2024 Presidential Election | ELECTION DAY 2024

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 8K
  • Views: 207K
  • Politics 
apnews.com

Harris raises $27 million in New York fundraiser, promises economic speech this week

Vice President Kamala Harris raised $27 million at a packed New York City fundraiser on Sunday. That's according to a Harris campaign aide who said it's the largest fundraising haul since Harris took over at the top of the ticket from President Joe Biden.
apnews.com apnews.com

“Vice President Kamala Harrisraised $27 million at a packed New York City fundraiser on Sunday, her largest fundraising haul since she took over at the top of the ticket from President Joe Biden, according to a Harris campaign aide.

Though Harris has far more money than former President Donald Trump, the money will be needed to compete with pricey advertising by deep-pocketed outside groups that support Trump, said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private fundraising details. …”
 
Kingpin said:
All 3 of those states have MAGA-initiated laws/rules in place to allow the MAGA legislatures to “review” and “approve” the final count and declare the winner and to appoint (MAGA) electors to the EC. No chance those states are going to Dems. I feel more confident about PA, WISKY, and MI - no such ish in place.
Click to expand...
Georgia is going to hand count 5 million ballots for christ sake
 
Mulberry Heel said:
Whether she wins or loses, Kamala has really knocked it out of the park with her changes to the Democratic Party's usual status quo campaign tactics and strategy. She's making changes that the Democrats should have made years ago, imo.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to remember why this seems familiar. Didn't the Clinton campaign have claims about new campaign tactics and strategy? About making inroads with with long-ignored groups?

I'm going to disagree. If she loses, she will NOT have knocked it out of the park. She will have miscalculated with disastrous results. 2016 redux. Now, I don't believe she's directing the campaign as much as she is relying on her top campaign staff, but they damn sure better be right.
 
BillOfRights said:
I'm trying to remember why this seems familiar. Didn't the Clinton campaign have claims about new campaign tactics and strategy? About making inroads with with long-ignored groups?

I'm going to disagree. If she loses, she will NOT have knocked it out of the park. She will have miscalculated with disastrous results. 2016 redux. Now, I don't believe she's directing the campaign as much as she is relying on her top campaign staff, but they damn sure better be right.
Click to expand...
I don't think the Clinton campaign was nearly as energetic and innovative as Kamala's has been. And I don't agree that if she loses it will be because she miscalculated. Unlike Hillary's campaign, which seemed to take her victory for granted and just coasted into election day, Kamala has been running a far more dynamic effort, including on social media. What different tactics and strategy would you have her use right now?
 
BillOfRights said:
I'm trying to remember why this seems familiar. Didn't the Clinton campaign have claims about new campaign tactics and strategy? About making inroads with with long-ignored groups?

I'm going to disagree. If she loses, she will NOT have knocked it out of the park. She will have miscalculated with disastrous results. 2016 redux. Now, I don't believe she's directing the campaign as much as she is relying on her top campaign staff, but they damn sure better be right.
Click to expand...
So what do you think she's doing wrong??
 
Mulberry Heel said:
I don't think the Clinton campaign was nearly as energetic and innovative as Kamala's has been. And I don't agree that if she loses it will be because she miscalculated. Unlike Hillary's campaign, which seemed to take her victory for granted and just coasted into election day, Kamala has been running a far more dynamic effort, including on social media. What different tactics and strategy would you have her use right now?
Click to expand...
Clinton campaign assumed she would win the blue wall and spent time and money in other states trying to run up the score. I hope not to ever read, write, or hear Robby Mook's name again.

The Harris campaign has been great on social media, but turnout is going to determine the winner. There aren't many persuadeables. Voter registration and getting them to the polls, then making sure all the legitimate votes are counted.
 
BillOfRights said:
Clinton campaign assumed she would win the blue wall and spent time and money in other states trying to run up the score. I hope not to ever read, write, or hear Robby Mook's name again.

The Harris campaign has been great on social media, but turnout is going to determine the winner. There aren't many persuadeables. Voter registration and getting them to the polls, then making sure all the legitimate votes are counted.
Click to expand...
The Mook Mafia……an inexperienced, arrogant group.
 
BillOfRights said:
Clinton campaign assumed she would win the blue wall and spent time and money in other states trying to run up the score. I hope not to ever read, write, or hear Robby Mook's name again.

The Harris campaign has been great on social media, but turnout is going to determine the winner. There aren't many persuadeables. Voter registration and getting them to the polls, then making sure all the legitimate votes are counted.
Click to expand...
All true. It’s that last part about all legitimate votes being counted that worries me most.
 
nycfan said:
IMG_2902.jpeg
Click to expand...
Elon obviously knows about sensible spending.

fortune.com

Elon Musk convinced pals Marc Andreessen, Changpeng Zhao and Prince Al Waleed to invest in Twitter. They’re down 67%, according to a new Fidelity filing

Musk rallied arguably the most prestigious roster of technology superstars ever assembled for a single investment. It hasn't gone well so far.
fortune.com fortune.com

“We can apply the same math to the 19 equity partners’ original, $7.1 billion investment. By Fidelity’s measure, it’s now worth one-third of that total, or $2.34 billion, meaning that as of now, the group has suffered an almost $5 billion loss. That’s a $670 million drop for Ellison, a $540 million slide for Sequoia investors, and a $260 million bath for the Andreessen Horowitz Capital Fund. By Fidelity’s reckoning, Baron’s down by $67 million.”
 
lawtig02 said:
Elon obviously knows about sensible spending.

fortune.com

Elon Musk convinced pals Marc Andreessen, Changpeng Zhao and Prince Al Waleed to invest in Twitter. They’re down 67%, according to a new Fidelity filing

Musk rallied arguably the most prestigious roster of technology superstars ever assembled for a single investment. It hasn't gone well so far.
fortune.com fortune.com

“We can apply the same math to the 19 equity partners’ original, $7.1 billion investment. By Fidelity’s measure, it’s now worth one-third of that total, or $2.34 billion, meaning that as of now, the group has suffered an almost $5 billion loss. That’s a $670 million drop for Ellison, a $540 million slide for Sequoia investors, and a $260 million bath for the Andreessen Horowitz Capital Fund. By Fidelity’s reckoning, Baron’s down by $67 million.”
Click to expand...
I feel it's irresponsible when any article centered on Elon's investment and economic opinions/history doesn't include the fact his wealth was built on the back of public dollars.
 
lawtig02 said:
No question that in that scenario, the majority of states would elect Trump. But I’d also put the odds of an electoral college tie at way less than 1%.
Click to expand...
Oh let me have some fun ruthlessly speculating.
The election boils down to seven swing states and the Omaha district in Nebraska. Looking at today's NYT/Siena polls, it is quite possible Trump will win AZ, NC, and GA. If Harris wins the three rust belt states, PA, MI, and WI, that would put the count at 269 for Harris and 268 for Trump. All that has to happen is the Omaha district goes for Trump OR the process is changed so that all five NE electoral votes go to one candidate. So while not very likely, I do think it is a bit more likely than many think.
I would also point out that the Robinson impact in NC is likely very significant and could help Harris win NC, which would be huge.
And I still chuckle thinking about the tie scenario...Harris could become President with Vance as her VP so that Harris could issue an Executive Order on Day One directing Vance to shave his beard just to mess with him.
 
IllegalMotion9999 said:
Oh let me have some fun ruthlessly speculating.
The election boils down to seven swing states and the Omaha district in Nebraska. Looking at today's NYT/Siena polls, it is quite possible Trump will win AZ, NC, and GA. If Harris wins the three rust belt states, PA, MI, and WI, that would put the count at 269 for Harris and 268 for Trump. All that has to happen is the Omaha district goes for Trump OR the process is changed so that all five NE electoral votes go to one candidate. So while not very likely, I do think it is a bit more likely than many think.
I would also point out that the Robinson impact in NC is likely very significant and could help Harris win NC, which would be huge.
And I still chuckle thinking about the tie scenario...Harris could become President with Vance as her VP so that Harris could issue an Executive Order on Day One directing Vance to shave his beard just to mess with him.
Click to expand...
The tie scenario doesn't work like that. After 12th Am, pres and vice pres are chosen separately. For Harris and Vance to end up together, it would require the Dems to hold the Senate, which is unlikely in a scenario of Trump ekeing out a tie.

NOTE: Re-reading the 12th Am demonstrates a possible way around the Nebraska situation. The quorum for the House vote is 2/3. If the blue state delegations don't show up, then the House can't choose and VP Harris will become acting president. It's unclear what would happen if the Pub Reps from a blue state tried to show up and cast votes for that state. Presumably the blue states could pass laws stating that their delegations cannot vote in a way differently from how their electors voted.

I wouldn't bet my life on that ploy working. I probably wouldn't bet $100. But once we get into that uncharted territory, lots of things can happen
 
Apparently the Nebraska gambit is off. The guy the Pubs needed to flip did not flip. He announced today that he's voting no.

FWIW he's a former Dem who is term-limited and has his eyes set on being mayor of Omaha. I suspect he decided that he would be unable to win that race if he voted to screw that district. Also, he probably hates Trump, and also he's doing the right thing.
 
superrific said:
Apparently the Nebraska gambit is off. The guy the Pubs needed to flip did not flip. He announced today that he's voting no.

FWIW he's a former Dem who is term-limited and has his eyes set on being mayor of Omaha. I suspect he decided that he would be unable to win that race if he voted to screw that district. Also, he probably hates Trump, and also he's doing the right thing.
Click to expand...
That’s one of those “small” stories that could prove to be a major chapter in US History curricula in 50 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top