LordMortis wrote:I'm still trying to understand the better off financially under TFG. I hear it often and have yet to see one single piece of supporting evidence.
I think it begins and ends with "I'm pretty sure I remember eggs being cheaper."
Blackhawk wrote:No doubt. The problem is that it's become a very effective political strategy to manipulate those people by confusing them as to what qualifies as 'right.' Many Trump voters - those who only hear about politics from far-right sources - likely genuinely believe that they're doing the right thing.
Maybe, but I'm not convinced it's a super effective political strategy given Trump lost in 2020, the Republicans got smashed in the mid-terms, and nearly every special election Trump has touched since he was in office has turned to crap.
Trump lucked out and the market did well for a while during his term. It had nothing to do with anything he did, I believe. As a matter of fact, I feel like it was in spite of what he did.
Genuine question: have prices ever gone down across the board as a result of anything but a crisis/disaster?
I know gasoline prices fluctuate with global politics, and I know specific products can be affected by particular problems (e.g. eggs when a bird disease kills a lot of chickens), but is there any case where a president came into office to "lower prices" and actually lowered prices generally?
My understanding is that prices routinely rise as a feature of capitalism, and that Good Times are defined by wages rising slightly faster than prices while Bad Times are vice-versa.
hepcat wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2024 8:52 pm
Trump lucked out and the market did well for a while during his term. It had nothing to do with anything he did, I believe. As a matter of fact, I feel like it was in spite of what he did.
Since we don't have a non-Trump example to compare it to, it's entirely possible that it actually did worse than it could have.
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2024 4:07 pm
too many down ballot punches (75 judges I think, etc).
The judge retention ballots around here are ridiculous. You can always skip it, though. Personally, I tend to check the recommendations of organizations like Chicago Bar Association and Illinois State Bar Association, but that's a lot to ask of someone who would rather skip voting altogether than fill out so many bubbles.
This being effectively a one-party state, most downballot races are uncontested. I only ever vote for uncontested candidates if I actively know and approve of their performance — so, very rarely. Saves a lot of time to just skip the boxes with only one oval to darken.
I'm seeing reports that eminently punchable douchebags Martin Shkreli (Johnny Pharmabro) and Richard Spencer (Johnny Nazi) have both endorsed Harris. Just when you think the timeline can't get any crazier...
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
I would just like to remind people that abortion rights are on the ballot in 10 states on Tuesday. Including in Arizona, Nevada, Florida and Montana. All states that are important for the national elections (presidential or senate). Also just a reminder that the polls have consistently under counted the pro abortion rights votes. Don't be surprised if those states go more Dem than normal.
Max Peck wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 1:38 pm
I'm seeing reports that eminently punchable douchebags Martin Shkreli (Johnny Pharmabro) and Richard Spencer (Johnny Nazi) have both endorsed Harris. Just when you think the timeline can't get any crazier...
Both of these are understood as ploys to get attention and drive traffic to their media, and thus to their ideologies.
Dont think it will be enough to flip Florida or Montana but that definitely puts Arizona and Nevada in reach. I swore the anti abortion laws happened in AZ in 2022 and won the state blue that year with record youth turnout then. Too many drugs for me, I guess.
Max Peck wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 1:38 pm
I'm seeing reports that eminently punchable douchebags Martin Shkreli (Johnny Pharmabro) and Richard Spencer (Johnny Nazi) have both endorsed Harris. Just when you think the timeline can't get any crazier...
So did Putin.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
Max Peck wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 1:38 pm
I'm seeing reports that eminently punchable douchebags Martin Shkreli (Johnny Pharmabro) and Richard Spencer (Johnny Nazi) have both endorsed Harris. Just when you think the timeline can't get any crazier...
Both of these are understood as ploys to get attention and drive traffic to their media, and thus to their ideologies.
Makes sense. Also, Shkreli has an ideology? Beyond Greed is Good, I mean.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
Max Peck wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 1:38 pm
I'm seeing reports that eminently punchable douchebags Martin Shkreli (Johnny Pharmabro) and Richard Spencer (Johnny Nazi) have both endorsed Harris. Just when you think the timeline can't get any crazier...
So did Putin.
Putin endorsed Harris? Is he afraid DonOld might be authoritarian competition?
Max Peck wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 1:38 pm
I'm seeing reports that eminently punchable douchebags Martin Shkreli (Johnny Pharmabro) and Richard Spencer (Johnny Nazi) have both endorsed Harris. Just when you think the timeline can't get any crazier...
So did Putin.
Putin endorsed Harris? Is he afraid DonOld might be authoritarian competition?
Russian President Vladimir Putin raised eyebrows Thursday when he expressed his support for US Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential bid, flattering the Democratic nominee with some curiously timed remarks.
“Our ‘favorite,’ if you can call it that, was the current president, Mr. [Joe] Biden. But he was removed from the race, and he recommended all his supporters to support Ms. Harris. Well, we will do so – we will support her,” Putin said Thursday at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok. “She laughs so expressively and infectiously that it means that she is doing well.”
Putin also criticized former president and current Republican nominee Donald Trump for placing “so many restrictions and sanctions against Russia like no other president has ever introduced before him.”
So the real message, to low-information voters, is that Trump, far from being Putin's creature, was actually harder on Russia than anyone, maybe? It sounds to me like he was just mocking all of them.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
I see it as a backhanded endorsement. He 'endorsed' Harris while saying that (my read) her only qualification is being emotional, while at the same time sounding like Trump was tough and powerful. Doing so also creates a "but" when people accuse Trump of being Putin's bitch.
Whoa, this is a shocker, Harris leads Trump in Iowa - and no, this is not some bogus poll:
Women voters are driving this change.
I’m still not sure whether I believe this or not? If this is accurate, could pollsters be missing this change in other red states that they are not doing much polling in?
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
I would love to see a blowout and Trump lose bigly. I want to watch my MAGA coworker’s Facebook page blow up as he self destructs. I imagine there will be conspiracy theories galore.
Grifman wrote:I’m still not sure whether I believe this or not? If this is accurate, could pollsters be missing this change in other red states that they are not doing much polling in?
Yes, I think they are and have been this entire election cycle.
Anyone outside the cult who is paying even the slightest bit of attention is sick and tired of him. Women doubly (triply? quadruply?) so.
They have also seen magnified over and over the past few weeks at his rallies and media events how unstable, stupid, mean, petty, and dangerous he is…to Harris’ normal and hopeful messaging. I’m getting the sense that - combined with several important ballot initiatives - will get people off the sideline who might not have otherwise jumped in.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
My wife's PAC has knocked on 3,000 doors in our area. These weren't just random addresses but chosen as "gettable" voters: newly registered, ones who've voted in previous presidential elections but skipped off-years & primaries, and suchlike.
Is it still anecdotal when the size of your door-knocking sample is larger than some polls? Because the story developing at these doors is one of very Blue enthusiasm and commitment. And it extends down the ballot too.
I'd consider it anecdotal if I wasn't seeing similar stories from door knockers in multiple states. And the idea that new voters, low propensity voters, etc. are showing up has been borne out in the early voting data.
There are lots of people that don't like what the poll is saying, but if you read through people that track polling they've pointed out that Selzer is (1) respected and (2) reliable. Other than a few outliers, the breakdown I saw last night had them polling within <5 points (a few were dead on) over the last decade.
Again, it's too early for polls, but if this is a correct read it's a really good sign.
Here's the thing - if the Selzer poll had come out saying Trump was up +5, it STILL would have been a major indicator of her winning the election. The idea that it is a "fluke" that doesn't reflect Harris' chances implies that the poll is not off by just 3 points, but by +8 points. One of the most accurate polls in the country, that correctly predicted Obama's candidacy, and the 2016 and 2020 Presidential outcomes (not to mention multiple congressional races) is 8 points off? Bullshit.
Not to mention that the double digit advantage Harris has with women strongly correlates to the early vote returns we're seeing in other states.
HARRIS NATIONAL LEAD: Harris leads Trump by 20 points among registered voters under 30 (53%-33%) and by 28 points among likely voters (60%-32%).
BATTLEGROUND TIGHTER: Harris's lead narrows to 9 points across seven key swing states (50%-41%) among registered voters.
GENDER GAP DOUBLES: The gender gap has grown from 8 points in the spring to 20 points, driven by Harris's 30-point lead among women. Younger male Trump supporters are less likely to vote.
Kraken wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 10:35 am
I won’t pretend to know better than the author of that opinion piece, but The Economist slants distinctly right.
The Economist just endorsed Kamala Harris
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
Kraken wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 10:35 am
I won’t pretend to know better than the author of that opinion piece, but The Economist slants distinctly right.
The Economist just endorsed Kamala Harris
The Economist article suggests the spread may be less pronounced than it suggests — more like Obama who had 60% of the shift from the poll. Basically don’t celebrate yet.
But it’s definitely good news, with good reason.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
If young voters are turning out in Michigan, that’s really good news. They’re not staying home out of misguided solidarity with Palestinians who would be worse off during a Trump administration.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth "The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2024 4:07 pm
too many down ballot punches (75 judges I think, etc).
The judge retention ballots around here are ridiculous. You can always skip it, though. Personally, I tend to check the recommendations of organizations like Chicago Bar Association and Illinois State Bar Association, but that's a lot to ask of someone who would rather skip voting altogether than fill out so many bubbles.
This being effectively a one-party state, most downballot races are uncontested. I only ever vote for uncontested candidates if I actively know and approve of their performance — so, very rarely. Saves a lot of time to just skip the boxes with only one oval to darken.
Judicial retention votes are always uncontested, but it's not the same as a D running unopposed in a traditionally blue area. It's basically, "Should this judge retain his/her seat?" If 60% (or something like that) vote they should go, they lose their seat. People hardly ever lose their seats - there generally has to be some sort of scandal. Since these are more than just people running uncontested and there is a potential real outcome to the vote, however, I do vote them.
