|
Post by ironhammer on Oct 22, 2024 20:09:57 GMT -5
Why are we talking as if Trump has won already?
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Oct 22, 2024 21:03:36 GMT -5
Why are we talking as if Trump has won already? Because MAGA knows he is finished and can't perform anymore, and they are desperately trying to speak it into existence when they know it is slipping away.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Oct 22, 2024 21:04:07 GMT -5
of course, this thead will get all sorts of visceral responses, lambasting the author. back in August, there were Dem voices, and it was questioned why Kamala should be annoited nominee with NO debate. none and we see what has happened. excuses and rationalization was made: "she was on the ballot" the fear of black backlash not enough time" "won't have enough money" and then of course it had the immediate backing of Clinton's, Obama, the usual suspect about why Kamala needed to be ...."the one" predictably after euphoria, all the warning statements that a debate would be destructive and weaken, the few voices in the Dems fell of deaf and IMPATIENT ears. "we just could not do anything but nominate Kamala" and Kamala in her ego willingly went along of course. it was in fact a decision of entitlement, short-sighted, ignored history of failures of the candidate. A candidacy based on nothing more than voting against someone else. of course, this 90% Dem forum will lash out at this post, instead of acknowledging what a F*cked up process the Dems had. Take zero responsibility for the failure of the Dems to 1) select the right candidate in the first place despite warning signs, and 2) double down and select the wrong candidate the 2nd time. she may win still, just interesting what when she loses, the common refrain here will be to degrade others that ....."just don't get it" and will be a cacophony of posts not acceplting any responsibility for their own failures. now go ahead and lash out and put down and degrade as expected. or maybe....there will be some introspection? nah It's not a matter of a visceral reaction or lashing out, it's that she is the only one that could take over a very sizeable war chest, she already had the campaign staff in place to not miss a beat and according to reports she had low key been impressing people since at least January with how much she had grown in her role and seemed to have the presence and command to make a run. If Biden would have stepped aside many months earlier, the calculus would have been different. As it is, the timing threw the Trump campaign for a loop and they have not recovered. She has run a very strong campaign and has put to rest all the initial concerns you listed, which is why people are confused with you bringing it up now. She wiped the floor with him in the debate and done better and better in interviews of all sorts across the spectrum while he has been hiding for weeks, canceling all but the most friendly interviews and regularly butchering those. She has a better ground game in place and an unprecedented amount of money came in to support her for the final sprint. It's hard to imagine anybody else performing better given the time and circumstances. People voting for Trump would not have voted for a different Dem, given his continual stumbles and embarrassments and general disgusting, anti-American rants have no impact on them. What exactly are you looking for that hasn't been delivered?
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Oct 22, 2024 21:48:16 GMT -5
Unless there is a hidden Harris vote it is fair to ask why isn't she polling better? Either she is a weak candidate, or if that isn't it she is running a poor campaign.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Oct 22, 2024 21:51:00 GMT -5
Unless there is a hidden Harris vote it is fair to ask why isn't she polling better? Either she is a weak candidate, or if that isn't it she is running a poor campaign. Or the polls suck as they normally do.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Oct 22, 2024 22:33:06 GMT -5
Unless there is a hidden Harris vote it is fair to ask why isn't she polling better? Either she is a weak candidate, or if that isn't it she is running a poor campaign. She IS polling better. Republicans are gaming the polls like they always do, only even more so than last time. Remember the huge Red Wave of 2022? Remember how it didn't actually happen? In addition, Outlets like Fox blatantly lie and tell their audience that crime is up, the economy is tanking and it is all Biden and Kamala's fault. The news media has been way to wimpy in the way they let Fox and Trump steer the narrative, claiming you were better off four years ago because gas was cheaper and prices were lower, but somehow completely omitting the part about him buthchering the response to a pandemic, that prices were lower because nobody was buying anything, nobody was driving anywhere and nobody was working. That is a lie of gargantuan proportions, and the major failing of the Biden administration has been the failure of selling the fact that the American Covid recovery is the envy of the world.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 22, 2024 22:40:29 GMT -5
Unless there is a hidden Harris vote it is fair to ask why isn't she polling better? Either she is a weak candidate, or if that isn't it she is running a poor campaign. She IS polling better. Republicans are gaming the polls like they always do, only even more so than last time. Remember the huge Red Wave of 2022? Remember how it didn't actually happen? The election models were pretty accurate in 2022. Nobody serious puts any stock in Trafalgar and the like.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 23, 2024 1:29:20 GMT -5
of course, this thead will get all sorts of visceral responses, lambasting the author. back in August, there were Dem voices, and it was questioned why Kamala should be annoited nominee with NO debate. none and we see what has happened. excuses and rationalization was made: "she was on the ballot" the fear of black backlash not enough time" "won't have enough money" and then of course it had the immediate backing of Clinton's, Obama, the usual suspect about why Kamala needed to be ...."the one" predictably after euphoria, all the warning statements that a debate would be destructive and weaken, the few voices in the Dems fell of deaf and IMPATIENT ears. "we just could not do anything but nominate Kamala" and Kamala in her ego willingly went along of course. it was in fact a decision of entitlement, short-sighted, ignored history of failures of the candidate. A candidacy based on nothing more than voting against someone else. of course, this 90% Dem forum will lash out at this post, instead of acknowledging what a F*cked up process the Dems had. Take zero responsibility for the failure of the Dems to 1) select the right candidate in the first place despite warning signs, and 2) double down and select the wrong candidate the 2nd time. she may win still, just interesting what when she loses, the common refrain here will be to degrade others that ....."just don't get it" and will be a cacophony of posts not acceplting any responsibility for their own failures. now go ahead and lash out and put down and degrade as expected. or maybe....there will be some introspection? nah It's not a matter of a visceral reaction or lashing out, it's that she is the only one that could take over a very sizeable war chest, she already had the campaign staff in place to not miss a beat and according to reports she had low key been impressing people since at least January with how much she had grown in her role and seemed to have the presence and command to make a run. If Biden would have stepped aside many months earlier, the calculus would have been different. As it is, the timing threw the Trump campaign for a loop and they have not recovered. She has run a very strong campaign and has put to rest all the initial concerns you listed, which is why people are confused with you bringing it up now. She wiped the floor with him in the debate and done better and better in interviews of all sorts across the spectrum while he has been hiding for weeks, canceling all but the most friendly interviews and regularly butchering those. She has a better ground game in place and an unprecedented amount of money came in to support her for the final sprint. It's hard to imagine anybody else performing better given the time and circumstances. People voting for Trump would not have voted for a different Dem, given his continual stumbles and embarrassments and general disgusting, anti-American rants have no impact on them. What exactly are you looking for that hasn't been delivered? lol, at "shes the only one that could take over a sizeable war chest" and "it's hard to imagine anyone perform better".... watch a Butelig interview, he wipes the floor with Harris in terms of succinct understandable answers. I'm not saying he'd have been better. I've never seen so much self-fulling circular logic - even better than a circle! all I'm saying is by the end of a convention that had an actual debate, the party could have had a better candidate.....and the money would have still flowed. like whoever won, would have been shunned from support from the DNC and Biden's infrastructure the reactions have been pretty predictable. thanks for an actual intelligent one though!
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 23, 2024 2:11:34 GMT -5
It's not a matter of a visceral reaction or lashing out, it's that she is the only one that could take over a very sizeable war chest, she already had the campaign staff in place to not miss a beat and according to reports she had low key been impressing people since at least January with how much she had grown in her role and seemed to have the presence and command to make a run. If Biden would have stepped aside many months earlier, the calculus would have been different. As it is, the timing threw the Trump campaign for a loop and they have not recovered. She has run a very strong campaign and has put to rest all the initial concerns you listed, which is why people are confused with you bringing it up now. She wiped the floor with him in the debate and done better and better in interviews of all sorts across the spectrum while he has been hiding for weeks, canceling all but the most friendly interviews and regularly butchering those. She has a better ground game in place and an unprecedented amount of money came in to support her for the final sprint. It's hard to imagine anybody else performing better given the time and circumstances. People voting for Trump would not have voted for a different Dem, given his continual stumbles and embarrassments and general disgusting, anti-American rants have no impact on them. What exactly are you looking for that hasn't been delivered? lol, at "shes the only one that could take over a sizeable war chest" and "it's hard to imagine anyone perform better".... watch a Butelig interview, he wipes the floor with Harris in terms of succinct understandable answers. I'm not saying he'd have been better. I've never seen so much self-fulling circular logic - even better than a circle! all I'm saying is by the end of a convention that had an actual debate, the party could have had a better candidate.....and the money would have still flowed. like whoever won, would have been shunned from support from the DNC and Biden's infrastructure the reactions have been pretty predictable. thanks for an actual intelligent one though! There is truth to the fact that finance campaign laws favored Harris in taking over the Biden campaign funds because she was already on the Biden ticket. Harris also netted a historic campaing funding haul in a short time-frame after her nomination. You just don't like Harris. It's okay--you don't have to hide, obfuscate, deny or rationalize that fact.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Oct 23, 2024 2:13:32 GMT -5
lol, at "shes the only one that could take over a sizeable war chest" and "it's hard to imagine anyone perform better".... watch a Butelig interview, he wipes the floor with Harris in terms of succinct understandable answers. I'm not saying he'd have been better. I've never seen so much self-fulling circular logic - even better than a circle! all I'm saying is by the end of a convention that had an actual debate, the party could have had a better candidate.....and the money would have still flowed. like whoever won, would have been shunned from support from the DNC and Biden's infrastructure the reactions have been pretty predictable. thanks for an actual intelligent one though! There is truth to the fact that finance campaign laws favored Harris in taking over the Biden campaign funds because she was already on the Biden ticket. Harris also netted a historic campaing funding haul in a short time-frame after her nomination. You just don't like Harris. It's okay--you don't have to hide, obfuscate, deny or rationalize that fact. I just can't get why he can't come out and say so. Why does he have so much trouble in saying that?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 23, 2024 2:15:36 GMT -5
There is truth to the fact that finance campaign laws favored Harris in taking over the Biden campaign funds because she was already on the Biden ticket. Harris also netted a historic campaing funding haul in a short time-frame after her nomination. You just don't like Harris. It's okay--you don't have to hide, obfuscate, deny or rationalize that fact. I just get why he can't come and say so. Why does he have so much trouble in saying that? I think merv could help us with that explanation.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Oct 23, 2024 3:00:07 GMT -5
lol, at "shes the only one that could take over a sizeable war chest" and "it's hard to imagine anyone perform better".... watch a Butelig interview, he wipes the floor with Harris in terms of succinct understandable answers. I'm not saying he'd have been better. I've never seen so much self-fulling circular logic - even better than a circle! all I'm saying is by the end of a convention that had an actual debate, the party could have had a better candidate.....and the money would have still flowed. like whoever won, would have been shunned from support from the DNC and Biden's infrastructure the reactions have been pretty predictable. thanks for an actual intelligent one though! OK. You "lol" about the war chest, so apparently ou don't understand the campaign finance laws relating to funds raised for Biden. You also apparently don't appreciate the apparatus necessary to run a national campaign or what it means to already have your own campaign team already in place and the Biden team willing to step]
|
|
|
Post by longboards on Oct 23, 2024 6:17:12 GMT -5
I'm being serious here, I don't understand what you're arguing for. You listed all the arguments you heard for picking Harris, but what should the dems have done? Who should they have picked? How would it have helped? These aren't rhetorical questions! I'm really curious.
Opened it up for candidates, and debates before the convention and of course the delegates would select. Harris is a product of non debate. The responses are it couldn't be done. Well if Obama and Clinton had signaled to actually not jump the gun I think the lack of any resolve to create a choice reflects the problems the Dems have in presenting how effective they can be because it reflects tunnel vision towards solving a problem. Exactly the view of Harris to voters she is having trouble to convince Trump is a product of non-debate
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 23, 2024 6:51:21 GMT -5
I don't think a debate this summer would have been feasible or particularly wise once Biden dropped out so late. As for a "brokered" convention, that process more or less happened, just before the DNC rather than after.
The real issue for Dems is the fact Biden held on so long and that he ran for reelection in the first place. They would have been stronger after a primary, with a well-defined and battle tested candidate running against an awful one in Trump. If Harris emerged from that process, she'd be stronger because she would have been forced to distance herself from an extremely unpopular predecessor, something she hasn't done, and something which polling suggests would benefit her.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 23, 2024 6:57:59 GMT -5
lol, at "shes the only one that could take over a sizeable war chest" and "it's hard to imagine anyone perform better".... watch a Butelig interview, he wipes the floor with Harris in terms of succinct understandable answers. I'm not saying he'd have been better. I've never seen so much self-fulling circular logic - even better than a circle! all I'm saying is by the end of a convention that had an actual debate, the party could have had a better candidate.....and the money would have still flowed. like whoever won, would have been shunned from support from the DNC and Biden's infrastructure the reactions have been pretty predictable. thanks for an actual intelligent one though! OK. You "lol" about the war chest, so apparently ou don't understand the campaign finance laws relating to funds raised for Biden. You also apparently don't appreciate the apparatus necessary to run a national campaign or what it means to already have your own campaign team already in place and the Biden team willing to step] 1. The war chest was a valid point in nominating Harris, who was then unproven as a national fundraiser. 2. She went on to raise more than a billion dollars in two months, negating the need for the Biden war chest. 3. The Biden campaign team is laughably incompetent and she should have fired them immediately.
|
|