Vermillion Posted August 3 Posted August 3 Just now, Sannie said: Never thought I'd say this... but LISTEN TO KARL ROVE, KAMALA. Karl's a monstrous individual but he knew exactly what he was doing at his prime. And he knows this negative partisanship election is more about the base turn-out for our party's demographics than chipping at the margins. It was a slip and a tell, this comment.
Communion Posted August 3 Posted August 3 10 minutes ago, Sannie said: What's insane to me is that a lot of these big-name, "respected" polling accounts are backing Shapiro because they believe he will bring home PA. I understand the math game and the "we must win at all costs" narrative, but why do these seemingly reliable people seem to be ignoring the controversy Shapiro will bring? Because most of these big poll-watching accounts are just ideologically-driven centrists. 2 2
Sannie Posted August 3 Posted August 3 3 minutes ago, Communion said: Because most of these big poll-watching accounts are just ideologically-driven centrists. Yeah, that makes sense. I guess I don't follow them enough to fully know what their real views are, but they do come off as liberal at first glance.
Ms. Togekiss Posted August 3 Posted August 3 1 hour ago, Thickorita said: This better be a kiss of death 2 3
Sannie Posted August 3 Posted August 3 1 hour ago, Thickorita said: We are all focused on this but the other tweets say how much Biden liked and enjoyed being around Walz! Let's focus on that instead. 2
NausAllien Posted August 3 Posted August 3 14 minutes ago, Sannie said: TBH, I think there's an argument to be made that many of those uncommitted were protest votes by people who wanted their voices heard and not necessarily people who were going to vote in the general election anyways. What's insane to me is that a lot of these big-name, "respected" polling accounts are backing Shapiro because they believe he will bring home PA. I understand the math game and the "we must win at all costs" narrative, but why do these seemingly reliable people seem to be ignoring the controversy Shapiro will bring? "In fact there was a large-scale survey on Arab-American voters posted here by a user that escapes me atm saying the bulk were going to Stein." I think you're referring to what I posted, because it was decent for Kamala, but turned out that "pollster" isn't reliable. This is the only thing I can think of, that it's all about numbers... but how do numbers matter if there's a massive controversy involved? How do you keep the unions' support if they don't like your pick? How do you keep the teachers' support if they don't like your pick? How do you keep the sexual assault advocates' support if they don't like your pick? There are so many groups of people he would put off. I've done the math. It's almost impossible for Kamala to win WITHOUT Pennsylvania. She'll have to flip North Carolina, which is very, VERY unlikely. Biden was not able to flip in 2020, even though he won the popular vote by 5%, so there's no way in this very tight race she'll be able to flip it. She also needs GA, NV and Arizona. If she loses one of them, she's done. Trump can win without PA. He needs the Sun Belt + Wisconsin/Michigan OR the Sun Belt + 1 additional elector (from Nebraska o Maine) to trigger a 269-269 tie. So I guess Kamala wants to lock in Pennsylvania, even if it means losing GA and other states where she could have been competitive. She does need all three BLUE WALL states to win though. If she loses one of them, she's done.
Sannie Posted August 3 Posted August 3 (edited) 13 minutes ago, NausAllien said: I've done the math. It's almost impossible for Kamala to win WITHOUT Pennsylvania. She'll have to flip North Carolina, which is very, VERY unlikely. Biden was not able to flip in 2020, even though he won the popular vote by 5%, so there's no way in this very tight race she'll be able to flip it. She also needs GA, NV and Arizona. If she loses one of them, she's done. Trump can win without PA. He needs the Sun Belt + Wisconsin/Michigan OR the Sun Belt + 1 additional elector (from Nebraska o Maine) to trigger a 269-269 tie. So I guess Kamala wants to lock in Pennsylvania, even if it means losing GA and other states where she could have been competitive. She does need all three BLUE WALL states to win though. If she loses one of them, she's done. Yeah, we're aware of the math. That's why so many "blue no matter who" people are okay with Josh since it'll mean winning PA. Others are wanting to go the morality route, but the question is, does morality win the White House? And a bigger question is, is it moral to ditch Josh and then lose the White House which then leads to a lot of people in the country being hurt? It's like, the lesser of two evils on top of the lesser of two evils. All that said, this only applies if you don't think she can win PA with someone like Walz or Beshear. If you think she can win PA or enough other states without Josh then above doesn't matter. Edited August 3 by Sannie 3
Rotunda Posted August 3 Posted August 3 5 minutes ago, NausAllien said: So I guess Kamala wants to lock in Pennsylvania, even if it means losing GA and other states where she could have been competitive. She does need all three BLUE WALL states to win though. If she loses one of them, she's done. Honestly I think Georgia may be the swing state that would care the least about her VP pick. Georgia Democrats are kinda the definition of vibes-based. They look progressive on paper and benefit from focusing on popular civil rights issues and positions, but nobody really presses them on anything. Hell our Senate representation is essentially the Harris/Shapiro ticket: A black person who postures as progressive and a Jewish man who wants to sound like Obama.
shelven Posted August 3 Posted August 3 The overarching issue with Shapiro being a major contender is the #1 goal of a VP pick shouldn't be to find some transformative candidate who's going to radically shift the race in your favour in one state because... that almost never actually happens The goal, especially if you're the candidate with positive momentum on your side, should be to do no harm. People remember damaging VPs (Palin, likely Vance at this point) way more than they remember hugely helpful VPs. 5 4
Sannie Posted August 3 Posted August 3 This is so . All reputable pollsters weigh their samplings to make up for any bias so the Dem oversampling doesn't matter. Even the Republican pollsters show a surge for Kamala. 4
Rotunda Posted August 3 Posted August 3 2 minutes ago, Sannie said: All that said, this only applies if you don't think she can win PA with someone like Walz or Beshear. If you think she can win PA or enough other states without Josh then above doesn't matter. One drawback of the condensed timeline is that they probably don't have the best picture of where Kamala currently stands in these states on her own, so they aren't sure how much of an assist they'll need in these states once the allure wears off. 1
Vermillion Posted August 3 Posted August 3 2 minutes ago, Sannie said: All that said, this only applies if you don't think she can win PA with someone like Walz or Beshear, if you do then it all makes sense. This makes the most sense according to their logic, which again, I don't buy. If we're going by the theory that the uncommitted weren't going to vote anyways then who's going to make up the difference? Certainly not young black voters in Detroit - the assumption they'd move in lockstep with a black candidate as a monolith Dems have done to Latinos at their peril in recent years.
justin. Posted August 3 Posted August 3 I'm so glad we'll have our answer at some point in the next 72 hours. I can't take this stress
Sannie Posted August 3 Posted August 3 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Rotunda said: One drawback of the condensed timeline is that they probably don't have the best picture of where Kamala currently stands in these states on her own, so they aren't sure how much of an assist they'll need in these states once the allure wears off. So true. Should they play it ultra safe but risk pissing people off, many of whom will bite their tongue and still vote and many may not vote, or do they listen to people online and pick someone who may not necessarily help in the long run. 4 minutes ago, Vermillion said: This makes the most sense according to their logic, which again, I don't buy. If we're going by the theory that the uncommitted weren't going to vote anyways then who's going to make up the difference? Certainly not young black voters in Detroit - the assumption they'd move in lockstep with a black candidate as a monolith Dems have done to Latinos at their peril in recent years. I guess the logic is uncommitted don't vote so they weren't the ones who helped Biden win so it's not like they will help or hurt Kamala. And truly, will the uncommitted suddenly forgive Biden/Harris for Palestine if she chooses Walz? I don't think so... I just don't see the logic in thinking her VP pick will help her with uncommitted since nothing fundamentally has changed with why they voted uncommitted. Who makes up the difference are the people of PA who will undoubtedly ensure Kamala wins with Shapiro on the ballot. I ******* hate this lol. I started out wanting Shapiro for the exact same reasons of "he'll win PA" but then I'm like, "why bust up the momentum with this pick" and now I'm like, "I just want to win". Too much stress. Edited August 3 by Sannie 1
Rotunda Posted August 3 Posted August 3 Do we have data on how many of the uncommitted voted Biden in 2020?
Vermillion Posted August 3 Posted August 3 8 minutes ago, Rotunda said: Do we have data on how many of the uncommitted voted Biden in 2020? Amazing question and datapoint. Problem is, if it does exist I doubt it's public. I don't have the energy to look. 1
Rotunda Posted August 3 Posted August 3 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Sannie said: I guess the logic is uncommitted don't vote so they weren't the ones who helped Biden win so it's not like they will help or hurt Kamala. And truly, will the uncommitted suddenly forgive Biden/Harris for Palestine if she chooses Walz? I don't think so... I just don't see the logic in thinking her VP pick will help her with uncommitted since nothing fundamentally has changed with why they voted uncommitted. Who makes up the difference are the people of PA who will undoubtedly ensure Kamala wins with Shapiro on the ballot. Yeah I think 1. If the Dems strategy on Palestine isn't going to fundamentally change, a good chunk people who are uncommitted aren't going to vote Kamala based on whether it's Shapiro or Walz on the ticket. Shapiro may be a faster signal that the protest voters aren't being courted, but even if Dems pick Beshear/Walz, that's just the first bar the Dems will need to pass. I think Harris will need some additional concessions, because as we've already seen from some users, changed rhetoric alone isn't necessarily going to convince people, and while some may find it good enough, others are going to keep pressing her til November. 2. Dems are likely banking on Trump making more unhinged comments about Israel-Palestine like he did today, and that Pro-Palestine voters will eventually make the pragmatic choice to vote for the Dems over someone who is clearly signalling they don't care what Israel does. 3. Maybe Dems are planning on picking Shapiro and also planning to announce some position-shifts between now and November to court the endorsement of Rashida and others in that camp? This feels the most unlikely. Edited August 3 by Rotunda 1 1
Communion Posted August 3 Posted August 3 People were quick to mock or discredit this survey. And while a SMS survey of 4k Arab Americans voters across the country isn't a super great response, people seemingly didn't realize the shortcoming of the poll is largely in the opposite direction. That the poll was largely of ADC members, who are already going to be disproportionately sympathetic to Democrats. So any actual result of general Arab Americans is going to be poorer for Harris and better for Trump. Biden was at 18% amongst Arab Americans across MI + PA + FL + VA in a poll by the Arab American Institute (Zogsby so credible) back in May: 1
Bears01 Posted August 3 Posted August 3 I've basically given up on my (wet) dream of Beshear being the VP, it just doesn't look like it's gonna happen. Im kinda (sadly) resigned to it being Shapiro, but I see there's a real strong push from Power players for Walz, so he could be a strong dark horse. Nothing would unite the party better than Walz, he is by far the biggest olive branch one could extend to progressives since….i don't even know when. The party would be full on UNITED with real policy achievements to gloat about with Walz that would carry STRONG into November. 10
GraceRandolph Posted August 3 Posted August 3 3 hours ago, Communion said: Oh god MAGA have found out about the murder coverup? Me only now looking into it and seeing she had *20* stab wounds? They're already invoking 'Killary' in the replies jnknjn Oh this story was big in the true crime community. Well, it's not too late to call up Marianne or Bernie if they want a Jewish VP. 1
Into The Void Posted August 3 Posted August 3 11 hours ago, Virgos Groove said: (This graph is for all Israelis, not just Jews.) Pew Research De-Zionistification is DESPERATELY needed. Oh wow
19SLAYty9 Posted August 3 Posted August 3 There's no way it's Shapiro. My guess is Nancy will get her choice 5
HausOfPunk Posted August 3 Posted August 3 Kamala is never beating the MOTHER allegations. #MadamePresident #Kamala2024 #Kamala2028 #I'mWithHer #WomansWorld 1 1 1
Sannie Posted August 3 Posted August 3 1 hour ago, Rotunda said: Yeah I think 1. If the Dems strategy on Palestine isn't going to fundamentally change, a good chunk people who are uncommitted aren't going to vote Kamala based on whether it's Shapiro or Walz on the ticket. Shapiro may be a faster signal that the protest voters aren't being courted, but even if Dems pick Beshear/Walz, that's just the first bar the Dems will need to pass. I think Harris will need some additional concessions, because as we've already seen from some users, changed rhetoric alone isn't necessarily going to convince people, and while some may find it good enough, others are going to keep pressing her til November. 2. Dems are likely banking on Trump making more unhinged comments about Israel-Palestine like he did today, and that Pro-Palestine voters will eventually make the pragmatic choice to vote for the Dems over someone who is clearly signalling they don't care what Israel does. 3. Maybe Dems are planning on picking Shapiro and also planning to announce some position-shifts between now and November to court the endorsement of Rashida and others in that camp? This feels the most unlikely. I was thinking about point number three here. The only way they could pick Shapiro is if they then go to the unions and the teachers and all of these different advocacy groups that have come out against Shapiro and make promises that will make them feel more comfortable with that pick. The only way you don't slap those groups in the face. It doesn't make sense any other way. But really, how embarrassing is that? You have to pick someone for vice president and then immediately go and apologize to everyone for it. So strange. 5
Recommended Posts