361

(697 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Planet of the Apes has always been a bit of a fascination with me.  Which is weird because I don't think I love any of the movies.  But I have seen all of them - the five original movies, the reboot, and the four new reboot movies.  That's ten movies of a series I like but don't love.

The problem is that the original series was a warning about nuclear war.  The first movie is more direct with the famous "you maniacs!  You blew it up!" scene.  The second movie also revolves around a nuclear bomb and (spoiler alert for a movie that was made before I was born) ends with the Earth being fully destroyed.  The next two show how we got to a planet of the apes.  And in that version, humans have taken on apes as pets/helpers after a virus wipes out all cats and dogs.  It's basically the same as a robot apocalypse - we "enslave" these intelligent beings to make our lives easier, and there's an uprising.  In an attempt to calm things down, the government turns to nuclear weapons and the apes win the war.  If there's an explanation for how it gets flipped, I don't remember it.  I think it's just supposed to be evolution.  The first smart ape in the revolution is the son of two intelligent apes that went back in time - the rest of the apes just learn to talk by being around him?

In the new series of films, they start in the past.  James Franco's character is trying to cure his father's Alzheimer's and comes up with a virus designed to repair the brain.  There are some evil human characters, but the whole thing ends up sorta being an accident.  The virus fails to cure the father - but it does make apes intelligent.  Not only that, it kills humans.  The movie ends with Caesar (the helper ape to Franco) turning a few apes intelligent and leading them out of San Francisco.  The twist comes at the end when a pilot neighbor to Franco catches the virus and spreads it around the world - it kills people and makes ape intelligent - Planet of the Apes.

The sequels are about Caesar leading his new group of apes as they gain power and the humans lose it.  In all instances, there's a powerful/desperate human leading a military group of humans, they fight the apes, and the humans lose.

And I get that humans generally suck.  Our leaders are bad.  Our militaries are bad.  But it's weird for movies to present the idea that humanity needs to be wiped out and replaced with something that's better.  I like stuff like Star Trek where humanity finally passes the test.  Even in post-apocalyptic stories, I like for us to learn a lesson and get better.  No one ever gets better in Planet of the Apes movies - some people try and everyone ends up dead.

In this new movie, there seems to be at least an attempt for both sides to live in some kind of harmony.  And that's a better message to me.

362

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well the funny thing is that Republicans are blaming Harris.  She isn't president.  Even if the president was directly responsible for the performance of the stock market (spoiler: he isn't), that would be on Biden, not Harris.  The only thing that they can do is say that Biden isn't in charge, Harris is.  Which, again, means they have to admit that they lied about Biden this whole time.

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

Sounds like it's Walz based on the security outside his and Shapiro's houses.  I think it would be a mistake, but that's not entirely a surprise.  Democrats seriously never do anything the easy way.

Maybe the polling is strong enough in Pennsylvania not to matter.  Maybe Walz appeals to those same Pennsylvania voters and also people in other swing state.  They know more than me, but bypassing the popular governor of a must-win state because a small segment of the population is threatening to vote against their own interests seems really silly to me.

363

(697 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Ha, this is more about my allegiance to The Weekly Planet podcast.  I've started watching every movie they do an episode on.  Even ones I wouldn't otherwise watch smile

It was on Hulu so I gave it a shot.  I think all the movies are well done, and this one was less upsetting than the second one.

364

(697 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I watched Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes.  I have a complicated view on these movies because I don't love movies where humanity (as a whole) is the bad guys.  I didn't even watch the third reboot movie because it looked too depressing.

This one was pretty good.  One thing that felt kinda weird was the opening of the movie, which stated that apes took over because humanity was destroyed by its own hubris.  Is that what really happened?  James Franco's character was trying to defeat Alzheimer's - is that really hubris?

365

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

Meanwhile, stock market is plunging, which isn't good news for Biden (Harris), in part thanks to a lousier July jobs number, and due to the awful mismanagement by Fed chairman Jerome Powell.  They're not even scheduled to meet on interest rate changes until next month.  This represents as big a concern for the "incumbent" ticket than anything else going on right now.

My question is...has Harris already lost the voters who think the economy is bad?  In other words, does the performance of the economy matter?

I saw an opinion article on USA Today that was from a conservative columnist who said "I have been attacking Biden but we should really be afraid of Harris."  The point of her article was that she'd attacked Biden as being far-left and a radical socialist for four years, but he's pretty moderate and it's actually Harris who's the far-left socialist.

If I had any interest in getting in a dialogue with someone like that, I would ask "So you admit you lied about Biden, but you want people to believe you now?"

The problem with MAGA and the GOP is that everything is a hyperbole.  Trump is the greatest president ever.  He had the greatest economy ever.  This is the greatest persecution ever.  Biden is the worst president ever.  It's the worst economy ever.  The border is the worst ever.

And the problem with that is that you've already played your card.  There's nowhere to go but up from the worst ever.  People get tired of hyperbole, and if you want to shift your attack, you have to admit you lied the first time.  Biden can't be the worst if Harris was the worst.  And, again, they've been saying this for years.  So anyone who's going to listen to Trump or Mike Johnson or Ted Cruz has already been convinced.

The stock market goes up and down, and it's already really up under Biden.  Maybe there are people who liked Trump but switched to Biden because the economy was doing better than Trump was saying, but I don't know how many of those there are.  Maybe the economy will be the tiebreaker for undecideds - it's a very important metric, but hopefully those people know that Trump doesn't have any sort of magic ability to improve the economy.  And if he did, he probably wouldn't have gone bankrupt so many times.

Grizzlor wrote:

Kamala has moved ahead on Nate Silver's board, which is something.

Forgot to comment on this.  This is something.  Nate has been really cold on Biden, and his model has been way more pessimistic on Biden than most places.  If he has her with a greater chance to win than Trump, that's pretty big.  Now the difference is minor, and it's basically a coin flip race in Nate's model, but it's pretty big.

And everyone is right, she's winning in a lot of polls now.

366

(746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

Overall, PRODIGY is a show that should really have a much wider audience than being marketed as a children's series. It's very clear to me that Paramount Studios, Paramount+ and Nickelodeon did not market PRODIGY correctly. It has the content and appeal to be sold as effectively as STAR TREK (2009). Unfortunately, the PRODIGY brand has been marketed as a children's show with limited appeal outside a young age group. But the actual PRODIGY show has a wide, mainstream appeal and has been well-calibrated and calculated for audiences both in and out of STAR TREK fandom.

Yeah, I agree.  I wrote off Prodigy as a kids show like Paw Patrol but just Star Trek.  But when I needed something to watch and I had time for it, I thought it was fun and engaging.  And there are episodes that might be too scary or high-level for kids to enjoy.  I probably should see if any of it actually appeals to my 4-year-old.

I also agree that the gateway to entry isn't very high so it could appeal to new fans.  Picard Season 3 was a love letter to the fans, but I imagine that it was unintelligible to a lot of people who have never seen Star Trek.  I'd never recommend my non-Trek-fan friends watch Picard, but I think they'd watch Prodigy.  It's a cartoon with younger protagonists, sure, but it tells an engaging story.  If you know who Janeway and (spoiler) and (Season 2 spoiler) and even (Season 2 spoiler) are, then you might enjoy the show on another level, but there's enough background that you have an idea of who these people are and how they are represented.

The show also does some heavy lifting to take some established characters and give them more to do than they were able to do on their original appearances.

I'm glad you like it!

367

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

The only thing remaining is the NY sentencing hearing in September, where Trump is likely to be slapped on the wrist.  Nothing else of substance will occur, as those federal cases will be stuck in motions and hearings for a long time.

That's not my understanding.  The DC case hasn't been dismissed, and there's a hearing in a couple of weeks on how to proceed.  What could happen, based on my limited understanding of these matters, is that the Supreme Court required them to have hearings on whether the acts that are under the indictment were official acts or not.  What that could mean is that the government has to lay all its cards on the table, including calling witnesses, to present their evidence.  It would mean giving the defense a ton of insight into what they're planning on doing, but it would also get a ton of evidence out into the public consciousness.

It was basically what democrats were clinging to when the immunity decision was announced.  It feels like a huge risk/reward proposition - they could obviously get voters huge details on what Trump was trying to do in 2020.  It could also a) give the defense a huge advantage if the case ever proceeds and b) backfire and actually help Trump.

For me, I'm sorta hoping to just take it off the table unless there's something about Pence's testimony or some other evidence that would change enough minds to keep him out of the White House.  At this point, all I really care about is beating him in November.  If he never pays for any of his crimes, whatever.

368

(746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I'm not sure why Paramount insists on the streaming-only model for Trek.  I feel like Strange New Worlds would be pretty successful on CBS.  I think Lower Decks could've worked on MTV or Comedy Central.  Prodigy would've obviously worked on Nickelodeon.  Still stream them on Paramount Plus (that's still where I'd watch it) but have your cake and eat it too.

And I'm glad ireactions is liking Prodigy.  I'm also glad we'll get some form of the Orville season 4.

369

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

QuinnSlidr wrote:

I prefer Buttigieg. Never heard of any of these other people until they were in the running for VP. And Buttigieg has the name recognition.

I absolutely love Buttigieg.  I think he'd be great, and I think he can absolutely be president some day.  But in an election where evangelicals are already going to extra motivated, I think running a ticket of a black woman and a gay man is going to cause extra issues.  As much as I love Shapiro, I'm a little bit nervous about not having a Christian man on the ticket.

I know it's not the way it should be, but I think Pete needs to wait until some of the Trump anti-LGBT firestorm dies down.  Add him to the Harris cabinet (Secretary of State?) and keep building up his resume.

Grizzlor wrote:

David Axelrod, James Carville, etc., telling Democrats not to get too in love with this honeymoon surge.  Work needs to be done.  I know what they are thinking, that when push comes to shove, the Trump vote will turn out, and the Harris vote won't, at least, to what the polls are.

I agree about the honeymoon period, but could it last a couple more months?  People seem to be energized by a non-Trump/Biden candidate, and honeymoon.  Harris' own VP approval rating honeymoon lasted almost eight months.  My hope is that Harris wins before people even really know if they like her or not.

As far as turnout goes, I think you're forgetting that the true power the Democrats have is anti-Trump, not pro-Harris.  The anti-Trump people will turn out whether it's Biden, Harris, or me on the ballot.  They'd show up if they had to write Harris in.  A ton of people in this country love Trump, but a ton of people hate him.  Both are equally excited to show up.  Also, since the shift in the electorate, Democrats do better with people who are more likely to vote.  I'll let 538 explain from this article: https://abcnews.go.com/538/harris-trump … =112494481

Another reason our averages are better for Harris is that 538 adjusts polls that were conducted among registered voters (marked as "RV" on our polls page) or all adults ("A") toward the results of likely voter ("LV") polls. We make this adjustment because we know for a fact that not all adults or even all registered voters will vote in the election, and the types of people who vote differ from nonvoters in predictable ways.

Specifically, there is evidence that likely voters are now a bit more Democratic than the general population; for example, likely voter polls of Trump versus Biden tended to look better for Democrats than polls of that matchup among registered voters or all adults. Our average makes this adjustment by looking for systematic differences between likely voter and registered voter/all adult polls after controlling for other factors, such as the pollster who conducted the poll, the mode it was conducted with, the time it was conducted, etc.

Basically, Trump has a really rabid group of people who almost never vote in anything else.  They're also less likely to vote in ways that are more convenient (by mail, voting early, etc) so something like weather in rural Pennsylvania on election day can actually make a difference.

Grizzlor wrote:

I think it's a mistake NOT to have her debate Trump.  Let him wallow in his own cowardice a little longer, but she HAS to debate this guy.  Pointing to what those guys have been saying, Harris needs to prove she is up for the job, with more than just endorsements and commercials and short stump speeches.  Remove the doubts.

I think you're right, and I think she will.  But I think she's doing the right thing and hammering him on being weak and cowardly.  MAGA will eat up whatever excuse he has, but undecideds won't.  She needs to make that point instead of quickly accepting any offer Trump makes so that the news can report day after day that she's sticking to the original agreement and Trump wants a friendly crowd on a friendly network.  Then she can hammer him on it during the debate too.

I'm also a little nervous about Trump's legal stuff popping up.  I wonder if that will break up some of the momentum that Harris has now.  Trump campaigned better and raised money better during his trials, and as much as I'd love the population to learn more about his election interference case, I wonder if it's better to just let it lie until after the election.

370

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Okay the polling keeps getting better for Harris.  Some of it has to be Trump misstep after misstep (why in the world would he reignite his rivalry with Kemp in Georgia when people in Georgia already don't love him that much and love Kemp???), but I think people are ready to change the page from Clinton/Biden/Obama/Trump.  I think as long as she doesn't have any missteps, she might have an absolutely rock solid shot.

I'm torn on what she should do for VP.  Shapiro actually has a decent amount of baggage, but if he can get you Pennsylvania, the road to the White House is so much easier.  If Harris gets PA and we consider NV/AZ/GA/NC/WI/MI as toss-ups, then it's 245-219.  Obviously WI and MI gets the win (again, assuming NE-2).  But you could lose MI and get AZ.  You could lose MI and get GA or NC.  You don't have to only get 2 of the 6 (because obviously NV and WI aren't enough on their own), but a lot of combinations become wins.

I still think 270 isn't enough votes to be happy, but I'm willing to take 270-268 from where we were a few weeks ago.

Harris is winning enough pre-VP polls in Pennsylvania that maybe they'll risk it and go with Kelly.  Kelly might have broader support and helps Harris with border stuff since he's a bit of a hawk on the border and obviously comes from a border state.  If they think they can get Pennsylvania without Shapiro, or if they think they can get GA/AZ/NC/NV/WI/MI (not all but enough to get to 270) then maybe Kelly makes more sense.

My questions:

- Does Shapiro lock up Pennsylvania?  Do enough Pennsylvanians trust/like him to either override a vote for Trump or convince enough undecideds to go with her?
- Does Shapiro's potential baggage (sexual assault stuff, being Jewish, views on Israel, etc) lose him any votes outside of Pennsylvania?  For example, do you get PA but lose MI?
- Does Kelly's baggage on unions (which he's tried to shore up) hurt him in the rust belt?  Or would they like him as much as they'd like Shapiro?
- Does Kelly help with the border enough to essentially neutralize that issue?
- Does any of this actually matter?  I know it doesn't matter on a macro scale but all it would need to do is matter a few places by a small amount of votes.  This whole thing could be decided by a few thousand votes.

371

(746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Ha I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'll take it smile

One of my coworkers who is a huge Trek guy said he thinks Prodigy is the best of the new Trek.  I think it has the most heart of any of the new Trek shows, and it uses classic Trek stories to tell stories of the week while also doing an overarching story.  It has the same love for Trek that Lower Decks does but does it earnestly instead of with humor (I love them both).  I'd forgotten how much I liked it when I saw season 2 was finally available.

*********

I need detective ireactions to let me know if the news I saw this weekend about The Orville season 4 starting production is true or not.

372

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po … d=abcpromo

FiveThirtyEight launched their polling average for Harris-Trump specifically, and Harris is up 1.2% nationally.  They don't have enough polling data to launch in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada, or Wisconsin but she's leading by 1.6% in Michigan.

I think the momentum and the "honeymoon period" will end, but she's still got a potential bump from her VP pick and the convention.  It's crazy how much things have turned around.

373

(746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

A one-off movie, of a character honestly nobody cares about, ehhhh.  Michelle Leoh is amazing in anything though.

Yeah I think she could make it work, but I had trouble even understanding the tone they were going for in the trailer.  What is it supposed to be?

Also, I can't remember how her arc ended on Discovery.  I know they visited the Guardian, but did she go back to her universe?  Did she go back in time?  Is she still in the future?  I honestly can't remember

374

(746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I thought this trailer had a really weird tone and, honestly, doesn't look very good.  I really like the idea of Section 31, but I think the current leadership at Trek doesn't know what to do with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYfXhCp2UVY

375

(934 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

So MCU is steaming forward with what I still say is a completely unsellable franchise, The Fantastic Four.  Their powers are so outdated and dumb, including the villain, and THIS is the mini-franchise you're pinning the next two years on?  RDJ's turn as Dr. Doom will be lame, as it will be very difficult for the audience NOT to view him as Tony Stark.  Not to mention the insane money he's being paid.  Can the Russo brothers truly save this mess?  Thunderbolts looks buffoonish.

I don't know about that.  I think Fantastic Four can be a big hit, and the 60s retro-future could be fun.  The MCU desperately needs fresh blood and new ideas, and this is one of their best bets.  I mean they made Thor work.  They made Guardians of the Galaxy into one of the best parts of the MCU.  Captain America is pretty lame, and they made two of his movies into some of the best in the franchise. 

Remember that the MCU started with the junk that was lying around that no one else wanted.  No one knew who Iron Man was in 2007, and 12 years later, there were grown men crying at his death.

The Fantastic Four might not have succeeded in the past (although the early 2000s movies aren't awful), but they have a huge following for a reason.  They still have to make a good movie, but I think Feige is turning the ship around.  There's almost no new TV coming down the pike, and they're streamlining the movies.

******

On RDJ.  A lot of people are mad about this, but I think we need to figure out what this is before we get upset.  Remember that Dr Doom rarely shows his face.  Could this be a situation where Downey Jr becomes unrecognizable (think his recent job on The Sympathizer) and then it's just voice work?  And while it seems desperate, people forget that RDJ is a legitimately great actor.  He did a bunch of popcorn movies, but he's one of the best actors on the planet.  And they need a very strong actor to play Doom, or it isn't going to work.

So he might be played by RDJ but you might not even know.  He could disappear into the role and truly become Doom.

Alternatively, there's also two things at play:

- RDJ could be playing a variant of Tony that goes by the name Victor Von Doom.  Maybe Tony's parents fled to Latveria, took over there, and had a son named Victor instead of Tony.  So you have this familiar face that the Avengers are going to have this emotional connection that Victor can take advantage of.  How would Peter, for example, punch a guy with Tony's face?  If Victor somehow knows about Tony, he could literally take over the world by assuming Tony's identity and just taking over.  The world would hand itself to him.  So it adds a second layer to a typical bad guy if they know he's technically Tony.

- It could be a trick.  Maybe it's a Tony variant that takes over the Doom persona and then the real-life Doom kills him.  Basically the same thing they did with the Mandarin.  That way they could have their cake and eat it too.  I know it would be slightly redundant, but imagine a super-smart evil Tony Stark Doom who brings the Avengers to their knees and then the real Doom shows up and wipes out Tony without any effort. 

There are ways to make this work, and I think we need to give them a chance.  Same with Thunderbolts.  All the actors on that project are good, and the team up could be fun.  The MCU is definitely in a downturn, but the movies have still been pretty good.  If they pivot away from some of the bad TV stuff and focus their attention back on movies, I don't see any reason to think they can't recapture the magic.

376

(697 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

How does Slider_Quinn21 feel that there will be another new DEXTER show set after NEW BLOOD that resurrects Dexter and features Michael C. Hall?

I think Michael C Hall as Dexter is a really compelling character.  I think I would give any story about Dexter a shot.  I gotta think that the plot will be Dexter as someone else's dark passenger (I assume his son's). 

The show hasn't ventured anywhere near the idea that someone could be resurrected, but several dead people have appeared in visions to people (usually in the form of a dark passenger).  It's unclear if the dark passengers are actual people speaking from beyond the grave or if it's just an extension of their own madness.  But I assume in this case, they'll actually confirm that it's truly Dexter's spirit.

I will watch it, assuming it's on a platform that I can watch it on.

377

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

QuinnSlidr wrote:

lol lol lol lol lol lol


Harris is now leading or close to Trump in every battleground state

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DQsKUejBsE

The Michigan number looks like a real outlier.  There's no question, no matter what poll you're looking at, that the race has tightened.  But it's still a 50/50 deal at best for Harris.  We're going to need across-the-board polling to show that the race is competitive (where Harris is winning as many polls as she's losing) in Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and hopefully North Carolina before we start getting too excited.  As it stands now, we'd need a Dem+3 polling error for her to comfortably win.

Now to be fair, Trump's already gotten a bump from the convention and the assassination attempt.  He's had a few gaffes recently that could cost him votes, including all the Vance stuff.  And Harris still could get a bump from her VP pick and the convention.

******

The black journalist thing seems really bad.  This could possibly cost him votes, but my understanding is that a lot of people in the black community actually don't consider her to be black.  I saw some commentary from black people that noted that her Atlanta rally was "too ghetto" - I don't know if Trump insulting her "blackness" is as cut and dry as we think.  I think there's some complications, and I think Trump's comments might actually strengthen him with some parts of the black community that don't consider her to be black either.

Now I think she needs to go to the same event (not on Zoom) and handle tough questions comfortably and confidently.  She could really show the difference and score major points.

378

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Been seeing a bunch of articles that are talking about a Democratic pivot from calling MAGA "dangerous" to calling it "weird" and how that's a great idea.  I do think there's a segment of MAGA that actually likes the idea that Democrats are scared of them.

But to be weird?  That could be effective.  I maintain that Democrats need to talk more about Trump's weirdness - how he's constantly bringing up Hannibal Lector.  His bizarre rant about sharks and electric boats.  When I linked that "You Should Go to a Trump Rally" article, it talked about how even some of Trump's biggest fans walk out of his rallies when he rambles on.  I think the Harris campaign should be taking huge clips of these things and just playing them unedited as TV ads.  People need to know that even if they don't think Trump is dangerous, he's certainly crazy.

Also, Trump hates being made fun of.  I think he likes the idea that he's going to be this scary tyrant, but I don't think he wants to be thought of as old, weird, or crazy.  That's what they need to do, and they can probably bait him into more weird or crazy behavior.

379

(934 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I'll take my coke when I move to Canada. smile

Didn't you originally write a long post about Deadpool and Wolverine?  Maybe you just started with "I saw Deadpool and Wolverine" and I jumped out.  Let me talk briefly about the X-Men and then get into Deadpool and Wolverine, which I saw last night.

Timeline Stuff

I think Days of Future Past is a really cool movie.  I think I love the concept of the movie more than the movie itself, but I think it's cool that they had these prequel characters that everyone loved and they tied it together with these later versions people already loved.  And they tied it together with this mostly-immortal character that everyone universally loved.  I know it isn't fully comic accurate, but I think it makes a lot of sense.  Wolverine was alive in both periods and could be the bridge.

And because it's a cool idea, I'm willing to suspend my belief that McAvoy and Stewart are the same guy.  I think the problem with Days of Future Past is that they didn't stop there.  Like Logan is a great ending for Wolverine, I think Days of Future Past could've been a great ending to X-Men.  I understand striking while the iron is hot with the First Class cast and grabbing characters like McKellen and Stewart while they're still young-ish, but I wonder if they should've done a trilogy of "young X-Men" films set in the 60s and 70s and finished with Days of Future Past.

You know me, loving glut in movies, but it actually might've been cool to have parallel movies setting up Days of Future Past.  A trilogy of "First Class" movies setting up Sentinels in the background, and a post-apocalyptic movie with Sentinels taking out mutants.  Give the older cast one more solo movie to set this movie up, now that interest was re-ignited in the X-Men and give fans an Empire Strikes Back moment where the heroes lose.  Show the young cast setting up a world where mutants can thrive and show the older cast showing a world where it all falls apart.  Then, Days of Future Past can hit the ground running without any exposition.  But that might've been too much.

Because I think you can suspend your belief that the characters will age to look like their "original trilogy" selves, and maybe there are some suspensions of belief that can happen.  Maybe there are two characters named Emma that have diamond powers.  Maybe there were Cyclops-looking mutants in the 60s that weren't Scott Summers.  Maybe there are two guys named Bolivar Trask that look completely different.

I'm willing to throw all the hate on Apocalypse and Dark Phoenix for taking it to the extreme and bringing the timelines too close together.  It's fun to do period pieces in the 80s and 90s but if they wanted to move to a younger version of the cast, they should've just stayed in the 60s.

The X-Men Films

In anticipation of Deadpool and Wolverine, I watched three movies: Deadpool 2 (I've seen the first Deadpool multiple times but I'd only seen 2 once), Logan, and First Class.  For the rest of the movies, I watched summaries on YouTube.  And while I've seen every entry in the series, I don't know how many times I've sat down and watched most of these films a second time.  There were swaths of the movies that I didn't remember.  The original trilogy has been on cable TV for most of my life, and I've seen bits and pieces here and there.  But that's about it.

The original trilogy feels of its time, dated in a way.  The Wolverine Origins movie is fun in places but pretty bad.  The Wolverine is really good but also very forgettable.  The last two McAvoy movies are bad and forgettable.  New Mutants was just nothing.  So to me, this is a series with some real high points but a lot of low points.  I think the three movies I watched were all really good.  The ones I skipped could probably be skipped for a reason.

At the same time, you can't really skip stuff.  The podcast The Weekly Planet noted how funny it would be if you'd watched the Wolverine solo trilogy (Origins, The Wolverine, and Logan) and that's it.  It's one character who literally progresses from youth to death in three movies, but it would be nonsense.  It's a solo trilogy that depends on you knowing characters that don't appear in any of the movies of the trilogy.  You have to have seen The Last Stand for The Wolverine to make sense.  And Professor X makes cameos in the first two movies without any real clarity on who he is, and then he's one of the most important characters in Logan.  There's an end-credits scene in The Wolverine that gets followed up in a different movie.  If you don't see that movie, two characters you don't know show up and warn Logan about an apocalypse that happens off screen, I guess.

Even just tonally, it would be bizarre.  One is a full-on action movie.  The Wolverine is about a man trying to understand his place in the world.  Logan is an R-rated movie about a man who has lost everything.

So even the forgetful entries are important if you want the whole picture.  And while not as successful, there are more X-Men films than Star Wars films.  It's a huge series of films that technically all tie together.  It's impressive.

Deadpool lives in his own space

Deadpool is hard to categorize.  I think it wants to fit in, but I think Deadpool has to live in his own space.  Not only because Wade breaks the fourth wall but because its a comedy.  The scene from Deadpool 2 breaks continuity but it's a sight gag solely for the audience.  I think it's a little bizarre that they went with Colossus in the first place, but I guess you could still argue that those are two characters with similar powers and the exact same name?

Then there's the weird stuff.  I'm not sure how Deadpool's powers work.  He knows he's in a movie (or a comic book) and can talk to the audience.  He's aware that other characters are played by actors, and he's even aware that he's played by an actor named Ryan Reynolds.  Knowing that is one thing.  But has he "seen" X-Men First Class or is he just supernaturally aware that it exists?  Did he see Logan, or does he just somehow know what happened?  Does he gets some sort of pop culture data dump of movies that the audience has seen?  Or can he pop into the Fourth Wall Cinema and actually see these movies?  And when he has the music box of dead Logan from Logan, is that real?  Or just inside Wade's head.

I'll get into a little more in Deadpool and Wolverine spoilers

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

Continuing on with Wade's powers...I think (but I don't know if this is consistent) that no one can hear Wade's fourth wall comments.  Either Wade doesn't say them out loud, or whatever he does say out loud makes sense in context.  Because no characters ever react to them.  When Wade is asking which version of the Professor he's going to see or asks Cable about the DC universe, no one ever stops to question what the heck Wade is talking about.  So I have to assume he's either saying nothing or saying something the characters wouldn't think anything less of.  Maybe he's whining something else to Colossus or accusing Cable of having bad breath or something.

But Cassandra Nova gets inside Wade's head.  Couldn't she see whatever is going on?  I think an interesting subplot for Deadpool and Wolverine could've been Cassandra trying to harness whatever fourth wall power that Deadpool has.  I'm assuming, in universe, that she might've just assumed they were the rumblings of a maniac.  But it's hard to say.

Deadpool MCU Chaos

One interesting scene at the beginning of the movie happens when Wade interviews with Happy Hogan to join the Avengers.  It's a funny scene that's played for both laughs and seriousness.  Wade is silly but Happy takes the process seriously.  But how did Wade get there?  Deadpool 2 implies that Wade can somehow travel in time back to our world so did he use the Cable time travel device to travel to the MCU?

The movie doesn't explain and doesn't seem to care.  It also doesn't quite explain why Wade has a change of heart later in the movie.  If he had been accepted into the MCU, would he have taken his friends with him?  Or would he have left them all behind?  Or does he truly only care about Vanessa, who he would've brought with him?  Would he have been okay leaving his other friends in their universe if it meant that they got to live?  The movie doesn't really say.

General movie thoughts

- Overall I really liked it.  Very fun.  Very funny.  Good payoffs.  I think Chris Evans is an underrated actor because he has a completely different posture as Johnny and Steve.  Even when it was implied that Evans was Cap, it didn't feel like Cap.  I thought that was a little underrated.  I also appreciated that I got some payoff from watching 50+ movies in these combined series, whether it be from cameos or easter eggs or whatever.

- I've never seen Elektra.  I think that was the only film that I hadn't seen.  I obviously haven't seen the Channing Tatum Gambit film, but duh.  I was surprised that Deadpool didn't comment on the fact that Tatum's movie never came out.  I also assume that Tatum's accent was awkward on purpose, but it got me thinking what Tatum's Remy accent would've actually been.

- I'm actually a little surprised that there weren't more cameos.  Like with Multiverse of Madness, I was led to believe there would be more cameos so I left a little disappointed.  Unless I missed something, Azazel was the only character from the First Class series to show up.  I think Pyro and Sabretooth were the only original trilogy characters to show up.  Neither version of Scott or Storm or Jean or Mystique or Charles or Magneto or Beast.  Only Johnny from either version of the Fantastic Four.  Neither version of Daredevil.  Some of these characters were referenced but didn't show up.  I get that the movie budget was $200 million, but I'm still surprised.  Some of these actors were certainly available and could've done a quick appearance.  I wasn't upset - just a little surprised.

- I did like the love letter to all the movies in the credits, including some of the smaller or forgotten movies.

- I was a little surprised they allowed the "there will only be one Blade" joke.  Not because Feige would censor Reynolds but because that one had to sting.

- I was a little surprised that Lady Deadpool didn't take off her mask, and I'm a little surprised that Deadpool didn't reference that it was Blake Lively.

- One of the few references I didn't get was all the alternate Deadpools since I'm not super familiar with the comic version of the character.

- I'm very surprised that Deadpool stayed in his own space.  I thought, for sure, that they'd end up in the MCU universe, and I'm a bit shocked that they left him where he was.  It does sort of feel like the end of the character (although you gotta think he shows up in Secret Wars).  At the same time, I guess it makes sense.  I think Reynolds wants to come back and could play this movie a bunch more, but even in Secret Wars, I don't know how the character works.  Would we really want him to break the Fourth Wall in an Avengers movie?  And would a PG-13 version of the character even make sense in an Avengers movie except as a sight gag?  So does it make sense for the next movie (if there is one) to just be a Wade solo movie?  Or maybe it's another buddy film where someone else stumbles into Wade's universe and goes on an adventure?  Spider-Man would be fun, but I assume that would be a rights nightmare.  Wade and another version of Johnny would be fun.  Maybe Wade and another fourth wall breaker in She-Hulk?  Or just bring back Cable and do the X-Force movie.  I just think this would be hard to top.

- After all the Hawkeye jokes, I wish he would've been giving the interview.  Although more Favreau is good.

- So is X-23 the one from Logan?  It was implied, but I really don't know.

- I guess it's also official that Logan is in the Deadpool universe?  Is it possible that Logan and Deadpool is in the same universe but that the rest of the X-Men series is in a separate one?  Deadpool obviously references mutants and the X-Men.  Russell could've been born before the last mutant had been born and there are no mutant kids in the rest of the Deadpool movies (I don't think?).  No one talks about it so maybe it happened that way?  I prefer for Logan to be its own thing, but I don't think it breaks too much if it was just Logan and Deadpool and everything else was separate?

- I was pretty proud of myself.  I went into this movie fairly blind.  I saw parts of the first trailer (the Super Bowl one) but I didn't see any of the subsequent trailers.  I didn't watch any of the TV spots (except when they popped on before I could change it).  I accidentally saw some of the more widely-spread set pictures (Logan and Deadpool fighting in front of the Fox marquee, obviously Logan in his yellow costume, etc).  But I avoided hearing about a bunch of the cameos, even though I could've guessed.  And that might've played into my expectations to see more.

- All in all, I really liked it.  I thought it was fun, had some good action, some good jokes, and was worth the wait.  I don't know if it means that the MCU is back because it feels like such a one-off thing.  I'm also a little surprised they didn't set anything up with the movie (new actor playing Wolverine, any mutant thing in the MCU, new Fantastic Four, etc) but I could see how it might be weird to have this movie fairly separated from the MCU and then tease anything legitimately connected.

380

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

381

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

My aunt is pretty active in Democratic politics (not important but active big_smile ) and she was on the big Harris call that broke Zoom.  I think there's a lot of enthusiasm among women which is huge.  I also think there are voters that are going to look at Trump the way they looked at Biden.  Particularly if he has any slip-ups himself.

******

Trump's "you're never going to have to vote again" comments went viral over the weekend.  Scary stuff.  All of Trump's buddies came on the Sunday shows to say that Trump was "obviously kidding" or whatever.  What I legitimately don't understand about non-MAGA Republicans is this.

- Let's say that he comes out and says that he's kidding.  What percent chance are people willing to take that he's going to overthrow democracy?  5%?  1%?  0.1%?  1 out of a thousand seems like a low chance, but are people really willing to take a 1 out of 1000 chance to vote to end democracy?  And don't get me wrong - I think it's a much higher chance, but non-MAGA Republicans are so confident that the chance is 0% (obviously MAGA Republicans would be happy if Trump was a dictator).  If he says stuff like this and then people vote for it, Trump would have a legitimate case to say "this is what the people wanted."

- I understand that guys like Graham and Cotton and Sununu are defending Trump because they think it benefits them.  But what is Trump going to need the Senate for in a dictatorship?  When has Trump ever repaid any of these guys for putting their neck out for him?  These guys are spineless but they're intelligent.  Trump would absolutely have any of them executed just for Trump's amusement.  They know that, right?

- Let's pretend for a moment that Trump is a legitimate guy who actually loves America and doesn't want to ruin democracy for his own game.  Why in the heck would he *ever* joke about it so many times when people already think he's a tyrant?  At some point, even his supporters are going to start to believe him.  Why would he intentionally keep veering into this image that is hideously unpopular even among Republicans?

********

I would like to see Harris on TV more.  There's so much free press that she could be getting, but I haven't really seen anything outside of the ads on YouTube.  Is she doing enough press?

382

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Vance certainly feels like a bad pick considering his unpopularity and his lack of electoral help. Of course, there were tons of people that would help (especially women), but Trump doesn't care about any of that.  Either because of narcissism or sycophants, he thinks the election is in the bag, and he just wants a yes man who won't overshadow him.  That's Vance.

I don't know if it will matter electorally, but there are definitely a number of people who are on the fence about Trump.  And Vance might tip just enough of them to not vote, vote 3rd party, or vote for Harris.

Between that and him attacking women, it hasn't really gone well.  Especially when there were a number of Republican women that could've balanced him out.

383

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Biden's campaign was a bit of a mess, but I don't know if it was a bit of a mess because they were trying to keep Joe from being out in public too much.  But Harris is everywhere now.  She's literally the ad on every YouTube video I see, and that wasn't the case before (when I got ads, it was Obama).  I know that's not going to be everyone's situation, but she's definitely out there campaigning more than Biden was, and that's great.  I hope now that they have a young and energetic candidate (who doesn't have to also run the free world), that this campaign will be a lot more dynamic.

I also love the outpouring of support for Biden for doing the right thing and putting country over ego.  I think this will cement his legacy as a great president and a great American.  I really hope Harris wins for about a billion reasons, but one of those reasons is that I think it closes the book on Biden in a way that will just be fantastic.

384

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

385

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

QuinnSlidr wrote:

Trump (Hitler) is officially done. He might as well drop out now while he still has some pride left.

https://www.threads.net/@authentic.voic … AE9idcpfkQ

https://i.postimg.cc/ncKnRWmX/image.png

This might not be true.  As far as I'm aware, Swift hasn't endorsed anyone or scheduled anything benefitting Harris.  I've been eagerly following that since Swift's endorsement actually has the ability to shift the race.

386

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

I'm not sure how "likeable" Kamala will wind up being.  Not sure it matters.  I will say this, have you EVER seen/heard a President and Vice President telling each other "I love you" as they did during that Wilmington campaign office appearance?  They meant it.  This obviously is a Biden facet, but Democrats are feeling and broadcasting this love fest.

I just mean if you watch the campaign videos that she's been releasing, she comes across as warm and friendly.  It seems genuine without being too soft.  I think it's a good first impression.  If people don't see a whole lot more than that, it might be enough to sway some people who flat out don't like Trump but thought Biden was way too old.

I don't know how likeable she actually is, but I think, so far, she's coming off as likeable.

387

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

In fact, polls are quickly showing that typical Democratic blocks like the yutes and lower middle class/urban support has instantly returned to pre-2023 levels.  Biden was so unwanted by those voters.  They're back, and the Congressional campaigns are going to benefit from that.  Her first event in Wisconsin drew 3,000 and forced a venue change and many were turned away.  Biden was drawing basically no one.  They have very little time now, the messaging has to be concise.  The public will often be getting it's first taste of Kamala Harris in the coming weeks.  Her initial appearances have been very confident as I said, so much so that people like me who came in totally unsure about her potential, are infectious with essentially what I have been screaming about for months....a CHANCE.  There's a chance now, quite possibly a damn good one.  Defeatism has had a 180, in just one weekend.

Yeah, I think it's a breath of fresh air.  I think as long as Harris continues to be confident, avoids a major gaffe, and picks a solid VP (Kelly or Shapiro - NOT Mayor Pete as much as I like him), she might be able to ride a wave of positive enthusiasm before anyone even realizes they like her or not.

Because I think she's likeable.  I think she sounds genuine and speaks like a leader.  And while the Democrats only have a short time to build her up, the Republicans only have a short time to tear her down.  Sure, they can tie her to Biden but a lot of those people were voting Trump anyway.  Harris doesn't need to take too many Trump voters away - she mainly just needs to claim more undecideds than him.  They are attacking her on the border, but that was something they were already hammering Biden on.  Who is going to be convinced not to vote for her on the border who wasn't already not voting for Biden on the border.

I'm just saying, other than racist or sexist dog whistles, what can they attack her on that they haven't already attacked Biden on?  Meanwhile, Republicans are now offended that people are talking about Trump's age.  Now he's the old and crazy one.  Harris is young and NEW.

It's still an uphill climb, but it feels so much better today than it did a week ago.

388

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

I just don't think a running mate gets you anything these days.  Only can harm.  Choose someone with experience who can take over day one.

Historically it doesn't really matter.  However, I think in this instance where the candidate is relatively unknown (at this point, the presidential candidate has at least been through a primary), I think voters might take the VP into account.  Shapiro beats Trump in Pennsylvania head on - I gotta think at least a couple thousand people might vote for her if he's on the ticket. 

But you're right in the sense that Harris needs to win the votes.  The VP is just there for an extra nudge for some people.

389

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

390

(746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I know it's mainly for kids, but Prodigy is a really fun show.  Season 2 is on Netflix and has a few cool TNG era returns.  Like Clone Wars or Rebels to Star Wars, it's a heartfelt and worthy entry into the Star Trek canon.

391

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I think if Trump withdraws from the debate, it helps Harris.  I think MAGA would love it and represent it as "refusing to debate an illegitimate candidate" or something, but I think independents, undecideds, and even Trump-leaners would like to see them debate.  If he pulls out for anything other than a very legitimate reason, he's going to look like a coward who was only willing to debate an 82-year-old man.

Is that enough to hurt him electorally?  I don't know.  But it would definitely ding him.

I think Harris would be extremely well prepared and could talk circles around Trump, but Trump debates aren't really debates.  So I don't really see a lot of negative for Trump deciding to debate her.  The format doesn't allow him to ramble, and that's the biggest potentially negative thing that could happen to him in a debate.  But he didn't debate anyone in the primary, and I don't think he'll debate her.

392

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

What people?  Very few will actually bother to cast a vote for that whacko.  There is STILL a real % of people who will make their decision around Labor Day.  That's who she needs to win back.

He's at 8.7% nationally.  If those polls are wrong, then all the polls are wrong.  People say they will vote for him, but since no one *has* voted for him, all of them are technically up for grabs.  What I've been saying all along is that you can break up RFK voters into two distinct groups that appear (according to the data) to be equal size

- People that legitimately like RFK for whatever reason.  Maybe it's the anti-vax stuff.  Maybe it's whatever else he's into.  Maybe they really like Joe Rogan and stuff like that.

- People that are literally only picking the name "Kennedy" because they like the Kennedys or because that's an actual person on the ballot who isn't named Biden or Trump. 

The Democrats have been actively working on the former, but now there's another name for the Democrats that isn't Biden or Trump.  If those people, seeking *literally any alternative*, switch to Harris and that number is anywhere near 2-4%, then Harris takes a lead nationally and enough votes to get the electoral college.

What ireactions and the people he's read have said is that Trump has a high floor but he also has a low ceiling.  Enough people have been permanently turned off Trump that he's not going to run away with anything.  He wasn't going to run away with it even when Biden was in.  Enough people would vote for a carrot over him that he was never going to win in any kind of landslide.

Even in the best polls for Trump, he very rarely gets a true majority (over 50%) and there's usually at least 10-15% of people that are undecided.  Are those people who were going to wait to the last minute, hold their breath, and vote for Trump?  Were they going to wait until the last minute, hold their nose, and vote for Biden?  Or were they going to wait until the last minute, apologize to the ghost of George Washington, and not vote?  In any of those three cases, Kamala Harris has a chance to win their vote.

Her biggest hope is that either she can win them over or that they're so tired of Trump and Biden that they'll literally vote for anyone else.  If they want their vote to matter, that's Harris.  If they just want to throw their vote away in protest, that doesn't necessarily hurt either party more than the other.  And I guess the good news is that Harris actually has two shots.  Maybe Harris isn't enough to turn the tide, but is the VP choice?  Historically it doesn't matter enough to change the race, but does it matter to enough Pennsylvanians?  Enough Wisconsinites?  Enough Michiganders?  If so, that's enough to win.

"Yeah, I don't love Harris but I love Shapiro/Bashear/Kelly/Warnock/etc"

That's the plan at least.  I think it's an okay plan, and we'll start to see how the polls change (if they do at all) in the next couple weeks.

393

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

Her task will be to duck the bad things (from Biden record), and highlight the good things.  Maximilian Arturo....for mayor.  Seriously, it's really not much more complicated than that.  The border and inflation will be a issue for her, same as Biden.  For those who view those as major issues, she's already sunk.

I mean, it won't all translate for everyone.  Some people might think that Harris somehow did something to cause inflation or make the border less safe, but I think most people know that the VP isn't in charge of policy.  If they can convince people that Harris is/was tough on crime, that could translate to the border.  I think she should be able to separate herself from Biden's decision making since they're two people and he was her boss.  Now that she's the boss (potentially), she'd do XYZ differently.  We know people can make that separation because there were people that voted for Obama that now hate Biden. 

The "she's too tough prosecutor" stuff was also a joke.  She put a lot of POC behind bars, well too damn bad, they were criminals, and not simply "weed smokers" as Tulsi Gabbard whined about.  Trump is a criminal.  Which is it?  You can win with the Twitter morons.

Yeah, I'm not saying it will work, but that's a common complaint against her.  I just don't know how Republicans use "she's too tough on crime" as a criticism while also saying she's letting murderers and rapists into the country at the border.  Is she tough on crime or isn't she?  I would think that they would just leave that alone, but I read this morning  that Trump's team is going to try and attack her left flank on that issue.  We'll see if it works.

I'm not saying that she can't be attacked.  Trump has taken down more seasoned politicians.  If there are people that are Republicans, they probably won't vote for her.  If there are people that are unhappy with the direction of the country, they probably won't vote for her.  If they don't like her race or gender, they probably won't vote for her.

But the people that were simply worried about Biden will probably give her a chance.  The people that don't like Biden or Trump will probably give her a chance.  The people that were voting for RFK will probably give her a chance.  Anyone that was voting for Biden will give her a chance.  Those are more than enough votes for her to win the electoral college.

394

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

Can Kamala convince the morsels who have crumbled to Trump, to reverse course?  Will see, there's not a lot of time.

A lot of people are saying that, but we get information so quickly these days.  The election is in a little over 100 days.  Think back to what was happening 100 days ago in music, movies, TV, etc.  Anything you look at will feel like a million years ago.  I think there's plenty of time to get her some points, but I think the biggest advantage she has is that she's something new.

I'm hoping that undecideds see her as a breath of fresh air.  I hope POC see her as a change of pace against these two old men.  I hope RFK voters jump to her because they were only voting for him because he wasn't Biden or Trump.  We'll see.  Racists and misogynists are going to vote for Trump, but I assume they were voting for Trump anyway.  Polls showed less undecideds than Trump/Biden, but I think that was people showing their cards.  Even then, there were tons of voters that could give Harris the win.

Harris has issues.  But here's the problem - I think they're sorta hard for Trump to exploit.

- Her handling of the border.  It isn't great, but Republicans have been hammering the administration for literally years.  Who are they going to convince who wasn't already convinced?

- Her prosecutorial record.  If anything, the knock on Harris is that she was *too tough* on crime.  Word is that Republicans are thinking about attacking her on her left flank about being too tough on minorities, but that might actually backfire on them.  "She's a prosecutor who was so good that Trump donated to her campaign when she was attorney general of California" is a rough message for Trump to navigate around.

- The whole "sleeping her way to the top" - I don't know how Republicans can attack her on this without further alienating women.

I think the biggest knock is the lack of experience, but she actually has a pretty solid amount of experience.  My hope is that the biggest problem people had with Biden was Biden himself and not necessarily the state of the country.  If she can come out and knock some free publicity out of the park, I think there's a chance she can grab some independents and maybe some Trump voters who were more "anti Biden" than "pro Trump"

She can't have any major gaffes, and she's going to need to essentially become America's sweetheart in the next couple of months.  But if she does, I think she can beat Trump convincingly.

395

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … ngNewsSerp

One reason to like the switch - Moscow Mike is against it.

396

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

QuinnSlidr wrote:

She also has energy over Trump. I can't wait to see both of them in a debate, actually. She will destroy him.

He's the face of white supremacy.  She's the face of what America could stand for.  If people were looking to turn the page, this is how they do it.

I wonder if her VP pick will be more important than normal years because she herself is going to be such a mystery.  I still say they need to get someone from a swing state.  Maybe Kelly, who has been a hot name.  But I still say Shapiro unless there's something about him I know.  Someone popular in Pennsylvania couldn't hurt

397

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

398

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/91-mil … 024-07-18/

This makes it seem like there's a chance that some (if not all) of Biden's $91 million could go to a ticket that doesn't involve Harris.  It also implies that there could be some legal ambiguity even if Harris is on the ticket.  But if they can transfer it to the party and then transfer to the new ticket, or if they could refund the money and have people re-donate to the new ticket, that could fill the coffers pretty quickly.  Obviously a refund is assuming that the money will be re-donated (and not kept or, worse, given to Trump).

But more polling has come out that seems to imply that a non-Biden or Harris ticket would have a better chance of winning than Biden or Harris.  And I think Democrats need to put any feelings aside and beat Trump with whatever the best ticket is.  Although two things need to be considered:

- There are whispers that some Democrats are upset about Biden being pushed out.  I assume those people will be upset but still vote for the new ticket?
- What people would be upset about Harris being jumped over (black women? progressives?) and would those people still vote for the new ticket?

*****

I don't know what to make of the news that Trump had a good call with Zelenskyy.  Trump has said that he wants to end the war in Ukraine ASAP, but I don't know what Trump could've told Zelenskyy that would've made him comfortable or happy or optimistic.  Even if he lied, what would the lie have been?  And what kind of deal would Zelenskyy accept from Trump that Biden wouldn't have already considered or offered?  I assume Putin wants some/all of the land that he's already taken back or wanted.

Maybe Zelenskyy is thinking if Trump wins, he's going to be screwed either way and that the deal Trump offered is better than losing everything?  Like if a new boss comes to your work and you expect to be fired and they offer you a slight demotion but you get to keep your job?  It's worse than you had but better than you were expecting?

399

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

I have to be honest here, Slider_Quinn21: My main concern regarding the election is you. If America becomes a messed up dystopia ruled by Donald Trump as a dictator for life, it will be very difficult to get your opinion on the DEXTER prequel or the new DAREDEVIL series.

I appreciate that.  I'm hoping against hope that the Democrats can win.  Whether it be Biden or Harris or Newsom or Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama or Jimmy Carter or Mark Cuban or whoever.  But since it will take six months minimum to immigrate to Canada in the worst case scenario, I would need to live under a second Trump presidency for a decent amount of time.  If that happens, I have to hope that either Trump doesn't actively want to destroy the country or that enough people don't want him to destroy the country to stop him.

Too many Republicans that I'd think are smart enough are going along with him and downplaying the seriousness of a threat Trump plays.  Maybe they're right.  I don't know.  We did survive one Trump presidency.  We can survive another as long as it doesn't go worse than the first.

Just hoping he loses.

As for moving to Canada: I live in Toronto which I consider a wonderful city. I cannot in good conscience encourage you to move here as it's far too expensive.

I love Toronto.  I love Vancouver.  I think if we moved it might be to Calgary.  Both my wife's job and my job have an office there, and we vacationed in Banff last summer.  I haven't actually looked at pricing but when I talked to a Canadian immigration lawyer, that's the place I picked for simplicity's sake.

(Or I'm wrong and he stays in the race and gets his donors to come through. I don't know the future. If I did, I would probably have a platform other than typing my views on a message board for a TV show from the 90s of which its fans only like about 15 of its 88 episodes.)

Biden's campaign came out and admitted that there has been "slippage" in support but that he's staying in the race.  If that's the case, I hope he knows something I don't know.  That the money will come back if he holds out to the convention.  Or that he has a high enough floor of support that he could have a bunch of gaffes and the race could still be won.  Or that the sun belt isn't as bad as it looks.

If Biden's ceiling is 270-268, he needs to drop out.  I would have a heart attack in the three months before the election if it's 270-268 because I'm much more concerned with Trump winning the presidency through nefarious means than winning it outright.  I think anything less than the margin of victory in 2020 would scare me to death, and that needs to be a realistic outcome.

400

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

I find it really strange that you think anyone other than Kamala Harris has the funding and stature to run against Donald Trump this close to the election and win. Any nominee who isn't Harris would come out of the DNC starting with $0 in their campaign account, and Donald Trump will win.

I think there are a few things that would happen if Newsom/Whitmer was announced as a ticket (as an example).  I think as soon as the campaign was announced, they'd get $XX million in "seed money" from various big-money donors.  People are withholding their donations to Biden, and those donations would go to the new candidate.  Second, I think they'd announce a star-studded campaign event similar to the Obama/Clinton one and the Obama/Clooney one to get them another huge influx in cash.

Then, I would expect them to take advantage of the infrastructure they already have.  Biden's campaign has staffers and offices already built up.  They'd need new signs and t-shirts and stuff like that, but a lot of the work has already been done.  I would think many of the ads that have been created could be easily reworked to say the new ticket's names.

Finally, Hillary Clinton had an insane more money than Donald Trump in 2016, but it didn't matter.  Know why?  Trump took advantage of a ton of free coverage.  Why pay millions for campaign ads when the networks hold your rallies live?  I think the new ticket would need to take a page out of Trump's book and hold rallies and televised events and get as much free advertising as possible.  They should do interviews with anyone and everyone.  They'd need to hit the streets and hustle.

I don't know if that's enough.  But as silly as it sounds, I don't think the $90-million+ war chest is necessarily the number one reason to pick one candidate over the other.  I think for the right ticket, plenty of money is out there.

I think you're right that they'll take the war chest and go with Harris.  But if they don't think she can win, I think they could raise a ton of money really fast, and I think the media would give them tens of millions in free advertising if they wanted it.

I find it really strange that you are aware of Project 2025 and the Supreme Court granting full immunity to presidents, and yet, you think there would be any real election or any election at all in 2028 for Kamala Harris to run in if Donald Trump were to win in 2024.

I have to shift my mental energy for the sake of my kids.  I can't spend any more time doomscrolling or worrying about the nightmare because the nightmare is almost here.  Outside of hoping that the Democratic ticket can win, I need to try to think optimistically about how a second Trump presidency could go.  I have to consider the idea that maybe Trump would be satisfied being back in power and having won that he won't go after his political enemies.  I have to consider the idea that he won't further dismantle democracy and that the other two branches of the government can keep him in check if he oversteps.  I have to hope that something distracts him enough that he can't do stuff like pull out of NATO or deport millions of people or throw liberals in camps or whatever.

I have to hope that we've built up this monster in our heads and that it won't be that bad.  And that after four years maybe he'll be too old to stay in power or he won't want to do it knowing that he's okay.

My kids are going to live with the consequences of whatever Donald Trump does, and I have to hope that they won't grow up in a world that's scary.  So the closer to a Trump presidency we come to, the more optimistic I'm going to try and be about it.  Because for the sake of my kids, I have to hope they get to grow up in a world that's as safe as the one I grew up in.

In the meantime, I qualify for expedited immigration into Canada and I'm looking into that.

401

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

That's not going to happen. Harris is the only other candidate who can make use of the current Biden-Harris campaign funds.

I don't disagree, but you can see how Harris may not want to have her only chance at president be a 4-month rushed campaign where she needs to come back in the polls.  If she loses, her political career is probably over and the Democrats will pick someone else.  If Biden doesn't drop out, she's at least in the frontrunner conversation in 2028.  If she's passed over and the new ticket loses, she might still have a shot a la Biden in 2020.

I know the Democrats need her for the money, but what if she doesn't want to run?

402

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

As it becomes more likely, I am sad for Joe Biden.  I would've liked for him to go out on his own terms, but life is not usually so fair.  I still think Biden's story could end up with a happy political ending.  If he does bow out, I hope that he continues to campaign for Harris, and I hope he gets to advise her if she wins.  He would've been in a similar situation in four years, and if he's still as sharp as some of his advisors say, he might be a better advisor than a candidate.  He might be a great president, but the election process doesn't really work that way.

I'm nervous about Harris' pros and cons, but I do think the party and the country is ready to turn a page.  Women's rights (abortion and IVF) are huge in this election, and it might finally be time for a female president.  I don't know what it means for 2025 or 2028 or any of the years in between, but hopefully everyone that stands against Trump can stand behind whoever the nominee is.

*******

One thing I read in my trip around the Internet - this campaign might be uphill either way.  What if Harris doesn't want her one shot at president to be now?  What if part of the problem is that she doesn't want to do it?  Or if her advisors want her to wait until 2024?

I assume Newsom would want to do it regardless.  I haven't read anything about Harris not wanting it from any official sources, but it could be an interesting way to bypass her.  Then it would just be whether or not the money can work.

403

(697 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Some people were down on the Boys season 4.  I thought it was pretty good.  I think the politics of it was a little too heavy handed, and I guess I'm not 100% sure how this world works.  Some quick spoilers:

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

So I don't know if the show has done a good job of explaining why people are against Supes.  I get why they'd be against Vought, especially after it was revealed that they experimented on children.  But are people actually against all superheroes?  Even if they're against the Seven, there are hundreds/thousands of superheroes.  Even if all of them are secretly bad, are all of them publicly bad?  The Boys know the truth but does the whole country, and half the country is cool with superheroes actively killing people and doing no real good deeds?

I know they're going for some sort of political metaphor, but unless I forgot something (and I've only watched each season once), I'm shocked that a superhero hasn't already been elected president.  I'm also shocked that people would be upset / offended by a supe president - you'd think we'd want our presidents to be bulletproof.

I think that's the part that was the most confusing to me.

But other than that, it was a lot of fun.

404

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I mean maybe.  I think Democrats are mostly pretty focused on beating Trump by any means necessary.  I think it comes down to messaging.  If they somehow do something without Biden's permission and Biden comes out against it publicly, I think that would be a bad look.  Or if Biden was really popular and there was a lot of enthusiasm about him.  For example, if they ran Hillary in 2008 instead of Obama because of concerns about race instead of age.

But I think most Democrats are okay with the change, even if it's to someone that isn't Biden or Harris.  If they manufacture something like Newsom/Shapiro, I could see them losing women or black voters.  But even then, I think the messaging would have to be upfront and consistent.

But Biden is unpopular, even with Democrats.  I think people are ready to turn the page, and I don't think there would be much of an uproar, especially if it was Harris.  But I agree that there might be an issue with the Democrats running someone that no one has ever voted for.  It's a bit of a Gerald Ford situation.

405

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

It's not optimal, but four months is an eternity nowadays.  Four months ago, Nikki Haley was still in the race.  The supreme court decided on Trump and the 14th amendment.  Dune 2 had just come out.  Ghostbusters Frozen Empire hadn't come out.  Those things all feel like forever ago.

There's enough time for the media to introduce Harris and for people to get to know her so much they get sick of her.

In four months in 2015, Trump went from unannounced to ahead in most of the polls.  I think there's time.  I just don't know if they have enough to work with to really turn her around from a publicity standpoint.  They'd really need to have a great plan, and these are Democrats we're talking about.

406

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I guess it's as good a time as any:

Grizzlor and pilight - I know you're a sample size of two, but would you feel more comfortable voting for Harris over Biden?  Both of you have been pretty critical of Biden as a candidate, but does Harris ease your mind?

To me, Harris has four major positives.  In this order (I think).

1. She's not Trump
2. She's significantly younger than Biden (and Trump)
3. She's not Biden (this is more for "double haters" of both Biden and Trump than anything about Biden himself - that's more #2).
4. She's a fresh face and a mostly-unknown quantity.

I think she's going to carry a lot of (if not all) of the Biden voters.  I suppose there are Biden voters that might like Trump more than her, but I don't know how much that is.  People that hate Trump are going to vote for her.  People that don't like Trump or Biden might vote for her (instead of not voting, voting for RFK, leaving the top blank, voting another 3rd party, or holding their nose and voting for Trump).  That's where #4 comes in - she might get people who would vote for literally anyone but Biden or Trump.

That leaves two groups of people up for grabs.  People that currently would vote for Trump over Biden because Biden is too old (and not any sort of attachment to Trump).  Harris is younger and less crazy than Trump - she could flip some people.  And then independents that haven't made up their mind.  I assume RFK voters are either voting for RFK because they like him or because they don't like Trump or Biden so those are covered in the previous paragraph.  Same goes for people voting another 3rd party.

Harris' negatives are:

1. Her current approval ratings
2. Her previous unlikability
3. Her connection to Biden
4. People don't know who she is

Do people not approve of Harris because of anything about her, or is it strictly tied to similar approval ratings for Biden (#3)?  If people got to know her (#4), would they like her more or less (#2).

To me, these are all basically related.  Can they humanize Harris enough to make her seem strong but also human?  It's a tough tightrope for women, and they failed with Hillary.  They need to make her likeable but not bitchy.  They need to make her strong but not too strong.  They can lean on her prosecutorial background to try and appeal to law and order independents, but they can't lean too hard on it (because of her track record of going after minorities in California and her record on the border).

And I think most importantly, could they keep her tied enough to Biden to get Biden voters while also distancing herself enough from Biden to get away with calling this a "change in direction" to certain undecided / Trump voters?  If people like the direction of the country but not Biden because of his age, it needs to feel like the passing of the torch.  For people that don't like the direction of the country (but may not like Trump either), it needs to feel like a pivot.  Can they do all that?  In less than four months?

Now to be fair, four months can be a lifetime in today's climate.  I don't think its not enough time to endear her to people.  But they're going to have to be efficient, and they're going to have to be quick.  And they're going to need to take advantage of all the free publicity they can get from anyone.

Just curious where you both fall on this.

407

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I would like this to be the excuse Biden takes to drop out, but I don't know.  If he didn't drop out with the Parkinsons rumors, I don't think he'd drop out for this.

I haven't seen many polls with Harris doing better than Biden.  I wonder if the party could put together a giant fundraiser to seed a Shapiro/Whitmer ticket.  Shapiro is super popular in Pennsylvania, and Whitmer could help win Michigan.  If you get those two, you just need Wisconsin and NE-2 to win.  If you could launch with a huge $20-30 million event and then try to get as much free advertising as possible.  I don't know what they'd need to do to get Harris on board, but I still think if Biden resigned and Harris got to be president, even if for only a few months, it could work?

408

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

QuinnSlidr wrote:

I wish people were more steadfast in their beliefs and unshakeable against ageism. Because it's all just propaganda by the right trying to get votes their way and change the narrative to why being older than Trump is bad.

I absolutely agree with you, but I just don't know if we're going to get there in time.  Biden may have it all put together and may be sharp as a tack, but if people equate his age and appearance with frailty, it doesn't matter.  In the 1960 campaign, Nixon and Kennedy participated in a debate that was broadcast on TV and on radio.  The majority of people who watched the debate on TV said Kennedy won, but the majority of people who listened to the debate thought that Nixon won.  That's because Kennedy was a young, energetic, handsome man, and Nixon looked like he'd stumbled out from under a bridge. 

This isn't about policy or talent or experience or capability.  For a lot of people, it's simply about appearances.  Most people don't think about the president more than a couple times a year.  And for that reason, they want to know that the other 360 days of the year, they have confidence that the president is strong and powerful and quick and intelligent.  And Biden may be completely on top of things, but he doesn't look like it.

And just like it might not have been fair to Nixon (who lost even though most people liked the words he had to say), it's not fair to Biden that he might be able to do the job but most people may not trust him to do it.

He's the president, and he's the nominee.  It's his right to run if he wants, and it's his right to stay in the race if he wants.  My concern is that his negatives aren't fixable.  How are you going to convince millions of people who watched him stumble his way through a debate that it was a one-time thing?  How are you going to convince millions of voters that he may look and sound old but he's really sharp?  Particularly when he keeps making gaffes.  An hour-long press conference that most people thought he did really well on was derailed by a couple gaffes.

And this isn't just a Biden thing.  In the interview where Trump said he'd be a dictator on "day one" - what else did he say in that entire interview?  It doesn't matter and no one remembers.  If Trump's speech at the RNC talks about peace and prosperity and helping the working class and a bunch of unifying things but ends with "America needs a king, elect me and I'll be president for life", that's all anyone is going to care about.  So it does go both ways.

But Biden is essentially risking the future of democracy on the idea that he can look youthful and lively enough over the next few months and that he will have no setbacks or major gaffes.  Because the issues that Biden faces are different than the ones that Harris or Newsom or Whitmer would face.  In fact, age becomes a strength for a different democratic nominee.  You could use ageism against Trump by talking about how old Trump will be.  You could energize young people and people of color and people who are nervous about Biden's age and frailty.

I want Biden to win.  I want him to be able to write this final chapter of his life his way.  I want him to be able to prove all his doubters, myself included, wrong.  But this is going to be an incredibly close election, and the closer it is, the more tenuous it is.  If Biden wins 270-268, I'm going to be absolutely terrified of whatever Trump has planned for three months.  Because if Trump can convince anyone to give him one electoral vote, it's over.  If any of the guardrails that held up in 2020 collapse, Trump will win even if Biden gets to 270.

So getting to 270 may not be enough.  If Wisconsin flips after the election, I want Arizona to be there to keep Biden at 270.  If Michigan flips, I want Georgia to be there.  The problem with 2020 is that Trump needed to flip multiple states before January 20.  If it's 270-268, Trump only needs to flip any one state with his fraud nonsense, and it's over.

There's so much on the line, and Biden needs to be 100% sure that he's the best chance that Democrats have.  Otherwise, Biden is going to spend the rest of his days as a pariah for stubbornly staying in a race he couldn't win.  He can do so much damage to his legacy when he could've already cemented it.

409

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

410

(194 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Hahahahah wow

411

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Trump does not care about his supporters.  I have no doubt that he'd be willing to sacrifice as many of them as possible to get the power he wants and to stay out of jail.

That's what is so heartbreaking in some ways about the Trump candidacy and presidency.  I do not think that the majority of MAGA (and certainly not the majority of Trump voters) want Trump to be a dictator.  I don't think they want Russia to take over Europe or crash the economy with an insane tariff idea. 

Minus the true racists in the movement, I think they're just hardworking people who finally are heard/seen by a politician.  I think they truly believe that Trump loves the country and wants to make the country great.  I think these people aren't racist or autocratic.  I think they've been tricked into thinking that we're giving away something that should be theirs to someone else (immigrants, foreigners in Ukraine or Gaza, or to enemies like China).  I think they feel cheated, lied to, and taken advantage of.

Some of that might be based on something inherently racist (that the country was "great" during a time when it was only great for white people) or incorrect (that the United States should be a Christian nation), but I think they want the country to be great.  Even some of their ideas are altruistic.  They believe Trump's "peace through strength" mantra, and they think this would prevent wars around the world.

At the end of the day, I don't think these people are bad people, and I think it's tragic that people keep dying in the name of Trump.  I think they want to reclaim something that they feel like they lost, and I think they want to be able to put food on their tables.  I think they're struggling, and they feel like only one person is listening to them.

And Trump is taking advantage of them.  He's lying to them.  He's using them.  And he's getting them killed.  If there was some sort of version of Trump that was true to what MAGA believed, I think it would be great.  Someone who is putting the working class first.  Someone who truly understood the economy and how to make it prosper.  Someone who could work with world leaders to bring in an era of peace not just in America but in the rest of the world.

But Trump isn't that guy.  And one day they will understand that, and it will be heartbreaking.

412

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

But if he can convince people that he actually loves America (I don't think he does) or that he's actually interested in unity or peace (I don't think he is), I think that might shift the electorate.  But I don't think there are people that are going to have enough sympathy for Trump to switch their vote for him come November.  If he's back to being the same guy, even if it's just later this week, any sympathy non-MAGA would've had for him will be gone by the time his ear heals.

Nevermind.  He's already back to his normal antics.

I think he might get sympathy for a week or two, but undecided voters will probably go back to being undecided once they forget about this or get annoyed by him again.

413

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I guess I have the same question I had before, Grizzlor.  Do you think this "sympathy" factor would be the same if Biden had been the one who was shot?  Because if it's going to go one way, it would have to also go the other way.

I'm also not sure that MAGA could get any more engaged.  If Trump is on the ballot, 100% of MAGA was going to show up.  Shooting, no shooting.  Whether it's against Biden or Harris or Newsom or even someone else they actually like.  It's why Trump has had such a reliable floor since 2016 and why Republicans have struggled in every election that Trump isn't in.  It's also why I wonder if Trumpism would've died Saturday if Trump had been killed.  These guys don't even really identify with Republicans - they're constantly talking about how much they don't like Republicans or Republican leadership.  MTG constantly talks about the "Uniparty" because MAGA thinks of both parties as being the same.  There isn't a clear successor to MAGA when Trump dies, and I don't think any of the possible successors can carry the number of people that he can.  DeSantis can't.  Cruz can't.  Hawley can't.  Taylor Greene can't.  Neither of Trump's kids have a fraction of Trump's charisma.

These people love Trump, and even if he'd been a martyr, there'd be no way for that to translate to political gain for Republicans.  Trump would probably win write-in elections for mayorships in Mississippi but then someone else would actually be there.  There'd be violence but that would eventually die down.

My point is that I don't know who's switching from Biden to Trump because Trump got shot.  Now if Trump does soften his messaging and moves to a more peaceful and hopeful message, I think that could change things.  People don't like Trump because he's divisive and narcissistic and angry and mean.  If he can shift his message to one of hope and prosperity and peace or whatever, that could win over some independents.  My wife commented this morning that maybe a brush with death will get him to mellow out a little bit.

Someone on the Atlantic wrote this article about how the image of Trump standing up defiantly in the face of political violence is actually something that could be inspirational.  And if I thought Trump meant half the things that he said, there's probably some things to like about him.  He's actually not far right on many issues.  He's moderating the stance of abortion for the entire party.  If he was actually about world peace and standing up to bullies or any of his foreign policy stuff, none of that is particularly bad.  Even his connection with the working class should be a good thing.  I think enacting policies that help the working class is good.

The problem is that I don't think Trump actually means any of it.  He doesn't want world peace - he wants unlimited power and to hand power to other despots like him.  I don't think he understands enough about economics to help the working class, and even if he did, I think he despises the working class.  I don't think he'd help them if he could.  Every policy he has is only because it's good for him politically.  If it would get him power, he'd instantly shift his stance on abortion or trade or anything.  The only policies I think he truly believes in are the immigration ones because I don't think he likes people of color or Muslims.

But if he can convince people that he actually loves America (I don't think he does) or that he's actually interested in unity or peace (I don't think he is), I think that might shift the electorate.  But I don't think there are people that are going to have enough sympathy for Trump to switch their vote for him come November.  If he's back to being the same guy, even if it's just later this week, any sympathy non-MAGA would've had for him will be gone by the time his ear heals.

414

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

Trump was shot at today on Pennsylvania and lived.  Bloodied but played it up for the cameras.  Election is over.  He'll get a huge bump in the polls from that.  Play the sympathetic hero part.  May as well leave Biden on the ticket, he deserves the humiliation coming.

I'm not 100% sure.  Do you think there'd be a massive swing in poll numbers if Biden was the one who was shot?  I think people's opinions on these two are pretty baked in, and I don't know if anything is going to massively swing anyone's opinions on either of these guys.  Trump is absolutely going to play it up.  The way he played it up yesterday is what is playing into the "staged" nature of this whole thing.  It basically went about as well for Trump himself as possible (keeping in mind that he will absolutely use MAGA deaths to his advantage so I don't think the spectator is going to bother him at all).

(I'm not saying it's staged - I'm just saying that Trump couldn't have staged it any better if he had tried)

But Trump might get a temporary bump in the polls which might be enough to push Biden out of the race.  Biden's chances were already on life support, and I don't know if any kind of bump in the polls is going to allow him to stay in the race.

At the same time, I don't know if 2024 could've gone better for Trump.  Between Biden's campaign falling apart, getting the support he got from Cannon and SCOTUS to keep his trials happening, and then surviving an assassination attempt with superficial injuries that still appear significant, it does appear that he might be getting help from above.

415

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I could be wrong, but I think Biden still has everyone's vote here if that's where things end up.  Maybe even ireactions, who cannot legally vote.

The problem with Biden now is that the optics are all wrong.  He has to completely change the narrative, and I just don't know if that's possible.  He did great for the majority of the press conference, but he flubbed a couple lines and that's the story.  In some ways, it's super unfair to Biden.  In others, the guy still got to be president.  Only 45 other guys can say that in 200+ years.  If he steps aside (I won't say quit) now or if he loses in November, he got four years at this job, and he did a great job.  He can hold his head high, and I guarantee that if he wants to stay involved, they're going to let him stay involved.

Is it unfair that he had to wait so long and time caught up to him?  Absolutely.  Is he going to fight as hard as he can to keep it?  Absolutely.  But I'm really hoping he makes the pragmatic decision.  The job may not be finished and he may want to be the one to finish it, but there are other ways to help.  If it's Harris and she wins, she's going to need a ton of help and Biden can help her.  Rocky got to old to fight, but he was able to help Adonis Creed.  Time moves on, and age catches up with everyone.

If he runs, I just really hope he wins.  If he's going to be stubborn and push through and loses, that's where he'll damage his legacy.

416

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

Biden is not a failure.

Unless he loses to Trump.

I don't think it ruins Biden's legacy if he loses to Trump.  I don't think it helps.  I don't also know if it really helps Biden's legacy to win again and then have to cede the presidency in 1-2 years.  Even if Biden isn't too old now, he might be too old in the next couple of years.

I just don't think there's any shame in admitting that age caught up with you.  Age catches up with everyone.  I'm not the same guy I was when I started on this board a million years ago.  Again, I think there's a nobleness to someone stepping aside and letting the next generation do the job.  And I have full confidence that everyone will celebrate Biden if he chooses to step aside.

To me, there's so much more to lose by staying in than stepping aside.  But it's Joe's call.

417

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I wish this was handled differently.  First off, I wish that Biden had chosen not to run in the first place.  He had talked about being a bridge president in the first campaign, and I wish he'd stuck to that.  Unity a year ago would've been preferable to this.  Second, I wish Biden would realize which way the wind is blowing and gracefully bow out.  I maintain that LBJ isn't seen as some sort of quitter for not running for another term.  When you look at LBJ's speech, I think it makes so much sense for Biden - he can focus on spending his last six months in office completing the work he'd started on and he can let Harris (or whoever) campaign.

I understand why it all has gone down the way that it did.  Harris was polling worse than Biden, and they didn't do much of anything to get her more popular or well known.  I think she was clearly chosen as a VP only with no intention of running her as a presidential candidate.  But when you look at the polling, I think people are getting more comfortable with her.  And while there are absolutely sexist/racist people who will vote for Trump over her because she's a woman, I would assume that these are people who would've voted for Trump anyway.  And with four months to shine a positive light on her (and only four months for Republicans to try and tear her down), I think there's a decent chance they can build her up.

I don't want Biden to feel like he's a failure.  I want him to be able to ride into the sunset as a hero and as a winner.  I would absolutely love for him to stay in the race and beat Trump.  But I'm just worried that too much of that has eroded.  And even if he can convince the Democratic establishment, he might not be able to convince enough voters.  And in an election with this little margin for error and this much at stake, I don't think we can take that chance.

Again, I'm not abandoning Biden.  I'm just trying to be pragmatic.  We need to win.  And at 9:55 central on July 11, I feel like Biden doesn't have the best chance to win.  I don't think I know 100% that Harris can win, but I think her negatives are a) spinnable and b) improvable.  I don't know if Biden's aren't.  I still think the best route is someone like Newsom (who can both realistically distance himself from the Biden administration while also promising to continue what Biden started), but I understand the monetary reasons not to do it.

For me, the best case scenario is for Biden to resign, let Kamala focus on being president for six months, and have someone else run.  I think that's the best of both worlds.  We get a female president, Harris gets something to drop out, and the Democrats gets a fresh/young/lively ticket that can realistically claim to be able to forge a new path.  In that case, Trump can't campaign about how Biden did such a bad job because (new ticket) can claim they're making their own changes.  Trump can't complain about age because he'd be the old guy.  He'd be the establishment guy.  He'd be the known variable.  I think it would totally throw him on his back foot.

And yeah, there'd only be 4 months to build up the Democratic ticket, but I think in today's environment, that might actually be a good thing.  Half the reason people hate these guys is that they're known.  I think if Newsom or Whitmer or Shapiro or whoever got on a debate as a fresh face, it would feel like such a breath of fresh air.  It doesn't take long for people to form an initial opinion on them, and I think the one negative they'd have (lack of experience) might be easily spun into a positive.

If it's Biden, I support him.  But I just feel like there's a better option at this point.  I think the damage is done and the path is over.  Trump can be beaten.  We can do this.  It isn't too late.

It just may be too late for Biden.  Who, again, I really really like.

418

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I can't speak for Grizzlor, but I've known him on here for a long time and feel confident that I can say he's not for Trump.  His concern about Biden is rooted in the idea that he (Grizzlor) doesn't want Trump to win.  And he's been concerned for a while that Biden isn't going to be able to beat Trump.

To pick a DC metaphor, imagine if Darkseid came to Earth.  He makes an agreement with the Justice League that they'll have a one on one battle.  If Darkseid wins, he conquers Earth.  If the Justice League wins, Darkseid goes to the phantom zone.  The leader of the Justice League is Batman-Beyond-era Bruce Wayne so he thinks it should fall to him.  He's Batman, after all, and he can win every fight with prep time.

But is an older Batman the right call?  Sure, he could win (and he's defeated Darkseid before), but this is about the conquest of Earth.  Shouldn't we go with Superman?  Or Wonder Woman?  Or even the younger Batman?  Bruce is older and slower and passed his prime.  He's more of a ceremonial leader right now.  And no matter how great he is at leading the Justice League or how great he was in the past, this is about a one-time fight with Darkseid.  If there's a better fighter, shouldn't they pick that person?

I just don't want to risk the whole world if Batman isn't the right choice.  I love Batman.  He's my absolute favorite.  But isn't Superman the right choice?

419

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

The problem is...do we really need to run our own candidate with a mental decline?  If the Democrats ran Harris or Newsom or Whitmer or whoever, there wouldn't even be this issue.  In that case, age becomes a huge benefit for the campaign instead of an issue that people can pick apart.

I think too many Democrats are worried that Biden dropping out would be a sign of weakness.  For me, it's a sign of strength.  Biden would be stepping down for the good of the country.  He'd be giving up power for the good of the country.  That's an incredible act of patriotism, and I think most people in the country would take it that way.  Even if Trump and MAGA made fun of him for quitting, I assume that would backfire on them.

Harris would continue what Biden is doing, whether it's now or in 2028, so it wouldn't be a drastic shift in policy.  I do think that someone like Newsom or Whitmer could offer a bit of separation from the Biden administration, which could be spun in a good direction for independents that don't think the country is going in the right direction.

I just think being stubborn is so dangerous.  I think hoping that Americans either forget that Biden is old or start accepting that him being slower and frailer is okay is just foolhardy.  Maybe it would happen on a limited scale, but I think the horse is out of the barn.  Biden can still win and I pray he does, but he better be right about being the best candidate to win.  Because if he's not, whatever happens is Biden's fault.

420

(3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Snopes gave the Trump child rape stuff a "Mostly False" rating:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump … ttlements/

I'm not interested in doing the research on the CEOs being Trump donors, but I would imagine that a lot of media CEOs are donors to both candidates so they can (truthfully) state that they supported the campaign of whichever candidate won.

I would also like to add that it's dangerous to attack the media too much, since the media does a lot more good than harm.  And if Trump wins, we need as much confidence in the media as possible.

And I guess my final point is about Trump vs Biden.  I think the data shows that Trump has the ultra-reliable support of MAGA Republicans which gives him a pretty reliable floor in this election.  Outside of that, I think the coalition includes non-MAGA Republicans who simply vote Republican no matter what (conservatives who simply vote for Republicans because they promote lower taxes, pro-life single-issue voters, etc) and then people who simply don't like Biden.  The problem with attacking Trump (on anything) is that Trump is so well known.  MAGA Republicans wouldn't abandon him under any circumstances, and the second group doesn't care who the nominee is as long as they do the one thing that they want (lower taxes and/or limit abortion).

So in that sense, it doesn't really matter in this election if Biden is better than Trump because the people we're thinking about don't care.  Just like some Democrats don't necessarily care who the Democratic nominee is as long as they're out to beat Trump.  I assume a lot of us would vote for any Democrat over Trump, and I assume a lot of us would vote for many Republicans against Trump if it came to that.

And that's really why it's all about Biden.  Biden has a 37% approval rating, but I don't know how many of those people would abandon the Democratic party if Biden wasn't the nominee.  Trump has a 41% approval rating, and I assume a decent number of those people would abandon the Republican party if he wasn't the nominee.  That leaves 22% of people who don't approve of either (assuming almost no one approves of them both).  Some percentage of those 22% will vote for Trump, some will vote for Biden, some will not vote at all, someone will leave the top of the ballot blank, and some will vote for a 3rd party.

So the question is, will Biden get more of those 22% of people or will Harris or someone else?  Would the anti-Biden Trump votes be willing to entertain a vote for Harris or another Democrat?  Are the RFK votes anti-Trump enough to consider voting for Harris or another Democrat?

Right now, they're all either voting for Trump or not voting for Biden (which is the same in a lot of ways).  Can Biden convince them to vote for him?  Or would a fresh face be enough to get them to vote Democrat?

I don't know.  I just don't know what Biden's going to be able to do in 100+ days that he wasn't able to do in the previous 3.5+ years.  I think Biden has done a great job as president, but 56% of people disagree.  No matter how well Biden has done, is it time for a clean slate to try and convince voters to avoid Trump?