301

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Kamala needs to be campaigning like she's down.  Hillary's campaign didn't do the things it needed to do down the stretch, and she lost.  Kamala needs to spend the next few weeks going after every vote she can.

I did like that she created a new ad with all of Trump's "best hires" all saying they don't want him back in the White House.  Kamala is going to air it on Fox News and locally in Pennsylvania and in the area of Mar-A-Lago.  I sorta love the pettiness.  Since Trump is essentially going all in on Pennsylvania, she has an opportunity to really reach some voters that he won't be able to reach in the other battleground states.

It would make me nervous as heck, but it would be absolutely hilarious if Trump won Pennsylvania but lost the other six battleground states.

302

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I like the positive enthusiasm.

I was very nervous about the Biden/Trump debate.  I'm excited about the Kamala/Trump debate.  It's going to be very difficult for Kamala to navigate a debate like this, but she'll be very prepared and she's good at thinking on her feet.  One thing I read about her is that she needs to try and avoid "meme-able" moments and just put together a good performance.  She's gotten tripped up a couple times in the past trying to make a moment happen.  She should let those moments come to her and let Trump bury himself.

303

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah I hope it comes up tomorrow.  And I assume his answer will be something like "I did what everyone wanted and I moved it back to the states.  That's what everyone wanted.  They wanted it to go back to the states and that's where it is.  Hannibal Lecter.  Sharks.  Tariffs.  I'm a Christian."

304

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

QuinnSlidr wrote:

Oh, he's already done that. He flip flopped immediately on bad public reaction and lost pro-lifers.

Yeah, that's what I was referring to.  I wonder what kind of language he's going to use when abortion comes up tomorrow.  If he says "reproductive rights" in an attempt to court women, he might lose pro-lifers.  If he doesn't say that, he could continue to lose women that aren't MAGA or crazy pro-life.  I actually don't understand what his original pivot was about because I feel like those groups of people were already pretty clear on what camp they were in.  Pro-lifers are pretty one-issue people, and they already have what they want.  If they feel like they just need to play defense in the Senate and that the Supreme Court is pretty safe, a less-than-pro-life Donald Trump doesn't give them anything.

Now those people won't vote for Kamala Harris, but I'll take a nullified Trump vote.

305

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

NYT came out with a poll yesterday that had Trump up one.  Everyone lost their minds, but it obviously went in two different camps.  GOP said it was clear that the Harris honeymoon is over and everyone came back to their original camps.  Liberals said there were crosstabs issues (oversampling of both Republicans and evangelicals).  I'm sure both are possible.

(I know it doesn't matter, Grizzlor, but I'm doing this anyway).

My aunt is a pretty avid MSNBC watcher and fairly active in politics.  She's one of the large number of people who listens in on a lot of the Harris activist zoom calls, and she comes to me for analysis on some of the things she's hearing and doing.  For her, she's struggling with the idea that people would've switched to Trump in the last month or so.  She can't understand why anyone would jump on the Trump train now.  For me, it would need to be someone in one of three camps:

1. RFK Jr voters.  Whether they were going to vote for Trump the whole time or not, these are people that either love RFK so much that they'll listen to his endorsement and vote for Trump or vote for Trump to get RFK Jr involved in the government somewhere.

2. Double haters.  These are people that hated Trump and hated Biden.  Maybe some of them initially jumped on the Harris bandwagon because she was *literally anyone else* but either struggled to connect with her or just decided that they liked something about Trump better.

3. Undecideds who finally just decided to land on Trump instead of Harris.  They needed to make a decision and just made a decision.

I think all of these situations are possible, and all of these shifts could have already happened or could happen all the way up until election day.

Now who's going to go into the Harris camp?  It's basically the same group of people:

1. Double haters.  People that hated Trump and were turned off by Biden at some point in the last four years.  Harris is new and refreshing and so they go with her.

2. Undecideds that make their decision.  Instead of picking Trump, they pick Kamala.

3. People Trump sheds.  I think it's possible that *some* RFK voters could go to Kamala, but I don't think it's a big-enough group to rely on.  I Think RFK voters are going to either still vote for RFK, write in RFK where he's no longer on the ballot, vote for a different 3rd party on the ballot, or vote for Trump.  Any Democrats who were going to vote for RFK based off of name recognition, I think, switched to Harris when Biden dropped out (I think they were "Double Haters").  So I think that's insignificant.  Now I do think there's a chance that Trump sheds some votes in the next 50 days, and I think a lot of it relies on tomorrow's debate.  If Trump looks rambly and old and crazy tomorrow night, I think some people might reconsider.  I assume a lot of non-MAGA Trump votes are coming from people who just think he's more reliable because he's done the job before.  If Trump can actually look a little bit like the way they saw Biden (old and possibly losing his marbles), I think those votes could go to Harris.

I think there's a chance that Trump says or does something that loses him pro-life voters, but I don't think those people go to Kamala.  It can help her if they don't vote for him, but obviously it's better if they get those votes.  And there's just no way they vote for her.  Maybe I'm underestimating it, but I think the endorsements of the Cheneys doesn't move the needle much.  I think the Bush/Cheney conservatives have already left, and I think Liz has been openly anti-Trump for a long-enough time that nothing would change.

One thing that could possibly make a dent is Liz Cheney saying that "not voting for Trump is not enough - you need to vote for Kamala."  I think there's a slight chance that makes a difference with some people.  People like Mitt Romney have always said they've written in some classical Republican, but there's a chance that Liz Cheney can convince some anti-Trump Republicans that they have permission to vote for a Democrat not just for president but downballot as well (she also endorsed Colin Allred in Texas...not sure if she endorsed others but that was obviously news here).

Again, I think Liz Cheney has been visible and active enough that she's convinced all the people she was going to convince.  But if she can convince enough people that were going to write someone in to vote for her, it could make a difference in some places.  Hopefully she does some sort of ad in the battleground states.

But if you look at the polls, Trump has been pretty consistent.  I don't think he's losing voters or adding voters.  I think if he has a average/standard debate, the number of people that were going to vote for him in July are still going to vote for him in November.  I think it's all about people that actually choose to vote for Kamala.

And that's why I think the debate tomorrow is important.  If Trump answers questions like he answered the "Child Care costs" question from the weekend, I think he could lose people who don't pay much attention to the 2024 version of Trump.  And I think Harris could impress people who aren't familiar with her at all (or lose those same people if she looks unprepared or in over her head).

I know she's working really hard at debate prep (and has gotten much better than the 2019 debates that she struggled with) and he's not prepping at all.  He doesn't really debate and he lies so much that he doesn't really need to learn facts or figures.  I'm sure she'll be prepared, but I'm hoping she can walk the tightrope, both standing up to him and refuting his lies and actually delivering the types of answers that people are looking for.  If I were advising her (and I should not be advising her), my advice would be for her to mostly ignore Trump and just answer questions.  I think if she looks professional and knowledgeable, I think she'll look presidential.  I think she should leave the fact-checking to the analysts, even though I have little faith that they'll do that.  But ignoring Trump and delivering a message will allow her the better chance of coming out with more voters than she came in with.

306

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

This is one of the reasons why we need Harris to win.  The DoJ will stop investigating all of this stuff.  We need to maintain a "neutral" justice department (I'm sure it's not purely neutral but it needs to be as neutral as it has been in the past).

307

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

Well I fret that Harris has allowed a lot of the momentum to fade, as she and Walz have been campaigning but the country doesn't see them.  The staff is obviously full of Biden personnel who are antagonistic towards the press, and it's stupid.  She should be doing every celebrity podcast there is, there's plenty of softball ones for her to do.  Even if they don't want her on TV shows, which again, is short-sighted.  Harris is barely in the news highlights anymore.  They're rolling out a pro-small business economic plan this week.  Who's covering it?  You don't see anything, because he's not directly speaking to the press.

I completely agree, but I also wonder if we're just not seeing it because she's not focusing on either of our states (rightly).  Our votes don't matter so our experience might be different than the experience of someone in one of the seven battlegrounds.

I am weirded out by her not doing more national stuff, but the national vote doesn't really matter.  If the stuff they're doing on the state level isn't working, that's more of a problem.  But if it's working, then less national stuff doesn't bother me.  Again we haven't had any quality state level polling (I don't know how that's possible - what are they doing?) in a long time so we don't really have any idea how her bus trip through Georgia impacted anything.

*******

This story is also not super important, but it's a nice indicator that Harris could/should win.  Lichtman uses different "keys" that have to be unlocked to see who the winner is.  He missed Bush/Gore (which was crazy close) and actually underestimated Trump in the popular vote in 2016.  It also doesn't mean anything, but it's another positive sign that she might be able to win.

https://news.yahoo.com/news/polling-exp … 48920.html

308

(330 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

I'm sorry it wasn't good for Grizzlor. I'd be curious to know what Slider_Quinn21 thought and if he feels the series is incomplete now cancelled.

Eh.  I didn't love the Acolyte.  I certainly didn't hate it as much as so many other people did.  I watch a ton of stuff and most of it isn't great, but I guess I just have a low threshold for something that is enjoyable and entertaining.  I mean I've watched every single episode of everything show the Walking Dead has spit out.  I hate watch stuff, I watch stuff while I'm working, and I occasionally watch stuff with so little of my attention that I have to go find a recap to figure out what I just spent forty minutes "watching." 

But I thought the Acolyte had a good storyline.  I already brought up what felt like a weird thing regarding the Jedi and how they're portrayed, but I thought the story was engaging.  It presented the Jedi as people who are generally trying to do good in the galaxy but some people got in over their heads...and are now facing consequences.  Some of the "twists" were dumb, and it wasn't anything groundbreaking but it was watchable I thought.  But, again, I might have a lower threshold than most.

Am I torn up that there's not more?  I don't think so.  I thought the story concluded pretty well.  I don't necessarily think the story was over, but I don't think there was a huge need for it to keep going.  I'm not torn up that it's not coming back.  Just like I'm cool with Obi-Wan being done or something like Moon Knight not getting a season two.

I do feel bad for all the people involved who were seemingly ruined before they even got the chance.  Star Wars fans have gotten so toxic.

309

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I mean at the end of the day, it's all meaningless.  Polls have errors, and the models that are built are based on the erred polls.  Betting markets don't mean anything, as any sports fan will tell you.  Upsets happen all the time no matter how good Vegas does at creating betting lines.  Even when a game isn't against the spread, David beats Goliath in sports enough that it always needs to be considered.

It's going to be a close election that comes down to election day and a few thousand people in a few states.  A thousand different factors could affect the result, including weather and unpredictable human nonsense.

But for me, it's about vibes and confidence.  When I see that my team is favored to win a game, no matter how many times betting lines have been wrong, I feel better going into the game.  I don't feel cheated or angry if it goes the wrong way, but it just makes me feel better.  The idea that Harris is polling better makes me feel better.  The fact that these pollsters make millions of dollars to predict this stuff and get raked across the coals when they get it wrong makes me feel better about trusting them.

I've had so much existential dread about this stupid election that I just want to feel okay that a literal psychopath won't be running my country for another four years.  I know it's dumb and I know that it means nothing and I know that we aren't going to know anything until after November 3rd.  But if you think that's going to stop me, just start ignoring my dumb little posts big_smile

310

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I like that.  Nate Silver also seems to be hesitant that there will be a huge polling error.  He thinks (and I think I agree) that polling is mostly good but was thrown out of whack by the shift in the electorate in 2016 and the Covid situation in 2020.  That, while it's been 100% happening in every Donald Trump election, that it's a sample size of two and that's not great for a statistician.  It could be one of those "Crime rates and ice cream sales are directly related" things where it looks like they're related but they're not.

I would like some high-quality polling from swing states to feel better.  Feels like it's been forever since we had one.

*******

I read an interesting opinion piece from a conservative.  It was one of those "conservatives are better off if Kamala wins" but not (fully) from the perspectives of a Liz Cheney-like conservative.  The writer (and I would love to link but I couldn't find it in a quick google search) talked about how the GOP is probably going to win the Senate and maybe the House...so even if Harris wanted to do some sort of crazy progressive agenda, it probably wouldn't work.  That Republicans in the House and Senate (and, if needed, the Supreme Court) would be there to push back on anything she wanted to do.  And, then, having a Democrat in the White House would help increase the GOP lead in Congress going into 2028.

It did talk about finally getting Trump out of their party, but that was the piece that they felt least confident in.  That even if Trump was gone, those currently-reliable Republican voters might never come back.

I just thought it was an interesting perspective.  A sort of "Republicans can lose the battle but win the war" and it was actually fairly convincing.  My biggest fear going forward for Democrats is how do they maintain their voting block without Trump to hold them together?  It's hard to appeal to white suburban voters who care about climate change and abortion, while also appealing to blue collar union workers who just care about putting food on the table.

I assume after Trump is gone, whenever that is, that there will be another shift in the electorate and a bunch of the MAGA people will be up for grabs.

311

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

NEVER big_smile

312

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

So after getting some calming confidence, I'm starting to get a little nervous again.  I feel like the momentum has dipped, and I'd like to see a little more out of the Harris campaign.  I guess the problem is that there's not a lot of great state-level polling at all.  I'm confused on why there hasn't been a NYT poll in a month.

I'm also back to worrying about Pennsylvania - and I'm thinking the entire election comes down there.  And don't get me wrong - I think Tim Walz is a great speaker and a great running mate and I think would be a great VP.  But I'm still uneasy about bypassing Shapiro.  We aren't seeing much movement with Walz on the ticket, and I'm pretty sure Shapiro would've given something.  And as much as it would be great to flip North Carolina or keep Georgia, I'm worried that if Kamala doesn't get Pennsylvania it simply won't matter.

Debate is in a week so let's see if that changes things.

Positives:

- Trump continues to do little to reach middle of the road voters.  He didn't even campaign yesterday.  Other than the national news covering his events, I don't feel like he's doing much to appeal to everyday voters.  I did see my first Trump ad which ran during a college football game I was watching.

- Kamala still has the enthusiasm edge, which Grizzlor likes to point out.  I think that will help.

- When Trump blasts Kamala, he always insults her intelligence.  If you're leaning-Trump voter who hasn't really heard Kamala speak, I assume you have rock-bottom expectations for her.  As long as Kamala has a solid performance, I wonder if people are going to be genuinely surprised at how smart she is.  I wonder if that kind of thing will backfire.  If people are expecting something terrible and that something ends up being okay, the expectation gap will actually make it seem good.  Something good turns into something great.

- I think Trump's reached his ceiling.  I don't think there's anyone left who was going to vote for someone else and is going to switch their vote to Trump.  I think she hasn't hit her ceiling yet.  I think Trump can shed voters by saying/doing something stupid in the debate or annoying them, and I think she can win people over in the debate.  As long as she doesn't absolutely bomb the debate, I think she will have the edge going into election day, no matter how slight.  And considering where we were after the last debate, that's all I can really ask for.

313

(697 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

I'm super-confused about movie ticket prices where you live. Alamo Drafthouse seemed to be charging $9.73 USD for regular admission but AMC was charging $12 USD for regular admission. I'm probably looking at the wrong pages. How much is the average movie ticket?

So I usually go see movies with my buddy.  I will buy the tickets and then he'll buy the next ones.  Looking at my credit card bill, it looks like I spend $30.08 for two tickets including whatever fees and tax or whatever.  He and I live on opposite sides of the city so we have to sorta find a theater that works geographically and we've settled on that one.  I don't get any concessions (I will have already eaten dinner and I don't need anything that will make me have to pee in the middle).

Budgets are different for each person, but I think $15 for the opportunity to hang out with my friend and see a new release is okay with me.  Especially for situations like a) getting to experience the surprises of Deadpool and Wolverine without being spoiled or b) getting to see George Miller action on the big screen or c) experiencing a new Alien film on the big screen in a silent theater.

I think that's a good experience.  I've also found myself watching a lot of things while I'm working or even getting my phone out while something is on.  I've become a second screen guy, despite my best intentions.  So unless I'm watching something with my wife (which is rare), watching something on the treadmill, or watching something in a theater, I don't feel like I'm giving it my full attention.  So it's an excuse for me to actually watch something I want to watch.

314

(697 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I thought Alien Romulus was worth seeing at the theater.  And Furiosa.  I didn't love either film (but I liked both of them), but I thought seeing it in theaters was enjoyable.  I wish my theater had been a little more raucous in my viewing of Deadpool and Wolverine, but I had to see it on a Monday night after it had already been out a few days.

I also would like to see Megalopolous in theaters, if only to experience whatever they're going to do for the "audience interaction" part of the movie.

I try to see the Marvel movies in theaters if only so I don't have to wait three months and avoid spoilers for that long.  I know it's expensive but my wife and I are both pretty good with not spending for anything crazy so I feel like it's worth it every month or two.

315

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, that's why I'm hesitant to fully trust the Harris campaign's strategy to go after Georgia.  Again, maybe there are plans to do this in other states, but outside of forcing Trump to spend money there, I'm sorta counting Georgia as a loss.  If you need to focus resources in that area, focus them in North Carolina.  But even then, I think my strategy would be to (in order of necessity):

1. Shore up Pennsylvania
2. Shore up Michigan / Wisconsin / Nebraska-2
3. Build up the vote in Arizona
4. Build up the vote in Nevada
5. Try to win North Carolina
6. Try to win Georgia

If you win PA / MI / WI / NE2 / AZ / NV, it's 287-251.  The worry there would be Trump somehow flipping Pennsylvania and winning, but if you focus on Pennsylvania as your top priority (in all aspects, including protecting the vote and working to make sure Trump can't do anything illegal), then it's two birds with one stone.  At 287, Trump would need to flip two non-PA battleground states, and he wouldn't even have the one he's more likely to flip (Georgia).

So maybe she's going to try and do a tour of every battleground state and she's just doing Georgia first.  If not, I think she's misusing time and resources on a state that Trump is best suited to win and/or steal.

*****

Cook Political report did move North Carolina to toss up which is cool.  It basically only leaves Nebraska-2 as a "Lean" vote on either side.  There are no longer any Lean Republican states.  So they're basically saying all seven are toss ups and the rest of the votes are pretty safe.  I will feel better when/if they move states like Michigan or Wisconsin to Lean Democrat, but I don't know if that will happen before the election.

316

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

You're going to drive yourself mad with these dumb polls.

Oh I know.  And I know it doesn't mean anything.  If she's winning by 3, she could be losing by 2.  If she's winning by 5, it could be tied.  Heck if she's winning by 10 she could be losing.

But I've followed a lot of pollsters since 2019ish and I'm just sorta fascinated by polling - especially polling when it comes to Trump.  This is the only way I can really *not* go crazy is to have some sort of vibe on how things are going, and this is the only way I can do that.

I think I'd go crazier if I didn't check it every day.

BTW, Harris strategy to campaign in rural areas is terrific.  You need to cut down the red margins in those places!  This is the Obama strategy, and of course, the opposite of what Hillary did and paid for.

I completely agree.  I've been reading that she's learned the mistakes from 2016, and that's great.  I think the Georgia bus tour is great, and if it works, I'd like them to do that in as many swing states as possible.  I'd love for something in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin (and NE-2).  I know that North Carolina and Arizona and Nevada are all possible and if they can also tour those states...go for it.  But this election will be technically won in the Blue Wall.  If you get Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska-2, that's 270.

Is 270 enough?  For the first time in US history, maybe not.  But it sounds like the Harris campaign is going to have boots on the ground to combat whatever post-election nonsense that Trump is going to do, and I think her campaign's job should be to get to 270.  If they can get AZ and NV, great.  If they can also get GA and/or NC, even better.  The more states she gets *above* 270, the less likely Trump can steal something.  But the priority, of course, needs to be getting to 270.  And the polls, for whatever reason and giving them the attention they actually deserve, are dipping a bit in Michigan and Wisconsin.  And I think she needs to sore that up.  If she can get Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nebraska 2, then she has so many paths.  Pennsylvania alone.  Nevada plus either Georgia or North Carolina.  Arizona plus Georgia or North Carolina.  It would be nice if Nevada plus Arizona was 19 votes, but that's why Pennsylvania is so important.

*******

One thing to note.  Trump has softened his abortion stance once again (and Vance is joining him).  They're pledging no national abortion ban.  They're using pro-choice language.  And it's starting to really upset the pro-life people.  If any of them decide to sit out the election, that could be a huge swing in some of these places.  They already beat Roe so some of them might think the battle is already won and stick it to the GOP for not being more committed to a national ban.

And as we all know, a few thousands votes here and there could actually matter.

317

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Contrast that to Trump who makes everyone around him call him Mr. President.

318

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Kamala (I'll call her that if she prefers - I've been trying to use her last name the same way I would a male candidate) and Walz scheduled an interview.  I read that she's been a bit argumentative in the past (heck maybe I read it here) with interviewers, and I'm hoping Walz can help her with that. I think she needs to do a press conference as well.  I'd really love for her to do with Pete has done and go on Fox News and take their questions, but if she hasn't responded well in that setting, that could easily backfire.

But I'll be interested to see how she does.  She's definitely doing more outreach than him.

What's interesting to me, still, is that Trump has actually gained a bit himself.  His campaign is losing, but it's had forward momentum.  There's been plenty of cases of Harris, simply by getting exposure, has won over undecided voters and even some Republicans.  She needs to reach as many people as she can, and she needs to come across as confident and presidential.  People know who Trump is, and he's painted her as this incompetent buffoon.  It won't be difficult for her to overcome that and impress people.

319

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

A couple of notes of note:

- Regarding polling error.  This is my big worry because we literally won't know the error until it's essentially too late.  In 2020, the error was pretty huge in some cases so the whole thing makes me nervous.  The polling error in 2020 was enormous, but it was also a pretty unusual year (obviously).  With lockdowns going on across the country and Democrats more locked down than usual, the samples could've been incorrect.  There was also the "shy Trump voter" issue at hand as Trump was extremely unpopular.

There was some thought earlier in the year that Biden might've had the same issue.  Biden was so unpopular that people might've been "shy Biden voters" and told pollsters that they were voting for who they were perceiving is/was the more popular candidate at the time.

Are there still shy Trump voters?  I feel like Republicans would be more likely now to admit that they are supporting Trump - the legal stuff might have dissuaded them a little bit, but that seems to have passed a bit.  I also think you're seeing Biden voters saying they're switching to Trump so I think that bit of polling error might have been corrected a bit.  Obviously the covid stuff is over so the sampling issue might be fixed.  There's a thought that Republicans are just against polls and are less likely to take them.  So that could still be an issue.

Of course, during the primaries, Biden overperformed his polls and Trump underperformed his.  Is there a chance that pollsters, in an attempt to correct 2020, overcorrected and are oversampling Republicans?  Is it the other theory that Republican-funded polls that lean right are flooding the market and affecting polling averages?  Maybe?  I would love if the polling was wrong but in our direction.  I guess we won't know until November.

- Trump is flirting with dropping out of the debate.  If he does, Harris needs to use the time.  Trump is doing exactly zero to court voters in the middle, and she could have a great opportunity to reach people.  I think Trump would be making a huge mistake by not debating, and I think she may be the one who doesn't need it.  I think, obviously, she needs to appear to want to do it no matter what.

- Has she scheduled a national TV interview yet?  She said she would by the end of the month.  She really needs to do that because it's an attack that the right will continue to use on her.  And it's an attack that I think is hitting her.  I know she's trying to campaign as much as possible, but she needs to make this a priority.  And I think she should do a bunch of interviews if she can.

- She and Walz are doing a bus tour of Georgia.  Georgia is the only state that she's behind in the 538 polling average so I'm interested in what her campaign is thinking.  Do they think there's huge gains they can make in Georgia?  I would think that something like this could be more effective in places like Pennsylvania or even North Carolina, but maybe there's plans for that too.  Best case scenario for democracy is for her to sweep all seven battleground states, but Georgia makes me nervous because of all of the control that Republicans have over the election process.  I think it's the state that's most likely to be flipped.  I'll be interested to see if the bus tour works (Trump is also focused on Georgia so maybe she can just play defense and make Trump focus on Georgia which could help her in Pennsylvania).

320

(697 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I have a soft spot for the Saw films (I don't know why.  I'm not a horror person and I don't like gore or torture porn or any of that stuff).  I watched Saw X and actually thought it was pretty great.  I was surprised that the franchise had that in them.

I also was pleasantly surprised by The Hunger Games prequel "The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes" - I enjoyed (for the most part) the Hunger Games books and movies but didn't have a ton of interest in seeing a prequel.  But despite being too long, I thought it had a compelling story and kept my attention throughout.

321

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

pilight wrote:

Bail reform is not soft on crime.  If a crime is serious enough to hold someone prior to trial, fine.  If it's not, fine.  There is no situation in which a crime is serious enough to hold someone unless they have money to buy their way out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQLqIWbc9VM

John Oliver did a great segment on this.  I didn't know much about it before that, and he lays it out pretty well (as he usually does).

322

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I do wonder what happens to the GOP if Trump loses.  I will choose to speculate on that once that is a reality.  But there's probably two wildly different roads they're going to be on, but I have a feeling they're going to do whatever Trump wants.

323

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, that was the roundtable I talked about.  She won over all but two of those people (one said she wasn't going to vote, the other said he'd vote for Trump).  Let's hope that was a good sample, but these are blue collar people so that's gotta help.

Still needs to do some hostile-ish interviews so people can see how she handles it.  And she's going to have to handle herself in the debate.  There's no question that she's smarter and more polished than Trump, but debating him isn't a real debate.  She's going to have to balance whether to answer the question she's asked, whether to call out his lies, whether to respond to a personal insult, etc.  And she's going to have the misogynist double standard of looking presidential without looking "bitchy" - unfair but true.

324

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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?

325

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

326

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Not sure if its recalibration or not (I assume it's too early for convention bumps), but Harris now leads in the polling averages on 538 in MI/WI/PA/NV/NC/AZ.  Trump still leads in Georgia, but it's essentially the same map as 2020 with NC replacing GA.  That would be phenomenal.

If these numbers can be trusted (hard to say) and if there's no huge issues in getting votes cast (harder to say), then I think Harris needs to do three things (in addition to doing a great speech tonight):

1. National interviews.  Multiple interviews with multiple outlets, including getting on as close to conservative media as she can.  It's free advertising and it eliminates one of the few attacks that has stuck to her.
2. Nail the debate.  It doesn't need to be a grand slam like Biden needed, but she needs to look strong and confident and comfortable.
3. Reinforce. Stick to the plan, focus on battleground states, and focus on the votes you need.  Don't work too hard on votes you won't get, but don't leave any stones unturned.

75 days.  Let's do this.

327

(330 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, I think it's an important question to ask since I feel like that's the most important question for Star Wars to answer.  It seems like Rey is going to start a new Jedi, but I don't see how her new approach would be any more or less successful.  What did she learn in the sequels?  That Jedi should be able to love?  Would Jedi being able to love have done anything?  If Anakin and Padme were openly married in the prequels, I think Palpatine would've manipulated Anakin the exact same way.  She wouldn't be any less of a pull on him, and he wouldn't be any less worried that she would die.

To me, the Jedi thought they were the best person for every job, but that wasn't really the reason they fell.  I think the reason they fell was that they underestimated Sidious.  They knew about him in the Phantom Menace and, unless I'm missing something, never really looked for him.  They would go after him if there was an opportunity, but I would think finding Sidious would've been their top priority.  Mace Windu and a group of Jedi Knights should've been out in the galaxy looking for him.

I get that he's hiding and it would be difficult to find him.  But it doesn't seem like the Jedi even tried.  Sidious had a great plan, and he executed it.  I don't know if any of the issues that Luke or Rey or even Dooku had with the Jedi would've fixed that.

328

(330 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, I struggle with trying to figure out the right metaphor for the Jedi.  One I come up with is the police.  I think individual policemen can be good, but the police as a whole can be bogged down by systemic problems, bad apples, too much power, etc.

In the Acolyte, the Jedi decide to investigate these murders.  A podcaster I like thought it might be fun if he partnered up with a "space detective" and figured out what happened.  A sort of private eye who specializes in seeing things that no one else sees.  Instead, the Jedi just do it themselves.  Why would they rely on an expert when the Jedi are experts at everything.  Need a peacekeeper?  Jedi.  Detective?  Jedi.  Scholar?  Philosopher?  General?  Monk?  Leader?  Jedi.

And it's sorta like the police.  If you need a soldier or a protector or a social worker or just an adult, people call the police.  They're good at some things, but they're not good at everything.  And when we ask them to be everything, that's when things get out of hand.

But that's a fairly new metaphor so it can't be what Lucas intended.  I wonder if Lucas just accidentally wrote the Jedi as inept.  Or if he just thought of it as destiny and the Jedi's ineptness made the story easier.  Maybe he thinks even if the Jedi were on top of things, Palpatine still would've won.

********

I do wonder if there was a better way to tell the story of the Jedi that fits better with the Original Trilogy.  I wonder if the Jedi should've faded away on their own.  Like if less and less children displayed abilities in the Force.  Or if the Jedi just slowly went away because they weren't needed.  I'm picturing a scenario where the Jedi were mythical figures even when Obi-Wan was young.  What if they'd mostly already died out by the time Anakin showed up, and maybe the plan was for him to bring the Jedi back.  Maybe there were just a handful of Jedi acting in secret, and then the betrayal makes more sense.  And Han saying he didn't believe in the Force makes sense because it'd mostly died out by then.

329

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

I'm not sure how many people on the East Coast saw them, as once again, they all went on it seemed past 10PM.  Truly hope the rest of this campaign is better managed than this.  Just hope eyeballs in WI, MI, AZ, and NV were watching, because most of PA were asleep, again.

To be fair, I don't know how many people watch TV live anymore.  I assume if people were going to tune in and their desired speaker hadn't spoken yet, they'll either 1) watch it on youtube 2) see it on Facebook/Twitter/whatever 3) see it on their local news or national news of choice.

I'm sure there is a segment of the population in battleground states that don't have social media or the internet and only watch television live, but I think it's more important that Harris (and Walz) speak live to them than Obama.

330

(697 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I really liked the epilogue.  I think the Ben Linus one is a bit silly because it's one of those "rapid fire answer" segments.  If you really cared about answers, I guess its satisfying but it doesn't really do anything for the character stuff I liked.

The Hurley/Walt scene was really cool.  I wish they'd been able to put that into the actual show, but I don't have any idea where it goes into the finale.  I also would've loved to have seen a Hurley/Ben/Walt spinoff show.  Or some kind of rebootquel now.

331

(63 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I've used ChatGPT a little bit.  What I've mostly used it for is recipes for overnight oats and workout regimen ideas.  Basically a slightly smarter version of google.

332

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Oh don't get me wrong.  The Harris campaign, local election officials, state election officials, and every citizen needs to be on guard.  Trump is not a normal candidate and will do anything he can to win.

That being said, Trump is also not a normal candidate and gets away with so much more than most people.  Look at Kari Lake, who is just as Trumpy as Trump but didn't any traction at all when she accused people of stealing the election from her.  I'm not saying that someone couldn't follow in his footsteps, but Trump seems (so far) to have a unique combination that no one else has been able to replicate to the same extent.

333

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Again, we need to be careful about the language we use.  Trump and his campaign were involved in illegal activities, and I think he *attempted* voter fraud.  But voter fraud involves using fake votes for a candidate or throwing out legitimate votes for an opponent.  There has been very low numbers of true voter fraud in any election and nowhere near enough to change any results.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-looked-20 … wijLJ8GxNj

The Trump campaign (and Republicans in general) are responsible for gerrymandering, voter suppression, manipulation of facts and news that harm Trump's opponents), and tons of election interference.  But I wouldn't consider any of that to be voter fraud.

The difference, in my opinion, is that accusations of voter fraud hurts democracy and undermines our elections.  Trump is a criminal responsible for all kinds of election-related crimes.  But we have to be very clear when we talk, otherwise we open up the idea that democracy is broken.  And it is not.  Our elections are secure enough that true voter fraud is extremely rare, and that's a good thing.  If Trump stole an election then it opens up the idea that Biden stole an election and Harris can steal an election.  And I don't want to go down that path.

Trump did a lot of bad things in 2016 and 2020, but he won in 2016 and lost in 2020.

334

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

335

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I mean you're both right. 

- Hillary did mangle her campaign.  She misused resources to go for a landslide against Trump (and essentially doing a victory lap) and completely ignored the Blue Wall.  If she had done what Harris is doing (focusing on the battleground states), I think she would've won.  She also cut off the legs of her own campaign by forcing the Democrats to clear the path for her in the primaries.  If she'd run a true primary, I think either her weakness would've been exposed or she would've come out a stronger candidate.  Instead, she struggled to beat Bernie, and even worse, pissed off all the Bernie people. 

- And of course QuinnSlidr is correct that the electoral college is stupid.  My vote doesn't matter.  Grizzlor's vote doesn't matter.  I don't know where QuinnSlidr is but I doubt their vote matters.  About 100,000 votes scattered around 7 states are all that's going to matter.  It is stupid.  But it also isn't changing.  There's a really outside chance that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact makes it irrelevant, but that's probably the only hope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ … te_Compact

- Grizzlor is also right that he called the Biden thing before anyone else, and that's the only hope the Democrats had.  I agree that if Biden had stayed in, this week would've been morose.  I think Biden did fine last night, but I'm so much happier with Harris (and she wouldn't have been in my top 5 Democratic candidates honestly).  The party and the country needed a new face, and if she wins, that will be most of the way.  I agreed with Grizzlor but I felt like complaining about Biden was like complaining about the Electoral College.  I figured he was the guy and there was no reason to even worry about it.

- I do think Grizzlor is wrong about Warnock.  I think he's great.  I've also softened on Hillary in the last few years.  I still think she was absolutely the wrong candidate for 2016, and I don't think she should've been made into the hero that she's ended up being.  But I think she deserved a spot.

- I was thinking last night that it would've been super interesting if Harris didn't have any of the former presidents or candidates speak.  No Clintons or Obamas.  Maybe no Biden.  Just young and exciting Democrats who can speak to modern issues and the future of the party, not the past.  Or maybe structure it like Night One - Obamas and Biden (the past).  Night Two is your Warnocks and your AOCs and your Mayor Petes (the present).  And maybe Night Three is the future - really young, really diverse speakers talking about the future.  And then Night Four is Walz and Harris to bring it back together?

I don't know.  I know the Clintons and Obamas are big draws and still popular, but I think it would be a great signal to try and show that Democrats are the party of the future.  Especially as Trump looks older and is constantly talking about the past.

336

(697 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

LOST is one of those shows where they just simply ran out of good ideas.  It probably should have ended after like 3 seasons, but they wound up gaining cast members by constantly time shifting, and it became a convoluted mess.  The writer's strike really screwed things up with big hiatus.  I would put the first three seasons (pre-strike) up against any genre show there's been, especially anything with a mostly linear continuity.

I'll go ahead and link to the video since I'm going to use a lot of it as background: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tk664MfQgU You might think the video is long but it's actually part one of at least five videos of varying lengths.

The writers didn't see the show as a long-term project.  They didn't expect it to be successful and when it was, they knew it couldn't be sustained at the same level.  The writers knew as early as season 2 that they weren't going to be able to make the show last forever.  There were just two problems - it was a monster hit that ABC didn't want to let go and shows just didn't operate like that back then.  Nowadays you can have a show like Three Body Problem that's set for three seasons and that's it.  Back then, shows were on until they ran out of steam or until something like Friends or Seinfeld where everyone just decides its over.

To their credit, the writers tried to make it work a couple different ways.  They introduced the Tailies to give more backstories they could show.  They introduced Nikki and Paolo as a way to show a new perspective and maybe even show flashbacks to the Island.  They introduced Others like Juliet that could have their own flashbacks.  Everyone (including the writers) always points to the "Jack's tattoos" episode, but that was after they'd tried a bunch of different things.

What ended up changing things was Carlton and Damon essentially threatening (and preparing) to quit the show.  They didn't want to be involved in a 20-season LOST where Jack has a flashback about how he bought his dad's shoes. 

They wanted two seasons to wrap things up and settled for three.  I think seasons 4-6 are pretty lean, especially for network TV at the time.  I think there's a universe where it went four seasons (where seasons 2 and 3 are combined and seasons 4-6 are just two seasons), but I think the only difference would be less meandering in the beginnings of seasons 2 and 3.  I think the Henry Gale stretch of episodes is one of the strongest outside of season 1 and season 3 (once Jack and Juliet get back with the group) is also incredibly strong.  I could see a version of "Season 2" where Henry is found around episode 4, he captures Jack/Kate/Sawyer midseason, and they get off the Island at the end of Season 2.  But you'd probably lose some meat with the fat in that instance.

I think people didn't love the time travel stuff, but I really think if you look at everything from LOST from a character lens instead of a plot lens, the show is so much better.  Was I extremely satisfied with the answer to "what is the Island?"  No.  But at that point, I honestly didn't care about that.  I loved the characters and just wanted to see what happened to them.  Time travel allowed them to literally live in the past, and the show was all about the past.  The flash sideways was somewhat predictable and cliched, but the whole show was about moving on from their baggage.  There wasn't a better metaphor for that.

I'm not accusing Grizzlor of misunderstanding but there's also a lot of criticism that's directly related to people misunderstanding the end.  They weren't dead the whole time.  They didn't even die at the same time - some people died decades apart from each other.  Some was people not listening and some was bizarre choices like having the final credits roll over images of the empty wreckage on the beach with the sound of waves (which could imply, in a vacuum, that they died in the crash and none of it happened).  The problem is that the show explicitly says that it all happened.

337

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I would really love it if Swift would go ahead and endorse Harris.  I understand not wanting to be overly political, but it would be really great.  I know celebrity endorsements are pretty worthless, but she has a really devoted fanbase.  They're already mobilizing for Harris, but I'd love to move it from unofficial to official.

338

(697 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

I never finished LOST, but Slider_Quinn21 might say it meets all the conditions.

Let's see:

Was a professional, enjoyable product throughout - Yes, I think so.  Season 2 is a bit muddled and the start to season 3 is  a bit of a mess, but I enjoyed it all the way through.  Season 2 and Season 3 end on such highs that I don't think you can say either of them are bad seasons.  Nothing touches season one, but that's an incredibly high bar IMO.

Had a decent run of at least four seasons - Yes

Had no major shifts in production that made the series subfunctional or outright dysfunctional - The most disfunctional part about LOST was behind the scenes with the weirdest producer/studio issue ever.  Disney wanted the show to continue, and Lindelof and Cuse wanted it to end.  LOST almost became a casualty of its own success.  Outside of a dip in the quality of flashback stories, I don't think this issue affected the show as it aired.  There was some cast issues, but none of them were major (depending on how much you liked Mr. Eko).

Had a series finale that served as a satisfying conclusion - This will be the most debatable of the four for some, and it's going to depend on what you were looking for in a conclusion.  If it was a list of answers to questions that may or may not have already been answered, then no.  If you moved beyond the mysteries to care about the characters, then I think overwhelmingly yes.

Curious - when did you stop and would you ever revisit?  A YouTuber named Billiam recently has been doing these supersized videos on the history of LOST and has stoked my interest in LOST again.  It covers an incredible amount of material in a much shorter amount of time than rewatching the series (although it's still a huge time investment).

******

LOST is my favorite show.  I think the best show of all time is The Wire.  It easily satisfies all four of your requirements.  Even if season 5 is the worst season of the show, the conclusion of the show is incredible.

The Simpsons has moved beyond qualifying for the questions you asked, but I have watched more Simpsons than any show ever.

339

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Both of those are great and ease my tensions a bit.  I'm glad that the Harris camp isn't going into this naively.  I hope they're also boosting security at vulnerable polling places and making sure that the votes themselves are secured.

If that's the case, I feel pretty good.  Harris leads in the states she needs, and if there's a low chance that Trump can pull something out of his hat, a win is a win and that's all I've wanted for the last six+ years,

******

Good news / bad news from polling

Bad news - Harris' momentum has slowed down and regressed a bit in the polls.  Still strong some places, but Trump has regained solid-ish leads in Georgia and Nevada.  I don't know if the honeymoon slowed down or if Harris has topped out some places.  Trump has made slight gains in the last week or so but still down a sizeable chunk to Harris nationally.

Good news - North Carolina might be more in play than Georgia.  With the foolishness happening in Georgia, I'd be happy to swap the two states, let Trump have Georgia and let Harris get the election.  If Harris gets NC and the rest of the polls hold, I'm cool with a 297-241 win.  And with the convention starting today, I read a story that says polls don't move a ton after the conventions are over.  If Harris can get a bump from the DNC, history says that a lot of voters will have made up their minds.  Early voters will be able to vote in about a month.

I didn't realize Clinton was actually losing going into the DNC so Harris is already in a better place than she was.  She's in a worse place than Biden but not by much.  Assuming the convention goes well (hope the protests don't mess anything up) and the debate(s) go well, I'm feeling cautiously optimistic.

340

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Georgia is making me a little nervous.  Not only is it the state that Harris is doing worst out of the six battleground states, but they recently amped up their election denialism.  No one seems to be panicking about it, but I'm also having a lot of trouble figuring out what happens if the state can't certify its own results.  I know Congress signed some sort of update to help with their certification process, but if a state decides from top to bottom that their results can't be trusted, what even happens?  Do the votes just not count and potentially less than 538 votes could be counted?  Or do the votes have to be cast and there's just a greater likelihood that Trump could essentially steal the state?

I guess the hope is that Kemp and Raffensperger, while both Republicans, don't have a ton of love for Trump.  So even if lower level election officials don't certify the results, I think they have the ability to push it through regardless.  But that's what I worry about.  In my head, we can't count on Georgia to get to 270, even if Harris wins it.

341

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

342

(746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I don't think there's been any news on that.  ireactions might know more than me.

343

(746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

That's disappointing but not necessarily surprising. As ireactions has said, this show wasn't promoted very well, and even strong Trek fans might never give it a chance.

344

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah I guess I mean she needs to nail it.  What I'd like to see:

- Some sort of compromise on the Trump tax cuts.  Either she only increases taxes on the wealthy / wealthier segments, or the taxes don't go all the way back to pre-Trump levels.  No matter the rationale, raising peoples' taxes is not popular.
- Tax protections for families - for childcare, tax credit, etc.  Will help with the "anti-family" argument.
- Something concrete to tackle inflation, even if it's something that just sounds good in theory.
- Something about protection for blue-collar workers.  Trump and Musk attacked unions the other day, and Democrats can reclaim some of the voters Trump might have upset.
- Trump's stupid no tax on tips thing.  I don't think it would have the impact some think it would, but it is popular.
- Very clear explanation for what people will get for their taxes, whether they are increased or not.  I think people are fine paying taxes if it goes toward things they like.

345

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

346

(330 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Okay I had a thought that I wanted to throw out.  This probably could've been its own thing but I'll put it here.

One of the big things in the Disney era of Star Wars is the idea that the Jedi weren't that great.  And I'm trying to understand what George Lucas would say to that.  And I'm interested to know what people think about this.  Is the galaxy better off without the Jedi?  Or is it okay to have the Jedi just as long as they allow the Jedi to feel love?

Are the Jedi better off being Vulcans (who have no emotions but can know love)?  Or is the right metaphor for the Jedi the police?  Because in all the pre-Vader media, it seems like the Jedi were trying to wear too many hats?  If the Jedi stayed in their lane (peacekeeping), would they have been better?

Did the Jedi deserve to be destroyed?  Were they a symptom of something that was destroying the entire republic?  Should they be built back just the way they were?  What is the lesson I'm supposed to get from Star Wars on what the Jedi were and what they should be?

347

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

Harris will be ahead; however, the reality is that unless Trump's numbers sink, it's going to be within the margin of error.

Well, maybe.  I think it's going to be way too close going into election day, but Harris had some polls over the weekend that were just below the margin of error.  There's still "meat on the bone" for her to get a little higher and take her over the margin of error.  But trends would need to continue.

What might be a little scary for the Trump campaign is that Trump's popularity really hasn't dropped.  His numbers are almost identical today as they were when Biden dropped out (43.5% on July 21 and 43.3% today).  That means he's holding on to what he received from the assassination attempt and the convention.  He really hasn't dropped from that point.  Maybe he won't...but he really hasn't started losing voters yet.

What if he does?  Then there's a chance that, as far as polls go, Harris could be in really good shape.  That doesn't take into account *sample error* which could still lean toward Trump.

348

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well Trump controls state legislatures and election officials in all these states.  All he needs is a majority of people to question the results (based off no evidence) to gum up the works.  For example, if it's 270-268 and there's some sort of fake "voter irregularity" in Wisconsin, Trump officials there could convince enough people to throw out some votes and give the victory to Trump.  Suddenly it's 278-260 Trump and he wins.  It doesn't take that many votes and it only takes one state.

That's why I think the crucial number is 289.  If Harris can get there, then Trump wouldn't have to overturn one state, he'd need to overturn at least two.  Two is obviously harder than one, and two looks more like Trump is trying to pull something instead of something people might be willing to accept (small voter irregularity isolated to a single place).  If Harris can repeat the 2020 Biden map, then it gets even harder for Trump.  If she gets MI/WI/AZ/NV/GA, and Trump is able to flip Pennsylvania (the biggest of the swing states) through some kind of illegal action, then it's still 284-254.  In that case, he'd need to flip Pennsylvania and either Georgia or Michigan to win.  Not only would he need to flip states, he'd need specific ones.  If he doesn't get those, he'd need to get combinations.  PA/AZ/NV for example.

Can Trump do it?  Sure.  He has people in all these states.  If you look back on 2020, a handful of people in small positions saved the day.  If those break down this time, it could make it more likely that Trump could pull something off.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p … 235069692/

************

That being said, the wheels are coming off a bit for Trump.  He had a disastrous interview with Elon Musk, and he's getting a bit more unhinged.  He accused Harris of using AI to fake crowds - if that can reach undecided voters (who can verify for themselves that the crowds were real any number of ways), then I think she'll pick up more of those.  Trump *only* campaigns to his base.

Right wing people across the board, even those firmly in his camp, are starting to get nervous that he's going off script so much.  Harris needs to keep hammering him and keep him annoyed and pressured.  He'll continue to flail and stumble, and if enough of that can get on mainstream media to reach moderates/undecideds/soft Trump votes, then she'll win.

A poll came out that had Harris within the margin of error in FLORIDA.  If that happens, MAGA is going to flip out and accuse Harris of cheating but at that point, Trump will have lost by so much that it wouldn't matter one bit.  I don't really think Florida is in play, but if it's even sorta in play, Harris is going to cruise.

349

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

350

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Another round of good polling for Harris.  It was just one poll, but she's tied in North Carolina.  Its not an exact science, but if she wins North Carolina, she's going to win the election (maybe as big as possible).  Just like a month ago when they were talking about Trump winning Minnesota, that would've been best case for him.

Still a long way to go and Harris will have to defend herself on the debate stage and in interviews, but it's amazing how much things have flipped in such a short amount of time.  She's on the inside track now.

351

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

See, maybe I'm desensitized to Trump, but I didn't think it was Hindenburg level.  I'm with Lawrence O'Donnell - the media needs to be better at fact checking Trump live if they're going to air his stuff.  There need to be follow-up questions and there needs to accountability, or his stuff shouldn't be aired.  If Trump wants to completely control these events, then they can air exclusively on Ben Shapiro's podcast.  If he wants free airtime, then he needs to agree to face difficult questions (to be fair, like he did in the Black Journalists event).

A lot of far-right people are talking about what a disaster Trump's campaign has been.  I don't know if it's true or not, but it sounds like he has no ground game and hasn't been advertising at all.  I haven't watched much of the Olympics but I heard Harris ads are being shown constantly.  I know every time I open YouTube, I get a Harris ad.  She campaigned in Arizona, and he campaigned in Montana.

I wonder if he is shifting towards post-election nonsense.  If that's the case, Harris needs to stay the course.  If she can win all six battleground states (and even North Carolina), I don't know if Trump's going to be able to cause enough chaos.  I worry about election day chaos so I hope Harris voters vote early.

352

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Trump's press conference yesterday was a bit of a disaster, but I don't know if it will matter much.  I wonder if the race has hit a new equilibrium that will take a Biden debate - level event to shake it up.  If that's the case, this race might come down to what undecideds / current RFK voters decide to do on the day.

If we go by 538's polling averages, she's winning the blue wall and she's within 0.5% in Arizona and Georgia.  Surprisingly, there isn't enough polling in Nevada to have an average, and NE-2 hasn't done a poll since Biden dropped out.  I think North Carolina is a pipe dream at this point.  If she wins that, I think she would've swept all the races and it'll just be icing on the cake.

353

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Its just frustrating because it was one of the primary reasons she went with Walz over Shapiro.  Maybe not the only reason but one of the primary ones.  They barely gave her 48 hours of good will over it.

354

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

That brings us to Plan B.  Trump and friends have either replaced civil servants/officials or rules/laws in multiple states, with the purpose being an all out electoral count/certification battle following November 5.  Be prepared for a war.  They intend on selectively challenging precinct, county, and state vote counting and certification wherever they choose.  The "mistake" of 2020 was to try to stop it in Washington.  This time Trump intends on throwing out thousands of votes in a completely "out in public" attempt at stealing the election.  This is not hyperbole from me.  They have spent tens of millions on this effort.

Oh absolutely.  This doesn't end on election day.  That's just the beginning.  That's why this can't be 270-268.  She needs to win a couple of buffer states that can be overturned and she can still win.  I think Trump has the infrastructure to muck up at least one state, but I think it would be hard to overturn more than that.  If she can win the blue wall plus Georgia and Arizona, for example, then that should be enough.  And we're trending in that direction, at least.

If Trump has the infrastructure to overturn more than that, the election literally doesn't matter.

*******

I'm blown away that there were Gaza protesters at Harris' rally.  I seriously don't understand what these people are doing.  Trump has literally promised to jail them, and they're helping him win.

But I thought she handled it magnificently.  I think she also handled the "Lock Him Up" chants well.  As I've said, now that the trials aren't going to accomplish anything before November, we need to stop focusing on that.  Beat him in November.

355

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I really liked his dig about Vance getting off the couch - it was funnier than any line Trump has ever issued.  I listened to most of his speech and he came across really well.  I think he's going to appeal to people - maybe even some Trump people who have tired him but likes someone willing to "fight/attack" the other side. 

The polls continue to look pretty good.  It'll be interesting to see if this announcement and/or the battleground state tour moves the polls any.  I think if the election ended today, according to the 538 polling averages, Harris would win by the dreaded 270-268.  But she's pretty close in Georgia and Arizona, within striking distance in North Carolina, and it looks about tied in Nevada.  It doesn't appear that there are any states that Harris might be able to flip even if she increases her popularity a decent amount.  There's been no polling in South Carolina, but any even remotely pink state (Texas, Iowa, Florida, Ohio) seem pretty much in Trump's camp.  319 looks like Harris' ceiling (and would be amazing).

I still wish they'd been more pragmatic about the electoral math.  I don't know if Walz appeals much to independents or moderates, but I think he'd be a great VP if she can find a way to win.

356

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

Harris selected Walz because she felt he was the best partner.  I think Shapiro, being another former AG, was probably too close to the background of Harris.  She wanted something different, where she was lacking.  Walz has a strong progressive record in Minnesota.  Some of it is potentially problematic on the social issue front.  But he has a long resume, much longer than Shapiro, and of course it's comical to compare to Vance LOL.  Also, let's not ignore that Kamala learned a LOT from Joe Biden.  Biden and she are very close, and she wants that kind of partnership.  There is a report now that Shapiro called the Harris team at some point over the weekend, and was "struggling" with leaving his post in Pennsylvania.

Nate Silver wrote an article about it today.  I agreed with him in general, and he basically said Walz was the safe pick.  That it was a fairly traditional pick because it added to her.  And I know Shapiro had warts, and I'd certainly worry if he *only* added to Pennsylvania. 

My worries with Walz are:

- Does he give you anything?  I know he doesn't take away from the Gaza vote like Shapiro or from the union vote like Kelly.  But does he give you anything?  Is there anyone who would vote for Harris today who wasn't going to vote for her yesterday?  That's the question.  Maybe he's great.  I just hope he isn't Tim Kaine, who gave Clinton nothing.  I know he's better than Vance, but the bar certainly can't be that low.

- Republicans are celebrating their butts off.  Not the attacks - those have been generic and overblown as usual.  But Republicans thought she'd pick Shapiro and "the race would be over" - They basically saw it as a chance to go for the knockout, but instead they're still in the race.  That worries and bothers me.  It never feels good when you do something and the other side celebrates.

I guess we'll see.  The polls look good and she can still get a bump from the convention.  Maybe she'll get a bump from this.  The Harris campaign is much better than the Biden campaign was so maybe they'll make me eat my words in three months.  I would love nothing more than to be wrong about this.

357

(697 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, the new apes movie, which takes place "generations" after the last movie has the apes still moving and acting like apes.  They look more like "real" intelligent apes, but I agree that they've sorta lost whatever metaphor they were going for.  I don't know what the message is in "Kingdom".

I would like it to about how we can be different but still work together.  Maybe that's where it's going.

358

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I've said this before but if Trump came to me (as AG or as Jack Smith or whatever) and offered to disappear in exchange for dropping the cases, I'd take it.  I don't even care at this point if he never faces justice.  I want him to just go away and let American democracy heal.  Because outside of Trump, most of the MAGA nonsense doesn't work.  Kari Lake tried all the same tricks in Arizona that Trump tried, but there was no January 6th.  There were no protests.  There were barely any election deniers.

It only works with Trump.  And if he exiled himself to Mar-A-Lago and hosted dinner parties the rest of his life, I think we might be able to get some semblance of sanity back.

With that in mind, I hope whatever trial stuff happens before the election, it doesn't help Trump.  I don't want to give him a chance to look like a victim or whatever.  Harris has all the momentum, and I don't want that to change.

********

And Grizzlor, I'm willing to give Walz a chance.  I know VP doesn't make huge waves, but it just feels like Shapiro was going to hand Harris Pennsylvania.  In polling as a candidate himself, he was up 10 points on Trump there.  Even if a fraction of those people voted for Harris/Shapiro, she easily gets the most important state and the election gets so much easier.  And if it meant getting PA but losing MI, I'm cool with that.  She's polling pretty great in Wisconsin and then it would just be getting Georgia, North Carolina, or Arizona.  1/3 shot.

But maybe Shapiro as a surrogate is enough.  Maybe Walz gets the same number of votes that Shapiro would have gotten.  Maybe it doesn't matter.

Like I said, I'll be annoyed today and then get over it.  I hope he has Sun Belt appeal because I still think she needs the Blue Wall plus another state or two.

359

(697 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

In this series, humanity is so horrible that it's been virtually destroyed, because of what exactly?  Very dour, you watch the movie and where the series ended up, and you don't feel good about us.

I haven't seen War, but I read the full synopsis online.  What's weird is I don't feel like humanity "deserves" what happens to it other than vague "man is bad" stuff.  And the apes, while shown as being given their own shot, aren't any better than the humans.  They're just as bloodthirsty and eager for control or whatever.  Some of the times, the humans aren't even the aggressors.

In Rise, the whole thing starts out as something altruistic.  There are bad humans, sure.  But it all comes from a good place (unless I'm forgetting about something sinister).  This isn't a situation like most robot apocalypses where humanity has enslaved something or someone.  It's just our world with a guy trying to help his father and others like him.

In Dawn, the bad guy isn't necessarily a bad guy.  He's just desperate for things to go back to how they were.  And he's grieving.  I only partially remember the movie and I'm sure he did something unforgivable at some point, but his heart is in the right place from what I remember.

I know in War it's a ruthless military leader.  But at the same time, humanity has been ravaged and there's a struggle for resources.  Humanity is up against a virus that is constantly evolving and killing / stealing the humanity of everyone.  I understood why they did some of the things they did, but it's not for me.

In Kingdom, it at least feels like we're moving to some kind of hopeful future.  I doubt that's where it goes because it needs to eventually get around to the astronauts returning, but I thought the original movies ended in a cool place with apes and humans living together.  I would like to see the movies go in that direction, and have the bad guys people that are xenophobic or whatever.  It seems like every movie is "ITS US OR THEM" and it doesn't need to be that way.

360

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

Also, his selection would not have simply "won Pennsylvania," as that stuff rarely helps, even with a popular Governor in state.  He's not at the top of the ticket, which is what drives preferences.

Sure, but Harris polls worse than Biden in Pennsylvania.  The switch from Biden to Harris is the worst in Pennsylvania.  And Pennsylvania is a must-win state.  Even if Shapiro was second on the ticket, it's basically a super-endorsement of her as a candidate.  If 60% of people like Shapiro then there's gotta be a portion of the population of the state that would have Shapiro as the tiebreaker.  Biden won Pennsylvania by 80,555 votes.  It might be closer than that this year.  If Shapiro convinces 0.1% of Pennsylvania voters, that's 6,836 voters.  That could be the election.

But I'll support Walz the same way I would've supported anyone else.  Maybe he can have the same effect as Shapiro in Pennsylvania.  Maybe he won't have the same issues Shapiro would've had with his views on Israel and his religion.  Maybe it's better to have a white Christian male on the ticket to balance out a black woman.

But if they lose Pennsylvania, they lost it today.