U.S. 2024 Presidential Election Season kicking off...so who are you betting on??

Now that you mention it, can y'all please make Electoral College at least proportional and not winner-take-all? I've heard the arguments for EC "otherwise coastal cities can vote out the flyover states", but it never makes sense to me that the election is basically who can win the states that just happens to have roughly equal Dems and Reps
It would be fun if the swing states were costal by the way. I wonder which new BS excuse would be invented to still justify the EC.
Oh well, Michigan and Wisconsin have coasts . Lake coasts but coasts nevertheless…
 
Again, I'm a former DC political operative and I still have access to DNC/RNC internal polling data through old friends, and that's what I base my opinions on. I do not, ever, overestimate (or underestimate) anything, because that's how you lose your job and future jobs when you're a kid in this game. Does it truly count, at the end of the day? No. All reliable polling showed Hillary was going to trounce Trump, until just before the general election. But the stark difference in the 2024 build-up is that every poll and every metric is showing that the vast majority of Americans DO NOT want Joe Biden to serve a second term, and well before the November showdown and even well before the caucuses. No incumbent POTUS with his current approval ratings in the history of commercial polling (roughly 60 years) has ever been re-elected.

Joe Biden is not going to be re-elected. Who is? Who knows? But at this point I'm laying my bets on Trump.

Since former DC political operative, what is the view in the experts world about Trump being denied candidacy because of incitement to riot at last election?
I know that Supreme Court will allow Trump to be elected anyway, just asking about the view behind the curtains.

Thanks in advance
 
There is a clever plan to effectively get rid of the Electoral College by signing an agreement among states to vote based on who wins the nationwide popular vote. They already have the agreement of 16 states with 205 electoral votes, and need 65 more electoral votes to reach a 270 majority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

IMO, this would be pretty great. The Electoral College has to be one of the most ridiculously skewed election systems ever devised outside of a one-party state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alice
Since former DC political operative, what is the view in the experts world about Trump being denied candidacy because of incitement to riot at last election?
I know that Supreme Court will allow Trump to be elected anyway, just asking about the view behind the curtains.

Thanks in advance
Additional question : what’s a “DC Political Operative”?
I know what a Lieutenant in the Kiss Army is, but that one I must confess, I still have no idea
 
  • Like
Reactions: maikeru
There is a clever plan to effectively get rid of the Electoral College by signing an agreement among states to vote based on who wins the nationwide popular vote. They already have the agreement of 16 states with 205 electoral votes, and need 65 more electoral votes to reach a 270 majority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

IMO, this would be pretty great. The Electoral College has to be one of the most ridiculously skewed election systems ever devised outside of a one-party state.
Lol, well it's all blue states as expected. Sure it makes logical sense, but logical sense doesn't matter, it would kill the republican party so they'd do anything to prevent that sort of thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alice
Since former DC political operative, what is the view in the experts world about Trump being denied candidacy because of incitement to riot at last election?
I know that Supreme Court will allow Trump to be elected anyway, just asking about the view behind the curtains.

Thanks in advance
SC has no say on people's names that states allow on their ballots. Probably just rule that states still have to let people write in a candidate, like how Murkowski won her senate seat in Alaska, and justify it because historically votes were done as write-ins (printed ballots just simplified the process). They'll also rule that Colorado's state court declaring Trump an insurrectionist as a matter of fact doesn't bind other states nor the federal level requiring action by congress (they only need to act when an insurrectionist is elected). The SC just won't rule on whether Trump is an insurrectionist as a matter of fact even though they could.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maikeru
At least you, unlike @Frenchy, And don't mind me. I'm just here for the entertainment.
I treat everything you text as mind over matter. I don't mind because......you don't matter. :)
 
It's definitely just Biden, though, who is out of his mind, and not, for example, Trump, and the entire population of the US of fuck-yeah A.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alice
It's definitely just Biden, though, who is out of his mind, and not, for example, Trump, and the entire population of the US of fuck-yeah A.
Yep. Definitely just Biden. The guy who is at the same time an evil genius who could steal a presidential election in multiple states from the incumbent, and also a drooling retarded demented grandpa
 
He obviously wasn't talking about you. I've never seen you drool.
(Except when a really hot waitress came to the table, but we were all drooling then...)
 
He obviously wasn't talking about you. I've never seen you drool.
(Except when a really hot waitress came to the table, but we were all drooling then...)
I have a bucket for that plus masks help a lot.
 
SC has no say on people's names that states allow on their ballots. Probably just rule that states still have to let people write in a candidate, like how Murkowski won her senate seat in Alaska, and justify it because historically votes were done as write-ins (printed ballots just simplified the process). They'll also rule that Colorado's state court declaring Trump an insurrectionist as a matter of fact doesn't bind other states nor the federal level requiring action by congress (they only need to act when an insurrectionist is elected). The SC just won't rule on whether Trump is an insurrectionist as a matter of fact even though they could.
So it will give discretion to state court and then brush the matter away when/if Trump is elected.

thanks
 
I’m convinced at this point Trump is going to win, consolidate power, and turn America into a battleground.

Bipartisan friction and volatility can’t get much higher without an incitement to violence, and what better way for China and Russia to get their way than to chew on some pig fat together and watch as the USA descends into a civil war?
 
If anyone has a celebratory champagne waiting to pop, now would be the time since Nimrata just won her first primary by crushing Mr. Nepo Baby in DC
 
  • Like
Reactions: maikeru and fireman
Nikki Haley GIF
 
If anyone has a celebratory champagne waiting to pop, now would be the time since Nimrata just won her first primary by crushing Mr. Nepo Baby in DC
That should be a nothing story or something that'd embarrass the Republican candidate that won. Instead, Diaper Don is ranting about it cause he just can't fucking take the idea of losing to a woman.

On the bright side, the Supreme Court issued a very weird ruling that was 9-0 which should mean it's settled law but with all four women on the court issuing statements that were sort of dissents on aspects technically outside the scope of the ruling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maikeru
I’m convinced at this point Trump is going to win, consolidate power, and turn America into a battleground.

Bipartisan friction and volatility can’t get much higher without an incitement to violence, and what better way for China and Russia to get their way than to chew on some pig fat together and watch as the USA descends into a civil war?
And that’s when I will cash out my modest bets in Uncle Sam’s casino. But more importantly when many other much larger foreign investors will do too. And when it happens to T-bonds that’s when shit will really hit the fan. Be ready for 15%+ interest rates and inflation , and a big drop in USD value. 2008 will seem like a walk in the park.
If it happens the notion that Trump is good for business and investors will make us smile briefly , between the crying episodes….
 
  • Like
Reactions: maikeru
And that’s when I will cash out my modest bets in Uncle Sam’s casino. But more importantly when many other much larger foreign investors will do too. And when it happens to T-bonds that’s when shit will really hit the fan. Be ready for 15%+ interest rates and inflation , and a big drop in USD value. 2008 will seem like a walk in the park.
If it happens the notion that Trump is good for business and investors will make us smile briefly , between the crying episodes….

Don't forget to promise to move to Canada, and then, of course, never make good on the promise like the rest of the fucking crybabies. Reminds me of all the rest of the pussy ass liberal talking heads on CNN and MSNBC, screaming and hyperventilating in early 2016 with their doomsday predictions...WE'LL HAVE WORLD WAR THREE!! WE'LL GO TO WAR WITH NORTH KOREA!! WITH IRAN!! THE STOCK MARKET WILL CRASH!! THE U.S. ECONOMY IS FINISHED!! And that was followed by one of the strongest economic booms in U.S. history, along with ZERO WARS AND MILITARY CONFLICTS. No Russia invading neighbors. No Hamas/Iran committing terrorist acts in Israel. No more NK launching missiles across Japan and instead KJU looking to work with the U.S. Wish we could say the same now.

But in 2025, when inflation has nose-dived and the dollar is still 1-150 against the yen, I'll be sure to quote this.
 
Last edited:
Supreme Court unanimously rules to keep Trump on Colorado ballot

OH, whelps...even the liberal justices followed the rule of law. Looks like this Keihan prediction is about to pan out.
I mean that is the right ruling. I don't like Trump, but it's similar in a way to the "presidential immunity" BS argument Trump is trying to say.

If this was allowed then what is to stop red states from removing democratic nominees from the ballot for whatever made up charges they want to say. Likewise to the presidential immunity thing, if that was allowed then what would stop Biden from doing whatever he wants to secure a second term.
 
I mean that is the right ruling. I don't like Trump, but it's similar in a way to the "presidential immunity" BS argument Trump is trying to say.

If this was allowed then what is to stop red states from removing democratic nominees from the ballot for whatever made up charges they want to say. Likewise to the presidential immunity thing, if that was allowed then what would stop Biden from doing whatever he wants to secure a second term.
Well according to Trump’s own lawyers he could safely ask Seal Team 6 (why the 6 by the way? It’s the Sardaukars of US presidents?) to kill Trump himself. Which would make this contest way more Game of Throne-ish than the current circus
 
  • Like
Reactions: maikeru