tbh, this thread derailed during the first ten posts. Seems lots of spleens needed venting.

Bestweekeverr said:

---

I think Trump picked Vance because before Biden dropped out he was confident in his chances, and Vance has now pledged his loyalty to follow what Trump says (Vance said he'd do what Pence didn't on the vote certification).

I think Kristi Noem might have been his first pick until the dog shooting story tanked that idea.

Now Vance his hurting Trump with voters instead of helping, which is usually the main factor in selecting a VP.

Agree that Trump should have went with a woman, now even more so with Kamala taking up the campaign.

If Abortion is a major factor in this election like it was in the midterms the woman vote could be the difference.

---

The female vote will decide this election and in Mitch City, they are fired up, raising money and volunteering.

This thing is about to go left and hold for 100 days.

Sure, Jan.

Absolutely not.

I had some questions when he chose Vance, but after looking into it Vance secures the future of the GOP.

The voter that is going to vote for a ticket because it has a woman on it is going to vote Democrat regardless of what the GOP does.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sure, Jan.

---

Your bubble is strong. Somehow, you see a man that has yet to get to 50% of the vote. Has yet to win a majority of the vote, has no interest in expanding his base and has no coalitions will pull it out in 2024?

I want some of your peyote.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sure, Jan.

---

Your bubble is strong. Somehow, you see a man that has yet to get to 50% of the vote. Has yet to win a majority of the vote, has no interest in expanding his base and has no coalitions will pull it out in 2024?

I want some of your peyote.

---

lol, almost all of this is wrong

Harris can go +2-3 in the national polling and still lose

She is behind Trump still in almost every poll.

You dont need 50% to win, just more than the other canidate.

With 2-3 other canidates, nobody gets 50%

You smoke alot of hopium and you may be right but if election held today.. she would lose

4th and Inches said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sure, Jan.

---

Your bubble is strong. Somehow, you see a man that has yet to get to 50% of the vote. Has yet to win a majority of the vote, has no interest in expanding his base and has no coalitions will pull it out in 2024?

I want some of your peyote.

---

lol, almost all of this is wrong

Harris can go +2-3 in the national polling and still lose

She is behind Trump still in almost every poll.

You dont need 50% to win, just more than the other canidate.

With 2-3 other canidates, nobody gets 50%

You smoke alot of hopium and you may be right but if election held today.. she would lose

---

That is the problem, the election isn't today. It would be to Trump's advantage to have it today.

Every week the media, the Clintons, the Obamas, and Hollywood get to work the Independents Trump's margin of error decreases. He can't afford mistakes, he has NO ONE out there pushing him, but him. No one that Independents will listen to in an election. Trump can have NO unforced errors and you know an October surprise is coming. Harris doesn't have that problem, they are just re-writing everything. Now, she had nothing to do with the Border. Even PolitiFact is saying that her being the "Border Czar" is "Mostly False".

You guys are missing the point, Trump is no longer the best alternative to a dementia ridden old man for the Mod-Dems and Mod-Ind. This is going to be close without any election shenanigans. Trump has no surrogates that bring him more votes. I fear the Primary is the ceiling, not the floor.

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

JD Vance is currently going viral for couches and dolphins

---

Also for this

NBC just saved a ton of money because this can run verbatim as the next cold open when SNL resumes pic.twitter.com/1fIIA8QLiM

— Bill Grueskin (@BGrueskin) July 26, 2024

---

This guy is going to cost Trump the election.

---

That was a somewhat strange ad. Not a good use of resources in my opinion. The Trump camp will need to do better.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Bestweekeverr said:

---

JD Vance is currently going viral for couches and dolphins

---

Also for this

NBC just saved a ton of money because this can run verbatim as the next cold open when SNL resumes pic.twitter.com/1fIIA8QLiM

— Bill Grueskin (@BGrueskin) July 26, 2024

---

This guy is going to cost Trump the election.

---

That was a somewhat strange ad. Not a good use of resources in my opinion. The Trump camp will need to do better.

---

Yeah, amateurish. They have to change the focus to Harris's policy choices. Nobody left on the fence is going to choose Trump, they are going to hold their nose and go for the least crappy choice. Make Harris the crappier choice. I fear they are trying to get people to sign on to his agenda, that will never work. Harris has the "A" team on her side, Trump not so much...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Absolutely not.

I had some questions when he chose Vance, but after looking into it Vance secures the future of the GOP.

The voter that is going to vote for a ticket because it has a woman on it is going to vote Democrat regardless of what the GOP does.

---

Trump gets away with a lot of comments because he comes across as humorous, Vance comes across as an *******.

---

This. Like the comment/joke JD made about him having Mountain Dew being racist. It landed flat as hell and rubbed some people the wrong way. That same line coming from Trump would've scored. JD does not need to try and pull off Trump talk.

boognish_bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Absolutely not.

I had some questions when he chose Vance, but after looking into it Vance secures the future of the GOP.

The voter that is going to vote for a ticket because it has a woman on it is going to vote Democrat regardless of what the GOP does.

---

Trump gets away with a lot of comments because he comes across as humorous, Vance comes across as an *******.

---

This. Like the comment/joke JD made about him having Mountain Dew being racist. It landed flat as hell and rubbed some people the wrong way. That same line coming from Trump would've scored. JD does not need to try and pull off Trump talk.

---

Trump has decades of credibility being Donald. Vance has ***** Vance needs to be serious and be the one talking about what Trump did first term.. did you see the numbers in MN, Suburban women 65% Harris. Trump can't lose by those margins and survive. But the MAGA knows better, they bought into the US is really MAGA at heart, dangerous...

boognish_bear said:

---

---

Vance needs to take one for the team and come out as a woman to squeeze out another percent or two

Pennsylvania poll: Fox News

HEAD TO HEAD
Harris 49%
Trump 49%

FULL FIELD
Harris 45%
Trump 43%
RFK Jr. 7%
West 1%
Stein 1%

FAVORABLE RATINGS
Kamala Harris 49/49
Donald Trump 46/53
Gov. Josh Shapiro 61/32 (!)https://t.co/DfS8mKih2i

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) July 27, 2024

Funny, I checked the actual pdf and question 3 (which shows the detail) says Trump leads by 2, not Harris.

https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/07/Fox_July-22-24-2024_Michigan_Topline_July-26-Release.pdf

The WSJ site

https://www.wsj.com/video/series/wsj-explains/wsj-poll-shows-a-tight-race-between-harris-and-trump/715BE137-A34C-424A-8C70-E370EB3C01BC

has a poll for today showing Trump still leading.

Again, odd seeing these reports with different details when you look closer.

boognish_bear said:

---

When you lose Dave Portnoy... pic.twitter.com/VVfV1ljq9Z

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) July 26, 2024

---

People like this are exactly who JD Vance has in mind when he talks about not having kids and not having a stake in the future. It’s not tailored to women, and it’s not tailored to good people who just so happen to not have children.

JD Vance is talking about men like Dave… pic.twitter.com/kqlovQ57fv

— 𝐄𝐮𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐚 (@EudaimoniaEsq) July 27, 2024

Oldbear83 said:

---

The WSJ site

https://www.wsj.com/video/series/wsj-explains/wsj-poll-shows-a-tight-race-between-harris-and-trump/715BE137-A34C-424A-8C70-E370EB3C01BC

has a poll for today showing Trump still leading.

Again, odd seeing these reports with different details when you look closer.

---

Regardless, the trends and rapidity of the change is very concerning for Trump. He was never a very good candidate, but stretched leads primarily due to the other guy being a disastrous mental invalid. Now the race will move to issues and the electorate will parse into percentage importance with the usual tropes to sway or dissuade. Throw in the fact that Presidential elections have permanently shifted to cults of personality since Barack Obama, which means both supportive and unsupportive cults, and I fear the pendulum may be too hard to stop. We need Harris to have some stumbles and maybe something juicy in her past that sticks with the people, because the new money that came in for the Dems is going to go hard at Trump and he has way too many ugly moments for them to highlight.

Actually, what you need to keep in mind, is that a close race is a priority for media.

If the race is not close, readers/viewers won't boost their ratings, but a close, anyone-could-win election means lots of attention, and of course impact on ad revenue.

Never take the headline at face value, especially in an election year.

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

When you lose Dave Portnoy... pic.twitter.com/VVfV1ljq9Z

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) July 26, 2024

---

People like this are exactly who JD Vance has in mind when he talks about not having kids and not having a stake in the future. It’s not tailored to women, and it’s not tailored to good people who just so happen to not have children.

JD Vance is talking about men like Dave… pic.twitter.com/kqlovQ57fv

— 𝐄𝐮𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐚 (@EudaimoniaEsq) July 27, 2024

---

A sane conservative would give less financial incentives for having children. Encouraging people to have children for financial reason is a incentive that the wrong people will be in line to take advantage of.

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

When you lose Dave Portnoy... pic.twitter.com/VVfV1ljq9Z

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) July 26, 2024

---

People like this are exactly who JD Vance has in mind when he talks about not having kids and not having a stake in the future. It’s not tailored to women, and it’s not tailored to good people who just so happen to not have children.

JD Vance is talking about men like Dave… pic.twitter.com/kqlovQ57fv

— 𝐄𝐮𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐚 (@EudaimoniaEsq) July 27, 2024

---

A sane conservative would give less financial incentives for having children. Encouraging people to have children for financial reason is a incentive that the wrong people will be in line to take advantage of.

---

Maybe

Be the issue in the future will be mass population decline starting around the 2050s-2060s

Governments will be happy for anyone to have kids…even those they think are "wrong kind" of people.

[The global population is already below replacement rate. Which means that the world population will start falling some moment around the late 2050s to early 2060s. Of course, this depends on how people will react over the next few decades, how mortality will evolve]

Oldbear83 said:

---

Actually, what you need to keep in mind, is that a close race is a priority for media.

If the race is not close, readers/viewers won't boost their ratings, but a close, anyone-could-win election means lots of attention, and of course impact on ad revenue.

Never take the headline at face value, especially in an election year.

---

I think you underestimate what's happening here. It's possible it won't be a close race the other direction in 60 days. The Trump campaign is already abandoning the post assassination attempt "unity", and the old beefs are starting to rear their head again as it looks like the irascible fighter is putting his gloves on. Red Meat Maga will eat it up, but it's not an election winner without the dementia patient on the other side. Trump doesn't argue policy well, and that's Kamala's Achilles heel. Supreme liberal, and frighteningly so.

Hold on to your butts…

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

When you lose Dave Portnoy... pic.twitter.com/VVfV1ljq9Z

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) July 26, 2024

---

People like this are exactly who JD Vance has in mind when he talks about not having kids and not having a stake in the future. It’s not tailored to women, and it’s not tailored to good people who just so happen to not have children.

JD Vance is talking about men like Dave… pic.twitter.com/kqlovQ57fv

— 𝐄𝐮𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐚 (@EudaimoniaEsq) July 27, 2024

---

A sane conservative would give less financial incentives for having children. Encouraging people to have children for financial reason is a incentive that the wrong people will be in line to take advantage of.

---

Maybe

Be the issue in the future will be mass population decline starting around the 2050s-2060s

Governments will be happy for anyone to have kids…even those they think are "wrong kind" of people.

[The global population is already below replacement rate. Which means that the world population will start falling some moment around the late 2050s to early 2060s. Of course, this depends on how people will react over the next few decades, how mortality will evolve]

---

We already have child incentives. Hundreds of Billions of dollars of it.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

When you lose Dave Portnoy... pic.twitter.com/VVfV1ljq9Z

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) July 26, 2024

---

People like this are exactly who JD Vance has in mind when he talks about not having kids and not having a stake in the future. It’s not tailored to women, and it’s not tailored to good people who just so happen to not have children.

JD Vance is talking about men like Dave… pic.twitter.com/kqlovQ57fv

— 𝐄𝐮𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐚 (@EudaimoniaEsq) July 27, 2024

---

A sane conservative would give less financial incentives for having children. Encouraging people to have children for financial reason is a incentive that the wrong people will be in line to take advantage of.

---

Maybe

Be the issue in the future will be mass population decline starting around the 2050s-2060s

Governments will be happy for anyone to have kids…even those they think are "wrong kind" of people.

[The global population is already below replacement rate. Which means that the world population will start falling some moment around the late 2050s to early 2060s. Of course, this depends on how people will react over the next few decades, how mortality will evolve]

---

We already have child incentives. Hundreds of Billions of dollars of it.

---

They don't seem to be working.

For what's it worth such policies are not working in Hungary or Japan either

But governments around the world better figure something out..and soon

[Last week, Japan announced it had welcomed fewer than 800,000 babies in 2022, the lowest number since record-keeping began in 1899.

The country has been trying to boost its birth rate for years. The government is increasing its lump sum payment to help with the costs of having a baby to 500,000 yen ($3,680), women get up to two years' maternity leave and men can take up to a year though cultural expectations and fears about job security mean few do.]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-03-06/japan-s-push-to-boost-birth-rates-is-falling-short

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Actually, what you need to keep in mind, is that a close race is a priority for media.

If the race is not close, readers/viewers won't boost their ratings, but a close, anyone-could-win election means lots of attention, and of course impact on ad revenue.

Never take the headline at face value, especially in an election year.

---

I think you underestimate what's happening here. It's possible it won't be a close race the other direction in 60 days. The Trump campaign is already abandoning the post assassination attempt "unity", and the old beefs are starting to rear their head again as it looks like the irascible fighter is putting his gloves on. Red Meat Maga will eat it up, but it's not an election winner without the dementia patient on the other side. Trump doesn't argue policy well, and that's Kamala's Achilles heel. Supreme liberal, and frighteningly so.

Hold on to your butts…

---

OK, no more caffeine for you.

If you bother to look into the details, Trump is still winning, and Harris' recent gains are a 'honeymoon' effect due to her replacing Biden.

It won't last on her current efforts.

Harris will get another bump in national polls after the Democratic Horse & Donkey Show, but if you want to know what's going on, check Harris' demographic support among key groups to what Biden claimed in 2020.

This election will be like most - it comes down to voter enthusiasm and Independent voters.

Do yourself a favor and remember there are zero major networks that want Trump to win, and so what shows up on TV may be very different from what happens in November.

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Actually, what you need to keep in mind, is that a close race is a priority for media.

If the race is not close, readers/viewers won't boost their ratings, but a close, anyone-could-win election means lots of attention, and of course impact on ad revenue.

Never take the headline at face value, especially in an election year.

---

I think you underestimate what's happening here. It's possible it won't be a close race the other direction in 60 days. The Trump campaign is already abandoning the post assassination attempt "unity", and the old beefs are starting to rear their head again as it looks like the irascible fighter is putting his gloves on. Red Meat Maga will eat it up, but it's not an election winner without the dementia patient on the other side. Trump doesn't argue policy well, and that's Kamala's Achilles heel. Supreme liberal, and frighteningly so.

Hold on to your butts…

---

OK, no more caffeine for you.

If you bother to look into the details, Trump is still winning, and Harris' recent gains are a 'honeymoon' effect due to her replacing Biden.

It won't last on her current efforts.

Harris will get another bump in national polls after the Democratic Horse & Donkey Show, but if you want to know what's going on, check Harris' demographic support among key groups to what Biden claimed in 2020.

This election will be like most - it comes down to voter enthusiasm and Independent voters.

Do yourself a favor and remember there are zero major networks that want Trump to win, and so what shows up on TV may be very different from what happens in November.

---

You really believe that? November will be different? So far, that has not worked out well for the GOP since 2016.

Harris has been in less than a week and closed the gap. Because of her? No, the big three - Clinton, Obama, and Hollywood. Unless Trump can do something to get someone on his side this is more than a Honeymoon bump. You can feel sustainability behind it. That idiot Vance need to shut his mouth and figure away to scrub every speech he ever gave. Vance is going to be an anchor...

You should consider the advice of George Washington:

"Do not take counsel of your fears."

There is a very big reason Democrats did not want to have Harris for their nominee, and that reason will show up.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You should consider the advice of George Washington:

"Do not take counsel of your fears."

There is a very big reason Democrats did not want to have Harris for their nominee, and that reason will show up.

---

I agree would agree with you if this was a full election cycle, Dems only have to keep her up for 90+ days and they get the Convention in the middle. This was the strategy by the Obamas the whole time, shorten the time that people can pick her apart.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Actually, what you need to keep in mind, is that a close race is a priority for media.

If the race is not close, readers/viewers won't boost their ratings, but a close, anyone-could-win election means lots of attention, and of course impact on ad revenue.

Never take the headline at face value, especially in an election year.

---

I think you underestimate what's happening here. It's possible it won't be a close race the other direction in 60 days. The Trump campaign is already abandoning the post assassination attempt "unity", and the old beefs are starting to rear their head again as it looks like the irascible fighter is putting his gloves on. Red Meat Maga will eat it up, but it's not an election winner without the dementia patient on the other side. Trump doesn't argue policy well, and that's Kamala's Achilles heel. Supreme liberal, and frighteningly so.

Hold on to your butts…

---

OK, no more caffeine for you.

If you bother to look into the details, Trump is still winning, and Harris' recent gains are a 'honeymoon' effect due to her replacing Biden.

It won't last on her current efforts.

Harris will get another bump in national polls after the Democratic Horse & Donkey Show, but if you want to know what's going on, check Harris' demographic support among key groups to what Biden claimed in 2020.

This election will be like most - it comes down to voter enthusiasm and Independent voters.

Do yourself a favor and remember there are zero major networks that want Trump to win, and so what shows up on TV may be very different from what happens in November.

---

You really believe that? November will be different? So far, that has not worked out well for the GOP since 2016.

Harris has been in less than a week and closed the gap. Because of her? No, the big three - Clinton, Obama, and Hollywood. Unless Trump can do something to get someone on his side this is more than a Honeymoon bump. You can feel sustainability behind it. That idiot Vance need to shut his mouth and figure away to scrub every speech he ever gave. Vance is going to be an anchor...

---

You forget that Trump has Hulk Hogan and Kid Rock though

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

When you lose Dave Portnoy... pic.twitter.com/VVfV1ljq9Z

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) July 26, 2024

---

People like this are exactly who JD Vance has in mind when he talks about not having kids and not having a stake in the future. It’s not tailored to women, and it’s not tailored to good people who just so happen to not have children.

JD Vance is talking about men like Dave… pic.twitter.com/kqlovQ57fv

— 𝐄𝐮𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐚 (@EudaimoniaEsq) July 27, 2024

---

A sane conservative would give less financial incentives for having children. Encouraging people to have children for financial reason is a incentive that the wrong people will be in line to take advantage of.

---

Maybe

Be the issue in the future will be mass population decline starting around the 2050s-2060s

Governments will be happy for anyone to have kids…even those they think are "wrong kind" of people.

[The global population is already below replacement rate. Which means that the world population will start falling some moment around the late 2050s to early 2060s. Of course, this depends on how people will react over the next few decades, how mortality will evolve]

---

We already have child incentives. Hundreds of Billions of dollars of it.

---

They don't seem to be working.

For what's it worth such policies are not working in Hungary or Japan either

But governments around the world better figure something out..and soon

[Last week, Japan announced it had welcomed fewer than 800,000 babies in 2022, the lowest number since record-keeping began in 1899.

The country has been trying to boost its birth rate for years. The government is increasing its lump sum payment to help with the costs of having a baby to 500,000 yen ($3,680), women get up to two years' maternity leave and men can take up to a year though cultural expectations and fears about job security mean few do.]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-03-06/japan-s-push-to-boost-birth-rates-is-falling-short

---

Agree that they aren't working. We have a cultural not a financial problem when it comes to children, families, and marriage. Much more difficult to fix.

legitmentaly funny that Paul Ryan had a whole wing of the up and coming Republican party behind him, was factory made to be a respectable looking and sounding politician and then Trump came in and murdered everything he loved so he just quit https://t.co/OO8CNwqumh

— Wade (Copmala's Deputy) 🥥🌴 (@watn_tarnation) July 26, 2024

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You should consider the advice of George Washington:

"Do not take counsel of your fears."

There is a very big reason Democrats did not want to have Harris for their nominee, and that reason will show up.

---

I agree would agree with you if this was a full election cycle, Dems only have to keep her up for 90+ days and they get the Convention in the middle. This was the strategy by the Obamas the whole time, shorten the time that people can pick her apart.

---

Disagree.

First, consider that the Obamas reportedly did not want Harris to be the nominee, which is why Barack's first several messages did not refer to Harris by name.

Second, everybody has turned 2020 into some incredible magic trick by the Democrats, when a simple look at the polls showed Biden led wire to wire, something completely lacking this year.

Third, the media has been suppressing focus groups in swing states big-time. The problem is not just Harris' record and style of speaking, it's also that she is clearly a California politico and that does not sell well in the Rust Belt. Also, consider that Harris spent a lot of time in the early summer selling Biden as focused and in control, which is hurting her now.

The short cycle is not as good for Harris as people think. Her bump will fade and she will have to defend the Biden-Harris record, and there's a lot of danger for her in the debate as well.

Short version, the Democrats did not exercise some grand strategy, they got caught by surprise when Biden's competency crashed sooner than expected and they had to dump him.

Bestweekeverr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Actually, what you need to keep in mind, is that a close race is a priority for media.

If the race is not close, readers/viewers won't boost their ratings, but a close, anyone-could-win election means lots of attention, and of course impact on ad revenue.

Never take the headline at face value, especially in an election year.

---

I think you underestimate what's happening here. It's possible it won't be a close race the other direction in 60 days. The Trump campaign is already abandoning the post assassination attempt "unity", and the old beefs are starting to rear their head again as it looks like the irascible fighter is putting his gloves on. Red Meat Maga will eat it up, but it's not an election winner without the dementia patient on the other side. Trump doesn't argue policy well, and that's Kamala's Achilles heel. Supreme liberal, and frighteningly so.

Hold on to your butts…

---

OK, no more caffeine for you.

If you bother to look into the details, Trump is still winning, and Harris' recent gains are a 'honeymoon' effect due to her replacing Biden.

It won't last on her current efforts.

Harris will get another bump in national polls after the Democratic Horse & Donkey Show, but if you want to know what's going on, check Harris' demographic support among key groups to what Biden claimed in 2020.

This election will be like most - it comes down to voter enthusiasm and Independent voters.

Do yourself a favor and remember there are zero major networks that want Trump to win, and so what shows up on TV may be very different from what happens in November.

---

You really believe that? November will be different? So far, that has not worked out well for the GOP since 2016.

Harris has been in less than a week and closed the gap. Because of her? No, the big three - Clinton, Obama, and Hollywood. Unless Trump can do something to get someone on his side this is more than a Honeymoon bump. You can feel sustainability behind it. That idiot Vance need to shut his mouth and figure away to scrub every speech he ever gave. Vance is going to be an anchor...

---

You forget that Trump has Hulk Hogan and Kid Rock though

---

While Harris has the cast of The View and the White House Press Secretary.

Advantage Hysteria.