Sean Mooney

Yeah, it sounds like tim doesn't understand how polling works.

Again I'll point out I'm an independent. For me it isn't leave those people behind- it's about what issue will get a person in the room for you. A blue collar voter in WI/MI/PA doesn't give a damn about a transwoman playing in a woman's sport. They aren't for or against it necessarily- they just don't care....and I live in PA in a very blue collar county so I know these people. So trying to appeal to them with that messaging is silly. But if you say to them "Hey- 10% tax cut on your earnings" they will listen to what you have to say. Get them in the room, give them the tax cut, and then you can do the trans stuff if you really want to. People only care about issues that affect them personally in most cases. Lots of people here on both sides are not gay. So someone saying "Hey gay people should have a/b/c" doesn't land. Because if gay people don't have those things it won't affect that poster here personally. LGBTQIA+ should have all rights that anyone else has but it is less than 8% of the population. Money issues affect everyone. The one commercial that played a ton here in PA (I presume nationally it was there as well but here it was like during every program ) was one that dealt with LGBTQIA+ issues and ended with "Kamala's agenda is for They/Them, not you" and I just thought- that is a brilliant tagline.

I know the economy is doing fine I've said as much numerous times. But as I've also said- people's perceptions of the economy are not matching up with the reality.

I'm pretty sure Joy Behar's turkey neck and Whoopi's gray braids are not the leaders of the Democrat party.

You are watching The View to try and own someone? I don't know anyone who legitimately watches The View

He wouldn't have won either....It was always going to be an uphill climb for an incumbent

I'm not speaking to Trump in general on that......I just don't like it in general ever. Democrats shouldn't ever have that power either.

Come up with a better message to sell to blue collar voters in states. And focus more on the issues that are important to majority of Americans. I'm not saying completely ignore LGBTQIA+ individuals but understand that it is 7.6% of adults- and they do not all vote Democrat. But don't make appealing to them a pillar of your platform. Everyone who saw exit polls knew this was about the economy and as I pointed out many times- even though people thought they were personally doing well the economy was not good overall. But even if you think you are doing right thing, and probably are to protect the LGBTQIA+ (as an example)- that doesn't appeal to a large voting bloc....so downplay it

Is there a place where people can bet on who the first person in the coalition Trump put together he will turn on is? Cause I think easy money is on RFK Jr

I mean....yeah. I think both sides of the aisle can agree on that.

The fact that Illinois was within 4% points and New Jersey was within 5% should lead to the Democrats taking a hard look at themselves. I doubt it does.

If we are lucky as a country this election will lead to some soul searching for the Democratic party so they can go back to offering solid candidates as well and centralize themselves again so we have 2 functioning parties offering real choice. But their record makes me think that won't happen. I'm a little concerned about the White House, Senate, House, and Supreme Court all being under GOP control (despite the last one intended to be impartial) because no one party should have that much control. It wrecks the checks and balance flow of the governmental system.

Why would you do that to yourself? I'm sure there will be places where you can watch clips if it is just ice cream and tissues for them all day today

Never stopped you from posting

Secretary of Defense? Maybe Ambassador to the United Nations.

Again I spoke a few weeks ago about how poorly the Harris campaign was being run: A big thing to me is- in 2016 Hillary's team treated Trump as a joke. In 2020 Biden went after Trump. He didn't treat him as a joke. In 2024- the Kamala campaign looked at both of those strategies and decided that Hillary's was the one to follow.

Sure but usually a hierarchy breaks out at some point even in primaries. I'm more asking though will Vance have the main in road (a la- Bush in 88 following Reagan) or will someone else jump out in front of him Tulsi would be interesting. It would also test the "viability of a woman president" hypothesis out there right now

Biden's team did in 2020 what Hillary's team in 2016 and Kamala's team didn;t do this year. He went after Trump and his faults. They treated Trump as a joke.

Is that after Vance gets his turn in 2028 or do you think she jumps Vance in the line?

I called Trump winning weeks ago and I still hold to what I said weeks ago that the Harris campaign was horribly run.

Just a reminder regardless of what happens in this election: America was great. America is great. America will continue to be great.

That first sentence isn't 100% true but you'll never admit it because your partisan hackery won't let you. It's fine. I don't feel like rehashing your lies again.

Yes you established the Biden stuff.....now do Trump's role.

So the year in which we felt the full impact of what COVID wrought? Also, the impact should have been about 3% and it was 6% which would indicate other factors at play. And the main thing they signed in was building on the acts in March and December of 2020....

This is you telling jokes right? Also, important to note- of the past 4 Presidents- 3 entered the White House in or around a recession or economic downturn of some kind. The only one who didn't was Donald Trump. So he was handed a solid economy and partially because of COVID, partially because of his spending like crazy, and partially his own policies that boosted inflation warning signals he handed a less than stellar one to Biden.