stevenkesslar

I know we have beaten this to death. But in my mind it's worth beating to death for exactly the reason you say. We agree that Harris needs to talk about the economy, and grocery prices, if she wants to win the election. She is. She can not tell the woman in the grocery store she is wrong about inflation-adjusted prices. Even though I posted perfectly good data above that the woman is wrong. It actually took slightly fewer hours of work to buy the same bag of groceries under Joe Biden's term on average. Republican pollster Greg Stimple has an interesting and data-tested response to your point in that hour long discussion, which is worth a watch. He says it's a no brainer. Of course Harris SHOULD NOT be talking about the economy. Because when she is, she is losing. Of course she SHOULD be talking about how unhinged Trump is, and how that makes him a weak leader both in America and the world. I know that is not what you would want to hear. But this is a prominent Republican pollster who does work for the independent and very thoughtful Cook Political Report telling Harris what she should do if she wants to win. Stimple has two good arguments. Harris won the debate becase she attacked Trump, hard, and looked tougher and smarter than him. She was on a roll for all September. Stimple says Harris should have stayed on that track, because it was working. When the campaign shifting to talking about her "opportunity economy", her momentum stalled. So we have actually seen this difference in strategy play out in real time. Stimple explains why. In a sense, most undecided voters are NOT undecided. He says there is a group of them that is like 4 % of voters, who are predominantly Independents and do not identify with either party. If they vote on the economy, they are basically decided. They will vote for Trump. If they vote on Trump's character and leadership, meaning what a horrible leader he was that they really don't want four more years of, they will vote for Harris. He says it was a strategic error for Harris to take the spotlight off Trump and put it on the economy. He has data to back it up. Interestingly, he says there is a smaller group - 1 to 2 % - who are voting for third party candidates who also lean slightly (57 %) to Trump on economic issues but, again, can't stand the guy and won't vote for him. This is incredibly easy for me to buy. Almost every day Mark Halperin's 2Way has these interesting discussions with real swing voters who face exactly this choice. There are different flavors of it. But they don't understand or like Harris on the economy, and they don't like Trump for being Trump. I just mentioned again in a different post I have a conservative brother who did vote for Trump in 2016, because he thought he would be better for the economy. If he voted only on the economy in 2020, he told me he would have voted for Trump. But he voted for Biden in 2020 and will vote for Harris in 2024 because he thinks Trump is a "megalomaniac". I should end here, but I will of course make a few more points about this interview. To me it is a perfect example of the idea that Republicans see campaigns as a knife fight, which Democrats bring a pillow to. One clear example. Steve Schmidt asks both pollsters whether Harris picking Walz was a mistake. Republican Stimple answers quickly and concisely: "Yes, it moved her to the left." Which is what a lot of Democrats will say if Harris loses. Why not Shapiro? Why not Beshear? Democrat Toomey gave this long winded and thoughtful answer, like what I would post here. Which is not to say he is wrong. Toomey polled for the Obama White House. But Stimple polled for Governor races like Rick Perry. And you just know he is all about finding a good and simple attack line and repeating it 1 million times: "Harris is too liberal, and Walz is, too." That said, the flaw in this strategy is that since she was chosen Republicans have been savaging Harris for being too liberal, including on the economy. And it is not clear it is working. I think all sides agree that her "opportunity economy" proposals have actually moved the needle. Here is pollster Mark Penn saying it in a new WSJ article. He applauds Harris for putting ideas on the economy voters like out there. Whereas Trump mostly just says weird shit. Although he has had some swing state-targeted ideas like "no tax on tips" in Nevada. I posted a recent interview of David Plouffe where he said Harris has significantly closed the gap on the economy with Trump. And in some key groups - like women - they trust Harris more than Trump on the economy. So Toomey's more complex and textured answers are actually working, mostly. In that WSJ article, based on his October Harvard/Harris poll, Penn says Harris "only" has a 4 point deficit with Trump on the economy with ALL voters. I actually think that is good news. I looked at the crosstabs and 36 % of his polling base is Republican. As I have documented on other threads, this Republican Trump voter group is extremely black and white: 80 % thought the Trump economy is good, and 10 % think the Biden economy is good. Democrats actually appear more fact-based. At no point during four years of the "tax cuts for billionaires" economy of Trump or the "COVID shut down and inflation" economy of Biden did 50 % of Democrats say either economy was good. My point is that, statistically, having a poll where 36 % of voters are Republicans who mostly despise anything Harris says on the economy is going to skew the outcome. I have to guess that means that if you only poll the other 64 %, who are the voters who are probably going to consider voting for Harris, she would actually be trusted more than Trump on the economy. Penn's past polls sometimes have crosstabs that tell you what Independents think, but this specific poll does not. But if Plouffe is telling the truth her messages on the economy have been gradually working with the groups of voters she needs. So this has been a Toomey-like post. But I will close like Stimple and make it black and white. Kamala SHOULD NOT be talking about the economy if she wants to win, mostly. She should be talking about how Trump is unhinged and unworthy of ever leading again. That is what actual undecided voters think. And that is what she has to reinforce in them. And that is what smart Republican pollsters and wizards like Steve Schmidt are saying.

It's a perfect example of how the sick, erratic man's lies and bullshit impact actual families. If Kushner's Grandma were in the same position today, Trump's policy is clear: deport her. I mean, yeah. The lack of compassion to a Jew fleeing Nazis would be stunning. But Trump would have every opportunity to play that hate card well at the time. The bigger thing is with him it is just always ME ME ME. I want power. It's about ME. Give me power to throw all these vermin out. We know the history of this language. What a sick egomaniac. Harris is for a tough law Lankford put together and Trump killed because he's a sick unhinged fuck who cares first and always about power for ME ME ME. Illegal crossings exploded under Trump. Drug overdoses and fentanyl deaths exploded under Trump. It's always promises unkept and ME ME ME.

Poor thing. I feel for you. She may even cackle when she takes the oath of office. 2018: Loser 2020: Loser 2022: Loser 2023: Loser 2024: Loser Well, I'll be a nice guy and send you a copy of Ave Maria. The Pavarotti version the loser likes. It consoled him at whatever that weird town hall thing was. Poor Kristi!

It actually is amusing, in two ways. "Eating dogs and cats" is amusing in that it really does make Trump sound like an idiot and freak. Some of the other slightly more subtle things - if you can call vague threats to arrest Schiff and Pelosi subtle - are easy for me to take as dark humor in a Quentin Tarantino sort of way. You can imagine how funny it would be if all the Democrats in Congress were burned to death alive in a theater, like the Nazis in Inglorious Bastards. Or Nancy Pelosi being strung upside down naked in a barn. Very Tarantino. It's all kind of weirdly funny. Until someone actually tries to kill Pelosi or her husband. And then the third way it is amusing is you again have to wonder whether this is all just a sick joke Trump and MAGA are pulling on themselves, to their detriment. Like when and how did Trump win in 2018? Did calling defeated House Republican Mia Love someone who "gave me no love" take away all the Republican losses? Did beating the shit out of cops and calling it "a day of love" in January 2021 mean Trump was POTUS from 2021 to now? Did backing some idiot Black dude in Georgia who talked about horny cows in pastures get Warnock beaten in 2022? When has this worked? When did election denier Kari Lake get elected because she denied an election? Where is the actual win? Part of my catch up diet includes a double dose of Mark Halperin. So this is an interesting recent 20 minute interview of him with Michael Smerconish. At 15:30 they have this brief discussion about how this is not erratic and insane rhetoric. It is calculated theater and entertainment that somehow gives Trump access to voters who don't answer pollsters but manage to show up and surprise on election day. And these are people who are cynics and losers to a large degree. They think politics is flawed and crooked, and they just want Trump to burn the fucker down. Why would they give a shit if some cop gets her jaw broken? It was her own damn fault for carrying a gun and protecting RINOs who don't understand cop beaters were just there for their "day of love". I get the concept. And the proof of theory is that everyone is worried shitless that if Trump outperforms the polls by 3 or 4 or 5 points again because the crazies come out in droves, like in some of those swing states in 2016 and 2020, he wins. But the other proof of theory is that except in 2016, when he ran a real insurgent campaign that was felt and seen as a real insurgency, this shit deeply alienates the majority of voters. It is very well documented that about 52 % of Americans will vote AGAINST this fucked up nonsense EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME. Like 2018. And 2020. And 2022. And 2023. And already multiple times in 2024. When does this actually work? Is Trump just pulling a joke on himself? Because that would be extremely funny, seeing what an actual dumb fuck and despicable moron he is.

We're about to learn, aren't we? I've been tuned out for several weeks, in part because I spent a few weeks in Chicago with my family, including a great one week hiking trip with two brothers. So I am on overload these past few days because I am watching YouTube videos and reading lots of articles by pundits catching up with what is going on. It is a slightly closer race right now than it was a few weeks ago. Even though it was close then. And you do have me worked up what is appropriately called the INSANE bullshit that passes for the Trump campaign. There is no way this election should be close. But whatever happens, I do think one reason it is closer than it should be is all the unhappiness about inflation and higher prices that people feel, whether it is completely rational or not. This new Trump call for going after "the enemy within" is a perfect example of the bullshit. We just learned Mitch McConnell said Trump was a genuinely despicable human being. Even though he now says Republicans are all on the same team. Kevin McCarthy ripped into Trump's asshole during the Jan. 6th attack on democracy. But within months he was sucking his cock at Mar A Lago. Mike Johnson owes his job to the crazies who took McCarthy out. So he doesn't even pretend to uphold basic norms of decency anymore. He'll just explain away a clearly fascist statement by Trump, as if Trump was really talking about protecting buildings on Main Street. Not arresting Schiff and Pelosi because they expect Trump to uphold the law himself and not be a felon. Again, you are using the tight word: This is INSANE. And we should be calling it INSANE. Some other scattered comments on this theme we have been working on two threads about how this election is different. And we should not even be talking about grocery bills when one of the candidates on the ballot is a fascist whack job. Bill Kristol, in a new interview with AB Stoddard, agrees with you. We already worked this over on another thread. But he argues that at this point no one in the very small camp of undecided voters is really going to change their mind because they learn something new about Kamala's housing policy. But they may change their mind if what is drilled in during the closing weeks is that Trump is an unhinged, unchecked, dangerous threat to America. And all you have to do is speak to lots of people in Trump's first Administration, starting with Mike Pence and lots of generals, to know that. Our hope has to be that the 52 % of Americans who NEVER have favored Donald Trump will all vote against him. And almost all of that 52 % will vote for Kamala Harris. Only 47 % of voters do not favor Harris. So it could happen. Kristol also relayed a discussion he had with a friend who started with this: "This is really bad." Meaning it is really bad that something like 48 % of America will actually vote for a proven raping, lying, fascism-loving, dangerous felon. Who keeps moving his party closer and closer to rationalizing away or even defending violence and fascism. Like Mike Johnson just did in his ugly statement above. That said, Johnson is not wrong when he defends the fact that this insane and violent language resonates with the part of the American people who are core Trump supporters. They clearly love the authoritarian, fascist rhetoric. Again, this is really bad. 74 percent of Republicans and 36 % of Independents think it would be good for Trump to be dictator for one day. Only 26 % of Republicans say it would be a bad thing. Again. THIS IS REALLY BAD. AB Stoddard is a bit right of center, and Kristol used to work for Dan Quayle. It should be noted that Dan Quayle is one of the people who urged Mike Pence NOT to listen to his asshole fascism loving boss, and instead defend The Constitution. Like Al Gore did in 2000 and Hillary Clinton did in 2016. This reflects the fact that right now democracy doesn't even really depend on Democrats, other than the fact that they have to get out and vote. It depends on Independents and centrist Republicans who are not natural allies of a liberal black female Democrat from San Francisco, as least as it relates to ideology or policy. The gamble here is in part that Americans will willingly elect a woman who is beyond doubt more liberal than the average American instead of Trump. And who excites the Democratic base. One final excellent point that Kristol made. About why the last two weeks should be about trashing Trump for being the clearly unhinged and unchecked menace he is. Kristol says Harris has been a better campaigner than Trump, running a generally better campaign. But he thinks Trump's campaign has been better at one specific thing: paid ads, especially in swing states. I haven't seen these ads on my own TV, since I live in California. But here is one example that clearly shows why moderate or conservative voters could be persuaded that Kamala is too liberal for America. This is probably a big reason the race is a little closer in swing states: It's worthwhile for any Democrat like me to watch that ad. We went a bit off the rails in 2019 and 2020, when lots of Democrats were saying things like this. Biden notably DID NOT say these things, which is why he won the nomination. So if we don't want Donald Trump, we better clean up our act. Harris has now learned that lesson. So Trump has been using his money to trash Harris, in her own words. So Harris will be smart to close by making the case that Trump is dangerous, in his own words and the words of people like Vice President Mike Pence. It's a well documented fact now. Poll: Voters repelled by election denial and overturning Roe — and drawn to economic proposals I found that to be generally good news, and reflective of what @KYTOP was arguing on the Fox News threads. Voters do want to talk about the economy, stupid. Its good news that candidates who talk election denial, overturning Roe v. Wade, and also tariffs are losers. Again, Harris should be and is hitting hard on all those. The list of six issues that over half of voters will be more likely to support a candidate who speaks up for is interesting, in order: expand domestic oil and natural gas production, expand a federal child tax credit to $6000, deploy the military to the border, tax large corporations making record profits, restore the federal right to abortion, increase deportation of undocumented immigrants. Three of those inherently favor Trump, and three inherently favor Harris. I think that helps explain why the election is a toss up, if it is decided on policy. I've never seen the idea of an expanded federal child tax credit score so highly in polling. I would bet if we had the crosstabs a lot of White, Hispanic, Black, and Asian working class families - some of whom support Trump - like that idea. It also supports my view that if Democrats want to win they need to go back to what worked pretty well for Bill Clinton: economic populism tied with cultural moderation, especially on hot button issues like immigration and whether the government should pay for prisoners to get sex changes. One other wonky point about fascism and violence loving MAGA idiots. You can make a half-assed argument, as this guy tries to, that all of this is very rational, actually. Trump supporters think the system is broken and favors the rich and powerful. So why not elect an outsider who will shake the system up? Stated that way, it kind of makes sense. If I wanted to give a concrete example, I'd point to 2009 and the global financial crisis. In my telling, I would blame it on Republicans who ran EVERYTHING from 2002 to 2006 and let Wall Street do whatever toxic things they wanted to do that blew up the global economy. But even if everyone agreed on that, Obama bailed out the banks, and none of them went to jail. Meanwhile, working class and middle class America suffered. It's no surprise this basically helped destroy the Republican Establishment, and created an opening for Donald Trump to lead a fake peasant's revolt that failed. If you generously assume he even tried to help peasants by cutting his own taxes and trying to take their health care rights away, because his conservative donors and supporters liked the cruel idea. The point to me is that people who know very little about politics and rarely or never vote - the very shaky voters who Trump is absolutely counting on to win - are idiots if they think the way to solve a real problem is to give more tax cuts to billionaires. Most informed Americans who tend to actually vote get that, as that poll shows. And Harris should be shouting it over Brett Baier's rude interruptions, as she did. A $6000 child tax credit would cost a lot less, and do a lot more good for struggling working class families with kids, than more tax cuts to billionaires. Most voters get that, too. Since I mentioned my family, I have to tell you this is hardly the worst of times, financially or politically. My two brothers and I, who just had a blast hiking for a week. are all examples of well off guys who are financially way better off since we all voted for Biden in 2020. But the funny part to me is that one of these brothers is a Bloomberg moderate Democrat, who really did not sit well with the idea of Bernie Sanders in 2016 or 2020. And the other is, like our deceased Dad, a John McCain moderate Republican, patriot, and veteran. That brother voted for Trump in 2016, because he is conservative and thought Trump would be better for the economy. But in 2020 he went out of his way to call Trump a "megalomaniac" and proudly vote for Biden. Now, like many centrist college educated Republicans, he is voting for Harris. He despises Trump. So two things, as the guy that has always been the Clintonian Democrat in my family with perceived leftwing tendencies. Thank you, Donald Trump, for radicalizing my brothers. Now I almost sound like the moderate by comparison. And both of my brothers are way more engaged in politics than they have ever been. And they are very committed to the idea that Harris has to win, and we have to move on from this bullshit. The prize at the end of this that is possible is some kind of meeting in the middle: a new centrism that is based on patriotism and the rule of law and values that are more centrist and common than anything else. If Harris wins and is the one leading that, it will be left of center. But if most Americans are like my brothers, they are not going to stand back and let Trump win. That which does not kill us makes us stronger.

Johnson denies Trump would use the military on Democrats Sorry, Mike. This kind of vague embrace of violence against Democrats is wrong. Nancy Pelosi's husband almost died thanks to the deranged and unhinged rhetoric Trump and MAGA have used against her for years. So it is wrong, wrong, and wrong to stand behind Donald Trump and defend his lies and lust for violence when he says shit about how Nancy Pelosi is "evil" and "crazy" and "Marxist." I'm pretty sure college educated moderate voters can read the actual words Trump used. He did not say, "If violent leftists start to to burn down businesses on Main Street, I will call out the National Guard." He did not say that. He did not mean that. Mike Johnson is a spineless worm for embracing Trump's pointed calls to violence. The words Trump used are very specific and focused: Communist, Marxist, Adam Schiff, Pelosi, sick, crazy. "They're so evil." Last I checked, Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi were not known to be violent protesters burning down buildings in San Francisco or LA. They are respected national leaders who are about to be re-elected in landslides. If there was any question about the impact of this kind of murderous, violent rhetoric, that ended the day a MAGA nut tried to kill Pelosi's husband. Johnson is a moral worm for embracing yet more language promoting violence and undermining the rule of law. Johnson is absolutely wrong in stating that this kind of sick and violent language "resonates with the American people". This only resonates with the kind of violent MAGA supporters who beat the living shit out of cops on January 6th. It's a perfect example of why so many Republicans and Independent conservatives can not even hold their nose and vote for Trump anymore.

Sorry. I know I am in filibuster mode. But there is one other thing Plouffe said in that podcast above, several times, that reinforces the thing nobody really knows shit about that could swing the election. Trump's poll numbers are based on the idea that the people who are least reliable in actually voting will turn out and vote for Trump. That has been clear in polls for months. If the only people who vote are the most reliable voters, Harris wins. If the only people who vote are the least reliable voters, Trump wins. This ties directly to your point, @Suckrates. By definition, the least reliable voters are also the least informed ones, who will buy pretty much any bullshit Trump says. Don't count on them to check into what economists say about the impact of Trump's tax cuts to billionaires on the deficit. There is good reason to be scared shitless of an army of MAGA folk turning out to vote. Including all these extremely wobbly wheels hitched loosely to the Trump bandwagon. Then again, Plouffe knows better than almost anyone in America that this is not how you win a disciplined and effective campaign. It could all fall apart when people who are for Trump because, "FUck, dude, like Hulk Hogan is for MY MAN. FucK YeaH Dude! FUCK!" simply don't manage to vote. Ignorant Trump non-voters who maybe will or won't actually vote for the sick old fuck who wants to be dictator probably have NO FUCKING CLUE who Peter Navarro is. They care about Hulk Hogan, not trade policy. So I am 100 % sure they are not going to read this potential death sentence to Trump's bullshit that Navarro just stated on Politico: In fairness, this is not the stuff that Bob Woodward or Rachel Maddow really give a shit about. Joe Scarborough gets it more than most, since he knows what it means to actually run and win a campaign. It could very well determine the outcome. And even a policy wonk like Navarro knows it. They have to be scared shitless. I disagree with Navarro, for sure about 2020 and maybe about 2016. In 2020 there is no question that Trump, as incumbent POTUS, had the paid and free resources to blast his message everywhere and build a massive turnout machine that apparently made the election closer than the polls seemed to show. Meanwhile, lots of Democrats have said that - thanks to COVID - aggressive Republicans outorganized timid Democrats wearing masks all over America. 2016 is less certain. But I think history is forming around the idea that Clinton ran a relatively weak and uninspiring campaign that was crippled by a split in the party that never healed. Whereas Trump did have the enthusiasm of an upstart grassroots movement behind him. So I think Navarro is right about the trench warfare. And what he says about the Democratic Party getting voters to the polls is likely to be more true than ever in 2024. Unlike 2016, every fucking Democrat who can breath is totally focused on why Trump should not be President again. We'll know soon. If you believe Michael Moore, he can smell it in the air already.

Well, Sis, I think you should like this ad. So I will make a bunch of comments that borrow heavily from three very smart people I respect: Mark Halperin, David Plouffe, and Michael Moore. Halperin and his merry bipartisan band talked a lot about this ad on his 2Way and evaluated whether it makes a good "closing argument" for her campaign. Halperin basically gave it a thumbs up. Even Sean Spicer agreed it is a good ad. The point Halperin stressed is that it connects two things: the more abstract worries Biden went off on, and YOU are focused on, Sis. Dictatorship, unhinged, unchecked. But for a 30 second ad Halperin argued it did a great job of tying in what the concrete impact of an unhinged ME ME ME guy like Trump will be on YOU. He will fuck with your right to abortion. How do we know this? Because he fucked with your right to abortion already. He will shower tax cuts on billionaires who put the sick old ME ME ME fuck in power, to shower money on them. How do we know this? He did it once already. You are a deficit hawk, like me? The sick old ME ME ME dumb fuck will blow up the deficit again, just like he did already. It is all ME ME ME. And he will fuck with YOU YOU YOU in very concrete ways. How many times did the sick old fuck try to fuck with your health care, by the way? These are all simply facts. I agree with Halperin. The number thrown around a lot for the actual undecided vote is usually something like 4 % of all voters. I think it is probably true for THAT group that Harris is never going to win a contest of who they like better. She can and will win a contest of who they dislike most: Trump. This has been true literally every day since 2017, when at least 52 % of Americans, on average, say they do not favor Trump. So it seems well tested that her path to victory is she has to close the deal on why Trump can not be trusted. But I think Halperin is right that it has to be tied to what actual impact that has on your day to day life. As that woman in Michigan you cited said, she doesn't have a uterus. She cares about grocery bills. So Harris better be talking about that. And in this ad, she is. Speaking of Michigan, and with all due respect to Alan Lichtman, Michael Moore has done a pretty good job of calling elections recently. He famously was going ape shit in 2016 about how Trump was going to win Michigan. He was right. In 2020 he said Biden would win. He was right. In 2022 he threw cold water on the idea of this huge red wave. He was right. Now he is saying Harris is going to win, and he does not think it will be close. The three word expression I have been using for why Harris could lose is "wall of lava". The context is that came from a very smart Never Trump Republican who said higher prices and inflation are a "wall of lava" coming at Harris. He did not argue it would be fatal. He argued it had to be taken very seriously. And, no, voters are not going to bother researching this shit on the internet. They will hear shit Trump says about how prices will be lower under him and buy the bullshit. So what Moore is presenting as an alternative is a "wall of women" who will have Harris's back. Moore never seems to have any particularly objective method for making these predictions. So maybe he is full of shit. But his whole career suggests he is particularly good at reading what working class people in states like Michigan really care about. So he is probably right. Harris will win, and we can thank women for that. And The Gays helped, of course. 😉 Speaking of being particularly objective, this podcast interview of David Plouffe with one of his former Obama Admin partners in crime is both disconcerting, and relieving. For purposes of my comments on this, I am going to assume that this is NOT spin. This is Plouffe the expert mechanic talking inside ball game to another expert mechanic. The disconcerting thing Plouffe says is that Trump will win 48 or even 48.5 % of the vote. That is scary. But he also says Harris has a slightly higher ceiling, which seems objectively true. Again, there is no day since 2017 when Trump did not have 52 % of America against him. My read of his language is that Plouffe thinks Harris could win a very close race where nationally she has maybe a 2 % lead, like in the current polls. He says their own polls show every one of these seven states is a toss up. And anyone who says either Trump or Harris have any of them in the bag is full of shit or spin. To me the math that is most likely to work out in the end is pretty simple: 52 % of America does not favor Trump, and never has. Right now 47 % of America does not favor Harris. So they have to make sure 52 % of America is scared shitless about Trump, as YOU are suggesting. And then they have to battle that out state by state in the swing states. Plouffe said some other things that I found humble, disciplined, and perhaps revealing of why Harris id favored to win. He said turnout is the most difficult part of an election to predict. No shit! I am pretty sure that I have heard his former Obama partner in crime David Axelrod say on national TV that an exceptional ground game can not win a 55/45 election, but it can shift a close race by a few points. Axelrod is basically a message guy, not a mechanic. Plouffe is the mechanic. So it is interesting that Plouffe said a great ground game gets you half a point, or maybe a point. But he of course pointed out that in this close a race, that could determine who actually wins in any of these swing states. So I think that is the October surprise we will not learn about until November. It is October. And what is happening with turnout is being shaped by these ground games right now. And Plouffe confirms from deep inside the Harris campaign that they are running a massive and disciplined ground game that simply does not compare to Trump's "hire a paid canvasser" farmed out ground game. I'll repeat what I posted above. Harris has a big team of paid staff working on Latino outreach in Pennsylvania. Trump has one paid staff. That is going to make a difference. In the end, what Plouffe, the expert mechanic, is saying reinforces Moore's gut instinct. It is entirely plausible that a wall of women could vote and elect our first woman President. If I had to add a second factor, it would be young voters. They made the difference in both 2020 and 2022. And they were not big fans of old Joe Biden. So whatever flaws Harris has, putting her at the top of the ticket beyond doubt lit a massive fucking fire under the two groups most important to actually getting her elected. I think the ad above will work. You're right, Sis. Donald Trump is a sick old fuck who has proven again and again why he should never be given power again. And a majority of Americans are ready to buy that, Plouffe argues. I hope he is right.

Porque? I partly agree with you. I think you are and @KYTOP are probably both right. And I am not just trying to split the difference. If we are talking about Harris on Fox News, you are probably right. There is probably not a whole lot she can or should say on policy that warms the hearts of conservatives. Other than just to point out that Trump is a maniac. Who will for sure slaughter your first born child and turn the others into slaves. Unless they vote for him and vow fealty to his dictatorship. Now I ramped that up a bit just for the right dictator vibe. That said, I absolutely agree with @KYTOP's point that Kamala better be scared to death about that woman in the grocery store in Pennsylvania. Who is perfectly willing to listen to, and perhaps believe, any bullshit Trump wants to spin out of his deceitful mouth. For some strange reason, the old bitch just refuses to believe that Trump is an asshole who will slaughter her first born grandchild. Who knows why? So we have to deal with her on the level of grocery bills. Sorry. So here's a head scratcher for ya. Even when grocery bills went up under Joe Biden, they still never got as high as they were for most of Trump's Presidency, before COVID. The old bitch in the grocery store may be forgetting about her Social Security COLA increases. Why doesn't Harris just tell the old bitch she's wrong? David Axelrod is funny on this important point. He went bonkers every time Biden stood next to a "Bidenomics" sign and did happy talk about the good economy. I think it was seared into Axelrod's soul in 2010 and 2012 that even if the economy is recovering, and there are facts that "prove" it, you don't tell people who don't feel that way they are wrong. And many Trump voters think that Harris and Biden are maniacs who will slaughter ALL your children. So they don't cut Kamala any slack on this stuff. So Axelrod wrote the memo Kamala read about how you have to empathize with people and tell them how you are going to lower costs more. Did I mention how a child tax credit would really help tens of millions of working class voters, many of whom voted for Trump? Harris is proving she has been underrated, I think. She is better than Biden at talking about this stuff, for sure in Biden's current state. Again, I think Brett helped her by kind of ripping off the facade of the eloquent and diplomatic lawyer. And exposing us to the Kamala who sat around the kitchen table with her Mom and worried about very mundane things like food. I like that Kamala. It also bears pointing out that Kamala is way smarter than Dumb Dumb Donald. Literally every time she waved bait in front of the dumb old asshole at their debate, Trump took the bait and said really stupid shit. Brett offered Harris a great opportunity to tell voters who think that high prices or the economy are a problem that they are actually stupid. She instead pivoted to saying she is the one who gets the concerns of struggling working class families, and people who want to buy homes. Trump is the one who insults, demeans, and debases people. And people are sick of it. She's right. Trump always has at least 52 % of voters that don't like him for just this reason. That is why the dumb fuck will lose. In summary, I am all for the argument that all you need to know about Trump is he will slaughter your first born child. Period. But for people who that doesn't work for, I think Harris laid out some other good arguments.

In his defense, I don't think he said he can't vote for her. He said she dodged questions, which she did. Baier is a good journalist. I always like watching him for a sound but right of center take on the news. So he did a good job of stringing together pretty much every awkward question she has NOT been drilled on. I suppose he could have added something about whether her hubby Doug was really abusive to women. But you get the point. I'll just repeat my argument. I'm glad he attacked her. It showed she is tough and she can handle someone going after her and not even letting her finish a sentence. Sean Spicer should know something about how Presidents communicate. His reaction to this was that "Kamala did herself no favors." And she missed the mark in communicating to Fox News viewers. I disagree. And it probably shows how even somebody who was a White House Press Secretary sees what he wants to see. Harris made one argument very well: lots of conservative Republicans think Trump is toxic and he can't be given power ever again. If that was her goal, she did her job. And I think we know a significant slice of Republicans who watch Fox have deep doubts about Trump. That's the question historians will be asking for as long as the US exists. You and I agree about Trump. It's a good question why so many people don't. I think @lookin is correct that a necessary part of this is that a lot of people, a significant minority of voters, just really like an authoritarian leader. Even if he constantly lies and breaks rules and laws at will. I don't get it. But MAGA clearly loves it. This is necessary, but not sufficient, for Trump to win. I think the sufficient reason Trump could win is basically inflation. It's technically a non-issue now, since it is down to 2.4 %. Trump would call that "a perfect number" if he had to defend it. And if inflation had been 2.4 % for each of the last four years, I think Harris would win handily. And she obviously can't change the past. But that is THE issue to me. And Baier hammered her hard. You were in power when this happened. Why did you let this happen? Are people stupid for not wanting more of that? They were good questions. I think she gave good answers and showed exactly why she was an excellent prosecutor of facts. But it is about the economy, stupid. Majority of Americans Feel Worse Off Than Four Years Ago Since part of your argument is that "it's the economy, stupid" does not apply this year, I'm going to add several wonky paragraphs about why the economy matters. I think it is actually worse than you think, @Suckrates. The MAGA faithful are so cultish and so loyal to Trump that they believe almost any bullshit or filth or lie that comes out of his deceitful mouth. So they have a completely distorted view of the economy. Harris would not say these people are stupid on camera. And most of them are not stupid. But they do not understand the economy they are living in. The irony is that Trump lost in 2020 despite the fact that he literally presided over "the best economy" ever, if you believe the poll above. And Harris is about to win despite presiding over, as Veep, "the worst economy" ever, according to the poll above. To me, this thing about how bad the economy sucks right now is kind of a sick joke. And it is a joke on Trump voters. They lost in 2020 and are about to lose again. So we can at least feel sorry for them, since they really have pulled a sick joke on themselves. That Gallup poll says 52 % of Americans think they and their family are WORSE OFF than four years ago. That is a stunning number. And it could easily be taken as the only thing you need to know to explain why Harris will lose. As @KYTOP pointed out, it is the woman at the grocery store who knows damn well that prices are a lot higher now than when Donald Trump was President. That is a fact. This has to mean Harris will lose, right? Well, maybe not. Maybe it's not just the economy, stupid. The same Gallup poll said in 2020 55 % of voters said they and their family were BETTER OFF than four years ago. So Trump had to win in 2020, right? The economy in 2020 was better than any other Presidential election, according to voters in that Gallup poll. And yet Trump lost. How did that happen? I have a great anecdotal answer. One of my brothers who loves John McCain voted for Trump in 2016 because he thought he would be better for the economy than Clinton. He voted for Biden in 2020 because after seeing Donald in action he decided Trump was a "megalomaniac". I asked him if he would have voted only on the economy in 2020, who would he have voted for. He immediately said Trump. I asked him why. He said the balance of his retirement account went up a lot under Trump. Great answer. So he was better off than four years ago, but despises Trump for being such a complete asshole. It's not just the economy, stupid, I guess. I think that family anecdote is a pretty good all purpose explanation for why Trump lost in 2020, and will lose again in 2024. So that is the sick joke that MAGA is pulling on themselves. Which I think explains why Trump is going to lose. Despite the fact that a Gallup poll says 52 % of Americans think the economy is worse than four years ago. Democrats have not changed much. At no point in the last decade have most Democrats felt particularly good about the economy. The thing I know about Democrats, especially from my nieces and nephews and tenants, is that this economy works better for the Top 1 % than for the working class. So you have all these young people, some of whom are my relatives, who are pissed that home prices and interest rates are so high that they can't buy a home. But that is not a reason to vote for Trump. A lot of Democrats and Independents who are not fans of the current economy are going to vote for Harris because they will decide to give her a chance, I predict. Because they saw what Trump did in power and 52 % of Americans say they do not like the man. Republicans are all over the map in that chart above. To their credit, they at least kind of noticed when Trump was POTUS and the economy completely went off a cliff in 2020. But I guess they forget how fucked up everything was, and how many people were out of work. The math is very simple. In 2019 60 % of Americans said the Trump economy was good. Now only 23 % of voters say the Biden/Harris economy is good. So that means Harris has to lose, right? Nope. All it tells us is that Republicans have a very distorted view of reality. I will end with one paragraph on objective reality. Inflation is 2.4 %. The "misery index" (inflation plus unemployment) was 7.9 % in Nov. 2020. It is 6.5 % in Sept. 2024. So people are actually BETTER OFF in 2024, if we are measuring inflation, jobs, and objective reality. The stock market is higher than ever. If you own a home, like 2 in 3 Americans do, it is worth more than ever. Net worth went up 30 % in recent years, according to a recent Fed analysis. Trump's argument is rich, for a billionaire loser: the economy sucks because your net worth is maybe $100,000 more, but you have to pay maybe $1 more for a gallon of gas. Boo hoo! It's a loser's argument. Which is why he is going to lose. I really do think this is a sick joke Trump voters are playing on themselves. I really do feel sorry for them. Mark Halperin recently argued that those of us who despise Trump will have no clue why he won if he wins. I disagree. I think I understand why Trump could win, and I just explained it. There are working class people who don't own homes or stocks that have had a rough ride under Biden and Harris. I think this is why she can not and is not declaring victory. Despite all the objectively good facts I cited above. Obama had the same problem in 2012, when the economy was improving but people were not feeling it. Harris does not want to sound elitist and out of touch. But the main reality here is that Trump voters have a very distorted view of just how fucked up things are when Trump is not President ..... or dictator. And they are going to be very disappointed when their asshole leads them to defeat .................. yet again. Like in 2018. And 2020. And 2022. The poor losers keep losing, even though losers don't like to lose. And I will try hard not to laugh at Trump losers who are simply out of touch.

If you are talking about the expanded child tax credits, the polling on that was interesting. I'm a huge supporter of the idea, of course. Until Republicans and Manchin helped kill them, the expanded credits briefly cut child poverty in half. And it is a concrete way to help tens of millions of working class Americans. It is expensive. And I am a deficit hawk, too. (See Clinton, Bill, budget surplus). I would argue this should be a priority. But the polling when the credits were in place was about 50/50. The obvious people who liked it most were the people who got it. Just like the people who like Obamacare and Social Security the most are people on it. The main opponents were people who did not receive credits and think it cost too much. Whatever one thinks of child tax credits, it is a great example of a specific policy proposal Harris has made. And she will happily talk about that, and why it might be better than more tax cuts for the Top 1 %. And arguably that is more important to most people than prisoners who want sex changes. You basically reinforced Wegmans's point, if I understand your point correctly. You come off as a very reasonable and moderate guy. So if you are not a fan of child tax credits, probably most Fox News viewers agree with you. That would argue Wegman is correct. Don't talk about liberal programs on Fox News. Talk about what Mike Pence and Liz Cheney and lots of conservative generals think about the sick, deranged man Donald Trump is. Again, whether Wegman is right is debatable. But he has a good point. Only tangentially related, check this out: That's the electoral college map of 1996. Can anyone possibly imagine any Democrat winning any time soon with an electoral map like this? The 1976 map was even more focused on the South, thanks to Jimmy Carter. No doubt that had something to do with the fact that the only Democrats to win the White House between 1961 and 2008 were Southern Democrats. I'm not holding out hope for Kentucky voting for a Democratic President anytime soon. The reason I post this in the context of Harris and Fox News is that it seems like the necessary political project, if Democrats want a governing majority, is how do you win the Presidency as a Democrat with a map like that again? At the beginning of this century Ruy Teixeira argued Democrats were in fact moving toward a working governing majority. Which the election of Obama seemed to manifest. Oops! Spoke too soon. Now Teixeira argues Democrats have to somehow embrace lots more centrist positions, especially on culture war issues. The reason I am particularly interested in ideas like child tax credits is that the formula that usually works seems to be economic populism, tied to cultural moderation. In theory that was what worked for Southern Democrats for generations. Although you could argue a good dose of George Wallace virulent racism often helped. One way to go to the heart of it is that the problem with the Fox News interview was that it should have been Andy Beshear, not Kamala Harris, being interviewed. If Democrats want an electoral map like the one above, maybe the issue is that nominating (sort of) a liberal Black woman from left wing San Francisco is not the best idea, period. I am from California and I genuinely like and respect Harris. But if Harris loses, it will open that debate. And even if she wins, how do Democrats ever hope to have 60 votes in the Senate again? My hope is that Democrats will adjust their policies, rebrand economic populism - however we want to define it - and tone down the culture war stuff. Immigration is a very good start. Which will be painful. But the basic idea of economic populism + going for the cultural center is what worked for Bill Clinton pretty well. Also, again, Clinton running a surplus didn't hurt his Presidency or his legacy. And it is a way to be able to show up on Fox News and genuinely connect. If that is the goal.

You made a bunch of interesting comments. If Harris loses, there will be a list of 1000 reasons why. At the top of most lists will be the idea that was mentioned by a lot of talking heads when she first took over for Biden. She needed to name 3 ways she would be different than Biden. She has not done that. So a lot of the criticism boils down to the idea that she is just playing it safe. 60 Minutes seemed like a textbook example of saying nothing. In part due to weird editing and in part due to playing it safe. So what made Fox interesting is neither Baier nor Harris were playing it safe. Even a hard hitting journalist like Mark Halperin argued (to Sean Spicer, on his 2Way podcast) that Baier was disrespectful to the office of VP. I disagree. I'd rather have her pressed by adversarial journalists. Again, I think it made her look tough. It demonstrated something about what she feels in her gut. That said, you could also argue it was a disservice by Fox to make it seem like what we all really need to know about is whether prisoners need sex changes. Baier talked more about prisoner sex changes then the tens of millions of working class families that got expanded child tax credits, some of whom must watch Fox News. Harris wants to restore those credits. That will have more of an impact on grocery bills for tens of millions of Americans than whether a few prisoners got their dicks chopped off. Harris got her point across, I think. Let's talk about child tax credits and down payments on homes. For some strange reason, people care about that more than prisoner sex changes. Baier was clearly interested in throwing red meat at Fox News viewers, as well as talking about grocery prices. I tend to agree with you. That said, we both may be wrong. I just read this interesting analysis of the interview. 'Mission Accomplished': Harris Targets Haley Holdouts in Fox News Interview Wegman is simply voicing his own opinion, just like you and me. So whether he has his finger on the pulse of Haley voters is not something I am qualified to comment on. But his argument makes sense. Right of center Fox News viewers who like Haley and dislike Trump have two choices. If they want to vote based on policy - like immigration policy, or food prices, or gas prices, or whether we need more liberal programs - they are very likely to vote for Trump. That is why they are right of center Fox viewers who voted for Haley, after all. So Harris arguably had one card to play with them: Trump is toxic. Ask Mike Pence, who says Trump is toxic. Ask Liz Cheney, who says Trump is toxic. Ask the generals who served for him, conservatives ones and all, who say he is a a disturbed man who should never be given power again. Not what you wanted to hear. And not what I need to hear to persuade me. Like you, I'd rather have the policy debate. But Wegman may be right that Harris prosecuted the case against Trump in the only way right of center Haley voters will buy.

More! More! More! I think Harris thrives in these adversarial interviews. At least when they are tethered to reality, as anything Bret Baier says actually is. As opposed to a Tucker Carlson interview where we are led to believe most people actually do eat cats and dogs. It was kind of her biggest weaknesses, all real. I think she did great. The prosecutor in her came out. She fought, and I think she won. She looked rough, and not like a UN diplomat. I found that 60 Minutes interview particularly awful. Some of it was the editing, no doubt. But both characters in that interview seemed like Ai inventions who were designed to speak UN, not English. This Fox News thing was about two real and smart people fighting it out. Whether it wins her the votes of Fox News voters or not, it makes her look smart and tough to swing voters. No pablum. What she communicated to me is that I want solutions to real problems, like actual real voters do.

It's possible his testicles are bigger than Trump's. If some guy can pull off the right look, this is it. And below is a Lichtman/Luntz love fest. As always, he says the polls have little reliable value in making predictions. Helpfully, he reminded us that right around now in October 2012 Romney was supposedly surging. His prediction that Obama would win proved accurate.

I'll add this as an anecdotal postscript to my point about turnout. First bad news, then good news. Dems see warning signs for Harris with Latino men in Pennsylvania Harris’ performance with Pennsylvania’s 580,000 registered Latino voters could tip the entire election. Okay. Bad news: that headline sounds ominous. The article notes that Trump is three things Harris can never be: macho, macho, and macho. The theory has been around for a while that, particularly with Latino men, the testicle vote really matters. I think we all know that if it comes down to who has bigger balls, Trump beats Harris every time. Not that it's saying much, of course. 😉 There's also the theory that Trump appeals to the Hispanic male working class because, after all, he's a working class kind of guy. Who is good to the working class. Well, not really. But if there is a possibly fatal "wall of lava" coming at Harris, as one consultant aptly put it, the volcano that caused it was Mount Inflation. That said, I'm guessing most working class Hispanic Dads would prefer tax credits for their kids to tax cuts for billionaire investors. Either way, when you read the whole story you get this: I'm tempted to say that sounds like Trump has one hand tied behind his back when it comes to turnout. But it's more like he doesn't have hands at all, compared to Harris door knockers. At least he has those balls. They count for something, you know. If the 2024 election is won on organizing and turnout, Harris and Democrats win.

Trump considers bucking presidential transition system Democracy? Who the fuck cares? Good government? Ha ha. It's about the power and money, stupid. This makes all the worries about Project 2025 seem both real, and quaint by comparison. Of course, Deceitful Donald has always been a dutiful whore to the richest and most powerful. He's a perfect mark. An entertainer and clown who fails on his own, and thus is beholden to the two groups who bail him out every time: the rich, and the Russians. Deceitful Donald whored deeply and dutifully on his signature policy achievement during his failed Presidency. He handed out money to the Top 1 %, and now wants to do it again. Federal deficit? Come on! Who the fuck cares! Deceitful Donald whored even more deeply and dutifully to Genocide Man, like all his favorite authoritarian monsters. Of course Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump won in 2020. Why fight and kill Russians and destroy Russia's economy, which Putin is doing thanks to Biden and Harris, when Trump would have handed NATO to him on a platter? The deep whore money always comes from Putin's buddies when Trump needs it most. Trump whores to the genocidal Russian machine even more than he whores to the American rich. Deep whoring and whore money from Russia is what put DJT on the map. in only the most recent example of Trump's willingness to sell America for his own personal and family gain. All of Trump's Russia ties, in seven charts.

There's two big unknowns, both of which make a good argument for Democratic optimism. 1. To quote Bill Clinton, "arithmetic." Trump is viewed unfavorably by 52.6 % of voters, according to the 538 average. Harris is viewed unfavorably by 47.2 % of voters. The math is simple. A majority of voters could vote for Harris, in what is now a sharp two way race. And not one of them would view her unfavorably. But for Trump to get over 48 %, which he never has, he needs people who don't like him to vote for him. Possible, but not likely. I think this shows in the Senate races. Name a swing state, and [name a Democratic Senate candidate] is outperforming Harris. There are clearly voters who plan to vote for the Democratic Senate candidate, including in states like Pennsylvania and Arizona and Nevada, but are not yet sold on Kamala. It's possible they will split their tickets. But it is probably more likely that these voters will break for Harris. In this case it may be less about holding their nose and more about tolerating the fact that Harris is still somewhat of an unknown. Kudos to you for putting your money where your mouth is. There's no question Harris is rocking on money, as is the whole field. Since Labor Day I have been donating weekly to Harris, Tester, Brown, and then I threw in Florida as a guess for the most likely Senate upset. In retrospect, probably if there is a lucky break it will be Texas. But that would have required a Democratic surge that has not happened. If anything, there has been a modest Republican surge recently . The most likely scenario for Democrats holding the Senate is both Brown and Tester manage to beat the odds. Which is probably way less than 50/50. But still worth a gamble and a donation. 2. Turnout, turnout, and turnout There's no objective way I know of to really measure who has built the best turnout machine. That said, for the reasons you state, I'd rather be a Democrat than a Republican in a close race, if turnout mattered. Democrats have had both time and money to build a massive turnout machine, helped by the huge Harris surge when Biden dropped out. Again, this is really 80 % math. If Democrats can get their voters out they will win. This goes to the heart of why polling is useless right now, at least to predict whether Harris will win. It is a reasonable argument that since polls underestimated Trump in both 2016 and 2020, they will do so again in 2024. But pollsters have no basis for actually measuring who will turn out. Which is the problem. Alan Lichtman will add that in addition to being useless in general, since 2020 polls have mostly overcompensated and underestimated Democrats, not Republicans. Hence the AWOL "red wave" in 2022. I have a turnout theory that explains why 2024 looks favorable that makes sense to me as a community organizer, but can't be proved. In 2016 there was a feel of a grassroots insurgency to Trump. He was new and fresh, at least to politics. Hillary carried decades of baggage. And suffered from a deep and divisive split in the 2016 primary. Which Lichtman would identify as one of the key nails in her coffin. All of this would seem to have helped Trump and hurt Clinton with turnout at the margin. And Clinton lost in 2016 at the margin. In 2020 Trump faced headwinds, thanks to all the COVID disasters that many people have chosen to forget. But all through 2019 and 2020 there were stories about how Trump was building this massive turnout machine. Four years later, I still can't find any decent analysis about what that was about, and what impact - if any- it had. So it could be just campaign bullshit. But what we do know is that what was supposed to be a blue wave ended up being a very close race. And especially in SoCal a lot of Democratic House members that won in 2018 lost. Those losses helped set up the Democratic loss of the House in 2022. And at the local level lots of those Democratic incumbents said that the single most important nail in their coffin in 2020 was that Democrats were timid about grassroots turnout, thanks to COVID. Whereas Republicans were much more aggressive, at least according to lots of articles at the time. That alone could explain why Trump and Republicans, while losing, exceeded expectations in 2020. 2024 is almost certainly wired well for Democratic turnout. As we have both stated, there is massive grassroots energy on the Harris side - both in terms of money and volunteers. Trump has the feeling of a social movement, like in 2016. But it is no greater than 2016, and probably smaller. Since it seems to be limited to his minority base. Yet all these swing voters are definitely NOT feeling that great MAGA vibe that only a precious few can genuinely savor, like dear @EmmetK 🤢 Meanwhile, he has farmed out turnout to outside paid groups who have no real motivation other than to get paid shitty wages, I'd guess. Republicans who know how campaigns work have been raising red flags about this in articles for months. So the idea that Trump always outperforms his poll numbers (well, twice) may not hold up that well in 2024. I think Democrats are extremely likely to outperform Republicans on turnout - the opposite of 2020.

And she's going for a Black job. Ugh! And she is ahead in the polls. Have I ever mentioned how charming you are? And how intelligent? So glad you are back, just in time to lose. 🤪 (Disclaimer, Donald J. Trump, a felon, lost the 2020 election.)

Oh, sweetie. You bet I will! I never deduct points for reason and logic. 😉 Or a millennium ago. As long as we have society, we will have social disease. Nuthin new here. I recall stories in 2012 about how social media helped Barack Obama win. There was some line I read somewhere about how Obama won Florida because young voters who Mitt Romney didn't even know existed were organized to vote against him on Facebook or other social media. True. We also had that wonderful meme, put out by savvy Democrats, about how Mitt Romney thought the real enemy of truth and justice was ...............wait for it ............... Big Bird! My point is that I think we are all to blame for letting ignorance and dumb memes take over for logic and reason. But this is nothing new, and is not really a product of the iternet (see 20th Century, McCarthyism, Maoism, Stalinism, Nazi ideology, etc.) The good news is we live in a world that is less poor and more educated than ever. If Kamala Harris and leaders like her win all over the world, and grow the economy and keep the peace, that's why. We did that. The glass is half full. The US is on its way to being the strongest multi-racial capitalist democracy in the world. Woo hoo! What does an economy like Russia in the 1990's - drunk and weak - bestow on the world? The plague of Putinism. Death, genocide, economic decay and rot. No freedom and little hope. And that nicely sums it up. Economic self interest. Or, more pointedly, short-term economic self-interest. Or, you could argue, short-sighted economic self interest. This also is nothing new, as your example of Typhoid Mary aptly demonstrates. It took a slaughtered German economy in the 1920's and 30's to stir up the Holocaust of Hitler. Poor Mary is small ball by comparison. If Trump wins, which he could, one Never Trump Republican politico summed it up nicely. There is a "wall of lava" coming at Kamala, he said, because lots of people - especially working class people - are pissed about inflation, interest rates, higher prices, etc. There's no evidence whatsoever that more tax cuts for billionaires and corporations and more attempts to cut Obamacare will make anything better for anyone working class. So all we can hope for is that Harris sells her message well and people think it through. Everything we need to know about this election boils down to this absolutely clear fact: if the people who vote the most and are most informed prevail, Harris wins in a landslide. If the people who vote least and are least informed prevail, Trump wins big. Ignorance is not new. It will exist as long as humans do. There are plenty of people who are good decent centrist people who will vote against Harris simply because they don't like higher prices. Even though Trump has no plan to do anything about it and Harris does. Here's a pro-people prediction. Unlike 2016 and 2020, the polls may not underweight Trump in 2024. In 2016 he did have the momentum of what I think of as a failed peasants' revolt behind him. Especially in ailing Rust Belt communities. In 2020 Democrats did weak grassroots organizing because of COVID. But since 2020, Democrats have often been underweighted in polls. In 2024 Harris has driven grassroots organizing and GOTV up. While the lagging and low energy Trump campaign depends heavily on paid canvassers with no particular loyalty to anything other than getting paid. If Harris wins, which my soothsayer Alan Lichtman says is inevitable, it will be in part because she inspired millions of informed and motivated voters to do something. That's how you beat a social disease. That's how you beat ignorance.

Oh, my genocide defending and lying friend Let's face facts, not Genocide Man's lies and propaganda: Putin issues nuclear warning to the West over strikes on Russia from Ukraine Putin could of course "win" the war with Ukraine by nuking it. But that would just hasten the collapse of the rotten and failing Russian Federation, and Putin knows it. Not to mention turn Moscow into a pile of radioactive waste. So all those article you cited are about the restraint practiced by the US, the EU, NATO, and leaders around the world who despise Genocide Man but resist the war and genocide Putin started. Putin's economy is weak, and fueled by turning hundreds of thousands of Russians into meat. It's an unsustainable Genocide Economy and Putin knows it. What must sicken Genocide Man to death is that his every attempt to weaken democracy only makes it stronger. People in the US are voting in record numbers. And the vast majority are on the side of defending Ukraine from Putin's genocide. All Putin's lies and propaganda and murder can't change that. Once Trump loses - again - Murderous Vlad's best chance for subverting democracy dies. Poor sick weak old Genocide Man! What will happen when poor sick weak old Genocide Man does? Dunno. But I sure hope poor sick weak old Genocide Man lives for a long time. Murderous Vlad excels at killing Russians and turning the Russian economy into a stagnant mess that requires killing Russians. The world can just sit back and let Genocide Man further destabilize and destroy his own rotten nation. I pray for the Russians who want something better than death or stagnation! Genocide Man's Russian-devouring and Ukrainian-killing economy doesn't even match up to one US state. Instead of producing energy, Russia thrives on the killing of Russians and the global distribution of disgust about Putin. Woo hoo! Poor losers! All you can do is lose and whine and delude yourselves that your collapsing Genocide Economy is actually strong. You have organized the whole world against you. Even Master Xi will cut his murderous pit bull loose when the time comes. Ever wonder why the world will rejoice when the Russian Federation collapses? (Granted, India will have to find a new arms supplier, and Master Xi will find cheap gas elsewhere.)

And yet another great Trump investment opportunity. How can one man have so much to contribute to America? God has never created a better and smarter person than DJT, and most likely will never again. Or you can watch the same video here. TikTok does not seem to embed as easily as YouTube. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=532136342551850

Take that up with him. He keeps arguing that people say that every four years. We never had a Black man before. We never had Twitter before. We never had women voting before! But in his mind the fundamentals never change. He does get it right every time, pretty much. He did predict Gore in 2000. And nay sayers dispute whether he is really predicting the popular vote or the electoral college. Either way, his system is way more complex and correct than a "clerk" like Silver simply aggregating polls and coming up with models that aren't really very good at all. In an election like 2000 where it came down to a very small number of votes in one state, I don't think it takes much away from the logic of Lichtman's keys even if you assume he was wrong about Gore. Same with 2016. That was not as close because it involved three states, not one. And Lichtman did predict Trump. But 2024 may be on the edge of a knife again. So it definitely makes it harder to predict.

I watched Allan Lichtman's podcast a lot in the lead up to his prediction that Harris will win. The person he despises is Nate Silver, who he refers to as a "clerk". They got in some public spat years ago because Silver trashed Lichtman's system. The point Lichtman makes is he puts his ass on the line every four years and actually makes a prediction. Like now he says Harris will win. Silver covers his ass by saying there is a 75 % chance Hillary Dumpty will win. So when Donald Dumpty wins instead, Silver says, "See. Told ya so. Trump had a 25 % chance of winning." The thing I like most about Lichtman, and what makes him unpopular with clerks like Silver, is he actually has sound ideas about why people will win, based on his keys. People like Silver create the impression that what really matters is the drip drip drip of polls.

Nice word. Like conducting a genocide in Ukraine has nothing to do with "imposing" your views on others. I tend to be overly optimistic about democracy. You are a cynic who comes here to rationalize murderous authoritarianism and attack ideas you know nothing about. You're entitled to your Russian pro-Genocide Man opinion. So go ahead and call me a parasite on democracy. It's a free country. Ours, I mean. Not yours. Genocide Man is a parasite on democracy. He will kill every Russian before he allows democracy in your failed state.