The Great Debate

[stevenkesslar]

18 minutes ago, Latbear4blk said:

Also, she did not respond to the first question, but instead vomited a memorized and over rehearsed speech.

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

Quote

"I felt like the whole debate was Kamala Harris telling me why not to vote for Donald Trump instead of why she's the right candidate," Wheeler said.

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.

 

[Suckrates]

50 minutes ago, Latbear4blk said:

Really? when they have constructive criticism? I wish she performed better and brought specifics. Also, she did not respond to the first question, but instead vomited a memorized and over rehearsed speech.

Ignoring her flaws would be acting like brainless trumpers clapping any shit coming from DJT. I am glad she is receiving some friendly fire, it will help her to become better.

Neither one of them answered the very first question.  They bypassed it, and talked about what they had obviously rehearsed.  That was repeated in subsequent questions.  I too dont think it was a great performance for Cackles, certainly not the slam dunk left wing pundits are crowing about.   But it was better than Trumps, and thats all it needed to be.  All these potential voters saying they want to hear more about her policys, Fuck go to her website and read it....They want her to be a performing monkey.  I think we know enough about her policys to make a decision,  surely when compared to what we know about Trump it should be a "no brainer" for educated, sane, rational people.   Anyone still considering Trump clearly has issues that will be hard for Cackles to crack.  Anyone considering voting for a FELON and sexual abuser is a different breed to voter. 

[stevenkesslar]

5 hours ago, Pete1111 said:

It pisses me off that on MSNBC Chuck Todd and John Kasich are criticizing Harris's debate performance and sewing doubts this morning for her lacking any specifics

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.

 

 

 

[Pete1111]

2 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

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.

 

 

 

I don't like Chuck Todd at all.  He has been sane-washing the GOP garbage for years.  

I wondered how Trump would perform with Tulsi Gabbard as coach.  She is still appearing on Maher's show and bringing up Hillary.  Whatever her plan, it didn't seem to prevent Trump from looking like a weak old geezer.

I effing hate her, so hurrah!!

That Trump killing the border bill didn't  define a clear enough policy difference between Harris and the "Mexico will pay for it" approach tells me people are not able to interpret how Harris policy will represent an immediate difference versus the Orange guy. 

Frankly, Trump doesn't know or care how the government works.   I expect the doubters wouldn't be satisfied hearing any policy statements from Harris if they don't already buy her statements on the border and women's health.  Maybe a lot of it is their sexist playbook. 

For me it's tired BS.  Why is being amplified so much?

Like Michelle said, don't fall victim to the Goldilocks syndrome if we want Trump to lose.

[stevenkesslar]

59 minutes ago, Pete1111 said:

I expect the doubters wouldn't be satisfied hearing any policy statements from Harris if they don't already buy her statements on the border and women's health. 

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.

6 hours ago, Suckrates said:

Fuck go to her website and read it....They want her to be a performing monkey.  I think we know enough about her policys to make a decision,  surely when compared to what we know about Trump it should be a "no brainer" for educated, sane, rational people. 

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.

[Stable Genius]

In any normal world, a candidate who ranted and raved about immigrants eating dogs and cats because he "saw it on TV" would find his campaign over.

[stevenkesslar]

30 minutes ago, Stable Genius said:

In any normal world, a candidate who ranted and raved about immigrants eating dogs and cats because he "saw it on TV" would find his campaign over.

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.

Quote

If the goal of this campaign was for Harris to look Presidential, look in command and control, and cool, she did it. ... Again, do the old "turn the sound off"  ...  She looked like she was on the beach, in the sun.  And Trump looked like he was in a fucking hail storm of freezing weather.  He looked miserable.  She looked like she was enjoying the hell out of it.  That matters.

Quote

For low information voters who are just tuning in, they're just looking for .... "Hey, do I want to see this person on television for the next four years?"  And last night I think they looked at her and said, "Yeah.  She looks competent.  She looks in control  She looks Presidential.  And I don't want to see this guy screaming about pets and shit for the next four years.  

 

Exactly!

 

 

[Suckrates]

To those pushing for a 2nd Harris/Trump debate, my question is WHY ?    If you consider Trump DID NOT offer anything new that we didnt hear in his debate with Biden, except the "pet eatting" thing, because he doesnt have anything new.  Listening to an angry Old man rant for 90 min doesnt seem productive to me......  Just let Harris do 1 on 1 personal interviews to answer voter questions and concerns.... and Stop platforming Trump....Making him look the fool doesnt seem to be moving the poll numbers so why bother.... Focus on Harris, Trump has the base he WANTS and doesnt care about growing it     But it seems the "undecideds: want to see and hear more from Harris, so give them Harris.   While debating him does offer contrast,  I feel it distracts and detracts more from her because you basically just focus on Crazy Old Trump, and the things she says get lost.  We KNOW Trump...next.    More 60 Minutes style interviews from Harris.  

[Suckrates]

13 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

I

 

 

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.

IF people are UNDECIDED at this point they are :

1) Not really serious Voters

2) Not being TRUTHFUL about who they WILL vote for

3) Wont be Voting at all no matter what

After 10 years of Trump in your face EVERY single minute of every single day, AND the resume he brings to this election, it should be a NO BRAINER that you need to vote for ANYONE other than him.... a corrupt, unlawful, lying, sexual abusing convicted FELON.   That alone is reason enough to not even give him a thought....if you are a SANE person.   Crazy will be crazy !

[Suckrates]

So, in typical Trump fashion, he is running around town like a headless Orange chicken spewing random Hign poll numbers claiming HE won the debate, when even Fox, RFK Jr, Elon Musk,  AND his own party are admitting that he didnt.....  He is touting HUGEEEEEEE numbers, and the Greatest debate ever...when in Reality it was a BIGLY flop  for him !  

However this doesnt bode well, and offers us the preview of Trump when he Loses the 2024 election....  Another 4 years of crazy Trump election denials, and commandeering of main stream media for personal goals.....    I hope media is smart, and once he loses, they take the spotlight OFF him, and focus on Cackles NEW regime. 

[Latbear4blk]

Data does not lie. We have a clear winner.

 

[Suckrates]

41 minutes ago, Latbear4blk said:

Data does not lie. We have a clear winner.

 

 

    

[RockyRoadTravel]

14 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

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!

 

 

I think it would be good for Harris (I almost called her Kamala) to start using more of her prosecutorial language. When she's referring to Project 2025 say Trump's finger prints are all over that document. Start talking about the co-conspirators from his White House who wrote Project 2025.  

Fingerprints and co-conspirators, it amplifies the felon and his whole criminal vibe.  

[stevenkesslar]

3 hours ago, Suckrates said:

After 10 years of Trump in your face EVERY single minute of every single day, AND the resume he brings to this election, it should be a NO BRAINER that you need to vote for ANYONE other than him.... a corrupt, unlawful, lying, sexual abusing convicted FELON.   That alone is reason enough to not even give him a thought....if you are a SANE person.   Crazy will be crazy !

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.

[RockyRoadTravel]

11 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

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

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.

Those people will only vote for Harris in significant numbers if the election is a referendum on Trump and his chaos, criminality and disdain for the rule of law and the Constitution.

Harris can rally her base with hope, the disaffected Republicans will rally, for one election only (I think Harris could make this point more often), based on Trump's existential threat to democracy and the American way of life. 

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

I think it would be good for Harris (I almost called her Kamala)

She clearly likes to be called Kamala.

I would never call Warren "Elizabeth".  Just the name sounds formal, like she is royalty.  With "Hillary" part of the issue is that just saying "Clinton" doesn't necessarily make it clear whether one means Bill, or Hillary.

All those signs at the  DNC said Kamala, not Harris.  The issue with Kamala is that even many of her supporters don't pronounce it the way she does.  It was interesting that Bill Clinton seems to pronounce it the way Republicans, like Trump, do.

This is going back to a different conversation we had in a different thread, about turnout.

Donald Trump’s ground game strategy: Rely on help from outside organizations like Turning Point

Quote

“This isn’t a messaging war,” the former [RNC] official said. “This is going to be a turnout fight … when you don’t have people out there building relationships and you don’t have the intense infrastructure, you don’t have as many offices, you don’t have as many bodies. … It seems that they are miscalculating how this election is going to be won.”

That article is from June.  Since then there are more and more stories talking about how Republicans are worried about Trump's "risky" turnout strategy.  Which is to rely on untested outside organizations like Turning Point.

I think the Republican insiders are right to be worried   I've worked for several organizations that ran door to door canvasses, mostly as a way to raise money.  I trained volunteer canvassing teams on same sex marriage in California.  And I've been a volunteer on many door to door canvasses on political campaigns.  My guess is when it is coordinated within the tent, like Democrats are doing it, it is always going to be better.  The people who are in it for pay are just less motivated, I think.  And, in Trump's case especially, the people they have to get to turn out are marginal low information voters.  Like young guys living in their parent's basement who saw Trump on Tik Tok.  I can see lots of ways this can go wrong.

Meanwhile, by every account I read the DNC and Biden/Harris campaign have built a grassroots juggernaut. And all the money flowing in now that Harris is the nominee and she kicked Trump's ass can only help fund more grassroots organizing in the swing states.

As we have discussed on a different thread, this is very very different than 2020.

In 2020, Democrats did have one hand tied behind their back, due to COVID.  As I noted before, several Democratic House members who lost (like in SoCal) or who almost lost (like Lauren Underwood) specifically cited the timid organizing efforts of Democrats due to COVID, compared to more aggressive Republican organizing.   I am uncertain about this next part.  But I think the GOP organizing was partly based on geography.  In Florida in particular in 2020 lots of what I read suggested there was something like a grassroots movement.  DeSantis was hot, Trump was hot, and Latinos were coming out of the woodwork registering as Republicans. This was reflected in statewide and US House victories.

An Election Day Upset Hangs on Donald Trump’s Formidable Ground Game

Note that story is from November 2020.  So this next paragraph is about Trump's 2020 ground game.

Quote

The ground effort run jointly by the RNC and the Trump campaign has used 2.6 million volunteers, according to figures provided by the RNC. The field effort made more than 182 million voter contacts — more than five times what they did in 2016— and volunteers registered nearly 174,000 new GOP voters.

All through 2020 I kept reading little snippets about how Trump, who was of course then POTUS, was mounting this massive army of volunteers that would sweep in by surprise on Election Day and carry him to victory.  To some degree, that happened.  He got a lot more votes in 2020 than in 2016.  How much of that was organizing and how much was just messaging or Facebook or Tik Tok we will never know.

But this is probably a very understated part of the 2024 campaign.  And it does seem like a big reversal from 2020.  In 2024 it seems like Democrats will own the ground.  Meanwhile, Trump is old and flabby and off message.  So it fits that he's is doing turnout a cheap and lazy way that could potentially underperform on election day.  

If Democrats take out Scott in Florida or win North Carolina, this would be why.  My impression is they are throwing money into ground game everywhere, because their coffers are loaded. Democrats now have at least as much enthusiasm as MAGA.  Meanwhile, Republicans who are saying their turnout strategy is "risky" may very well be right.

Turns out Felon Trump may not be as formidable as President Trump.  Murderous Vlad may not have a chance to eat Trump for lunch.  Harris may eat him for lunch first.

[Stable Genius]

[RockyRoadTravel]

42 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

Trump was hot

 

That is a word that has never applied to Trump.  Josh Barrow yes.  Trump no. (I won't tell Halperin about Josh.) 

[stevenkesslar]

Harris Extends Lead Over Trump After First Presidential Debate

 

That's from Morning Consult.  From Ipsos:

Quote

• Harris leads Trump 47% to 42% in Reuters/Ipsos poll
• 53% of voters familiar with debate say Harris won
• 24% said Trump won

There's more poll results in that Ipsos article, all of which sound good for Harris.  Beyond the 70 million or so who saw all or part of it themselves, sounds like word filtering out is positive to Harris, negative to Trump.

We'll know better next week.  But seems like this helped Harris, hurt Trump, and reignited her momentum

Rinse, repeat, and do it again.

In the spin room after debate Gavin Newsom talked about how this is the Kamala Harris I have known for 20 years.  And the thing about it is that maybe you think this as good as it gets. But she actually keeps getting better.

Maybe that was just spin.  But, assuming he meant it, it's why a second debate makes sense to me.  I think the first one was mostly about making her bigger, and Trump smaller.  But it also showed that, to the extent they are even talking about policy, Harris looks good.  She neutralized some of the immigration stuff, for sure. 

The economy is her biggest weakness.   I think she should take it on directly with Trump.

[RockyRoadTravel]

32 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

Harris Extends Lead Over Trump After First Presidential Debate

 

That's from Morning Consult.  From Ipsos:

There's more poll results in that Ipsos article, all of which sound good for Harris.  Beyond the 70 million or so who saw all or part of it themselves, sounds like word filtering out is positive to Harris, negative to Trump.

We'll know better next week.  But seems like this helped Harris, hurt Trump, and reignited her momentum

Rinse, repeat, and do it again.

In the spin room after debate Gavin Newsom talked about how this is the Kamala Harris I have known for 20 years.  And the thing about it is that maybe you think this as good as it gets. But she actually keeps getting better.

Maybe that was just spin.  But, assuming he meant it, it's why a second debate makes sense to me.  I think the first one was mostly about making her bigger, and Trump smaller.  But it also showed that, to the extent they are even talking about policy, Harris looks good.  She neutralized some of the immigration stuff, for sure. 

The economy is her biggest weakness.   I think she should take it on directly with Trump.

@EmmetK is going to be mad with you.  He likes to post about new polling information. 

[RockyRoadTravel]

Trump's requirement for another debate are getting more particular.  FOX isn't good enough.  Perhaps Trump would agree to Steve Bannon hosting the debate from the recreation room at his prison?  Just to ensure "fairness". 

[stevenkesslar]

18 minutes ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

Trump's requirement for another debate are getting more particular.  FOX isn't good enough.  Perhaps Trump would agree to Steve Bannon hosting the debate from the recreation room at his prison?  Just to ensure "fairness". 

I like that.   Maybe bring Don Jr. and Eric in with their dead cats and turn it into real American carnage.

Of course, we want Matt Gaetz and Tulsi and the ever charming Stephen Miller to reprise their roles as debate coaches.  Although Gaetz should bring some of his cocaine and underage girls.  It might calm Donald down, if he has some pussy to grab and what not.  Not the Springfield cats kind.  Real pussy.   

 

Karen Dunn

Interesting Wikipedia profile of the woman who prepped Harris, along with her domestic policy adviser Rohini Kosoglu.  

Dunn is like a Who's Who of Democratic insiders.  She worked with Senator Hillary Clinton, then with Axelrod on the 2008 Obama campaign.  Directed debate prep for Obama in 2012 and Clinton in 2016, and for Harris as Veep in 2020.

Also an insider's guide to doing legal work for Silicon Valley.  Clients include Apple, Oracle, Uber, and Jeff Bezos.

Rightly or wrongly, I always feel why this is the Democratic Party can not engage true economic populism.  Too much money from Wall Street and Silicon Valley, both in the front door through campaign contributions and the back door through all these work networks.

[stevenkesslar]

2 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

In 2024 it seems like Democrats will own the ground.  Meanwhile, Trump is old and flabby and off message.  So it fits that he's is doing turnout a cheap and lazy way that could potentially underperform on election day.  

Read this in Politico today, in an interview with Democratic strategist and former head of a Democratic SuperPAC, Guy Cecil:

Quote

That may sound obvious, but when you compare the ground operation of the Harris campaign versus the Trump campaign, you see a pretty remarkable difference between the two in terms of numbers of staff, numbers of volunteers, numbers of offices, numbers of door knocks, the way people have responded at the small donor level in an unprecedented way. Focusing on the things that matter — building an operation, building a turnout campaign, continuing to focus on increasing the levels of interest among Democratic or likely Democratic voters while still maintaining a connection with the small number of undecided voters — is critical.

Sounds like 2024 may be the opposite of 2020, with Democrats having a turnout advantage.

[RockyRoadTravel]

If people can stop being distracted by Laura Loomer for a moment, after nine years of saying repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, Trump still has no plan?  He has concepts of a plan?  After nine years? 

Is that even worse than his inability to get any infrastructure built?  He was so weak as a President. 

[Suckrates]

33 minutes ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

If people can stop being distracted by Laura Loomer for a moment, after nine years of saying repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, Trump still has no plan?  He has concepts of a plan?  After nine years? 

Is that even worse than his inability to get any infrastructure built?  He was so weak as a President. 

Trump supporters dont care about any issues, not even the economy and Immigration.  MAGA's like Trump because is loud, nasty and RACIST.  They dont even care that he's looney tunes or a Felon....  they LOVE the racism, and thats why he is playing it up more and more, to be SURE his supporters  dont abandon him.     He has no idea about any policys,  knows nothing of current policy or how government even works...   He is running on RACISM, and is now openly surrounding himself with infamous Racists.    When you ask Trump supporters WHY they like and support Trump, they will answer "Trump gave me a stimy" , the stimulus checks that were handed out during COVID.    Shows that they can be bought for $2000,  and its not about governing or fitness for the job of President.   He bought their loyalty for $2000 and the declaration that he is against black and brown people.