The Race For 2024

[Shadowy Man]

This board does not speak with a single voice.

Of course not.

I am not convinced that it necessarily the same folks who are using nicknames against republicans who are calling out the racist, sexist attacks against Harris. You’re setting up a strawman.

They are not the same people, and I am not setting up a strawman because I have been pretty explicit that I am not conflating the two.

I believe you are conflating the two when you call it a “double standard”. It must mean something different to you I guess because I don’t use that term when two different groups use two different standards. To me, it means when the same group uses two different standards; I.e., a form of hypocrisy.

My point was that those like Toni who call out any mocking of Democrats (and call it "racist" and/or "sexist" if it involves somebody non-white or female) are not reacting in a similar way to mocking of Republicans.

I haven’t followed Toni’s posts closely enough to specifically comment on that.

And again, just because Kamala Harris is the target of ridicule does not make it "racist" or "sexist". If similar stuff were written about a white male politician, nobody would bat an eye.

That’s not necessarily true. For example, men don’t “sleep their way to the top”, so using a pejorative like “heels up Harris” to imply she would not have achieved her success without sleeping with a man is actually sexist. Calling her “dopey” is not, despite being lame.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Harris is starting to get into the weeds of policy

I hope she doesn't get too carried away, American voters hate "boring" policy discusions, and "arrogant" solutions to problems.

Yeah, I remember Gore and how he was too smart. *sobs*

Governing the country? YAWN. Gimme a meaningless slogan and drop some shade on the other guy!

America wants solutions! America wants plans! America wants progress!

But America votes on catch phrases and other idiosyncrasies.

 

[thebeave]

Such a weird flex to make fun of someone who laughs and shows joy.

I think it's because her laugh sounds weird and also that she has a penchant for laughing at her own jokes.

Its not so much that it sounds weird...it would actually be a nice laugh if it was not so overdone and at inappropriate times. Like at a funny joke, anecdote, pratfall, etc. Instead she laughs when there is nothing amusing or funny, and the tone is serious. It looks very awkward and painful. Like these:

Kamala laughing about shooting someone breaking into her home. I wonder if a cop started laughing about shooting someone what the reaction would be:



And of course, her laughing at a serious, clear cut question about visiting the border. Maybe to try to demean and minimize Lester Holt's certainly appropriate question?:




Will this be Kamala at some world leader's funeral if she is POTUS?:

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So she is like Dr. Hibbert? This is what people are talking about?

 

[Toni]

I would probably be less likely to criticize you fir your racist, sexist nicknames for political figures if you did not have a very long posting history of using racist and sexist derogatory language to describe people who have been accused of crimes or who are victims of crimes.

Again, using unflattering nicknames toward somebody female or non-white does not make it "sexist" or "racist".
Those two words have been horribly overused in recent years.

That you use such language describing black and./ or female politicians is merely an extension of your pattern of making sexist and racist remarks about people you don’t know.

Bullshit, since I also use nicknames for white male politicians. For example Goodhair for Newsom or β for O'Rourke.
You have drank deep from the well of identity politics so that you see anything unflattering about somebody non-white or female as automatically "racist" and "sexist". But that's nonsense.

It’s ( still) a free country and as long as the mods don’t ding you for violations of TOU, you are certainly free to make whatever racist sexist remarks you like. Especially if you don’t care about how you are seen by others. I’ve noticed that you get a bit upset when people think you are a Republican. Don’t blame you there but if you don’t like being seen that way, quit acting that way. You know who else likes to give ugly nicknames to those he doesn’t like? Trump. If that’s how you want to be seen then, keep on.

 

[Elixir]

Nobody else is annoyed by the sound of Cheato’s incessant croaking complaints?

I’d rather listen to the worst laugh in the universe than hear that malevolent crybaby’s toddler threats.

 

[Politesse]

Kamala laughing about shooting someone breaking into her home. I wonder if a cop started laughing about shooting someone what the reaction would be:

Kamala is not a "police officer", but she is most certainly a "cop", to anyone for whom that is a disqualification.

 

[Politesse]

Nobody else is annoyed by the sound of Cheato’s incessant croaking complaints?

I’d rather listen to the worst laugh in the universe than hear that malevolent crybaby’s toddler threats.

Especially when he whines that some woman or press agency is being "mean" to him. Even if he were a much nicer person himself, which of course he is not, what adult human talks that way? It makes me want to drop kick him through a window every damn time. But his audience claps for him when he does it, like mentally regressing to the age of a toddler is some sort of accomplishment...

 

[pood]

2024 is something, PA, AZ, NV, NC, GA, MI, WI are all within a point or two. As things stand on E-V.com, Harris can only stand to lose Nevada at the moment. Trump needs to swing one state, PA, MI, WI. The trouble is, he can't afford for GA, NC, or AZ to swing. He loses one of them, he needs a miracle in the Midwest... again.

349 would seem to be the absolute max if one claims all of the states above and FL. Trump is polling 4 pts clear in the Too Much Sunshine State, which would seem a bit difficult for Harris to overcome, making her max 319. A poll came out yesterday with a shocker as incumbent Deb Fischer in Nebraska was down 1 pt to Dan Osborn (I). It was an Osborn sponsored poll, but the same folks also polled the other Nebraska race and the Republican has an 18 pt lead. That would be something if the Democrats/Independents maintained or expanded their Senate control! Obviously, Osborn wouldn't be a left-wing rubber stamp. Any GOP dollar put into a Senate race in Nebraska is a squandered dollar, so that helps the Dems in one way or the other.

The Reagan-Carter race was also very close at this point. Then in the final few days there was a big swing to Reagan, and he won going away. I think something like that is possible here for Harris.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nobody else is annoyed by the sound of Cheato’s incessant croaking complaints?

I’d rather listen to the worst laugh in the universe than hear that malevolent crybaby’s toddler threats.

Indeed. His victimhood complaints are unprecedented, as if his gross abuse of hyperbole to the point that most of the things he says exclusively use hyperbole.

 

[thebeave]

So she is like Dr. Hibbert? This is what people are talking about?

I never made that connection before, but I think you're on to something:

 

[Swammerdami]

Every Presidential election since 1996 has been very close, and as things stand now the coming election may be the closest of all. But color me very confused! I watch a video like the latest episode from Meidas Touch and I think Harris is headed for a landslide victory! Harris has been wooing Republicans -- Nikki Haley's team just endorsed her IIUC -- while Trump rants about Haitians eating pets, and about whether his "enemy" worked at McDonald's; and spends his efforts hawking Trump coins rather than campaigning. Even FoxNews and some other die-hard Trump fans seem to be turning away in disgust.

How is it possible that Trump has even a faint chance?

Nate Silver, who considered the election a toss-up just a few days ago, now shows Harris at 55% to win. (But 55% is MUCH closer to 50% than it is to 99%.)

The Meidas Touch video claims that prediction markets are moving toward Harris but that is not true. Polymarket shows 50-49 and Betfair gives Harris only a 2% lead. Those are "toss-up numbers. Pennsylvania, the "Keystone State" is, once again, the key to this election; and its latest polls show almost an exact toss-up.

Among the seven swing states, only PA and NV are nearly exact toss-ups. Harris needs Pennsylvania and either Nevada or Omaha. (The headline out of Nebraska is that one Redshirt is refusing to agree to winner-take-all, but I still worry about a double-cross there. There is an excellent chance that the extra Nebraska EV will decide the election.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Every Presidential election since 1996 has been very close, and as things stand now the coming election may be the closest of all. But color me very confused! I watch a video like the latest episode from Meidas Touch and I think Harris is headed for a landslide victory!

The Meidas Touch is a bit much for me. They'll abuse hyperbole quite a bit. Even sometimes take Trump out of context. If you go by what Meidas Touch says about the country, yeah, there is every reason to believe Harris will win 60 to 65% of the vote. I wouldn't go by everything Meidas Touch says though. Overly simplistic, though generally accurate, the trouble is, they provide no appreciation for the right-wing and how they will still vote for Trump. They report this as if this were a normal nation.

Harris has been wooing Republicans -- Nikki Haley's team just endorsed her IIUC -- while Trump rants about Haitians eating pets, and about whether his "enemy" worked at McDonald's; and spends his efforts hawking Trump coins rather than campaigning. Even FoxNews and some other die-hard Trump fans seem to be turning away in disgust.

But they aren't. We aren't seeing that reflected in polling. They might be noticing for the fist time that the dude has no clothes, but they appear to be in too deep.

How is it possible that Trump has even a faint chance?

Trump nickel and dimes the rural counties. He excites the base who the Republicans abandoned... and they think the Democrats are the bad guys. And the deplorables... of which the Haitian remarks were all about. Then there are judges. The intellectual portion of the right-wing voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020 because of SCOTUS and Federal benches.

The Meidas Touch video claims that prediction markets are moving toward Harris but that is not true. Polymarket shows 50-49 and Betfair gives Harris only a 2% lead. Those are "toss-up numbers. Pennsylvania, the "Keystone State" is, once again, the key to this election; and its latest polls show almost an exact toss-up.

Like I said, don't put too much truck in Meidas Touch. They are more interested in ad views than a balanced view of this election.

Among the seven swing states, only PA and NV are nearly exact toss-ups. Harris needs Pennsylvania and either Nevada or Omaha. (The headline out of Nebraska is that one Redshirt is refusing to agree to winner-take-all, but I still worry about a double-cross there. There is an excellent chance that the extra Nebraska EV will decide the election.)

It is possible, but I think Arizona and Florida polling are going to underpredicted female turnout by a point or two, which won't be enough for Harris in Florida, but could turn Arizona.

 

[starwater]

The polls haven't been very accurate in a long time. It could be people are saying they are voting for Cheato, but when they get to the booth they will vote the other way when no one is watching.

I love watching the faces of the people behind Trump at the rallies, there are some interesting reactions, especially the young girls there, they often dip their heads when crazy shit comes out of his mouth. Others are half heartily clapping.

 

[TSwizzle]

Good grief She does not have a clue.

 

[Elixir]

Good grief She does not have a clue.

What makes you think that?
Better question: what makes you think the apricot “has a clue”? Did someone eat your dog?

 

[SLD]

Good grief She does not have a clue.

What makes you think that?
Better question: what makes you think the apricot “has a clue”? Did someone eat your dog?

But this is the whole problem with her approach to her campaign. She’s making policy proposals. Who gives a shit? They’ll always be shot down. All this does is make her a target for critics who will dissect her plans ad nauseam. She needs to simply keep attacking Trump. Her ads that I see have so far only attacked him on abortion rights. That’s not enough. She needs to hammer at his basic unfitness. His plans to destroy our constitution. His recent comments about limiting free speech and his many other crazy statements. Trump is not just a flawed candidate. He’s batshit crazy. But she’s too busy touting her economic plans that will go nowhere regardless. Trump is basically hammering at her constantly and it’s 2016 Deja vu all over again. This is what she should be saying:

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Good grief She does not have a clue.

What makes you think that?
Better question: what makes you think the apricot “has a clue”? Did someone eat your dog?

But this is the whole problem with her approach to her campaign. She’s making policy proposals. Who gives a shit? They’ll always be shot down. All this does is make her a target for critics who will dissect her plans ad nauseam. She needs to simply keep attacking Trump.

That didn't work for Clinton, and Biden learned that. It should have worked, but it didn't.

Her ads that I see have so far only attacked him on abortion rights. That’s not enough.

Actually, it very well might be. The math is simple and the issue of reproductive rights is simple.

Women generally represent 52% of the vote. This is important because if you target over half of the voters, turning 1 or 2 pts is big, 5+ is huge. Tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of voters voting the Democrat party in states that are within 1 to 3 pts. The issue of reproductive rights is simple and women, in a larger majority support those rights, which have been put at great risk to being flat out eliminated. When it comes to turn out and single issue voters, this can be a significant one. And, it is a major issue. Forcing women to endure pregnancy and give birth is a very big deal, extremely invasive (which is why Libertarians are so the Dobbs decision *shifty eyes*).

She needs to hammer at his basic unfitness.

This was done already in 2016. We were pretty certain that was all that was needed. He clearly was unqualified and unfit. The Hollywood tape would have ended any other presidency.

His plans to destroy our constitution.

Going about explaining that is complicated and campaign ads can't be complicated. Additionally, while Project 2025 is indeed aiming to return America to the 19th Century Constitutional Law wise, it sounds alarmist. The Dobbs case... that is past tense and it is a known threat!

 

[Elixir]

Going about explaining that is complicated and campaign ads can't be complicated.

HE'S A SCUMBAG

Bright red letters, static on the screen for a full minute.
Don't even have to name him. Maybe add "lying scumbag".
Let him complain, thereby identifying himself as the lying scumbag.

 

[SLD]

Good grief She does not have a clue.

What makes you think that?
Better question: what makes you think the apricot “has a clue”? Did someone eat your dog?

But this is the whole problem with her approach to her campaign. She’s making policy proposals. Who gives a shit? They’ll always be shot down. All this does is make her a target for critics who will dissect her plans ad nauseam. She needs to simply keep attacking Trump.

That didn't work for Clinton, and Biden learned that. It should have worked, but it didn't.

Her ads that I see have so far only attacked him on abortion rights. That’s not enough.

Actually, it very well might be. The math is simple and the issue of reproductive rights is simple.

Women generally represent 52% of the vote. This is important because if you target over half of the voters, turning 1 or 2 pts is big, 5+ is huge. Tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of voters voting the Democrat party in states that are within 1 to 3 pts. The issue of reproductive rights is simple and women, in a larger majority support those rights, which have been put at great risk to being flat out eliminated. When it comes to turn out and single issue voters, this can be a significant one. And, it is a major issue. Forcing women to endure pregnancy and give birth is a very big deal, extremely invasive (which is why Libertarians are so the Dobbs decision *shifty eyes*).

She needs to hammer at his basic unfitness.

This was done already in 2016. We were pretty certain that was all that was needed. He clearly was unqualified and unfit. The Hollywood tape would have ended any other presidency.

His plans to destroy our constitution.

Going about explaining that is complicated and campaign ads can't be complicated. Additionally, while Project 2025 is indeed aiming to return America to the 19th Century Constitutional Law wise, it sounds alarmist. The Dobbs case... that is past tense and it is a known threat!

No. Hillary only attacked Trump supporters.