2024 Election Poll (6/9/2023)

[vcczar]

New poll

[vcczar]

For 10). I think if Trump loses again, he'll still hold on to his 45% supporters. He'll claim victory. I think his followers could end up forming a 3rd party if anti-MAGA Republicans regain control of their party. I think as long as Trump is alive, he's a curse on his party. It's hard to really invision this. They're a sitting duck party if they don't move away from Trump, but what can a party do if 45% of it supports Trump blindly? It's a personality cult. They're in an awful position. A cult leader doesn't allow other leaders. You're either with him or the enemy. DeSantis may have been MAGA allied, but he's an enemy to them now. See Pence on Jan 2021.

For 13) Political machines and some elements of foreign policy, such as aiding authoritarian governments.

For 14) Same as the above plus all policies and etc that restrict access to economic aid, higher wages, healthcare, voting, equality/equity, and etc, especially for the poor. In short most socially conservative policies. I'm okay with economic conservatism so long as the goal isn't to gut or strip "welfare" and similar programs. If they want to make it more efficient or insert more of the private sector (so long as that private sector is well-intentioned) I'm okay with that. My main beef with this party is on social policy.

[10centjimmy]

 

14) last I checked, the only republican party platform was "Do whatever Donald tells us to do," that plus a complete disregard to open and transparent elections (not to mention more recent attacks in Literacy, critical thinking, human rights, scientific discovery, the Constitution behind the 2nd amendment,  etc).

[vcczar]

3 minutes ago, 10centjimmy said:

 

14) last I checked, the only republican party platform was "Do whatever Donald tells us to do," that plus a complete disregard to open and transparent elections (not to mention more recent attacks in Literacy, critical thinking, human rights, scientific discovery, the Constitution behind the 2nd amendment,  etc).

It's the only time in the era of the Democratic and Republican Party that a major party hadn't a platform. As you reveal, it clearly wasn't a party convention, it was a Donald Trump convention. 

[Pringles]

Both parties are always going to have some policy that me, or anybody should deem immoral/unethical, whatever the case may be. 
 

However it’s a very telling sign of hyper-partisanship and “cult-like behavior” to say that one is immoral, and another isn’t in the grand scheme of things.
 

It’s laughable really, and unserious to anyone with the ability to critically think. 
 

With that said, Question 14:

GOP: Donald Trump and the people he’s brought in have been an ethical and moral stain on the party for the last 8 years. No longer the party of family values, like Jimmy said there is no Republican platform, it’s the Trump platform. 
 

Democrats: Their abortion policy, though not all Democrats clearly, will always be a blight on the party for me. And it is one of the reasons why I will never be able to fit in with the Democrats, even if I’ve felt the GOP has fully abandoned more traditional and mainstream conservatism.

Edited June 9 by Pringles

[ShortKing]

In terms of unethical/immoral, I find mainstream Democrats embracing the idea that elective abortion should be available to the point of birth less than ideal. I think the party as a whole has a tendency at times to position itself as overly hostile towards the free exercise of religion. I also think the instinct to hand down government mandates can be unethical when not properly considering the consequences, most notably I'm thinking of the county in Oregon that mandated mask wearing by ordinance, and found as a result that police officers were disproportionately harassing people of color for noncompliance. Their solution was to exempt nonwhite people from the mask wearing ordinance, which I just find silly and irresponsible to the point of unethical. One county in Oregon, mind you so not the entire Democratic Party, but I do find it a useful example of the overall tendency to jump toward government action without considering how they might be enforced. 

[Rezi]

With unethical Dem policies, I'm sure there's more, but the one that comes to mind is the party's general views on guns and self-defense. I understand that it comes from a place of good, most of the time, but restricting the abilities of people to defend themselves from criminals is still immoral in its effects.

[vcczar]

56 minutes ago, Rezi said:

With unethical Dem policies, I'm sure there's more, but the one that comes to mind is the party's general views on guns and self-defense. I understand that it comes from a place of good, most of the time, but restricting the abilities of people to defend themselves from criminals is still immoral in its effects.

I think the messaging should certainly be better. Gun policy isn't really one of my alarm issues, but I can tell you the things that make me favor gun restrictions:

• Babies and children that shoot themselves or family members on accident because they're in a household with a gun, and other unintentional domestic shootings. I think if the NRA and the Red States made both rhetorical and physical actions to make guns safer in the house, it would dilute opposition somewhat.
• The % of unarmed black men getting shot by cops is alarming. I do believe cops needs to be armed, for their safety as well as others. I don't think cops mean to shoot unarmed people. The best way to prevent this issue is to have military-grade non-lethal projectiles. I read a book back in c. 2002 for a military history class that mentioned technology then that could completely incapacite people without killing them. Even if they are armed you don't want to kill them because you may need information from the armed person to find their boss and etc. If the NRA and Red States took part in helping the manufacturing of these sorts of non-lethal weapons that can temporarily knock someone out as if they're dead--for a prolonged period, then this would dilute opposition. These weapons would also be better alternatives for the home. 
• I think purchasing a gun should require an accuracy liscense and any other testing that could ensure safety. Think of it as a driver's liscense for owning a gun. This would dilute opposition.
• I don't see the purpose of automatic military grade lethal weapons, such as an AK-47, unless a household has a real threat of being invaded by a full platoon of armed people. 

I have no knee-jerk reaction against gun ownership. I don't think they'll ever be banned. I do hope they are replaced by efficient non-lethal weaponry. I'm fine with gun collectors, even if I find gun fetishism kind of odd. I think people that carry huge guns into a Starbucks probably shouldn't be allowed in, mainly because anyone that thinks they need an AK-47 on their back to get a cup of coffee is probably deranged. I think some weapons are more allowable in rural areas than in urban areas. Rural areas have to wait much longer for cops to arrive, and they often haven't neighbors to call 9-11 and such. I'm more tolerant of gun ownership in isolated areas. 

[vcczar]

Lots of "Mention Below" votes

[DakotaHale]

I would vote for Kennedy over Trump for sure.

[vcczar]

57 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

I would vote for Kennedy over Trump for sure.

What I'm wondering is, let's say RFK JR, somehow wins the election. You know, Biden dies, and some Harris scandal causes voters to reluctantly support RFK JR. Trump is running from jail, so RFK narrowly beats Trump, despite a lot of people not voting. Voter turnout would be like 42% in this election. 

Who does RFK Jr fill his administration with and appoint to Congress. As a lifelong Democrat, as a Kennedy, as a NYer, and as someone who was known as a hardcore environmentalist before his anti-vaxxer attention, I would suspect that he'd fill the officers with Democrats. He may pick anti-establishment Democrats, at least more than Biden or Harris would. I doubt he fills offices with anti-vaxxers. You might get Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, Omar Ilhan, Jay Inslee, and other "outsiders." He might pick Kucinich and Gabbard too. Gabbard can't really be trusted to have an sort of ideals as she's been all over the place, but the rest of these people--including Kucinich--are progressive to far-left. Left of both Biden and Harris. Left of Pelosi. RFK Jr and Kucinich are kind of akin to Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky in that they're Left-wing Libertarian, although neither Vidal or Chomsky are conspiracy theorists and would probably favor vaccines. 

So I guess my question is, why would someone that supports Trump over Biden, support RFK Jr over Trump? RFK Jr might be to the right of Trump on vaccines, but he's probably to the left of Biden on economics, environment, some social policies, and he's certainly to the left of Trump on just about everything. 

If RFK Jr weren't anti-vaxx and a conspiracy theorists, I'd fight him more inticing than Biden, because in some ways he's more like Bernie Sanders than Joe Biden. He's a huge supporter of AOC's Green New Deal, for instance. He was a strong Hillary Clinton supporter in 2008. I'm not sure who he favored in 2016. I just googled. He endorsed Hillary in 2016.

It would be analogous to me supporting Ron Paul for president over Joe Biden because Paul is more of a pacifist. That support over one policy sacrifices all domestic, judicial, and economic ideals, where Ron Paul is almost my complete opposite.

I think when one selects a president to vote for, they have to keep in mind that you are electing an entire executive branch, and as many judicial branch people as they can appoint. Not one person, but a team of people. For this reason, I probably couldn't even vote for a Republican I like, such as Jon Huntsman, because he's going to have to fill the government with Republicans, almost all of whom are to the right of him. For this reason, I could see myself voting for an awful Democrat, because I'm not voting for one person. 

 

[DakotaHale]

46 minutes ago, vcczar said:

What I'm wondering is, let's say RFK JR, somehow wins the election. You know, Biden dies, and some Harris scandal causes voters to reluctantly support RFK JR. Trump is running from jail, so RFK narrowly beats Trump, despite a lot of people not voting. Voter turnout would be like 42% in this election. 

Who does RFK Jr fill his administration with and appoint to Congress. As a lifelong Democrat, as a Kennedy, as a NYer, and as someone who was known as a hardcore environmentalist before his anti-vaxxer attention, I would suspect that he'd fill the officers with Democrats. He may pick anti-establishment Democrats, at least more than Biden or Harris would. I doubt he fills offices with anti-vaxxers. You might get Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, Omar Ilhan, Jay Inslee, and other "outsiders." He might pick Kucinich and Gabbard too. Gabbard can't really be trusted to have an sort of ideals as she's been all over the place, but the rest of these people--including Kucinich--are progressive to far-left. Left of both Biden and Harris. Left of Pelosi. RFK Jr and Kucinich are kind of akin to Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky in that they're Left-wing Libertarian, although neither Vidal or Chomsky are conspiracy theorists and would probably favor vaccines. 

So I guess my question is, why would someone that supports Trump over Biden, support RFK Jr over Trump? RFK Jr might be to the right of Trump on vaccines, but he's probably to the left of Biden on economics, environment, some social policies, and he's certainly to the left of Trump on just about everything. 

If RFK Jr weren't anti-vaxx and a conspiracy theorists, I'd fight him more inticing than Biden, because in some ways he's more like Bernie Sanders than Joe Biden. He's a huge supporter of AOC's Green New Deal, for instance. He was a strong Hillary Clinton supporter in 2008. I'm not sure who he favored in 2016. I just googled. He endorsed Hillary in 2016.

It would be analogous to me supporting Ron Paul for president over Joe Biden because Paul is more of a pacifist. That support over one policy sacrifices all domestic, judicial, and economic ideals, where Ron Paul is almost my complete opposite.

I think when one selects a president to vote for, they have to keep in mind that you are electing an entire executive branch, and as many judicial branch people as they can appoint. Not one person, but a team of people. For this reason, I probably couldn't even vote for a Republican I like, such as Jon Huntsman, because he's going to have to fill the government with Republicans, almost all of whom are to the right of him. For this reason, I could see myself voting for an awful Democrat, because I'm not voting for one person.

I have very left-wing views on healthcare and the environment that make him more appealing to me over the least-appealing Republican. He's also very anti-elitist and isolationist which are Ws in my camp. His tax and energy policies I disagree with, but think that they are the least likely to pass through. I also think the Kennedy name gives him electability and name-recognition so I don't think he would have as hard a time winning the general as you think. He would also be able to hold the country together better than Biden or Trump as I think he is less divisive.

[WVProgressive]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

neither Vidal or Chomsky are conspiracy theorists

That is false. I’d consider Chomsky’s denial of the Cambodian genocide under Pol Pot to be a conspiracy theory, and that’s not even getting into his heterodox views on the Vietnam war, and the fact that many of his claims regarding the media or international institutions are indistinguishable from conspiracy theories about a deep state or global elite. Vidal on the other hand was less openly conspiratorial, though in his later years did flirt with conspiracy theories relating to Pearl Harbor, 9/11, and the Oklahoma City Bombing. They were/are conspiracy theorists, the only difference being they didn’t focus on it as much as Kennedy does.

[vcczar]

1 minute ago, WVProgressive said:

Chomsky’s denial of the Cambodian genocide

I was completely unaware of this. I forgot about Vidal and Oklahoma City. I have not heard say anything conspiracy theorist about Pearl Harbor or 9/11, at least nothing "insider job" related with either of these. 

[vcczar]

48 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

he is less divisive

I think the anti-vax and conspiracy theories will likely make this less of the case. He's really niche, and these are both stances that drive people nuts, and he's quite inflexible here. I don't really see Biden as divisive as say Trump, Obama, GW Bush, Cruz, AOC, etc. The only reason he's divisive is because he's president. Who didn't like Biden when he was VP, for instance? Even my Trump-supporting best friend thought Biden likable during the 2020 primary. He only hated him once he became the nominee. RFK Jr is already divisive (at least among Dems) and he's never held office.

[vcczar]

I think the only way Biden loses is because of a 3rd party: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4043274-democratic-fears-grow-over-third-party-candidates/

Manchin could run just to get power in WV, a purely selfish move that allows Trump to win. Alternatively, Cornell West, one of my favorite public intellectuals, is also running. West would be an ideal president, in my opinion, but he could totally Nader 2024, which would cause me to lose all respect for him. If we had ranked choice voting, I'd vote West in round 1, unless there was a threat of Trump winning in round 1. This said, I hope West gets zero support. If GOP splits in such a way that no conservative can get 25% of the vote, then I'd wish for West to get a huge surge in support.

[mark2]

for the record, my answer to 13 and 14 IS yes, just it's too much for me to go into detail about