[Politics] The 2024 US Election - *MATCH DAY*

[Greg Bobkin]

Complete and utter shambles. Someone else's fault, someone else to blame.

In politics, your true opponents aren't always found on the other side of the house. They're often in your own party and wanting your job.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7m24zg85eo

Former US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said Democrats might have fared better in Tuesday's election if President Joe Biden had exited the race sooner.

Pelosi - one of the most powerful politicians in Washington - told the New York Times that "had the president gotten out sooner, there may have been other candidates in the race".

Pelosi told the New York Times: "The anticipation was that, if the president were to step aside, that there would be an open primary."

Pelosi argued that Harris would have done well in such a primary process and it would have made her "stronger going forward".

"But we don’t know that. That didn’t happen. We live with what happened," the California congresswoman, who was re-elected to her 20th term in the House on Tuesday, said.

"And because the president endorsed Kamala Harris immediately, that really made it almost impossible to have a primary at that time. If it had been much earlier, it would have been different."

Speaking to political news outlet Politico, Harris aides also laid the blame at Biden’s feet and said he should have bowed out sooner.

“We ran the best campaign we could, considering Joe Biden was president,” said one unnamed aide. “Joe Biden is the singular reason Kamala Harris and Democrats lost tonight.”

However, a former Biden aide told Axios, another political news outlet, that Harris was making excuses.

"How did you spend $1 billion and not win?” said the aide, adding an expletive.

An unnamed former Biden aide told Politico this week that former President Barack Obama’s advisers were to blame because they “publicly encouraged Democratic infighting to push Joe Biden out, didn’t even want Kamala Harris as the nominee”.

Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, a Democrat, blamed the election loss on those who plotted to oust Biden.

“For those that decided and moved to break Biden, and then you got the election that you wanted, it’s appropriate to own the outcome and fallout,” he told political outlet Semafor in an interview.

Congressman Tom Suozzi, New York Democratic congressman, said the election loss was partly due to the party's focus on "being politically correct".

He said the party had struggled to counteract Republican attack lines on "anarchy on college campuses, defund the police, biological boys playing in girls' sports, and a general attack on traditional values".

Ritchie Torres, another New York Democratic congressman, posted on X, formerly Twitter, blaming "the far left”.

He said radicals within the party had “managed to alienate historic numbers of Latinos, Blacks, Asians, and Jews from the Democratic Party with absurdities like ‘Defund the Police’ or ‘From the River to the Sea’ or ‘Latinx’”.

Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who ran for president as a Democrat in 2016 and 2020, accused the party in a lengthy statement of abandoning working people.

"While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change," he wrote. "And they’re right."

He argued Democrats probably wouldn't learn from the election outcome.

But Democratic National Committee Chairman Jaime Harrison responded on X that Sanders' accusation was "straight up BS".

If they are looking for someone to 'blame', it's Donald Trump, for deciding to run again. As I've said before, I don't think there is a single candidate that would've beaten him. Sad - and crazy - but true.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

I'm back with another update for all you schadenfreude fans, and this one's a doozy

View attachment 192116

Shit like that is why I will continue to say some people are stupid. Maybe it's not their fault, but they could at least - as they would say - "Do their own research"...

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

The sign incident happened. I'm all for calling out misinformation but it literally happened.

Texas State University President addresses "hateful" and "disgusting" signs on campus

Texas State University officials and a state lawmaker are speaking out after an incident Wednesday where two people carried homophobic and misogynistic signs, s

cbsaustin.com

Yes and it happened before Trump was in power, we have seen some vile scenes in unis over the past year.
Americans can be vile with or without Trump in charge

 

[bobbab5]

My working theory is CINO (Christian In Name Only) - I have a couple of friends who are C of E, and involve themselves at their local church.

They have (between themselves) divided their local congregation into three categories:

1. those who genuinely believe and work hard to live by Christian values.

2. Regular people, not massively observant, decent to talk to and well-meaning.

3. CINO - those who are at the church to try and derive status from it, and who occasionally try to embroil the local vicar in what he considers some quite ungodly causes (closing down the soup kitchen, because the annex smells after all the homeless people have been in was one that stuck in my mind) they are often on lots of committees outside the church too.

American Christianity seems weaponised to me, and chock full of CINO who want to use their status to try and order society as they see fit.

Christianity being what they hide behind, but people who would have been given very short shrift by Jesus, and had better hope that no Old Testament god makes their presence felt.

That’s a personal theory, backed up by no more than some anecdotal conversations with a couple of friends in the UK. It’s the best I have atm. I go back to my previous point of America’s total amorality, and not believing this is an example we should follow. Lots of churches in America, very few genuine Christians to my mind.

TLDR - religion as status symbol, rather than belief. Performative Christianity if you will.

And Trump is emphatically NOT a Christian, no real Christian would hawk a tacky "Trump" bible.

 

[JetsetJimbo]

Must admit I've wasted most of this morning watching American gamer chuds only now realising they've completely shafted themselves. The person replying here probably thinks he's so smart for this.

Edit: Here's the article if anyone's interested: https://gizmodo.com/trumps-proposed-tariffs-will-hit-gamers-hard-2000521796

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Popped in here from other thread as well

 

[jcdenton08]

Popped in here from other thread as well

There is certainly some truth to this. This was Labour and their supporters under Corbyn.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Maybe this is the way forward in elections, an 'anti-vote' simply to keep one side out of office.
It happened here in the summer and looks a similar event if the good old US of A.

 

[ROSM]

In the world of 280 character messages nobody does long form politics anymore.

Back in the 70s, party political broadcasts were 10mins long. Each channel had a 1 hour political interview every Sunday (itv weekend world was shining example whether Peter Jay or brian walden) at elections every house had the manifesto of the 3 major parties posted through your door.

Now it's about how views are amplified and as others have said , about who you hate most. Could be commies, foreigners, the lazy workshy, woke left/snowflakes, racists, bigots, fascists etc

And then when you've picked your hero or villain and you start having buyers regret, you will then blame the other side for making you feel that way

I have long mused what would happens if before selecting a candidate people should be able to answer 3 things about their policies. Wrong answers means you don't vote.

That would make everybody work harder

 

[chickens]

Popped in here from other thread as well

I would agree with some of that, but I have to say that all “sides” have more than their fair share of dickheads.

My own political instincts are fairly centrist, with a slight leaning toward the left (I find the right too cavalier/callous over those who simply cannot fend for themselves, I would probably veer right slightly if they could correct their blindness to suffering)

When I was on Twitter, I’d see as much posted by the left that made me want to vote for the other side as I would by the right.

I would say the right (especially when defending Johnson et al) were more likely to spit out absolute untruths, but the left absolutely loved a pile on where they could demonstrate their moral superiority. There was lots to dislike on all sides, hence deleting my Twitter account.

 

[dsr-burnley]

In the world of 280 character messages nobody does long form politics anymore.

Back in the 70s, party political broadcasts were 10mins long. Each channel had a 1 hour political interview every Sunday (itv weekend world was shining example whether Peter Jay or brian walden) at elections every house had the manifesto of the 3 major parties posted through your door.

Now it's about how views are amplified and as others have said , about who you hate most. Could be commies, foreigners, the lazy workshy, woke left/snowflakes, racists, bigots, fascists etc

And then when you've picked your hero or villain and you start having buyers regret, you will then blame the other side for making you feel that way

I have long mused what would happens if before selecting a candidate people should be able to answer 3 things about their policies. Wrong answers means you don't vote.

That would make everybody work harder

On the other hand, it would still give rise to (accurate) accusations of gerrymandering by politicians who believe that they are not going to win a fully democratic election.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

There is certainly some truth to this. This was Labour and their supporters under Corbyn.

No compromise with the electorate.

(I laugh these days every time I read about Starmer betraying socialism.

Yes - that was why I rejoined the Labour party and a majority voted the tories out.

And if Starmer-Labour is just Tory-lite why do the Tories hate him so much?)

Nancy Pelosi is almost as senile as Biden. The Democrats need a new broom.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

In the world of 280 character messages nobody does long form politics anymore.

Back in the 70s, party political broadcasts were 10mins long. Each channel had a 1 hour political interview every Sunday (itv weekend world was shining example whether Peter Jay or brian walden) at elections every house had the manifesto of the 3 major parties posted through your door.

Now it's about how views are amplified and as others have said , about who you hate most. Could be commies, foreigners, the lazy workshy, woke left/snowflakes, racists, bigots, fascists etc

And then when you've picked your hero or villain and you start having buyers regret, you will then blame the other side for making you feel that way

I have long mused what would happens if before selecting a candidate people should be able to answer 3 things about their policies. Wrong answers means you don't vote.

That would make everybody work harder

I'd love a citizen's rights examination, whereby if you fail you don't get to vote (and have restrictions on how much you can gob off on social media, albeit I'd settle for just the former).

I'd also like a 'right to reproduce' bill with penalties for the feckless and dissolute and criminally negligent who pop out kids whilly nilly and make no effort to raise them.

And how difficult is it to curtail dangerous dog ownership? How hard would it be to ban and cull all those big-jawed fuckers?

And so on.

But I'm not a liberal and if the majority want soppy-bollocks liberal laws and almost unrestricted personal freedoms, so be it. Who am I to dictate (etc.).

 

[ROSM]

I'd love a citizen's rights examination, whereby if you fail you don't get to vote (and have restrictions on how much you can gob off on social media, albeit I'd settle for just the former).

I'd also like a 'right to reproduce' bill with penalties for the feckless and dissolute and criminally negligent who pop out kids whilly nilly and make no effort to raise them.

And how difficult is it to curtail dangerous dog ownership? How hard would it be to ban and cull all those big-jawed fuckers?

And so on.

But I'm not a liberal and if the majority want soppy-bollocks liberal laws and almost unrestricted personal freedoms, so be it. Who am I to dictate (etc.).

Perhaps we should have a beer and discuss it.

We could start the 'your real enemy are the people who don't understand why you vote the way you do party' and then sneak these laws in under the radar.

If you can't beat them, join them

 

[JetsetJimbo]

Popped in here from other thread as well

So where does the fact that one side voted for the deportation and denaturalisation of their brown-skinned neighbours come into this "analysis"?

 

[jcdenton08]

So where does the fact that one side voted for the deportation and denaturalisation of their brown-skinned neighbours come into this "analysis"?

Portions of one side voted for that as a primary factor. Portions voted for pro-life. Portions voted for economic reasons. Portions voted for gun rights.

My point is that blanket statements like “everyone who voted for Trump voted for mass deportation” may be technically correct (the best kind of correct), but many will have voted for Trump despite that.

The Democratic vote collapsed. It was democrats who lost their vote share. 15m votes disappeared. It’s clear nobody was very happy with the Biden administration and saw Harris as a continuation of the same regime.

A perception probably not helped when Harris was asked what she had done differently to Biden, and she said nothing.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

So where does the fact that one side voted for the deportation and denaturalisation of their brown-skinned neighbours come into this "analysis"?

A yes, the everyone is racist line.
Proved her point really.

 

[JetsetJimbo]

Portions of one side voted for that as a primary factor. Portions voted for pro-life. Portions voted for economic reasons. Portions voted for gun rights.

My point is that blanket statements like “everyone who voted for Trump voted for mass deportation” may be technically correct (the best kind of correct), but many will have voted for Trump despite that.

The Democratic vote collapsed. It was democrats who lost their vote share. 15m votes disappeared. It’s clear nobody was very happy with the Biden administration and saw Harris as a continuation of the same regime.

A perception probably not helped when Harris was asked what she had done differently to Biden, and she said nothing.

That's not really an answer though, is it? And @Kinky Gerbil's even less so, but that one doesn't even warrant a response.

See, if a party presented a policy programme that was literally everything I ever wanted -- hell, they could even put in "free money for life for blokes called Jim" -- but added "yeah, and we're also gonna round up a bunch of brown people, take their legitimate citizenship away, and deport them" I'd vote against them because I couldn't tolerate the racism.

So all those different categories you mentioned, yes they might have differing primary motivations, but they've ALL decided they're okay with the racism and misogyny.

If only we had nouns to describe people who are okay with racism and misogyny. But alas.

 

[Withdean11]

It does slightly ease my hurt, hurt feelings that Trump's vote count went DOWN.

So suggestions the whole of America has suddenly lurched to the right demographically is not really true.

Trump has now surpassed his 2020 vote total meaning he has grown in popularity each election cycle since 2016.

Have a good weekend

 

[jcdenton08]

That's not really an answer though, is it? And @Kinky Gerbil's even less so, but that one doesn't even warrant a response.

See, if a party presented a policy programme that was literally everything I ever wanted -- hell, they could even put in "free money for life for blokes called Jim" -- but added "yeah, and we're also gonna round up a bunch of brown people, take their legitimate citizenship away, and deport them" I'd vote against them because I couldn't tolerate the racism.

So all those different categories you mentioned, yes they might have differing primary motivations, but they've ALL decided they're okay with the racism and misogyny.

If only we had nouns to describe people who are okay with racism and misogyny. But alas.

The main point I was making was that the democratic campaign and the candidate didn’t get the democratic voters figuratively moist with excitement. They didn’t vote. If they had’ve voted, then the “racist right” wouldn’t have won.

Incidentally, immigration and multiculturalism is a worldwide hot button issue. You have outright racists who will say England is for the whites. You will also have people saying uncontrolled immigration is unsustainable on infrastructure. To many on the left the two statements are identical, when in reality they aren’t.

It shuts down all debate, pushes people further to the right, and they end up voting UKIP, Reform - or in this case - for Trump.