy in New Hampshire, who took 42 percent of the vote to LBJ’s 48 percent on March 12. Four days later, on March 16, New York Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, a long-time LBJ nemesis, declared that he, too, would challenge Johnson for the nomination.

Lots of parallels there. Deeply unpopular (underwater) incumbent who had pushed WAY too hard to the Left too often for the voters' liking, with a slumping economy, a war entanglement that was growing less popular by the day, an RFK problem, culminating in a poor performance in the NH primary, all eventually led to his VP Hubert H. Humphrey getting the nod in Chicago, after the RFK problem had been eliminated (assassination) and before a split Dem party (with 3rd party Dem challenger George Wallace, by then a hardcore segregationalist) lost to former GOP VP Pichard Nixon. MLK had also been assassinated, four short days after LBJ's announcement.

1968 was a sh!t show; 2024 may be shaping up as another one ...

 

[psych]

LBJ stated that he would not run for re-election. I don’t know how that plays into the delegates question of two small states that more often than not vote Republican in the general election.

New Hampshire is certainly red at the state level, at least currently, but when it comes to presidential elections, which we’re discussing here, I’m not sure voting for the Democratic candidate seven of the past eight elections, including five straight, qualifies as voting for the Republican more often than not. New Hampshire is as white as the driven snow that blankets it, and Biden needs to pander to the Democratic base, which is mostly people of color, the backbone being Black people. I’m fine with it. No comparison to LBJ, which is simply silly, but I personally don’t take the time to disagree with someone who has no interest in actually having a real conversation.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Christie today says nj allows abortions up to nine months. Mika explains those are for medical emergencies only, asks him for numbers.

Christie speechless

Good for Mika finally asking that question to one of the clowns. That's the question that needs to be asked every time.

 

[French Rage]

For those of you old enough to remember -- March 31, 1968.

Wait, I thought it was January 20th, 2023? You know, when your predictions fail, you're supposed to move them further into the future, not into the past.