Democrats BEST course of action...
- Thread starter IUNorth
- Start date
Sure it is. She never got support from the party or its electorate then and she definitely isn't now. She is further left than Joe, meaning she won't appeal any more to the middle than Trump.
You seem to have thought quite a bit about this. It's always good to keep the mind sharp, war planning ways to win, for those that you oppose their political views. You are using the reverse stance debate theory, aren't you.
Bravo, nice job.
I’ve said I’ll put up with a Democrat for next four years to finally be rid of Trump. Now don’t get all butthurt about it. I know you’re really sensitive about a Republican who won’t support Trump. No crying, whining and carrying on is necessary. 😎
AHHHHHHH I've cracked the code. FINALLY.
You are using reverse, reverse campaign planning. Plan out the the enemy, and publish it so Team MAGA picks it up to help Trump win.
Now that.... Is pretty dang shrewd. Only 2nd shrewd to me figuring it out. I just sank your tug boat. winner winner biden for dinner.
While I agree with a lot of what you’re saying here, the two most likely possibilities for Dems are Biden and Harris.Don't underestimate the unpopularity of Trump. Lots of people will be looking for any excuse to vote against him. Anything that would change the current Biden narrative hurts Trump. Doesn't really matter who it is, as long as it's someone not nearing death.
Donald Trump : Favorability Polls
The latest political polls and polling averages from FiveThirtyEight.projects.fivethirtyeight.com
While I’d guess that Harris would be marginally better than Biden, I think she’d struggle in the areas that will decide the election.
If the Dems could muster the will to nominate somebody like Whitmer or Shapiro (or, better yet, both), then I think they’d win. Because, you’re right, Donald Trump is very unpopular and is only leading polls right now because his current opponent is even more unpopular.
But the chances of the Dems doing that seem slim. Whoever is a better choice between Biden and Harris, it’s clear that they’re both ultimately bad options.
Debate brings scrutiny of whether aides shielded signs of Biden’s aging
Republicans are accusing the White House of engaging in a cover-up in the handling of the president's aging and cognitive state.
Meanwhile the press questioned Ms. Jean Pierre about a Parkinson’s specialist visiting the White House 8 times, during today’s press conference.
The name of the specialist and the name of the patient are not available. (Privacy concerns).
The name of the specialist and the name of the patient are not available. (Privacy concerns).
She's not competent or likable. Which is puzzling to why some on the left are suddenly supporting her after even they have bashed her lackluster performance during this Administration.
Probably so. But it's really their only option.
For many reasons... But the most basic being the campaign infrastructure and funding. Her name is on all of those funds and could immediately be transferred to her. Anyone else would be starting from scratch... Just not feasible at this short time frame. Pls don't think any of the other possible names would be willing to jump in front of her and attempt to battle it out at an open convention.
Even though his name is already known... Doctor Kevin Cannard.
White House refuses to explain Parkinson’s expert’s 8 visits, press secretary accuses reporters of ‘personal attacks’ during tense briefing
During tense exchanges at a regular briefing, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre refused to explain the Parkinson’s expert’s recent visits to the executive mansion — citing “…
nypost.com
Infrastructure, maybe. But I honestly don’t think the funding would be much of a problem if they went with somebody other than Kamala.
For one thing, funds can be transferred to Super PACs or the DNC. It can also be refunded, with the expectation that the funds be reapplied to the new candidate. It might even end up helping - as they’d have a reason to beckon more money from the honeypots.
Don't confuse politics with reality. Harris is still the same person I have never liked, but we are a couple months out from the election, and she has a better chance of winning than Biden does. It's not any more complicated than that.
Again, I still think she loses, but it's a closer thing with her.
All things considered, I would have to agree with you. It's quite odd how historical data and poll info has a way of changing, once election 4 months arrive.
… Most all of those ‘anyone else’ names will likely have the political calculus solution that a “We need to put the adults in charge again” campaign in 2028 would be a better bet than taking one for the team as the 2024 sacrificial lamb.
Add that to the campaign finance laws … and the quid pro quo for taking one for the team will need to be pretty big … like being the favored son/daughter for 2028 election.
2016 and 2020 were smoked filled rooms for Hillary (over Biden?) and the Biden (over Bernie) … 2024 may be two smoke filled rooms (Biden over the field) and the replacement candidate (over Biden).
What's the working theory on this. Is the assumption that '20 Biden voters will stay home on Election Day?
I live in a city of 104K that is heavy GOP but Trump lost by 10 points in '20. Small sample size, but I hang out in the diviest of dive bars, many of whom would likely would've had a Trump flag stitched to their underwear in '20. Many of them are voting for RFK Jr.
I have yet to come across a Biden voter who is a) sitting out, b) not voting for him, neither of which is an endorsement of him beyond being the lesser of two ev....effectively him not being an idiot. We all know how awesomely accurate polls in July are, but while early polling after the debate showed Trump went .5 lead to 2.5 lead, it's started to narrow back down.
You really think Biden is going to make it to November? One thing about old age is that once it starts going south the progression of the problem can be exponential. I honestly don't think he's fit to be president. I wish it were different, but it's the reality now.
I predict the pressure from the dems to quit will be so intense that he'll be gone this week or next.
People pay too much attention to national polls. They're OK to measure general sentiment and trends. But I wouldn't go beyond that -- not, anyway, in an election that is certain to come down to outcomes in a small handful of states.
The national popular vote is skewed by what you could call "excess votes" -- margins of victory in a state beyond what is necessary to secure its electoral votes.
Biden won blue states in 2020 by 15M votes.
Trump won red states in 2020 by 8M votes.
So it's mathematically possible that 7 million more people could've voted for Trump without changing the Electoral College by even a single vote.
It's also worth noting that 10.3M of Biden 2020's 15M excess votes came from his top 5 MoV states: CA, NY, MA, IL, and MD. Biden's winning margins in these states were all >1M votes -- with CA a whopping 5.1M votes.
Trump 2020's excess votes were more spread out. His top 5 MoV states (TN, TX, AL, KY, OK) only accounted for 3M of his 8M excess votes. Trump didn't win any state by >1M votes. His largest MoV was TN (708K votes).
In 2016, Clinton won blue states by 11.3M votes. Trump won red states by 8.6M votes. So there were fewer excess votes that time -- but, as we all know, this led to a situation where the popular vote winner didn't win the electoral vote.
She might be their best choice but she’d be a stronger choice should she win the nomination after a short pre-convention “primary” against other candidates. This needs to happen and it needs to start ASAP. Biden needs to announce he’s not accepting the nomination this week. This will steal the news cycle from the RNC and increase the Dems’ chances of defeating Trump.
I never answered your question. Democrats best course of action is to blow up their party. Apologize to the entire world for being a terrible socialist party and embark on a journey of self discovery. All former Biden voters should be forced to read The Bible, Bitcoin Standard, and Basic Economics.
This is what James Carville is advocating.
It sounds good in theory. But I can also see it backfiring and making matters worse -- depending largely on how Kamala Harris and her folks welcome this kind of process when she's the sitting Vice President. If she welcomes this -- from beginning to end, regardless of the outcome -- then it could be helpful. If she doesn't, then it's a whole different ball of wax.
I read where Whitmer ruled out seeking the nomination. So I'm guessing that the other interested candidate would be Newsom? Anybody else....JB Pritzker, maybe?
I finally got around to buying Lyn Alden’s book. Just started reading it, spoiler, it’s awesome. You need to add that to your book club.
Last edited:
Man, I don't know.
I'll say this much...Biden's refusals have been awfully resolute. Especially the phone interview he did with Joe Scarborough. He didn't sound like somebody who was saying "I'm staying in" merely to say it while he's making other plans behind closed doors. He said something to the effect of "Challenge me at the convention if you want to, you scummy 'elites.'"
But there's still a big part of me that has a hard time imagining him holding out against the pressure much longer. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if, despite all his recent defiance, he finally just throws in the towel. But I also wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he continues to fly the bird to those suggesting he call it a day.
That's likely too soon, but my point is he's not going anywhere without it being his decision. However, I'm having a hard time believing he's going to lose enough votes compared to Trump to lose. Granted it's anecdotal, but I haven't had a discussion with anyone in my actual life who thinks moving off of a Biden is a good idea, let alone thinking they'll vote for a third party.
I know more people who just won't show up, but I know a lot of those on both sides. And as noted above, I know a decent amount who are moving off of Trump to vote for RFK, but that's in a city Trump lost by 10 points.
Biden won Wisconsin by 20k (I'm rounding). Trump would just have to flip 10k + 1 to win Wisconsin (not accounting for recount triggers). However, that's assuming even a 1:1 between Biden losing votes and Trump gaining votes.
Biden flipped five states that Hilary lost -- Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Arizona and Georgia combined totaled about a 20k variance. Those would be the two easiest states to flip, unless there is an overriding trend shifting both states further into blue. That's not enough for Trump to win. He has to flip three of those flipped states back.
McCain & Romney are disgusting because they did not have the balls to take on the MSM and the corruption of the deep state. Part of the problem, not of the solution.
He only needs GA, AZ, and NV (where he has massive leads) along with NE-02 that he won in 2016. Likely doesn't need any of the upper Midwest.
I agree with all of this.
If we assume that Trump wins AZ, NC, GA, and NV and Biden wins MN, NH, and VA (all 7 of these seem likely right now) and there aren't any Black Swan surprises, then:
It comes down to WI, PA, and MI (with one potential caveat in Nebraska's 2nd CD). Basically, if Trump wins any one of these 3 states, he'll win. Biden has to win all 3 of them.
The NE-2 caveat is that if Trump loses WI, PA, and MI -- but wins that district (Biden won it by 6.5% in 2020, Trump narrowly won it in 2016), then we're looking at a 269-269 electoral vote. In that case, the election will be decided by a vote of House delegations -- where each state's delegation gets a single vote.
All that said....
My point above is that one has to be careful putting too much value on national polls. And the reason is that (if recent elections are any guide), Democrats will get a whole bunch more votes in the states they win than Republicans will get in the states they win. That difference was 7 million votes in 2020 -- and it was 2.7 million votes in 2016. Whatever this vote total is going to be (and we don't know that, obviously) has to be discounted from any national poll.
Technically, this is true. However, it seems unlikely that Trump would lose all 3 of WI, MI, and PA....and still win NE-2. You're right that he won it in 2016. But he lost it in 2020 by 6.5%.
I'd be surprised if NE-2 ends up being decisive. But you're right that it could happen.
That said, the head-to-head polling right now seems closer to 2016 than it does to 2020.
Don't you think "disgusting" is too strong? Maybe "they're not admirable because . . . " or "They weren't ideal conservative candidates because . . . "
Got darn, how much time do you spend calculating all of this stuff? (all really cool to read BTW) . We need to get you introduced to drugs, STAT !! Get outside and look at the clouds that look like elephants and giant spiders.
I don't want to battle the "deep state" either
or Godzilla
or Mothra
or whatever other made-up bullshit you Trumpers imagine to exist
or Godzilla
or Mothra
or whatever other made-up bullshit you Trumpers imagine to exist
Similar threads
