Recent Posts

Show posts from buddies only

Two things here- if Biden is winning Indies by 6 & 10, he's winning MI. He won them by 6 in 2020.

Another LOL at the white voter swing - Trump +3 with white voters (he was +11 in 2020), while Biden is +60 with black voters (+85 in 2020)

A lot of the swing however comes from their "non-whites who aren't black" sample which has Trump +40, despite Biden winning Latinos in 2020 lol

Examining the cross tabulation between the two-way race and the five-way race, Kennedy takes 4%
away from Donald Trump and just one percent away from Joe Biden. In our last survey in March,
Kennedy took exactly 3% away from both candidates.

In the Generic Congressional Ballot Question, the Republican (47%) has a three-point lead over the
Democrat (44%).

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2024/Mitchell-MIRS_MI_Poll_Press_Release_-_Presidential_Race_517_PM_5-27-24.pdf

Wow, Biden outperforming the GCB again. What a terrible candidate!

I think Michigan could indeed be a tossup as of today, with each candidate at their floor around 46%. Biden probably has a slightly higher ceiling though or consolidates less than Trump (as of today).

I'd really rather people not be writing off Butker as "a conservative Catholic," as if what he said is representative of Catholic opinion (even in a country like the United States that has a frankly pretty reactionary local Church). The people I know who were most immediately and personally horrified by this speech were fervent Catholics and, in particular, fervently Catholic women.

Yes, but it should also be done for humanitarian reasons to overthrow the apartheid regime and allow the South Asian majority population to have citizenship and vote for a democratic government.

[In 1968, after RFK's assassination, Eugene McCarthy was the overwhelming choice of Democrat voters, yet the party chose to nominate VP Humphrey, despite him only having 2% of the primary vote. He of course went on to loose]

Switching out nominees is never a good thing and rarely works out well for the party that does it. Doing this would make the Dems look unorganized, chaotic, and indecisive, all things they accuse Trump of being. Plus, it would mean installing a nominee that wasn't picked by the voters, so you run the risk of the base not getting fully behind the new nominee.

We have historic precedents for this:
- In 1912, the GOP voters picked Roosevelt, yet the party re-nominated Taft. Roosevelt went rogue and the GOP lost
- In 1968, after RFK's assassination, Eugene McCarthy was the overwhelming choice of Democrat voters, yet the party chose to nominate VP Humphrey, despite him only having 2% of the primary vote. He of course went on to loose
- In 1972, the McGovern campaign dropped Thomas Eagleton from the ticket because he was seen as to big a liability. He was replaced by Sargent Shriver. We of course know how that ended (To be fair, McGovern had already long been a lost cause)

TBF Humphrey's performance was quite impressive.

https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1795537098042400826

On that item, yes. In terms of jobs market, growth, lack of scandal and opponent candidate quality, Biden should actually be fine. Yet, the polls tell a different story. Either they're onto something or just broken. But if nothing changes, Lichtman's keys would indeed point to a Biden victory.

ScotGov u-turn on Matheson, now the Greens are supporting the sanctions.

Rather than trying to block the sanctions against Michael Matheson, as they promised to do last week, the SNP are now seeking to pass them, but with an amendment decrying the members of the committee who sanctioned him.

Odd week on that story. Like with Yousaf, there seems to be a desire to protect him, because he's people's mate, even though he's a massive liability. It became the focus of every news conference the party leaders held. Every one started with an election question, and then pivoted to Matheson.

We'll have the vote on his suspension tomorrow, and then probably a second vote on whether he should be asked to resign. The first one will pass (probably with the Greens backing the amendment), but the second vote will fail.

As with just about all partisan "double standard" accusations you could say the same thing in reverse. The people who thought it was "great for athletes to be bigger than their sport and speak out on issues they're passionate about" seem to like that a lot less when socially conservative Catholics do it.

"Muh both sides. Of course da libs are whining about telling women they should stay in the kitchen and Pride Month is evil, those are roughly equivalent to opposing police brutality in my eyes"

You're not really disagreeing with me. You like players speaking out when they agree with you, but not when they disagree with you which is the same position you're criticizing conservatives for having. The "free speech" defenses of Kaepernick weren't really why they supported him, it was just because they agreed with him.

Also not really sure where he told women to "stay in the kitchen" he just said being a parent was important, which wouldn't have been remotely noteworthy or controversial if he said it about men. This whole thing is a nothingburger, was expecting it to be so much worse when I looked at what he said based on the reaction to it. If anything the reaction proves that it needed to be said.

Switching out nominees is never a good thing and rarely works out well for the party that does it. Doing this would make the Dems look unorganized, chaotic, and indecisive, all things they accuse Trump of being. Plus, it would mean installing a nominee that wasn't picked by the voters, so you run the risk of the base not getting fully behind the new nominee.

We have historic precedents for this:
- In 1912, the GOP voters picked Roosevelt, yet the party re-nominated Taft. Roosevelt went rogue and the GOP lost
- In 1968, after RFK's assassination, Eugene McCarthy was the overwhelming choice of Democrat voters, yet the party chose to nominate VP Humphrey, despite him only having 2% of the primary vote. He of course went on to loose
- In 1972, the McGovern campaign dropped Thomas Eagleton from the ticket because he was seen as to big a liability. He was replaced by Sargent Shriver. We of course know how that ended (To be fair, McGovern had already long been a lost cause)

25 methinks, just like House.

Yes, 25 for House, Senate, and presidency.