ChiGoose

Gotta love how MAGA continually tells on themselves. They can’t defend their own choices, they know they are the bad guys so they just point at others because they have no principles of their own.

Trump’s favorite president when he was little was apparently Ronald Reagan, who assumed office when Trump was in his mid-thirties. Also, Lincoln should have stopped the Civil War even though states seceded and created the Confederacy before Lincoln took office.

I see that everyone's priors were confirmed by the interview, regardless of which side they are on. Anyone have any polling or focus groups from swing voters or Trump-skeptical GOP voters on how they felt the interview went?

I honestly wonder what the bureaucratic / administrative costs of means testing for school lunches would be against the cost of just giving everyone food. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was easier and cheaper to just to give it to every kid instead of trying to determine who qualifies.

Just checking in again. How are we doing with that whistleblower?

Right after that, I said I wasn’t a big fan of the show. I don’t think I’ve really followed it since the Will Ferrell years. Most of what I see these days is clips that break through on social media. They clearly have a left bias, but the idea that them parodying Harris means anything other than they’re trying to make jokes is a tremendous stretch. I’m sure there are other examples of them parodying Dems as more recently. Didn’t they spend years rotating through different people just to try to get a parody of Biden? Think they landed it with Carvey based on the Family Feud sketch. EDIT: after a quick google, here’s a bit from 2017

It feels like a lot of people here get their views of left leaning organizations not from the organizations themselves but from others that oppose them, giving them a distorted view of reality. SNL is no stranger to parodying Dems (remember “lockbox”?). It would be weird if they didn’t poke some fun at Harris. I’m not the biggest fan of the show but I did see the Family Feud bit on social media and thought it was pretty good.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the ultimate grifter hired a grifter to run his campaign. Trump’s Campaign Manager Has Raked in an Insane Amount of Money Some highlights: Chris LaCivita has earned a staggering sum of more than $22 million in just the past two years as Trump’s adviser. LaCivita made $19 million in 2022 as a “strategic consultant” for two Trump-aligned super PACs. He’s continued to earn more through Trump’s 2024 campaign with the help of generous cuts on his campaign ads, and he will receive another $150,000 bonus if Trump wins the election. LaCivita has also received upfront payments for his services that have amounted up to $75,000 a month for “voter contact consulting,” Trump’s other co-campaign manager, Susie Wiles, is a volunteer. Harris’s campaign manager is paid $13,442 a month LaCivita’s consulting firm—which has no website and is headquartered in LaCivita’s home—had earned $3 million from the race and could collect another $5 million more by November Last year, an “opposition research” memo put forth by a super PAC backing Governor Ron DeSantis accused LaCivita of “cashing in on Trump” for “personal enrichment,” They found that LaCivita pocketed $15.7 million and $4 million respectively from two of Trump’s super PACs during the 2022 midterms.

Unskewing the polls is just hopium.

Senate looks awful for the Dems. Picking out specific polls because they show what you want is not a good way to judge the race. Better to use polling averages. Current breakdown is 51-49 (four independents are aligned with the Dems). Manchin and Tester are almost certainly going to lose, which gives you 51-49 GOP if everything else holds. To prevent it, you need at least one Dem pickup (hoping Harris wins presidency and Walz can be tiebreaker in 50-50 senate) but you probably want two. Of the remaining races, it's not great news according to polling averages: Seats Dems are defending: WV: (Not enough polls for a model but certain GOP pickup) MT: R+5.4 OH: D+2.3 PA: D+2.3 MI: D+3.9 WI: D+4.2 PA: D+4.6 AZ: D+7.4 MD: D+8.6 NV: D+9.2 NM: D+10.4 MN: D+11.3 VA: D+12.9 NY: D+21.1 CA: D+22.6 MA: D+23 CT, DE, HI, ME, NJ, RI, VT, and WA : (Not enough polls for a model but certain Dem retention) Potential Pickups (Currently GOP seats): NE: R+0.6 TX: R+4 FL: R+4.8 MO: R+10 ND: R+23.4 IN, MS, TN, UT, and WY: (Not enough polls for a model but certain GOP retention) I don't know how we can look at that and say it's looking good for the Dems. Especially because we're not sure Osborn would caucus with the Dems if he wins in Nebraska. Even if Harris wins, we're almost certainly looking at GOP senate control. The question is will it be more 51-50 or maybe something like 54-46.

I think you're taking your personal view on something and ascribing it others. There's probably a word for that, but I can't think of it at the moment. I haven't seen many of the interviews, but my opinion on them doesn't matter anyway. What matters is how swing voters view them. And I'm not going to assume I know that until I see polling and/or focus groups on it.

Honestly, the fact that she got it up and running on such a short timeline is really impressive. Now that the convention and debates are over, she seems to be doing a lot of events in swing states, which I think is good. Just this week, she's in Pennsylvania (two different days), Michigan (three separate days), Wisconsin (three different cities in one day), while also doing media interviews. Which is an improvement over Hillary never going to Michigan... It certainly helps that she's not Joe Biden or Donald Trump too. That's a big plus.

Then: Harris isn't doing interviews, a sign that her campaign is over Now: Harris is doing interviews, a sign that her campaign is over

There’s a concept that children usually learn at some point: the difference between “some” and “all”. To my previous point, at many pro-Palestinian protests, there are people shouting antisemitic things. That’s not why most of the protests are organized nor why most people are there, but it is unfortunately a reality. That does not mean that all pro-Palestinian rallies are antisemitic. In fact when the Democratic Convention was in town, I went to an Dem event one night and when I was leaving, there was a protest outside. Their messaging and signage was about the people being killed, not about Jews. They just wanted people to hear their pain. If we follow your logic, the presence of antisemitism at any political event means all events by that party are antisemitic. So you would therefore agree that the presence of neo-Nazis at some Trump events means that all Trump events are pro-Nazi. I would disagree but that appears to be your argument here. Personally, I think that’s stupid and reductionist. But if you want to put out an argument that Trump rallies are pro-Nazi, that’s on you. By the way, I do enjoy the whole “King” moniker. Not only is it good to be king, but the people pushing that narrative are usually in the midst of demonstrating that they have the reading cognition skills of a third grader. You’ve certainly managed to demonstrate that here, so good job!

This is factually not true. If you honestly believe the people protesting their families being harmed and killed is antisemitic, maybe consider that you are in a bubble.

Well, your analogy was pretty bad, juxtaposing a rival football fan to a Nazi. Here’s a real world example: We have had a lot of protests in Chicago for Palestinians. As much as I abhor Hamas, I am also concerned about the devastation and loss of life in Gaza. But I have never joined one of the protests. Because as much as I feel for the pain of those whose families are suffering, those protests often include Antisemites who are opposed to Israel simply because it’s a Jewish state. If you’re at a protest and there are people shouting “death to Israel” and you don’t leave, I think it’s fair to say that you’re at the very least not bothered by that statement. The same goes for Nazis.

As much as I dislike the Patriots, I hope you’re not equating them with Nazis…

This is not a great way to analyze where the race stands.

Oh, that one is easy: 2016: Donald Trump 2020: Joe Biden And yet, Donnie couldn’t even give a wiki level reply about the triad.

Oh, I’m talking about real world stuff, not whatever your latest internet talking points are. Basic civics stuff like: What is the nuclear triad? What’s the difference between Article I judges and Article III judges? How do tax brackets work? Who won the 2016 and 2020 elections? What political party did George Washington belong to? You know, things that anyone wishing to head the federal government should have an idea of.

That would honestly be a big improvement on the debates. Change it to a quiz show on basic concepts of governance.

Feels like there should be a word for when someone has unwanted feelings or thoughts and accuses others of the same…

Seems bad

There’s a reason Tommy Eyerolls usually just sticks to his talking points.