All joshing aside, who do you think win the election

[KaNAMBLA Harris]

Kamala and i’ll give reasons beyond “duhhh it was stolen” (easy answer)

She’s out raising and outspending Trump by 3-4x. Trump captured 46% of the popular vote in both 16 (46.2%) and 20 (46.8%). That is a miserable showing. Trumps campaign logistically sucks. He outsourced all of his on the ground campaigning (doorknocking and the like) to TPUSA and Elon’s PAC. Every Republican party official from all of the swing states say they haven’t seen a hint of his ground game in their state. And Kamala is outspending Trump in every one of these states from advertising to door knockers to mailers.

Kamala has spent 24 million on Facebook ads. Trump has spent 600k. Luckily he put 100k into Twitter, the literal echochamber for his base. He’s spent 0$ advertising on Snapchat while Kamala has spent 2 million there. The only state where advertising spending is competitive is PA, where they’re both spending 200 million each. Every other swing state she is outspending him by 2-3x.

The Dems are a well oiled machine and for how much they suck at messaging and policy they always get out their votes. This isn’t to mention there are more Democrats than Republicans, and the only way they lose an election is through Dems staying home; NOT Dems voting for the R’s instead.

Where did you copy/paste this from

 

[JoeBrotheChildSpitGuzzler]

 

[Africa.com]

Trump, the big dumb gorilla, should stop talking and keep the beanies off his head until voting day, so I don't have to hold my nose when I vote for him

 

[Sue2]

Trump should stop talking

Donald Trump: Famous for shutting the fuck up and having a controlled message

 

[Africa.com]

Donald Trump: Famous for shutting the fuck up and having a controlled message
View attachment 225794

Vance should be front and center, Trump can do his rallies and try his best to be less retarded.

 

[Africa.com]

Where did you copy/paste this from

Id hate to contradict the forums true and honest geopolitical expert (@Sue Lightning ) but the amount of press and ad spending Kamala is doing starting this week is just as likely out of desperation as strength. The Dems would have preferred a Basement Campaign, like the one Ole Puddin Head Joe won, but there have been "whispers" Dem internal polling is not seeing the shift they expected when the Wine Aunt took over. She went 2 months with no interviews and has like 8 this week. That doesn't strike me as the move of a confident campaign. I think it's closer than anyone is willing to say out loud, or maybe she's even down in their polling. Look what she said when the prompter froze and she had to ad lib, "we are the underdogs."

 

[Africa.com]

I've also read (where, I don't remember) that their polling (ENOUGH ABOUT THE POLLS) shows she is less than inspirational and the only thing that helps their numbers is to attack the Trumpster.

 

[Africa.com]

Also Walz was a disaster pick. Why didn't they pick Shapiro? JEW!

 

[Sue2]

Id hate to contradict the forums true and honest geopolitical expert (@Sue Lightning ) but the amount of press and ad spending Kamala is doing starting this week is just as likely out of desperation as strength. The Dems would have preferred a Basement Campaign, like the one Ole Puddin Head Joe won, but there have been "whispers" Dem internal polling is not seeing the shift they expected when the Wine Aunt took over. She went 2 months with no interviews and has like 8 this week. That doesn't strike me as the move of a confident campaign. I think it's closer than anyone is willing to say out loud, or maybe she's even down in their polling. Look what she said when the prompter froze and she had to ad lib, "we are the underdogs."

The 8 interviews in a week? Yes, desperation. The ad influxes? No. She’s been outspending Trump since she got in 2 months ago. Not sure what ads have to do with anything as they’re a constant in elections.

I've also read (where, I don't remember) that their polling (ENOUGH ABOUT THE POLLS) shows she is less than inspirational and the only thing that helps their numbers is to attack the Trumpster.

That’s just blatantly wrong. Remember when Hilary attacked Trump nonstop? How’d that work out. They did breakdowns month by month. In September the ad buys were all about her, her character, career, etc. Now come October they’re shifting towards attack ads. Because you can’t just attack Trump and win - That has literally never worked. Ever.

Also Walz was a disaster pick. Why didn't they pick Shapiro? JEW!

Yeah why didn’t they pick the kike who served in the IDF who rips off Obama who’s extremely full of himself and would never be #2 and also may have covered up a murder because the guy was his friend. Perplexing. But all of that is worse than, what? Lying about Tiananmen? Lying about your service? No way.

Edit:

Look what she said when the prompter froze and she had to ad lib, "we are the underdogs."

She’s been saying that for 2 months straight, stoopid. What gets people more motivated? “We’re gonna win, don’t worry about it” or “We are the underdogs and this is an uphill battle”

 

[Africa.com]

The 8 interviews in a week? Yes, desperation. The ad influxes? No. She’s been outspending Trump since she got in 2 months ago. Not sure what ads have to do with anything as they’re a constant in elections.

That’s just blatantly wrong. Remember when Hilary attacked Trump nonstop? How’d that work out. They did breakdowns month by month. In September the ad buys were all about her, her character, career, etc. Now come October they’re shifting towards attack ads. Because you can’t just attack Trump and win - That has literally never worked. Ever.

Yeah why didn’t they pick the kike who served in the IDF who rips off Obama who’s extremely full of himself and would never be #2 and also may have covered up a murder because the guy was his friend. Perplexing. But all of that is worse than, what? Lying about Tiananmen? Lying about your service? No way.

Your ad theory reinforces my point that she's losing, or they think she is. She isn't an inspirational candidate, they can pump her backstory etc and it didn't bump but it's gets nominally better when they attack the gorilla. You want to know why a lot of Republican hacks hate or hated Trump in 2016- he ran a lean campaign and didn't pay them for bad advice. Kamala's campaign is paying Democratic strategists for dumb advice. Trumps last two campaigns haven't been much better, tbh. His best ads are just video of Biden and Harris talking.

Plus the bitch has vocal fry, that should immediately disqualify her

 

[BonnieMcFarlaneMe2]

The 8 interviews in a week? Yes, desperation. The ad influxes? No. She’s been outspending Trump since she got in 2 months ago. Not sure what ads have to do with anything as they’re a constant in elections.

That’s just blatantly wrong. Remember when Hilary attacked Trump nonstop? How’d that work out. They did breakdowns month by month. In September the ad buys were all about her, her character, career, etc. Now come October they’re shifting towards attack ads. Because you can’t just attack Trump and win - That has literally never worked. Ever.

Yeah why didn’t they pick the kike who served in the IDF who rips off Obama who’s extremely full of himself and would never be #2 and also may have covered up a murder because the guy was his friend. Perplexing. But all of that is worse than, what? Lying about Tiananmen? Lying about your service? No way.

Edit:

Look what she said when the prompter froze and she had to ad lib, "we are the underdogs."

She’s been saying that for 2 months straight, stoopid. What gets people more motivated? “We’re gonna win, don’t worry about it” or “We are the underdogs and this is an uphill battle”

 

[Sue2]

Your ad theory reinforces my point that she's losing, or they think she is. She isn't an inspirational candidate, they can pump her backstory etc and it didn't bump but it's gets nominally better when they attack the gorilla.

You’re just blatantly wrong (from what i’ve seen). We’re on 8 years of Trump and everyone knows who he is. No amount of attacking him is gonna wake people up and go “Oh shit I hate that guy, Kamala 2024!”.

Her polling average went from the negatives to the positives coincidentally around the time they were introducing here to everyone with ads and the DNC. Now with the race more about Trump and his character, the averages have flatlined. Again, if attacking Trump were the winning answer, Hilary would have won.

 

[Africa.com]

You’re just blatantly wrong (from what i’ve seen). We’re on 8 years of Trump and everyone knows who he is. No amount of attacking him is gonna wake people up and go “Oh shit I hate that guy, Kamala 2024!”.

Her polling average went from the negatives to the positives coincidentally around the time they were introducing here to everyone with ads and the DNC. Now with the race more about Trump and his character, the averages have flatlined. Again, if attacking Trump were the winning answer, Hilary would have won.

Nothing I said in that regard has to do with Trump, it has to do with Kamala not being a good enough candidate on her own. So they attack Trump bc it's good for numbers. I didn't say it would win her the election you histrionic woman

 

[Sue2]

Literally never underestimate the DNC propaganda machine and how stupid the average voter is. A good chunk of people soy out seeing Kamala crack open a beer with (((Colbert))), and not just Reddit types. It doesn’t matter that she can’t give a straight answer in a primetime interview. “Look, she’s young! Attractive! Not an OLD WYTE MAN!!! So RELATABLE!!!” then of course you compound that with “Orange man bad” attitudes.

If she were running against a Desantis or Vance she would get destroyed by 10 points. The only reason she’s even close to winning is because of how awful Trumps 2024 campaign has been

 

[Sue2]

So they attack Trump bc it's good for numbers.

But its not. We’re going in circles here

 

[BakersfieldChimp]

Nothing I said in that regard has to do with Trump, it has to do with Kamala not being a good enough candidate on her own. So they attack Trump bc it's good for numbers. I didn't say it would win her the election you histrionic woman

Like 80%+ of the polls have her up in enough states to win. Could they have a different polling model or more accurate numbers? Sure, but I doubt that's what is happening right now.

 

[Africa.com]

Like 80%+ of the polls have her up in enough states to win. Could they have a different polling model or more accurate numbers? Sure, but I doubt that's what is happening right now.

Internal polls are usually better than public polls. Hillary was up 11% nationally at this point. These firms that do internal work for the parties make big money for a reason

 

[Africa.com]

But it's not. We’re going in circles here

It's good for NYT, NBC polls. Polls are gay. If the public polls were right we would be seeing the last few months of Hillary.

 

[Africa.com]

As far as I can tell, and I may be wrong, is public polls showing Harris up are good for 2 things: momentum (even if it's fake) and narrative control. Dems were lockstep in public that HRC was a great candidate running a great campaign, until she lost and there was a market for books and TV gigs based on her failed campaign (also she lost and wasn't gonna run again so she couldn't end their careers). You won't hear Dems talk about their internal work showing she's not doing as well as expected, they have a NYT poll or whatever showing she's swimming along. But she's doing the Whores podcast to talk about women's rights (killing unborn children). They probably identified young people as being a weak demo.

 

[Jims_Maroon_Pants]

I'm no fan of Trump, but if Kamala wins she will usher in a new era of faggotry in this country, the likes of which we've never seen before. Men will literally be butt fucking other men in the streets in broad daylight.

And that's a good thing!