New country

  • Thread starter Thread starter theel4life
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 147
  • Views: 2K
  • Politics 
uncjhodges said:
I’m not trying to speak for AGDevil, but they may, like me, live here for unselfish reasons. Maybe they are here to take care of their parents as they age, or their partner has a particular tie to the area, or they have kids and don’t think it’s fair to uproot their kids and move them to a different country with a different language. I know it’s hard for a Trumper to imagine anything except caring about only yourself, but some others do
Click to expand...
Maybe, but I really think AGDevil is unhappy to a level that goes beyond that.
 
superrific said:
1. No, they would not have won PA with Shapiro. And what does it matter, since she also lost MI and WI?
2. VPs don't make a difference. Vance was a way worse candidate.
3. I don't care what Harris campaign staffers are saying right now. The knives all come out after the election.
Click to expand...
The comment was Shapiro doesn’t make a lick of difference. They win PA with Shapiro, maybe more. There is no telling how much Jewish vote they lost with their repeated snubs of Israel and Shapiro.
 
fssheels said:
The comment was Shapiro doesn’t make a lick of difference. They win PA with Shapiro, maybe more. There is no telling how much Jewish vote they lost with their repeated snubs of Israel and Shapiro.
Click to expand...
Repeated snubs of Israel??? What planet are you on.
 
Callatoroy said:
So the most liberal person to ever run for president tried to court republicans? How did she do that? Apparently I missed that.
Click to expand...

Kamala Harris was not and is not the most liberal person ever to run for president.

The phrase "the most liberal person to ever run for president" was tested in Republican focus groups and found to work on a subset of particularly gullible people who tend to think more with their emotions than with their prefrontal cortex.

True story.
 
Paine said:
Repeated snubs of Israel??? What planet are you on.
Click to expand...
nypost.com

Kamala Harris has long line of anti-Israel statements following Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attacks

Harris has made no illusions that she would prefer a tougher stance on Israel than her boss.
nypost.com nypost.com

Pro-Israel Democratic voters are going to hold their noses in many cases and vote for Trump. Because Trump may be bad, but no Israel is worse,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a longtime Democratic consultant.

“The pro-Israel Democratic community is shrinking and it will shrink further with Kamala Harris because she’s been very clear about how she feels. She has limited respect for the most important ally America has in the Middle East and an ally that is now fighting a proxy war at great cost against America’s greatest enemy, which is Iran,” Sheinkopf added.
 
Callatoroy said:
That’s interesting. Curious as to how you would compare the degree of liberalness given the different times in history.
Click to expand...
Contrast between their stances and those of the time. The gap was much broader then.

At least, I have something to lean on. Your claim has been repeated about every Democratic nominee since LBJ. It's neither factual or important.
 
uncjhodges said:
I’m not trying to speak for AGDevil, but they may, like me, live here for unselfish reasons. Maybe they are here to take care of their parents as they age, or their partner has a particular tie to the area, or they have kids and don’t think it’s fair to uproot their kids and move them to a different country with a different language. I know it’s hard for a Trumper to imagine anything except caring about only yourself, but some others do
Click to expand...
nailed it. Parents are here and close by. Husband needs to work 12 more years to get his pension. Just changing up my career options to move at this point is not easy. And I love my home and property. I like NC overall - fairly good mix of liberal and not as much. But I am not so stupid to think this is a great country. It's racist, has a gross past, defers to the ugly side of humanity, cares little about the planet, etc.

Roy has griped about this very message board and it's posters....but yet is still here. So seems hypocritical.
 
fssheels said:
nypost.com

Kamala Harris has long line of anti-Israel statements following Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attacks

Harris has made no illusions that she would prefer a tougher stance on Israel than her boss.
nypost.com nypost.com

Pro-Israel Democratic voters are going to hold their noses in many cases and vote for Trump. Because Trump may be bad, but no Israel is worse,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a longtime Democratic consultant.

“The pro-Israel Democratic community is shrinking and it will shrink further with Kamala Harris because she’s been very clear about how she feels. She has limited respect for the most important ally America has in the Middle East and an ally that is now fighting a proxy war at great cost against America’s greatest enemy, which is Iran,” Sheinkopf added.
Click to expand...
Wow. A freaking NY Post article that lists some of her snubs as saying things like students have a right to protest and Israel needs to do more to prevent civilian deaths.

Those are anti-Israel snubs? How did Jewish voters end up breaking in the election? Any data on that yet?

There’s a ton of Jewish voters that are anti-Zionist. Harris’ whole campaign was predicated on doing nothing different than Biden re: Gaza. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignoring the evidence of their eyes and ears out of some false notion that Harris was beholden to pro-Palestinian protests.
 
fssheels said:
The comment was Shapiro doesn’t make a lick of difference. They win PA with Shapiro, maybe more. There is no telling how much Jewish vote they lost with their repeated snubs of Israel and Shapiro.
Click to expand...
Vice Presidential candidates more or less make zero difference to the success of campaigns. There is an enormous literature about that. You should try reading some of it.

Evidence: Kamala underperformed Biden in Minnesota, where Tim Walz remains popular. Walz had a much higher approval rating than Vance -- hell, the Trump campaign mostly sidelined Vance after it was clear just how horrible he is/was.
 
A different VP pick would have changed nothing unless they could have turned Kamala into a white male who ran on an "otherizing" platform.

In 2016 America was not going to elect a white woman
In 2024 America was not going to elect a black woman

Kamala ran a flawless campaign appealing to our better angels. Unfortunately today , better angels are the minority in this country so deal with it.
 
aGDevil2k said:
NC is about as 50-50 of a state as there is right now...the 7 battlegrounds all are. They will stay battlegrounds for a while IMO.
Calling us a "red state" is misleading. We havent gone the way of Virginia, but dems have so much of the exec leadership in the state now, it's a good sign
Click to expand...

Id say we're purple.
 
heelinhell said:
A different VP pick would have changed nothing unless they could have turned Kamala into a white male who ran on an "otherizing" platform.

In 2016 America was not going to elect a white woman
In 2024 America was not going to elect a black woman

Kamala ran a flawless campaign appealing to our better angels. Unfortunately today , better angels are the minority in this country so deal with it.
Click to expand...
This time last week I thought she had ran a fantastic campaign, but it unfortunately turned out trying to pull in moderate republicans was a terrible idea. No moderate R's swung for her in any meaningful way, and she must've alienated a large segment of Dems by things like Liz Cheney and all those Republican endorsements because her turnout was so suppressed.

She wasn't able to inspire anyone in such little time. Everything she did in August, where her campaign was just getting after Trump, the weirdness, right when she picked Walz and they seemed like an organic movement (whether it was or not I don't know), that was her best moments. After the DNC her campaign changed and it was way more corporate sounding, in hindsight.
 
lightbluenc said:
This time last week I thought she had ran a fantastic campaign, but it unfortunately turned out trying to pull in moderate republicans was a terrible idea. No moderate R's swung for her in any meaningful way, and she must've alienated a large segment of Dems by things like Liz Cheney and all those Republican endorsements because her turnout was so suppressed.

She wasn't able to inspire anyone in such little time. Everything she did in August, where her campaign was just getting after Trump, the weirdness, right when she picked Walz and they seemed like an organic movement (whether it was or not I don't know), that was her best moments. After the DNC her campaign changed and it was way more corporate sounding, in hindsight.
Click to expand...
Just because it didn't turn out well doesn't mean it was a terrible idea. It would not have been my strategy, but I don't think it made much of a difference.

The big problem was the assumption that Dems' relatively poor performance in early voting was just a choice of waiting until Election Day. If turnout is really much lower, then it's clear they weren't voting early because they didn't intend to vote, not because they were waiting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top