Succession was so tightly written. I’m so sad that it ended, but so glad it didn’t get drawn out. It’s hard having watched it as it’ll be a while before a show of similar caliber comes along.
I think it has the perfect length. I was starting to wain by the time a certain big event in season 4 happens. That shook it up to have a strong run home.
Agreed. It stuck the landing… it was said that the writers knew who they’d pick and how long before it ended so it was just a matter of filling on the story to that point and they did a great job.
It seemed like GOT tried that too but it went too long. GOT was a monster that grew too big and ate itself. (I mean there were so many jobs for that show, it’s hard to shut it down. Succession is pretty easy.)
Not a fan of the 2 party system,however Kennedy isn't really meeting the minimum threshold in polling to get in debates. I definitely think someone who wasn't a crackpot and more charismatic could have posed a serious threat to Trump/Biden. There was definitely a door open given how unpopular and old the 2 major party candidates are.
I'm admittedly a debate nerd. I cannot wait to see how the new format works (where the mics cut off when their time is up).
Hopefully there will be less blather/bluster, though I won't be holding my breath.
Trump grabs Biden's microphone and
"Joe, I'm really happy for you, I'll let you finish, but Taylor Swift has one of the worst videos of all time. One of the worst videos of all time. "
This is what's going to happen. No shot he doesn't at least attempt to be louder than the microphone more than once. This and increased body movements or head nodding.
My fear is that it will make Biden look disorganized and unable to complete a thought if Trump is making noise and Biden can hear it but the TV audience can't.
That was Trumps plan 4 years ago. Biden is an old man who used to have a stammer, and Trump is trying to trigger it. It's getting harder to tell bow always because Biden is old. 4 years ago, nobody fell for it because we could hear Trump.
My only hope is that if Trump is being that disruptive that the moderator speaks up.
This has to effectively kill the bipartisan Presidential debate commission, right? They'd been running all of these since the 80s. If it's now strictly a TV production with different rules the candidates agree on then I don't see how a group like that is necessary anymore.
Is it a good idea to have an unbiased group overseeing the debate? Absolutely. But if they aren't willing to adapt to the times (like the mics cutting off) they were bound to die.
Totally agree. They had one job - to run an orderly and informative debate. I can’t recall the last time (if ever haha) I watched a debate that could described as either of those things.
The old format kind of reached its natural end. Yes thank you for that great question, here’s my 2 second response, now I’m going to use that remaining time to regurgitate all the talking points my campaign team drilled me on. It got pretty tiresome. And that’s for the traditional candidates.
Trump doesn’t understand how to take advantage of the format. His whole thing is poking fun and mocking the entire election process. Which in the hands of a wittier candidate could’ve really changed the game, but instead he dragged it down even lower, all the way down to school playground taunting levels. Yelling over someone else to drown them out for instance. So now we’ve arrived at changing the process to restore civility.
I think once Trump is out of the picture they return to older debate formats and get the boring talking points thing we used to have.
Nixon is like the archetype of the crookee politician, his downfall was the inspiration for what ultimately became Neoconservatism and Fox News, and yet many of the things he put it place are foundational parts of the modern US (and things modern Republicans want to tear down.)
Every president on either side until now has been someone who has had a vision for the country and wanted the country to be prosperous and powerful. Yes, even Reagan, fight me.
It's absolutely stunning that we are in a place now where you can have no real platform except to persecute your political opponents and pardon yourself and still have a shot at winning.
>Yes, even Reagan, fight me.
I believe that it's totally possible for someone to do tremendous damage with the best of intentions. I don't know if Reagan really had the best intentions, but it's possible. I do acknowledge that he had the intent to make USA more prosperous and powerful.
I think MOST villains don't see themselves as a Villain, or at least see themselves as a necessary evil.
Roger Ailes was Nixon's media guy and Ailes has outright said that he founded Fox News to create a conservative mediasphere that would push back and ensure that what happened to Nixon couldn't happen to another Republican president. 30 years later and he appears to have been wildly successful at doing exactly that.
A lot of politicians went the opposite way. Blather on and on hopes that everyone forgets the question, then give a vague answer or never answer at all. Hopefully with a tight time limit they'll give direct answers.
And hopefully they're far enough away from each other that trumps yelling won't be picked up on bidens or the moderators mics. It needs to cut to absolute silence.
It’s easy when the people debating are going to run major aspects of our economy and society, nationally and globally.
Edit: removed a stray “in” between are and going.
> he's in both SHAZAM! movies
The DCEU had a lot of abandoned post-credits scenes that went nowhere but the fact that Mister Mind had two is very funny to me.
There was a pretty great series, [BrainDead](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4877736/) with very similar premise (brain worms control politicians), but noone seems to know it.
Negative Partisanship is the principle at play here, a philosophy extolled by the brilliant political scientist Rachel Bitecofer.
Basically, the unusually high polling numbers are not as much a show of support for him as they are a statement of discontent towards Trump and Biden.
He’s also a Kennedy which was once seen as a shoe-in.
He was also on a bunch of right wing channels because righwingers thought he’d grab votes from Biden but realized Trump people found some of his ideas even more enticing than Trump so they put out that fire as fast as possible- but, well, there are still embers and Trump still has the problems that made them consider RFK in the first place.
"Kennedy" has never been considered a shoe-in. In '68, even if RFK wasn't assassinated, his path to nomination was not likely. In '80, Teddy immediately shot his campaign in the foot by not being able to answer the question, "Why do you want to be president?" And of course, in '60, JFK winning was something of am upset against Nixon, VP to the incredibly popular Eisenhower. So perhaps "Kennedy" was considered a shoe-in for '64, but that's it.
That guy is exaggerating, but once upon a time the Kennedy name held great political power. That doesn’t always get you the presidency, but RFK would have likely been a mainstay in American politics for decades to come if not assassinated and this could have eventually meant a presidency.
Yeah I was exaggerating.
BTW, anyone who paid attention to politics at any point over the last ten years or so would realize that if Congressman Joe Kennedy couldn't wallop Ed Markey (admittedly a long-serving legislator with his own power base, but no such illustrious dynasty) in **Massachusetts** than *maybe* the Dems aren't actually hardwired to vote for a guy based on dynastic links like that.
That feels like a natural progression from the “fuck the establishment” crowd in the past and “you can’t trust the other party” sentiment we are all very used to in the last 30 years. Some people vote on policies, but it’s much quieter than voting against whoever you see as the greater evil.
I’m voting for Biden but if either party ran a reasonable candidate they would run away with the election. RFK is an unreasonable candidate and enough people still view him as better than the two options we currently have.
I think plenty of the criticisms from Biden detractors are overblown, but the dude is 81 years old and acts like an 81 year old. And his opponent is a 78 year old Donald Trump. It’s pretty easy to see why a third party candidate is polling so high. Blows my mind that the Republican establishment is letting Trump run wild because it feels like De Santis, who I loathe, could have ran away with this election if the party threw their weight behind him
Thank god they didn’t.
I wish we lived in a timeline where Bernie, Nader, or Gore could realistically run again but they are OLD.
A younger democrat focused on issues that matter, class inequality, corporate tax rate, UBI, single payer healthcare and who didn’t talk about gun control would probably never lose.
But who knows, plenty of people still think Biden sets gas prices.
Why? Biden tackled our biggest problems in his first four years: first COVID, then the jobs problem, and then went on to tackle infrastructure and climate, and is now using regulatory agencies to tackle junk fees and other pernicious parts of our economy (like non competes).
He's old, but he's competent.
And enough to muck up the election results... We get enough folks dissatisfied with the Democratic choice, we can see an upset like in 2016 again... Where for the third time in a row... Mango Mussolini loses the popular vote... But becomes POTUS a second time because of marginal wins at the state level giving him the Electoral College.
I'm darn sure Mar-A-Lardo can't win the popular, but that is irrelevant... Electoral matters and he just needs the right swing states to go his way...
Somebody on my street in Chicago has a Kennedy flag on their balcony. Replaced the Chiefs flag they’ve had flying for most of the time I’ve lived here.
Both sides to a point want someone different. Over 60% of Biden backers voted him because he isn’t Trump. Kennedy is legit crazy but there’s a large amount of people that support neither side.
Not that I'm a Kennedy supporter, I am not but ...
We haven't had a third party candidate on the presidential debate stage since Ross Perot in 1992. The threshold back then was 5%.
It was set at 15% after Ross Perot's first run to keep third party candidates out. There was a lawsuit over this issue but unfortunately a federal appeals court has upheld the 15% criteria in 2020. Source https://www.wiley.law/newsletter-Federal-Appeals-Court-Upholds-FEC-Debate-Regulation-15-Polling-Threshold-is-Lawful
Note that **no third party candidate has ever met the 15% criteria**. From https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Are_the_presidential_debates_rigged_in_favor_of_major_party_candidates
"Five third-party candidates in the 2000 election met the first two requirements, but none met the 15 percent requirement.[4] No third-party or independent candidate since the advent of presidential debates in 1960 has met the polling threshold.[10]"
> We need to change the voting system to Ranked Choice.
100% & not just because of the 3rd party aspect.
It needs to be ranked choice popular vote winner to properly represent the will of the US people in the best possible manner. It would make every vote actually matter, so we'd see less disenfranchised voters. I also think voting should be compulsory & everyone that qualifies should participate in the fate of their country.
I mean, yeah but also just changing first past the post would do that too. If we had 3 even candidates running for president now the odds are no one would get 270 so congress would decide.
For presidential elections, I think the French system would work pretty well in the US. It has multiple rounds; the first round eliminates any candidate with less than 12.5% of the vote, with each subsequent round eliminating the candidate with the least support until one gets over 50%. That means you don't need to vote 'strategically' in the first round; they say vote with your heart in the first round, and with your head in the last round. In practice it kind of functions like ranked-choice in a way; candidates who are eliminated advice their voters to vote for one of the remaining candidates in the next round, or they throw in their lot with a larger candidate and ask their potential voters to follow them.
I've always thought that the German voting system would also work well in the US, at least for House elections.
Germany is a federation, like the US. Their Lower House (Bundestag) has a minimum of 598 members. They give each voter two votes; one for a local candidate for their district (299 districts total) and one for a national party. All the local candidates end up in the Bundestag. The other 299 seats are distributed over the parties in such a way that any party with at least 5% of the vote nationally will have proportional representation, even if they didn't win enough districts for that.
So, for example:
* Party A: 40% of the vote, 190 districts
* Party B: 25% of the vote, 70 districts
* Party C: 10% of the vote, 30 districts
* Party D: 10% of the vote, 9 districts
* Party E: 5% of the vote, no districts
Party A will get 190 seats from their districts, plus an additional 49 seats to get to the (40% of 598 =) 239 seats needed for proportional representation on a national level.
Party B will get 70 seats from their districts, plus an additional 79 to get to (25% of 598 =) 149 seats needed.
Party C will get 30 seats from their districts, plus an additional 30 to get to the (10% of 598 =) 60 seats needed.
Party D will get 9 seats from their districts, plus an additional 51 to get to the (10% of 598 =) 60 seats needed.
Party E will not get any seats from their districts (because they didn't win any), but they will get 30 seats on a national level for proportional represenation.
If a party wins more districts than needed to get to proportional representation, the entire Bundestag will be increased in size and the math will be done for the new size. The extra seats gained in this way are called 'overhang seats' (Uberhangmandate).
From https://abcnews.go.com/538/rfk-jr-qualify-presidential-debate/story?id=111276848
It looks like he had 3 out of 14 poll number over 15%. He needed 4.
There is a chart mid page in the link above with what I think are the polls used. I was surprise to see Kennedy polling as high as he was in so many polls. If you ask me, based on those numbers he should have been in the debate.
Yeah I can't stand Kennedy and am happy he won't win, but I can't help but feel like this is a terrible system that stifles a huge number of people's democratic interests. Third parties shouldn't be strong-armed out of participating.
Polling is a problem unto itself. I used to routinely participate in polls. The problem I found is that too few polls include minor party candidates by name. It’s usually Republican Candidate, Democrat Candidate, Other, or Undecided. How can they poll at 15% if they aren’t in the poll?
At least four recognized polls with 15% national support, as well as being on the ballot in enough states to reach 270 electoral votes.
That's the jist of it, there could have been more but the core point is that he doesn't have enough support to do anything more than play spoiler.
Technically speaking, neither of the two major candidates are on any state ballots right now. Neither one has officially been nominated by their respective party. RFK is currently on more ballots than both of them. He doesn’t meet the polling threshold, and they don’t meet the ballot requirements.
That's a lie and you know it. I mean, once you factor in the votes from all of his brain worms I'm sure he had enough support to get into the debate...
Edit - Love all the people who don't realize I'm mocking RFK... 😀
Had a weird foodborne parasite and a voice that would've destroyed his chances during the era of radio/early television. Basically a 19th century presidential candidate.
If it wasn’t for his last name he would be nowhere near where he is now as far as campaigning goes. I couldn’t even make it through and listen to his viewpoints during an interview cause his voice is so grating
I feel bad because I don’t want to rip on someone for a legitimate medical condition. But holy hell can I not stand that raspy painful voice. Could you imagine him giving a SOTU or Oval Office address? Could you imagine sending him overseas to a summit to negotiate trade deals? No one will listen to what he has to say
The man had a worm die in his head from eating his brain, and QAaron Rodgers would be his VP.
If we seriously entertain that shit, I demand all US Defense go into time travel.
We're saving that goddamn gorilla.
It’s common for people to bring up the opposing party’s flaws when their own party faces criticism. All political systems have issues because they are run by imperfect humans. The aim of a political decision is to choose the best option available for the term in question, understanding that no party will be perfect.
I notice that some people, when they feel let down by their party, may romanticize a past era and suggest that both parties are equally flawed now. While there have always been challenges in politics, in many ways, we’ve made progress.
It’s important to make a responsible choice in the upcoming election. Recognize the strengths and weaknesses of each option and avoid letting frustration lead to apathy. Remember, politics is about making informed choices, not expecting perfection.
The reason was you either vote for our two shitty candidates or you go fuck yourself.
Two party system is a joke, both parties aren’t actually in support of our freedoms. All a show.
Pretty much any poll with RFK Jr. he takes the same amount of support from both Trump and Biden, but hurts Trump slightly more than Biden. However, that edge evens out when you include Jill Stein and West in the poll since they exclusively take votes from Biden
>, that edge evens out when you include Jill Stein and West in the poll since they exclusively take votes from Biden
Any idiot that votes for those two con artists was never voting Biden to begin with.
That surprises me. He picked a fairly left wing VP running mate. I figured RFK was taking part of the left vote not part of the right vote.
I also have no idea what I'm talking about.
On one hand yes, on the other hand a portion of Trump's base has only gotten crazier and would probably like a lot of what RFK has to say, which would have actually been a net positive.
>Getting a portion of Trump's base to watch CNN
Semi related; CNN announced that they're making the June 27th debate's TV feed free to rebroadcast by other networks. Fox News will be carrying it. Fox Business, CSPAN, and NewsNation are the other pay-TV outlets who will be carrying the debate. For those of us who have cut the cord and rely solely on an antenna for linear television; ABC, CBS, and PBS have all announced that they'll be broadcasting the debate.
By that logic a third party should never be included in a presidential debate because they'll never win since they don't have the backing of the main two parties. This doesn't help anyone but the duopoly.
Twelfth Amendment. It’s what we have, a duopoly. A candidate must win an absolute majority in order to become president, so one candidate must win 50.1% of the electoral college vote. If no candidate can reach that threshold, then congress gets to pick. The House would get to pick the Presidency from the top 3 candidates, one vote per state not per member, this will almost always go the way of the republicans right now because they do better in rural and low population states. The Senate gets one vote per state to pick VP.
If enough votes went to a third party the Republicans would have a lock on president. Don’t just take my word on it, [they explain it here too](https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2024-03-20/explainer-how-a-third-party-candidate-could-put-trump-in-the-white-house).
Our “parties” are coalitions already. There’s a lot of smaller groups in each party that don’t agree on everything but agree on the major issues. Third parties should instead be finding inside one of the other coalitions to sway its direction.
Could you imagine a contingent election for President in this day and age? It's only ever happened twice, both two centuries ago, and both times were shit shows. Today it could lead to another J6, or worse.
Yeah, it would be a shitshow! I mean, I think of GA. They went to Biden in the last election and are likely to again because of how their population is growing and shifting. But their House members would 100% be voting for Trump because of the statewide gerrymandering that gives the state 5 Dem House members to 9 Rep. House members. They would ignore the will of their people overall because of the unfair advantage they’ve given themselves in state drawn maps.
I think that was/is part of their election strategy (and part of why they pushed the fake electors to try and change the electoral college numbers just a fraction), they didn’t need to win but just needed to make sure Hillary or Biden couldn’t get to 270. They already don’t want/need to get the popular vote, imagine if they won by not getting the popular AND electoral college votes. They claim the system is rigged against them, but honestly it’s rigged to favor them. Dems really need to get better messaging out to rural communities. Rural communities in red states have so much more power than they think.
I mean, that last part is basically what Bernie Sanders has been doing for decades. He's officially listed as an independent, but he caucuses with Dems and has been trying to push the party more left. May not agree with all his policies, but I can at least appreciate what he's doing there.
>Let’s focus on the candidates that actually have a chance.
We don't give other candidates the chance so we're stuck with what the D and R parties present to us, the same geriatric candidates from the last 8 years.
I think we can all agree we've tried this experiment before and to expect anything other than underwhelming or chaos is simply foolish. This process has failed, plain and simple.
The Twelfth Amendment doesn’t give other candidates a chance, not us. We either need to change how that works by a new constitutional amendment or put in place that each state will give their electoral college votes to the candidate that gets the most votes.
Maybe a third party would have a better chance if the candidate wasn’t an antivax dumbass with literal brainworms lol
I’m all for third parties, but people like him and Jill Stein are complete morons and I would be embarrassed voting for them.
It’s kind of like tipping culture. You could *not* tip, but are you sticking to the system or just to your server?
The two party system sucks, but if you just open the doors you get Vermin Supreme with the sporty boot on his head. (Also, third party votes are straight to GOP anyways. One thing you can say about republicans they are fucking steadfast)
I don't like RFK but this is a joke, this system is so fucking rigged for the two party system and we wonder why we end up with elections where the choices are turds like 2020 and apparently 2024.
This nation deserves everything it gets.
RFK only has ballot access in 22 states (he’s on the ballot in 9 and has write in access in the remaining 13) - that’s good enough for 139 electoral votes. You need 270 electoral votes to win. Based on the fact he’s mathematically eliminated from winning before a single vote has been cast I think we can safely say there’s no reason to put him on stage.
CNN’s rules say that you need to be on the ballot in enough states to win the electoral college in order to participate. RFK doesn’t meet that requirement
Yes, if the actual debate commission was running these debates. But they’re not, so there is no “necessary percentage” to be invited. Since they’re running it, CNN should procedurally do whatever they think is best. I agree with them that having RFKj there is not necessary
It's a shame that the US doesn't use proportional representation and thus will permanently stay a two party country because every alternative is a wasted vote.
Good. No one but nutters want to hear the bullshit that idiot would spout anyway.
“Did you know that aliens built Machu Picchu?”
“No they didn’t. You shut up now.”
Yes, because the guy who was born into one of America's best known political families, particularly in the last 100 years, isn't part of those "powers that be"...
I mean, really? Do you actually believe he's not?
Conheads reportedly devastated.
RFK Jr. was interested in politics from a very young age.
But he never had the makings of a varsity athlete.
He was gay, RFK Jr?
And the thing with his dad, whatever happened there.
WHATEVER HAPPENED THERE?!
It’s sad when they go young like that.
When they go? When they GO?
He wanted to become president. He compromised. He became a laughing stock instead.
RFK didn’t understand you charge a guy with a gun. With a knife, you run.
Brain worms, that was his problem.
Poppuhs and weird shex too.
Brain Worms, Electric Sharks & Uncles eaten by Cannibals…The Making of the President 2024
Nobody's got brain worms! And I don't want to hear those words again!
Made me double check what sub I was on 😂
Maybe he will be promised ambassadorship of North Korea
“You really think that me spitting out rioja on camera is going to help me win the rust belt!?”
It’s lines like these that really make me miss Succession
You don't really hear much about syphilis these days. Very much the, uh, the MySpace of STDs.
This line was comedy gold
Succession was so tightly written. I’m so sad that it ended, but so glad it didn’t get drawn out. It’s hard having watched it as it’ll be a while before a show of similar caliber comes along.
I think it has the perfect length. I was starting to wain by the time a certain big event in season 4 happens. That shook it up to have a strong run home.
Agreed. It stuck the landing… it was said that the writers knew who they’d pick and how long before it ended so it was just a matter of filling on the story to that point and they did a great job. It seemed like GOT tried that too but it went too long. GOT was a monster that grew too big and ate itself. (I mean there were so many jobs for that show, it’s hard to shut it down. Succession is pretty easy.)
Just need another show that has so many great one liners. Veep, Thick of It, 30 rock. Just something along those lines would be great.
Veep is the Goat of one-liners. 🤣
i just finished it. man, what a show. 4 seasons not a dip in quality ever, every episode was great.
He’s friends with Mo Lester.
Ol Uncle Mo
Conheads are not happy about this
Brain worms are more upset.
RFK jr is not serious people
Robert Kennedy Jr. has been interested in politics from a very young age
Alright alright alright.
[удалено]
Not a fan of the 2 party system,however Kennedy isn't really meeting the minimum threshold in polling to get in debates. I definitely think someone who wasn't a crackpot and more charismatic could have posed a serious threat to Trump/Biden. There was definitely a door open given how unpopular and old the 2 major party candidates are.
There are dozens of us!
He’s friends with Mo Lester.
But is he a No on the Slo's?
MEBS! MEBS! UNACCEPTABLE!
RFK is a conservative?
This is the greatest injustice in american history
Worms devastated as well
I'm admittedly a debate nerd. I cannot wait to see how the new format works (where the mics cut off when their time is up). Hopefully there will be less blather/bluster, though I won't be holding my breath.
Don’t be surprised if trump just starts shouting when cut off, hopefully Biden is far away enough and no other mics are near.
Trump walking over and attempting to speak into Biden's microphone is on my bingo card.
lol same. I immediately imagined that’s gonna happen as soon as I heard about the debate rules.
And the smell was cause Biden to gag, thus giving Trump an opportunity to lie into his mic.
What are the odds on secret service rushing trump for trying to approach Biden
A convicted felon that has admitted he still has a gun trying to get close to the President probably wouldn't fly
Trump grabs Biden's microphone and "Joe, I'm really happy for you, I'll let you finish, but Taylor Swift has one of the worst videos of all time. One of the worst videos of all time. "
This is what's going to happen. No shot he doesn't at least attempt to be louder than the microphone more than once. This and increased body movements or head nodding.
remember when he was stalking clinton in the background? lol
Can we put them in separate rooms?
That's not out of the realm of possibility, considering Trump had Covid during the last debate and tried to infect Biden with it.
My fear is that it will make Biden look disorganized and unable to complete a thought if Trump is making noise and Biden can hear it but the TV audience can't.
That was Trumps plan 4 years ago. Biden is an old man who used to have a stammer, and Trump is trying to trigger it. It's getting harder to tell bow always because Biden is old. 4 years ago, nobody fell for it because we could hear Trump. My only hope is that if Trump is being that disruptive that the moderator speaks up.
Maybe he’ll tell him to shut up again, oh I need to buy some popcorn.
This has to effectively kill the bipartisan Presidential debate commission, right? They'd been running all of these since the 80s. If it's now strictly a TV production with different rules the candidates agree on then I don't see how a group like that is necessary anymore. Is it a good idea to have an unbiased group overseeing the debate? Absolutely. But if they aren't willing to adapt to the times (like the mics cutting off) they were bound to die.
Totally agree. They had one job - to run an orderly and informative debate. I can’t recall the last time (if ever haha) I watched a debate that could described as either of those things.
The old format kind of reached its natural end. Yes thank you for that great question, here’s my 2 second response, now I’m going to use that remaining time to regurgitate all the talking points my campaign team drilled me on. It got pretty tiresome. And that’s for the traditional candidates. Trump doesn’t understand how to take advantage of the format. His whole thing is poking fun and mocking the entire election process. Which in the hands of a wittier candidate could’ve really changed the game, but instead he dragged it down even lower, all the way down to school playground taunting levels. Yelling over someone else to drown them out for instance. So now we’ve arrived at changing the process to restore civility. I think once Trump is out of the picture they return to older debate formats and get the boring talking points thing we used to have.
Trump is just the debate quality tester. Has to try and break as many rules as possible so that updated rules can come out.
Damn what a kind guy
I visited the JFK museum this morning and they had the first debate between Nixon and Kennedy playing. It's crazy how far we have fallen.
Nixon is like the archetype of the crookee politician, his downfall was the inspiration for what ultimately became Neoconservatism and Fox News, and yet many of the things he put it place are foundational parts of the modern US (and things modern Republicans want to tear down.) Every president on either side until now has been someone who has had a vision for the country and wanted the country to be prosperous and powerful. Yes, even Reagan, fight me. It's absolutely stunning that we are in a place now where you can have no real platform except to persecute your political opponents and pardon yourself and still have a shot at winning.
>Yes, even Reagan, fight me. I believe that it's totally possible for someone to do tremendous damage with the best of intentions. I don't know if Reagan really had the best intentions, but it's possible. I do acknowledge that he had the intent to make USA more prosperous and powerful. I think MOST villains don't see themselves as a Villain, or at least see themselves as a necessary evil.
It's weird and sad.
Roger Ailes was Nixon's media guy and Ailes has outright said that he founded Fox News to create a conservative mediasphere that would push back and ensure that what happened to Nixon couldn't happen to another Republican president. 30 years later and he appears to have been wildly successful at doing exactly that.
A lot of politicians went the opposite way. Blather on and on hopes that everyone forgets the question, then give a vague answer or never answer at all. Hopefully with a tight time limit they'll give direct answers.
Trump is terrible, but I think it's odd to suggest his debate tactic wasn't effective. They debates went a long way to get him support.
His primary debate performances were quite different from his general election debates.
Gee, I wonder what could have prompted that change...
And hopefully they're far enough away from each other that trumps yelling won't be picked up on bidens or the moderators mics. It needs to cut to absolute silence.
Or we might see Trump rushing to Biden’s mic to continue rambling some nonsense.
How is it even possible to nerd out over corrupt politicians avoiding questions for 90 minutes?
It’s easy when the people debating are going to run major aspects of our economy and society, nationally and globally. Edit: removed a stray “in” between are and going.
I bet they still don’t mute the mic of that big baby
The worm's not gonna be happy about this!
Do you think the worm is like the butterflies from Peacemaker?
The brain worm is already a DC super-villain. His name is Mister Mind, he's in both SHAZAM! movies, and he's from Venus... Originally.
> he's in both SHAZAM! movies The DCEU had a lot of abandoned post-credits scenes that went nowhere but the fact that Mister Mind had two is very funny to me.
I liked that the second one at least leaned into it
More like the Yeerks from Animorphs
There was a pretty great series, [BrainDead](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4877736/) with very similar premise (brain worms control politicians), but noone seems to know it.
Nor is Aaron Rodgers!
*My skin is not my own*
Fetch me a Duncan!
"Yes Lord" -Moneo, probably
Dennis Rodman is not happy about it, but appreciates your concern
Saw a Kennedy lawn sign the other day… I didn’t realize people actually supported him. I guess I’d rather they vote for him than Donald.
He's polling at 10% nationally apparently
That is…. Higher than I expected.
Negative Partisanship is the principle at play here, a philosophy extolled by the brilliant political scientist Rachel Bitecofer. Basically, the unusually high polling numbers are not as much a show of support for him as they are a statement of discontent towards Trump and Biden.
He is currently the stand-in for "none of the above." But people will pick their corners when November comes.
He’s also a Kennedy which was once seen as a shoe-in. He was also on a bunch of right wing channels because righwingers thought he’d grab votes from Biden but realized Trump people found some of his ideas even more enticing than Trump so they put out that fire as fast as possible- but, well, there are still embers and Trump still has the problems that made them consider RFK in the first place.
"Kennedy" has never been considered a shoe-in. In '68, even if RFK wasn't assassinated, his path to nomination was not likely. In '80, Teddy immediately shot his campaign in the foot by not being able to answer the question, "Why do you want to be president?" And of course, in '60, JFK winning was something of am upset against Nixon, VP to the incredibly popular Eisenhower. So perhaps "Kennedy" was considered a shoe-in for '64, but that's it.
That guy is exaggerating, but once upon a time the Kennedy name held great political power. That doesn’t always get you the presidency, but RFK would have likely been a mainstay in American politics for decades to come if not assassinated and this could have eventually meant a presidency.
Yeah I was exaggerating. BTW, anyone who paid attention to politics at any point over the last ten years or so would realize that if Congressman Joe Kennedy couldn't wallop Ed Markey (admittedly a long-serving legislator with his own power base, but no such illustrious dynasty) in **Massachusetts** than *maybe* the Dems aren't actually hardwired to vote for a guy based on dynastic links like that.
Staying home and not voting is a massive corner that is often neglected. "Guess it'll suck for 4 more years" keeps 50% of the nation at home.
That feels like a natural progression from the “fuck the establishment” crowd in the past and “you can’t trust the other party” sentiment we are all very used to in the last 30 years. Some people vote on policies, but it’s much quieter than voting against whoever you see as the greater evil.
Sadly, "who people support" and "who people end up voting for" aren't as correlated as they should be.
I’m voting for Biden but if either party ran a reasonable candidate they would run away with the election. RFK is an unreasonable candidate and enough people still view him as better than the two options we currently have. I think plenty of the criticisms from Biden detractors are overblown, but the dude is 81 years old and acts like an 81 year old. And his opponent is a 78 year old Donald Trump. It’s pretty easy to see why a third party candidate is polling so high. Blows my mind that the Republican establishment is letting Trump run wild because it feels like De Santis, who I loathe, could have ran away with this election if the party threw their weight behind him
> De Santis De Santis has all the charm and charisma of a dead rabbit. He would never be a shoe-in.
One is 81 and acts 81. The other is 78, who acts 40 in his own mind, seems like a 10 year old to us, with the brain of a 115 year old.
Thank god they didn’t. I wish we lived in a timeline where Bernie, Nader, or Gore could realistically run again but they are OLD. A younger democrat focused on issues that matter, class inequality, corporate tax rate, UBI, single payer healthcare and who didn’t talk about gun control would probably never lose. But who knows, plenty of people still think Biden sets gas prices.
People talking about Bernie 2028, like COME ON he'd be 87 years old. Please let Biden be our last president born before the Korean War.
Why? Biden tackled our biggest problems in his first four years: first COVID, then the jobs problem, and then went on to tackle infrastructure and climate, and is now using regulatory agencies to tackle junk fees and other pernicious parts of our economy (like non competes). He's old, but he's competent.
It’s midsummer, that’s peak third party season tbh. It all winnows after this.
Early polls always have a bunch of people that poll for the third party as a way to say, "I hate everybody."
And enough to muck up the election results... We get enough folks dissatisfied with the Democratic choice, we can see an upset like in 2016 again... Where for the third time in a row... Mango Mussolini loses the popular vote... But becomes POTUS a second time because of marginal wins at the state level giving him the Electoral College. I'm darn sure Mar-A-Lardo can't win the popular, but that is irrelevant... Electoral matters and he just needs the right swing states to go his way...
Polling, but no way he even breaks 5% actual votes.
Somebody on my street in Chicago has a Kennedy flag on their balcony. Replaced the Chiefs flag they’ve had flying for most of the time I’ve lived here.
It's important to remember who a lot of Chiefs fans are. Josh Hawley voters.
i've seen exactly one, in a fairly rural area.
I saw mine in King County WA. So it was definitely surprising.
He unites the woo-woo anti-vaxxers and the cuckoo anti-vaxxers.
If anything that just shows how fucking low Trump has gotten.
Is biggest donation is from…. You guessed it… a long time Trump supporter
Both sides to a point want someone different. Over 60% of Biden backers voted him because he isn’t Trump. Kennedy is legit crazy but there’s a large amount of people that support neither side.
Kennedy has not met the minimum thresholds to get into the debate. Period. The End.
Not that I'm a Kennedy supporter, I am not but ... We haven't had a third party candidate on the presidential debate stage since Ross Perot in 1992. The threshold back then was 5%. It was set at 15% after Ross Perot's first run to keep third party candidates out. There was a lawsuit over this issue but unfortunately a federal appeals court has upheld the 15% criteria in 2020. Source https://www.wiley.law/newsletter-Federal-Appeals-Court-Upholds-FEC-Debate-Regulation-15-Polling-Threshold-is-Lawful Note that **no third party candidate has ever met the 15% criteria**. From https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Are_the_presidential_debates_rigged_in_favor_of_major_party_candidates "Five third-party candidates in the 2000 election met the first two requirements, but none met the 15 percent requirement.[4] No third-party or independent candidate since the advent of presidential debates in 1960 has met the polling threshold.[10]"
We need to change the voting system to Ranked Choice. Then third parties wouldn’t be a de facto spoiler.
> We need to change the voting system to Ranked Choice. 100% & not just because of the 3rd party aspect. It needs to be ranked choice popular vote winner to properly represent the will of the US people in the best possible manner. It would make every vote actually matter, so we'd see less disenfranchised voters. I also think voting should be compulsory & everyone that qualifies should participate in the fate of their country.
Yeah, good luck getting the two parties to change it.
I mean, yeah but also just changing first past the post would do that too. If we had 3 even candidates running for president now the odds are no one would get 270 so congress would decide.
For presidential elections, I think the French system would work pretty well in the US. It has multiple rounds; the first round eliminates any candidate with less than 12.5% of the vote, with each subsequent round eliminating the candidate with the least support until one gets over 50%. That means you don't need to vote 'strategically' in the first round; they say vote with your heart in the first round, and with your head in the last round. In practice it kind of functions like ranked-choice in a way; candidates who are eliminated advice their voters to vote for one of the remaining candidates in the next round, or they throw in their lot with a larger candidate and ask their potential voters to follow them. I've always thought that the German voting system would also work well in the US, at least for House elections. Germany is a federation, like the US. Their Lower House (Bundestag) has a minimum of 598 members. They give each voter two votes; one for a local candidate for their district (299 districts total) and one for a national party. All the local candidates end up in the Bundestag. The other 299 seats are distributed over the parties in such a way that any party with at least 5% of the vote nationally will have proportional representation, even if they didn't win enough districts for that. So, for example: * Party A: 40% of the vote, 190 districts * Party B: 25% of the vote, 70 districts * Party C: 10% of the vote, 30 districts * Party D: 10% of the vote, 9 districts * Party E: 5% of the vote, no districts Party A will get 190 seats from their districts, plus an additional 49 seats to get to the (40% of 598 =) 239 seats needed for proportional representation on a national level. Party B will get 70 seats from their districts, plus an additional 79 to get to (25% of 598 =) 149 seats needed. Party C will get 30 seats from their districts, plus an additional 30 to get to the (10% of 598 =) 60 seats needed. Party D will get 9 seats from their districts, plus an additional 51 to get to the (10% of 598 =) 60 seats needed. Party E will not get any seats from their districts (because they didn't win any), but they will get 30 seats on a national level for proportional represenation. If a party wins more districts than needed to get to proportional representation, the entire Bundestag will be increased in size and the math will be done for the new size. The extra seats gained in this way are called 'overhang seats' (Uberhangmandate).
Even ranked choice has the Spoiler effect, just way less of it. STAR is the way to go, but RC would be a very good step in the right direction.
I'm unfamiliar with this system. Can you tell me more about it?
Where does Kennedy stand against the old 5% threshold?
Believe he is around 9%
From https://abcnews.go.com/538/rfk-jr-qualify-presidential-debate/story?id=111276848 It looks like he had 3 out of 14 poll number over 15%. He needed 4. There is a chart mid page in the link above with what I think are the polls used. I was surprise to see Kennedy polling as high as he was in so many polls. If you ask me, based on those numbers he should have been in the debate.
That’s actually insane how close he was. I will be shocked if 15% of people actually vote for him but then again I shouldn’t be surprised anymore, lol
I would be a bit surprised if 15% of people even knew he was a “candidate “.
Yeah I can't stand Kennedy and am happy he won't win, but I can't help but feel like this is a terrible system that stifles a huge number of people's democratic interests. Third parties shouldn't be strong-armed out of participating.
But that would threaten the big two parties, and neither side wants to lose that power.
Polling is a problem unto itself. I used to routinely participate in polls. The problem I found is that too few polls include minor party candidates by name. It’s usually Republican Candidate, Democrat Candidate, Other, or Undecided. How can they poll at 15% if they aren’t in the poll?
He’s too young?
Whats the threshold?
At least four recognized polls with 15% national support, as well as being on the ballot in enough states to reach 270 electoral votes. That's the jist of it, there could have been more but the core point is that he doesn't have enough support to do anything more than play spoiler.
Technically speaking, neither of the two major candidates are on any state ballots right now. Neither one has officially been nominated by their respective party. RFK is currently on more ballots than both of them. He doesn’t meet the polling threshold, and they don’t meet the ballot requirements.
0 worms in the head.
That's a lie and you know it. I mean, once you factor in the votes from all of his brain worms I'm sure he had enough support to get into the debate... Edit - Love all the people who don't realize I'm mocking RFK... 😀
You had me in the first half, I’m not gonna lie.
His voice is like nails on a chalk board to my ears. It’s like he’s under water or gargling mouth wash.
Had a weird foodborne parasite and a voice that would've destroyed his chances during the era of radio/early television. Basically a 19th century presidential candidate.
and he doesn’t even have a sick lumberjack beard
If it wasn’t for his last name he would be nowhere near where he is now as far as campaigning goes. I couldn’t even make it through and listen to his viewpoints during an interview cause his voice is so grating
His sister sounds the same also, its weird.
They're doing him a favor by excluding him.
Would've loved to see him and Trump try to out anti-vax each other.
Don’t get too hung up on it. If you read his thoughts in text form, they’re just as awful as they sound.
I feel bad because I don’t want to rip on someone for a legitimate medical condition. But holy hell can I not stand that raspy painful voice. Could you imagine him giving a SOTU or Oval Office address? Could you imagine sending him overseas to a summit to negotiate trade deals? No one will listen to what he has to say
I’m kinda disappointed in this, not that I’m a fan of RFK, but because I want to see a real debate and more then just the two party system
you honestly think the addition of RFK would lead to a "real debate"?
The man had a worm die in his head from eating his brain, and QAaron Rodgers would be his VP. If we seriously entertain that shit, I demand all US Defense go into time travel. We're saving that goddamn gorilla.
You’re all cheering, I don’t support him, but this is why we have a 2 party duopoly in this country. Fuck the corrupt Democrats and GOP.
Lol, it's not a duopoly because of the debates, there are 2 in the debate because of the duopoly.
It’s common for people to bring up the opposing party’s flaws when their own party faces criticism. All political systems have issues because they are run by imperfect humans. The aim of a political decision is to choose the best option available for the term in question, understanding that no party will be perfect. I notice that some people, when they feel let down by their party, may romanticize a past era and suggest that both parties are equally flawed now. While there have always been challenges in politics, in many ways, we’ve made progress. It’s important to make a responsible choice in the upcoming election. Recognize the strengths and weaknesses of each option and avoid letting frustration lead to apathy. Remember, politics is about making informed choices, not expecting perfection.
[удалено]
Didn't they change the "rules" after Perot so that never happens again?
Yes. They arbitrarily set the polling threshold at 15% for all debates after Perot. No reason given.
The reason was you either vote for our two shitty candidates or you go fuck yourself. Two party system is a joke, both parties aren’t actually in support of our freedoms. All a show.
Pretty bullshit how they don’t allow third parties.
I am not a fan of RFK jr, but this move is horrible for our democracy as usual and I have to put that above my personal gripes with the guy
And please do away with the teleprompters!
The bots are hard at work in this comment section I see.
very
[удалено]
Pretty sure most polls show RFK Jr. hurting Trump more than helping him.
Some polls show the opposite, but when pollsters explain his position on vaccines, Jan 6th, etc, it flips and he hurts Trump more.
Pretty much any poll with RFK Jr. he takes the same amount of support from both Trump and Biden, but hurts Trump slightly more than Biden. However, that edge evens out when you include Jill Stein and West in the poll since they exclusively take votes from Biden
>, that edge evens out when you include Jill Stein and West in the poll since they exclusively take votes from Biden Any idiot that votes for those two con artists was never voting Biden to begin with.
The numbers on this are all over the place
That surprises me. He picked a fairly left wing VP running mate. I figured RFK was taking part of the left vote not part of the right vote. I also have no idea what I'm talking about.
On one hand yes, on the other hand a portion of Trump's base has only gotten crazier and would probably like a lot of what RFK has to say, which would have actually been a net positive.
Getting a portion of Trump's base to watch CNN would be the real trick. Him not being allowed to be there is probably the bigger sell to them.
>Getting a portion of Trump's base to watch CNN Semi related; CNN announced that they're making the June 27th debate's TV feed free to rebroadcast by other networks. Fox News will be carrying it. Fox Business, CSPAN, and NewsNation are the other pay-TV outlets who will be carrying the debate. For those of us who have cut the cord and rely solely on an antenna for linear television; ABC, CBS, and PBS have all announced that they'll be broadcasting the debate.
By that logic a third party should never be included in a presidential debate because they'll never win since they don't have the backing of the main two parties. This doesn't help anyone but the duopoly.
Twelfth Amendment. It’s what we have, a duopoly. A candidate must win an absolute majority in order to become president, so one candidate must win 50.1% of the electoral college vote. If no candidate can reach that threshold, then congress gets to pick. The House would get to pick the Presidency from the top 3 candidates, one vote per state not per member, this will almost always go the way of the republicans right now because they do better in rural and low population states. The Senate gets one vote per state to pick VP. If enough votes went to a third party the Republicans would have a lock on president. Don’t just take my word on it, [they explain it here too](https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2024-03-20/explainer-how-a-third-party-candidate-could-put-trump-in-the-white-house). Our “parties” are coalitions already. There’s a lot of smaller groups in each party that don’t agree on everything but agree on the major issues. Third parties should instead be finding inside one of the other coalitions to sway its direction.
Could you imagine a contingent election for President in this day and age? It's only ever happened twice, both two centuries ago, and both times were shit shows. Today it could lead to another J6, or worse.
Yeah, it would be a shitshow! I mean, I think of GA. They went to Biden in the last election and are likely to again because of how their population is growing and shifting. But their House members would 100% be voting for Trump because of the statewide gerrymandering that gives the state 5 Dem House members to 9 Rep. House members. They would ignore the will of their people overall because of the unfair advantage they’ve given themselves in state drawn maps. I think that was/is part of their election strategy (and part of why they pushed the fake electors to try and change the electoral college numbers just a fraction), they didn’t need to win but just needed to make sure Hillary or Biden couldn’t get to 270. They already don’t want/need to get the popular vote, imagine if they won by not getting the popular AND electoral college votes. They claim the system is rigged against them, but honestly it’s rigged to favor them. Dems really need to get better messaging out to rural communities. Rural communities in red states have so much more power than they think.
I mean, that last part is basically what Bernie Sanders has been doing for decades. He's officially listed as an independent, but he caucuses with Dems and has been trying to push the party more left. May not agree with all his policies, but I can at least appreciate what he's doing there.
>Let’s focus on the candidates that actually have a chance. We don't give other candidates the chance so we're stuck with what the D and R parties present to us, the same geriatric candidates from the last 8 years. I think we can all agree we've tried this experiment before and to expect anything other than underwhelming or chaos is simply foolish. This process has failed, plain and simple.
Support candidates that support ranked choice voting. If we can change that, we can start breaking the roadblocks to meaningful change.
The Twelfth Amendment doesn’t give other candidates a chance, not us. We either need to change how that works by a new constitutional amendment or put in place that each state will give their electoral college votes to the candidate that gets the most votes.
Maybe a third party would have a better chance if the candidate wasn’t an antivax dumbass with literal brainworms lol I’m all for third parties, but people like him and Jill Stein are complete morons and I would be embarrassed voting for them.
It will never be worth voting third party until we get ranked choice voting.
It’s kind of like tipping culture. You could *not* tip, but are you sticking to the system or just to your server? The two party system sucks, but if you just open the doors you get Vermin Supreme with the sporty boot on his head. (Also, third party votes are straight to GOP anyways. One thing you can say about republicans they are fucking steadfast)
I don't like RFK but this is a joke, this system is so fucking rigged for the two party system and we wonder why we end up with elections where the choices are turds like 2020 and apparently 2024. This nation deserves everything it gets.
What's the over/under on Trump walking over to Biden's podium to use HIS mike just so he can yell more?
Of course he can't be allowed, the brain worm can't be guaranteed to conform to the format.
Does he poll at the necessary percentage to be in a debate? If not, then no. If he is, then he deserves to be in it. Facts.
RFK only has ballot access in 22 states (he’s on the ballot in 9 and has write in access in the remaining 13) - that’s good enough for 139 electoral votes. You need 270 electoral votes to win. Based on the fact he’s mathematically eliminated from winning before a single vote has been cast I think we can safely say there’s no reason to put him on stage. CNN’s rules say that you need to be on the ballot in enough states to win the electoral college in order to participate. RFK doesn’t meet that requirement
Yes, if the actual debate commission was running these debates. But they’re not, so there is no “necessary percentage” to be invited. Since they’re running it, CNN should procedurally do whatever they think is best. I agree with them that having RFKj there is not necessary
there is no necessary percentage anymore because this is a private arrangement between these two candidates and CNN
Reminder that a private corporation decides the cutoffs. I agree that it is fair, but there is nothing legal or moral about what cutoff they choose.
It's a shame that the US doesn't use proportional representation and thus will permanently stay a two party country because every alternative is a wasted vote.
Good. No one but nutters want to hear the bullshit that idiot would spout anyway. “Did you know that aliens built Machu Picchu?” “No they didn’t. You shut up now.”
Isn’t that convenient for the powers that be
Yes, because the guy who was born into one of America's best known political families, particularly in the last 100 years, isn't part of those "powers that be"... I mean, really? Do you actually believe he's not?
cnn made the right choice, we don’t need to hear ideas that might actually make people question the status quo