2024

[youthathletics]

This type of shenanigans is not uncommon with the Democrats....who can forget how Clinton, Brazile, screwed Bernie...essentially allowing HRC control over the DNCommitte.


I am with njbill...I really think Pelosi and crew told donors to turn off the spigot; its the only way Joe and JIll will acknowledge they need to shut it down, and keep him in the office until Januar2025.

The nation has been okie-doked by the democrats, yet again. It's far more than just Joe 'maybe' being made, its most everyone who sees through the shenanigans.

Welcome to political parties. They make the rules, and decide who follows them. Same as it ever was.

All you have to do is registers indie, and take your power back.

Already made that decision...its done.

[Farfromgeneva]

Fair Bill.

As I said before you are not convinced by the polls, forecasts or other data. You are going on your gut. That's not a diss -- that's what you actually believe. Which is fine. My view is 180 degrees opposite from that.

And few agree with you about Joe -- Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Jeffries, Clooney, Nate Silver, me and 80% of Democrats. But we'll never know who was right. Because life isn't a double blind controlled trial.

How many World Series titles did Billy Beane’s teams win? Compare him to Pat Gillick.

Boy are you wrong about Moneyball!!!

It was highly successful in Oakland, but Oakland was still a small market limited resource team. Smarts can only do so much, especially when others start to copy your innovation. FYI, Beane's Moneyball is almost wholly derived from Bill James' system.

When John Henry bought the Red Sox, the first thing he did was hire Billy Beane as GM to implement Moneyball + money. Beane accepted but then backed out. That was before the Moneyball book was published.

Second thing John Henry did he was hire Bill James as an advisor. Third thing he did was hire James disciple and Yale grad Theo Epstein as GM. The rest, as they say, is history. WS titles in 2004 and 2007. And another in 2013. Moneyball broke the curse of the Bambino, for gods sake!!!!!

The data says that Moneyball is awesome. Like any innovation, it just doesn't work as well when others start doing it too. Especially when those others are richer than you.

I’m a lifelong As fan who’s read all Lewis work and met him but it’s not as simple as you present. And the analytical community knows this. What your missing is money all doesn’t create a title winning team it creates parity when utilized broadly and just gives teams the best shot at making the Olay offs in which period data is irrelevant in 7 game series. Your description of moneyball isn’t that accurate actually.

[a fan]

This type of shenanigans is not uncommon with the Democrats....who can forget how Clinton, Brazile, screwed Bernie...essentially allowing HRC control over the DNCommitte.


I am with njbill...I really think Pelosi and crew told donors to turn off the spigot; its the only way Joe and JIll will acknowledge they need to shut it down, and keep him in the office until Januar2025.

The nation has been okie-doked by the democrats, yet again. It's far more than just Joe 'maybe' being made, its most everyone who sees through the shenanigans.

Welcome to political parties. They make the rules, and decide who follows them. Same as it ever was.

All you have to do is registers indie, and take your power back.

Already made that decision...its done.

Oh, I know! And I appreciate that you did that (for what little worth that holds).

Was speaking to the Dems who are sick of their sh9t.

[njbill]

You betcha Joe is pissed. And rightly so. His supposed partners in the Democratic Party stabbed him in the back and threw him under the bus.

The main villain is Pelosi, though Obama is not far behind. She persuaded the donors to cut off the money. When the books are written about this saga down the road, Pelosi and Obama are gonna come off really badly especially if Harris loses.

The Dems had the high moral ground over Trump and could claim they were working to save democracy. They totally blew it. What they just did is as anti-democratic as could be.

You're right about Clooney as irrelevant, (other than perhaps as another canary in the coal mine).

But I think you're wrong about the professional politicians. They're pros. They looked at data, they looked at money flow, they looked at trend lines, they looked at down ballot impacts, and they made a consistent judgment across the board. Fully understanding the downside risks. A whole lot of them who know this business way, way better than any of us Fanlax posters. Sure they considered those things. I never said they didn't. Don't know what you are saying I was wrong about.

Could Joe have won? We'll never know, but a heck of a lot of people looked at that debate, just like I did, as an epic disaster which turned an uphill chance of winning (when by all my measures should have been a runaway given the horribleness of the alternative) to a potential landslide defeat. No way it would have been a landslide. This country doesn't do landslides anymore. At worst, Trump reverses the results in the swing states, but the notion he was going to win NJ, VA, and others is nonsense.Didn't mean I wasn't going to vote for Joe given the alternative, but man, it was depressing. Yes, it was depressing, but you said the key thing: you were going to vote for him. That is the ONLY important metric. Lots of others would have done the same.And he did nothing in the ensuing weeks to prove the debate was a one-off Strongly disagree. His post-debate performances were better, not world beaters to be sure, but comparatively a lot better than he was at the debate. If he had had a good debate followed by the exact same post debate performances, he'd still be the nominee or that there was any way he could meet the demand for fresh new face and ideas, a generational shift. Well, that's a largely irrelevant straw man. Even a fully vital Joe wouldn't be a fresh face with new ideas, yet most seem to agree that Joe would have been fine.Just nothing left in the quiver.

I disagree about "anti-democratic" as the representatives of 14 million die hard primary voters get the final say. Another 65 million+ will likely show up and vote for her...hopefully on the + side of that.We really disagree here. Of course it is anti-democratic to substitute the party elders' chosen candidate for the elected one. Joe was forced out at the end of a bayonet. He did not voluntarily step aside. Now is it as anti-democratic as Trump 2.0 would be? Of course not. Not even close. But if the Dems are the party to save democracy, it is not a good look to take a hugely undemocratic step. But we are where we are now. Have to move forward. I'll throw you this bone: I don't think the fact that this move is "anti-democratic" is going to be nearly as big an issue to whether Kamala can get Joe's voters as the fact that Joe got dumped and Kamala got anointed.

Joe weighed in hard on behalf of Harris but the delegates weren't bound to do what he advised...they made their own calculations on behalf of those who voted for them and their own beliefs as to what had the best chance of success. Well, technically yes, but practically no.Super swiftly, because, IMO, it was super obvious. That no one wanted to challenge Harris isn't "anti-democratic" it's that they understand the strength of her pole position and the benefits of rallying to her side. I didn't say it was and agree her applying for the job wasn't the "anti-democratic" aspect of this.

Just importantly, the massive outpouring of small donor support, 60% brand new donors, speaks volumes about what folks think about this call. Same for the massive sign-up of new volunteers. Agreed, these are big positives. I find the new $ numbers believable. Skeptical of the reported new volunteer figures.

The Dems very much still have the moral high ground over Trump...it ain't close I agree it ain't close but that doesn't negate the fact that the palace coup was undemocratic and grinding about it does zero good.Thanks for the lecture. How many lectures have you given me now?

As I wrote earlier, the Brits tossed aside Churchill shortly after the end of the war, a war they very likely would not have survived absent his leadership. History looks super favorably on Churchill and for much the same reasons I think history will do the same for Biden. I agree history will look kindly on Biden. I don't agree that the situations are remotely similar.

But, yes, Harris needs to win...let's get behind that full force.You go get 'em, champ. As I said, I'm done with the party.

[youthathletics]

+1 njbill. Happy see someone else calling balls and strikes, while not tolerating damned near everything.

[a fan]

We really disagree here. Of course it is anti-democratic to substitute the party elders' chosen candidate for the elected one.

njbill....you don't think that the American people have had their candidates forced on them by the Dem/Republican party machines over the past several decades?

Doesn't the fact that NO ONE was happy with Biden v. Trump tell you that the people aren't being heard when it comes to who the political parties put forth as their "choice"?

[a fan]

+1 njbill. Happy see someone else calling balls and strikes, while not tolerating damned near everything.

In what world has anyone here been happy with the choices that the Dem and R party FORCED us to choose between?

The idea that this is a new thing is, I'm sorry, absurd.

We had Hillary v. Trump.

Biden v. Trump

and then again, Biden v. Trump. How can anyone claim with a straight face that this is what the majority of Americans wanted?

[njbill]

We really disagree here. Of course it is anti-democratic to substitute the party elders' chosen candidate for the elected one.

Joe....you don't think that the American people have had their candidates forced on them by the Dem/Republican party machines over the past several decades?

Doesn't the fact that NO ONE was happy with Biden v. Trump tell you that the people aren't being heard when it comes to who the political parties put forth as their "choice"?

I'm Bill. Joe is the other guy.

I largely agree with you. At least in a primary system, you have a number of candidates running, and the folks can vote for the candidate they prefer. That system, and the result, are closer to being "democratic" than what just happened to that other guy, Joe.

[a fan]

We really disagree here. Of course it is anti-democratic to substitute the party elders' chosen candidate for the elected one.

njbill...you don't think that the American people have had their candidates forced on them by the Dem/Republican party machines over the past several decades?

Doesn't the fact that NO ONE was happy with Biden v. Trump tell you that the people aren't being heard when it comes to who the political parties put forth as their "choice"?

I'm Bill. Joe is the other guy.

I largely agree with you. At least in a primary system, you have a number of candidates running, and the folks can vote for the candidate they prefer. That system, and the result, are closer to being "democratic" than what just happened to that other guy, Joe.

Apologies! Fixed.

[jhu72]

You betcha Joe is pissed. And rightly so. His supposed partners in the Democratic Party stabbed him in the back and threw him under the bus.

The main villain is Pelosi, though Obama is not far behind. She persuaded the donors to cut off the money. When the books are written about this saga down the road, Pelosi and Obama are gonna come off really badly especially if Harris loses.

The Dems had the high moral ground over Trump and could claim they were working to save democracy. They totally blew it. What they just did is as anti-democratic as could be.

You're right about Clooney as irrelevant, (other than perhaps as another canary in the coal mine).

But I think you're wrong about the professional politicians. They're pros. They looked at data, they looked at money flow, they looked at trend lines, they looked at down ballot impacts, and they made a consistent judgment across the board. Fully understanding the downside risks. A whole lot of them who know this business way, way better than any of us Fanlax posters.

Could Joe have won? We'll never know, but a heck of a lot of people looked at that debate, just like I did, as an epic disaster which turned an uphill chance of winning (when by all my measures should have been a runaway given the horribleness of the alternative) to a potential landslide defeat. Didn't mean I wasn't going to vote for Joe given the alternative, but man, it was depressing. And he did nothing in the ensuing weeks to prove the debate was a one-off or that there was any way he could meet the demand for fresh new face and ideas, a generational shift. Just nothing left in the quiver.

I disagree about "anti-democratic" as the representatives of 14 million die hard primary voters get the final say. Another 65 million+ will likely show up and vote for her...hopefully on the + side of that.

Joe weighed in hard on behalf of Harris but the delegates weren't bound to do what he advised...they made their own calculations on behalf of those who voted for them and their own beliefs as to what had the best chance of success. Super swiftly, because, IMO, it was super obvious. That no one wanted to challenge Harris isn't "anti-democratic" it's that they understand the strength of her pole position and the benefits of rallying to her side.

Just importantly, the massive outpouring of small donor support, 60% brand new donors, speaks volumes about what folks think about this call. Same for the massive sign-up of new volunteers.

The Dems very much still have the moral high ground over Trump...it ain't close and grinding about it does zero good.

As I wrote earlier, the Brits tossed aside Churchill shortly after the end of the war, a war they very likely would not have survived absent his leadership. History looks super favorably on Churchill and for much the same reasons I think history will do the same for Biden.

But, yes, Harris needs to win...let's get behind that full force.

For what it's worth, my kids (28, 25) and all of their friends, whom I regularly see around our town or who communicate regularly with them, were gobsmacked by the debate performance. Their regular way of consuming news and communicating it -- social media, Instagram, the odious TikTok, etc. -- amplified Joe's age and relative infirmity in a way that I, anyway, really couldn't understand or absorb.

I have the highest regard for njbill, but I do think the professional political people did the right thing. If Biden is pissed, then having been a President, Vice President, and multi-term Senator will at least be something to sink back into at the end of the line. History will remember Biden with both kindness and respect. I know I will.

... Joe will be in the top 10 presidents list, the day he leaves office. He has an impressive legacy.

[Farfromgeneva]

Pelosi was not a first mover. It was the west coast money guys - a bunch of rabbit hearts. Pelosi is not a rabbit heart. She does however listen to the money. Obama as well. This was started by the west coast money and purple state democrats realizing they would have to work to be re-elected. Early on these folks lied about senators and non-purple state house representatives losing races (falling behind). They over sold it. I don't think Pelosi fell for that. I doubt Pelosi of Obama or the money guys had Harris as their first choice. Harris is where she is because she was Biden's first choice.

As I said enthusiasm is off the hook. Gen-X is excited, where they said they would not vote again for Biden, they would sit out, they are now looking forward to voting for Harris. The Gaza war folks who voted uncommitted (including one of mine) in the primaries are coming back. They feel they have a win -- they punished Biden. Haley's republicans are now excited, they get to vote for a women.

Biden is now seen as keeping what many took to be a promise made in 2020 - he would be one term and turn over to a new generation.

Apparently, Shapiro is in the running for VP. I thought his initial response was one of no interest. If he is the VP candidate and they win, who becomes PA governor??

Imagine if she crossed lines and went Brian Kemp for VP? Heads would explode but she’d rock Georgia and he’s got beef w Trump anyways. Combine the southern Rep with her pulling back in the black votes that migrated to Trump from Biden, and that’s a real issue, and I bet they’d bust a cap in Trump at
The election.

[Farfromgeneva]

[youtube][/youtube]

The big flaw in your computer analyses is that they cannot predict the future. They provide what they think is a snapshot of today. You seem to be obsessed with Nate Silver. Maybe his predictions days before election day were correct. I highly doubt his predictions four months out were as accurate as his election eve predictions.

How many times have I said that I agree Joe was at a low point of his polling, but that I thought he would recover. The last Joe polls were conducted almost 4 months before the election in the middle of the summer. While the media is rabidly focused on every minute by minute development in the race, the vast majority of the voters are not. They are on summer vacation, dragging their kids around to camps, and doing other things. Voters generally do not really focus on the election until after Labor Day.

Again, you only point to the stats that support your position. You do not mention the stats that were more favorable to Joe. Yes, I read all of them, but no, I’m not going to take the time to dig them out. You know they are there as well if you read all of the polls.

My thesis is very simple. Had the party elites simply discussed their concerns with Joe privately after the debate and had Joe then decided to stay in the race, they should have publicly backed him with trumpets blazing. Same for the empty Talking Heads on tv. All people heard on TV nonstop for the last month was how old, decrepit, and feeble Joe is. And then leaks started from the party elites, stabbing Joe in the back. I firmly believe that if the party elites and TV Talking Heads had been fully supportive of Joe, the situation would be dramatically different.

In any event, we are where we are today. I am disgusted with the Democratic Party. For years now they have been saying that they are the party trying to save democracy. Well, they just did the most undemocratic, autocratic thing. They took away the candidate voted in by the people and replaced him with their own person. Hypocritical to the nth degree. If they are going to dispense with the democratic approach, they should go the whole way and dump Harris. They should come up with a ticket that can win. Lots of combinations out there could beat Trump.

I have been a registered Democrat for decades. But I’m done with the Democratic Party. On Monday I mailed in a form changing my voter registration from Democrat to independent. I have asked the candidates to whom I have given money to refund it to me. Don’t know if I will get my money back. Don’t know if I am even entitled to get it back.

My initial inclination was to vote for Kamala, but I am having second thoughts about that. Right now I am leaning towards writing in someone. Maybe my late dog as a protest against Kristi Noem.

There are a lot of people who feel as I do. Some will still vote for Harris, but some number (not sure how many) will not. And that’s the Democrats. Once you get into the independents and the moderate Republicans, you are going to find there is even less support for Kamala.

We will now never know if Joe could’ve won. But we are going to find out that Kamala won’t win.

Your heavy reliance on statistics reminds me of my nephews. They wanted the Eagles to sign Russell Wilson when he was leaving Seattle based on some cockamamie numerical analysis. How would that have worked out?

How many World Series titles did Billy Beane’s teams win? Compare him to Pat Gillick.

I scout for a high school team. I look at all the numbers. They tell me which players I should be focusing on. But I then rely heavily on the eye test, which provides me insight on lots and lots of things the numbers can’t.

The Dems pulled a power play in 20 coordinating the dropout to blast sanders primary. This isn’t new to get that fire up about

[Farfromgeneva]

+1 njbill. Happy see someone else calling balls and strikes, while not tolerating damned near everything.

In what world has anyone here been happy with the choices that the Dem and R party FORCED us to choose between?

The idea that this is a new thing is, I'm sorry, absurd.

We had Hillary v. Trump.

Biden v. Trump

and then again, Biden v. Trump. How can anyone claim with a straight face that this is what the majority of Americans wanted?

I loved jack kemp for vp in my first election

[Farfromgeneva]

You betcha Joe is pissed. And rightly so. His supposed partners in the Democratic Party stabbed him in the back and threw him under the bus.

The main villain is Pelosi, though Obama is not far behind. She persuaded the donors to cut off the money. When the books are written about this saga down the road, Pelosi and Obama are gonna come off really badly especially if Harris loses.

The Dems had the high moral ground over Trump and could claim they were working to save democracy. They totally blew it. What they just did is as anti-democratic as could be.

You're right about Clooney as irrelevant, (other than perhaps as another canary in the coal mine).

But I think you're wrong about the professional politicians. They're pros. They looked at data, they looked at money flow, they looked at trend lines, they looked at down ballot impacts, and they made a consistent judgment across the board. Fully understanding the downside risks. A whole lot of them who know this business way, way better than any of us Fanlax posters.

Could Joe have won? We'll never know, but a heck of a lot of people looked at that debate, just like I did, as an epic disaster which turned an uphill chance of winning (when by all my measures should have been a runaway given the horribleness of the alternative) to a potential landslide defeat. Didn't mean I wasn't going to vote for Joe given the alternative, but man, it was depressing. And he did nothing in the ensuing weeks to prove the debate was a one-off or that there was any way he could meet the demand for fresh new face and ideas, a generational shift. Just nothing left in the quiver.

I disagree about "anti-democratic" as the representatives of 14 million die hard primary voters get the final say. Another 65 million+ will likely show up and vote for her...hopefully on the + side of that.

Joe weighed in hard on behalf of Harris but the delegates weren't bound to do what he advised...they made their own calculations on behalf of those who voted for them and their own beliefs as to what had the best chance of success. Super swiftly, because, IMO, it was super obvious. That no one wanted to challenge Harris isn't "anti-democratic" it's that they understand the strength of her pole position and the benefits of rallying to her side.

Just importantly, the massive outpouring of small donor support, 60% brand new donors, speaks volumes about what folks think about this call. Same for the massive sign-up of new volunteers.

The Dems very much still have the moral high ground over Trump...it ain't close and grinding about it does zero good.

As I wrote earlier, the Brits tossed aside Churchill shortly after the end of the war, a war they very likely would not have survived absent his leadership. History looks super favorably on Churchill and for much the same reasons I think history will do the same for Biden.

But, yes, Harris needs to win...let's get behind that full force.

For what it's worth, my kids (28, 25) and all of their friends, whom I regularly see around our town or who communicate regularly with them, were gobsmacked by the debate performance. Their regular way of consuming news and communicating it -- social media, Instagram, the odious TikTok, etc. -- amplified Joe's age and relative infirmity in a way that I, anyway, really couldn't understand or absorb.

I have the highest regard for njbill, but I do think the professional political people did the right thing. If Biden is pissed, then having been a President, Vice President, and multi-term Senator will at least be something to sink back into at the end of the line. History will remember Biden with both kindness and respect. I know I will.

... Joe will be in the top 10 presidents list, the day he leaves office. He has an impressive legacy.

Who’s top ten? I’ll take the other side of that. He’s middling.

[Farfromgeneva]

You betcha Joe is pissed. And rightly so. His supposed partners in the Democratic Party stabbed him in the back and threw him under the bus.

The main villain is Pelosi, though Obama is not far behind. She persuaded the donors to cut off the money. When the books are written about this saga down the road, Pelosi and Obama are gonna come off really badly especially if Harris loses.

The Dems had the high moral ground over Trump and could claim they were working to save democracy. They totally blew it. What they just did is as anti-democratic as could be.

You're right about Clooney as irrelevant, (other than perhaps as another canary in the coal mine).

But I think you're wrong about the professional politicians. They're pros. They looked at data, they looked at money flow, they looked at trend lines, they looked at down ballot impacts, and they made a consistent judgment across the board. Fully understanding the downside risks. A whole lot of them who know this business way, way better than any of us Fanlax posters.

Could Joe have won? We'll never know, but a heck of a lot of people looked at that debate, just like I did, as an epic disaster which turned an uphill chance of winning (when by all my measures should have been a runaway given the horribleness of the alternative) to a potential landslide defeat. Didn't mean I wasn't going to vote for Joe given the alternative, but man, it was depressing. And he did nothing in the ensuing weeks to prove the debate was a one-off or that there was any way he could meet the demand for fresh new face and ideas, a generational shift. Just nothing left in the quiver.

I disagree about "anti-democratic" as the representatives of 14 million die hard primary voters get the final say. Another 65 million+ will likely show up and vote for her...hopefully on the + side of that.

Joe weighed in hard on behalf of Harris but the delegates weren't bound to do what he advised...they made their own calculations on behalf of those who voted for them and their own beliefs as to what had the best chance of success. Super swiftly, because, IMO, it was super obvious. That no one wanted to challenge Harris isn't "anti-democratic" it's that they understand the strength of her pole position and the benefits of rallying to her side.

Just importantly, the massive outpouring of small donor support, 60% brand new donors, speaks volumes about what folks think about this call. Same for the massive sign-up of new volunteers.

The Dems very much still have the moral high ground over Trump...it ain't close and grinding about it does zero good.

As I wrote earlier, the Brits tossed aside Churchill shortly after the end of the war, a war they very likely would not have survived absent his leadership. History looks super favorably on Churchill and for much the same reasons I think history will do the same for Biden.

But, yes, Harris needs to win...let's get behind that full force.

Clooney is a conduit for Obama by all accounts

[MDlaxfan76]

You betcha Joe is pissed. And rightly so. His supposed partners in the Democratic Party stabbed him in the back and threw him under the bus.

The main villain is Pelosi, though Obama is not far behind. She persuaded the donors to cut off the money. When the books are written about this saga down the road, Pelosi and Obama are gonna come off really badly especially if Harris loses.

The Dems had the high moral ground over Trump and could claim they were working to save democracy. They totally blew it. What they just did is as anti-democratic as could be.

You're right about Clooney as irrelevant, (other than perhaps as another canary in the coal mine).

But I think you're wrong about the professional politicians. They're pros. They looked at data, they looked at money flow, they looked at trend lines, they looked at down ballot impacts, and they made a consistent judgment across the board. Fully understanding the downside risks. A whole lot of them who know this business way, way better than any of us Fanlax posters. Sure they considered those things. I never said they didn't. Don't know what you are saying I was wrong about.

Could Joe have won? We'll never know, but a heck of a lot of people looked at that debate, just like I did, as an epic disaster which turned an uphill chance of winning (when by all my measures should have been a runaway given the horribleness of the alternative) to a potential landslide defeat. No way it would have been a landslide. This country doesn't do landslides anymore. At worst, Trump reverses the results in the swing states, but the notion he was going to win NJ, VA, and others is nonsense.Didn't mean I wasn't going to vote for Joe given the alternative, but man, it was depressing. Yes, it was depressing, but you said the key thing: you were going to vote for him. That is the ONLY important metric. Lots of others would have done the same.And he did nothing in the ensuing weeks to prove the debate was a one-off Strongly disagree. His post-debate performances were better, not world beaters to be sure, but comparatively a lot better than he was at the debate. If he had had a good debate followed by the exact same post debate performances, he'd still be the nominee or that there was any way he could meet the demand for fresh new face and ideas, a generational shift. Well, that's a largely irrelevant straw man. Even a fully vital Joe wouldn't be a fresh face with new ideas, yet most seem to agree that Joe would have been fine.Just nothing left in the quiver.

I disagree about "anti-democratic" as the representatives of 14 million die hard primary voters get the final say. Another 65 million+ will likely show up and vote for her...hopefully on the + side of that.We really disagree here. Of course it is anti-democratic to substitute the party elders' chosen candidate for the elected one. Joe was forced out at the end of a bayonet. He did not voluntarily step aside. Now is it as anti-democratic as Trump 2.0 would be? Of course not. Not even close. But if the Dems are the party to save democracy, it is not a good look to take a hugely undemocratic step. But we are where we are now. Have to move forward. I'll throw you this bone: I don't think the fact that this move is "anti-democratic" is going to be nearly as big an issue to whether Kamala can get Joe's voters as the fact that Joe got dumped and Kamala got anointed.

Joe weighed in hard on behalf of Harris but the delegates weren't bound to do what he advised...they made their own calculations on behalf of those who voted for them and their own beliefs as to what had the best chance of success. Well, technically yes, but practically no.Super swiftly, because, IMO, it was super obvious. That no one wanted to challenge Harris isn't "anti-democratic" it's that they understand the strength of her pole position and the benefits of rallying to her side. I didn't say it was and agree her applying for the job wasn't the "anti-democratic" aspect of this.

Just importantly, the massive outpouring of small donor support, 60% brand new donors, speaks volumes about what folks think about this call. Same for the massive sign-up of new volunteers. Agreed, these are big positives. I find the new $ numbers believable. Skeptical of the reported new volunteer figures.

The Dems very much still have the moral high ground over Trump...it ain't close I agree it ain't close but that doesn't negate the fact that the palace coup was undemocratic and grinding about it does zero good.Thanks for the lecture. How many lectures have you given me now?

As I wrote earlier, the Brits tossed aside Churchill shortly after the end of the war, a war they very likely would not have survived absent his leadership. History looks super favorably on Churchill and for much the same reasons I think history will do the same for Biden. I agree history will look kindly on Biden. I don't agree that the situations are remotely similar.

But, yes, Harris needs to win...let's get behind that full force.You go get 'em, champ. As I said, I'm done with the party.

lectures? We're having a discussion on a topic we mostly agree about, but are focused specifically on where we disagree.

Don't get your back up over that, it's just a discussion.

Done with the party?
I'm a friggin' Republican so I don't care what party someone is in or likes...I'm simply voting against Trump and MAGA.

Otherwise, we're just talking opinions about things work, decisions get made, and whether to get all up in arms over that...or not.

I studied government and urban studies in college and have been a life-long politics junky, so I do find the machinations of politics and policy to be interesting...I have an interest in history and care about the country and the world for my son and hopefully grandkids...

[youthathletics]

Kamala is 'shook' when se gets called out on 60 Minutes: https://x.com/RNCResearch/status/1816188767809704417

GovTrack apparently deletes it: https://x.com/DrJustinbass/status/1816209590935249050

https://x.com/GaGal012/status/1816190983043965356

[Farfromgeneva]

Kamala is 'shook' when se gets called out on 60 Minutes: https://x.com/RNCResearch/status/1816188767809704417

GovTrack apparently deletes it: https://x.com/DrJustinbass/status/1816209590935249050

https://x.com/GaGal012/status/1816190983043965356

Why?

Just like rolling cookies out at a fat camp? Are you paparazzi
For world star?

[a fan]

Kamala is 'shook' when se gets called out on 60 Minutes: https://x.com/RNCResearch/status/1816188767809704417

GovTrack apparently deletes it: https://x.com/DrJustinbass/status/1816209590935249050

https://x.com/GaGal012/status/1816190983043965356

Kamala is the "most liberal Senator"???

What does that tell you, YA?

What you should get from this is: "wholy f'ing sh(t, the US Government has moved waaaaaaay to the Right since the Reagan Era".

We passed an embarrassingly low 27 laws in 2023, YA. If that doesn't tell you how broken our country is, nothing will. How many problems do we have, and we passed just 27 laws last year?

I'll bite, though.....I can't think of a single "liberal" law that was passed since Biden showed up. You'll have to help me out here.

[youthathletics]

Kamala is 'shook' when se gets called out on 60 Minutes: https://x.com/RNCResearch/status/1816188767809704417

GovTrack apparently deletes it: https://x.com/DrJustinbass/status/1816209590935249050

https://x.com/GaGal012/status/1816190983043965356

Kamala is the "most liberal Senator"???

What does that tell you, YA?

What you should get from this is: "wholy f'ing sh(t, the US Government has moved waaaaaaay to the Right since the Reagan Era".

We passed an embarrassingly low 27 laws in 2023, YA. If that doesn't tell you how broken our country is, nothing will. How many problems do we have, and we passed just 27 laws last year?

I'll bite, though.....I can't think of a single "liberal" law that was passed since Biden showed up. You'll have to help me out here.

It didnt say Biden was liberal and the thread is 2024....you doing okay?