Sean Mooney

1.) Yes it is always you being "misrepresented." The more accurate descriptor is you are very hypocritical about things in discussions. 2.) I don't have a problem with people voting in favor of their feelings over facts. I'm also not the one who has complained about that in the past here who is in favor of it now..

Yes we know- your feelings on inflation- all one party, no blame to the other....got it. They are going to vote the other way because their perception is different than what they feel their reality is- as every poll I've shared points out. Feelz not facts....it's fine- just admit it.

First off- boy you can't even go like an hour or two without mentioning me. This even after I decided to ease up on running you into the ground. Just sad man. And no of course not everyone's reality is the same: Case in point- I have a functioning brain in my head capable of critical thought. You have a 14-month-old, moldy salami sandwich in your head that fuels your autistic rage. So no our realities are not the same. Now run along

It does not only benefit the wealthy. That's silly. And yes people might vote them out- because they are voting their perceptions and not their reality. Again- feelz, not facts.

Did you actually look at the methodology of the poll? There are some problems with it: 1.) They talked to 622 "registered voters". Firstly, that is a smallish sample size even by traditionally small sample sizes in these things. Second- registered voters is the wrong way to approach the polls. Likely voters are the better way to go because they are obviously more inclined to vote. Doesn't mean there is nothing useful from registered voters but still. But look at the numbers of people polled on the other polls (numbers from RealClearPolitics): 2814, 2791, 901, 915, 600, 2104, 1695, 2241, 2108, etc 2.) The poll is heavily skewed towards white voters- and there is some belief they lumped "white/hispanic" together. Of the 622 people they polled 591 of them were white. They included 12 black people in the poll. I wasn't saying she was going to win Iowa. I'm just saying it is stupid to say "I'll castrate myself if she does" and then walk it back like an idiot.

No gaslighting needed. The polls I've shown indicate that people feel they are doing well but the economy is bad. The numbers show a lot of the surrounding metrics are good. You continue to advocate people should vote their feelings. It's fine but be honest about it, and understand that some people will vote their feelings on other issues whether you like them or not.

Be careful listing this because Horseman/Roger Dodger,/JuneJuly/JoseM has a real issue with people pointing out how sad people are for having multiple aliases on the board here.

So once again you are advocating people voting for their feelings rather than the reality?

Hmmmmm

Some dude on Twitter- Joey Mannarino- said if Kamala wins Iowa he will castrate himself live on Twitter if it happens. He then backtracked to say "if it is legitimate." People get too invested in political fandom

Is this based on more of these polls that no one other than jonmx has seen?

So they did give Trump time after the NASCAR race. The law was followed. A non-story....move on

Your argument is a live TV doesn't try to do things for clicks? Also- NBC filed a notice with the FCC and offered Trump equal time to address viewers during today's NASCAR race allegedly.

Because they want something that will draw views on social media.

The equal time rule is not as cut and dry as you guys seem to think. I'd suggest reading up on it more. And if SNL is found to have violated the rules of it all they and NBC will be hit with fines and everything. Also, no one is going to vote for Kamala because she was on SNL.

Mr. Internet Tough Guy seems awfully triggered by SNL.

Hope Burgum didn't hurt himself flip flopping like this on TV https://x.com/atrupar/status/1853097850055336266?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1853097850055336266|twgr^91d9b52f59eb23d7e927e27f19dece32e2354c1a|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdisqus.com%2Fembed%2Fcomments%2F%3Fbase%3Ddefaultf%3Drspwfaq-wpt_i%3Dhttps3A2F2Fwww.blogofdoom.com2F3Fp3D120654t_u%3Dhttps3A2F2Fwww.blogofdoom.com2F20242F112F032Fmorning-daily-news-update-8042Ft_d%3DMorning20Daily20News20Update20-20Scott27s20Blog20of20Doomt_t%3DMorning20Daily20News20Update20-20Scott27s20Blog20of20Dooms_o%3Ddefaultversion%3Df7a73aced2afb4b2a80d8f8c751c458b

is that really all you got? You teenage school girls are a hoot!

And yet you clicked on it and commented. W...T...F? How f'n pathetic. No....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA No

These people don't get that. You notice when I listed all the places growing stores in 2024 it was crickets from those dopes

There are conditions that work around that

Trump hosted SNL in 2015. Hillary was on SNL IN 2016 (or 2015) as well I believe. Obama was on in 2007 and 2008. McCain was on twice in the 2008 campaign. Palin was on as well in 2008. Long history of political candidates being on the program.

The actual poll isn't here but this article breaks down everything in it: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/02/iowa-poll-kamala-harris-leads-donald-trump-2024-presidential-race/75354033007/

Ann Selzer- who runs the Selzer & Company polling company based in Iowa that is viewed as incredibly accurate by polling aggregators- has Kamala up 3% on Donald among likely voters in Iowa. The poll there was conducted with RFK as an option because he is still on the ballot there in Iowa. Look I wouldn't bet on Iowa being in play necessarily. However, given how accurate she is usually at projecting Iowans, and the fact that she is finding Trump is still strong with his core groups but women- both Democrats and independent- are breaking heavily to Kamala.....it would give me a little pause to the point where I'd say perhaps it might be more than noise.