DMC

All due respect, all this demonstrates is you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. Polls may be inaccurate, but not nearly to the magnitude being discussed. And if the media, etc. actually understood standard sampling error and the fact polls are consequently going to be much more likely to get things “wrong” when the contest is very close, this misconception wouldn’t be so widespread.

They weren’t minor variations, they were fantasy. Which, well, you’re on the right board I suppose. Yeah, including me - for a living for the past thirteen years. Please cite any credible source contending Harris could win the popular vote by ten and still lose the EC.

There is absolutely an empirical correlation to overall vote share and vote share in competitive states. While it is true the GOP has an EC advantage, it is preposterous to suggest it’s as pronounced as you’re asserting. No point in arguing with such ignorance.

Um, the math is really basic correlation. If Hillary won by eight more points nationally, she would have won Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia - all of which she lost by five points or (much) less. Those would be the exact same states Harris would most certainly win if she won by ten points - and add up to 349 electoral votes. Kind of moot though. She’s not going to win by ten points.

LOL. Assuming this is a joke. If Harris wins by ten nationally, she’ll be good for about 350 electoral votes. And she’s winning by that much, it obviously means RFK Jr. doesn’t matter. But to be clear, Harris entering the race destroyed what little relevancy RFK Jr. still had. Indeed, his support immediately dropped from about 8 to 9 percent to 4 to 5 percent once Biden dropped out. His campaign is spending far more than they are raising - especially when you subtract the bankrolling by his VP candidate Shanahan. And he’s only confirmed to even be on the ballot in three of the seven swing states - Michigan, Nevada, and North Carolina. He also claims to have the signatures in Georgia and Pennsylvania, but that hasn’t been confirmed by state officials. And the signature deadlines are coming up very soon - PA’s is tomorrow (Friday). As I’ve said for months, I expect he’ll drop out by October. He simply doesn’t have the money unless Nicole Shanahan is cool continually burning hers.

Very uncomfortable feeling to be thinking “keep it up Kellyanne Conway!”

Sorry mate, but the phrase from the river to the sea is explicitly NOT intended to mean that by many that employ it. Do I think people still should not say it and respect the fact it is offensive to others? Absolutely. But it doesn’t mean they deserve being compared to the Klan and if you can’t accept that that’s your own problem. If you think Rashida Tlaib should be compared to the Klan, that is indeed absurd and outrageous.

I didn’t say it was laughable, I said comparing people saying from the river to the sea to the KKK is absurd and offensive. The phrase means different things to different people. Even if it didn’t, the history of the KKK is far more egregious than expressing hateful rhetoric.

No. Walz and Cooper’s reaction to student protests in their states was not nearly as aggressive as Shapiro’s. Moreover, they were careful in their rhetoric not to equate peaceful protests with actual antisemitic instances and lawbreaking - a distinction Shapiro demonstrably and repeatedly failed to do, which was the point I was emphasizing. As for Walz opposing BDS efforts, there’s nothing wrong with saying you think they’re wrong. That’s fundamentally different than backing enforcement of a law that suppresses their free expression and characterizing the entire movement as antisemitic. The order is transparently a veiled threat to anti-Israel expression considering the context. Granted, it’s almost certainly never going to be enforced, but simply issuing it can have a chilling effect. Yes, comparing people chanting from the river to the sea to the KKK is absurd and offensive.

No, it’s not because he’s Jewish and he does have a history of demonizing peaceful protesters. Shapiro has a long pattern of conflating any anti-Israel expression with antisemitism - at times employing offensively preposterous rhetoric and backing strong arm tactics to suppress legitimate speech. As AG, he backed enforcement of PA’s ridiculous and illiberal anti-BDS law to attack those radicals at Ben and Jerry’s and cast the entire movement as rooted in antisemitism. In May, his office issued an order revising the code of conduct for state employees as a transparent threat to anyone expressing anti-Israel views. The order defies basic logic in somehow referring to boycotts as “hate speech,” and is usually the type of shit you expect from authoritarian Republicans. He’s offensively compared ceasefire activists to white supremacists and the KKK. Regarding the student protests, he encouraged the strong arming of the cops breaking up the encampment at Penn. He outright lied with a conflation and mischaracterization of the protests at Pitt - particularly the encampment on the Cathedral lawn. On a personal level, this is according to faculty members I know and trust - and are hardly “far left,” nor fans at all of the protestor for that matter. I don’t personally find any of this disqualifying, but Pro-Palestinian activists and Pennsylvania Muslim groups plainly have legitimate grievances and valid reasons to feel betrayed by Shapiro based on his behavior and rhetoric. Framing this as “simply because he’s Jewish” is engaging in the same type of absurd conflation that Shapiro is engaging in. He backed Republican legislation that would have set aside $100 million for vouchers. He eventually vetoed the bill after intense Democratic backlash, but it’s been widely reported he heavily advocated for the vouchers throughout the legislative negotiations. That’s what he’s being accused of. More importantly, it plainly pissed off teachers unions and they are already expressing their opposition. That’s, ya know, a pretty important constituency for the Democratic Party. As I said last night, the reason I would avoid Shapiro is because due to these issues it would signify an unforced error when there are alternatives that are just as good or better.

Meh I still think it will be relevant. It took Palpatine 19 years to dissolve the Senate.

One unmentioned bonus if Kelly is the choice - Gabby Giffords as Second Lady would be really awesome.

And I don’t. Haniyeh is a more complicated example, granted, but the idea anyone thought killing bin Laden would have much of an effect - either way - on the general status at that point in 2011 is farcical. He was assassinated because of 9/11. The fact of the matter is these individuals declared war on the governments that assassinated them. They knew what they were getting into and they deserved to die. I’m not going to get into another played-out, woe is the fighters of western imperialism argument with you. I do find it concerning when such killings are celebrated, but I’m not going to criticize the US or Israel for assassinating terrorist leaders.

So? He still deserved to die.

I think Walz has that relatable Midwestern magic sauce that can be very useful in the blue wall states. Kelly doesn’t, really. To be clear, all of these arguments are VERY marginal. I’m getting into the weeds about the veepstakes because (a) I’m bored, (b) I’m a hopeless political junkie, and (c) the VP choice is always an important first indicator on the competence of a nominee’s campaign (this is especially pronounced in Harris’ case considering the unprecedented circumstances). Not necessarily because the choice will have too much of an impact, but because it’s indicative of committing an unforced error if there are better alternatives. I think Beshear and Shapiro would be unforced errors in that vein. Kelly wouldn’t, just expressing my preference.

You’d be wrong. Or at least you don’t understand the difference between “pulling their support” and not devoting as much effort and resources they would if the campaign maintains enthusiasm.

I think this was already apparent. Even it wasn’t, I’d still be fine with it. It’s roughly akin to killing bin Laden.

I don’t think so. I think Walz helps more in the blue wall states than Kelly, which I would prioritize over Arizona.

This is an overly-simplistic way to look at the reaction to a VP pick. Beshear - or any of the reported choices - is not going to directly impact the electorate at large. The impact and danger of pissing off the left is in suppressing enthusiasm among key interest groups and political activists. They provide the campaign infrastructure and a significant portion of the funding. Right. But if Harris/Kelly wins that means it’s very likely the 2026 midterms are going to be a very difficult environment for Dems, so there’s a high probability you’re sacrificing that seat. What can I say, I’m greedy - and I think Walz is just as good if not better without having to worry about it.

Obviously I’m concerned about Iran’s response, but the IRGC’s statement at the moment only identifies Haniyeh and a bodyguard as casualties. If that’s the case, I got no problem with it.

Georgia is definitely a swing state. Demographically it aligns with Harris’ strengths very well. It’s not an accident she held her first rally today in Atlanta. As I mentioned earlier, I also consider North Carolina as competitive. Apparently so does Harris’ camp based on her reported schedule next week. As for longshots, really the only other one I’d consider a possibility is Florida. Like, a five percent possibility.

Not a chance. I’d also like to see him take a shot at McConnell’s seat in 2026. Will almost certainly be an open seat, best chance he’s ever going to get.

This was touched upon the other day but there are a number of things the left WILL get pissed off about Beshear if he is the choice. First, environmentalists are going to be reflexively concerned about his muted record on climate change and energy policy in general. Obviously his positioning is necessary to win in Kentucky, but it’s not going to translate well for national Dems. Second, he’s on record opposing an assault weapons ban. This is quite sticky considering Harris has already highlighted it as a key agenda item. Third, his relatively muted response to the aftermath of the Breonna Taylor killing will be scrutinized. Finally, the pro-choice lobby has already clarified they’re not fans:

Yeah noticed Harris emphasized it as an obvious canned line at the rally. Wouldn’t read into that either though. Ew. If he is the choice and he’s implying that shit I’d be royally pissed as the Harris camp.

I know it doesn’t really matter and they’re all generally fine choices, but I can’t help myself, I’ve been caught up in the veepstakes. I really hope it’s not Beshear or Shapiro. I don’t think either is ready and Shapiro is kind of a dick. As mentioned before, I’d also really prefer Kelly keeps that seat. So, I’m really rooting for Walz. I don’t think so but it’s obvious fodder for desperate political junkies and journalists, which is funny. That’d be my guess. Maybe leak it on Sunday for the morning shows. Not sure what you’re referring to with the twitter thing but my old school sensibilities also thinks Beshear has been campaigning for the job a bit too hard.