Jump to content

2024 Presidential Election Thread - Let's keep the party going.


Recommended Posts

Posted
5 hours ago, Okie State said:

Or a wealth tax on net worth over $100MM.

According to the brain trust in the inflation thread, you need a net worth over $100MM to afford that apartment and groceries.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, YChang said:

Lol, this is every Asian mom, aunt, and grandmother. Plus you get the added bonus as you're chowing down on the sweet with a comment of "Have you gained weight?"

My grandmother would simultaneously suggest I'm not eating enough, eating too much, and need to become strong like her (which little kid me did think she was freakishly strong). Maybe that comes from escaping machine gun fire from the Japanese and then the communists, and then pretending to be boy to hitch a boat to India and then the US all before the age of 14. I don't know. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
53 minutes ago, Js1 said:

There's a lot less undecided around this time.  Siena/NYT explained partially why their polls were off in 2020 - people they called who didn't complete the survey weren't counted, even though they indicated a vote for Trump ("I'm voting for Trump!" followed by hanging up).  They are counting those as a Trump vote this year. 

The decision to ignore people who said "Trump" and then hung up has to be one of the dumbest pollster decisions of all time. I'm not familiar with the story other than reading it in this thread though I accept it as true. It's so jaw droppingly stupid it seems like a good reason to ignore the pollsters, even the well-rated ones, especially this far out from the election. I believe there's too much focus on the polling/horse race right now, and that there's no magic national vote percentage that would give Harris the electoral vote she needs - gotta go state by state, county by county.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 hours ago, Js1 said:

media_GWOv7ykXwAI0Fl0.png.46ceb00a841ea55d3137077e06df3811.png

Harris is polling way better than Hillary was in 2016 and just a few tick below Obama in 2012.  In both those cases, the Labor Day average was less than 1 point from the final margin.  

I think people forget that 2016 was so weird - both candidates polled so low, due to high negatives, with a high number of undecided voters - but damn if the polls knew it was going to be a <2% race in the end.   

Or even 2008 - it was close after Labor Day, with McCain ahead in a bunch of polls through the first half of September.  It was not until late September that Obama pulled away for good. 

One reason why 2008 was weird is that John McCain gave his acceptance speech to the RNC on Thursday, September 4, which meant that his bounce started and ended a lot later than some years.

The timing of his bounce cooling off lined up nicely with the collapse of Wall Street.  Lehman Brothers failed on Monday, September 15th, AIG followed the next day, and the first bailout bill failed on the House floor shortly thereafter. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

The whole tax on unrealized capital gains is a complete red herring. Even the Dems sweep in November, it's extremely doubtful this would be a priority. Will they raise tax or close some loopholes for the wealthy? That's a possibility.  But create a process to track and tax unrealized capital gains? 0.001% chance.

Posted
So, uh, this is bullshit.
 
 

I’m sorry, are they saying Biden should have attended Trump’s illegal campaign photo op stunt? I’d rather not click on that link.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The whole tax on unrealized capital gains is a complete red herring.

I don’t think it’s a complete red herring, but soaking the rich polls well, regardless of party ID.  
 

I wonder if it might be the Dems “pro-life”-like policy, in that it helps energize their base but will damn them if it ever comes to pass (as the largest of their socially sympathetic financiers flee out of economic self-interest).  
 

Personally, I don’t really care what Harris wants to run on as long as it’s popular and maybe gives her some coattails to ride.  
 

Nobody is giving the Democrats a pass, unfortunately, when a recalcitrant body in the law-making process prevents bills popular with a significant majority from becoming law.  Creating durable majorities in Congress means they actually need to do something.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Red Five said:

I’m sorry, are they saying Biden should have attended Trump’s illegal campaign photo op stunt? I’d rather not click on that link.

I think they're saying that because Biden supposedly missed one Arlington memorial service, it's okay that Trump was giving a thumbs up with a shit-eating grin over a grave with his campaign entourage in tow while disregarding federal regulations.

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

I wonder if it might be the Dems “pro-life”-like policy, in that it helps energize their base.

I think this is the case. I doubt there are many people worth $100M that actually have the majority of their wealth in their own name.  If not, it'd be really easy to move assets to a trust to avoid the tax. 

Edited by CooterBrown
  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Js1 said:

Or even 2008 - it was close after Labor Day, with McCain ahead in a bunch of polls through the first half of September.  It was not until late September that Obama pulled away for good. 

The collapse of Lehman Brothers and all out financial armageddon had a lot to do with that.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

Roland Martin, eh? Here's an oldie but goodie:

Spoiler
1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

The collapse of Lehman Brothers and all out financial armageddon had a lot to do with that.

That's when I stopped voting Republicans.  Their solution to the financial crisis was less regulation. 

I thought, "So, OK, you guys have no answers, I guess.  Let's see if anyone else does."

 

 

Edited by Bullneck
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
Turns out the Diaper Don “origin story” movie - The Apprentice - is getting a release before the election. It stars Sebastian Stan as Trump, and Succession’s Jeremy Strong as mobster lawyer Roy Cohn. The film shows how the Trump toxicity was shaped by his relationship with Cohn. Diaper Don tried to stop its release with threats of a lawsuit.
 
 
image.thumb.png.f6ec4ee75cf9fc818c7f7dc8d56874f6.png
 
 

 

Quote

 

In the end, THR has learned, Kinematics’ interest in the film was bought out, allowing the Briarcliff deal to move forward.

In the relatively brief period between now and Oct. 11, The Apprentice will begin appearing at some fall film festivals, and a full-on awards campaign — something with which Ortenberg is very familiar from his days at Lionsgate overseeing Crash and at Open Road overseeing Spotlight, both of which won the best picture Oscar — is already being organized.

“What Abassi’s film reveals most of all is the extent to which the toxicity that’s now an inescapable part of our contemporary reality was shaped by the unholy alliance between two men half a century ago,” THR’s David Rooney opined in his Cannes review of the film, which received a largely positive critical reception across the board and now stands at 77 percent on Rotten Tomatoes.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 3
Posted

Interesting hypothetical polling by Clarity Campaign Labs:

Harris 57, Vance 39

They do have Harris up 51-45 on Trump.  But yeah, this is proof that there's no successor to MAGA.  Vance would be getting his ass kicked. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Interesting hypothetical polling by Clarity Campaign Labs:

Harris 57, Vance 39

They do have Harris up 51-45 on Trump.  But yeah, this is proof that there's no successor to MAGA.  Vance would be getting his ass kicked. 


My worry is that they'll find somebody who is perfectly capable of appearing like a nice, normal human being, fund him with their billions, and go crazy after he's elected. A Vanchurian candidate, so to speak. 

Edited by Horn Under a Bad Sign
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:


My worry is that they'll find somebody who is perfectly capable of appearing like a nice, normal human being, fund him with their billions, and go crazy after he's elected. A Vanchurian candidate, so to speak. 

They haven't succeeded in doing that so far. They are all weird. And frankly, getting fucking weirder. See

  • Ron DeSantis
  • JD Vance
  • Matt Gaetz
  • Lauren Boebert (although, frankly, this may be there closest one)
  • Kari Lake
  • Majorie Taylor Greene
  • Josh Hawley
  • Vivek Ramaswamy

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:


My worry is that they'll find somebody who is perfectly capable of appearing like a nice, normal human being, fund him with their billions, and go crazy after he's elected. A Vanchurian candidate, so to speak. 

That 6'4" 215 articulate, traditionally handsome, witty, perfect theoretical candidate would barely register with MAGA voters. They crave the theater and the professional wrestling storylines. They don't want "a more polished Trump." They want Stone Cold Steve Austin. They won't turn out for great looking suit.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

They haven't succeeded in doing that so far. They are all weird. And frankly, getting fucking weirder. See

  • Ron DeSantis
  • JD Vance
  • Matt Gaetz
  • Lauren Boebert (although, frankly, this may be there closest one)
  • Kari Lake
  • Majorie Taylor Greene
  • Josh Hawley
  • Vivek Ramaswamy

 



True. In order to appeal to MAGA, you have to adopt the extreme positions that most normal Americans find weird.  But my worry is that they'll find a Maga wolf in sheep's clothing. 

Posted (edited)

Isn't that contradictory, though?  You can't appeal to maga by adopting their extreme positions yet still be a wolf in sheep's clothing.  The only way to appeal to maga is to fully be in wolf's clothing.  You pretend to be anything other than maga, and you lose the maga base.

Edited by TexLonghorn
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, bluto said:

As of today there’s really only two options for them assuming Trump loses, youngkin or kemp. 

They are both too skilled of politicians to ever appeal to the MAGA base.  They both would recognize the need to try and bring in moderate voters and there is no greater sin to the red hatters.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

They are both too skilled of politicians to ever appeal to the MAGA base.  They both would recognize the need to try and bring in moderate voters and there is no greater sin to the red hatters.

And isn't Kemp an enemy of MAGA at this point? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Pancho said:

This is what a standard Black auntie sounds like

 

Indian aunties won't ask you.  They will gently put it in your mouth if you don't yourself, and shove it in if they have to.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Drool 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
MAGA dies with Trump. Hopefully whatever follows is not as monstrous. 
 

The Peoples Temple is still around, but it was never the same after Jim ate a bullet.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

MAGA dies with Trump. Hopefully whatever follows is not as monstrous. 

 

I bet Elmo takes up the mantle. He seems like he’d want to be a dictator. (Of course, not for president since he’s ineligible thank God.. But for sure as MAGA puppet master.)

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Something, something, Kamala flip flop.

 

 

I guess maybe this could have some minor impact on enthusiasm but it’s like when Trump said we should take guns before due process and @fattyflattie voted for him anyway- his voters (and this is especially true with evangelical pro-lifers) don’t care that Trump doesn’t care about policy.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Js1 said:

 

 

9 hours ago, Okie State said:

Or a wealth tax on net worth over $100MM.

This was me last night. Listening to my broke friend's broke neighbor tell me about taxes. I had to squeeze my nuts to keep from saying, "You do not have enough income to even pay taxes, much less pay taxes on $100M."

Instead I said, "I'm pretty sure none of us make $100M a year, so that is a non issue."

She paused, stammered, realized she was broke and said, "Well, still..."

And that was it.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 7
Posted

The damage Trump is doing to himself is playing out in private conversations like this: "We have a really good shot at taking the Senate. Manchin leaving gets us to 50. Tester is toast. That's 51. Between that and the Supreme Court, we can hold off Harris for two years and get more reinforcements then fight in 2028 for the White House. If Trump gets in, we set back the pro-life cause and free markets by a generation at least." You can say that is crazy talk. But that crazy talk is happening more and more. Trump, with Vance as his pick, hurt himself with the economic wing of the GOP. His Florida and IVF remarks hurt him with the pro-life wing. He was already hurt with the natsec wing. He's cutting off all three legs of the stool at the same time hoping "But Harris" saves him. He's got real damage control to do. No amount of bullying "but you're helping Harris" is going to fix this. Only Trump pivoting can.

Posted

I can't keep up with this shit.  Do we have video of Trump voicing a lack of support for the Florida 6 week abortion ban and now in favor of it, just days apart?  I have the reach of a hamster but I need all the ammo I can get.

Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I can't keep up with this shit.  Do we have video of Trump voicing a lack of support for the Florida 6 week abortion ban and now in favor of it, just days apart?  I have the reach of a hamster but I need all the ammo I can get.

 

 

  • Haha 3
Posted

Yet again, Trump talks about people executing babies "after birth". He's been doing this for YEARS. I'm not surprised that this Fox reporter is just nodding along, but has ANY media outlet ever confronted him about this insane statement? If so, I haven't seen it. 

 

  • Rage+1 3


×
×
  • Create New...