EdsonNascimento said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

EdsonNascimento said:

The Juggler said:

pjl44 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Gern Blansten said:

53/47 Harris...I can live with that

Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4.  In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.

So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.

That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.

Lol...right.

Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most. 

Hey, I love Nate Silver.  If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust.  538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.  

So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538.  That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.  

And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also.  But, in the end, none of that is relevant.  I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.

So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win.  I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.

Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.

I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020.  Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that.  But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark?  I really don't get it.  Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)?   Did he end gay marriage?   I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about.  What exactly is going to happen?

And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President?  Shouldn't they have already fixed all that?  Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5.  How is everything Trump's fault?  

Please, policy only. 

I didn't make the statement about "dark days", but I think:

1. The argument for states rights on abortion is an absolute sham.  It doesn't pass the thinnest of intellectual reasoning.  If you want me to expound on that, happy to.  
2.  I would never vote for a president who not support Ukraine's war with Russia.  First off, it's global strategy lunacy not to arm the enemy of your enemy.  The Soviets did it in Vietnam and it worked.  We did it in Afghanistan and it worked.  It works.  And China wants no part of a weak Russia.  
3. Trump didn't end gay marriage but he put in justices that killed Roe.  So what will the next set of justices do?  We don't know.  That's enough for me not to vote for him.  

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

You better hope the campaign has a better grasp on gettable voters than partisans do

I don't think low information votes give a fuck about policy.  

To carry yourself with this level of condescension when your preferred candidate can't leap past a coin flip with Donald Trump 

mrussel1 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

EdsonNascimento said:

The Juggler said:

pjl44 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Gern Blansten said:

53/47 Harris...I can live with that

Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4.  In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.

So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.

That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.

Lol...right.

Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most. 

Hey, I love Nate Silver.  If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust.  538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.  

So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538.  That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.  

And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also.  But, in the end, none of that is relevant.  I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.

So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win.  I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.

Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.

I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020.  Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that.  But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark?  I really don't get it.  Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)?   Did he end gay marriage?   I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about.  What exactly is going to happen?

And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President?  Shouldn't they have already fixed all that?  Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5.  How is everything Trump's fault?  

Please, policy only. 

I didn't make the statement about "dark days", but I think:

1. The argument for states rights on abortion is an absolute sham.  It doesn't pass the thinnest of intellectual reasoning.  If you want me to expound on that, happy to.  
2.  I would never vote for a president who not support Ukraine's war with Russia.  First off, it's global strategy lunacy not to arm the enemy of your enemy.  The Soviets did it in Vietnam and it worked.  We did it in Afghanistan and it worked.  It works.  And China wants no part of a weak Russia.  
3. Trump didn't end gay marriage but he put in justices that killed Roe.  So what will the next set of justices do?  We don't know.  That's enough for me not to vote for him.  

Appreciate the well thought out response. That's honestly better than most on both sides. I'm still trying to figure out what's all dark about that.

1. You can agree/disagree with abortion being a State issue as you have. But, he (and the Supreme Court) didn't end abortion
2. There were literally no wars when Trump left office.  So, maybe old war ways (GOP is probably more responsible historically, though kind of funny it's the Dems that are the war hawks now) aren't the best either. Maybe, there's another way - friends close, enemies closer...  Whatever Trump was doing worked.  Abraham Accords. Look 'em up.  Ending funding to Iran.  Yes, talking to Putin, China and N. Korea. I don't know. I think Ukraine would rather our President talk to Putin than getting bombed on a daily basis.
3.  Basically the same as issue 1 - you're worried about the Supreme Court make up. Fair.  However, Judges aren't supposed to make law as the liberals on the court try to do. They are just there to interpret it. Nothing stops laws being made that judges can't interpret the way you don't want them to. Make them. Your problem is with the Legislature not the Supreme Court.  They don't make law. They just interpret them.  There's no Federal Law for or against abortion and there's no Constitutional right to one. The Supreme Court properly adjudicated this case according to the law of the land and the Constitution (for the record - I'm pro-choice. I do think there should be limits in timing, but other than that, while morally I'm torn, none of my business. That being said, legally, this was the correct decision).

But none of this portends end of days (I know you weren't the commenter). Funny folks think they do. As opposed to funding Iran to run a proxy war on the only Democracy in the Middle East.  

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

You better hope the campaign has a better grasp on gettable voters than partisans do

I don't think low information votes give a fuck about policy.  

To carry yourself with this level of condescension when your preferred candidate can't leap past a coin flip with Donald Trump 

I'm not a politician, I'm a business manager.  I don't have to cater to low information people so I condescend all that I want.  But I don't know what you mean by "can't leap past a coin flip".  Second, I already told you the issues important to me and I know where the D party stands on those issues.  Maybe you don't operate under a set of clearly defined principles, but I do.  I know which party matches my principles even if I don't agree on the nuance on every policy.  

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

You better hope the campaign has a better grasp on gettable voters than partisans do

I don't think low information votes give a fuck about policy.  

To carry yourself with this level of condescension when your preferred candidate can't leap past a coin flip with Donald Trump 

I'm not a politician, I'm a business manager.  I don't have to cater to low information people so I condescend all that I want.  But I don't know what you mean by "can't leap past a coin flip".  Second, I already told you the issues important to me and I know where the D party stands on those issues.  Maybe you don't operate under a set of clearly defined principles, but I do.  I know which party matches my principles even if I don't agree on the nuance on every policy.  

Of course I do. The problem is neither candidate comes close to hitting them. So to the extent that I cast a vote for either it's about calculating what I have to ride out.

EdsonNascimento said:

mrussel1 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

EdsonNascimento said:

The Juggler said:

pjl44 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Gern Blansten said:

53/47 Harris...I can live with that

Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4.  In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.

So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.

That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.

Lol...right.

Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most. 

Hey, I love Nate Silver.  If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust.  538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.  

So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538.  That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.  

And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also.  But, in the end, none of that is relevant.  I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.

So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win.  I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.

Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.

I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020.  Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that.  But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark?  I really don't get it.  Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)?   Did he end gay marriage?   I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about.  What exactly is going to happen?

And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President?  Shouldn't they have already fixed all that?  Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5.  How is everything Trump's fault?  

Please, policy only. 

I didn't make the statement about "dark days", but I think:

1. The argument for states rights on abortion is an absolute sham.  It doesn't pass the thinnest of intellectual reasoning.  If you want me to expound on that, happy to.  
2.  I would never vote for a president who not support Ukraine's war with Russia.  First off, it's global strategy lunacy not to arm the enemy of your enemy.  The Soviets did it in Vietnam and it worked.  We did it in Afghanistan and it worked.  It works.  And China wants no part of a weak Russia.  
3. Trump didn't end gay marriage but he put in justices that killed Roe.  So what will the next set of justices do?  We don't know.  That's enough for me not to vote for him.  

Appreciate the well thought out response. That's honestly better than most on both sides. I'm still trying to figure out what's all dark about that.

1. You can agree/disagree with abortion being a State issue as you have. But, he (and the Supreme Court) didn't end abortion
2. There were literally no wars when Trump left office.  So, maybe old war ways (GOP is probably more responsible historically, though kind of funny it's the Dems that are the war hawks now) aren't the best either. Maybe, there's another way - friends close, enemies closer...  Whatever Trump was doing worked.  Abraham Accords. Look 'em up.  Ending funding to Iran.  Yes, talking to Putin, China and N. Korea. I don't know. I think Ukraine would rather our President talk to Putin than getting bombed on a daily basis.
3.  Basically the same as issue 1 - you're worried about the Supreme Court make up. Fair.  However, Judges aren't supposed to make law as the liberals on the court try to do. They are just there to interpret it. Nothing stops laws being made that judges can't interpret the way you don't want them to. Make them. Your problem is with the Legislature not the Supreme Court.  They don't make law. They just interpret them.  There's no Federal Law for or against abortion and there's no Constitutional right to one. The Supreme Court properly adjudicated this case according to the law of the land and the Constitution (for the record - I'm pro-choice. I do think there should be limits in timing, but other than that, while morally I'm torn, none of my business. That being said, legally, this was the correct decision).

But none of this portends end of days (I know you weren't the commenter). Funny folks think they do. As opposed to funding Iran to run a proxy war on the only Democracy in the Middle East.  

1. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they were ill prepared to do so in the years leading up to 2020 and you sure aren't going to put in an army in the field during a pandemic.  Trump's foreign policy positions are frankly ridiculous.  

2. Abraham Accords were all well and good, but they tackled the easy issues.  He NEVER touched Palestine and made zero progress on that front. 

3. While I agree that using the 14th to establish Roe was tortured logic, the fact is it was stare decisis.  And all three new justices agreed it was stare decisis.  So what's next?  Brown?  Maybe.  Obergefell is certainly not old enough to be considered as such.  You say it was legally correct, maybe in 1972 but not in 2022 when every justice claims to honor precedent, not just being textualist.  

Tim Simmons said:

Pulling out of the Iran Nuclear deal has empowered Iran to not only redevelop their program but to have the strength to rattle the saber at Israel. They were in check before Trump pulled out of the deal. 

Yeah and I didn't even get into pulling out of TPP, which would have completely sidelined China.  Instead, they are now taking the lead in a new set of trade agreements.  

Oh and @EdsonNascimento, not only was Jan 6th completely disqualifying forevermore, it was criminal in my book.  So I don't care if Harris has a policy that you can take a shit on sidewalks, that's still better than turning a mob on the Capitol.  

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

mrussel1 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

EdsonNascimento said:

The Juggler said:

pjl44 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

Gern Blansten said:

53/47 Harris...I can live with that

Sorry to tell you but National polls always lean Dem for whatever reason (probably b/c they're the ones that care more to participate). I think (didn't re-look it up), but Biden was ahead 8 points in polls and won by 4.  In addition. Dems need to win by more than 3 and probably be ahead by like 7 in polls to win b/c they have "wasted" votes in big cities (unless there's some unusual distribution). Winning NYC, Chitown and LA by 5 million each doesn't change the outcomes of those states, but makes the Nat'l overall skew.

So, you really shouldn't be happy with 2.3. Trump wins easily if that's the actual polling at this time.

That's not a poll. The 53% is a probability.

Lol...right.

Next he will tell you Silver was wrong in 2016...even though he was much closer than most. 

Hey, I love Nate Silver.  If I was trusting any of these projections, he's the one I'd trust.  538 no longer belongs to him. HE sold but, but brilliantly kept access to the models. He's critiqued the 538 models that have strayed b/c they don't have his updates.  

So, Nate Silver does have his own projection that's not longer called 538.  That's right - a corporation paid him 10s of millions of dollars for a projection that was only good the moment he gave it to them. From there, you need the right person to adjust it.  

And I'm sure he'll say it's close to 50/50 also.  But, in the end, none of that is relevant.  I'm just trying to guid you to the most important number in the quote - the 2.3 point polling advantage. That's most likely not enough for Harris to win as the real election will skew against that number and Dems always need more votes to win b/c of the cities producing votes that don't effect the electoral college.

So, keep arguing. I'm not saying who's gonna win.  I'm just trying to point out that those probabilities (especially a basically 50/50 for an incumbent should not let you sleep well at night). But, you keep doing you.

Agreed. 2.3 is well within the margin of error and the popular vote totals will be unevenly distributed. I think POOTWH will win for this and other factors I haven’t quite clearly digested and articulated. It’s not going to be one factor, but a combination. ‘Murica is in for some dark days, very dark days.

I have to ask - What dark days were there during 2017-2020.  Obviously COVID, but I don't think even you guys think he's responsible for that.  But, seriously - what happened that makes you think another 4 years is dark?  I really don't get it.  Was it the peace in the Middle East he was formenting? Was it the booming economy (pre-covid)?   Did he end gay marriage?   I really don't get it. Please enlighten me. Maybe I missed something that I should be worried about.  What exactly is going to happen?

And separately - why is Harris talking about fixing the economy and the Wars that happened while she was Vice President?  Shouldn't they have already fixed all that?  Dems have had the Executive offices for 12 of the last 16 years, including the last 3.5.  How is everything Trump's fault?  

Please, policy only. 

I didn't make the statement about "dark days", but I think:

1. The argument for states rights on abortion is an absolute sham.  It doesn't pass the thinnest of intellectual reasoning.  If you want me to expound on that, happy to.  
2.  I would never vote for a president who not support Ukraine's war with Russia.  First off, it's global strategy lunacy not to arm the enemy of your enemy.  The Soviets did it in Vietnam and it worked.  We did it in Afghanistan and it worked.  It works.  And China wants no part of a weak Russia.  
3. Trump didn't end gay marriage but he put in justices that killed Roe.  So what will the next set of justices do?  We don't know.  That's enough for me not to vote for him.  

Appreciate the well thought out response. That's honestly better than most on both sides. I'm still trying to figure out what's all dark about that.

1. You can agree/disagree with abortion being a State issue as you have. But, he (and the Supreme Court) didn't end abortion
2. There were literally no wars when Trump left office.  So, maybe old war ways (GOP is probably more responsible historically, though kind of funny it's the Dems that are the war hawks now) aren't the best either. Maybe, there's another way - friends close, enemies closer...  Whatever Trump was doing worked.  Abraham Accords. Look 'em up.  Ending funding to Iran.  Yes, talking to Putin, China and N. Korea. I don't know. I think Ukraine would rather our President talk to Putin than getting bombed on a daily basis.
3.  Basically the same as issue 1 - you're worried about the Supreme Court make up. Fair.  However, Judges aren't supposed to make law as the liberals on the court try to do. They are just there to interpret it. Nothing stops laws being made that judges can't interpret the way you don't want them to. Make them. Your problem is with the Legislature not the Supreme Court.  They don't make law. They just interpret them.  There's no Federal Law for or against abortion and there's no Constitutional right to one. The Supreme Court properly adjudicated this case according to the law of the land and the Constitution (for the record - I'm pro-choice. I do think there should be limits in timing, but other than that, while morally I'm torn, none of my business. That being said, legally, this was the correct decision).

But none of this portends end of days (I know you weren't the commenter). Funny folks think they do. As opposed to funding Iran to run a proxy war on the only Democracy in the Middle East.  

1. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because they were ill prepared to do so in the years leading up to 2020 and you sure aren't going to put in an army in the field during a pandemic.  Trump's foreign policy positions are frankly ridiculous.  

2. Abraham Accords were all well and good, but they tackled the easy issues.  He NEVER touched Palestine and made zero progress on that front. 

3. While I agree that using the 14th to establish Roe was tortured logic, the fact is it was stare decisis.  And all three new justices agreed it was stare decisis.  So what's next?  Brown?  Maybe.  Obergefell is certainly not old enough to be considered as such.  You say it was legally correct, maybe in 1972 but not in 2022 when every justice claims to honor precedent, not just being textualist.  

"All well and good" is begrudging acceptance that the guy had a couple rare wins. Normalizing relations between Israel and two Arab countries was a big deal. Sidelining Iran is the move. And no progress on Palestine is something you can hang on every one of the Earth's brightest minds in the last several decades.

Last time I checked, the war in the ME is between Palestine and Israel.  Did you really have Israel-Bahrain and Israel-UAE on your bingo card as the next hot spot?  I didn't.  But I could have guessed Palestine.