Politics

[LivingTheDream]

I think it is great, it goes back to the big tent principle. Trump has a Kennedy and a former Democrat 2020 presidential candidate endorsing him. Two things I wouldnt have said in 2023. You are also starting to see "unity" party starting to pop up and I do think that means something and throws off the extreme right narrative. Personally, I like Tulsi more as a leader than Nikki, but that is just my opinion.

I also feel there is some gaslighting going on regarding Kamala and the polls, I haven't met really anyone who is super enthusiastic about her, maybe one or two people but they were all in on Biden anyway. I probably have more liberals in my social circle than conservatives. There is a lot more of, "well she isn't Biden".

As far as polling, one of the snap polls showed 36% of those polled said Joe Biden won the first debate vs Trump. So just think about that.

 

[Red Leg]

I get your point. But my question was, how do you feel about this in regards to helping or hurting Trump’s chances with people who are on the fence? I know you are a republican, as am I, so I in turn would like our republican candidate to win. Does this help or bender his chances?

Fair question. Can't hurt.

 

[freefall]

I am not a never Trumper - merely think he is a flawed candidate and will be a marginal president. I am convinced Halley would be ahead by 10 now and would not have support from either RFK jr or the fetching Ms. Gabbard. You tell me what that says about Trump, clearly grateful for democrat support, who is either within the margin of error or behind Harris at this point depending upon the poll.

I thought you had clearly stated that your Sacred Honour would not allow you to vote for Trump.
Either I'm vastly misunderstooken or Sacred Honour is less binding than I'd thought.

 

[Ridge Runner]

I do not think it is bold at all. I base it on the her polling vs Trump's polling against Biden. On January 18th she polled 17 points ahead of Biden in the WSJ Poll. In the same poll Trump had a four point lead (as did DeSantis). Trump remains plateaued under 50%, and is behind Harris in most national polls. Yet the republican party, because of its primary format, seems to have picked the least competitive candidate to oppose Biden and now Harris because of the don't confuse me with facts 35% who are totally committed to Trump. Or perhaps you have other evidence or another interpretation of that polling.

Polls are Polls and whoever conducts the Polls can interpret the Polls as they want for who they want.....or for whom ever is paying them.

I don't believe in Polls telling me or the nation who or what is best. We know MSM is a propaganda machine for the dems and their socialist, neo naziz, anti American controllers.

Their is in no logical way Polls can subvert the fact that Trump has more people attending his rally compared to the number of people Sleepy Joe had at his rallys and what Cackling Harris has at hers.

How can 50, a 100, a 1000 or even 10,000 people claimed to be polled represent 100% of the millions of the voting population?

Are these Polls 50% Republicans and 50% Demcommies?

What are the percentages of these people being polled: unemployed? living off various government handouts? minimum wage earners? middle class? top 1% class? retired? nationality? race? rural? suburban? urban? small town? big town? major city? metropolis? etc., etc.,etc..

Polls are for sheep to believe they are not being led to the slaughter house.

Saying Polls are accuracy margin is 2%, 3%. WTH does that even mean when there is or has never been a direct correlation to actual numbers.

Before I or anyone believe in Polls; I want, we should want, actual reliable numbers! I want to be able to fact check the Polls numbers and people polled.

Fictitious Example to make my point.

MSM Report: A Poll shows:
48% vote for Republican, 48% vote for Democrats 4% undecided

98% vote for neither Trump nor Harris
2% margin of error

What's not said; the Poll was conducted in the office by anonymity of 10 employees. Thirty minutes before going on the air.

The Poll was (ironically) done by Greenspan. Henrik Greenspan the newly hired mail clerk who just happened to be delivering the mail in the area. He was provided the polling questionnaires to hand out to 20 random office workers, but only 10 office workers bothered to fill out and return the polling questionnaire.

Before anyone says it. But...But....but polls are done by ____________ and they can be trusted. Or well that's not how polls are conducted. Or any other such nonsense.

I say BULLSHIT!!....Prove It!! Poll 100% of the voting population! Give me real numbers!! And only then will any Poll be within 2%, 3% margin.

 

[ActionBob]

Honest question here... Is there any value to adding Waltz to the ticket?

MN had ALWAYS voted blue. You don't pick up anything from MN, where they maybe could have from a swing state. His handling of Covid, BLM riots, voting record, spending, increased crime rates, etc will all be so easy to attack.

Is he simply a martyr that they are throwing on the ticket so that they can preserve some "better" candidate in the future? One they actually hope to run successfully in the future?

Beyond pushing their agenda even further to the left, is there any upside to campaign? I'm struggling to see any reasoning on why he was selected. Did he endorse her during her early (failed) presidential run? Outside of the riots, he really doesn't have any National brand/positioning.

What am I missing? Is this a simple way to lose to Trump and blame a bad ticket?

I think they fell for their own game... flat out lying about facts. I believe they actually thought he would appeal to the average balding white male. The believed him that he has that great service record, I mean what does the Harris campain know about honor and stolen Valor? He's their "hunter and gun owner", coach, teacher.... so what if he's a commie China lover ass hat who lies through his teeth? Thats the normal Democra t candidate these days... They got blind sided by their own ideals.