2024 Field

Garmel said:
I know it's hard to believe, gents but the addition or omission of a word changes the meaning of a term. Can't handle being corrected? Tough ****.

I don't agree with his feelings on the IVF because of the costs but I do agree with some having a limit on credit card interest. Yes, I can find places on the net who agree with me that limits on interest are not considered price control.

You think you have the all of the answers but you really don't know ****.

When you think IVF or caps on CC interest are going to be as damaging to this country as what Kamala is going to do then you are delusional.
Click to expand...

Yes you've made it very clear that "national healthcare" is a very scare proposition that we should avoid at all costs, and "national health program" is a great thing that we must bow down for

I understand the "not kamala" is the best argument you have. And I agree. He's not as bad as Kamala.

He ****ing sucks. And the country is ****ed
 
acesfull86 said:
Apparently this thing is going to go for $100 when it’s available. It would be hilarious if he changed the button to say “suggested tip $100” to avoid taxes.
Click to expand...

Wow just realized he's selling a $30 coin for $100.

Robbing his cult

Are the cultists not offended by this? Or pissed that he's robbing people 50 days from the "most important election in history?"

I wonder how much RDS would have charged for his personal coin sale
 
Krgrecw said:
I thought so too but their moderates are loud enough to shut down the lunatic left fringe. Can’t say the same about the right.
Click to expand...

The lunatic fringe on the right is at the top of the ticket. Lara Loomer, JD Vance and Mark Robinson aren't the problem. DJT gave birth to them.
 
I’m not letting myself believe too much either, but I do think Trump supporters are going to have to grapple with the fact that pollsters *also* paid attention to 2016 and 2020 and how their methodology failed. Just assuming that Trump is magic and polls won’t reflect his support accurately ignores the fact that 2024 is not necessarily “just another” Trump election and maybe the gaps from the past have been bridged. I don’t have enough data to suggest it’s accurate now either, to be clear. It’s highly possible the polls turn out to be wrong and Trump wins big in November. But I wouldn’t just blindly assume that.
 
nsacpi said:
Extrapolating further....

In 2016 the poll over estimated Clinton's final margin by 4.9%.

In 2020 it overestimated Biden's final margin by 3.5%.

And in 2024....
Click to expand...

They certainly could peg it right this time, but I don't think they should be paid attention to until they do.
 
mqt said:
I’m not letting myself believe too much either, but I do think Trump supporters are going to have to grapple with the fact that pollsters *also* paid attention to 2016 and 2020 and how their methodology failed. Just assuming that Trump is magic and polls won’t reflect his support accurately ignores the fact that 2024 is not necessarily “just another” Trump election and maybe the gaps from the past have been bridged. I don’t have enough data to suggest it’s accurate now either, to be clear. It’s highly possible the polls turn out to be wrong and Trump wins big in November. But I wouldn’t just blindly assume that.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's one thing. Polling methodology has changed in an attempt to correct for shortcomings revealed in recent elections.

But also this is the first presidential election since Dobbs, which does seem to have affected how voters turn out to the benefit of the (D)s.
 
msstate7 said:
They certainly could peg it right this time, but I don't think they should be paid attention to until they do.
Click to expand...

I think that’s still part of the problem, though. It’s understandable to be skeptical of polls after the past two elections. But it’s foolish to call others sheep for following them while not having a specific justification for not trusting them. And this isn’t a shot at you personally, but a general point about politics today. There’s been an army of sudden polling experts all generally trumpeting the same talking points that are backed up by data points from ‘16 or ‘20 but ignoring that polling strategy is *also* a moving target. All those fancy polling people don’t keep making money if they can’t change to attempt to be more accurate.
 
One other thing Republicans need to recognize is that regardless of the reason, Harris is now at a point where she has a net positive favorability rating, which is unique for a Trump opponent. I suspect that will dip back below 0 soon, but a lot fewer voters appear to be holding their nose as they support or vote for her than in ‘16 or ‘20, which was always a big advantage for Trump. He didn’t appeal broadly, but he appealed a lot to those he did appeal to.
 
mqt said:
I think that’s still part of the problem, though. It’s understandable to be skeptical of polls after the past two elections. But it’s foolish to call others sheep for following them while not having a specific justification for not trusting them. And this isn’t a shot at you personally, but a general point about politics today. There’s been an army of sudden polling experts all generally trumpeting the same talking points that are backed up by data points from ‘16 or ‘20 but ignoring that polling strategy is *also* a moving target. All those fancy polling people don’t keep making money if they can’t change to attempt to be more accurate.
Click to expand...

Need to insist on your candidate being the clear favorite so you can use your own confidence as evidence of cheating after said candidate loses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mqt
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top