Mr.TaterSalad

It's one poll and one poll shouldn't dictate a change. One poll also doesn't fully create or dispel a narrative. But it is a good sign that Harris is polling favorably in the highly unlikely event something were to change.

I have a question about Trump's support. We know from 2016 to 2020 that Trump drove his turnout and Republican turnout up overall. He got more votes in 2020 than 2016. What type or demographic of voters is Trump losing from his 2020 coalition and how many of them will he really lose in the end? Are there really a significant number of voters that voted for him in 2020, but won't do it again? Enough that it could push swing states on the margins towards Joe Biden?

Wasserman has gotten a lot of attention and praise around here in the past. Cook is shifting all of its swing state projections towards Trump.

And I am fine with that. And if it is Biden, I'll make myself fine with that and be out door knocking, phone banking, and working to get out the vote. As I have shared and posted on here before, if you want to sign up to volunteer to help out the Biden campaign and Michigan Democrats do it here on the MDP's website. Signup to door knock, make phone calls, text, whatever. https://michigandems.com/volunteer/

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://puck.news/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/SUNDAY_Post-Debate_Landscape_2024_06_30__1_-1.pdf If anyone wants to read through the data, an internal Democratic pollsters data from Open Labs got leaked out. One interesting data point I saw was this point that had, adjusted for name ID, every alternative candidate from VP Harris on down outperforming Biden.

I don't want to spin Nancy Pelosi's comments into more than they are or something they are not. She did not call on Biden to step aside on Morning Joe today. However, her comments aren't exactly a ringing endorsement for him to stay in either.

I feel it's almost all name ID when it comes to why others like Harris, Whitmer, Shapiro, Newsome, etc. aren't polling much or any better than Biden. I think if you gave voters time to get to know some of these people better and their names became more familiar with voters they'd start polling ahead, both of where they are now and ahead of Biden. With regards to the Senate candidates polling better than Biden, if we don't want to accept Tammy Baldwin as an example than what about Ruben Gallego in Arizona? Gallego has never run statewide before this year in Arizona so only now is he developing a statewide profile and name ID. He's polling ahead of Biden as well. Maybe that's all a Kari Lake factor, maybe not. Same thing with Slotkin in Michigan. Outside of one recent Morning Consult outlier, Slotkin has polled ahead of where Biden is now too. She's also never run statewide in Michigan and has only been a Congresswoman for less than 3 full terms.

Many of us wanted a competitive primary process and we should have had one to vet Biden sooner. No one of note stepped up and so we didn't get one. Take a look though at poll after poll though in every swing state that has a competitive US Senate race. They almost all show Biden trailing the Dems Senate candidate. Bob Casey in PA, Elissa Slotkin in MI, Jacky Rosen in NV, Sherrod Brown in OH, Tammy Baldwin in WI are all performing better than Biden in polls. So it doesn't seem as if the Democratic brand itself is toxic or wildly unpopular where all Dems are just universally polling and performing poorly. It seems to be relegated, at this point, to the man at the top of the ticket.

Maybe the message is people just don't like Joe Biden and don't want someone old to be President. In swing state after swing state we see Democratic Senate candidates performing better than Joe Biden. Why might that be?

Didn't you ever hear about the midnight signing of Paul Revere?

Amazing, after being written off, the New Popular Front left coalition is set to get the most votes in the French elections.

I've hardly seen a poll where Joe is leading over the past week. Democrats seem more pessimistic than ever. But in a country of 256 million adults, Joe Biden is the best we can do to beat Trump. Not a single other person has the capabilities to do so. The enthusiasm is going down for Democrats too. It's 2016 all over again.

I was thinking Copp, Holl, Husso, and Petry for Zegras lol. In all seriousness, I don't want to part with our top goalie prospect in any deal unless I'm getting one of the top players in the league. So I'm not giving Anaheim Cossa in a deal. I think Cossa's development is a lynch pin to our future success.

So does Danielson stand a chance to make the main roster now out of camp with Tarasenko?

Who first reported this Aaron Ekblad rumor?

Why aren't we taking on a bad contract like an Andrew Wiggins or equivalent and trying to get multiple picks out of such a deal? That to me seems like the strategy Trajan ought to be taking, bad contracts for draft capital. With signing Harris, it seems that takes away much of the cap space needed to pull off that type of deal.

Why did Stan Van Langdon bother to sign Harris? Does he think he'll be able to meaningfully compete with Harris out there on the floor or does he think this will get them to 30 wins next year? Honestly, I'd rather suck/continue tanking yet again and have a shot at a top (well 5th) lottery pick then bring in Harris and get this team to 25 or 30 wins. That feels like we're going right back to the SVG days. All lame jokes and SVG comparisons aside, it's only a 2 year deal, so how bad can it be for our long-term plans and player development?

I'm going to ask the Ronald Reagan question here. After today's flurry of moves and the draft over the weekend, are we better than we were a year ago?

Literally WTF? We signed Kenny's worst signing in Edmonton?

Lindholm to the Bruins sucks if he bounces back to the player he's been most of his career. It sucks for us as Red Wing fans because he's now in our division on one if its best teams. Every year for the past two seasons I've predicted the downfall of the Boston Bruins and that they'd take a step back. I'm done predicting that now.

I really was hoping to get Matt Roy, but not on a 7 year deal. I wanted a 4 or 5 year deal at very most. I really think Washington is going to rue the day in years 5-6-7 of that deal when Roy is 35+ and his play is declining.

Nashville adds three huge contracts in one day with Stamkos, Marchessault, and Skjei. How are they under the cap now?

Matt Roy getting 7 years is 🤢. I like Matt Roy, but that is a deal they are going to regret in years 5-6-7 of the deal. Washington frankly should have hit the reset button and started their rebuild. Instead, they're doing what Kenny did here circa 2014-2017 and trying to fend off the inevitable decline of an aging team with aging stars.