Re: Senate races...I can understand that the election for president has narrowed, as it always was close, specially after Biden dropped out, but why now some Senate contests are trending toward the Rs...PA, WI, where Baldwin had a decent lead, now really close, and OH, where Moreno closing on Brown...what's going on here? Anxietometer starting to go off-scale!
Once again, you rely heavily on links to Twitter (X), which cannot be viewed by those of us who refuse to dip our toes in the cesspool that is X. There are different reasons for this, e.g.,, not wanting to be on social media; not wanting to follow a platform that promotes unfounded conspiracy theories and misinformation, not wanting to be subjected to Elon Musk's opinions and support for Donald Trump, etc.
Please consider those of us who are not on X - and provide links to websites such as YouTube and other platforms that don't lock us out.
Re; Bipartisanship -- nice commentary. And it makes me wonder/worry whether the House Dems (especially Hakeem Jeffries gave away too much to MAGA Mike Johnson, Chief Trump House Toady.
Re:polls...Nate Cohn, despite all the verbiage in this morning's report he wrote on polling strengths and weaknesses, is still holding out for the "low-propensity", and "least politically engaged" voters eventually showing up and actually voting largely for tRump, pushing him first across the line. Because the polls show a dead-even race, and because Nate's two voting cohort don't respond to polling - he says - when and if they rouse themselves to actually cast a ballot, they'll break strongly for tRump...that's his wild card, and his hedge whichever way the final vote goes.
Kamala’s efforts to woo Republicans: I have no idea if it’s just a gambit to get votes or there’s more to it. (If the former, I of course have no issue.) Meanwhile, at the other end of the range is this: Venn diagram positions on big policies like the economy, finance, national security, the military-industrial complex, etc., the overlap between the two parties is way too big. (Don’t provide the exceptions. I know what they are and all have been tragically limited. The one big thing in decades is of course the ACA which was deliberately designed to be weaker than what it should and could have been.) (At this point I’d go into my Party of Clinton shtick but I’ve overdone of late…)
Suffice to say, at one point I was hopeful that she was some sort of break from the Party of Clinton BS. Now I don’t know. Should add that if it is, in whole or part, a mind game targeted at Trump, I of course approve.
She is trying to avoid the Clinton situation of having a popular vote majority of 3 million and still “losing” because of the electoral college cudgel. 100,000 “wrong” votes in the “wrong” states made 3 million votes irrelevant.
Biden won the popular vote by 7 million and only a bare 77,000 “correct” votes in the “correct” states gave him the presidency. With the current Jill Stein and RFK jr cudgels in several of the swing states, and knowing Clinton lost votes to Stein in those states by a larger amount than the margins of each state’s victories, ugh.
She is sadly exactly correct to give Republicans especially in these swing states a permission structure in which to give Haley voters and other never Trump voters to cast their presidential votes for Kamala Harris, whether or not they’ve ever voted for the Democratic candidate before. Because of the electoral college cudgels.
It would all be different and less concentrated if we didn’t have the electoral college. Someday that will be gone. Not in two weeks. Playing for all the marbles.
Am thoroughly sick and tired
of polls. Nate can stick it.
Bipartisanship? How much of
that have we had in the
house and senate? This has
been the worst congress in
my life.
It's nice Cheney is on the
road with Kamala Harris,
but it took Liz a long time to
do it.
Re: Senate races...I can understand that the election for president has narrowed, as it always was close, specially after Biden dropped out, but why now some Senate contests are trending toward the Rs...PA, WI, where Baldwin had a decent lead, now really close, and OH, where Moreno closing on Brown...what's going on here? Anxietometer starting to go off-scale!
It might be the grotesque anti-trans ads. Sad.
Once again, you rely heavily on links to Twitter (X), which cannot be viewed by those of us who refuse to dip our toes in the cesspool that is X. There are different reasons for this, e.g.,, not wanting to be on social media; not wanting to follow a platform that promotes unfounded conspiracy theories and misinformation, not wanting to be subjected to Elon Musk's opinions and support for Donald Trump, etc.
Please consider those of us who are not on X - and provide links to websites such as YouTube and other platforms that don't lock us out.
Re; Bipartisanship -- nice commentary. And it makes me wonder/worry whether the House Dems (especially Hakeem Jeffries gave away too much to MAGA Mike Johnson, Chief Trump House Toady.
Re:polls...Nate Cohn, despite all the verbiage in this morning's report he wrote on polling strengths and weaknesses, is still holding out for the "low-propensity", and "least politically engaged" voters eventually showing up and actually voting largely for tRump, pushing him first across the line. Because the polls show a dead-even race, and because Nate's two voting cohort don't respond to polling - he says - when and if they rouse themselves to actually cast a ballot, they'll break strongly for tRump...that's his wild card, and his hedge whichever way the final vote goes.
Kamala’s efforts to woo Republicans: I have no idea if it’s just a gambit to get votes or there’s more to it. (If the former, I of course have no issue.) Meanwhile, at the other end of the range is this: Venn diagram positions on big policies like the economy, finance, national security, the military-industrial complex, etc., the overlap between the two parties is way too big. (Don’t provide the exceptions. I know what they are and all have been tragically limited. The one big thing in decades is of course the ACA which was deliberately designed to be weaker than what it should and could have been.) (At this point I’d go into my Party of Clinton shtick but I’ve overdone of late…)
Suffice to say, at one point I was hopeful that she was some sort of break from the Party of Clinton BS. Now I don’t know. Should add that if it is, in whole or part, a mind game targeted at Trump, I of course approve.
She is trying to avoid the Clinton situation of having a popular vote majority of 3 million and still “losing” because of the electoral college cudgel. 100,000 “wrong” votes in the “wrong” states made 3 million votes irrelevant.
Biden won the popular vote by 7 million and only a bare 77,000 “correct” votes in the “correct” states gave him the presidency. With the current Jill Stein and RFK jr cudgels in several of the swing states, and knowing Clinton lost votes to Stein in those states by a larger amount than the margins of each state’s victories, ugh.
She is sadly exactly correct to give Republicans especially in these swing states a permission structure in which to give Haley voters and other never Trump voters to cast their presidential votes for Kamala Harris, whether or not they’ve ever voted for the Democratic candidate before. Because of the electoral college cudgels.
It would all be different and less concentrated if we didn’t have the electoral college. Someday that will be gone. Not in two weeks. Playing for all the marbles.
Again, no issue with what she’s doing as a way to get votes (and, of course, dis Trump in the process).
My concern or bewilderment or whatever is what it all might say about policy (presuming policy matters which, of course, depends on her Congress).