Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT
-
@Horace said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
Maybe the parsimonious explanation for your assuredness that no calls were made, is that it makes Vance a liar, and you like believing that about Vance. I mean just maybe. Since we're talking parsimony.
Let’s talk parsimony. You can sorta just barely imagine someone calling Vance’s office with the news their cat was eaten. But he says there were ‘many’ calls and the city received zero.
You gonna believe that EVERYBODY decided to call their Senator rather than the local authorities? Is that really easier for you to believe than Vance was just trying to boost what he (mistakenly) thought would be a politically-advantageous meme?
-
You don't know. You have no credible source or news story.
But you sure are behind this one...
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@jon-nyc said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
@Horace said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
Maybe the parsimonious explanation for your assuredness that no calls were made, is that it makes Vance a liar, and you like believing that about Vance. I mean just maybe. Since we're talking parsimony.
Let’s talk parsimony. You can sorta just barely imagine someone calling Vance’s office with the news their cat was eaten. But he says there were ‘many’ calls and the city received zero.
You gonna believe that EVERYBODY decided to call their Senator rather than the local authorities? Is that really easier for you to believe than Vance was just trying to boost what he (mistakenly) thought would be a politically-advantageous meme?
I agree that if the calls exist, they are probably not based on first-hand experience with losing pets to immigrants. A parsimonious explanation is that they were hoax calls or wish-casting calls from credulous people who heard the rumor. According to Vance's description, it was people calling about their "neighbors or friends" rather than themselves. When Vance says they may all turn out to be false rumors, I imagine he suspects they are exactly that. It's not actually a high bar of plausibility that some calls were made to Vance's office, and that's why I find your assuredness unearned, and motivated by sneering contempt for the liar Vance.
I'm not sure how you judge that the rumor isn't politically advantageous. If you go by your media and twitter feeds, Trump wouldn't be getting a single vote. And yet there he is, in a dead heat.
-
@Jolly said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
You don't know. You have no credible source or news story.
You’ve got a fourth-person account from a random Facebook post, a series of memes resulting from it, and a presidential candidate that has become a laughingstock by repeating it in such a meme-able way.
-
@Jolly @George-K @LuFins-Dad @Mik
I agree it wasn't fair and it really was a coupe.
But it seems so poorly managed that I don't think that there was as much pre-thought and planning that went into it.
If in Sept 2023, you asked Demcrocats who should be running for President if President Biden did not, I am guessing that VP Harris would not win the poll.
-
-
TLDR - Kamala won the debate, but Trump picked up more voters from it.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
TLDR - Kamala won the debate, but Trump picked up more voters from it.
Nate ranks them 79th in terms of reliability. He hasn’t updated his forecast because no pollster he considers reliable has come out with new data.
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@jon-nyc said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
@LuFins-Dad said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
TLDR - Kamala won the debate, but Trump picked up more voters from it.
Nate ranks them 79th in terms of reliability. He hasn’t updated his forecast because no pollster he considers reliable has come out with new data.
Great. So go back to the NYT/Sienna poll. Trump 48% - Harris 47%. How many of that 48% do you think changed their mind? Do you think that a single person that responded they were going to vote for Trump switched their vote?
That leaves “undecided” and non-responsive. Trump has always outperformed in these groups. Donald outperformed polls by over 3% in each of the last two elections do you expect any different this time?
A ridiculously small sample size, but Reuters interviewed 10 undecided voters before and after the debate. Almost all agreed that Kamala won, but 6 said they were closer to voting for Trump after the debate, 3 towards Kamala, and 1 unmoved by either.
-
@Mik said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
Define winning.
I'm pretty sure I won the debate. I watched Kaos on Netflix.
Proud supporter of Plan 2525. Everything you think, do and say will be in the pill you took today.
-
@jon-nyc said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
@Jolly said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
You don't know. You have no credible source or news story.
You’ve got a fourth-person account from a random Facebook post, a series of memes resulting from it, and a presidential candidate that has become a laughingstock by repeating it in such a meme-able way.
Good summary
-
@Jolly said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
Well, maybe some people changed their minds...
I saw the video, it was actually pretty nice. Biden (wow, he looks even older now) was having a fun convo with a guy in a Trump hat. He asked if he should sign a Presidential hat and the civilian says "hell no, you can't even remember your name" or something like that, which Biden jokes "yeah I'm pretty slow" but then they swap hats. Anyway... he's embracing the IDGAF mentality now.
-
@Doctor-Phibes I'm down wit' that.
-
@jon-nyc said in Debate Tonight 9/10/24 9:00 PM EDT:
Rove in the WSJ: “There’s no putting lipstick on this pig.”
Go hang your hat on Rove. He's as relevant as Carville.
