stevenkesslar

This is what I like about Mark Halperin's 2Way channel. It's driven in large part by Zoom-like interactions with everyday voters, many of whom are undecided. I think there are at least two relevant categories There's the low information voters. I suppose you can say they are, by definition, not serious voters. The thing that is interesting about them is they seem to be the ones that will get Trump elected. Like often they don't even vote, which is why it is hard to poll them. By definition, these people are not watching Halperin's 2Way. They have no clue who Mark Halperin is. The undecided voters who are drawn to Halperin are high information voters that seem to be center right. If they are left or center left, they will just vote for Harris. But a lot of the center right people don't like Trump, even though they like many of his policies. And they don't like the liberalism of Biden or Harris. Or, in the case of Harris, they don't feel like they understand her. And they will vote. Halperin often asks these people whether they will vote, and they almost all say they feel obligated to, even if they don't like either candidate. These are the people Harris has to focus on now.

Haven't given much thought to it. Seeing as how Murderous Vlad's useful idiot is the one that is gonna lose. I'll be happy for Murderous Vlad when Trump loses. He should be super happy, seeing as how he wants Harris to win. Yup, Murderous Vlad will get a real kick out of it, seeing as how Kamala will stand up to his genocide. Do you ever wonder why your Genocide Man is such a dumb fuck, to mess up your wannabe democracy and your wannabe economy and your wannabe war victory so bad? Do you ever wonder why you can't fire your dumb fuck leader, like we can, without ending up with a bullet in your head?

I love this quote. Hearing it is better than reading it. This is Mark Halperin's daily 2way podcast below. This comes from Texan political consultant Mark McKinnon, who has worked for both Republicans and Democrats. If you want to hear it it is at 28:00 in the podcast below. Exactly!

In most cases, I think you are right. To stereotype, if it is an undecided White male over 50, I would say it may not be worth it. Just hope he doesn't vote. Again, to stereotype, I'd guess an undecided male under 40 of any race is worth talking to. Trump's grievance rap has some appeal to them. But Harris brought up the Central Park Five, and what Trump said about innocent Black and Latino men, for a reason. Polls showed that young White Trump supporting Dads (and Moms) liked those expanded child tax credits. They also like the idea that billionaires should pay higher taxes. And corporations that are price gouging don't need more Trump tax relief. I will throw you in here, too, my beloved Sister In Cock. While you were busy sucking cock in boarding school, I was the shy girl doing my homework. So at least in this area, I think I have a certain edge. There's a few things in there. CNN reported that North Carolina Guv Roy Cooper, who was one of Kamala's debate night surrogates, said her policy answers on abortion and health care will help her win in North Carolina. Point being, she did address some policy issues passionately and effectively. Halperin slammed Harris for dodging questions on the economy. But he gave her an A+ on abortion. Here is a troublesome poll result from CNN. Before the debate, viewers said Trump would handle the economy better than Trump 53/37. These are the same viewers who thought Harris crushed Trump in the debate about 2 to 1. But ......................... after the debate they said Trump would handle the economy better than Harris 55/35. That's within the poll's margin of error. So, basically, no change on that question. This does not surprise me at all. First, there was basically one question on inflation, which was the first one. It was arguably Harris's weakest answer. Second, it is a fact that inflation was way higher under Biden/Harris than under Trump. That doesn't mean it was due to Trump's policies. But it is a cross Harris has to bear. Unlike Biden, she is NOT telling people they just don't understand how great things are. She did talk briefly about affordable home ownership, helping young parents, helping small businesses. But they spent more time talking about immigrants eating pets than about how to lower the cost of living. I hope they do another debate, or even two more. This first one Harris credentialed herself as a world leader who can cut a stupid bully down to size. To some degree, that came at the cost of detailed talk about policy. Trump actually spoke for five more minutes than Harris - something that Trump supporters whining about the "rigged" debate don't seem to care about. I think Harris would win a second debate, for the same reasons she won a first one. But if I were her I would pivot and stay one step ahead of Trump, and clobber him on policy. Which he sucks at. Yes, he has inflation. But she has a popular populist economic agenda. Again, I think there are lots of right-of-center people who will vote against Harris because they think the Biden/Harris liberal agenda caused inflation ................. in the US, and Europe, and somehow in the rest of the world. But there are a lot of undecided voters who do associate Trump with lower costs of living that I think Harris can still win over.

I actually just did a very long post about that on the debate thread. And in that post I went off about why I think Harris 2024 did better than Clinton 2016. The CNN debate polls show Harris beat Trump by 32 points, compared to a 13 point win for Clinton in 2016. Beyond that, I argued Clinton lost the debate on the points that mattered. As I said on the other thread, a brief exchange over what caused the loss of factory jobs in the Rust Belt is the best one minute explanation for why Clinton lost three Rust Belt states by the narrowest of margins, I think. That was 2016. This is 2024. I think Russia and Genocide Man is one of the reasons Harris will win. That has really got to piss your dumb fuck genocidal monster off. I mean, Dick Cheney is endorsing Kamala Harris! Dick Cheney! The only reason I can think of voting against Harris is that Dick Cheney is for her. WTF? But that is how much dumb fuck Genocide Man and dumb fuck Trump have unified Americans who don't want to pander to Genocide Man like Trump does. This is a very nuanced point about democracy. But since this is a battle about democracy, it is worth being a geek about it. If I had to choose between debates and Allan Lichtman to predict who will win, that's a no brainer. 3 of the 5 candidates who lost their first Presidential debate in this century (Bush, Obama, and Trump in 2016) went on to win the Presidency. But Lichtman got it right every time, with an asterisk by 2000. Lichtman predicted Trump would win in 2016. He has now predicted Harris will win in 2024. So I would bet on that. Here's the nuance about democracy, which I have stated before in a different thread. The two times Lichtman was wrong were 2000 (when he predicted Gore would win in advance), and 1888 (when he predicted Cleveland would win retrospectively). In both cases the candidate he thought would win had 5 of his keys against him. His system (which, by the way, was developed with Russian fellow traveler Vladimir Keilis-Borok who wanted peace and democracy) says you have to have 6 keys against you to lose. In both cases where Lichtman was wrong, narrowly, the candidate with only five keys against them won the popular vote. But they lost the electoral college. All this sounds very familiar. Harris could be the third example. She has five keys against. Like Cleveland in 1888 and Gore in 2000, she could win the popular vote but lose the electoral college. But wait! There is one other nuance. Up until he made his final prediction, Lichtman was suggesting that both his foreign policy keys would be counted against Biden or Harris. When he made his final call, he fudged it by saying even if he counted both against Harris, it still adds up to five keys. Which means she wins. But on his podcast, he said if he had to nail it down, he would count four keys against her. He would say Biden/Harris had a foreign policy loss in Israel/Gaza, at least as of today. But Lichtman says Ukraine/Russia is a foreign policy success. Lichtman argues that Biden and Harris defending Ukraine and unifying and expanding NATO will be viewed as a clear success by history. Even if it is not today. I think he is right. So that means Harris has only four keys against her. There is no example in Lichtman's system, going back to The Civil War, where a candidate with only four keys against them lost - either the popular vote, or the electoral college. That's a lot of nuance. But to break it down in simple terms for dumb fuck genocidal democracy haters like Murderous Vlad to understand, it means he literally helped Harris win. If you buy Lichtman's view on history, Genocide Man laid the groundwork for someone with balls like Harris, who will stand up for American principles, to win. That's gonna hurt real bad for your dumb fuck genocidal monster. I know, I know. Murderous Vlad says he wants Harris to win. Which just proves he's as bad a liar as he is a strategist. Genocide Man unified NATO, strengthened democracy, and elected the woman who will eat his tired old losing ass for lunch. Sadly, you can't even fire Genocide Man, despite all his fuck ups. Poor Russia! (The polls you cited are horse race polls taken right before each debate. Not polls of who viewers thought won the debate. If anything, they prove debates only change things at the margin.)

Nope. I'll quote Murderous Vlad. Duh! Let's put it this way. Is it even possible that some right wing authoritarian grifter could be even stupider and meaner than Trump was on the debate stage last night? And the answer is: Fuck yeah. Murderous Vlad. Murderous Vlad is even stupider. What a dumb asshole. He ruined your wannabe democracy. He ruined your wannabe economy. And now he has fucked it all up with Ukraine. When your miserable federation collapses, blame it on the genocidal dumb fuck. At least Trump sounded empathetic when he pointed out that lots of Ukrainians and Russians were being killed. And what is the name of the genocidal dumb fuck who started this war? Murderous Vlad. Maybe Genocide Man "sincerely believed and assumed" that slaughtering Ukrainian women and children would enhance "the close cultural, spiritual, and economic ties" between Genocide World and Ukraine. But if he did, he is a dumb fuck on top of being a genocidal monster. As much of a stupid grifting dumb fuck as Trump is with his DJT grift and his crappy debate performance, Putin has now proven beyond doubt he is even more of a stupid dumb fuck. Name one country that the US invaded where it worked out well in the end. Let's see. Viet Nam. Nope. Afghanistan. Nope. Iraq. Nope. So think about the fact that everybody in Ukraine would gladly put a bullet in Genocide Man's head. They hate you. Read the polls. 90 % of them will fight rather than be part of Genocide World. Even the vast majority of ethnic Russians in Ukraine don't want to be swallowed up by Genocide World. And you think you don't have a huge fucking problem on your hands? They may forgive Russia. In 1000 years or so. Putin is a monster and a fucking idiot. He makes Trump and his grifting look genius by comparison. Sorry. You poor Russians will lose, for decades to come. Just hope every Ukrainian you have such "close cultural, spiritual, and economic ties" with doesn't get anywhere near you or any other Russian while they are holding a gun or knife. That's what your dumb fuck genocidal butcher did. He's even dumber and a bigger loser than Trump. Putin actually proved that democracy works, and is always stronger. He had a point that years ago Ukraine was a 50/50 nation, as reflected in actual elections. Let's just stipulate that the US and the CIA cleverly manipulated Ukraine, and Ukrainian elections, to mess around with Vlad. Well, guess what? It worked! Until Genocide Man started his genocide, Ukraine was something like 50/50 on pro-Russian leaders and NATO. Now they are not. Now they want democracy and NATO. Now they despise Genocide Man and Genocide World. What a miserable losing dumb fuck! The difference between a failing Russian Federation and a thriving United States is that at least we can fire our dumb fuck, thanks to the democracy you folks try to undermine. We did fire the dumb fuck in 2020. Now we will hire someone who is a perfect embodiment of American success and smarts. You can't do that. You're stuck with your dumb fuck and his genocide.

I didn't go looking for it. But when I was prowling YouTube for debate reactions I found the clip you must be referring to. So this will be a very long post. And I will comment on two related things, in order: Harris, and sexism. I agree with Kasich. I think his analysis nailed it. First, his comments about Trump were clearly negative. His comments about Harris were quite positive, I thought. He said she gained voters. He said (not verbatim) any lingering doubts about her capacity to lead have been wiped out. I took him to mean now she needs to go out and sell it. Now she needs to close the deal with undecided voters. I think he is right. I don't think she closed the deal last night. I think that may be why she immediately said, "Let's have another." When you are talking and winning and people like who you are, talk more. My advice to Harris would be John Kasich is your role model. Do what he did, both in demeanor and substance. Personally, I dislike Chuck Todd for the same reason I am not big on Rachel Maddow. Both strike me as congenitally smug. I love Kasich for the opposite reason. He comes off as down to earth. Last Thanksgiving two of my nephews asked me what I thought of "that Republican that Democrats like". I had no clue who they meant. So one went and asked his Mom and came back and said, "John Kasich." My reaction was immediate. "I love him." My nephew asked why. "Because he compromises. Because he meets in the middle." Related to that, he wins elections. He won his 2010 race for Ohio Giv 49/47. Had it not been a great year for Republicans, he would have lost. Then in 2014 he won 63/33. He had to do a lot of meeting in the middle with moderate Democrats to do that. I can't prove this. But I think part of the reason Ohio shifted from purple to red is that both Kasich and his successor DeWine have branded the Ohio GOP as pragmatic center/right, as opposed to crazy MAGA. One of my nieces, who is borderline crazy MAGA, does not like DeWine because he is a "RINO". And she had no idea he is still Governor, even though she lives in the state. When I started preaching about, "Do you folks want to win elections or not?" it was as if I was speaking a foreign language. Kasich understands winning elections. But he also understands his party was hijacked. So if I were Harris, I would do exactly what Kasich says. She had a great debate. She opened doors. And she got people listening. Now go fill in the blanks. Any notion that she needs cue cards to speak is gone. She's eloquent and charming. Let her loose. I think Kasich is right that she won the votes of some undecided voters, and the ears of others. But she needs to close the deal. Now about sexism. In that clip above, Alencia Johnson may be correct that women, in general, are held to a higher standard. And she may be right that Harris is called out for not going into detail on policy, while Trump is given a pass. Personally, I think they both completely avoided questions they did not want to answer. Like Trump flip flopping on abortion and Harris flip flopping on immigration. But even if I stipulate Johnson is 100 % correct, I think it was a dumb thing to say. Harris is doing great with women. But if only men vote in this election, Trump will win bigly. There's a huge chunk of men, probably mostly White and older, who would not vote for Harris if their lives depended on it. There's also a big chunk of younger men of all races that are not sold on her, but seem persuadable. There's this notion out there that they are the victims of reverse discrimination. Like, more women than men are going to college, so that makes them a victim. The concept itself is questionable, I think. Like, why are they victims when women decide to go to college, and they don't? But a Black woman telling young White men that the problem is Harris is being held to a higher standard than Trump won't help. It would help more for Harris to do what Kasich says. Talk about how we need trade schools for men who want to achieve the American dream but don't want to go to college. Talk about how she'll bring down interest rates and help build affordable homes. Talk about child tax credits for young women and men who are new parents living on the margin. Trump won't talk about that stuff, even though he is supposedly the great real estate guy. He'll talk about immigrants eating cats and dogs. On the issue of jobs - factory jobs - here's an interesting compare and contrast from 2016: I've been wondering for eight years whether some of my reactions to Hillary Clinton in 2016 were sexist. Last night settled that for me. I don't think I was having sexist reactions in 2016. I think Trump 2016 was better than Trump 2024. More important, I think Harris 2024 is better than Clinton 2016. I did vote for Hillary in the 2016 primary - more because I felt like I had to, even though my heart was with Bernie. I certainly voted for, and gave money to, Hillary in Fall 2016. I was an Elizabeth "I Have A Plan" Warren fan boy in 2020. I think Kamala is crushing it. My heart is into Kamala in a way it was never into Hillary in 2016. I fairness to Hillary, maybe it is because Kamala feels new and fresh - even though she isn't, really. But I don't think this is sexism on my part. I will always think of that one minute clip above as the moment Clinton lost the 2016 election. In fairness, the polls showed Clinton won that debate by +13. And she won the general election by million of votes. But that's just irrelevant. What is relevant is she lost those three blue wall states. And to understand why, I think that one minute clip is as good an explanation as you can get in 60 seconds. It was about factory jobs and factory communities. It was about pissed off working class people in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. A bunch of whom voted for Obama in 2008, and felt like things didn't get any better for them after eight years. Some of these people then voted for Biden in 2020, because they felt things got no better for them under Trump. Being a policy geek, I'll also point out the facts. From Jan 1993 to Jan 2001, factory jobs in America went from 16.8 million to 17.1 million. That's actually a modest increase. From Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2009, manufacturing jobs went from 17.1 million to 12.6 million. That is a devastating loss of 4.5 million factory jobs. People in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin should have been pissed! And they were. They voted for Obama. McCain did not have a prayer. I'll give Hillary this pass also. Allan Lichtman had already predicted by the time of the 2016 debate that Trump would win. So he would argue what mattered was not words on a debate stage. He'd argue what mattered is that Obama wasn't able to do anything significant about it over eight years. So people in those states voted for change. Just as Michael Moore was warning they would. It was not Clinton's fault. As she said, she was not POTUS. That said, I still think it was political malpractice for Clinton to let Trump get away with that. Like Kamala, she could have said, "You're not running against my husband. You're running against me." She also could have said she agrees with Trump that the loss of factory jobs UNDER REPUBLICANS AND GEORGE W. BUSH was devastating. "Why are you blaming Republican policies that destroyed those communities on me? I want to restore them." Anything like that would have been better than what she said: "Read my book." I think a lot of people listening to that must have felt like Trump was talking about a real problem IN THEIR LIVES AND THEIR COMMUNITIES. And, to me, Clinton made it sound like Trump was just making it up in his own mind. Harris did get a bunch of stuff out there in the time she had about her policies. But the very good thing is she didn't let Trump paint her as anything. Mostly, Trump painted himself as a fool. But Harris threw him the bait, and he took it. Chris Christie made an interesting point on The View today which may help explain this. He said Trump actually respected Clinton, and thought she was very smart. Plus, Christie would argue he was doing the debate prep for 2016. So he forced his pal Trump to actually prepare. Christie said Trump does not respect Harris. Not because of race or gender, but because she's a Vice President. Why would he respect Harris any more than he respected Pence? That may explain some of why Trump sucked so bad last night. Whether it's another debate or more in depth interviews, I think Harris earned respect and interest last night. Undecided voters are listening. She should go out and sell it.

STOP! Your authoritarian monster of a leader is committing genocide. Period. It is just that simple. Even Trump said it last night, when he refused to say he wants Ukraine to win. He said it's a slaughter. Thank your genocidal monster for that. Or are you going to lie like Trump does about losing the election and inciting a mob? Are you going to say Ukrainians asked your genocidal monster to slaughter their women and kids? Putin is an authoritarian thug. He killed whatever chance Russia had of being a democracy. He killed whatever chance Russia had of being a leading global economy. The US gets to lead the global economy. China gets to lead the global economy. Russia gets to turn its people into grass for cows to shit on. These are simply facts. We all know these facts. And now YOU, backer of genocide, want to talk about international justice? G-I-V-E-M-E-A-F-U-C-K-I-N-G-B-R-E-A-K. All you have to brag about is a failed economy, an authoritarian thug, and mass murder of women and children.

That was the only moment I thought, "Oh my God. She might lose." If I had to reach a conclusion, it would be that it's better to be overprepared than underprepared. As you noted, her first answer sounded like a tepid memorized script. Everything after that did not, even if it was carefully prepared. Trump, on the other hand, was very unprepared, flabby, and off the rails. Why am I not shocked? My guess is, like Biden's awful debate, this is going to be a shit bomb that germinates for weeks. GOP leaders won't call on him to resign. But it makes his job of winning undecided voters harder. She may not have won many undecided voters last night. But she sure didn't lose them. The debate meant the door closed a little more for him, and opened a little more for her. Some undecided voters not convinced by Harris after debate with Trump I think that's a mostly true statement. Given the choice, I'd rather have undecided voters view Kamala as the one person who figured out how to eviscerate Trump, as opposed to the person who thoughtfully explained her policy position on fracking. But when he misrepresented her on fracking, she did call him a liar. It's weird enough to go unhinged on immigrants eating dogs and cats. In context, it would have been weirder still for her to react by saying, "Okay. Now let me take 90 seconds to talk about the finer details of my immigration policy." I think she got more mileage by putting down the bully. The one criticism that resonates the most for me is that she could have found some way, one time, to say, "We made a mistake." And immigration policy would have been a good place to do it. What she did instead feeds into the narrative that she won't answer questions, she is vague, she is evasive. Especially since she is Veep, it was a good opportunity to turn it into a positive. "I learned a lot on the job. I will hit the ground running." Like I said, I don't know that she closed the deal. But she sure opened the door a little wider, while Trump turned undecided voters off. She now has the stage set to fill in more of the blanks. It completely trashes the notion that somehow she can't speak eloquently without a script.

I thought she won without saying a word. Her poise and logic were just the icing on the cake.

Sure has has. He answered the question, "Are you a loser?" Kamala clocked him! There are lots of ways to win a debate. I think what was so emotionally satisfying about this was that Harris made her opponent look like a vain fool, who is so stupid that he took the bait EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME.

No, I don't. Of course you don't. Your job here is simple. To lie, to defend genocide, and more important to not say a thing about the wretched, miserable, failed authoritarian nation Russia is. You don't brag about Russia, because you can't. Genocide Man just wants to stir up trouble in the US, and wherever else he can. That's his game. You could give a shit about the truth. Just like Trump, who only lies when his lips are moving. When rotten Russia and Genocide Man are called out for genocide, you dismiss it. That's like Hitler arguing why would you listen to Jews who are just whining about the great living quarters we put them in and the good work we give them. When the whole world looks down on Genocide Man and Russia, you simply dismiss it as "Western propaganda". I feel sorry for most Russians. When the federation collapses of its own rot, and America stands tall as a vibrant multi-racial capitalist democracy, I will feel sorry for all the Russians and ethnic minorities that suffered and were slaughtered thanks to the evil and greed of Genocide Man. Besides that, though, Putin really is a swell guy.

I wish. I wish I was only dreaming that Genocide Man has viciously slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people, including many innocent women and kids. That would be a nightmare, not a dream. But I wish it was not real. You are a one note wonder. You back Putin, and his monstrous genocide. You can not deny his murderous slaughter is real. So you play bullshit games, as if there was really a just legal system in rotten Russia. You say, "Oh, name the court where Genocide Man has been proven to commit genocide. And then in the next sentence YOU name the court, and then dismiss it. Proving that Ukrainians don't count to you. You don't give a shit. You back Genocide Man, and his mass murder. To you, Ukrainians are just people Russia's prisoners and ethnic minorities are paid to slaughter, until they are turned into fertilizer themselves. These are just facts. You can not deny them. You just try to bullshit your way through them or try to change the subject by attacking Harris or democracy. You make weak, failed arguments to support a weak, failed genocidal monster.

Agreed. There is a racial component to that. But since we can't really have an honest conversation about it as a nation, it is better left unsaid. On the face of it, "Make America Great Again" doesn't even make sense if you are Black. What made America great in the past? Slavery? Jim Crow? Was America greater when one Black actor, Sidney Poitier, was finally able to win an Academy Award? I believe Harris will win because she represents what most Americans, including White Americans like me, want: a thriving multi-racial capitalist democracy. Not many like 'em on the planet. I just read some right wing article about how Harris represents the welfare state. Harris represents the idea that we no longer believe in letting the individual be free and see how far he can go on his own. It's bullshit. If Harris represented the idea that people need the government to take care of them, why is she pushing small businesses? Even my Republican small-business-owning Dad said again and again that the best things the government ever did are the GI Bill and Social Security. Harris represents the idea that America is great, and can be even greater. There are some interesting and, to me, positive exceptions: Unlike with Whites, with Blacks the younger you are the more likely you are to vote for Trump. This makes a lot of sense to me. When Jim Clyburn was a young man, what he saw was Strom Thurmond leaving the Democratic Party because it was embracing civil rights. Clyburn is the poster child for the idea that if you are Black and you want power and success, be a Democrat. Arguably, he hand picked our current POTUS, and our next one. A young Black man growing up today looks to what Republicans stand for in South Carolina and sees Tim Scott. That's a very different message. That said, the MAGA wing of the Republican Party does not embrace that, and seems to reject it. They can thank Kevin McCarthy for at least starting to integrate the Republican Party in the US House. What did they do? They fired him.

I was right. You haven't denied a thing I said. Russia is rotten. Opponents of Genocide Man are not sent to trials in courts. They are shot in the head. Russia is rotten. Putin and his kleptocrats invade Ukraine and slaughter women and children. It is genocide. Russia is rotten. There is no democracy, and no just legal system. Russia is rotten. Since your system sucks, and you can't brag about it, all Putin can do is cynically try to use Western democracy to divide and conquer. You don't have a just legal system, and Putin will kill anyone who demands it. So your argument is that genocide doesn't even exist unless some court Putin doesn't believe in anyway says it exists. And when some court Putin doesn't believe in says it exists, well Putin doesn't believe in them anyway. It's what happens in genocidal authoritarian countries like Russia. If you don't do what Putin wants, you die. Ask any Ukrainian man, woman, or child. But your argument is that there is no truth if Putin says so. There is no genocide, unless Putin proclaims himself to be the genocidal monster he is. Russia is a rotten, failing, weak nation that knows nothing about democracy and a just legal system. You can't say one good thing about this rotten failing place. Other than that people who don't want to be sent to Ukraine to die by Genocide Man and who do want to have freedom leave.

And you don't deny anything I say. Because it is true. Genocide Man wants his pal Donald J. Genocide to win. Putin is good at disinformation, murder, killing democracy, and killing economies. So he doesn't want to talk about Genocide World and how fucked up it is. I don't blame Genocide Man. He runs a failed federation that will collapse after he dies. Putin's best hope is to try to use democracy against itself with his disinformation and lies. I mean, really? Who the fuck wants to be a Russian right now? Nobody! Not the Chinese. Not Americans. Not Europeans. Not even Indians, who will buy your weapons. Everybody hates Putin and his genocide. So instead of showing off what a miserable deadly mess Russia is, Putin is counting on the help of Donald J. Genocide. Donald J. Genocide is a threat to America's national security that will help Putin and his genocide. That is just a fact. I mean, if some left wing Democrat said it, you could say they are just biased and partisan. Donald Trump's Vice President is saying Donald J. Genocide is a threat to national security and a pal of Putin. Donald Trump's Defense Secretary is saying Donald J. Genocide is a threat to our national security and a pal of Putin. Donald Trump's National Security Adviser is saying Donald J. Genocide is a threat to our national security and a pal of Putin. Donald Trump's Joint Chiefs of Staff is saying Donald J. Genocide is a threat to our national security and a pal of Putin. Of course Putin does not want to brag about his genocide. Of course Putin wants to deny his slaughter of innocent Ukrainian women and children. Of course Genocide Man wants to use disinformation to try to divide and conquer and get his pal Donald J. Genocide elected. If Donald J. Genocide wants the help of Genocide Man's pals to start his crappy and failing social media farce in a skanky but legal manner, that is his business. But we're not going to let Genocide Man elect Donald J. Genocide so he can have his way with Ukraine, and try to undermine global democracy. This is why the Russian Federation is doomed. Name one time - ever - in all of human history, that a Genocide Man won. When did Hitler win? When did Stalin win? When did Pol Pot win? Putin will be remembered for all time as the genocidal monster he is. That's just a fact.

That's a very good distinction. I think Hillary was right, in fact, but horribly politically wrong on "deplorables". Her husband would never have said that. The way he talks about this is that you have to make it clear to people that you get their values. And you are not some crazy radical who wants to chop their son's dick off or make their daughter share a high school bathroom with a man. He doesn't say it like that, of course. But he does not blame what could be called "centrist" people for their conservative social values. Bill Clinton of course was the one who many Gays despise for "don't ask don't tell". But what he basically proved, I think, is that if you want to win the White working class vote, that is where you may have to go. Since Bill Clinton no one has come close to winning that big a chunk of White working class votes. We can say we don't want those votes. But if we want a Senate majority by winning seats in Ohio or Missouri or Montana, the math just doesn't work. So the question is where do you draw the line. Harris is clearly trying to move to the center. I think it makes sense that she is doing it mostly on pocketbook issues, like fracking in Pennsylvania. Immigration is an economic issue. But in some ways it is even more a culture war issue. So that is an example where she is coming off as Kamala The Cop, not No Borders Harris. I think all the demographics are pretty clear that there is a large chunk of White working class voters who are not racist, who do not harbor grudges about Blacks getting ahead, and who will vote for someone like Obama. Proof of concept is they did in 2008. And Obama won in a near landslide. I will always feel if he had governed more like FDR - an economic populist - things might have gone better in 2010 and 2014. Example: bail out the White working class home owners who got screwed (as well as the Black and Hispanic and Asian ones) and send the bankers who did it to jail. He did not do that, really. But my theory is totally debatable. One other fact that I don't understand precisely but I think is true. Some of the best reporting about Trump's jubilant patriotic cop beating at The Capitol when he lied about losing is that many of the "patriots" who broke cop bones were actually middle class people who own small businesses and live in metro areas that are basically on the tipping point of racial change. Or what could be called "White replacement theory". I think that aligns with polling. Like White working class union members still tend to vote Democratic. I think it is people who are kind of in the middle class, and kind of White, and kind of racist, who Trump appeals to the most. Again, it's complicated. And Hillary did not help herself by making it black and white, pun intended, and labeling a whole swath of voters "deplorables". The flip side of this is that there are lots of socially conservative Blacks and Hispanics. There have been Black activists who understand this and for years have said that more Blacks would vote Republican if they weren't so damn racist. So that is an interesting thing. You now have guys like Tim Scott, a Black Republican Senator, who are poster children for the fact that these kind of people - socially conservative and upwardly mobile Blacks - are now welcome in the GOP. But on the other hand, you have Trump being Trump. The funny moment there of course is when Tim Scott tried to dismiss Trump's coded Proud Boys comment in 2020 by saying maybe he didn't mean it. Or maybe he did. So in 2024 we had all these Blacks and Hispanics pissed at Biden and perhaps also more socially conservative who were playing footsie with Trump. As soon as we swapped out Biden for Harris, they flocked to Harris. But that's in play. If Trump is crushed and the Republican Party runs Tim Scott against Harris in 2028, that will be a very different and very interesting race. What all of this says to me is the distinction you made makes sense. Make it about populist economics, not race or identity politics. Harris did that masterfully in her acceptance speech by not mentioning her race or gender, She made it about her immigrant Mom and a working class family trying to get ahead and kitchen table economics. I'm not saying identity politics is bad. Quite the opposite. I think Bill Clinton is right that you have to meet people where they are at. About half of Republicans now accept same sex marriage. Those are the people we want. The bigots who are racists who thinks being Gay is a disease can have Trump and MAGA and be sore losers. Fuck em! They are losers who deserve to lose. And they will lose.

That's the point. Your points on authoritarianism are always excellent. It is a huge challenge. And you can make a great argument that the real problem is not authoritarians, or authoritarian-friendly influencers. The real problem is those authoritarian followers. Without throngs of authoritarian followers, you can't have authoritarian leaders. My point is that in the US, so far, the best answer is to let democracy work. In Hungary, this idea ain't working so great. Check back with me in a year. I am hoping Trump and MAGA are crushed. A lot of historians draw a parallel between now and the Civil War. I buy that. Back then you can argue you needed two things. You needed to let democracy work. And you needed to let war work. Lincoln was a democratic solution to a different form of authoritarianism rooted in upholding slavery, one of the worst crimes against humanity ever. Lincoln is revered today. He also led a successful war. He was also killed for it. These things ain't pretty, for sure. MAGA is not pretty. Harris is trying something interesting. Instead of making Trump bigger like Biden did - "the battle for the soul of our nation" - she is making him small. He's just a small, weird old guy who grabs pussies and keeps bungling everything. He can't talk without a meaningless word salad coming out. He can't lead. In effect, she is telling America, "We are smarter than this. Don't be fooled by dum dums." We'll see how it works.

All true. Granted, you used some of the most extreme examples. But you're right. I was not endorsing right-wing influencers, or saying they are correct. I was simply saying this is nothing new. Your examples prove my point. @lookin's point is that "independent thinkers might be a dying breed." In the Third Reich, independent thinkers were a dying breed. As were Jews, and Gays, and anyone who disagreed with Der Fuhrer. It worked for a while. And then it was crushed. And now it is hated and used forever as an example of the worst people can be. Trump is already remembered as the worst Presidents can be. There's another line I often think about relating to Putin and his disinformation that fits in well here. Trump and right-wing influencers are a threat. But they are also a stress test for democracy. So far, democracy is working.

And here I thought being a male escort was as good as it gets! 😉

This just happened to show up on my YouTube feed. Larry King interview with Trump and Melania right after they got married. At the end of the interview King asks Melania if she worries about other women being attracted to her husband. "I don't worry about that at all," she said. Still doesn't, apparently.

And the problem is ............... ? Let's be clear about this. Influencers, almost by definition, are critical thinkers. Why else would they be influencers? So the fact that Genocide Man will pay American influencers to trash Biden and trash NATO actually proves that critical thinking is alive and well. In the United States. In Russia, critical thinkers are also alive and well. Unless they don't like Vlad. Those critical thinkers are dead and buried. Russia is where you go if you DO NOT want to be an influencer. At best, Russia is where you go if you are pals with a genocidal monster and you want to make money helping turn other Russians into fertilizer. Woo hoo! Now, of course, there have been many well known Russian influencers who were not sent to become fertilizer in Ukraine. They simply ended up being shot in the head, or poisoned, or had the misfortune of flying in an airplane that blew up. So is there a problem in the United States of America? Or is the problem in Genocide World? Is the problem perhaps with Genocide Man, and his murderous authoritarian tendencies? Whadaya say Vlad? Awwwww. What an adorable mass murderer of women and children. And Russian influencers who don't kiss his ass, of course. I posted this article in another thread, but this fits here: So social media has given us influencers who get rich, in part thanks to Genocide Man. They say things many people like to hear, and that Genocide Man wants them to hear. Like we should cut Ukraine loose and let Genocide Man kill as many women and kids as he wants. And the problem is? The Republican Party in particular has a long history of isolationism. The most successful Republicans - Eisenhower, Reagan, the Bushes - have pushed NATO and alliances. So Vlad did not invent isolationism. When isolationism thrives in the GOP, they lose. Like in 2020. I'm a Democrat. And the problem is? Okay, okay. I get it. There is huge divisive conflict in the US. As a result, turnout in US Presidential elections is higher than before, almost at historically unmatched levels. Black men are no longer 3/5s of a person. Black men are POTUS. Now we'll see if a Black woman can be POTUS (unless she changes to be White, of course 😲). Democracy is thriving. And the problem is? Okay, okay. I get it. All of this is completely fucking up the US economy. The stock market is at all times highs. The US is the technology leader of the world. Meanwhile, Vlad is the genocide leader of the world. He is very good at figuring out how to keep the failed Russian economy going by turning his people into fertilizer and killing Ukrainian women and children. Meanwhile, the US economy is beating China, Europe, and everyone else. And the problem is? Let the influencers influence. Let Vlad pay them his genocide money. Kamala Harris will lead a thriving multi-racial democratic capitalist economy. Murderous Vlad will lead a failing and genocidal kleptocratic authoritarian mess. Eventually, that will influence the Russian people. Just like the Soviet Union, Vlad's limp, weak, and failing Russian Federation will collapse of its own rot and evil. But don't take my word for it. Listen to what the influencers are saying: Ukraine war: Russia faces revolution and collapse within 10 years, experts say Nearly half of respondents to a think tank’s poll expect the country to break up by 2033, and over a fifth think it is likely to become a failed state

Can we just all be the tiniest bit realistic and face facts, guys? I mean, really! Genocide World is a failed state. The Russian Federation is going to collapse. It's not a question of whether that is true. It's a question of when. Yeah, the Soviet Union was really something. But guess what? It collapsed. Compared to that, Putin is a weak limp useless murderer. And he knows it. He has spent his whole failed dictatorship (well, okay, he did win in rigged elections) whining like the nasty little murderous bitch he is. Those are just facts. So Americans and Europeans have no sympathy for the whining nasty failing bitch, or the people he murders so he and his family and kleptocrats can get rich. Yeah, the far right in Europe will get in bed with Genocide Man mostly because they don't war in their countries. But that's a minority. Oh, and did I mention most Ukrainians would happily slit @Moses throat and gut him in a heartbeat? I'm not trying to be nasty or rude. Quite the opposite. I feel sorry for you Russians. Ukrainians used to sympathize with you. Now they hate you. They would celebrate if America nuked Moscow tomorrow and turned it into a radioactive wasteland, never to rise again. These are just facts. Read the polls. They hate you. Ukrainains and Poles in particular hate Russians. Despite all of your failing nasty bitch's best efforts to divide them. And I sympathize with Russians who have no power to do anything about it. You can complain and be poisoned or shot in the head, like so many critics and Putin opponents. Or you can shut up and be sent off to Ukraine to be processed into fertilizer. Or, you can just get the fuck out, like so many of Russia's best and brightest have. We welcome them. So, yes. It's just a fact that Murderous Vlad and Donald The Felon lick each other's asses. And they will lie about it even when each other's shit is clearly smeared all over each other's faces. What's a lyin murderin autocrat and an autocrat-wannabe gonna do, for Pete's sake? Why the Kremlin Loves Social Media This week’s indictment of a social media content firm shows how it’s getting easier and easier for Russia to influence U.S. elections. That's the game. That's the Big Lie. And Donald The Felon is the useful idiot playing right into Murderous Vlad's genocidal hands. I hope you are a Russian bot, @Moses. Because that is better than being a real Russian in your wretched genocidal country, that is failing both economically and politically. Sure, go ahead and cite the bullshit Murderous Vlad shoves down your throats. You have no choice. The US is growing ten times as fast as Russia, even on your best day. So you can stir up an economy by getting certain people rich by sending prisoners and ethnic minorities to Ukraine to be processed into grass that cows shit on. But that's exactly why the Russian Federation is dooming itself. Even as it thinks it is somehow dividing America or dividing Europe. You are doomed. It is just that simple. I mean, let's face facts. Murderous Vlad is a hated monster. He is hated all over the world. So what is there to brag about, anyway? I mean, I get it. China likes to brag about being the world leader when it comes to electric cars. Woo hoo! America likes to brag about being the leader at most cutting edge technologies. Including social media, which Genocide Man thinks he is cleverly using to divide us. Meanwhile, Russians brag about their genocide in Ukraine, killing innocent women and children, and being the world leader in turning their own people into fertilizer to get crooked and criminal kleptocrats rich. Woo hoo! That's the point. They don't brag about it. How can they? Money and blood and rot is not how you build a great country. Vlad thinks he is winning the war. He did win a battle in 2016, when he helped Trump win. But he is clearly losing the war. Poor Genocide Man! I do feel for the Russian people.

Good point. I'd argue social media has dumbed things down and made things more divisive, period. MAGA is a subset of that. But that also goes back to the idea that Lichtman has a theory of governance, not of campaigning. Fake news and social media are both. Fake news and social media can create an alternative reality of how people are being governed. A good example is that if you live in MAGA world, the S & P 500 is down this year, when it is actually up. We're in a recession, when we are actually not. That said, I agree with Lichtman that, on average, Americans are smart. And they choose Presidents based on how well they govern. It's not just that fake news, including a left-wing version of it, has people hypnotized. That chart is the percentage of White working class voters who vote Republican. If Harris loses, that will be why. Stated differently, if nothing else changed but you gave Harris the percentage of White working class voters Clinton got in 1992 and 1996, or even that Obama got in 2008, she would win in a landslide. So one way to explain the above is the rise of fake news, and MAGA. But this was happening in 2012, and 1984, before Trump was on the scene. An alternative explanation is racism. Clinton did well because he comes off as a Bubba White working class guy. Obama was a somewhat professorial Black man. That theory would work if we stipulate that Obama disguised himself as White in 2008, when he won the White working class vote. And Kerry ran as a Black man in 2004, when he lost it. I would argue this is proof of concept for Lichtman. Something happened between 2008 and 2012. And it was not that Obama changed his race, like Harris apparently did. 😉 Maybe social conservatism has something to do with it. But I'd argue it was mostly pocketbook economics. The Great Recession happened. I'll give two examples. Millions of people, including lots of working class Whites, lost their home. All of us lost our home equity. And the banks got bailed out. In his book at the time, Bill Clinton came up with some great policy ideas, similar to what FDR did in the New Deal, to basically bail out the little guy and stabilize the economy for everyone. It was not radical socialist stuff. He said the government should refi all these mortgages so they are sound and affordable. Then when you sell the home the government gets some of its money back. That would have made a huge difference. America lost 4.5 million factory jobs under W., from 17 million in Jan. 2001 to 12.5 million in Jan. 2009. By Jan. 2013 we had about 12 million factory jobs. So Obama turned a gushing and mortal wound into a slow bleed out. The areas hurt the most - Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio - are the ones that shifted from Obama to Trump. We all know the Rustbelt was the key to Trump's success. If he wins in 2024, it will be again. So my point is that this is about governance, not fake news or campaigning. So to make my point, I'll create my own fake news or alternative set of facts. Lichtman always makes the point that the keys are interactive, and play on each other. In other words, strong governance begets strong governance. Weak governance begets weak governance. So let's assume that Obama was a second FDR, which he wanted to be. Let's assume he sent bankers to jail, bailed out working class White home owners, stabilized the economy. And working class Whites felt this guy is on my side - based on governing, not words. Instead of having a wipeout in the House and Senate in 2010 and 2014, he would have had the votes to actually get a second term agenda passed. If you buy Lichtman's keys, Hillary lost because she had six keys against her as the candidate of the incumbent party in 2016. If Obama had gotten a significant economic populist agenda passed in his second term, rather than gridlock because he lost the House and Senate, Lichtman would argue Hillary would have won. Alternatively, Lichtman would argue if Biden had NOT gotten his agenda passed it would hurt Harris, and be a nail in her coffin. We'll of course never know whether any of this could have been. We do know that if Democrats want Senate and House majorities, they have to pay attention to working class White voters. Ron Brownstein said it was a good sign that just switching from Biden to Harris did not send these voters running for the hills. But that is her challenge, and the challenge of Democrats. I am absolutely convinced that an economic populist agenda - not as a campaign tactic, but as a governing strategy - is what is needed.

I don't recall any comments Halperin has made about Silver. Although it would make sense to me that Halperin would tend to prefer Silver to Lichtman. This is overly simplistic. But one could describe Halperin and Silver as believing in a theory of campaigning. They're the pundits and pollsters who will give you their brilliant analysis of how the campaign shaped who won. Or what the polls told us about the percentage chances that Hillary would win. Lichtman says hogwash to all that. He has a theory of governance. At the simplest level, his keys say that strong governance is rewarded with another term for the incumbent party. Weak governance means we throw the bums out. I think Lichtman is right. Which drives Lichtman nuts. He says that every election people say something is different this time so his keys don't apply. And then they do. I think if Biden had NOT dropped out and gone on to win, that would have been a validator of Lichtman's theory. Meaning that the incumbent party had enough going for it that they managed to elect someone who voters did not particularly like. I think Truman in 1948 would be an example of that. There's a good argument that people were not voting for Truman. They were voting for FDR's policies. If Harris wins it's a different version of the same thing. Lichtman's keys suggest the incumbent party has the wind at its backs. So if you switch out an old and unpopular leader for a younger and fresher one, the incumbent party should win. While Lichtman is a historian, he is dealing with mathematical probabilities as well. He says that his party mandate key is the single best predicter of all the keys. 23 out of 28 times the incumbent party was united behind their candidate, he won. She would be the first woman, but these odds are on her side. By comparison, his scandal key has only turned 11 times, and 7 out of the 11 times the incumbent party was involved in scandal, like Watergate or Monicagate, they lost. Lichtman has argued that Republicans lost the battle by impeaching Clinton, but won the war because it was a key factor in Gore's defeat. The polling for that election backs him up on that. A President appearing senile is NOT something that happens a lot, so you can argue with either Biden or Trump you can't really measure age or infirmity being a factor based on the past. Although FDR in 1944 might be an example. He was on his last legs, sick pun intended. But he won anyway. I think his main bias is that pundits like him, who try to be objective and dig deep, are brilliant. And he is. I think his deepest bias is against what he views as crappy mainstream media. He trashed Dana Bash for what he saw as a softball interview with Harris and Walz. But many of his Republican guests trash Trump regularly for being such an awful candidate. What I like about him most is the breadth of his contacts. Right now he is definitely a force for hearing out all sides politely. But also not buying the bullshit.