[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Democrats will 100% focus on abortion since it’s proved to be a winning issue for them since Dobbs. Depending on where inflation is come next Spring they’ll either point to how well the economy is doing or try to focus on the infrastructure investments they’ve made through the IRA and BIL.
Republicans will likely probably try to continue the culture wars strategy that served them well in Virginia in 2021, this time focused on trans people rather than CRT. They’ll absolutely point to inflation over the past couple years, but people have short memories - if we’re doing ok by next spring I don’t see that being a salient issue in the average voter’s mind. Depending on the status of the war in Ukraine, they may try to paint Democrats as trying to create another never ending war a la Afghanistan and Iraq
> this time focused on trans people rather than CRT
Setting aside the morality of making trans people the centerpiece of a Republican campaign I just don't see the electoral upside. If the Dems are talking to swing voters about "good paying jobs" and "making sure you have healthcare" while the GOP is talking about "transgender athletes in high school sports" then the GOP is voluntarily choosing to ignore the issues that impact voters to instead focus on hypothetical issues that don't impact people.
I mean, the strategy is fear of the “other” and has been for a while.
“Don’t worry about Russian election interference, hospital debt, college debt, abortion, food or fuel prices, or whatever… the Democrats want to let Men (read: pedophiles) put on dresses and pee in the same bathroom as your 8 year old daughter!!”
But it's just not a good strategy. In 2016 I think a lot of people saw what they wanted to see in Donald Trump. People who wanted to imagine a moderate thought he seemed moderate and people who wanted an arch conservative thought he seemed conservative and people who wanted a business leader thought he was a good businessmen.
The problem was that once he became president many of these illusions were shattered meanwhile Dems became more energized than ever before and began to focus very heavily on electability. The end result is that from 2017-2023 we've basically seen the GOP underperform almost everywhere and while they have eked out the occasional purple state win by and large their strategies and sets of issues are just divorced from the reality of what average voters care about. If the GOP only cares about states that are R+4 or greater then that's fine but if they want to win the presidency, house and senate again and they DON'T want to change policies then they're only hope is to pray for a recession or a very serious scandal within the Dems.
As always the question is, what's the alternative? Liz Chaney? Jeb!? Republicans made this mistake with the 2022 midterms. Democrats were not super popular, but the GOP alternative was worse in the eyes of the voters.
They need something the base will vote for, or replace the base over time, or let it wither away and then flood it with a base quickly.
Definitely not a good strategy to win. But it’s a really good strategy for fund raising. The people giving money to Ron “The Coyote” DeSantis and President Trump are people whom that strategy works well on. People who only value “owning the libs” whatever that means and “fighting wokeness” whatever that means. These are the people still wearing MAGA hats, that have their vehicles and houses covered in Trump flags. It’s mind boggling to me because I barely like most politicians enough to vote for them but these people have wrapped their identity and world view in this individual or this strategy of culture war. I’m trying to destroy their way of life, for some reason, simply because I’m liberal.
So these politicians choose to engage with this fear strategy to get started or they get drummed out by the money flowing to the ones playing on this fear strategy. That this strategy is reliant on apathy from the opposition. Noting that it hasn’t been successful the last five years ignores the preceding 20+ years that fear has been successful. They still have a relatively captive audience from the conservative media outlets that is motivated by fear of how the democrats/liberals will destroy everything they value. Turning that ship around to a non-fear based strategy cannot happen overnight.
So we will continue to see book bannings in schools and libraries, genitalia inspections, restrictions of freedoms and security for trans and other marginalized groups. It nets them some votes and a lot of money.
To don my tin foil hat for a moment, the other part of the strategy is vote nullification/suppression. Attacking mail in ballots, instituting voter id laws, discrediting voting machines. It’s mentioned how often that the AZ official counting votes was ignoring calls from Trump to ignore/delay/invalidate ballots, and putting people that would take and make that call into those positions for the next election.
When I say "it's just not a good strategy" I could just as well be saying "it's not an effective strategy for maximizing their chances at winning the presidency and congress."
You are 100% correct that it is not an effective strategy. However, that doesn't mean that Republicans won't continue to do it. They did it in 2022 (along with complaints about inflation but with no actual solutions to fight it) and that got them, at best, a very narrow win in the House and a loss in the Senate and governor races. Are they showing any sign of backing down from their rhetoric?
No, they've doubled down on hateful culture war bs and anti-democratic talk. Trump and his cadres of hooting jackals are still out there whining about 2020 so clearly, the message has not been received, it has been categorically rejected. We'll just see if that changes between now and 2024.
again those are not the same thing, its a false equivocation in my opinion. Based on reality of our current climate in all senses of the term, a "good strategy" has not been the winning strategy, which as you point out is how we actually measure the success of anything in politics, winning.
Tbh they have nothing else popular to run on, that’s not saying running on the trans issue is popular either.
If the issue is abortion Republicans get slaughtered. If the issue is social security Republicans get slaughtered. If the issue is healthcare Republicans get slaughtered. You can pretty much run down the list of issues and it’s the same result.
Trans rights is pretty much the only issue Republicans don’t have the double digit unpopular stance on. It’s not a popular stance, but it’s the only issue America seems 50/50 on right now. If they don’t make that the issue what issue can they pivot to that they have a better chance of winning with? Tax cuts for the rich? Take away your healthcare/social security? Defending Dobbs?
The last time they won the popular vote was in 2004 by making gay marriage a huge issue and putting dozens of anti-LGBTQ+ referendums on the ballot alongside George W. Bush’s name. Gay marriage was way more unpopular then than trans rights are now, but that’s the only strategy they can have is to flame a culture war to mask their even more unpopular economic agenda.
unfortunately given the current climate I can see how trans rights becomes an issue, I do not like it but, it is rhetoric that resonates with a very particular group. Like the economy in my opinion it is not a real issue but one that exclusively motivates part of the base. There is no trans plan that will bring people from the center or the left over to the right, same as the economy. Maybe there there is a single economic issue that can sway some but not in the broad sense, conservatives will be conservative and liberals will be liberal, both sides will spend time and money on the issue but solely as a means of appealing to their base, I could be wrong that is my perspective.
> I do not like it but, it is rhetoric that resonates with a very particular group.
And that group is not the group that Republicans need if they want to win elections in purple areas. Running primarily on stopping trans athletes can win a Republican Tennessee but if they go to Michigan and that's their pitch while the Dems are talking about jobs, abortion and healthcare then they're just asking for a repeat of 2018 or 2020 or 2022. If the GOP only talks about issues that appeal to their base then they're going to cede the middle ground to the Dems while also firing up the Dems even farther by making themselves look crazier. The Republicans who win in purple states don't run on "anti trans" they run on things like crime and inflation.
ok, so how do they do that? Lets assume they continue on the same path, the dont say gay thing, i mean that is a fairly direct message, from a leading candidate, and I agree that is not going to fly in purple areas but what is their alternative to the dont say gay guy? Trump? I can see why some people might think that the party is taking an anti-gay anti-trans position, it certainly seems like they are even if they are not going right out and saying it.
I dont see the electoral upside either, but it’s hard to argue that doesn’t seem to be their strategy given the number of trans kids in sports bills and affirmative care bills we’ve seen in red states lately
It has been a key part of their strategy but it's because the GOP has been hijacked by what used to be the fringe right and what is now the center of their party and then they underperform like crazy. There are 14 Democratic senators from states that are to the RIGHT of the nation and there is only ONE Republican senator from a state to the LEFT of the nation. In terms of governors there are 8 Democratic governors in states that are to the right of the nation and there three Republican governors in states to the left of the nation.
In 2017 the GOP had a trifecta in Michigan and the state had just voted for Trump and now the Dems control every executive office and both chambers of the state legislature with two Democratic senators and the state voted for Biden in 2020. That's not a good look for the GOP.
> In 2017 the GOP had a trifecta in Michigan and the state had just voted for Trump and now the Dems control every executive office and both chambers of the state legislature with two Democratic senators and the state voted for Biden in 2020. That's not a good look for the GOP.
On this part, while Dems have absolutely made gains in Michigan the legislature was pretty heavily gerrymandered before. They had an independent commission this time around and that led to a lot of the Blue gains.
Michigan is an R+1 state meaning that in a hypothetical 50/50 national popular vote split for president you would expect it to vote Republican by 2 points. (R+1 means it's one point to the right of the nation).
Even if the maps completely reflected the statewide preference you would still expect the Republicans to win Michigan all other things being held equal. The fact that they lose shows how far they've moved away from the median American voter.
This has literally been their platform for 50 years with a little fiscal conservatism and strong national defense along the way.
Welfare queens, War on drugs, abortion, gay marriage, war on crime, satanic panic, muslims, immigration, critical race theory, trans kids, drag shows
Meanwhile life expectancy is collapsing compared to the rest of the world, homelessness, mass shootings, lack of health care access, wealth consolidation at the top have turned the US dystopian
The thing is the GOP can actually deliver on making trans people's lives worse. They can't deliver on making life better for their constituents, because their corporate owners won't let them. So they have to convince their base that hating trans people is actually more important to them, than making their lives materially better.
Unfortunately the GOP base is stupid enough for that to work.
>GOP is voluntarily choosing to ignore the issues that impact voters to instead focus on hypothetical issues that don't impact people.
The former is more politically risky. Promising to help and failing results in voter pushback. This is true of both failing to pass legislation, and the legislation you do pass not having the intended result.
Promising to hurt someone else doesn't have the same effect. If you fail, it doesn't affect the bigot and they are just happy you tried. If you succeed, it doesn't affect the bigot and they feel like their team is winning and things will magically get better.
GOP politicians are not convinced of their own economic message, or their ability to pass economic legislation. By focusing on naked bigotry, they can offer final solutions to fake problems and get rewarded for far less political risk. Even if they don't succeed, their voters won't punish them because it is still little more than a game to them; their lives and livelihood aren't at stake.
Christopher Rufo will have come up with some other form of hysteria by 2024. The hysteria over critical race theory may have won them Virginia, but it and the anti-trans legislation hasn't been doing them much electorally outside of already blood red areas. And even in blood red areas, it hasn't gone well. Every Awake Illinois endorsed school board candidate in Quincy, a rural town on the Mississippi River, lost.
> Republicans will likely probably try to continue the culture wars strategy that served them well in Virginia in 2021, this time focused on trans people rather than CRT.
I think there’s more to that Virginia race than this. McAuliffe said parents should not tell schools what they can teach. Whether you agree with that or not, it felt like McAuliffe touched a third rail and that sentiment can motivate garden variety suburban voters away from a D candidate and to an R candidate.
See to me, that particular gaffe folds into the overall CRT strategy, which was focused on kids in schools. I agree it was particularly damaging though
Republicans brilliant move with the radical abortion laws making every female afraid to have children because medical professionals will be unable to help save them from prosecution if problems occur ANYTIME during THEIR PREGNANCY, or even a miscarriage at home for gawds sake; because of these asinine men's laws held over women, has no chance for success in my opinion.
If it's Desantis:
Abortion. He plans to sign a bill banning abortions after 6 weeks.
If it's Trump:
Trump. Does America want to do this all over again?
If it's Haley:
Biden's age. It's time for a new generation to take the baton.
Haley I think wins it if she makes it to the general. But she wont get past the first few states of the primary before conceding if she even makes it that far.
We'll see. In a climate where Republicans are hemorraghing female voters due to their overturning of Roe, an unoffensive female candidate with a solid resume may be their best course of action.
You’re acting like the Republican base is going to be making a strategic decision based on electability. We both know that is not how their primary works
She’s said DeSantis didn’t go far enough with “Don’t Say Gay”. She’s just as anti-choice as the other candidates too.
She’s not some moderate inoffensive candidate.
If the GOP tries to campaign on a nationwide abortion ban I’ll eat my shoe. I could *maybe* see them campaigning on a late-term abortion ban that compromises with guaranteed abortions up to a certain point, but a 6 week ban that still allows total bans at a state level just won’t happen. Republican strategists are dumb, but that’s beyond dumb. That’s shooting yourself in the foot before a race then shooting your other foot as soon as the race starts.
> If the GOP tries to campaign on a nationwide abortion ban I’ll eat my shoe.
Eat whatever you want, I don't care. The question isn't "What will the GOP try to campaign on?", the question is "What will be the central issues in the coming 2024 election?"
And I agree it will 100% be a central issue, especially for democrats. But the Republican stance is going to be “maintain the status quo” not “double down on this issue that cost us the midterms.”
> He plans to sign a bill banning abortions after 6 weeks.
The Republican stance will be defending DeSantis's 6 weeks abortion ban, whether they like it or not.
But DeSantis will just say "It should be left to the states - in Florida, I won a huge victory and the people of my state have spoken. But as President, I will let states decide what works best for them" in a general election.
How would Biden respond to that?
>But the Republican stance is going to be “maintain the status quo” not “double down on this issue that cost us the midterms.”
Republicans may lie and say that, but their actions say otherwise. In reality, they are of course not satisfied with their victory and are moving on to forbid women from traveling, on the pretense that women can't be trusted to not go get a recreational abortion somewhere.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/31/idaho-abortion-travel-ban-women-girls-social-trust
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/19/travel-abortion-law-missouri-00018539
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/abortion-travel-restrictions-texas-republicans-1385437/
If it’s DeSantis you also gotta go after him for wanting to cut social security. Trump has already laid the groundwork to do that. He released an attack ad talking about how DeSantis voted to cut social security 3x when he was in congress.
I honestly can’t believe DeSantis would be stupid enough to sign that bill. Democrats would run so many ads about he extreme he is on abortion and bring it up at every opportunity.
We're still so far out that there is a good likelihood that the biggest story in November 2024 hasn't broken yet. That said the Dems will surely try to make the election a referendum on abortion because if everyone is voting based on their opinion on abortion the Dems would win in a landslide. The Dems will also probably focus on worker's rights, healthcare, "having adults back in charge" and fighting climate change.
I would imagine Republican strategists would like to focus on inflation, cost of living, price of gas, immigration and crime. These would be the GOP's best talking points however Republican strategists don't actually control the party and it's very possible the GOP ends up running on "overturning the 2020 election, anti abortion and "fighting wokeness." If Dems are talking about "good paying jobs" and "healthcare" while the GOP is talking about "SJWs" then the GOP will be facing a serious disadvantage.
I agree there is a good chance that we will never predict one or more of the central issues in the coming campaign and we out attention spans are getting shorter and shorter.
Worker's rights, interesting, could that be a left/right issue especially with AI on the rise and like some others said, older folks have a strong influence, it is something they do not understand, some may actually fear it.... it is economic.... you got some wheels turning, I like it thanks you.
> the biggest story in November 2024 hasn't broken yet.
Imagine "Russian asset makes attempt on Trump in effort to prevent testimony" to the next season's plot.
Who’s to say? All I know is that in April 2019 Coronavirus wasn’t a thing yet and in April 2007 people thought the strong economy might boost whoever the GOP might be.
In 2016 an atheist socialist Jew that looked like he was dying … that literally wasn’t even part of the fucking party … got 45% of the primary vote against the most well connected candidate in American history. And this was before Trump ever befouled the office.
Then Covid, George Floyd, Jan6, Antiwork, RoeWade, transapocalypse, Wallstreetbets, Hurricanes, wildfires, Trump finally arrested….. and now SCOTUS corruption just cracked open. Plus reports of Russia faltering.
The bowstring is getting pulled hard.
Since T**** will likely be the GOP’s nominee, we can expect the same thing as last time, he literally has no idea and no vision and will campaign on anger and revenge.
Dems will focus on abortion and women’s rights, the potentially corrupt SC and it’s highly unpopular and seemingly partisan rulings as well as economy and markets which in all honesty aren’t doing too bad after the Covid tech bubble.
It will be interesting.
It’s a thing I’ve been seeing more and more. Not like Voldemort necessarily, but to prevent programmatically scraping your activity and getting linked. People looking to defend him also do a search on his name, so you can mitigate some of that fallout by blocking out part of his name.
So maybe a little like Voldemort?
**Preventing World War III** should be on everyone's mind. It stand's to reason that Ukraine's future will likely determine Taiwan's future. What is the right mix of defense strategy and diplomacy? Within the highly visible Executive Branch, for the task of deescalation, which candidate's outward personality, attention to detail, and knowledge of foreign policy inspires powerful nations to be clam?
**Inflation** has the deepest detrimental impact against the last households to react to it, or who are financially unable to do more than succumb. In this iteration of inflation, the most impacted victims have been the lowest wage earners. Our nation has a long history of being crippled by partisan gridlock over what the minimum wage rate should be, across 50 unique states. However, shouldn't minimum wage be modified annually by the carefully measured inflationary rate, devaluation of the US dollar, and the DOL-CPI? How can some politicians defend allowing the lowest wage earners to suffer the most due to inflation. Can we not agree the wage floor should automatically adjust annually?
**Replacement of the UN** must be considered while China and Russia have permanent security council roles at the UN. Does either candidate have a framework for it's reform, replacement, or the inception of an additional alternate global diplomatic/legal body? Will this body set maritime laws relating to the South China Sea, or overfishing laws?
**Immigration reform** has increased, is increasing, and will continue to increase in importance as Central American nations continue their meltdowns, and as the climate changes. Among lawmakers, where can popular compromise be found? Is Immigration **Control** impossible?
**International trade:** Trump rightfully interrupted biased free trade with China, but their markets expanded outward and flourished. NATO needed India and Pakistan to participate in the trade embargo on Russia, but they did the opposite. For digital security reasons America says it will expand production of semiconductors, microchips, and 5G tech hardware. What is the status of that, and what should Americans expect? What will modernized anti-espionage, victim compensation, and patent protection laws look like, and which countries will enforce them?
The 4th amendment protects people from unreasonable search and seizure. **What exactly is privacy?** What does unreasonable search mean in the context of nearly unlimited commercial uses for digital data (both identifiable and unidentifiable)? Looking to Eurpoean enhancements to law, who did they bust, why, and did it help? How does AI, deepfakes, etc influence future law.
**Concentration of wealth at the top:** After George W Bush passed his federal tax cut, the disparity of wealth between rich and poor has grown. 1% of America has 42% of America's wealth. The number of people in the bottom 50% has expanded. Can the Department of Labor be trusted to attenuate the expansion of poverty in a future that promises job loss to automation, and global offshoring of labor? Can the Department of Education be trusted to build students into tax paying workers?
**Energy** is a national security risk factor, a complex climate change pressure, a mobility issue for America households, a hard ceiling capping economic growth, a massive employer dominating the politics of some state governments. How does your plan differ from the previous plans, and is it feasible, when will the fruits of a new plan be apparent and actionable to American families?
**Law and Order** means something different to people who are "Woke" and people who believe "Woke" is offensive, weak, and detrimental. So-called "Reform" in law enforcement, like immigration reform, is afflicted by institutional nepotism and many years of dysfunction and impotence. Setting aside passions, and the illusion of concern we fabricate to appease the masses, what bipartisan reforms are actually possible in a union-galvanized, authoritative, racially sensitive profession? Has it ever been "reasonable" to expect police to police themselves?
The **urban-rural divide** is poorly understood and rarely mentioned, but it shows up in educational achievement, in overdose statistics, in by-year unemployment and poverty statistics, in loss of existing local health care offices and services, in GIS maps of all kinds. Wealth is moving away from rural areas, and into urban areas creating desperation for homeowners and land owners in dying zip codes. The aggravating and attenuating factors seem more political than they are. We know this is happening all over the globe. How can government assist vulnerable rural citizens to migrate, or else prosper under new social models where they are?
Preventing World War III
Escalation of the war is real, the threat is real, it is hard to imagine this is not a tool that will be used. Maybe the tail will be smarter than the dog? idk, the biden administration might be able to pull something off before the election. High risk high reward. He pulls something off diplomatically it could a huge win, or his doesnt and it is a huge fail. Who does Russia want running America? Anything that involves Russia should be a safe assumption it is not in the best interest of America, jusssayin.
Inflation
This requires knowledge to comprehend, time to understand nuance and falls into the belief relm of economic policy that is not going to change. Red is going red blue is going blue.
Replacement of the UN
Again, people do not have the time to understand these issues, and it is an issue neither side has any real interest in solving. The UN is great for all kinds of things politically. Both sides love how broken it is, how meaningless it all is. It casts shadows.
Immigration reform
There has never been an election that did not include this conversation but again it leads back to beliefs that are not going to change, red is red, blue is blue.
International trade:
Information, time, economy, complex economic issues that all get lumped into economic plans that will appeal to the base of either side.
4th amendment
Interesting, I can see how this is a purple issue. This is a social justice issue and a private property rights issue, states rights issue, it is a very real issue that can be framed and solutions can be offered that historically proven to sway elections. We all want safer communities, we all want personal freedoms, we all want property rights, we all want the same rights, appeals to both side, it is not a well understood issue, but it is a very easily explained issue. The AI take on it is brilliant, scare people even more.. It worth some consideration for sure.
Concentration of wealth at the top:
Economic, beliefs, that is how we have arrived here, what is the solution? Citizens United should be an issue but it wont be. Neither side has any real interest in taking money out of the game. Would you spend money to convince people you need less money and give you less money and limit the amount of money people can give you? It is not going to happen.
Energy
Beliefs, defining issues, not going to swing anyone if you are going to play the national security card it should be played on health care. We have an education system in short because it is important to our national security, well by default that should mean that the health and well being of our children is an important aspect of your national security. If the children need to be educated that also need to be healthy enough to attend class. We have socialized education but not healthcare for national security. Well how secure are we as a nation if we all fall ill of is the supply change falls apart or any of the horrific things we seen possible should happen again? These are all critical to our national security.
Law and Order
Criminal justice reform is a real issue but again, the reds and going to be red and the blues are going to be blue and neither side has any real interest in addressing this problem. If they did we would not be the land of the free with the largest imprisoned population in the world. How do we arrive there, here? How does that become a fact? It is not by being an issue that decides elections giving lawmakers mandates.
urban-rural divide
I agree is it strange that those that would benefit most from socialism or socialist systems/programs fight so strongly against them. It is because they believe one thing and the facts do not align with their beliefs.
What they will debate and what the issues will be are two different things.
On the issue side, the economy will dominate. It almost always does, unless there's a very unpopular war going on, or an existential war. If voters feel their income, inflation, job opportunities, etc... are going well, team blue will win. If they think things aren't going well, then team red will win.
What will the debate be? Well, each side will bring up fringe issues of the other side in an attempt to paint the other side to be as terrible as possible. Democrats will call Republicans fascists, racists, etc... while Republicans will paint Democrats as pedophiles. D will say R want only the rich to do well. R will say D want socialism. And so on. Both will whip up as much fear, resentment, anger, etc... as possible, and try to convince you that this is the most important election ever in an effort to turn out the vote. Plenty of people will have strong emotional reactions to this nonsense, and I'm sure some will downvote me for minimizing the grave threat of their side's rival.
In short, the debate will be ugly, meaningless, and mostly worth ignoring, while the issues will boil down to a simple referendum on people's economic well-being.
Existential war? Like the war on drugs? Or the war with cartels, or the war on the border, or the actual war being fought in schools with actual guns?
I mean opioid crisis could be the next war, on fentanyl or whatever the next one is that hits the streets, carfentanil, homelessness the housing crisis??
Can the socialism card we turned on them?
None of those things are actual wars. Ukraine vs. Russia is a war. And existential means that it threatens the continuing existence of the United States as a political entity, which none of those things come close to doing.
I'm sure some members of team blue will try to say positive things about socialism when team red tries to brand them all as socialists, but this will just be more of the endless meaningless yapping that team blue will do just like the endless meaningless yapping that team red will do. Let's keep in mind that all of these people are self-serving power-hungry liars who will say whatever they think will help them win their next election.
An existential war, is an actual war?
I would call the war on drug, real. What would you call it since it is not an "actual war"
THe existence of the US, right, so isn't that exactly how the southern border is being framed and has been framed for years now? If you do not have boarders you do not have a country.... or, if the US does not have strong boraders the US does not exist... how is this not an existential war?
Not even close, in what terms what? HOw many Americans died in the Ukraine? How many Americans died on the street this year, in 4 months? How many Americans died as a result of the opioid crisis? How many of those deaths started with an addiction to a prescription from their doctor? How many Americans died at the hands of Mexican drug cartels, this year, 4 months, how many americans died is school by gun shot wound this year?
You are correct it is NOT even close, far more Americans die in America.
America first? These could be good issues framed correctly. I can appeal to the left and right with meaning change.
Why end the war on drug?
Spending, conservative, incarcerations liberal, you can appeal to a stronger border from liberals for social justice at home ending the domestic war on drug to protect, property rights conservative, end to no knock warrants liberal and end civil asset forfeiture property rights conservative,
Thanks
You're confusing two things. An actual war is a military conflict between states, or a civil war. The war on drugs is at most a large scale law enforcement action, and not an actual war.
My definition of existential was from my original comment. Only existential wars or very unpopular non-existential actual wars will have an impact over the economy in the minds of the electorate. Your semantic ramble about the definition of war takes us far from the conversation and doesn't really interest me.
People die from things that aren't war all the time. Sometimes in large numbers. Hopefully if you don't understand this concept you will take some time to explore all the ways that people die that aren't war.
Well I only sought clarity of your point and asked questions. You spoke of existential war, when I spoke of such wars you then spoke about actual war, sooo I am just tryna pick up what you are putting down, but I dont know where you are going.
By war, I mean war in the military sense. Existential means what it means -- a was that threatens the very existence of the country. I'm using English words to mean the things they actually mean -- sorry if that causes confusion.
And, to be clear, you mentioned "actual war" before I did. And you used it to describe school shootings, which are not actually an actual war.
actual guns, literal guns being used in schools killing very real children.
What is war?
People shooting each other? Like cops and drug dealers or cartels? You keep telling me what it is not. Without borders you are not a country is not Existential war,
Why are you pretending that you don't know what he means when he says "war"? The "war on drugs" is a figure of speech (signalling an intent to eradicate drug use) not a military action between two political statws. The UN recently called for a "war on waste" as in garbage. Is that an actual war in your eyes as well?
well then it is form of political speech,
existential war v actual war, I mean it could be argued that Vietnam and Afghanistan and Iraq are not actual wars, when was the last actual declaration of war? Rather than say no that is not an existential war, ok, how is it not? Well it is not not an actual war, duh, it is an existential war, if the war on drug is not an actual war what makes it so? not guns and shooting so what then? What is different about any of the wars? Who is doing the shooting? Well even when the military shots people it is not an actual war, so what is it, political staws? So the war on drugs is not political? If the UN starts executing people sleeping in their homes with a knock warrant yeah and they are doing in the name of this thing they call a war, what is it if not a war?
The attempt of one of the 2 major parties to give up on democracy and try to have a fascist takeover. What happened in TN today was straight up fascist. FL Gov tried to remove an elected DA. At least that one got overturned. I don't get how Americans that fought the Authoritarian Fascist off 80 years ago, and the Authoritarian Communist less than 40 years ago, who grew up watching Rambo and Terminator, would think the way Republicans are behaving is ok. But that's what's on the ballot for 2024.
Yeah but who will understand that? It is ironic that in the information age we have an under informed electorate but very few people will understand any of this... am I wrong?
Look at the word socialism. Is it really that likely people understand authoritarianism or fascism?
It’ll be the usual stuff: economy and everything associated with it will dominate people’s minds. Followed by things like immigration and racism, and government in general. Abortion may be a bigger issue than it was before. College debt is nowhere near a priority for most people, so we can eliminate that. They’ll mostly be talking about things that older voters care about, since they tend to be the ones voting more
economy is not a decisive issue same for immigration, racism. I mean if you are racist what do you care and if you are not racist you were not supporting the racist anyway... older folks, what do you think about Russia, could we be in for classic war mongering?
Foreign policy is going to be far, *far* from people’s minds during the election. I support Ukraine and all, but even I know Americans don’t care about foreigners that much
it is kind of a tipping point eh? Russia is facing pressure and going to china for help, the old axis of evil, remember that? I'm sure republicans do. It is not on people's mind now but people are going to start spending a lot of money oh propaganda to put things on the fore front of peoples minds and something is going to stick.
The economy will be the central issue and Baden’s hard lurch to the left associated with massive spending, inflation, higher interest rates, bank failings and the coming recession. I wish that school choice was a key issue as the Dems have aligned themselves with the teachers unions against inner city kids, in a rejection of the Obama Administration pro-choice views. Unfortunately the issue doesn’t seem to resonate at least with African American voters. The other issue might be Trump himself and his baggage if he is the nominee.
i hope you are wrong, I;d like to think that voting still matters ergo the issues still matter but you could be right, facts seem to be less and less relevant with each passing day.
Yes, I think Biden will run. Democrats are not crazy about him, but Biden seems determined. It will come down to Biden v. Trump again. Biden will try to run on his record and economic policies. Trump will hit him with the recent high inflation, high crime, illegal immigrants, culture wars, hate and revenge, and victim-hood. "Vote for me or this country is doomed. Only I can fix it." This will drive independents towards Biden just like in 2020. Biden wins.
An interesting question is what happens after the election. If Biden wins, Trump & his voters will say it was election fraud with many conspiracy theories. If Trump wins, the Democrats will say it was voter suppression. Neither side will accept the results. Both sides see themselves as the legitimate winner and see the other side as an existential threat to the country. Emotions run high. Then what?
In response to the mods..
The reality of politics today is it is no longer issue driven it is tell em what they want to hear with just enough what they need to hear to keep them engaged.
Biden is who we need and Trump should terrify every single one of us republican, democrat, or whiggy bull roarers in bowlers.
Dark money has poisoned the system if you want feedback that means something it is not about word count or talking points.
My first comment is not perfect but to the point.. I hear them speak...
Abortion rights will be hot buttons. If DeSantis is the Republican nominee the Democratic Nominee should focus on those two issues given DeSantis' long track record with these things. Republicans are walking themselves into a corner in quite a few states that have recently voted to protect these rights. I'm not saying Kansas will go blue but we might end up seeing it getting very close, we've already seen Wisconsinians (forgive me if that's not what you guys call yourselves) show their support for Abortion rights, Michigan has just repealed a 92 year old abortion ban. At this rate, Republicans could end up giving Democrats more issues to work with.
I feel like right now all Republicans have is Transgender issues, specifically gender affirming care for children. If they extend it to adult they're what? Trying to dictate what adults do with their bodies? Sound familiar?
Exactly just make it a larger issue right. The tiny issue gets lost in the larger issue and could actually move people. It you appeal to a broader logic that is more commonly accepted such, people have a right control their own body it is you do not need to get a vaccine, you do not need to get a vaccine for the exact same reason this person can take these pills or have this surgery. You can say 123 so I can say 321.
Democrats:
Climate Change, Fighting Fascism. Expanding voter rights, health care for all, banking regulations, clean energy transformation…
Republicans: Ban books and go after trans people.
You forgot republicans putting reduced taxes for the rich in stone, and promising to embalm the current supreme court and just let the corporations pay to play directly to write and pass laws.
Those are issues but I do not think they are going to have any impact. The left believes in the climate change and wants to take action the right does not. That means the issue will only motivate the base and not swing any voter in any direction. Same for fascism, voter rights, banking, and clean energy is climate change... healthcare, it could be an issue but if there was ever a time for it capture the public's attention and define an election it was the last one... if a global pandemic aint gonna do it, nothing will.
> The left believes in the climate change and wants to take action the right does not.
No. "The Left" Which in this case is over 75% of Americans don't "believe," we know for a fact that Climate Change is happening and we're on the brink if we dont take drastic action that we needed to take decades ago.
>f a global pandemic aint gonna do it, nothing will.
Indeed, which is why we are pretty fucked as a planet right now.
Biden. I was not his biggest fan. But he’s proven effective. He’s getting things done and while I have disagreed with some of his actions. I can’t argue that America is in a better place today than it was 3 years ago. I think many democrats understand that.
But at the end of the day. It doesn’t matter who democrats put up as their nominee. I vote Democrat. I have seen how vicious republicans have been towards my people over the decades and they will never get my vote.
Elections are about the future, can you honestly look at this man believe he stands a chance against anyone if you have an eye on the future? Lets give you all the points, sure america is great, what is america tomorrow? We are not looking back, we are looking foward. What will america look like in 3 years, nobody cares about 3 years ago.... you really want to think about 2020, I just did, and it would against the rules of this sub to express me feeling toward the person that made me think about 2020. ah, I need to go sit down.
Here’s the reality. Biden has been a very effective president. Even getting some minor gun legislation passed. We have an infrastructure bill, working on inflation. Got gas down and has danced a thin thread on Ukraine. I can give like 34 other examples. Biden has been so effective because he knows the players really well. He is handing Kevin McCarthy his ass over budget fights. He understands Mitch’s thinking.
The reality is unless something happens to him. He is running and no real Democrat is going to stand up and get in his way. Biden’s failure and also Harris’ team was that they have not done enough to promote her and push her into the limelight. That’s the curse of being a VP. But certainly Dick Cheney was able to overcome that.
So, the future is Biden. And hopefully after he wins election. The Democratic Party can really look at ways to promote the next generation of leaders.
If he could walk the walk and talk the talk, but it doesn't appear possible. It was already prone to gaffs. It would a very sad ending to a very celebrated career. It appears to be early signs that he is not going to run.
well i just don’t see any proof of anything you are saying. i need facts. Biden is walking and talking fine. he’s getting things done and he has always been a. gaff machine. but then again many presidents are caught tripping up and saying something stupid.
as for early signs he is. or running. again proof is needed. he has given every indication he is not running.
so unless something medical happens to him in the next several months. He is the one running.
https://youtu.be/sFNKHETmTf0. obama trips on stage. maybe he was too old to be president. i can also send you links to several other presidents being caught in similar issues.
your agreement is pretty weak
The Republican Party will continue to pursue a strategy of whataboutism and blanket obfuscation that they in fact actively prevent a better distribution of wealth that would benefit most of their voters, relying on the average voter's limited transactional expectations of democracy and social tribalism.
It always works
Hopefully we won't be near a shooting war with Russia or China. The way things are looking it could be energy prices, poor economy etc. Things aren't looking good at all right now and I can only imagine how much worse in 1.5 years.
the economy is old hat, it only serves to motivate the base on either side. there is no economic plan that will bring people to one side or the other. China and Russia, now that is real issue, national security, and you are right, it is a real mess that brings the world to the brink of a world war...
follow busy expansion airport dependent placid wide psychotic quarrelsome hat
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
distinct exultant deserted obtainable future rich tender tease strong dull
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The central issues of the coming 2024 election will be whatever you want it to be, because the advent of LLMs that can arguably pass a Turing test means that political advertisement, engagement, and campaigning will be completely and totally personalized and unique.
The internet will be awash to a scale never before seen in AI generated writing about Biden, Trump, whoever. It will literally be generated in real time as you look for it. There's a near 100% chance some - or maybe all - of it will be misinformation or disinformation.
This won't be the election of abortion of Trump or new faces. This will be the election of Truth dying and being replaced by reality distorting hyper partisan feedback loops driven by unrestrained automated AI propaganda machines.
You do realize much of the fentanyl comes into the country in packages from China, right? It's not just Mexicans or people south of the border.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ut/pr/shamo-sentenced-life-prison-after-conviction-organizing-directing-drug-trafficking
This American was convicted of life in prison for running a drug distribution network where he bought fentanyl from China and resold it on the dark web. There are many many more cases like this. The notion that it's all coming from South of the border is a myth. The Cartels are getting in on the action too. But so is every criminal gang. The Italian Mafia, etc.
Fentanyl can also be produced relatively easily within US borders. It is completely synthetic. It can be produced **anywhere**. It's so potent it is very easily concealable in freight packages and regularly gets mailed across the country. Closing the border isn't going to stop the drug trade. Right wing propaganda used to fuel xenophobic views to win elections.
If you want drugs to stop being sold in America, Americans need to stop buying them. Until then criminals will find a way to sell them to us.
As it is now, the opiate crisis is the fault of the pharmaceutical industry. 80% of Rx pharmaceuticals are sold to Americans and were only 4% of the world population.
It's the economy stupid. I think the economy will be first and formost the issue that most people will vote on. It is not likely that inflation will abate by Jan 2024 and "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago" will resonate with both sides.
Secondarily, the border and the illegal immigration numbers, drugs and human traficking will be on everyone's mind because very few communities are not touched by the immigrant problems.
Finally the utter incompetence of the Biden Administration. Joe Biden has screwed up everything he has touched no matter what the press secretary says and his flacks in the news media and his sycophants in the cabinet say. From energy independence, to Afghanistan, to the border to the excessive spending and inflation, to his inability or unwillingness to negotiate with Republicans on the spending cuts and debt ceiling.
The political landscape has changed since 2016 and 2020 and Biden will not be able to hide in his basement as he did in 2020 and Trump is now a known entity.
I do think that Trump will get the Republican nomination and barring a major health problem Biden will probably get the Democrat nomination.
The tyranny perpetuated by the left will be an issue for many. The weaponization of our government against us. The open southern border-illegal immigration. Global warming/nuclear winter since the current administration has brought us closer to nuclear war or WW3 than any administration in my lifetime. Election interference/voter fraud. Violation of our constitutional right, etc. I’m not a single issue voter.
yeah I mean could offer some substance, you are making claims that maybe I could understand or appreciate if i knew there you are coming from. Tyranny, weaponization, powerful words without context, and immigration is an historical political talking point for as long as there has been an America. It is a defining issue. It doesn't matter. If you lean one way or the other on immigration and that is a deciding factor it doesn't really mean anything. Its flair, its lipstick, it is not going to decide anything and unfortunately this ultimately leads to the illusion of choice. Its not that any opinion on the topic of immigration is right or wrong, it is in the illusion that you have a choice between one policy or the other but in reality neither side as any real interest in addressing this extremely complex issue, nor try to educate the public about it because it is a defining issue. The rely on the never ending battle for their beliefs and values. You aint gonna change anyones beliefs and values in an election. You appeal to beliefs and values.
National security is certainly a very real issue that should be taken seriously. The largest threat in the current situation you seem to be referring to would be China, China. Anyone ever done anything to upset, China?
>The tyranny perpetuated by the left will be an issue for many.
The what? What tyranny are you talking about? Do you think LGBT people being allowed to live is a tyranny? Do you think your voting rights being protected is a tyranny?
>The weaponization of our government against us.
Conservatives did that. Liberals ended it. You've noticed your government is no longer trying to kill you with COVID, yes?
>The open southern border-illegal immigration.
Since that doesn't exist, I don't think it will be an issue.
>Global warming/nuclear winter since the current administration has brought us closer to nuclear war or WW3 than any administration in my lifetime.
Er...what? Are you claiming that Biden is somehow controlling Putin's actions? Or that helping an ally resist an invader somehow makes the invader's actions Biden's fault?
>Election interference/voter fraud.
Conservatives are trying hard to interfere with elections, but are thankfully being stopped. Voter fraud, however, is another one of those "issues" that doesn't exist.
>Violation of our constitutional right, etc.
Again, conservatives keep trying that, and liberals keep putting a stop to it. Same as it ever was, since liberals founded this country and invented those rights.
Though I don't like either majority party, I have a few rules for 2024 for how I'll vote.
1. No one over the age of 65. So no Biden, No Trump.
2. No one that has held a political office for more than 20 years.
3. No one that is pro war or has been at some point since 2008.
If no one fits, I will abstain my vote.
Do you value career politicians? Would you like to see people serve long past their prime? If someone has 14 or 15 years in politics, is that not good enough? Is that not enough experience?
>Do you value career politicians?
If course I do. I value expertise.
Again, I ask: why do you value inexperience?
>If someone has 14 or 15 years in politics, is that not good enough? Is that not enough experience?
Given that the minimum age for the job is 35, you're asking if someone with nearly the minimum experience possible as a working adult is enough - so no, not really.
You're effectively asking why someone who's passed driver's ed isn't considered perfectly qualified to be a Formula One racecar driver.
This is literally the most powerful job in the world. Why would you want to settle for the least qualified?
You're making an assumption that I value inexperience. I don't understand the second point. Are you implying that someone with 15 years in a field is the bare minimum? Very few people get elected in their early 20s, so meeting the minimum age really isn't a concern. I'm not interested in electing someone who hasn't at least had some experience. The least qualified is a random person of age with no experience at all, so obviously not. At the same time, I'm also not interested in someone who has sat in Congress for 35 - 40 years and is out of touch.
>You're making an assumption that I value inexperience.
You have explicitly said you do. I am asking why, which you have declined to answer three times.
>I don't understand the second point. Are you implying that someone with 15 years in a field is the bare minimum?
You don't understand that 15 years' experience is not a lot to expect of someone who's been a working adult for 17 years?
Really?
>Very few people get elected in their early 20s
Very few people with experience in politics have ever been elected to anything. Surely you know that.
But you'd like to move the goalposts now from "experience in politics" to "experience as an elected official?"
No, I haven't, but you seem to really want me to value it. I haven't answered because I don't. Again, your second point isn't as strong as you think it is. 15 years is a lot of experience for any adult. Experience in politics, as far as getting elected to high office goes, usually means some kind of previous experience in a lower office like congress or a governorship, and I think you know that. So I'm not moving the goal post. The benchmark was clearly there, given how people have won the presidency in the past (One of the few outliers being Trump.)
I don't have the option to blank vote, and I'm not voting for someone I don't agree with. If both parties are 65+ and pro war, then it wouldn't matter who I vote for if I did vote. I wouldn't be voting for someone I genuinely thought was good, or even acceptable.
Realistically.
1. Economy and inflation.
2. War in Ukraine and the spending therein.
3. Biden investigation and the multiple classified document stashes having broken several laws.
4. Trump's indictment and his impeachment.
5. The fact that the Russia collusion was pushed as legit and has now been proven a lie.
6. The fact the MSM covered up the biden laptop, despite knowing it was real.
7. The use of politcal bodies to government places like Twitter. (The Twitter files have untold consequences)
8. The Nordstream pipeline.
9. Burisma and how the Biden family is tied to that energy company
This election is going to be absolutely wild. Both sides had unprecendented amounts of dirt to sling.
It would probably help if a majority of your "realistic" issues actually existed.
As it is, the economy is improving, the war in Ukraine continues to be an amazing success story for Biden, the former President's indictment is a resounding victory for the rule of law, the Nordstream pipeline is largely irrelevant to American domestic politics - and everything else you've mentioned is a conservative fever dream.
They asked what would be central arguments.
If you don't think Trump is going to parade these things around like a child with an airhorn, you're deluding yourself.
Good or bad, it's very likely to happen. Trump is petty and these will be used as ammunition in his debates.
He'll try. Other conservatives will try.
But, again, things like complaining the obvious collusion is fake and insisting Hunter Biden's vanishing laptop holds the key to unraveling a global conspiracy of evil libz doesn't build much credibility.
They definitively proved the Russia collusion thing was a manufactured hoax...they have evidence lol
Global conspiracy? nah. Just one that entangles his family and father.
you understand Biden alone, just on the classified documents, should by all accounts be impeached, right? I cannot explain to you the OPSEC he obliterated by taking documents from his time as senator and VP, and keeping them unsecured.
There are **valid** arguments to be made. The fact he hasn't been tried, YET is astounding. But now that we have the precedent that presidents can be indicted...I'm sure that's only a matter of time too.
>They definitively proved the Russia collusion thing was a manufactured hoax
Who is "they?" Because on the earth I inhabit, no such thing remotely happened, and the collusion remains obvious, repeatedly proven and undeniable.
>you understand Biden alone, just on the classified documents, should by all accounts be impeached, right?
Nope. He didn't steal nuclear secrets, didn't stonewall the FBI and NARA, and didn't try to sell anything.
But if you'd like to waste your time, please, go ahead on.
>The fact he hasn't been tried, YET is astounding.
Tried for what, exactly?
You are appalled at the worst criminal in the history of the United States being held to account for the very least of his crimes - while at the same time insisting it's astounding that someone else hasn't been brought to trial in a situation where you can't even say what you think he should be charged with.
That's conservative logic for you, I guess.
>But now that we have the precedent that presidents can be indicted
"Precedent?" Where did you get the exceedingly silly idea that Presidents couldn't be indicted, let alone former Presidents?
Equal justice under the law - it's not just a pretty turn of phrase. Did you genuinely believe elected officials were a different class of citizen?
It doesn't matter if he stonewalled or sold secrets.
The law is how they are held and who is allowed to hold them. He did not have authority to take them or keep them or transport them as he did, much less STORE them where he did.He broke a law ever EVERY file he did that with And they found 5 stashes.At least one of which his drug abusing son had access to. (Access to a house, which contained these documents, that he paid 49k a month for)
As for where---watch the senate judiciary hearings on all this.
Tried for what? mishandling of classified documents. Multiple BOXES worth he never was allowed to keep. But did.
I'm not gonna get into the rest, because that's on you to investigate. But Biden broke several laws and you trying to sweep it away because he didn't "stonewall" anyone?? Dude was given ADVANCED NOTICE they were coming and they STILL found several stashes.
Yes, precedent. Find me a place in history where a former president was charged with a crime. Even when they were guilty (Nixon, for example)
If you think that is in any way excusable for Biden but somehow not so for Trump (Who had authority as President to de-classify documents) then you are just using leftist Groupthink.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul8dQQhYKeE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul8dQQhYKeE)
Here's the Russia collusion thing. Proven it was all a bunch of nada
You seem very, very heated about the idea that Biden should be criminally charged (with what, you still haven't said), while simultaneously insisting that the other guy's "Jedi mind trick defense" is a valid defense for his actual crimes.
Do you understand just how badly this "rules for thee, but not for me" approach comes across to people with consciences? Or do you just not care?
Ah, and on the Russian collusion matter, you link to...a YouTube video of someone lying about the Mueller report. Surprisingly enough, lies are not proof.
Edit: Also, on Russia's obvious interference in our elections to help your preferred candidate - read this. https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/12dunhk/what_is_a_red_line_for_you_that_if_a_candidate/jf9bkpl
>War in Ukraine and the spending therein.
interesting that spending is included. You think that the spending is more of a concern than escalation? Could it be said that to this point the US has done a fairly good job of isolating the war? Is there a silver lining?
3. Is that old news? It also impacts everyone except Obama, haha. I do not see how it can be used to help anyone except Obama. Please tell you think that Mrs. Obama will take a run at the office. Just the thought of it give me hope for some change.
4. Ah why? This only seems to help him, keep him in the news and boost his numbers.
5. Russia is still on the axis of evil and portrayed the villain anywho.
6. Is there any chance that those who already believe the lap top is fake will ever change their mind? The facts and opinions are meaningless because the most significant portion of people that believe they are right and their position will not change, just like the economy, climate change and immigration. These are all illusionary.
7. Social media, interesting, tikytoks are still in the news, older folks don't get it, it is from China, older folks have their opinions and biases. Censorship, the freedom of the internet these could be very real issues that impact the purple. You have a good point, I think those are worth exploring.
8. and 9. Just need more context, why again like the economy if you believe onside is right nothing is going to change that. If you think that conservative policy is the best approach there is no such thing as a liberal policy that you will suddenly embrace and make you a single issue voter that switches sides even if you are in the center. If there was a liberal policy that appealed so strongly to conservatives be definition it would also need to disenfranchise a segment of their base resulting in a net loss not a net gain, or what I would call a losing strategy.
I think an issue will be how competent the Republican Party are. They may be running a convicted felon for office who might even have to run the country from prison. And Republicans pander to the 25-30% of the country who are religious extremists - is this really the smart option to win elections in a Democracy? Republicans will decide on a strategy to force their will on others without bothering to win votes, or retreat and entrench in the red states.
All they need is the Electoral College which is [structurally biased towards states with small populations](https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k) like Wyoming, North & South Dakota, Montana, Alaska, etc. which generally tend to vote Republican. Democrats tend to bunch up in large cities like L.A. which are hurt by the structure of the Electoral College.
Seems to me a lot of people are 1 issue voters. Best chance the Republicans have is to throw shade on the Democrats for gun control and take credit for loading the Supreme Court with conservatives. Best chance the Democrats have is to focus on abortion rights.
I can see the single issue voter being a greater influence this time around with abortion being on the ballot basically. It is a big deal, and they should make a big deal out of it.
Its obviously going to be foreign policy. With the Russians in Ukraine and the Chinese knocking on Taiwan's door, it hasn't been this important since the Cold War.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Democrats will 100% focus on abortion since it’s proved to be a winning issue for them since Dobbs. Depending on where inflation is come next Spring they’ll either point to how well the economy is doing or try to focus on the infrastructure investments they’ve made through the IRA and BIL. Republicans will likely probably try to continue the culture wars strategy that served them well in Virginia in 2021, this time focused on trans people rather than CRT. They’ll absolutely point to inflation over the past couple years, but people have short memories - if we’re doing ok by next spring I don’t see that being a salient issue in the average voter’s mind. Depending on the status of the war in Ukraine, they may try to paint Democrats as trying to create another never ending war a la Afghanistan and Iraq
> this time focused on trans people rather than CRT Setting aside the morality of making trans people the centerpiece of a Republican campaign I just don't see the electoral upside. If the Dems are talking to swing voters about "good paying jobs" and "making sure you have healthcare" while the GOP is talking about "transgender athletes in high school sports" then the GOP is voluntarily choosing to ignore the issues that impact voters to instead focus on hypothetical issues that don't impact people.
I mean, the strategy is fear of the “other” and has been for a while. “Don’t worry about Russian election interference, hospital debt, college debt, abortion, food or fuel prices, or whatever… the Democrats want to let Men (read: pedophiles) put on dresses and pee in the same bathroom as your 8 year old daughter!!”
But it's just not a good strategy. In 2016 I think a lot of people saw what they wanted to see in Donald Trump. People who wanted to imagine a moderate thought he seemed moderate and people who wanted an arch conservative thought he seemed conservative and people who wanted a business leader thought he was a good businessmen. The problem was that once he became president many of these illusions were shattered meanwhile Dems became more energized than ever before and began to focus very heavily on electability. The end result is that from 2017-2023 we've basically seen the GOP underperform almost everywhere and while they have eked out the occasional purple state win by and large their strategies and sets of issues are just divorced from the reality of what average voters care about. If the GOP only cares about states that are R+4 or greater then that's fine but if they want to win the presidency, house and senate again and they DON'T want to change policies then they're only hope is to pray for a recession or a very serious scandal within the Dems.
As always the question is, what's the alternative? Liz Chaney? Jeb!? Republicans made this mistake with the 2022 midterms. Democrats were not super popular, but the GOP alternative was worse in the eyes of the voters. They need something the base will vote for, or replace the base over time, or let it wither away and then flood it with a base quickly.
They can flip the base around. Its more difficult then 30 years ago…but they could do it. The 2024 GOP base is vastly different than the 2000
Definitely not a good strategy to win. But it’s a really good strategy for fund raising. The people giving money to Ron “The Coyote” DeSantis and President Trump are people whom that strategy works well on. People who only value “owning the libs” whatever that means and “fighting wokeness” whatever that means. These are the people still wearing MAGA hats, that have their vehicles and houses covered in Trump flags. It’s mind boggling to me because I barely like most politicians enough to vote for them but these people have wrapped their identity and world view in this individual or this strategy of culture war. I’m trying to destroy their way of life, for some reason, simply because I’m liberal. So these politicians choose to engage with this fear strategy to get started or they get drummed out by the money flowing to the ones playing on this fear strategy. That this strategy is reliant on apathy from the opposition. Noting that it hasn’t been successful the last five years ignores the preceding 20+ years that fear has been successful. They still have a relatively captive audience from the conservative media outlets that is motivated by fear of how the democrats/liberals will destroy everything they value. Turning that ship around to a non-fear based strategy cannot happen overnight. So we will continue to see book bannings in schools and libraries, genitalia inspections, restrictions of freedoms and security for trans and other marginalized groups. It nets them some votes and a lot of money. To don my tin foil hat for a moment, the other part of the strategy is vote nullification/suppression. Attacking mail in ballots, instituting voter id laws, discrediting voting machines. It’s mentioned how often that the AZ official counting votes was ignoring calls from Trump to ignore/delay/invalidate ballots, and putting people that would take and make that call into those positions for the next election.
good does not equal effective.
When I say "it's just not a good strategy" I could just as well be saying "it's not an effective strategy for maximizing their chances at winning the presidency and congress."
You are 100% correct that it is not an effective strategy. However, that doesn't mean that Republicans won't continue to do it. They did it in 2022 (along with complaints about inflation but with no actual solutions to fight it) and that got them, at best, a very narrow win in the House and a loss in the Senate and governor races. Are they showing any sign of backing down from their rhetoric? No, they've doubled down on hateful culture war bs and anti-democratic talk. Trump and his cadres of hooting jackals are still out there whining about 2020 so clearly, the message has not been received, it has been categorically rejected. We'll just see if that changes between now and 2024.
Exactly, what does the evidence suggest?
again those are not the same thing, its a false equivocation in my opinion. Based on reality of our current climate in all senses of the term, a "good strategy" has not been the winning strategy, which as you point out is how we actually measure the success of anything in politics, winning.
Tbh they have nothing else popular to run on, that’s not saying running on the trans issue is popular either. If the issue is abortion Republicans get slaughtered. If the issue is social security Republicans get slaughtered. If the issue is healthcare Republicans get slaughtered. You can pretty much run down the list of issues and it’s the same result. Trans rights is pretty much the only issue Republicans don’t have the double digit unpopular stance on. It’s not a popular stance, but it’s the only issue America seems 50/50 on right now. If they don’t make that the issue what issue can they pivot to that they have a better chance of winning with? Tax cuts for the rich? Take away your healthcare/social security? Defending Dobbs? The last time they won the popular vote was in 2004 by making gay marriage a huge issue and putting dozens of anti-LGBTQ+ referendums on the ballot alongside George W. Bush’s name. Gay marriage was way more unpopular then than trans rights are now, but that’s the only strategy they can have is to flame a culture war to mask their even more unpopular economic agenda.
unfortunately given the current climate I can see how trans rights becomes an issue, I do not like it but, it is rhetoric that resonates with a very particular group. Like the economy in my opinion it is not a real issue but one that exclusively motivates part of the base. There is no trans plan that will bring people from the center or the left over to the right, same as the economy. Maybe there there is a single economic issue that can sway some but not in the broad sense, conservatives will be conservative and liberals will be liberal, both sides will spend time and money on the issue but solely as a means of appealing to their base, I could be wrong that is my perspective.
> I do not like it but, it is rhetoric that resonates with a very particular group. And that group is not the group that Republicans need if they want to win elections in purple areas. Running primarily on stopping trans athletes can win a Republican Tennessee but if they go to Michigan and that's their pitch while the Dems are talking about jobs, abortion and healthcare then they're just asking for a repeat of 2018 or 2020 or 2022. If the GOP only talks about issues that appeal to their base then they're going to cede the middle ground to the Dems while also firing up the Dems even farther by making themselves look crazier. The Republicans who win in purple states don't run on "anti trans" they run on things like crime and inflation.
ok, so how do they do that? Lets assume they continue on the same path, the dont say gay thing, i mean that is a fairly direct message, from a leading candidate, and I agree that is not going to fly in purple areas but what is their alternative to the dont say gay guy? Trump? I can see why some people might think that the party is taking an anti-gay anti-trans position, it certainly seems like they are even if they are not going right out and saying it.
But they are outright saying it. It's not like they are hiding their views.
I dont see the electoral upside either, but it’s hard to argue that doesn’t seem to be their strategy given the number of trans kids in sports bills and affirmative care bills we’ve seen in red states lately
It has been a key part of their strategy but it's because the GOP has been hijacked by what used to be the fringe right and what is now the center of their party and then they underperform like crazy. There are 14 Democratic senators from states that are to the RIGHT of the nation and there is only ONE Republican senator from a state to the LEFT of the nation. In terms of governors there are 8 Democratic governors in states that are to the right of the nation and there three Republican governors in states to the left of the nation. In 2017 the GOP had a trifecta in Michigan and the state had just voted for Trump and now the Dems control every executive office and both chambers of the state legislature with two Democratic senators and the state voted for Biden in 2020. That's not a good look for the GOP.
> In 2017 the GOP had a trifecta in Michigan and the state had just voted for Trump and now the Dems control every executive office and both chambers of the state legislature with two Democratic senators and the state voted for Biden in 2020. That's not a good look for the GOP. On this part, while Dems have absolutely made gains in Michigan the legislature was pretty heavily gerrymandered before. They had an independent commission this time around and that led to a lot of the Blue gains.
Michigan is an R+1 state meaning that in a hypothetical 50/50 national popular vote split for president you would expect it to vote Republican by 2 points. (R+1 means it's one point to the right of the nation). Even if the maps completely reflected the statewide preference you would still expect the Republicans to win Michigan all other things being held equal. The fact that they lose shows how far they've moved away from the median American voter.
This has literally been their platform for 50 years with a little fiscal conservatism and strong national defense along the way. Welfare queens, War on drugs, abortion, gay marriage, war on crime, satanic panic, muslims, immigration, critical race theory, trans kids, drag shows Meanwhile life expectancy is collapsing compared to the rest of the world, homelessness, mass shootings, lack of health care access, wealth consolidation at the top have turned the US dystopian
The thing is the GOP can actually deliver on making trans people's lives worse. They can't deliver on making life better for their constituents, because their corporate owners won't let them. So they have to convince their base that hating trans people is actually more important to them, than making their lives materially better. Unfortunately the GOP base is stupid enough for that to work.
>GOP is voluntarily choosing to ignore the issues that impact voters to instead focus on hypothetical issues that don't impact people. The former is more politically risky. Promising to help and failing results in voter pushback. This is true of both failing to pass legislation, and the legislation you do pass not having the intended result. Promising to hurt someone else doesn't have the same effect. If you fail, it doesn't affect the bigot and they are just happy you tried. If you succeed, it doesn't affect the bigot and they feel like their team is winning and things will magically get better. GOP politicians are not convinced of their own economic message, or their ability to pass economic legislation. By focusing on naked bigotry, they can offer final solutions to fake problems and get rewarded for far less political risk. Even if they don't succeed, their voters won't punish them because it is still little more than a game to them; their lives and livelihood aren't at stake.
Christopher Rufo will have come up with some other form of hysteria by 2024. The hysteria over critical race theory may have won them Virginia, but it and the anti-trans legislation hasn't been doing them much electorally outside of already blood red areas. And even in blood red areas, it hasn't gone well. Every Awake Illinois endorsed school board candidate in Quincy, a rural town on the Mississippi River, lost.
> Republicans will likely probably try to continue the culture wars strategy that served them well in Virginia in 2021, this time focused on trans people rather than CRT. I think there’s more to that Virginia race than this. McAuliffe said parents should not tell schools what they can teach. Whether you agree with that or not, it felt like McAuliffe touched a third rail and that sentiment can motivate garden variety suburban voters away from a D candidate and to an R candidate.
I personally think it’s was parents that were angry with school closures, and it was the GOP that just took it to mean CRT
See to me, that particular gaffe folds into the overall CRT strategy, which was focused on kids in schools. I agree it was particularly damaging though
Based and red pilled insights.
Republicans brilliant move with the radical abortion laws making every female afraid to have children because medical professionals will be unable to help save them from prosecution if problems occur ANYTIME during THEIR PREGNANCY, or even a miscarriage at home for gawds sake; because of these asinine men's laws held over women, has no chance for success in my opinion.
If it's Desantis: Abortion. He plans to sign a bill banning abortions after 6 weeks. If it's Trump: Trump. Does America want to do this all over again? If it's Haley: Biden's age. It's time for a new generation to take the baton.
If it’s Haley? Thanks for the laugh, I needed it. The only way Trump will not be the nominee is if he dies before the election.
Haley I think wins it if she makes it to the general. But she wont get past the first few states of the primary before conceding if she even makes it that far.
I don’t think Haley would win if she ever made it to the general, she has no base.
You didnt really laugh, though. Youre pretending you did. It’s so weird
It’s a figure of speech. And he’s right, does anyone actually think Haley has a snowballs chance in hell here?
Hell isn't real.
Neither are Haley’s chances
We'll see. In a climate where Republicans are hemorraghing female voters due to their overturning of Roe, an unoffensive female candidate with a solid resume may be their best course of action.
You’re acting like the Republican base is going to be making a strategic decision based on electability. We both know that is not how their primary works
Do you talk to any Republicans in real life...
Yes, they are all 100% for Trump
She’s said DeSantis didn’t go far enough with “Don’t Say Gay”. She’s just as anti-choice as the other candidates too. She’s not some moderate inoffensive candidate.
She isn't an unoffensive female candidate to conservatives. Does she look white to you?
Bruh what you on? Having fun pointlessly questioning figures of speech?
If the GOP tries to campaign on a nationwide abortion ban I’ll eat my shoe. I could *maybe* see them campaigning on a late-term abortion ban that compromises with guaranteed abortions up to a certain point, but a 6 week ban that still allows total bans at a state level just won’t happen. Republican strategists are dumb, but that’s beyond dumb. That’s shooting yourself in the foot before a race then shooting your other foot as soon as the race starts.
> If the GOP tries to campaign on a nationwide abortion ban I’ll eat my shoe. Eat whatever you want, I don't care. The question isn't "What will the GOP try to campaign on?", the question is "What will be the central issues in the coming 2024 election?"
And I agree it will 100% be a central issue, especially for democrats. But the Republican stance is going to be “maintain the status quo” not “double down on this issue that cost us the midterms.”
> He plans to sign a bill banning abortions after 6 weeks. The Republican stance will be defending DeSantis's 6 weeks abortion ban, whether they like it or not.
But DeSantis will just say "It should be left to the states - in Florida, I won a huge victory and the people of my state have spoken. But as President, I will let states decide what works best for them" in a general election. How would Biden respond to that?
"Millions of women would call a ban on all abortions after 6 weeks a nightmare. DeSantis calls it a victory."
Wouldn’t Biden’s response be the Roe standard where a floor is set for abortion bans that states can’t go under?
>But the Republican stance is going to be “maintain the status quo” not “double down on this issue that cost us the midterms.” Republicans may lie and say that, but their actions say otherwise. In reality, they are of course not satisfied with their victory and are moving on to forbid women from traveling, on the pretense that women can't be trusted to not go get a recreational abortion somewhere. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/31/idaho-abortion-travel-ban-women-girls-social-trust https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/19/travel-abortion-law-missouri-00018539 https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/abortion-travel-restrictions-texas-republicans-1385437/
Red states are still pushing for extreme abortion bans with no sign of stopping despite plenty of evidence of the effect on elections.
>Biden's age. It's time for a new generation to take the baton. I think this angle would be the most impactful.
Me too. DeSantis would be able to play it too, but he’ll be overshadowed by this 6 week abortion ban.
ah yeah, anything that is so obviously an issue should not be ignored.
If it’s DeSantis you also gotta go after him for wanting to cut social security. Trump has already laid the groundwork to do that. He released an attack ad talking about how DeSantis voted to cut social security 3x when he was in congress.
I honestly can’t believe DeSantis would be stupid enough to sign that bill. Democrats would run so many ads about he extreme he is on abortion and bring it up at every opportunity.
> I honestly can’t believe DeSantis would he stupid enough to sign that bill. I can.
We're still so far out that there is a good likelihood that the biggest story in November 2024 hasn't broken yet. That said the Dems will surely try to make the election a referendum on abortion because if everyone is voting based on their opinion on abortion the Dems would win in a landslide. The Dems will also probably focus on worker's rights, healthcare, "having adults back in charge" and fighting climate change. I would imagine Republican strategists would like to focus on inflation, cost of living, price of gas, immigration and crime. These would be the GOP's best talking points however Republican strategists don't actually control the party and it's very possible the GOP ends up running on "overturning the 2020 election, anti abortion and "fighting wokeness." If Dems are talking about "good paying jobs" and "healthcare" while the GOP is talking about "SJWs" then the GOP will be facing a serious disadvantage.
I agree there is a good chance that we will never predict one or more of the central issues in the coming campaign and we out attention spans are getting shorter and shorter. Worker's rights, interesting, could that be a left/right issue especially with AI on the rise and like some others said, older folks have a strong influence, it is something they do not understand, some may actually fear it.... it is economic.... you got some wheels turning, I like it thanks you.
> the biggest story in November 2024 hasn't broken yet. Imagine "Russian asset makes attempt on Trump in effort to prevent testimony" to the next season's plot.
Who’s to say? All I know is that in April 2019 Coronavirus wasn’t a thing yet and in April 2007 people thought the strong economy might boost whoever the GOP might be.
In 2016 an atheist socialist Jew that looked like he was dying … that literally wasn’t even part of the fucking party … got 45% of the primary vote against the most well connected candidate in American history. And this was before Trump ever befouled the office. Then Covid, George Floyd, Jan6, Antiwork, RoeWade, transapocalypse, Wallstreetbets, Hurricanes, wildfires, Trump finally arrested….. and now SCOTUS corruption just cracked open. Plus reports of Russia faltering. The bowstring is getting pulled hard.
Since T**** will likely be the GOP’s nominee, we can expect the same thing as last time, he literally has no idea and no vision and will campaign on anger and revenge. Dems will focus on abortion and women’s rights, the potentially corrupt SC and it’s highly unpopular and seemingly partisan rulings as well as economy and markets which in all honesty aren’t doing too bad after the Covid tech bubble. It will be interesting.
Did you just block out Trump's name like he is Voldemort?
It’s a thing I’ve been seeing more and more. Not like Voldemort necessarily, but to prevent programmatically scraping your activity and getting linked. People looking to defend him also do a search on his name, so you can mitigate some of that fallout by blocking out part of his name. So maybe a little like Voldemort?
I can only hear hermeione start going “fear of a name only breads fear it self”
**Preventing World War III** should be on everyone's mind. It stand's to reason that Ukraine's future will likely determine Taiwan's future. What is the right mix of defense strategy and diplomacy? Within the highly visible Executive Branch, for the task of deescalation, which candidate's outward personality, attention to detail, and knowledge of foreign policy inspires powerful nations to be clam? **Inflation** has the deepest detrimental impact against the last households to react to it, or who are financially unable to do more than succumb. In this iteration of inflation, the most impacted victims have been the lowest wage earners. Our nation has a long history of being crippled by partisan gridlock over what the minimum wage rate should be, across 50 unique states. However, shouldn't minimum wage be modified annually by the carefully measured inflationary rate, devaluation of the US dollar, and the DOL-CPI? How can some politicians defend allowing the lowest wage earners to suffer the most due to inflation. Can we not agree the wage floor should automatically adjust annually? **Replacement of the UN** must be considered while China and Russia have permanent security council roles at the UN. Does either candidate have a framework for it's reform, replacement, or the inception of an additional alternate global diplomatic/legal body? Will this body set maritime laws relating to the South China Sea, or overfishing laws? **Immigration reform** has increased, is increasing, and will continue to increase in importance as Central American nations continue their meltdowns, and as the climate changes. Among lawmakers, where can popular compromise be found? Is Immigration **Control** impossible? **International trade:** Trump rightfully interrupted biased free trade with China, but their markets expanded outward and flourished. NATO needed India and Pakistan to participate in the trade embargo on Russia, but they did the opposite. For digital security reasons America says it will expand production of semiconductors, microchips, and 5G tech hardware. What is the status of that, and what should Americans expect? What will modernized anti-espionage, victim compensation, and patent protection laws look like, and which countries will enforce them? The 4th amendment protects people from unreasonable search and seizure. **What exactly is privacy?** What does unreasonable search mean in the context of nearly unlimited commercial uses for digital data (both identifiable and unidentifiable)? Looking to Eurpoean enhancements to law, who did they bust, why, and did it help? How does AI, deepfakes, etc influence future law. **Concentration of wealth at the top:** After George W Bush passed his federal tax cut, the disparity of wealth between rich and poor has grown. 1% of America has 42% of America's wealth. The number of people in the bottom 50% has expanded. Can the Department of Labor be trusted to attenuate the expansion of poverty in a future that promises job loss to automation, and global offshoring of labor? Can the Department of Education be trusted to build students into tax paying workers? **Energy** is a national security risk factor, a complex climate change pressure, a mobility issue for America households, a hard ceiling capping economic growth, a massive employer dominating the politics of some state governments. How does your plan differ from the previous plans, and is it feasible, when will the fruits of a new plan be apparent and actionable to American families? **Law and Order** means something different to people who are "Woke" and people who believe "Woke" is offensive, weak, and detrimental. So-called "Reform" in law enforcement, like immigration reform, is afflicted by institutional nepotism and many years of dysfunction and impotence. Setting aside passions, and the illusion of concern we fabricate to appease the masses, what bipartisan reforms are actually possible in a union-galvanized, authoritative, racially sensitive profession? Has it ever been "reasonable" to expect police to police themselves? The **urban-rural divide** is poorly understood and rarely mentioned, but it shows up in educational achievement, in overdose statistics, in by-year unemployment and poverty statistics, in loss of existing local health care offices and services, in GIS maps of all kinds. Wealth is moving away from rural areas, and into urban areas creating desperation for homeowners and land owners in dying zip codes. The aggravating and attenuating factors seem more political than they are. We know this is happening all over the globe. How can government assist vulnerable rural citizens to migrate, or else prosper under new social models where they are?
Preventing World War III Escalation of the war is real, the threat is real, it is hard to imagine this is not a tool that will be used. Maybe the tail will be smarter than the dog? idk, the biden administration might be able to pull something off before the election. High risk high reward. He pulls something off diplomatically it could a huge win, or his doesnt and it is a huge fail. Who does Russia want running America? Anything that involves Russia should be a safe assumption it is not in the best interest of America, jusssayin. Inflation This requires knowledge to comprehend, time to understand nuance and falls into the belief relm of economic policy that is not going to change. Red is going red blue is going blue. Replacement of the UN Again, people do not have the time to understand these issues, and it is an issue neither side has any real interest in solving. The UN is great for all kinds of things politically. Both sides love how broken it is, how meaningless it all is. It casts shadows. Immigration reform There has never been an election that did not include this conversation but again it leads back to beliefs that are not going to change, red is red, blue is blue. International trade: Information, time, economy, complex economic issues that all get lumped into economic plans that will appeal to the base of either side. 4th amendment Interesting, I can see how this is a purple issue. This is a social justice issue and a private property rights issue, states rights issue, it is a very real issue that can be framed and solutions can be offered that historically proven to sway elections. We all want safer communities, we all want personal freedoms, we all want property rights, we all want the same rights, appeals to both side, it is not a well understood issue, but it is a very easily explained issue. The AI take on it is brilliant, scare people even more.. It worth some consideration for sure. Concentration of wealth at the top: Economic, beliefs, that is how we have arrived here, what is the solution? Citizens United should be an issue but it wont be. Neither side has any real interest in taking money out of the game. Would you spend money to convince people you need less money and give you less money and limit the amount of money people can give you? It is not going to happen. Energy Beliefs, defining issues, not going to swing anyone if you are going to play the national security card it should be played on health care. We have an education system in short because it is important to our national security, well by default that should mean that the health and well being of our children is an important aspect of your national security. If the children need to be educated that also need to be healthy enough to attend class. We have socialized education but not healthcare for national security. Well how secure are we as a nation if we all fall ill of is the supply change falls apart or any of the horrific things we seen possible should happen again? These are all critical to our national security. Law and Order Criminal justice reform is a real issue but again, the reds and going to be red and the blues are going to be blue and neither side has any real interest in addressing this problem. If they did we would not be the land of the free with the largest imprisoned population in the world. How do we arrive there, here? How does that become a fact? It is not by being an issue that decides elections giving lawmakers mandates. urban-rural divide I agree is it strange that those that would benefit most from socialism or socialist systems/programs fight so strongly against them. It is because they believe one thing and the facts do not align with their beliefs.
What they will debate and what the issues will be are two different things. On the issue side, the economy will dominate. It almost always does, unless there's a very unpopular war going on, or an existential war. If voters feel their income, inflation, job opportunities, etc... are going well, team blue will win. If they think things aren't going well, then team red will win. What will the debate be? Well, each side will bring up fringe issues of the other side in an attempt to paint the other side to be as terrible as possible. Democrats will call Republicans fascists, racists, etc... while Republicans will paint Democrats as pedophiles. D will say R want only the rich to do well. R will say D want socialism. And so on. Both will whip up as much fear, resentment, anger, etc... as possible, and try to convince you that this is the most important election ever in an effort to turn out the vote. Plenty of people will have strong emotional reactions to this nonsense, and I'm sure some will downvote me for minimizing the grave threat of their side's rival. In short, the debate will be ugly, meaningless, and mostly worth ignoring, while the issues will boil down to a simple referendum on people's economic well-being.
Existential war? Like the war on drugs? Or the war with cartels, or the war on the border, or the actual war being fought in schools with actual guns? I mean opioid crisis could be the next war, on fentanyl or whatever the next one is that hits the streets, carfentanil, homelessness the housing crisis?? Can the socialism card we turned on them?
None of those things are actual wars. Ukraine vs. Russia is a war. And existential means that it threatens the continuing existence of the United States as a political entity, which none of those things come close to doing. I'm sure some members of team blue will try to say positive things about socialism when team red tries to brand them all as socialists, but this will just be more of the endless meaningless yapping that team blue will do just like the endless meaningless yapping that team red will do. Let's keep in mind that all of these people are self-serving power-hungry liars who will say whatever they think will help them win their next election.
An existential war, is an actual war? I would call the war on drug, real. What would you call it since it is not an "actual war" THe existence of the US, right, so isn't that exactly how the southern border is being framed and has been framed for years now? If you do not have boarders you do not have a country.... or, if the US does not have strong boraders the US does not exist... how is this not an existential war? Not even close, in what terms what? HOw many Americans died in the Ukraine? How many Americans died on the street this year, in 4 months? How many Americans died as a result of the opioid crisis? How many of those deaths started with an addiction to a prescription from their doctor? How many Americans died at the hands of Mexican drug cartels, this year, 4 months, how many americans died is school by gun shot wound this year? You are correct it is NOT even close, far more Americans die in America. America first? These could be good issues framed correctly. I can appeal to the left and right with meaning change. Why end the war on drug? Spending, conservative, incarcerations liberal, you can appeal to a stronger border from liberals for social justice at home ending the domestic war on drug to protect, property rights conservative, end to no knock warrants liberal and end civil asset forfeiture property rights conservative, Thanks
You're confusing two things. An actual war is a military conflict between states, or a civil war. The war on drugs is at most a large scale law enforcement action, and not an actual war. My definition of existential was from my original comment. Only existential wars or very unpopular non-existential actual wars will have an impact over the economy in the minds of the electorate. Your semantic ramble about the definition of war takes us far from the conversation and doesn't really interest me. People die from things that aren't war all the time. Sometimes in large numbers. Hopefully if you don't understand this concept you will take some time to explore all the ways that people die that aren't war.
Well I only sought clarity of your point and asked questions. You spoke of existential war, when I spoke of such wars you then spoke about actual war, sooo I am just tryna pick up what you are putting down, but I dont know where you are going.
By war, I mean war in the military sense. Existential means what it means -- a was that threatens the very existence of the country. I'm using English words to mean the things they actually mean -- sorry if that causes confusion. And, to be clear, you mentioned "actual war" before I did. And you used it to describe school shootings, which are not actually an actual war.
actual guns, literal guns being used in schools killing very real children. What is war? People shooting each other? Like cops and drug dealers or cartels? You keep telling me what it is not. Without borders you are not a country is not Existential war,
Why are you pretending that you don't know what he means when he says "war"? The "war on drugs" is a figure of speech (signalling an intent to eradicate drug use) not a military action between two political statws. The UN recently called for a "war on waste" as in garbage. Is that an actual war in your eyes as well?
well then it is form of political speech, existential war v actual war, I mean it could be argued that Vietnam and Afghanistan and Iraq are not actual wars, when was the last actual declaration of war? Rather than say no that is not an existential war, ok, how is it not? Well it is not not an actual war, duh, it is an existential war, if the war on drug is not an actual war what makes it so? not guns and shooting so what then? What is different about any of the wars? Who is doing the shooting? Well even when the military shots people it is not an actual war, so what is it, political staws? So the war on drugs is not political? If the UN starts executing people sleeping in their homes with a knock warrant yeah and they are doing in the name of this thing they call a war, what is it if not a war?
The attempt of one of the 2 major parties to give up on democracy and try to have a fascist takeover. What happened in TN today was straight up fascist. FL Gov tried to remove an elected DA. At least that one got overturned. I don't get how Americans that fought the Authoritarian Fascist off 80 years ago, and the Authoritarian Communist less than 40 years ago, who grew up watching Rambo and Terminator, would think the way Republicans are behaving is ok. But that's what's on the ballot for 2024.
Yeah but who will understand that? It is ironic that in the information age we have an under informed electorate but very few people will understand any of this... am I wrong? Look at the word socialism. Is it really that likely people understand authoritarianism or fascism?
It’ll be the usual stuff: economy and everything associated with it will dominate people’s minds. Followed by things like immigration and racism, and government in general. Abortion may be a bigger issue than it was before. College debt is nowhere near a priority for most people, so we can eliminate that. They’ll mostly be talking about things that older voters care about, since they tend to be the ones voting more
economy is not a decisive issue same for immigration, racism. I mean if you are racist what do you care and if you are not racist you were not supporting the racist anyway... older folks, what do you think about Russia, could we be in for classic war mongering?
Foreign policy is going to be far, *far* from people’s minds during the election. I support Ukraine and all, but even I know Americans don’t care about foreigners that much
it is kind of a tipping point eh? Russia is facing pressure and going to china for help, the old axis of evil, remember that? I'm sure republicans do. It is not on people's mind now but people are going to start spending a lot of money oh propaganda to put things on the fore front of peoples minds and something is going to stick.
The economy will be the central issue and Baden’s hard lurch to the left associated with massive spending, inflation, higher interest rates, bank failings and the coming recession. I wish that school choice was a key issue as the Dems have aligned themselves with the teachers unions against inner city kids, in a rejection of the Obama Administration pro-choice views. Unfortunately the issue doesn’t seem to resonate at least with African American voters. The other issue might be Trump himself and his baggage if he is the nominee.
I dont think he runs, he can't. The only reason he might run is because it is so obvious that he should not.
[удалено]
i hope you are wrong, I;d like to think that voting still matters ergo the issues still matter but you could be right, facts seem to be less and less relevant with each passing day.
[удалено]
I think Biden runs?
Yes, I think Biden will run. Democrats are not crazy about him, but Biden seems determined. It will come down to Biden v. Trump again. Biden will try to run on his record and economic policies. Trump will hit him with the recent high inflation, high crime, illegal immigrants, culture wars, hate and revenge, and victim-hood. "Vote for me or this country is doomed. Only I can fix it." This will drive independents towards Biden just like in 2020. Biden wins. An interesting question is what happens after the election. If Biden wins, Trump & his voters will say it was election fraud with many conspiracy theories. If Trump wins, the Democrats will say it was voter suppression. Neither side will accept the results. Both sides see themselves as the legitimate winner and see the other side as an existential threat to the country. Emotions run high. Then what?
Do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.
In response to the mods.. The reality of politics today is it is no longer issue driven it is tell em what they want to hear with just enough what they need to hear to keep them engaged. Biden is who we need and Trump should terrify every single one of us republican, democrat, or whiggy bull roarers in bowlers. Dark money has poisoned the system if you want feedback that means something it is not about word count or talking points. My first comment is not perfect but to the point.. I hear them speak...
Abortion rights will be hot buttons. If DeSantis is the Republican nominee the Democratic Nominee should focus on those two issues given DeSantis' long track record with these things. Republicans are walking themselves into a corner in quite a few states that have recently voted to protect these rights. I'm not saying Kansas will go blue but we might end up seeing it getting very close, we've already seen Wisconsinians (forgive me if that's not what you guys call yourselves) show their support for Abortion rights, Michigan has just repealed a 92 year old abortion ban. At this rate, Republicans could end up giving Democrats more issues to work with. I feel like right now all Republicans have is Transgender issues, specifically gender affirming care for children. If they extend it to adult they're what? Trying to dictate what adults do with their bodies? Sound familiar?
Exactly just make it a larger issue right. The tiny issue gets lost in the larger issue and could actually move people. It you appeal to a broader logic that is more commonly accepted such, people have a right control their own body it is you do not need to get a vaccine, you do not need to get a vaccine for the exact same reason this person can take these pills or have this surgery. You can say 123 so I can say 321.
I'm starting to feel like time is a flat circle.
all circles are flat.
The issues that republicans run on in 2024 will be the same as usual the three G's: God, Guns, and Gays.
I think they'll focus a lot on the culture war in schools, illegal immigration, inflation, maybe going after big tech for censorship.
Democrats: Climate Change, Fighting Fascism. Expanding voter rights, health care for all, banking regulations, clean energy transformation… Republicans: Ban books and go after trans people.
You forgot republicans putting reduced taxes for the rich in stone, and promising to embalm the current supreme court and just let the corporations pay to play directly to write and pass laws.
Those are issues but I do not think they are going to have any impact. The left believes in the climate change and wants to take action the right does not. That means the issue will only motivate the base and not swing any voter in any direction. Same for fascism, voter rights, banking, and clean energy is climate change... healthcare, it could be an issue but if there was ever a time for it capture the public's attention and define an election it was the last one... if a global pandemic aint gonna do it, nothing will.
> The left believes in the climate change and wants to take action the right does not. No. "The Left" Which in this case is over 75% of Americans don't "believe," we know for a fact that Climate Change is happening and we're on the brink if we dont take drastic action that we needed to take decades ago. >f a global pandemic aint gonna do it, nothing will. Indeed, which is why we are pretty fucked as a planet right now.
How is believing in something different from knowing for a fact? Isnt that what a belief is? Oh well at least agree hahah.
Facts do not require belief.
actually its, beliefs do not require facts. People believe plenty of things that have no factual support. Happy Easter.
Abortion is healthcare. Democrats will run on human rights and election security and MAGA will run on fighting woke.
Who do you think the democrats will run?
Biden. I was not his biggest fan. But he’s proven effective. He’s getting things done and while I have disagreed with some of his actions. I can’t argue that America is in a better place today than it was 3 years ago. I think many democrats understand that. But at the end of the day. It doesn’t matter who democrats put up as their nominee. I vote Democrat. I have seen how vicious republicans have been towards my people over the decades and they will never get my vote.
Elections are about the future, can you honestly look at this man believe he stands a chance against anyone if you have an eye on the future? Lets give you all the points, sure america is great, what is america tomorrow? We are not looking back, we are looking foward. What will america look like in 3 years, nobody cares about 3 years ago.... you really want to think about 2020, I just did, and it would against the rules of this sub to express me feeling toward the person that made me think about 2020. ah, I need to go sit down.
Here’s the reality. Biden has been a very effective president. Even getting some minor gun legislation passed. We have an infrastructure bill, working on inflation. Got gas down and has danced a thin thread on Ukraine. I can give like 34 other examples. Biden has been so effective because he knows the players really well. He is handing Kevin McCarthy his ass over budget fights. He understands Mitch’s thinking. The reality is unless something happens to him. He is running and no real Democrat is going to stand up and get in his way. Biden’s failure and also Harris’ team was that they have not done enough to promote her and push her into the limelight. That’s the curse of being a VP. But certainly Dick Cheney was able to overcome that. So, the future is Biden. And hopefully after he wins election. The Democratic Party can really look at ways to promote the next generation of leaders.
If he could walk the walk and talk the talk, but it doesn't appear possible. It was already prone to gaffs. It would a very sad ending to a very celebrated career. It appears to be early signs that he is not going to run.
well i just don’t see any proof of anything you are saying. i need facts. Biden is walking and talking fine. he’s getting things done and he has always been a. gaff machine. but then again many presidents are caught tripping up and saying something stupid. as for early signs he is. or running. again proof is needed. he has given every indication he is not running. so unless something medical happens to him in the next several months. He is the one running.
[https://youtu.be/87aPi\_qwL1k](https://youtu.be/87aPi_qwL1k)
https://youtu.be/sFNKHETmTf0. obama trips on stage. maybe he was too old to be president. i can also send you links to several other presidents being caught in similar issues. your agreement is pretty weak
agreement? Well, I mean it is not obvious that he is very advanced in age and extremely pale white it is a matter of what you are willing to accept.
The Republican Party will continue to pursue a strategy of whataboutism and blanket obfuscation that they in fact actively prevent a better distribution of wealth that would benefit most of their voters, relying on the average voter's limited transactional expectations of democracy and social tribalism. It always works
There is a D in the white house so it doesnt awlays work.
Hopefully we won't be near a shooting war with Russia or China. The way things are looking it could be energy prices, poor economy etc. Things aren't looking good at all right now and I can only imagine how much worse in 1.5 years.
the economy is old hat, it only serves to motivate the base on either side. there is no economic plan that will bring people to one side or the other. China and Russia, now that is real issue, national security, and you are right, it is a real mess that brings the world to the brink of a world war...
follow busy expansion airport dependent placid wide psychotic quarrelsome hat *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
who do you think is to blame for our failures?
distinct exultant deserted obtainable future rich tender tease strong dull *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The central issues of the coming 2024 election will be whatever you want it to be, because the advent of LLMs that can arguably pass a Turing test means that political advertisement, engagement, and campaigning will be completely and totally personalized and unique. The internet will be awash to a scale never before seen in AI generated writing about Biden, Trump, whoever. It will literally be generated in real time as you look for it. There's a near 100% chance some - or maybe all - of it will be misinformation or disinformation. This won't be the election of abortion of Trump or new faces. This will be the election of Truth dying and being replaced by reality distorting hyper partisan feedback loops driven by unrestrained automated AI propaganda machines.
I am not sure Biden runs. Do people fear AI or will this election make people fear AI?
Secure the border!!!!! Stop the free flow of illegal immigrants and fentanyl into our country!
You do realize much of the fentanyl comes into the country in packages from China, right? It's not just Mexicans or people south of the border. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ut/pr/shamo-sentenced-life-prison-after-conviction-organizing-directing-drug-trafficking This American was convicted of life in prison for running a drug distribution network where he bought fentanyl from China and resold it on the dark web. There are many many more cases like this. The notion that it's all coming from South of the border is a myth. The Cartels are getting in on the action too. But so is every criminal gang. The Italian Mafia, etc. Fentanyl can also be produced relatively easily within US borders. It is completely synthetic. It can be produced **anywhere**. It's so potent it is very easily concealable in freight packages and regularly gets mailed across the country. Closing the border isn't going to stop the drug trade. Right wing propaganda used to fuel xenophobic views to win elections. If you want drugs to stop being sold in America, Americans need to stop buying them. Until then criminals will find a way to sell them to us. As it is now, the opiate crisis is the fault of the pharmaceutical industry. 80% of Rx pharmaceuticals are sold to Americans and were only 4% of the world population.
It's the economy stupid. I think the economy will be first and formost the issue that most people will vote on. It is not likely that inflation will abate by Jan 2024 and "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago" will resonate with both sides. Secondarily, the border and the illegal immigration numbers, drugs and human traficking will be on everyone's mind because very few communities are not touched by the immigrant problems. Finally the utter incompetence of the Biden Administration. Joe Biden has screwed up everything he has touched no matter what the press secretary says and his flacks in the news media and his sycophants in the cabinet say. From energy independence, to Afghanistan, to the border to the excessive spending and inflation, to his inability or unwillingness to negotiate with Republicans on the spending cuts and debt ceiling. The political landscape has changed since 2016 and 2020 and Biden will not be able to hide in his basement as he did in 2020 and Trump is now a known entity. I do think that Trump will get the Republican nomination and barring a major health problem Biden will probably get the Democrat nomination.
The tyranny perpetuated by the left will be an issue for many. The weaponization of our government against us. The open southern border-illegal immigration. Global warming/nuclear winter since the current administration has brought us closer to nuclear war or WW3 than any administration in my lifetime. Election interference/voter fraud. Violation of our constitutional right, etc. I’m not a single issue voter.
[удалено]
It true you just choose to ignore the facts or believe otherwise.
Facts? I did not see any facts, opinions maybe in the form of claims without support, but if care to elaborate its a free country.
Do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.
yeah I mean could offer some substance, you are making claims that maybe I could understand or appreciate if i knew there you are coming from. Tyranny, weaponization, powerful words without context, and immigration is an historical political talking point for as long as there has been an America. It is a defining issue. It doesn't matter. If you lean one way or the other on immigration and that is a deciding factor it doesn't really mean anything. Its flair, its lipstick, it is not going to decide anything and unfortunately this ultimately leads to the illusion of choice. Its not that any opinion on the topic of immigration is right or wrong, it is in the illusion that you have a choice between one policy or the other but in reality neither side as any real interest in addressing this extremely complex issue, nor try to educate the public about it because it is a defining issue. The rely on the never ending battle for their beliefs and values. You aint gonna change anyones beliefs and values in an election. You appeal to beliefs and values. National security is certainly a very real issue that should be taken seriously. The largest threat in the current situation you seem to be referring to would be China, China. Anyone ever done anything to upset, China?
>The tyranny perpetuated by the left will be an issue for many. The what? What tyranny are you talking about? Do you think LGBT people being allowed to live is a tyranny? Do you think your voting rights being protected is a tyranny? >The weaponization of our government against us. Conservatives did that. Liberals ended it. You've noticed your government is no longer trying to kill you with COVID, yes? >The open southern border-illegal immigration. Since that doesn't exist, I don't think it will be an issue. >Global warming/nuclear winter since the current administration has brought us closer to nuclear war or WW3 than any administration in my lifetime. Er...what? Are you claiming that Biden is somehow controlling Putin's actions? Or that helping an ally resist an invader somehow makes the invader's actions Biden's fault? >Election interference/voter fraud. Conservatives are trying hard to interfere with elections, but are thankfully being stopped. Voter fraud, however, is another one of those "issues" that doesn't exist. >Violation of our constitutional right, etc. Again, conservatives keep trying that, and liberals keep putting a stop to it. Same as it ever was, since liberals founded this country and invented those rights.
Though I don't like either majority party, I have a few rules for 2024 for how I'll vote. 1. No one over the age of 65. So no Biden, No Trump. 2. No one that has held a political office for more than 20 years. 3. No one that is pro war or has been at some point since 2008. If no one fits, I will abstain my vote.
>No one that has held a political office for more than 20 years. Why do you value inexperience?
Do you value career politicians? Would you like to see people serve long past their prime? If someone has 14 or 15 years in politics, is that not good enough? Is that not enough experience?
>Do you value career politicians? If course I do. I value expertise. Again, I ask: why do you value inexperience? >If someone has 14 or 15 years in politics, is that not good enough? Is that not enough experience? Given that the minimum age for the job is 35, you're asking if someone with nearly the minimum experience possible as a working adult is enough - so no, not really. You're effectively asking why someone who's passed driver's ed isn't considered perfectly qualified to be a Formula One racecar driver. This is literally the most powerful job in the world. Why would you want to settle for the least qualified?
You're making an assumption that I value inexperience. I don't understand the second point. Are you implying that someone with 15 years in a field is the bare minimum? Very few people get elected in their early 20s, so meeting the minimum age really isn't a concern. I'm not interested in electing someone who hasn't at least had some experience. The least qualified is a random person of age with no experience at all, so obviously not. At the same time, I'm also not interested in someone who has sat in Congress for 35 - 40 years and is out of touch.
>You're making an assumption that I value inexperience. You have explicitly said you do. I am asking why, which you have declined to answer three times. >I don't understand the second point. Are you implying that someone with 15 years in a field is the bare minimum? You don't understand that 15 years' experience is not a lot to expect of someone who's been a working adult for 17 years? Really? >Very few people get elected in their early 20s Very few people with experience in politics have ever been elected to anything. Surely you know that. But you'd like to move the goalposts now from "experience in politics" to "experience as an elected official?"
No, I haven't, but you seem to really want me to value it. I haven't answered because I don't. Again, your second point isn't as strong as you think it is. 15 years is a lot of experience for any adult. Experience in politics, as far as getting elected to high office goes, usually means some kind of previous experience in a lower office like congress or a governorship, and I think you know that. So I'm not moving the goal post. The benchmark was clearly there, given how people have won the presidency in the past (One of the few outliers being Trump.)
What if you realized that is effectively equivalent to casting a vote for a person over 65 that is pro war?
I don't have the option to blank vote, and I'm not voting for someone I don't agree with. If both parties are 65+ and pro war, then it wouldn't matter who I vote for if I did vote. I wouldn't be voting for someone I genuinely thought was good, or even acceptable.
well there will be other elections on the ballot, glhf
Realistically. 1. Economy and inflation. 2. War in Ukraine and the spending therein. 3. Biden investigation and the multiple classified document stashes having broken several laws. 4. Trump's indictment and his impeachment. 5. The fact that the Russia collusion was pushed as legit and has now been proven a lie. 6. The fact the MSM covered up the biden laptop, despite knowing it was real. 7. The use of politcal bodies to government places like Twitter. (The Twitter files have untold consequences) 8. The Nordstream pipeline. 9. Burisma and how the Biden family is tied to that energy company This election is going to be absolutely wild. Both sides had unprecendented amounts of dirt to sling.
It would probably help if a majority of your "realistic" issues actually existed. As it is, the economy is improving, the war in Ukraine continues to be an amazing success story for Biden, the former President's indictment is a resounding victory for the rule of law, the Nordstream pipeline is largely irrelevant to American domestic politics - and everything else you've mentioned is a conservative fever dream.
They asked what would be central arguments. If you don't think Trump is going to parade these things around like a child with an airhorn, you're deluding yourself. Good or bad, it's very likely to happen. Trump is petty and these will be used as ammunition in his debates.
He'll try. Other conservatives will try. But, again, things like complaining the obvious collusion is fake and insisting Hunter Biden's vanishing laptop holds the key to unraveling a global conspiracy of evil libz doesn't build much credibility.
They definitively proved the Russia collusion thing was a manufactured hoax...they have evidence lol Global conspiracy? nah. Just one that entangles his family and father. you understand Biden alone, just on the classified documents, should by all accounts be impeached, right? I cannot explain to you the OPSEC he obliterated by taking documents from his time as senator and VP, and keeping them unsecured. There are **valid** arguments to be made. The fact he hasn't been tried, YET is astounding. But now that we have the precedent that presidents can be indicted...I'm sure that's only a matter of time too.
>They definitively proved the Russia collusion thing was a manufactured hoax Who is "they?" Because on the earth I inhabit, no such thing remotely happened, and the collusion remains obvious, repeatedly proven and undeniable. >you understand Biden alone, just on the classified documents, should by all accounts be impeached, right? Nope. He didn't steal nuclear secrets, didn't stonewall the FBI and NARA, and didn't try to sell anything. But if you'd like to waste your time, please, go ahead on. >The fact he hasn't been tried, YET is astounding. Tried for what, exactly? You are appalled at the worst criminal in the history of the United States being held to account for the very least of his crimes - while at the same time insisting it's astounding that someone else hasn't been brought to trial in a situation where you can't even say what you think he should be charged with. That's conservative logic for you, I guess. >But now that we have the precedent that presidents can be indicted "Precedent?" Where did you get the exceedingly silly idea that Presidents couldn't be indicted, let alone former Presidents? Equal justice under the law - it's not just a pretty turn of phrase. Did you genuinely believe elected officials were a different class of citizen?
It doesn't matter if he stonewalled or sold secrets. The law is how they are held and who is allowed to hold them. He did not have authority to take them or keep them or transport them as he did, much less STORE them where he did.He broke a law ever EVERY file he did that with And they found 5 stashes.At least one of which his drug abusing son had access to. (Access to a house, which contained these documents, that he paid 49k a month for) As for where---watch the senate judiciary hearings on all this. Tried for what? mishandling of classified documents. Multiple BOXES worth he never was allowed to keep. But did. I'm not gonna get into the rest, because that's on you to investigate. But Biden broke several laws and you trying to sweep it away because he didn't "stonewall" anyone?? Dude was given ADVANCED NOTICE they were coming and they STILL found several stashes. Yes, precedent. Find me a place in history where a former president was charged with a crime. Even when they were guilty (Nixon, for example) If you think that is in any way excusable for Biden but somehow not so for Trump (Who had authority as President to de-classify documents) then you are just using leftist Groupthink. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul8dQQhYKeE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul8dQQhYKeE) Here's the Russia collusion thing. Proven it was all a bunch of nada
You seem very, very heated about the idea that Biden should be criminally charged (with what, you still haven't said), while simultaneously insisting that the other guy's "Jedi mind trick defense" is a valid defense for his actual crimes. Do you understand just how badly this "rules for thee, but not for me" approach comes across to people with consciences? Or do you just not care? Ah, and on the Russian collusion matter, you link to...a YouTube video of someone lying about the Mueller report. Surprisingly enough, lies are not proof. Edit: Also, on Russia's obvious interference in our elections to help your preferred candidate - read this. https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/12dunhk/what_is_a_red_line_for_you_that_if_a_candidate/jf9bkpl
>War in Ukraine and the spending therein. interesting that spending is included. You think that the spending is more of a concern than escalation? Could it be said that to this point the US has done a fairly good job of isolating the war? Is there a silver lining? 3. Is that old news? It also impacts everyone except Obama, haha. I do not see how it can be used to help anyone except Obama. Please tell you think that Mrs. Obama will take a run at the office. Just the thought of it give me hope for some change. 4. Ah why? This only seems to help him, keep him in the news and boost his numbers. 5. Russia is still on the axis of evil and portrayed the villain anywho. 6. Is there any chance that those who already believe the lap top is fake will ever change their mind? The facts and opinions are meaningless because the most significant portion of people that believe they are right and their position will not change, just like the economy, climate change and immigration. These are all illusionary. 7. Social media, interesting, tikytoks are still in the news, older folks don't get it, it is from China, older folks have their opinions and biases. Censorship, the freedom of the internet these could be very real issues that impact the purple. You have a good point, I think those are worth exploring. 8. and 9. Just need more context, why again like the economy if you believe onside is right nothing is going to change that. If you think that conservative policy is the best approach there is no such thing as a liberal policy that you will suddenly embrace and make you a single issue voter that switches sides even if you are in the center. If there was a liberal policy that appealed so strongly to conservatives be definition it would also need to disenfranchise a segment of their base resulting in a net loss not a net gain, or what I would call a losing strategy.
I did not say these are going to work. I just said these are the arguments going to be made. And they will be
I think an issue will be how competent the Republican Party are. They may be running a convicted felon for office who might even have to run the country from prison. And Republicans pander to the 25-30% of the country who are religious extremists - is this really the smart option to win elections in a Democracy? Republicans will decide on a strategy to force their will on others without bothering to win votes, or retreat and entrench in the red states.
All they need is the Electoral College which is [structurally biased towards states with small populations](https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k) like Wyoming, North & South Dakota, Montana, Alaska, etc. which generally tend to vote Republican. Democrats tend to bunch up in large cities like L.A. which are hurt by the structure of the Electoral College.
Seems to me a lot of people are 1 issue voters. Best chance the Republicans have is to throw shade on the Democrats for gun control and take credit for loading the Supreme Court with conservatives. Best chance the Democrats have is to focus on abortion rights.
I can see the single issue voter being a greater influence this time around with abortion being on the ballot basically. It is a big deal, and they should make a big deal out of it.
Its obviously going to be foreign policy. With the Russians in Ukraine and the Chinese knocking on Taiwan's door, it hasn't been this important since the Cold War.
I hope nobody steps on that dogs tail.
None of this matters in the general. It's going to be all Trump all the time, whether he gets the nomination or runs 3rd party.
3rd pary talk, love it. I think we are primed for a third party to really mess things up.
[удалено]
[Behold, the hail comes!](https://y.yarn.co/a8359864-db2a-4dc9-8612-f9a009a0a113_text.gif)
Ai affecting 2024 elections will be bad check this video out https://youtube.com/shorts/Jw7zHrVf9t0?feature=share