Trump talk only- no Eagles talk allowed (Steelers talk is OK though)

[Engorgeous George 2,137]

6 minutes ago, purdygood said:

I don't usually taste women. Unless they are like a fine Napa wine. But if you like to go down on any Ohio woman, do you.

Hallie Berry was from Ohio.

[Engorgeous George 2,137]

4 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Why would one factor in the random location that a woman calls home when making a determination on whether or not to perform cunnilingus? I refuse to hold it against a woman that she lives in a nasty place (like Wisconsin, for instance). If it seems sweet, taste it to confirm!

Wisconsin is god's country.  Unfortunately it is also mosquito country and home to bratwurst, cheese curds and beer which the hot teenage girls start consuming around 20 and turn into heifers.  Before that change of life the young women are fine.

[purdygood 334]

Just now, Fnord said:

Why would one factor in the random location that a woman calls home when making a determination on whether or not to perform cunnilingus? I refuse to hold it against a woman that she lives in a nasty place (like Wisconsin, for instance). If it seems sweet, taste it to confirm!

I wouldn't.  I was being snarky about someone calling me out about Ohio women earlier.  If she is hot. and from Ohio I'm down. haha

[IGotWorms 4,057]

4 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

Interesting time machine stuff to look at based off where we were at this point in 2016 and 2020. Not sure if the methodology is different in 2024 for some of this or what it all portends for the election. Obviously the chart columns go (state, 2024, 2020, 2016)

 

This Day In History - September 9th

RCP Average	2024	2020	2016
National	Harris +1.4	Biden +7.5	Clinton +2.7
Wisconsin	Harris +1.5	Biden +6.4	Clinton +5.3
Pennsylvania	Tie	Biden +4.3	Clinton +6.2
Ohio	Trump +9.0	Biden +2.4	Clinton +1.0
Michigan	Harris +1.2	Biden +3.2	Clinton +7.3
Arizona	Trump +1.6	Biden +5.7	Trump +1.7
Nevada	Harris +0.6	Biden +7.5	Clinton +1.7
North Carolina	Trump +0.7	Biden +1.5	Clinton +0.8
Georgia	Harris +0.1	Trump +1.3	Trump +1.6
Florida	Trump +6.0	Biden +1.2	Clinton +0.3

 

If accurate, that would seem to indicate Harris is gonna get killed 

[purdygood 334]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

Don’t be too hard on him, Russian trolls probably don’t know sh1t about American wines

Seriously, has anyone in the history of history ever said.   "If you like Napa wine, you should try Ohio wine!'   I guess that's cool to hear something original.

[seafoam1 2,803]

22 minutes ago, purdygood said:

I am not SOMM certified but I always say "after the first glass and your buzz kicks in, they all taste the same". So why buy expensive wine? But that first glass, you want Napa Valley/Healdsburg.

You're supposed to do what kameltoe does and spit it out and not get buzzed when tasting. 

The point is, there are cheap wines these days from all over the place. We spent a ton on high priced wines over the years but when the cheaper wine market stepped it up, that was the way to go for weekly wine drinking. My nephew is a somm guy and I know way more than he thinks he does. He's a snot and he's a broke libtard with a shot future.

We still do splurge on the high end stuff. My girlfriend likes Italian wines, but I definitely love the California wines the most. I still spend up for Caymus.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,943]

22 minutes ago, purdygood said:

I am not SOMM certified but I always say "after the first glass and your buzz kicks in, they all taste the same". So why buy expensive wine? But that first glass, you want Napa Valley/Healdsburg.

A buzz after one glass? Aren’t you a sassy gal.  

[Tree of Knowledge 1,705]

Your own @TrailGuy would  appreciate the  World Famous Arnold Classic and Fitness Expo held in Ohio every March.  

[Tree of Knowledge 1,705]

2 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

You're supposed to do what kameltoe does and spit it out and not get buzzed when tasting. 

The point is, there are cheap wines these days from all over the place. We spent a ton on high priced wines over the years but when the cheaper wine market stepped it up, that was the way to go for weekly wine drinking. IlMy nephew is a somm guy and I know way more than he thinks he does. He's a snot and he's a broke libtard with a shot future.

We still do splurge on the high end stuff. My girlfriend likes Italian wines, but I definitely love the California wines the most. I still spend up for Caymus.

You don’t get to Kamala’s level of success by spitting anything out.  

[purdygood 334]

Just now, seafoam1 said:

You're supposed to do what kameltoe does and spit it out and not get buzzed when tasting. 

The point is, there are cheap wines these days from all over the place. We spent a ton on high priced wines over the years but when the cheaper wine market stepped it up, that was the way to go for weekly wine drinking. My nephew is a somm guy and I know way more than he thinks he does. He's a snot and he's a broke libtard with a shot future.

We still do splurge on the high end stuff. My girlfriend likes Italian wines, but I definitely love the California wines the most. I still spend up for Caymus.

My whole premise was, California wine is best. But, if you ask me, after one glass it all basically tastes the same.   So agreed!

 

Why pay for a Grey Goose shot, when after two Popov's you'll feel the same anyways?

[seafoam1 2,803]

1 minute ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

You don’t get to Kamala’s level of success by spitting anything out.  

Well, she HAS learned who's spew to swallow and who's to spit. She does know which jobs she wants. But she keeps her options open. 

[The Real timschochet 6,430]

2 hours ago, kilroy69 said:

I doubt that will hold up with a new candidate in the mix but we shall see. I would guess that Harris has hit her high water mark far too soon and will slowly fade to the point where trump eeks out another victory.  What shocks me is that the MSM and their propaganda machine is not freaking out....yet about her fading numbers now. 

Bexause they’re not fading. And because inside the numbers she has tremendous advantages. And because the debate tomorrow night will likely make her the clear favorite the rest of the way. 

There are a LOT of hidden Kamala voters this time around not Trump voters. 

[seafoam1 2,803]

4 minutes ago, purdygood said:

My whole premise was, California wine is best. But, if you ask me, after one glass it all basically tastes the same.   So agreed!

 

Why pay for a Grey Goose shot, when after two Popov's you'll feel the same anyways?

Popov makes you sick. At least go with Tito's.

[seafoam1 2,803]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

Bexause they’re not fading. And because inside the numbers she has tremendous advantages. And because the debate tomorrow night will likely make her the clear favorite the rest of the way. 

There are a LOT of hidden Kamala voters this time around not Trump voters. 

You go girl!!

[Sean Mooney 1,938]

16 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

If accurate, that would seem to indicate Harris is gonna get killed 

I'm of the belief she will lose rather handily (well as handily as anything is in 2024 politics)

The only caveats I will add are these:

1.) Polling pretty universally underestimated Trump's chances in 2016 as they had no real way to account for Trump voters where were not willing to say they were Trump voters. They corrected it some in 2020 so I'm not sure if they have further corrected it leading to an overcorrection or if it is right in line with where it should be. Not to mention in 2022 they underrepresented the Democrat voters turnout pretty heavily.

2.) I think there are a lot of people waiting to see how the debate goes this week. There are clearly people already voting left or right and it doesn't matter but I think there are a large number of swing voters here who are taking a wait and see approach. Like I don't think they love Kamala's policies or what has been happening since 2020, but they also aren't necessarily inclined to vote for Trump again. Which of course highlights the idea I said before that if it were anyone in the GOP other than Trump running they would probably be winning handily at this point.

3.) I'm not sure how the polling accounts for younger voters which is what I would assume is where more of Kamala's support lies. The flip side to that is- those young voters are also notoriously unreliable as voters.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

Just now, Sean Mooney said:

I'm of the belief she will lose rather handily (well as handily as anything is in 2024 politics)

The only caveats I will add are these:

1.) Polling pretty universally underestimated Trump's chances in 2016 as they had no real way to account for Trump voters where were not willing to say they were Trump voters. They corrected it some in 2020 so I'm not sure if they have further corrected it leading to an overcorrection or if it is right in line with where it should be. Not to mention in 2022 they underrepresented the Democrat voters turnout pretty heavily.

2.) I think there are a lot of people waiting to see how the debate goes this week. There are clearly people already voting left or right and it doesn't matter but I think there are a large number of swing voters here who are taking a wait and see approach. Like I don't think they love Kamala's policies or what has been happening since 2020, but they also aren't necessarily inclined to vote for Trump again. Which of course highlights the idea I said before that if it were anyone in the GOP other than Trump running they would probably be winning handily at this point.

3.) I'm not sure how the polling accounts for younger voters which is what I would assume is where more of Kamala's support lies. The flip side to that is- those young voters are also notoriously unreliable as voters.

#2 — historically debates matter very little. Well unless one candidate reveals himself to be fully demented during it

[Sean Mooney 1,938]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

#2 — historically debates matter very little. Well unless one candidate reveals himself to be fully demented during it

I agree they normally would...but I think this is one where it will matter to some people. Again we have to see what Kamala outlines and if she is holding the line on Biden policies or outlining some of her own. Trump will have to come off as not crazy which is never a given. It will be also interesting to see how she attacks him during the debate and how he approaches returning fire against her

[The Real timschochet 6,430]

12 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

I'm of the belief she will lose rather handily (well as handily as anything is in 2024 politics)

The only caveats I will add are these:

1.) Polling pretty universally underestimated Trump's chances in 2016 as they had no real way to account for Trump voters where were not willing to say they were Trump voters. They corrected it some in 2020 so I'm not sure if they have further corrected it leading to an overcorrection or if it is right in line with where it should be. Not to mention in 2022 they underrepresented the Democrat voters turnout pretty heavily.

2.) I think there are a lot of people waiting to see how the debate goes this week. There are clearly people already voting left or right and it doesn't matter but I think there are a large number of swing voters here who are taking a wait and see approach. Like I don't think they love Kamala's policies or what has been happening since 2020, but they also aren't necessarily inclined to vote for Trump again. Which of course highlights the idea I said before that if it were anyone in the GOP other than Trump running they would probably be winning handily at this point.

3.) I'm not sure how the polling accounts for younger voters which is what I would assume is where more of Kamala's support lies. The flip side to that is- those young voters are also notoriously unreliable as voters.

I think pollsters have corrected for point #1 (in fact I believe they’ve overcorrected.) 

I think you’re way too much of a pessimist. 2022 is a much better indicator than either 2016 or 2020. I actually think Harris will win this election quite easily. I think Trump knows it too. 

[Fireballer 2,639]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

2022 is a much better indicator than either 2016 or 2020. 

Yes, preserving the ability to kill in utero will be a large factor for women. It was absolutely true in 22 and still will be.

[seafoam1 2,803]

46 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

#2 — historically debates matter very little. Well unless one candidate reveals himself to be fully demented during it

So, every liberal. 

[squistion 1,952]

1 hour ago, jonmx said:

Rasmussen daily national polls are trending strongly towards Trump.  Trump has shown leads of 6, 3 and 6 over the last few days in the national polls.  Harris is not winning either Pennselvania or Georgia.  Harris needs to win the popular vote by 2 percent to win the election.  

It would shocking if Rasmussen showed anything else. Always an outlier because they poll people on land lines (which tend to be white, older, and vote Republican). 

[jerryskids 6,568]

50 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I think pollsters have corrected for point #1 (in fact I believe they’ve overcorrected.) 

I think you’re way too much of a pessimist. 2022 is a much better indicator than either 2016 or 2020. I actually think Harris will win this election quite easily. I think Trump knows it too. 

Quote

New Poll Suggests Harris’s Support Has Stalled After a Euphoric August
Almost 30 percent of voters said they needed to learn more about her.
By Nate Cohn
Published Sept. 8, 2024
Updated Sept. 9, 2024, 11:08 a.m. ET

Is Kamala Harris’s surge beginning to ebb?

That’s the question raised by this morning’s New York Times/Siena College poll, which finds Donald J. Trump narrowly ahead of her among likely voters nationwide, 48 percent to 47 percent.

To me, the result is a bit surprising. It’s the first lead for Mr. Trump in a major nonpartisan national survey in about a month. As a result, it’s worth being at least a little cautious about these findings, as there isn’t much confirmation from other polls.

That said, it wouldn’t be hard to explain if Vice President Harris’s support really has faded a bit in recent weeks. After all, she was benefiting from an ideal news environment: an uninterrupted month of glowing coverage from President Biden’s departure from the race in July to the Democratic convention in August. It’s possible she was riding a political sugar high; if so, it would make sense if she came off those highs in the two uneventful weeks since the convention.

There’s also a plausible reason the Times/Siena poll would be the first to capture a shift back toward Mr. Trump: There simply haven’t been many high-quality surveys fielded since the convention, when Ms. Harris was riding high. There was a scattering of online polls this week, but there hasn’t been a traditional high-quality survey with interviews conducted after Aug. 28.

Why haven’t there been more polls? One explanation is Labor Day weekend, which always puts a pause on polling. It’s also plausible that many pollsters might prefer to wait until after the debate Tuesday before taking another poll. Whatever the explanation, the Times/Siena poll would be one of the first opportunities to pick up a reversion back toward Mr. Trump.

Trump’s advantages
There’s no way to know whether the Times/Siena poll is too favorable for Mr. Trump. We never know whether the polls are “right” until the votes are counted.

But the poll nonetheless finds that he has significant advantages in this election — and they might just be enough to put him over the top.

He’s more popular than before. Overall, 46 percent of likely voters say they have a favorable view of the former president. That’s down a tick from our last national poll, when 47 percent had a favorable view, but it still makes him more popular than he was in 2016 or 2020.

He has an advantage on the issues. We asked voters a two-part question. First, what’s the most important issue to your vote? Second, do you think Ms. Harris or Mr. Trump is better on that issue? By that measure, Mr. Trump has a five-point lead on the issue that matters most to voters, whatever that may be for them.

He occupies the center. A near majority of voters say Mr. Trump is “not too far” to the left or right on the issues, while only around one-third say he’s “too far to the right.” Nearly half of voters, in contrast, say Ms. Harris is too far to the left; only 41 percent say she’s “not too far either way.”

This is one of Mr. Trump’s overlooked advantages. Yes, he’s outside of the political mainstream in many respects — he denied the result of the 2020 election. And yes, he does have conservative views on many issues, like immigration. But he’s also taken many positions that would have been likelier to be held by a Democrat than a Republican a decade ago, like opposition to cutting entitlements, support for a cooperative relationship with Russia or opposition to free trade. It’s a reputation he’s careful to protect, from saying he doesn’t support Project 2025 to his cagey position on additional measures to restrict abortion.

He’s seen as the change candidate in a nation that wants change. While President Biden’s departure from the race lifted the spirits of many Democrats, the national mood still isn’t great. An overwhelming majority of voters still say that the economy is poor and that the nation is heading in the wrong direction. And a clear majority — 61 percent — of voters say they want the next president to bring a “major change” from Mr. Biden, compared with 34 percent who want “minor change” and 3 percent who don’t want change.

Which candidate represents change in this election? While that has been hotly debated since Ms. Harris’s entry into the race, the respondents to the Times/Siena poll say it’s Mr. Trump.

Only 40 percent of likely voters said Ms. Harris represented “change,” while 55 percent said she represented “more of the same.” Mr. Trump, in contrast, was seen as representing “change” by 61 percent of voters, while only 34 percent said he was “more of the same.”

Mr. Trump, of course, has plenty of political weaknesses. A majority of voters still view him unfavorably — as they always have — and say he’s a “risky choice” for president. Abortion, democracy and Project 2025 all stand out as major liabilities in the poll.

But at least in this poll, Mr. Trump leads anyway. Worse for Ms. Harris, she is seen as having few strengths.

Is Harris getting defined?
When Ms. Harris entered the presidential race, she seemed like a candidate with a lot of potential liabilities. She took many unpopular positions in her 2019 presidential campaign, and she was tied to the Biden administration’s immigration policy as well.

In August, it seemed she could glide past all of these issues by running as a “generic” Democrat. She didn’t make many gestures to the middle. She didn’t roll out a robust policy platform. Instead, she mostly stuck to boilerplate Democratic messaging on abortion, strengthening the middle class, prices, democracy and more.

The advantage of this approach was obvious: A “generic” Democrat is often a winning one. The risk, however, was that Ms. Harris was inevitably going to be defined, one way or another, and that her campaign was mostly forfeiting its opportunity to clearly define her in the eyes of the public.

In this poll, the risks associated with this strategy are evident. Despite a month of favorable coverage, voters still don’t know enough about her: 28 percent of voters said they needed to learn more, compared with only 9 percent who said the same about Mr. Trump. More than anything, voters say they want to hear more about where she stands on the issues, something her campaign has seemed to struggle to lay out.

The poll also hints that the Trump campaign has begun to fill in some of the blanks. Nearly half of voters say she’s “too liberal or progressive.” A majority of voters see her as at least somewhat responsible for the problems along the border. And a majority of voters say she’s a “risky” choice and “more of the same” — hardly an enviable combination.

Ms. Harris, of course, will have plenty of additional opportunities to define herself for voters, beginning with the debate on Tuesday.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/08/upshot/trump-harris-poll-analysis.html

Surprisingly negative analysis for Harris from the NYT.  The article is from a newsletter of theirs called "Tilt." 

I thought about highlighting parts, but I'd end up highlighting 3/4 of it.  I did think the second to last paragraph is interesting -- by not defining Harris themselves, the Harris campaign has perhaps allowed Team Trump to define her as "too liberal or progressive."

[The Real timschochet 6,430]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/08/upshot/trump-harris-poll-analysis.html

Surprisingly negative analysis for Harris from the NYT.  The article is from a newsletter of theirs called "Tilt." 

I thought about highlighting parts, but I'd end up highlighting 3/4 of it.  I did think the second to last paragraph is interesting -- by not defining Harris themselves, the Harris campaign has perhaps allowed Team Trump to define her as "too liberal or progressive."

You know what? The neat thing about this is we’re gonna know very shortly who is right and wrong about this. (Maybe!) 

[seafoam1 2,803]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

You know what? The neat thing about this is we’re gonna know very shortly who is right and wrong about this. (Maybe!) 

We already know that liberals will cheat their way into an election win. This isn't that hard. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,839]

3 hours ago, zsasz said:

You were the one asking for the numbers, Chooch.  You could have added them up yourself.  You didn't want to because it would prove your MAGA talking point false.  I guess you're some sort of kid or lady or something...because a grown man not admitting he was wrong....I'm embarassed for you.  

YOU made the claim, jack@ss. 

It's YOUR job to prove YOUR claim, not mine.  If people have to do YOUR homework you've lost the argument.  Nice try, but you can't escape your Extreme Retard™ classification, clown.

Just take your "L" and do better next time. 

[seafoam1 2,803]

1 minute ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

YOU made the claim, jack@ss. 

It's YOUR job to prove YOUR claim, not mine.  If people have to do YOUR homework you've lost the argument.  Nice try, but you can't escape your Extreme Retard™ classification, clown.

Just take your "L" and do better next time. 

Oh. He'll be back in three weeks to get you good. 

[jonmx 2,424]

Just now, squistion said:

It would shocking if Rasmussen showed anything else. Always an outlier because they poll people on land lines (which tend to be white, older, and vote Republican). 

You do know that Rasmussen accuracy beat the crap out of the polls you quote. 

[Horseman 2,367]

You have to wonder who raised these little girls that get buzzed off of one drink.

[seafoam1 2,803]

Just now, Horseman said:

You have to wonder who raised these little girls that get buzzed off of one drink.

Liberal parents. 

[squistion 1,952]

Just now, jonmx said:

You do know that Rasmussen accuracy beat the crap out of the polls you quote. 

Not according to 538. I am pretty sure they didn't the crap out of the more reputable polling organizations in 2020. 

[Horseman 2,367]

Speaking of 538, here is the Silver Bulletin from just over an hour ago:

Quote

Last update: 4 p.m., Monday, September 9: We continue to see mediocre data for Kamala Harris, like a new Pew national poll with a very large sample size that showed the race tied nationally — which would probably translate to a loss for Harris in the Electoral College. Although the model’s convention bounce adjustment will get phased out as we see more post-Labor Day and post-debate data, things are going in the wrong direction for her even without the adjustment. Her lead in our national polling average is down to 2.3 points after having peaked at 4.3 points on Aug. 23.

 

[RLLD 4,143]

Still early, there will be some ebbing and flowing.

Still curious to see how Harris handles the debate.  She cant use that " I was speaking" excrement as she has in the past since the mic will be controlled.   Can she speak to any policy other than abortion?

[Horseman 2,367]

3 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Still early, there will be some ebbing and flowing.

Still curious to see how Harris handles the debate.  She cant use that " I was speaking" excrement as she has in the past since the mic will be controlled.   Can she speak to any policy other than abortion?

It's a slam dunk for Trump as long as he keeps his cool and looks at her sideways like she's crazy, just as he did Biden.  The Tulsi Effect ought to be good too.

[Fireballer 2,639]

13 minutes ago, Horseman said:

It's a slam dunk for Trump as long as he keeps his cool and looks at her sideways like she's crazy, just as he did Biden.  The Tulsi Effect ought to be good too.

He will absolutely be his own worst enemy.  He just needs some chill

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,839]

2 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

He will absolutely be his own worst enemy.  He just needs some chill

He did do a good job w/Biden, though, I thought.  He just needs to let Kamala talk herself into obscurity.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

3 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

I think pollsters have corrected for point #1 (in fact I believe they’ve overcorrected.) 

I think you’re way too much of a pessimist. 2022 is a much better indicator than either 2016 or 2020. I actually think Harris will win this election quite easily. I think Trump knows it too. 

Trump did spend weeks flailing around in a desperate rage fit, which is ordinarily a pretty bad look for someone who wants to be leader of the free world. Yet, like every other time, it somehow doesn’t seem to come back on him 

[Fireballer 2,639]

If she wins pop vote, but loses EC, there will probably be the largest attack on the EC that we’ve ever seen.  We won’t see an amendment,  but there will be extreme efforts to modify the elector process I’m sure.

[MDC 7,133]

40 minutes ago, Horseman said:

It's a slam dunk for Trump as long as he keeps his cool and looks at her sideways like she's crazy, just as he did Biden.  The Tulsi Effect ought to be good too.

It’s a slam dunk for Trump is he can just act like a stable adult male! Err …   

[Horseman 2,367]

4 minutes ago, MDC said:

It’s a slam dunk for Trump is he can just act like a stable adult male! Err …   

Trump did poorly in two debates against Biden in 2020 because he was irritated and lost his cool. Rumors are he had caught a case of the covid.  I know that.  He knows that.  And he responded so well last debate that it forced Biden out of the nomination. 

You don't have to acknowledge that fact if you don't want to, but, your candidate it going against a WCOFF champion while she's been playing in Yahoo leagues where Isiah Likely is only rostered on 28% of the teams.  It's a slam dunk.  

[MDC 7,133]

3 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Trump did poorly in two debates against Biden in 2020 because he was irritated and lost his cool. Rumors are he had caught a case of the covid.  I know that.  He knows that.  And he responded so well last debate that it forced Biden out of the nomination. 

You don't have to acknowledge that fact if you don't want to, but, your candidate it going against a WCOFF champion while she's been playing in Yahoo leagues where Isiah Likely is only rostered on 28% of the teams.  It's a slam dunk.  

Trump’s bad performance in the last debate was overshadowed by Biden’s absolutely terrible performance.

Now that Sleepy Joe is out, people are talking about how Donald rambles and slurs his words like a dementia patient.