Mark Davis

Looking like around a 1% Trump win after California

VA is blue. Unlike 2020 I don't think there are the votes left in GA for her to catch up from the county maps I'm seeing.

Looks like Trump may win the popular vote and could possibly even sweep all seven battlegrounds. NV was always going to be the toughest in my mind with the late Clark mail ballots.

Don Meredith is warming up his vocal chords in the back room. NC will soon be called by the networks. GA from what I know of it looks solid for Trump. While at this same point in the night 4 years ago CNN is right that Biden was down this much, Atlanta was not 80% in either. Tonight Atlanta is proportionately in with the rest of the state.

What state are you in? Sounds like one of our debacles

Been 90+ minute waits here all day. One of three states with no early voting. If it were a battleground I’d try to find a way but don’t readily have the time. Our roads are also packed with bad, and old, drivers not used to driving much on this day. Turned a normal 30 min at most round trip to get my daughter from practice to over an hour. Just utter chaos here on election days in presidential cycles.

I would try to explain it, but I'd be wasting my time

The man who called non-Muslims cattle had his feelings hurt over a beeper joke. And of course we know what side CNN took.

It's going to get worse over the next 10 days. I would say it couldn't get worse, but I know it will.

Life goes on either way. I want Trump to win, I'll be disappointed if Harris wins. But either way the sun will come up the next day and life goes on. We are going to have a mental health crisis the day after this election because the hyperbole has been taken to the point people believe it that the other side is a threat to their life and country.

In general, I'm not a believer in the everything is a hoax type mentality. You don't have to work hard to get me to believe Trump has said some pretty off color things. But when it comes to the Atlantic, I'm about as confident in them as I would be something from Alex Jones. This story just breaks about the Hitler comments all these years later just two weeks before the election when the polls show Trump has the momentum. So there's that, and the odds that is a coincidence is pretty low. So I wouldn't believe them at all, but truthfully does it even matter? Maybe he said it in an off the cuff moment when he was angry at Kelly, maybe he said it and there is no context left out. But what is it going to change? Those who are going to believe it or care enough where a comment is going to change their vote in a negative way about Trump have already have made up their minds Trump is horrible and already are Harris voters. This isn't the first time inflammatory comments have been attributed to Trump, it's a long term pattern. I just can't imagine the voter who is out there who says, well all those other times had me on the fence, but yep this time the Atlantic has me convinced. I just don't think that voter exists. Maybe it drives up some base intensity.

Have we found anyone yet waiting to see who their newspaper endorses to decide their vote? I think this would be like trying to find the Japanese soldiers on the remote island still fighting WWII.

I've been watching some focus groups on a political channel I watch. The bright side is these things only fire up the base. Even Harris leans aren't moved by this type thing. It does fire up the base. It seems odd to me she's chosen this as her closing message, but here we are.

Not me

If the Atlantic told me the sky was blue it would really mess with my mind.

Markie Post was superb and an all time fave. When she died my wife told me that now she could quit worrying about me trying to leave her for Markie. She still has Laura Leighton to worry about though.

You know, I heard Arnold Palmer had a big one of those

Bob Casey running an ad tying himself to Donald Trump and even picturing him in his ad says a lot about where his campaign sees the state of the presidential race in PA.

A bunch of bad hombres came over

Shesh, I just saw the clip where Gaffigan went in on the Democrats for pulling a coup on Joe Biden. That had to tighten some sphincters in the room.

I just don't see it based on her actions and her comments that the border was secure during the Biden Administration. To me it showed a willing deception to the status that she knew to be true at the time, that the border was a huge issue. In the interview with Bret Baier, she referenced the first bill they tried to pass when controlling both chambers and the White House. That bill included a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants without securing the border. I'm sure you will disagree with the summary and we are far apart on this, but there were Democrats who opposed it for those very reasons. I'm happy that now she sees it as an issue, but the reality is that it was an issue much earlier. I'm not one who calls her dumb or stupid, but by that same token I feel she fully knew the situation at the border was dire and basically took the administration stance of lying to the public about it being secure. So I do view her way to the left of the Clinton Administration when it comes to the border. You may well be right on Johnson, and more so that Johnson is held hostage by his caucus in a way Gingrich wasn't. Your second point is largely true, and neither party is going to address it. If we are going to run deficits, I'd rather do it with relatively lower spending and relatively lower taxes, even if I think spending is too high. The reason for that is it gives us more runway or altitude to raise revenues in the future to offset that lesser spending. It's also hard to reel in spending once we add a new program. At least if you're working with somewhat smaller numbers, even if the deficit was the same, you have more room to fix the issue. Sadly, I don't see anyone fixing the issue so it's just like trying to keep altitude on a plane without engines praying at some point they restart because you're crashing, it's just a matter of how much time you are leaving to try and find a solution.

I voted for Clinton twice, would vote for him again today assuming he would govern as he did then. Loved the way he and Gingrich worked together, whether a forced marriage or not. Do you feel Kamala Harris would have supported Operation Gatekeeper? See her working with Mike Johnson to help balance the budget?

I got a good chuckle out of him telling Chuck Schumer not to worry, that given how woke his party has become that after he beats Kamala Harris that Schumer can still become the first woman President.

Sure there was, from MLB 100%. If someone didn't take the time to research what that organization had done for the community in Atlanta and realize how many minority owned businesses were hurt, to move to Denver of all places instead, well that's hard for me to view as pure. The problem wasn't real, because if it were a problem it wouldn't be in the past tense, it would still be such an objectionable problem the game shouldn't be there. The law is still the same and yet the game is back. So either those wonderful pure hearted uninformed individuals were wrong from the start, or they are purely political beings and knew the whole time nothing was wrong and did it for political reasons. Now, it can be either of the two, but it must be one of the two because nothing at all has changed.

You know how this goes, nobody ever admits they were wrong.