That...doesn’t contradict what I said. If you meant “I’ll have to tune in late 2027 in case he gets the nod”, then, yes that would be the relevant criteria.

But what you said, and I responded to, was “I’ll have to tune in late 2027 if he gets the nod”, which is conditioning a decision at a particular point in time on an event which almost certainly would occur later.

As I already clarified, I was not referring to his formal selection by the DNC at the convention. That was your interpretation and I could see how someone might get confused and think that was a reasonable interpretation in the context of this thread about checking out of the news for as long as possible. Frankly I find it somewhat odd that your response to the discrepancy is to lecture me about what I meant rather than to do consider that your interpretation was wrong... particularly after receiving clarification.

To spell it out more explicitly: "getting the nod" is a reference to having the backdoor/bigwig/advisory/party boss support to risk formally throwing his hat in the ring and make a run for it. vs say... deciding it would be best to sit this one out to allow Harris to run... or some scandal or interaction with Trump having taken him completely off the table.