As for the open convention with Harris and three others, who would pick the other three, who would they be, why would people accept the selections as legitimate, and why wouldn't the sitting Vice President be the prohibitive favorite in an abbreviated four-way race?
So somebody had some idea of doing something that nobody had worked out or figured out how to sell. Good to know.
They have the perfectly good excuse that there wasn't time after Biden endorsed Harris. But there probably wasn't time for concocting something else anyway. Though maybe somebody could have articulated by now what the plan would have been.
If there ever was a "plan," no one has described what it was, how it would have worked, who wanted it, and how it could be sold as any better than: "Hey, this is why we have Vice Presidents."
A lab leak is certainly possible, and Chinese behavior is certainly suspicious, but, as you say, the expert consensus based on available evidence is to the contrary. The report reveals that there is a lot we don't know, but the positive case for the lab leak isn't impressive.
Jolson. a legendary entertainer, decent, charitable human being who entertained the troops and fought against the Broadway color bar. Capone? Well, he did open a soup kitchen
I think it's the case, though I'd like to hear from Em on this, that he could still plead the 5th if his testimony would expose him to prosecution for state crimes based on similar facts.
So you're still obsessing about a silly and largely moot issue about LatinX. What was she supposed to do about it in 2024, and would it have mattered? With numbers, or a reasonable estimate.
I'm aware of those numbers. And swing voters exist. The question is whether throwing some constituency under the bus would pay off. And you're handwaving about Joe Rogan and LatinX. (I checked out the Dem platform. Nothing about LatinX, didn't even use it. Used "latino." And I don't recall Harris using it, let alone taking a position on it.) So what do you do, specifically, to whom, and what reason is there to think it would pay off big, not the non-zero dodge, but big.
So you're making up numbers and not identifying any definable and significant groups of voters who might actually swing or explaining why they would. Imaginary math. Thanks for confirming.
So let's try to flesh this out, as if there were a real hypothesis on the table. (No hypothesis can be tested if it lacks content.) Democrats throw, say, the queers under the bus. (Let's leave aside what this would actually involve.) This will lose them a bunch of votes, say half a million. Will three times that number then either switch from Trump or vote for Harris rather than stay home? Who might these people be, and where would they come from? And why would this happen? Unless you have answers to these questions based on some kind of evidence or some other theory, then all you're saying is that three is bigger than one. Imaginary math.
It seems they have, which falsifies your original idea about "we" having moved. It was just a different bunch of folks talking about different things all the time. Now another bunch has shown up to talk about something else.
My position is that made-up numbers (1% and 3%) of unspecified potential constituencies to be dumped or courted are made-up numbers of, basically, undefined pools of voters and don't mean squat. That doesn't make Trump the "null set." Indeed, I'm pretty sure that's not what a "null set" is.
As for the current election, world-wide trends suggest that Harris was always likely to lose, though it wasn't inevitable, and ultimately she did. Though not as badly as initial numbers suggested. Probably for reasons more consequential than not going on Joe Rogan's podcast when and where he wanted it done.
On “Joe Biden Pardons Local Man”
Let's take a poll. Who thinks Biden would have issued the pardon if Harris had won? Who thinks Harris would have pardoned Hunter if she had won?
On “Huffpo reports that Harris internals *NEVER* had her ahead.”
Concepts of a plan.
As for the open convention with Harris and three others, who would pick the other three, who would they be, why would people accept the selections as legitimate, and why wouldn't the sitting Vice President be the prohibitive favorite in an abbreviated four-way race?
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/2/2024”
I'm old enough to remember John Tower.
On “Huffpo reports that Harris internals *NEVER* had her ahead.”
So somebody had some idea of doing something that nobody had worked out or figured out how to sell. Good to know.
They have the perfectly good excuse that there wasn't time after Biden endorsed Harris. But there probably wasn't time for concocting something else anyway. Though maybe somebody could have articulated by now what the plan would have been.
"
Which says what?
"
If there ever was a "plan," no one has described what it was, how it would have worked, who wanted it, and how it could be sold as any better than: "Hey, this is why we have Vice Presidents."
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/2/2024”
A lab leak is certainly possible, and Chinese behavior is certainly suspicious, but, as you say, the expert consensus based on available evidence is to the contrary. The report reveals that there is a lot we don't know, but the positive case for the lab leak isn't impressive.
On “Joe Biden Pardons Local Man”
If you're a defendant, criminal or civil, the worst thing is losing a case. The second-worst thing is winning it.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/2/2024”
If we make each province a separate state, maybe.
"
Jolson. a legendary entertainer, decent, charitable human being who entertained the troops and fought against the Broadway color bar. Capone? Well, he did open a soup kitchen
On “Joe Biden Pardons Local Man”
I think it's the case, though I'd like to hear from Em on this, that he could still plead the 5th if his testimony would expose him to prosecution for state crimes based on similar facts.
On “Trump Wants FBI Director Wray Out, To Nominate Kash Patel”
You must be new around here.
On “Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024”
So you're still obsessing about a silly and largely moot issue about LatinX. What was she supposed to do about it in 2024, and would it have mattered? With numbers, or a reasonable estimate.
"
So it seems. What about now?
"
I'm aware of those numbers. And swing voters exist. The question is whether throwing some constituency under the bus would pay off. And you're handwaving about Joe Rogan and LatinX. (I checked out the Dem platform. Nothing about LatinX, didn't even use it. Used "latino." And I don't recall Harris using it, let alone taking a position on it.) So what do you do, specifically, to whom, and what reason is there to think it would pay off big, not the non-zero dodge, but big.
"
Only if the numbers work.
On “Joe Biden Pardons Local Man”
Anything covered by the pardon.
On “Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024”
So you're making up numbers and not identifying any definable and significant groups of voters who might actually swing or explaining why they would. Imaginary math. Thanks for confirming.
"
So let's try to flesh this out, as if there were a real hypothesis on the table. (No hypothesis can be tested if it lacks content.) Democrats throw, say, the queers under the bus. (Let's leave aside what this would actually involve.) This will lose them a bunch of votes, say half a million. Will three times that number then either switch from Trump or vote for Harris rather than stay home? Who might these people be, and where would they come from? And why would this happen? Unless you have answers to these questions based on some kind of evidence or some other theory, then all you're saying is that three is bigger than one. Imaginary math.
On “I Told You So”
It seems they have, which falsifies your original idea about "we" having moved. It was just a different bunch of folks talking about different things all the time. Now another bunch has shown up to talk about something else.
On “Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024”
You're right. Substitute "null hypothesis" and see if it makes a difference. But for that you'd need an actual hypothesis.
"
My position is that made-up numbers (1% and 3%) of unspecified potential constituencies to be dumped or courted are made-up numbers of, basically, undefined pools of voters and don't mean squat. That doesn't make Trump the "null set." Indeed, I'm pretty sure that's not what a "null set" is.
As for the current election, world-wide trends suggest that Harris was always likely to lose, though it wasn't inevitable, and ultimately she did. Though not as badly as initial numbers suggested. Probably for reasons more consequential than not going on Joe Rogan's podcast when and where he wanted it done.
"
Says who?
"
"Trump" as the conclusion of imaginary math is, well, imaginary.
On “Huffpo reports that Harris internals *NEVER* had her ahead.”
If they won't believe their own eyes. why would they believe it from someone they would be predisposed to disbelieve?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.