2024 Presidential Election Shittastic Shittacular

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by erimir

Thank you FX for reminding me of this very silly post.

The Democrats will be very slimy and win unfairly by putting forth a likeable candidate well before the election, who people will say YAY and vote for, is what I'm taking from this? Quite perfidious.

I can see how likeability would seem unfair when your candidates are Trump and Vance, but still...

Yeah, those two and their ilk are beginning to make the Nazis seem like a Viable Alternative.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Elon Musk asked OpenAI investor Vinod Khosla to support Trump. Khosla said he doesn't 'accept depravity'.

[slimshady2357]

The Old Guy#Trump pic.twitter.com/kRBPNR3Nr1

— Nick_Anderson_ (@Nick_Anderson_) July 23, 2024

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

You better VOTE! ��️

Vice President Kamala Harris dropped by the Werk Room with a word! ❤️ pic.twitter.com/KGS6pU2zOq

— RuPaul's Drag Race (@RuPaulsDragRace) July 25, 2024

[specious_reasons]

Barack and Michelle Obama endorse Kamala Harris | AP News

I read of rumors that Barack (and some other leaders) wanted an open convention to create more drama and excitement, so he didn't immediately endorse Harris. I thought some excitement might be nice, too, but Harris is making the most of Democratic excitement, so the drama isn't necessary.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Had about enough drama for a lifetime out of US political sphere, to be honest.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

... Harris is making the most of Democratic excitement, so the drama isn't necessary.

Neither is a primary, or a convention!

[Crumb]

The Democratic party did have one and will have the other, but you are right they are not required. The party gets to choose its nominee. That's the crappy system we have. The good news is that it was used in this case to choose a better candidate for the party.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by Crumb

The Democratic party did have one and will have the other, but you are right they are not required. The party gets to choose its nominee. That's the crappy system we have. The good news is that it was used in this case to choose a better candidate for the party.

Did somebody say something stupid?

The party of insurrection and the party of "we're actually a republic" is getting all up in arms because somehow the process for choosing a nominee was less a purely democratic and more a republican process once the presumptive nominee dropped out? Not even comparable.

The Republicans are going to try to challenge this is in the courts, while they were all upset at the "lawfare" against Dear Leader? Cry me a fucking river, snowflakes.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Crumb

The party gets to choose its nominee. That's the crappy system we have.

The US primary system is actually quite unusual across countries.

In most countries, the party chooses their nominee without such a long and convoluted process, often without any input from ordinary voters. In parliamentary systems, it's absolutely standard for politicians to choose their party leader.

The people still vote on which candidate to support (either for president or for their district) or which party to support (in proportional systems) or both (in mixed systems), so it's still democracy. Parties that make bad choices for leaders will tend to be punished.

But the United States is the outlier here - in most countries "the people" have much less input on who the party leader is.

Based on the results, it's not clear to me that the US system is preferable. Note that while theoretically it could result in candidates that most people want, in practice, primaries have far smaller turnout and are not especially representative of the general electorate's preferences. So you tend to have a bunch of committed partisans who tend to be more ideologically extreme than the average voter choosing who the nominee should be - it doesn't necessarily result in the nominating the candidates who the general public would be most pleased with.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by erimir

The US primary system is actually quite unusual across countries.

In most countries, the party chooses their nominee without such a long and convoluted process, often without any input from ordinary voters. In parliamentary systems, it's absolutely standard for politicians to choose their party leader.

The people still vote on which candidate to support (either for president or for their district) or which party to support (in proportional systems) or both (in mixed systems), so it's still democracy. Parties that make bad choices for leaders will tend to be punished.

But the United States is the outlier here - in most countries "the people" have much less input on who the party leader is.

Based on the results, it's not clear to me that the US system is preferable. Note that while theoretically it could result in candidates that most people want, in practice, primaries have far smaller turnout and are not especially representative of the general electorate's preferences. So you tend to have a bunch of committed partisans who tend to be more ideologically extreme than the average voter choosing who the nominee should be - it doesn't necessarily result in the nominating the candidates who the general public would be most pleased with.

true. The last couple or so Primaries and conventions have been far less interesting than they used to be. Back in the last Century, the Republicans made a good show of it, and again in first couple of elections of the 21st, until the Clown Car was derailed by The Donald in 2016.

While the outcome appears to be a foregone conclusion this year, The Dems are going to go full steam and look to make a good show of it, this year.

It's gonna be fun.

[Sock Puppet]

I'd add that (for non-USers; if you're in the US you already know this) the States part of the "United" States adds to the clusterfuck, as votes for the President are divvied up by State via the Electoral College -- even if it works as intended (not guaranteed) and the electors actually vote the way the majority of their district does, the result can vary fairly widely from the overall popular vote. The Presidency is essentially determined by the "swing" states that don't have a reliable party majority.

If you had faith in humanity, you might think these would be the freethinkers who see beyond partisan lines to the merits of the candidate. But in practice, it's merely the places with the highest concentration of voters who have no fucking idea what's going on.

If it were "One [person], one vote," I'd say that we deserve what we get. But it's not quite that simple when your vote is virtually meaningless.

[viscousmemories]

Doris Kearns Goodwin on the US primary system:

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: You know, the primaries started in 1912 with Teddy Roosevelt wanting to beat Taft in his own party.

JON STEWART: There were no primaries before 1912?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: No primaries before 1912. It was the people should rule, that was the argument. And Teddy Roosevelt wanted to beat his own friend and the current president, Taft. So he needed primaries, because he had the popularity and Taft had the party delegates on him. So anyway, that, that splits the Democratic Party, the Republican Party in two.

JON STEWART: Wow.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: And that's the end of the primary. Nobody wants it anymore, until it finally comes back in the '50s and the '60s. And where it really becomes strong, is in 1968, when Humphrey wins, despite having not gone into the primaries, because he had the party delegates behind him and Lyndon Johnson. Then they decide, we need primaries, we need primaries.

I mean, the interesting thing we were saying about Biden, is that there were only 14 million people that voted for him. He kept touting the fact that, I was voted for by the people, 14 million votes. 51 million people watched that debate. And that's a huge distinction, because that debate, once seen, could not be unseen.

Biden Is Out, Harris Is In with Jon Stewart,...

[mickthinks]

Meh! I have massive respect for Stewart; every bone and sinew of his boney sinewy ass; but I couldn’t listen to more than five minutes of his performative outrage at being denied access to major networks’ journalist talent.

I don’t understand what it is about that transcript of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s remarks that is so remarkable. It’s not as if primaries are mandated in the constitution.

[LarsMac]

It's all Theater. Kinda like the WWE, only with less blood, usually.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I don’t understand what it is about that transcript of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s remarks that is so remarkable. It’s not as if primaries are mandated in the constitution.

I just thought it was interesting that primaries weren't always a thing in US electoral politics. I might have known that at some point but didn't remember.

[Miisa]

Wait, is he saying what it looks like? Will the Christians believe he can do that?

Trump: You have to get out and vote. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four years, it will be fixed, it will be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore.. In four years, you won’t have to vote again. pic.twitter.com/DBGcBr3Wht

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 27, 2024

[mickthinks]

That depends on what you think it looks like*. Whether his Christians will believe in him is hard to say. Most will, I guess, at least in part because total belief is an entry requirement for their particular club, and also because the alternative is to think critically about it, which many them can't (or can't be arsed to) do.


*For example, I don't think he's saying that if elected President he's going to abolish presidential elections. That's not because he won't but because he wants to keep that part of the plan secret. So I think he's saying he'll fix it that the MAGA party won't need the votes of reluctant-to-vote(-because-politics-eew!) Christian voters in 2028 and beyond. Which is not as bad in theory but just as bad in practice.

[JoeP]

It means they're going to bring about the End Times. SO, no more need to vote.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by IR scholar Leslie Vinjamuri

It certainly sounds like a presidential candidate that is determined to shut down the democratic process, but it could mean, y'know, he speaks in code, it could mean 'I'm gonna solve all the problems and therefore shut down debate on the issues you care about and therefore voting will be less consequential'.

Trump urges Christians to vote: ‘You won’t have to do it again’ | CNN Politics

The latter interpretation might make sense if a) Trump didn't have a history of trying to overthrow the democratic process, and b) Trump had ever done one single thing to earn the benefit of doubt.

[JoeP]

A good read:

This is a misogyny emergency. A huge outpouring is coming in the runup to the US election | Carole Cadwalladr | The Guardian

[seebs]

Originally Posted by JoeP

It means they're going to bring about the End Times. SO, no more need to vote.

i don't think that makes any sense. trump doesn't believe in any of that. on the other hand, he does have specific plans in place and people working on trying to bring them about to allow gerrymandered state legislatures to simply override any voting and pick a president the legislature likes.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by Miss Shelby

He released a statement he’s staying. He won’t go quietly in to the night I’ll give him that!

Yeah, but like pretty much everything else, it was a lie.

Originally Posted by Crumb

I don't think it would qualify as a coup. The party gets to determine who their nominee is. Unfortunately that's our system.

Oh it's a system all right. Doesn't even need voters.

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I would love to see a Harris-Whitmer ticket but a) two women may be a bridge too far ...

And just like that, the insane left suddenly knows how to define a woman ...

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Miisa

Wait, is he saying what it looks like? Will the Christians believe he can do that?

Trump: You have to get out and vote. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four years, it will be fixed, it will be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore.. In four years, you won’t have to vote again. pic.twitter.com/DBGcBr3Wht

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 27, 2024

Also noteworthy: At about the 17 second mark, it sounds like he says "I love you Christians, I'm not Christian" with a little shake of the head.

It also makes sense in context given that he keeps on referring to Christians in the second-person (not "we Christians need to vote" but "you Christians") which implies that they're a different group from him and it makes sense like, "I love you Christians despite that I'm not a Christian myself" whereas going on about how you love your own group and then noting that you're a member of the group would be less expected.

I mean, we all know he's not a real believer (can't name a Bible verse, gets names of books wrong, etc. He says he's never asked for forgiveness! You know, the universality of sin and the need for forgiveness is a pretty central part of Christianity but I guess Trump is the exception).

But it's an interesting slip.

(Of course, the audio is just ambiguous enough that they'll insist he said "I'm a Christian" even though they all know he's not a real Christian too.)

[viscousmemories]

Have to admit I didn't think of this interpretation but it makes more sense than others.

I realize this will earn me the ire of many Dems, but…I don’t think that here he’s saying there will be no more elections. I think he is saying I won’t be on the ticket either way, so who cares. Which is hideously damning in its own right, cause this is what the Republican Party… https://t.co/NT3tGxJMvT

— Kate Bedingfield (@KBeds) July 28, 2024