Harris Vs Trump 2024 US Presidential election - read the warning in the OP posted 18/09/24

Wow, misremembered. Do you just believe everything you are told?

One illegal is too many. I have to admit, that was the answer I was expecting.

He had the presidency,house and senate for the first two years of his first term. Why didn't he live up to his promises then?

What about asylum seekers?

As the money to Ukraine has no effect on the border it is irrelevant.

The only contentious part is that you think trump will live up to his promises, while ignoring all the evidence to the contrary that you currently have available.

Interesting to see that, while it is early yet, nothing appears to have been learned from this election.

I thought it was funny for the past few weeks how the vast majority of commentators on this and other election-related threads were predicting a victory for Harris, in many cases an overwhelming victory, despite absolutely no evidence whatsoever for that viewpoint. The media was the same - all the mainstream Irish media I consumed over the past 3-4 weeks, and most of the American media, predicted a Harris victory. This despite almost every reputable poll in most of the swing states showing that Trump was marginally ahead, and anyone who has even had a passing interest in American politics for the past few years knowing that the polls in the swing states always underestimated his support.

I predicted the result reasonably closely to how in turned out on the prediction thread, not because I am some kind of seer, but because I looked at the polls, and the momentum shifts, and made a logical, unemotional prediction based on the available facts and past results. The media have, to a frightening degree, lost the ability to do that, not just here, or in America, but all over the western world.

It goes to the heart of two issues in contemporary media (social and mainstream) - the tendency for entrenched points of view and feelings to override logic and fact, and the tendency for the constant ramping up of hyperbole.

And this is why Trump won - the media and his opponent concentrated only on the circus act he likes to put on. While they were bedazzled by that, and constantly magnified it, he was able to talk about the issues that affect the real lives of the people who vote (cost of living, crime, immigration, housing). The Democratic Party, along with the vast majority of the media, are obsessed with dogma and hyperbole - they have been warning for nearly 10 years that, any day now, Trump is going to launch a fascist dictatorship/start WWIII/turn women into characters from a Margaret Atwood novel/reintroduce Jim Crow/End the world/whatever other fantasy floats your boat. After 10 years, most ordinary people simply no longer believe this to be true.

They have almost never challenged him on actual policy, or laid out in a practical way why they would make life better for the average American. Harris fell into the trap of trying to be a better clown than Trump, rather than a better alternative. The appearance on SNL was probably the nadir of her, or any recent Democratic Party campaign, and showed a complete misunderstanding of what would, or could, win over the undecideds.

Unless the Democratic Party relearn basic politics, and ignore the media cheerleading, they will end up in an even worse situation than they find themselves now. Barring another Covid-level disaster, it is likely that Trump will trundle along, make some minor changes that will help, in a small way, with cost of living, and if he gets lucky, might end up in four years with a stronger economy. If that happens, Vance will be in a very strong position to be the next president, and possibly the president after that - despite the media efforts to paint him as a weirdo, he is articulate, intelligent, and savvy. The Democratic Party need to stop being the party of the hysterical catperson, and start being the sensible, responsible adults in the room. Stop being the party of the extreme left California elite, and start being the party of the average American. There is a huge electorate that just want to vote for someone who has the interests of Americans at heart - Trump may not be that person, but he is far, far closer to it than Harris or Walz.

There are good people in the Democratic Party, but they are being drowned out by the loud, elitist, hysterical element at present. If lessons are learned, these good people can come to the fore, and offer a real alternative. I fear that, because of the entrenched positions of the media the party seem so beholden to, those lessons will be ignored.

If we are judging cognitive ability on their most recent debate performance…..

I think some people just want to see kids in cages again.

Normally I would agree with some of what you say, but I don't think it stands up when it comes to Trump.

He tried to create an insurrection four years ago, that's very, very serious. I would rate Putin as the most dangerous European figure of the last half century and Trump has come very close to backing him, even saying some of the strategy in the invasion of Ukraine was genius.

The media and the Democratic party in America may be somewhat out of touch, that's fair, but Trump is a hugely dangerous character. His supporters may be happy to minimise or ignore that, but it's still true and very serious.

He is still the Governrer of Minnesota. Of the 4 is probably the one with the best track track record in government

From what I understand, the GOP seem to be quite transactional about it.

If a group of Billionaires is going to give them money, they expect something in return.

The Democrats to this as well to an extent, but layer it with unicorns and lollipops. Better off listening to actual voters then their donors.

The republican donors and super-pacs are not backing the republicans and Trump because they are going to be happy to see the structural inequalities that benefit the super rich over the average working person overturned. And thats the only thing that will affect real change.

Thats why their message is "universal healthcare is communism", "regulation is tryanny" etc. To hoodwink the ordinary working people into believing the very policies that will address their issues are the ones causing them

You're around here long enough to know how to post quotes, or add screen shots to illustrate your point. Using particularly evocative language is a BS attempt to misrepresent what was being said on here.

And again with the Biden narrative. Nobody cares. (Given you brought her in to the conversation, who would your mother vote for, if she had the choice? Biden, or the sexual assaulter?)

And if you want to consider other people's perception of a President's mental acuity, consider this view. From over 3 years ago!!!

This is the guy due to "become" President in 2 months. You OK with that?

All elections are cyclical and always have been.

What I pointed out is the absolute dangerously stupid hyperbole that the Democrats future as a Party is in question because they lost an election, and a Senate that in reality they couldn't win.

The pattern is well and truly established now.

Flip basically one of the 3 "Blue Wall" states contagion will kick in and you will win the election.

I don't think it is actually good for democracy overall, but it's a fact.

What actually happens if come 2028, there's no eligible candidates declaring for the race? Under what circumstance (if any) could a sitting president extend their term in office?

Some constitutions have clauses where a term can be extended under wartime etc... or sitting prime ministers remain in position until a new government is formed etc.. I know it's not a direct comparison, but it's contingency of government fore planning.

Trump tried to get the election delayed because of Covid.

He was quickly told no.

I don't think it's a valid reason tbf, I doubt pandemics are written into the constitution. But it doesn't answer my question. If there's no eligible candidates in 2028, what happens based on the constitution. Does Congress elect someone?

If people are convinced he's planning on staying and under the term limit, which would be extremely hard to change, what other way could he stay? He doesn't have to be the 48th president, just a long term 47th.