The Race For 2024

[Loren Pechtel]

It pains me somewhat, but I have to give the "Legislative District 12 Republican Committee" here in AZ kudos. In the mail today, I got the voter guide put out by the Secretary of State's office, a comprehensive book (and it is the size of a small town phone book) covering every ballot proposal and every candidate running for office.

The GOP Committee left a hanger on my doorknob they call the "2024 Republican Golden Ticket," telling me which candidates and proposals they support up and down the ballot. Instead of reading that ponderous tome, I can just go down the list and vote against anyone and anything they support...from President down to dog catcher.

Yup. I've kept my Republican registration because it does a pretty good job of telling me what I don't want to vote for.

 

[Swammerdami]

Michael Moore, one of few liberals to correctly guess the outcome in 2016, thinks Harris will win "in a tsunami." Pollsters find millions of households where hubby will vote Trump while wife votes more sanely. I guess Moore thinks there are millions more households where the wife says "Trump" to the pollster for fear that hubby will overhear, but will click on Harris when she's in the privacy of the voting booth.

[BUT] “If Harris is advised by her wealthy donors to shun the left and drop her more progressive positions in favor of a ‘move to the center,’” Moore writes in a new Substack post, it could “reduce or depress the vote.”

“Biden’s continued funding and arming of the Netanyahu regime has already depressed the Michigan vote,” Moore explains, so if Harris were to pivot towards the center, she could rock the boat. If she holds steady, however, Moore has glowing predictions for the vice president. “The vast majority of the country, the normal people, have seen enough and want the clown car to disappear into the MAGA vortex somewhere between reality and Orlando,” he writes.

What’s “being said to me in private by people I respect—and not just in whispers, but in excited tones of exuberance,” Moore writes, is that “a new era is being born, one where caucasian is just one of the options but no longer the bossy pants of the world.”

 

[TV and credit cards]

It pains me somewhat, but I have to give the "Legislative District 12 Republican Committee" here in AZ kudos. In the mail today, I got the voter guide put out by the Secretary of State's office, a comprehensive book (and it is the size of a small town phone book) covering every ballot proposal and every candidate running for office.

The GOP Committee left a hanger on my doorknob they call the "2024 Republican Golden Ticket," telling me which candidates and proposals they support up and down the ballot. Instead of reading that ponderous tome, I can just go down the list and vote against anyone and anything they support...from President down to dog catcher.

Yup. I've kept my Republican registration because it does a pretty good job of telling me what I don't want to vote for.

Mostly I rely on yard sign grouping.

I can go on line and look at my sample ballot, from there I might find a modicum of info on these locals running for office, whatever footprint they might have on the internet if any.

We have an interesting issue here, Issue 1. Here's a nice write up on it by Leslie Kouba. The actual text of the measure submitted, challenged, and permitted really is that bad.

 

[starwater]

Trump Holds Up Transition Process, Skirting Ethics and Fund-Raising Rules

Donald J. Trump has so far opted out of the official planning for a government handover, a move that allows him to avoid disclosing his donors to his transition effort.

www.nytimes.com

The above may be under a pay wall.

The article says the the Trump transition team has not signed any of the normal transition documents that are required to transition the government handover so that they can get federal clearances for the team and start looking at how to fill all of the jobs, etc.

The article speculates its because Trump is not doing it because then they don't have to disclose his donors. (Vlad?)

They have missed two key deadlines that are set by federal law. And also failed to sign an ethics plan (big surprise )

It also allows him to circumvent fund raising rules.

This is dictated by the Presidential Transition Act, which is viewed non-partisan.

Harris Walz has signed everything and is moving forward.

 

[Copernicus]

Michael Moore, one of few liberals to correctly guess the outcome in 2016, thinks Harris will win "in a tsunami." Pollsters find millions of households where hubby will vote Trump while wife votes more sanely. I guess Moore thinks there are millions more households where the wife says "Trump" to the pollster for fear that hubby will overhear, but will click on Harris when she's in the privacy of the voting booth.

[BUT] “If Harris is advised by her wealthy donors to shun the left and drop her more progressive positions in favor of a ‘move to the center,’” Moore writes in a new Substack post, it could “reduce or depress the vote.”

“Biden’s continued funding and arming of the Netanyahu regime has already depressed the Michigan vote,” Moore explains, so if Harris were to pivot towards the center, she could rock the boat. If she holds steady, however, Moore has glowing predictions for the vice president. “The vast majority of the country, the normal people, have seen enough and want the clown car to disappear into the MAGA vortex somewhere between reality and Orlando,” he writes.

What’s “being said to me in private by people I respect—and not just in whispers, but in excited tones of exuberance,” Moore writes, is that “a new era is being born, one where caucasian is just one of the options but no longer the bossy pants of the world.”

We always get these news stories that somebody correctly predicted some unexpected outcome of a previous presidential election or has never been wrong about their predictions in the past--and here is what they are saying about this election. Michael Moore lives in Michigan, and he has opinions based on his experiences there. However, he is not a pollster or an expert at predicting elections. 2016 was an electoral fluke based on small margins in a small number of swing states. Nobody who predicted a Trump win in 2016 predicted that exact outcome, and it might have come out differently if the election had been on the previous or following day. His claim that the vast majority of the country have had enough of Trump, may well be true, but polling results now suggest the opposite. The electoral system is still in place, and pollsters are finding it hard to detect any huge groundswell of support for Harris. She appears to be ahead of Trump by the normal amount of voters that seem to have supported Democratic candidates in the past, and it is not by a comfortable margin in many swing states. I will be surprised if she loses the popular vote and hugely disappointed if the electoral college once again installs Donald Trump against the will of the majority of voters.

 

[Swammerdami]

I did not propose to place that partisan producer on a pedestal as a paragon of prognostication. I was just delighted to hear, and then repeat, an optimistic opinion. Unfortunately my personal prediction remains gloomy.

 

[Politesse]

I did not propose to place that partisan producer on a pedestal as a paragon of prognostication. I was just delighted to hear, and then repeat, an optimistic opinion. Unfortunately my personal prediction remains gloomy.

Preposterously perspicacious of you. Pass the pepper?

 

[pood]

I did not propose to place that partisan producer on a pedestal as a paragon of prognostication. I was just delighted to hear, and then repeat, an optimistic opinion. Unfortunately my personal prediction remains gloomy pessimistic.

That’s better.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yup. I've kept my Republican registration because it does a pretty good job of telling me what I don't want to vote for.

There should be a name for that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I did not propose to place that partisan producer on a pedestal as a paragon of prognostication. I was just delighted to hear, and then repeat, an optimistic opinion. Unfortunately my personal prediction remains gloomy.

Dude! Talk about alliteration!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Michael Moore, one of few liberals to correctly guess the outcome in 2016, thinks Harris will win "in a tsunami." Pollsters find millions of households where hubby will vote Trump while wife votes more sanely. I guess Moore thinks there are millions more households where the wife says "Trump" to the pollster for fear that hubby will overhear, but will click on Harris when she's in the privacy of the voting booth.

[BUT] “If Harris is advised by her wealthy donors to shun the left and drop her more progressive positions in favor of a ‘move to the center,’” Moore writes in a new Substack post, it could “reduce or depress the vote.”

“Biden’s continued funding and arming of the Netanyahu regime has already depressed the Michigan vote,” Moore explains, so if Harris were to pivot towards the center, she could rock the boat. If she holds steady, however, Moore has glowing predictions for the vice president. “The vast majority of the country, the normal people, have seen enough and want the clown car to disappear into the MAGA vortex somewhere between reality and Orlando,” he writes.

What’s “being said to me in private by people I respect—and not just in whispers, but in excited tones of exuberance,” Moore writes, is that “a new era is being born, one where caucasian is just one of the options but no longer the bossy pants of the world.”

We always get these news stories that somebody correctly predicted some unexpected outcome of a previous presidential election or has never been wrong about their predictions in the past--and here is what they are saying about this election. Michael Moore lives in Michigan, and he has opinions based on his experiences there. However, he is not a pollster or an expert at predicting elections.

I'm not a huge fan of Moore. I find him to be a bit high on the noise to content ratio for my liking. However, his proclamation that Trump would win in 2016 wasn't some bravado call. He saw it. He saw what the Clinton campaign should have taken notice of. So I'll take his opinion on this at face value. I mean, except that I doubt there will be landslide.

His claim that the vast majority of the country have had enough of Trump, may well be true, but polling results now suggest the opposite. The electoral system is still in place, and pollsters are finding it hard to detect any huge groundswell of support for Harris. She appears to be ahead of Trump by the normal amount of voters that seem to have supported Democratic candidates in the past, and it is not by a comfortable margin in many swing states. I will be surprised if she loses the popular vote and hugely disappointed if the electoral college once again installs Donald Trump against the will of the majority of voters.

Indeed, the "vast majority" isn't remotely accurate. Kind of why I'm not pleased at America's outlook in the next 20 years. But, as far as the Blue Wall is concerned, it looks good. Right now the US Senate is a tossup. I can't imagine how that is possible if Harris isn't winning the EC.

 

[pood]

I did not propose to place that partisan producer on a pedestal as a paragon of prognostication. I was just delighted to hear, and then repeat, an optimistic opinion. Unfortunately my personal prediction remains gloomy. predominates persistently pessimistic.

Even better.

 

[Henry-Finland]

Drag your lazy Dem-friend from his sofa to the poll station and thus you have doubled your vote.
And repeat...
Then throw a party for all your lazy friends at the election evening.

 

[bilby]

We always get these news stories that somebody correctly predicted some unexpected outcome of a previous presidential election or has never been wrong about their predictions in the past--and here is what they are saying about this election. Michael Moore lives in Michigan, and he has opinions based on his experiences there. However, he is not a pollster or an expert at predicting elections.

Yeah, it's a popular story - "This guy got it right when all the experts got it wrong" just means "This guy is not an expert".

Experts get their predictions wrong occasionally. Non-experts get their predictions right occasionally. But that in no way suggests that it is reasonable to go to non-experts when looking for a new prediction.

I don't ask my doctor to re-wire my house; I don't ask my electrician to diagnose my ailments; And I don't ask Michael Moore to predict upcoming elections.

Even though it's by no means impossible thst any of those people might do any of those things successfully.

 

[Politesse]

Well, my ballot has got here! Time to join in with 150 million ambivalent citizens and do the one thing we can all still agree on: holding our nose and voting for the most tolerable face of wickedness and vice.

 

[Elixir]

Well, my ballot has got here! Time to join in with 150 million ambivalent citizens and do the one thing we can all still agree on: holding our nose and voting for the most tolerable face of wickedness and vice.

Go for the prettiest face? Or the candidate who most vociferously lays claim to it?

 

[Tigers!]

Yup. I've kept my Republican registration because it does a pretty good job of telling me what I don't want to vote for.

There should be a name for that.

Uncommon sense?

 

[Tigers!]

Well, my ballot has got here! Time to join in with 150 million ambivalent citizens and do the one thing we can all still agree on: holding our nose and voting for the most tolerable face of wickedness and vice.

Works in Australia too. (except for the 150 million. We have only about 17 million)

 

[southernhybrid]

Well, my ballot has got here! Time to join in with 150 million ambivalent citizens and do the one thing we can all still agree on: holding our nose and voting for the most tolerable face of wickedness and vice.

Go for the prettiest face? Or the candidate who most vociferously lays claim to it?

I guess that Pol doesn't realize that most Trump supporters can't wait to vote for their orange Jesus and every Harris supporter I know is very enthusiastic about voting for her. Sure, there are some double haters, but it's wrong to assume that they make up the majority of voters. I prefer to vote for a smart woman who has a sense of humor, lots of experience and will at least try to do her best for the country. I've never agreed with the polices of any president, but I've still been happy to support a few of them. There is and never was a perfect candidate and never will be.

 

[Politesse]

Well, my ballot has got here! Time to join in with 150 million ambivalent citizens and do the one thing we can all still agree on: holding our nose and voting for the most tolerable face of wickedness and vice.

Go for the prettiest face? Or the candidate who most vociferously lays claim to it?

The one who'll at least accept a meeting invitation with someone who's useful/competent.

I also get to cast an actual vote against slavery this year, instead of just whining about it as usual. A rare privilege.