Conquer Club

jusplay4fun wrote:

GaryDenton wrote:Justplay4fun

Oh, it is your reading comprehension.

Kamala doing BADLY in poll(s)

Read the article again. Harris is polling better than Trump and better than Biden does. But the report was slanted to push the anyone but Biden or Harris candidates. The poll was commissioned by a California billionaire who doesn't like Biden or Harris. So it emphasizes there are candidates who are a couple points better.
.

So saxi's summary of polls (Kamala vs. Trump) shows I was right. 'nuff said, GaryD. According to most polls, Trump beats Kamala.

Once folks start to focus on Kamala, assuming Biden leaves the ticket, they will see that Kamala is incompetent, was a DEI/Affirmative Action hire, and does not deserve to be President.

jusplay4fun wrote:For YEARS, the Democrats kept blacks from voting and to "keep them on the Plantation."

Dukasaur wrote:

jusplay4fun wrote:For YEARS, the Democrats kept blacks from voting and to "keep them on the Plantation."

Yeah, that tired trope.

jusplay4fun wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

jusplay4fun wrote:For YEARS, the Democrats kept blacks from voting and to "keep them on the Plantation."

Yeah, that tired trope.

so that is why people want statues of slave owners taken down? because it is a "tired trope"?

And the same with names of places? tired tropes? Here in VA, we have had both done in the past 4 years: schools and hospitals, to name a few such places.

Kamala Harris will be a disaster for the Democrats – and for America

The vice-president may be no Obamaesque prodigy in metropolitan eyes. Still, the story arc in which she puts her “rocky” stint as VP behind her and prevails in becoming America’s first black female president is gaining shape.

They couldn’t be more wrong, of course. Far from being on the cusp of a titanic victory, the Democratic movement is tanking. The elephant in the room, overlooked by the new generation of the Left – which long ago gave up on Marxist history in favour of intersectionalist indy bookshop pulp – is that Biden was their Leonid Brezhnev. As with the Soviet leader, the President’s fall is unlikely to be followed by a glorious revival. Instead, the Democrats’ internal contradictions are set to become too glaring to ignore. (....)

Of course, what Democrats should’ve done over recent decades was to try to understand what killed the golden goose -- the Cold War rise of “managerial governance”, an innovation-killing virus that was seeded in the ‘big science’ military-industrial-complex the Left so love to idolise; the fatal decoupling of basic research from product development, which saw the US lose its manufacturing supremacy to Japan and then China; the neoliberal order’s paradoxical ushering in of a new global order of patenting protectionism at the same time it waxed lyrical on free trade.

But the energy is overwhelmingly on the progressive Left which, fixated by identity, thinks its main role is to fight for a larger slice of a shrinking pie on behalf of different voter blocs. It is not just a strategy for ignoring America’s challenges. It creates an inherently unstable coalition that few politicians are talented enough to keep intact.

The moderates might have endorsed progressive pinup Harris in the hope that she can take the fight to Trump and hold the party together. But she is no Biden. She woefully lacks broad appeal. And the problem with playing the identity game is that, even once you have smashed the glass ceiling, you remain imprisoned in its rules.

Someone who crafts a political career “as a woman”, or “person of colour” – basing their brand on what sets them apart or what makes them a special envoy for particular groups – will struggle to be universally relatable. Nor can such politicians wipe from the internet every cringing video of them introducing their pronouns or praising BLM.

Harris does not seem well-placed to hold the party together. She sits awkwardly on the progressive end of the spectrum rather than in the middle. “Movement” identity politics is in her blood. The daughter of Berkeley academics, among her earliest memories was being taken to marches in her buggy.

Her career features a pattern of her recoiling at the magnitude of difficult, important issues – not least the border. (...)

As the Democrats face up to an uncertain future, the Republican Party seems a paragon of unity. Not least since last week’s assassination attempt, The Donald’s irascible persona has acquired a patina of invincibility that a new Democratic candidate with no previous experience of debating him may well struggle to scrub away at. But that’s only the half of it. The Democrats took a wrong turn some time ago. And they are about to finally hit a brick wall.

A poll by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution found that Trump leads Harris 51 percent to 46 percent in Georgia. (...)
and
Polls generally show Harris losing to Trump in key battleground states.

Harris is not yet the official Democratic candidate for president, but a survey of delegates conducted by The Associated Press (AP) has found that the vice president has enough support to secure the nomination. (...)

Nate Silver, statistician and founder of polling analysis site FiveThirtyEight, responded critically to Klain's post. "It's not good news for Democrats to put the people who ran the Biden campaign into the ground in charge," Silver wrote on X.

Newsweek has reached out to the Harris campaign via email outside of business hours for comment.

Jonathan Chait, writer for New York magazine, responded to Silver: "I can think of a lot of problems Biden had, and I can't think of a single one iId [sic] lay on her doorstep. Which ones are you thinking of here?"

"They were down ~3-4 points in the tipping point states even before the debate disaster, they were poll deniers and they were Way Too Online, and they thought they could get away with selling a clearly dysfunctional candidate if they worked the refs hard enough," Silver replied.

Responding to a question about the quality of the Biden-Harris campaign, Silver added: "I think it's been one of the worst campaigns of the modern era including to think they could get away with propping up Biden like they tried to do."

Pack Rat wrote:Copy/paste Queen!

See what I copied/paste? See how it proves I'm right and everyone is wrong? Blah-blah-blah! Democrats evil plans, Democrats are rascists, Democrats are ruining this country.

AND I'll make post (copy/paste) after post (copy/paste) until you realize that you are wrong, stupid and most of all I'm right!

Commentators have described MSNBC as having a bias towards left-leaning politics and the Democratic Party. In November 2007, a New York Times article stated that MSNBC's prime-time lineup is tilting more to the left.[1] Washington Post media analyst Howard Kurtz has stated that the channel's evening lineup "has clearly gravitated to the left in recent years and often seems to regard itself as the antithesis of Fox News".[2] In 2011, Salon.com noted that "MSNBC's prime-time lineup is now awash in progressive politics."[3]

Put simply – what did Kamala Harris know, and when did she know it?

Buried in the Sunday frenzy after President Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 race was the latest jaw-dropping chapter in the Wall Street Journal’s excellent reporting on the president’s cognitive decline. It tells of a Biden visit to Capitol Hill to try to convince his Democratic colleagues to pass the infrastructure bill. He was described as speaking “disjointedly” and failing “to make a concrete ask.” A “frustrated” then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to step in and clean up the mess.

Two of the Journal reporters, Annie Linskey and Siobhan Hughes, got the ball rolling on this story when they published the “signs of slipping” report early last month.

But this anecdote stood out. It was from October 2021 – nearly three years ago. According to the Journal, it was “the last time Biden met with the House Democratic caucus on the Hill regarding legislation.”
The obvious implication is that everyone around Biden knew about his impairments – not just since the June 27 debate, or even over the past few months, but for several years. Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues knew. Biden’s White House and campaign staff knew. But no one said anything, until the political ramifications were so high that they had to force the change.

But there are very real questions surrounding Harris too. If all these other figures could see the country was being led by a very unsteady president, mentally and physically, wouldn’t Harris be able to see that too? In what possible scenario is President Biden’s vice president not directly involved in the cover-up? Or, perhaps even more embarrassing, was she so detached from the day-to-day activities at the highest level of the administration that she simply hadn’t noticed?

Two of the most consequential articles about Biden in the post-debate scrum were written by Axios’s Alex Thompson, where he revealed the “10am to 4pm” window where Biden is “dependably engaged,” in contrast of all the other hours where he appears more “fatigued” and “likely to have verbal miscues.” The other was Olivia Nuzzi’s incredible, and personal, look at “the conspiracy of silence to protect Joe Biden” in New York Magazine. Neither mentions Harris by name, but wouldn’t the VP be witness to the evidence laid out in these articles – perhaps more than any other individual in political life?

Put simply – what did Kamala Harris know, and when did she know it?

All of these are the sorts of questions a curious press would be digging into. But that’s not what we’ve seen in the days since Harris was elevated to Democratic nominee-in-waiting through a notably undemocratic process.

HitRed wrote:Is Biden's name going to change in the banner.