Would Joe Manchin for President attract Moderates / Independents? (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SteveSBrickNJ

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Jan 7, 2022
    Messages
    1,198
    Reaction score
    565
    Age
    61
    Location
    New Jersey
    Offline
    If the Nov. 2024 ballot was DNC President Biden and GOP Donald Trump, I would certainly avoid both of them and look for another candidate.
    I just came across an online article that Senator Joe Manchin is CONSIDERING becoming a 3rd Party candidate.
    *
    *
    Naturally his fellow Democrats would not like that.
    #1 West Virginia would possibly elect a Republican to be their next Senator
    #2 Manchin wouldn't win the presidency and he'd pull more votes from Biden than he would from Trump.
    *
    I'd CONSIDER voting for Manchin. IF he ran...AND the media gave him any "air time", then I think he'd make things interesting. :sneaky:
    Historically, Most 3rd Party Candidates were names that MOST "regular folks" never heard of. Ross Perrot was an exception.
    But again, my point is that most 3rd party candidates have received such a small number of votes because no one knew them and everyone knew they had no chance.
    Senator Joe Manchin DOES have name recognition going for him.
    When Biden's term began, I think there was some publication that called Joe Manchin: "The Most Powerful Man In Washington". An exaggeration of course, but he often "held the keys" to IF a Biden backed bill passed or it didn't.
    Anyway, what say you about anything I've posted here?
     
    Last edited:
    @DJ1BigTymer ...I challenge you to stop 100 random people at any mall....or stop 100 rando people in the parking lot of any MLB game.....I bet 97 out of 100 never heard of "Rank Choice Voting".
    I think the drum you are hearing is not as well heard( not as prevalent) as you imply.
     
    @DJ1BigTymer ...I challenge you to stop 100 random people at any mall....or stop 100 rando people in the parking lot of any MLB game.....I bet 97 out of 100 never heard of "Rank Choice Voting".
    I think the drum you are hearing is not as well heard( not as prevalent) as you imply.

    Official RNC position regarding RCV:

    ...The Republican National Committee rejects ranked choice voting and similar schemes that increase election distrust, and voter suppression and disenfranchisement, eliminate the historic political party system, and put elections in the hands of expensive election schemes that cost taxpayers and depend exclusively on confusing technology and unelected bureaucrats to manage it...

    ...That the Republican National Committee calls on Congress, state legislatures, and voters to oppose ranked choice voting in every locality and level of government and return elections to easier systems that have worked for centuries for fair and transparent elections.
    I understand your views on this matter, but you are wrong and that is by design:

    chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://prod-static.gop.com/media/2-RESOLUTION-TO-OFFICIALLY-OPPOSE-RANKED-CHOICE-VOTING-ACROSS-THE-COUNTRY.pdf

    Friendly advice: Don't try your experiment at Yankee Stadium.
     
    I want to get rid of party run primaries.

    I like the way Louisiana does primaries for state election, i think we should do that for President.

    Ranked choice is also good, we should do that AND get rid of party primaries.

    Party primaries have become contests over who can please the extremists on both sides. It has created a feedback loop pushing us towards extremism, and it's getting to a point where we need to do something about it.
    They don't have to get rid of the primaries system, because they could use ranked choice in the primaries as well. If we used ranked choice in the primaries, we would end up with much better candidates that represent the majority of their parties. Under that system, I bet Trump wouldn't win, and I don't think Biden would either. Then also we wouldn't have to fear 3rd party spoilers. Alaska and Maine use RCV statewide, and Nevada may use it after this presidential election. Several states are using it for their primaries. In the attached link, I was surprised to read that it used to be used by several states in the early 1900s. Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota and Wisconsin used it for their primaries from 1912 to 1930. Unsurprisingly, Florida and Tennessee have banned it statewide. Those states have become very backwards.


     
    They don't have to get rid of the primaries system, because they could use ranked choice in the primaries as well. If we used ranked choice in the primaries, we would end up with much better candidates that represent the majority of their parties. Under that system, I bet Trump wouldn't win, and I don't think Biden would either. Then also we wouldn't have to fear 3rd party spoilers. Alaska and Maine use RCV statewide, and Nevada may use it after this presidential election. Several states are using it for their primaries. In the attached link, I was surprised to read that it used to be used by several states in the early 1900s. Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota and Wisconsin used it for their primaries from 1912 to 1930. Unsurprisingly, Florida and Tennessee have banned it statewide. Those states have become very backwards.


    We would still need some other type of reform to the primary system.

    Things like superdelegates that can tip the scales need to be taken out.
     
    We would still need some other type of reform to the primary system.

    Things like superdelegates that can tip the scales need to be taken out.
    I think the superdelegates have already been eliminated, from the Dems at least. IIRC.
     
    I think the superdelegates have already been eliminated, from the Dems at least. IIRC.

    We need a law prohibiting them, otherwise the parties can just bring them back whenever they want.
     
    What I always consider is how many more years of the GOP disaster can the country suffer and then make my choices based on that.
    Have the two and a half years since January 20, 2021 been part of the "GOP disaster?"
     
    Have the two and a half years since January 20, 2021 been part of the "GOP disaster?"
    Why don’t you elaborate instead of making me assume what you are implying?

    The GOP Disaster at large that exists today, started with Slimey Newt and has progressed as King Size liars convince their base that Cheat To Win, undermining the principles upon which the country was founded on, and lieing in general is honorable when the end you desire justifies any means, and is a viable way to maintain our Democratic Republic.

    The Icing on the cake that the GOP tragedy produced is The Head Liar (with the help of Russia) , and a conservative super majority of aggressive Right Wing Zealots. The USA has been undermined.

    I critique the Democrats for being over focused on National politics, and allowing Republicans to seize so many State legislatures. Their inaction or incompetence brought us to this very bad place, that we will all pay for. The real issue is us, average citizens acting as sheep, allowing ourselves to be sheered.
     
    Ok. I'll post this....then I'll watch immediately....then others can join me (if they wish) as we all learn together.
    *

    *
    *
    *
    *
    Very cool! Based on this one minute explanation it sounds good.
    This a is pie in the sky dream for you because Nov. 2024 is RELATIVELY too close to institute the Ranked Choice system.
    It WOULD help but it's seemingly not part of the national conversation if I'm only learning about it today thanks to you.

    It's an interesting idea. I don't know of too many people who would be unhappy with a system like that if it prevented us from having matchups like 2016's Trump vs. Clinton.

    I assume the idea would be for all primary voting to be done on the same day? Because our state by state does whittle candidates down also. It's not mandatory for the last place candidate to drop out, but they usually do now or soon. Their votes are already cast, but future voters in other states will likely vote for their second choice. If their second choice drops out, future voters will vote for their third choice. That would have a similar effect.

    I don't know that it necessarily would bring about the desired different outcomes. It would allow voters not to have to think strategically, i.e., I like Mr. Green best, but I'm going to vote for Ms. White because she as the best chance to beat that horrible Mr. Plaid that I can't stand. Instead they would vote for Green followed by White and the election system would do the rest.

    The problem with thinking that 'if only we had that system last time, that horrible mister Grey would not have won!' is that Mr. Grey won by campaigning under the existing system. If the system had been different, his strategy would have been different. He would have played for not only the top slot in voters lineups, but also to be lots of non-supporters' second choice.

    It would probably encourage candidates to be less insulting to their opponents, so that their opponent's voters would not be put off from them as a second choice. So, it might help with civility. I don't mean to sound dismissive of that.

    It might help with civility! That would be great! We sure need some.

    That's the answer I give to people who say that Y candidate would have won if we elected presidents by popular vote. If it had been a popular vote election, X would have employed a popular vote strategy and still won.
     
    Looks like Manchin is on his next attention--grabbing expedition to wrangle something away from his colleagues or allow Trump to take back the White House again.

     
    I don't think Manchin is like Trump....needing attention.
    I think Manchin is like the Democratic Party used to be before The Squad and the current push to the far left took hold. I appreciate Senator Joe Manchin and I'd prefer him VERY much over our current President.
    This is a different article but with (I admit) much of the same info. as posted above. I'll share it anyway...
    *
     
    I don't think Manchin is like Trump....needing attention.
    I think Manchin is like the Democratic Party used to be before The Squad and the current push to the far left took hold. I appreciate Senator Joe Manchin and I'd prefer him VERY much over our current President.
    This is a different article but with (I admit) much of the same info. as posted above. I'll share it anyway...
    *
    No, he's no where near Trump in his thirst for attention, but he's not a fair representation of the non-progressive Democratic Party either. Manchin further right of traditional "Blue Dog" Democrats and he may be unique, but he's no "maverick" as the article describes him.

    Even with its progressive wing, the Democratic Party is not, nor has it ever been far-left, they haven't budged from the position they were in during the Clinton Administration. Just look at its Party leaders! Can the Republican party say the same? Maybe that's why they see the Democratic Party as far-left.
     
    No, he's no where near Trump in his thirst for attention, but he's not a fair representation of the non-progressive Democratic Party either. Manchin further right of traditional "Blue Dog" Democrats and he may be unique, but he's no "maverick" as the article describes him.

    Even with its progressive wing, the Democratic Party is not, nor has it ever been far-left, they haven't budged from the position they were in during the Clinton Administration. Just look at its Party leaders! Can the Republican party say the same? Maybe that's why they see the Democratic Party as far-left.
    Re. the latter part of your post above...I'll say: "Maybe".
    To me, the Democratic Party IS more to the left than in the Clinton years.
    The fact that Joe Biden was elected does not convince me otherwise.
    I feel Biden was elected because Democratic voters were convinced his name recognition was the only candidate that was sure to beat Trump. They didn't choose him because he is a centrist....or because Democratic voters are centrists.
    The Democratic voters always re-elect AOC, even though she's done nothing for her district.
    "The Squad" members might not have been elected when Bill Clinton took office in Jan of 1993. That was 30 years ago!
     
    The Democratic voters always re-elect AOC, even though she's done nothing for her district.
    "The Squad" members might not have been elected when Bill Clinton took office in Jan of 1993. That was 30 years ago!

    Why do you say that AOC doesn't do anything for her district? Is this your personal knowledge or a preception built from the news you consume?

     
    Why do you say that AOC doesn't do anything for her district? Is this your personal knowledge or a preception built from the news you consume?

    2nd one. I saw tv news because I am in the NY viewing area. The reporter stopped random people on the street in her district and no one seemed to think highly of her. No one could point out anything she had done. At the time, she was perceived as turning away Amazon and costing her district a chance at jobs. My opinion is reflecting back to that day I saw the reporter in her district. Yet the election came and she won anyway.
     
    Re. the latter part of your post above...I'll say: "Maybe".
    To me, the Democratic Party IS more to the left than in the Clinton years.
    The fact that Joe Biden was elected does not convince me otherwise.
    I feel Biden was elected because Democratic voters were convinced his name recognition was the only candidate that was sure to beat Trump. They didn't choose him because he is a centrist....or because Democratic voters are centrists.
    The Democratic voters always re-elect AOC, even though she's done nothing for her district.
    "The Squad" members might not have been elected when Bill Clinton took office in Jan of 1993. That was 30 years ago!
    You're hyper focused on "The Squad", why is that? The only one I can identify these days is AOC and that is only because her initials stay prominent within right-wing media. She represents her district in NY only! I would almost understand your point if she was a Senator representing the entire state.

    Biden being selected as the nominee had absolutely nothing to do with name recognition and everything to do with what the voters wanted from a candidate. His name was just as big as his opponents and to say otherwise is being disingenuous: Warren, Booker, Klobuchar, Harris & Sanders are all HUGE names but they were campaigning to the left of Biden.

    Biden=Obama=Clinton, that is how progressives see the Democratic Party and that is how history will show how they governed.

    I would bet that if '93 Bill were running today, he would still win.
     
    You're hyper focused on "The Squad", why is that? The only one I can identify these days is AOC and that is only because her initials stay prominent within right-wing media. She represents her district in NY only! I would almost understand your point if she was a Senator representing the entire state.

    Biden being selected as the nominee had absolutely nothing to do with name recognition and everything to do with what the voters wanted from a candidate. His name was just as big as his opponents and to say otherwise is being disingenuous: Warren, Booker, Klobuchar, Harris & Sanders are all HUGE names but they were campaigning to the left of Biden.

    Biden=Obama=Clinton, that is how progressives see the Democratic Party and that is how history will show how they governed.

    I would bet that if '93 Bill were running today, he would still win.
    YES . Bill Clinton would still win. He was smart and likeable. My opinion about why Biden was elected is unchanged by anything you said.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom