2024 Election - Trump vs. Harris, important downballot

[fwc577]

Yes, I view a failure to bring your opponent to account as a negative.

Sounds like debates aren't for you then because that's not the fucking point of a debate.

[Edge-]

Yes, I view a failure to bring your opponent to account as a negative.

Defining your opponent to highlight the differences between your positions/platforms/character is a part of debates, yes, but really that's a smaller part compared to the core of debates which is for the candidates to put for their views/visions and respond to questions directed at them by the moderators.

Just because news outlets market and frame these debates like they're sportsball championship games doesn't mean that's what they are, or are supposed to be. And arguably that push from media has done a huge disservice to viewers and has made these debates less and less productive or informative over the years.

[cubby]

If Trump loses this election, I can see an avalanche of people abandoning him. Big players first - like the GA GOP Governor. But then a virtual exodus once big names start publicly denouncing him.

[Tech614]

Yes, I view a failure to bring your opponent to account as a negative.

Then you must be new to political debates because almost every debate in US history not involving Donald Trump go's like this with neither candidate being overly hostile to the other one.

Walz is not an attack dog, if they party tried to coach him to be one he would of came across as the dem counterpart of Trump because even while Jay Dee was spouting bullshit he tried to remain professional unlike his running mate.

[fwc577]

If Trump loses this election, I can see an avalanche of people abandoning him. Big players first - like the GA GOP Governor. But then a virtual exodus once big names start publicly denouncing him.

We will see. We thought that would happen in 2020 and it didn't. Then for sure we thought that would happen when all his candidates took a shellacking in 2022, and it didn't.

The fact of the matter is, if Trump loses this year, the GOP is going to have to go through a complete metamorphosis as a party. They will need to shove away the far-right and embrace a more moderate party that brings in people from the left.

We're unfortunately (for Republicans) are in a situation where that is not going to fly with a lot of people who have spent the last 8 years becoming extremists to the point of becoming estranged from family. It's going to be too hard of a pill to swallow for MANY Conservatives.

If Trump loses, the GOP is probably fucked for the next decade until they can properly re-align politically.

For Democrats, a win this year is going to mean the 2020-2030's is going to look a lot like 70's and 80's did for Republicans.

Hell, there could be an argument made that we're in the midst of that right now for the 2010s-2030s considering Trump only had one term just like Carter only had one term.

[Tech614]

We will see. We thought that would happen in 2020 and it didn't. Then for sure we thought that would happen when all his candidates took a shellacking in 2022, and it didn't.

Regardless, if Trump loses he is done because he is in a cage fight against father time and that dude is undefeated. He's already falling into incoherent rambles at rallys right now this dude is going to be worse than Biden at public speaking in another 4 years.

[DarkAmbient]

Sounds like debates aren't for you then because that's not the fucking point of a debate.

There are different kinds of debate. This kind is one where the participants have to persuade the audience that they're more competent than their opponent. Part of that involves explaining why your opponent is wrong.

Look, I know people are touchy because Walz is 'their guy', but it's not healthy to get mad at the suggestion this wasn't a slam dunk for him.

- - - Updated - - -

Then you must be new to political debates because almost every debate in US history not involving Donald Trump go's like this with neither candidate being overly hostile to the other one.

No-one said he had to be overtly hostile. Perhaps the dire state of politics in America is making you guilty of assuming black-and-white thinking in others.

[cubby]

We will see. We thought that would happen in 2020 and it didn't. Then for sure we thought that would happen when all his candidates took a shellacking in 2022, and it didn't.

The fact of the matter is, if Trump loses this year, the GOP is going to have to go through a complete metamorphosis as a party. They will need to shove away the far-right and embrace a more moderate party that brings in people from the left.

We're unfortunately (for Republicans) are in a situation where that is not going to fly with a lot of people who have spent the last 8 years becoming extremists to the point of becoming estranged from family. It's going to be too hard of a pill to swallow for MANY Conservatives.

If Trump loses, the GOP is probably fucked for the next decade until they can properly re-align politically.

For Democrats, a win this year is going to mean the 2020-2030's is going to look a lot like 70's and 80's did for Republicans.

Hell, there could be an argument made that we're in the midst of that right now for the 2010s-2030s considering Trump only had one term just like Carter only had one term.

I agree we thought that would happen in 2020 (not sure about 2022, but I know some people thought that - I was checked out at that point).

However...now. If Trump loses, I do not think the GOP will be fucked. I think they will take a guarded look at Trump and slowly pull away ("maybe you shouldn't run again, they obviously rigged it against you", "use your money and influence to bolster others - be a king maker", you're too smart for the White House" - whatever those sycophants blow up his fat ass). And then begin a larger exodus.

However, the blatant stupidity and willful ignorance that embodies the MAGAt/GOP will undoubtedly persevere into whomever they pluck to be their next fascist stooge. God forbid it's someone with natural charisma AND brains. We would be fucked.

I disagree entirely that the Democrats will have some kind of windfall of support. I think we might lose the White House and the Senate and the House in 2028 or 2032.

Remember, Trump isn't the cause of all this hate and racism and xenophobia and hatred of women and all the blissful ignorance they carry with those positions. Trump is just the "it's ok to express it now" catalyst the GOP has been looking for since Reagan.

[Tech614]

No-one said he had to be overtly hostile. Perhaps the dire state of politics in America made you assume that ought to be the case.

You basically did though. He did refute Vance's points and made his own policy clear. So if you're complaining he didn't hold Vance accountable you're basically complaining that he didn't constantly interrupt him.

Anyways, most people in leftist circles think Walz won the debate but didn't blow him out. The only people in leftist circles that think Walz lost are the delusional types mad that Walz didn't crap on Israel in the opening question.

[Edge-]

You basically did though. He did refute Vance's points and made his own policy clear. So if you're complaining he didn't hold Vance accountable you're basically complaining that he didn't constantly interrupt him.

Anyways, most people in leftist circles think Walz won the debate but didn't blow him out. The only people in leftist circles that think Walz lost are the delusional types mad that Walz didn't crap on Israel in the opening question.

If Walz made like, one joke about Jay Dee Hamel fucking a couch I guarantee the Online Discourse(TM) on the topic would be different, today.

[Roneth]

I heard it was CBS saying they'd fact check him during it.

- - - Updated - - -



My favorite line was from Walz.

My favorite Walz line was “All I said on this was, I got there that summer and misspoke on this, so I will just – that’s what I’ve said”

This was after they asked about his lying about being in China for the events of Tiananmen Square, and had to be asked again because he middle class upbringinged the answer. This was cringe y , especially since they had to ask twice why he lied. It's probably going to be the soundbite most used from the debate. But I guess you guys can keep saying he won the debate.


It's the difference between someone being relaxed in front of questions because they take questions every day and someone who has taken no questions being put in a spotlight. JD Vance looked calm, didn't insult his opponent, and made everything about the current Harris administration policies. He did everything Donald Trump couldn't do and made it look effortless like a normal politician would during a debate.

[Edge-]

JD Vance looked calm, didn't insult his opponent, and made everything about the current Harris administration policies.

And, crucially, cried about the moderators correcting the racist, thoroughly debunked lie he's been repeating for like a month.

"Y'ALL WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO FACT-CHECK ME! THAT'S MEAN!"

[Shadowferal]

He has the audience that won't leave early;

[Celista]

If Trump loses this election, I can see an avalanche of people abandoning him. Big players first - like the GA GOP Governor. But then a virtual exodus once big names start publicly denouncing him.

I hope so. I hope to never hear his name or voice again.

I suspect if he loses though one of his children will eventually take the reins. However he may be too narcissistic to allow that until after he is dead.

[Arlette]

It's probably going to be the soundbite most used from the debate.

The media rounds today already prove this post a lie.

The most popular soundbite was Vance denying to answer if Trump won the 2020 election. Further compounded upon by Vance AGAIN being asked today and still refusing to answer.

Another very popular one was yet again a Vance lie of him claiming Trump saved and wanted to bolster the ACA.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I hope so. I hope to never hear his name or voice again.

I suspect if he loses though one of his children will eventually take the reins. However he may be too narcissistic to allow that until after he is dead.

None of his kids have the X factor that Trump has. They could spew the exact same rhetoric and still not be 1/10 as captivating as Trump is to bigots. I really hate to admit it but Trump just has this weird racist charisma that the rest of the GOP lacks. They'll truly be lost only when he dies.

[Celista]

None of his kids have the X factor that Trump has. They could spew the exact same rhetoric and still not be 1/10 as captivating as Trump is to bigots. I really hate to admit it but Trump just has this weird racist charisma that the rest of the GOP lacks. They'll truly be lost only when he dies.

I think Ivanka has it, but I don't think she is political enough to consider running without significant peer pressure from other family members.

[Edge-]

I think Ivanka has it, but I don't think she is political enough to consider running without significant peer pressure from other family members.

She does not. She doesn't have it in her to be the kind of culture warrior her father is and a Republican leader needs to be. Plus remember, she's married to a Jewish guy and I believe converted, herself, which is a big red flag for a lot of antisemitic and white supremacist voters who frequently happen to vote Republican.

It would be like that time Nikki Haley tried on the Culture Warrior cosplay and it just did not work for her or her campaign at all and it just sounded omega-cringe.

[Celista]

She does not. She doesn't have it in her to be the kind of culture warrior her father is and a Republican leader needs to be. Plus remember, she's married to a Jewish guy and I believe converted, herself, which is a big red flag for a lot of antisemitic and white supremacist voters who frequently happen to vote Republican.

It would be like that time Nikki Haley tried on the Culture Warrior cosplay and it just did not work for her or her campaign at all and it just sounded omega-cringe.

She has appeal to the traditional white collar, upper crust GOP and she does not need to appeal to MAGA per se because her father did the legwork for her. The name alone would be enough for MAGA people to reelect another Trump.

I think if she were elected it could potentially unite the GOP, but I can't stand the Trumps or the GOP so hopefully it never happens.

[Edge-]

I think if she were elected it could potentially unite the GOP, but I can't stand the Trumps or the GOP so hopefully it never happens.

...how? Outside of being a Trump she has nothing. She has no credentials or credibility to appeal to moderate Republicans or "respectable" conservatives or anything, the closest there would be her trying to insert herself into conversations with world leaders at events and them, at best, politely tolerating her pretending to be one of the big kids. Outside of not having a few dozen homes worth of baggage and skeletons in the closet like her father (and she still has plenty), what's her appeal to the traditional white collar GOP beyond, "She's an attractive white lady"?

And for MAGA simply being a Trump isn't enough. It goes a long way, but it's not enough to get them excited and energized like Donald does - Ivanka can't muster the same kind of hateful, malicious vitriol behind her words to make the, "He's not hurting the right people!" crowd feel confident she'd hurt the right people like her father would.

And again...the Jared angle does present a risk. Unless she follows in her fathers footsteps and assures this sub-section of Republican voters by dining with some Nazis or something. You know, like her father did.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.cleveland.com/nation/202...paign=redditor

During Tuesday’s vice-presidential debate, Republican Ohio Sen. JD Vance said he never supported a national ban on abortions.

Except, he did.

And he also espoused support for the idea of a federal response to keep women from traveling from states with restrictive abortion laws to ones that are more open.

CBS moderator Norah O’Donnell posed the question to Vance.

“In the past, you have supported a federal ban on abortion after 15 weeks,” O’Donnell said. “In fact, you said if someone can’t support legislation like that, quote, ‘you are making the United States the most barbaric pro-abortion regime anywhere in the entire world.’ My question is, why have you changed your position?”

“First of all, I never supported a national ban,” Vance responded. “I did during, when I was running for Senate in 2022, talk about setting some minimum national standard.”

Big if true! Unsurprisingly, it's not true -

But in January 2022, when he was campaigning for the Senate, Vance did espouse banning abortion.

“I certainly would like abortion to be illegal nationally,” Vance said during an interview on the Very Fine People podcast. He said then that he had doubts that it could be accomplished.

“In this climate, short term, no,” he said.

First off, "Very Fine People" indeed. I assume that name is supposed to a play on Donald's "Some of them, I assume, are very fine people." but holy crap that's a cringe name for a podcast. Maybe it's just me, but while I listen to some podcasts (usually NPR and BBC stuff, educational/informative stuff) I do not get the appeal of a lot of the big and general ones which mostly seem to be "people shooting the shit" but whatever, that's an aside.

But real, this is him supporting a national ban - just not right now because he rightly sees that there's a 0% chance of that given the lack of voter support. That's why he's specific about the short-term, while taking a long-term view. Just like the GOP did with overturning Roe vs. Wade - they took the long view of it, waiting until they had a stacked SCOTUS decades after the ruling to ensure they could overturn it through the courts as they'd never be able to do so legislatively.

So yes, Jay Dee Hamel is still a brazen liar who cries like a little baby with eyeliner when people point out his lies.