Jump to content

2024 US Election Megathread ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ›๏ธ


Recommended Posts

  • ATRL Moderator
Posted
2 minutes ago, CamCam said:

I mean, who else is she supposed to go after? Plank 2x4?ย :rip:

The (simple) point is she could have spent more time talking about the policy she wants to push for as presidentโ€ฆ

  • Like 2
  • Thumbs Down 1

  • Replies 79.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vermillion

    12278

  • GhostBox

    5758

  • ClashAndBurn

    3337

  • Communion

    3042

Posted
1 minute ago, ultraviolence.xx said:

but then someone actually competent might be able to replace him...?

ย 

or actually what would happen at this point? i have no idea

ย 

spacer.png

Vance might actually be a worse candidate than Trump so...wouldn't be opposed to that!

ย 

ThWqr9y.gif

  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, ultraviolence.xx said:

but then someone actually competent might be able to replace him...?

ย 

or actually what would happen at this point? i have no idea

ย 

spacer.png

JD Vance becoming the candidate Kamala-style would be so delicious.

ย 

I can hear the IJBOLs now.

ย 

spacer.png

  • Haha 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Bloo said:

Reminder: more Bernie supporters voted for Hillary than Hillary supporters that voted for Obama in 2008.

ย 

Regardless, this idea is insane. People being critical of the Democratic Party and challenging it to be better shouldn't be blithely ignored because "they're the fringe online left". Y'all wouldn't have Kamala; y'all wouldn't have Tim Walz if y'all actually did that.

The movement to boot Biden was broad and based heavily on the strong dissatisfaction with him at the top of the ticket across the democratic base. That dissatisfaction barely exists in the polling now - 88% enthusiasm, 85% satisfaction etc all up from sub 40 numbers with Biden. When I talk about the online left - I mean y'all, not every young person to ever tweet a coconut meme.

ย 

  • Like 4
  • Thumbs Down 4
Posted
5 minutes ago, Fleahive said:

Does anyone know if Kamala wants to ban TikTok?

She randomly lashed China during her speech so probably.

ย 

:suburban:

Posted
34 minutes ago, Mariah4life said:

If you think you're smarter than her team who strategically choreographed this speech you're dead wrong. If something is left out it is for a good reason

true, political strategists have never ever been wrong. discussion on her speechย over!

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 7
Posted
38 minutes ago, Kylizzle said:

Trump was calling a biological woman a man for a full weekย 

ThWqr9y.gifย 

Yeah but that was kinda like the 2022 midterm cycle, repubs were just openly unhinged about it, hurting their numbers, while democrats didn't really touch on it that much

  • ATRL Moderator
Posted
Just now, Harriser said:

The movement to boot Biden was broad and based heavily on the strong dissatisfaction with him at the top of the ticket across the democratic base. That dissatisfaction barely exists in the polling now - 88% enthusiasm, 85% satisfaction etc all up from sub 40 numbers with Biden. When I talk about the online left - I mean y'all, not every young person to ever tweet a coconut meme.

ย 

The first people to say Biden needed to be replaced were the online left that you are now chastising. We were calling for it months ahead of the debate. Many of yโ€™all that are now stanning Kamala were pushing back on us in this threadโ€”claiming it was too late to consider switching out the candidate.

ย 

Again, there are fringe elements of any movement. But to say people should just be blithely ignored is deeply unserious and unprincipled. There was a time when the majority of voters opposed Black people holding sit ins and believed it would โ€œharmโ€ the Negros plight for social equality. There are literal gallup polls from the 60s showing this. It is impossible to not think this type of rhetoric youโ€™re spouting now wouldnโ€™t have been tossed in the direction of the โ€œfringeโ€ civil rights activists of that time.

ย 

Challenge people on their ideas. When you start to simply push back on people just because theyโ€™re different from you and you feel theyโ€™re just too disruptive to engage with, then youโ€™re not making a good faith argument for anything substantive. Youโ€™re just deflecting criticism from your team, pompoms in hand. Iโ€™m happy to engage in actual debate, but youโ€™re clearly not interested in discussing issues.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 4
Posted
6 minutes ago, CamCam said:

I mean, who else is she supposed to go after? Plank 2x4?ย :rip:

Exactly. She spent alot of time talking about the issues she will be fighting for and also introduced herself to the viewers. It wasn't all about Trump. But she also had to contrast herself to him and what he stands for too.ย 


he's just a guy who only got a platform because he's somewhat rich and has muscles. That's it. ย 

  • Like 3
  • Thumbs Down 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, GhostBox said:

He's so ******* stupid ๐Ÿ’€ literally people only care about him because of his looksย 

ย 

Having too much Trump talk in her speech isn't really a critique I had, but we already know anti-Trump talk isn't as effective as policy talk and positive messages about her campaign so it's not really a baseless criticism.ย 

Posted
27 minutes ago, Bloo said:

The margin of error is just over 3 points. If you're within 3 points, you're statistically tied.

Minor nerdy technical point here (because I agree with you overall that Michigan is close), but being within the margin of error isn't quite the same thing as being statistically tied. Margins of error are bell curved, so the closer you get to the border of the margin of error, the less likely that scenario is. If +2 is your midpoint, the scenario where you're actually <0 is within the 95% confidence interval, but it's still significantly less likely than if 0 was your midpoint. So there's a meaningful difference between the two, they're not statistically equal.

  • Like 4
Posted
2 minutes ago, toxicgenie said:

:dies:

ย 

I've seen this video a hundred times and I still IJBOL every time :dies:. Literally HAVE to watch it every time it comes across my timelineย 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted (edited)

I was skeptical but I totally get why people believe Kamala was serving Obama in her speech. That was warmongering the likes of which hasn't been seen since.ย 

ย 

spacer.png

Edited by DAP
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 3
Posted
23 minutes ago, Bethenny Frankel said:

My degree is in politics I know what I'm talking about

:suburban:

ย 

ย 

  • Haha 11
Posted

You know ATRL-Doomers lost the plot when even Meghan McCain admits DNC killed it.

ย 

ย 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 7
  • Thumbs Down 1
Posted


ย 

I genuinely can't tell what his politics are anymore ๐Ÿ’€

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, DAP said:

I was skeptical but I totally get why people believe Kamala was serving Obama in her speech. That was warmongering the likes of which hasn't been seen since.ย 

ย 

spacer.png

i think that was in response to critics saying that russia, china, iran, etc... dont fear Biden and Harris.

Posted

Seems like the majority of people are praising the speech ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿผ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿผ

  • Like 5
Posted
2 minutes ago, toxicgenie said:

You know ATRL-Doomers lost the plot when even Meghan McCain admits DNC killed it.

ย 

ย 

or: you know the DNC has lost the plot when they're shifting their policies rightward hard enough to get someone like Meghan McCain on board.ย 

  • Like 8
Posted

You know ATRL-libs lost the plot when they start touting evenย Meghan McCainย as a reliable, totally in touch with the electorate, example of how the DNC slayed.

ย 

spacer.png

  • Like 1
  • Haha 8
Posted

๐ŸŽ‰๐ŸŽ‰

ย 

Posted
Just now, GhostBox said:

Seems like the majority of people are praising the speech ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿผ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿผ

she sounded presidential. she sounded reasonable. she sounded coherent. basically, she sounded like a normal human being. that should be enough for anyone still deciding between her and Trump like :rip:

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • ATRL Moderator
Posted
7 minutes ago, shelven said:

Minor nerdy technical point here (because I agree with you overall that Michigan is close), but being within the margin of error isn't quite the same thing as being statistically tied. Margins of error are bell curved, so the closer you get to the border of the margin of error, the less likely that scenario is. If +2 is your midpoint, the scenario where you're actually <0 is within the 95% confidence interval, but it's still significantly less likely than if 0 was your midpoint. So there's a meaningful difference between the two, they're not statistically equal.

I mean. Yes. Theyโ€™re not statistically equal, but thereโ€™s too much variability between polls to say any confidently about the nature of any polling sample. Itโ€™s too difficult to have a sound, reliable understanding of what that bell curve looks like for any given poll. Thatโ€™s why the +/-ย 3 points rule for a statistical tie is the simplest explanation to address the variability of polling data without having to go too much into the statistics.

  • Thanks 1
  • ATRL Moderator
Posted
5 minutes ago, toxicgenie said:

You know ATRL-Doomers lost the plot when even Meghan McCain admits DNC killed it.

ย 

ย 

Do you actually think John McCainโ€™s daughter not agreeing with us invalidates anything weโ€™re saying? If anything it confirms everything weโ€™re saying.ย :toofunny2:ย 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.