2024 U.S. Presidential election

[bundabergdevil]

Other folks have mentioned the 2 issues already, so I then assumed it is ok; but I appreciate your direct response.

Abortion and guns. Hard for me to believe these will not motivate voters on both/all sides of these 2 issues, perhaps determine outcomes in elections up and down ballots, national, state, local levels.

Given Biden’s low approval ratings — which I realize could move up, or down, in the next 16-17 months — the Dems needed something. The Dobbs decision, and more specifically Repub states acting on Dobbs with 6-week, 15-week bans, appears thus far a lifeline for some floundering Dems. Can’t be sure how this will play out a year from now, but polls suggest this issue will not disappear. To put it mildly.

Gun violence, especially the murder of K-12 school kids, with every reason to believe we’ll see more, might tip some “Middle 5%” moderates toward Dem candidates.

More broadly, I’ll be curious to see whether Dem leaders pick up on Jamelle Bouie’s NYT op-ed a week back, critiquing the Repubs’ “four freedoms”: freedom to control [women’s bodily autonomy], to exploit [labor], to censor [books], and to menace [open carry]. Strikes me Dems need some response to Repub’s generally effective mantra that they’re the party of freedom.

The worst strategy is assuming the other side gives two sprites about the things you do.

[Jeffrey]

I am a single, 56 year old man who now lives in NYC and (as many of you know) work for Pfizer. A woman my age, who lives in my bldg and with whom I've had a few brief conversations, approached me in the elevator and asked if I'm open to being set up on a date. I told her, "Sure, why not." She asked where I worked and I told her. To which she grimaced and responded, "Oh, ya know, the vaccines made a lot of people sick."

For what it's worth.

Bummer! You would have had more action than Magic, if you told her you worked at Smith & Wesson.

[ClemmonsDevil]

The worst strategy is assuming the other side gives two sprites about the things you do.

Yes. Exactly.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Other folks have mentioned the 2 issues already, so I then assumed it is ok; but I appreciate your direct response.

Abortion and guns. Hard for me to believe these will not motivate voters on both/all sides of these 2 issues, perhaps determine outcomes in elections up and down ballots, national, state, local levels.

Given Biden’s low approval ratings — which I realize could move up, or down, in the next 16-17 months — the Dems needed something. The Dobbs decision, and more specifically Repub states acting on Dobbs with 6-week, 15-week bans, appears thus far a lifeline for some floundering Dems. Can’t be sure how this will play out a year from now, but polls suggest this issue will not disappear. To put it mildly.

Gun violence, especially the murder of K-12 school kids, with every reason to believe we’ll see more, might tip some “Middle 5%” moderates toward Dem candidates.

More broadly, I’ll be curious to see whether Dem leaders pick up on Jamelle Bouie’s NYT op-ed a week back, critiquing the Repubs’ “four freedoms”: freedom to control [women’s bodily autonomy], to exploit [labor], to censor [books], and to menace [open carry]. Strikes me Dems need some response to Repubs’ generally effective mantra that they’re the party of freedom.

I agree that these two issues are theoretically huge. But now that the court is on their side, I think the Republican solution to them is to largely punt them back to the states. The stock answer seems to be "these are issues that should be determined at the state level, I am running for president, so that is not really in my jurisdiction." Then if asked for their specific opinion, avoid the question. This is not a legitimate response because the president is the one appointing judges to the courts who will rule on the legality of the laws that the states are creating, so they are very actively involved. But again, the average American doesn't get this.

TL/DR: states rights are used when convenient to avoid taking responsibility for controversial decisions, then the judiciary is used to clean up the mess.

[gumbomoop]

I agree that these two issues are theoretically huge. But now that the court is on their side, I think the Republican solution to them is to largely punt them back to the states. The stock answer seems to be "these are issues that should be determined at the state level, I am running for president, so that is not really in my jurisdiction." Then if asked for their specific opinion, avoid the question. This is not a legitimate response because the president is the one appointing judges to the courts who will rule on the legality of the laws that the states are creating, so they are very actively involved. But again, the average American doesn't get this.

My view, which will undoubtedly wobble over the next 16 months, is that Dems will hope to use the fact of abortion bans in red states to persuade “middle 5% moderates” in swing states to vote Dem. Both on the general point that Repubs want to control women, so vote Dem; and on the specific points that (1) a majority Dem state legislature will protect women’s autonomy from Repub threats in our own state, and (2) we need a Dem President and Dem majorities in the US Senate and House to protect that autonomy over the immediate and longer term (judicial nominees, national legislation).

Repubs, having won with Dobbs and with several red-state bans, will perhaps emphasize the “let’s leave the abortion issue to each state to decide” argument. But then Dems will respond, “We want our state to protect a woman’s right to choose. Repubs want to control women’s bodies. Vote Dem.”

[YmoBeThere]

I am a single, 56 year old man who now lives in NYC and (as many of you know) work for Pfizer. A woman my age, who lives in my bldg and with whom I've had a few brief conversations, approached me in the elevator and asked if I'm open to being set up on a date. I told her, "Sure, why not." She asked where I worked and I told her. To which she grimaced and responded, "Oh, ya know, the vaccines made a lot of people sick."

It is always helpful when they self-identify like that.

[Gooch]

Other folks have mentioned the 2 issues already, so I then assumed it is ok; but I appreciate your direct response.

Abortion and guns. Hard for me to believe these will not motivate voters on both/all sides of these 2 issues, perhaps determine outcomes in elections up and down ballots, national, state, local levels.

Given Biden’s low approval ratings — which I realize could move up, or down, in the next 16-17 months — the Dems needed something. The Dobbs decision, and more specifically Repub states acting on Dobbs with 6-week, 15-week bans, appears thus far a lifeline for some floundering Dems. Can’t be sure how this will play out a year from now, but polls suggest this issue will not disappear. To put it mildly.

Gun violence, especially the murder of K-12 school kids, with every reason to believe we’ll see more, might tip some “Middle 5%” moderates toward Dem candidates.

I live in a neighboring town to Sandy Hook. I thought more than a decade ago that gun violence in schools would sway the populace toward more regulation. That hasn’t happened yet so I don’t think this issue will now sway voters in the Presidential race.

Abortion on the other hand…seems like a different story.

[tommy]

My view, which will undoubtedly wobble over the next 16 months, is that Dems will hope to use the fact of abortion bans in red states to persuade “middle 5% moderates” in swing states to vote Dem. Both on the general point that Repubs want to control women, so vote Dem; and on the specific points that (1) a majority Dem state legislature will protect women’s autonomy from Repub threats in our own state, and (2) we need a Dem President and Dem majorities in the US Senate and House to protect that autonomy over the immediate and longer term (judicial nominees, national legislation).

Repubs, having won with Dobbs and with several red-state bans, will perhaps emphasize the “let’s leave the abortion issue to each state to decide” argument. But then Dems will respond, “We want our state to protect a woman’s right to choose. Repubs want to control women’s bodies. Vote Dem.”

The GOP was all about "let the states decide" when Roe was on the books. Now that it's gone, we're hearing a steady drumbeat for a national ban -- forget about letting the states decide. I expect the Dems to hammer the GOP with the change in tune, with side by side video of them saying one thing before Dobbs and another after, and letting people know they may not want to swallow the "states rights" thing hook, line, and sinker when it's used in other contexts . . .

[Bluedog]

I don't think it comes down to those two issues. If it does, then Dems would feel REALLY good since polls show a pretty good majority of the electorate is on the Dems side for those items (pro choice and pro some gun regulation are a good chunk north of 50%). In states where abortion is on the ballot, it almost always leads to more choice. And a good percentage support banning assault weapons.

I think those two issues could be big in certain SPECIFIC states where things have recently changed and it's top of mind. But by and large, I don't think most view that as their #1 issue. I think it's the economy as always... particularly if we see some softening later this year and/or inflation remaining high. If things are perceived as "bad", many voters tend to blame the president and "vote for change." If things are perceived to be good or getting better, then the incumbency is powerful.

As someone else mentioned, it comes down to likely 80,000-120,000 votes in three states. For those voters, I think it's the economy. Maybe abortion could push the needle in Wisconsin a bit given the recent rulings there. But I don't see it moving things much.

[gumbomoop]

I don't think it comes down to those two issues... I think those two issues could be big in certain SPECIFIC states where things have recently changed and it's top of mind.

As someone else mentioned, it comes down to likely 80,000-120,000 votes in three states. For those voters, I think it's the economy. Maybe abortion could push the needle in Wisconsin a bit given the recent rulings there. But I don't see it moving things much.

I haven’t claimed it comes down to those 2 issues. I simply added those 2 to mkirsh’s list of big issues in post #103.

I’m guessing abortion will be more important than you think, though much will depend on messaging, horror stories, early-weeks bans, etc.

I agree that it’ll come down to ~100,000 votes in 3-4 states, several of Ga, Ariz, Nev, NC, Pa, Mich, Wisc.

Many political observers say all that matters is Georgia, Wisconsin, and Arizona. If the Democrats win any of those, it is a done deal. The presumption is that if Pennsylvania or Michigan are really in play, the Democrats are doomed anyway. Similarly, if North Carolina is in play, the GOP candidate is probably already toast.

If abortion is a major emotional factor among “middle 5% moderates” in even a couple of the key swing states, it will advantage Dems.

But 16 months is a long time away. Recession? Candidate gaffs? Unpredictable events? Third party/parties?

[Bostondevil]

I live in a neighboring town to Sandy Hook. I thought more than a decade ago that gun violence in schools would sway the populace toward more regulation. That hasn’t happened yet so I don’t think this issue will now sway voters in the Presidential race.

Abortion on the other hand…seems like a different story.

The populace has been swayed. Elected officials, not so much.

[PackMan97]

.

Thanks... now tread lightly and play nicely.

-Jason

Can we request a peremptory infraction at a lower point value?

I barely survived the 2020 thread... God help me in this one.

[PackMan97]

.

I doubt anyone challenges Biden from the ranks of "normal" Democrats... unless he starts to show signs of cognitive or physical deterioration.

I was not politically aware enough in 1984 or 1988, but at what age did Reagan begin to show signs of Alzheimers. I feel very certain that by the time the Iran-Contra and Oliver North scandals rolled around, he was having issues. Seeking a historical precidence for the issue.

That asked, I'm not sure it matters. Lines are drawn and some mere cognitive decline is not going to get folks to switch sides. At this point it's now about keeping the other guy out than anything else.

The one kink on this is always will someone run 3rd party that can actually pose a real challenge to the status quo? Someone without much is a political history that could easily walk the middle (polling wise) on many of the hottest issues of this election.

I really thought 2016 had a great shot at seeing that happen, but if it's Trump v Biden again I think it will actually happen. At that point who knows?

[OldPhiKap]

I am oversees at an international conference. It is making how tuned in everyone here is to our electoral process and issues like the debt ceiling argument.

[CameronBlue]

I am oversees at an international conference. It is making how tuned in everyone here is to our electoral process and issues like the debt ceiling argument.

Play for pity. Maybe somebody will take you in until this election cycle is over.

[burnspbesq]

One potential wild card is the possibility that the inevitable indictment in the documents matter will include one or more counts under 18 U.S.C. Section 2071. By its terms, conviction on those charges would disqualify Trump from all future Federal offices. He will likely argue that that provision doesn’t apply to the president, but it will have to be litigated state by state, and he’ll likely lose in a few purple states.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

[dudog84]

One potential wild card is the possibility that the inevitable indictment in the documents matter will include one or more counts under 18 U.S.C. Section 2071. By its terms, conviction on those charges would disqualify Trump from all future Federal offices. He will likely argue that that provision doesn’t apply to the president, but it will have to be litigated state by state, and he’ll likely lose in a few purple states.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

There may be an indictment, but there is NO chance of a trial and conviction in the next 18 months. The process moves slow enough on its own, and there are plenty of ways to delay it further. You're an esq, you know that.

And it won't even be 18 months. Whenever that "rule" kicks in that they have to stop proceeding so as not to "interfere" with the election makes the time frame even shorter and absolutely unreachable.

[ClemmonsDevil]

Play for pity. Maybe somebody will take you in until this election cycle is over.

I begin my lectures in Canada with: "I'm sorry for what we have going on politically in the US. I know we make y'all feel like you live in this great apartment...perched right on top of a meth lab."

[acdevil]

And it won't even be 18 months. Whenever that "rule" kicks in that they have to stop proceeding so as not to "interfere" with the election makes the time frame even shorter and absolutely unreachable.

They don’t have to. It’s DOJ policy - which can be changed and it looks like it may.

[rsvman]

I was not politically aware enough in 1984 or 1988, but at what age did Reagan begin to show signs of Alzheimers. I feel very certain that by the time the Iran-Contra and Oliver North scandals rolled around, he was having issues. Seeking a historical precidence for the issue.

That asked, I'm not sure it matters. Lines are drawn and some mere cognitive decline is not going to get folks to switch sides. At this point it's now about keeping the other guy out than anything else.

The one kink on this is always will someone run 3rd party that can actually pose a real challenge to the status quo? Someone without much is a political history that could easily walk the middle (polling wise) on many of the hottest issues of this election.

I really thought 2016 had a great shot at seeing that happen, but if it's Trump v Biden again I think it will actually happen. At that point who knows?

My idea is that all two-party elections should have a 'none of the above' voting option, and if 'none of the above' gets more votes than both candidates, the parties have to produce better choices.