mtutiger

Why should I care what a coastal elitist like Bill Mahar thinks about anything?

Oh sure, that's probably right. The optics are still terrible and he deserves every bit of judgment he gets out of it. Because if the shoe were on the other foot, he'd be doing it too. (And I think 1776 knows that)

I don't know if he translates to MI/WI or other states, but Pennsylvania is the most important state on the map in this election because it has the most EC votes and it opens up more pathways to a win. The polling yesterday showing a very tight race in GA is a good example of how important PA is... with both of those states combined, only one other state (aside from Nevada) would clinch it.

I want to focus on Minnesota for a second... Two polls today: This is a state that, as recently as this week, Trump staffers were talking up opening offices and playing for. And polling wise, it has now reverted to something really similar to what it was four years ago. The Pennsylvania poll is more important, especially knowing that Josh Shapiro is potentially the front runner for the VP nomination... But I do think what we have learned this week is that the battlefield is what we thought it would be: PA, MI, WI, NV, AZ, GA NC, NE-02. And all the talk about MN, VA or even NJ and NY is all BS

It's a really good point, as terrible and pathetic as it is, how receptive Bibi is to a deal may be contingent on polling is going forward in this election.

In terms of a debate, its all about striking the right balance. She needs to hold his feet to the fire, but to my comment earlier today, she has to project the happy warrior and she has to put forward her own path forward. I'm not saying it will be easy, and she has landmines of her own that she will have to disarm along the way... But the early returns suggest that she's striking the right balance and understands the assignment. That's all I can ask for as someone who supports her candidacy

The big complication is the VP pick and the DNC, which will dominate the balance of August... Just tons of earned media exposure that will likely expose his supporters to her one way or another. Obviously convention bumps are often ephemeral, but if you squint, you can see a world where, by the last week of August, his standing starts to look rather shaky and where he will need the debate. Not unlike where Biden was when his team agreed to the June debate

She's, umm, married to a Jewish guy. And has Jewish stepkids...

Does this guy even have a spiritual life?

There may end up being one, but not clear why he pulled out as of this one. His rationale doesn't make a whole lot of sense Hence why conclusions are being drawn.

Wait, what now?

This screams Shapiro, Cooper or Walz to me... But could be a diversion, who knows

Mitt Romney is another example - I've said some charitable things lately about him, but he had to shapeshift *a lot* during that 2012 Election to appease the more extreme views of the GOP. It just goes with the territory. I think the bolded is what makes today a lot different. "Evolving" or "flip flopping" has always been a feature of this game, but the degree to which ambitious pols (particularly in today's GOP) will entirely change their persona in the pursuit of power and the degree to which it is just sorta priced in (ie. "that's just politics") is really breathtaking to me. Aside from JD Vance, the other one I'd put in this category is Elise Stefanik.... after the heel turn she made, in a logical world, she would never be taken seriously or believed ever again. But it's not a logical world, is it?

I remember reading his book back in 2016 and 2017 and thought it was interesting enough.... he didn't *seem* like a bad guy. Not trying to whitewash anything per se, but I would have been surprised if you'd have told me eight years later that this is who he'd be. The degree to which he so quickly changed his views after deciding to become to run for the Senate Seat in Ohio was such a red flag. Just 180'd on so many things. The most charitable answer to this is that he's trying to play the role that is required of someone subservient to Trump in this GOP culture and is just coming across awkward, but the other possibilities here (including that this is just who the guy is, or that he just doesn't have any true beliefs and will just say anything for power) seem more likely here.

In this case, I think it highlights a difference in tone / tenor of campaign having switched from Biden to Harris. I'd consider that interesting, but OMMV

The "sarcasm" bit just reminds me of how many defenses to these statements in the Trump era boils down to things like "he's trying to be funny" or "it was a joke" yet.... often time the comments themselves are incredibly unfunny or are clearly not jokes at all.

Also, he's got nothing against the cats.... Now the women OTOH....

Oh my word

I would also add that while the threat posed by a potential Trump/Vance presidency are real, the Harris campaign and other Dems need to balance those stakes with the need to project both a more positive image and an image of being "happy warriors" in this fight. Because this will draw a distinct contrast between the dark vision that Trump/Vance is putting forward. Engage in the serious stuff, but don't lose your humanity in the process.

I don't think anyone is dismissing JD Vance or Donald Trump at this point. But ridicule and humiliation are really powerful weapons against these types of people and they should be employed whenever the opportunity proves worthy. Now, with the couch thing, I don't know the veracity of it, but in terms of things he has said and done, they should be addressed including through these concepts.

Again, his comments framing higher tax rates as "punishment" for childless families is kinda the issue here IMO. Just no political sense whatsoever.

For sure, not saying it isn't a "thing", but just don't know, to the extent that it distracts from other issues with Vance, how much of a "thing" it really is out there. FWIW, I mentioned it to my wife yesterday (who doesn't follow this stuff like I do) and she hadn't heard about it.... but she had mentioned the "cat lady" comments to me and has seen other comments of his that have surfaced.

Vance also shares a ticket with a guy who has engaged in this sort of **** repeatedly over the years without much of any consequences. It's not a huge surprise that he's not getting much of any sympathy.

It's a fair point and was his rebuttal.... just an odd way to argue his point though, although people do tend to make odd arguments when they go onto the Charlie Kirk Show.