every second he’s talking about how extremely normal he and JD are is one less second he’s saying “illegal immigrants will rape you immediately as soon as kamala is sworn in”
I saw a thread yesterday about how JD’s extremely weird attitudes towards women could be explained by being closeted, so this is kinda a funny doth-protest-too-much headline
Good one here
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1830266092289503491?t=FIZ1VT61U0TCr1Kq1u4ULA&s=19
4 Likes
3 Likes
That’s weird, he was winning it in polling against Biden. They must have a legit cash crunch. It’s a reach for him but he should be playing there to force Harris into defending there.
Might not be true:
What? Harris has funds and organization to defend anywhere and everywhere. He’s the one who needs to be careful with where he spends his money.
1 Like
Nobody has unlimited money, including Harris.
Pretty damn close.
That’s true but not relevant. What matters is that she has a lot more than he does. Him wasting money to get her to waste money makes no sense.
1 Like
If the Harris campaign considerably outspends the Trump campaign then it makes sense to force/goad them to do it. That’s why I think it also makes sense for the Democrats to spend in states they do not expect to win like Texas. The same is true for smaller races in safe districts. Just a few thousands so that the other party spends tens of thousands to lock up the race.
1 Like
Walz gets it and hopefully gets it enough that ignores the inevitable media nitpicking and takes this line on tour for next 2 months
2 Likes
1 Like
When you have 5-20x what the other guy has you have unlimited money because where money matters you win. One person gets to pick 4-5 states to really try hard in total. The other one gets to contest everything remotely feasible.
I’ve been saying this for months.
It seems very unlikely that it’s GTO for both the richer and the poorer side to be spending in places they are quite sure they are going to lose.
Now Team Trump may be wrong in their assessment of his chances in NH. That’s a separate problem. But if they are correct that it’s a lost cause, seems better to just pour that money into swing states.
If I’m Trump, I don’t spend anywhere else but PA, WI, MI, GA, NC, AZ, NV. That’s it. It’s true that it may affect things down ballot, but I’m Trump, I don’t GAF about anyone else. If I’m losing, I just pour it into the swing states and if I somehow lose TX, OH, or FL, then so be it.
If I’m the rich side, I try to force him to spend elsewhere. By spending in places he thinks are safe so that he might start to think they aren’t.
1 Like
There is also so. much. value. in picking off a TX or FL senate seat, or a GOP House seat anywhere. Winning the Presidency without Congress only holds off damage. It takes a trifecta to make progress. Since the midterms almost always cede seats to the opposition, now is when they must be won.
2 Likes
Yeah, I don’t disagree with that.
I think we’re all on the same page as far as what Harris/Walz should be doing. The disagreement is whether it is strategically best for Trump should be spending on lost causes to cause them to divert resources.