2024

[japhy]

john kasich. tulsi gabbard.

Who the fuck are you and what have you done with mich?

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

What is she supposed to have shown you?

She isn't supposed to have shown me anything other than what she's shown me (another Kamala Harrisism )

Being more serious (yes, I was being serious with my first sentence), I'm not understanding the question in regards to what I think you may be looking for in regards to my answer (another Kamala Harrisism?).
I thought I was being fairly clear by saying she hasn't shown me in the past 4+ years that she is capable of improving her public speaking. Meaning, to me, her public speaking hasn't improved in the past 4+ years and if she was making any effort to improve her public speaking - then she hasn't succeeded in that regard.
All that being said, I don't believe she has made an effort to improve her public speaking because I don't believe she and the Dems have felt it's a big enough issue. Until MAYBE now?

I mean, she was excellent after the debate last week, and that was on an emergency, unprepared basis.

I think there has been a deliberate program on the right to frame her as an unqualified, jumped-up token. That program is, to me, projection and good 'ol fashioned bigotry.

I respectfully disagree with your first sentence. A) I don't feel she was "excellent". Pretty good, but not "excellent". B) I don't think she was "unprepared". I am extremely confident she was prepared to defend him if he had a bad debate. Which the Dems absolutely knew was a possibility. If she wasn't prepared, then the Dems should be fully embarrassed for not preparing her.

I completely agree with your next two sentences.

[twocoach]

She isn't supposed to have shown me anything other than what she's shown me (another Kamala Harrisism )

Being more serious (yes, I was being serious with my first sentence), I'm not understanding the question in regards to what I think you may be looking for in regards to my answer (another Kamala Harrisism?).
I thought I was being fairly clear by saying she hasn't shown me in the past 4+ years that she is capable of improving her public speaking. Meaning, to me, her public speaking hasn't improved in the past 4+ years and if she was making any effort to improve her public speaking - then she hasn't succeeded in that regard.
All that being said, I don't believe she has made an effort to improve her public speaking because I don't believe she and the Dems have felt it's a big enough issue. Until MAYBE now?

I mean, she was excellent after the debate last week, and that was on an emergency, unprepared basis.

I think there has been a deliberate program on the right to frame her as an unqualified, jumped-up token. That program is, to me, projection and good 'ol fashioned bigotry.

I respectfully disagree with your first sentence. A) I don't feel she was "excellent". Pretty good, but not "excellent". B) I don't think she was "unprepared". I am extremely confident she was prepared to defend him if he had a bad debate. Which the Dems absolutely knew was a possibility. If she wasn't prepared, then the Dems should be fully embarrassed for not preparing her.

I completely agree with your next two sentences.

Then don't vote for her in a Primary.

If the goal is to replace Biden with someone who is able to beat Trump and mentally capable to complete the 4 years then I would have zero problem with Harris. There are also apparently campaign finance rules in place where if you replaced Biden with someone not already on the ticket (AKA Harris) then I do not believe that they can use any of the campaign donations that they have already collected. Someone not names Harris would I believe have to start from scratch.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

I mean, she was excellent after the debate last week, and that was on an emergency, unprepared basis.

I think there has been a deliberate program on the right to frame her as an unqualified, jumped-up token. That program is, to me, projection and good 'ol fashioned bigotry.

I respectfully disagree with your first sentence. A) I don't feel she was "excellent". Pretty good, but not "excellent". B) I don't think she was "unprepared". I am extremely confident she was prepared to defend him if he had a bad debate. Which the Dems absolutely knew was a possibility. If she wasn't prepared, then the Dems should be fully embarrassed for not preparing her.

I completely agree with your next two sentences.

Then don't vote for her in a Primary.

If the goal is to replace Biden with someone who is able to beat Trump and mentally capable to complete the 4 years then I would have zero problem with Harris. There are also apparently campaign finance rules in place where if you replaced Biden with someone not already on the ticket (AKA Harris) then I do not believe that they can use any of the campaign donations that they have already collected. Someone not names Harris would I believe have to start from scratch.

The million dollar question is if she is a better choice to beat Trump than Biden is. I'm not so sure she is. Ok, then who if anyone is? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows.
If we are to believe what we are being told, as of right now Biden is their guy. Everything else is just talk and speculation.

[jfish26]

I respectfully disagree with your first sentence. A) I don't feel she was "excellent". Pretty good, but not "excellent". B) I don't think she was "unprepared". I am extremely confident she was prepared to defend him if he had a bad debate. Which the Dems absolutely knew was a possibility. If she wasn't prepared, then the Dems should be fully embarrassed for not preparing her.

I completely agree with your next two sentences.

Then don't vote for her in a Primary.

If the goal is to replace Biden with someone who is able to beat Trump and mentally capable to complete the 4 years then I would have zero problem with Harris. There are also apparently campaign finance rules in place where if you replaced Biden with someone not already on the ticket (AKA Harris) then I do not believe that they can use any of the campaign donations that they have already collected. Someone not names Harris would I believe have to start from scratch.

The million dollar question is if she is a better choice to beat Trump than Biden is. I'm not so sure she is. Ok, then who if anyone is? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows.
If we are to believe what we are being told, as of right now Biden is their guy. Everything else is just talk and speculation.

You say that, but it's just hitting the wires that Biden has discussed his consideration of stepping down with "a close ally." Makes me think it's a done deal.

[twocoach]

I respectfully disagree with your first sentence. A) I don't feel she was "excellent". Pretty good, but not "excellent". B) I don't think she was "unprepared". I am extremely confident she was prepared to defend him if he had a bad debate. Which the Dems absolutely knew was a possibility. If she wasn't prepared, then the Dems should be fully embarrassed for not preparing her.

I completely agree with your next two sentences.

Then don't vote for her in a Primary.

If the goal is to replace Biden with someone who is able to beat Trump and mentally capable to complete the 4 years then I would have zero problem with Harris. There are also apparently campaign finance rules in place where if you replaced Biden with someone not already on the ticket (AKA Harris) then I do not believe that they can use any of the campaign donations that they have already collected. Someone not names Harris would I believe have to start from scratch.

The million dollar question is if she is a better choice to beat Trump than Biden is. I'm not so sure she is. Ok, then who if anyone is? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows.
If we are to believe what we are being told, as of right now Biden is their guy. Everything else is just talk and speculation.

I assume that the DNC is too scared and worried to mess with the ticket this late in the game. It opens them to a HUGE range of legal challenges and I doubt they are comfortable with that if the ultimate rulers are this current Supreme Court.

[twocoach]

Then don't vote for her in a Primary.

If the goal is to replace Biden with someone who is able to beat Trump and mentally capable to complete the 4 years then I would have zero problem with Harris. There are also apparently campaign finance rules in place where if you replaced Biden with someone not already on the ticket (AKA Harris) then I do not believe that they can use any of the campaign donations that they have already collected. Someone not names Harris would I believe have to start from scratch.

The million dollar question is if she is a better choice to beat Trump than Biden is. I'm not so sure she is. Ok, then who if anyone is? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows.
If we are to believe what we are being told, as of right now Biden is their guy. Everything else is just talk and speculation.

You say that, but it's just hitting the wires that Biden has discussed his consideration of stepping down with "a close ally." Makes me think it's a done deal.

He would be foolish NOT to discuss it. You can't just put your head in the sand and wish this issue away. But I will assume that the ticket will remain the same until I see otherwise.

[jfish26]

The million dollar question is if she is a better choice to beat Trump than Biden is. I'm not so sure she is. Ok, then who if anyone is? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows.
If we are to believe what we are being told, as of right now Biden is their guy. Everything else is just talk and speculation.

You say that, but it's just hitting the wires that Biden has discussed his consideration of stepping down with "a close ally." Makes me think it's a done deal.

He would be foolish NOT to discuss it. You can't just put your head in the sand and wish this issue away. But I will assume that the ticket will remain the same until I see otherwise.

Agree with you. But momentum matters in these things. If it makes the news that the NCAA is looking into Kansas...the NCAA's probably gonna come after Kansas.

[TDub]

the only time horses have been changed midstream was in 1968 and we ended up woth Nixon

[jfish26]

the only time horses have been changed midstream was in 1968 and we ended up woth Nixon

We're in a space without precedent here. The only thing that matters is winning. If elevating Harris bumps those chances, that's what needs to happen.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Then don't vote for her in a Primary.

If the goal is to replace Biden with someone who is able to beat Trump and mentally capable to complete the 4 years then I would have zero problem with Harris. There are also apparently campaign finance rules in place where if you replaced Biden with someone not already on the ticket (AKA Harris) then I do not believe that they can use any of the campaign donations that they have already collected. Someone not names Harris would I believe have to start from scratch.

The million dollar question is if she is a better choice to beat Trump than Biden is. I'm not so sure she is. Ok, then who if anyone is? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows.
If we are to believe what we are being told, as of right now Biden is their guy. Everything else is just talk and speculation.

You say that, but it's just hitting the wires that Biden has discussed his consideration of stepping down with "a close ally." Makes me think it's a done deal.

Joe has had multiple discussions with close allies (in regards to his stepping down) the past few days and will have more today.
Here is another accurate Kamala Harrisism - It's not a done deal until it's a done deal.
I have no doubt there have been serious discussions with and without Biden in regards to what those in control of the Democratic Party feel needs to be done, but unless/until Joey says ok, he's done, he's not done.
I also have no doubt they are preparing contingency plans. My guess is those plans are not going to be shared with the public any time soon - until it would be made official that Joe is out.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

the only time horses have been changed midstream was in 1968 and we ended up woth Nixon

We're in a space without precedent here. The only thing that matters is winning. If elevating Harris bumps those chances, that's what needs to happen.

Again, that's the million dollar question/s. Does elevating Harris bump the chances? No one knows for sure and are the Dems willing to take that chance? Stay tuned?

[jfish26]

the only time horses have been changed midstream was in 1968 and we ended up woth Nixon

We're in a space without precedent here. The only thing that matters is winning. If elevating Harris bumps those chances, that's what needs to happen.

Again, that's the million dollar question/s. Does elevating Harris bump the chances? No one knows for sure and are the Dems willing to take that chance? Stay tuned?

It's just a math problem, right? To me, the fact that the candidate's popularity so badly lags the platform's popularity means you really aren't risking all that much by changing the candidate.

And if the replacement gets you better turnout in some demographics, and (ideally!) the VP candidate is additive also...the math problem seems fairly easy to sort.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

We're in a space without precedent here. The only thing that matters is winning. If elevating Harris bumps those chances, that's what needs to happen.

Again, that's the million dollar question/s. Does elevating Harris bump the chances? No one knows for sure and are the Dems willing to take that chance? Stay tuned?

It's just a math problem, right? To me, the fact that the candidate's popularity so badly lags the platform's popularity means you really aren't risking all that much by changing the candidate.

And if the replacement gets you better turnout in some demographics, and (ideally!) the VP candidate is additive also...the math problem seems fairly easy to sort.

Probably not a huge risk changing the candidate in regards to numbers but the risk can be great enough that it's the difference between if Donald Trump is elected or not.

I assume the demographic you are referring to is "Blacks". I have seen multiple polls that both support and do not support that. Kamala is hardly loved let alone even liked by many (most?) Black people. Therefore, I feel thinking it may be beneficial to have a Black candidate is another example of a crap shoot.

What the fuck do I know? The answer is VERY little.
My personal frustration is that the few people I do know, who are 100% in the know, I have not spoken with, and my guess is they wouldn't be completely transparent with me anyways.

[jfish26]

Again, that's the million dollar question/s. Does elevating Harris bump the chances? No one knows for sure and are the Dems willing to take that chance? Stay tuned?

It's just a math problem, right? To me, the fact that the candidate's popularity so badly lags the platform's popularity means you really aren't risking all that much by changing the candidate.

And if the replacement gets you better turnout in some demographics, and (ideally!) the VP candidate is additive also...the math problem seems fairly easy to sort.

Probably not a huge risk changing the candidate in regards to numbers but the risk can be great enough that it's the difference between if Donald Trump is elected or not.

I assume the demographic you are referring to is "Blacks". I have seen multiple polls that both support and do not support that. Kamala is hardly loved let alone even liked by many (most?) Black people. Therefore, I feel thinking it may be beneficial to have a Black candidate is another example of a crap shoot.

What the fuck do I know? The answer is VERY little.
My personal frustration is that the few people I do know, who are 100% in the know, I have not spoken with, and my guess is they wouldn't be completely transparent with me anyways.

I think the issue is also what you’d lose by passing her over.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

It's just a math problem, right? To me, the fact that the candidate's popularity so badly lags the platform's popularity means you really aren't risking all that much by changing the candidate.

And if the replacement gets you better turnout in some demographics, and (ideally!) the VP candidate is additive also...the math problem seems fairly easy to sort.

Probably not a huge risk changing the candidate in regards to numbers but the risk can be great enough that it's the difference between if Donald Trump is elected or not.

I assume the demographic you are referring to is "Blacks". I have seen multiple polls that both support and do not support that. Kamala is hardly loved let alone even liked by many (most?) Black people. Therefore, I feel thinking it may be beneficial to have a Black candidate is another example of a crap shoot.

What the fuck do I know? The answer is VERY little.
My personal frustration is that the few people I do know, who are 100% in the know, I have not spoken with, and my guess is they wouldn't be completely transparent with me anyways.

I think the issue is also what you’d lose by passing her over.

YES

[jfish26]

I’m having a very hard time imagining a plan that works that does not start with Joe handing Kamala the keys.

[DrPepper]

In recent times, the parties are so far apart, it doesn't seem like the candidates really matter much EXCEPT to vote Against one of them. Do the Rs even have a platform anymore?
I do not know anyone using a debate to decide who they are voting for President of the USA.
The plan for both parties is to scare people into not voting for the other party. Get people registered and to the polls on Nov 5 in those 6 states and win.

[DrPepper]

Do you know people who moved in the last few years?
Do you have relatives who recently reached voting age?
Do you know people in college or working away from home (e.g., in college) in November?
Make it super easy for them to register to vote (direct them to the exact website, give them a stamp, whatever it takes) and/or register for an absentee ballot.

[DrPepper]

Or there is this:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-re ... ility.html