YellowKing wrote: Thu Aug 01, 2024 8:17 am
She's got him rocked back on his heels now; as Buttigieg pointed out, Trump can't handle pressure and will get increasingly weirder and more outrageous the longer the momentum is with Harris. And the crazier he gets, the more punches she can land.
And the crazier he gets the more outrageous shit he says. I'd put 50/50 odds on him getting caught using the N word on a hot mic sometime before election day.
YellowKing wrote: Thu Aug 01, 2024 8:17 am
She's got him rocked back on his heels now; as Buttigieg pointed out, Trump can't handle pressure and will get increasingly weirder and more outrageous the longer the momentum is with Harris. And the crazier he gets, the more punches she can land.
And the crazier he gets the more outrageous shit he says. I'd put 50/50 odds on him getting caught using the N word on a hot mic sometime before election day.
As nutty as that seems, I would not take that bet.
YellowKing wrote: Thu Aug 01, 2024 8:17 am
She's got him rocked back on his heels now; as Buttigieg pointed out, Trump can't handle pressure and will get increasingly weirder and more outrageous the longer the momentum is with Harris. And the crazier he gets, the more punches she can land.
And the crazier he gets the more outrageous shit he says. I'd put 50/50 odds on him getting caught using the N word on a hot mic sometime before election day.
As nutty as that seems, I would not take that bet.
I'm hoping he says that black people who vote for Kamala aren't really black.
I do love the trendline at the moment, though as of now it does look like Trump will have a significant electoral college advantage. Like this gives Harris a 57% chance of winning the popular vote but only a 42.5% chance of winning the electoral college. Bearing in mind that Biden beat Trump in 2020 by like 4.5% of the vote (a pretty solid margin) but only barely won the electoral college.
Re: The Kamala Harris presidential candidacy
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:52 am
by El Guapo
A case for Josh Shapiro as VP from a center-left pundit. I don't know Shapiro very well, so I don't know what to think about him yet.
Re: The Kamala Harris presidential candidacy
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:55 am
by Smoove_B
I don't think it will be Shapiro or Kelly; I still believe they are best where they currently are. The more videos I see of Walz, the more he seems like a great fit.
First, there’s his personality. The 60-year-old governor would bring energy, humor and some much-needed bite to the Democratic presidential ticket. There’s a reason why his videos have been going viral in recent days. Tim Kaine he ain’t. Pick the charismatic and eloquent Walz and you have America’s Fun Uncle ready to go.
Then, there’s his résumé. A popular midwest governor from a rural town. A 24-year veteran of the army national guard. A high school teacher who coached the football team to its first state championship. It’s almost too perfect!
Finally, there’s his governing record. You will struggle to find a Democratic governor who has achieved more than Walz in the space of a single legislative session. Not Shapiro. Not JB Pritzker of Illinois. Not even Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan.
I think the first sentence is what clinches it for me. I'm not sure if it's because he was a school teacher in another lifetime or it's just how he's wired, but he is great with words. For example:
Re: The Kamala Harris presidential candidacy
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2024 12:18 pm
by EvilHomer3k
Smoove_B wrote: Thu Aug 01, 2024 10:55 am
I don't think it will be Shapiro or Kelly; I still believe they are best where they currently are. The more videos I see of Walz, the more he seems like a great fit.
First, there’s his personality. The 60-year-old governor would bring energy, humor and some much-needed bite to the Democratic presidential ticket. There’s a reason why his videos have been going viral in recent days. Tim Kaine he ain’t. Pick the charismatic and eloquent Walz and you have America’s Fun Uncle ready to go.
Then, there’s his résumé. A popular midwest governor from a rural town. A 24-year veteran of the army national guard. A high school teacher who coached the football team to its first state championship. It’s almost too perfect!
Finally, there’s his governing record. You will struggle to find a Democratic governor who has achieved more than Walz in the space of a single legislative session. Not Shapiro. Not JB Pritzker of Illinois. Not even Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan.
I think the first sentence is what clinches it for me. I'm not sure if it's because he was a school teacher in another lifetime or it's just how he's wired, but he is great with words. For example:
Walz is fantastic. Every time Iowa passes some regressive law, Minnesota passes two progressive ones. So jealous that they have him. I think Kelly or Shapiro complement Harris a little better and are more likely to help her win their state. Walz isn't very well known outside of Minnesota and his record is pretty far left (not to say that he, himself is far left - just the laws that Minnesota is passing are - which I view as a good thing for Minnesota but maybe not a great way to get some of the more centrist voters). I certainly wouldn't say he's a bad candidate just not the same popularity as Kelly and more center Shapiro.
Highlighted by a man introduced as the “dude in chief,” actor Jeff Bridges.
Re: The Kamala Harris presidential candidacy
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2024 1:27 pm
by LordMortis
Anyone ever find out the explanation for their Xhitter account being suspended? I see it's up and running again but not mention as to why it was suspended in the first place
“White Dudes for Harris” was reinstated on Tuesday and is back to posting to its nearly 100,000 followers. The group, composed of white men who support the vice president, is not affiliated with Kamala Harris’ campaign.
The account celebrated its return to X in a post on Tuesday afternoon: “WE ARE SO BACK! After a groundswell of grassroots complaints to @ElonMusk from the #WhiteDudesforHarris community, our account was reinstated & we’re allowed to post again. Thank you for coming to our aid & carrying on this conversation in our absence.”
Re: The Kamala Harris presidential candidacy
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2024 1:51 pm
by hitbyambulance
EvilHomer3k wrote: Thu Aug 01, 2024 12:18 pm
Walz is fantastic. Every time Iowa passes some regressive law, Minnesota passes two progressive ones. So jealous that they have him. I think Kelly or Shapiro complement Harris a little better and are more likely to help her win their state. Walz isn't very well known outside of Minnesota and his record is pretty far left (not to say that he, himself is far left - just the laws that Minnesota is passing are - which I view as a good thing for Minnesota but maybe not a great way to get some of the more centrist voters).
i have always not respected anyone who tries to lump Minnesota in with the rest of 'the midwest'. MN has long has a fairly-to-very progressive political record and is arguably the economic center of the upper Midwest (lower Michigan feels more like a 'gateway to the east coast' state... 'upper Mideast'? but da U.P. could fit in.)
EvilHomer3k wrote: Thu Aug 01, 2024 12:18 pm
Walz is fantastic. Every time Iowa passes some regressive law, Minnesota passes two progressive ones. So jealous that they have him. I think Kelly or Shapiro complement Harris a little better and are more likely to help her win their state. Walz isn't very well known outside of Minnesota and his record is pretty far left (not to say that he, himself is far left - just the laws that Minnesota is passing are - which I view as a good thing for Minnesota but maybe not a great way to get some of the more centrist voters).
i have always not respected anyone who tries to lump Minnesota in with the rest of 'the midwest'. MN has long has a fairly-to-very progressive political record and is arguably the economic center of the upper Midwest (lower Michigan feels more like a 'gateway to the east coast' state... 'upper Mideast'? but da U.P. could fit in.)
I've always thought of Minnesota as West Coast Wisconsin.
Re: The Kamala Harris presidential candidacy
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2024 3:54 pm
by Unagi
If your football rivals are greenbay, chicago, and detroit - I'm sure it will be hard to escape the label.
Re: The Kamala Harris presidential candidacy
Posted: Thu Aug 01, 2024 5:52 pm
by waitingtoconnect
Minnesota had Jesse Ventura and before that Farmers-Labor (before 1944). They dont just want to be a state major parties fly over they want to be recognised.
Re: The Kamala Harris presidential candidacy
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2024 4:11 pm
by Pyperkub
em2nought wrote: Will spending tons of cash to fight global warming have any effect other than to empty our pocketbooks? I don't think so.
Em2, you need to re-think this, it's so blatantly false given our energy demands. Coal and Nuclear are already economically non-viable, and the explosion in renewable is doing the same for gas and oil.
The green energy revolution – funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS Act and the Science Act – is accomplishing amazing feats, which are barely registering...
.... Here's brief tour of the revolution:
2023 saw 32GW of new solar energy come online in the USA (up 50% from 2022);
Wind increased from 118GW to 141GW;
Grid-scale batteries doubled in 2023 and will double again in 2024;
EV sales increased from 20,000 to 90,000/month...
...For every MWh of renewable power produced, we save $100 in social carbon costs. That's $100 worth of people not sickening and dying from pollution, $100 worth of homes and habitats not burning down or disappearing under floodwaters. All told, US renewables have delivered $250,000,000,000 (one quarter of one trillion dollars) in social carbon savings over the past four years
The people who say we can't do this, and can't afford it have a DIRECT economic interest in it not happening (theykeep trying to pass Coal subsidy bills, if you haven't noticed, when NOBODY will invest in coal without subsidies) , but it is already happening.
From a Capitalism perspective, it's the fossil fuel subsidies the industry is dependent upon which we can't afford.
Just spent a couple of weeks in Scotland, and it was refreshing to be among people that just focused on doing what they had to do to deal with things like climate change, without constantly whining and making up bullshit to disregard the science.
Re: The Kamala Harris presidential candidacy
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2024 5:02 pm
by Holman
Pyperkub wrote: Sun Aug 04, 2024 4:11 pm
Coal and Nuclear are already economically non-viable, and the explosion in renewable is doing the same for gas and oil.
I recently came across the claim that there are twice as many yoga instructors as coal miners in the United States (something like 85,000 to 43,000).
Pyperkub wrote: Sun Aug 04, 2024 4:11 pm
Coal and Nuclear are already economically non-viable, and the explosion in renewable is doing the same for gas and oil.
I recently came across the claim that there are twice as many yoga instructors as coal miners in the United States (something like 85,000 to 43,000).
I recall being educated on that a few election cycles ago.
Of course, the counter argument is that Florida alone employs almost 20 thousand 'line men' who's job it is to repair power lines after massive storms. So, as a country we have a moral imperative to keep the climate changes coming! And only coal does that as well as coal.
Em2, you need to re-think this, it's so blatantly false given our energy demands. Coal and Nuclear are already economically non-viable, and the explosion in renewable is doing the same for gas and oil.
Renewables aren't enough to keep up with demand. We have to either lower the demand or deal with the fact that we need a significant bridge source until renewable technology improves.
How is nuclear not economically viable? To my thinking it is the only way we get away from fossil fuel dependency. It has the same issue as renewables: the up front cost is high but long term it is cheaper and lower impact.
Em2, you need to re-think this, it's so blatantly false given our energy demands. Coal and Nuclear are already economically non-viable, and the explosion in renewable is doing the same for gas and oil.
Renewables aren't enough to keep up with demand. We have to either lower the demand or deal with the fact that we need a significant bridge source until renewable technology improves.
How is nuclear not economically viable? To my thinking it is the only way we get away from fossil fuel dependency. It has the same issue as renewables: the up front cost is high but long term it is cheaper and lower impact.
10+ years to build a new plant and even those have been being canceled due to not being economically viable (lots of articles in the past year or so about capital funders for nuclear buildout pulling out due to the issues with financial returns) . Fusion is more likely to build new reactors in the next 10 years than fission, IMHO, and it isn't even ready yet. And given the returns as fusion becomes a competitor (whether ten or even twenty years down the road) it's hard for me to see new fission plants having enough of a return to turn a decent profit.
Re: The Kamala Harris presidential candidacy
Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2024 2:33 pm
by Alefroth
Grifman wrote: Mon Aug 05, 2024 8:35 am
Harris is reclaiming Hispanics:
That's definitely not something I expected to see.
Grifman wrote: Mon Aug 05, 2024 8:35 am
Harris is reclaiming Hispanics:
That's definitely not something I expected to see.
And women are through the roof. I expected that support, but this could be landslide territory.
Re: The Kamala Harris presidential candidacy
Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2024 3:24 pm
by hepcat
There's still time for Trump to pivot, drop Vance and take on a moderate who isn't a bootlicking toadie, apologize to Kemp and his wife and appear as an elder statesman.
Em2, you need to re-think this, it's so blatantly false given our energy demands. Coal and Nuclear are already economically non-viable, and the explosion in renewable is doing the same for gas and oil.
Renewables aren't enough to keep up with demand. We have to either lower the demand or deal with the fact that we need a significant bridge source until renewable technology improves.
How is nuclear not economically viable? To my thinking it is the only way we get away from fossil fuel dependency. It has the same issue as renewables: the up front cost is high but long term it is cheaper and lower impact.
10+ years to build a new plant and even those have been being canceled due to not being economically viable (lots of articles in the past year or so about capital funders for nuclear buildout pulling out due to the issues with financial returns) . Fusion is more likely to build new reactors in the next 10 years than fission, IMHO, and it isn't even ready yet. And given the returns as fusion becomes a competitor (whether ten or even twenty years down the road) it's hard for me to see new fission plants having enough of a return to turn a decent profit.
Fusion isn't on the table. At this point, we're 15-20 years out from producing power from a fusion reaction. At best. And nowhere near that in terms of meeting a significant amount of our energy needs.
A current generation fission reactor can be built in 5-7 years right now. That is not quick, certainly, but it is far sooner than we will be able to meet energy demands solely with renewables. And good portion of that time is due to highly inefficient regulation, much of which was pushed by the fossil fuel lobby to stymie nuclear. That is changing though.
August 1 - There are over 70 advanced reactors in development worldwide, many using technology that is distinct from the traditional light water reactor (LWR) design found in most Generation III nuclear plants in operation today.
The NRC has faced criticism from within the industry for presiding over a slow, out-of-date regulatory process that is too rigid and too slow to effectively usher in the new generation of nuclear reactors.
Our energy situation is this generation's moonshot. We have to dedicate massive amount of funding and focus regardless of which direction we go. If we don't, we're mostly screwed.
Re: The Kamala Harris presidential candidacy
Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2024 6:12 pm
by waitingtoconnect
Alefroth wrote: Mon Aug 05, 2024 4:56 pm
I'd love it if Vance was Trump's Palin.
Remember when McCain told off “supporters” who asked birther conspiracy questions
Alefroth wrote: Mon Aug 05, 2024 4:56 pm
I'd love it if Vance was Trump's Palin.
Remember when McCain told off “supporters” who asked birther conspiracy questions
I can't remember if that was before or after he saddled his legacy with Sarah Palin.
If McCain hadn't chosen Palin, he quite likely would have beaten Obama and saved the GOP from radicalization. We have Sarah Palin to thank for the rise of Donald Trump.
Re: The Kamala Harris presidential candidacy
Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2024 10:33 pm
by waitingtoconnect
McCain only got his shot on condition he took on Palin. Remember his gracious concession speech highlighting how sad he was that Obamas grandmother wasn’t alive to see his success? And how we shouldn’t be afraid of him.
No wonder trump and maga hate him.
I’d argue though trump is just the biggest symptom of a larger disease. The main disease is that we’ve allowed greed is good grift and get rich or die trying individualism to take root over community and pulling together. Trump is a king of grift and now the grifters (maga) want to anoint him the god of the rest of us.
Re: The Kamala Harris presidential candidacy
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2024 7:57 am
by LordMortis
waitingtoconnect wrote: Mon Aug 05, 2024 10:33 pm
I’d argue though trump is just the biggest symptom of a larger disease.
He's a perfect malignant metastasis of the obvious collective really? seeing reality TV watchers and a symptom of a culture that I didn't realize was so large at the time and whom I thought was just slowly going away on its own. As far back as The Real Life and the morbidly obese family show, we lamented that power of this block as voters with reality TV and the people watching and how that would be our downfall. We weren't supposed to be right.
Alefroth wrote: Mon Aug 05, 2024 4:56 pm
I'd love it if Vance was Trump's Palin.
Remember when McCain told off “supporters” who asked birther conspiracy questions
I can't remember if that was before or after he saddled his legacy with Sarah Palin.
If McCain hadn't chosen Palin, he quite likely would have beaten Obama and saved the GOP from radicalization. We have Sarah Palin to thank for the rise of Donald Trump.
And so, we have McCain to thank for the rise of Donald Trump. McCain was the one who let the first raccoon into the house.
Alefroth wrote: Mon Aug 05, 2024 4:56 pm
I'd love it if Vance was Trump's Palin.
Remember when McCain told off “supporters” who asked birther conspiracy questions
I can't remember if that was before or after he saddled his legacy with Sarah Palin.
If McCain hadn't chosen Palin, he quite likely would have beaten Obama and saved the GOP from radicalization. We have Sarah Palin to thank for the rise of Donald Trump.
I really don't believe that Palin was the reason McCain lost. I have no idea what the poling was when he added her. BUT I do remember people being entirely sick of the GOP in 2007. At the time Bush Jr had gone from an extremely popular war time president to an extremely unpopular known liar and manufacturer of war. Also the economy was a mess and the housing market an even bigger mess thanks to Republican deregulation of the mortgage system. 2008 was a true blue wave and I don't think McCain's VP pick had a whole lot to do with it.
Alefroth wrote: Mon Aug 05, 2024 4:56 pm
I'd love it if Vance was Trump's Palin.
Remember when McCain told off “supporters” who asked birther conspiracy questions
I can't remember if that was before or after he saddled his legacy with Sarah Palin.
If McCain hadn't chosen Palin, he quite likely would have beaten Obama and saved the GOP from radicalization. We have Sarah Palin to thank for the rise of Donald Trump.
I don't remember it that way. Obama had big momentum as the "Hope and Change" candidate, and he had the solid credential of having opposed the (by then very unpopular) Iraq War from the beginning. The economy was collapsing in the Great Recession. The sitting GOP president was so unpopular that he wasn't even present at the GOP convention.
McCain needed a Hail Mary, and Palin was his gamble.
Re: The Kamala Harris presidential candidacy
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2024 9:07 am
by Unagi
Yeah, the idea at the time was that without Palin, he would have done worse.
Re: The Kamala Harris presidential candidacy
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2024 9:46 am
by ImLawBoy
waitingtoconnect wrote: Mon Aug 05, 2024 10:33 pm
McCain only got his shot on condition he took on Palin.
Cite? I'm not saying it's not true, but I've never heard that before.
waitingtoconnect wrote: Mon Aug 05, 2024 10:33 pm
McCain only got his shot on condition he took on Palin.
Cite? I'm not saying it's not true, but I've never heard that before.
That is some crazy revisionist history by waitingtoconnect, seeing as how McCain locked up the nomination in early March and Palin was pretty much an unknown quantity til she was selected as McCain's VP candidate in late August.
Re: The Kamala Harris presidential candidacy
Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2024 10:02 am
by Zarathud
McCain needed to shore up his base, so he chose Palin for her age and conservative views.
As far back as The Real Life and the morbidly obese family show, we lamented that power of this block as voters with reality TV and the people watching and how that would be our downfall. We weren't supposed to be right.