If The Guardian is to be believed – and they generally are – the Republican spending edge is a lot more pervasive than just Pennsylvania’s State Attorney General’s race. Here is today’s headline from the American edition of the esteemed British newspaper:
"Why Republicans Are Raising Double the Money in Down-Ballot Races"
It’s specifically referring to the DLCC vs the RSLC and state legislative elections. The Republican committee has raised almost twice as much since the start of the 2023 cycle. That is concerning for sure.
Yes, I would like to see a follow-up article that explores the situation more comprehensively. After all, there are other sources of money and people are donating large amounts of money to down-ballot candidates. (On that front, I very much doubt we’re down by half.)
Moreover, this is not just about state legislative races. On the ballot are critical state supreme court seats, sheriffs’ races, election boards and much, much more.
Worth noting that the RSLC also focuses on Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, & state supreme court races, while the DLCC focuses solely on state legislative races.
Democratic party leaders seem aware of the high-stakes surrounding state legislative races. Earlier this month, the Harris campaign and the Democratic National Committee announced a transfer of $25m in funds to help down-ballot candidates, including $2.5m for the DLCC. Williams said the transfer represented the party’s largest investment to date focused solely on winning state legislative chambers.
“The underlying story here is that the Harris campaign, our federal officials [and] the party believe that we need to win up and down the ballot,” Williams said. “We know that our freedoms are on the line, that democracy is on the line in the states, and so investing in state legislatures is really an emerging cornerstone of Democrats’ strategy to protect against Maga [‘Make America great again’] extremism.”
But the $2.5m investment, while significant, does not come close to closing with DLCC’s resource deficit against the RSLC. Democratic-aligned outside groups, such as the States Project and the Super Pac Forward Majority, are trying to help close that gap: Forward Majority is now on track to spend $45m this election cycle on promoting Democratic state legislative campaigns, the group announced on Wednesday. The States Project has also announced plans to spend $70m this cycle, after investing heavily in state legislative races two years ago.
This is definitely concerning, however, I’ve looked at the downballot fundraising of the candidates themselves and Democrats are leading in a majority of Alaska, Arizona, Michigan and New Hampshire competitive races that I’ve checked so far.
It’s also worth remembering the hundreds of outside Democratic organizational muscle constellation that help Democrats win races and have no connection to the actual campaigns themselves. They rarely have to report fundraising numbers and have likely raised millions and have thousands of volunteers for each one to help Democrats downballot.
Unfortunately, the recent NH governor primary featured brutal attack ads by the Dem candidates against each other, while Ayotte looked like the adult in the room in hers in comparison.
The ads tying Ayotte to her abortion ban votes seem effective to me. Given she runs an ad rebutting them suggests they were. You’re correct about the attack ads. Brutal.
The sooner Democrats accept that - as Mitt Romney had to learn the hard way in 2012 - there is no "Etch a Sketch" in the general election and that 2008 was the exception, not the rule, the better off we will be. Especially in a state that insists on keeping their primary in September.
I've always thought this race is going to be like TN-Sen 2018. Hogan will keep it much closer than any other Republican would but he'll still lose solidly.
In 2020 the most a Senator outran Trump by was 7%. That was Susan Collins in Maine. Hogan is no Collins and Maryland is not Maine. Hogan would need to outrun Trump by roughly 15-20% in order to make it competitive. Roughly a third to a fourth of Dem voters are going to have to pull the lever for Harris and Hogan for Hogan to win.
I just dont see that happening in a presidential year.
Exactly. I can see Hogan outrunning Trump by a lot, and maybe if this race was in like Colorado or Oregon instead it could genuinely be competitive, but in Maryland he has no shot at actually winning.
With due respect, Hogan would never have been elected in those states, therefore he would not have become a viable candidate(Hogan was elected originally due to bad state party dysfunction imo)
Is there any way to estimate how much of Biden's underperformance of the polls in 2020 was due to the lack of the usual ground game due to the pandemic?
Considering that Biden blew past previous turnout records and managed 10+ million more votes than any other candidate in history, I'm skeptical that the lack of ground game left too many votes on the table, especially enough to account for the polling discrepancy.
Bear in mind that national turnout in the 2020 Presidential Election was a mere 66.6 percent. That is absolutely dismal compared to other Western democracies (75–90 percent) or even the State of Minnesota (80 percent)!
Moreover, that is leaving 33.4 percent of registered voters "on the table". Surely by any measure that is outrageously many?
Bizarrely enough, many pundits actually think America’s "record-setting turnout" was "excellent".
Ehh the vast majority of people who wanted to vote, showed up to vote in 2020. I do think there's a possibility of getting some of those low propensity voters to the polls that we missed 4 years ago.
Trump and his MAGA candidates are scrambling over IVF. Now that the American people know that banning IVF is part of the MAGA agenda, Trump is trying to lie his way out of it -- and he even claimed on the debate stage that he is "a leader in fertilization."
Republicans claim to be pro-family. Well, now it's time for every single Senate Republican to show us where they really stand. Today, the Senate will vote on a bill to protect IVF. I expect every Democrat to vote in favor of this bill -- so Republicans will be in the hot seat.[unquote]
"All but two Republicans present, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, voted against the bill’s passage, while Trump running mate JD Vance skipped the vote to campaign in the Midwest. The final vote—51 for and 44 against—did not meet the 60-vote threshold of the Senate’s existing anti-democratic filibuster rules."
I want ads about this against every Republican running for reelection to the Senate, and I can't imagine those won't be forthcoming.
And by the way:
"This is the second time Republicans have blocked IVF legislation—the last time was in June."
So "[Name of Republican senator] says he is pro-family. But he voted against IVF twice. So if you need help conceiving, don't look to him. Instead, vote for [Democratic candidate]. She is the real pro-family candidate in this race. Supporting your family and your right to safely take care of your family and yourself. That's the Democratic way!"
The MO-SEN Race may very well be the dark horse one for Democrats at this point. I'm impressed at how resilient Lucas Kunce and his campaign have become in not only outraising Senator Hawley but also chipping away at his lead.
The fed rate is expected. If it's as expected a 0.25% cut happens, there won't be be an effect. If it's anything elsenandnit disrupts markets, I could affect the underlying economy, which would affect the election.
Similarly that the fed should have raised rates during the Trump administration to cool an economy that had been on a decade long run. Unfortunately, there are members of the fed that do seem political; they would like to elect Republicans.
I feel like this cut can only help marginal Democrats in close congressional races(I think combining this with the continued gas prices falling is 'vibes' booster with perfect timing); as political campaign manager, I always stressed to my candidates about the importance of timing in politics; imo this is great timing
No, the Fed would never say they didn't care about the economy. I think you mean that they had been willing to increase unemployment and bring a recession if that had been necessary to lower inflation.
Yeah, they're required to weigh the tradeoff between inflation risk and recession risk. Up through this summer they had been more worried about inflation risk. Now they're more worried about recession risk, not because recession risk is especially high but because inflation risk has receded.
Yes but the Fed made it worse. Focusing too much on interest rate increases to stop inflation puts strain on people’s wallets.
Senator Warren was right on when she questioned Jerome Powell on why the interest rates had to be increased. Powell was aloof and ignorant about the impact on consumers.
Yes, and she also criticized him for being willing to cause 2 million people to lose their jobs, but that didn't end up happening. The Fed didn't do perfect work, but their soft landing was a hell of a lot better than most of us expected - probably even them.
Given how every monthly report was showing inflation coming in still far ahead of the target, I don't think there was any cause to begin rate cuts six months ago.
Mildly at best. Naturally, costs are going to go down, which will help consumers and businesses equally.
However, with just 1 1/2 months until the election, there isn’t going to be enough time for the economy to absorb the rate cuts to the degree where we can see enough data. October will be far more impacted than the rest of this month but we’ll have to see.
Not really. Just being conservative with my assessment.
I'm pointing out that when you're taking into account that we're at mid-September and just 6+ weeks until the election, that's not enough to really get a gauge at how everyone is affected. I don't doubt interest rates will make a positive impact on the economy.
Also, it's important to get perspective:
-Consumers have been feeling the pinch in their wallets for some time with the interest rates being higher. It's affected them for years now both financially and psychologically. We have not seen inflation quite this problematic in decades, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic was the first of its kind since the Spanish Flu. Inflation was also a problem during and after the Spanish Flu.
-We don't know yet if consumers are going to be spending more or saving more. Likely the latter to a certain extent as inflation has made it harder to save. I wouldn't rule this out.
I will say psychologically, with interest rates being cut, it's something everyone will be looking forward to. I just don't think with this short of a time until the election will there be enough data to show the impact on the Fed Rate cut.
Check the deadline in your state and help get as many new voters registered as possible. Women, young voters, moderates, Independents are what is going to hand Trump a worse defeat than 2020 and end this decade-old horror show for good!!
When Bill O'Reilly is the voice of reason, then Trump has a real problem.
At this point, it's too late for O'Reilly to even say this. Trump continues to do this again and again, becoming a lean, mean, fundraising machine for Kamala Harris and the Demorats.
Conservative pundit Bill O'Reilly is urging former President Donald Trump to shift his focus away from inflammatory statements, including recent attacks on pop star Taylor Swift.
O'Reilly said Trump should prioritize critical national issues like border security as he vies for the presidency in 2024.
On NewsNation's On Balance with Leland Vittert, O'Reilly said Trump's comments about Swift are detrimental to his campaign. In addition, O'Reilly said Trump's controversial and widely debunked claims about Haitian immigrants eating pets are also harmful to his bid for the White House.
"With Trump, it's all centric, he's got to look out," O'Reilly said. "When he gets into eating cocker spaniels and 'I hate Taylor Swift,' he hurts himself."
O'Reilly, a former Fox News host, addressed Trump's recent rhetoric surrounding Swift,who recently endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.
"I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election," she told her 284 million Instagram followers just after the first presidential debate against Harris and former President Donald Trump, the GOP nominee, wrapped up.
Along with Harris' statewide edge over Trump, she leads in Erie and Northampton counties – two bellwether counties that have historically predicted who carries the state – separate USA TODAY/Suffolk University polls of both found.
Harris leads in Northampton County, which includes the cities of Easton and Bethlehem in East Pennsylvania, 50%-45% over Trump. Biden carried Northampton 50%-49% in the 2020 election. Trump carried Northampton 50%-46% over Clinton in 2016.
In Northwest Pennsylvania, Harris leads Trump 48%-44% in Erie County, where Biden in 2020 won 50%-49% and Trump in 2016 won 49%-47%.
Three hundred likely voters were surveyed in both county polls, which have margins of error of 5.7 percentage points.
Helping drive Harris' advantage in Northampton – which boasts a Latino population that is 13% of the county's population – is the vice president's 60%-25% lead among Latino voters in the county. Yet the common denominator in both counties and Pennsylvania as a whole is Harris' dominance with female voters.
It should be emphasized that the Harris Camp is not taking anything for granted in PA and is likely running a strong GOTV game.
Harris could outperform Biden in PA. Of course, she and Walz have more freedom to campaign now that COVID-19 is no longer a factor in everything like it used to be.
Bob Inglis was a very conservative congressman from the Upstate district in South Carolina that's centered around Greenville, and was always anti-abortion. However, he was also a thinking man, and that was enough to get him heavily defeated by a true extremist. This is a very mature decision by him, just as with Mickey Edwards, who in his days in the House was a stalwart conservative and member of the Republican leadership.
Trump insisted on fucking people in states like California, New York and New Jersey on SALT (Texas was collateral damage). Now, he says he wants it back. He's pulled the rug out from under the Republicans who fucked people outside of their states, and it couldn't happen to nicer guys.
If The Guardian is to be believed – and they generally are – the Republican spending edge is a lot more pervasive than just Pennsylvania’s State Attorney General’s race. Here is today’s headline from the American edition of the esteemed British newspaper:
"Why Republicans Are Raising Double the Money in Down-Ballot Races"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/17/republican-fundraising-local-elections
It’s specifically referring to the DLCC vs the RSLC and state legislative elections. The Republican committee has raised almost twice as much since the start of the 2023 cycle. That is concerning for sure.
Yes, I would like to see a follow-up article that explores the situation more comprehensively. After all, there are other sources of money and people are donating large amounts of money to down-ballot candidates. (On that front, I very much doubt we’re down by half.)
Moreover, this is not just about state legislative races. On the ballot are critical state supreme court seats, sheriffs’ races, election boards and much, much more.
Worth noting that the RSLC also focuses on Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, & state supreme court races, while the DLCC focuses solely on state legislative races.
From The Guardian, and this part is a relief:
Democratic party leaders seem aware of the high-stakes surrounding state legislative races. Earlier this month, the Harris campaign and the Democratic National Committee announced a transfer of $25m in funds to help down-ballot candidates, including $2.5m for the DLCC. Williams said the transfer represented the party’s largest investment to date focused solely on winning state legislative chambers.
“The underlying story here is that the Harris campaign, our federal officials [and] the party believe that we need to win up and down the ballot,” Williams said. “We know that our freedoms are on the line, that democracy is on the line in the states, and so investing in state legislatures is really an emerging cornerstone of Democrats’ strategy to protect against Maga [‘Make America great again’] extremism.”
But the $2.5m investment, while significant, does not come close to closing with DLCC’s resource deficit against the RSLC. Democratic-aligned outside groups, such as the States Project and the Super Pac Forward Majority, are trying to help close that gap: Forward Majority is now on track to spend $45m this election cycle on promoting Democratic state legislative campaigns, the group announced on Wednesday. The States Project has also announced plans to spend $70m this cycle, after investing heavily in state legislative races two years ago.
This is definitely concerning, however, I’ve looked at the downballot fundraising of the candidates themselves and Democrats are leading in a majority of Alaska, Arizona, Michigan and New Hampshire competitive races that I’ve checked so far.
It’s also worth remembering the hundreds of outside Democratic organizational muscle constellation that help Democrats win races and have no connection to the actual campaigns themselves. They rarely have to report fundraising numbers and have likely raised millions and have thousands of volunteers for each one to help Democrats downballot.
This is why that article doesn't concern me
It's becoming increasingly obvious that Kamala Harris is ahead, perhaps even far ahead. Doom-for-Dems purveyors are starting to strain a bit.
Agreed
Good points – and very reassuring. Thank you!
Unfortunately, the recent NH governor primary featured brutal attack ads by the Dem candidates against each other, while Ayotte looked like the adult in the room in hers in comparison.
The ads tying Ayotte to her abortion ban votes seem effective to me. Given she runs an ad rebutting them suggests they were. You’re correct about the attack ads. Brutal.
The sooner Democrats accept that - as Mitt Romney had to learn the hard way in 2012 - there is no "Etch a Sketch" in the general election and that 2008 was the exception, not the rule, the better off we will be. Especially in a state that insists on keeping their primary in September.
MD Senate Emerson: Alsobrooks up 49-42.
I've always thought this race is going to be like TN-Sen 2018. Hogan will keep it much closer than any other Republican would but he'll still lose solidly.
In 2020 the most a Senator outran Trump by was 7%. That was Susan Collins in Maine. Hogan is no Collins and Maryland is not Maine. Hogan would need to outrun Trump by roughly 15-20% in order to make it competitive. Roughly a third to a fourth of Dem voters are going to have to pull the lever for Harris and Hogan for Hogan to win.
I just dont see that happening in a presidential year.
Exactly. I can see Hogan outrunning Trump by a lot, and maybe if this race was in like Colorado or Oregon instead it could genuinely be competitive, but in Maryland he has no shot at actually winning.
With due respect, Hogan would never have been elected in those states, therefore he would not have become a viable candidate(Hogan was elected originally due to bad state party dysfunction imo)
Agreed. The Republican Parties in Colorado and Oregon are way too extremist for Hogan.
And Hogan was also elected during the 2014 midterms, when the Democratic Party ran candidates who had no spine.
That also
You mean when the party had a terrible year.
PA Attorney General:
Who is Dave Sunday (R) anyway?
Eugene DePasquale (D) should have the name recognition having served 2 terms as State Auditor from 2012 - 2020. It should be at least Lean D?! 💙🇺🇲🙏🌊
Why do you always use these emojis, and what is the last one? Showing your biceps? It's too small to make out on my phone.
Blue Wave
I see.
Monmouth poll:
Harris 49 (definite or probable)
Trump 44 (definite or probable)
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_091724/
I hate how they ask that question. Makes it incredibly difficult to compare to other pollsters
I actually like it. I think it gives you a truer picture.
The main chunk of polling seems to have her up 4-5 points nationally. With some at 6-7, and R leaners at 2-3 or closer.
Biden won by 4.5 points.
But I am a firm believer Dems will generally overperform polling (Dobbs + ground game + recent history + crazy train).
Is there any way to estimate how much of Biden's underperformance of the polls in 2020 was due to the lack of the usual ground game due to the pandemic?
Imo 2-3%
Considering that Biden blew past previous turnout records and managed 10+ million more votes than any other candidate in history, I'm skeptical that the lack of ground game left too many votes on the table, especially enough to account for the polling discrepancy.
I strongly disagree.
Bear in mind that national turnout in the 2020 Presidential Election was a mere 66.6 percent. That is absolutely dismal compared to other Western democracies (75–90 percent) or even the State of Minnesota (80 percent)!
Moreover, that is leaving 33.4 percent of registered voters "on the table". Surely by any measure that is outrageously many?
Bizarrely enough, many pundits actually think America’s "record-setting turnout" was "excellent".
Ehh the vast majority of people who wanted to vote, showed up to vote in 2020. I do think there's a possibility of getting some of those low propensity voters to the polls that we missed 4 years ago.
A lot of communities respond well to having a presence. And do not if you don't show up. Rurals. South FL.
The idea that the absence of a ground game did not negatively impact Biden's performance is highly suspect to me. Borderline nuts.
I mean, why does every campaign ever do it, then?
Vast majority leaves a lot out there. 3%? Five? That is a total strawman.
It's pretty much a given by campaign pro's that a solid ground game funded and staffed can get between 2-3% higher turnout in the targeted states
Where are you getting that figure from? I feel like some pros have suggested 1% and maybe 2% at the outside.
Email from Chuck Schumer today:
[quote]Michael,
Trump and his MAGA candidates are scrambling over IVF. Now that the American people know that banning IVF is part of the MAGA agenda, Trump is trying to lie his way out of it -- and he even claimed on the debate stage that he is "a leader in fertilization."
Republicans claim to be pro-family. Well, now it's time for every single Senate Republican to show us where they really stand. Today, the Senate will vote on a bill to protect IVF. I expect every Democrat to vote in favor of this bill -- so Republicans will be in the hot seat.[unquote]
Good fodder for attack ads.
And...https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/9/17/2271034/-After-all-that-talk-Senate-Republicans-block-bill-to-protect-IVF:
"All but two Republicans present, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, voted against the bill’s passage, while Trump running mate JD Vance skipped the vote to campaign in the Midwest. The final vote—51 for and 44 against—did not meet the 60-vote threshold of the Senate’s existing anti-democratic filibuster rules."
I want ads about this against every Republican running for reelection to the Senate, and I can't imagine those won't be forthcoming.
And by the way:
"This is the second time Republicans have blocked IVF legislation—the last time was in June."
So "[Name of Republican senator] says he is pro-family. But he voted against IVF twice. So if you need help conceiving, don't look to him. Instead, vote for [Democratic candidate]. She is the real pro-family candidate in this race. Supporting your family and your right to safely take care of your family and yourself. That's the Democratic way!"
This would particularly be helpful in the MO-SEN race where Lucas Kunce in a recent poll is trailing by 4% points! Newsweek has the story.
https://www.newsweek.com/lucas-kunce-within-striking-distance-josh-hawleyinternal-poll-1953645
I’m going to post a blog on Daily Kos tomorrow about the race.
His winning would be an utter shock, but he sure has nothing to lose by trying this tack.
Agreed.
The MO-SEN Race may very well be the dark horse one for Democrats at this point. I'm impressed at how resilient Lucas Kunce and his campaign have become in not only outraising Senator Hawley but also chipping away at his lead.
Extremely dark horse. Pitch black.
Let’s go Trump, let’s go!
Let’s go Trump, let’s go!
/s
Part I of a 3-part series by kos on how Harris could win "big": https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/9/16/2270064/-How-Harris-could-win-big-The-numbers?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=top_news_slot_4&pm_medium=web
I don't know what he means by "big", though.
300 EVs?
Biden got 306 in 2020 and didn't win big.
Imo this is election related; how much the FED rate cut tomorrow affect the election?? Your opinions??
The fed rate is expected. If it's as expected a 0.25% cut happens, there won't be be an effect. If it's anything elsenandnit disrupts markets, I could affect the underlying economy, which would affect the election.
I tend to disagree; I think it may have a marginal positive impact(and I think it has zero downside)
It likely will have a positive impact on markets and news coverage.
It certainly will not hurt.
Record DOW, S &P, and NASDAQ can only benefit the incumbent party
I should add, imo the FED should have acted sooner(that's probably an entirely separate debate)
Similarly that the fed should have raised rates during the Trump administration to cool an economy that had been on a decade long run. Unfortunately, there are members of the fed that do seem political; they would like to elect Republicans.
I feel like this cut can only help marginal Democrats in close congressional races(I think combining this with the continued gas prices falling is 'vibes' booster with perfect timing); as political campaign manager, I always stressed to my candidates about the importance of timing in politics; imo this is great timing
I'm no economist, but it seemed justified for them to have cut rates the last time they met in the summer.
I am an economist, and in retrospect they probably should have cut a quarter point in July.
Agreed
Didn't the fed say they didn't care about the economy, they wanted to bury inflation
No, the Fed would never say they didn't care about the economy. I think you mean that they had been willing to increase unemployment and bring a recession if that had been necessary to lower inflation.
So basically they did say that but in a different way.
Yeah, they're required to weigh the tradeoff between inflation risk and recession risk. Up through this summer they had been more worried about inflation risk. Now they're more worried about recession risk, not because recession risk is especially high but because inflation risk has receded.
Yes but the Fed made it worse. Focusing too much on interest rate increases to stop inflation puts strain on people’s wallets.
Senator Warren was right on when she questioned Jerome Powell on why the interest rates had to be increased. Powell was aloof and ignorant about the impact on consumers.
Yes, and she also criticized him for being willing to cause 2 million people to lose their jobs, but that didn't end up happening. The Fed didn't do perfect work, but their soft landing was a hell of a lot better than most of us expected - probably even them.
Yes agreed.
Jerome Powell is way behind the curve! The Fed should have started cutting rates in March.
I guess what I was asking is not about timing; it's solely about the election; sorry for not being more clear
You were perfectly clear! I was just expressing a tangential frustrated opinion. :)
Lmao
Given how every monthly report was showing inflation coming in still far ahead of the target, I don't think there was any cause to begin rate cuts six months ago.
Mildly at best. Naturally, costs are going to go down, which will help consumers and businesses equally.
However, with just 1 1/2 months until the election, there isn’t going to be enough time for the economy to absorb the rate cuts to the degree where we can see enough data. October will be far more impacted than the rest of this month but we’ll have to see.
Imo you are way overanalyzing this
Not really. Just being conservative with my assessment.
I'm pointing out that when you're taking into account that we're at mid-September and just 6+ weeks until the election, that's not enough to really get a gauge at how everyone is affected. I don't doubt interest rates will make a positive impact on the economy.
Also, it's important to get perspective:
-Consumers have been feeling the pinch in their wallets for some time with the interest rates being higher. It's affected them for years now both financially and psychologically. We have not seen inflation quite this problematic in decades, especially considering the COVID-19 pandemic was the first of its kind since the Spanish Flu. Inflation was also a problem during and after the Spanish Flu.
-We don't know yet if consumers are going to be spending more or saving more. Likely the latter to a certain extent as inflation has made it harder to save. I wouldn't rule this out.
I will say psychologically, with interest rates being cut, it's something everyone will be looking forward to. I just don't think with this short of a time until the election will there be enough data to show the impact on the Fed Rate cut.
It's the positive psychological aspect that I am mainly focused on
Imo it's only result in the short-term is a positive one for Democrats
National Voter Registration Day!!
Check the deadline in your state and help get as many new voters registered as possible. Women, young voters, moderates, Independents are what is going to hand Trump a worse defeat than 2020 and end this decade-old horror show for good!!
💙🇺🇲🌊🙏
When Bill O'Reilly is the voice of reason, then Trump has a real problem.
At this point, it's too late for O'Reilly to even say this. Trump continues to do this again and again, becoming a lean, mean, fundraising machine for Kamala Harris and the Demorats.
https://www.newsweek.com/bill-oreilly-donald-trump-taylor-swift-haitian-immigrants-1955250
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservative pundit Bill O'Reilly is urging former President Donald Trump to shift his focus away from inflammatory statements, including recent attacks on pop star Taylor Swift.
O'Reilly said Trump should prioritize critical national issues like border security as he vies for the presidency in 2024.
On NewsNation's On Balance with Leland Vittert, O'Reilly said Trump's comments about Swift are detrimental to his campaign. In addition, O'Reilly said Trump's controversial and widely debunked claims about Haitian immigrants eating pets are also harmful to his bid for the White House.
"With Trump, it's all centric, he's got to look out," O'Reilly said. "When he gets into eating cocker spaniels and 'I hate Taylor Swift,' he hurts himself."
O'Reilly, a former Fox News host, addressed Trump's recent rhetoric surrounding Swift,who recently endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.
"I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election," she told her 284 million Instagram followers just after the first presidential debate against Harris and former President Donald Trump, the GOP nominee, wrapped up.
At first, I misread this as O'Reilly endorsing Harris, which would have truly meant that Hell had frozen over!
Well, O’Reilly is no longer with Fox News so his impact isn’t quite what it used to be.
O’Reilly endorsing Harris would have been insane to hear about. Of course, with the Cheney’s on board with Harris, anything can happen.
I’m still amazed that a POTUS candidate from Berkeley got endorsed by a neoconservative family.
"Why can't the face-eating leopard stop eating faces?"
And would they get more votes if they stopped for a while?
No one nose the panther to this question.
That was a bit of a stretch, but recced for effort 🙂
I'm still waiting for the real punchline. Caspian's question was a joke, right?
Money doesn't seem to go as far in politics as it used to, thankfully
What prompts the that conclusion?
More rigid voters in the last 10 years. Money doesn't sway as many people.
I think that's probably true. I thought you might be reacting to something specific.
Citizens United and more Super PACs. They are big contributors.
Not sure if it was touched upon in yesterday's thread but really liking what I'm seeing out of Pennsylvania courtesy of USA Today's poll. Harris up 49-46 statewide but I like that they focused on two key areas in the state: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/09/16/harris-trump-pennsylvania-poll/75236006007/
Along with Harris' statewide edge over Trump, she leads in Erie and Northampton counties – two bellwether counties that have historically predicted who carries the state – separate USA TODAY/Suffolk University polls of both found.
Harris leads in Northampton County, which includes the cities of Easton and Bethlehem in East Pennsylvania, 50%-45% over Trump. Biden carried Northampton 50%-49% in the 2020 election. Trump carried Northampton 50%-46% over Clinton in 2016.
In Northwest Pennsylvania, Harris leads Trump 48%-44% in Erie County, where Biden in 2020 won 50%-49% and Trump in 2016 won 49%-47%.
Three hundred likely voters were surveyed in both county polls, which have margins of error of 5.7 percentage points.
Helping drive Harris' advantage in Northampton – which boasts a Latino population that is 13% of the county's population – is the vice president's 60%-25% lead among Latino voters in the county. Yet the common denominator in both counties and Pennsylvania as a whole is Harris' dominance with female voters.
It should be emphasized that the Harris Camp is not taking anything for granted in PA and is likely running a strong GOTV game.
Harris could outperform Biden in PA. Of course, she and Walz have more freedom to campaign now that COVID-19 is no longer a factor in everything like it used to be.
WATN: Mickey Edwards (R-OK, retired) endorses Kamala Harris: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/9/17/2271020/-Heritage-Foundation-trustee-endorses-Kamala-Harris?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=trending&pm_medium=web
Here's the 2nd of 3 pieces by kos about how Kamala Harris could win "big": https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/9/17/2270802/-How-Harris-could-win-big-Getting-out-the-vote?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=top_news_slot_6&pm_medium=web.
"To be continued Wednesday, with a look at Trump’s deterioration."
https://politicalwire.com/2024/09/17/bob-inglis-endorses-harris/
Bob Inglis was a very conservative congressman from the Upstate district in South Carolina that's centered around Greenville, and was always anti-abortion. However, he was also a thinking man, and that was enough to get him heavily defeated by a true extremist. This is a very mature decision by him, just as with Mickey Edwards, who in his days in the House was a stalwart conservative and member of the Republican leadership.
Trump insisted on fucking people in states like California, New York and New Jersey on SALT (Texas was collateral damage). Now, he says he wants it back. He's pulled the rug out from under the Republicans who fucked people outside of their states, and it couldn't happen to nicer guys.
https://www.axios.com/2024/09/18/trump-salt-tax-cuts-senate
"Trump's surprise post on SALT deductions Tuesday has forced Senate Republicans into a pickle: contradict their party's leader or their old positions.
Why it matters: For Republican leaders, it's a taste of what's to come if Trump wins back the White House.
They'll have to harmonize their own positions — in real time — with a president who is constantly changing his."
Yeah, I'll bet they'll harmonize their positions just as much as they did on IVF.