"I'm not going anywhere ..."

[fuckholedc]

35 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

It's both. It's also because a goodly percentage of people just don't bother to vote at all. Studies generally show that a solid majority (like, >60%) of people who routinely don't vote have progressive/liberal sentiments; they just think it won't do any good to vote. If they voted, the right-winters (who DO turn out to vote, regularly) would never win the presidency OR a majority in either chamber of Congress.

Look - D's are generally not progressive (admittedly there are some progressive D's but not that many).  At the same time, relatively few of the progressive/liberal non-voters would vote for the Green Party.  Why?  They have been convinced that their vote would either be diluted because the Green Party doesn't have much support and the US system for presidential races aren't democratic (because of the Electoral College system which basically creates a closed two-poled system, even if that is not true theoretically) or they think their vote won't count at all.

Green voters are not D voters no matter how much the D Party whines and cries and demands and threatens.

But there really are D voters who actually don't go and vote.  One of the reasons is that some of these voters are racial minorities and have seen little to no progress on civil liberties in recent years (like the last 24-30 years or more).  The D party really needs to address the concerns of these groups (basically the main groups within this are African-Americans, esp. Southern African-Americans and Hispanic Americans, many of whom are increasingly conservative and are going over to the R party and who have permitted the history of direct racial and ethnic discrimination to be forgotten.  Then a third, much less populated group are Asian Americans who are historically culturally conservative but often liberal wrt community and some health care issues.)

Then the D party has spent most of the Biden years by ignoring the issues of the progressives who identify D for social justice reasons, esp. those motivated by ecological concerns.  These people were told to sit down and shut up.

Another group mostly unaddressed by the D's are Gay men and Trans people, except of course in June.  But there will be NO warning from a major D politician that a second Trump WH will certainly mean a resumption of genocide by the R party as ALL HIV/AIDS medication is once again removed from insurance and can only be bought on the pharmaceutical market or simply withdrawn from availability.  And that will be followed by at least a partial recriminalization of Gay men and some Trans people just for being Gay/Trans (Bi men might also fall into this group).  I'll wait but basically almost no D politician will address this this election cycle - although the D party might remind Gay men about the massive steps forward wrt AIDS pharmaceutical availability and cost reduction under the Biden WH (with the Trump people also highlighting some of the same progress under Trump's first admin while not discussing the general plans of the R party to relabel Gay and Trans people as sub-human again).

The D party needs to take off the gloves and really address issues if it wants to avoid an R WH in 2025. 

  

 

[onlyraw]

What bugs me about people who vote for a third party candidate for president is they know that their candidate will not win 

I know the electoral college sucks- but it is the system we have and it means that a vote for any “progressive” candidate is in fact a vote for Trump

and as for “should Biden bow out or not” every time a democrat says that to the press - it is a headline about that and not about Trump an his 2025 plan

[hntnhole]

23 hours ago, PozTalkAuthor said:

True, half the country wants a dictator but can Biden be still an alternative?

1.  In the event that Biden steps down (apparently unlikely, but ...), the Vice President will automatically be sworn in as President.  The Democratic Convention is in mid-August in Chicago this time, at which event she should be placed in nomination for the upcoming election as President.  The President already has enough "pledged delegates" (to him), and presumably (if he steps aside) he would appear at the Convention and transfer his delegates to Harris.  There could possibly be others vying for the Nomination, but Kamela would be very difficult to maneuver around.  I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the Congresspersons who have already gone on record that the President should step aside are more concerned about their own election rather than the good of the Nation.  Nothing new about that, I reckon.

2.  If any of the above actually happens, I predict that the Democrats will win in November fairly authoritatively. I'm not as sure about the two houses of Congress though - the Dems may well lose control of one or both.   I may be wrong, but with all the attention being paid to the Heritage Harlots, the Dem base is as "anyone but trump" healthy as ever. More, we can't forget how angry women across the country, red states and blue, are about the abortion issue.   The only question would be, if someone else (Congressional member, perhaps) would make a serious play for the nomination.  If successful, that Congressperson would be blamed for the destruction that may well follow in January.  But in the end, it's the voters who will decide.    

3.  I think trying to judge the President's acumen in running the country by mis-speaking names of folks, walking like the old man that he is, having an extra piece of toast at breakfast, one lump or two in his coffee, on and on and on, only creates mischief that the Dems sorely need to get over and done with.  I'm sticking with the President first, and if necessary, his Veep; she is eminently qualified.

4. I'm also making the case for voting for only Democrats; i.e. Straight-Ticket Democratic voting.  That will help restore decency in the local and state-wide elections, which is also most important.  

[viking8x6]

23 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

In the event that Biden steps down (apparently unlikely, but ...), the Vice President will automatically be sworn in as President. 

I'm certainly not under the impression that anyone is suggesting that Biden resign the office of President, only that he withdraw his candidacy for the 2024 term. Is there something I missed here?

I will freely admit that I pay limited attention to the cacophony (in the very most literal sense of the roots of that word) of political news, to protect both my sanity and blood pressure.

[BootmanLA]

5 hours ago, viking8x6 said:

I'm certainly not under the impression that anyone is suggesting that Biden resign the office of President, only that he withdraw his candidacy for the 2024 term. Is there something I missed here?

I will freely admit that I pay limited attention to the cacophony (in the very most literal sense of the roots of that word) of political news, to protect both my sanity and blood pressure.

Most of the calls have been for him to withdraw as candidate; but yes, there are calls that he should step down so Harris can run as an "incumbent." I put that in quotes because although it's true she would then be the incumbent, I don't think she will be seen as such - not in the same sense that, say, Lyndon Johnson was in 1964, or Harry Truman was in 1948. 

[hntnhole]

5 hours ago, viking8x6 said:

I'm certainly not under the impression that anyone is suggesting that Biden resign the office of President, only that he withdraw his candidacy for the 2024 term

There are a number of Congresspersons (somewhere around 20 at the moment) that are calling for the President to abandon the Presidency immediately.  They want him to abandon his office now, as in today or tomorrow.  He already has tons of committed electors, which (I assume), he would hand over to Harris, but the hundred million or so in his campaign war chest is still in question, at least to my understanding. 

That said, I'm no professional politician, we have to come to whatever understanding we can via various media, print/televised/online.  

[BootmanLA]

22 hours ago, fuckholedc said:

Look - D's are generally not progressive (admittedly there are some progressive D's but not that many).

That's a judgment call, but I would say the vast majority of D's are MORE progressive than the vast majority of R's. In a system that effectively only the two major parties can compete in, that's close enough for me.

22 hours ago, fuckholedc said:

Green voters are not D voters no matter how much the D Party whines and cries and demands and threatens.

Or how much we patiently point out that people who throw their vote away on Green candidates for president are simply making it that much easier for a Republican to win.

22 hours ago, fuckholedc said:

Then the D party has spent most of the Biden years by ignoring the issues of the progressives who identify D for social justice reasons, esp. those motivated by ecological concerns.  These people were told to sit down and shut up.

That's bullshit. A huge percentage of the Inflation Reduction Act (which, let's be honest, was a stimulus bill) is specifically targeted at green energy and climate change issues. This administration has also been doing what it can on the executive branch side, for instance halting approval of all new LNG export facilities, but thanks to the current SCOTUS right-wing majority, administrative agencies will henceforth be severely crippled in terms of being able to address ANY concerns without clear direction from Congress (which isn't going to happen as long as Republicans have any power there). 

22 hours ago, fuckholedc said:

Another group mostly unaddressed by the D's are Gay men and Trans people, except of course in June. 

Again, Bullshit. This administration has been fighting for LGBT people especially in court, where the DOJ has intervened in case after case regarding (especially) trans rights. The administration is also pushing hard to implement trans protections in schools (under Title IX) and in housing and other areas, mirroring what happened for employment a few years ago. The right wouldn't be fighting so hard if they weren't up against an administration pushing hard to implement those protections.

22 hours ago, fuckholedc said:

But there will be NO warning from a major D politician that a second Trump WH will certainly mean a resumption of genocide by the R party as ALL HIV/AIDS medication is once again removed from insurance and can only be bought on the pharmaceutical market or simply withdrawn from availability. 

That's not going to happen. HIV medication for treatment has long been covered by insurance, mostly because it makes economic sense to prevent people from advancing to AIDS status and fending off opportunistic infections that can cost hundreds of thousands to treat. What might happen is that PrEP might be removed from the "must cover" list of preventative care things, but even before it became a "must cover" larger insurers were moving to cover it because again, it makes economic sense - particularly given the discounted cost they pay for PrEP.

I don't doubt that a second Trump administration would be horrible for LGBT people, but this particular concern is - I'm pretty certain - is overblown.

22 hours ago, fuckholedc said:

And that will be followed by at least a partial recriminalization of Gay men and some Trans people just for being Gay/Trans (Bi men might also fall into this group). 

They're not going to criminalize *being* gay. They might well push to overturn Lawrence and allow states to criminalize *gay sex*. I'm not defending the latter in the least, but they'd have to actually *prove* that someone had gay sex. And if you look back to when those acts WERE prosecuted, they were almost entirely for *public* sex (which, I might add, is still illegal in most places). 

23 hours ago, fuckholedc said:

The D party needs to take off the gloves and really address issues if it wants to avoid an R WH in 2025. 

THIS - I wholeheartedly agree with. My view of my party is that it's too invested in wanting to be LIKED and not nearly invested in enough in winning. 

One way the Republicans work is by scaring the rank and file into believing false things - that immigrants are stealing their jobs and stealing elections by voting fraudulently, that people of color are being given massive amounts of "their" tax money, that transwomen are simply perverted men trying to get into women's bathrooms to rape their daughters and sisters, and so forth.

Fear is a great motivator - but not so much when you try to scare a tiny portion of your base. Most straight people, even our best allies, won't "fear" re-criminalization of sodomy, even if they realize it'll affect their friends, even if they realize they themselves commit those same acts and could well be guilty under those laws, because they don't believe they'll be affected. Nobody's going to knock on Joe and Jane's door and barge in catching her giving him a blow job and they won't get charged if it does happen.

Likewise, a lot of D-leaning voters aren't worried about R plans to make voting harder, because they're convinced they themselves won't be affected, and think all their friends and relatives will be similarly situated. They don't realize that they might well not be able to readily, on the spot, prove they're citizens, because they don't have a certified copy of their birth certificate ready to show at the polls. By the time they do realize it, it'll be too late.

Fear works when it motivates a big chunk of your base - like the working class white men who are such a solid part of the Trump base. On our side, fear of what the GOP is doing on abortion is a huge motivation for women voters - enough that everywhere abortion rights have been on the ballot, they've won since Roe was overturned. If we're going to use fear to motivate people to vote - and I'm all for that - it needs to be over things that a big chunk of voters will relate to, and see as a threat. Open to suggestions.

[BootmanLA]

41 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

but the hundred million or so in his campaign war chest is still in question, at least to my understanding. 

Federal campaign law says that money raised by a particular candidate has to be spent on that candidate's election, or otherwise disposed of in a very limited number of ways. But all the Biden money was raised for the Biden/Harris re-election campaign, and most campaign finance experts say if Harris is still on the ticket, even if she moves up to the top slot, the money can be spent to elect her.

But even if not: the money CAN be transferred to their party, and the DNC could spend to elect her.

[fuckholedc]

5 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Most of the calls have been for him to withdraw as candidate; but yes, there are calls that he should step down so Harris can run as an "incumbent." I put that in quotes because although it's true she would then be the incumbent, I don't think she will be seen as such - not in the same sense that, say, Lyndon Johnson was in 1964, or Harry Truman was in 1948. 

Hubert Humphrey, 1968.  And he was more or less treated as a kind of incumbent which worked against him (he didn't apparently even get the brownie points for the massive civil rights laws that LBJ had pushed through - he just got the negative points from the racists and also the anti-war movement - and they should have given him points for civil rights and the war on poverty but they didn't), he just got the negatives.

Edited July 14 by fuckholedc

[hntnhole]

15 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

on the spot, prove they're citizens

Registering for Vote by Mail would be a fairly simple way to get the "proof" in order, and receive their ballot prior to the election, and then just mail it in. The last few elections I actually drive downtown to the Registrar's office and drop it in the safe under the counter where we interact with the employees.  I've been doing it for a number of cycles, and it's really easy.  Plus, one can prepare a "crib sheet" in advance, and no one (like an ill-informed partisan election judge) will know it. 

And, one final benefit of VbM - there's no one to get pissed off about while waiting in line to vote (lately, there can easily be 50,60 people in line ahead of me, at least in my precinct) and lose one's cool, get dragged off to the clink for stirring the pot.  

[BootmanLA]

6 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Registering for Vote by Mail would be a fairly simple way to get the "proof" in order, and receive their ballot prior to the election, and then just mail it in. The last few elections I actually drive downtown to the Registrar's office and drop it in the safe under the counter where we interact with the employees.  I've been doing it for a number of cycles, and it's really easy.  Plus, one can prepare a "crib sheet" in advance, and no one (like an ill-informed partisan election judge) will know it. 

And, one final benefit of VbM - there's no one to get pissed off about while waiting in line to vote (lately, there can easily be 50,60 people in line ahead of me, at least in my precinct) and lose one's cool, get dragged off to the clink for stirring the pot.  

You'd think, but Republicans also want to be much, much more rigid about "signature verification" - that is, making sure that how the person signed her voter registration is EXACTLY like how she signed her ballot envelope, even if the signatures are 30 or 40 years apart. Most people's signatures change over the years; even my late mother's, whose carefully scribed name looked the same in 2000 as it had when she married my father in 1959, looked remarkably different in 2022 with the effects of age.

As it happens, she lived in a very solidly Republican part of our city, so the chances of it being challenged were slim; but if she'd lived where I do, and had voted by mail, she'd almost certainly have been challenged. 

[hntnhole]

Well, I've been voting by mail for the last 2 elections (Federal), and before that I voted "in person" here in Ft. L.  I was never asked for more than the voter registration card after I finally got into the building (loooong lines waiting to get in, and not nearly enough parking).  That's the reason I applied for the mail-in option in the first place.  

I'll have to get some old documents out, and compare the signatures .... I don't think it's changed much ..... 

[PozBearWI]

I've been pondering our current; today July 16th.  The R path is well defined and I hope most get directed to Project 2025 and get pretty familiar with it before voting.  That's the Republican platform right now - and IMO miles apart from the GOP of pre Reagan.  

The Dems, I hope (more than believe) are grappling behind the scenes before a cacophony of opinion floods them, with a better option.  This isn't to say I am not happy with Biden's work.  I definitely am.  Are all aspects of US life perfect?  They never are.  But there are plenty of metrics to measure success and he has done well.  But given the deficits Joe has demonstrated now multiple times; that isn't going to improve month over month for four years.  If we elect him I believe he will die in office; and maybe that is in part his motivation.  Funerals of sitting presidents are historically quite the events.  And given his life; maybe that would be good.  

But I don't see him uniting the country.  It would be foolish at least to not make the ticket Kamala and ???.  And before Joe steps off the race, they need to work out ???.  Kamala Harris and Mark Kelly might be a great team up.  Friends of mine float the idea of Hakeem and Kamala; and I honestly have no issue with that notion; but I think more voters would jump on a Harris/Kellly ticket and given the narrow band available; they need to consider a ticket to bring in the most YES votes.    

So my hope is they're working on this; and that perhaps at the start of the convention Biden does a well orchestrated hand-off.  

[hntnhole]

3 hours ago, PozBearWI said:

So my hope is they're working on this; and that perhaps at the start of the convention Biden does a well orchestrated hand-off.

Somehow, I don't think that will happen.  Biden's never been a liar, he's more a consensus-builder.  He's great at massaging the egos around the table, and pretty effective (or has been in the past).

I've come to the conclusion (of course, we won't really know until mid-August), but I think he's being honest when he says he won't step down.  That said, he's old, has some physical concerns, which makes the Veep all the more important.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Dem's win in November, and within a year Biden has to step aside for some medical reason.  That'd be a-ok with me.  Harris can really kick ass when she takes a mind to do it.  Those years as a prosecutor count.

[PozBearWI]

Obviously @hntnhole we'll see as all this unfolds.  You know I thought I was wrong once.....  But I was mistaken.  LOL   Honestly Joe might truly want to be a President who dies in office as his legacy.  I can understand that as a relative handful die in office.  

Man I miss the old GOP so much.  This was before the two parties became warring factions.  Yeah people had strong feelings; but we separated feelings from fact better then than we do now.