Given how poorly Min is polling against Baugh in adjacent CA 47, we may need a win from Tran to hold even in Orange County. The TV ads against Min are brutal. I hate to imagine being represented by Baugh; he's worse than Mimi Walters was, and she was pretty awful.
I believe it's one factor of several. Katie Porter narrowly won CA 47 in 2022 against Baugh, and narrowly won in her former CD 45. This district is highly competitive, and Min isn't as impressive as Porter, and the DUI hurts him in what would have already been a tough race.
I'm still hopeful that Min will come through.
The main ad Baugh is running is about his brother who died of an overdose and how he's dedicated to public service to fight fentanyl. It makes him seem very human to those who don't know better and of his ugly history.
In the university polls of CA races a couple of weeks ago, respondents were asked for the first one or words that come to mind about each candidate. The pollsters were stunned that over half of respondents said "DUI" regarding Min. Seems to me that having his Democratic opponent attack him on that basis before the primary has stuck.
Ooof. It's just a reminder of how, um, messed up our election system is, especially now that corporations are people, and if I consider what other things we could do with a few $Billion. It's like finding a piece of bone in your Whopper. You are already unhappy that you're eating a Whopper, and then it gets worse.
Any Montanans here? People from neighboring states? Avid connoisseurs of political debates??
Did anyone watch last night’s debate debate between Senator Jon Tester and Tim Sheehy, his Republican challenger? I have not, although I know the video is now online – but I am very curious as to how Tester did and debate reviews/evaluations (haven’t seen any).
-Prior to Helene I had expected both campaigns to release their September fundraising totals, as that’s what they had done on the first of September and August, but with people’s attentions rightly focused on recovery, those numbers won’t be released before the debate
-Regardless of who wins, the absolutely biggest swing would be be a single point, and that’s only in a catastrophic performance by one or the other. VP debates simply don’t move the needle. Without a catastrophic performance by either candidate, this won’t show up on polls at all.
-Stylistically I think Vance comes out swinging hard with some of them landing, while Walz mostly deflects and gets a few folksy 1-liner jabs in
-I think Vance wins this debate by a decent margin. He’s got that debate lawyer schtick down pretty well, and the majority of Walz’ debate experience has taken place standing in the dirt at an event called FarmFest. Being on a national stage is a different animal.
-Both sides will claim victory regardless, and the electorate won’t care, because the VPs don’t define this election, and the polls won’t move.
-Harris will repeat her call to debate Trump on the 23rd, and Trump will again decline
I know there's an advantage in lowering expectations. But I'm actually hopeful that Walz parries Vance's wit and aggressive attacks with his own Midwestern-dad charm.
Vance has a more difficult task. While he'll score some with attacks on Harris, he must also parrot Trump's insanity, and will have to defend a lot of his own gaffes and whoppers.
With Vance's vulnerabilities and Trump's high disapproval ratings, Walz will have easier targets.
The big question: Will there be factchecking? That could make all the difference. Clearly, Vance is a good debater -- if he's allowed to lie without penalty. That's what he did to Ryan.
We saw how much that factchecking hurt Trump in the debate with Harris, although she would have knocked him out without it. In this matchup, Walz may need the factchecking to exert a cost on Vance's lying. Does anyone know whether NBC has tipped its hand on that?
Yeah. I saw that right after I posted. The polls I've seen find that an overwhelming majority of viewers and voters want factchecking. Plus, it's basic journalism.
But MAGA whined and worked the refs. And in the alternative reality that is TV executive decision-making, abdicating their responsibility won out over protecting our democracy.
I think you should be careful what you wish for. If the fact-checking is allowed to continue, it won't be done like it was on ABC last month where only Trump gets called out. The network bosses will demand symmetry, meaning every fact check done on one candidate will require a fact check done on the other side no matter how petty or frivolous. It would become an arms race with the liars gaming the system. I'd prefer to just let the candidates do the fact checking.
I don't think you'll find many here who agree with your characterization that only Trump was called out. Only Trump was lying. Silence is complicity, especially when you're allegedly a journalist.
My characterization isn't in reference to who was or wasn't lying in the last debate. It's in reference to how the fact-checkers can be expected to respond moving forward that's amenable to ongoing participation by both parties. Even if Trump was the only one lying in the ABC debate, if only one side is being fact-checked, only one side will continue to agree to do the debates. The host networks are then left with two options: fact-check both sides equally whether it's warranted or not....or leave the fact-checking to the candidates themselves. I prefer the latter.
Even if they forego fact-checking, a skillful moderator can anchor their questions in a facts-confirming reality! For example:
"Senator Vance, do you regret claiming that Haitians living in Springfield, immigrants who are there legally, were eating people’s pets – their cats and dogs – a claim that has been proven to be false?"
I am quite optimistic about tonight’s debate. I was encouraged to read that Pet Buttigieg was helping prepare; Buttigieg is one of the country’s best political communicators.
Tim Walz will come armed with memorable, devastating one-liners. If he keeps his head cool, he’ll ridicule Vance’s weirdness, and glue Vance-Trump to Project 2025. He’ll emphasize how un-American, undemocratic and damaging Project 2025 would be for America.
Equally devastating, Walz may highlight some of Vance’s most absurd lies. "They’re eating your pets!"
Even more devastating, I’m hoping Walz quotes the "old" JD Vance comparing Donald Trump to Hitler!
On a positive note, Walz can talk about his own record in Minnesota, presenting the great progressive policies he implemented as "good common sense". He can underscore the results. And he can talk credibly about the Harris-Walz proposals for "an opportunity economy".
PS. On the downside, it looks like CBS and its moderators are absolving themselves of any responsibility for fact-checking. However, a skillful moderator can anchor their questions in a facts-confirming reality!
Imo JD Vance is an unlikable asshole that comes across as such(polling indicates that Vance is the most unpopular VP choice in our lifetime); but, I agree with you that unless JD Vance actually eats a cat\dog on the stage tonight, that this debate will mean absolutely nothing in so far as the top of the ticket race
I think I remember correctly that Nate Silver determined that Bush I's choice of Quayle cost him about 2 points in the 1988 election, and his loss of the VP debate was definitely part of that. That was the biggest effect of a running mate on a vote share of a candidate that he found.
An aside: The current incarnation of Nate Silver is a subsidiary of Peter Thiel, Inc. Which helps explain some of Silver’s really weird modelling, "probability" results, and narrative.
Damn right, it’s terrible. And as you may recall, Peter Thiel was the billionaire who bankrolled JD Vance’s successful senate campaign. Thiel must have been ecstatic when Trump chose him as his VP.
I'm very curious how this goes tonight. Vance is that Ted Cruz-type debater where he's got that debate competition type style, but when it came to political debates anyone that didn't exist in that world just saw a smug prick. And I imagine when Tim Walz was a teacher, he was the type of teacher that probably liked to foster debate among students. And two 16 year olds yelling at each other is probably more similar to a political debate than a debate competition debate.
Walz has apparently told Harris'team up front before his pick that he was a "bad debator" and Vance is not Trump when it comes to presentation but if Walz can focus on being approachable and down to earth, aka "likeable" he will win against Vance's smug and condescending demeanor I think.
So Rachel Maddow tied Vance to folks who want to overthrow the US Govt and close universities last night. She played clips of him on some youtube far-right talk show. She seemed to think that would come up tonight. Considering MSNBC's ties to the Biden admin, I wonder if she has inside knowledge on that. I could imagine some very stinging jabs based on what Maddow played Vance saying. But I'm not sure they'll really come up. Did any of you see it? Thoughts?
PS: I don't usually watch TV "news," but my 80 yr old Mom nagged me enough by text that I watched the midnight rerun before going to bed. I think watching MSNBC is bad for Mom's heart/soul but at least she's engaged and lives in a swing state!
The thing is, would viewers believe Vance had said such terrible things or was serious about them? Ever since Reagan at least, Americans have tended to dismiss Republican extremism as not possibly what they really plan on doing.
"Notably, Miller-Meeks has spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on messages to constituents, with much of the spending going through her top campaign vendor. She has also built up goodwill by being one of the chamber’s most frequent floor speakers, and has used the earmark process to help fund projects in her district."
Any chance Iowa’s Electoral Votes are close to being in play? What happens if high enthusiasm gives, say, a five-percent higher turnout rate for Democrats, democracy-defending Independents and patriotic Republicans?
Only in the sense that "there's always a chance". My sense is that any scenario where Trump wins Iowa by less than double-digits means a 300+ electoral vote night for Harris.
Trump won Iowa by 8 in 2020. I could see him winning by 9 and narrowly winning the electoral college. I agree with your broader point that if Iowa's in play, the electoral college isn't.
I hope you are right, Mark. I’m extremely doubtful that Trump wins Iowa by 10% or more. If that makes 300+ the likely EC result, I’ll be immensely relieved. Kamala Harris needs a victory that is well beyond what I call the MoS – the "Margin of Steal".
America simply cannot afford to have 2024 be an election that’s decided by a few close races, litigation that’s kicked up to the corrupt Leonard Leo-led SCOTUS, or thrown to the House of Representatives.
Man, I like that Josh Stein added narrated by retired UNC coach Roy Williams. UNC has a history of great coaches who were also on the progressive side of the ledger. Brings back memories of the great Dean Smith, who supported integration and civil rights when it wasn't such a popular thing in the South.
Regardless of his political leanings, as a State grad I can’t think of any coach I despise more than Dean Smith. I mean I have nothing but contempt for Williams as well but Smith is the worst.
Considering UNC is hands down THE favorite school of NC residents and natives, AG Stein has nothing to lose with this move. There are local Duke, NC State, and Wake Forest fans, but UNC has a lot more. Especially since Duke and Wake Forest are private schools and thus much of their alumni aren't natives and/or locals.
I’m honestly not sure. Yeah, Carolina has more fans, but a lot of them are what we referred to as “Wal-Mart fans” because they didn’t really have any affiliation with the University but just picked up a sweatshirt somewhere and jumped on the bandwagon. I’m not sure their support of the school goes beyond cos-playing on game day and cheering them on. Additionally, they’re known as a “liberal” school so I suspect most of their alumni still living in state are already supporting Harris.
Alternatively, other schools in the state absolutely hate Carolina. In regards to State, it was historically the “redneck” school but that’s not necessarily still accurate and probably has more persuadable voters.
All that being said, I doubt it moves the needle much at all. If they were the actual candidate, it would be a different story. I would have to consider how much my vote actually mattered before I could vote for one of them. If it were a toss-up yeah, I’m sure I’d do it. But if they were already favored to win it would be the first time I’d skip a race on a ballot. I know it’s irrational, but the hatred really is that strong. I’m sure there are a lot of less partisan folks who would absolutely vote against them solely due to that issue.
It’s all based on the rivalry, but with Smith specifically, he was around during the lowest point of State’s history so he is the face of the double standard in the treatment between the two schools. There are also rumors that Smith was behind the post season ban State received in 1973 (when there was a good chance we would have won the tourney).
We had a short subthread yesterday about the polling in MI in 2020, 22 and 24 and this prompted me to look up exactly how the polling was across the swing states. I looked at the 12 races GOV and SEN races across the 7 states (technically 13 races because of the GA-SEN runoff) and I put the numbers as how much better the R or D did than the 538 polling average:
PA-GOV: D+4.1, PA-SEN: D+5.4, MI-GOV: D+5.7, WI-GOV: D +4.8, WI-SEN: D +2.4, GA-SEN (first round): D + 1.95, runoff: R +1.1, GA-GOV:: D +0.2, NC-SEN: D +1.1, AZ-GOV: D +3.1, AZ-SEN: D +3.4, NV-GOV: D +0.2, NV-SEN: D + 2.2
There's a bit of a geographic split where the Sunbelt numbers are in totality closer than the Midwest numbers, but Arizona throws a wrench into that. The gaps were, generally, smaller in races Republicans won. The main thing is that, with the exception of the GA-SEN runoff the numbers were basically always overly friendly to Republicans (I put basically as a caveat because while technically too friendly for Republicans they nailed the GA and NV Governor's races).
If Harris overperforms the polls by 3% (a rough average of your Dem overperformance), she likely sweeps the seven swing states and comes close to winning Florida and Texas (the TX-Sen race would be *extremely* close if Allred performs 3% better than the polling average).
Has Texas ever had a recount in a statewide election before?
Both sides were stealing(Coke Stevenson was no virgin); Lyndon stole better; the King of South Texas had a machine where like out of 1500 votes Lyndon took like 1490 of them or some such(I believe it's Robert Caro who wrote the books)
Does anyone have a read on how long this longshoreman strike will last? It seems it could be potentially very bad for our economy at the absolute worst time.
Exactly. No one even remembers the rail strike cooling off period. This'll cause some online arglebargle but in general the stores will still have their products and that'll be all that matters in the short run.
So the October surprise is hurricane recovery, more Middle East unrest, supply chain strike. The next few weeks will really test whether people can stomach all this just to avoid another Trump term.
Yup. As we all know, President Trump would end the Russo-Ukrainian war and broker a Middle East peace on day one, nuke hurricanes before they ever reach American shores, and mobilize the National Guard and Pinkertons to force the striking longshoremen back to work.
"The ad test finds that 15-second ads move the needle towards Vice President Harris by an average of 2.3 percentage points per 15 seconds of airtime—compared to 30-second ads on the same topics, which only average a 1.5-percentage-point effect for every 15 seconds of airtime, and 60-second ads, which have an average 1.2-percentage-point effect per 15 seconds of airtime.
In short, it is more cost-effective to run two 15-second ads about Harris in place of a 30-second ad or four 15-second ads in place of a 60-second ad. Running two 30-second ads is narrowly more efficient than running a 60-second ad."
Hat tip to Politicalwire, as usual. Goddard sometimes links to interesting stuff like this that I wouldn't have come across any other way.
That's interesting, to say the least. It seems like most people (myself included) are willing to sit through 2-4 hour-long sporting events on television without becoming bored, but I've never understood why insurance companies (mainly health insurance companies and the life insurance company Colonial Penn) like to run two-minute-long mini-infomercials, as they're not attention-grabbing.
Reynoso said that he reported the incident to the proper authorities, including the FBI. “Everything we have we’ve given to the FBI, we’ve given to them, but we have also documentation and just a track record on how we handle those situations,” he said.
Asked if he felt these gifts were an attempt to “curry a favor” during his time as Brooklyn Borough President, Reynoso said in the interview: “Looking back, I definitely thought it was an intro into building a good relationship with me through gifts and so forth. While I was there, I just thought they were ignorant to the process, so they just didn’t know. It’s like you can’t do this. This is not the way we do things.”
However, Reynoso now sees the incident differently, especially in light of Adams’ situation. “Now looking at everything, they knew very well what they can or can’t do, but it seems like the mayor’s office gave them an opportunity in the past and they tried to take that with me as well. It’s just we didn’t get hooked.”
Anti-LGBTQ+ extremist Robby Starbuck has found success in forcing businesses like Ford, MolsonCoors, and Tractor Supply to end their DEI and LGBTQ+ initiatives. Starbuck’s crusade is part of the right-wing war on diversity in businesses.
Yep. Right now, they're getting pushback from the bigots, and sadly they are responding to that pressure instead of maintaining a stand. Always about the profit.
Imo (given that I am pulling this opinion straight out of my butt); I think these companies are waiting until Trump is soundly defeated(and if that happens, they will reinstate their former policies)
State and national Democrats have sued the GOP-controlled Georgia State Election Board over a pair of rules passed in August that require county election officials to conduct a “reasonable inquiry” into election results before certifying them and allow them to “examine all election related documentation created during the conduct of elections prior to certification of results.”
During a bench trial in the case on Tuesday, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney said the “reasonable inquiry” rule “on its face is vague and needs clarification.”
At several other points during the trial, McBurney also raised concerns about the election board changing election rules so close to this year’s contest, saying that “new rules seem to pop up every 20 minutes.”
Happy Q3 leaked fundraising reports day to all who celebrate! The numbers you’re about to see for Democrats are going to be nuts.
First up is #CA45, where Derek Tran (D) announced raising more than $2 million
https://x.com/jamesd0wns/status/1841073406759907809
Congratulations on Derek Tran for the good fund raising quarter and getting his numbers out first.
Given how poorly Min is polling against Baugh in adjacent CA 47, we may need a win from Tran to hold even in Orange County. The TV ads against Min are brutal. I hate to imagine being represented by Baugh; he's worse than Mimi Walters was, and she was pretty awful.
Is the DWI arrest a major cause of his unpopularity?
I believe it's one factor of several. Katie Porter narrowly won CA 47 in 2022 against Baugh, and narrowly won in her former CD 45. This district is highly competitive, and Min isn't as impressive as Porter, and the DUI hurts him in what would have already been a tough race.
I'm still hopeful that Min will come through.
The main ad Baugh is running is about his brother who died of an overdose and how he's dedicated to public service to fight fentanyl. It makes him seem very human to those who don't know better and of his ugly history.
In the university polls of CA races a couple of weeks ago, respondents were asked for the first one or words that come to mind about each candidate. The pollsters were stunned that over half of respondents said "DUI" regarding Min. Seems to me that having his Democratic opponent attack him on that basis before the primary has stuck.
Right, but also his having driven while drunk stuck. It's his fault, and he should have withdrawn from the race.
Had his primary opponent been the one running against Baugh, I believe we would be in worse shape than we are.
I wish my Assembly person, Cottie Petrie-Norris had stepped up, since I believe she would have won, but she didn't want to.
Ooof. It's just a reminder of how, um, messed up our election system is, especially now that corporations are people, and if I consider what other things we could do with a few $Billion. It's like finding a piece of bone in your Whopper. You are already unhappy that you're eating a Whopper, and then it gets worse.
Any Montanans here? People from neighboring states? Avid connoisseurs of political debates??
Did anyone watch last night’s debate debate between Senator Jon Tester and Tim Sheehy, his Republican challenger? I have not, although I know the video is now online – but I am very curious as to how Tester did and debate reviews/evaluations (haven’t seen any).
Predictions for tonight:
-Prior to Helene I had expected both campaigns to release their September fundraising totals, as that’s what they had done on the first of September and August, but with people’s attentions rightly focused on recovery, those numbers won’t be released before the debate
-Regardless of who wins, the absolutely biggest swing would be be a single point, and that’s only in a catastrophic performance by one or the other. VP debates simply don’t move the needle. Without a catastrophic performance by either candidate, this won’t show up on polls at all.
-Stylistically I think Vance comes out swinging hard with some of them landing, while Walz mostly deflects and gets a few folksy 1-liner jabs in
-I think Vance wins this debate by a decent margin. He’s got that debate lawyer schtick down pretty well, and the majority of Walz’ debate experience has taken place standing in the dirt at an event called FarmFest. Being on a national stage is a different animal.
-Both sides will claim victory regardless, and the electorate won’t care, because the VPs don’t define this election, and the polls won’t move.
-Harris will repeat her call to debate Trump on the 23rd, and Trump will again decline
I think Vance is just not likable and so the debate will at best be a draw for him.
I know there's an advantage in lowering expectations. But I'm actually hopeful that Walz parries Vance's wit and aggressive attacks with his own Midwestern-dad charm.
Vance has a more difficult task. While he'll score some with attacks on Harris, he must also parrot Trump's insanity, and will have to defend a lot of his own gaffes and whoppers.
With Vance's vulnerabilities and Trump's high disapproval ratings, Walz will have easier targets.
The big question: Will there be factchecking? That could make all the difference. Clearly, Vance is a good debater -- if he's allowed to lie without penalty. That's what he did to Ryan.
We saw how much that factchecking hurt Trump in the debate with Harris, although she would have knocked him out without it. In this matchup, Walz may need the factchecking to exert a cost on Vance's lying. Does anyone know whether NBC has tipped its hand on that?
They stated no fact checking except by the candidates themselves. https://apnews.com/article/cbs-debate-vice-president-fact-check-7a3b31c98ab092dd44915df57a359d10
Absolutely disgusting lack of journalism.
The biggest impact on the lack of fact checking is Walz will have spend time rebutting the lies and not focus on his message.
Yeah. I saw that right after I posted. The polls I've seen find that an overwhelming majority of viewers and voters want factchecking. Plus, it's basic journalism.
But MAGA whined and worked the refs. And in the alternative reality that is TV executive decision-making, abdicating their responsibility won out over protecting our democracy.
Shame on the CBS weasels.
I think you should be careful what you wish for. If the fact-checking is allowed to continue, it won't be done like it was on ABC last month where only Trump gets called out. The network bosses will demand symmetry, meaning every fact check done on one candidate will require a fact check done on the other side no matter how petty or frivolous. It would become an arms race with the liars gaming the system. I'd prefer to just let the candidates do the fact checking.
I don't think you'll find many here who agree with your characterization that only Trump was called out. Only Trump was lying. Silence is complicity, especially when you're allegedly a journalist.
My characterization isn't in reference to who was or wasn't lying in the last debate. It's in reference to how the fact-checkers can be expected to respond moving forward that's amenable to ongoing participation by both parties. Even if Trump was the only one lying in the ABC debate, if only one side is being fact-checked, only one side will continue to agree to do the debates. The host networks are then left with two options: fact-check both sides equally whether it's warranted or not....or leave the fact-checking to the candidates themselves. I prefer the latter.
Even if they forego fact-checking, a skillful moderator can anchor their questions in a facts-confirming reality! For example:
"Senator Vance, do you regret claiming that Haitians living in Springfield, immigrants who are there legally, were eating people’s pets – their cats and dogs – a claim that has been proven to be false?"
I am quite optimistic about tonight’s debate. I was encouraged to read that Pet Buttigieg was helping prepare; Buttigieg is one of the country’s best political communicators.
Tim Walz will come armed with memorable, devastating one-liners. If he keeps his head cool, he’ll ridicule Vance’s weirdness, and glue Vance-Trump to Project 2025. He’ll emphasize how un-American, undemocratic and damaging Project 2025 would be for America.
Equally devastating, Walz may highlight some of Vance’s most absurd lies. "They’re eating your pets!"
Even more devastating, I’m hoping Walz quotes the "old" JD Vance comparing Donald Trump to Hitler!
On a positive note, Walz can talk about his own record in Minnesota, presenting the great progressive policies he implemented as "good common sense". He can underscore the results. And he can talk credibly about the Harris-Walz proposals for "an opportunity economy".
PS. On the downside, it looks like CBS and its moderators are absolving themselves of any responsibility for fact-checking. However, a skillful moderator can anchor their questions in a facts-confirming reality!
Imo JD Vance is an unlikable asshole that comes across as such(polling indicates that Vance is the most unpopular VP choice in our lifetime); but, I agree with you that unless JD Vance actually eats a cat\dog on the stage tonight, that this debate will mean absolutely nothing in so far as the top of the ticket race
I think I remember correctly that Nate Silver determined that Bush I's choice of Quayle cost him about 2 points in the 1988 election, and his loss of the VP debate was definitely part of that. That was the biggest effect of a running mate on a vote share of a candidate that he found.
An aside: The current incarnation of Nate Silver is a subsidiary of Peter Thiel, Inc. Which helps explain some of Silver’s really weird modelling, "probability" results, and narrative.
I didn't know that. Wow, that's really terrible!
Check out Polymarkets.
Damn right, it’s terrible. And as you may recall, Peter Thiel was the billionaire who bankrolled JD Vance’s successful senate campaign. Thiel must have been ecstatic when Trump chose him as his VP.
I'm very curious how this goes tonight. Vance is that Ted Cruz-type debater where he's got that debate competition type style, but when it came to political debates anyone that didn't exist in that world just saw a smug prick. And I imagine when Tim Walz was a teacher, he was the type of teacher that probably liked to foster debate among students. And two 16 year olds yelling at each other is probably more similar to a political debate than a debate competition debate.
This is how I feel. If this were an actual debate competition then I think Vance would win, but that isn't the point of this debate.
Ultimately I don't think either one will say or do anything that will make any kind of difference in the election.
Walz has apparently told Harris'team up front before his pick that he was a "bad debator" and Vance is not Trump when it comes to presentation but if Walz can focus on being approachable and down to earth, aka "likeable" he will win against Vance's smug and condescending demeanor I think.
So Rachel Maddow tied Vance to folks who want to overthrow the US Govt and close universities last night. She played clips of him on some youtube far-right talk show. She seemed to think that would come up tonight. Considering MSNBC's ties to the Biden admin, I wonder if she has inside knowledge on that. I could imagine some very stinging jabs based on what Maddow played Vance saying. But I'm not sure they'll really come up. Did any of you see it? Thoughts?
PS: I don't usually watch TV "news," but my 80 yr old Mom nagged me enough by text that I watched the midnight rerun before going to bed. I think watching MSNBC is bad for Mom's heart/soul but at least she's engaged and lives in a swing state!
The thing is, would viewers believe Vance had said such terrible things or was serious about them? Ever since Reagan at least, Americans have tended to dismiss Republican extremism as not possibly what they really plan on doing.
IA-01: I wrote a deep dive on how Republican incumbent Mariannette Miller-Meeks has used her office to boost her re-election chances.
https://www.bleedingheartland.com/2024/09/30/how-mariannette-miller-meeks-uses-incumbency-to-her-advantage/
"Notably, Miller-Meeks has spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on messages to constituents, with much of the spending going through her top campaign vendor. She has also built up goodwill by being one of the chamber’s most frequent floor speakers, and has used the earmark process to help fund projects in her district."
Any chance Iowa’s Electoral Votes are close to being in play? What happens if high enthusiasm gives, say, a five-percent higher turnout rate for Democrats, democracy-defending Independents and patriotic Republicans?
Only in the sense that "there's always a chance". My sense is that any scenario where Trump wins Iowa by less than double-digits means a 300+ electoral vote night for Harris.
Trump won Iowa by 8 in 2020. I could see him winning by 9 and narrowly winning the electoral college. I agree with your broader point that if Iowa's in play, the electoral college isn't.
I hope you are right, Mark. I’m extremely doubtful that Trump wins Iowa by 10% or more. If that makes 300+ the likely EC result, I’ll be immensely relieved. Kamala Harris needs a victory that is well beyond what I call the MoS – the "Margin of Steal".
America simply cannot afford to have 2024 be an election that’s decided by a few close races, litigation that’s kicked up to the corrupt Leonard Leo-led SCOTUS, or thrown to the House of Representatives.
I agree with Mark; oh noesssss; dogs and cats living together; mass hysteria !!!
Great piece, Laura. Infuriating though.
Proof positive that Miller-Meeks' hand should be nowhere near the taxpayers' money spigot.
That sounds legitimate. I don't think we'd have problems with a Democrat doing the same thing. Is there anything more damning in the piece?
Man, I like that Josh Stein added narrated by retired UNC coach Roy Williams. UNC has a history of great coaches who were also on the progressive side of the ledger. Brings back memories of the great Dean Smith, who supported integration and civil rights when it wasn't such a popular thing in the South.
Regardless of his political leanings, as a State grad I can’t think of any coach I despise more than Dean Smith. I mean I have nothing but contempt for Williams as well but Smith is the worst.
Right, but do you think support from UNC coaches in ads will actually lose more votes from alumni of rival universities than it gains?
Considering UNC is hands down THE favorite school of NC residents and natives, AG Stein has nothing to lose with this move. There are local Duke, NC State, and Wake Forest fans, but UNC has a lot more. Especially since Duke and Wake Forest are private schools and thus much of their alumni aren't natives and/or locals.
I’m honestly not sure. Yeah, Carolina has more fans, but a lot of them are what we referred to as “Wal-Mart fans” because they didn’t really have any affiliation with the University but just picked up a sweatshirt somewhere and jumped on the bandwagon. I’m not sure their support of the school goes beyond cos-playing on game day and cheering them on. Additionally, they’re known as a “liberal” school so I suspect most of their alumni still living in state are already supporting Harris.
Alternatively, other schools in the state absolutely hate Carolina. In regards to State, it was historically the “redneck” school but that’s not necessarily still accurate and probably has more persuadable voters.
All that being said, I doubt it moves the needle much at all. If they were the actual candidate, it would be a different story. I would have to consider how much my vote actually mattered before I could vote for one of them. If it were a toss-up yeah, I’m sure I’d do it. But if they were already favored to win it would be the first time I’d skip a race on a ballot. I know it’s irrational, but the hatred really is that strong. I’m sure there are a lot of less partisan folks who would absolutely vote against them solely due to that issue.
That's a really strong hatred!
Why? Is it just due the college rivalry or is there something else?
It’s all based on the rivalry, but with Smith specifically, he was around during the lowest point of State’s history so he is the face of the double standard in the treatment between the two schools. There are also rumors that Smith was behind the post season ban State received in 1973 (when there was a good chance we would have won the tourney).
The 1973 ban is something I am 99% confident Dean was behind. I fully acknowledge that I am biased, though.
I looked up the ban, expecting to find something shocking, but the infractions, though numerous, seem like small potatoes to me: https://www.statefansnation.com/2009/08/results-of-1972-ncaa-investigation-of-nc-state/#sthash.YHTzUyNJ.dpbs
I am the "BJD95" from that weblog project. Consider it a mark of great pride that it made it into this realm!
I miss statefansnation, was surprised to see a post from earlier this year.
We had a short subthread yesterday about the polling in MI in 2020, 22 and 24 and this prompted me to look up exactly how the polling was across the swing states. I looked at the 12 races GOV and SEN races across the 7 states (technically 13 races because of the GA-SEN runoff) and I put the numbers as how much better the R or D did than the 538 polling average:
PA-GOV: D+4.1, PA-SEN: D+5.4, MI-GOV: D+5.7, WI-GOV: D +4.8, WI-SEN: D +2.4, GA-SEN (first round): D + 1.95, runoff: R +1.1, GA-GOV:: D +0.2, NC-SEN: D +1.1, AZ-GOV: D +3.1, AZ-SEN: D +3.4, NV-GOV: D +0.2, NV-SEN: D + 2.2
There's a bit of a geographic split where the Sunbelt numbers are in totality closer than the Midwest numbers, but Arizona throws a wrench into that. The gaps were, generally, smaller in races Republicans won. The main thing is that, with the exception of the GA-SEN runoff the numbers were basically always overly friendly to Republicans (I put basically as a caveat because while technically too friendly for Republicans they nailed the GA and NV Governor's races).
If Harris overperforms the polls by 3% (a rough average of your Dem overperformance), she likely sweeps the seven swing states and comes close to winning Florida and Texas (the TX-Sen race would be *extremely* close if Allred performs 3% better than the polling average).
Has Texas ever had a recount in a statewide election before?
Lyndon Johnson won the 1948 Democratic primary by 87 votes if I recall.
Was that a real win or a rig?
I don’t know.
Both sides were stealing(Coke Stevenson was no virgin); Lyndon stole better; the King of South Texas had a machine where like out of 1500 votes Lyndon took like 1490 of them or some such(I believe it's Robert Caro who wrote the books)
Does anyone have a read on how long this longshoreman strike will last? It seems it could be potentially very bad for our economy at the absolute worst time.
No, no-one knows.
Biden may invoke the 30- day cooling off period by Monday if it hasn’t settled by then. That would push it past the election.
Wouldn't we get torn apart on the left, like he did for the rail road strike?
Of course. And?
Exactly. No one even remembers the rail strike cooling off period. This'll cause some online arglebargle but in general the stores will still have their products and that'll be all that matters in the short run.
Apparently Biden has stated he won't do that.
Fun to be pro-union when the union leader in question is MAGA. How does that even work?
He says a lot of things.
The longshoreman's union leader endorsed Trump? Did they say why?
And it's a double edged sword.
Yes. It's a problem either way.
Cooling off period is not imposing a settlement
So the October surprise is hurricane recovery, more Middle East unrest, supply chain strike. The next few weeks will really test whether people can stomach all this just to avoid another Trump term.
Yup. As we all know, President Trump would end the Russo-Ukrainian war and broker a Middle East peace on day one, nuke hurricanes before they ever reach American shores, and mobilize the National Guard and Pinkertons to force the striking longshoremen back to work.
Sigh!
He can change the weather with a stroke of his sharpie.
And he is the Absolute Master of pulling alternative facts from a place where the sun never shines!
Expect to see more 15-second ads from the Harris campaign after this study: https://mailchi.mp/ee92af59fd14/blueprint-ads-2-release?e=96cf82d406, Short Ads, Big Gains: Winning The Election in 15 Seconds Or Less:
"The ad test finds that 15-second ads move the needle towards Vice President Harris by an average of 2.3 percentage points per 15 seconds of airtime—compared to 30-second ads on the same topics, which only average a 1.5-percentage-point effect for every 15 seconds of airtime, and 60-second ads, which have an average 1.2-percentage-point effect per 15 seconds of airtime.
In short, it is more cost-effective to run two 15-second ads about Harris in place of a 30-second ad or four 15-second ads in place of a 60-second ad. Running two 30-second ads is narrowly more efficient than running a 60-second ad."
Hat tip to Politicalwire, as usual. Goddard sometimes links to interesting stuff like this that I wouldn't have come across any other way.
This is really interesting! Certainly I was not aware of this. Many thanks!
You're welcome! It seemed like core content for The Downballot.
That's interesting, to say the least. It seems like most people (myself included) are willing to sit through 2-4 hour-long sporting events on television without becoming bored, but I've never understood why insurance companies (mainly health insurance companies and the life insurance company Colonial Penn) like to run two-minute-long mini-infomercials, as they're not attention-grabbing.
Washington Post has Trump +2
50%-48% in North Carolina. From 9/25 thru 9/29
I imagine it's pretty hard to get an accurate poll of NC right now.
Why? Do you think Republicans are depressed about their gubernatorial candidate and therefore declining to participate?
Damage from the storm must be the main concern of the people, especially in western NC. Some are unreachable by phone right now.
Of course.
that and the fact that yes, they are likely very depressed by their gubernatorial candidate
(This is what I had in mind)
A lot of them are. Anything in the Appalachian mountains is basically cut off from the world right now. That's probably 15-20% of the state
https://www.audacy.com/1010wins/news/local/bk-borough-president-reveals-turkish-officials-gift-offers
This is really damning for Adams:
Reynoso said that he reported the incident to the proper authorities, including the FBI. “Everything we have we’ve given to the FBI, we’ve given to them, but we have also documentation and just a track record on how we handle those situations,” he said.
Asked if he felt these gifts were an attempt to “curry a favor” during his time as Brooklyn Borough President, Reynoso said in the interview: “Looking back, I definitely thought it was an intro into building a good relationship with me through gifts and so forth. While I was there, I just thought they were ignorant to the process, so they just didn’t know. It’s like you can’t do this. This is not the way we do things.”
However, Reynoso now sees the incident differently, especially in light of Adams’ situation. “Now looking at everything, they knew very well what they can or can’t do, but it seems like the mayor’s office gave them an opportunity in the past and they tried to take that with me as well. It’s just we didn’t get hooked.”
I'm not sure this story has been mentioned here: https://www.audacy.com/1010wins/news/local/lawsuits-to-restart-nyc-congestion-pricing-plan-move-forward. Judge Engoron, the same judge presiding over Trump's civil trial on tax fraud and dishonest business practices, is presiding over these lawsuits.
Anti-LGBTQ+ extremist Robby Starbuck has found success in forcing businesses like Ford, MolsonCoors, and Tractor Supply to end their DEI and LGBTQ+ initiatives. Starbuck’s crusade is part of the right-wing war on diversity in businesses.
https://www.mediamatters.org/diversity-discrimination/right-wing-ex-director-finds-business-boycotts
These companies need to get pushback from opponents of bigotry and discrimination.
Yep. Right now, they're getting pushback from the bigots, and sadly they are responding to that pressure instead of maintaining a stand. Always about the profit.
Imo (given that I am pulling this opinion straight out of my butt); I think these companies are waiting until Trump is soundly defeated(and if that happens, they will reinstate their former policies)
Ironically, he hasn't yet succeeded with.....Starbucks. And let's hope he doesn't.
Just to be clear they chose to end these initiatives, they were not forced.
They made business decisions(not advocating either way here)
https://www.audacy.com/1010wins/news/state/cuomo-covid-lawsuit-dismissed-justice-has-prevailed, CUOMO COVID LAWSUIT DISMISSED: 'Justice has prevailed,' says ex-gov.'s rep:
"A lawsuit, filed by family members of nursing home residents who allegedly died of COVID-19, against former Gov. Andrew Cuomo was dismissed Monday."
Happy 100th birthday to Jimmy Carter.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/01/politics/georgia-judge-signals-a-need-to-clarify-vague-new-election-certification-rule/index.html:
State and national Democrats have sued the GOP-controlled Georgia State Election Board over a pair of rules passed in August that require county election officials to conduct a “reasonable inquiry” into election results before certifying them and allow them to “examine all election related documentation created during the conduct of elections prior to certification of results.”
During a bench trial in the case on Tuesday, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney said the “reasonable inquiry” rule “on its face is vague and needs clarification.”
At several other points during the trial, McBurney also raised concerns about the election board changing election rules so close to this year’s contest, saying that “new rules seem to pop up every 20 minutes.”