2024 U.S. Elections

[ManUtd1999]

He will indeed get blamed for inflation, but to his credit, it has largely subsided over the past year, which if you couple that with a dramatic reduction in the price of fuel/petrol will work in his favor. What will work against him as a sitting President is the cost of living in terms of both housing and groceries, which are two things that tend to animate voters (hence, "its the economy stupid").

I didn’t know that these were low before 2021.

Before 2017: “economic anxiety”
Starting February 2017: the economy is doing great.

This is exactly what would happen if Trump is elected again. The economy would be “bad” until the day he enters the White House. Then, magically, everything would be good. We have seen that before, haven’t we?

 

[Raoul]

I didn’t know that these were low before 2021.

Before 2017: “economic anxiety”
Starting February 2017: the economy is doing great.

This is exactly what would happen if Trump is elected again. The economy would be “bad” until the day he enters the White House. Then, magically, everything would be good. We have seen that before, haven’t we?

I think on food in particular, there was a notable spike during the pandemic recovery, which when combined with inflation and more people being out of work (particularly in service industries), resulted in a perception that things are more expensive.

 

[Morty_]

Don't think the economy is as important for how people vote as in the past, it's largely been replaced by culture wars imo.

One can argue that last time the economy mattered in a big way was 08 or 2010 elections, and then, the economy actually crashed.

 

[maniak]

Do you feel you are partially responsible for the actions of the candidate you voted for? If you vote for Biden are you partially responsible for enabling genocide in gaza? Are you partially responsible for each american sold bomb that blows up a school bus in yemen? Are you partially responsible for the families separated in the mexican border and the kids put in cages?

Are maga supporters partially responsible for the women who die because they can't have an abortion? Are they responsible for the trans kid that killed themselves because they couldn't get the medical support they needed? Are they responsible for the erosion of democracy and the enabling of fascist regimes like russia?

If in a democracy they elected people are our representatives, to what point are we to blame for the actual horrible things that happen because of the leaders' decisions?

Maybe I'm just a snowflake but I would really struggle to see the images from gaza or the cages at the border (not to mention less important things like the broken promises on student debt and fossil fuels) and think "oh I voted for this".

I'm sure millions feel the same, and it's really amazing to see all of this so easily dismissed as people being stupid, naive, selfish or just wanting to feel morally superior. I don't give two shits about moral superiority, I would genuinely be in bed at night thinking about how I actively supported a horrible atrocity.

I think people are capable of disconnecting themselves from the politicians they elected to easily. If they felt more responsible for their actions we would probably have better politicians.

 

[ManUtd1999]

I will vote for Biden with heavy heart this time. No question.

Why I would vote for him? Because Trump is the alternative (and because I think the country is in a better place than it was 4 years ago). That’s it.

 

[WI_Red]

Do you feel you are partially responsible for the actions of the candidate you voted for? If you vote for Biden are you partially responsible for enabling genocide in gaza? Are you partially responsible for each american sold bomb that blows up a school bus in yemen? Are you partially responsible for the families separated in the mexican border and the kids put in cages?

Are maga supporters partially responsible for the women who die because they can't have an abortion? Are they responsible for the trans kid that killed themselves because they couldn't get the medical support they needed? Are they responsible for the erosion of democracy and the enabling of fascist regimes like russia?

If in a democracy they elected people are our representatives, to what point are we to blame for the actual horrible things that happen because of the leaders' decisions?

Maybe I'm just a snowflake but I would really struggle to see the images from gaza or the cages at the border (not to mention less important things like the broken promises on student debt and fossil fuels) and think "oh I voted for this".

I'm sure millions feel the same, and it's really amazing to see all of this so easily dismissed as people being stupid, naive, selfish or just wanting to feel morally superior. I don't give two shits about moral superiority, I would genuinely be in bed at night thinking about how I actively supported a horrible atrocity.

I think people are capable of disconnecting themselves from the politicians they elected to easily. If they felt more responsible for their actions we would probably have better politicians.

This is the second time I’ve seen student debt raised as a broken promise. The administration literally had their debt relief plan invalidated by the Supreme Court due to a fake and made up case. Not sure how that can be classified as a broken promise.

 

[Raoul]

Don't think the economy is as important for how people vote as in the past, it's largely been replaced by culture wars imo.

A rundown of what people voted for in the most recent election.

 

[Raoul]

I will vote for Biden with heavy heart this time. No question.

Why I would vote for him? Because Trump is the alternative (and because I think the country is in a better place than it was 4 years ago). That’s it.

I'm sure millions will join you. The question is whether enough independents will do so to get Biden reelected. Much will of course depend on what's happening in the country as well as Trump's legal situation.

 

[Red in STL]

This is the second time I’ve seen student debt raised as a broken promise. The administration literally had their debt relief plan invalidated by the Supreme Court due to a fake and made up case. Not sure how that can be classified as a broken promise.

It isn't a broken promise because they've used other methods creatively to forgive debt, not perhaps as much as they hoped, I know this because my wife's was cancelled late last year

 

[Morty_]

People say a lot of things, they always rate the economy the highest, but it doesn't hold up in elections, much.

 

[maniak]

This is the second time I’ve seen student debt raised as a broken promise. The administration literally had their debt relief plan invalidated by the Supreme Court due to a fake and made up case. Not sure how that can be classified as a broken promise.

Fair enough, my point still stands because that's probably the least serious of all the things I mentioned.

 

[Raoul]

People say a lot of things, they always rate the economy the highest, but it doesn't hold up in elections, much.

The economy being the most important topic has been a well established maxim in American politics since at least the early 90s. People do fundamentally still vote based on a better quality of life for themselves and their families. This includes right wingers as well, who believe lower taxes and less regulation is their ticket to a better life.

 

[Raoul]

My congressman Adam Schiff for US Senate

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[WI_Red]

Fair enough, my point still stands because that's probably the least serious of all the things I mentioned.

I don't disagree it is the least serious, but I just wanted to point it out.

As for the topic at hand, it is both a difficult and at the same time simple situation. There are many items where I disagree with the Biden administration (you have raised some of them). On the flip side, there have been monumental achievements, far beyond what I could have hoped for in 2020. I think some people outside the US just lack a frame of reference for how shocking the passage of the IRA and infrastructure bills were for those of us here. It is depressing to note that those two, combined, were probably the most substantial pieces of legislation (outside civil rights themed bills) to pass since the New Deal. There has been real, genuine, good done these past few years that will have long lasting (hopefully) positive effects. Now, does that offset the awfulness of the other stuff? In a vacuum it does not come close to doing so as no bridge or road or social program is worth the trade of a life. But we do not live in a vacuum.

Elections in the US are almost always binary choices. There is not a third party, there are no governing coalitions. There is the Democrat party and the Republican party. No amount of moralizing or hope or wishing will change this. When elections arrive the best you can do is campaign and support candidates that best align with your values. If those candidates win their primaries and go on to compete in the general election then you keep going, and if they do not then you are faced with a binary choice: Vote for the remaining candidate that is closest to your ideals, or vote not at all. What would you do in that situation? From your posts I would guess you would choose to vote not at all, which is of course your right, but I would ask to what end does that serve? What good is being accomplished by that choice?

 

[Laurencio]

My congressman Adam Schiff for US Senate

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

It's all well and good to say that, but the votes to do so aren't there.

 

[Raoul]

It's all well and good to say that, but the votes to do so aren't there.

Agreed. Its a good aspirational platform though. And one that will resonate about those frustrated with the status quo.

 

[Morty_]

My congressman Adam Schiff for US Senate

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Who would you prefer, Porter or Schiff?

 

[Raoul]

Who would you prefer, Porter or Schiff?

Porter is very good in terms of consumer issues, but overall, I think Schiff is more well rounded across the board. Of course neither would move the needle in any meaningful way given the near 50/50 nature of the Senate.

 

[SirAF]

I will vote for Biden with heavy heart this time. No question.

Why I would vote for him? Because Trump is the alternative (and because I think the country is in a better place than it was 4 years ago). That’s it.

Good man.

 

[VorZakone]

Still think Biden can get some momentum going for himself as people take note of the solid economic figures and Trump's legal problems piling up.

 

[calodo2003]

I will vote for Biden with heavy heart this time. No question.

Why I would vote for him? Because Trump is the alternative (and because I think the country is in a better place than it was 4 years ago). That’s it.

+1

 

[calodo2003]

Still think Biden can get some momentum going for himself as people take note of the solid economic figures and Trump's legal problems piling up.

The Biden reelection apparatus isn't even out of first gear. The repubs haven't even coalesced on a general election candidate (but we all know who it will be). It's still quite early in the process, but we will start seeing more ads against Trump in short order, most likely beginning with just him bragging about abolishing Roe on a loop or thereabouts.

Quantifiable momentum, either positive or negative, is still a ways away.

 

[berbatrick]

It is depressing to note that those two, combined, were probably the most substantial pieces of legislation (outside civil rights themed bills) to pass since the New Deal.

Definitely disagree - LBJ passed Medicare and Medicaid and massive funding for poverty and education programs. This list is insane by modern standards, and a good part still remains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society#The_major_policy_areas
I'd say even the EPA, passed with veto-proof numbers under Nixon, was a bigger deal. And finally Obamacare is probably an equal, idk.

...

There is an almost purely negative case to be made for him - on the domestic front, Trump is probably worse. But I've got tired of posting links to things here related to climate change and immigration where his administration has repeatedly chosen the right-wing path. To silence from most of those filling the last page. I'm going to assume that they don't care about specific policy much for presidents - fair enough, there's a good case that no matter if Biden "shoots somebody on 5th avenue", Trump is by default worse.
On foreign policy, where presidents have much more leeway than anything else, there's not much to be added to the obvious current thing. In the 2.5 years leading up to this, he hasn't reversed course on Iran or Cuba or the embassy in Jerusalem or sanctions on China.

After the first few months, where he pushed some ambitious stuff that was later killed in the senate, he has consistently gone for centre-right policy. On climate change, immigration, foreign policy.
That's his prerogative. He won from the suburbs. The suburbs aren't radical. They like their centrists. They like steady hands. That's what his policy (if not his person) points to.
Just as pushing M4A or defunding Israel or whatever has huge political drawbacks, so does this strategy - not everybody is a 45 year old college degree homeowner outside Atlanta. Nobody in the Bernie campaign expected to sweep the suburbs. Given his actions, he seems to have made the trade-off that the suburban vote is more important than, for example, the youth or Hispanic vote. He is probably right. Those are less likely to vote and more likely to buckle under pressure to "vote the right way". TINA! But the cost of reducing support in his other bases seems very hard to accept for his supporters.

 

[Red in STL]

Definitely disagree - LBJ passed Medicare and Medicaid and massive funding for poverty and education programs. This list is insane by modern standards, and a good part still remains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society#The_major_policy_areas
I'd say even the EPA, passed with veto-proof numbers under Nixon, was a bigger deal. And finally Obamacare is probably an equal, idk.

...

There is an almost purely negative case to be made for him - on the domestic front, Trump is probably worse. But I've got tired of posting links to things here related to climate change and immigration where his administration has repeatedly chosen the right-wing path. To silence from most of those filling the last page. I'm going to assume that they don't care about specific policy much for presidents - fair enough, there's a good case that no matter if Biden "shoots somebody on 5th avenue", Trump is by default worse.
On foreign policy, where presidents have much more leeway than anything else, there's not much to be added to the obvious current thing. In the 2.5 years leading up to this, he hasn't reversed course on Iran or Cuba or the embassy in Jerusalem or sanctions on China.

After the first few months, where he pushed some ambitious stuff that was later killed in the senate, he has consistently gone for centre-right policy. On climate change, immigration, foreign policy.
That's his prerogative. He won from the suburbs. The suburbs aren't radical. They like their centrists. They like steady hands. That's what his policy (if not his person) points to.
Just as pushing M4A or defunding Israel or whatever has huge political drawbacks, so does this strategy - not everybody is a 45 year old college degree homeowner outside Atlanta. Nobody in the Bernie campaign expected to sweep the suburbs. Given his actions, he seems to have made the trade-off that the suburban vote is more important than, for example, the youth or Hispanic vote. He is probably right. Those are less likely to vote and more likely to buckle under pressure to "vote the right way". TINA! But the cost of reducing support in his other bases seems very hard to accept for his supporters.

TBH on the domestic front reality sets in, no president, especially in modern times, will ever be able to do what he/she really wants because of the filibuster and senators who serve their own interests rather than the countries

 

[WI_Red]

Definitely disagree - LBJ passed Medicare and Medicaid and massive funding for poverty and education programs. This list is insane by modern standards, and a good part still remains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society#The_major_policy_areas
I'd say even the EPA, passed with veto-proof numbers under Nixon, was a bigger deal. And finally Obamacare is probably an equal, idk.

...

There is an almost purely negative case to be made for him - on the domestic front, Trump is probably worse. But I've got tired of posting links to things here related to climate change and immigration where his administration has repeatedly chosen the right-wing path. To silence from most of those filling the last page. I'm going to assume that they don't care about specific policy much for presidents - fair enough, there's a good case that no matter if Biden "shoots somebody on 5th avenue", Trump is by default worse.
On foreign policy, where presidents have much more leeway than anything else, there's not much to be added to the obvious current thing. In the 2.5 years leading up to this, he hasn't reversed course on Iran or Cuba or the embassy in Jerusalem or sanctions on China.

After the first few months, where he pushed some ambitious stuff that was later killed in the senate, he has consistently gone for centre-right policy. On climate change, immigration, foreign policy.
That's his prerogative. He won from the suburbs. The suburbs aren't radical. They like their centrists. They like steady hands. That's what his policy (if not his person) points to.
Just as pushing M4A or defunding Israel or whatever has huge political drawbacks, so does this strategy - not everybody is a 45 year old college degree homeowner outside Atlanta. Nobody in the Bernie campaign expected to sweep the suburbs. Given his actions, he seems to have made the trade-off that the suburban vote is more important than, for example, the youth or Hispanic vote. He is probably right. Those are less likely to vote and more likely to buckle under pressure to "vote the right way". TINA! But the cost of reducing support in his other bases seems very hard to accept for his supporters.

Good call on the Great Society stuff under LBJ as I honestly had forgotten many of the programs that were created or expanded during this time. Not sure I agree with the EPA and Obamacare is just a sad reminder of how appalling healthcare is in the country, even when progress is made.

 

[Morty_]

Porter is very good in terms of consumer issues, but overall, I think Schiff is more well rounded across the board. Of course neither would move the needle in any meaningful way given the near 50/50 nature of the Senate.

I guess it doesn't make too much of a difference, but Porter is more progressive from what i have read, so in a solid blue state, think that would be the best option.

Guess Schiff is the favorite though, seems to have most money and backing.

 

[calodo2003]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Redplane]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

DeSantis has clearly been trained to know that like Haley- he needs to appeal to the less extreme as their only shot because the Trump **** is forever lost.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

And fortunately or unfortunately - no prospective WH occupant in this climate will take a hard line against Israel. Rightfully or not, doing so is political suicide in this country.

That is the conventional wisdom.

Trumps' entire 2016 campaign was said to be one long succession of political suicides after the other. It was perceived as such because he was repeatedly going against Republican Party orthodoxy and then mainstream political orthodoxy. As it turned out, actual voters either disagreed with this orthodoxy, or did not have a deeply held belief and could be swayed by Trump. And so instead of his campaign dying, he won the election.

It happens often. Supporting gay marriage was written about as political suicide as recently as 2007. The major Democratic candidates in the 2008 primaries were all against it. And yet within a decade, gay marriage was legal everywhere in the United States. It probably wasn't any kind of 'suicide' in 2008, as it was already supported by 40-46% of the population and the number had been trending upward for a while. It continued at a similar rate and is currently at 71%. It was conventional wisdom that was likely outdated.

Support for Israel has been trending downward among Democrats for some time. In early 2023, before the Gaza war, Democratic voters were more supportive of the Palestinians than they were of the Israelis. That poll shows a downward shift of almost 50 points in sympathy for Israel since 2001. Polls on the Israel/Gaza war are consistent with this. 45% of Americans disapproved of Israel's actions in Gaza in late November 2023, most of them Democrats. 63% of Democrats, 67% of adults younger than 35, and 64% of minorities disapproved. A recent NY Times poll found similar results, a slim majority of Democrats are more sympathetic to Palestinians than to Israelis. 38% of Biden voters disagree with his handling of the issue, with most of them thinking he is too supportive of Israel.

This hasn't been limited to voters. One hundred US government officials signed a memo criticizing the White House for failing to de-escalate the war and disregarding the lives of Palestinians. Congressional staffers staged a walkout and called for a ceasefire. People have quit positions in the government or the Biden admin over his handling of the issue. It's quite clearly a fraught issue.

Nobody actually knows whether a president taking a hard line against Israel is political suicide. It's just conventional wisdom, which is often wrong and isn't well-supported by the numbers here. What we do know is that Democrats are the voting group least supportive of Israel, and that support for Israel has been slowly trending to be a minority position in the party. In most contexts, we would consider "holding a position that an increasing majority of your voters don't agree with" to be the actual risk.

 

[calodo2003]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[calodo2003]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[calodo2003]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[ManUtd1999]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I remember the good old days, circa 2013-15, when Rubio was supposed to be the “future of the Republican Party.”

Then Trump happened…

 

[nimic]

I remember the good old days, circa 2013-15, when Rubio was supposed to be the “future of the Republican Party.”

Then Trump happened…

DeSantis was the future for a week or two, and then DeSantis happened.

 

[MrMarcello]

Empty suit gonna empty suit.

 

[4bars]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I remember Trump imitating Rubio with the bottle of water. If it would not be that tragic, Trump is pure gold comedy in every aspect. fecking sleezy slimeball

 

[Raoul]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Red in STL]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

So maybe 10 extra votes for Biden then

 

[Sweet Square]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Beachryan]

Still don't put much faith in national polls, though obviously indicates something. Am very curious what % of those 'likely voters' were polled by phone, I still maintain that's going to skew heavily away from D-leaners.

But the US is where it is. The MAGA movement is now the single largest faction in US politics, and it is focussed, motivated and angry. What's most infuriating is the fringe Rs, who were NeverTrump last time, are either sitting this one out or holding their noses.

I'm somewhat at the despondent stage with the US. I fear it will have to get worse before it gets better. The MAGA idiots cannot be convinced by history, facts or reason. So the whole country appears to be going to let itself be held captive by the stupid minority. It's fascinating, depressing and infuriating.