Kamala-Trump Debate

[Hardkill]

11 minutes ago, aurum said:

The polls are accurate in this case.

There’s no good reason I see to assume either candidate is going to blow the other one out. It will be a close race.

From a campaign standpoint I think it's always best to say to voters that the race will be extremely close to help fully motivate voters to get out and vote.

However, how do you know the polls are accurate now?

[UnbornTao]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's real!

No mustard? 

Savage!

[El Zapato]

9 hours ago, ryandesreu said:

Humans have a natural tendency to categorize things, including people, based on observable differences such as race, language, or culture, but humans do not naturally hate or racially discriminate. Racism is a social construct. It is learned behavior.

What am I missing?

This natural tendency always manifests (unfortunately) but it didn't start in the form that it now exists until about 2-3 millennia ago, give or take.  It occurred within a framework of migration, of course.

Edited September 15, 2024 by El Zapato

[El Zapato]

20 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

No mustard? 

Savage!

ahhhaha, lol.  Such a funny-looking sandwich.

[El Zapato]

2 hours ago, Hardkill said:

From a campaign standpoint I think it's always best to say to voters that the race will be extremely close to help fully motivate voters to get out and vote.

However, how do you know the polls are accurate now?

I hope you are right but it is somewhat distressing to me.  And then there is the Electoral College to deal with...

[Joshe]

If you run an advertisement to prove X, and you prove X where some large portion of 68 million people were looking to see if X were true, then your advertisement was probably successful.

In marketing, this is considered a win. It’s not as simple as this but it seems absurd to believe a poll that says a successful debate performance in front of an audience of 68 million was not successful. 

To demonstrate: It's beyond absurd to believe that because a poll says Taylor Swift's endorsement shows little impact, the impact is little. 

You have to ask yourself "what is going on here?" Do you just think influencer marketing doesn't influence? 

Their polls cannot measure this. I recommend the book “Everybody Lies”. It highlights important concepts relevant to this topic. It shows how the 2016 polls and the best pollster in the country were so wrong. Similar dynamics could be going on with this poll. I wouldn’t put stock in them. 

Also, more and more egos are finding comfort in priding themselves on not being tribal. They fancy themselves independent thinkers. This self-deception seems to be the main reason many are saying things like “I’m open to Kamala but she has to earn my vote”. This ego mechanism could largely skew the polls. It's likely this ego mechanism resists deciding right up till the election and the one's employing it will largely be driven to conform to their geographic status quo. They aren't carefully employing rationality and reason. They will likely be motivated by a mix of tribe, personal impact(emotion), and reason, in that order. 

Another point: as Hardkill mentioned, there is major incentive to not broadcast much success.

Edited September 15, 2024 by Joshe

[aurum]

13 hours ago, Hardkill said:

However, how do you know the polls are accurate now?

That’s just my analysis of the overall situation.

Trump will win a couple swing states and Kamala will win a couple. So the election is basically coming down to a coin-toss for Pennsylvania.

Edited September 15, 2024 by aurum

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

That’s just my analysis of the overall situation.

Trump will win a couple swing states and Kamala will win a couple. So The election is basically coming down to a coin-toss for Pennsylvania.

Alright.....well let's cross our fingers and hope it's not too close.

Btw, you don't in a swing state right? I ask because I wonder if you have an idea on how we could help get out the vote in swing states other than canvassing. I live in California, but unfortunately I won't be able to go canvassing in Arizona or Nevada.

Edited September 15, 2024 by Hardkill

[ici]

 

[aurum]

2 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Alright.....well let's cross our fingers and hope it's not too close.

Btw, you don't in a swing state right? I ask because I wonder if you have an idea on how we could help get out the vote in swing states other than canvassing. I live in California, but unfortunately I won't be able to go canvassing in Arizona or Nevada.

No I don’t live in a swing state.

I have done some canvassing but that kind of thing is not really my expertise. So no, I can’t say I have any brilliant ideas on getting out more voters that aren’t already being implemented.

I leave that part up to activists who understand that world better.

[Emerald]

19 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Biden won the presidency before in 2020 and back then he wasn't even as strong of a candidate as Harris is now. She also definitely a stronger and more popular candidate than Hillary Clinton was in 2016.

Trump isn't president and JD Vance is not the vice president. Therefore, they don't currently have the levers of power that could potentially be used to overturn an election. 

Also, the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 further ensured that neither the Vice President nor a simple majority of members of both chambers of Congress can just overturn the election results.

In any case, that's why we need as many poll watchers and lawyers as possible to fight back against voter suppression and any other kind of cheating. It's a good thing that almost all of the swing states have been run by Democratic governors. Only two swing states are run by Republican governors who don't like Trump or MAGA at all. Pretty much every attorney general and secretary of state in every swing state is either a Democratic or anti-MAGA Republican as well.

Moreover, that's why we need to do whatever we can to help get out the vote as much as possible.

I agree that Kamala is stronger than Biden... and WAY stronger than Hilary. 

But keep in mind that Biden is a white guy and he was always polling better than Kamala is now. He was up on Trump +9% in the aggregate of polls during the 2020 election... but ended up only winning by 4% in the electoral college.

Hilary Clinton was thought to have a 90%+ chance of winning over Trump because she was up 6% on Trump. She won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.

In contrast, Kamala is up between 2-5% nationally (depending on the poll) over Trump. At no point has she polled as well as Biden or Hilary. 

But even though Trump isn't in power as the president, there are 70+ election officials in key swing states that are election deniers who will not certify the votes if Kamala wins.

This will ten lead to a situation where the election goes before the electoral college... which is full of Trump appointees. 

So, he may not really need to win the election to strong-arm his way back into the White House.

And I agree that we need tons of people watching the situation and ready to fight back.

[Emerald]

11 hours ago, ryandesreu said:

Wouldn't it be Harris certifying the results of the 2024 election this time as she is the sitting vp?

(Update to my post) I see that the vice can no longer overturn an election because of the Count Reform Act of 2022. 

There are 70+ election officials workings at the polls that are election deniers. And if they refuse to certify if Kamala wins, it will go to the Supreme Court... which is packed with Trump appointed justices.

[Hardkill]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

I agree that Kamala is stronger than Biden... and WAY stronger than Hilary. 

But keep in mind that Biden is a white guy and he was always polling better than Kamala is now. He was up on Trump +9% in the aggregate of polls during the 2020 election... but ended up only winning by 4% in the electoral college.

Hilary Clinton was thought to have a 90%+ chance of winning over Trump because she was up 6% on Trump. She won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.

In contrast, Kamala is up between 2-5% nationally (depending on the poll) over Trump. At no point has she polled as well as Biden or Hilary. 

But even though Trump isn't in power as the president, there are 70+ election officials in key swing states that are election deniers who will not certify the votes if Kamala wins.

This will ten lead to a situation where the election goes before the electoral college... which is full of Trump appointees. 

So, he may not really need to win the election to strong-arm his way back into the White House.

And I agree that we need tons of people watching the situation and ready to fight back.

Well, Trump is now the very old has been whereas Harris is now the knew young fresh face. Plus, Trump is a convicted felon with tons of serious federal level indictments and was found guilty in a serious civil suit for having raped an innocent woman.

Also, Obama beat a white Republican man in a near landslide man in 2008 and then beat another white Republican man in 2012 decisively.

The main reason why Hillary lost in 2016 as because Bernie Sanders divided and weakened the Democratic Party which spoiled her chances of winning the presidency. Lichtman took this into account with the keys.

This time, the Democratic Party and have become very united and have become stronger than then a ever been in a generation. Lichtman has also accounted for this.

Again, we don’t know how accurate those polls are.

That being said, it still best to tell every out there to tell them that this is a very close race.

Also, Michael Moore, who has had a really excellent intuition for elections including having predicted that Trump would win in 2016, that Biden would win in 2020, and that Dems were going to win overall in the 2022 midterms, says that the energy for Harris/Walz is looking really good in Michigan and many other battleground states.

Btw, I am remember you saying that you live in Florida. What’s the enthusiasm for Harris-Walz been like in your area?

 

Edited September 16, 2024 by Hardkill

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Hardkill said:

Well, Trump is now the very old has been whereas Harris is now the knew young fresh face. Plus, Trump is a convicted felon with tons of serious federal level indictments and was found guilty in a serious civil suit for having raped an innocent woman.

Also, Obama beat a white Republican man in a near landslide man in 2008 and then beat another white Republican man in 2012 decisively.

The main reason why Hillary lost in 2016 as because Bernie Sanders divided and weakened the Democratic Party which spoiled her chances of winning the presidency. Lichtman took this into account with the keys.

This time, the Democratic Party and have become very united and have become stronger than then a ever been in a generation. Lichtman has also accounted for this.

Again, we don’t know how accurate those polls are.

That being said, it still best to tell every out there to tell them that this is a very close race.

Also, Michael Moore, who has had a really excellent intuition for elections including having predicted that Trump would win in 2016, that Biden would win in 2020, and that Dems were going to win overall in the 2022 midterms, says that the energy for Harris/Walz is looking really good in Michigan and many other battleground states.

Btw, I am remember you saying that you live in Florida. What’s the enthusiasm for Harris-Walz been like in your area?

 

I don't know many people in my town on a political level. So, I'm not too sure. 

But I'm tentatively optimistic for the reasons you mentioned... except for the sexual assault charge. That's just one more thing that gets lost in the mix of all the other things he's done.

Also, Hilary lost because she didn't win over the Rust Belt because she made her campaign about herself and didn't promise change, while Trump was talking about bringing back manufacturing jobs and killing NAFTA and Making America Great Again. 

So, he positioned himself as a populist change candidate and she promised more of the same.

Plus, her personality gives off this fake liberal elitist deep state crone vibe that puts most people off. Like I voted for her, but I wasn't excited about it.

Yet, she was still more popular than Trump because she won the popular vote... which says something.

So, I don't think Bernie Sanders had much to do with her not winning as he was just running in the primary. If anything, he fired up the Democratic base and got more people involved in politics. I wasn't tuned into politics prior to Bernie. 

Yet again, I'm sure that the threat of Trump would have called me to politics if the possibility of a Bernie Sanders presidency hadn't already woken me up to civic engagement.

[Hardkill]

34 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I don't know many people in my town on a political level. So, I'm not too sure. 

But I'm tentatively optimistic for the reasons you mentioned... except for the sexual assault charge. That's just one more thing that gets lost in the mix of all the other things he's done.

Also, Hilary lost because she didn't win over the Rust Belt because she made her campaign about herself and didn't promise change, while Trump was talking about bringing back manufacturing jobs and killing NAFTA and Making America Great Again. 

So, he positioned himself as a populist change candidate and she promised more of the same.

Plus, her personality gives off this fake liberal elitist deep state crone vibe that puts most people off. Like I voted for her, but I wasn't excited about it.

Yet, she was still more popular than Trump because she won the popular vote... which says something.

So, I don't think Bernie Sanders had much to do with her not winning as he was just running in the primary. If anything, he fired up the Democratic base and got more people involved in politics. I wasn't tuned into politics prior to Bernie. 

Yet again, I'm sure that the threat of Trump would have called me to politics if the possibility of a Bernie Sanders presidency hadn't already woken me up to civic engagement.

Part of why Hillary lost is because of those reasons you mentioned.

However, what's more important to understand is that Sanders caused a lot of young people, liberals, and disaffected moderates and independent throughout the country to not want to vote for her or just vote third party.

A lot of them thought the Democratic party rigged the nomination process against Sanders and that the whole Democratic was in such disarray which was really not a good look. He caused such serious discontent with the governance of the Democratic party. 

Consequently, too many voters throughout the country thought that Obama, Hillary, and the entire Democratic party let the country down. Therefore, there were more people in those Rust Belt states she lost who decided that it was time to vote the Democrats out of the White House and elect Trump and the GOP in.

[ici]

Kek 

 

[Joshe]

To see Springfield’s Haitian problem, go to timestamp 5:08. Vance was talking about this some while ago, with numbers and charts. If the information contained in this video goes mainstream—which it’s not far from doing, if it hasn’t already—the last thing that will be on people’s minds is lies about pets. It was never about the pets. This will be devastating for Kamala if it goes mainstream. I suspect the Rs will turn the story of the 95lb white lady who had Haitian men tossing mattresses in her yard and yelling at her in Haitian, into an advertisement… if they were smart.

It looks like this might be one of the most effective anti-immigrant campaigns ever. Vancǝ is at the heart of it. And who owns Vancǝ? That apǝx prǝdator billionairǝ who studies manipulating the masses (Pǝtǝr Thiǝl, outspoken disciple of Rǝnǝ Girard).

Also, one of their main complaints is Haitians can't drive for shit and they're killing people on the road. I lived in Key West in a jam packed trailer park where Haitians made up the majority. Their driving was a common complaint there as well. To say they aren't easy to deal with is an understatement. They usually can't speak much English and they're more often than not boisterous, arrogant, uncooperative, and unwilling to admit wrongdoing. If they wake you up in the middle of the night with loud music or partying, it's your fault. I'm not racist or anti-immigrant but it was annoying, mostly due to their imposing themselves without concern for others. Of course, it's a spectrum—some are more respectful than others, but the majority, IME, were problematic. 

This is an effective anti-immigrant campaign. What state neighbors Ohio? This problem is less than a 3-hour road trip away from Pennsylvania.

Edited September 16, 2024 by Joshe

[El Zapato]

2 hours ago, Joshe said:

To see Springfield’s Haitian problem, go to timestamp 5:08. Vance was talking about this some while ago, with numbers and charts. If the information contained in this video goes mainstream—which it’s not far from doing, if it hasn’t already—the last thing that will be on people’s minds is lies about pets. It was never about the pets. This will be devastating for Kamala if it goes mainstream. I suspect the Rs will turn the story of the 95lb white lady who had Haitian men tossing mattresses in her yard and yelling at her in Haitian, into an advertisement… if they were smart.

It looks like this might be one of the most effective anti-immigrant campaigns ever. Vancǝ is at the heart of it. And who owns Vancǝ? That apǝx prǝdator billionairǝ who studies manipulating the masses (Pǝtǝr Thiǝl, outspoken disciple of Rǝnǝ Girard).

Also, one of their main complaints is Haitians can't drive for shit and they're killing people on the road. I lived in Key West in a jam packed trailer park where Haitians made up the majority. Their driving was a common complaint there as well. To say they aren't easy to deal with is an understatement. They usually can't speak much English and they're more often than not boisterous, arrogant, uncooperative, and unwilling to admit wrongdoing. If they wake you up in the middle of the night with loud music or partying, it's your fault. I'm not racist or anti-immigrant but it was annoying, mostly due to their imposing themselves without concern for others. Of course, it's a spectrum—some are more respectful than others, but the majority, IME, were problematic. 

This is an effective anti-immigrant campaign. What state neighbors Ohio? This problem is less than a 3-hour road trip away from Pennsylvania.

I would investigate the background of the lady in question...She sounds rational but can we be sure there is no underlying agenda.  I think you can trust anything that the right puts up is 99% fabrication... my statement is not conjecture, it is a universal invariant.

Edited September 16, 2024 by El Zapato

[Joshe]

41 minutes ago, El Zapato said:

I would investigate the background of the lady in question...She sounds rational but can we be sure there is no underlying agenda.  I think you can trust anything that the right puts up is 99% fabrication... my statement is not conjecture, it is a universal invariant.

I don't think it would matter much. Even if she was outed as a shill, people would still be aware of the problem, which is the point. And left-wing media has done and continues to do the majority of the work 😆 They think they're hitting the Rs good here by showing how they peddle in lies. lol. Everyone should halt reporting on this ASAP. But it's too late, it's out now. It will be a centerpiece moving forward.

Prediction: At least 2-4 weeks before the election, the Trump campaign will flood the media landscape with ads highlighting Springfield's immigration problem and it will be their most effective effort. 

Edited September 16, 2024 by Joshe

[What Am I]

@Joshe it almost seems like you're asking how this can best be swept under the rug to avoid anyone outside of Springfield finding out. If it's an issue of this magnitude, wouldn't it be appropriate for those who are zealously pro-immigration to answer for the situation?