The 2024 US House & Senate (& Presidential Election) and the Michigan Legislature - Who do you Think Wins?

Looks like Desantis is turning out to be a not very popular candidate:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/ron-desantis/

Harris Poll has his favorable up 6%. Quinnipiac and others have him down anywhere from 5 to 15 points.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Dems: "Wow, people are really worried that Biden is too old to run for President.  What ae we going to do?"

Also Dems:  "How about Bernie Sanders?"

Since Penn isn't posting very often on this board it falls to me to tell you that Senator Sanders is not personally popular with about 60% of the Dems, who rightly wildly incorrectly blame him for Clinton's loss.

FTFY

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Since Penn isn't posting very often on this board it falls to me to tell you that Senator Sanders is not personally popular with about 60% of the Dems, who rightly wildly incorrectly blame him for Clinton's loss.

FTFY

There are 3 to 6 major reasons that Clinton lost, Senator Sanders was one of them. Anyone of them not occurring would have given her a much better chance.

I can't believe that people can't be rational enough to accept that 7 years later.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
FTFY

There are 3 to 6 major reasons that Clinton lost, Senator Sanders was one of them.  Anyone of them not occurring would have given her a much better chance.

I can't believe that people can't be rational enough to accept that 7 years later.

You didn’t say anything other than “yes he was believe me” in your post.

It’s incorrect. Hilary being a wildly unpopular candidate is the reason she lost

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

There are 3 to 6 major reasons that Clinton lost, Senator Sanders was one of them.  Anyone of them not occurring would have given her a much better chance.

I can't believe that people can't be rational enough to accept that 7 years later.

You didn’t say anything other than “yes he was believe me” in your post.

It’s incorrect. Hilary being a wildly unpopular candidate is the reason she lost

Okay guys, at least factually that idea is incorrect, as she got more people voting for her than anyone ever before, and more than Trump.

You want to fight reality, have at it, I am not wasting any more time rehashing this. There are a significant number of Democratics who blame Senator Sanders amoung other things, make of that whatever you want.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
You didn’t say anything other than “yes he was believe me” in your post.

It’s incorrect. Hilary being a wildly unpopular candidate is the reason she lost

Okay guys, at least factually that idea is incorrect, as she got more people voting for her than anyone ever before, and more than Trump.

You want to fight reality, have at it, I am not wasting any more time rehashing this.  There are a significant number of Democratics who blame Senator Sanders amoung other things, make of that whatever you want.

Getting votes does not make you not wildly unpopular.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Okay guys, at least factually that idea is incorrect, as she got more people voting for her than anyone ever before, and more than Trump.

You want to fight reality, have at it, I am not wasting any more time rehashing this.  There are a significant number of Democratics who blame Senator Sanders amoung other things, make of that whatever you want.

Getting votes does not make you not wildly unpopular.

Every candidate has some people that love them and some people that hate them.  Clinton was no different than every other major party candidate though out history, with maybe the exception of George Washington, in this regard.

What was different was this was the first election where the internet social media was a widespread factor which likely is creating more immediate attitudes across the population than in the past. Both candidates had issues with this, and if it is used as the measure of predicting the election, trump, who had a much higher unfavorable rating than Clinton, one might call him "beyond wildly unpopular" should have lost in a landslide.

Looking at the recent past, Biden's 2020 unfavorable number was "50", Clinton's 2016 unfavorable number was "52", Trump's numbers were "57" in 2020 & "61" in 2016.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/320411/trump-biden-favorable-ratings-below.aspx

https://news.gallup.com/poll/197231/trump-clinton-finish-historically-poor-images.aspx

TP wrote:Listing the possibles in order with strikeouts for ones not in the running & bold for those declared.

Democratic:
1 - Joe Biden

26 - Marianne Williamson
27 - Robert F Kennedy Jr
9 - Stacey Abrams
12 - Maryland Governor Wes Moore
15 - Colorado Governor Jared Polis
16 - North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper
18 - New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy
19 - Illinois Governor JB Pritzker
21 - Ex - Montana Governor Steve Bullock
23 - Ex - Judge Cheri Beasley
25 - Gina Raimondo
1 - Vice President Kamala Harris
2 - California Governor Gavin Newsom
3 - Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer
4 - Senator Bernie Sanders
5 - Senator Elizabeth Warren
6 - Senator Raphael Warnock
7 - Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg
8 - Beto O’Rourke
10 - Senator Cory Booker
11 - Senator Amy Klobuchar
13 - Senator Mark Kelly
14 - Senator Tammy Baldwin
17 - Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro
20 - Rep. Tim Ryan
22 - Senator John Fetterman
24 - US House Representative Ro Khanna
My guess is that we can probably strike out most of the Democratic possibles on the list now that Biden has announced.

Republican:
1 - Donald Trump

1a - Florida Governor Ron DeSantis
2 - Ex-VP Mike Pence
3 - Ex Governor Nikki Haley
9 - Ex Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson
13 - Senator Tim Scott
14 - Ex New Jersey Governor Chris Christie
17 - Larry Elder
18 - Vivek Ramaswamy
ND - North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum
ND - Miami Mayor Francis Suarez
ND - Ex US Representative Will Hurd
4 - Georgia Governor Brian Kemp
5 - Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin
7 - South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem
8 - Ex Maryland Governor Larry Hogan
11 - Senator Ted Cruz
12 - Senator Marco Rubio
15 - John Bolton
16 - Ex US Representative Liz Cheney
6 - New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu
10 - Mike Pompeo

No-Lable Party:

1) - Joe Manchin?
2) - Joe Lieberman?
3) - Liz Cheney?

https://apnews.com/article/will-hurd-2024-republican-presidential-primary-710f6f0d4bb6cc1f5046e20ed17ef602

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Getting votes does not make you not wildly unpopular.

Every candidate has some people that love them and some people that hate them.  Clinton was no different than every other major party candidate though out history, with maybe the exception of George Washington, in this regard.

What was different was this was the first election where the internet social media was a widespread factor which likely is creating more immediate attitudes across the population than in the past.

You're saying 2016 was the first election that was influenced by social media?

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Getting votes does not make you not wildly unpopular.

Every candidate has some people that love them and some people that hate them.  Clinton was no different than every other major party candidate though out history, with maybe the exception of George Washington, in this regard.

What was different was this was the first election where the internet social media was a widespread factor which likely is creating more immediate attitudes across the population than in the past.

Okay.

Thx for acknowledging that it didn’t have anything to do with sanders and saying otherwise is just centrists trying to demonize progressives for their own failings. 

Look, I already know your point about sanders, I’ve been around this block 100 times with Penn. I think you understand it better than he did because he’s a doofus. “10% of sanders voters voted for trump” Fine, but many sanders supporters were not progressive or liberal at all. This is where Clinton being historically unpopular comes in- many were just voting against Hillary because they hate her. Blaming sanders for that is silly nonsense. Those people were never going to vote for the democrat in the general. 

Case in point- I voted for kasich in the primary. Hillary was to win Michigan by 20 (lol) and voting in that primary felt pointless. I am a kasich/Clinton voter. Had Clinton won, republicans could have blamed never trump republicans, and they certainly would have lumped me into those statistics. But nothing about that could be further from the truth about who I am. In a nutshell, not every vote in a primary is geared toward your favorite candidate for winning the general and it’s faulty to assume that they are.

For what it’s worth, I would have voted for Hillary in the primary. It’s only since then that I’ve grown up and realized that centrism isn’t the way forward.

Cameron wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Every candidate has some people that love them and some people that hate them.  Clinton was no different than every other major party candidate though out history, with maybe the exception of George Washington, in this regard.

What was different was this was the first election where the internet social media was a widespread factor which likely is creating more immediate attitudes across the population than in the past.

You're saying 2016 was the first election that was influenced by social media?

Social media has been building it's influence since about 2000, however in the 2016 election it used as a campaigning tool significantly more than in the elections before that. As the linked article shows Obama used it in 2008 (more in a positive way, if I remember) but in 2016 it was much more a major part of both candidate's campaign tool box.  Not going to try to write a political science thesis here but anodically there was a bunch of targeted internet negative campaigning by both the Trump (and Russians) & by Clinton in 2016 that wasn't there before at that level.

https://online.maryville.edu/blog/social-media-influence-on-elections/

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Every candidate has some people that love them and some people that hate them.  Clinton was no different than every other major party candidate though out history, with maybe the exception of George Washington, in this regard.

What was different was this was the first election where the internet social media was a widespread factor which likely is creating more immediate attitudes across the population than in the past.

Okay.

Thx for acknowledging that it didn’t have anything to do with sanders and saying otherwise is just centrists trying to demonize progressives for their own failings. 

Look, I already know your point about sanders, I’ve been around this block 100 times with Penn. I think you understand it better than he did because he’s a doofus. “10% of sanders voters voted for trump” Fine, but many sanders supporters were not progressive or liberal at all. This is where Clinton being historically unpopular comes in- many were just voting against Hillary because they hate her. Blaming sanders for that is silly nonsense. Those people were never going to vote for the democrat in the general. 

Case in point- I voted for kasich in the primary. Hillary was to win Michigan by 20 (lol) and voting in that primary felt pointless. I am a kasich/Clinton voter. Had Clinton won, republicans could have blamed never trump republicans, and they certainly would have lumped me into those statistics. But nothing about that could be further from the truth about who I am. In a nutshell, not every vote in a primary is geared toward your favorite candidate for winning the general and it’s faulty to assume that they are.

For what it’s worth, I would have voted for Hillary in the primary. It’s only since then that I’ve grown up and realized that centrism isn’t the way forward.

Penn & I are in agreement regarding Senator Sanders, he just get more emotional is his posts, which doesn't help him make his points.

Not going to go through all the factors, and there were a number of them, however how Senator Sanders, who historically has always ran dirty negative campaigns (and if you don't know that you shouldn't really be in this discussion, because it is necessary to be at this level to discuss this), caused the Clinton campaign issues is that his negative campaign provided months and months of pounding into people's heads why they should hate her.  

The Republicans should have thrown him a party.

In the general Trump et al just had to pick up Senator Sander's negative campaign against Clinton and keep on with it.

If you are going to cite Senator Sander's denials of running a negative campaign against Clinton, then you are not deep enough into how campaigning works to understand, however, the simple thing is the candidate always denies negative campaigning while their underlings are negative campaigning like crazy.

It wasn't that the Republican's were not also negative campaigning during this time, either.  It's that the Sander's negative campaign gave them the "see, even the liberals don't like her" narrative that they could use to stop some people from voting for her.

To get back to the point, Senator Sanders running, and using a dirty negative campaign to do so, hurt Clinton in the general.  There were a number of things that happened during the 2016 election which hurt her, any one of which not happening could have swung the election & Senator Sander's running was one of those, so it can be said that his campaign probably cost her the election, as did a number of other factors.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote: It’s only since then that I’ve grown up and realized that centrism isn’t the way forward.

And then we wonder why no one gets along and nothing gets accomplished anymore?  

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Okay.

Thx for acknowledging that it didn’t have anything to do with sanders and saying otherwise is just centrists trying to demonize progressives for their own failings. 

Look, I already know your point about sanders, I’ve been around this block 100 times with Penn. I think you understand it better than he did because he’s a doofus. “10% of sanders voters voted for trump” Fine, but many sanders supporters were not progressive or liberal at all. This is where Clinton being historically unpopular comes in- many were just voting against Hillary because they hate her. Blaming sanders for that is silly nonsense. Those people were never going to vote for the democrat in the general. 

Case in point- I voted for kasich in the primary. Hillary was to win Michigan by 20 (lol) and voting in that primary felt pointless. I am a kasich/Clinton voter. Had Clinton won, republicans could have blamed never trump republicans, and they certainly would have lumped me into those statistics. But nothing about that could be further from the truth about who I am. In a nutshell, not every vote in a primary is geared toward your favorite candidate for winning the general and it’s faulty to assume that they are.

For what it’s worth, I would have voted for Hillary in the primary. It’s only since then that I’ve grown up and realized that centrism isn’t the way forward.

Penn & I are in agreement regarding Senator Sanders, he just get more emotional is his posts, which doesn't help him make his points.

Not going to go through all the factors, and there were a number of them, however how Senator Sanders, who historically has always ran dirty negative campaigns (and if you don't know that you shouldn't really be in this discussion, because it is necessary to be at this level to discuss this), caused the Clinton campaign issues is that his negative campaign provided months and months of pounding into people's heads why they should hate her.  

The Republicans should have thrown him a party.

In the general Trump et al just had to pick up Senator Sander's negative campaign against Clinton and keep on with it.

If you are going to cite Senator Sander's denials of running a negative campaign against Clinton, then you are not deep enough into how campaigning works to understand, however, the simple thing is the candidate always denies negative campaigning while their underlings are negative campaigning like crazy.

It wasn't that the Republican's were not also negative campaigning during this time, either.  It's that the Sander's negative campaign gave them the "see, even the liberals don't like her" narrative that they could use to stop some people from voting for her.

To get back to the point, Senator Sanders running, and using a dirty negative campaign to do so, hurt Clinton in the general.  There were a number of things that happened during the 2016 election which hurt her, any one of which not happening could have swung the election & Senator Sander's running was one of those, so it can be said that his campaign probably cost her the election, as did a number of other factors.

If I've learned anything over the past few years with Trapper it's that Hillary is a saint and did nothing wrong. It was misogynistic jerk face leftists who caused her downfall. She wasn't a hateful shrew. She could have been the next JFK.

You think that negative attacks on Hillary Clinton started with Bernie Sanders? Lol that’s silly nonsense. 

The reality is that the party handpicked someone who had been the target of years and years of (unfair) attacks because she was clearly the handpicked next in line. Bernie didn’t invent attacking Hillary Clinton, and if she couldn’t handle what would be the obvious attacks in the primary, then running her in the general would be a bad idea anyway (2 notes here- she almost lost to a Senator few had heard of in the primary, and she did lose to a reality star in the general. Any suggestion that running her was anything other than an incredibly stupid idea is really dumb given that you have the benefit of hindsight and should use it). 

Ultimately no one forced the Democratic Party to push a candidate that had been a right wing target for years and years as their candidate. It doesn’t matter if any of those attacks were fair, they existed and people believed them, at least in part. Again, she was massively unpopular.  They could have selected anyone else, anyone, and they probably would have won the general. Blaming sanders is just trying to absolve the party leadership for their stupid decisions and I won’t agree to that.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Penn & I are in agreement regarding Senator Sanders, he just get more emotional is his posts, which doesn't help him make his points.

Not going to go through all the factors, and there were a number of them, however how Senator Sanders, who historically has always ran dirty negative campaigns (and if you don't know that you shouldn't really be in this discussion, because it is necessary to be at this level to discuss this), caused the Clinton campaign issues is that his negative campaign provided months and months of pounding into people's heads why they should hate her.  

The Republicans should have thrown him a party.

In the general Trump et al just had to pick up Senator Sander's negative campaign against Clinton and keep on with it.

If you are going to cite Senator Sander's denials of running a negative campaign against Clinton, then you are not deep enough into how campaigning works to understand, however, the simple thing is the candidate always denies negative campaigning while their underlings are negative campaigning like crazy.

It wasn't that the Republican's were not also negative campaigning during this time, either.  It's that the Sander's negative campaign gave them the "see, even the liberals don't like her" narrative that they could use to stop some people from voting for her.

To get back to the point, Senator Sanders running, and using a dirty negative campaign to do so, hurt Clinton in the general.  There were a number of things that happened during the 2016 election which hurt her, any one of which not happening could have swung the election & Senator Sander's running was one of those, so it can be said that his campaign probably cost her the election, as did a number of other factors.

If I've learned anything over the past few years with Trapper it's that Hillary is a saint and did nothing wrong. It was misogynistic jerk face leftists who caused her downfall. She wasn't a hateful shrew. She could have been the next JFK.

Nope, but I can count on any number of emotion push back reactions when people disagree in discussions about her.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:You think that negative attacks on Hillary Clinton started with Bernie Sanders? Lol that’s silly nonsense. 

The reality is that the party handpicked someone who had been the target of years and years of (unfair) attacks because she was clearly the handpicked next in line. Bernie didn’t invent attacking Hillary Clinton, and if she couldn’t handle what would be the obvious attacks in the primary, then running her in the general would be a bad idea anyway (2 notes here- she almost lost to a Senator few had heard of in the primary, and she did lose to a reality star in the general. Any suggestion that running her was anything other than an incredibly stupid idea is really dumb given that you have the benefit of hindsight and should use it). 

Ultimately no one forced the Democratic Party to push a candidate that had been a right wing target for years and years as their candidate. It doesn’t matter if any of those attacks were fair, they existed and people believed them, at least in part. Again, she was massively unpopular.  They could have selected anyone else, anyone, and they probably would have won the general. Blaming sanders is just trying to absolve the party leadership for their stupid decisions and I won’t agree to that.

To me this reaction has cause and effect backwards, and uses a negative slur on the Democratic Party too boot.

She was the leading contender in 2016 because she had worked hard within the party from her defeat in 2008 onward.

She wasn't the party's hand picked candidate, she was the candidate who worked hard within the party for 8 years to gain support.  One of the grips about Senator Sanders was, and is that he is not a Democratic Party member, though he is well known. He didn't put in the work that Clinton did.

I will grant that some people hate Clinton, however your description is hyperbolic.

Former Texas Rep. Will Hurd may be a long shot to be the Republican nominee for president, but his entry into the race Thursday was a benchmark: Of the 12 major GOP candidates, half are people of color.

https://www.axios.com/2023/06/23/republican-presidential-candidates-diverse-2024

Mike pence is calling for all of them to embrace a 15 week national abortion ban. 

Who cares what Mike pence thinks

But anyway I’ve never really understood how they justify that in their minds. It’s a means to an end of course, but how do you square “abortion is murder” and “abortion is ok at 14.5 weeks”. It’s either murder or it isn’t.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Mike pence is calling for all of them to embrace a 15 week national abortion ban. 

Who cares what Mike pence thinks

But anyway I’ve never really understood how they justify that in their minds. It’s a means to an end of course, but how do you square “abortion is murder” and “abortion is ok at 14.5 weeks”. It’s either murder or it isn’t.

Mike Pence is merely parroting what the rightest of evangelicals are pushing.

Listened to the "The Run Up" podcast this morning where they interview this evangelical. Scary shit.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Mike pence is calling for all of them to embrace a 15 week national abortion ban. 

Who cares what Mike pence thinks

But anyway I’ve never really understood how they justify that in their minds. It’s a means to an end of course, but how do you square “abortion is murder” and “abortion is ok at 14.5 weeks”. It’s either murder or it isn’t.

Mike Pence is merely parroting what the rightest of evangelicals are pushing.

Listened to the "The Run Up" podcast this morning where they interview this evangelical. Scary shit.

But that’s what I mean- how do the rightists evangelicals make that make sense in their head? It doesn’t make sense. If it’s murder then you should be against it entirely. Not setting arbitrary lines.

But again that is obviously the goal eventually and this would just be a step toward that. I guess the ends of no murder eventually justify the means of some murder is okay for now.

It’s not murder to be clear. You know what I mean.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:

Mike Pence is merely parroting what the rightest of evangelicals are pushing.

Listened to the "The Run Up" podcast this morning where they interview this evangelical. Scary shit.

But that’s what I mean- how do the rightists evangelicals make that make sense in their head? It doesn’t make sense. If it’s murder then you should be against it entirely. Not setting arbitrary lines.

But again that is obviously the goal eventually and this would just be a step toward that. I guess the ends of no murder eventually justify the means of some murder is okay for now.

It’s not murder to be clear. You know what I mean.

The mistake you are making is that they care about abortion at all. Oh sure, some of their sheeple do, and they will say whatever to keep them on board, but for the leaders this has always been about power and grifting.

They know the numbers say an overwhelming number of the voters support abortions, the 15 week number is a bait and switch, to stop the bleeding of votes.

Yeah I mean there’s that. I’ve been up and down the board for years saying that they don’t actually want to overturn it but that they accidentally put one too many kooks on he seems court 

So again, I don’t think I am talking about the politicians that actually want to politician. I am talking about an evangelical that somehow manages to square that circle.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Yeah I mean there’s that. I’ve been up and down the board for years saying that they don’t actually want to overturn it but that they accidentally put one too many kooks on he seems court 

So again, I don’t think I am talking about the politicians that actually want to politician. I am talking about an evangelical that somehow manages to square that circle.

They don't. They keep fighting for total control of women, which is what this is about for them.

[tw]1672268749808992256[/tw]

Disagree about Trump, his issues are more about he isn't the shiny new guy anymore.

[tw]1672276000548474884[/tw]

[tw]1672644583757426690[/tw]

DWags wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:[tw]1672644583757426690[/tw]

Call me crazy, but I have not really felt the effects of the inflation, or a slow down in the economy, and frankly, if I was going to the polls today to vote my pocketbook, I would vote for the devil I know. That happens to be an office.

But, but, he's not winning the culture wars!!!

Trapper Gus wrote:[tw]1672644583757426690[/tw]

(It is not a presidential election year)

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:[tw]1672644583757426690[/tw]

(It is not a presidential election year)

And Biden's "approval rating is holding at about 43%.

TP wrote:Listing the possibles in order with strikeouts for ones not in the running & bold for those declared.

Democratic:
1 - Joe Biden

26 - Marianne Williamson
27 - Robert F Kennedy Jr
9 - Stacey Abrams
12 - Maryland Governor Wes Moore
15 - Colorado Governor Jared Polis
16 - North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper
18 - New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy
19 - Illinois Governor JB Pritzker
21 - Ex - Montana Governor Steve Bullock
23 - Ex - Judge Cheri Beasley
25 - Gina Raimondo
1 - Vice President Kamala Harris
2 - California Governor Gavin Newsom
3 - Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer
4 - Senator Bernie Sanders
5 - Senator Elizabeth Warren
6 - Senator Raphael Warnock
7 - Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg
8 - Beto O’Rourke
10 - Senator Cory Booker
11 - Senator Amy Klobuchar
13 - Senator Mark Kelly
14 - Senator Tammy Baldwin
17 - Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro
20 - Rep. Tim Ryan
22 - Senator John Fetterman
24 - US House Representative Ro Khanna
My guess is that we can probably strike out most of the Democratic possibles on the list now that Biden has announced.

Republican:
1 - Donald Trump

1a - Florida Governor Ron DeSantis
2 - Ex-VP Mike Pence
3 - Ex Governor Nikki Haley
9 - Ex Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson
13 - Senator Tim Scott
14 - Ex New Jersey Governor Chris Christie
17 - Larry Elder
18 - Vivek Ramaswamy
ND - North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum
ND - Miami Mayor Francis Suarez
ND - Ex US Representative Will Hurd
ND - Senator Rick Scott
4 - Georgia Governor Brian Kemp
5 - Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin
7 - South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem
8 - Ex Maryland Governor Larry Hogan
11 - Senator Ted Cruz
12 - Senator Marco Rubio
15 - John Bolton
16 - Ex US Representative Liz Cheney
6 - New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu
10 - Mike Pompeo

No-Lable Party:

1) - Joe Manchin?
2) - Joe Lieberman?
3) - Liz Cheney?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/22/us/politics/rick-scott-presidential-run-2024.html

[tw]1673823598799118336[/tw]

[tw]1673732089982615553[/tw]

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
(It is not a presidential election year)

And Biden's "approval rating is holding at about 43%.

"Holding?" That's up 6 points.

https://apnews.com/article/michigan-house-hertel-barrett-slotkin-063252cc3725e36bedbcb461feea079c

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Former Democratic state Sen. Curtis Hertel Jr. on Monday will announce a campaign for Michigan’s 7th Congressional District, one of the nation’s most competitive House districts.

Hertel and Republican Tom Barrett, who launched his second run for the seat Sunday night, are the first to announce bids for U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin’s seat. Slotkin, a Democrat, announced earlier this year that she would seek Michigan’s open U.S. Senate seat.

Michigan’s 7th District was home to one of the nation’s most expensive contests last year, with Slotkin beating Barrett, and both national parties have already vowed to again go all out to win the battleground district in 2024.

[tw]1678443423928393731[/tw]

Would a requirement that you hold some elected public office before running for the U.S. Senate or even the White House be such a bad thing?

the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator is endorsed in '24 by all of Michigan's republican/libertarian members of Congress.

here's the best part:

Their statement continued: "Under the Trump presidency, America was prosperous, the economy was strong, the world was a safer place and Michiganders were better off.

Caution: Mainstream Media Link

Robert J Sakimano wrote:the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator is endorsed in '24 by all of Michigan's republican/libertarian members of Congress.

here's the best part:

Their statement continued: "Under the Trump presidency, America was prosperous, the economy was strong, the world was a safer place and Michiganders were better off.

Caution: Mainstream Media Link

Hope they’re good at fund raising. Like really, really, good.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator is endorsed in '24 by all of Michigan's republican/libertarian members of Congress.

here's the best part:

Their statement continued: "Under the Trump presidency, America was prosperous, the economy was strong, the world was a safer place and Michiganders were better off.

Caution: Mainstream Media Link

In other words, they're scared shitless that Trump will endorse someone other than them.