There Are So Many Ways the 2024 Election Could Go Wrong
No matter who wins between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, chaos is likely to ensue.

"Americans can and should have confidence in our election system," said FBI Director Christopher Wray in January. "The other part, though, is the chaos…..And there is the potential, if we're not all collectively on guard, that chaos can ensue at varying levels."
Wray, who was speaking at January's International Conference on Cyber Security, was referring to the risk of foreign interference in U.S. elections by China, Russia, and Iran. But America is a proud, independent nation. We're doing just fine sowing homegrown chaos at varying levels on our own.
Wray can take solace in the fact that most Americans actually do have confidence in our election system. About two-thirds tell Gallup they are very or somewhat confident that votes will be accurately cast and counted in U.S. elections; that number has been mostly stable since at least 2004. There is a gap opening up under the surface, however. In 2017, 77 percent of Republicans were confident about American elections. The most recent figure is 40 percent.
At the same time, a poll from the Associated Press and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that majorities of both Democrats (72 percent) and Republicans (55 percent) say democracy is at risk depending on the results of the next election, though presumably for different reasons. Relatedly, in a CBS News/YouGov poll released in January, 49 percent of Americans say they expect a violent response to future presidential election losses.
***
All of this adds up to a worrying situation, especially given dozens of newly constructed off-ramps on the road to a peaceful transition of power. Americans—including our politicians—are hyperalert for misconduct on the part of those who disagree with them politically, thanks to dramatically increased affective polarization. The proliferation of state-level voting laws and regulations could generate a cascade of legal and partisan challenges regarding voter eligibility, ballot access, and counting procedures. Newly appointed state election officials might introduce errors into the counts, either through guile or incompetence. Mail-in ballots might be counted too early. Mail-in ballots might be counted too late. A real cyberattack might raise concerns about the integrity of electronic voting machines. A fake cyberattack might do the same. Partisans might engage in voter intimidation. Partisans might allege voter intimidation where none occurred. Election workers might commit fraud. Election workers might not commit fraud but be accused of doing so anyway by prominent figures in a defamatory way. A sitting president might attempt to bully state election officials into finding "lost" votes. Never mind the Electoral College, which has been bonkers from the start. And that's all before we get to the legal challenges that both parties have promised to file after the fact.
***
It was hard to pick just one potential breaking point from this wealth of options, but in this month's cover story, Princeton University's Keith E. Whittington explores one of the ways 2024 might go off the rails in an underexplored and unprecedented way (page 20). The four criminal cases pending against Donald Trump might come to fruition in at least seven different scenarios that would leave the country grappling with a president who could or should be behind bars. Pair that with the possibility that one or both of the elderly men seeking the presidency could experience some kind of subfatal medical event as a candidate or president-elect, and it's time to call in the experts.
According to a January release from Gallup, "less than a third of Americans say they would be willing to vote for someone nominated by their party who is over the age of 80 or has been charged with a felony or convicted of a felony by a jury." Thus, in a Trump-Biden contest, "voters would face a choice between two of the most objectionable characteristics to Americans of those measured—someone who has been charged with a felony (Trump) and someone who is older than 80 (Biden)." In the end, about one-third of eligible Americans—including me—will likely not vote for either major-party candidate.
Perhaps the greatest destabilizing influence is simply the widely held belief that the election will be destabilizing. A January poll conducted by Echelon Insights found that only 27 percent of Americans think Biden will usher in more stability, while 49 percent say things would be less stable. The responses for Trump are more evenly split: 45 percent more stable, 43 percent less stable.
By doubling down on undesirable candidates backed by partisans who are increasingly skeptical of the prospect of a fair and peaceful election process, we've dramatically increased the risk of disarray without the possibility of any outcome that voters genuinely want.
In 2016, disruption—and, yes, maybe even a little chaos—sounded fun and appealing to many Americans, perhaps even for its own sake. But after two cycles of turmoil and very little real change, voters are seeking stability from an election that offers nothing of the kind.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "There Are So Many Ways 2024 Could Go Wrong."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
But after two cycles of turmoil and very little real change, voters are seeking stability
What voters? Many more of them are still seeking to upset the cart, out of desperation for real change.
Curious lack of any data or evidence to support the writers heartfelt desires.
Well, even if you pay for it, it is still Reason, so - - - - - - - - - - -
They say they want to upset the cart, but when the time comes, 98% continue to pull for either the Giant Douche or for the Turd Sandwich.
If the voters who told pollsters that they'd vote for "literally anyone" other than Biden or trump in 2020 had done so, they could have got literally anyone other than those two elected in a landslide. If it's not any different in 2024, then the ways in which the election could go "right" would seem to be nil.
Most people who now see how stupid and lazy Biden is COULD have seen it clearly 2030 years ago IF they were paying attention.
When Biden said Trump handled COVID poorly my mind went in a picosecond back to Biden's TRULY HORRIBLE handing of H1N1 Swine Flue
'“It is purely a fortuity that this isn’t one of the great mass casualty events in American history,” Ron Klain, who was Biden’s chief of staff at the time, said of H1N1 in 2019. “It had nothing to do with us doing anything right. It just had to do with luck. If anyone thinks that this can’t happen again, they don’t have to go back to 1918, they just have to go back to 2009, 2010 and imagine a virus with a different lethality, and you can just do the math on that.”"
I think the biggest problem is political gerrymandering which limits people choices. People will get cynical about voting knowing that no matter how good a candidate is the seat will go to the party controlling the district. Elections are intended to be a competition of ideas but gerrymandered districts prevent this competition.
I'd say attempts to disqualify candidates that the elite feel are not "Acceptable" is a far, far bigger problem.
I told ya so!!!!
The Sad Saga of the Stolen Erections
And lo, it came to pass, that Tim the Enchanter blew upon His Magic Flute, and led me to a secret cave (the Cave of Caerbannog), whereupon mystic runes carved into the very living rock foretold of a day to come.
This sad, sad day has now manifested itself, just as foretold. The Promised One had been delivered to us, and was to fertilize His Queen, Spermy-Stormy Daniels, in an amazing scene; a glaze of Vaseline. Their offspring were to be called Strumpets… Which is a concatenation of Stormy and Trump. They were to number in the millions… About 332 million; enough for all residents of the USA to be issued one Strumpet per each resident, to sit on his or her right shoulder, and make sure that each resident stayed WAAAY Righteous. Each Strumpet was to progressively exert more and more Righteousness Control over each resident, by covering them in Strumpet Vines.
Sad to say, the Bad Bider-Grunch stole Trumpsmas AND Trump’s Erections! The stolen erections prevented the birth of the 332 million Strumpets, in the world’s WORST mass murder (genocide) so far! Even Saint Babbitt could NOT save the Strumpets!
This is the Sad Tale of the Demise of the USA!
"The Sad Saga of the Stolen Erections"
Hey remember when your side clearly lost in 2016? Then spent the following years believing flat-out insane stolen election theories. Up to and including the one about Russia literally hacking into voting machines and flipping Clinton votes to Trump.
And in this environment of election denial promoted by the highest levels of the Democratic Party and progressive media, a BernieBro tried to massacre Congressmen on a baseball field?
Oops! Why am I asking if you remember that. You already admitted you think domestic terrorism isn't noteworthy when your side commits it:
I don’t recall any “HillaryPanzees gone apeshit” and saying “kill him with his own gun”? Got any cites on that?
LOL
Could not recall "HillaryPanzees" *threatening* to kill anyone.
Could not recall the "HillaryPanzee" who tried to mass murder Congressmen.
Snot my side! My side is freedom, libertarianism, and moving towards accountability, responsibility, and REAL progress! NONE of which is helped by twat-aboutism!!!
Butt, whatabout that them thar whatabouts? Whatabout Hillary? Whatabout OJ Simpson?
How many brain cells does it take to run a socio-political simulation on the following:
Judge and Jury: “Murderer, we find you guilty of murder! 20 years in the hoosegow for YOU! Now OFF with ye!”
Murderer: “But OJ Simpson got off for murder, why not me? We’re all equal, and need to be treated likewise-equal!”
Judge and Jury: “Oh, yes, sure, we forgot about that! You’re free to go! Have a good life, and try not to murder too many MORE people, please! Goodbye!”
Now WHERE does this line of thinking and acting lead to? Think REALLY-REALLY HARD now, please! What ABOUT OJ Simpson, now? Can we make progress towards peace & justice in this fashion?
(Ass for me, I think we should have PUT THE SQUEEZE on OJ!)
Sandranistas and twatabouts are part of the problem, NOT a part of the solution!
Fuck off and die, spastic asshole.
Sevo the Pedo, Hippo in a Speedo, is part of the problem, NOT a part of the solution!
You know they’re not just doing it to Trump, right? Right?
Actually, environmental pollution is stealing the erections of ALL of us!!!
https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-021-00585-w#:~:text=Another%20widespread%20environmental%20pollutant%20that,and%20sperm%20quality%20in%20men.
It's an even bigger problem if the Constitution is not followed.
I’d say attempts to disqualify candidates that the elite feel are not “Acceptable” is a far, far bigger problem.
You mean how the requirements for minor party candidates to get on the ballot make it that the two major parties control voters' choices? Or do you mean how the whole system for choosing our representatives and executives makes a two party system almost inevitable in the first place?
Amend. XIV, Sect. 3 is part of the Constitution. That isn't the "elite" looking to disqualify a candidate because they "feel" that he isn't "acceptable." It is applying the Constitution as it is written as if that means something.
Thank God for gerrymandering. Without it many more states would be dominated by urban left authoritarians, leaving small town and rural citizens voiceless and powerless.
Are you suggesting that rural voters should have an advantage even thou there may be less people? Should the country have a 3/5 rule for urban dwellers? As an alternative people could take a minute to understand the concerns of other groups.
I'm saying leftist authoritarianism is evil and must be stopped, even if a majority support it. If political tools like gerrymandering and the Electoral College can help with that, great--better such tools than bullets. Fuck the "concerns" of would-be dictators.
Do you know that the two houses of Congress are apportioned differently, and why?
It's a safe bet that he opposes the Constitution.
Hmm...maybe not allowing any govt employees voting would make more sense than the 3/5 rule.
Or power can be devolved down to the local level so neither side has to worry about the other side imposing its preferences. Of course, that's anathema for progressives.
Tell you what, if you want pure 1-man-1-vote, couple it to an orderly and peaceful process for secession. You can have your majority and the rest of us can walk away.
The Urban Left in Maryland took a swing at dealing with that situation with a recently created map which managed to connect every district in the state to some portion of the Baltimore-DC corridor of deep blue voters.
Parody or leftist narrative pushing?
I agree that gerrymandering is a problem but no viable alternative has yet been presented. Moving the problem from a politicized legislature to an "independent" commission just creates pressure to politicize the commission. Every proposal so far to solve gerrymandering can be shown to devolve back to the same problem in just a few election cycles.
The problem is one of transparency. The criteria for the mapping has to be known to all. When all the mapping is done behind closed doors people will be skeptical. If the criteria is known the public can judge if the maps are fair.
When Wisconsin Republicans controlled the process their handpicked law firm made the maps. The only people allowed to see draft maps were the Republicans and they had to go into a secure room and could carry no recording devices. Hardly transparent.
I disagree. Gerrymandering as currently practiced is entirely transparent. The criteria for mapping is keeping the incumbent party in power. I don't like that criteria but it is right out in the open.
We know that is the case but there is no admission of that fact. Few parties would openly admit that is the case. If controlling parties had to write the criteria in an open contract to the map developer they would need to be set balanced and fair criteria.
The answer is simple, increase the number of representatives to the old ratio of 30,000 per rep, and have a computer design the districts for compactness within each state after the latest census. Then force every vote made to be tallied, and none of this present shit. So just Yea, Nay, or Absent. Yes this would mean thousands of representatives. So fucking what. The purpose of this shit is not to make the sausage makers feel special, it is to give the people representation and the largest official driver of gerrymandering in the US is to accommodate the black population so they feel they have representatives that give a shit(ignoring the fact that at around a 780k per rep that ain't happening). Much smaller districts would help alleviate that concern, and political parties would have way less fig leaves to hide behind when trying to enact their political scheming. Moreover, with the majorly reduced population requirements, it would be highly likely to see more 3rd party reps make it into Congress.
The impulse to gerrymander is the problem - not the gerrymander itself. And only for the legislature. The impulse to gerrymander is based on the notion that the will of the people to govern ourselves can be corraled, domesticated, and subordinated by/to those who make the rules. That that can happen because the predictability of what we might will is more important than what we do will.
The only way to eliminate our ability to predict a specific outcome is to eliminate our ability to choose a specific outcome. That outcome being the composition of the legislature. For that composition to be determined by lottery rather than by 'election'.
the biggest problem is political gerrymandering which limits people choices. People will get cynical about voting knowing that no matter how good a candidate is the seat will go to the party controlling the district.
What utter nonsense. If 55% of the people in a district decide to vote for Candidate/Party A, then A wins regardless of whether Candidate/Party B “controls” the district. I challenge you to show me a single district anywhere in country where the candidate chosen by the most voters did not win.
This nefarious “control” you talk about means having more supporters in the district. The implicit argument in your complaint is that you’re a thinking and choosing voter, while the rest of us voters are just robots picking what the planners told us to.
The legitimate complaint is that gerrymandering results in statewide statistics in the legislature that don’t match statewide party preferences. However, that does not mean the voters of a district have no ability to vote for good candidates, they can absolutely do that and if a bunch of them do, the good one wins.
And a last point – if you want strictly accurate proportional representation out of single member districts, the only way to do that is by intentional and heavily party/race/class-conscious gerrymandering of absolutely predictable automaton voters living in segregated neighborhoods. Because if a state is 60/40, and the voters and districts are uniformly distributed geographically, then the party with 60% wins 100% of the seats. Not 60%. It’s amazing how many complaints about gerrymandering fail to see this.
The implicit argument in your complaint is that you’re a thinking and choosing voter, while the rest of us voters are just robots picking what the planners told us to.
You are delusional. You are an animal and have the same brain structure as everyone else. Voting is not an important life-function. Not like earning a living or raising a kid or pursuing happiness or anything that requires frontal lobe functions. Voting is not even an involved act of citizenship (which would require frontal lobe function). Not like serving in the militia or volunteer fire dept, being on a jury, taking your turn on school board, etc.
Even if, at some point in the distant past, you cast your first vote using thinking/choosing skills, that vote is now on the record. So all of your past votes are now able to be used by the gerrymanderer to predict your future votes.
That gerrymanderer also has 100+ years of scientific experience in shaping public opinion. Examples from Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion (1922) include fear-mongering, stereotyping, card-stacking, bandwagon effect, testimonials, awshucks plain folks, biased contrast/condensation, glamorization, naming/association to invoke emotions. They have billions of dollars each election cycle to craft those messages, buy media/journalists, conduct polls to survey voters, and get out the vote from all those voters who are happy having their vote shaped in order to keep the fancy-pants terrorists from grooming their kids.
But hey - I'm sure you and the thousands of voters sitting in a basement thinking important thoughts are what really swing elections.
OK, let’s do it your way.
You believe we’re manipulated, controlled, and utterly without free will. The experts know who we’ll vote for better than ourselves and/or tell us what to think.
In that case, what does it matter whether we have “fair” districts? If there is no such thing as the will of the voters, why should elections reflect it? For that matter, why hold elections. Just decide what the people immutably "favor" based on some database and pick representatives accordingly.
There could be – maybe at some other site with better commenters – serious discussions about how districting should be done, or whether districts should be abandoned. The discussion needs to acknowledge questions like (a) who are voters choosing, a person or a party? (b) who are representatives supposed to represent, a party, or everyone in a district, or whoever voted for them? (c) is it very important to accurately respect the will of people who don’t care very much one way or the other?
Aaaah but it is the name of combating that that the worst happens
So for example
COURTS
GOVT + POLITICS
Voters sue over creation of Louisiana’s second majority-Black congressional district
Now I m a Conservative Christian Republican straight Black --- I must feel I am being prejudiced against when someone says "Oh, you're Black that must be the most important thing about you. THe folks at the Big House want you to have a nice district with all your Black friends" and my vote is thereby diluted as Conservative, Christian Republican who is straight. My vote will be now swamped in a way it wasn't before.
The four criminal cases pending against Donald Trump might come to fruition in at least seven different scenarios that would leave the country grappling with a president who could or should be behind bars
So it’s full retard going forward from Reason.
Buh-bye, you half-assed Democrats.
Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Flagged as spam
Let's be completely honest. Anyone who is planning to vote for Trump has already made up their mind on each and every charge. There is enough clear evidence that at least some of these are political prosecutions that people will ignore even a guilty verdict.
Even if there were legitimate charges, the entire process is hopelessly tainted.
But that contradicts itself. You are doing the same with whoring druggie Hunter and "Biden had 150 suspicious banking reports with all his offshore shell companies"
Special Counsel Robert Hur said in a report that he opted against bringing criminal charges following a 15-month investigation because Biden cooperated and would be difficult to convict, describing him as a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."
Thus, in a Trump-Biden contest, "voters would face a choice between two of the most objectionable characteristics to Americans of those measured—someone who has been charged with a felony (Trump) and someone who is older than 80 (Biden)."
Silly me, thinking at the time 2016 was rock bottom.
Oh we ain’t seen nothing yet.
My favorite scenario is the progressive radicals storm the capitol and kill people and destroy buildings; and then watch MSM describe it as “saving democracy.”
totally believable scenario with the journoLists we have today
Although I continue to think a Trump 2024 victory is highly unlikely, *if* it happens I could imagine progressives behaving worse than after George Floyd.
then i guess we'll have to have a trial for all of them.. even the ones that only expressed support for it over the internet, in some place like ...oh, south dakota or west virginia.
“We suffer more often in imagination than in reality.” Seneca
What you imagine is not interesting.And not thinking is lazy
Voters will face the same choice as always; a party that leans toward government control of you life, and a party that leans toward more individual freedom.
Forget the two old men; look at the party platforms.
(and pay attention to who the VP candidate is)
Reason doesn't know platforms exist. They spent more articles on Trumps "lack of platform" than bidens actual platform and now act shocked when he executes policy mirroring the platform.
Correction:
Voters will face the same choice as always; a party that leans toward government control of you life, and a party that leans toward more
individual freedomgovernment control of your life.Voters will face the same choice as always; a party that leans toward government control of you life, and a party that leans toward more individual freedom.
*snort*
Both parties want to control your life. They only argue over how and what.
it is laughable how some of the kool aid drinkers still think they are supporting individual freedom.
Funier that you elevate the individual over the family, the neighborhood, the daily web of contacts that all 'individuals' have or die/become aberrant
Even that is for show only. The only way power-hungry politicians can maintain the illusion that they are the good guys is to have the other party play the bad guys. There is nothing "conservative" about the Republican agenda of eliminating pregnancy choices or immigration and nothing liberal about - well - ANYTHING in the Democratic platform.
Killing a baby and allowing junkies, those ill with contagious disesases, the mentally unstable is only proof that you don't reallly care. Where were you when Jimmy Carter let in the very worst of all Cuban society because people like you said' I am a good guy and this is what I want!!!
and PResident Clinton, when he wasn't molesting weak women, did it too
President Bill Clinton is acutely conscious of the effectiveness of the Cuban tactic of sending killers and thieves along with genuine refugees: in 1980 his own political career was almost ended when 18,000 Cuban boat people, mostly former prisoners, rioted at a US military base, Fort Chafee in Arkansas.
There are only two kinds of voters. Those who think there are two parties/candidates/platforms - and those who know there's only one.
Are you stoned? I ask because normally you seem reasonable. Saying one of the major parties leans toward individual liberty is an exaggeration. That "lean" is at best 1 or 2 degrees toward liberty. Just because they occasionally, and quite accidentally I'm sure, find themselves on the side of individual liberty don't get comfortable because after that they will go back to legislating morality and damn near everything else.
If one got most of their news from Reason, they would have less information on the Biden family payments, use of lawfare, attacks on jews and pro life center than even CNN viewers.
I think you underestimate the ability of the politicians and the media to produce “the news” the same way a master chef cooks a seven-course dinner. When the narrative for Biden shifted from “never Trump” to “perhaps he’s too old” it put the likes of CNN into a quandary. But concerning Reason, I too have been checking in on CNN to see about the progress of the “Biden Family Corruption Scandal” and there has been NO substantive news lately that Reason failed to cover – to wit: Junior’s performance at the farcical Congressional Committee hearings.
Democrats? Corrupt? Say it isn't so.
You don't need any media at all to know Democrats are crooked. Name a Democrat Regime that hasn't been dogged by their indiscretions while avoiding all responsibility in the last 100 years. They've all been crooked.
I will fix that for you: "someone who has been charged with a felony on specious grounds in a politically biased court (Trump) and someone who is older than 80 (Biden) and for whom there is much evidence of actual felonies, which has been ignored by politically biased federal agencies until now they can drop the case because he has become mentally unfit to stand trial.”
"..."Americans can and should have confidence in our election system," said FBI Director Christopher Wray in January..."
From one who has done quite a bit to demolish that confidence.
The walls are starting to close in on the Federal government and even the deep state can feel it now. Their sense of immunity is slowly slipping away and the next act in that play will consist in the shadow government starting to turn on each other.
Indeed. Wray is setting this up as a red herring to distract from the us gov’s meddling in our elections by using bot farms and propaganda and coercing media to censor political opposition while promoting the gov’s favored leaders.
All this while also destroying the power of elected officials by charging the former president with unprecedented politically motivated indictments.
We are all witnessing this go down, yet still people are STILL pointing to the BULLSHIT DIVERSION of counting votes.
What good is counting votes of the people brainwashed by propaganda and censorship?
I'm afraid that I have to take exception to Mangu-Ward's description of the Electoral College as 'bonkers from the start'.
The intent of the framers of the Constitution was that we should be a union of states, with most of the governing taking place at state level, and the federal government only handling matters like national defense and foreign relations that couldn't be handled well by states acting independently. It was important that that central government be acceptable to the individual states, and that a few large states not be able to dominate it. The Electoral College arrangement allows the larger states some additional power, but doesn't reduce Wyoming and Vermont to nonentities.
She shouldn't complain, because she doesn't vote.
Agreed! The President of the United States was originally intended to be like the Chairman of the Board of a corporation of states. It's not a bad model even now, although subsequent experience has revealed some of the flaws. Since there is no such thing as a perfect organizational structure the proper question now is: is there a BETTER way to organize the Constitutional structure of the USA while preserving the checks and balances and restoring the limitations on government authority that can be implemented properly now. I doubt it.
I cannot think of one.
Unfortunately, I’m not hopeful that any tweets we COULD come up with would actually be implemented in such a way as to not make things worse.
KMW....You're making a bad decision to kill off comments.
I doubt it. Lately I have had to wade through forty-foot drifts of personal attacks and silliness to find any hint of a rational, informed point of view to discuss.
To be fair, most of them are from Sarc, Jeffy, Shreek, etc.. then fired back at the aforementioned leftist trolls.
Hear, hear.
“Americans can and should have confidence in our election system”
Counting the votes accurately was NEVER the issue for most Americans despite The Donald’s feeble attempt to make it the issue. The real issue undermining American’s confidence in our election system is that the two-party system has stopped even pretending that we have a choice any more. When even the RNC no longer has any say over who the Republican candidate for President is, and the DNC thinks their best shot at keeping the White House occupied is Ramblin’ Joe Biden even the weakest minds in America start to suspect that something may be wrong. Unfortunately, the takeaway for most of them is to dig us a deeper hole into the polarization partisan quagmire. “Chaos” is not going to be pretty – and it’s very unlikely to resolve anything.
When you side with entropy you know you are going to win.
Go back to paper ballots, check IDs, and in person voting the day of the election. No one can then question the election.
Not very hard.
I look forward - cough - to Biden smashing his own record of 81 million votes.
I expect Biden to win a bazillion votes even if he is dead by November. The democrats are going to break their own cheating records and mass produce extra votes and get away with it of course. "It is not suspicious in the least that Joe Biden got 175% of the vote. Dead people love him."
Someone will kill Kamala or --- if she sees the alternatives --- she'lll take a Senate seat or something. NOBODY likes her even the ones that say they do. Jill loathes her.
No matter who wins between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, chaos is likely to ensue.
No matter who wins between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, America loses.
TDS-addled steaming pile of shit heard from
Had hopes you might have made your family proud by fucking off and dying.
Please do so now, shit-pile.
Neither one of them is your messiah, Sevo. Best come to terms with that.
Your fantasies do not interest me in the least. Fuck off and die, TDS-addled pile of shit.
Another reason to doubt your patriotism. What you say is what Edmund Burke DESPISED>
Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little. Edmund Burke
YOu are lazy and unprinciples and haven't even the energy to face your own impotence
With this election, it appears that realistically that we are going to be presented with two terrible choices. In fact terrible is rather generous and there are far more descriptive words that would be more accurate to just how terrible the two nominees are.
Even considering how terrible they are, I fear the reaction of the extreme left which appears to have consumed the Democrat party much more than 4 more years of Trump.
I don't fear the reaction of the Republican party or even Trump's Maga movement as much as the notion of 4 more years of Biden.
I will not under any circumstance vote for either of them and sincerely wish for some sort of miracle that will save the country from the likes of either of them. I however am not holding my breath.
If Trump were to win, the corporate media would hound and challenge every single little move that he makes to the point that even if Biden drafted an executive order for Trump and presented it, it would be the absolute worst executive order in history and be presented as evidence that Trump is the reincarnation amalgamation of all of histories tyrants.
It not that Trump was a particularly effective President, but compared to Biden, Trump was far better (although more caustic). If Biden were to win, the corporate media would continue to shelter and protect him to the point that they are sycophantic partisans who have consumed all the kool-aide propaganda and shout that the emperor has clothes when he is buck-naked.
With Trump the decline of the country would be slowed and bit, but not much, however with Biden the decline of the country will continue to accelerate in addition to all of the idiotic nonsense.
Best case is neither is elected, that someone reasonable will surprise the uni-party and entrenched bureaucracy. Assuming that the improbable occurs, it would make the attacks on Trump appear tame. The attacks would come from all sides of the uni-party and entrenched bureaucracy. It would also expose the fraud of the uni-party and entrenched bureaucracy.
Best case is that Trump selects a Vice President candidate who is neither a political non-entity like Spence nor impeachment protection like Harris, wins partly by making an issue of having a potential replacement rather than an actual horror on the ticket beside him, and drops dead on Jan 21.
Best case is Trump is elected and serves his term.
I can't imagine Trump picking anyone but a MAGA loyalist as his running mate after how upset he was that Pence wouldn't chuck the Constitution out the window for him.
"With this election, it appears that realistically that we are going to be presented with two terrible choices..."
It appears that you have a raging case of TDS.
Ultimately, there is only one reason that the 2024 election could go wrong. And it is the same reason that the 2020 election went wrong. Trump and his devout followers didn't accept that he lost.
There are a lot of aphorisms about democracy. Many showing skepticism or disdain for it as a form of government.
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner."
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the others that people have tried." (Winston Churchill)
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and should get it good and hard." (H.L. Mencken)
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." (Churchill again)
But there are also some positive ones.
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy." Abraham Lincoln
"Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man." Ronald Reagan
Much of the disagreement over it could be from the disagreements over what it means. The kind of democracy practiced in ancient Athens could be troublesome, and that is something that the Founders did not want. But I like this definition of democracy:
Democracy is a pact among people to settle their political differences by voting instead of killing each other.
It is obviously intended for humor, in the same way many of the quotes above are. But does point out something important. The alternative to democracy is for someone to have the power to use force to control the country. For democracy to function, though, it requires something that is really difficult for people. They have to accept that they could lose a vote. If they only support voting for their government when they expect to win, then they do not support democracy. They support winning.
Everyone has to make that same choice every time they step into a voting booth. Will I accept it if my choices lose? If we can't answer "yes" to that question, then we should really examine what we think we are doing in that voting booth.
Keep in mind that JasopnT20 is the slimy pile of lefty shit who supports murder of the unarmed to keep something from happening:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
He deserves a kick to the balls with a steel-toed shoe at best.