Motown Bombers Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 6 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said: This simply isn't true. The ABC/Wapo poll has Harris up +2 over Trump. It has Trump and Biden in a tie. The CNN poll from July 2nd has Harris down 2 and Biden down 6. The Bendixen & Amandi International poll has Harris up 1 and Biden down 1. Data for Progress has Harris tied and Biden down 1 in one of their polls. The CNN/SSRS poll from June 20th has Harris down 2 to Trump and Biden down 6 to Trump. Also the leaked internal Democratic poll from Open Labs shows Harris out preforming Biden, but still losing, in battleground states. Harris is out performing Biden, albeit by very small margins, in most all swing states. If the nominee is Biden, than it's Biden. I'll accept it, work hard, and hope to a God I don't believe in that he wins. But to say there is no data at all that shows Harris doing better isn't true. You don’t overturn the election and piss off the black base and install a DEI candidate who locked up blacks and let illegals run wild because polls in July have her a point or two ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.TaterSalad Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 29 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: Why didn’t these Dems make it known before the primary that Biden should pass the torch? That is a million dollar question and one that should have been answered waaaaaaay earlier. I wanted a competitive primary process where we had Harris, Mayor Pete, Newsome, Warnock, Whitmer, etc. all competing for the nomination. Folks were either too cowardly, too disinterested, or pushed to the side by Biden's campaign team and folks within the party. I agree with you in principal that this is a dangerous time and place to have this argument. I agree that we are playing with fire doing it now instead of a year ago. I agree that if Biden is the nominee we need to then do everything in our almighty power we can to get him elected. What I don't agree on though is that he is the right person to articulate and prosecute the case against Donald Trump and serve as President for the next 4 years. I'd prefer Harris as our nominee to better articulate and make that case. As well, to be able to be President for the next 4 years. If it is Biden though and he's staying in, then so be it. I'll be out there doing what I must to get him re-elected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.TaterSalad Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 (edited) Duplicate post. Edited July 12 by Mr.TaterSalad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said: Wouldn't Harris already be qualified for the ballot given she was apart of the Biden's teams efforts to be on the ballot in the first place? Also, wouldn't the fundraising for Biden be transferrable to Harris' candidate committee? I could be wrong about that though. As far as the money goes, Biden's team and adjacent Super PACs have been spending tens-of-millions in battleground states and it hasn't moved the needle for them at all. Biden is still down in swing state after swing state. The Clinton campaign outspent Trump in 2016 by hundreds of millions of dollars and still lost, so money and spending may not be the biggest factor anyways. There would be fewer issues for Harris, but I go back to the premise that to me replacing Biden with Harris is kind of a pointless exercise. Anyone concerned with Biden becoming incapacitated is already either OK with Harris nor not, aren't they? And I think that is a key. I think most of the chattering class at this point don't want Harris, and there's the rub. And that's part of why this is to me a ridiculous exercise - all these people want 'something else' and until someone is willing to put a name out there and try to build a consensus around it, it's basically nonsense. It's like people wanting a baseball team to just dump a player they don't like when the team has no replacement identified (Tigers/Baez!). If you don't want Biden, don't be a gutless sniper (you in the corporate sense here Tater...) tell us who you are willing to support in his place and start putting together that structure. And why isn't anyone doing that? Because they know there is no candidate that can fill that spot that will bring enough of the party with them to win the election. Edited July 12 by gehringer_2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 8 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said: Umm people care. They don't care what focus groups think. Voters don’t care. He’s been making gaffes for years. There literally articles from 10-12 years ago about his gaffes. I guarantee the average voter didn’t care. BTW focus groups are people. It was all white boomer women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said: There would be fewer issues for Harris, but I go back to the premise that to me replacing Biden with Harris is kind of a pointless exercise. Anyone concerned with Biden becoming incapacitated is already either OK with Harris nor not, aren't they? And I think that is a key. I think most of the chattering class at this point don't want Harris, and there's the rub. And that's part of why this is to me a ridiculous exercise - all these people want 'something else' and until someone is willing to put a name out there and try to build a consensus around it, it's basically nonsense. It's like people wanting a baseball team to dump a player they don't when the team has no replacement identified. If you don't want Biden, don't be a gutless sniper (you in the corporate sense here Tater...) tell us who you are willing to support in his place and start putting together that structure. And why isn't anyone doing that? Because they know there is no candidate that can fill that spot that will bring enough of the party with them to win the election. It’s like when people wanted Malik Willis over Jared Goff and I had to put them in their place then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 31 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said: Wouldn't Harris already be qualified for the ballot given she was apart of the Biden's teams efforts to be on the ballot in the first place? The simple answer is that the nomination hasn't actually happened yet.... if Biden were to drop out, he would release his delegates and endorse Kamala Harris, and the Lions share of said delegates would vote for her. There are no ballot access issues as there is, technically, no nominee. There's a reason the media uses the term "presumptive nominee" until the actual Convention, because that is when the actual nomination is conferred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 6 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said: That is a million dollar question and one that should have been answered waaaaaaay earlier. I wanted a competitive primary process where we had Harris, Mayor Pete, Newsome, Warnock, Whitmer, etc. all competing for the nomination. Folks were either too cowardly, too disinterested, or pushed to the side by Biden's campaign team and folks within the party. I agree with you in principal that this is a dangerous time and place to have this argument. I agree that we are playing with fire doing it now instead of a year ago. I agree that if Biden is the nominee we need to then do everything in our almighty power we can to get him elected. What I don't agree on though is that he is the right person to articulate and prosecute the case against Donald Trump and serve as President for the next 4 years. I'd prefer Harris as our nominee to better articulate and make that case. As well, to be able to be President for the next 4 years. If it is Biden though and he's staying in, then so be it. I'll be out there doing what I must to get him re-elected. Biden did that four years ago and got the most votes in history. Kamal Harris flamed out before we even made it to Iowa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 7 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: There would be fewer issues for Harris, but I go back to the premise that to me replacing Biden with Harris is kind of a pointless exercise. Anyone concerned with Biden becoming incapacitated is already either OK with Harris nor not, aren't they? And I think that is a key. I think most of the chattering class at this point don't want Harris, and there's the rub. And that's part of why this is to me a ridiculous exercise - all these people want 'something else' and until someone is willing to put a name out there and try to build a consensus around it, it's basically nonsense. It's like people wanting a baseball team to just dump a player they don't like when the team has no replacement identified (Tigers/Baez!). If you don't want Biden, don't be a gutless sniper (you in the corporate sense here Tater...) tell us who you are willing to support in his place and start putting together that structure. And why isn't anyone doing that? Because they know there is no candidate that can fill that spot that will bring enough of the party with them to win the election. reminded of the old adage, "the most popular athlete in Detroit is the backup QB" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 Just now, oblong said: reminded of the old adage, "the most popular athlete in Detroit is the backup QB" Kamala Harris hasn’t been subjected to the same media barrage as Biden. She will be the DEI candidate. No one can say how they plan to repair the damage with the black base by disenfranchising them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 Ugh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 Wasserman was wrong on the red wave in 2022. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 3 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: Of course we'd like better odds than that! I sort of go back and forth. One one hand, I think in this cycle, the campaign itself might be the least consequential in history as you would have to be living in a fallout shelter in Nepal not to have already made up your mind about Trump and Biden at this point. OTOH, the way we have seen turnout bounce up and down by 30 million votes in last few cycles, turn out will be again supper critical. So to go back to something Tater said - maybe it's not 'carrying the message about Trump' that's nearly as important as figuring out how to keep Dems from staying home - the two things may not be the same task. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 8 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: Of course we'd like better odds than that! I sort of go back and forth. One one hand, I think in this cycle, the campaign itself might be the least consequential in history as you would have to be living in a fallout shelter in Nepal not to have already made up your mind about Trump and Biden at this point. OTOH, the way we have seen turnout bounce up and down by 30 million votes in last few cycles, turn out will be again supper critical. So to go back to something Tater said - maybe it's not 'carrying the message about Trump' that's nearly as important as figuring out how to keep Dems from staying home - the two things may not be the same task. Of course we would like to see better odds, but it's July. People don't pay attention until after Labor Day. Harris isn't likely to change those odds. What Dems need to do is get the message of Project 2025 out there instead of this circular firing squad on Biden. Dems have been turning out since Dobbs. Dems are just ret****ing themselves. It has to be intentional at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 2 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: This is definitely the most important issue. And finally some pollsters have said it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 This race is a tossup which is remarkable given the media attack and backstabbing Dems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said: Every executive acts through his staff. This argument only makes sense if you think someone other than Biden is picking his staff, is that your claim? I'm stating there is a concern by some that his staff/wife may be making decisions on his behalf and not by his direction. And if not now, they doubt he'll be in a position to be making the decisions come the end of his second term. Think Dianne Feinstein towards the end of her run. California for at least a year were represented by an elected Senators chief of staff. The people of California did not elect that Chief of Staff, they didn't elect her colleagues in the Senate that had to quietly tell her to vote yay or nay. 1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said: Prices were actually down this month. Has anybody heard the news? Yes, another bit of great news in which history would show a president in this position would easily skate to a 2nd term. Also, if every Dem partisan didn't spend the last two years first claiming there was no inflation and then claiming inflation was decreasing (when it was only the rate of increase that was decreasing), it might be easier to spread the good news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 6 minutes ago, ewsieg said: I'm stating there is a concern by some that his staff/wife may be making decisions on his behalf and not by his direction. And if not now, they doubt he'll be in a position to be making the decisions come the end of his second term. Think Dianne Feinstein towards the end of her run. California for at least a year were represented by an elected Senators chief of staff. The people of California did not elect that Chief of Staff, they didn't elect her colleagues in the Senate that had to quietly tell her to vote yay or nay. Yes, another bit of great news in which history would show a president in this position would easily skate to a 2nd term. Also, if every Dem partisan didn't spend the last two years first claiming there was no inflation and then claiming inflation was decreasing (when it was only the rate of increase that was decreasing), it might be easier to spread the good news. That's what the 25th amendment is for, and no, his wife or staff aren't making decisions. Stop with dementia innuendo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 7 minutes ago, ewsieg said: I'm stating there is a concern by some that his staff/wife may be making decisions on his behalf and not by his direction. And if not now, they doubt he'll be in a position to be making the decisions come the end of his second term. Think Dianne Feinstein towards the end of her run. California for at least a year were represented by an elected Senators chief of staff. The people of California did not elect that Chief of Staff, they didn't elect her colleagues in the Senate that had to quietly tell her to vote yay or nay. Yes, another bit of great news in which history would show a president in this position would easily skate to a 2nd term. Also, if every Dem partisan didn't spend the last two years first claiming there was no inflation and then claiming inflation was decreasing (when it was only the rate of increase that was decreasing), it might be easier to spread the good news. No dem was claiming no inflation and the media is fixated on where Biden makes a gaffe or not instead of the economy. Even when there is good news, they can frame it as bad news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 Force Biden out and risk the bottom falling out in Milwaukee, Detroit and Philadelphia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smr-nj Posted July 12 Share Posted July 12 10 minutes ago, ewsieg said: I'm stating there is a concern by some that his staff/wife may be making decisions on his behalf and not by his direction. And if not now, they doubt he'll be in a position to be making the decisions come the end of his second term. Jesus, talk about throwing spaghetti against a wall to see what sticks. ”there is a concern” - without an actual, verifiable accusation - this is just such a passive/aggressive insult, and frankly, another page out of the “how to spread disinformation/lies while trying to sound reasonable or informed… when you’re obviously not either”. Do I sound annoyed. Oh, yeah. I am. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.