With a 3% margin or error, this is a real lead. But we need this lead in battleground states.
I think for now it is seeing a trend. Harris has been gaining ground and Trump has been losing ground.
Whether it will be enough for Harris to pass Trump in the end I do not know.
Simply add the derisive suffix -o: Weirdo. Voilà.
I’m at the Hershey, PA RV show.this week. So far, every ad I’ve heard on the radio has been a Harris ad. I’ve seen some MAGA hats, but I have also seen some “White Dudes for Harris” hats.
Nothing scientific, just some anecdotes from the field.
I wasn’t sure if this belongs in here or Trump’s thread. Not a religious person, but I was hoping the Pope could offer stronger words. I get why he couldn’t, but still…
This concerns both campaigns, but anyone that wants to rail against or support the Pope’s word will need to start a new thread.
Do not hijack this thread with the Pope, the RCC, Abortion or immigration.
Moderating:
This topic was automatically opened after 9 minutes.
Apologies, I didn’t intend to start or encourage any kind of hijack by posting the article.
Agreed, as I said, it does concern the campaigns, but the hijacks based on the post are best cut off.
The city of Louisville also uses the “Keep [insert city name] weird” motif, as well.
My post from three days ago…
“As to my guesses about movement [after the debate]…perhaps I’m being too optimistic, but I think there will be a slight shift, to almost 3.5% average likely-voter preference difference nationally, and enough movement in enough swing states that models will forecast her chances of winning at 60 to 65%, rather than the current 45 to 55%.”
…is starting to come true already – at least according to the 538 model, which now has Harris winning 60% of the runs.
That’s where Hilary Clinton was, iirc. Winning 60% of the runs.
Harris’ latest policy idea is to cut degree requirements for federal jobs. This seems like a good idea on the face of it.
Not sure which thread to put this in –
but I had a thought about the cat-eating nonsense.
Could this be their reaction to all the Cats for Kamala tshirts and so on? Could they be thinking ‘people are mad at us for saying one thing about cats; so we’ll come up with something about cats that we think we can aim at Kamala, and we’ll come across as the people defending cats and we can accuse her of hating them!’
– which instead is coming across as ‘we said one stupid thing about cat ladies. Now we’re saying something even stupider (and on top of it racist) about cat eating.’
You’re overthinking it. It’s just the same old blood libel that’s existed for a thousand years, that used to be about Chinese people thirty years ago.
It’s that too. That’s where their minds went; because that’s where their minds already are. But I wonder whether part of the surface level of their minds was trying to do something about all the positive connections of cats and Kamala.
Sorry, wrong thread