USA US presidential election 2024: Sleepy Joe v Stable Genius 2.0?

[Blue Arrow]

Bring back Hillary, unlike Harris Democrats actually voted for Hillary in their primaries.

US politics is in a sad state.
Trump, Biden then maybe Harris.

 

[spinynorman]

God, a documentary about Buttigieg's 2020 campaign is coming out.



Nauseating.

 

[dusty1234!]

Just no
Jesus

 

[Marcel Proust]

Pete Buttigieg is planning to spend his presidency on paternity leave.

He is talking about his husband on fox news.

Going to be many triggered

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The latest from David Frum.

In Trump’s first term, the country was protected to some degree by his ignorance and ineptitude. He kept trying to do bad things, but it took him a while to figure out how the controls operated, where the kill-switches were located. By the time of his attempt to extort the Ukrainian president, in 2019, Trump had achieved a higher degree of mastery. But by then it was too late. Then the pandemic struck, and Trump bumped into a new wall of failure. In a second Trump presidency, however, the burglars will arrive already knowing how to bypass the alarms and disable the locks. He’ll understand that it’s not enough to install an ally as attorney general—he must control the secondary and tertiary ranks of the Justice Department too. He won’t allow himself to be talked into another chief of staff with an independent sense of duty, such as John Kelly, who averted much harm from the middle of 2017 to the beginning of 2019. It’ll be Mark Meadows types from day one to day last. And he’ll bring with them a new generation of Republican officeholders whose top priority will be rearranging their states’ election laws so that Republicans do not lose power even if they lose the vote.

 

[JackFlash]

Sleepy Joe might not make it to 2023 after the thrashing they just received in Virginia...The USA is a sad place, but the tide will turn come the mid terms!..

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Sleepy Joe might not make it to 2023 after the thrashing they just received in Virginia...The USA is a sad place, but the tide will turn come the mid terms!..

What are you on about?

You think a gubernatorial election in Virginia will determine whether Biden seeks re-election two years later?

As for the mid-terms, yeah, the Democrats will lose seats. No kidding. That's generally what happens.

Is this your first year paying attention to US politics?

 

[Brad Goodman]

They got smashed during Obama’s first term, yet he still got a second term.

The mid terms often go badly for the party in the White House, so while the current situation is concerning for the D’s it’s not necessarily a death knell.

 

[JackFlash]

What are out on about?

You think a gubernatorial election in Virginia will determine whether Biden seeks re-election two years later?

As for the mid-terms, yeah, the Democrats will lose seats. No kidding. That's generally what happens.

Is this your first year paying attention to US politics?

I have forgotten more about US politcs than you will learn in a lifetime. To simplify it for you to understand more clearly, Biden will get annihilated in the mid terms in 2022, this will be no general downturn, this will be a complete Democrat disater. Sleepy Joe might never know it unless someone wakes him up in time for the results? The insanity of this year in the USA has only proved this incompetant fool won't run again...

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I have forgotten more about US politcs than you will learn in a lifetime.

I doubt that.

But if you feel like you're forgetting things, it may be a sign you're losing your wits.

To simplify it for you to understand more clearly, Biden will get annihilated in the mid terms in 2022, this will be no general downturn, this will be a complete Democrat disater. Sleepy Joe might never know it unless someone wakes him up in time for the results? The insanity of this year in the USA has only proved this incompetant fool won't run again...

That may be true but the result in Virginia doesn't make the case. Of course Democrats will lose seats in the mid-terms, as usually happens, and there's every chance Biden doesn't seek a second term. It's the premise of this thread. But the result in Virginia doesn't prove it.

You're also suggesting Biden might step aside before 2023? Based on what? The result in Virginia?

What do you think you're arguing?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Is there any chance that Trump doesn't run again?

It certainly seems like if he runs, he wins the nomination. Even this far in advance, I just can't see another Republican beating him in a primary.

So it'll be Trump v who?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Good luck, Chris Christie...

 

[spinynorman]

God, a documentary about Buttigieg's 2020 campaign is coming out.



Nauseating.

lol poor Chasten.

 

[The Passenger]

God, a documentary about Buttigieg's 2020 campaign is coming out.



Nauseating.

I suspect it won't go down in the American cultural pantheon as a modern day Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail.

 

[Roobs321]

Well you get elected for 4 years, not 8, so anything less than the appearance of a competitive primary is corrupt to me. But they'd probably prefer to keep Biden than risk a truly competitive primary, and Harris would need to screw up royally or be thwarted behind closed doors to not be presumptive-backed nominee. We've had a few recent incumbents like Truman, LBJ and Ford who needed to win support to contest a first full term, and HW, Gore, Nixon, etc. were some veeps that also had to go primaries. Rigged a bit? Yes. But better than nothing.

I feel like we've seen the best campaigns of both Bernie and Trump, I hate to mention the word 'legacy' but I think it might be time for them to throw themselves behind other candidates.

We might be in a single term era right now. JFK-Carter had the resemblance of that given the chaos of two terms cut short, but I think you really have to go back to the century-ago Harding/Coolidge/Hoover Republican interwar era between Woodrow and FDR.

 

[Noire]

 

[Noire]

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I don't read too much into this, but now would be a good time for Murdoch to decide that Trump belongs in the past.

Just like Logan Roy ditched "The Raisin".

Rupert Murdoch says Trump should stop focusing ‘on the past’ in rare rebuke

Fox News boss has made few public comments about ex-president who was championed by many of the network’s commentators

www.theguardian.com

 

[Coolangatta]

This is a Quora comment about why Obama would smoke Shapiro in a debate. What I want to know is, if that is true, why the hell don't the Democrats have at least one person who's a damn good speaker who can take Trump and his cult to task? Is it because the corruption in the DNC causes people to take whatever is said, no matter how neatly presented, with a grain of salt?

Surely after the attempt to smear Biden on his "dementia" the Democrats would be mindful of that and have someone that's got the gift of the gab at the helm.

"In a political debate, Shapiro would likely lose. Unlike Obama, he has never really participated in a large audience political debate that was objectively scored or evaluated. Barack Obama was a skilled political debater. During the 2008 Campaign, he clearly bested the Democratic front runner, HRC during the primary season; and won all three of his debates with John McCain.

By “win,” I mean that the post debate polls showed a demonstrative advantage to Obama as being the “winner.” McCain clearly was the more seasoned experienced political debater at that point; but Obama chalked up three clear wins according to pollsters. During the 2012 Campaign, Romney clearly won the first debate according to pollsters; and then Obama clearly beat him in the second and third. Again, as a former Governor, Romney was a formidable debater. Obama was unusually flat during the first debate and I think he was overconfident.

After that slow start, he never made the same mistake again. So, in one corner, you have a person who competed and won on the highest stage of political debate in the United States, which is a POTUS campaign. Obama basically won 5/6 of the general election debates against very seasoned political debaters; and crushed HRC in the primary debates. In the other corner, you have Ben Shapiro who generally debates lightweight amateurs in canned low attendance events at colleges. Recently, Ben objected to having to debate in a 2000 seat college arena because he was concerned it would appear empty.

Shawn Vestal: Gonzaga’s College Republicans left empty-handed by conservative Ben Shapiro You can’t remotely compare Ben’s experience with the experience of POTUS debates that millions view and microanalyze every exchange. I think either Romney or McCain would have soundly defeated Ben in any debate simply because he lacks any gravitas or real world experience in politics. Can you imagine Ben debating Romney on healthcare; or McCain on foreign affairs? Obama did and beat them both. In my home town, pre-internet age, there was a relatively smart guy who used to debate/argue with everyone based upon sources he read in newspapers, magazines or encyclopedias.

It was much harder to fact check back then and he could generally leave his opponents speechless with his very prodigious memory. But one day, he was practically crying when he stepped out of his lane and tried to argue defense budget issues with one of the people charged at the Philly Navy Yard with budgeting and cost issues surrounding the Saratoga retrofit project. On one side, you had an adult professional intimately aware of how defense projects were budgeted and audited; on the other, you had a snot nose kid misusing a statistic about a $300 Pentagon toilet seat cover he read in a news opinion piece. Who do you think won that “debate?”

(And, I was that snot nose kid, and was flatly embarrassed). In other words, there are people out there who really know WTF they are talking about because they do it day and day out; and there are very bright young people who have selective knowledge based upon what they read in selected media. When they square off, it’s not much of a debate. Honestly, that’s Ben’s level of knowledge of any specific subject area. He has never worked in a real public policy area; and all Ben can do is give the 21st Century equivalent of citing some magazine article or study.

Ben can tell you about a Heritage, Brookings or Pew study; and Romney and Obama can give detailed information about the underlying research that led to their health care programs, including the political and budget realities. Ben can talk about Foreign Affairs issues from what he reads in news articles but Obama knows all of these players personally. Obama was commander in chief of the world’s largest military for 8 years. Is Ben really going to debate Obama on military issues? Is Ben going to school Obama on race?

Ben graduated law school, worked for a law firm for ten months in an undistinguished capacity, and then joined Breitbart. He came to the right’s attention after he punched back at Piers Morgan following Sandy Hook—smug meet smug. He has then gained limited attention podcasting, writing poorly sourced opinion pieces for second-tier political periodicals, and taking his act on the college circuit in selected venues.

In the real world, he lacks the ability to even debate a very pedestrian appellate lawyer from a mid size state AG’s office who routinely handles arguments at the local appeals court. Now, he’s basically doing Tucker Carlson’s old act. Ben Shapiro would get crushed in any kind of political debate with Obama. In fact, he’d likely be so star struck seeing a real world leader, he would adopt the earnest student approach rather than the provocateur."

 

[Sweet Jesus]

This is a Quora comment about why Obama would smoke Shapiro in a debate. What I want to know is, if that is true, why the hell don't the Democrats have at least one person who's a damn good speaker who can take Trump and his cult to task?

I think you start off with the wrong question.

You could have the best speaker in the world and it wouldn't make a difference to Trump diehards.

And what does a hypothetical Obama v Shapiro have to do with anything? Is Shapiro running for president?

I didn't read the lengthy Quora post. Why would anyone?

 

[Coolangatta]

I think you start off with the wrong question.

You could have the best speaker in the world and it wouldn't make a difference to Trump diehards.

I didn't read the lengthy Quora post. Why would anyone?

Well, how many Trump voters do you think are diehards compared to those who aren't too fond of him but vote for him because he has an R next to his name? Perhaps a great speaker could make a difference to more moderate voters, but then again Obama didn't and those before him who were great speakers.

Do you think anything can be done to turn diehard Trumpers away from him?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Well, how many Trump voters do you think are diehards compared to those who aren't too fond of him but vote for him because he has an R next to his name?

Well, 75 per cent of Republicans believe his lie that the election was stolen. They have chosen derangement.

Round it down, if you like. Trump got 75 million votes in 2020, despite the economy cratering in the midst of a pandemic. I reckon two-thirds of those voters prefer Trump to the GOP. Trump owns the base of that party.

That's not to say they won't vote for another GOP candidate if Trump isn't on the ballot, but they voted for Trump, not the GOP establishment.

Perhaps a great speaker could make a difference to more moderate voters, but then again Obama didn't and those before him who were great speakers.

Honestly, WTF are you talking about? Have you been paying attention for the past 5 years?

Do you think that if Obama was somehow magically able to run again, he'd give a speech and the dumbest 50 million Trump-voting imbeciles would somehow change their minds?

You think that all that's required is "a great speaker" who can just say some magic words and these folks will climb down off the ledge?

There is a section of the US electorate - call it 50 million - that is unreachable.

Do you think anything can be done to turn diehard Trumpers away from him?

Not the diehards. But there's also not enough of them to get a majority of the popular vote. But the GOP isn't trying to get a majority of the popular vote. They want to get 47 per cent of the popular vote, but have that 47 per cent distributed just evenly enough to win enough of the 7-8 states that actually decide presidential elections.

 

[spinynorman]

This is a Quora comment about why Obama would smoke Shapiro in a debate. What I want to know is, if that is true, why the hell don't the Democrats have at least one person who's a damn good speaker who can take Trump and his cult to task? Is it because the corruption in the DNC causes people to take whatever is said, no matter how neatly presented, with a grain of salt?

Surely after the attempt to smear Biden on his "dementia" the Democrats would be mindful of that and have someone that's got the gift of the gab at the helm.

"In a political debate, Shapiro would likely lose. Unlike Obama, he has never really participated in a large audience political debate that was objectively scored or evaluated. Barack Obama was a skilled political debater. During the 2008 Campaign, he clearly bested the Democratic front runner, HRC during the primary season; and won all three of his debates with John McCain.

By “win,” I mean that the post debate polls showed a demonstrative advantage to Obama as being the “winner.” McCain clearly was the more seasoned experienced political debater at that point; but Obama chalked up three clear wins according to pollsters. During the 2012 Campaign, Romney clearly won the first debate according to pollsters; and then Obama clearly beat him in the second and third. Again, as a former Governor, Romney was a formidable debater. Obama was unusually flat during the first debate and I think he was overconfident.

After that slow start, he never made the same mistake again. So, in one corner, you have a person who competed and won on the highest stage of political debate in the United States, which is a POTUS campaign. Obama basically won 5/6 of the general election debates against very seasoned political debaters; and crushed HRC in the primary debates. In the other corner, you have Ben Shapiro who generally debates lightweight amateurs in canned low attendance events at colleges. Recently, Ben objected to having to debate in a 2000 seat college arena because he was concerned it would appear empty.

Shawn Vestal: Gonzaga’s College Republicans left empty-handed by conservative Ben Shapiro You can’t remotely compare Ben’s experience with the experience of POTUS debates that millions view and microanalyze every exchange. I think either Romney or McCain would have soundly defeated Ben in any debate simply because he lacks any gravitas or real world experience in politics. Can you imagine Ben debating Romney on healthcare; or McCain on foreign affairs? Obama did and beat them both. In my home town, pre-internet age, there was a relatively smart guy who used to debate/argue with everyone based upon sources he read in newspapers, magazines or encyclopedias.

It was much harder to fact check back then and he could generally leave his opponents speechless with his very prodigious memory. But one day, he was practically crying when he stepped out of his lane and tried to argue defense budget issues with one of the people charged at the Philly Navy Yard with budgeting and cost issues surrounding the Saratoga retrofit project. On one side, you had an adult professional intimately aware of how defense projects were budgeted and audited; on the other, you had a snot nose kid misusing a statistic about a $300 Pentagon toilet seat cover he read in a news opinion piece. Who do you think won that “debate?”

(And, I was that snot nose kid, and was flatly embarrassed). In other words, there are people out there who really know WTF they are talking about because they do it day and day out; and there are very bright young people who have selective knowledge based upon what they read in selected media. When they square off, it’s not much of a debate. Honestly, that’s Ben’s level of knowledge of any specific subject area. He has never worked in a real public policy area; and all Ben can do is give the 21st Century equivalent of citing some magazine article or study.

Ben can tell you about a Heritage, Brookings or Pew study; and Romney and Obama can give detailed information about the underlying research that led to their health care programs, including the political and budget realities. Ben can talk about Foreign Affairs issues from what he reads in news articles but Obama knows all of these players personally. Obama was commander in chief of the world’s largest military for 8 years. Is Ben really going to debate Obama on military issues? Is Ben going to school Obama on race?

Ben graduated law school, worked for a law firm for ten months in an undistinguished capacity, and then joined Breitbart. He came to the right’s attention after he punched back at Piers Morgan following Sandy Hook—smug meet smug. He has then gained limited attention podcasting, writing poorly sourced opinion pieces for second-tier political periodicals, and taking his act on the college circuit in selected venues.

In the real world, he lacks the ability to even debate a very pedestrian appellate lawyer from a mid size state AG’s office who routinely handles arguments at the local appeals court. Now, he’s basically doing Tucker Carlson’s old act. Ben Shapiro would get crushed in any kind of political debate with Obama. In fact, he’d likely be so star struck seeing a real world leader, he would adopt the earnest student approach rather than the provocateur."

Because “winning a debate” doesn’t mean s**t in the real world. Neither Trump nor Biden won because of their ability to coherently articulate a thoughtful structured argument. The two presidential winners who are seen as having made a difference through debates - Kennedy and Reagan - “won” because of their attractiveness and charm, simply.

At least in Australia nobody pretends the debates make any difference and recognise that the overwhelming audience are just cheerleading their guy.

Also, the example of the military budget thing is dumb. Knowledge doesn’t make one “right”. I don’t know the minute details of what in the Pentagon budget goes to X, Y and Z, but nor do I need to to know that the American military budget is grotesquely bloated.

 

[JackFlash]

Obama has always been greatly overrated....

 

[Allezjuel]

Momentum growing for Rob DeSantis, will he be the one to challenge Trump?

All other republicans who have spoken out against Trump have had Trump turn the party against them. He really is running the party like a mob boss in that respect.

I really hope we do see a strong republican primary as the primary season and debates are always entertaining. Unfortunately I think it will be a small field though as most republican hopefuls will be scared of running against Trump for the backlash.

Would any republicans that have previously spoken out against him like Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney think of running? Even if they didn't think they could seriosuly win, they may see it as an opportunity to pull the party back from the far right.

I know Mitt Romney is incredibly unlikely to get through a primary, but I see him as a good match-up against Biden to get centrist votes who have previously only voted for Biden as the lesser of two evils.