2024 Presidential Election | ELECTION DAY 2024

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 8K
  • Views: 290K
  • Politics 
www.theguardian.com

‘I’m rocking with Kamala’: Black men defy faulty polling by showing up for Harris campaign

Specific results on her performance with Black voters aren’t in yet, but recent calls suggest a Trump exodus is not true
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

On Monday night, more than 53,000 Black men joined a virtual conference, Win With Black Men, to rally behind the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Kamala Harris. During the four-hour call, organizers said the group raised more than $1.3m for the Harris campaign and grassroots voter organizations focused on Black men.

The success of the call, which was inspired by the Win With Black Women call the night before, runs counter to the narrative shaped by recent election polling indicating that 30% of Black men are planning on voting for Donald Trump. “Don’t let anybody slow us down asking the question: ‘Can a Black woman be elected president of the United States?’” Raphael Warnock, who represents Georgia in the US Senate, said on the call. “Kamala Harris can win. We just have to show up. History is watching us, and the future is waiting on us.”
 
korgguy1971 said:
Some misinformation should be ignored or denied oxygen to prevent proliferation - completely agree there. But some should be combatted head-on and defeated. I believe this issue falls under the latter, particularly with the legitimate but often inflated issue of immigration and/or the situation at the border. Dems should have aggressively gone at "defund the police" the second Pubs took it and ran with it too, but they didn't, and Pubs were able to make it into a non-thing thing.

I don't think you (or farce) are wrong with the stance you're taking, I just don't agree that ignoring this particular point is the best way to go. Agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
I think we all would do well to prioritize winning elections over winning debates.

As another poster correctly started above “If you’re explaining, you’re losing”.

ETA: To be clear, if a Trump poster brings that BS over here, we’re free to explain it all to them, but FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT’S HOLY, we (meaning Anti-Trump voters) should not be reposting that drivel ourselves.
 
Last edited:
I mean, you’re 100% free to have that debate, but you have to remember, THAT’S THE DEBATE THEY WANT TO HAVE, for crying out loud (I mean that’s precisely why they put out that press release).

you want Kamala to be defined out of the gate on by US border policy then, fine, by all means have that debate, but know you are losing us this election.

There’s only so much oxygen to go around. Use yours on having a debate WE WANT TO HAVE.
 
p5mmr9 said:
Do I really need to post that my comment about checking to make sure Emhoff is circumcised is a joke? Come on, guys.
Click to expand...
I didn’t think so but some folks were bothered and you weren’t around. We had just gotten spammed by a bad faith poster earlier, so folks were too on edge. I can remove the community note if you like.

We’re still feeling our way around here and don’t have a staff of moderators to nurture open forums but avoid hostilities. Maybe that just isn’t really possible in the long run, but it takes all of us to try the ignore function, walk away from trolls and have some common sense to make it work long term.
 
nycfan said:
Right now they seem more like a combo of some Republicans panicking about the pick and some anti-Trump folks sensing they have a moment on social media and pushing the narrative for all it’s worth.

Removal would mean Trump having to admit he was wrong about picking Vance, and would mean angering some moneybag funding sources. Both seem unlikely for Trump.
Click to expand...
Removal of Vance is a Thomas Eagleton moment from 1972. McGovern was losing regardless in 1972; but, the Tom Eagleton showed a campaign in disarray.
CFordUNC said:
Click to expand...

Now let’s see the media dig into JD Vance’s “negative experiences” with the police.
 
nycfan said:
I didn’t think so but some folks were bothered and you weren’t around. We had just gotten spammed by a bad faith poster earlier, so folks were too on edge. I can remove the community note if you like.

We’re still feeling our way around here and don’t have a staff of moderators to nurture open forums but avoid hostilities. Maybe that just isn’t really possible in the long run, but it takes all of us to try the ignore function, walk away from trolls and have some common sense to make it work long term.
Click to expand...

I have inspected @p5mmr9's foreskin - or lack thereof - he's legit
 
How would it work for Vance to be “fired”? He can’t actually be fired because he was nominated and approved by the convention. I guess he’d have to be convinced to step down (he’d have to come up with a face-saving excuse). Would the Republicans need to reconvene to nominate and vote on a replacement?
 
Wheels81 said:
How would it work for Vance to be “fired”? He can’t actually be fired because he was nominated and approved by the convention. I guess he’d have to be convinced to step down (he’d have to come up with a face-saving excuse). Would the Republicans need to reconvene to nominate and vote on a replacement?
Click to expand...

This is *assuming* today's GQP would follow the rules:


(c) In the event of the death, resignation, disqualification, removal, or disability of any officer of the Republican National Committee or member of a committee of the Republican National Committee, such vacancy shall be filled by the same body and in the same manner as provided herein for the election of such officer or officers or committee members in the first instance.
In the case of a vacancy in the office of either secretary or treasurer of the Republican National Committee, the chairman shall appoint an acting secretary or acting treasurer from among the members or officers of the Republican National Committee who shall serve until the next meeting of the Republican
National Committee, when an election to fill such vacancy shall occur. In the event of the death, resignation, disqualification, removal, or disability of
the chairman, the co-chairman shall serve as temporary chairman until the members of the Republican National Committee fill the vacancy in accordance with the
provisions of this section. All appointees of the chairman of the Republican National Committee shall serve at the pleasure of the chairman until removed by the chairman, until replaced by another appointee, until the position is eliminated, or until the position is vacated by the appointee.
Unless otherwise specified by these rules, appointments are not affected by the subsequent vacancy of the chairmanship by the appointing chairman.

(d) In the event of the death, resignation, disqualification, removal, or disability of any member of the Republican National Committee, the vacancy shall be filled according to adopted state Republican. Party rules. If no rule exists, vacancies shall be filled by majority vote of the Republican state committee.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://prod-static.gop.com/media/Rules_Of_The_Republican_Party.pdf

As to what constitutes "disqualification," I assume it's up to the eye of the beholder. *shrug*

"I hardly knew him. Vance was part of the ticket only for a very short time. I wasn't a fan, I can tell you that."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top