Look for a new buzzword to appear soon: “momentum.”

[Skylar]

It is crazy, that you support the anointing of a Democrat candidate in the general election when you cannot articulate a path to victory for that candidate.

Its crazy that you're demanding a complete and total path to victory less than 24 hours after she became the presumptive nominee. We'll need more information before either of us can determine if she's viable.

And its the majority of Biden's delegates supporting Harris is what makes her the presumptive nominee. Not me.

I mentioned Whitmer and Newsom. They weren’t chosen, or even give it a chance to be chosen after Biden dropped out. I’m not even a Democrat. But in spite of those things, I could easily explain how I think Whitmer or Newsom could win.

I would respect this exchange more if you would just say “it’s wishful thinking on my part.”
This is what you sound like with your let’s wait and see what might happen:

You're unwilling to wait for any of this to settle out, for a resonable number of new polls, for even a significant number of campaign events or a single debate to occur......petulantly demanding answers immediately that we just don't have the data for yet.

Your refusal to wait for a reasonable data set to be collected demonstrates that its not evidence that's driving your position. I'd respect it more if it was.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Its crazy that you're demanding a complete and total path to victory less than 24 hours after she became the presumptive nominee. We'll need more information before either of us can determine if she's viable.

And its the majority of Biden's delegates supporting Harris is what makes her the presumptive nominee. Not me.



You're unwilling to wait for any of this to settle out, for a resonable number of new polls, for even a significant number of campaign events or a single debate to occur......petulantly demanding answers immediately that we just don't have the data for yet.

Your refusal to wait for a reasonable data set to be collected demonstrates that its not evidence that's driving your position. I'd respect it more if it was.

Why would your party nominate a candidate with no path to victory, when there are so many candidates who do have a path to victory?

To me, the answer is obvious. I’m wondering if you know the answer and are unwilling to say it?

 

[Skylar]

Why would your party nominate a candidate with no path to victory, when there are so many candidates who do have a path to victory?

To me, the answer is obvious. I’m wondering if you know the answer and are unwilling to say it?

Again, its too early to know if she has a path to victory, as she's only been the presumptive nominee for less than 24 hours. And no one has been nominated as the democratic nominee, nor will until the convention.

Why do you refuse to wait for a reasonable data set, for the political impact of Biden dropping out and his endorsement of Harris to settle out? Why do you refuse to wait for a reasonable sampling of new polls? Why do you refuse to wait for a reasonable number of campaign events or even a single debate before insisting that Harris has no way to win?

That's not evidence driven. Its dogma driven.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Again, its too early to know if she has a path to victory, as she's only been the presumptive nominee for less than 24 hours. And no one has been nominated as the democratic nominee, nor will until the convention.

Why do you refuse to wait for a reasonable data set, for the political impact of Biden dropping out and his endorsement of Harris to settle out? Why do you refuse to wait for a reasonable sampling of new polls? Why do you refuse to wait for a reasonable number of campaign events or even a single debate before insisting that Harris has no way to win?

That's not evidence driven. Its dogma driven.

I see you’re not curious as to why Kamala Harris was anointed for the nomination. In case you ever become curious, all you have to do is ask yourself one question:

What was the primary reason that Kamala Harris was picked to be Biden‘s vice president? The primary reason. The one qualification she had to meet in order to be his vice president?

That’s why she has to be the Democratic nominee. Win, lose, or somehow drop out herself, it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that Kamala Harris must be the nominee. No question, no doubt, and absolutely… No discussion.

 

[Skylar]

I see you’re not curious as to why Kamala Harris was anointed for the nomination. In case you ever become curious, all you have to do is ask yourself one question:

Oh, its not a mystery. She has the support of the majority of BIden's delegates because Biden endorsed her.

And twice you've starkly refused to answer my cartoon simple question.

WHY won't you wait until we've collected a reasonable data set on Harris' viability as a presidential candidate?

What about new polling since she's become the presumptive nominee, a couple of weeks to let this settle out politically, a few campaign events or even a single debate do you find so eggregious that you refuse to even consider it?

 

[marvin martian]

WHY won't you wait until we've collected a reasonable data set on Harris' viability as a presidential candidate?

She's been an absolute disaster of a VP for almost 4 years. Why would anyone think she'll do better as president?

 

[Compost]

Reality may be a buzzword they'll try but it sure isn't what they are selling. LOL Coming up, expect words like energy, grassroots and excitement.

 

[Rawley]

LOL

The New York Times just called her the "least electable" Democrat:

ouch

 

[Seymour Flops]

Oh, its not a mystery. She has the support of the majority of BIden's delegates because Biden endorsed her.

And twice you've starkly refused to answer my cartoon simple question.

WHY won't you wait until we've collected a reasonable data set on Harris' viability as a presidential candidate?

What about new polling since she's become the presumptive nominee, a couple of weeks to let this settle out politically, a few campaign events or even a single debate do you find so eggregious that you refuse to even consider it?

Oh, I will wait. It will be quite an enjoyable laugh field wait. I’m looking forward to it.

Joe Biden himself as soon as he was originally nominated announce his primary apartment for vice president. You really don’t remember that?

OK, now you’re at least starting to give some examples. So a single debate, right? What do you envision happening at the single debate that could put Paris over the top?

Or what kind of campaign event did you have in mind that would convince voters that she is a strong candidate for ?

This should be easy. Biden said more than four years ago that Harris is the most qualified person in the entire world to take over as president if something happens to him. What are some of her qualifications? Do you think she can win on the strength of performance as borders Czar for example?

 

[Skylar]

Oh, I will wait. It will be quite an enjoyable laugh field wait. I’m looking forward to it.

You've demanding a complete and fleshed out path to victory less than 24 hours after she became the presumptive nominee.

Clearly you're not willing to wait. You'll have to. But you've been rather petulant about it.

Joe Biden himself as soon as he was originally nominated announce his primary apartment for vice president. You really don’t remember that?

OK, now you’re at least starting to give some examples. So a single debate, right? What do you envision happening at the single debate that could put Paris over the top?

Over the top of what? Remember, we don't have a reasonable pool of polling data to determine the viability of her presidential run, or how she stacks up against Trump yet.

Take a breath. Give this a little time to settle out. The election isn't going anywhere.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You've demanding a complete and fleshed out path to victory less than 24 hours after she became the presumptive nominee.

Nope.

All I asked for was "any honest path to victory." My exact words:

As far behind as she is, as bad as her negatives are, how else could she win?

Connect the dots on any honest path to a Harris victory?

You cannot seriously believe that all those delegates decided to vote for Harris because "gosh, we have to, if Biden said so." Biden voters =/= Harris voters. Somehow, the party aparatchiks pursueded them to go for Harris in a very, very short time.

Clearly you're not willing to wait. You'll have to. But you've been rather petulant about it.

If waiting is such a good idea, why not wait to pick the nominee? It seems as it your party is the one too petulant to wait. They can't wait to look at polling, see if any other candidates throw their hat in the ring, or let other candidates debate? At least give it a week or so to get a feel for how the media would react? Clearly, they are in a rush.

Why, after such an extreme rush to judgement by the leadership of your party, do you put it on me to "be patient?"

Let me guess: They HAD to rush, so that people would have time to wait to see how Kamala can win?

Is that like "we have to pass it to see what's in it?"

Over the top of what? Remember, we don't have a reasonable pool of polling data to determine the viability of her presidential run, or how she stacks up against Trump yet.

You must be kidding. You have not looked at recent polling? So you are deliberately arguing from lack of knowledge?

The current polls show a slight bump, likely due to the fact that Harris actually has a campaign hard AND live to election day. But, she still trails Trump and no one has any idea how she might catch up.

Take a breath. Give this a little time to settle out. The election isn't going anywhere.

Things have changed incredibly quickly in the last thirty days. Well not actual things, but more like the media's willingness to report things.

Are you completely sure that Harris will even get the nomination? The delegates can still change their mind. She'd been hidin' almost like Biden for several months now. But, once she starts that "the importance of the passage of time," nonsense in public, they may change their minds.

Here's what Trump should do if Harris debates him, which might even happen. Biden debating him was a desperate Hail Mary, and she starts her campaign needing one, as you hinted. He should stand to her left, and whatever she says, he should cup his ear and say, "sorry, my ears are still ringing." Or if she brings ups "insurrection," he can say, "I knew you'd take a shot at me about that."

 

[Skylar]

Nope.

All I asked for was "any honest path to victory." My exact words:

After less than 24 hours after her becoming a presumptive nominee. There's no honest assessment that can be made without more data.

You know that. I know that. Which makes your insistence on a complete path to victory at this state of the game just bizarre.

Both of us need more data. A reasonable number of polls after her landing the presumptive nomination. A chance for this to settle out.

Its the only honest path forward.

You cannot seriously believe that all those delegates decided to vote for Harris because "gosh, we have to, if Biden said so." Biden voters =/= Harris voters. Somehow, the party aparatchiks pursueded them to go for Harris in a very, very short time.

They put their support behind Harris because he endorsed her is the most reasonable conclusion to draw. Candidates drop out all the time. And the delegates supporting the candidate that the drop out has indicated he favors is also very common.

Plus, Harris was the ticket they had already voted for.

And if you have evidence of 'aparratchiks', please present it. But given your susceptibility for baseless conspiracy, I don't put much credence in your evidence free conspiracies.

If waiting is such a good idea, why not wait to pick the nominee?

There is no nominee. There won't be until the convention in about a month. Not a single delegate has voted. If Harris' viability as a candidate is that poor before the convention, they may well pick another.

 

[Seymour Flops]

After less than 24 hours after her becoming a presumptive nominee. There's no honest assessment that can be made without more data.

Shouldn't there have been an honest assessement with more data BEFORE she became the presumptive nominee?

If not for her ability to win, why was she so quickly chosen for the top of the ticket?

You know the answer, you just don't want to say.

You know that. I know that. Which makes your insistence on a complete path to victory at this state of the game just bizarre.

Now, you're lying, because I just proved that I never asked for "a complete path to victory."

Both of us need more data. A reasonable number of polls after her landing the presumptive nomination. A chance for this to settle out.

Its the only honest path forward.

Why did she have to be nominated so soon, then. Gather that data, and present it to the delegates. Clearly, they were strongarmed into this hasty decision.

They put their support behind Biden because he endorsed her is the most reasonable conclusion to draw. Harris was the ticket they had already voted for.

And if you have evidence of 'aparratchiks', please present it. But given your susceptibility for baseless conspiracy, I don't put much credence in your evidence free conspiracies.

The speed of ther annointing is all the evidence I need.

There is no nominee. There won't be until the convention in about a month. Not a single delegate has voted. If Harris' viability as a candidate is that poor before the convention, they may well pick another.

Oh, I hope not.

You're not responding to anything I say, but only to stuff you make up that I say, so I'll leave it with you.

Besides, I'd hate to convince Democrats not to run Harris. I was around during the Reagan 1980 electoral landslide, and I'd love to see it again.

Harris has all the negatives of Biden, without the good ol' boy charm.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I can hear it now in her best Pinocchio,

Then "presidential".

LOL

I can hear her now in her best Pinocchio voice, " I'm a real candidate"

 

[Skylar]

Shouldn't there have been an honest assessement with more data BEFORE she became the presumptive nominee?

How can there be a data set for how well a candidate will perform AFTER they become the presumptive nominee.......BEFORE they become the presumptive nominee?

And is a delorean involved?

If not for her ability to win, why was she so quickly chosen for the top of the ticket?

That's a question for Biden who endorsed her. And with his speech tomorrow, he'll likely provide more details. At least on why he dropped out.

Again, take a breath. You're pushing too hard to find some conspiratorial explanation and you don't have enough information to draw conclusions.

You know the answer, you just don't want to say.

Let me guess. I 'know' your evidence-free conspiracy, but I won't say. Because reasons. With you citing yourself as me.

I've got a better explanation: You don't know what you're talking about. And you're speculating wildly based on nothing. All while refusing to wait for a reasonable data set.

Imagination and speculation are poor replacements for evidence. And you don't have anything to back your 'aparratchiks' on Harris. Or the delegates.

You've imagined it.

Now, you're lying, because I just proved that I never asked for "a complete path to victory."

Why did she have to be nominated so soon, then. Gather that data, and present it to the delegates. Clearly, they were strongarmed into this hasty decision.

The speed of ther annointing is all the evidence I need.

Biden endorsing her explains why his delegates are supporting her. Just like candidates dropping out and endorsing other candidates in every convention. The delegates usually follow the recommendation of the candidate dropping out.

No aparratchiks required. When you hear hoof beats, think horses. Not zebras.

 

[Seymour Flops]

How can there be a data set for how well a candidate will perform AFTER they become the presumptive nominee.......BEFORE they become the presumptive nominee?

So, it really is "we have to nominate her to see how she will do if we nominate her?"

If that's logical, why not just let Biden go to the General Election? How can they have a data set for how well Biden will do on election BEFORE election day?

That's a question for Biden who endorsed her. And with his speech tomorrow, he'll likely provide more details. At least on why he dropped out.

Will he get through the whole speech without a major gaffe?

You can be honest, now that he's out of the race.

Again, take a breath. You're pushing too hard to find some conspiratorial explanation and you don't have enough information to draw conclusions.



Let me guess. I 'know' your evidence-free conspiracy, but I won't say. Because reasons. With you citing yourself as me.

I've got a better explanation: You don't know what you're talking about. And you're speculating wildly based on nothing. All while refusing to wait for a reasonable data set.

Imagination and speculation are poor replacements for evidence. And you don't have anything to back your 'aparratchiks' on Harris. Or the delegates.

You've imagined it.

Oh, no. Biden himself named the chief qualification for his Vice Presidential running mate.

You really don't remember?

Biden endorsing her explains why his delegates are supporting her. Just like candidates dropping out and endorsing other candidates in every convention. The delegates usually follow the recommendation of the candidate dropping out.

No aparratchiks required. When you hear hoof beats, think horses. Not zebras.

Sorry, but Democrats have shown their stripes too many times. A leopard doesn't change his spots and a zebra doesn't change zher stripes.

 

[Skylar]

So, it really is "we have to nominate her to see how she will do if we nominate her?"

Its really we don't know Harris' viability as a presidential candidate yet. We need more data.

Its the only honest way forward.

If that's logical, why not just let Biden go to the General Election? How can they have a data set for how well Biden will do on election BEFORE election day?

The delegates are Biden's to release or not. He chose to release them and endorse Harris. That's the impetus for all of this.

Biden wasn't 'let go'. He left. Says who? Says Biden. He decided it was in the best interest of the party and the country for him to step aside and focus on his duties as President.

Why would I ignore him....and believe some rando on the internet who insists he knows better?

 

[Seymour Flops]

MSNBC is willing to take a stab at it if no one else will:

 

[Skylar]

MSNBC is willing to take a stab at it if no one else will:




View attachment 982732

Give it a couple of weeks to settle out. Lets wait for some new polling data now that she's actually the presumptive nominee. Its only been 24 hours or so.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Its really we don't know Harris' viability as a presidential candidate yet. We need more data.

Its the only honest way forward.




The delegates are Biden's to release or not. He chose to release them and endorse Harris. That's the impetus for all of this.

Biden wasn't 'let go'. He left. Says who? Says Biden. He decided it was in the best interest of the party and the country for him to step aside and focus on his duties as President.

Why would I ignore him....and believe some rando on the internet who insists he knows better?

So, your whole argument depends entirely on believing that Democratic Party leaders would never lie?