2024 Presidential Election Thread - Let's keep the party going.

[chainsaw 9,668]

1 minute ago, mdmost said:

Do you think the border has no issues? We absolutely have a smuggling issue at the border? That's not only people looking for a better life. Some of it is people who are in forced labor situations. Some of it is drugs making it into the country. Do you think Eagle Pass or El Paso are enjoying being way stations for migrants? We have to clean up the entire system and make it where people don't have to rely on coyotes to get them into the country. She is more likely to bring that than anyone else. She is going to push for more technology and agents at the border to make the system better. You can't stick your head in the sand about the situation to our south. It is a problem and it needs fixing. 

I only care about her winning the election. She's making a huge tactical mistake by trying to focus on the party's weakness.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,593]

Nate Silver's initial forecast gives Kamala a 43% chance of winning.

[DixonHur 10,863]

I thought the idea was to pick a running mate with extensive executive experience.  Shapiro has the least experience of the Top 3.  

IMO, Gov. Walz should be #1 on the draft board unless there are serious skeletons in his closet.

He's a former educator, very affable, extremely relatable, and totally a guy you'd want to have a beer with 

Beshear would be my 2nd choice, and Shapiro a distant 3rd.

[Dnaguy 11,599]

Just now, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Nate Silver's initial forecast gives Kamala a 43% chance of winning.

Not even 50-50?

Not the silver lining I was looking for.

[Brisketexan 103,665]

3 hours ago, Js1 said:

Reminder that Europeans do not have those prudish American thoughts for things such as nudity. So not sorry the French didn’t cater to American puritan ideals of shame and modesty 

For fucking real.  Even if what you saw was a ballsack (it wasn't, it was a rip in tights that showed some thigh), you do realize that pretty much all of the world that isn't subject to fucking Islamic Sharia law doesn't give a fuck?  Go to a public park in Germany on a sunny day.  Nekkid people laying about all over.  It's the human anatomy.  Get over it, you fucking uptight puritanical pantywaist.

2 hours ago, Enchubben said:

Oh certainly. See here son, pulling your balls out of your hot pants next to the bearded lady, this is art. Put it in the Louvre. 

The Louvre....is literally full of art showing balls.  If you walked through and counted the nads in view in the Louvre, I'm pretty sure the number would look a lot like VY's total offensive yards per game.

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

That's different - female nudity is okay; breasts are fine.  But male nudity?  TESTICLES????

The fragile heterosexual white man cannot handle such things.  Same people who lost their mind that Netflix's historical docudrama didn't shy away from Alexander the Great's male love interest.  As if the Greeks weren't gay as fuck.  

Republican white males are the most sensitive snowflakes the world has ever seen.  Don't ask me -- just listen to their constant whining and complaining about the slightest thing/shit that doesn't any actual impact on them.

1 hour ago, Enchubben said:

 

Perhaps I should be more specific. This is art.

This is art, yes even with the nudity.

Not art.

So....performance art isn't art.    Cool, cool.  

It may be art you don't CARE FOR (I have opinions about what art I like and what art I don't like), but the definition of art is pretty fucking broad.  See the post below.

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

Your parents thought rock and roll was satanic music. Telling others what art is will always be a losing proposition. 

"That isn't music!  It's just infernal noise!  Now, the sweet sounds of the Glen Miller Band, played while you were at a chaperoned dance where you met a lady you were thinking of courting, THAT'S music!"

Jesus.  These people belong in the Whiny Tittybaby Hall of Fame.

1 hour ago, immamac said:

Lmao wait what? How are we talking about the French hosted Paris Olympics having anything to do with anything in US politics? 

Grow the fuck up. 

They can't.  They are petulant toddlers.  They have to find something to have a fit about.  It's not what they do, it's who they are.

1 hour ago, Constant said:

Its quite literally the definition of art. 

FFS, this.

Watching the whiny tittybaby conservative pantywaists freak the fuck out because they think shit is about them....or because not ENOUGH shit is about them...is hysterical.  And yes....weird.  Wonder why a huge chunk of America is turned off by you and what you "believe in?"  It's because you are weird whiny assholes, and you are utterly unlikable and socially intolerable.  Go back into your hole.

[Loch Ness Monster 3,529]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

Lmao wait what? How are we talking about the French hosted Paris Olympics having anything to do with anything in US politics? 

Grow the fuck up. 

[Js1 83,914]

2 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

Not even 50-50?

Not the silver lining I was looking for.

Oh come on, it’s Nate Silver.  Reminder he now works for the election betting site owned by Thiel 

Edited July 31 by Js1

[mdmost 42,514]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I watched this whole fucking thing. The kicker for me is the last 30 seconds, he talks about his sister expressing her own regret and maybe she should have waited and had kid's later in life. And he goes on to bragg about how he told his sister how wrong she is to feel that way, becuase she's been a great mom. And he rails about the poeple who are "sending that message" to her, while completely discounting HIS SISTER WHO EXPRESSED REGRET.

He may as well have said "My sister doesn't have any opionions of her own, she's just an idiot who parrots what the media tells her. And her feelings are wrong." 

Great message. 

From the party of personal responsibility. It's not your fault for choosing the path you chose. It's the fault of "media" who tell you to wait on having kids. They're just fucking ghouls. But it's a great message to help Kamala get elected. 

[DixonHur 10,863]

1 minute ago, Loch Ness Monster said:

Maybe because it wasn't the last supper you troglodyte.

Johnson, not Loch Ness.

[Hank Kingsley 20,177]

9 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

What terrified me the most about Kamala's speech in Atlanta: she claimed to have walked with cops through illegal underground tunnels at the border

Her claim had better fucking be 100% true, or she will be crucified for exaggerating her record and more importantly the goldfish media's focus will shift away from "Project 2025" and "Weird" couchfuckers (the reason for Kamalamentum) and will shift toward "open borders" and "Lyin' Kamala" (which will kill her momentum and return us to our regularly scheduled fear mongering about "open borders")

Get it together, man. Good grief. 

 

 

 

['stache 21,598]

3 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Nate Silver's initial forecast gives Kamala a 43% chance of winning.

Yeah, no fucking way. I'm fully on the ledge with Brisket and even I know it's at least 50-50, which is still an abomination, but way more realistic than this bullshit.

[Chuckie Finster 22,387]

Any thoughts on this from the anti-Shapiro crowd?  (Genuine question, as I know I am probably biased on the topic.)

Quote

Anti-Israel partisans have every right to advocate against candidates who oppose their cause, and there’s nothing inherently anti-Semitic about doing so. But as its name implies, the “Genocide Josh” campaign is not about applying a single standard on Palestine to all VP contenders; it’s about applying them to one person, who just so happens to be the only Jew on the shortlist. And to make matters more absurd, Shapiro’s positions on Israel don’t come close to fitting the epithet.

“I personally believe Benjamin Netanyahu is one of the worst leaders of all time,” Shapiro told reporters in January, months before Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called for the Israeli leader to resign. At the time, Shapiro also pressed for an “immediate two-state solution,” something Netanyahu and his hard-right government stridently oppose. The anti-Shapiro campaign ignores these remarks but makes much of the governor’s comparison of campus Gaza protesters to “people dressed up in KKK outfits.” When he said that in an interview, however, Shapiro was distinguishing between bigoted extremists—such as the Columbia campus-protest leader who called for killing “Zionists”—and peaceful demonstrators, about whom the governor has said, “It’s right for young people to righteously protest and question.”

Now consider the other vice-presidential contenders. Arizona’s Senator Mark Kelly leads the Democratic-nominee prediction markets along with Shapiro. Like the Pennsylvania governor, Kelly also supported using police to break up campus encampments. “Everybody has the right to protest peacefully,” he said, “but when it turns into unlawful acts—we’ve seen this in a number of colleges and universities, including here in Arizona—it’s appropriate for the police to step in.” In the same interview, Kelly said that the Israelis “have to do a better job” reducing civilian casualties in Gaza, but drew on his military experience to explain the difficulty of that task, and emphasized that “Hamas, without question, is the biggest impediment to peace in the Middle East.” Last week, Kelly attended Netanyahu’s address to Congress and applauded.

Unlike Shapiro, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper didn’t simply enforce preexisting state laws against boycotts of Israel while in office—he signed one himself in 2017. This month, Cooper codified into state law a definition of anti-Semitism that has been adopted by many countries around the world, but that left-wing critics argue penalizes speech critical of Israel. Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota, flew state flags at half-mast after October 7 and did not respond to activists who called on the state to divest from Israel. Some were arrested after protesting outside his residence.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/07/josh-shapiro-netanyahu-jewish-vp/679300/

Spoiler

A politician designed in a lab to help Democrats win pivotal Rust Belt swing states would probably look a lot like Josh Shapiro. In 2016, when Donald Trump won Pennsylvania by less than 1 percent of the vote, Shapiro was elected attorney general by nearly 3 percent. In 2020, when Joe Biden won the state by one point, Shapiro won reelection by more than four points. And in 2022, the Democrat took the governorship by a whopping 15 percent.

Today, Shapiro’s favorability in Pennsylvania stands at a commanding 61 percent, far outstripping Kamala Harris’s 49 percent in the state. Leaks from the Republican camp suggest that party strategists see the governor as one of their most formidable potential adversaries in a presidential campaign. There’s just one problem.

“He’s Jewish,” CNN’s John King noted last week, so “there could be some risk in putting him on the ticket.” In fact, Shapiro might be the most visibly Jewish elected official in America: He keeps kosher, has weekly Shabbat dinner with his family, and even quotes Jewish scripture in his political speeches. The sole race he ever lost was for student-body president at his Jewish day school.

Events have borne out King’s concern. Today, Shapiro is the only veep contender subject to an organized campaign to capsize his prospective nomination. Put together by hard-left congressional staffers and members of Democratic Socialists of America, among others, the push is ostensibly about Shapiro’s support for Israel. “Tell Kamala and the Democrats now,” reads the site NoGenocideJosh.com, “say no to Genocide Josh Shapiro for Vice President.”

Anti-Israel partisans have every right to advocate against candidates who oppose their cause, and there’s nothing inherently anti-Semitic about doing so. But as its name implies, the “Genocide Josh” campaign is not about applying a single standard on Palestine to all VP contenders; it’s about applying them to one person, who just so happens to be the only Jew on the shortlist. And to make matters more absurd, Shapiro’s positions on Israel don’t come close to fitting the epithet.

“I personally believe Benjamin Netanyahu is one of the worst leaders of all time,” Shapiro told reporters in January, months before Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called for the Israeli leader to resign. At the time, Shapiro also pressed for an “immediate two-state solution,” something Netanyahu and his hard-right government stridently oppose. The anti-Shapiro campaign ignores these remarks but makes much of the governor’s comparison of campus Gaza protesters to “people dressed up in KKK outfits.” When he said that in an interview, however, Shapiro was distinguishing between bigoted extremists—such as the Columbia campus-protest leader who called for killing “Zionists”—and peaceful demonstrators, about whom the governor has said, “It’s right for young people to righteously protest and question.”

Now consider the other vice-presidential contenders. Arizona’s Senator Mark Kelly leads the Democratic-nominee prediction markets along with Shapiro. Like the Pennsylvania governor, Kelly also supported using police to break up campus encampments. “Everybody has the right to protest peacefully,” he said, “but when it turns into unlawful acts—we’ve seen this in a number of colleges and universities, including here in Arizona—it’s appropriate for the police to step in.” In the same interview, Kelly said that the Israelis “have to do a better job” reducing civilian casualties in Gaza, but drew on his military experience to explain the difficulty of that task, and emphasized that “Hamas, without question, is the biggest impediment to peace in the Middle East.” Last week, Kelly attended Netanyahu’s address to Congress and applauded.

Unlike Shapiro, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper didn’t simply enforce preexisting state laws against boycotts of Israel while in office—he signed one himself in 2017. This month, Cooper codified into state law a definition of anti-Semitism that has been adopted by many countries around the world, but that left-wing critics argue penalizes speech critical of Israel. Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota, flew state flags at half-mast after October 7 and did not respond to activists who called on the state to divest from Israel. Some were arrested after protesting outside his residence.

That all of these politicians support Israel should not come as a surprise. After all, Harris is searching for a moderate to help her win swing voters in states that are currently polling in the Trump column. Although some Democrats have grown more critical of Israel, Americans back the country by a two-to-one margin and oppose the recent campus protests, which means that any VP nominee considered by Harris would likely share such views.

And yet, activists have not organized in force to discredit any of the non-Jewish contenders for vice president on these grounds. There are no viral memes against “Killer Kelly” or “War-Crimes Walz.” Either the activists involved are extraordinarily lazy and never thought to investigate the other VP possibilities, or they think that Jews are uniquely untrustworthy. Seen in context, the “Genocide Josh” campaign and its tendentious reading of Shapiro’s record look less like a legitimate political critique than a rigged litmus test imposed on the Jewish lawmaker alone.

Sadly, this selective stigmatization isn’t new to progressive politics. In 2021, the Washington, D.C., branch of the climate-action group Sunrise Movement pulled out of a voting-rights rally because of the participation of three American Jewish groups. All three were known for their progressive domestic-policy advocacy and supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But the D.C. chapter of Sunrise nonetheless argued for their exclusion because the groups were “Zionist.”

The large majority of supporters of Israel and Zionism throughout history have been—like President Biden—not Jewish. Yet the Sunrise branch made no demands of the many non-Jewish groups at the rally; they effectively carded only Jews at the door. The organization later apologized and called the incident “an opportunity to grow.” That growth seems to have been stunted. Today, the national Sunrise Movement is supporting the “Genocide Josh” campaign, while it has remained mum on the Israel stances of all other VP contenders.

It has become hard to escape the conclusion that some of the activists imposing this inquisition have a problem not just with Israel or Zionism but with Jews, who they assume are serving a foreign power, no matter what they’ve actually said or done. Historically, this is nothing new. The white-nationalist right has long sought to stigmatize American Jews as subversive and exclude them from political life, arguing that Jews are loyal only to their own kind. In this case, however, some on the progressive left are the ones treating Jewish identity as inherently suspect and holding Jewish political actors to a different standard than their non-Jewish counterparts.

The irony of this whole affair is that Shapiro has actually been more outspoken against Israel’s leadership than Biden or Harris. Few Rust Belt governors would publicly rebuke the prime minister of a foreign country, let alone that of an ally like Israel. But Shapiro knows a thing or two about the subject, which is why he feels comfortable assailing both Netanyahu for thwarting peace and extremist campus protesters for engaging in anti-Semitism. The two positions are not contradictory except to binary thinkers who treat the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a partisan sport, and whose understanding of the issue derives from social-media slogans. Marooned in their moralism, the “Genocide Josh” brigade misses what makes Shapiro so interesting.

The truth is that whatever Shapiro’s views, a Jewish vice president would function in precisely the opposite manner from what these critics fear. Far from a sinister Semitic Svengali suborning the president to an Israeli agenda, a Jewish veep would be trotted out to defend Harris in her inevitable conflicts with Israel’s right-wing government, and to insulate the boss from charges of anti-Semitism. As one Republican Senate staffer put it to Jewish Insider last week, if Shapiro is picked, “forget about claiming we’re the only party standing against anti-Semitism.”

The perverse politics of Jewish identity are one reason I’ve never been enthusiastic about the prospect of a Jewish president or vice president. Anti-Semitism conceives of Jews as clandestine puppeteers who control the world’s governments and economies, fueling political and social problems. A Jewish vice president would provide the perfect canvas for these fevered fantasies—a largely ceremonial figure onto whom bigots could nonetheless project all of their conspiracies, casting him as the real power behind the Resolute Desk.

Harris would be foolish to discard any compelling VP option over their views on an intractable foreign-policy conflict thousands of miles away, while Americans stare down the prospect of another Trump presidency here at home. With the polls as tight as they are, and her campaign starting from behind, she is unlikely to choose her running mate based on unrepresentative online outrage rather than cold electoral calculus. If she picks a Jewish vice president, it will be for his impact on the Electoral College—not the Middle East.
 

 

[mdmost 42,514]

2 minutes ago, Loch Ness Monster said:

28 million people watched it here in the US. So the other possibly 172 million Christians in America never even saw it nor probably give two shits. 

[chainsaw 9,668]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

Get it together, man. Good grief.

I want her to win, dude. She's acting like she's ahead. She ain't.

[Js1 83,914]

5 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I only care about her winning the election. She's making a huge tactical mistake by trying to focus on the party's weakness.

Are you going to vote and get your progressive/leftists friends to vote or not? 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,730]

1 hour ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Make sure you keep your precious spawn away from all museums then. They might catch glimpses of some naughty things 

Seems like they've forgotten how Canada bombarded us with giant inflatable beavers in 2010.

[chainsaw 9,668]

Just now, Js1 said:

Are you going to vote and get your progressive/leftists friends to vote or not? 

This ain't about me or my friends. We all vote but we're nothing but a rounding error. I'm not a magician, so I can't change how statistics work. She has made good decisions, or the turnout will be too low to win the states she needs.

[SydneyCarton 47,521]

11 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Look, I was no fan of Beto O'Rourke's policies, but I did admire the energy and effort he brought to all 254 counties (something Colin Allred has abjectly failed to even attempt).

Say what you will about him, but Beto did overperform in Texas, and even more importantly he led a massive downballot blue wave statewide and many of those people are still in office.

On immigration, the name of the game is "do no harm" and "mitigate mitigate mitigate." Kamala can learn a lot from Beto 2018. His was the kind of messaging that is both a clear contrast from Trump's Hitlerian vision and avoids walking into the trap of the ridiculous "open border"/"free for all" narrative.

This is the issue Dems have no chance of winning, just like Republicans have no chance of winning on abortion.

What terrified me the most about Kamala's speech in Atlanta: she claimed to have walked with cops through illegal underground tunnels at the border

Her claim had better fucking be 100% true, or she will be crucified for exaggerating her record and more importantly the goldfish media's focus will shift away from "Project 2025" and "Weird" couchfuckers (the reason for Kamalamentum) and will shift toward "open borders" and "Lyin' Kamala" (which will kill her momentum and return us to our regularly scheduled fear mongering about "open borders")

Just so we're clear, you're terrified about Kamala talking about the border becuase you're concerned she's flat out lying about an experience she had walking border tunnels? It sounds like your conerrn should just be that she's flat out fucking lying in campaign speeches about things that would be easily provable. Which is an entirely different issue, and would be a massive issure regardless of it being about the border...it will be a a problem of it's own in general. And none of it will stop the other side from attempting to paint her as a lier.

In summation, your concern is she's a liar, which at this point hasn't been proven in any way. Do you have any other random stuff that terrifies you? Perhaps that she also drink's children's blood from the adrenochrome? Maybe it turns out she's a flat-earther, or she subscribes to Pimphand's youtube channel? 

 

[DixonHur 10,863]

6 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I only care about her winning the election. She's making a huge tactical mistake by trying to focus on the party's weakness.

I disagree.  I say you face it head on and turn it into a positive by beating the electorate over the head with the fact that the Dems repeatedly but forth bills ( often bipartisan) to address the border but they were killed by the GOP on Trump's orders.

They literally have Trump on tape bragging about it.

[royiv 9,045]

2 hours ago, Enchubben said:

 

Perhaps I should be more specific. This is art.

This is art, yes even with the nudity.

Not art.

Start a new thread. Your weird obsession has nothing to do with the presidential election.

[chainsaw 9,668]

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

Just so we're clear, you're terrified about Kamala talking about the border becuase you're concerned she's flat out lying about an experience she had walking border tunnels? It sounds like your conerrn should just be that she's flat out fucking lying in campaign speeches about things that would be easily provable. Which is an entirely different issue, and would be a massive issure regardless of it being about the border...it will be a a problem of it's own in general. And none of it will stop the other side from attempting to paint her as a lier.

In summation, your concern is she's a liar, which at this point hasn't been proven in any way. Do you have any other random stuff that terrifies you? Perhaps that she also drink's children's blood from the adrenochrome? Maybe it turns out she's a flat-earther, or she subscribes to Pimphand's youtube channel? 

 

Kamala's claim is the equivalent of Donald Trump saying that he's actually good on abortion because ten years ago he accompanied a young woman to a Planned Parenthood in Mississippi. Even if he were telling the truth, it wouldn't make him the better candidate if you're a single-issue pro-choice voter.

[Chuckie Finster 22,387]

2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

This ain't about me or my friends. We all vote but we're nothing but a rounding error. I'm not a magician, so I can't change how statistics work. She has made good decisions, or the turnout will be too low to win the states she needs.

[Brisketexan 103,665]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Are you going to vote and get your progressive/leftists friends to vote or not? 

He won't.  They won't.  They are insane extremist purity-testers.  Just like the actual fringe on the right that doesn't like Trump because he's not extreme-right enough.  They are coalition blackmailers, pure and simple.  Bending to them is a losing and wasteful strategy.  So don't waste time with it.

[Pescado_Rojo 19,268]

6 minutes ago, mdmost said:

28 million people watched it here in the US. So the other possibly 172 million Christians in America never even saw it nor probably give two shits. 

No, at least 50% of the 172M didn't watch but are rage posting about it on social media. 

[Chopper 16,749]

Nate Silver's a complete fucking idiot and should be ignored and shunned. He got lucky one time on a prediction and doesn't even own 538 anymore because he was too stupid to read a contract - yet he keeps 538 in his twitter handle.

Polls within +/- 3 are basically 50/50 on election day. Polls taken more than 30 days before election day are unreliable as to election results. 

Edited July 31 by Chopper

[Js1 83,914]

4 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

This ain't about me or my friends. We all vote but we're nothing but a rounding error. I'm not a magician, so I can't change how statistics work. She has made good decisions, or the turnout will be too low to win the states she needs.

It sounds like you’re doing the GOP’s work to make sure turnout is low. This is basically Kamala the Cop all over again. 

[chainsaw 9,668]

1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

The question is not how they'll vote but if they'll vote. I'm not sure any pollster knows how to project turnout as a function of the candidates and platforms. But if the Uncommitted movement in Michigan is any indication, and if you pay attention to what young voters are saying, the Israel issue has the potential to depress turnout.

[Chuckie Finster 22,387]

Just now, Chopper said:

Nate Silver's a complete fucking idiot and should be ignored and shunned. He got lucky one time on a prediction and doesn't even own 538 anymore because he was too stupid to read a contract. 

Polls within +/- 3 are basically 50/50 on election day. Polls taken more than 30 days before election day are unreliable as to election results. 

This is all true, but this new forecast is notable because it is a significant improvement in Democratic odds from his previous model runs.  The momentum here is clear and undeniable.

[wildcat09 28,569]

8 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I thought the idea was to pick a running mate with extensive executive experience.  Shapiro has the least experience of the Top 3.  

IMO, Gov. Walz should be #1 on the draft board unless there are serious skeletons in his closet.

He's a former educator, very affable, extremely relatable, and totally a guy you'd want to have a beer with 

Beshear would be my 2nd choice, and Shapiro a distant 3rd.

Beshear and Walz are 1a and 1b for me right now, with Shapiro well behind (though I'd still be fine with him, personally).  I don't know this with any confidence, but I feel like Beshear can probably appeal to suburban/exurban and rural voters a little better than Walz can (tough I think Walz will be great at it, as far as Democrats can be). He's younger and that family photo could not possibly be more appealing to undecided voters who are somewhat racist but don't want to think of themselves as racist. Part of this is that I also think Beshear would also make a very strong future Presidential candidate, but he's term limited where he's at and running for Senate would be a step sideways at best. Walz seems like he rules, but he doesn't have the same political potential that Beshear has. But what the fuck do I know, I'd be extremely happy with either of them as the VP pick. 

[Dahobbs 17,262]

10 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

What terrified me the most about Kamala's speech in Atlanta: she claimed to have walked with cops through illegal underground tunnels at the border

Her claim had better fucking be 100% true, or she will be crucified for exaggerating her record and more importantly the goldfish media's focus will shift away from "Project 2025" and "Weird" couchfuckers (the reason for Kamalamentum) and will shift toward "open borders" and "Lyin' Kamala" (which will kill her momentum and return us to our regularly scheduled fear mongering about "open borders")

Do you really think that such tunnels don't exist? Do you really think there are no problems at the border? 

Look, illegal immigrants, the people, aren't a problem. But illegal immigration is a problem. It creates dangerous conditions, both for those migrating and for those that are here and unable to access our full justice and social services system. Fixing the border so that illegal immigration is disincentivized and so that legal immigration is incentivized and making the process easier and quicker will help everyone. That is the reform we need. And yes, part of that reform includes staffing up border agents.

You can continue to pretend there is no problem at all and that democrats should act as if no problem exists. Factually, you'd be incorrect. And from an election standpoint, that is a losing strategy.    

[Chuckie Finster 22,387]

2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

The question is not how they'll vote but if they'll vote. I'm not sure any pollster knows how to project turnout as a function of the candidates and platforms. But if the Uncommitted movement in Michigan is any indication, and if you pay attention to what young voters are saying, the Israel issue has the potential to depress turnout.

What the fuck does Israel have to do with this immigration discussion?  The "goal post moving" accusations appear to be correct.  

Regarding immigration: swing states have a conservative view on it.  Period.  I'm sorry if that makes your group chat sad, but it's the reality.  Catering to the far left on the ONE policy issue that Republicans might have footing to attack Kamala on is a death sentence being requested by the politically stupidest people in the country.

Edited July 31 by Chuckie Finster

[Js1 83,914]

If Vance is straight out of GOP central casting, Beshear is basically straight out of Americana central casting. 

[SydneyCarton 47,521]

4 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

This ain't about me or my friends. We all vote but we're nothing but a rounding error. I'm not a magician, so I can't change how statistics work. She has made good decisions, or the turnout will be too low to win the states she needs.

If you can concede that you and your friend's views are a rounding error, maybe you should reflect on the fact that you're not the best person to insist they know what the real winning issues to speak about are for the wider coalition? Becuase most people here so far think she's making good decisions. The rounding errors are the squeaky wheel disagreing. 

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

Kamala's claim is the equivalent of Donald Trump saying that he's actually good on abortion because ten years ago he accompanied a young woman to a Planned Parenthood in Mississippi. Even if he were telling the truth, it wouldn't make him the better candidate if you're a single-issue pro-choice voter.

Wait, so now it's NOT about the truth of her statement? Here's your problem, you're fundamentally having the mindset of single issue voters. The reality is, most people are NOT single issue voters. People want mulitiple issues addressed, or at least discussed. She can't ignore talking about things that people want to hear about for frear of losing some rounding errors, or even larger percentages. You can't pander to single issue voters. 

Some segment of Americans, more than a rounding area, are thirsty for leadership. And if there's no water available, they'll drink the sand. Harris is providing Leadership. 

[chainsaw 9,668]

Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

What the fuck does Israel have to do with this immigration discussion?  The "goal post moving" accusations appear to be correct.  

I thought you wanted to discuss Shapiro and the other issues listed on the poll you posted. Even on immigration, though, I don't think Kamala wins any voters by trying the same thing that didn't work for Joe Biden.

[Chopper 16,749]

2 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

This is all true, but this new forecast is notable because it is a significant improvement in Democratic odds from his previous model runs.  The momentum here is clear and undeniable.

I didn't discuss trends and was careful not to do so. 

That's bullshit and should be ignored.

[chainsaw 9,668]

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

Wait, so now it's NOT about the truth of her statement?

It's about both the truth of the statement and the subject matter. If she's lying, that simply aggravates the problem.

She shouldn't ignore immigration, but making it the first issue in her speech and trying the same strategy that failed for Biden is a mistake. Instead of that mistake, she should have done what Beto did in 2018. You will still lose Texas but you'd overperform nationwide and in the swing states.

[SydneyCarton 47,521]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

He won't.  They won't.  They are insane extremist purity-testers.  Just like the actual fringe on the right that doesn't like Trump because he's not extreme-right enough.  They are coalition blackmailers, pure and simple.  Bending to them is a losing and wasteful strategy.  So don't waste time with it.

 

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

It sounds like you’re doing the GOP’s work to make sure turnout is low. This is basically Kamala the Cop all over again. 

Guys, I'm shocked he found a way to bring Israel back up as THE wedge issue in Michigan. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,001]

20 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Do you think the border has no issues? We absolutely have a smuggling issue at the border? That's not only people looking for a better life. Some of it is people who are in forced labor situations. Some of it is drugs making it into the country. Do you think Eagle Pass or El Paso are enjoying being way stations for migrants? We have to clean up the entire system and make it where people don't have to rely on coyotes to get them into the country. She is more likely to bring that than anyone else. She is going to push for more technology and agents at the border to make the system better. You can't stick your head in the sand about the situation to our south. It is a problem and it needs fixing. 

"No issues" does not equal full-blown shit your pants when you live thousands of miles away crisis.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,593]

12 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Yeah, no fucking way. I'm fully on the ledge with Brisket and even I know it's at least 50-50, which is still an abomination, but way more realistic than this bullshit.

I feel the same, but I think the Silver stuff is nice push back to remind us that we are in the middle of a hype train right now.  We have a bit of an over inflated sense of things.

[Chuckie Finster 22,387]

2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I thought you wanted to discuss Shapiro and the other issues listed on the poll you posted. Even on immigration, though, I don't think Kamala wins any voters by trying the same thing that didn't work for Joe Biden.

Admittedly, I am all over the place this morning.

Re: immigration - "the same thing that didn't work for Joe Biden" = winning the Rust Belt?

Re: Shapiro - as the article I posted asks: why is Shapiro the only target of said Uncommitted movement?

[mdmost 42,514]

3 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

"No issues" does not equal full-blown shit your pants when you live thousands of miles away crisis.

Brother, people have been shitting their pants about things that don't affect them directly for centuries. It is absolutely an issue that mainstream Americans care about and one she is going to get absolutely hammered on. So yes, people who have fears about it, valid or not, want to know her position on it. 

Edited July 31 by mdmost

[Aqua Buddha 14,280]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Beshear and Walz are 1a and 1b for me right now, with Shapiro well behind (though I'd still be fine with him, personally).  I don't know this with any confidence, but I feel like Beshear can probably appeal to suburban/exurban and rural voters a little better than Walz can (tough I think Walz will be great at it, as far as Democrats can be). He's younger and that family photo could not possibly be more appealing to undecided voters who are somewhat racist but don't want to think of themselves as racist. Part of this is that I also think Beshear would also make a very strong future Presidential candidate, but he's term limited where he's at and running for Senate would be a step sideways at best. Walz seems like he rules, but he doesn't have the same political potential that Beshear has. But what the fuck do I know, I'd be extremely happy with either of them as the VP pick. 

That is 100% where I'm at regarding Beshear.  With the racial (not racist but racial) horse trading we have going on here, Beshear appeals directly the white suburban voters (women) and one reason is because he's good looking and has a good looking family.  (Let's be honest, looks matter here.  Harris is good looking and telegenic, too.)  These passive white voters will start paying attention in September and October and they'll see this:

[wildcat09 28,569]

My two cents re the immigration talk: I agree with chainsaw in that I liked Beto's messaging better and the Dems behavior toward the border under Biden has been Dumb Politics by giving in to GOP framing on the issue. But I just don't really have a problem with Kamala picking up the "Trump is the one who fucked up immigration reform" message at this point. The sad fact is that even many Democratic voters are pretty low-key racist when it comes to immigration (because Dems have fucked the messaging on this so badly for so long).  We've only got 100 days and we're not changing anyone's minds in that period. Saying "hey we had a solution and Trump fucked it up" and redirecting to other issues we're better on is the right politics right now. If we get a trifecta any immigration bill isn't going to be nearly as bad as what was agreed upon because Republicans won't have the leverage they had this year and it's known now that they don't believe in their own proposed solutions. 

[chainsaw 9,668]

1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

"the same thing that didn't work for Joe Biden"

the "tough border bill" idea

[SydneyCarton 47,521]

Just now, chainsaw said:

It's about both the truth of the statement and the subject matter. If she's lying, that simply aggravates the problem.

She shouldn't ignore immigration, but making it the first issue in her speech and trying the same strategy that failed for Biden is a mistake. Instead of that mistake, she should have done what Beto did in 2018. You will still lose Texas but you'd overperform nationwide and in the swing states.

It blows my fucking mind that you're just assuming she's lying about something easily provable in a campaign speach. That this is your default. Outside of the fact that this is such a specific, weird concern to conjure up out of thing air, you are absolutely demonstrating that incapable of arguing in good faith about her policy. 

She spoke for an hour and you're worried about what she led with. Listen, I'm not sure what your background is, but there are a LOT of books and classes given on how to perform for a crowd, and you start slow and build up to a crescendo so everyone is losing their shit and leaves the event amazed and overwhelmed by what they experinced. There's litearlly a science to it. So if she led with that, I'd argue that's great. Becuase she probably finished with Women's Rights. 

Biden won a presidency. Beto lost a Senate race. What failed for Biden was because people couldn't get over the fact they were watching a man in mental decline before their very eyes. That isn't Harris. 

[Chuckie Finster 22,387]

2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

the "tough border bill" idea

[SydneyCarton 47,521]

2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

the "tough border bill" idea

YOu mean the bill that was so good Donald Trump scuttled it? That sounds like a good fucking bill to me. 

[27-25 2,030]

23 minutes ago, Loch Ness Monster said:

I've been told by an authoritative (or is that authoritarian?) source Christians don't vote.  So who cares?

[Chopper 16,749]

This photo is from 2011 when she was CA AG

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think they also showed her the tunnels, and from there it's an easy leap to conclude that fences/walls aren't failsafe. If you're pissing your pants because you think she may have made up a trip to the border, I'm thinking you're better off posting on 4chan or somewhere. 

[The Dog 43,494]

3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

the "tough border bill" idea

it's not about being "tough on the border" you fucking twit.

It's about calling out Trump and the GOP for not being serious about solving their biggest issue. They had a deal to address it and TRUMP KILLED IT BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WOULD HURT HIM POLITICALLY.

She's pointing out that Trump and the GOP only exist to bitch and complain and not actually solve problems. It's powerful and effective for swing voters who are the ones who will decide this election.