GeddaLoaddaDISVote for term limits, and add in that anyone currently in an elected position is immune, meaning they are safe. That way it's not immediate and there is no reason for them to be concerned.
Sadly, he wasn't even the longest of them.njbill wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 5:01 pmI certainly agree, but the problem is that the people who would vote for them, the reps and the senators, don’t want them. How many centuries did Strom Thurman serve?kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 3:05 pmThose people are morons.ggait wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 12:42 pmCra -- you missed the reference.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 5:51 amThe odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone. That sound familiar? The political animosity is baked into the cake. Your opining for civility on a forum where it was never designed to exist in the first place.
After Trump got shot, pols on both sides were calling for everyone to "lower the temperature" of our political rhetoric.
I was responding to the news of the elected official introducing JDV yesterday saying that we would need a Civil War if Trump/Vance lost.
That's about as hot as it gets.
If there are people who REALLY think the US needs a civil war or says the political system is broken, they need to instead just suggest and sponsor legislation that promotes term limits for ALL elected officials.
But they won't do that, will they?
Why is that?
Sugar high.ggait wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 5:16 pm First poll is in.
Kamala +2 over Trump head to head nationally. Joe was -2 in the same poll before dropping out.
Harris is +4 over Trump with RFK Jr. included.
Game on.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris ... 024-07-23/
There is also a theory floating out there, one that no one hear has likely considered and that aligns with my prognostication which is right on track.njbill wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 5:53 pmSugar high.ggait wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 5:16 pm First poll is in.
Kamala +2 over Trump head to head nationally. Joe was -2 in the same poll before dropping out.
Harris is +4 over Trump with RFK Jr. included.
Game on.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris ... 024-07-23/
Who cares about national polls? The only polls that matter are those in the swing states. And anyway, polls are only one indicator of how people will actually vote. Lots of people put too much faith in them, especially this early.
I’ve spent a lot of time talking with folks the last few days. Pretty much everyone agrees with me that Kamala is unelectable. Compared to Biden, she will get more youth vote. But — news flash — young people don’t vote. She will lose lots of older voters, the moderate older Republicans who hate Trump and who would’ve voted for Joe.
Very few of them like Kamala. Some will vote for her to avoid a second Trump term, but a lot will not. Why? Lots of reasons. Some valid, some not. She’s too liberal. She’s a woman. She’s black. They don’t like the cackle of her laugh. She has a grating personality. She’s from California.
She will probably get more black women voters, but fewer black men voters.
As I have been saying, she will not carry Pennsylvania, and that will be the stake in the heart to her candidacy. Hillary couldn’t carry Pennsylvania, and she was a much stronger candidate than Harris. Lots and lots of rural, conservative, Republican Pennsylvanians felt comfortable with good old Joe. They will not feel comfortable at all with Harris. And large numbers of them will not vote for her.
I would hope Trump would win (he'd certainly win with all the cheating he does). Trump spent nearly 1/4 of his presidency on the golf course. After telling us he wouldn't have any time to play golf. Who knows how much since then. Biden's played like a few dozen times? He's gotta be rusty.get it to x wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 6:28 pm Biden on his best day would have a tough time beating Trump in golf. Catch this video of Trump and Bryson Dechambeau doing a two man scramble from the forward tees at Bedminster and trying to break 50. Trump made birdie and eagle on his own ball. Raised a lot of money for Wounded Warrior Project.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rb9b8rYhII&t=1314s
PA has two Dem Senators and a Dem Governor who is apparently quite popular, a 'can do' guy. In fact, a third of Trump voters apparently support him.ggait wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 7:41 pm Bill -- let's do a little benchmarking of our discussion.
Pre Joe drop out, The Economist forecast gave Trump an 83% EC win percentage. And an 81% win percentage in PA. Trump +5 average in PA.
538 was, by far, the most optimistic forecast for Joe. 538 had Trump with a 51% win percentage in the EC and also in PA. Actual PA poll average was Trump +4.4%. Adjusted poll average was Trump +3.9%. [538 gave Joe much better chances than other forecasts because that model mostly ignores the polls almost completely in the summer.]
No one knows what forecast will be correct (since predicting the future is difficult). Regardless, those forecasts over time can give us a good sense of the relative strengths of Joe vs KH.
Let's check back in 2-3 weeks.
ggait
P.S. None of my Hbg and Atown relatives were voting for Joe -- in 2020 or 2024 either. 100% Trumpers. None of them will vote for Kamala either. To me, the question is whether other demos may be more motivated to vote for K as compared to Joe. Like black urban men or white suburban women.
We'll see.
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/23/nx-s1-50 ... rris-trumpMDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 8:17 pmPA has two Dem Senators and a Dem Governor who is apparently quite popular, a 'can do' guy. In fact, a third of Trump voters apparently support him.ggait wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 7:41 pm Bill -- let's do a little benchmarking of our discussion.
Pre Joe drop out, The Economist forecast gave Trump an 83% EC win percentage. And an 81% win percentage in PA. Trump +5 average in PA.
538 was, by far, the most optimistic forecast for Joe. 538 had Trump with a 51% win percentage in the EC and also in PA. Actual PA poll average was Trump +4.4%. Adjusted poll average was Trump +3.9%. [538 gave Joe much better chances than other forecasts because that model mostly ignores the polls almost completely in the summer.]
No one knows what forecast will be correct (since predicting the future is difficult). Regardless, those forecasts over time can give us a good sense of the relative strengths of Joe vs KH.
Let's check back in 2-3 weeks.
ggait
P.S. None of my Hbg and Atown relatives were voting for Joe -- in 2020 or 2024 either. 100% Trumpers. None of them will vote for Kamala either. To me, the question is whether other demos may be more motivated to vote for K as compared to Joe. Like black urban men or white suburban women.
We'll see.
The Dem Senator up for election this cycle, Bob Casey, is a moderate centrist and has been popular too.
The majority of PA voters support women's health care and reproductive freedom and don't like talk of national bans. They also support the Affordable Care Act.
So, saying Harris can't win PA, I dunno why not.
It's not as PA voters aren't comfortable with Dems and Dem positions.
Including a quite liberal one in Fetterman.
Harris needs to come across as strong and tough on crime, but she certainly won't make the mistake of taking PA for granted like Clinton did, nor will she make the mistake of claiming she's entitled to the job...
so, PA is definitely a possibility for her, IMO.
As we know, you put a lot more stock in those polls and projections that I do. As I said a few days ago, the New York Times gave Hillary something like an 80% chance to win at about 10 PM on election night.ggait wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 7:41 pm Bill -- let's do a little benchmarking of our discussion.
Pre Joe drop out, The Economist forecast gave Trump an 83% EC win percentage. And an 81% win percentage in PA. Trump +5 average in PA.
Silver Bulletin gave Joe a 27% EC win probability with Trump +4.4% in PA. Although Silver did say this too:
So nothing was for sure — but Biden was probably going to lose, and there was an increasing chance he’d lose badly. In what will be the final run of the Trump vs. Biden version of our model, Biden had a 27 percent chance of winning the Electoral College. But that was probably overstating his chances. A 27 percent isn’t high to begin with, but I figured his real chances were about half that — perhaps 10 to 15 percent — if he remained in the race.
538 was, by far, the most optimistic forecast for Joe. 538 had Trump with a 51% win percentage in the EC and also in PA. Actual PA poll average was Trump +4.4%. Adjusted poll average was Trump +3.9%. [538 gave Joe much better chances than other forecasts because that model mostly ignores the polls almost completely in the summer.]
RCP national average on 7/21 was Trump +3.1 over Biden. 7/23 it is Trump +1.6 over Harris.
No one knows what forecast will be correct (since predicting the future is difficult). Regardless, those forecasts over time can give us a good sense of the relative strengths of Joe vs KH.
Let's check back in 2-3 weeks.
ggait
P.S. None of my Hbg and Atown relatives were voting for Joe -- in 2020 or 2024 either. 100% Trumpers. None of them will vote for Kamala either. To me, the question is whether other demos may be more motivated to vote for K as compared to Joe. Like black urban men or white suburban women.
We'll see.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/07/ ... j-d-vance/
Andy Beshear’s Smear of J. D. Vance
by NOAH ROTHMAN, July 23, 2024
The charge that Vance established a fraudulent charity to prey on unsuspecting donors and abuse their trust is false and staggeringly cynical.
In a scene-chewing audition for the Democratic Party’s vice-presidential nomination, Kentucky governor Andy Beshear appeared on CNN last night with the goal of unloading the entire trove of opposition research on J. D. Vance all at once. It did not go well for Beshear.
The governor unleashed a torrent of accusations against Vance at such a rapid-fire clip that each individual allegation probably washed over his audience. Beshear accused Vance of being a fake Kentuckian (the Bluegrass State is where Vance was born and where his family is rooted), of calling the culture from which he hails “lazy,” and of regarding women as little more than incubators designed solely to carry infants to term. Within this fusillade, however, Beshear included one especially scandalous allegation:
“Listen, I’m not a name caller. I believe in moving past a lot of the political rhetoric. But when you have profited off our people in Kentucky, when you have created a phony charity that you claim is going to help on opioids — listen, I sued more opioid companies as attorney general than any other in the country. If I could have found more, I’d have sued them too because I was so mad with what they did to our people.”
The charge of establishing a fraudulent charity only to prey on unsuspecting donors and abuse their trust is a serious one — just ask Donald Trump. But Beshear declined to elaborate on the allegation, leaving his audience to fill in the blanks with their prejudices and priors. He would surely prefer that to the conclusions voters would likely draw from the remarkably thin evidence that supposedly supports his contention.
The charge against Vance was first promulgated by former congressman Tim Ryan’s 2022 Senate campaign. “Vance claimed he moved back to Ohio to help solve the opioid epidemic,” one July 2022 campaign memo read. “He started a fake charity that paid for polling, campaign advisors and travel to launch his political career while illegally taking a tax write off.” Taking its cues from the Democrat’s campaign, as it is wont to do, the Associated Press fleshed out the allegation the following month.
Vance founded Our Ohio Renewal as a 501(c)(4) in 2016, but the organization’s work was paused in the spring of 2022. In the interim, the AP insists, the organization was plagued by controversy. It could claim few tangible success stories. It hired a physician to tour the state who was “tainted by ties” to the pharmaceutical industry — specifically, the OxyContin manufacturer Purdue Pharma. And, ultimately, the outfit appeared to have been designed primarily to help Vance staff his incipient Senate campaign and road test his messages.
The Associated Press asked a lot of leading questions, but it answered few of them — presumably because the answers would not have satisfied the anti-Vance activists leading this charge.
The doctor whom the AP and the Ryan campaign accused of profiting off the very addiction she set out to combat is Sally Satel, a distinguished scholar with the American Enterprise Institute. She described her experience with Vance’s organization working with addicts and addiction specialists in Ohio and Kentucky in a 2021 discussion with her AEI colleagues. Her many insightful comments about this societal epidemic of addiction were, however, overlooked by her critics. Instead, they focused on vilifying her for making objectively true but politically inopportune claims like “people who develop problems with prescription opioids are usually not even the patients that they’re prescribed for,” but “mostly . . . people who abuse drugs.” That’s a complicating fact for those who are invested in the notion that the opioid crisis was imposed on unsuspecting working-class Americans by rapacious capitalists.
This, as well as the fact that AEI had received donations from Purdue Pharma, supposedly substantiated the notion that Satel had ties to the industry whose evil product had consigned otherwise well-adjusted Americans to chemical dependency. But as Satel told AP, AEI’s scholars are walled off from their donors to preserve their independence. And if Purdue’s donations are scandalous in and of themselves, the lack of pressure on Democratic recipients of the firm’s largesse to refund it would suggest otherwise.
As for the charity itself, no less a venue than the New York Times dismissed the claim that it was somehow unusual for a person with political ambitions to use a 501(c) as an “incubator for their next campaigns.” In addition, the Times could not refute Vance’s claim that the organization ultimately closed shop because tragedy struck its leadership. “In February 2018, Mr. [Jamil] Jivani — the director of law and policy who ran Our Ohio Renewal day to day — was diagnosed with cancer,” its dispatch read. “After that, Our Ohio Renewal seemed to freeze.”
Our Ohio Renewal “raised so little in each of the last three years — less than $50,000 a year — that it wasn’t even required by the IRS to disclose its activities and finances,” Business Insider reported in 2021. It’s a strange sort of fleecing operation that generates so little revenue it compels its founder to sink $80,000 of his own money into it, contributing to the grand total of $221,000 in donations the organization raised over its lifetime.
These details do not suggest nefarious intent on Vance’s part. The most uncharitable but grounded assessment we could make of the organization is that it was underfunded, poorly managed, and plagued by bad luck. A more generous interpretation of Our Ohio Renewal’s record is that Vance and his friends and allies tried to do a difficult thing and the project failed when events intervened.
The implication promulgated by the Ryan campaign and reprised by Beshear is that the GOP’s vice-presidential nominee is so unscrupulous that he would even exploit addicts for his own personal gain. That’s an unsupported, staggeringly cynical charge. Indeed, it seems like the only people exploiting addicts for personal advantage are Vance’s Democratic critics.
And your astute evaluation is coming from the same guy who tried to convince everybody on this forum that Joe Bidens obvious cognitive decline was nothing more than a residual effect from his stuttering issue.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 4:02 pmcradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 3:45 pmI know what it means. A very good army friend of mine was a Navajo Indian. The code talkers are still idolized among the Navajo to this day. I don't speak in code. You should at least understand that by now. My wife is another story. I'm still trying to figure out her own special code. If she says that the garbage is really full that is code talk for you need to empty the garbage. There are different variations but they all mean the same thing.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 7:00 amAsk your wife what they mean by that term if it confuses you.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 6:58 amYou must have some Navajo in you. You are the self anointed forum " code talker " You instinctively are attuned to things that nobody else knows.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 6:50 amCode already is “DEI candidate.”Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 11:56 pmBest chance the Dems have is Trump crosses too many lines with a black woman as his support is bolstered meaningfully by gains in minorities. If he loses them she’s got a small chance. Hope she puts the right team together .Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 11:54 pm How long before YA or OS repeats a cute nickname given to Kamala Harris by Trump or someone on social media? Over or under 3.5 days?
Ironically I’m pissed at that sorry and don’t know if I’m that constructive on her if you gave me a full field and normal conditions and yet it’s likely to get me to move from not voting for pres to voting Dem for the second time in my life (for pres) in a tight state.
Doesn’t make it all sweet though .
“Nobody else knows”…
Accusing someone of being a DEI hire, as you admit you know, is code on the hard right for misogyny or racism or homophobia or some combination of such bigotries. It is intentionally demeaning, suggesting that the person isn't qualified for the job...why?...because, in this case, she's a she and moreover, she's black/asian and daughter of immigrants, pick your bigotry...you get the same coded stuff with a-holes like Vance who just claimed she's "not thankful enough" that she's an American, as if she, especially, needs to be thankful...given, what, her racial or child of immigrants or female status? Flat bigoted.
He also suggested that she's not "qualified"...when she's obviously far more accomplished than he is.
It's all a wink wink nod to the bigots.
Ugly stuff that should rightfully be mocked and flat rejected.
