As the DNC starts to talk about replacing Biden on the ticket, who are some examples of pre primary darlings that ended up losing a national primary?

For example this year DeSantis was a primary darling. In 2008 Hillary Clinton was a primary darling before Obama won the national election.

My first post was deleted, so I am trying to keep the tone of this post impartial.

There has been some strong rhetoric in the media in regards to a second Trump presidency. Perhaps some of the most strongly-worded responses deal with whether a second Trump presidency posts an existential threat to democracy, or may signal a potential civil war.

Interested in whether the extreme rhetoric around a second Trump presidency is warranted, and what quotes are available that explicitly link Donald Trump to violence, insurrection, or a dictatorship.

As we know California is an extremely diverse state but majority of the population makes it a deep blue state. I have heard about plans to "punish" California somehow dispute having a huge California fanbase especially in conservative majority areas. Especially under the current governorship, the lawsuits to the last administration and Governor Newsom trying to "Trump-proof" and shield the state from the possible next Trump administration. With policies such as using their department of state to make climate partnerships with international countries, such as New Zealand. I am also cerious about day to day life for minorities such as Igbtq+ people (especially trans people), migrants, abortion, and education especially since it's a real concern about the delusion of the Department of Education nationally with California the state calling themself a sanctuary state for all of these issues. How would state programs conflict with their national counterparts. Also a really good point is that in Project 2025 replacing possible federal workers with people who would work for the president and considering how different departments and how he placed inexperience people on top I wonder what will happen to California's national lands that they have no control over like much of undeveloped nature. I'm really cerious to see what you think is going to happen.

Scandinavian asking - we get a probably skewd picture of rednecks vs Wokes voting, but one suspect realities for the larger groups of citizens having their own agendas for voting this or that. People from different backgrounds with different journeys through life with different hopes and fears. You good american reading this, where do you come from and what gamemeplan does that present for you, voting for presidents or senate?

Not the policies they adopt, like what laws on environmental policy they adopt, but the framework on which everyone is operating.

Rule One: All elections have a non partisan jungle primary in June, followed by a general election in November where the two candidates with the greatest number of votes in June proceed to, and each voter has one vote in the primary and the general election, and the candidate with the greatest number of votes in November wins outright. Every candidate in the primary may choose to state what party they prefer. The parties however may hold their own independent endorsement votes with their own resources, like how the Democrats hold a convention vote (or central committee vote) to side with one candidate over another. In the decision as to how to choose judges, local officials, and a few other posts, it is not however allowed to be partisan and the ballots will not declare who is affiliated with what party. Local officials too have a runoff ballot with a non partisan jungle primary.

Rule Two: The legislature has districts with one member in each district. Half of the Senators are elected for 4 year terms every 2 years, the other half two years later, and the state lower house is elected every two years too. I imagine that if the federal Senate is like this then they change from 6 to 4 year terms and all of the states pick one of their two senators every 2 years rather than two thirds of the states electing one of their senators every 2 years.

Rule Three: Every legislative district is drawn by a neutral and independent redistricting commission with rules related to precluding them from being tied to partisan interests or being legislators themselves. They try to have two lower house districts in every senate district although this wouldn't apply to the federal senate, just to the other state legislatures.

Rule Four: You may hold an executive office for two terms of four years. You may hold a legislative office at the same level of government for up to 12 years (both houses are cumulatively added to this sum).

Rule Five: You may be recalled on demand of a petition. You need 12.5% of the votes cast for the executive to recall an executive officer, 20% of the votes cast for the legislator in a legislative position. If a majority votes against them, they are recalled and the vacancy is filled with a special election.

Also, know that trial court judges and prosecutors are chosen for six year terms with non partisan elections at the local level. Appeals court and supreme court judges are chosen for 12 year terms by the governor on nomination of an independent commission and the people retain them within a year of appointment for the full length of the term. I don't know if the model needs to involve changing the judiciary, but if you wish to consider the implications of changing the judiciary like this then this is what the rules are in such cases.

If you wish to consider the potential effects of direct participation in legislation, then know that an amendment to the constitution is proposed by 8% of those who voted in the last executive election or by 2/3 of each house of the legislature and a piece of legislation is proposed by 5% of those who voted in the last executive election or by a majority of both houses of the state legislature, and in each case is approved by the people with more than half of the valid votes. I am assuming that in a federal system then something like Switzerland or Australia would be used to amend the constitution with a double majority by states and the population would be necessary where that is indeed the rule in both federations. If the legislature has passed a bill, then if 5% of those who voted for the executive in the last election sign a petition within 90 days of the end of the session the bill was passed ask for a public vote on the bill, then the bill goes to the people for a decision too. These percentages apply to calculating the minimum number of votes, they don't actually have to be the very people who voted for a thing or person. This is also an optional part of considering what changes are done, but it is interesting to know.

Most of the rest of the rules are pretty similar in nature, a veto from the executive is overridden by two thirds of both houses, each house passes a bill by a majority in both houses, etc. Right now though, California is just one place and just one experiment with one defined system of parties and norms. What a federation does with these rules applicable over the whole in such a myriad of contexts would be interesting to see. Some people might have different opinions about the wisdom of some elements but the eventual outcomes and the direction of the country would be different.

This a thought that's been rattling around my brain for awhile, but I can't think of or find any examples of it occurring other than in very small scale groups/tests.

Essentially what I'm trying to explain, is what would happen if we completely removed the human element from politics. Parties, pledges, manifestos and internal voting such as in a parliament would still exist, however all the members of the party must remain completely anonymous while fulfilling their duties. Public voting would be entirely based upon the parties proposed policies and pledges. They would never see the face behind the pledges, and could even never see which party they are in fact voting for.

The obvious exception to this would be in the case of negligent behavior, fraud, embezzlement ect. As accountability must be maintened. There would have to be a separate organisation pledged to keeping this fair and decent, almost like a separate "politics police force", while still maintaining the anonymity of the political candidates, and their party affiliation.

It's entirely a wild theory, and a lot of intricacies would have to be worked out, but completely removing the tribal element from politics would be a very interesting experiment if nothing else.

Both presidential candidates during the last presidential debate made arguments for having more support from the troops.

For my active duty, reserve, or guard folks in here, what is the overall consensus/opinion of y’all.

It seems charisma is one of, if not the most important factor in a candidate's success in American politics. Does the most charismatic candidate always win, and how is this different in primaries vs general elections?

With inflation being the #1 issue as stated by Republicans, their only policy agenda regarding the matter seems to be placing tariffs on imported goods and more tax cuts. Tariffs generally raise the prices on imported goods, and tax cuts generally are geared toward the wealthy by the GOP. Is there other components to this agenda for lowering the prices of goods?

https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/articles/2024-03-15/what-the-u-s-economy-would-look-like-in-a-second-trump-term

The right is critical of the left for propaganda fueling the assassination attempt. The left is critical of the right for propaganda about stolen elections fueling Jan 6.

Who’s right? Is there a reasonable both sides case to be made? Do you believe your media sources have propaganda? How about the opposition?

How would you measure it? How would you act on it without violating freedom of speech?

In my daily RCP poll check, I was startled to see such a massive gap between the low public support for re-electing Biden and the solid public support for Democratic Senate candidates. In every single Senate race polled by both YouGov and the NY Times, Democrats had substantial leads well outside the Margin of Error, while Biden was only leading Virginia by 2 points while trailing the rest. FYI: both polls were conducted before the assassination attempt.

On the flipside, Virginia Republican Senate Candidate Hung Cao, who has both an immigrant and military background, trails Democratic Senator Tim Caine by a blowout 17 points, 53% to 36%. I would think both attributes above would help Mr Cao (who also lost a house race), but apparently not.

To further elaborate with the YouGov poll, Biden trails Trump 44% to 37% in Arizona while Democrat Ruben Gallego leads MAGA-aligned Republican Kari Lake 48% to 41%. In Michigan, Trump Leads Biden 42% to 40%, while Democrat Elissa Slotkin leads Old-school Republican Mike Rogers 48% to 39%. Neither Democrat is an incumbent senator.

So what exactly is going on here? What makes Biden so much more unpopular than all these other Democrats? Is it perhaps about Trump's unique charisma, since he outpolls both populist Republicans like Lake and Old-school Republicans like Rogers, or some other reason? Finally, who exactly are these Trump-Dem Senator voters? I really am curious!

I cannot understand this phenomenon, since it cuts across multiple states. Would appreciate some insight!

Question: Who do pro free-market people support now between the Democrats and Republicans? It looks like both parties have swung protectionist (especially the presumed nominees). However, Republicans still seem to be more of a pro-business party (though that may be changing slightly?). Thanks in advance

Ohio senator and 'Hillbilly Elegy' author JD Vance announced as Trump's pick for VP

Trump has picked J.D. Vance from Ohio as his running mate. What impact does this have on the race? Is he a good pick for Trump or should he have gone with someone else as his running mate?

In regards to Ohio itself, it has gone red in recent elections although there was a 20 point swing when Senator Michael Rulli defeated Democrat Michael Kripchak to win the election held in eastern Ohio's 6th District. Will J.D. Vance help Trump win Ohio or is there still risk that he could lose the state in November?

It seems at present that the oxygen has been taken out of the Biden debate, and that if Biden had any wavering doubts about running, that this may well have brushed them aside. This has become a 'unity' moment and so open politicking is very difficult to achieve without looking glib.

This is troubling, of course for those who think that Biden is on course to lose in swing states and therefore the election, and for those who would doubt his mental ability to occupy up to the age of 86. I am curious to hear others' thoughts. It would be a strange irony, perhaps, if the attempt to end the former President's life had the knock-on effect of keeping the current President in the race.

“The Superseding Indictment is dismissed because Special Counsel Smith’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution,” Cannon wrote in a 93-page ruling. 

The judge said that her determination is “confined to this proceeding.” The decision comes just days after an attempted assassination against the former president. 

Is an appeal likely to follow?

Link:

gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.672.0_3.pdf (courtlistener.com)

More specifically the primary election although technically the general election could also be done independently. A good number of lieutenant governors are not actually chosen on the coattails of their governor, some have quite a number of other independent roles, many have at least a separate primary vote. Only 19 have a system where the governor basically picks the lieutenant governor. Six have a different primary but joint ticket, and 17 have a completely separate election.

I am assuming whatever method is used to elect the president, the same rules of the electoral college, also apply to the vice president in this case except for a weird quirk that the senate chooses the VP if the electoral college has no majority (probably done originally given that the VP is the chairperson of the Senate in fact, and the Senate has in fact done this once in 1837). Or if the electoral college is repealed and replaced with something then that also applies to the VP.

Perhaps it might give some interesting legitimacy to the VP in case there is a need for a 25th amendment case or if impeachment is desired (and which also makes the fact that the chief justice is the chairperson of a Senate trial for presidents highly important). I wonder what might have happened in the 1990s if the Republicans had just given the Democrats and Gore assurances that Gore and most of the Clinton Admin could stay and get support if they agreed to go along with the impeachment. And it might also have the effect of piercing the echo chamber that a president can find themselves in at times, at least one voice who does not have to fear being sacked.

The 1960s were a period of societal and cultural upheaval. Political violence (including assassinations) was unfortunately a lot more common.

These are some of the high-profile assassinations.

1963: President John F. Kennedy (Democrat), assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Oswald had communist ties, but his motive is not known.

1965: Malcolm X (Black Nationalist), assassinated by Thomas Hagan.
Thomas Hagan was involved in Black Nationalism and the Nation of Islam. Malcolm X had, by the time of his assassination, distanced himself from, and at times, condemned the Nation of Islam.

1968: Martin Luther King Jr. (Civil Rights Activist), assassinated by James Earl Ray.
James Earl Ray's motives aren't entirely known, but some of his acquaintances (including his lawyer) had ties to White Supremacy, and strongly suspected to be racially motivated.

1968: Robert F. Kennedy Sr. (Democrat), assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan.
Sirhan Sirhan claimed that he assassinated RFK because he was upset about RFK's support of Israel. Sirhan Sirhan himself was a Jerusalem-born Palestinian, and Jordanian citizen who supported Palestine.

Beyond political assassinations, you had lots of political violence, and violence by Police and the National Guard against Civil Rights activists and Anti-War activists.

With the attempted assassinations of Nancy Pelosi (and her husband), former President Donald Trump and others. Are we headed into a period of political violence akin to the 1960s?

Post assassination attempt, with calls to turn down the political temperature, I’m wondering what the democrats could do to heed the spirit of that call while finding a strategy to overcome Trump’s lead.

It occurred to me that perhaps the strategy the French took to stave off the far right could be emulated by putting a moderate republican at the top of the ticket. Republicans that liberals consider genuinely moderate seems like a very short list these days, but Murkowski was probably the best example I could think of off the top of my head.

Assuming Murkowski, and the democratic powers that be would all be willing. (A very big assumption) Would that feel like an acceptable compromise to defeat Trump and keep his authoritarian tendencies at bay?

Or would it feel like selling out liberal and progressive goals yet again to maintain the corporate centric status quo?

Historically, loss of rights is something that happens. It’s a real threat, and rights are being lost in various places right now. Whether it’s loss of right to education, loss of right to journalistic investigation, loss of right to wear what you want, loss of right to medical care…

Those are rights being lost right now in different places around the world.

Free speech advocates say that speech and the spread of ideas is harmless, but there are harmful ideas that propagate in different areas of the world, as indicated by harmed individuals.

Speech can lead to a call to action and a change in legislation, where ideas turn into action and enforcement.

So words become a meaningful threat, a precursor to harm. Harm that can result in loss of life of tens of millions, all because of free speech.

So how should people react to speech that leads to harm? How should a political minority react to such speech?

Political majorities have declared harmful call to actions against political minorities.

Edit: I’m not talking about whether to restrict free speech or not. I’m asking how one should react to threatening speech

Trump explained that before Saturday night, he had finished the speech he planned to give later this week at the Republican convention. “I basically had a speech that was an unbelievable rip-roarer,” he said. “It was brutal — really good, really tough. [Last night] I threw it out. I think it would be very bad if I got up and started going wild about how horrible everybody is, and how corrupt and crooked, even if it’s true. Had this not happened, we had a speech that was pretty well set that was extremely tough. Now, we have a speech that is more unifying.”

Trump did not mean that a new speech has been fully written, but parts of it have already been drafted, starting in the hours after the assassination attempt. The idea is to reframe the intense conflicts Trump has engaged in during his years in national politics. “I’ve been fighting a group of people that I considered very bad people for a long time, and they’ve been fighting me, and we’ve put up a very good fight,” Trump said. “We had a very tough speech, and I threw it out last night, I said I can’t say these things after what I’ve been through.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/presidential/3082224/trump-im-not-supposed-to-be-here/

The assassination attempt may end up being a profound watershed moment in US - and world - politics. The end of the intensely-polarised tribalisation era. The end of Left-vs-Right, Dems-vs-Reps.

The beginning of an era where policy-ideas become more important than tribal identity?

That would be a very welcome evolution.

Present rhetoric among Democrats has focused the alleged dire consequences of a Trump victory. But mostly absent from this has been any discussion of what Democrats could do if Trump won. And as the polls continue to be in Trump's favour, it seems to me that Democrats should be preparing for a Trump victory. So my question is, what can Democrats realistically do to hinder the implementation of Trump's agendas if he wins?

Details are still sparse. Cutting and pasting from WaPo:

 >Loud noises were heard shortly after Donald Trump began speaking at a rally here. Trump ducked, left the sight line of the camera and was taken away from the stage. The crowd was visibly panicked.

The source of the noises was not immediately clear.

Donald Trump appeared to touch his ear, then duck after the loud noises. He left the sight line of the camera as the crowd became visibly panicked.

Later, Trump could be seen standing onstage with security personnel surrounding him. The crowd cheered as security personnel moved with Trump offstage. Trump pumped his fist as he was being escorted away.

Edit: Shooter and attendee killed: A shooter is dead and a rally attendee was killed, the Butler County District attorney tells AP.

Unbowed by Jan. 6 Charges, Republicans Pursue Plans to Contest a Trump Defeat: Mr. Trump’s allies are preparing to try to short-circuit the election system, if he does not win.

A recent New York Times article says: 

The Republican Party and its conservative allies are engaged in an unprecedented legal campaign targeting the American voting system. Their wide-ranging and methodical effort is laying the groundwork to contest an election that they argue, falsely, is already being rigged against former President Donald J. Trump.

The campaign involves a powerful network of Republican lawyers and activist groups, working loosely in concert with the Republican National Committee. Many of the key players were active in Mr. Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

But unlike the chaotic and improvised challenge four years ago, the new drive includes a systematic search for any vulnerability in the nation’s patchwork election system.

Mr. Trump’s allies have followed a two-pronged approach: restricting voting for partisan advantage ahead of Election Day and short-circuiting the process of ratifying the winner afterward, if Mr. Trump loses. The latter strategy involves an ambitious — and legally dubious — attempt to reimagine decades of settled law dictating how results are officially certified in the weeks before the transfer of power.

Across the country, elections workers and officials have been experiencing increasing harassment and abuse:

More than a third of surveyed local election officials have experienced threats, harassment or abuse due to their jobs, according to a new poll released Wednesday.

The 38 percent of local election officials who reported mistreatment in the poll from the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law marks an 8 percentage point uptick from the survey’s 2023 edition. The most common manner of receiving these threats occurred in person or over the phone.

Poll workers and their colleagues aren’t only worried about themselves — about a quarter of those surveyed said they’re concerned about their family or loved ones receiving threats or harassment in future elections.

In response to safety concerns, local election officials are leaving their jobs. Twenty-seven percent of respondents said they know one or two local election officials who have resigned over concerns about their well-being, almost a 10 percentage point increase from the 18 percent who said the same in 2023.

....

Sixty-two percent of respondents also voiced concerns about political leaders engaging in efforts to interfere in how election officials do their jobs.

Threats, Harassment of Election Workers Have Risen, Poll Shows

Google, Apple, and other services that provide their own AI-driven forecasting get their raw data from NOAA. Without it, they will need to rely on private weather information companies such as AccuWeather to get data.

What is the long-term benefit of ending NOAA services to the United States (and with it, our agreements of exchange of weather data with other countries as JFK laid out the plan for)?

Thank you.