Election 2024 Part III: Out with the old!

[choxorn]

I wonder if Harris should support full Cannabis legalization. I lean towards yes. Ethically I'm in favor, though I haven't smoked in 19 years(how time flies)

Benefits: big with young, childless single men, a demographic less concerned with abortion, the focus of her present policy-related rhetoric. Some testosterone-filled supporters would be good, too, especially in red states and rural areas, where conservatives tend to dominate conversations at the ground level.

Disadvantages: it would piss off the traditionalists and right leaning moralists... they weren't gonna vote for her anyway. I suppose it may give Trump some rhetorical angles? I think she's avoiding controversy presently, to avoid interrupting the positive news feedback loop. That will inevitably end, which would be the time to announce support.

It's overall had the support of something like 60-65% of Americans for the past few years, with overwhelming support among Democrats, strong support among Independents, and even among Republicans, a fairly significant minority.

Overall it would probably be to her benefit because the people who would refuse to vote for her over this are already not voting for her for other reasons, but there might be some who'd be more motivated to turn out if she promised to do this.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

People in the media are currently trying to pretend it is a microaggression to heckle the Vice President of the United States while she makes a speech

The bubble must be protected!

 

[Angst]

My seat-of-pants response is to wonder if it isn’t a strategy on the part of the Trump campaign to let Vance be the lightning rod while all of the media attention is focused, for the time being, on the Walz pick. I suspect Trump will be back more frequently once the Walz pick becomes old news.

i think trump just thought he'd be a good yes-man aligned with the more ... spurious tendencies of his campaign, and back before biden dropped, trump probably thought it secure to appoint someone with so little appeal and such harsh political positions. yes-man who supports his bleaker policies during what was a probable win. then biden dropped, oops.

for how much control trump has of his campaign... i mean, he literally boots people if they go against his wishes. so.

remember, trump is smarter than he often pretends/people give him credit for (not that it amounts to much, fwiw), but he's also incredibly impulsive, and not that strategically minded in the long term. he likes to gamble and throw away the result if he fails. we saw that with his cabinet juggling during his last presidency. and, like, his numerous failed businesses. it was a rational-esque decision in that if he won (which was the prognosis at the time), he'd have a loyal nut under him; it was stupid in that he didn't think two steps ahead. vance is kind of a show-of-hands to a lot of the centre as to what kind of people will return to the white house if trump wins. not as in "i am a median voter and understands what 2025 will do to me" but as in "dude, this guy just makes me really damn uncomfortable, and i remember the chaos" way. it was fine when he was still winning.

i wouldn't take it as a strategic 5brain mind hack, i would take it as a mistake.

 

[Birdjaguar]

For Trump to drop Vance, would be to admit to a huge mistake that would likely need a rubber stamp from the RNC. Who would want to be next in line for Trump? Would there be any actual vetting? If his poll numbers in the swing states do drop he will likely panic though.

 

[amadeus]

i think trump just thought he'd be a good yes-man aligned with the more ... spurious tendencies of his campaign, and back before biden dropped, trump probably thought it secure to appoint someone with so little appeal and such harsh political positions. yes-man who supports his bleaker policies during what was a probable win. then biden dropped, oops.

I was trying to explain why he’s not in the public eye as much at the moment, not why he picked Vance.

I’m really out of the loop in American politics, so Vance to me is just “Republican VP nominee” that really doesn’t tell me anything.

 

[Core Imposter]

Did Walz actually think he could get away with a campaign of this magnitude without his embellishments about his service coming out? Who was responsible for vetting the candidates for Harris?

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Yeah apparently word is coming out that Tim Walz (a command sergeant major, i.e. the most senior noncom in a battalion) simply didn't know his National Guard unit was getting deployed to Iraq soon before he finally decided to retire and run for congress. (This all transpired mid to late 2005.) I find that to be unlikely: a unit isn't called up for an ongoing war lickety-split; soldiers need to be prepped plenty, and a CSM would be aware of those preparations. Nor did he complete the CSM course to be fully accredited with that rank, retiring before he was done. His "overseas" deployments in regards to War on Terror ops earlier in that decade mostly pertained to a supportive role stint in Italy. Okay but not exactly a combat zone there.

Though fairness to him, he did reenlist after the Sept 11 attacks even after he was retirement-eligible. No coward but he wasn't winning medals either.

But I doubt this will make much difference. As I don't think he will play up his service record. That will be going up against JD Vance's own record, and so what's the point? Neither saw combat anyway. Maybe let bygones be bygones?

edit: this is one letter to the editor in 2018 describing the incident, if you want to read:

Paid letter: The Truth About Tim Walz

Tim Walz has embellished and selectively omitted facts and circumstances of his military career for years.

www.wctrib.com

 

[Core Imposter]

It won't matter to liberal voters, but it will sour the taste of some number of independents. It makes me wonder what they pulled up on the other candidates for her running mate.

Walz got out before he fully qualified as a command sergeant major, so he is embellishing his final rank as well as misleading people that he served in a war zone, which he didn't.

They should have picked Kennedy, he at least wrestled with a dead bear.

Nate Silver thinks:

Let’s figure it out using our new-ish chart that shows the probability of Donald Trump or Harris winning the election conditional on winning each state. Our forecast thinks Trump has a 46 percent chance of winning the Electoral College, but that jumps to 96 percent when he wins Pennsylvania. Phrased differently: Harris only has a 4 percent chance of winning the election if she loses Pennsylvania.

Welcome to the bizarre world of conditional probability

We have a good idea what would happen if Harris wins Pennsylvania. But we're less sure about what things would look like if Trump wins California.

www.natesilver.net

If Georgia is back in play that doesn't seem right, not that we know much yet. We are so deep into the process that I don't think we can trust the polls to settle down sufficiently before early voting starts. I think we are going in blind. Pennsylvania early voting starts in 39 days.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Walz got out before he fully qualified as a command sergeant major, so he is embellishing his final rank as well as misleading people that he served in a war zone, which he didn't.

That's what you got to put up against a 34 time convicted felon, convicted sexual abuser, and convicted business fraud who lies every time he opens his mouth? Did you know that at his press conference today the audio was set up so the reporter's questions could not be recorded and his responses could be called "answer reporter's questions" even when he never did actually answer them. When you hear the actual questions and his answers, the whole thing is a joke and just another campaign rally rambling.

Nate Silver thinks:

Welcome to the bizarre world of conditional probability

We have a good idea what would happen if Harris wins Pennsylvania. But we're less sure about what things would look like if Trump wins California.

www.natesilver.net

If Georgia is back in play that doesn't seem right, not that we know much yet. We are so deep into the process that I don't think we can trust the polls to settle down sufficiently before early voting starts. I think we are going in blind. Pennsylvania early voting starts in 39 days.

If you believe that the pollsters know what will actually happen rather than trying to collect eyeballs and subscribes, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. We are still 9o days out. there are many opportunities for unexpected changes.

 

[Core Imposter]

That's what you got to put up against a 34 time convicted felon, convicted sexual abuser, and convicted business fraud who lies every time he opens his mouth? Did you know that at his press conference today the audio was set up so the reporter's questions could not be recorded and his responses could be called "answer reporter's questions" even when he never did actually answer them. When you hear the actual questions and his answers, the whole thing is a joke and just another campaign rally rambling.

Those convictions are roughly analogous to convictions in Putin's Russia.

If you believe that the pollsters know what will actually happen rather than trying to collect eyeballs and subscribes, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. We are still 9o days out. there are many opportunities for unexpected changes.

Silver is not a pollster, and we are nowhere near 90 days out. Get your facts straight for a change.

 

[Strong Reaction]

Did Walz actually think he could get away with a campaign of this magnitude without his embellishments about his service coming out? Who was responsible for vetting the candidates for Harris?

This is the exact same criticism I saw on the Ingraham Angle. The trick is to ingest information from a broad spectrum not just a single source, analyze it and see if it fits the facts and maybe develop a more nuanced take of the situation, not just regurgitate it. It seems pretty subjective to me, he actually did hold that rank, however briefly and he served during a war just not on the front line. The opposition is certainly not going to give him props for serving and are going to micro analyze his perceived miscues, which are he served during war, but he was not in a combat theater and he only briefly held the rank he claimed. Also, its been claimed that he retired to get out of deploying to Iraq by Vance. "However , the Minnesota National Guard told Fox News Walz's unit was not given deployment orders to Iraq until July, and he had submitted retirement papers five to seven months prior to his retirement in May 2005." I don't think there's going to be a congressional inquiry on the matter this nor should there be. Maybe MTG will push one through to waste everyone's time though. This dead horse will be continually be beaten over the next few months I suppose.

Also,
Army Lt. Col. Ryan Rossman, the Minnesota National Guard's director of operations, also explained Walz's rank at the time of his retirement in a statement to Fox News.

"He was technically a command sergeant major when he deployed to Europe with his battalion but to retire as a CSM you have to go through a final course, which he had not completed. So, from a benefits perspective, the Army retired him as a master sergeant (lower enlisted rank.) But, according to National Guard records, he was a command seargeant major technically when deployed. The lower rank was as a result of benefit requirements and a technicality."

For Laura Ingraham to devote an entire segment of her show focus in on minutia that ignores key elements of the story then comes to the conclusion of "stolen valor" is just disingenuous and similar to her peddling Dominion voting fraud misinformation, that got Fox News sued to the tune of 787.5 million dollars. I mean except without the being sued for nearly a billion dollars. Suppose there is no harm in throwing out mistruths on the air especially if there will be no consequences.

 

[Core Imposter]

I don't watch Ingraham, she says a lot of stupid stuff, interspersed with the good information as if she thinks that she needs to go further. The truth is sufficient.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Silver is not a pollster, and we are nowhere near 90 days out. Get your facts straight for a change.

Aug 5 to Sep 5 = 30
Sep 5 to Oct 5 = 30
Oct 5 to Nov 5 =30

Ok we are about 87 day out now.

If Nat is not a pollster any more then he is a pundit odds maker. I cannot say that is better.

Those convictions are roughly analogous to convictions in Putin's Russia.

So you don't believe in jury trials or the US court system? The records of all three case are fully public. What was Russian like in any of them? Please be specific.

 

[Core Imposter]

Aug 5 to Sep 5 = 30
Sep 5 to Oct 5 = 30
Oct 5 to Nov 5 =30

Ok we are about 87 day out now.

If Nat is not a pollster any more then he is a pundit odds maker. I cannot say that is better.

Ok, so you don't know what Silver does. Voting begins in Pa. in 39 days.

So you don't believe in jury trials or the US court system? The records of all three case are fully public. What was Russian like in any of them? Please be specific.

Being specific here is spicy. Why do you think Farm Boy is so cryptic? So, in general, those trials did not seem to be representative of the US court system as it has been known to me.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I think I agree with Silver on PA's importance to the Harris campaign. It's hard to see a win without. Some guesses on how swing states will end up going.

Arizona: I lean towards a Trump win here

Nevada: Harris. Trump mighta expanded MAGA here, but I suspect the polls are a little off, given recent histories of both poll inaccuracies and actual NV voting history

Georgia: Trump. America might be ready for a woman President, butI'm unsure Dixie is. Same story with NC.

Michigan: Harris. Closest one to a true coin flip, IMO. Very uncertain.

Wisconsin: Harris. Easiest win of the bunch for her.

Pennsylvania: I think Harris just slightly, but it may come with a heavy opportunity cost, given the time and money that's going to be invested here

 

[Birdjaguar]

Ok, so you don't know what Silver does. Voting begins in Pa. in 39 days.

Being specific here is spicy. Why do you think Farm Boy is so cryptic? So, in general, those trials did not seem to be representative of the US court system as it has been known to me.

Eary voting does being in less than 90 days, Most votes and likely most of the now undecided will be voting in about 90 days. i cannot explain FB nor his posting style. It has been thus for many years. How were those three trials not representative? I've lived my adult life mostly in NC and NM. I've been an expert witness in a trial. There were 3 trials, 2 civil and one criminal. The Jen Carroll and tax evasion were civil and in both he was found guilty and fined. In the criminal case he was found by a jury to be guilty on 34 felony counts. All the cases are common and the verdicts normal. The only outlier is that Trump was the defendant and had the power to make a bigger stink about being indicted. So again what was out of order with those trials? What was "not normal"?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Being specific here is spicy.

Drip, drip, drip.

Eary voting does being in less than 90 days, Most votes and likely most of the now undecided will be voting in about 90 days. i cannot explain FB nor his posting style. It has been thus for many years. How were those three trials not representative? I've lived my adult life mostly in NC and NM. I've been an expert witness in a trial. There were 3 trials, 2 civil and one criminal. The Jen Carroll and tax evasion were civil and in both he was found guilty and fined. In the criminal case he was found by a jury to be guilty on 34 felony counts. All the cases are common and the verdicts normal. The only outlier is that Trump was the defendant and had the power to make a bigger stink about being indicted. So again what was out of order with those trials? What was "not normal"?

You'll get nothing. Trump said it was lawfare, so it's lawfare. Stop trying to get claims supported by arguments on a discussion board. That's not normal, that's spicy

 

[Sommerswerd]

Being specific here is spicy. Why do you think Farm Boy is so cryptic?

Sir, you're no Farm Boy .

 

[Angst]

Yeah apparently word is coming out that Tim Walz (a command sergeant major, i.e. the most senior noncom in a battalion) simply didn't know his National Guard unit was getting deployed to Iraq soon before he finally decided to retire and run for congress. (This all transpired mid to late 2005.) I find that to be unlikely: a unit isn't called up for an ongoing war lickety-split; soldiers need to be prepped plenty, and a CSM would be aware of those preparations. Nor did he complete the CSM course to be fully accredited with that rank, retiring before he was done. His "overseas" deployments in regards to War on Terror ops earlier in that decade mostly pertained to a supportive role stint in Italy. Okay but not exactly a combat zone there.

Though fairness to him, he did reenlist after the Sept 11 attacks even after he was retirement-eligible. No coward but he wasn't winning medals either.

But I doubt this will make much difference. As I don't think he will play up his service record. That will be going up against JD Vance's own record, and so what's the point? Neither saw combat anyway. Maybe let bygones be bygones?

edit: this is one letter to the editor in 2018 describing the incident, if you want to read:

Paid letter: The Truth About Tim Walz

Tim Walz has embellished and selectively omitted facts and circumstances of his military career for years.

www.wctrib.com

two things, first, why in the world would it actually be unlikely, like, substantiated by something other than a community post? it's on record that he started the resignation before his unit was said to move.

second, he had done military work for like half his damn life at that point, 24 years, since he was 17. that this is tried to be spun as some scrupulous underhanded act is crazy. like - let me be really clear here - a dude is allowed to leave the military, it's not a prison.

this whole spin of the reps misses the mark so much. it's reaching. like i believe that something bad may actually show up, but so far all the spin did was to alienate women (the free tampon thing) and veterans (who on average, mind you, have served much less that 24 f years), good job fox.

like, again, if i may leave the extrapolation aside, and just summarize:

he served 24 years and he's allowed to leave

 

[Gorbles]

Really is funny how people who previously advocated for different Democrat VP choices feel the need to post whatever spurious nonsense they can about Walz. It sure is a look.