Kamala's CNN interview was a disaster!!

[squeezer]

I believe initially there were enough votes in the Senate, but I don't there was no guarantee that the House Republicans would rally around it. It was a Senate compromise.

Given how the general electorate is responding to the Democrat's handling of the border in election polling, I think it's safe to say they are not impressed with their efforts.

What's great is the border is now far less chaotic. Nothing like an election to trigger a dose of political reality.

PS- I don't think the head of the border patrol gave the deal an enthusiastic thumbs up. It was more ambivalent. Do you know if the union voted on their support? We are finding that unions are not always lockstep with their union heads on political matters.

I will just leave this here for your reading pleasure young man.

Abortion overtakes immigration in voters' minds

Newsweek polling suggests the issues most influencing American voters are changing.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Valcazar]

Apparently, you don't understand the concept of throwing someone under the bus. It doesn't have to be fair, justified or a largely successful tactic. I'm cynical of both parties and how they conduct themselves.

I totally understand it.
I'm talking about it's strategic helpfulness.

You yourself say you are too cynical to be impressed or affected by it.
So I wonder why you think it would be a helpful move. (I suppose you could be saying you are cynical enough people would fall for it despite it being pointless.)

As I said, I see little to no benefit from this move.
I actually see the demand for it as a token as a power play by the GOP -- if they can make this demand and get her to do it, they know they've got more leverage on her than they thought, since they can make her do silly things that won't get her anywhere.

You see this move often.
Make the demand to see if you can get them to comply, then ignore their compliance as not enough. (That's not uniquely GOP, it is just a political leverage move in general.)

Our discussion is at an impasse. People can see for themselves the extent of the immigration problem and decide Republicans are overwhelmingly better to handle it.

Which has nothing to do with Harris pointlessly saying she would fire Mayorkas.

The population's views on immigration and who would handle it better are what they are.
Clearly Harris and company think that "We tried to work on it, but Trump would rather run on the issue than solve it" is a better move than performatively claiming they will make cabinet member changes.
Trump's team views "I will set up detention camps and use the military in the most massive deportation operation ever on immigrants" as a better pitch.

I'd like to think that "we need better laws and an overhaul of the system" is more appealing than "paramilitary crackdown and calling people vermin" but it is quite possible I am wrong.

Whether you believe there is a biased liberal media, having Martha Raddatz on ABC trying to diminish the migrant crime issue to a handful of apartment complexes taken over by Venezuelan gangs is a very bad look.

I don't watch ABC so I have no idea what Raddatz said.
The egregious lying about the "migrant crime" issue by the GOP has been disgusting, though, even if I must sadly admit it has been effective.

PS- You should move back and talk to people here. They're not stupid and being led around on a chain by Republicans. By the way, Martha Raddatz is too old for the liberal media game.

I don't understand your obsession with Martha Raddatz.

 

[WyattEarp]

Which has nothing to do with Harris pointlessly saying she would fire Mayorkas.
.............................................
The population's views on immigration and who would handle it better are what they are.
Clearly Harris and company think that "We tried to work on it, but Trump would rather run on the issue than solve it" is a better move than performatively claiming they will make cabinet member changes.

I think my point about your perspective is basically you don't see or you diminish an immigration problem for Democrats this election cycle. From your POV, why would firing Mayorkas help Harris at all when the issue is not a major problem for her.

Trump's team views "I will set up detention camps and use the military in the most massive deportation operation ever on immigrants" as a better pitch.

I'd like to think that "we need better laws and an overhaul of the system" is more appealing than "paramilitary crackdown and calling people vermin" but it is quite possible I am wrong.

I don't watch ABC so I have no idea what Raddatz said.
The egregious lying about the "migrant crime" issue by the GOP has been disgusting, though, even if I must sadly admit it has been effective.

I think people overwhelmingly believe that if you commit crimes while you are here with temporary status you should be immediately deported. There's too many examples of unlawful migrants stepping on U.S. soil and being granted too much consideration. Enforcement of certain immigration laws should be a bipartisan and unequivocal. Do we need an overhaul of the system to ensure enforcement of the current law?

 

[WyattEarp]

I will just leave this here for your reading pleasure young man.

Abortion overtakes immigration in voters' minds

Newsweek polling suggests the issues most influencing American voters are changing.

www.newsweek.com

That's great. I said in post #656 above:"Just like I admit abortion was a noose around Republicans necks in 2022."

U.S. Presidential elections are generally fought on a many levels. So if Kamala wins, I would certainly think abortion was a factor. I would probably say Trump's personality will be a bigger factor.

If Trump wins, I believe the Administration's handling of immigration will be a big factor.

I know you are going to say in year four the Democrats reached out to Republicans for a compromise. It might have been too little, too late. I read through the proposal and I wasn't impressed with it's ability to limit immigration at the southern border. It seemed like it's main goal was to legitimize a large number of migrants crossing the border. And that's the criticism. It's just an opinion. Apparently, many of my fellow Americans are underwhelmed with the compromise.

 

[mandrill]

Apparently, you don't understand the concept of throwing someone under the bus. It doesn't have to be fair, justified or a largely successful tactic. I'm cynical of both parties and how they conduct themselves.

Our discussion is at an impasse. People can see for themselves the extent of the immigration problem and decide Republicans are overwhelmingly better to handle it. Whether you believe there is a biased liberal media, having Martha Raddatz on ABC trying to diminish the migrant crime issue to a handful of apartment complexes taken over by Venezuelan gangs is a very bad look.

PS- You should move back and talk to people here. They're not stupid and being led around on a chain by Republicans. By the way, Martha Raddatz is too old for the liberal media game.

C'mon, Wearp.

We both know that Repubs won't "handle" the immigration issue. They'll pretend that they're doing something, but - somehow - it will never quite work and the Repubs will always be talking about how they need to do something else and how the Dems "caused the whole problem by being woke".

Immigration is the one solid, milkable, cumshot issue that the far right has with its sheeple across the west. Solve immigration and people don't bother voting for a right wing candidate and the Dems win the next election.

So here's what'll happen. There'll be a lot of "we mean business" big-talk and a lot of photo opping at the border. Some useless, dick-jerk legislation will be passed which will be designed to humiliate and degrade asylum seekers, but will deliberately NOT solve the problem. Fox will congratulate the Reps for "solving the crisis".

And occasionally - more frequently as the mid terms near - there will be more scary stuff about caravans and pet-eating. There will be more legislation designed to humiliate and degrade asylum seekers but definitely not solve the problem. And the cycle will repeat.

 

[mandrill]

Apparently, you don't understand the concept of throwing someone under the bus. It doesn't have to be fair, justified or a largely successful tactic. I'm cynical of both parties and how they conduct themselves.

Our discussion is at an impasse. People can see for themselves the extent of the immigration problem and decide Republicans are overwhelmingly better to handle it. Whether you believe there is a biased liberal media, having Martha Raddatz on ABC trying to diminish the migrant crime issue to a handful of apartment complexes taken over by Venezuelan gangs is a very bad look.

PS- You should move back and talk to people here. They're not stupid and being led around on a chain by Republicans. By the way, Martha Raddatz is too old for the liberal media game.

You're very scathing today, Wearp. Definitely a no-nonsense take on the issue from you.

Firing Mayorkas won't slow down the Rep attack and is wasted activity.

And the Venezuelan gangs didn't really take over those apartment complexes.

And if the Reps really wanted to solve the crisis, they'd talk about resiling from the UNCHR. But the Reps LOVE the fake crisis. It's endless whiny jerk-off porn for the entire GOP.

Besides your average GOP congressperson / senator is too fucking stupid to know what the UNCHR actually is - let along their dumbass voters in the Red State Land.

 

[squeezer]

That's great. I said in post #656 above:"Just like I admit abortion was a noose around Republicans necks in 2022."

U.S. Presidential elections are generally fought on a many levels. So if Kamala wins, I would certainly think abortion was a factor. I would probably say Trump's personality will be a bigger factor.

You will agree I'm sure that it was a big issue during the red wave-that never happened right?

If Trump wins, I believe the Administration's handling of immigration will be a big factor.

I don't disagree it's a factor but it's more of a factor with folks who are Maga deciples and will only vote Republican. I don't think it will sway folks who do not like Trump on many levels. Abortion on the other hand I believe will bring women who are on the fence and have voted Republican in the past to vote for Harris. Another note is women in general tend to vote more as a voting block compared to men who talk tough but don't show up to the polls and immigration is more of an issue men would bite on than women.

I know you are going to say in year four the Democrats reached out to Republicans for a compromise. It might have been too little, too late. I read through the proposal and I wasn't impressed with it's ability to limit immigration at the southern border. It seemed like it's main goal was to legitimize a large number of migrants crossing the border. And that's the criticism. It's just an opinion. Apparently, many of my fellow Americans are underwhelmed with the compromise.

Mitch, the folks working at the border, and other Republicans were all on board to pass the bill until the Felon forced their hand because he wanted to run on open borders. This is the man wanting to save dogs and cats from the legal Haitian in St. Stephens.


<------- Mitchy, look!!! I saved you the time! Concentrate on buying a pair of Trump shoes buddy.

 

[Vinson]

 

[Valcazar]

I think my point about your perspective is basically you don't see or you diminish an immigration problem for Democrats this election cycle. From your POV, why would firing Mayorkas help Harris at all when the issue is not a major problem for her.

You're wrong though.
It is a problem.
It polls consistently as a problem.

I am saying that the "say you will fire Mayorkas" move doesn't appear to move the needle in any meaningful way.

I could be wrong about that.
There could well be a giant stampede of people who would absolutely choose Harris if she did that.
Or even a good 4-6%, to use the obvious comparison - Frank's belief that Harris announcing a change on the Israel issue would immediately get her a 4-6% bump in the polls.

I am skeptical about both.

I think people overwhelmingly believe that if you commit crimes while you are here with temporary status you should be immediately deported. There's too many examples of unlawful migrants stepping on U.S. soil and being granted too much consideration. Enforcement of certain immigration laws should be a bipartisan and unequivocal. Do we need an overhaul of the system to ensure enforcement of the current law?

Clearly yes, since the system doesn't work the way you seem to think it should.
And unless I am mistaken, a number of crimes already carry deportation as a consequence.

I presume, by the way, that you are at the very least saying that upon conviction of a crime.
We aren't for just letting the police arrest people and immediately deport them, are we?

Raddatz is not very good at her job, it seems.
But then, I find most broadcast and cable news people to be pretty shit at their jobs. (At least they are if you think their jobs involve journalism and informative interviews.)

 

[Valcazar]

U.S. Presidential elections are generally fought on a many levels. So if Kamala wins, I would certainly think abortion was a factor. I would probably say Trump's personality will be a bigger factor.

If Trump wins, I believe the Administration's handling of immigration will be a big factor.

All perfectly reasonable.

 

[Valcazar]

Immigration is the one solid, milkable, cumshot issue that the far right has with its sheeple across the west. Solve immigration and people don't bother voting for a right wing candidate and the Dems win the next election.

So here's what'll happen. There'll be a lot of "we mean business" big-talk and a lot of photo opping at the border. Some useless, dick-jerk legislation will be passed which will be designed to humiliate and degrade asylum seekers, but will deliberately NOT solve the problem. Fox will congratulate the Reps for "solving the crisis".

I think you are being too optimistic.
This is the same argument that was used for years as to why people didn't have to worry about the GOP actually doing anything about abortion.

I don't think you can assume real action won't be taken.

 

[Bucktee]

More Harris word salad......LMAO

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1848640155235840505

With all due respect, I think Kamala belongs as a host on The View. It would really suit her. I don't mean that in a patronizing way. They're always talking about things they don't understand or on a superficial level on that show.

Kamala tries to make profound statements but just comes off as lacking any depth at all. It all turns into gibberish that only she can make sense of.

I disliked Hillary Clinton, but she had a brain. I disliked Bush, but he had a brain. Obama was affable even though I didn't care for his politics.

Kamala has zero charisma and no brain. She's just an empty vessel in search of power.

 

[WyattEarp]

You will agree I'm sure that it was a big issue during the red wave-that never happened right?
...........
I don't disagree it's a factor but it's more of a factor with folks who are Maga deciples and will only vote Republican. I don't think it will sway folks who do not like Trump on many levels. Abortion on the other hand I believe will bring women who are on the fence and have voted Republican in the past to vote for Harris. Another note is women in general tend to vote more as a voting block compared to men who talk tough but don't show up to the polls and immigration is more of an issue men would bite on than women.

I agree with all you said here. As long as we're having a conversation, can we just discuss the state of the race for a moment. Building on your point that women will strongly come out against Trump with abortion being a big motivator, I would ask you to think about polling. (However, I would add Trump's demeanor.) My personal experience is that women who support Harris are very forthcoming about their support. I think they are counted in current polls. I don't think this bloc of women for Kamala are coy when asked by pollsters.

So does the accuracy of current polling depend on men and their proclivity to turn out or not turn out to vote?

 

[WyattEarp]

Mitch, the folks working at the border, and other Republicans were all on board to pass the bill until the Felon forced their hand because he wanted to run on open borders. This is the man wanting to save dogs and cats from the legal Haitian in St. Stephens.


<------- Mitchy, look!!! I saved you the time! Concentrate on buying a pair of Trump shoes buddy.

So are you calling me Mitchy or did you just make an error in posting?

I don't think anyone here really mistakes me for Mitch.

 

[WyattEarp]

Kamala tries to make profound statements but just comes off as lacking any depth at all. It all turns into gibberish that only she can make sense of........

Obama was affable even though I didn't care for his politics.

Obama was a very good orator. I think he had depth and could convey that to voters.

Having said that, Obama won only 51% of the vote. This might demonstrate how rigid and divided the electorate has been in recent elections. It can also explain why later Democratic Presidential candidates without Obama's political skill struggled to reach the 50% mark.

 

[Bucktee]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1848725907818655824

This grifter is finally coming around to speaking truth.

 

[WyattEarp]

This grifter is finally coming around to speaking truth.

Is it just me or does he sound completely different than his CNN days?

 

[squeezer]

So are you calling me Mitchy or did you just make an error in posting?

I don't think anyone here really mistakes me for Mitch.

No, I was addressing you but pre-empting Mitchy's incoming laugh emoji. You really need to be more observant of your surroundings.

 

[squeezer]

Obama was a very good orator. I think he had depth and could convey that to voters.

Having said that, Obama won only 51% of the vote. This might demonstrate how rigid and divided the electorate has been in recent elections. It can also explain why later Democratic Presidential candidates without Obama's political skill struggled to reach the 50% mark.

"Biden won the election with 306 electoral votes and 51.3% of the national popular vote, compared to Trump's 232 electoral votes and 46.9% of the popular vote."

You are incorrect when it comes to Biden's popular vote if you are correct of Obama's popular vote.

" In 2016, Donald Trump and Mike Pence won with 306 electoral votes. Donald Trump and Mike Pence won in 2016 with 306 electoral votes and 45.9 percent of the popular vote. Hillary Clinton had 48 percent of the popular vote, but only earned 232 electoral votes. "

You are correct on Hillary although she still did win the popular vote. Damn, the electorate college.

I agree with all you said here. As long as we're having a conversation, can we just discuss the state of the race for a moment. Building on your point that women will strongly come out against Trump with abortion being a big motivator, I would ask you to think about polling. (However, I would add Trump's demeanor.) My personal experience is that women who support Harris are very forthcoming about their support. I think they are counted in current polls. I don't think this bloc of women for Kamala are coy when asked by pollsters.

So does the accuracy of current polling depend on men and their proclivity to turn out or not turn out to vote?

If you are basing it on polls only it's a fool's game, regardless of who is slightly ahead or behind. It is way to close to call if just basing it on polls. I do believe it is now a game of which side can get their voters out. In 2020 the left was on a mission and came out in droves. If this happens again Harris easily wins if not, then Trump will win. I do believe Trump with get the 70M votes or so he received in 2020, the question is can Kamala hit the 80M bench mark and have it show up in the swing states as good ole Joe.

Has Trump gained ground? The latest 2024 polling, explained.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: The polls are very close.

www.vox.com

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1848514811149357298