For the first time in a long time, Biden leads Trump in 538's polling average.
- it's by the most insignificant margin (0.1%)
- Biden is going to need to lead by a lot more than that to win
But it feels really good to see that.
Sliders.tv → Posts by Slider_Quinn21
For the first time in a long time, Biden leads Trump in 538's polling average.
- it's by the most insignificant margin (0.1%)
- Biden is going to need to lead by a lot more than that to win
But it feels really good to see that.
https://x.com/DCU_Updates/status/1801255196393349609
Apparently James Gunn's Superman film will feature LuthorCorp. Gunn has previously said that his favorite on-screen Luthor is Michael Rosenbaum's version (now he said it directly to Rosenbaum on his own show so maybe he was being overly nice) so I have to assume this is a reference to Smallville or at least an admiration for the Smallville version of Lex's backstory.
I do love the Rosenbaum Lex, and I do love the idea of Lex taking his father's company and reshaping it into his own image. As a fan of Smallville, I think it's cool that the show is influencing the next generation of DC films, however small. Welling is also my favorite Clark so if Gunn's version can also be more like him than the Cavill version, even better.
Biden has been taking a national lead in some of the polls (understanding that some of these polls are partisan), and he's closed the gap in the last few days to within a percentage point on 538's polling average. More importantly, IMO, this is due to a combination of Biden gaining support and Trump losing support. Right now, the polling average has Trump at 40.8% and Biden at 40.3%. So while it's possible that Trump is shedding votes to "undecided" that he'll get back, there's a chance some of those votes are going from Trump to Biden...which is obviously the best results.
The blue wall in the Midwest also appears to be tracking towards Biden. The polling average for Michigan is basically tied, the one in Wisconsin is within 0.2%, and Pennsylvania is now at 1%. Even in the Sun Belt states, Biden is gaining but still about 5% down in all three states.
What's scary about the blue wall is that it 100% includes the Nebraska 2nd district. If Biden wins PA, WI, and MI, and Trump wins GA, AZ, and NV, the Nebraska 2nd decides the election. If Biden gets it, it's 270-268. If Trump gets it, it's 269-269 and Trump wins in the tiebreak. So the blue wall needs to be 4 pieces, not 3.
That helps. 538 came up with their forecast and when it launched there was a 52% chance that Biden wins. They explained that, while Trump is leading nationally and in the swing states, the model takes other factors into play.
To me, I think the election rides on a number of things (not necessarily in order):
- The economy. I think the economy needs to improve. It seems like interest rates might drop before the election, and the stock market continues to soar to record highs. I assume prices are going to stay high, but if Americans can consistently feel better about the economy, Biden will be fine. I still think there's gotta be something that Biden can do about prices, but maybe there isn't.
- Immigration. Does the recent executive order move the needle? If not, would a drastic drop in immigration coverage over the next six months move the needle?
- The debates. This might be the first time people see Trump talk in years. Will he talk about the 2020 election that seems to turn off swing voters? Will he ramble about sharks and other nonsense? Will Biden be able to get through the election without looking overly old or feeble? Any of those things could shift favor to Biden. Of course, a Biden frailty moment could absolutely crush things so it's huge risk for both.
- The DC trial. Will it happen at all?
- Which side can coalesce their base. Can Biden get all the young people back? Can Trump get the Haley people back?
- RFK Jr. Can Biden voters who are currently picking RFK get turned off by him? Can RFK get any Trump voters that are turned off by him?
If Biden is currently winning, these things can all drive more voters to him. I think the things that can pull votes from him are basically a) if the economy starts sputtering or b) Biden tanks one of the debates or a major speech. Right now, I think Trump has more to lose but I wish there was more losing happening at the moment ![]()
I'm a little annoyed that the polls didn't shift much after the conviction, although there hasn't been a ton of polling since then. I'm a little annoyed that the Supreme Court isn't releasing their immunity decision in a timely fashion when they know every day they wait helps Trump.
I'm not completely giving up because I think Trump will shed more voters than he'll gain. I assume voters that aren't completely entrenched in one side or the other are giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, and Trump is benefitting from low visibility. Outside of a major stumble by Biden, I think voters will either be annoyed by Trump, turned off by Trump, or find out about Trump's felon status.
At least that's my hope. I've been pretty wrong recently. I'm still confused how RFK is siphoning any votes from Biden, but that's still where we are.
I don't understand that argument. Friday Night Lights had the exact same situation that year. They had a bunch of second-half stories they were going to tell but had to quickly wrap up their season. When the season returned, they didn't go back to the previous year/season - they moved on (each year was a new football season / school year). But they quickly caught viewers up on what happened, even filming some things that "happened in season two" that we didn't get to see. As I said in a different post, they essentially pretended like the season happened and moved forward with the aftermath of the events that would have happened. People that weren't together when the last season ended are together. People that were together are broken up. Games happened that we never saw. A really big injury happened.
And that was because FNL was stuck with a format that made sense. Time had to move on. But Heroes wasn't. They could've done anything. Even if they didn't want to use Caitlin anymore or couldn't use the actress, there could've been a throwaway line where Peter mentions that he went to the future and either brought her home or left her there or whatever.
Seems like a lazy answer based on either forgetting to resolve it or not caring enough.
Yeah I think the consensus is that Trump's crowds aren't as naturally big as people think. In addition to people being paid, it's also a lot of the same people that travel from place to place
Apparently Trump's final four picks for VP are Rubio, Burgum, Scott, and Vance.
Which I say....good. I was worried he'd pick a female VP (he can still pick Stefanik but apparently Noem is now out) which could help him with conservative female voters that hate Trump. I guess Scott could help him with black men (who he's aggressively targeting). Rubio could hypothetically help him with Hispanics, but Trump or him would have to change residency (and I think Rubio would have to leave the Senate to do that) so I don't know how that makes sense.
I don't see how Burgum helps him electorally at all. Vance might help him win Ohio (which could be slightly more tossup with the abortion vote there), but it could also potentially lose them a senate seat if they win.
If Trump was smart, Haley would be the pick. I know VP matters almost nothing electorally, but I do think the VP candidates in both cases would be helpful considering the age and unlikability of the candidates. I do think Biden would be slightly more palatable with people if they loved his VP. Since people hate Harris more than they hate Biden, that makes it feel like Biden has no one behind him if he does die in office.
I've long said that Biden needed to do *something* at the border. When you look at the issue, Biden is incredibly underwater, and it's one of the top issues in this election. And unlike the economy (something that Biden is also very underwater on), it's something Biden can actively do something about. The people that think Biden's doing a great job on immigration (or the people that think he's not being liberal enough with the border) are a very small subset of the population and almost all of them are probably going to vote for Biden no matter what he does.
But there are tons of possible Biden voters who don't like him because of his handling of the border, and those votes are up for grabs if Biden veers to the right on the border. And he's finally doing that. I don't know if he did enough - both sides spoke out against his executive order. Which may be exactly what he needs to get independents that hate both candidates.
I actually would've recommended he go further. I would've done what Trump keeps saying that he was going to do, and I'd shut the border down. I think this accomplishes two things:
1. It probably helps him with some undecided/independent/soft Trump voters. If they start to see the good economy and start to get annoyed by Trump, doing something at the border would be helpful. It could be enough to tip the scales to Biden.
2. It 100% won't work and it cuts Trump's argument at its knees. Immigration groups could immediately sue, and they'd win. The border would get open again, and things would move on. Then, in a debate, when Trump says he'll shut the border down on day one, Biden could say he did that and it didn't work. Then, Biden could remind people that he'd previously tried something that would've worked with bipartisan legislation and Trump himself shut it down.
I'm not saying it would be enough to flip the issue or convince MAGA voters, but that's not going to happen. Biden just needs to move towards even, and I think that would've worked.
Will this work? Maybe? Considering how close the election is, it doesn't have to work that much to get Biden a win.
-In this day and age, there is no excuse for anyone not to check their medical opinions before presenting them.
I think the problem with this is that there's an expert willing to sign off on any opinion these days. There are doctors who are willing to advocate for anti-vax concerns. There are doctors willing to speak out against masks, against social distancing, against basically anything. I'm sure there's a "medical expert" with a YouTube channel advocating for smoking.
And those are all credentialed people. That doesn't even include the "experts" who are lying about their credentials.
I always sort of laugh when ignorant people say to "do their own research" but it's a Rashomon situation sometimes. Depending on which path you take, you could come to two different concerns. Both which could be backed up by evidence that seems to point to the conclusion you're looking for.
Documentaries usually seem pretty definitive, and I think we've been conditioned to believe them. But there are documentaries that "prove" that 9/11 was in inside job. There are documentaries that "prove" that the 2020 election was stolen. Backed by video and expert testimony.
Fact checking is a useful tool, but people don't trust fact checks if they disagree with their desired result. Twitter does community notes when people outright lie, but people just ignore them if they love the lie.
I don't think people are intentionally ignorant or dumb. Back in the day, there were plenty of people like that. But there was less information, and the information they received was properly filtered. Now, any idiot can be on YouTube or Reddit or whatever and can spread their misinformation to millions. They can be a true expert with a slanted agenda, or they can just lie and say they're an expert. By the time you've found out which is which, your opinion could be slanted.
I don't have a solution for this.
It's so frustrating to see a decorated medical professional harassed by a PTA reject who barely seems to have any education at all.
Thank you, Quinn! As I was so many years ago, I am inspired by you and will continue to believe in you!
So I've come across a few people in the wild and a lot of people through actual journalism (I'm still off social media) that are either switching from Biden to Trump or just voting for Trump. None of these people are MAGA as far as I'm aware.
The reasoning seems to be mostly economics. They feel that prices are too high under Biden, and that specifically translates to the economy is bad. None of the other metrics of the economy seem to matter, and the fact that Biden seems to keep saying that the economy is great seems to bother them even more. To me, I think Biden needs to do a few things to reach these people. I don't know if Biden wants to do any of these, and I don't know that him doing these things would help.
1. Biden needs to acknowledge that, while a lot of the metrics of the economy are great, a lot of people are still struggling. When people are struggling and Biden and the media keep talking about how great the economy is, he's losing touch with these voters. I think he needs to admit that the economy still needs to get better.
2. Biden needs to get across two messages. First, that he's doing everything he can to improve inflation. And second that there's not a ton of things the president can do to fix inflation. I think people need to understand that, just because Trump gets re-elected, doesn't mean that Trump can just press the "make inflation go down" button and that's it. I think there's clearly a disconnect on the economy, and I think he needs economic experts to make it clear that the winner of this election won't be able to fix inflation overnight.
3. Biden needs to make it very clear that he's not interested in raising the taxes of the middle class. Trump keeps talking about renewing the Trump tax cuts, and Biden keeps talking about how he's not going to renew them. From my understanding, he's going to raise the taxes of the uber-wealthy and corporations to pre-Trump levels. But that most people won't be affected. I don't know if that's true, but if it's true, that's what he needs to talk about. If he is planning on raising the taxes of the middle class, he probably shouldn't do that.
4. There's gotta be something he can do about prices. Maybe there's some sort of tax benefit for manufacturers that can decrease prices (or tax penalties for companies that are shown to be artificially increasing prices). I don't know. Maybe none of that is legal. But I think it would be helpful to see Biden doing something. There are legitimately people who think Biden is actively trying to make prices higher, and he needs to dispel that.
5. I think he needs to be very vocal about his economic plan in these debates, and he needs to try and nail down whatever "plan" Trump has. One of the ways I think Biden can gain support is if he can show people that Trump doesn't have any idea what he's doing with the economy. When he left office, his approval rating was in the 30s on the economy. Now it's double that. People need to be reminded of why they felt that way four years ago.
*******
I really, really want to believe the polls are wrong or at least slanted enough to impact the results. I'm not there yet. I'm still going to keep actively supporting the president and sending him money when I can. I will not be discouraged enough by the polls, but I can't just hope the polls are wrong. I'd love to see Biden take a lead, especially in the swing states, before I feel better.
Convicted felon Donald John Trump.
I actually really enjoyed the final season of Discovery. I wish there was more mission of the week stuff, but I thought the season was engaging and fun. I maintain that the future setting is a much better playground for these characters, and I thought the show ended up being a lot of fun.
The finale, released today, has a lot of fun character moments and a couple fun little reveals. After not loving the start of it, I think it's a nice inclusion in the canon. It just needed to find its true home.
Hmmm, it's hard for me to say. So much of Dexter was Michael C Hall's performance. He was able to capture a serial killer and make him cheerful and charming and funny while also being terrifying. The show was funny but also very dark. Even if the writing is good, I think the actors have to sell it.
I'm interested, but I guess I'd have to see what people think.
This would mean that Slider_Quinn21's disheartened outlook is the result of the Republican strategy to flood polling with bad data in their favour, have the media report another red wave like in 2022, and try again to depress Democrat voters and campaign efforts and Slider_Quinn21's morale.
Interesting. I hope he's right in the sense that polls are wrong, but I hope that no one gets depressed enough not to vote. I will vote Biden as early as possible, and I'll continue to make donations when I'm able.
The thought of Trump back in the White House just makes me nervous. I'm happy to pay more at the pump, more at the grocery store checkout, and more in taxes if it means a) he doesn't get to be president b) we the people get our day in court.
I watched Madame Web. It wasn't great, but I do think something good was hidden. Spoilers if anyone cares:
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
Okay so Madame Web is convoluted and stupid and no one in the movie (the actors or the characters) seems to want to be there. But I think some of the ideas in the movie really work.
Ezekiel Sims is a dumb character, but the *idea* of Ezekiel Sims works. He's an evil Spider-Man. We are used to a Spider-Man who is good and willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, but he's also a guy who pulls his punches can hide in the shadows and drop on you from hundreds of feet in the air.
What if that guy was a bad guy, and there was no Spider-Man so save you? And what if vague future powers were the only thing that could save you? In fact, no one gets super powers to save the day. I think there's something there. I think the movie just doesn't lean into this concept enough. If it had focused on being a horror movie, I think it could've been good. I also think maybe you just focus on one Spider-Woman. Maybe kick up the gore in the scenes where Cassie doesn't save someone.
And since all the actors have talked about the bait and switch they all seemed to have experienced, I wonder if that was originally the plan. You can see the bones of something different when you watch it.
Nando v Movies did a video about all the ADR in the movie that I haven't watched yet. I'm hoping he has some answers on what it could've been.
I mean he is the only realistic alternative. And maybe people don't believe some of the scarier things that Democrats are saying. But what percent chance are people willing to take that Trump's willing to cross the line next time? 5%? 10%? Those are low chance odds but really dangerous risks.
He's already floating the idea of a 3rd term, which he also did a bunch in his first term. What chance are we willing to take that he won't try something. What chance he'd succeed? What are the chance we're willing to take for us to pull out of NATO? To send American troops in to wipe out the Palestinians? 3%? 5%? 20%? What about deporting hundreds of thousands of people? 10%? 25%?
To me, it's a matter of risk and reward. Does Biden suck? I don't know, I guess it depends on the metric you're using. Does getting Biden out help? Maybe? I guess it depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about getting prices to 2019 levels, the answer is that it's extremely unlikely. If the answer is lower taxes, you get that with Trump. The median income in the US is about $75,000. Most people had about a 3% drop in taxes. So for $75,000, that equals $2,250.
Is $2,250 worth throwing out the Constitution? Is it worth getting out of NATO? Is it worth deporting Americans mistaken for illegals? Is it worth giving Russia Ukraine? Poland?
I just don't think Americans are doing the math in their heads on the risk and reward. This isn't "democrat" vs "republican." If this was DeSantis or Haley or even guys like Cruz or Gaetz or Vance, I wouldn't have the same level of concern. Trump is outright saying that he wants to be a dictator and already talking about a third term. He's threatening to completely restructure the government for his own needs. He's talking about things like eliminate the FBI. He's going to throw out legitimate cases that are pending trial against him.
Is $2,250 worth all of that? Is $2,250 worth any of that?
Yeah I think there's reasoning why the polls might be wrong, but it doesn't really make me feel better. It's a nice Hail Mary if the polls look the same way they do in November, but I'd rather the polling be wrong *and* Biden be ahead.
What's frustrating is that people seem to be completely ignoring all of Trump's nonsense. Not just the trials but all of the crazy things he says, all the egomania, all the threats he's made. They seem to be yearning to return to 2019, but they're forgetting completely about 2020. And even if they miss 2019, they're just assuming that Trump will automatically fix everything to their liking. Spoiler: the president can't make prices go down to 2019 levels. The president can't undo the pandemic.
Maybe the debates will help. Maybe getting closer to the election and seeing more of Trump will help. Maybe another six months of solid economy will help.
I just don't know. I'm starting to lose faith that my fellow Americans know how to think through this.
Yeah I'm not saying that it won't happen ever, but it doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon. They've already greenlit some other things (including another reboot film?) and they're moving ahead with the Starfleet Academy show. So my guess is Picard Season 3 either didn't perform or they didn't like working with Matalas? Because I think if Picard worked well (or if they liked Matalas), they'd do Legacy before they did Starfleet Academy.
But maybe they'd committed to Academy and that's all they can afford to do.
So I'm pretty frustrated. Today, Nikki Haley came out and said she was going to vote for Trump. I don't know what percentage of the protest vote we've been seeing was based on Haley's actual opinion, but I hate that she did that. I hate the reasoning she used, most of which Trump isn't actually supporting.
I want to be optimistic. I want consider how much polls underestimated Biden and overestimated Trump. I want to think about those Haley voters that keep voting for her instead of Trump long after she dropped out. I want to think that my fellow Americans aren't all crazy enough to vote for a lunatic wannabe dictator. And, heck, I want to believe that even if Trump wins, he can't be as bad as I'm worrying about. That we lived through four years of him already and that the system will hold and he won't be able to do all the crazy things he keeps hinting at doing.
But I am not feeling it right now. Trump keeps leading poll after poll. No one in the Republican party seems to want to stand up to him. His VP potentials keep talking about how they won't accept the results if Trump doesn't win. It's out of control, and I don't like it. I feel like we're so close to being able to put Trump in our rear view mirror. He's already slipping mentally, and in four more years, I can't imagine he'll be in any state to run again. And at some point, the majority of Republicans will get tired of losing.
But if he wins, things won't go away. They could get so much worse.
I want to be optimistic. But right now I see the storm clouds on the horizon, and it feels inevitable.
Terry Matalas has been hired to work on a Vision show for Marvel.
I guess we aren't getting Star Trek: Legacy
As for Batman's motivations -- maybe it's just me, but it seems to me that so many traumatic things have happened to any version of Batman in his life that it would be a little reductive to point at any one event as what sent him slightly off the deep end, whether it was the death of his parents or Alfred burning the bacon one morning.
I think that's totally fair, but then I needed a scene between Alfred and Bruce where they talk that through. Maybe Affleck's Batman was always rough around the edges and always blurred the line between hero and psychopath, but I assume that Bruce was, at some point, idealistic. I assume he was a good guy (basically, who he is in Justice League) and lost his way.
And if that's the case, I just feel like the audience deserved a scene where Alfred makes some sort of attempt to save Bruce's life. Basically the same kind of scene from Dark Knight Rises where Alfred leaves. He thinks he has one chance to save Bruce from himself, and he sacrifices everything to do it.
I don't really get Snyder's Alfred. He seems angry at Bruce and disappointed in Bruce and seems to disagree with everything Bruce is doing...but he's just doing it anyway. I needed Alfred to confront Bruce.
"Master Wayne, I work for you. If you want me to help you kill yourself by fighting this man, I will do it. And I will do it without so much as another complaint. But I owe it to your father to tell you that you have lost your way."
"Alfred..."
"No, Master Wayne. You owe it to me to let me finish. When you started this insane journey of yours, I supported you because I felt like if you got it out of your system, it would be over and you could move on. But instead of getting it out of your system, you got it into mine. I saw the good we were doing. The people we were saving. But somewhere along the way, you lost sight of the goal. The people you saved no longer mattered. It was about the punishment you were dishing out. And you lost Master Grayson and it got worse. I thought some day you'd turn it around. When you killed Mr. Dent, I thought it would snap you out of it. When Ms. Kyle died, I thought that would do it. But nothing worked. Nothing helped. You were consumed. You are consumed. And if none of that helped, maybe this won't either. But damn it, I have to try. You're the only thing I have left in this world, and that...man will kill you if you stay on this path. Or you'll be so lost that you might as well be dead."
*Bruce doesn't say anything.*
"Okay. It's said. Now what's next?"
Something like that where we understand that Bruce was one thing and now he's something else. Instead, it's all so vague. We don't know what Bruce was like before or, if he's changed, what changed him. Honestly, I'd be okay with whatever the answer was, but I just would've preferred an answer.
I agree that Snyder's versions aren't that far off. I think I have two problems with his versions:
- Snyder's Superman is Kryptonian first and human second, and he has a weird connection to humanity. I understand Clark's desire to connect with this alien heritage, but he's been a human his entire life. By the end of Man of Steel, he seems to have almost no humanity left outside of his love of Lois Lane. After that, he has no human friends outside of Lois (and his mother, I guess). This is one reason why many commenters think it was a mistake to kill Jimmy (and make him a CIA operative, I guess). The only non-Lois/Martha/Bruce scenes are Clark being super alien and emotionless as he saves people.
My understanding of Clark is mostly drawn from Smallville and an alleged rapist so maybe I'm not the right one to judge what the "right" version of Clark is. But Smallville Clark would've never allowed all those people to die in Metropolis in Man of Steel (or he would've essentially rebuilt the city on his own), and Smallville Clark would've figured out a way to help Bruce before things got to the fight. Smallville Clark would've found joy in being Superman. Smallville Clark would've been so obviously good that Bruce would've never had a reason to want to kill him.
- Snyder's Bruce is understandable, but I didn't feel like it was earned. In 7+ hours of Snyder's time with Batman, we still have no idea what set Bruce off on his dark path. Was it Robin dying (and what happened there?)? Was it Superman's arrival? Was it something else? Alfred seems to imply that it was just everything adding up and turning him to darkness. Alfred seems to disapprove of what Bruce is doing, but he doesn't stop him. If Bruce is willing to kill, why isn't the Joker dead? Are all of Batman's other villains dead? Why is Batman going out of his way to kill random goons but not their leaders?
I think this was a situation where we needed the context for why Batman is that way, but even in the extended versions, Snyder doesn't seem interested in explaining it. Robin is dead and it's important, but he doesn't want to spend time on it. Bruce is angry and violent but he doesn't seem interested in explaining it. How long has he been that way? What has he done to cross the line? Has he even crossed the line or is this the story of him trying to cross the line?
Ironically, I think the Snyderverse would've worked better if he made a Batman movie first and introduced Superman in the sequel. Snyder doesn't seem all that interested in doing anything with Clark in the sequels, and Batman desperately needed more backstory and context. I'm totally fine with a Batman that kills and who's ready to kill Superman, but if this is a Batman that went down a dark path, we need to see that path. To me, that's more interesting than him punching Superman.
I think I've said it before but they should've done a Batman movie before BvS. I know they wanted to rush things, but they could've done a Superman movie, a Batman movie, a BvS movie, a Wonder Woman movie, and an "anthology" movie with the origins of Aquaman/Flash/Cyborg before the Justice League movie. It wouldn't have added that much time before Justice League, and it would've set the universe up well.
Instead, we really only got a solo movie for Superman, and that was the only character that probably didn't need a solo movie (because once we got passed it, Snyder gave Superman almost nothing to do).
I am not a Zack Snyder fan and did not watch REBEL MOON... but did it really look cheap? I always thought of Zack Snyder as only doing projects with lavish spending.
It didn't look cheap. I thought the movie looked really nice, especially for the price that it apparently cost. Cheap in the sense that it wasn't really even trying to be its own thing. You can see the seams of an attempted Star Wars movie with some simple alterations to make it the minimum legal requirement for it not to be Star Wars. One person uses lightsabers but not really. The bad guy uses a Star Destroyer but not really.
If you think about it, you can see how it would've worked if it was a Star Wars movie. There's some stuff he obviously added after it was no longer Star Wars involving a royal family. But I think even that stuff probably could work depending on when the movie is set.
To me, the DCEU failed for a variety of reasons, and I think Snyder probably gets an unfair share of that. I think he's a talented guy, and I don't even think his movies are bad. I think Snyder's biggest problem is that he doesn't really understand the characters. Or he does understand them and thinks that the only thing interesting you can do with them is make them into something different. We've talked this to death, but I think that's really Snyder's only issue. And the universe tried to make it after Snyder. Was the damage done? Maybe. But at the same time, a lot of the post-Snyder movies aren't any better than the ones Snyder did.
I think Snyder's biggest problem was trying to make alternate versions of these characters and making them the primary versions for a universe. Even if all he did was take different versions of Batman and Superman (who had already had a dozen movies made about them at that point), those are two characters you probably need to get right.
Now if the DCEU was a success first and they brought in Snyder to make an Injustice trilogy after the characters had already been established, that could've been cool. I think that's what makes The Maker and Invincible Iron Man and Superior Spider-Man so interesting. But you need a standard version of the character first, or the "evil" version doesn't really work.
********
But, yeah, I tried to make Snyder's Avengers as much like Snyder's DC movies. I just think it's funny that Snyder made three movies to try and get to the part he thought was most interesting (the full Knightmare world) and never got there.
As I said in my alternate history essay, I watched Rebel Moon part 2. It was definitely better than part one, but I still do not get this. I actually think he took more chances and did more interesting things with Army of the Dead, and I think that should've been the project he hooked onto. Robot zombies and time loops and all that is interesting (if we ever get those movies).
Rebel Moon is a very cheap knockoff of Star Wars that adds nothing. It's just bad Star Wars with more cursing. Part One is boring. Part Two is more interesting (because it's the part of the story where things happen) but it's just Seven Samurai. Nothing about it is original.
He has ambitious stories, but the problem with Snyder is twofold:
- He likes to tease things rather than actually get there. He doesn't make a movie about Robot Zombies and Time Loops. He makes a movie that teases those things.
- His execution when he actually does the thing he's teasing is underwhelming. BvS is one huge tease for Batman to fight Superman, but when he gets there, it's just nothing.
If I were advising Snyder, I'd abandon Rebel Moon. If he really loves the universe, give it to someone else to try. Lucas only made one Star Wars movie in the original trilogy. Own the story if you want but let someone else do the directing. Focus on Planet of the Dead and that universe. It might not be great but at least it's something new.
I wasn't trying to base Snyder's Captain America on anything. Rather, I was trying to think of what Snyder might do with Marvel characters. I was originally going to make Iron Man the first movie in Snyder's Avengers saga like it was in the MCU, but I decided that if Snyder had his pick, he'd make Cap first (even if he really liked Iron Man more). He'd see a boring character (to him) and try to add some nuance (to him). I would think he'd suspect that Cap would be turned off by modern America and become jaded and disillusioned. Just like he'd think its natural that Batman and Superman would kill bad guys, he wouldn't be interested in a Captain America that always tries to do the right thing.
And like he preferred evil Superman to normal Superman, I think he'd find Captain Hydra more interesting than Captain America (I don't even think the timeline works for that version of the character to be around but it's an alternate history). And since I couldn't think of a good situation where Steve allows millions of people to die (like Superman does in Man of Steel), I decided to let Steve do something that I wouldn't think he'd otherwise do - let someone die so he can get the kill.
My issue with Snyder's superheroes isn't that they're bad. I just don't think he thinks of them as being good guys. They do good, sure, but good guys are boring. So Superman has a bad side. Batman kills. Not because they have to, but Snyder can't see anything interesting in a story where Batman has to find a way not to kill.
My problem is that I don't think it's interesting for Batman and Superman to just be random soldiers doing what it takes to win. A Batman who kills is more efficient, sure, but I don't think it's more interesting.
Of course, I also needed Snyder to burn through stories while teasing way more stories. I needed Tony to just be Batman. I needed Snyder to make a bunch of movies but never get to Thanos.
I wasn't super happy with my Ayer Strange, but I couldn't think of a good approximation of the Suicide Squad. Something to introduce a bunch of characters and establish that this is a lived-in world without using any of the Justice League. So I just said "well, RDJ looks like Dr Strange so let's just shoehorn him in here"
I was watching Rebel Moon Part Two, and I decided to grab my timer and find a special parallel dimension. And I did. I present to you Earth 32991.
******************
2005. Batman Begins is released, starring Christian Bale as the titular character. The movie is a modest success, but it's enough of a success for producer Kevin Feige to get a meeting with the bigshots at WB. He left Marvel after failing to get approval for a vision he had of a shared universe of superhero movies. He wanted to try it at DC, and he was hired to be the architect of that vision. The movie is rereleased for the Christmas season with a brand-new post-credits sequence where Clark Kent shows up at Wayne Manor looking for the Batman.
Over the next few years, the DCU is the star of cinemas. Standalone films for Superman, Wonder Woman, the Flash, and Aquaman are huge hits, alongside the Dark Knight, a Batman sequel. In 2011, Joss Whedon directs a Justice League movie. From there, the hits just keep on coming. From James Gunn's Green Lantern Corp to Justice League : Age of Apokolips, the DCU becomes a hit-making factory.
Marvel, struggling with its film division after the failure of 2006's Iron Man (starring Tom Cruise) and 2008's The Incredible Hulk with Edward Norton decides to go back to Kevin Feige's architecture. After failing to get Feige back, Marvel finds Zach Snyder. Snyder had success with a direct adaptation of Spider-Man: Blue for Sony, and they thought he could tell the right stories for them. Snyder is given a greenlight for a kickoff film and a fast-tracked Avengers movie.
So in 2013, Captain America is released. It tells the story of Steve Rogers (controversially played by non-American Henry Cavill), an optimistic man who is given the super-soldier serum. After defeating the Red Skull and getting frozen in the ice, SHIELD finds Captain America and thaws him out. Steve is eager to get back to work in the red, white, and blue, but he finds the world to be a great deal more cynical than the world he remembers. He's annoyed that he seems to be doing more campaign events for the President than actual hero work, but he does it with a smile. Rogers discovers a plot by Hydra to reincarnate the Red Skull and take over the world. The film climaxes as an inauguration party in Washington DC is attacked. Steve fights the newly reborn Red Skull and his Winter Soldier as they attempt to assassinate the president. With only time to defeat the Red Skull for good or save the president (who Steve doesn't see as idealistic enough), Steve makes the heartbreaking decision to let Bucky shoot the president so Steve can use his shield to decapitate the Red Skull. The Winter Soldier escapes, the new President thanks Steve for doing everything he could, and the nation mourns the loss of its leader.
Captain America is a fairly big success leading to the greenlight of Captain America v Iron Man: Civil War. Ben Affleck is hired as Tony Stark (taking the role from Tom Cruise). Stark is an alcoholic genius who has been Iron Man for over a decade on the West Coast. He's been at odds with Nick Fury and SHIELD for his entire superhero career, and that relationship goes nuclear when Stark is able to find evidence that Rogers let the president be killed. SHIELD won't let Stark release the evidence so Tony takes matters into his own hands. Tony is able to find a secret Hydra sleeper agent program called Captain Hydra, which Tony believes has already been started. Working with Dr. Bruce Banner, Stark works to defeat Rogers. In the meantime, it turns out that Tony's trusted AI Ultron is pulling the strings, and he actually implements the Captain Hydra program, brainwashing Rogers to start working for Hydra. Captain Hydra fights Iron Man and Banner, but Banner loses control and becomes the Hulk. Realizing how he's been manipulated, Stark is able to convince Rogers to fight the brainwashing (using Steve's relationship with Tony's father as a link) and together, they're able to defeat Ultron and calm down the Hulk (with Tony bringing out his Hulkbuster armor). Nick Fury (Joe Morton) appears in a post-credits sequence as he asks Tony to help him understand this mysterious hammer he found.
Civil War made a lot of money, but critics panned the convoluted plot of the film. Comic fans were annoyed at the fact that so many potential story threads were burned in a single movie (Captain Hydra, Ultron, World War Hulk, and Civil War itself). Fans were especially annoyed at the fact that "Civil War" really ended up only being a couple of people and not the wide-stretching story the comics told. People also disliked how cynical Captain America ended up being, going against one of the main tenets of the character. Snyder pushed back that it was a little silly for a guy from the 40s to still believe in today's America, and that of course he'd be cynical now. He continued to fight criticism of Steve both killing the Red Skull and allowing the president to be killed in the first movie.
A Doctor Strange movie, directed by David Ayer, was released after Civil War with middling success. People were starting to get annoyed already with the dour tone of the Marvel movies compared to the fun and bright DCU. Robert Downey Jr.'s Strange was praised and there were some fun cameos of heroes like Ant-Man and Hawkeye, but fans were already starting to bail.
By the time the Avengers movie was ready to come out, the project was starting to flounder. Hulk and Hawkeye solo films were delayed, and even a critically acclaimed Black Widow movie (by Patty Jenkins) wasn't enough to get people excited. Due to the film going overbudget and personal issues in Zach Snyder's life, Avengers was finished by Joss Whedon, hoping to bring some of the DC magic over to Marvel. The film was a modest success but struggled to win over critics and audiences. Tony and Steve work together to assemble the Avengers when Cull Obsidian attacks Earth on behalf of his leader Thanos. Even though Captain America is a little more lighthearted and less cynical, the movie struggles to tell a cohesive story while also introducing Thor (and all of Asgard), Hawkeye, and Ant-Man to the team of Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, and Black Widow.
Not everyone hated the vision, though. Snyder had legions of fans who loved the darker, more realistic and science-based superhero universe. These were more realistic people who lived in the real world with street-level powers that weren't obscene and godlike like DC. These fans were eager to see Snyder's vision come to light with seeds planted for more Captain Hydra, Tony's demon in a bottle, a greater role for Thor's brother Loki, and even a battle with Thanos himself.
It wouldn't be until years later when Zach Snyder's Avengers was released on streaming platforms. It expands on the Whedon version with much more time spent in Asgard (including additional scenes with Loki), a backstory with Thanos featuring Captain Marvel and the Nova Core, and a premonition from Dr Strange that Steve will kill Tony. It was a bit of a cultural phenomenon, especially with Snyder fanatics, but it wasn't enough to warrant any more Snyder material for Marvel.
Marvel is currently looking to reboot their universe, with James Gunn in the lead. Snyder has moved on to start his own franchise, a mature and new spin on orcs, dwarves, and elves: The Halfling.
Cannon essentially killed the documents case (or at least put it in a coma). It was incredibly genius for Trump to install such a friendly and loyal judge in this district, and I wish the Democrats had been a bit more aware and tried to stop her appointment. I know they wouldn't have had the votes along party lines, but by all accounts, they simply ignored her during hearings. That was obviously a mistake - Cannon is incapable of ruling fairly, and I assume a number of other judges would've already brought this case to trial.
Just have to hope that the DC trial can start. The good news is that Florida can't block that anymore. So if the Supreme Court doesn't mess up the immunity ruling, DC should have an open schedule.
Yeah I don't really know what to make of the polls. I listen to a lot of the 538 politics podcast. They obviously depend on the polls for their accuracy, but they acknowledge that something about Trump makes the polls less accurate. In elections where Trump isn't on the ballot, the polls have been really accurate and reliable. When he's on the ballot, something is awry.
In both 2016 and 2020, the polls underestimated Trump. The only real theories I saw were the ideas that:
- Trump voters were undersampled. In 2016 this could've been the result of shifting demographics. Since people that traditionally voted Democrat were voting Republican and vice versa, maybe their sampling techniques underrepresented Trump voters.
- "Shy Trump voters" - people that were always going to vote for Trump but were unwilling, due to the social pressures to not admit you're going to vote for Trump.
So if the polls underestimated Trump in 2016 and 2020, why would they suddenly be overestimating him? Could really be the same reasons, just in reverse.
- Pollsters oversampling from Trump voters. Maybe in an attempt to fix the sampling problems they had in the past, they overcompensated and started oversampling Trump voters.
- "Shy Biden voters" - maybe people see polls that say Biden is unpopular or his approval rating being in the 30s and think "I can't admit that I like Biden." I guess it's possible. I think there's a difference in stigma in admitting you like Trump vs admitting you like Biden. I guess there's also the idea that a lot of 2020 Biden voters are saying they won't vote for him or will even vote for Trump, but they could all come back by November.
But when you look at actual results in these primaries, it's hard to see bad news for Biden. Huge percentages of Republicans are voting for people other than Trump. Even people voting after Nikki Haley dropped out. Even in closed primaries where you have to be a Republican to vote?
Are these eventual Trump voters that are casting some kind of protest vote? Maybe? But if so...why? What do they hope Trump will do? People protest voted Biden in Michigan in hopes that he'd change his stance on Palestine. I don't know what protest votes against Trump would even hope to accomplish.
Or are these Biden voters who are voting against Trump to make him look bad? Either, in open primaries, Democrats actually crossing party lines or, in closed primaries, voting for the Trump alternative? That seems to be what Trump wants people to think. But if that's not the answer and these are eventual voters for RFK, Biden, or another alternative (empty top of the ballot), I don't know how Trump has the votes to win. Especially if Biden can win back some of the 2020 voters he lost.
The trends have been good for Biden in the last couple of months (although that trend is reversing a bit recently). But I'm not comfortable simply thinking that the polls are wrong. I would like the polls to be underestimating Biden *and* for Biden to be winning polls.
This court has no respect for precedent.
Well that's what's so silly about some of the stuff you heard from them. Talking about how this is a decision for the ages and all that.
No.
It's the decision for now. The conservatives have the majority now, but Alito is 74 and Thomas is 75. Neither will be around forever, and actuarily speaking, will be the next to go. If a Democratic president replaces both of them, it's back to being a liberal majority. Roberts is 69. They act like they're doing historical business, but all of it could be unwritten in a decade or two. This is a group of people who think they're more important than they are, and I assume the next liberal court (whenever that is) will spend a lot of their time undoing what they did.
Well, one thing I go back to is that most of the conservative majority in SCOTUS is fairly reasonable and has sided with reason most of the time. Alito seems like an absolute right-wing nutjob, and Thomas is completely compromised when it comes to Trump. But Kavanaugh has ended up being somewhat moderate, and I think Barrett hasn't been the complete nightmare she appeared to be.
I think sometimes there's this thought that SCOTUS is full of Trump sycophants, and there's two reasons not to think that. One, I think Roberts (despite everything) is trying to make the court not completely insane. If Thomas or Alito was the chief justice, I think this gets so much worse. Second, there's not really a quid pro quo here. There's no real reason or incentive for them to be loyal to Trump - unlike people in Congress, there's not anything Trump can give them that they don't already have.
(Note - I'm not saying SCOTUS hasn't been horrible. Obviously, they've made some world-changing decisions for the worse. I'm just saying a) they could be worse and b) the two oldest justices are also the two worst judges. If Biden wins, there's not a zero chance that this flips back to 5-4 liberals in the next four years).
It's probably best long term for SCOTUS to clarify this as much as possible considering the idea that the next Trump could be much better at crime than Trump is. But...man, I wish they'd carve out this DC case and let it move forward and let the documents case determine the high-level questions since I assume Cannon will never let that case be a thing anyway. SCOTUS will never delay this case more than she will.
A few years ago, I was pretty active on Twitter and followed election coverage pretty closely. I even waded into waters where I tried to calmly convince MAGA of the error of their ways. Eventually, I didn't like the person I was. I was doom-scrolling through twitter all the time, and I was feeling myself growing more and more annoyed.
So I quit. I was doing it because I was bored, and there are a billion apps that I could use to stop myself from being bored.
About a year ago, I got curious about some things and waded back into those waters. I had deleted the app but I could still access the website through Safari on my phone. There were a couple of people I liked to follow for news on the Trump indictments or whatever and that was that. Eventually, Elon closed that loophole and made you register to access the website. So I was closed off. Then, more recently, I decided I was curious enough and I created a second account (I didn't remember the login and thought this was more reasonable) and accessed the website (again, not downloading the app) to get my news. I went from checking it only in the evenings to checking it all the time. And, again, I could feel my blood pressure going up every time I visited.
The Trump immunity Supreme Court was the last straw. I was upset all day. So I decided to quit again. I logged out of my dummy account and deleted all my shortcuts. I haven't been back since.
Me doomscrolling through twitter isn't going to stop Trump from getting elected or make him go to jail, and at least now, I'm not forcing myself to constantly think about it. The unfortunate thing for everyone else is that now I'll be much less informed. The fortunate thing for me is that I'll be much happier.
Immunity is being argued in front of SCOTUS today. In past *huge* cases, SCOTUS has decided really quickly (Pentagon Papers, Watergate Tapes, Bush v Gore).
I assume they'll wait until the last possible minute. Either July or after. And that will be a decision, not a requirement.
Update: there's almost no way they decide on this before the election. Sounds like it's more likely they kick the whole thing back to the Appeals Court and then start the whole process over.
DC and Florida cases are going to be delayed until after the election. Biden needs to win in November.
I mean, Nikki getting 30% in PA despite bowing out months ago cannot be a "great" thing for Trump. That said, I saw some of the mail in results, and they were incredibly bad for Don, so one could assume that many people voted Haley, by mail, some time ago. I dunno.
Apparently, vote by mail info goes out 50 days before the election. Haley dropped out exactly 50 days before. So she would've been on the ballot (obviously), but she would've dropped out before people would've received their vote by mail. Maybe some could've immediately filled it out before they found out, but I assume a lot of people knew.
As for those podcast points....
1. "Even the idea that Trump isn't able to campaign right now may not matter six months from now." I've said it before, being stuck in court for six weeks is crippling for a campaign. The loss of time is massive. If the US Supreme Court does not scuttle the DC trial, Trump will be sidelined up to THREE MONTHS during the summer, which will be a huge disaster for his campaign. Nikki Haley has to be cackling about this.
Really hoping SCOTUS doesn't drag their feet with their decision. We should have the DC trial this summer.
2. "People that are going to care the most about this issue are people who were going to vote anyway, and the rest of the people that care are probably voting anyway because it's a presidential election." This is entirely the POINT of how you win elections. You get the people most likely on your side, to physically DO IT. This is not something to brush aside. Enthusiasm is a major factor, and when the vote is very close, that is tantamount.
I was thinking about it the other day, and I have a decent amount of enthusiasm to vote for Biden. He's done a good job, and he's the man standing between us and Trump. I assume that will rise as times goes on. I assume I'm not alone in that and people will get more excited to vote for Biden once they realize they have no other choice.
MAGA voters have nowhere to go but down in their enthusiasm. It's maxed out.
3. And Biden has way more feet on the ground to go out and convince people. They basically said it was the same thing in 2016 - Trump had a much worse campaign effort than Hillary and she outspent him 2-1, but Trump got so much free media coverage that it didn't matter in the end. First off, Hillary lost because she overspent in states she probably wasn't going to win, and ignored ones she was struggling in. Biden is expanding the campaign, on certain issues, but that will help down ticket Dems anyway. Having people working the campaign is really important. Take Florida, which Trump will likely win, but Biden is spending there. Trump's issue is that Desantis hates him, so he won't get much help from him, forcing his team to spend more than they normally would. Biden is basically trolling Trump down there.
I hope Trump is serious and spends money in New York and California and places like that. He's way behind in money so any money he spends outside of battleground states is a waste.
It sounds like the Biden campaign is doing things right. He can't only spend money in AZ, NV, GA, MI, WI, and PA, but I'd like to see that be the focus. Travel there, speak there. Send Obama and other popular surrogates. I think NC is a possibility. FL seems like a lost cause, but I can see making Trump waste money there (same in Texas...really hoping we can get Allred to beat Cruz). They might be able to make a run at OH, but that also seems out of reach.
Biden also has to defend some light blue states like New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Virginia. But the rest of the map seems pretty secure. Focus on where they need to focus, and again they only need to win half the tossup states (assuming it's the right half)
Pennsylvania leaned heavily democratic in a special election yesterday and during the primary. Trump only got something like 60% of the vote there from Republicans. I'm not sure we can really pull anything from either of those stats, but I'm guessing the primary factor is that the shifting electorate makes likely voters much more likely to vote Democrat now. College educated whites have always been reliable voters, and now they're reliably voting democratic.
I'm not sure what to make of the Republican primary stuff. If you just look at the Republican primary numbers in a vacuum, there's a ton of protest votes against Trump. But I'm guessing those voters were either a) already baked into the Biden number or b) will come home to Trump at the end of the day. Hoping I'm wrong, though.
Pennsylvania is the one swing state that Biden has been doing the best in (although he recently was leading a Michigan poll as well). If the polls are right, Biden might need to hold the Rust Belt to win.
*************
538 did a good podcast the other day talking about some trends that appear good for Biden but may not matter:
1. The trials. The thought is that it won't do much to sway sentiment, especially this hush money case, unless something comes out that really blows people away. Even the idea that Trump isn't able to campaign right now may not matter six months from now. Polling shows a big swing to Biden if Trump is convicted of a "serious" crime but it's hard to tell whether voters find this case serious at all.
2. Abortion. Even though abortion is a terrible issue or Republicans, they seemed to think it might not have a big impact on the presidential election. People that are going to care the most about this issue are people who were going to vote anyway, and the rest of the people that care are probably voting anyway because it's a presidential election. Plus, people can be angry about Trump's stance on abortion, vote to protect abortion rights, and then still vote for Trump. They even downplayed Trump's recent shift towards a more pro-choice posture and said extreme anti-abortion people are still almost certainly going to vote for Trump even if he's against bans.
3. Campaign money. Biden is outpacing Trump on funds earned, funds spent (on the campaign at least), and campaign infrastructure in battleground states. But they argued that 1) these candidates are already really well known and money might not sway that many people 2) Trump gets a ton of free media coverage. I do think if Biden can significantly outspend Trump on advertising in battleground states, it can have an impact. Trump is obviously going to use money to pay his own bills first, and Biden won't have that issue. And Biden has way more feet on the ground to go out and convince people. They basically said it was the same thing in 2016 - Trump had a much worse campaign effort than Hillary and she outspent him 2-1, but Trump got so much free media coverage that it didn't matter in the end.
I guess we'll see.
Hush money trial has begun. I think that Alvin Bragg will present a fairly strong case with evidence and compelling witnesses. The focus will be on accounting/business practices mainly. Whether Trump wins or loses, he will be stuck in court, pouting, for up to 6 weeks while Biden is basically all over the place campaigning.
Two interesting things have come from this:
- The judge seemed really irritated with Trump's lawyers during the hearing on the gag order. I think the lawyers are going to struggle to toe that line between trying to do their job but also trying to keep Trump happy.
- I'm sorta convinced that Trump wants to go to jail to fight the gag order for the optics. It'll be interesting to see if the judge goes for it or not.
All that really matters for this is the electoral consequences so some scatterbrained thoughts:
- I don't know if politically unengaged undecideds are paying attention to this case. If they aren't, I think that could potentially be a win for Trump depending on how much people are not paying attention. If undecideds aren't paying enough attention to know the details but understand that the case is less serious, then they aren't getting any of the details of the case (the kind of thing Trump wanted to suppress in the first place) and a conviction won't matter and Trump wins. If people aren't paying attention and have no idea the seriousness of the case, I guess that benefits Biden because all they'll know is that Trump was convicted of a felony. So I guess if you're Biden, you have to hope that people are either paying a ton of attention or no attention at all.
- Trump looks whiny and tired and repetitive. I don't know how widespread the stories of him falling asleep (or worse) are, but that certainly doesn't help with Trump's image of being smart or strong or virile.
- It's obvious that this makes Trump miserable. And on a personal note, I just love that.
Another poll came out that had Biden winning big if Trump is convicted. The polling was a bit misleading because it referred to it as a "serious crime", and I'm sure people won't consider the NY case a "serious crime" if they know the details. Some will and will disregard. Some won't know enough about it and will consider it serious because it's a criminal conviction. I assume he loses a ton of votes but not the +9 the poll indicated.
The Kennedy family did a huge event where they wholeheartedly endorsed Biden. I don't know if the media will cover that event, but if they do, it should mean more Biden-to-Kennedy voters go away. Again, there's almost no overlap between Biden and RFK other than the name, and if people are voting for RFK because he's a Kennedy (and nothing else), then this news (and I assume the next dozen times they work with the Kennedys) will dissuade some. The people that know who Kennedy is and are voting for him have got to be mostly far-right people dissatisfied that Trump isn't far right enough.
In the Trump trial, we have a jury. I'm nervous that something is going to happen to one of these jurors, especially as Fox News is actively trying to intimidate the jury. But the trial could start Monday morning so maybe it'll go quickly.
Meanwhile, the current DC crisis is whether Speaker Mike can get anything through his caucus of block heads? He has bizarrely proposed to offer four separate bills to aid Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and I believe the border. Absurd considering, if they get a vote (will pass), they'd likely be repackaged as one bill that goes to the Senate.
Yeah, I don't see how this helps Republicans. If they kept the bills together, there could be deniability for GOP House members that want to continue to be anti-Ukraine ("Look, we needed to get money to Israel and Taiwan and the cost was money to Ukraine. The good outweighed the bad" but also "I sent money to Ukraine and helped them" - they can play both sides). Now they have to be on record on one or the other. If there are pro-Ukraine independents, they could be swayed one way or the other by this.
On the other hand, if the Republicans think that they can use Israel as a wedge issue, they can force Democrats to side with either Israel or Palestine. I could see some benefit there, but I don't know.
I saw an interview with Johnson where he was saying all the right things about Ukraine. It sounds like maybe he has some sort of assurance that he can survive any move against him. If so...I guess that's good.
Yeah, I don't understand why Trump wouldn't just put the money up himself? I'm guessing it's the principle of it, if that's even true? I also don't understand what the company gets out of it outside of promises of future benefits from a possible future president?
I think the obvious thing is that a) Trump doesn't have the cash to secure the bond and b) the only company that was willing to do it is sketchy and probably not following the rules. I could be wrong though and am not an expert on this stuff.
******
Jury selection in the hush money case is rolling along. I still worry, especially since right wing media is actively encouraging this, that a MAGA person will get on the jury and hold things up. If Trump gets off because a jury of his peers didn't find the case strong enough, so be it. But the trial needs to be fair. Hopefully if someone is able to get onto the jury that they can be weeded out and replaced with an alternate.
As some of these older polls age out of aggregators, Biden is starting to take small leads in overall polling most places. Now a small lead nationally won't do it, and I'm pretty sure state-level polling still has Trump with enough states to win the electoral college. But it's a step in the right direction.
Experts seem to think Trump is going to lose this hush money case. I would think especially if Trump is muttering himself like a crazy person the whole time. It won't give him any jail time, but he'll legally be a convicted felon if it happens. We'll see, again if that happens, if it affects what independents think. I assume MAGA and democrat voters are pretty locked in with their votes no matter the result of the trial.
I don't know how many more stories that Heroes has to tell, but I'll watch this if it ever happens.
[Simply, NO. Nothing will dissuade them. One thing to keep in mind is this, the idea that "Evangelical" voters are in love with Trump is a misnomer. They are Republicans mainly, so they vote that ticket. They don't particularly care for them. Furthermore, just because a block is ID'd as evangelical, doesn't indicate how "devout" one might be. You could ID me as Catholic, but I don't practice at all.
I mean I told him that I think evangelicals are extremely radicalized - that if Trump told them to worship him instead of Jesus, they'd happily toss their bibles and crosses in exchange for a golden Trump statue. But he disagrees. He goes to an evangelical church (he's liberal) and he has a PhD in religious studies (or something like that). He says that abortion is the one area they won't follow him down.
This is well known right wing "entertainer?" Matt Walsh. He's extreme right wing, and he hated what Trump and Kari Lake had to say. He has 2.2MM followers on twitter, and he's very outspoken that this was the wrong thing to do and he's not willing to budge. It wouldn't take many people to decide they can't vote for someone that supports any "abortion rights" and either not vote or leave the top of the ballot empty. And remember these aren't normal Republican voters. The voters that Trump has added are low-propensity voters so it wouldn't take much for them to just not go on election day (because they won't mail in vote or vote early).
https://www.facebook.com/MattWalshBlog/ … 646268783/
Now the thing about Trump is that he's never been pro-life. This was the issue with him in 2016 in the Republican primaries. And it was the issue when he was up against DeSantis. It didn't matter this year because the abortion folks went all in on Trump. But as much as Trump brags about defeating Roe, I cannot imagine Trump actually cared about that. He didn't pick those judges, and he probably has no idea what they stand for. He did what the Federalist Society told him to do or he did whatever they paid him to do.
Trump doesn't want to ban abortion. Otherwise he'd have 50 kids, and he hates the ones he already has.
My friend is a bit of an expert on evangelicals, and he wonders if the Trump messaging on abortion is going to drive some of them away. To them, any surrender on abortion is unacceptable. They didn't even like that he used the term "abortion rights" at all. I don't buy it...maybe some of them will leave the top of the ballot blank, but I assume it won't actually matter.
The polling is becoming more encouraging. A poll came out today that had Biden only down 2 in North Carolina. There might be an opportunity to flip a state like that that's been trending blue. If Trump does something stupid like try to flip New York, it could leave an opening in some places. Ironically, Trump could try some of the stuff Hillary tried, and it could leave Biden an opportunity.
It's important to remember that, while the electoral college helps Republicans, Biden just needs to play a little bit of defense. He doesn't have to win all the states he won in 2020 - he just needs to win half of the six toss up states. If he can win Pennsylvania, he just needs to win Michigan and Wisconsin or Arizona and Georgia or Georgia and Wisconsin or Michigan and Arizona. Lots of roads to win. Trump doesn't need to sweep all those states but he needs a lot of them. If Biden can do something surprising and win North Carolina, it gets even easier. Trump would essentially need to run the table of the rest of the states.
I feel better than I did a few weeks ago. And that's before you take into account any of the abortion measures (which makes Arizona more likely and even puts something like Florida in play) and left-leaning polling errors.
I was screwing around on Microsoft Copilot, and I asked it who would win in a fight between Quinn and Spider-Man. From what I've seen of this, AI never picks a true winner and this didn't disappoint.
In the cosmic arena where dimensions collide, let us pit two unlikely contenders against each other: Spider-Man and Quinn Mallory from the interdimensional odyssey of Sliders.
Spider-Man (Peter Parker) swings into the fray, his agility and spider-sense honed by countless battles against foes like the Green Goblin, Venom, and Doctor Octopus. His web-slinging prowess and acrobatics make him a formidable force. But beware, for with great power comes great responsibility – and sometimes, a pesky J. Jonah Jameson editorial.
On the other side of the wormhole, we have Quinn Mallory, the accidental traveler of parallel worlds. Armed with a trusty timer and a penchant for stumbling into alternate realities, Quinn is no stranger to survival. He’s faced dystopian Earths, steampunk dimensions, and even a world where everyone communicates through interpretive dance (yes, really).
Now, let’s break it down:
Physical Prowess:
Spider-Man: Superhuman strength, agility, and reflexes. His spider-sense warns him of danger.
Quinn Mallory: Well, he’s not exactly a gym rat. But he’s resourceful and scrappy – the kind of guy who’d jury-rig a photon accelerator out of a toaster.Arsenal:
Spider-Man: Web shooters, spider-tracers, and a suit that would make Tony Stark jealous.
Quinn Mallory: A trusty timer that opens wormholes. Not exactly a weapon, but it’s his ticket to adventure.Intellectual Acumen:
Spider-Man: Brilliant scientist and inventor. He’s got brains to match his brawn.
Quinn Mallory: Quantum physicist (well, sort of). He understands sliding tech better than most.Battle Tactics:
Spider-Man: Flips, quips, and web-based acrobatics. He’d probably tie Quinn up in a web cocoon.
Quinn Mallory: He’d slide to an Earth where Spider-Man is a mime, distracting him with invisible walls.Motivation:
Spider-Man: Protecting New York City and honoring Uncle Ben’s memory.
Quinn Mallory: Finding his way home and avoiding Kromaggs (those nasty interdimensional hunters).The Verdict: In a straight-up brawl, Spider-Man’s agility and combat skills give him the edge. But if Quinn can slide to a reality where Spider-Man is allergic to spider silk, all bets are off. Plus, Quinn’s luck is like a malfunctioning timer – unpredictable.
So, in the ultimate crossover event, Spider-Man might win the battle, but Quinn would slide away with the last laugh. And who knows, maybe they’d team up to fight a villainous version of Aunt May with six mechanical arms.
Remember, in the multiverse, anything is possible – even a dance-off between Spidey and Quinn.
Polls are slowly (but surely) shifting toward Biden. And I saw a couple polls where RFK is siphoning votes off Trump more than Biden. Which makes sense as RFK continues to look more and more MAGA. I imagine the only people that would vote for Biden but choose RFK are doing so because they're critically misinformed or uneducated on the matter. RFK is to the right of Trump so it would take a really special voter to abandon Biden for him. The RFK voters I see online are DeSantis refugees who agree with him on the anti-vaxx stuff. I don't know what RFK's views on abortion are, but if they're conservative, then Trump's abortion message could push more Trump voters to him.
I don't think there's any way RFK gets the 11% he's polling at, but I figure more Biden voters will come home than Trump ones. I still think this is a miscalculation on Trump's part.
Trump has a tiny lead on the RCP average and Biden is winning on the Economist average. Obviously, Biden needs to win the national polls by a few points to win the electoral college, but those polls are also shifting. Pennsylvania has been looking pretty good, and Wisconsin and Georgia are trending toward him. Michigan looks bad right now, and Nevada might not be possible. But if the trends continue, I think things will be fine.
This is what Biden needs to create *tons* of ads on. They need to be properly targeted, but non-MAGA Republicans that liked the first Trump administration need to know that the second one is not going to be like the first.
Again, the tactic needs to be to very clearly articulate that Trump is not a normal Republican or politician. He's a f*%#ing psychopath out for revenge.
hmm, didn't realize Coogler was pitching a reboot. I think the obvious focus has to be on AI, which is IMO the gravest threat to humanity ever created. Aliens and other such traditional conspiracies are no longer believable.
I used to be worried about aliens or AI, but I still maintain people are the biggest danger to humanity. At this point, there's at least a chance that aliens or AI is benevolent.
Also conspiracies used to be fun. Now its just everything.
Here's the thing. I think Trump is a wannabe dictator. I think he is extremely dangerous, and I think he's willing to use his followers to go after people that threaten him. Instead of using the police or the military, I think Trump wants to use his loyal followers to do his dirty work because (and he's been right so far), he has deniability in his actions. If he ordered the military to attack the Capitol, then he's crossed the Rubicon. If he nudges his followers in a certain direction, he can defend himself.
I think the pick-up truck is obviously in extremely poor taste. I think it's extremely inappropriate for a presidential candidate to send that image out to the masses. But when you compare it to what Kathy Griffin did with the beheaded Trump, I think it's pretty bland. I think Trump is pretty evil, but I assume he didn't "tweet" it to his followers because he wants Biden dead or wants them to go after him. I think he thought it was funny and that's it. He's a child.
If they want to investigate the owner of the truck, that's fine. But since the imagery isn't nearly as violent as what Griffin did and since I don't think Trump was legitimately threatening Biden, I think this is something that we (meaning those that are anti-Trump) should drop.
I think the losses with Hispanics are real, and it's something that Biden is going to have to deal with seriously. The problem is that, from what I've read, Hispanic Americans don't identify with the immigrants crossing the border. Especially if they're second generation or more, they consider themselves Americans, and they treat the issue like most Americans do. I even read an interview with an illegal immigrant, and he was saying he identifies with Trump more than Biden.
So Biden can't win over Hispanics with a pro-immigrant position. I think it's going to need to be about the improving economy, infrastructure improvements that provide jobs, and stuff like that. Basically the same pitch he's making to the rest of the country.
I know Trump is campaigning off the trials, but why do these rich people even fight these cases if there's no chance they ever have to pay the fines? Why waste money on attorneys when you can just show up yourself, plead guilty, take whatever fine they give you, and never pay?
Yeah, but that sucks, right? I don't want him to have to pay less because it would be too administratively difficult or because it might help him politically or whatever. I want the dude to pay for what he's done - monetarily or electorally first, and I guess with jail time if that's possible. I want the Trump name to crash and burn once he's gone, and I want him to be a footnote in history.
I understand treating him fairly, but it also feels weak to follow the rules with someone with no regard for the rules.
Oh absolutely. That's what's so tragic. Donald Trump has people convinced that theres a two-tiered justice system. And there is. Just rich vs poor instead of red vs blue.
The justice system jumped out of its way to protect Donald Trump again today. It's outrageous how he continues to claim he's being persecuted when he's probably the most protected citizen in the world today. He just never faces any consequences for his actions.
Well here's the problem. In the current system, the 3rd party has no chance to win. People like to win or to celebrate being a part of a winner. They like when the guy they voted for wins. When you vote for a third party, you're essentially writing that part off, especially in a presidential election.
But then there's the other half of it - do the mainstream parties even care? In a perfect world, a third party candidate would be a viable alternative, especially in a year where a lot of people hate both of the main candidates. In an optimal world, the mainstream parties would move left or right to absorb the people that decided to vote for a third party candidate.
I just don't know if either of those things are happening. I don't know if the Democratic party adjusted to absorb people that voted for Jill Stein in 2016. And I certainly don't think the Democratic party will shift to absorb Democrats that vote for RFK Jr. So what is the point in voting third party if a) there's literally zero chance they could win and b) there might be literally no chance that your vote will force either major party to shift.
I don't know. Maybe it's pessimism with the system, but in the last three election cycles, the only candidate that wasn't openly hated by their own party is Joe Biden in 2020. And yet third parties in the country seem more irrelevant than ever. Of course, only about 100,000 votes in the entire election are going to really matter so it's probably much more hopeless than even I'm considering.
So the thing about third party is that a lot of people are willing to say they will vote for Kennedy/Stein/West/etc now, but people end up coming back to the two parties by the time it's time to vote. Just like people in Michigan were protest voting Biden, but afterward, people were saying "of course I'll vote for Biden." I think that comes down to the fact that people don't tend to want to throw their vote away. Unless you actively hate both Biden and Trump *and* you truly believe in the third party candidate, people are going to want to think that their vote matters. That means a vote for one of the two major parties.
Whether Kennedy will actually impact the race comes in the data too. Most polls force 3rd party voters to pick Biden or Trump, and usually the lead for Biden/Trump doesn't really change. So it seems like the people picking third party candidates are evenly split.
The question is whether they'll stay evenly split.
I've made this point since last year, Biden is a terrible candidate. The voters are not lost, they are largely undecided.
Yeah, I don't disagree. I'd feel better if there was someone younger and stronger-looking on the top of the ballot. But when they poll anyone vs Trump, Biden actually still polls the best. The only place it seems to be better for a non-Biden candidate is Whitmer when it's a Michigan-only poll. So I don't know. The polling says Biden is weak but it also says Biden is the best the Democrats have to offer.
Kennedy will be on more ballots, because many states have these dumb rules where if you align with a political party (often a fly by night), you don't need that many signatures.
Yeah, I'm still just not convinced that Kennedy hurts Biden more than he hurts Trump. I'm sure there are going to be people who pay zero attention to the race and then pick Kennedy on name recognition alone, but I just don't think if there's any understanding about who Kennedy is, he'd pull very many votes from Biden.
Even as a protest vote against both parties, he doesn't make sense for people who would otherwise be for Biden. Stein makes way more sense for Biden voters who have climate change as their only issue, or even Cornel West as an African American. Once you know what he stands for, he just pushes none of buttons that would otherwise attract a Biden voter.
I guess if the idea is that there's a DeSantis voter who hates Trump and would vote for Biden in a two horse race but chooses to vote for Kennedy otherwise....I guess that makes sense. But isn't that guy just as likely to vote for DeSantis or Jeb Bush or something like that?
First Trump HAS a lot of money, it's just not cash. Nobody has "cash" in that amount because it would be completely counterintuitive to do so. With low interest rates, maintained at that level for years by Trump, holding cash was not a good investment. He did lie of course about having it to the judge, because he's crippled with insecurity, and cannot tell the truth about his portfolio. Anyway, his assets are real estate, and you can't just roll that over into cash overnight. AG James will be going to the Judge for liens on various Trump assets. Ironically, some of them are actually not going to fetch the state of NY very much. Several are so heavily mortgaged, that Trump actually retains very little actual ownership.
But that's the thing. If he owns a bunch of things that are heavily mortgaged, he doesn't really own anything. It's a house of cards. Now here's where it gets tricky. I don't think there's any question that if Mar-A-Lago went sale, it would fetch a ton just for the Trump novelty of it. I think it'd be a bidding war between Trump billionaires and anti-Trump billionaires for the right to use the property for their own politics-based nonsense. I'm also in agreement that Trump's getting hit with this stuff because he's Trump.
But 1) Trump knows this and if he didn't want to get hit with this stuff, he didn't need to be such an *sshole and 2) he still broke the law. Millions of people speed every day, and only a few people get caught. It doesn't mean that tickets shouldn't be written or that speeding isn't a crime.
I don't like Trump, and I'm willing to admit that it'd be funny if he had to sell off meaningful things at bargain basement prices. Because he'll never get that stuff back, and his kids have less to run into the ground once their dad is dead.
Again, they know they will lose, it's all about delay.
The lawyers know they will lose. But does Trump? Like with the election being stolen, I'm no longer convinced that Trump actually understands what's going on. I think he's convinced himself (or been convinced by others) that the election was stolen. And I think he's convinced himself (or been convinced by others) that total immunity is a thing. And I think it's going to be interesting (not good) to see how he responds to it. If you take him at his word, he should 100% drop out if immunity isn't granted. He says you cannot operate as president and that no one would do it.
Now he's 100% not going to drop out but now there's a clear cognitive dissonance, right? Trump is going to be saying "I don't have full immunity, I'm not going to be able to operate as president" and "I still want to be president" instead of "I cannot do this job without immunity so I don't want the job anymore."
The problem is that he's in too deep. If he doesn't run for president, he won't be able to delay the trials against him forever. He needs to be president to get the federal charges dismissed against him and get the state stuff delayed/ignored until he's out of office. And when he gets in, I think he'll still maintain that he has total immunity. And there's no question he'll try and stay in office after 2028 so any "I'll get indicted once I leave office" wouldn't even happen.
Also, the fact that SCOTUS even took the case (and delayed it so long) doesn't take off the table the idea that they'll side with Trump and give him total immunity.
Poll-wise I continue to point at some horrible cross tabs for Biden, whereby he won Latino vote by 30 points in 2020, and now leads by just a few points. It's one of the numbers which keep me up at night.
538 did a podcast on this the other day (I just finished it yesterday). They say it's important to be careful not to do too much crosstab diving at this point in the race. It is still early, and there's evidence of a) protest voting against Biden from people who are going to come back around to him in November and b) collective amnesia about Trump and his presidency. For example, one of the few places Biden polls better than Trump is in temperament, but he's barely leading. The polling suggests people don't think temperament is as important as it was in 2020, but there's still no question that Biden's temperament is much more presidential than Trump's. I think people have just forgotten, and they'll be reminded once they start paying attention.
https://abcnews.go.com/538/video/worrie … -108258022
Anyway, the podcast goes into whether or not polling is bad and where the numbers are good for both Biden and Trump. What's crazy about polling is that Biden is losing all the swing states (Michigan recently was tied), but the democrats are winning senate races in all the states. So there are people who are voting democrat for senator but Trump for president. There will certainly be *some* people who do that, but I assume as the race gets more real, people are going to go back to their respective camps.
Unfortunately, RFK Jr. is likely to appear on a majority of November ballots, that could be the difference in pulling additional votes from Biden.
Regarding RFK, he's only on the ballot in a handful of states (but they are key states). When I was pulling the link for the podcast above, I found this:
https://abcnews.go.com/538/rfk-jr-party … =108346487
I know the Biden campaign is worried about RFK, but they're being aggressive about it. RFK has the Kennedy name, but he's not a true Kennedy. Polls that have Democrats voting for Kennedy show that Democrats don't agree with his policies. It's going to take a media blitz to get it done, but right now, RFK is getting Democrat votes based off his name. If Biden can tell Democrats who RFK really is, I really think he's going to struggle to get Democrat support. I mean maybe there are hardcore anti-vax Democrats who would otherwise vote for Biden, but I just can't imagine that's the case. DeSantis voters line up pretty hard with RFK voters so that's a much more logical fit.
But again, it's going to mean getting through to those people. Biden's going to have a ton of money to spend, though. He's crushing Trump in fundraising, and Trump actually pulled in less money last month than Nikki Haley.
Sliders.tv → Posts by Slider_Quinn21
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.