2024 U.S. Presidential election

[ClemmonsDevil]

Biden isn't dunking all over this, but the narrative is that he "won" the debt ceiling negotiations. It does appear he didn't give up anything he wasn't willing to lose and pushed the next debt ceiling negotiations out past the 24 election. What I have been struck by is how dumb the debt ceiling thing is.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...tion#xj4y7vzkg

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...-dems-00099587

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/01/u...l-who-won.html

[rsvman]

Exactly how is this supposed to work when over 60 percent of Rs think Trump won in 2020?

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pre...2020-rcna49630

Appalling, to be sure, but I also wonder exactly hlw the polling was done. All it says is that they polled 806 adults.

Polling method could significantly skew the results. For example, perhaps Trump supporters are more likely to answer their phones when they get a call from a number they don't know, or perhaps they are less likely to hang up once they realize that it is a phone poll.

In any case, it is disconcerting, but I am really hopeful that inclusion bias makes it look worse than it really is.

[PackMan97]

Biden isn't dunking all over this, but the narrative is that he "won" the debt ceiling negotiations. It does appear he didn't give up anything he wasn't willing to lose and pushed the next debt ceiling negotiations out past the 24 election. What I have been struck by is how dumb the debt ceiling thing is.

It's easy to lose control of the narrative with the debt ceiling. Neither party want to be caught with the hot potato in 2024. To much risk, so they push it out.

You may think the idea of a debt ceiling is dumb, it is authorized by the 14th amendment which makes Congress the body that authorized the debt. I'll leave you with this thought, we are $31 trillion in debt imagine what that would be without these periodic brakes on the growth of the debt?

[dudog84]

Appalling, to be sure, but I also wonder exactly hlw the polling was done. All it says is that they polled 806 adults.

Polling method could significantly skew the results. For example, perhaps Trump supporters are more likely to answer their phones when they get a call from a number they don't know, or perhaps they are less likely to hang up once they realize that it is a phone poll.

In any case, it is disconcerting, but I am really hopeful that inclusion bias makes it look worse than it really is.

I like your optimism.

[ClemmonsDevil]

It's easy to lose control of the narrative with the debt ceiling. Neither party want to be caught with the hot potato in 2024. To much risk, so they push it out.

You may think the idea of a debt ceiling is dumb, it is authorized by the 14th amendment which makes Congress the body that authorized the debt. I'll leave you with this thought, we are $31 trillion in debt imagine what that would be without these periodic brakes on the growth of the debt?

This isn't a periodic brake on the debt. That's what the budget is. This is choosing to pay your bills. The budget is where the debt comes from. I never agitated for not balancing purchases and expenditures. And budget negotiations are entirely separate. Nor was the debt ceiling established by the 14th amendment. As a matter of fact, the 14th amendment suggests that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional according to some constitutional scholars.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/unpacked/2017/09/05/why-do-we-have-a-debt-ceiling/

https://dlj.law.duke.edu/article/the-debt-limit-and-the-constitution-how-the-fourteenth-amendment-forbids-fiscal-obstructionism/

[PackMan97]

This isn't a periodic brake on the debt. That's what the budget is. This is choosing to pay your bills. The budget is where the debt comes from. I never agitated for not balancing purchases and expenditures. And budget negotiations are entirely separate. Nor was the debt ceiling established by the 14th amendment. As a matter of fact, the 14th amendment suggests that the debt ceiling is unconstitutional according to some constitutional scholars.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/unpac...-debt-ceiling/

https://dlj.law.duke.edu/article/the...bstructionism/

There are more ways to pay for obligations besides debt, so I would argue that a debt and an obligation are not the same. Regardless, I think we head into public policy to discuss further, so we'll agree that we disagree.

I do think our discussion highlights the problem tackling this issue in a campaign. It did not lend itself well to 30s ads or the current debate formats.

[wavedukefan70s]

Too late. They could have in 2020. They were cowards and let him claim he won. Republican voters by and large think he won in 2020.

I for one do not think he won.but I'm not a absolute republican. (I march to my own drum)Though I have a conservative lean on several issues
.I don't understand why he's getting press even bad press is press.
It doesn't make him go away .

[PackMan97]

I for one do not think he won.but I'm not a absolute republican. (I march to my own drum)Though I have a conservative lean on several issues
.I don't understand why he's getting press even bad press is press.
It doesn't make him go away .

Controversy sells? With Trump, the news outkets literally can't lose.

The left wants his news covered either to see him crash and burn personally or to set him immolate what is left of the Republican Party.

The right want him covered because they want to see him rip apart liberals with his big league insults and watch him rise from having 2020 stolen and win 2024.

There aren't enough people who don't care. My guess is that if you took a poll of this thread, most would want him converted less, but at the end if the day, he dominates our conversation.

[PackMan97]

Converted should hand been covered. Stupid autocorrect!

[OldPhiKap]

RNC sets out criteria for making the first debate:

The RNC released its list of qualifications for the Republican presidential primary debates yesterday, laying out what each candidate will need to do in order to make it on stage for the first debate on Aug. 23. For one, they’ll have to agree to back the eventual Republican nominee and skip any outside debates.

They’ll also have until Aug. 21 to meet several tough criteria: (1) garner donations from at least 40,000 contributors nationally; (3) have “at least 200 unique donors per state or territory in 20+ states and/or territories”; and (3) poll above 1% in three national polls, or two national polls and a state poll taken after July 1.

Source: Politico

[Skydog]

RNC sets out criteria for making the first debate:



Source: Politico

I don't see Trump honestly agreeing to back any GOP nomineee. Of course he may agree to the stipulation figuring he is 100% to get the nomination.

[OldPhiKap]

I don't see Trump honestly agreeing to back any GOP nomineee. Of course he may agree to the stipulation figuring he is 100% to get the nomination.

And the flip side — are there any anti-Trump candidates that would not promise to back DJT?

My guess though is that DJT will skip the debates for now — he really does not have much to gain from them.

[budwom]

"backing" really doesn't mean that much, it can be quite minimal. Agree to anything, weasel out later, this is politics.

[Matches]

And the flip side — are there any anti-Trump candidates that would not promise to back DJT?
.

Asa Hutchinson and Chris Christie.

[dudog84]

Didn't they try this 8 years ago? Didn't work then, won't work now. I remember the question being asked, maybe it wasn't "formalized".

[JasonEvans]

My guess though is that DJT will skip the debates for now — he really does not have much to gain from them.

While you are right that a front-runner like Trump, currently polling above 50%, has little to gain from a debate, I wonder if his ego and love of the limelight will entice him to take part. He also likely knows he will get attacked by at least some of the candidates on stage -- either directly or implied -- and he would want the opportunity to fight back right then and there. Trump has shown himself to be a strong debater in the past and I suspect he will be confident that he can win a debate against anyone he is up against. It is also worth noting that DeSantis has not been known as a strong debater in past performances and he does sometimes struggle when going off script.

"backing" really doesn't mean that much, it can be quite minimal. Agree to anything, weasel out later, this is politics.

Yeah, I doubt anyone refuses to pledge to back the nominee and most probably figure they can back out of that plaedge if they want... but it is worth noting that the GOP could enact a real penalty on folks who back out. They could bar you from debates in the future of even bar you from being in the party. While I doubt that would matter to DJT, given his age, it could mean something to 72-year old Asa Hutchinson and especially to 60-year-old Chris Christie.

Didn't they try this 8 years ago? Didn't work then, won't work now. I remember the question being asked, maybe it wasn't "formalized".

Correct, it was just a question asked in a debate and Trump hemmed and hawed in his answer. It was not a formal pledge, likely written in a way that would make hemming and hawing impossible.

That said, I could see Trump signing and adding his own asterisk saying, "provided the nomination process is fair and unbiased" which would allow him to wiggle out in the future. I've said before, I don't think the GOP nightmare is that Trump runs third party, he won't do that. He also won't say that GOP voters should vote for Biden. The nightmare is that he tells his supporters the whole thing is rigged against them and that they should stay home and not vote for anyone.

[PackMan97]

I think folks would have to think to themselves, is it worth continuing to participate in a trump led Republican Party?

It wasn't for Liz Cheney, but that's the type of choice each debate participant will need to make if they chose to honor their pledge to back trump.

[ClemmonsDevil]

I think folks would have to think to themselves, is it worth continuing to participate in a trump led Republican Party?

It wasn't for Liz Cheney, but that's the type of choice each debate participant will need to make if they chose to honor their pledge to back trump.

It's a tough choice. And it's real easy to say that people should "do the right thing"...and they should. But it can be a career ender to repudiate Trump.

[tommy]

While you are right that a front-runner like Trump, currently polling above 50%, has little to gain from a debate, I wonder if his ego and love of the limelight will entice him to take part. He also likely knows he will get attacked by at least some of the candidates on stage -- either directly or implied -- and he would want the opportunity to fight back right then and there. Trump has shown himself to be a strong debater in the past and I suspect he will be confident that he can win a debate against anyone he is up against. It is also worth noting that DeSantis has not been known as a strong debater in past performances and he does sometimes struggle when going off script.



Yeah, I doubt anyone refuses to pledge to back the nominee and most probably figure they can back out of that plaedge if they want... but it is worth noting that the GOP could enact a real penalty on folks who back out. They could bar you from debates in the future of even bar you from being in the party. While I doubt that would matter to DJT, given his age, it could mean something to 72-year old Asa Hutchinson and especially to 60-year-old Chris Christie.



Correct, it was just a question asked in a debate and Trump hemmed and hawed in his answer. It was not a formal pledge, likely written in a way that would make hemming and hawing impossible.

That said, I could see Trump signing and adding his own asterisk saying, "provided the nomination process is fair and unbiased" which would allow him to wiggle out in the future. I've said before, I don't think the GOP nightmare is that Trump runs third party, he won't do that. He also won't say that GOP voters should vote for Biden. The nightmare is that he tells his supporters the whole thing is rigged against them and that they should stay home and not vote for anyone.

I think Trump's answer at a debate would be something like "I don't have to answer that question, and it's a stupid question because I'm winning the nomination and everybody here and everybody in the country knows it. So your question is irrelevant because the situation isn't going to happen. I'm going to be the nominee, not any of the rest of these people." That answer would get wild cheers from the crowd, and a lot of nodding from his supporters watching at home.

If any of the rest of them were to take the pledge and then not abide by it, but then at some point in the future that person was running again and the party thought that person had a good chance to win, I'm 1000% sure that the party wouldn't do anything to hurt that person's chances, such as barring him/her from a debate or depriving them of backing of any sort. This is all about winning and losing, and these types of things like this "pledge" are easily tossed aside, subject to revisionist history, in the name of winning. It's just the way it works.

[luvdahops]

Liz Cheney said it. I think many are looking at her example and behaving in a manner to ensure their own political survival.

I think the best way to take siren trump is to hammer his status as winner. Mention he lost in 2020. He just the senate. He almost lost the house. He lost all his ejection court cases. He's a loser. Don't vote for a loser. A good number of those in the race need to be in it just to game and brand Trump as a loser and then get out before the voting starts.

I tend to agree. Trump is going to have to be forcibly knocked out of the top spot, and this is a path that at least several candidates will pursue. Christie for sure, possibly DeSantis if sufficiently emboldened. Take the fight to Trump and deliver some tough but necessary medicine to GOP voters. He lost the House in 2018, lost the Presidential election in 2020 and lost the Senate in 2020 and the chance to retake it in 2022 simply because his ego prevented him from acknowledging his loss. Which has been confirmed by multiple judges, audits, etc., not to mention virtually everyone in his inner circle at the time - he knows he lost but he can't admit it. And he's been wasting everyone's time since because his ego is more important to him than the country, the party or even the MAGA faithful. And btw, who exactly is going to work in a second Trump Administration?

Will it work? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not with the MAGA faithful. But I do think there are a lot of Republicans looking to move beyond Trump, both voters and current office holders. But they need someone, or some group, with the courage to rip that bandaid, forcefully and relentlessly. And someone to emerge as a credible alternative.