• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged 2024 Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
What I don't get about Republican politicians or pundits.

What in God's name compells them to attack immensely popular celebrities that endorse Democrats?

There is absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by attacking Taylor Swift and Beyonce. Yet they do it. They only give more news cycles to the endorsements. It also tends to compell their targets to double down.
Click to expand...

I suppose Hulk Hogan and Dana White are also “immensely popular”. In fact Joe Rogan, while he is not an open supporter of Trump, is very popular.

I expect they get a lot of criticism from Democrats.
 
jimbob said:
I'll just leave this here

[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1447&pictureid=14085[/qimg]
Click to expand...

The take away is a lot of that just goes against what Trump has said recently.like when he threw Project 2025 under the truck.
I bet Vance is feeling really good about Trump's comment , though.
But that is what the Dems should go all in on: Trump is just plain loony.
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
I'll just leave this here
Click to expand...

Pure gold!

acbytesla said:
What I don't get about Republican politicians or pundits.

What in God's name compells them to attack immensely popular celebrities that endorse Democrats?

There is absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by attacking Taylor Swift and Beyonce. Yet they do it. They only give more news cycles to the endorsements. It also tends to compell their targets to double down.
Click to expand...

Shhhh!

For Zarquon's sake don't teach them it's the epitome of a stupid idea to do that or they'll stop doing it.
 
The Atheist said:
Well worth saying twice!

It's absolutely clear to me that they are **** scared of Harris and know that against Trump she looks young, vibrant and intelligent, while Biden looked like a decrepit old man.

Harris 2024!
Click to expand...

There is a bit of excessive exuberance around Harris's nomination. She improves the Democrats chances of winning yes, but certainly not to the point that the election is a foregone conclusion. Gambling markets, (which again, should just be seen as a distillation of the common wisdom) still show Trump winning handily, although not as easily as before. He was as high as 66.2, now he's down to 57.1.

I wouldn't expect the needle to move much before the DNC. Harris should get a decent bump there, but it would need to be substantial to give her momentum heading into the debate(s).

I will say that I have seen that "What does $10 buy?" ad with her about a dozen times in the last few days, and nothing from Trump, even though I still frequent conservative sites and blogs.
 
Remember 2016. News were showing polls where Trump had 30% and Hillary 60%, on the day of election. Nobody believed Trump can win. Democrats laughed at him.
Even in 2020 it was 52%:42%. Everybody was way more cautious at least, and nobody was laughing before it was decided.
Kamala looks good as a candidate, but her chances don't. Not even cherry picked ones. It's good enough to say she has a chance, but that's that. Trump is as strong as ever. Possibly even stronger than he ever was.
 
jimbob said:
I'll just leave this here

[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1447&pictureid=14085[/qimg]
Click to expand...

And that is what is known as giving them hell.
Harry Truman is cheering Harris on.
As much as I liked Biden, this is the kind of thing he should have done a long time ago.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Remember 2016. News were showing polls where Trump had 30% and Hillary 60%, on the day of election. Nobody believed Trump can win. Democrats laughed at him.
Even in 2020 it was 52%:42%. Everybody was way more cautious at least, and nobody was laughing before it was decided.
Kamala looks good as a candidate, but her chances don't. Not even cherry picked ones. It's good enough to say she has a chance, but that's that. Trump is as strong as ever. Possibly even stronger than he ever was.
Click to expand...

TRump is inevitable, resistence is futile, GOt it.
Of course this kind of thinking helps nobody but Trump.....
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Gambling markets, (which again, should just be seen as a distillation of the common wisdom) still show Trump winning handily, although not as easily as before. He was as high as 66.2, now he's down to 57.1.
Click to expand...

Much as I agree gambling markets can be a guide, I think Harris will break that mould, because her support among young voters are people who won't gamble, don't respond to surveys, and will be under-estimated by everyone.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Remember 2016. News were showing polls where Trump had 30% and Hillary 60%, on the day of election. Nobody believed Trump can win. Democrats laughed at him.
Even in 2020 it was 52%:42%. Everybody was way more cautious at least, and nobody was laughing before it was decided.
Kamala looks good as a candidate, but her chances don't. Not even cherry picked ones. It's good enough to say she has a chance, but that's that. Trump is as strong as ever. Possibly even stronger than he ever was.
Click to expand...

It's all downhill to the election. On a hot day in his suit he will collapse. Doctors announe the fried chicken has done him in. Frail Trump will watch the results in November from his nursing home bed.
 
The Dems secret weapon might be Vance. Already a number of people in the GOP are saying he was a mistake.And Donnie's "I might have made a mistake" comment on Faux News is not helping.
 
Anyone who looks at the polls in July as even close to where they will be in November is making a big mistake. I have seen far too many elections. I've seen 30 point swings in that amount of time.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Remember 2016. News were showing polls where Trump had 30% and Hillary 60%, on the day of election. Nobody believed Trump can win. Democrats laughed at him.
Even in 2020 it was 52%:42%. Everybody was way more cautious at least, and nobody was laughing before it was decided.
Kamala looks good as a candidate, but her chances don't. Not even cherry picked ones. It's good enough to say she has a chance, but that's that. Trump is as strong as ever. Possibly even stronger than he ever was.
Click to expand...

His strength peaked last week during their convention, way too soon. Elections are all about momentum changes. The momentum is shifting. The dems convention is coming up.
 
Stacyhs said:
JD Vance's comment on women who don't have children:

"If you look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC, the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children."

Interestingly, if you look at Florida, Texas, Idaho, the entire control of a woman's uterus is controlled by people who don't have uteruses.
Click to expand...

Aside from that, I hope Harris points out (pointedly!) that not having actually given birth does not make a person childless, as every adoptive and step parent ought to know by now. Vance can go **** himself and the horse's ass he rode in on.
 
Stacyhs said:
JD Vance's comment on women who don't have children:

"If you look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC, the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children."

Interestingly, if you look at Florida, Texas, Idaho, the entire control of a woman's uterus is controlled by people who don't have uteruses.
Click to expand...

JD Vance obviously doesn't know that Buttigieg has twin boys.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom