Its over. Joe Biden is stepping down

[red viking]

4 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I just find it laughable the Democrats who are crying "Trump will end Democracy, Trump will end are Democracy". Then the Democrats absolutely destroy democracy by hand selecting Kamala for the Democrat nominee for President. There isn't one democrat voter or independent voter that voted for her to be the nominee. But in the long run it was better to be hypocritical than to have a total Jerry Springer moment at the DNC Convention. It would have not gone well. 

Huh? Do you understand the difference between a party nomination and a popular vote for President? The PARTY can nominate WHOEVER they want and HOWEVER they want. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

5 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I just find it laughable the Democrats who are crying "Trump will end Democracy, Trump will end are Democracy". Then the Democrats absolutely destroy democracy by hand selecting Kamala for the Democrat nominee for President. There isn't one democrat voter or independent voter that voted for her to be the nominee. But in the long run it was better to be hypocritical than to have a total Jerry Springer moment at the DNC Convention. It would have not gone well. 

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding about how our elections work and the history of selecting candidates. 

[Paul158]

1 minute ago, red viking said:

Huh? Do you understand the difference between a party nomination and a popular vote for President? The PARTY can nominate WHOEVER they want and HOWEVER they want. 

Why do they have primary's then to select the nominee? Isn't that the voice of the people speaking. But if you look at the Democrats they don't trust their own voters so they have SUPER DELEGATES just in case.

[Wrestleknownothing]

39 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

This^^

I was just chatting with a friend last night and we both are not a fan of either Trump or Biden/Harris, but it is clear the Dems are just trying to stop the huge hole in the damn...conceding the presidential election and focusing on not losing to many seats....regrouping and then looking for a much much better candidate to run in 4 years...we both said we sure hope they find one!  Same with the R's!  Will be interesting to see how this JD Vance turns out to be.

I had a very similar conversation. Maybe we were talking to each other and did not realize it.

We also talked about how hard it will be to fill the VP slot on the Democratic ticket. No one will want that VP slot. They would just rather wait four years and run then.

[Bigbrog]

1 minute ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I had a very similar conversation. Maybe we were talking to each other and did not realize it.

We also talked about how hard it will be to fill the VP slot on the Democratic ticket. No one will want that VP slot. They would just rather wait four years and run then.

LOL

Yeah...I wonder who it will be...and agree that I am not sure any of the "big names" would want it.

[Paul158]

10 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding about how our elections work and the history of selecting candidates. 

You are well informed and intelligent Can you explain why the Democrats have Super Delegates? Why not just use the representative delegates from each state?

[Offthemat]

27 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I just find it laughable the Democrats who are crying "Trump will end Democracy, Trump will end are Democracy". Then the Democrats absolutely destroy democracy by hand selecting Kamala for the Democrat nominee for President. There isn't one democrat voter or independent voter that voted for her to be the nominee. But in the long run it was better to be hypocritical than to have a total Jerry Springer moment at the DNC Convention. It would have not gone well. 

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, she’s not the nominee yet.  
 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/07/23/new-york-times-kamala-harris-is-the-least-electable-democrat/

[Wrestleknownothing]

3 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

You are well informed and intelligent Can you explain why the Democrats have Super Delegates? Why not just use the representative delegates from each state?

Both parties have this, though the Republicans do not call them Super Delegates. Democrats have about 15% super delegates while Republicans have three automatically seated delegates from every state/territory. Democrat Super Delegates are currently not allowed to vote in the first round. Republican auto delegates must vote in line with elected delegates in the first round.

And the degree to which they have them is often a result/reaction to losing an election. It used to be that there were only super delegates (think Lincoln's nomination) and there were many rounds of ballots and a lot of horse trading before a candidate was decided. Then the pendulum swung toward a grassroots process like we have now. The pendulum moves around a bit from year to year, but lately always at the grassroots end of the spectrum.

[uncle bernard]

1 hour ago, PortaJohn said:

Uncle B and @WrestlingRasta are you guys just teasing the posters on this thread or in general you think maga supporters are freaking out?  I've never voted for trump and never will but this election is pretty much in the bag.  At this point it's Dems trying to hold on to as many seats in the House and Senate.  All the indicators are there that Trump is far ahead on the electoral map.  But I get it.  It's a ln election year so both sides have to go full delusional 

 

He was far ahead in the map when he was running against a corpse who couldn't finish a sentence. The democratic base is extremely energized and rallying around Kamala. She's been endorsed by all the major party players and they had a huge fundraising day yesterday. This thing is far from over. 

She's going to pick a midwest governor and the dems are going to run on the "we're normal, look at those weirdos" platform and win this election. Trump is a weak candidate and that was only overlooked because his opponent was even weaker. Most people don't like him. They didn't like his first term. Now that the dems have a viable candidate, that will matter again. Now it's the republicans running the octogenarian who doesn't speak coherently. Plus, he took on a horrible VP pick in exchange for Thiel/Musk money when he thought it wouldn't matter. Vance is going to be a Palin-esque disaster for him.

I don't like Kamala. I don't like the dems. I won't be voting for them. Just calling it like I see it and I think the reaction about how "undemocratic" this is and how the republicans are going to challenge to keep Kamala off the ballot gives away the game. This election was unlosable against Biden. Not anymore. 

You know who isn't complaining about how "undemocratic" this is? Dem voters. The recent polling showed a huge majority wanted Biden to drop out. They care about 1 thing and that's beating Trump and correctly saw he couldn't do it. They're ecstatic he dropped out and are ready to go full steam ahead behind Kamala.

[uncle bernard]

one potential VP

 

[Paul158]

8 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Both parties have this, though the Republicans do not call them Super Delegates. Democrats have about 15% super delegates while Republicans have three automatically seated delegates from every state/territory. Democrat Super Delegates are currently not allowed to vote in the first round. Republican auto delegates must vote in line with elected delegates in the first round.

And the degree to which they have them is often a result/reaction to losing an election. It used to be that there were only super delegates (think Lincoln's nomination) and there were many rounds of ballots and a lot of horse trading before a candidate was decided. Then the pendulum swung toward a grassroots process like we have now. The pendulum moves around a bit from year to year, but lately always at the grassroots end of the spectrum.

Thank you I appreciate your expertise.

[Paul158]

12 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

He was far ahead in the map when he was running against a corpse who couldn't finish a sentence. The democratic base is extremely energized and rallying around Kamala. She's been endorsed by all the major party players and they had a huge fundraising day yesterday. This thing is far from over. 

She's going to pick a midwest governor and the dems are going to run on the "we're normal, look at those weirdos" platform and win this election. Trump is a weak candidate and that was only overlooked because his opponent was even weaker. Most people don't like him. They didn't like his first term. Now that the dems have a viable candidate, that will matter again. Now it's the republicans running the octogenarian who doesn't speak coherently. Plus, he took on a horrible VP pick in exchange for Thiel/Musk money when he thought it wouldn't matter. Vance is going to be a Palin-esque disaster for him.

I don't like Kamala. I don't like the dems. I won't be voting for them. Just calling it like I see it and I think the reaction about how "undemocratic" this is and how the republicans are going to challenge to keep Kamala off the ballot gives away the game. This election was unlosable against Biden. Not anymore. 

You know who isn't complaining about how "undemocratic" this is? Dem voters. The recent polling showed a huge majority wanted Biden to drop out. They care about 1 thing and that's beating Trump and correctly saw he couldn't do it. They're ecstatic he dropped out and are ready to go full steam ahead behind Kamala.

In all fairness you are more qualified to be President than Kamala.

[Offthemat]

22 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Thank you I appreciate your expertise.

The Super Delegates in the dim party amount to about 38% of the required number to win.  The unbound delegates in the Republican Party amount to about 12% of the total needed. 

[ionel]

DNC plans to have a virtual vote.  Will illegal immigrants be allowed to vote, if not why not?  

[Paul158]

21 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

The Super Delegates in the dim party amount to about 38% of the required number to win.  The unbound delegates in the Republican Party amount to about 12% of the total needed. 

So, wouldn't it be fair to say that their purpose would be to make sure the candidate that they ( the powers that be) support gets the nomination. Isn't like an insurance policy?

[PortaJohn]

58 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

He was far ahead in the map when he was running against a corpse who couldn't finish a sentence. The democratic base is extremely energized and rallying around Kamala. She's been endorsed by all the major party players and they had a huge fundraising day yesterday. This thing is far from over. 

She's going to pick a midwest governor and the dems are going to run on the "we're normal, look at those weirdos" platform and win this election. Trump is a weak candidate and that was only overlooked because his opponent was even weaker. Most people don't like him. They didn't like his first term. Now that the dems have a viable candidate, that will matter again. Now it's the republicans running the octogenarian who doesn't speak coherently. Plus, he took on a horrible VP pick in exchange for Thiel/Musk money when he thought it wouldn't matter. Vance is going to be a Palin-esque disaster for him.

I don't like Kamala. I don't like the dems. I won't be voting for them. Just calling it like I see it and I think the reaction about how "undemocratic" this is and how the republicans are going to challenge to keep Kamala off the ballot gives away the game. This election was unlosable against Biden. Not anymore. 

You know who isn't complaining about how "undemocratic" this is? Dem voters. The recent polling showed a huge majority wanted Biden to drop out. They care about 1 thing and that's beating Trump and correctly saw he couldn't do it. They're ecstatic he dropped out and are ready to go full steam ahead behind Kamala.

That's not what the analytics and data say.  You're emotionally creating a scenario that isn't founded on evidence

[uncle bernard]

15 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

That's not what the analytics and data say.  You're emotionally creating a scenario that isn't founded on evidence

We have no polling for a Harris/? ticket. There is no data yet. 

I’m predicting what will happen based on past events, specifically 2020 and 2022.

The data does tell you Trump is an extremely weak candidate with astronomical unfavorable numbers that are pretty stable. It hasn’t been a problem for him because Biden’s are just as high. Harris has a chance to redefine the ticket now. 

Never underestimate the suburban desire for normalcy. 

[PortaJohn]

Just now, uncle bernard said:

We have no polling for a Harris/? ticket. There is no data yet. 

I’m predicting what will happen based on past events, specifically 2020 and 2022.

The data does tell you Trump is an extremely weak candidate with astronomical unfavorable numbers that are pretty stable. It hasn’t been a problem for him because Biden’s are just as high. Harris has a chance to redefine the ticket now. 

Never underestimate the suburban desire for normalcy. 

Not true. There has been polling for Harris vs Trump

[Wrestleknownothing]

8 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Not true. There has been polling for Harris vs Trump

I would have a hard time trusting that polling. It was done at a time that required people to imagine a world that did not yet exist. Now that it exists (and dependent on the Democrat VP pick), it would not surprise me to see the results change significantly in either direction.

[uncle bernard]

12 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Not true. There has been polling for Harris vs Trump

She's not even the nominee yet. She hasn't picked a VP. She hasn't spoken at the convention. That polling is only a snapshot of where things stand right now and most of it happened before Biden even stepped down. 

Of all people, Trump supporters should know how things can change. He was supposedly dead in the water at this point in 2016 too. 

All of this is prediction, but I'm very confident that this race will be a lot closer now and I guarantee the Trump campaign is pretty disappointed that Biden finally stepped aside. That election was over. This one is just beginning.

[PortaJohn]

Just now, uncle bernard said:

She's not even the nominee yet. She hasn't picked a VP. She hasn't spoken at the convention. That polling is only a snapshot of where things stand right now and most of it happened before Biden even stepped down. 

Of all people, Trump supporters should know how things can change. He was supposedly dead in the water at this point in 2016 too. 

All of this is prediction, but I'm very confident that this race will be a lot closer now and I guarantee the Trump campaign is pretty disappointed that Biden finally stepped aside. That election was over. This one is just beginning.

Not a Trump supporter.  That's been clear on these threads

[PortaJohn]

6 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I would have a hard time trusting that polling. It was done at a time that required people to imagine a world that did not yet exist. Now that it exists (and dependent on the Democrat VP pick), it would not surprise me to see the results change significantly in either direction.

Slightly different as in years past.  She's been the presumptive nominee since the debate.  She also comes into the race with high unfavorability numbers.  Something @uncle bernard will conveniently ignore.  Anyway you slice and dice it Trump has a massive  advantage on the electoral map.  He has to win only one of 3 states (MI, WI, and PA). Harris would have to sweep.  And as I've stated before the Dems have one candidate in this cycle that could theoretically do it (Whitmer)

[uncle bernard]

6 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Slightly different as in years past.  She's been the presumptive nominee since the debate.  She also comes into the race with high unfavorability numbers.  Something @uncle bernard will conveniently ignore.  Anyway you slice and dice it Trump has a massive  advantage on the electoral map.  He has to win only one of 3 states (MI, WI, and PA). Harris would have to sweep.  And as I've stated before the Dems have one candidate in this cycle that could theoretically do it (Whitmer)

She has not been the presumptive nominee since the debate. 

And I acknowledge her high unfavorable, but she’s not nearly as defined in that regard as Biden or Trump. She has the ability to redefine the ticket with a good VP pick and performance at the convention and debate. 

Her numbers will improve. The Trump campaign knows this.

 

[PortaJohn]

1 minute ago, uncle bernard said:

She has not been the presumptive nominee since the debate. 

And I acknowledge her high unfavorable, but she’s not nearly as defined in that regard as Biden or Trump. She has the ability to redefine the ticket with a good VP pick and performance at the convention and debate. 

Her numbers will improve. The Trump campaign knows this.

 

You're living in a fantasy 

[uncle bernard]

3 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

You're living in a fantasy 

It’s already happening. You think the Trump campaign is wrong?

The confidence you have is bizarre. This has never happened before. We have no idea how the public will react.

The 80 year old former president, who already lost once and has astronomical unfavorables, is now running against a 20 years younger woman with the chance to be the first female president and you’re insistent that nothing can change? Good luck with that. 

Edited July 23 by uncle bernard