Your imagination speaks volumes.
Election 2024 Foreplay
- Thread starter TreeFrogTrader
- Start date
Hey Tree...
So I had that C-Span call in show on this weekend and they had Frank Lutz on for one segment (He's a pollster 'expert' that's on CNBC all the time)... and regardless of your opinion of him which I am sure you have lol... he said control of the Senate comes down to one state. Montana.
How can that be when the Dems are defending 23 seats and the Pubs are defending 11? Seems pretty presumptuous, but he is credible. Why one only state?
In theory the dems have more open seats but many of them are not really at risk.
So it is the same old, same old scenario where the Senate is split razor thin if you look at the likely wins in the states.
So this makes any truly new developments critical.
The West Virginia Senate seat that Manchin had- a dem obviously- is lost to the dems. Bam. So that is a new development in this cycle. Sherrod Brown in Ohio has been a long time holder of a dem seat but he is at risk, so that is new. And Tester, the dem in Montana, now appears to unexpectedly be running behind.
Things like that.
Ted Cruz will likely win in Texas but it will be uncomfortably close for pubs.
Luntz has declared that Trump will lose as a result of the recent debate. He has been seriously butt-hurt since Trump called him "a low class slob." He got thrown out of republican circles so he leans toward the lefty's for media access now and delivers what they want to hear. Such is life for a low class slob.
Last edited:
So far the decision in every state except North Carolina is that RFK Jr.'s name must remain on the ballot since he filed his withdrawal request after the deadline.
Only in North Carolina did the Republican partisan state Supreme Court rule that his name had to be removed from the ballot. A decision which is costing our state more than 6 million dollars now to re-print ballots and causing a delay in absentee & early voting.
Blow for Trump as judge rules RFK Jr’s name must stay on ballot in swing state
Former independent candidate will have to stay on the ballot in Wisconsin, Judge Stephen Ehlke ruled
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...cs/trump-wisonsin-ballot-rfk-jr-b2614111.html
Only in North Carolina did the Republican partisan state Supreme Court rule that his name had to be removed from the ballot. A decision which is costing our state more than 6 million dollars now to re-print ballots and causing a delay in absentee & early voting.
Blow for Trump as judge rules RFK Jr’s name must stay on ballot in swing state
Former independent candidate will have to stay on the ballot in Wisconsin, Judge Stephen Ehlke ruled
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...cs/trump-wisonsin-ballot-rfk-jr-b2614111.html
Stuff like this further helps the Dems in Roevember.
The vote is nothing more than optics. But helpful for Democrats in election season.
I am sure the Republicans will bring up some bill to fund building a wall to close the border as a retaliatory measure to further liven up our election season.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientific-american-makes-presidential-endorsement-135754693.html
Scientific American makes presidential endorsement for only the second time in its 179-year history
Myriam Page
Wed, September 18, 2024
A top science magazine has waded into the political sphere after making a presidential endorsement, only the second in its 179-year history.
“Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment,” read the headline in Scientific American on Monday, announcing the publication’s official support for the Democratic presidential candidate.
Harris is Scientific American’s second presidential endorsement in its history, after the magazine backed President Joe Biden during the 2020 election.
“The US faces two futures,” the editors wrote, pushing one candidate who “offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience.”
They continued: “In the other future, the new president endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”
Scientific American, which has a global readership of six million, cited Harris’s record as vice president, senator and presidential candidate as reasons for endorsing her.
They acknowledged that Trump, “also has a record - a disastrous one,” during his time in the White House.
The magazine firstly focused on the candidates’ healthcare policies and proposals, in particular, health insurance in its comparison.
Praising the Biden-Harris administration for bolstering the Affordable Care Act (ACA) - which expanded the number of adults eligible for health insurance - the editors noted that while Harris has said she would expand the program, Trump has pledged to repeal it but failed to clarify what he would replace it with.
“I have concepts of a plan,” he said while facing off against Harris during the September 10 presidential debate.
The article refers to the debate multiple times, seemingly agreeing with many across the political spectrum (including some of Trump’s closest allies) that Harris won.
The article highlights Trump’s baseless claim during the debate that some states allow a person to obtain an abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy, and calling it “execution after birth.”
“No state allows this,” Scientific American clarified. The magazine also emphasized that Trump refused to answer whether he would veto a national abortion ban.
Meanwhile, Harris was hailed as a “staunch supporter of reproductive rights” for vowing to improve access to abortion care and for co-sponsoring a package of bills to reduce rising maternal mortality rates when she was a senator.
Turning to technology, the editors highlighted the CHIPS and Science Act, signed into law by Biden in 2022, which brought more funding to the chip-making industry to boost homegrown production and research.
They said the legislation “invigorates the chipmaking industry and semiconductor research while growing the workforce.”
The magazine claimed that a second Trump administration would “quickly” undo this progress under a conservative framework, Project 2025, that has been set out to guide his potential second term.
“Under the devious and divisive Project 2025 framework, technology safeguards on AI would be overturned,” the editors wrote. “AI influences our criminal justice, labor and health-care systems.
“As is the rightful complaint now, there would be no knowing how these programs are developed, how they are tested or whether they even work.”
The article concludes: “One of two futures will materialize according to our choices in this election.”
The editors closed by underlining their point. “We urge you to vote for Kamala Harris.”
Scientific American is not the only endoresment Harris has won following the debate, with Taylor Swift posting her endorsement on Instagram almost immediately after the showdown.
Polls currently place Harris with a 2.6 point the lead over Trump.
Scientific American makes presidential endorsement for only the second time in its 179-year history
Myriam Page
Wed, September 18, 2024
A top science magazine has waded into the political sphere after making a presidential endorsement, only the second in its 179-year history.
“Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment,” read the headline in Scientific American on Monday, announcing the publication’s official support for the Democratic presidential candidate.
Harris is Scientific American’s second presidential endorsement in its history, after the magazine backed President Joe Biden during the 2020 election.
“The US faces two futures,” the editors wrote, pushing one candidate who “offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience.”
They continued: “In the other future, the new president endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”
Scientific American, which has a global readership of six million, cited Harris’s record as vice president, senator and presidential candidate as reasons for endorsing her.
They acknowledged that Trump, “also has a record - a disastrous one,” during his time in the White House.
The magazine firstly focused on the candidates’ healthcare policies and proposals, in particular, health insurance in its comparison.
Praising the Biden-Harris administration for bolstering the Affordable Care Act (ACA) - which expanded the number of adults eligible for health insurance - the editors noted that while Harris has said she would expand the program, Trump has pledged to repeal it but failed to clarify what he would replace it with.
“I have concepts of a plan,” he said while facing off against Harris during the September 10 presidential debate.
The article refers to the debate multiple times, seemingly agreeing with many across the political spectrum (including some of Trump’s closest allies) that Harris won.
The article highlights Trump’s baseless claim during the debate that some states allow a person to obtain an abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy, and calling it “execution after birth.”
“No state allows this,” Scientific American clarified. The magazine also emphasized that Trump refused to answer whether he would veto a national abortion ban.
Meanwhile, Harris was hailed as a “staunch supporter of reproductive rights” for vowing to improve access to abortion care and for co-sponsoring a package of bills to reduce rising maternal mortality rates when she was a senator.
Turning to technology, the editors highlighted the CHIPS and Science Act, signed into law by Biden in 2022, which brought more funding to the chip-making industry to boost homegrown production and research.
They said the legislation “invigorates the chipmaking industry and semiconductor research while growing the workforce.”
The magazine claimed that a second Trump administration would “quickly” undo this progress under a conservative framework, Project 2025, that has been set out to guide his potential second term.
“Under the devious and divisive Project 2025 framework, technology safeguards on AI would be overturned,” the editors wrote. “AI influences our criminal justice, labor and health-care systems.
“As is the rightful complaint now, there would be no knowing how these programs are developed, how they are tested or whether they even work.”
The article concludes: “One of two futures will materialize according to our choices in this election.”
The editors closed by underlining their point. “We urge you to vote for Kamala Harris.”
Scientific American is not the only endoresment Harris has won following the debate, with Taylor Swift posting her endorsement on Instagram almost immediately after the showdown.
Polls currently place Harris with a 2.6 point the lead over Trump.