Search options (Page 3 of 9)

ireactions wrote:

Grizzlor wrote:

The young female-led, almost nonstop, social media cancel police from the left is completely un-American

Can you identify any representatives of this subgroup of Democrats you're highlighting and who they've cancelled over what? Because without clarification, this just comes off as a remark from someone who is scared of girls and young people.

The rest seems like reasonable opinion. I mean... it is going to be a close election.

Well Carville is a tad crass, and he generalized that to be, "don't eat hamburgers, don't watch football, don't drink beer."  Referring to the problem as ""The message is too feminine." 

Gina Carano is a prominent example.  She refused to conform to the pronoun police, and lost her job.  The backlash to corporate wokeness nearly put Bud Light out of business, and recently threatened to take Harley-Davidson of all things down, too.  It's not specific Democrat Party language but many of them have been caught in it.  The George Floyd/BLM demonstrations frequently turned violent, and Joe Biden was often the ONLY major party leader condemning it, that included Kamala who stupidly created bail programs which were used by violent criminals.  There was also a firing line, both by Democratic leaders, pundits, members of the press, pointing to anyone who attempted to suggest a lab leak on COVID, as well.  Then you have civic leaders of major cities, who hide tributes to Founding Fathers and other past American leaders, out of fear of the woke left, while they allow rampant mentally compromised homelessness, and continue to be blind to repeat violent criminals who seem to be unable to be kept in prison. 

Again, I felt like Kamala Harris spoke to some of this, but it's not where the larger party has been.  That's why I said it is difficult to argue with Robert Kennedy Jr.'s dismay with the left and its clamp down on free speech.  And yes, the party's platform has been a problem with blue collar men in this country.  It's soft on crime (bail reform, condoned shoplifting), far too supportive of migrants, and well too entrenched in the "equity" game.  Men see all this, and get very concerned over their collective future, especially economically.  That's at least how I can best explain it.  This is why I feel like a lot of men have gone to Trump.  I have many, many anecdotal examples of people I know.  And as Carville continues to harp, the identity politics from the far left have been a major burden to this party nationally.  Kept alive only by the far WORSE of the right.  These were principles that Bill Clinton led on decades ago, where have they gone?  The party has allowed the dumb left to hijack it.  Again, thank goodness for Kamala willing to go with American Exceptionalism in her speech.  Enough with the left's overt hatred of America because it keeps them in business, the business of racial identity politics.

In any event, it's really irrelevant at this point.  There's two months left, I'm not sure there's many minds left to change.  RFK Jr. probably should have been allowed to at least speak to Kamala.  His ideas on food safety, microplastics, and climate change are very critical to the Democratic agenda.  Unfortunately, because he questions the efficacy of the pharmaceutical industry, he is person non grata.  I still don't think it will matter much in this election, but it might.  Either way, it's something that is bubbling out there.  The FDA, USDA, CDC, and EPA are close to useless.  The American people are poisoned to death.  Just look at the incredible growth in cancer diagnoses among younger and younger age groups, who don't abuse alcohol or use tobacco products.  Something needs to be done.  It's an issue that I highly doubt Trump will give much oxygen to, which is why Kennedy is an idiot, but I do believe that if he did, that's a much stronger platform than he had a week ago.

She came under fire on Wednesday after re-sharing a post, which compared modern American politics to Nazi Germany and claimed that having differing political views in 2021 was like being Jewish during the Holocaust.

"Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors…even by children. Because history is edited, most people today don't realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views," the since-deleted post read, according to Variety.

The post also featured a famous image from the 1941 Lviv pogroms, during which Jewish men and women were massacred by their own neighbors.

While that post drew the most ire, she also shared memes mocking the California mask mandate in the fight against COVID-19, comparing Trump's second impeachment trial to Groundhog Day, and expressing her belief that Jeffrey Epstein did not kill himself.

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I basically watched nothing from the DNC this week - it's just been a bad week for down time.  Sounds like Harris' speech was good enough.  I saw a little roundtable of undecided Pennsylvania voters, and all but two of them were convinced to vote Harris after the speech.

She said she would schedule a national TV interview before the end of the month.  Hopefully she does that - it's free publicity for her and super important, especially coming off the DNC.

Night 3 was pretty good.  Bubba went a bit off script and rambled.  Tim Walz was great. 

Night 4 was superb.  Steady stream of successful governors, Republicans, even cops.  Kamala gave what I would call a "I'll run through a brick wall for you" speech.  When I was screaming for Joe Biden to get off the train tracks, like most I really had no clue what to expect from the VP.  The instant super star rise in the polls was a massive surprise.  Really amazing just how many topics she covered in that speech, barely missing a beat.  There was something for everyone, but the most forceful I felt was when she spoke about keeping a "lethal military" and defending allies and standing up to dictators.  Wow, look out world, you do NOT want to mess with this woman!!!!!

I would say the theme coming from this convention is clear, Donald Trump is old, withered, and mentally bankrupt.  As it should be.  He is in serious trouble on September 10th.

Supposedly RFK Jr. is dumping his financially bankrupt campaign about an hour from now.  Most believe he will then appear alongside Trump in Phoenix, although this hasn't been confirmed.  If he does that, frankly, he will need a divorce lawyer.

One other interesting thing.  I'm not entirely sure how Trump counters any national coverage that Harris gets.  Harris was on national TV with her speech, and then her speech was covered by the morning shows (local and national).

Trump called in to Fox News and then Newsmax.  He didn't reach anyone undecided.

Not only that, I haven't seen a single ad for him.  Now I'm in Texas and my YouTube algorithm should clearly know that not going to vote for Trump, but I haven't seen anything.  I see a Harris ad almost every time I turn on YouTube.  I haven't seen a Harris ad on TV (which is good, I think, no reason to spend the money), but I have seen some ads for Colin Allred on Hulu and on the morning news.

So how is Trump reaching undecideds with his strategy?  Is it all TV advertising in certain states?

Grizzlor wrote:

Why is Hilary Clinton STILL given prime time?

QuinnSlidr wrote to Grizzlor: Hillary nailed it with her incredible speech, you anti-Hillary biased shill. If you don't like dems, perhaps republicans are more your thing?

...

Hillary Clinton is a public figure, and Grizzlor has every right to be critical of her.

I know I've had issues with Grizzlor in the past, but he has every right to speak critically of any politician or public figure, as do you. He has every right to question Hillary Clinton's presence just as you had every right to call her speech incredible.

QuinnSlidr wrote:

If it weren't for the electoral college FRAUD in 2016, she would have been president. Not that horrible excuse of a human being.

I understand that the electoral college is unfair, and I suppose I can see it as a form of procedural fraud to subvert the popular vote -- but the implication of calling it fraud without qualification is to call it illegal... and it isn't. It's the system we have. It isn't fair, but it isn't fraud in the form of criminal deception, which is the conventional definition of "fraud".

I recognize that it is outrageous, but just because you and I despise something does not make it fraud in legal terms. We also shouldn't conflate the influence of foreign powers in 2016 with actual election fraud when Democrats from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton herself have denied that the elections were fraudulent. We don't get to cry fraud just because we lost.

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

No personal attacks, guys.

Thank you for saying that. Sorry I wasn't here sooner. My favourite actress has been ill. I've been busy.

No personal attacks, guys.  One of the great things about our democracy is the ability to disagree and still speak civilly (I've never used this word before in text and it looks super weird written out).  We're all on the same team, and Grizzlor isn't some sort of secret MAGA person.  He wants Trump to lose, but coming at it from a different angle.  I've been a part of this board with him for years and I'll vouch for him for whatever that's worth.

And I think it's clear to separate the difference between interference and fraud.  Fraud implies that votes were switched or conducted illegally.  That's the language that Trump (and tons of republicans) use.  There's very little evidence of any fraud in 2016 or 2020.  There was interference in 2016 (and 2020 and there will be in 2024), but Trump's election win (like Biden's) was legitimate.  And it's counterproductive for our democracy to say otherwise.

And to be fair, there were irregularities in 2020 related to laws that were (maybe illegally) changed for covid that possibly assisted in Biden winning.  That's also not fraud, despite what Trump and his allies and his voters want you to think.

Celebrity endorsements do nothing.  The polls are going to fluctuate, and they each have their own weighting and methodology, to overlay onto the sample results.  This is why I don't get caught up in them, or check on them. 

Somehow I'm still awake, very good speech by President Biden.  I didn't watch most of the rest.  Why is Hilary Clinton STILL given prime time?  Poor Biden didn't get to speak until 11PM Eastern.  I thought the Warnock speech took forever and was useless.

Rogan's weird.  I think people associate him with Trump, but I think he falls more into the RFK Jr. crowd.  I've never listened to him or his podcast (I don't watch MMA so I don't see him there either), but the sense I get from reading others is that he's much more in the RFK camp.  Now since RFK and MAGA overlaps, I assume he needs to keep those people happy.

He's actually been in trouble with MAGA before and had to backstep what people assumed was an endorsement of RFK.  Interestingly enough, Kyle Rittenhouse had to do the same thing when he was bullied by MAGA after he said Trump wasn't pro-gun enough.

Grizzlor wrote:

The key is that Trump voters actually get out and vote.  People have curtailed a lot of spending, on vacations, and other options, as expenses driven by inflation remain very high.  Not sure how anecdotal, but my gosh the number of brick and mortar chains of every kind that are closing or going bankrupt.  It's crazy, where are people working?  That's why I remain cautiously optimistic.  As dour and deranged as Trump will continue to be, he can very easily win.  I remain skeptical, because Harris could well accumulate the majority of late deciders, and STILL lose.  Trump's support is close to it's ceiling, but it's also rock solid, I do not expect slippage there.

I do agree with QuinnSlidr that enthusiasm for Harris is close to what it is for Trump.  I also wonder if there are portions of Trump's coalition that are fracturing a bit.  Some people don't love the Vance pick.  Some of the white supremacists don't love that Vance has a non-white wife.  He's losing momentum with some of the blue collar workers as he attacks unions.  He's lost some of the "anti-Biden" vote (although I assume a lot of that was also anti-Harris). 

People love to vote against someone as much as they love to vote for someone, and at the moment, I don't think the average person hates Harris.  I think they either don't know anything about her or like her a little bit.  Her approval is actually above water in a lot of polls which seems crazy at this polarizing time.

My point was that Trump still seems to be peaking, and he's still losing in the polls.  Since he doesn't ever reach out to the center, he's going to struggle to make up that difference.

But even then, I think there's all types of scenarios where Trump wins.  Whether it be Election Day chaos, post-election day chaos, shy Trump voters, polling errors, or whatever.

She needs to start meeting the criticism.  She needs to lay out her policy plans, and she needs to start doing interviews / press conferences.

QuinnSlidr wrote:

She's 4 points ahead in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. That gets her to 270 electoral votes automatically.

I'm cautiously optimistic but I am pretty sure Trump is done.

She's right below the margin of error in those states in the latest polling.  The polling averages are also a little lower than that, but the trends are going in the right direction.  You're right about that, of course (assuming NE-2 which must not be taken for granted - it would be the most important district in the country if she keeps the blue wall.

But I would be absolutely terrified at 270-268.  I know that we have things in place to protect an electoral win, but Trump has been working on this for four years.  He's going to give this thing his best shot...not before Election Day but *after* it.  I think he wants to overturn the election, maybe even more than winning it outright.  He feels like he was cheated, and he wants to cheat someone else.

So even if the blue wall moved to comfortably in her column, even with polling errors baked in, we need to get at least two of Nevada/Georgia/Arizona/North Carolina.  I think Trump is capable of flipping a state (and if she only gets Arizona and Nevada on top of the blue wall, Trump could simply flip Pennsylvania and win) so Harris needs to not only get to 270 but get high enough above 270 that Trump can't screw us all out of it.

I think she's on pace for that, but we'll see.

QuinnSlidr wrote:

I am so glad Jerry didn't turn out to be a Trumper. Thank you Jerry for always being a champion of Democracy!!!

In 2016, after Trump won, Jerry tweeted, "America just elected Voldemort."

Okay good to know.  I'm obviously sold but there are a lot of undecided voters still that she can reach.  She's the younger, saner, pro-democracy candidate and people need to know that as much as possible in as many different avenues as possible

She should try and get on the Olympic broadcast.  Now that MAGA is anti-Olympics, Trump would have to decline and she'd get the broadcast to herself.

Edit - apparently she appeared at a Simpsons panel for ComicCon which is exactly the type of place she needs to show up.  Great work by her team.

It's a little early, but some of the state-level polling for Harris looks pretty good.  Winning in Wisconsin, essentially tied in Michigan, and within the margin of error in Pennsylvania.  Within striking distance in Georgia and Nevada.  Arizona still looks out of play, but maybe if they pick Kelly, that could change.

But that's very encouraging.  Trump's internal team sent out a memo that said to expect some sort of "honeymoon phase" with Harris that would improve her polling.  Funny thing is that Trump's polling is also up post-shooting and post-convention so Harris was basically able to match that, and she hasn't had the convention yet.

Now she's going to have to nail these rallies and her convention speech and the debate.  There's still a lot of work to do.  But a couple of weeks ago, we were absolutely trending towards a Trump win.  Now, there's a decent shot for Harris to win the blue wall and maybe another state or two to pad a win.  Which is absolutely what the country needs.

Grizzlor wrote:

Finally, I have read that Trump campaign has NOT spent on the ground game.  Instead, they are spending and organizing on an infrastructure to challenge vote counting, certification, the works.  They don't care what the results are, if he's losing, they will make 2020 look like Cinderella.

This is why I wasn't comfortable with Biden staying in the race.  I think his *ceiling* was 270-268.  And that could've been impacted by nonsense happening on election day, mail-in ballots being stolen/destroyed, or any number of things.  And that's before the election would be called and Trump's real work would begin.

I think Harris has a higher ceiling.  Maybe she picks Kelly and they can win Arizona.  Or Cooper and win North Carolina.  Either way, she needs to win the entire blue wall and then pick up at least one or two sun belt states so Trump can flip a state post-election (thanks to all the MAGA people he's put in state legislatures, secretaries of state, etc, and the judiciary) and the result can still stand.  I believe Trump can absolutely figure out a way to flip one state, but I think he'd struggle to flip much more than that even with the infrastructure he has. 

But like 2020, this needs to be not only a win but a convincing-enough win that Trump can't get it overturned.  And I think Harris can do that - I wasn't convinced Biden could.

Really hoping Harris can energize young voters, voters of color, and third party voters.

QuinnSlidr wrote:

Make no mistake...I will vote for President Harris. But unless she chooses Pete Buttigieg...forget it. There is not enough on her side to win.

I mean Harris is basically polling identical to Biden now.  I think some people won't vote for Harris, but I think there are a lot of people that wouldn't vote for Biden.

It's not a stutter.  He looks old.  He sounds old.  And people have lost confidence that he can do the job, not just right now but in four years.  People don't generally look or act younger as time goes on, and this isn't a race about who can do the job right now.

I'm not saying Biden can't win, but he really slipped up on the biggest stage.  And the polling has really dipped in the last month.  I don't know how he was going to convince people that he's not old.  None of the work he did was turning things around, and we were nearing the point of no return.

Harris is young and energetic.  She's a woman who can possibly energize women in the election during an election where women are already at the forefront.  And if she can pick a strong VP, it could be a really good ticket.  There are a bunch of "double haters" of Trump and Biden, and now the Democrats have an alternative for them both.

I'm not discouraged at all.  I'm nervous, but I think we're in better shape right now than we were this morning.  I'm going to be fascinated to see how the polls move now that it's not a hypothetical that Harris will run.

I really don't understand why Biden is staying in.  It's either ego or the poll numbers for basically anyone else are worse than we thought.  Just like Trump has a ceiling, I think Biden has a floor because enough people don't want to see Trump back in office.  But I don't understand being resigned to *maybe* winning 270-268 when a different candidate could possibly do better in the Sun Belt.  I don't know if Biden has any chance of winning any of those states.  Maybe Kamala Harris can't either, but I think we know that Biden probably can't.

Biden's negatives can't be fixed, and they can only get worse.  The more public he is, the more gaffes he makes (intentionally or not), and one of them could make things so much worse.  Why not go with someone who might have more negatives but they're negatives that can be spun into positives?  Harris has less experience but Biden could campaign for her and talk about how she's ready.  Her prosecutor background could convince undecideds that she could be tough on crime or immigration.  She could reach women in an election that abortion will be front and center on.  Her (relative) youth could help her with younger voters as she might have some sort of idea what the Internet is.  She may even own AirPods!  I know she doesn't do much better with black voters, but maybe it'd help.

Biden isn't going to get any younger.  He isn't going to look any less frail.  I know he can do the job, and I understand that he's super sharp in private meetings.  But whether he's the best person for the job doesn't matter when it's a popularity contest.

I still think he can win.  I just don't know why they don't just make a move.  There could be a lot of enthusiasm around a Harris VP pick, and it could be from a state like Pennsylvania (*ahem* pick Shapiro *ahem*) that could get them hugely important electoral votes.  I know VP picks don't usually matter, but it could in a close election.  Especially if both sides of the ticket would be incredibly unknown for the lateness in the campaign.

I love Biden, and I think he's done a great job.  But I truly wish he hadn't decided to run again.