US Election 2024: Grumpy Old Men

[bilateralrope]

As much as I like the idea of his party deciding he's outlived his usefulness, do we know enough about JD Vance to say whether he'd be an improvement? Unfortunately this means Trump won't be going to prison now.

Can you see the Republicans replacing Trump unless they think that Vance will be better for their goals ?

I can't, so I expect Vance to be worse because he will go along with what his backers want him to.


As for Trump going to prison, the last I heard was that sentencing for his convictions is happening this month. So there is room for him to be imprisoned between then and the inauguration. Though that's unlikely.

[Tribble]

Aaaaaaand the MSM is already looking for scapegoats: Stephanie Ruhle of MSDNC was on a few hours ago, blaming college loan forgiveness. College kids are a ripe target since they have no power, and blaming them for Trump's win also allows for some payback since college demonstrators called out Biden/Harris for the Gaza Genocide. In Michigan, Harris lost almost every college town (Maybe it was a bad move to teargas peaceful demonstrators). So I'm looking forward to at least four years of shit-libs imitating Spiro Agnew.

Harris had 3 main things going against her:

She’s black / Indian
She’s a woman
She’s a Democrat

That was three strikes right there for the majority of the vote voters, only person who probably would’ve done worse, was Biden.

Oh and it turns out what “undecided” voters really meant was “undecided whether or not we should publicly state that we support Trump as opposed to just voting for him”.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

This didn't take long to appear.

[aerius]

Ran an unlikable woman against Trump and lost in 2016, ran a man against him and won in 2020, so what should we do now? I know, let's run a retarded unlikable woman against him in 2024, surely, surely that will work!

Dems need to get their shit together and actually start listening to the people of America and not just their own echo chamber.

[Ralin]

Yay misogyny. Because both Clinton and Harris totally didn't have enthusiastic supporters and weren't lifelong public servants.

Dems need to get their shit together and actually start listening to the people of America and not just their own echo chamber.

Listen to them about what? Wanting to be able to bully transgender people and deny them medical care? Or how much they want to get rid of all the Mexicans? Or how angry many of them are that they don't have a slave wife they can forcibly impregnate?

[Soontir C'boath]

Yay misogyny. Because both Clinton and Harris totally didn't have enthusiastic supporters and weren't lifelong public servants.

Dems need to get their shit together and actually start listening to the people of America and not just their own echo chamber.

Listen to them about what? Wanting to be able to bully transgender people and deny them medical care? Or how much they want to get rid of all the Mexicans? Or how angry many of them are that they don't have a slave wife they can forcibly impregnate?

what are you even talking about? Harris was a blip in the 2020 primary.

No one liked Hillary and no one wanted Harris. Both were foisted as the annoited candidate of the Democratic party and lost for good reason.

[Ralin]

No one liked Hillary and no one wanted Harris. Both were foisted as the annoited candidate of the Democratic party and lost for good reason.

Lots of people liked Clinton. Harris has plenty of enthusiasm behind her up into now. The idea that either was obviously unlikeable is and always has been a misogynistic talking point.

[Gandalf]

No one liked Hillary and no one wanted Harris. Both were foisted as the annoited candidate of the Democratic party and lost for good reason.

Clinton won the primaries in 2016. Then she won the popular vote. Clearly someone liked her.

[LaCroix]

As much as I would have wanted Harris to win, the enthusiasm was less than plenty.

Biden won by 6 million votes. Kamala lost by 5 million votes. Trump scored about the same numbers in the popular vote as in 2020.
So she even lost the popular vote - that's like the first time in 20 years that a democrat lost that one, even when losing.
This was about the candidate.

[Zaune]

I don't have a good source for this, but it seems like there's a rather significant number of votes yet to be counted. Probably enough to affect the outcome.

There's still a chance, a very good chance, that this isn't as bad as it looks.

[Ralin]

I don't have a good source for this, but it seems like there's a rather significant number of votes yet to be counted. Probably enough to affect the outcome.

There's still a chance, a very good chance, that this isn't as bad as it looks.

Harris has conceded: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e ... rcna178931

[EnterpriseSovereign]

What happens to Trump's legal cases now he has been re-elected?

Donald Trump has become the first US President in history to be elected as a convicted felon.

He's currently awaiting sentencing on 34 criminal convictions over hush money payments.

There are also multiple, ongoing criminal, federal and civil court cases against him, where he's accused of handling illegal documents, sexually abusing a columnist and election interference from the 2020 presidential race.

Trump has denied all charges.

He has used his court battles to portray himself as the victim of an overreaching government - which resonated with Republican supporters who are becoming increasingly sceptical, if not downright hostile, to institutions of power.

But as the most powerful man in the US, can he now pardon himself?

Here’s what could happen to his legal cases:

Criminal cases

In May, Trump was found guilty of 34 felony charges at a landmark trial in New York, which made him the first former US President to be criminally charged.

He was found guilty of a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through a hush money payment to a porn actor, Stormy Daniels, who claimed the two had sex.

The now president-elect had been due to face sentencing later this month, but his victory raises questions over whether he will ever face punishment.

Judge Juan Merchan has given himself a November 12 deadline to decide whether to wipe away the conviction, following a Supreme Court ruling to grant serving and former presidents broad immunity from prosecution.

If Merchan does dismiss the charges Trump would not be sentenced.

If the New York judge goes ahead with sentencing, Trump could be ordered to serve as much as four years in prison.

But Merchan could impose a lesser sentence, such as probation, house arrest, community service or a fine.

Since it is a state case, Trump does not have the power to pardon himself next year, after he is sworn into office.

Trump is subject to additional criminal charges in an election interference case in Georgia, for allegedly attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

The case is on hold while the appeals court decides whether to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis, who brought the case against him, over a romantic relationship with a fellow prosecutor.

A decision is not expected until 2025.

Sources familiar with the case said it is unlikely that a state-level judge would allow proceedings to continue when Trump is president and, in that scenario, Trump’s attorneys would certainly move to have the case dismissed, CNN reports.

Federal charges

On the federal level, he’s been indicted for his role in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election and improperly handling classified material.

When he becomes president on January 20, Trump could appoint an attorney general who would erase the federal charges.

Trump was charged with illegally taking classified documents from the White House to his Mar A Lago estate in Florida and resisting the government’s attempts to retrieve them.

He was also charged with trying to overturn the US election results in 2020.

Trump previously suggested he would fire lawyer Jack Smith, who brought the cases against him, "within two seconds" if he was reelected.

In late October, the former president said he would take such a step without hesitation.

“Oh, it’s so easy. It’s so easy,” Trump said when asked by conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt whether he would “pardon yourself” or “fire Jack Smith” if reelected.

“I would fire him within two seconds,” Trump said.

Trump has already been found liable in two New York civil cases: one for inflating his assets and another for sexually abusing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in 1996.

Trump is also still facing civil lawsuits brought by Democratic lawmakers and others over his role in the January 6 Capitol attack.

It is possible that all these cases will continue to play out, even as Trump serves his second term in the White House.

In a 1997 Supreme Court ruling, stemming from a civil lawsuit then-President Bill Clinton was involved in, the justices unanimously decided that sitting presidents could not invoke presidential immunity to avoid civil litigation while in office.

[Grand Moff Yenchin]

Think China will take this as the green light to invade since the USA won't lift a finger once the orange one moves in?

They don't need to invade, just squeeze Taiwan until it doesn't matter

Or both. The PRC lapdogs here are still rushing for more to weaken the island. I've been pessimetically thinking the final scenario as the lapdogs will continue to detoriate the situation to the point enough people would just say "fuck it" and welcome the PRC. With open arms. And this was even BEFORE the US election

[Solauren]

Now, let's have the judge that is about to sentence him come down and slap the maximum possible sentence, fines, etc on him, 'to show that no one is above the law, not even the president of the united states', and order him into immediate custody.

[Zaune]

And that Randroid sleaze Vance would be better how, exactly? Assuming Trump even bothers to show up to the hearing.

[Solauren]

And that Randroid sleaze Vance would be better how, exactly? Assuming Trump even bothers to show up to the hearing.

I was assuming Trump didn't go to the hearing (I should have noted that).

That would result in the POTUS being a fugitive. He'd have to spend most of his term fighting that.

That could also result in him not showing up for other trials, for fear of arrest to be taken to serve his sentence, and probably getting convicted and hit with 'contempt of court' charges for not showing up/avoiding arrest.

[Soontir C'boath]

No one liked Hillary and no one wanted Harris. Both were foisted as the annoited candidate of the Democratic party and lost for good reason.

Lots of people liked Clinton. Harris has plenty of enthusiasm behind her up into now. The idea that either was obviously unlikeable is and always has been a misogynistic talking point.

and as been said time and again, sometimes people pick the wrong candidate to try to win the general. Which was what people was afraid Bernie was going to do. Go figure.

Plus I don't think you understand how much the party wanted Clinton to be the nominee. They learned their lesson when Obama kicked her ass. They weren't going to let that happen again.

[aerius]

No one liked Hillary and no one wanted Harris. Both were foisted as the annoited candidate of the Democratic party and lost for good reason.

Clinton won the primaries in 2016. Then she won the popular vote. Clearly someone liked her.

Clinton won the primaries because they railroaded Bernie, many of the folks who voted for her in the presidential election only did so because the alternative was Trump. Unlike her husband or Obama she wasn't exactly loved, in fact there was a lot of resentment towards her from others in the Democratic party along with their voters. If you want to put it bluntly, Clinton was the candidate of the DC lobbyist & corporate donor class, lots of people voted for her because she had a shitload of money & power behind her and the alternative was Trump. It's not because they liked her or think she's a great candidate.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Check out the NY Times map, and in particular the shift from 2020. There is what can only be described as a shitload of red arrows and the counting isn't even finished yet.

[Steel]

A lot of maps are showing "shifts" in terms of percentages of voters, but is that missing the point? Almost the exact same number of people voted for Trump as always vote for a Republican, but the Democrats lost because 15 million people stayed home. Was there actually any "shift" in terms of anyone changing the way they voted or was it just that the number of Democrat voters dropped so the proportion of voters who were Republicans increased?

So to frame it as a shift to Trump misses the point: the same cohort of Republican voters voted like they always do, but they won because the opposition didn't turn out. There was no swing from Left to Right.

To fix it the Democrats would have to focus on one thing alone: get people to go out and vote. Don't even attempt to get a single Republican vote, because this has been proven to be literally absolutely impossible - those people will vote for anything with an (R) next to it, no matter what. Any action based on winning a Republican voter over is utterly pointless, because the exact same people will vote (R) their entire lives.

[Ralin]

A lot of maps are showing "shifts" in terms of percentages of voters, but is that missing the point? Almost the exact same number of people voted for Trump as always vote for a Republican, but the Democrats lost because 15 million people stayed home. Was there actually any "shift" in terms of anyone changing the way they voted or was it just that the number of Democrat voters dropped so the proportion of voters who were Republicans increased?

So to frame it as a shift to Trump misses the point: the same cohort of Republican voters voted like they always do, but they won because the opposition didn't turn out. There was no swing from Left to Right.

To fix it the Democrats would have to focus on one thing alone: get people to go out and vote. Don't even attempt to get a single Republican vote, because this has been proven to be literally absolutely impossible - those people will vote for anything with an (R) next to it, no matter what. Any action based on winning a Republican voter over is utterly pointless, because the exact same people will vote (R) their entire lives.

So why not skip the middleman and push for an one-party state and disenfranchising all the Republican voters en masse as the goal?

[Tribble]

A lot of maps are showing "shifts" in terms of percentages of voters, but is that missing the point? Almost the exact same number of people voted for Trump as always vote for a Republican, but the Democrats lost because 15 million people stayed home. Was there actually any "shift" in terms of anyone changing the way they voted or was it just that the number of Democrat voters dropped so the proportion of voters who were Republicans increased?

So to frame it as a shift to Trump misses the point: the same cohort of Republican voters voted like they always do, but they won because the opposition didn't turn out. There was no swing from Left to Right.

To fix it the Democrats would have to focus on one thing alone: get people to go out and vote. Don't even attempt to get a single Republican vote, because this has been proven to be literally absolutely impossible - those people will vote for anything with an (R) next to it, no matter what. Any action based on winning a Republican voter over is utterly pointless, because the exact same people will vote (R) their entire lives.

So why not skip the middleman and push for an one-party state and disenfranchising all the Republican voters en masse as the goal?

That’s not what Steel said.

While obviously some voters would have shifted to Trump (and vice versa to Harris though to a much lesser degree) given that Trump more or less had the same number of votes he had in 2020, it looks more like the Democrats failed to engage their base / swing voters / occasional voters sufficiently enough to come out and vote for them. This time way more people just stayed at home.


That’s obviously a big problem for the Democrats that the Republicans don’t appear to be having atm, so yes, a change in tactics might be necessary next time (assuming there is a next time of course).

[Eternal_Freedom]

In that sense it's remarkably comparable to the UK elections in July - Labour gained a huge majority but actually lost support in terms of absolute numbers of votes cast. They got that majority because a shitton of people said "nope" to voting Conservative.

Trump claiming this is a powerful mandate is even more questionable than his usual bullshit.

On the plus side, this could well be what is needed to prompt a blue wave in the 2026 midterms. Trump can only do so much with a Democrat congress, just like Obama found with a Republican congress.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

In that sense it's remarkably comparable to the UK elections in July - Labour gained a huge majority but actually lost support in terms of absolute numbers of votes cast. They got that majority because a shitton of people said "nope" to voting Conservative.

Trump claiming this is a powerful mandate is even more questionable than his usual bullshit.

On the plus side, this could well be what is needed to prompt a blue wave in the 2026 midterms. Trump can only do so much with a Democrat congress, just like Obama found with a Republican congress.

Let's hope so and Trump crashes and burns beforehand, in the meantime both houses of congress have turned red so Trump has 2 years to do whatever the fuck he wants

[Soontir C'boath]

A lot of maps are showing "shifts" in terms of percentages of voters, but is that missing the point? Almost the exact same number of people voted for Trump as always vote for a Republican, but the Democrats lost because 15 million people stayed home. Was there actually any "shift" in terms of anyone changing the way they voted or was it just that the number of Democrat voters dropped so the proportion of voters who were Republicans increased?

So to frame it as a shift to Trump misses the point: the same cohort of Republican voters voted like they always do, but they won because the opposition didn't turn out. There was no swing from Left to Right.

To fix it the Democrats would have to focus on one thing alone: get people to go out and vote. Don't even attempt to get a single Republican vote, because this has been proven to be literally absolutely impossible - those people will vote for anything with an (R) next to it, no matter what. Any action based on winning a Republican voter over is utterly pointless, because the exact same people will vote (R) their entire lives.

Also factor in that abortion was passed by ballot in many states where Harris lost. Missouri passed several ballot measures including raising the minimum wage, sick leave, etc but still went for Trump. So it's not like leftist policies are not popular. It's frankly people don't have the belief (myself included) that the Democrats care to actually fight for those policies.

For example, people praise Biden for the Inflation Reduction Act, but so what? My $5 bag of chips will only go up by a quarter to $5.25 instead of $6? Whoop dee doo, it should only still cost maybe $3.75-4 to begin with.