Election Season 2024 (United States)

[GloomCookie]

I know it's still stupid early to be having these discussions but I'm already getting flooded on my way to work with discussions about certain governor races and the like for this year, and given that 2024 is a US Presidential election cycle, I feel it's better to nip this in the bud and start a thread.

I would ask that the conversation remain focused on the major issues and candidates themselves, but given that Donald J. Trump is seeking to once more become the Republican front runner against incumbent Joseph R. Biden, there will inevitably be discussions related to the current Trump lawsuits and legal battles that may inhibit or even outright block his entry into state primaries/caucuses.

Speaking of which, here is a list of tentative state primaries. We will see a lot more activity leading up to March 2024 as that is when the first events kick off, which is only 5 months away.

Please keep all discussions civil and in keeping with the rules of the forum as a whole and this board in particular. Personal attacks will not be tolerated, nor will rude behavior. We're all friends here, so lets remember that while we may disagree, the US Presidential election doesn't affect people's lives as personally as state or local elections, which can have an impact on more immediate issues.

Thank you.

[Chulanowa]

I think I speak for everyone when I say, "Oh god, again?!"

[Missy]

M yas well get started talking. I personally don't think Trump stands a real chance against Biden, Biden may be old and it may show at tiems, but he's a smart guy and an elder statemen. Certainly he wouldn't be my ideal choice, but irregardless he's the type of middle grounder whose already beaten trump once and I think will do so again.

[Missy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGziIjdTf3k

Actually I should probabyl add somethin more substantive than my personal opinion. The thing about trump is he really is just a one trick pony and this trick may well work for his diehard supporters. The diehardiest few might even show up at his property if he asks (a few, like in the past). Overtall though these antics aren't going to do anything for the moderates, of which Biden is, really these antics are just goign to impress the American center poorly and push them right into Bidens camp. Couple that with the fact Biden doesn't have to worry about the debt ceiling in 2024 and the inevitable antics of the cheesebrains trumps inspires. I don;t know trump running for president again could really be the end of the line for the dirty republicans.

[Oniya]

There's been some acknowledgement among the GOP that a 'Trump endorsement' is really a kiss of death when it comes to the actual majority of the party's constituents.  Even FOX News is pointing out the problems facing the upcoming races:

https://radio.foxnews.com/2023/11/10/gop-kiss-of-death/

(My personal opinion of Tomi Lahren is about the same as Don Henley's.  She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye.  This commentary is provided to show that the R's are talking about this in public instead of behind closed doors.)

[GloomCookie]

Usually an election like this is more a barometer for the sitting president, since it's only if the people think the president is doing good enough that they'll keep him in office. With Trump being a former president, however, it's a question on if Biden is doing poor enough, and Trump is popular enough, to warrant a second chance.

I don't think he'll get that much influence, however, as most of his victory in 2016 came from a severe dislike of Hillary Clinton. She was extremely unpopular and basically enough people saw Trump as simply the lesser of two evils. Hillary was meant to win, at least according to all the poles and 'professional' opinions, so Trump's victory was an outlier. But, I think between his actions and choosing between him or Joe Biden, I genuinely think Biden's only real opponent will be himself.

Now, something I am curious about is if he will keep Harris around as VP. There was speculation even a few months ago that Biden wouldn't be on the ticket, and maybe it's just because I haven't been paying much attention, but Harris seems to have kept a very low profile. If she is replaced, it would be either to strengthen the ticket as a whole, or because they want someone that appeals so that people can feel confident, given Biden's sometimes clouded mental state.

Anyway, I'm no professional strategist, that's just how I see the next few months shaping up as people jockey for position. I'm curious if Trump's legal issues will prohibit him from running, but that remains to be seen.

[Chulanowa]

I'm curious if Trump's legal issues will prohibit him from running, but that remains to be seen.

Nope. There is exactly no law in the US that prohibits a convicted felon of running for or holding office - much less a person who's just facing prosecution. Though ironically a felon couldn't vote for themselves. 

Rather famously Eugene Debs ran his 1920 Presidential campaign while serving ten years in Atlanta Federal Penitentiary, on charges of sedition (He had urged resistance to  the draft.) While he carried no states he DID win 6% of the popular vote. Pretty impressive for an imprisoned socialist (even in 1920)

So when we see poll after poll after poll showing that Biden is actually behind Trump in a theoretical rematch, while Trump is making an ass of himself in front of a judge? To the point that the White House feels the need to engage in preemptive damage control? 

I dunno guys, at the least I think the Democrats might have to perk up and actually try to win votes this time.

[Oniya]

I will point out that - compared to Trump - Debs was a moderately competent politician, with an actual platform.  He didn't rely on rallies and name-calling tirades against his opponents.  The question is less 'will his legal matters render him ineligible' (although the treason/sedition issue has yet to be fully explored), and more 'will his constant court appearances and possible incarceration render his campaign model ineffective'.

[Chulanowa]

(although the treason/sedition issue has yet to be fully explored)

Well he literally can't be charged with treason (Treason has not been a viable crime in the US for nearly eighty years) and none of  the charges against him are sedition - or even insurrection (the latter actually WOULD render him ineligible for any office, if convicted.) So they're not going to get explored.

'will his constant court appearances and possible incarceration render his campaign model ineffective'

No.

Republicans don't give a shit. If Trump's the nominee, they'll vote for him, just because they don't want a Democrat to win. Now, whether he will be the nominee is a fair question, but rest assured, they're just going to vote for whoever the candidate is, because that's the candidate.

[Oniya]

If Trump's the nominee, they'll vote for him, just because they don't want a Democrat to win. Now, whether he will be the nominee is a fair question,

It's really the question on the table.  Right now, Republicans are campaigning for the primaries.  They're only half-campaigning against Biden (or 'the Democrats'), but more against each other.  Trump isn't attending the debates, and is relying on squeezing his base for cash and doing his interminable rallies.

If his court cases keep him from doing that (by keeping him ping-ponging between New York, DC, and Georgia, can he keep up the momentum?

[TheGlyphstone]

While I mentioned it in Whats News, its also/more relevant here. With Joe Manchin retiring in 2024, the Dem Senate majority is more or less guaranteed to drop down to 50-50, and that's before any other Senate elections. Several of the seats they're defending were narrow margin victories in increasingly red states, whereas the only states that are even remotely potentially vulnerable for the GOP are Florida and Texas of all places. Even if Biden pulls off a win, there's a depressingly good chance he'll be gridlocked by a united and implacably hostile Capitol Hill.

[Missy]

There's several states with legal challenges to Trump even being on the ballot at all, so if Trump becomes the nomiee, there's a good chance he won't even be an option on the ballots for some states.

[GloomCookie]

There's several states with legal challenges to Trump even being on the ballot at all, so if Trump becomes the nomiee, there's a good chance he won't even be an option on the ballots for some states.

This hasn't been a problem getting some people elected in the past, notably Abraham Lincoln, but I'm only pointing that out as a historical note. But, since the nation is far more unified, even in our current political environment, than it was in 1860 I'm not inclined to think this will help him. But, it does lead me to believe that he's setting up to whine, bitch, and moan if he loses and make further complain about the election being 'stolen' claiming he was denied by Biden and the sitting government to fairly run for election and that it's an abuse of power. I can already see it coming.

[Missy]

This hasn't been a problem getting some people elected in the past, notably Abraham Lincoln, but I'm only pointing that out as a historical note. But, since the nation is far more unified, even in our current political environment, than it was in 1860 I'm not inclined to think this will help him. But, it does lead me to believe that he's setting up to whine, bitch, and moan if he loses and make further complain about the election being 'stolen' claiming he was denied by Biden and the sitting government to fairly run for election and that it's an abuse of power. I can already see it coming.

Oh of course he will, he's a one trick pony. He only knows how to play the victim card, it's literally his only card.

[Missy]

https://youtu.be/18Mf4qZ6tMM?si=Frdb-qhoFQsPTbpN

[AlizsahTheBard]

Sadly seems Democrat learnt nothing because Hillary decided to say this in favour of Biden:

'get the whiners, naysayers and snipers to just go to the back of the room.'. Yeah because that worked so amazingly last time. Ignoring people with genuine concerns and mocking them does no favour especially with young voters block and considering one of the big things people are condemning Biden for is support of Genocide in Palestine, yeah apparently not supporting Genocide is whining. Then again I should expect nothing better from someone who supported Henry Kissinger.

[Missy]

I'm not sure what diference it woudl make, perhaps having more parties with more intelligent people might be of use. Ultimately though supporters of the party 'in power' (meaning seated in the presidency) tend to becoem complacent while those 'out of power' (again refering to the presidency) are much more motivated

[Shekinah]

There's several states with legal challenges to Trump even being on the ballot at all, so if Trump becomes the nomiee, there's a good chance he won't even be an option on the ballots for some states.

And as you predicted, it has come true

Colorado Supreme Court kicks Trump off ballot, citing 'insurrection'

[LostInTheMist]

The 2016 election broke me. I care, but I can't rouse myself to action the way I used to. I can't man phones or go door to door like I did in 2016. 2020 turned out the way I wanted, and I hope 2024 does, but all I can bring myself to do is vote. Maybe if Bernie had won the nomination in 2020 the way it looked like he was going to before moderate democrats came together to screw him (perhaps a good thing; Bernie is a great man, and he aligns with my views [I am a Democratic Socialist,] but I don't think he'd make a good president) but even then.... I dunno. My state is fairly reliably blue; we haven't gone red since 1984, and that was Mondale's time to crater.

I'll be voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is. Probably Biden, assuming he's still alive at that point. The reason for this is that I really want to still have a vote that counts in 2028, and if the Republicans win, even if it's not Trump, I probably won't. 

Not to say rage doesn't still burn within me. There's just nothing productive to channel it into, so I let it flow into a stress pillow my sister got me for Christmas a few years ago. I need a new one, and we're doing Christmas later this year, and she got my list, so I anticipate another one.

[Chulanowa]

I'll be voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is. Probably Biden, assuming he's still alive at that point. The reason for this is that I really want to still have a vote that counts in 2028, and if the Republicans win, even if it's not Trump, I probably won't. 

This is, to me, a very strange way of approaching it. What are you going to do in 2028? Vote on the hope that you can vote in 2032? Again in 2036? So on and on and on forever? Isn't that self-defeating? If your vote is captive like that, then does it matter if you can vote or not?

There's more candidates running than Genocide Joe and Republican Nightmare Candidate Options #1-#7. I'm looking at Stein or West. Granted I'm in Alaska right now, so of the two likely only Stein will be on my ballot, so I guess that narrows it down.

[LostInTheMist]

This is, to me, a very strange way of approaching it. What are you going to do in 2028? Vote on the hope that you can vote in 2032? Again in 2036? So on and on and on forever? Isn't that self-defeating? If your vote is captive like that, then does it matter if you can vote or not?

There's more candidates running than Genocide Joe and Republican Nightmare Candidate Options #1-#7. I'm looking at Stein or West. Granted I'm in Alaska right now, so of the two likely only Stein will be on my ballot, so I guess that narrows it down.

I get to use whatever criteria I want in voting. In 2024, at last as it currently looks, the Republican candidate will be President for Life if he wins, and the Democrat will not. Unfortunately, the current way elections are run, third party candidates can't win. If you want your vote to count you've got the Democrat option and the Republican option. This is not ideal, but it's realistic.

With that being said, I will always vote to safeguard our democracy. Even if another candidate is running that aligns more with my beliefs, they cannot win the way things are right now, and if I vote for someone other than the candidate who will preserve the democracy, I may as well be voting for the Republican. Threats to our democracy exist, and they are sometimes on our ballot. But not every single year. It's my hope that in 2028, there will be two (or preferably more) viable candidates who all care about democracy, and I will be free to vote my conscience, rather than voting to preserve the country that I love.

[Missy]

Basically yeah, the winner takes all system assures third party votes are 'wasted' on anything except principle, theirs a reason they call it a 'spoiler vote'. It's fucked up, pitiful and hopless disgusting, but then that describes many things in the world, we can only hope the future holds better for us.

In any case if you want to be able to vote for third parties viably you're goign to have to start paying more attention to your local and state elections and stop doing the nonsensical thing and putting everything on the president. It seems to reason there's a chicken and egg between viable third parties and ballots//voting systems which allow them. Honestly I'd take libertarians in office if it meant less of a two party stranglehold (and I don't like libertarians either).

[Chulanowa]

Basically yeah, the winner takes all system assures third party votes are 'wasted' on anything except principle

Not exactly. The "winner takes all" system means any vote cast for whoever didn't win was "wasted." 

Right now, Biden's polling behind most Republican candidates. Of course things can change in ten months. But as things stand right now, he's as likely to win as GoodSpaceGuy. Because as noted, under our current system, coming in at second is exactly the same as coming in last; losing is losing. or to use one of the more tiresome colloquialisms in American politics, "close only counts in grenades and horseshoes" 

So would you say that your vote for Biden, who - again, at the moment - seems poised to lose, is "wasted"? Do you think fuck it, ought to vote for the Republican and try to leverage them into the positions you want? Play the winning team and hope for the best? Hah! Of course you don't.

And you shouldn't.

There's actually no such thing as a "wasted vote." The concept is incredibly anti-democratic. Your vote always matters, even if the candidate you vote for loses. Just because it does not result in a political position does not make it "wasted." it could be the threshold to get a small party into the margin of gaining public funding, for example. it results in output numbers that let other people know that their ideals are shared, resulting in increased solidarity and pressure for those ideals.

[CopperLily]

It's also not so much wasted as it's just a mathematically optimal solution to end up with two candidates.

[LostInTheMist]

Not exactly. The "winner takes all" system means any vote cast for whoever didn't win was "wasted."

Right now, Biden's polling behind most Republican candidates. Of course things can change in ten months. But as things stand right now, he's as likely to win as GoodSpaceGuy. Because as noted, under our current system, coming in at second is exactly the same as coming in last; losing is losing. or to use one of the more tiresome colloquialisms in American politics, "close only counts in grenades and horseshoes"

So would you say that your vote for Biden, who - again, at the moment - seems poised to lose, is "wasted"? Do you think fuck it, ought to vote for the Republican and try to leverage them into the positions you want? Play the winning team and hope for the best? Hah! Of course you don't.

And you shouldn't.

There's actually no such thing as a "wasted vote." The concept is incredibly anti-democratic. Your vote always matters, even if the candidate you vote for loses. Just because it does not result in a political position does not make it "wasted." it could be the threshold to get a small party into the margin of gaining public funding, for example. it results in output numbers that let other people know that their ideals are shared, resulting in increased solidarity and pressure for those ideals.

There's a thing wrong with this. Elections 101: Polling at this point in the election season is about as useful as reading tea leaves and chicken entrails. Until the campaign season really begins, once the convention bumps have faded, the polls have no predictive ability. 

Votes: The term "wasted" is being thrown around a lot. I don't think we should be using it. "Wasted" is defined as: "used or expended carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose." When I vote for a candidate who winds up losing but who has a chance of winning, there's a purpose and care to my selection. Presumably when you vote for a candidate who stands no chance of winning, there's still a purpose and care to your selection. Otherwise, why bother voting at all? Maybe the only person who wastes their vote is the person who doesn't vote. Even understanding they can't win, you can still symbolically vote for a third party candidate, and perhaps they do crack the threshold to receive election funding and 20 years from now they'll be able to win. It hasn't been true for the last 100 years, but things are starting to fray around the edges, and something's gotta give sooner or later. Hopefully it's a revitalization of American politics and Democracy, and not something else.

Problems: Things the constitution never envisioned are now a reality, including 24 hour news cycles and instant communication with your representative. 90% of people (and that includes the representatives themselves) believe that their representatives are responsible for voting for what the people want. This was not the original intention. When it took days, weeks, or months to get information from DC to you and back to DC, you were electing your representatives with the expectation that they will vote for your best interests, whether you know what they are or not. You're expecting them to represent you faithfully, and use their knowledge and wisdom to do what's best for you. A vast majority of Americans pick a representative and expect them to parrot what the constituents want. Unfortunately, since most donors are whoever can put together the most money (special interest groups, PACs, etc.) many representatives are beholden to those special interest groups rather than the Americans who elected them. The other problem is that polarizing identity politics cast your side as the only "right" side and the other side as "evil" when it used to be that both sides were recognized to be governing responsibly just going about it in a different way. So no matter how corrupt your representative or Senator is, no matter how much beholden to corporate interests, no matter how much they vote against your interests, it's better them than someone from the "other side." This is to the advantage of both major parties, so there's no attempt to change the narrative. As soon as you portray the other guys as "patriots who just have different ideas" some of your voters might vote for "them."

Me: I'm a democratic socialist. I side with the Democrats because they side with me most often, and the Democratic Socialsts (the Sanders block) have significant power and control of the party platform at least right now. My representative doesn't always vote the way I want, but most of the time, once I learn the reasoning for her vote, I agree with her. When I don't, I still trust she's voting with my best interests at heart. (She doesn't take money from special interests on either side of the aisle.) If that changes, and she no longer aligns with me or is representing my interests faithfully, I'll vote for someone else. And on a local level, it's still possible for a third-party candidate to win. 

Fears: I do firmly believe that if Trump is elected, he will declare himself President for Life or at least, essentially become President for Life, even if he never officially declares it. A lot of people are going to think I'm being hysterical, or falling prey to the "other side" beliefs that I talked about above. But I went to University for this stuff. I'm a student of American history and political history in particular. Look at the speeches Trump is giving. Look at speeches given by Franco, Mussolini, and yes, even Adolf Hitler. (No Godwin's Law invocation here; I'm not disagreeing with anyone in particular; and I'm not accusing anyone except Donald Trump of being like Adolf Hitler, and he's not here. I assume.) Nationalism is a good way to whip the masses into a frenzy, but nationalism is not patriotism. 

Summary: My point here is that politics is a lot more complicated than we can give in a couple of paragraphs. There are problems with modern American politics, no question, but there's also no easy solution. And I'm not being a part of that solution, because I'm not running for office, I'm not managing a political campaign, and I'm still voting for one of the two major parties. My votes are well thought out and have a purpose behind them, but they are not going to fix American politics. I don't honestly no what will. At this point, I'm as afraid of what it might take to fix things as I am afraid of what will happen if it doesn't get fixed. That could change, and when the majority of Americans fear the system we have more than the chaos of changing it, well... something will happen. If Biden is elected, then in 2026 the United States will celebrate its 250th birthday on July 4, 2026. Unless something changes, I don't think we make it to 300. If that sounds pessimistic, it is a bit. I can see what's wrong, but I'm damned if I know how to fix it. I'm well-educated, well-read, and in theory, fairly smart, but I really don't see a way out of this.

[Oniya]

A small ray of sunshine would be that 'President for Life' isn't likely to be terribly long.  Installing Junior as 'Heir Apparent' scares the crap out of me, however.

[Chulanowa]

A small ray of sunshine would be that 'President for Life' isn't likely to be terribly long.  Installing Junior as 'Heir Apparent' scares the crap out of me, however.

This is why I laugh at Republicans, who are saying the same thing about Biden. If the dude wins he's ALREADY going to be "president for life," that battery's got like two years left in it, tops.

[Keelan]

This is why I laugh at Republicans, who are saying the same thing about Biden. If the dude wins he's ALREADY going to be "president for life," that battery's got like two years left in it, tops.

Who is suggesting that about Biden? That would certainly be a new one for me.

[LostInTheMist]

A small ray of sunshine would be that 'President for Life' isn't likely to be terribly long.  Installing Junior as 'Heir Apparent' scares the crap out of me, however.

He has no right to have lived as long as he has, to be fair. But yes, the heir apparent thing worries me too. As impossible as it is to believe, Junior is even less qualified and even less competent than his father. Other members of the family suffer from the same problem.

Who is suggesting that about Biden? That would certainly be a new one for me.

Republican radicals are always suggesting this sort of thing. I heard the same thing regarding Obama both in '08 and '12, and Clinton in the '16 campaign. And keep in mind that there's still a portion of the Republican population who believe, despite the lack of any evidence, and the conclusion of multiple investigations (including Republican-led pro-Trump investigations slanted heavily against the Democrats) that there was no election fraud last election. So in their minds, Joe Biden, however long he remains in office, is an illegitimate president. (And does anyone here think Trump will concede the 2024 election were he to lose?)

[GloomCookie]

Given that two states have already removed Trump from the ballot (Colorado and Maine, with the case still pending in Oregon but kept on the ballot in Michigan and Minnesota, article here) he may not get the opportunity. While together he's now ineligible to receive 14 electoral votes, that still leaves other states to remove him from the ballot. If a handful of states such as California or New York (54 and 28 electoral votes respectively) remove him from the ballot, then even if he cinches Texas and Florida (40  and 30 electoral votes respectively), he would still need 200 points, which will become increasingly difficult. Some states will definitely vote Red, but some will definitely vote Blue, and no state is ever guaranteed for a side this early in the season.

TL;DR: Trump may not get the chance if enough states remove him from the ballot because it'll be impossible to get 270 votes.

[TheGlyphstone]

If no one gets 270, though, it goes to the House which is currently controlled by the Republicans, so they would elect Trump anyways.

[Oniya]

Who is suggesting that about Biden? That would certainly be a new one for me.

While I don't think Biden would declare himself P4L, I'm keeping a distinct eye on his VP choices.  That's more of a 'too many old white guys in politics' situation.  On the more critical side of things, Trump's got the ambition/inclination to try for a dictatorship/dynasty.

[TheGlyphstone]

As an interesting thought experiment - Trump himself would love to found a dynasty, but would Don Junior want the job? Hes every bit as ambitious as his father, but from what little I've seen he doesn't seem to have the same streak of pathological narcissism. So he'd at least be aware that the job isn't all sun and roses - depending on how much of Trump's business empire is left standing, would the effectively dictatorial authority he'd have as CEO be more appealing than the theoretical dictatorial authority over a country that is not going to make that transition cleanly, quietly, or peaceably?

[Prism]

If no one gets 270, though, it goes to the House which is currently controlled by the Republicans, so they would elect Trump anyways.

It's even better than that.

The election in the House works based on one vote per state delegation. The candidate receiving 26 or more votes from state delegations is elected president. Due to the relatively large number of small red states this means that Republicans could win a contingent election even if Democrats controlled the House, because Republicans would be more likely to have 26+ state delegations even if Democrats had more representatives due to large blue states like California still only counting as one state.

The House elects the president but does not elect the VP; this procedure was written before the 12th amendment was a thing, and it was never changed. The VP is elected by the Senate, with each Senator getting one vote. This means that if the Democrats control the Senate, they could elect a Democratic VP, who would serve under a Republican president elected by the House.

What about if there is a 25-25 tie in the House? Nobody knows. Or what if a state delegation itself is tied? Nobody knows that either. The Constitution doesn't say. All it says is that if the House can't pick a president, the VP serves as acting president until it does.

[GloomCookie]

If there's a 25/25 split in the House, unlikely though that scenario is, wouldn't the tie-breaking vote go to the Speaker of the House? That seems like the role they're there for, which would default it back into Republican hands.

I do sometimes wonder what a two party Presidency (President in one party, VP in another) would look like. I know they changed the rules because that was how things originally were, but I can't help but wonder what a more modern situation would look like. Would the two clash over politics? Or would the VP uphold their duty to carry out the President's agenda even if it conflicts with their own, assuming they were ever called upon to do such a thing? It's an interesting thought experiment.

However, I highly doubt Trump will be removed from enough ballots to throw his ability to get 270 into question. There's simply too many states that will keep him on there come hell or high water, and the states most likely to remove him from the ballot are probably going to be blue anyway, so it's a moot point. But I do find it interesting that Abraham Lincoln was not elected in any southern state and still won the presidency. Would we have a similar situation, where an entire geographic region refuses to vote for a candidate and yet they still win? I doubt it'll ever be that cut and dry, but still.

Before anyone jumps in and tries to claim I'm painting Trump as a modern Lincoln, save your breath. I'm just pointing out historical context for situations in the past that are similar, but not identical to, our modern situation. 

[LostInTheMist]

There are 435 voting members in the House of Representatives, and the Speaker votes like any other member of the House. TRADITIONALLY, the speaker doesn't vote unless it's going to be a close vote but in the event of a tie, the motion/bill fails.

The Vice President's only real duties are to have a pulse and to cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. This would conflict sometimes with the President's Agenda, and while the Vice-President does appear at events where the President chooses not to appear, I imagine you'd get a dueling presidency, as the Vice President would appear at the places that would increase his chances of unseating the sitting President during the next election. I strongly doubt any opposite-party VP today would vote the way the President wanted him to, against his own interests.

If the Supreme Court rules that Trump can be disqualified from ballots, enough states would remove him that he'd likely have to sweep those states where he's on the ballot to win. Although making it impossible for him to win in, say, Pennsylvania might give him other places to focus his campaign funds. I don't know. But I doubt the Supreme Court will do that. It's stacked enough by Republican appointees that they're likely to ignore the clear text of the Constitution that prohibits Trump from participating and insist he be restored to those ballots from which he was removed.

Obama got no Southern States in 2012 and still won re-election to the Presidency. Democrats typically don't get many or any Southern States. (Georgia being an exception for Biden in 2020, North Carolina and Virginia for Obama in 2008.)

[TheGlyphstone]

Ron DeSantis ends 2024 presidential bid and endorses Donald Trump | AP News 

So I can only call this a good thing, as much as I don't like Donny boy. Trump irritates, annoys, and disgusts me, but the idea of a President DeSantis terrified me.

Looks like we're headed for Trump v Biden 2: Geriatric Bugaloo.

[GloomCookie]

I can't help but suspect this is strategic on his part. If DeSantis concedes, he can focus his efforts on trying to get something else, like VP or Secretary of State. He knows that Trump can only get one term, then he'll be in a position to leverage that into running for president in 2028. I don't know precisely, I'm just tossing out a possible reason for this course of action.

[TheGlyphstone]

That's certainly likely. He also did quite poorly in Iowa which is a strong barometer for the GOP as a whole, so its certainly strategic to cut his losses and position himself for a smaller prize. 

[LostInTheMist]

I don't know that DeSantis has enough charisma for even Trump to consider him for VP. Even Nikki Haley (who is infinitely unlikable) might be a better VP pick, because at least she is better at pretending she is human than DeSantis.

[GloomCookie]

I don't know that DeSantis has enough charisma for even Trump to consider him for VP. Even Nikki Haley (who is infinitely unlikable) might be a better VP pick, because at least she is better at pretending she is human than DeSantis.

He doesn't have charisma to you. But he has a lot of charisma for his voter base, enough that he got to be governor of Florida. While that doesn't mean anything for the whole country, it's enough that there's at least a group out there that was swayed by what he says.

[LostInTheMist]

He doesn't have charisma to you. But he has a lot of charisma for his voter base, enough that he got to be governor of Florida. While that doesn't mean anything for the whole country, it's enough that there's at least a group out there that was swayed by what he says.

That's Florida. To become a governor of a state, you only have to appeal to that state's voters. And remember, it's Florida.

But no, I understand that charisma can be a POV thing.

[Keelan]

That's Florida. To become a governor of a state, you only have to appeal to that state's voters. And remember, it's Florida.

But no, I understand that charisma can be a POV thing.

Funny, I say the same thing about California.

[Oniya]

So, this literally just came across my feed.  There are actually other Democratic candidates entering the primary race:  https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-2-primary-challengers-new-hampshire-phillips-williamson/story?id=106607113

[Oniya]

Personal opinion on the alternative Dem candidates:  Williamson sets off my 'flake' alarms, although her ideas are mostly promising.  Phillips looks like a Biden 2.0 - likely to get in all of the people that are primarily concerned about aging statesmen. 

Cenk Uygur is also running, but has that 'naturalized citizen' clause in the Constitution to contend with, first and foremost.  (Cenk immigrated from Turkey when he was 8 years old.)  After that, his opponents (from all parties) could make hash of him with his social media posts.

[Keelan]

Cenk Uygur is also running, but has that 'naturalized citizen' clause in the Constitution to contend with, first and foremost.  (Cenk immigrated from Turkey when he was 8 years old.)  After that, his opponents (from all parties) could make hash of him with his social media posts.

His entire schtick I'm pretty sure is "There's no law that says I can't RUN for president" while clearly he cannot hold that office were he to actually get votes.

Considering his 2020 House bid he got 6.6% of the votes, pretty sure the guy has negative chance.

[Oniya]

Well, it's a little hard to run for President when you can't legally be on the ballot.  (Arkansas isn't the only state that has rejected him.  So far, only Minnesota, Oklahoma, Texas, Connecticut, and Vermont are alleged to have accepted his application - Connecticut is confirmed, but the others were mentioned in a press release from his campaign. Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Arkansas have officially rejected his application.)

[Tolvo]

Personal opinion on the alternative Dem candidates:  Williamson sets off my 'flake' alarms, although her ideas are mostly promising.  Phillips looks like a Biden 2.0 - likely to get in all of the people that are primarily concerned about aging statesmen. 

Cenk Uygur is also running, but has that 'naturalized citizen' clause in the Constitution to contend with, first and foremost.  (Cenk immigrated from Turkey when he was 8 years old.)  After that, his opponents (from all parties) could make hash of him with his social media posts.

Williamson it should be mentioned has promoted a lot of pseudo science and fake medicine, and has been an anti-vaxxer. She claims she is not but then continues to repeat anti-vax rhetoric.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/15/politics/kfile-marianne-williamson-anti-vaxxer-theories/index.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/marianne-williamson-response-question-vaccination-2019-8

[Oniya]

Williamson it should be mentioned has promoted a lot of pseudo science and fake medicine, and has been an anti-vaxxer. She claims she is not but then continues to repeat anti-vax rhetoric.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/15/politics/kfile-marianne-williamson-anti-vaxxer-theories/index.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/marianne-williamson-response-question-vaccination-2019-8

Thanks - I knew she sounded familiar, and not in a good way.  Philips flies mostly under the radar and is yet another 'white dude in politics', but I haven't seen anything alarming yet.