Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Kamala Harris for President"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Here's the latest polls that make a Madame President seem far more likely... @MorningConsult battleground tracking among LVs: AZ: Harris 47%, Trump 49% GA: Harris 48%, Trump 48% MI: Harris 49%, Trump 46% NV: Harris 48%, Trump 48% NC: Harris 48%, Trump 48% PA: Harris 49%, Trump 46% WI: Harris 49%, Trump 46%[/quote] These are not great at all. [/quote] Why not? If she wins PA, her path to 270 i pretty easy.[/quote] PA is one of the biggest Trump states in the NE so don’t count on it. Biden only won by 1.4% and that’s his home state. PA is Pennsyltucky after all. Western PA and Ohio are all Trump Land. She has more of a shot in Georgia than PA.[/quote] You are believing your rural Pennsyltuckey friends and family far too much. With the exception of 2016, when Trump scored PA because the Clinton campaign manager screwed up, PA has not voted for a Republican for president since Bush in 1988--36 years. Trump scored a coup when the Clinton campaign essentially relied on Pennsylvania voting reliably blue and did not defend it. Trump's went and campaigned in rural PA and some of the smaller cities and managed to get just enough votes (barely 0.5%) to win the state. Note that Biden's campaign was wise to pay attention in 2020 and they won the state by 2.2%. Harris' campaign will do that again. The Philadelphia metropolitan area has 50% of the state voters and is reliably blue. Pittsburgh metropolitan area is blue in the most populous county, Allegheny county. The area is 20% of the state population and tends to vote about 75% Democratic, mostly in Allegheny county, the other counties tend to lean slightly red. Scranton, Allentown, Harrisburg, State College and Eric all lean blue. So the areas that you cite as Trump county add up to barely 1/3 of the state voter population. Trump has a very weak chance of taking Pennsylvania again as long as Harris and her surrogates campaign there, which they have been doing regularly throughout the campaign. It would be very unlikely that Trump takes PA.[/quote] +1 And Harris is not ignoring rural Pennsylvania voters. [twitter]https://x.com/axios/status/1838536753910607883?s=46&t=kf1qYlCXQnKgUhJWEIu2vg[/twitter][/quote] Rural Pennsylvania voters will not vote for this left-wing California socialist. [/quote] Saying that she wants to eliminate the filibuster will not help win over swing voters. [/quote] It will when you finish the sentence, which is the fact that she will get back the rights for women that the GOP gleefully stripped from us. [/quote] What right?[/quote] The right to have full autonomy to control one's own body, health and medical treatment.[/quote] They have that. Plus the baby has that.[/quote] They do not have that. Two women who had ectopic pregnancies and should have been granted an abortion of the pregnancy. These women were refused treatment from hospitals afraid of the legal liability and repercussions should they treat the patients and be sued by the draconian Texas state government. These women lost their fallopian tubes and their ability to get pregnant again in the future. This should have been an easy decision, but the Texas laws caused them to become infertile. These women lost the ability to control their own health and medical treatment. [url] https://www.texastribune.org/2024/08/12/texas-abortion-law-ectopic-pregnancies/[/url] This woman's water broke at 18 weeks, 5 or more weeks before viability. There is no medically known way at this point to save the baby. Or for the baby to survive until birth. But, because this baby had a heartbeat, Texas law forbade her from getting an abortion. With zero chance of life for the baby. With no time to drive to another state for an abortion, she was sent home and told to "look for signs of infection". She had to wait until she had a fever of 103 degrees, chills and shaking and was delirious and at risk of dying before the doctors considered it safe enough to perform the abortion that was indicated hours earlier before the infection signs had settled in. She developed sepsis and had to be transported to the ICU. She nearly died. She and her doctors knew that it would have been safest to have had the abortion hours before shortly after her water broke. But she didn't have the right to make the decision to avoid endangering her life to protect a baby that had no chance to live. [url]https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/health/abortion-texas-sepsis/index.html[/url] There are many more stories out there about women who do not have the right to make decisions about their own health or control their own medical treatment. How would you feel if you had a medical condition that could threaten your life and you were not allowed to choose the medical treatment that was most likely to safe your life? Imagine that you had an appendix on the verge of rupturing, but you were not allowed to have the appendix removed and you had to wait until the appendix ruptured, risking sepsis and risking losing your life before you were allowed to have the surgery to save your life? That's the situation these women are in.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
