2024 Presidential Election Shittastic Shittacular

[erimir]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I don't think Cornel should have thrown his hat in the ring for President. I think his decision to do so was a combination of moral exhaustion, political ignorance, and a flash of narcissism sparked by the flattery of being asked to run, and ever since he made that poor decision he has been trying to find a way out that saves face and doesn't betray his conscience. That's just my belief based on everything I've heard and read from him in the past few years. Obviously I could be completely wrong.

Well, the latest news on the Cornel West campaign is that he's getting on the ballot in a swing state and in order to do so, receiving legal representation from GOP lawyers:

Cornel West "supporters were represented in court by [Phil] Strach, a prominent conservative attorney. Strach frequently represents the state’s Republican legislative leaders in court & has recently defended them in gerrymandering lawsuits & challenges to stricter election laws." https://t.co/ERgYyvka6j

— Stephen Wolf (@PoliticsWolf) August 13, 2024

I wouldn't be surprised if Strach was also doing this pro bono or for a reduced fee, either.

Brother West doesn't seem like he's trying to get out or trying to minimize damage.

Thankfully he's pretty incompetent and has gotten very little in fundraising, so he's not on the ballot in many states and NC is the highest profile swing state he's gotten on (it's perhaps not as important as PA/MI/GA but it's underrated, and it's bigger than AZ/WI/NV - models I've seen have it as 10% chance to be the tipping point, which is non-trivial).

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by erimir

Brother West doesn't seem like he's trying to get out or trying to minimize damage.

I said I believed he was trying to find a way out where he could save face and not betray his conscience. Looks like he hasn't been able to do that and is throwing good money after bad, so to speak. In any case as you said he has no traction anywhere. I watched a rally that was inexplicably recorded and it was so poorly attended and cringe I almost imploded.

I'm a lot more worried about RFK Jr, frankly. Especially after Joe Rogan's "endorsement". People are actually paying attention to him.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by Miss Shelby

You guys probably are not concerned with this since mainstream ain’t your gig. But, Tampon Tim. I get the name. I don’t get thee purpose. I don’t want to discuss the controversy now that it’s controversial.


Okay, when he proposed tampon machines,assumably for pay, like the relics of old, what was he going for? If you are a female between 10 years old in1977 and now you know FULLY that those machines are defunct. And, as a female, you have already planned in advance. This is COMMON female knowledge. So it says A LOT about this old White Fuck trying to be Vigilant ce President

Uh. Actually, having those provided is pretty useful, and I don't think they were for-pay, at least, the ones I've seen never were. People intend to be prepared, but sometimes they forget, or something goes wrong, or they are unexpectedly early, or who knows what, and having supplies just there already in the restroom is actually really useful?


Estimates are that about 25% of school-age girls in the US who need those products don't have reliable access to them, because poor families are poor and not all parents are great.

[erimir]

I'm not sure whether RFK Jr is a problem or not. He seems to be pulling more from Trump than Harris. When you look at polls that ask just Harris/Trump vs. Harris/Trump/RFK/Stein/West, it seems that they do about the same. Before, it seemed that third parties hurt Biden more than Trump, but now it seems they hurt Trump more as Harris has consolidated many of the folks who were "double haters" (didn't like Trump or Biden).

At any rate, West (and Stein) by contrast almost certainly only take voters from Harris, so it's an easier case to make that their candidacies make it easier for Trump to win.

But yeah, it's probably not the case that West will cost the election by taking votes in NC. But I'd rather make it easier - NC isn't a foregone red state, it definitely could go blue and it could matter.

[viscousmemories]

Oops, looks like Cornel might not be a spoiler in Michigan after all.

Cornel West disqualified from Michigan ballot over notary problems

[Stephen Maturin]

I see RFK Jr. got himself DQed from the ballot in New York. The appeal is already under way, but still, . Doesn't bode all that well for a piece of shit who's actively trying to parlay all his "support" into a cabinet jerb.

[viscousmemories]

I wasn't surprised to hear he reached out to Trump and offered to drop out, but I was surprised he reached out to Harris with the same offer. What a douche.

Btw worth watching if nobody (including my brain-dead self) already shared it:

RFK Jr.: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)...

[erimir]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I said I believed he was trying to find a way out where he could save face and not betray his conscience. Looks like he hasn't been able to do that and is throwing good money after bad, so to speak.

I dunno what "hasn't been able to do that" means, I'm not sure which part is "that".

To save face? I think his current campaign is probably costing more face than dropping out would.

Now that Biden has dropped out in favor of Harris, he could save face by, if not endorsing her, saying that circumstances have changed.

But for not betraying his conscience, I guess getting help from GOP operatives who pull dirty tricks like forging signatures and lying to voters doesn't bother his conscience.

Apparently his signature gathering operation in NC was also run by Republicans.

[viscousmemories]

"I like chicken and waffles, but my diet doesn't allow me to eat that."

Can you guess what 'that' is referring to in that sentence? Chicken? Waffles? Confounding.

It’s an effort that West himself apparently knows nothing about.

Yet it doesn't bother his conscience. Curious.

[erimir]

I mean it's getting reported in the national media.

I guess it's a defense to say that Cornel West doesn't have any idea about what's going on with the ballot access for his own campaign. I'm sure people who know him would tell him, it would get tweeted at him, etc.

But it's not a whole lot more convincing than when Republicans claim they don't know anything about what Trump tweets.

At any rate, even if we're being charitable, it's an excuse that has a short expiration date given the aforementioned reporting this week.

ETA: It appears that the West campaign is withdrawing their petitions for Arizona, so he will not be on the ballot there. There could have been criminal exposure there, however, since the campaign did deliver the petitions. It would be nice if he would reject the GOP assistance in NC though.

[Pyrrho]

Any minute now Vance will drop out and be replaced by RFK Jr.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Ooo, two old guys.

[beyelzu]

I’m watching Joe’s DNC speech.

I appreciate him withdrawing from the race.

I haven’t read this thread.

I didn’t vote for Joe in 2020 primary. I’m not a fan of former segregationists though I do prefer them to current segregationists. He has governed further left though than he ran in the primary. I have appreciated him as a president.

This time he had the nomination. He really couldn’t be forced out, but the stink of old was upon him.

His withdrawal made a Trump victory less likely.

He gave a ringing endorsement of Kamala.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

Ooo, two old guys.

Worms in one’s head and syphilis in the other’s.


The Old and Addled ticket

[seebs]

Sort of impressed by the smug of Harris/Walz going to Milwaukee to join the DNC virtually, allowing them to demonstrate that, even when they are competing with the DNC which is elsewhere, they can fill the arena that the RNC couldn't fill.

[beyelzu]

Social media goes wild for Obama’s hand gesture innuendo while talking Trump’s crowd sizes | The Independent

Short fingered, small penised, lil crowded vulgarian

Obama makes dig at Trump's 'weird obsession' over crowd sizes | REUTERS - YouTube


Love the trend of making fun of Trump. I’m sure he hates it and it makes him rattled. I think it’s better than strictly substantive remarks.

Also it’s hilarious.

[Stephen Maturin]

Looks like RFK Jr. may be fixin' to close up shop and endorse the Pussy Ass Bitch. The info comes from running mate Nicole Shanahan, who if anything is an even more massive piece of shit than Jr. Based on what's happened recently, we can safely assume that if Jr. does in fact drop out, he's been promised a high-up position in the next PAB administration. Shitboy reportedly wants Secretary of HHS.

But hey, it'll be nice to have one less rapist in the race, I suppose.

[beyelzu]

"He was taking shots at your president, and so was Michelle. You know they always say, 'Sir, please stick to policy. Don't get personal.' And yet they're getting personal all night long," Trump said of Obama's speech at a rally in North Carolina on Wednesday.

That’s hilarious, Trump acknowledges that he regularly makes personal as he cries about the one night Dems really go after him personally.

Also of course, they do talk policy as well.

Also, just fyi, Obama improvised the gesture.

"This is why Kamala and Democrats will lose in November — they're more interested in personal grievances than in helping people," the spokesperson added.

I thought this was hilarious from the Trump campaign.


Obama Improvised Joke About Trump at DNC, Says Speechwriter - Business Insider

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

He was taking shots at Biden?

[specious_reasons]

I think Obama should have put his hands closer together, like an inch apart. Trump would have been even more incoherent with rage.

Obama was just talking about the crowd sizes, you know? Can't he take a joke?

I personally like that Harris has given everyone permission to laugh at the fascists. I think this is a winning strategy — show the US voting population how lame and weak they are when faced with even a bit of resistance.

[michio]

The meteoric rise of Harris and Walz has been inspiring and exciting for a lot of disillusioned, politically aware, left-leaning Americans, particularly in the Gen Z and Millenial age bracket. We're tired, we're just tired, and we've felt hopeless for so long.

Biden dropping out was the first turn where young left-leaning voters, or at least non right-wing voters, felt hope again. They felt like ok, things can finally turn around for us, let's do this. The second turn was showing signs that she isn't going to just be "copmala" and signaled that she would be appealing to more progressive policies in her administration if elected. The third turn was picking Walz over Shapiro which was shocking for leftists because we're used to democratic politicians straddling the center. It's amusing looking back and seeing leftists pre-grieving Harris picking Shapiro to lessen the disappointment.

Kamala Harris is a blank hard drive that you upload policies to. She's received criticism from the right for being this flip flopper that has no real convictions about anything. To a degree and in a way, I personally think that can be a good thing. If she's serious about a shift in her political posture and she is going to grace leftists with even a crumb of progressive legislation, especially progressive economic legislation, we'll take it. We're hungry, we're thirsty, please, just anything.

I want to do my best to step out of my brain broken leftist bubble and try to objectively analyze the final hurdle, which is Gaza. From a purely political strategy POV, I think the Harris campaign and more broadly the Democrats are making a mistake by not taking more forceful action to get a ceasefire in Gaza. The reason why is because there is a significant and growing coalition of uncommitted democrat voters who want to give their full endorsement and their vote to Harris, but they are unwilling to do so until a complete ceasefire happens.

So far the strategy appears to be suppression and the messaging they're going with is, "We're working tirelessly for a ceasefire." Words are not enough for these uncommitted voters, and unfortunately the response I've seen from more centrist liberals is to shame uncommitted voters for sabotaging the election or for supporting Hamas, things like that. I don't want to comment on the morality of any of this, but again, from a purely political strategist POV, this isn't the move. You aren't swaying any leftists or single-issue Gaza voters into showing up to vote by shaming them.

A defense of Harris that center-liberal voters give is something like, "What do you mean? Biden and Harris are working on a ceasefire. Have you not seen XYZ? Netanyahu is being unreasonable. Hamas is being unreasonable. This isn't Biden's nor Harris' fault." And this is where a big disconnect is happening between center-liberal voters and leftist voters. You could get into a massive discussion about who's at fault and how we got here, but that's beside the point in this particular post I'm writing.

Uncommitted voters are unconvinced by the messaging and the action or perceived non-action of the Biden-Harris administration, and because of that, they will not be voting, or they will be voting third-party in November. Even if you are the most hardline Biden dead-ender, BlueAnon, BlueMAGA, establishment Democrat, liberal Zionist, if you want Kamala Harris to win, the uncommitted movement and their demands need to be addressed. Uncommitted voters need to be become committed voters. That cannot be done by shaming uncommitted voters, and it cannot be done by suppressing their voices.

We're 2.5 months out from the election. These days that might as well be 2.5 years. College is starting. College students have a lot of free time on their hands, they're angry, and they're very politically activated by a growing American leftist movement. These protests are going to get worse, and worse, and worse, and the non-voting bloc of left-leaning voters is going to continue to grow. The Harris campaign might disagree with me that they can't ride on 3 variations of, "We're working tirelessly to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza." until November.

I also understand the reality on the ground and behind closed doors could be messy right now. You've got Trump likely blatantly violating the Logan Act by negotiating with Netanyahu to avoid a ceasefire in order to torpedo Harris' campaign. Leftists generally think Biden doesn't want a ceasefire at all, and he simply wants to support Netanyahu in a double suicide pact. Maybe that's not true, maybe Biden and Harris really, REALLY actually want this to stop ASAP and maybe secretly wish they could just put a bullet in Netanyahu's skull and be done with it, but there's some geopolitical nonsense we're not privy to. They could be making this calculation that they just need to stall with the uncommitted voters and tell everyone public-facing, "Just say we're working tirelessly to get a ceasefire." for another week or two and everything will be fine.

This is getting long, but it's important to think about the possibility of a regional war breaking out in the Middle East between now and the election. Americans don't care about foreign policy until it's the *only* thing we care about. We just want our treats, our TV shows, our Marvel movies, and we don't want to see dead American soldiers. If Hezbollah and Iran launch a massive assault on Israel and we're forced to put boots on the ground--as soon as that first picture of an American flag draped around a coffin inside the cargo hold of a C-130 hits the front page of CNN, Harris loses the election. If we get a ceasefire and potentially an arms embargo to Israel, as well as everything cooling down in the Middle East, Harris could win in a >320 delegate landslide.

I'm writing this post hours before the final day of the DNC where Harris will be speaking, and I would love nothing more than to look like a fool for being overly pessimistic. I keep getting pleasantly surprised by Kamala Harris, and she might surprise me tonight, she might surprise me next week or next month. Or the world could end between now and the election. Who knows anymore.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by michio

Biden dropping out was the first turn where young left-leaning voters, or at least non right-wing voters, felt hope again. [...] The third turn was picking Walz over Shapiro which was shocking for leftists because we're used to democratic politicians straddling the center. It's amusing looking back and seeing leftists pre-grieving Harris picking Shapiro to lessen the disappointment.

TBH I don't really get this. I understand it was the groupthink on Twitter and other places online...

But Tim Walz was a moderate when he was in the House. He had smiling pictures with Netanyahu himself. He's passed a lot of popular policies in Minnesota, but MN hadn't had a Democratic trifecta in a while, so there was a lot of low-hanging fruit. Shapiro, by contrast, hasn't had a Democratic trifecta, and I haven't heard any reason to suppose he wouldn't support many of the same policies and sign them if the PA legislature passed them.

It mostly seems to boil down to Shapiro supporting school vouchers (which is bad) and him being too "pro-Israel". Which, given that he's actually been more vocally critical of Netanyahu than Walz has... well, it suggests that there are some assumptions being made based on, let's say... (((certain factors))).

In fact, given how ambitious Shapiro likely is, one might even hypothesize that he would feel more freedom to condemn Israel due to his Judaism, since he would be inoculated against anti-Semitism accusations.

That said, I don't have a strong opinion on the matter and I like Tim Walz, he has good favorability ratings and seems to be a good choice. They both have positives, but if the election comes down to Pennsylvania and Trump wins it, it will not look like a good decision. Hopefully it's not that close!

I want to do my best to step out of my brain broken leftist bubble and try to objectively analyze the final hurdle, which is Gaza. From a purely political strategy POV, I think the Harris campaign and more broadly the Democrats are making a mistake by not taking more forceful action to get a ceasefire in Gaza. The reason why is because there is a significant and growing coalition of uncommitted democrat voters who want to give their full endorsement and their vote to Harris, but they are unwilling to do so until a complete ceasefire happens.
[...]
You've got Trump likely blatantly violating the Logan Act by negotiating with Netanyahu to avoid a ceasefire in order to torpedo Harris' campaign.

Netanyahu wants Trump to win. Tbh he doesn't even really need Trump to tell him that this is hurting the Democrats... domestically, he also wants to keep the war going as long as possible to fend off attempts to oust him, so practically speaking, Trump should probably not even be risking the appearance that he's undermining a ceasefire since Netanyahu understands his own incentives just fine already.

I think Biden hasn't taken a hard enough line, but the incentive structure here is basically people saying they'll help get Netanyahu get what he wants unless he agrees to do something he doesn't want. It's win-win for Netanyahu - he doesn't want to end the war, and he doesn't want to help Democrats. So his incentives are completely to keep delaying. So I really don't understand the idea of how rewarding Netanyahu with his preferred outcome if he continues to do what he already wants to do is helpful.

Now, if there's political room for them to withhold more military aid, or delay weapons shipments, they should do that. But sanctions (a ban on selling weapons to Israel) are not likely to happen. A permanent end to aid definitely isn't happening in the next couple months. And there are possibilities of Congress reacting, because the median House and Senate seats are to the right of the US as a whole.

And if we get blatant enough statements from Trump about his intentions, or him stating that he's blocking a ceasefire/hostage deal, a lot of people who are concerned about this are going to have a harder time thinking that it's irrelevant which candidate wins.

My hope is that Biden has been recording Netanyahu's communications and intends to release the evidence if necessary, but I don't have any confidence that he's willing to play that level of hardball.

I don't want to comment on the morality of any of this, but again, from a purely political strategist POV, this isn't the move. You aren't swaying any leftists or single-issue Gaza voters into showing up to vote by shaming them.

I would note that this is probably something folks ought to consider before accusing others of supporting genocide because they think defeating Trump is important.

if you want Kamala Harris to win, the uncommitted movement and their demands need to be addressed.

To be bluntly honest, I'm not sure that they do.

Particularly not if pro-Palestine supporters don't try to exercise more discipline and ensure that people aren't burning American flags or vandalizing with pro-Hamas messages, etc.

Overplaying your hand and overstating your influence does not actually make your case or tactics more effective.

They made a big noise about having tens of thousands of protestors and that it was going to be a repeat of 1968, and then very few people showed up. You can see how this does not strengthen their negotiating position.

Leftists generally think Biden doesn't want a ceasefire at all, and he simply wants to support Netanyahu in a double suicide pact. Maybe that's not true

I mean, there's really no reason to think that's true. Biden supports Israel, but I don't know what the evidence is that he's happy with Netanyahu's behavior.

Also not sure how it's a "double" suicide pact, since I don't think Netanyahu has generally been making decisions that are damaging to Netanyahu (maybe damaging to Israel in the long run, but I don't think they're making his position really worse).

If Hezbollah and Iran launch a massive assault on Israel and we're forced to put boots on the ground--as soon as that first picture of an American flag draped around a coffin inside the cargo hold of a C-130 hits the front page of CNN, Harris loses the election.

I think you are overestimating what percentage of the American public are going to support Iran and Hezbollah over Israel. As bad as Israel is, I don't think you'll win over American voters by saying that Israel is worse or equivalent to Iran. The Iranian regime is, in fact, very very bad. We could argue as to which regime is worse, and whether it's just Islamophobia that makes most Americans consider it worse than Israel (even if it is still very very bad), but Iran has 13% approval to 81% disapproval among Americans, while as of February, Israel still had 58% approval against 36% disapproval (numbers from Gallup).

Unless your argument is that people will vote for Trump because he will retaliate against Iran even harder.

Or that Americans will get so mad about the resulting spike in oil prices caused by a larger war in the Middle East, that they'll punish Harris for that.

If we get a ceasefire and potentially an arms embargo to Israel, as well as everything cooling down in the Middle East, Harris could win in a >320 delegate landslide.

I mean, 320 electoral votes isn't that impressive, so I think she could do that anyway.

But most voters do not prioritize Israel/Palestine/Gaza above the US economy, inflation or a number of other issues. That includes young voters. As long as the US isn't directly fighting, it's probably not going to cause a 5 pt swing.

I also don't think that playing games with poll wording is helpful. I've been seeing polls cited that ask about "withholding weapons" and the people sharing them conflating that with Americans supporting an arms embargo (that means sanctions on Israel). Withholding weapons is almost certainly interpreted as the US not giving Israel military aid, grants of weapons. An arms embargo would mean that US arms manufacturers cannot legally sell to Israel, which is a very different thing. Democratic campaigns can see the difference, and likely conclude that doing what the polls maybe* support (withholding aid) will not be rewarded by activists, who will then claim that they're not going far enough, even though there isn't evidence for most Americans supporting sanctions on Israel. You might be able to get additional weapons aid withheld and weapons sales delayed, but an embargo is something different and you aren't going to earn trust by pretending it's the same thing or not accounting for the fact that the headlines and Republican attacks won't say "withholding weapons" but instead "sanctions on Israel".

*As always, it's not only Democrats who have agency. Republicans will respond to such actions and it's not unreasonable to think that the public's opinion might shift after they do.

[-FX-]

tl;dr

[michio]

Thanks erimir, interesting points.

I would note that this is probably something folks ought to consider before accusing others of supporting genocide because they think defeating Trump is important.

That is true. We're all on the same team, and we want Kamala to win. When I hear some representatives from the uncommitted movement speaking on this, they're generally focused on simply stating they want a ceasefire and they want the weapons to stop, and they want to cast their vote for Harris if and when that happens, maybe adding that they personally have friends and family affected by this.

To be bluntly honest, I'm not sure that they do.

That is another disconnect. Leftist voters and single-issue Gaza voters believe there are enough uncommitted voters that their vote could be the tiebreaker, especially in Michigan.

I think you are overestimating what percentage of the American public are going to support Iran and Hezbollah over Israel.

...

But most voters do not prioritize Israel/Palestine/Gaza above the US economy, inflation or a number of other issues.

I'm not analyzing the situation on the basis of whether voters would support Iran vs Israel in a hypothetical war, but how such a conflict would affect us domestically and then how voters would respond.

It is a fact that most people aren't thinking about Gaza at all or even know what "Gaza" is, even a year after Oct. 7. The argument is that if a regional war breaks out, it then affects the economy domestically, and American voters don't actually like being involved in war unless it's a situation like Pearl Harbor or 9/11. That's what I mean when I say Americans don't care about foreign policy until it's the only thing they care about.

The average low-information voter sees that a bad thing is happening, and a democrat is president, therefore they will be less likely to actually go out and vote, or vote for Trump.

[michio]

By the way I think Michelle Obama's speech was my favorite so far at the DNC. I remember her being a good speaker in the past, but that speech she gave caused an eruption. I think she outshined even Barack's speech.