2024 Presidential Election Thread

posted by CenterBHSFan

Another question I have is this. I keep seeing all these reports of reliably blue counties in blue states that had moved to the right in this election. They are still blue, but much less so. Is this a one off thing due to the circumstances of this election or is there a chance that it's going to be a trend?

I think it's a purple shift rather than a swing to Repubs.  I think more people are less beholden to voting straight ticket, every time, and are simply going to vote for the challenger when they are less than satisfied with the current Administration.  Trump probably wins in 2020 if not for Covid.

It seems a lot of formerly reliable blue voters are fed-up with Dem woke policies, including DEI and climate change.  They are no longer a given, and can't be herded into voting blue with the usual fearmongering.  Many of them may have cast protest votes FOR Trump this election, but I think in the future they stay home unless a party specifically gives them a reason to turn out.

Dems need high percentages among Latinos and Blacks.  I think the inroads Trump made was more about disgust with the Dems than a strong appeal from Trump.  But if those voters no longer automatically GIVE their vote to Dems then they have a real structural problem in the electorate going forward without changing their approach.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Dude, you have beaten that to a fine, dusty powder.  Please, please let it go.

He brought it up as a joke, and I replied as a joke. Hope that helps…

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Harris has done zero contesting of the results.  We know that would not have happened had the voting gone the other way.  Several posters in here insisted she’d hold up the results by immediately suing if she lost.

If it was even remotely close you don’t think the Dems would have fought it?

Even back in 2000 they did with Gore. Both sides fight it when it’s close.

This wasn’t close.

posted by kizer permanente

Or it almost like one acknowledges and respects election results  and the other is Trump  

Again, both sides do this when it’s close.

The Ds did it with Gore in 2000, and with Clinton in 2016.

Acting like Trump was the first in history to contest an election is moronic at best, lying at worst.

If this has been previously mentioned, my apologies, but it's possible that Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayer could retired before her next term due to failing health. There are rumblings, and it sounds like support for, Biden, while in his last lame duck months, appointing Kamala Harris to the Supreme Court if Sotomayer retires before his term ends, just to fuck with the Republicans. This is probably a stretch to happen as, I believe, all SC justices have previously been judges and Harris hasn't.

posted by CenterBHSFan

Boogie go email Liz Warrens office about it. Then AOC and Pelosi, Maxine Waters, etc

You know, the people with the actual power to contest an election? Those same people who have been rumbling and mumbling and insinuating for months? 

The actual candidates in the presidential election - that’s who I’m referring to.  We’ve had on here multiple assurances from the Trump side that they’d both react poorly if they lost.  That hasn’t been the case.

posted by jmog

He brought it up as a joke, and I replied as a joke. Hope that helps…

Considering how you’ve beaten that dead horse for months - and in no way intending it as a joke - no it doesn’t.

posted by jmog

If it was even remotely close you don’t think the Dems would have fought it?

They absolutely would have.  They had hundreds of lawyers geared up to "fight Trump's legal challenges".  Yeah, because he was so successful in that in 2020 because the Dems were unprepared.  And this was after many states upgraded their safeguards and processes.

It's also kind of disingenuous after the Dems spent a good part of the last 4 years trying to prevent Trump from running and throw him in jail.  And it ignores the whole Russia collusion hoax.  Heck, some even floated appeals to "faithless electors" in 2016 to ignore their state result and cast the electoral votes for Hillary.  I think Jamie Raskin has already announced the "resistance" movement is again underway.  So, yeah, the Dems really lose gracefully.

More than debatable that the Dems are a bigger threat to democracy than Trump.  The lawfare really backfired on them.

posted by jmog

If it was even remotely close you don’t think the Dems would have fought it?

Even back in 2000 they did with Gore. Both sides fight it when it’s close.

This wasn’t close.

If that makes you feel better, sure.

posted by BR1986FB

If this has been previously mentioned, my apologies, but it's possible that Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayer could retired before her next term due to failing health. There are rumblings, and it sounds like support for, Biden, while in his last lame duck months, appointing Kamala Harris to the Supreme Court if Sotomayer retires before his term ends, just to fuck with the Republicans. This is probably a stretch to happen as, I believe, all SC justices have previously been judges and Harris hasn't.

O% chance. I saw the same liberal wet dream online. 

There is not enough time to do all of that, plus I'm pretty sure Republicans would find some way to block it.

There is also a good procedural question. As the Senate is 50/50, could she cast the deciding vote for herself? I don't know and I am not sure we even want to test that.

Now, if it was a Republican Senate with McConnell, with a conservative justice, I would give it a slight chance, but even then, I doubt it. The calendar is just unworkable. 

posted by BR1986FB

This is probably a stretch to happen as, I believe, all SC justices have previously been judges and Harris hasn't.

You definitely don't have to be a judge, and I think there have been a few non-lawyers appointed over its history.

There's likely not enough time to complete a confirmation process.  But there are a couple of very recent example of being confirmed ~3 weeks after submission.  I guess they could put up Kamala and push through a confirmation in a month.  So they only have about 6 weeks to figure that out, under the most ideal circumstances.

I wonder if Biden will step down or Kamala envoke the 25th so she can claim to be the first woman POTUS, even if only for a month or two:)

posted by gut

You definitely don't have to be a judge, and I think there have been a few non-lawyers appointed over its history.

There's likely not enough time to complete a confirmation process.  But there are a couple of very recent example of being confirmed ~3 weeks after submission.  I guess they could put up Kamala and push through a confirmation in a month.  So they only have about 6 weeks to figure that out, under the most ideal circumstances.

I wonder if Biden will step down or Kamala envoke the 25th so she can claim to be the first woman POTUS, even if only for a month or two:)

Oh your last point I didn't think of. Would technically be right and be interesting...but I think she will be needed in the Senate 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

O% chance. I saw the same liberal wet dream online. 

There is not enough time to do all of that, plus I'm pretty sure Republicans would find some way to block it.

There is also a good procedural question. As the Senate is 50/50, could she cast the deciding vote for herself? I don't know and I am not sure we even want to test that.

Now, if it was a Republican Senate with McConnell, with a conservative justice, I would give it a slight chance, but even then, I doubt it. The calendar is just unworkable. 

I’ve only seen liberal wackos say Kamala. But if the timeline works she should retire and they should try to pass a liberal judge. He’d never suggest Kamala though, he hates her. 

Trump may have 2 opportunities to name justices, replacing conservative ones anyway though. But would they need to retire soon into his term in case Dems win back Senate in ‘26?

I don’t think Kagan was ever a judge. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

The actual candidates in the presidential election - that’s who I’m referring to.  We’ve had on here multiple assurances from the Trump side that they’d both react poorly if they lost.  That hasn’t been the case.

I think if the election were closer it would have happened. Kamala's campaign would have manufactured consent with the help of those I mentioned and all other DC Dems, with the exception of maybe Manchin . 

And as much as I hate it, maybe it's better to have very close elections scrutinized a little bit. With all the doubts cast by both sides, the people should not be left wondering. Whether it's Kamala or Trump or whoever else in the future.

But Trump has laid one hell of a blue print on how a candidate can be so awfully mistreated and vilified and still win. 

If the Dems are acute enough, if they self-examine enough, they will understand on an instinctual level that they should never ever, ever, repeat their tactics again. It's bad enough that they have already set precedent and there is no erasing that. But if they truly want to do right for this country and the people who inhabit it, they will never again press political persecutions upon their opponents.

We shall see.

As far as SCOTUS, if moves are made, I can easily see Clarence Thomas retiring as soon as Trump is sworn in and a conservative replacing him. And even if Kamala or somebody else replaced Sotomayor, it wouldn't help.

This all just reminds me of people bitching about RNG staying in too long. Sometimes staying in the ring too long hurts everybody in the long term.

The current SCOTUS make-up is pretty good with 3 liberals, 2 conservatives and 4 centrists.

Ideally you'd replace a liberal and one of the Repub centrists with a Democrats or left-leaning centrist/textualists.  But I'm not sure such a person exists.

The only real reason this is even an issue is because Dems have insisted on litigating rather than legislating to advance their agenda.  The rail about Trump, yet cry about SCOTUS rulings that correctly limit the executive branch.  But all of that is really just gaslighting to set the stage to stack the courts.  Fortunately, that won't be happening any time soon.

posted by gut

The current SCOTUS make-up is pretty good with 3 liberals, 2 conservatives and 4 centrists.

Ideally you'd replace a liberal and one of the Repub centrists with a Democrats or left-leaning centrist/textualists.  But I'm not sure such a person exists.

The only real reason this is even an issue is because Dems have insisted on litigating rather than legislating to advance their agenda.  The rail about Trump, yet cry about SCOTUS rulings that correctly limit the executive branch.  But all of that is really just gaslighting to set the stage to stack the courts.  Fortunately, that won't be happening any time soon.

Agree. It be interesting to see how the federal agencies and Congress implement the Chevron overturn, which limited what federal agencies can do. 

posted by gut

Ideally you'd replace a liberal and one of the Repub centrists with a Democrats or left-leaning centrist/textualists.  But I'm not sure such a person exists.

I'm not any sort of supreme court justice expert, let me just say that up front. But I think that, 20 years ago - Gorsuch would be classified as a centrist. I only say that because from the little I know of him nothing stands out to me as being of hardcore Republican/conservative. 

Am I wrong about that?

Edit to add: Justice Thomas, comparatively, is hardcore Republican/conservative.

posted by gut

The current SCOTUS make-up is pretty good with 3 liberals, 2 conservatives and 4 centrists.

Ideally you'd replace a liberal and one of the Repub centrists with a Democrats or left-leaning centrist/textualists.  But I'm not sure such a person exists.

The only real reason this is even an issue is because Dems have insisted on litigating rather than legislating to advance their agenda.  The rail about Trump, yet cry about SCOTUS rulings that correctly limit the executive branch.  But all of that is really just gaslighting to set the stage to stack the courts.  Fortunately, that won't be happening any time soon.

Disagree. That’s how you end up getting a liberal court by giving in on “middle of the road” justices. The left only puts on extremely liberal justices, who almost always only vote together. This is why the right loses all the time. The one thing I admire about the left is them not giving a fuck and doing whatever they think will further their progressive outlook. 

posted by gut

I wonder if Biden will step down or Kamala envoke the 25th so she can claim to be the first woman POTUS, even if only for a month or two:)

This would be an insult to women.  I know the dems want to put that notch in their belt to further their identity politics but they will not go there.  Plus the 25th on a lame duck raises too many questions why not before?  Besides they are busy working on the new narrative.