2024 U.S. Presidential Election Thread (Epiphanies rules apply)
We are exactly one month away from the first Republican presidential debate (23 August 2023) of the 2024 election so it seemed like a good time to start an election thread. Since the Democrats have an incumbent president running for re-election there are no Democratic primary debates currently scheduled. At the moment it's looking like it's going to be a rematch of the 2020 presidential election. Here are the candidates currently in the running, sorted by party and in descending order of polled support.
REPUBLICANS
Donald John Trump: Despite multiple felony indictments Trump is still the heavy favorite to win the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Not much needs to be said here since we've mostly said it all somewhere else on the Ship over the past eight years.
Ronald Dion DeSantis: Currently the governor of Florida, DeSantis is the only declared Republican candidate other than Trump polling double-digit support. He mostly seems to be running on a platform of deliberate cruelty to anyone who isn't a straight white man. Despite a lot of assistance from the political press who want to cast him as the Responsible Republican Daddy they all crave his campaign has been in free-fall since he announced his candidacy.
Vivek Ganapathy Ramaswamy: An entrepreneur who has never held elected office. In addition to the usual Republican positions of cruelty towards women and LGBTQ+ people, Ramaswamy has pledged to rule by decree, fire half the federal workforce, and limit the employment tenure of the remaining federal workers to eight years at most. He also holds pro-Russian positions on the Ukraine War, proposing to cede to Russia Ukrainian territory currently occupied.
Michael Richard Pence: Trump's ex-vice president*. It's very difficult to pin down what Pence's policy positions are for his run for president. He mostly seems to be running on his record with Trump, but with no explanation as to why someone who found that appealing wouldn't just vote for Trump.
Nimarata Nikki Haley (née Randhawa): Former governor of South Carolina and former U.N. Ambassador. Haley believes DeSantis' "Don't Say Gay" law doesn't go far enough. She's a bit of an outlier in the Republican field when it comes to Russia's war against Ukraine, having taken a pro-Ukrainian position.
Timothy Eugene Scott: Currently represents South Carolina in the U.S. Senate. Mostly holds standard Republican views but admits that racism is a real thing and disagrees with Trump that there were "good people on both sides" of the fascist rally in Charlottesville, VA.
Christopher James Christie: Former governor of New Jersey. The highest polling Republican (currently ~2.1%) willing to call out Donald Trump on his criminality and abuse of power. Supported Trump as recently as 2020, when Christie was Trump's debate coach. Aside from his opposition to Donald Trump Christie holds fairly standard Republican positions.
Douglas James Burgum: Current governor of North Dakota. Standard Republican policy positions and currently polling at less than 0.5%.
William Asa Hutchinson II: Former governor of Arkansas. Like Christie, Hutchinson is willing to openly criticize Donald Trump. Otherwise a standard-issue Republican.
Francis Xavier Suarez: Current mayor of Miami, FL. Aside from some very tepid support for the rights of LGBTQ+ Americans Suarez is a standard Republican.
There are others in the Republican field, but their support as currently polled is minimal. Most of the Republican candidacies at this point seem to be employing a "hoping Trump dies" strategy.
DEMOCRATS
Joseph Robinette Biden: Current President of the United States. President Biden is almost certain to win his party's nomination for president.
Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr.: A conspiracy theorist who has never held elected office. RFK, Jr. holds surprisingly anti-Ukrainian views and claims COVID-19 was a genetically engineered bioweapon built to target white and black people and be less dangerous to Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews. His support among his only true constituency (the American political press) has collapsed recently when he started getting more press coverage. Ironic.
Marianne Deborah Williamson: A self-help author who has never held elected office. Williamson is mostly notable for running for president in the 2020 Democratic primary and securing zero delegates. It is almost impossible to distinguish her alleged presidential campaign from an exercise in getting free publicity.
REPUBLICANS
Donald John Trump: Despite multiple felony indictments Trump is still the heavy favorite to win the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Not much needs to be said here since we've mostly said it all somewhere else on the Ship over the past eight years.
Ronald Dion DeSantis: Currently the governor of Florida, DeSantis is the only declared Republican candidate other than Trump polling double-digit support. He mostly seems to be running on a platform of deliberate cruelty to anyone who isn't a straight white man. Despite a lot of assistance from the political press who want to cast him as the Responsible Republican Daddy they all crave his campaign has been in free-fall since he announced his candidacy.
Vivek Ganapathy Ramaswamy: An entrepreneur who has never held elected office. In addition to the usual Republican positions of cruelty towards women and LGBTQ+ people, Ramaswamy has pledged to rule by decree, fire half the federal workforce, and limit the employment tenure of the remaining federal workers to eight years at most. He also holds pro-Russian positions on the Ukraine War, proposing to cede to Russia Ukrainian territory currently occupied.
Michael Richard Pence: Trump's ex-vice president*. It's very difficult to pin down what Pence's policy positions are for his run for president. He mostly seems to be running on his record with Trump, but with no explanation as to why someone who found that appealing wouldn't just vote for Trump.
Nimarata Nikki Haley (née Randhawa): Former governor of South Carolina and former U.N. Ambassador. Haley believes DeSantis' "Don't Say Gay" law doesn't go far enough. She's a bit of an outlier in the Republican field when it comes to Russia's war against Ukraine, having taken a pro-Ukrainian position.
Timothy Eugene Scott: Currently represents South Carolina in the U.S. Senate. Mostly holds standard Republican views but admits that racism is a real thing and disagrees with Trump that there were "good people on both sides" of the fascist rally in Charlottesville, VA.
Christopher James Christie: Former governor of New Jersey. The highest polling Republican (currently ~2.1%) willing to call out Donald Trump on his criminality and abuse of power. Supported Trump as recently as 2020, when Christie was Trump's debate coach. Aside from his opposition to Donald Trump Christie holds fairly standard Republican positions.
Douglas James Burgum: Current governor of North Dakota. Standard Republican policy positions and currently polling at less than 0.5%.
William Asa Hutchinson II: Former governor of Arkansas. Like Christie, Hutchinson is willing to openly criticize Donald Trump. Otherwise a standard-issue Republican.
Francis Xavier Suarez: Current mayor of Miami, FL. Aside from some very tepid support for the rights of LGBTQ+ Americans Suarez is a standard Republican.
There are others in the Republican field, but their support as currently polled is minimal. Most of the Republican candidacies at this point seem to be employing a "hoping Trump dies" strategy.
DEMOCRATS
Joseph Robinette Biden: Current President of the United States. President Biden is almost certain to win his party's nomination for president.
Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr.: A conspiracy theorist who has never held elected office. RFK, Jr. holds surprisingly anti-Ukrainian views and claims COVID-19 was a genetically engineered bioweapon built to target white and black people and be less dangerous to Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews. His support among his only true constituency (the American political press) has collapsed recently when he started getting more press coverage. Ironic.
Marianne Deborah Williamson: A self-help author who has never held elected office. Williamson is mostly notable for running for president in the 2020 Democratic primary and securing zero delegates. It is almost impossible to distinguish her alleged presidential campaign from an exercise in getting free publicity.
Tagged:
Comments
My father, RIP, was a lifelong Republican up to and through voting for Nixon. He grew morose and silent on the subject of politics after Nixon resigned in disgrace. My mother was more close-mouthed about her politics, but I believe she voted Republican too. As a young adult (despite being very much taken with JFK), I voted Republican. But I've voted mainly Democratic for lo these many moons.
Neither of my parents (were they still alive in 2023) would recognize the party they supported throughout their lives. Neither would have any use for most of these Republican candidates (maybe Asa Hutchnson or possibly Chris Christie, though I have my doubts). Neither would either parent have swallowed the necessary pill and switched parties.
Yet even I, a long-time, pretty-fully-committed Dem voter, am leery about returning an 80-year-old guy with a penchant for misspeaking to a taxing, grueling office likely to be dealing with so many and such daunting threats, ranging from loony-tune North Korea, climate devastation, Russian aggression, and on and on. I keep wondering: is Kamala Harris up to the job? Because she might have to be.
I admit to some of the same skepticism back during the 2020 election cycle, but I think we're beyond the point of having to make guesses about whether Biden can handle the presidency. He's managed to get a significant amount of legislation through a very narrowly divided Congress (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, CHIPS and Science Act, Inflation Reduction Act, etc.). He's managed to confront Russia over Ukraine without widening the war and unified NATO in a way it hasn't been since the end of the Cold War. He got the U.S. back in the Paris Climate Agreement and has a lot of carbon reduction measures in the previously mentioned legislation. At this point I'd say Joe Biden has demonstrated he's capable of handling the "taxing, grueling office" of the presidency pretty effectively. He should probably get the benefit of the doubt unless and until contrary evidence emerges.
One of the things I've noticed is that the political press frequently mentions Joe Biden's age, but articles about Trump rarely mention that he is nearly as old as Biden, lives a much less healthy lifestyle, and is demonstrating clearer evidence of mental deterioration than Biden ever has.
That's part of the job of being vice president, even if the president is fairly young by the standards of the office. I'd say Harris is probably better able to step into the presidency than Mike Pence, Dan Quayle, or Sarah Palin would have been.
And this.
The other thing I've noticed is that the Republican candidates willing to directly call out Trump (Chris Christie, Will Hurd, Asa Hutchinson) are drawing less than 5% polled support combined. This says that the anti-Trump lane in the Republican party is currently very narrow. That might be the big obstacle to the "unify around one candidate willing to confront Trump" strategy, but that still seems to me like the approach more likely to succeed in snatching the Republican nomination from Trump than the current unfocused mess.
State courts might only enter into the question if some state declares Trump ineligible to be on their ballot. The current rule is that it is unconstitutional to deny a candidate ballot access for failing to meet requirements that aren't in the Constitution (such as failing to publicly release their tax return), but the Fourteenth Amendment is right there in the Constitution and does not require a criminal conviction for enforcement.
Isn't the strategy more like: "I cannot win the nomination this time, but in order to position myself successfully for 2028 I need to at least run this time otherwise I look as though I lack ambition and guts. However obviously I don't want to criticise Trump too much as a lot of the people I want to vote for me in 2028 LOVE him."
I'm going to stick my neck out and say ZERO.
I wish Biden were much younger, or that Kamala Harris were running with Biden’s blessing.
But Whitmer? Do not desire it, Gramps49. I work for the State of Michigan and voted for her twice. The second time, because there was no alternative. She has never learned governance, has never moved away from campaigning, and regularly makes stragetically inept maneuvers, apparently to gain the good will of a party who will never give it. She recently made some foolish, spiteful rearrangements in SoM department structure, which will not benefit anyone. Really needs to study the Godfather, I mean John Engler, closely and understand. Needs to quit acting like a girl rushing a sorority and govern like a woman.
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment states:
This was put in place because after the Civil War people like Alexander Stephens tried to take seats in the U.S. Congress like nothing had happened.
This Wiki section discusses the ins and outs of actually applying this section of the Fourteenth Amendment.
How the prohibition might actually be applied or enforced is, I think, an open question. As for SCOTUS, despite my lack of confidence in the Court, I’m not convinced that Trump will find he has enough friends there to give him the help he might need.
Edit: Sorry, x-posted with @Crœsos.
Not enough.
As it will be whatever it is right down to the wire like it was in 2016. When I said here, in all the in denial otherwise, Trump could still win. Hopefully a margin of conservatives will privately listen to their better angels. And not their imps of the perverse.
So far eight candidates have qualified for the debates, at least as far as requirements 3 and 4 are concerned.
The Debatables
I've put an asterisk next to Trump's name since he's strongly hinted that he has no interest in either participating in a debate or signing a pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee. He's also hinted that he'll do some kind of counter-programming at the same time the debate is taking place. Chris Christie's asterisk is there because of his expressed reluctance to sign a pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee.
There is one candidate who is within striking distance of qualifying. Asa Hutchinson has enough polled support to qualify but has only about half the number of required donors so far.
Almost There
Then there are two candidates who have qualified in terms of donors but have zero or one qualifying poll.
Tough Road Ahead
Then there are the candidates with neither enough donors nor enough polled support to qualify.
Abandon All Hope
Will Hurd has said he won't sign a pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee, which may be irrelevant in terms of a debate invitation if he doesn't start demonstrating more support.
The candidates who have not qualified so far have until 48 hours before debate time to submit qualifying credentials to the RNC, so the deadline to get approval is the evening of August 21.
As the ban is contained in the 14th Amendment, it could be enforced by Congress through that Amendment's Enforcement Clause.
Just a quick question, in the online articles I've read and the news footage I haven't seen or read of any support from his family. Have I missed something or are they keeping well clear?
What are the rules in Florida about debt in the event of divorce?
Going back to the Fourteenth Amendment question I recently came across this paper by William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen (both members of the conservative Federalist Society) arguing that Trump is ineligible to hold office in the U.S. and that section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is self executing. Here's the abstract.
For those who are truly interested in Baude and Paulsen's reasoning the full 126 page document is available for free at the link above. For those without the free time or patience to read 126 pages of legal reasoning there is also a New York Times article about the paper, though it is behind a paywall.
The argument is that the list of people who can so act is more extensive than that. From pp. 22-23 of Baude and Paulsen's paper:
Since states control their own election process, a state justice, or state secretary of state can disqualify a person, IMHO. However, I think that person should be found quilty of such action in a court of law.
According to the RNC eight candidates meet the donor and polling threshold and have signed the required loyalty oath promising to support the eventual nominee.
Qualified and Debating
Chris Christie has publicly stated that he won't feel bound by the loyalty pledge if the nominee is Donald Trump, but the RNC decided that his signature was good enough anyway. And speaking of the former guy, you may have noticed his absence from the list above.
Qualified and NOT Debating
Ostensibly because he hasn't signed the loyalty pledge, there is speculation that Trump is taking a miss because he's always done poorly in debates, his stamina isn't quite up for it, and he doesn't want to answer questions about his two three four indictments. Quite honestly not having to share space with the eight other candidates is its own reward.
Then there are the candidates who didn't quite make the cut.
Not Quite Qualified
All of these candidates qualified by donor support but failed to demonstrate enough polled support to qualify. There is an asterisk next to Perry Johnson's name because he claims he has enough polled support to qualify but the RNC disagrees.
The debate will take place at 8:00 pm Central Time on August 23 in Milwaukee, WI. Trump will be surrendering to authorities in Georgia on August 24, guaranteeing that the media won't be talking about the debate the next day. It's hard to believe that isn't deliberate.
Chris Wallace, who moderated the debates while on FOX stated when Trump was at the first debate, viewship was 24 mil. When he did not show up at the next debate, only 12 mil watched it.
The people that will lose out on the debate are the Republicans who will not listen to what the others will have to say because their minds are made up.
I suppose one could argue that the whole debate was an argument in favor of re-electing Joe Biden, but that part wasn't produced directly by his campaign staff.
His star has fallen quite a bit over the last few weeks. I wonder why. Could it be because he was trying to out trump, Trump? Could it be because of his anti Woke laws? Could it be because his Education Board has cancelled the A.P.* classes on history?" Could it be because of his war with Disney?
This past week he was booed and told he was not welcome in Jacksonville FL when he tried to speak at a rally in response to the mass shooting that had just happened there.
*A.P. Advanced Placement. Classes High School kids can take that carry college credit.
I've long felt that DeSantis never had much of a following outside of the political press, who seem to have an endless appetite for stern Republican daddies and will invent them if none exist. DeSantis' presidential fortunes have "fallen quite a bit" since spring, not just "over the last few weeks".
In broad terms the Republican party is now a personality cult centered around Donald Trump P01135809. DeSantis' problem is that it's almost impossible to replace the still-living leader of a personality cult, and it doesn't help that DeSantis has a terrible personality. So does Trump P01135809, but he's obnoxious and transgressive in a way that allows his followers to vicariously enjoy his impunity. DeSantis is just off-putting.
I'm pretty sure that to ask the question "Why wasn't Florida's second-most prominent race-baiter welcome at an event memorializing the victims of racially motivated violence?" is also to answer it. That answer is only incidentally related to DeSantis' presidential campaign.
Did Marjorie Taylor Green (MTG) speak at that rally? It sure looked like her on the video.
This evening, on the PBS news hour, they interviewed the mayor of Jacksonville, FL, Donna Deegan. She looks the spitting image of of MTG, but vastly different politically.
Absolutely. On the other hand in DeSantis's favour is that fact that Trump is 77 and not known for his healthy, clean-living lifestyle. Surely the whole Republican candidacy "contest" can be no more than jostling for position while waiting for Trump to die or become incapacitated.
If that's the case it's another example of Trump P01135809's Republican rivals playing by an outdated playbook. Trump P01135809 is not going to appoint anyone who defied him in any way to any position of importance. If re-elected* he'll be looking for loyal lickspittles, not anyone who thought they were able to sit behind the Resolute Desk.
As a matter of curiosity I looked at recent Republican administrations going back to Reagan and the only example I could find of a Republican president appointing a primary rival to a cabinet post is George H. W. Bush appointing Jack Kemp the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. This was a cursory search and I didn't look at positions below cabinet secretary so I may have missed something. So yes, running an unsuccessful primary campaign can raise your public profile within the party, but historically it doesn't ingratiate you to the ultimate victor.
Past form is that Trump will forgive past insults for anyone willing to lick his boots* fervently enough c.f. Lindsey Graham.
*or whatever else