I concede that neither Hillary Clinton nor Jeb Bush have perfect records. I further concede that both of them have made mistakes.

I think the best result would be Biden winning the EV but losing the PV to Trump.

If we eliminate politicians based on stances 20 or more years ago were not left with many politicians. Which I guess may not be a bad thing. And I'm not advocating for Jeb or Hillary btw.

I think most decisions have a statute of limitations, per say, and more recently policy is a better guide than digging up old stuff. I was 100% against the Iraq War and was definitely in the minority of people serving at the time to have that stance. I don't think it's very relevant anymore.

100% agree. We'd likely see the end of the electoral college in a hurry. The months of inevitable lawsuits would be awful though.

John Kerry was not too many votes in Ohio away from losing the PV but winning the EC.

Coming right on the heels of W. Bush losing the PV but winning the EC, that might have been enough for bipartisan EC reform.

Alas.

FWIW, I think that both parties are too wedded to the idea that the GOP would generally lose the popular vote.

Who know what would happen if both parties campaigned hard in Florida, New York, Texas, California, etc.

We're not talking about a bridge that went over budget or a subsidy that didn't work out the way it was expected. We're talking about one of the worst foreign policy decisions in American history. Something that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, thousands of Americans, and cost trillions of dollars. Not to mention the long term blowback we are still experiencing today from that decision.

That should be disqualifying for anyone who took part in it. Can't keep letting politicians fail upwards.

Where's the line? We could have continued pushing Bob Menendez upward until he was indicted in 2015.

I align with Bernie on most issues, but he was also in the back pocket of the NRA and voted against thr Brady bill and other gun control measures until he was confident enough in his other funding and support to break away from them. He was also for mandatory minimums for non violent and other crimes at one point.

Any politician that's been around long enough has bad decisions on their record. Picking one instead of looking at where they are on a more recent timeline is going to get you better politicians than treating it was an elimination game where the best move is not to play.

I think we all make our own lines. Half a million innocent civilians and a few trillion dollars of wasted taxpayer money would be a line for me.

But we were talking about competence. I just don't see how you can look back at Hillary and see a competent politician. She was bad as a Senator and bad as a political candidate. And while she shouldn't be judged for her husband's actions (although she supports his policies), Bill did lead us to where we are with Putin. I can't think of a more incompetent politician than Hillary Clinton in the modern era.

Not sure campaigning changes much of anything honestly, nor has it in years.

Minds are largely made up well in advance of anything, only turnout really seems to be affected any more

I mostly agree with this. It's less about convincing people to vote for you and more about giving your base a reason to go out and vote for you.

There are still pockets that you can sway though. Trump is pushing hard on youth voters it seems by bringing up the TikTok ban and such. Biden shifted far right on immigration to try and lure some never Trumpers over. Not sure if it'll work but the campaigns must see something there.

That's called justifying your existence (and your salary)

But isn't that the main focus of campaigns? Getting your people to turn out while suppressing the other sides turnout is campaigning. Changing people's mind is always there and nice to think about, but not what really makes campaign's successful. It is trying to get people motivated to show up.

There aren't a lot of persuadable voters, but in this environment even one percent of the electorate in one state may be enough to swing the election. I know national campaigns are more likely to try and sway voters than they were.

Not traditionally, IMO that's much more of a fairly modern construct (though we could certainly debate when it became the only real function).

I suspect that the 24 hour news cycle played a huge role

(we can skip any debate over that choice of phrase, I know it ain't "news", I'll happily stipulate it as just a convenient euphemism to identify when I meant)

I think campaigning still has an impact. The number of persuadable voters isn't most of the electorate, but's it's a significant number and many of them just vote based on 'feeling'. If one candidate spent more time in your area, or you see more people talking about them postively versus the others ... a slight puff of breeze can push you one way or the other.

I don't think that's good. I do think it's real, though I have no hard data to back it up and I think it would be very hard to acquire that one way or another.

There's a non-trivial amount of people who just plain don't consume news media. And yeah, a lot of them don't vote ... but some of them do.

In 2022, less than 20% of congressional races had a final margin below 10%, only 9% of races were within 5% margin.

While I don't see nearly as much stuff as I used to, I haven't seen anything in years that suggests anything other than get out the vote stuff actually matters to even move 1% of a vote. And the least effective thing of all is the fool's errand of hoping anyone does that "talking positively", no, you want to move the needle at all then you hope your opponent generates negative conversation. People, en masse, vote against rather than for, and those are also the ones with the best hope of getting them to show up.

Very few candidates are all that bright when it comes to things like campaigning or specifically campaign spending (tho frankly I'm not sure those qualifiers are required, the statement holds pretty well by itself afaic), they typically go with what their high paid handlers tell them to do ... and those handlers by a vast majority have no interest greater than generating revenue for themselves. They want to win, sure, but that's really more to serve to create future jobs than anything else.

Ultimately, my realism rant aside, where we disagree completely is on the persuadable voters in any single election and their quantity being of significance.

Take it FWIW.

I do agree vast majority of older voters have made up their minds by now (unless Joe has an "Admiral Stockdale" moment in the debates). But there are always the group of independents that haven't finalized their choice and new voters, est. swag of 5% of voters. I also believe there are some issues where the difference is so stark between the candidates but yet so important to some voters, that it'll make a difference (e.g. abortion rights, immigration, Ukraine, saving democracy etc.)

So yeah, IMO campaigning & messaging are still important, but only in those key swing states.

41 Million Members of Gen Z Will Be Eligible to Vote in 2024Â* | CIRCLE

But if those issues are "so important" then by this point their minds should already be made up. Barring some unexpected turn, nothing in the campaigning will be dramatically different than the established history of the candidate on Topic X. AND if those issues are actual critical enough to determine how someone votes then it seems reasonable to believe those voters aren't only going to check the positions in the final stage of the campaign.

As to the new voters aging in, do you really think by that point -- in our current socialogical climate -- they haven't already picked a side? IIRC I've seen political groups forming as early as late middle school.

Take Israeli-Hamas war as an example. There are a bunch of HS & college kids going to vote for the very first time. Using the protests as a measure, many vote against Joe as a "protest" vote but not appreciating that Trump would likely have been harsher (certainly in rhetoric). Can they be swayed with more awareness over the next 4-5 months? or if there is some sort of ceasefire and passions recede some?

Or take immigration. Immigration is a top 5 issue for many independents. Joe is shifting to a more harsh approach and will campaign to win those votes. That shift right may be enough for those on-the-line.

Yes, initial sides have been taken already but I believe, as younger generation is more impressionable, they can be swayed either by having more/better awareness or having candidates shift positions, and by actually getting off their butts and voting.

The Swifties may have peaked by now (I hope so, but it is off-season). I don't see Swift telling her groupies to vote for Joe/Trump but I can easily see her telling them to get off their butts and vote. I don't know if that will actually make a difference, but I can see it how it may make a difference if the Swifties thing is still going on during NFL season.

Just so you know ... I am definitely biased to a certain degree. In my profession, there is something called "change management" which is used for big, transformational projects. Essentially, it's an organized campaign to help people accept the change (sustained & targeted communication, training etc.). I firmly believe change management works and many people in the grey area can be swayed. It depends on how well the "campaign" is designed and executed.

A lot of goodness in latest yougov/CBS poll. No idea how precise it is but have to believe it conveys the general sentiment of the country.

https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.ne...20240609_1.pdf

There's the question about support for Joe/Trump and a category for "Somewhat strong–I might still change" at 4-5%. See pg 14/15 of 79.

What we disagree on, it would seem, is whether there's a significant number of people -- and especially that will vote -- IN some grey area.

Agree, this is the question.

The hardest mindset for me to get into is the not paying attention person who might vote or might not vote and if they do vote they might vote Biden or they might vote Trump.

This board has however many pages of discussion dedicated to politics. We are steeped in it. And however one comes out, I understand that mindset.

But the election will be decided, in large part, by a few thousand people in the Midwest who couldn't name the Speaker of the House or more than two Supreme Court justices.

I just have no idea how those people think (other than to be a little jealous of them:-))

I feel the same. I feel pretty disconnected from the news and politics compared to some/most of the folks I know, and yet if you look at the polls regarding how informed the typical voter is, it seems like the typical voter isn't paying any attention at all & I can' event fathom how that is possible in this environemnt. Literally everybody I know and interact with is apaprently more informed than the 'average' voter & I can't get in that mindset because I don't even know how it's possible.

Polling shows a decent percentage of folks are convinced it won't be Trump and/or Biden in November. At some point they have to see reality and then which way do they break?

This was a few months back but I saw someone (maybe Nate Silver) point out that at their ages, there was like a 15% chance that one of them would not make it to the election by either dying or having a debilitating health issue.

You're dealing with people who have top tier health care but still, things can go south in a hurry at those ages.

Not a political strategist but torching your electoral chances for this guy and then having him stab you in the back seems like a really bad plan.

BREAKING: Netanyahu attacks the Biden administration in a new video: "I told Secretary Blinken it's inconceivable that in the past few months, the administration has been withholding weapons and ammunitions to Israel" pic.twitter.com/uAZ7RawPz3

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) June 18, 2024

Nice.

But both sides give out pork. Thinking the most recent pork I got was from Trump's tax reduction. And before that was Obamacare. I'm not sure I got any pork (of significance) from Joe.

Just a moment...

Defining the ACA as pork is silly. Not every expenditure is pork.

I'll just go to wiki as my starting point.

I'd say the majority of stuff can fall under the category of pork. But some pork are definitely bigger than others.

Pork barrel - Wikipedia

I guess below is the appropriate diplomatic response but IMO pretty weak.

IMO Joe should challenge Bibi and say to the effect ... "the US government & US citizens have shown continued support for Israel including redirecting domestic priorities (and maybe also ... increasing our debt) for Israel's defense. We welcome some specifics on what Bibi claims was withheld and look forward to responding".

Just a moment...

If I had to guess, I'd say Bibi was talking about the months before Congress finally decided to pass the Ukraine-Israel-Taiwan bill. Arguably, a stand alone Israel bill would have flown through Congress.

Democratic leadership invited him to cut a campaign speech for Trump in Congress.

In the same quoted summary, the U.S. equivalent of Baghdad Bob noted that a weapons shipment was held up AND claimed to not know what Bibi was talking about.

You can't really write comedy like comes out of the WH these days.

"Concentrated in a particular area" is doing a lot of work there to lump ACA and student loan cancellation in there. I think of pork as the first definition, that it's localized in a representative's district. Sure, an expanded definition is fine, but when you take a broad interpretation of that definition, it seems more like "any spending that doesn't benefit everyone" which seems kind of like all of it?

This is fair push back and I considered it even before your rebuttal. But here’s my logic …

IMO Trump tax cuts was pork for big businesses and rich people. Minions benefited for sure (source: me) but relatively speaking, not that much.

Also IMO student loan cancellation was some pork (some because apparently Joe fixed some legit mistakes, and I’m okay with that).

If one accepts that those tax cuts & student debt cancellation were pork (and I do), that means ‘localized in representative’s district’ is not relevant to the definition of pork. And therefore, I did take the ‘broad definition’ as you indicated.

If you do not accept that tax cuts & student debt cancellation were pork, then I understand your POV.

Presidency looking rough but Dems seem to be crushing it in the Senate races. Have a feeling that we'll see a 50/50 split in the Senate so Presidency will matter a lot.

NEW Emerson swing state polls (B+) 6/13-6/18

President
AZ: 🟥 Trump +4
NV: 🟥 Trump +3
WI: 🟥 Trump +3
PA: 🟥 Trump +2
MI: 🟥 Trump +1
MN: 🟨 TIED

US Senate
AZ: 🟦 Gallego +4
NV: 🟦 Rosen +12
WI: 🟦 Baldwin +2
PA: 🟦 Casey +6
MI: 🟦 Slotkin +4
MN: 🟦 Klobuchar +11

— umichvoter 🏳️‍🌈 (@umichvoter) June 20, 2024

📊 MONTANA GE: @POStrategies (R internal)

Senate
🟦*Tester: 46%
🟥 Sheehy: 46%
🟩 Downey: 2%
🟪 Daoud: 2%
—
President
🟥 Trump: 57%
🟦 Biden: 37%
🟪 Other: 2%
—
Governor
🟥*Gianforte: 54%
🟦 Busse: 33%
🟪 Leib: 5%
—
Attorney General
🟥*Knudsen: 55%
🟦 Alke: 33%
—
#139… pic.twitter.com/Fk0XaN2Ija

— InteractivePolls (@IAPolls2022) June 20, 2024

I know they've gutted the RNC and such but Trump's campaign seems way more competently run than his previous campaigns. His flip on both Bitcoin and TikTok were smart moves when races in some states will come down to 20,000 voters or whatever.

It's an incredibly low bar but picking these small pockets of voters and making them happy might be the difference. Especially when there is no downside to doing it.

That's something that we have harder data on. You're right that there are a lot of one-sided congressional races, but where this matters is the closer ones of course; presidential races being among the ones that tend to be close esp. in recent cycles, but a shift of even 5% of House or Senate races has a big difference in most congressional makeups, governor's races matter, etc. Famously, in the 2016 election, almost 1 in 8 were undecided shortly before voting day. It's usually smaller than that, and it's different for different races and all of those factors matter, but there's a reason why major news stories shortly before elections can be such a big concern - because they can and do alter how people vote and if they vote.

I don't have as much contact with it recently, but in '16 the very typical job I was working at had a number of people not making up their mind till literally the day before. Some of them made their choice based on some statement of a candidate they'd read about from months before and decided it made them acceptable/unacceptable. I had people asking me what was going on with Trump's impeachment when it happened, cause they vaguely heard about it and wanted to know how serious it was/what the reasons were/etc.

There are a lot of people like this who vote. Politics is on the very periphery of their thinking. Most of the time they're more concerned about their groceries, vehicles, jobs, their kids youth sports programs/education, etc. and don't make a clear connection from those things to specific politicians or policies in many cases. They just don't spend the energy/mental bandwidth on the 'horse race', they don't vote in local elections, they vote once every 2-4 years and halfway tune in the weeks or even days before an election, get a few general impressions to add to what they've heard here and there, and pull that lever.

I can't believe we're actually going to pretend that an exemption for tips is at all workable. How are tips defined? Wouldn't my roofer just ask for X in tips as payment?

A Foxnews poll. Somewhat of a welcome surprise

Fox News Poll: Three-point shift in Biden-Trump matchup since May | Fox News
And regarding independents

RFK did not make the cut for the Jun 27 debate.

A little disappointing, he would have spiced things up a little. I hope he stays in though and maybe make the Sep debate, but article said he was hurting for money.

I think RFK not making the debates is probably good for him. The more he talks and the more people know about him, the worse it is for him. He's better off riding the unpopularity of the other two with people thinking he has some semblance to his Dad.

Apparently Trump said Joan Rivers voted for him in 2016. She died in 2014. So... is this yet another example of GOP voter fraud?

Neil Friske arrest: Michigan state representative held after chasing adult dancer with a gun.

The incident is weird. The campaign response is an example of how everyone on the right is just trying to imitate Trump.

I really would like to see a police report on that. It sounds even from that article that he was chasing a dancer he had a dispute with and he also had a gun on him, not like he was chasing her down with a gun drawn which is obviously a whole level up. Of course, the fact he was at an exotic dance club at all is the height of hyprocracy, considering his extreme right-wing religious beliefs. Distracting by making it an attack on the Second amendment really is an evil genius level spin.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Sounds like a plot of a 90s movie with Burt Reynolds and Demi Moore....

Does anyone know what the calculus/optics are for the debate choices they give and why you want one over the other? They did a coin flip for first choice, Biden won, and he chose podium positioning over choosing order of final statement. He choose the right podium.

Is that a proven thing, like being on the right side is some sort of sign that you're "right" or is positioning preferred by viewers? Or is it simply that they chose one over the other because choosing to go last on the closing statements is worth so little because no one expects people to still be tuned in at the end (or that they'll consume the debate altogether through soundbites so the actual debate format doesn't matter?).

I don't even plan on watching - it's not like I don't already have my mind made up, and isn't it the same night as the NBA draft? - but hearing about the coin flip this morning piqued my interest in the decision-making.

It all traces back to The Price Is Right, man.

OK, candidates, our next question--worth 50 points--how many unregistered nuclear warheads does the CIA estimate Russia currently possesses?

Write down your guess, and the closest to the actual number without going over wins the 50 points.

We think we live in unprecedented times, but . . .

http://www.sharynemery.com/booker-t-...-indianapolis/

In 1903, a hotel chambermaid was fired for refusing to make Booker T. Washington’s bed because he was black. And she ended up getting fame and money donations as a right-wing hero.

Other than the lack of Sam Alito finding that she has a constitutional right to not do her job, you could write that story today.

The sad part about that, is we supposedly moved past that 50+ years ago, when in fact it has just been dormant with a segment of the population, who now feel empowered to show their hate.

What if they both passed away before November.

Biden should bid a dollar. The ole Price is Right bid never fails

"What if they both passed away before November"

Interesting thought exercise. It is hard to guess what the Republicans would do, but I lean toward the party wanting to keep it in the family. The Trump people have completely taken over the leadership, amd they would want someone as close to Trump as possible. So, Don Jr., what you get if you order DJT on Wish.
I don't have high hopes on the Dem side either. You have to think the party apparatus just couldn't pass up nominating the first black woman nominees, along with the first gay Vice Presidential nominee. Harris and Mayor Pete ticket.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

At least I'm not the only one who thinks this is an interesting question. From the Bulwark:

Fwiw, social semiotics theory (a visual communication theory) suggests that what we see on the left side of an image we generally perceive to be given and/or familiar, whereas what is on the right side of an image we generally perceive as new and/or unfamiliar. One of the reasons for the theory is that we read left to right. What is left is what we have already passed and what is right is what we have to encounter in a sentence. Maybe the Democrats want people to perceive Biden as new/unfamiliar and Trump as old/familiar.

Whether it works would be another question...

I read an article that pointed out that nearly every talk show host's desk is to the right (Graham Norton seems to be the exception) because eyes tend to linger more on that side.

I just got back from a vacation yesterday, where I spent about 10 hours going down and 10 more coming back up. I know it is only June, but I was expecting to see a lot more Trump signs (based on past trips through the area) than I did this year. In North Carolina, I saw far more Mark Robinson (GOP governor candidate that is his own type of special, too) signs than Trump. This includes a good stretch of area where there are a lot of active duty and former military. I saw one business with a huge sign about election fraud on one side and Trump 2024 on the other and saw a flag below an American flag, but definitely not what it looked like in previous summers (granted 2020 was Covid, but in 2016 there were also a lot out in the open).

It will be interesting to see if there is a larger "Quiet Trump" voter bloc this time around or if people have just had enough of him and are done.

On our way home, we got redirected in a very rural part of WV and I only saw one Trump sign during a 10-12 mile stretch.

Maybe they think Trump speaking last, going off the rails with any one of his crazy rants, will stay in the mind of viewers and helps them the most with independents? Where if Joe speaks last the night ends "quietly" and Trumps words are forgotten\minimized?

Trump is more than capable of ignoring any talking points his handlers give him and go off on his own digging a WTF hole. Sure his minions won't be bothered and may love what they hear, but independents?

Maybe Joe has a preplanned jibe he can throw at Trump in his closing hoping to trigger Trump into a off the cuff response?

Just my speculations. ;)

Another factor is that the debates are so long and dry, I would imagine that a lot of people tune out by the end, anyway. And the people that don't are probably not swing voters.

So that suggests stage right, as opposed to right side of the viewing screen, I guess?

Dems is easy. It'll be Kamala Harris. It's "her turn" after all.

Republicans are tricky. DJT is incredibly dumb and has a coke habit. I don't even think his Dad trusts him to do shit. Eric seems to be the smarter but has the lowest profile. Ivanka would make most sense but she's seen as a moderate among Republicans and is a woman.

I think when Trump is gone, that's it. People will use his name for a long time like they did Reagan but it won't be the same. You can't duplicate that style and charisma. My guess is it would be messy as all hell and they'd compromise on someone like Burgum or Rubio.

There would be a free for all until the GOP establishment saw that Don Jr gets most of the same strong support his dad got, then they'd fall in line behind him and (hopefully) get their asses handed to them.

The theory operates from a viewer's point of view. I guess stage right would be different than the viewer's perspective? I'm not sure. I think we'd need JPhillips to tell us if stage right is from the actor's or the audience's perspective.

I really don't think he would get that kind of support. But I might be in the minority who just thinks Trump is a unique figure that you can't replicate.

Don Jr would of course hang around and end up schilling fake gold coins of his Dad and shit, but I think the more people see him talk, the more people would realize he is not his Dad.

Well, what would be the mechanism for choosing a candidate? If it's before the convention, would the delegates have to select another candidate? If these were DJT's delegates, they might be apt to support Junior. If it's after the convention, is it just determined by the RNC? And isn't that controlled by Trump's family? I don't know to what extent things will revert to "normal."

If we've learned one thing from the Trump phenomenon, it's that politics (and specifically as played out, the GOP over the past 9 years) are a bunch of followers, not leaders. The name of the game is turnout, so they follow motivated voters. Just like after January 6, when a bunch of mainstream GOPers went out on a limb to blame/condemn Trump for his actions/inactions and then pulled it back in a matter of weeks when they saw the pee fly back in their faces, I believe the same thing would happen here.

If we're talking about 2 to 4 years lead-up to an election (say, 2028), then yes, I agree - Don Jr falls by the wayside. But the scenario we're discussing is a 1-4 month timeframe prior to the 2024 election in which Trump dies. His supporters are more likely, IMO, to latch onto Don Jr in that scenario. They expected another 4 to 8 years of Trump in office. His death cuts that off at the knees.

Quite simply, Don Jr is an emotional response and obvious answer to losing their savior and preserves some semblance of a second Trump revenge administration they were promised until God called Trumpus home to the Pearly Gates for whatever higher calling the televangelists cook up. I'm sure there would be multiple avenues to derail him, and maybe they would succeed in the same way the party machine was able to eliminate a guy like Madison Cawthorn, but I think it would be very difficult if a few polls among likely voters in swing states suggested higher turnout/favorability for Don Jr.

I could see them nominating him but he would get walloped. I'm just going off how other Trump adjacent politicians have done (Kari Lake, Dr. Oz, Herschel Walker, etc). They like Trump, just not his lackeys.

Right. But he's a Trump, not Trump-adjacent, and in this scenario they have maybe a few weeks to coalesce behind someone they think people will be motivated to vote for.

It would be decided at convention by the delegates. Don Jr. would have an edge, considering the leadership are all Trumpian considering Eric's wife is the co-chair. They cleaned house of all non-loyalist. My guess is the only challenge would be if Eric wants it, but I think Don Jr. has been more upfront.


As for after the convention, for the RNC makes the selection. They do have an option to reconvene the nominating convention, but don't have to. The DNC just allows the leadership to make the decision outright, though they have to consult Democratic governors first. Most likely the VP candidate would be selected, but it is not mandatory by party rules.


After the election, it would most likely be the VP that becomes President, but there are some legal wranglings that suggest that isn't completely clear-cut. If it were before the Electoral College vote, and enough free electors decide not to vote with their party, it could become a mess.

This. I wouldn't predict Don Jr. as the shoe in candidate to follow his dad in 4 years (or whenever). I don't think he will stand up to the spot-light as well as his dad. His only hope would be his dad campaigning for him, basically. If his dad is not in the picture, or unwilling to expend the energy, then there is a good chance someone might outshine him.


I do think he and/or Eric will try. Then again, it might even be Lara Trump that tries. At one time I thought it would be Ivanka as she was way more popular than either, but I get the feeling she wants none of it.

I think post-Trump, in 2028, will be a lot like 2016. There will be some establishment favorites, some peripheral-types that have some appeal, and some oddballs, but if they don't clear the way, it only takes 30-40% to win and then anything can happen in the general election.

WV governors race has worked out this year. They had four front running candidates. One that was a nut job car dealership owner, two that were old fashioned establishment GOPers, and the carpetbagging AG that no one seems to like. The AG won with like 34% of the vote because neither of the establishment guys would drop out.

If Democrats passed a law that allowed car manufacturers to sell direct to customers, they'd wipe out like half the GOP mega donors.

If Trump loses (or wins), fair chance he'll still be around in 2028.

Physically, he looks healthy to me ... or maybe it's the contrast with Joe that makes it so.

An odd thing to say. Trump is obese and sounds like he has dementia. If my grandpa says the shit he does, straight to a home for him.

It is funny, isn't it? The most exercise Trump gets is swinging at a golf ball and riding a golf cart. Meanwhile, Joe still rides a freaking bike. Could you imagine that fat orange om-pa-lompa riding a bike? Biden is physically in better shape than Trump, and even if he has mentally lost some edge, he started so far ahead of Trump he still laps him. Joe has to slow process every once in awhile, meanwhile Trump has never processed anything a day in his life.

Sorry, I should have said he looks healthier to me than Joe.

Unless a lot of those are fake pics, it looks like he has lost a lot of weight. And he doesn't walk as gingerly (?) as Joe.

re: dementia, that's why I said "physically"

Biden has a documented issue with his feet.

But I'd put whatever you want to bet on the proposition that he could ride a bike further than Trump.

Rapid weight loss isn't always a good sign.

As for if Trump died the GOP would be stupid not to give Haley the nomination. It may piss of MAGA but in this scenario I think a lot of MAGA drops out anyway as this is sport for them and if their team isn't involved they lose interest.

Haley would bring back virtually all the never Trumpers and give independents an off ramp from holding their noses and voting Biden.

This is where I am at. There just hasn't been anyone who has come even close to matching the Trump "aura" Guys like DeSantis and Vivek have tried and failed miserably.

Trump's future health is going to be like any other 80 year old. Could be fine and chugging away with some slight slowing down or he could fall off a cliff quickly. It's usually not an age you typically age gracefully at. An illness, stroke, cognitive decline can jump up quick.

The dog killer has no political future. Haley and VR aren't white enough for the base.

At least Gavin Newsome would give the Democratic Party a viable candidate. The GOP has no one.

Pritzker or Whitmer are the Dems best hopes for the future. Gavin is too California to get the rust belt voters.

Shit- I meant Haley....fixed that

I think Shapiro could do well also.

Agree. For some reason I thought he was older but I'm thinking of Evers in Wisconsin.

I also think Andy Beshear from KY is going to at least give it a try. I don't know if he will translate beyond KY, but he's successfully bridged the gap in a red state to comfortably beat Trump's own pick (although it was a black guy, so maybe one bias overrode the other).

Reps hate Whitmer tho. With a Hillary type of hate. That type of hate seeps into yhe undecideds. Th ey just don't like women in power.

J.D. Vance is a white trash Ohioan turned California venture capitalist. All Gavin needs is a straw hat and some keystone light standing around spewing dog whistle slurs and he'll have a shot. He can go back to CA and go, "how about that Ohio" all while winking.

Hah.

But only fair if we also bet on who wins at golf.

I guess it's still believed that enough 'moderates and independents' are grossed out by the gays that Buttigieg isn't considered a viable option? He's a vet, 'business friendly', unlike most Democrats he seems to be great at messaging & debating, and he's a christian white male. You think he'd be a moderate's dream, but...

I lean towards not liking the Assange plea deal but Joe, did you really have to make that deal now? Would waiting another 5 months been too much?

I don't see how this helps you at all, but I can see how this potentially can hurt you.

His opposition is not from moderates, but from liberals and minorities. He hasn't figured out how to appeal to either of those groups, and nobody gets the Dem nomination without the latter group.

and that's a big butt

It is definitely about the minority appeal. It's what turned 2020 for Joe, and sank lots of challengers.

I know it won't happen, and not even sure it should, but how great would it be if Biden came out in the debate and in his opening remarks he claimed he can beat Trump fair and square then pardons him right there. Would totally throw Trump off and be a boss move.

Apparently Trump claims he pitched an "immigrant fight club" to Dana White? I assume the winner would get a green card? This is the kind of stuff that's so stupid/oddball/out there you don't know whether it's one long, unfunny joke, or real.

He also said it's not the worst idea he's ever had, which... yeah, I gotta believe that's definitely a true statement.