Rotunda Posted September 4 Posted September 4 7 hours ago, Relampago. said: There also hasn't been much quality polling period. 2
Sannie Posted September 4 Posted September 4 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Harriser said: Kamalas numbers are worse than his because he is a new VP pick with absolutely no previous national profile. It's basic politics - New VPs have good numbers, which is why JD Vance is so unusual. Maybe a little bit in there about how he is a better communicator than her. That he is more progressive than she is (an idea I find questionable given their respective congressional records) has nothing to do with it. But anything to push the narrative that Kamala is a right winger so you should vote for ms grifter in chief Jill Stein You lost them here. 24 minutes ago, Harriser said: The Trump assassination attempt being in Pennsylvania definitely could have cost Democrats this election. The polling consistently has Michigan and Wiscinson more favourable to Kamala than PA in a way I don't recall from the 2020 election. Very worrying, will the trend of them voting together hold up Yes, it will. IMO. 14 minutes ago, tiejc said: "These numbers spell doom for the Harris campaign." - Nate Silver Edited September 4 by Sannie
justin. Posted September 4 Posted September 4 Even if Kamala wins, life is going to be hell until at least January because of the Trumpers. I'm already exhausted either way. 1
Communion Posted September 4 Posted September 4 (edited) 1 hour ago, Harriser said: Kamalas numbers are worse than his because he is a new VP pick with absolutely no previous national profile. You're playing with fallacies. You can't in earnest suggest you think at any point point Tim Walz's approvals are going to crater during Harris' presidency like Harris' cratered during Biden's. It'd be more respectable to just blame it on race and gender than whatever you're trying here. 1 hour ago, Harriser said: It's basic politics 1) You're Australian 2) Again, this attitude coming from a foreign chaos agent wouldn't be off-putting if it wasn't as smarmy as it was. You're acting more informed yet seemingly don't grasp that the issue being taken is with how Dems corner themselves into having to have a ticket that is "ideologically diverse". Why don't Republicans have a liberal on their ticket? Why can the GOP be so electorally successful with their small tent? Democrats are the only ones who pivot to "balancing" out a presidential ticket on a claim of ideology. Obama picked Biden to his right. Clinton picked Kaine to her right. Biden picked Harris to his left. This isn't some oddly or unexpected observation. It's conventional wisdom on why Democrats pick the VPs they do. You're objectively lying if you're suggesting Walz is not meant to be a progressive foil to Harris and that Harris hasn't made a huge lurch to the right on every policy issue. Why are you unable to explain the Democratic calculus that a black woman has to be conservative and a white mam can be a folksy progressive? Who in the American electorate that would eveh bother voting for Democrat finds a folksy progressive white man appealing but would be turned off if Harris was as a passionate progressive instead of a right wing moderate former prosecutor? If you can't even acknowledge the basic marketing and political branding fundamentals at play here, you're not just trolling but trolling over something that's frankly not even your business. Why don't Republicans have to do this same ideological stretch? Edited September 4 by Communion 1 1
BeenTheShit Posted September 4 Posted September 4 (edited) And we have our first mass shooting of the new school year. Multiple victims were reported via hospital and the suspect is in custody per police. Edited September 4 by BeenTheShit 2 1
Blankspace2010 Posted September 4 Posted September 4 (edited) 2 hours ago, FameFatale said: It's 2016 all over again. The marginal polling, the appeasing centre rights, ignoring progressives, underestimating of Trump and accusing Russia of interference as if that'll do anything to move the needle. Terrifying. Edited September 4 by Blankspace2010 2 3
Armani? Posted September 4 Posted September 4 Just saw my 1st Kristen McDonald Rivet ad about securing the border and fighting drug cartels Very clearly issues here in Michigan 6
family.guy123 Posted September 4 Posted September 4 14 minutes ago, Armani? said: Just saw my 1st Kristen McDonald Rivet ad about securing the border and fighting drug cartels Very clearly issues here in Michigan Are they not? 1
FameFatale Posted September 4 Posted September 4 54 minutes ago, Armani? said: Just saw my 1st Kristen McDonald Rivet ad about securing the border and fighting drug cartels Very clearly issues here in Michigan Sure she means the Canadian border, right? 4
heckinglovato Posted September 4 Posted September 4 We were asked to remain civil and move the discussion to the election thread, happy to! Let me ask the question again: would you still vote for Kamala over Trump if she was facilitating the bombing of African Americans in the United States? (I know it's hypothetical - but close your eyes and imagine, you can do it girlies) 1 2
Armani? Posted September 4 Posted September 4 1 hour ago, family.guy123 said: Are they not? No, and I don't think the race is that close here to have to desperately appeal to Republicans with these parody ads It will very likely be a +8 lead for her at minimum, Kildee was +10 2 years ago. Just stick to the economic policies & abortion lol 3
JBJT2786 Posted September 4 Posted September 4 1 minute ago, heckinglovato said: We were asked to remain civil and move the discussion to the election thread, happy to! Let me ask the question again: would you still vote for Kamala over Trump if she was facilitating the bombing of African Americans in the United States? (I know it's hypothetical - but close your eyes and imagine, you can do it girlies) She wouldn't even be nominated in this country if that happened. We have a democracy. Your question makes no sense. I'm not closing my eyes on something so stupid that has nothing to do with the actual election. As for the actual issue you're addressing I'll go back to what I said on the thread: I get it. You're upset neither one of our candidates are good when it comes to YOUR issue. But if you think for one second not voting is an option for us you have another thing coming. As much as I sympathize with the Palestinians and wanted a ceasefire and NETANYAHU goes to jail as much as Hamas, I also have issues in this country that will effect my family and friends if a Trump presidency goes through. So because our government system is messed up and any option wouldn't be a good one cuz its clear there's a bunch of Israeli influence in this country, I'm picking Harris anyway. 1 4 2
JBJT2786 Posted September 4 Posted September 4 28 minutes ago, FameFatale said: This is sooo stupid 😂😂😂
aadrl1 Posted September 4 Posted September 4 1 minute ago, JBJT2786 said: She wouldn't even be nominated in this country if that happened. We have a democracy. Your question makes no sense. I'm not closing my eyes on something so stupid that has nothing to do with the actual election. As for the actual issue you're addressing I'll go back to what I said on the thread: I get it. You're upset neither one of our candidates are good when it comes to YOUR issue. But if you think for one second not voting is an option for us you have another thing coming. As much as I sympathize with the Palestinians and wanted a ceasefire and NETANYAHU goes to jail as much as Hamas, I also have issues in this country that will effect my family and friends if a Trump presidency goes through. So because our government system is messed up and any option wouldn't be a good one cuz its clear there's a bunch of Israeli influence in this country, I'm picking Harris anyway. Let that post rest in peace The End 2
JBJT2786 Posted September 4 Posted September 4 1 hour ago, aadrl1 said: Let that post rest in peace The End I know I needed to get my piece across and I'll probably ignore whatever nonsense is said next. It's too serious considering with Project 2025 to change my vote at this point. At least I feel better with Harris/Walz and the best we can do to keep pressuring our government to drop support of Israel. 4 2
heckinglovato Posted September 4 Posted September 4 6 minutes ago, JBJT2786 said: She wouldn't even be nominated in this country if that happened. We have a democracy. Your question makes no sense. I'm not closing my eyes on something so stupid that has nothing to do with the actual election. As for the actual issue you're addressing I'll go back to what I said on the thread: I get it. You're upset neither one of our candidates are good when it comes to YOUR issue. But if you think for one second not voting is an option for us you have another thing coming. As much as I sympathize with the Palestinians and wanted a ceasefire and NETANYAHU goes to jail as much as Hamas, I also have issues in this country that will effect my family and friends if a Trump presidency goes through. So because our government system is messed up and any option wouldn't be a good one cuz its clear there's a bunch of Israeli influence in this country, I'm picking Harris anyway. Is it maybe that you're refusing to answer a hypothetical question because it would push you into confronting the reality that American Democrats (who allegedly support Palestine/Palestinians) still value their domestic policy over the lives of Palestinians? I'm not accusing you of that personally (don't want the mods flagging me for being uncivil), but I'll leave it as food for thought that if the genocide was occurring in your backyard (or even somewhere like Paris), the response of the American leftist electorate would be significantly different. 4 7
Parachutes Posted September 4 Posted September 4 (edited) I do tend to agree with this. Why let this continue to be a talking point? Perhaps it isn't so much that her lack of it is a major issue for voters (because it won't be), but that it opens the door to criticism that props up a larger narrative. It's not like she hasn't been discussing proposals at speeches and rallies, and I also don't think there's an expectation that she be extensively detailed (which I agree could present issues). It's just standard to lay out your campaign's goals. I'm worried that it'll become a bigger deal than it needs to be if it's brought up during the debate and Trump directs people to that fake policy page, because it's not like they'll have anywhere else to look (which is a possibility one of you brought up a few weeks back). (Ig i view it as being similar to the "she can't hold an interview" criticism; it was silly but not something that had to persist. The antidote was obvious. But at least I knew she'd hold an interview eventually, whereas idk what's up with the page and thought it'd be rolled out after the DNC) Edited September 4 by Parachutes 1 1
Relampago. Posted September 4 Posted September 4 16 minutes ago, heckinglovato said: We were asked to remain civil and move the discussion to the election thread, happy to! Let me ask the question again: would you still vote for Kamala over Trump if she was facilitating the bombing of African Americans in the United States? (I know it's hypothetical - but close your eyes and imagine, you can do it girlies) I think this is a fair question more people should consider before getting triggered and shutting down, but my answer is: Definitely not. But like I said before, I wouldn't deny any Palestinian protester telling me I'm voting for a genocide, cause I am. I've acknowledged that. But I am voting with the privilege that I have to preserve my own rights, whether Trump will take them or not, the risk is there and unfortunately I'm just not willing to take that risk with the inevitability of one side winning and both sides being pro-genocide. If Kamala was facilitating the bombing of African Americans in the US, I would lose that self-preservation rationale because even though I am not Black, much like non-Palestinians in Gaza, the US under a Kamala administration will gladly kill indiscriminately to achieve their goal, so I cannot be certain I wouldn't be killed along with African Americans as collateral. To go even further, if Kamala were only targeting Muslims in Europe and the EU was permitting this in a strange parallel universe, I would still have to vote no because that massive change in the status quo would likely cause worldwide instability that wouldn't benefit me in any way, with Europe being leveled. The Middle East being leveled is… the status quo. A disgusting pill to swallow, and one I wish to see disappear. I know the US will inevitably have to pay the price for the atrocities it committed and the enemies it's created. But there's a side of me that operates in ideals and a side of me that operates with the reality I'm faced with. I feel in this instance, I simply must vote for Kamala given that I live in a swing state and I am a young male voter. However, if someone else were to scream names of the victims of Israel's disregard for human life or tell me they're refusing to vote for Kamala because they can't support genocide, I wouldn't argue with either. Use your vote and your voice how you wish, and if you're advocating against genocide with it, then I 100% support that and wouldn't try to convince someone not supporting a genocide state to vote for said state maintaining power. 2 3
Recommended Posts