General Election 2024

Quote: RonC

These things only make the folks who were already going to vote for Trump more steadfast in their stance ...

This is one of my favorite arguments, so many people use. "You're upsetting us so much; we're going to ram our heads into the wall even harder this time."

But I know Trump supporters actually believe he is going to be able to be the greatest President ever when he'll be able to fill every position with yes-men and sycophants because it will unleash his greatness... Lordy.

Quote: rxwine

Dang man, when's the last time the Republicans dumped their incumbent 1st termer who was running, to run another candidate? You make it sound like it's just knocking back a beer at the local drinking establishment. How about you guys getting behind one of your less flawed candidates?

I am supporting one of the other candidates.

Every candidate has flaws.

It isn't easy to dump an incumbent. It isn't easy to dump a popular (within certain groups) a former President. Simply put, I see one happening a lot easier than the other. I'd like to see them BOTH happen.

...but you knew all that, and you also know that what I would like to happen won't happen. This is a discussion forum and we are not any more based in the reality of what is most likely happened than those who think President Biden is on top of his game or those who think Trump is not seriously flawed as a person as a candidate.

I am pretty much set on this being an election without much hope. In four years, we'll do it again with more hope...hopefully...

Quote: rxwine

This is one of my favorite arguments, so many people use. "You're upsetting us so much; we're going to ram our heads into the wall even harder this time."

But I know Trump supporters actually believe he is going to be able to be the greatest President ever when he'll be able to fill every position with yes-men and sycophants because it will unleash his greatness... Lordy.

Except it isn't an "argument" at this point, it is a reality. You and I can wish it wasn't so, but it is so right now. Perhaps a conviction or some other thing can change it but there is no doubt it is happening so far.

Righties are sounding A LOT like they did in 2020.

“Biden is a weak candidate”
“….Dementia….”
“Going to be replaced with #insert candidate here#” (remember when Andrew Cuomo was going to jump in and save the day in 2020? lol)

Frankly, after the always-predicted, never-occurring red waves of 2018, 2020, and 2022, I’m skeptical of their analyses.

Quote: ams288

Righties are sounding A LOT like they did in 2020.

“Biden is a weak candidate”
“….Dementia….”
“Going to be replaced with #insert candidate here#” (remember when Andrew Cuomo was going to jump in and save the day in 2020? lol)

Frankly, after the always-predicted, never-occurring red waves of 2018, 2020, and 2022, I’m skeptical of their analyses.

Him being weak does not mean that he will lose. There is a greater chance of him losing due to his weakness. That's all. Republicans will only hold serve or lose ground if Trump is the candidate. he has short coattails, as proven in the three elections that you mention.

Quote: link.... emphasis mine

former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of
State James A. Baker, III, agreed to co-chair a bipartisan commission, housed at
Washington D.C.’s American University, to examine these and other outstanding election
reform issues. The final report, titled “Building Confidence in U.S. Elections,” stressed the
important role of elections in the nation’s democracy and made a series of
recommendations, including:

A national system to connect state and local voter registration lists

Voter identification based on a universally available REAL ID card

Policies to improve voter access for all communities, as well as innovations like vote centers and voter information lookup sites

Stronger efforts to combat fraud, especially in absentee voting

Auditable paper backups for all voting technology

It is also well known that Carter was totally against mailed-out-then-mailed-in-ballots
https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/carter-baker-commission-16-years-later

Though I truly believe the Carter/Baker ideas are our best thing to go to, I realize it's not being discussed as such by anybody that's going to make it happen. It's why you never heard of it, me either until recently.

An honest appraisal is that it's a failure. From what I can gather, the ID requirement suggested was flawed and they should have known it. A special ID, allegedly somewhat hard to get? Come on guys, just to get *existing* IDs like DLs required in all 50 states would have been a hell of an accomplishment, what were you thinking?

It seems to me, however, since fixing this part of it just required lowering the standard, that the wholesale rejection is more due to a belief that the status quo should be preserved at all costs, 'what's best' be damned.

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: link.... emphasis mine

former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of
State James A. Baker, III, agreed to co-chair a bipartisan commission, housed at
Washington D.C.’s American University, to examine these and other outstanding election
reform issues. The final report, titled “Building Confidence in U.S. Elections,” stressed the
important role of elections in the nation’s democracy and made a series of
recommendations, including:

A national system to connect state and local voter registration lists

Voter identification based on a universally available REAL ID card

Policies to improve voter access for all communities, as well as innovations like vote centers and voter information lookup sites

Stronger efforts to combat fraud, especially in absentee voting

Auditable paper backups for all voting technology

It is also well known that Carter was totally against mailed-out-then-mailed-in-ballots
https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/carter-baker-commission-16-years-later

Though I truly believe the Carter/Baker ideas are our best thing to go to, I realize it's not being discussed as such by anybody that's going to make it happen. It's why you never heard of it, me either until recently.

An honest appraisal is that it's a failure. From what I can gather, the ID requirement suggested was flawed and they should have known it. A special ID, allegedly somewhat hard to get? Come on guys, just to get *existing* IDs like DLs required in all 50 states would have been a hell of an accomplishment, what were you thinking?

It seems to me, however, since fixing this part of it just required lowering the standard, that the wholesale rejection is more due to a belief that the status quo should be preserved at all costs, 'what's best' be damned.

I don't know why Republicans didn't push for a basic non-driving ID free to every citizen. They love their pocket cash, more than they love increasing the likelyhood of IDs.

Quote: rxwine

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: link.... emphasis mine

former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of
State James A. Baker, III, agreed to co-chair a bipartisan commission, housed at
Washington D.C.’s American University, to examine these and other outstanding election
reform issues. The final report, titled “Building Confidence in U.S. Elections,” stressed the
important role of elections in the nation’s democracy and made a series of
recommendations, including:

A national system to connect state and local voter registration lists

Voter identification based on a universally available REAL ID card

Policies to improve voter access for all communities, as well as innovations like vote centers and voter information lookup sites

Stronger efforts to combat fraud, especially in absentee voting

Auditable paper backups for all voting technology

It is also well known that Carter was totally against mailed-out-then-mailed-in-ballots
https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/carter-baker-commission-16-years-later

Though I truly believe the Carter/Baker ideas are our best thing to go to, I realize it's not being discussed as such by anybody that's going to make it happen. It's why you never heard of it, me either until recently.

An honest appraisal is that it's a failure. From what I can gather, the ID requirement suggested was flawed and they should have known it. A special ID, allegedly somewhat hard to get? Come on guys, just to get *existing* IDs like DLs required in all 50 states would have been a hell of an accomplishment, what were you thinking?

It seems to me, however, since fixing this part of it just required lowering the standard, that the wholesale rejection is more due to a belief that the status quo should be preserved at all costs, 'what's best' be damned.

I don't know why Republicans didn't push for a basic non-driving ID free to every citizen. They love their pocket cash, more than they love increasing the likelyhood of IDs.

Thats an easy one: They like making it harder for people to vote under the guise of voter security.

Democrats push for healthcare, which is expensive as hell.

Republicans can't even push for a free basic ID, cheapo bastards.

Quote: ams288

Quote: rxwine

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: link.... emphasis mine

former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of
State James A. Baker, III, agreed to co-chair a bipartisan commission, housed at
Washington D.C.’s American University, to examine these and other outstanding election
reform issues. The final report, titled “Building Confidence in U.S. Elections,” stressed the
important role of elections in the nation’s democracy and made a series of
recommendations, including:

A national system to connect state and local voter registration lists

Voter identification based on a universally available REAL ID card

Policies to improve voter access for all communities, as well as innovations like vote centers and voter information lookup sites

Stronger efforts to combat fraud, especially in absentee voting

Auditable paper backups for all voting technology

It is also well known that Carter was totally against mailed-out-then-mailed-in-ballots
https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/carter-baker-commission-16-years-later

Though I truly believe the Carter/Baker ideas are our best thing to go to, I realize it's not being discussed as such by anybody that's going to make it happen. It's why you never heard of it, me either until recently.

An honest appraisal is that it's a failure. From what I can gather, the ID requirement suggested was flawed and they should have known it. A special ID, allegedly somewhat hard to get? Come on guys, just to get *existing* IDs like DLs required in all 50 states would have been a hell of an accomplishment, what were you thinking?

It seems to me, however, since fixing this part of it just required lowering the standard, that the wholesale rejection is more due to a belief that the status quo should be preserved at all costs, 'what's best' be damned.

I don't know why Republicans didn't push for a basic non-driving ID free to every citizen. They love their pocket cash, more than they love increasing the likelyhood of IDs.

Thats an easy one: They like making it harder for people to vote under the guise of voter security.

Yeah, that's probably it.