stevenkesslar

It's your lucky day. You are going to get a long verbose response. Lucky you! Reading this struck a nerve. It's my thread, so I can be verbose if I want to, I figure. As I mentioned in some other post, Mark Halperin really got me thinking with something he said on his 2Way a little while ago. He said if Trump wins, about half the country will be in shock. It will shake the foundations of their belief system about the country they live in. Because they really have no idea what motivates Trump voters. That's not his exact wording. But it is close enough. It's interesting that he sees that as a sort of one way street. He said Trump supporters would be disappointed, and maybe angry, if they lose. But they would not be shocked in the same way. My take away, which is NOT what he said, is that makes me the half that are the elitist pigs who are actually too ignorant or arrogant to understand the other half. One of the things I like about his 2Way thing, which actually undermines his claim, is that it helps me to understand Trump voters. If he's right, why would Harris supporters even bother to listen to Trump supporters? I'll add that there are as many reasons people support Trump as there are Trump voters. But I'll tick off two big reasons people support Trump that sound incredibly normal to me. One. It's the economy, stupid. It is an objective fact that Trump happened to govern during a time of relative economic calm and prosperity - if you stop the clock at Feb. 2020. I always got that during that period. Many Trump supporters put up with Trump because it was about them, not Trump. If the Trump economy is good, they are good. Same basic idea as people could give a shit if Clinton lied about a blow job, as long as the stock market and their savings account grew. Two. We hate the dude, but we love his policies. This is an interesting one that historians will fight over forever, I think. It is true that a lot of right of center voters who don't like Trump, and specifically are turned off by J6 bullshit and anarchy, will vote for him anyway. Because they like his right of center policies. And they feel the hysteria about how he is a threat to democracy is overblown. I could agree with them, if "lawfare" only meant going after Trump for being a shady business tycoon in New York. It's not like having a crooked family business is a new thing. When you add stealing an election and The Jubilant Patriotic Cop Beating, I beg to differ. No one ever has tried to steal an election like that before in the US. The debate about history will be whether the realignment Trump has caused in the Republican Party necessitated his authoritarian and faux working class populist schtick. Or whether it was just an accident of history that he got there first. My guess is the latter. But I think the Republican Party may stay the way it is for a while, as the heartland conservative party. Either way, I think what we are seeing play out is Trump is leading his party down a historical dead end. Maybe this is my own bias. But the GOP used to be the party of the Chamber Of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce will ALWAYS be a powerful thing. Now it is the self-described truck driver party. It tends to attract the losers of history, who lost when their factory jobs went overseas. I think of Trumpism as, in part, a failed peasant's revolt led by a charlatan. Electing Trump in 2016 and watching him try to kill Obamacare and shower tax cuts on the billionaires and corporations who backed him did not really improve their lives. Again, maybe this is my bias, but I think the Democratic Party will eventually figure this out. As I said on another post, it's a little bit of a problem to me that a vert smart woman (lawyer Karen Dunn) who graduated from the best schools (Yale and Brown) and debate coached Obama, and Clinton, and Harris also has as her clients Apple, Uber, Oracle, and Jeff Bezos. That is, by definition, a party of winners. It also confirms the Trumpian feeling of this Deep State or elitist cabal that is coastal and liberal and just doesn't get us. It explains why Democrats who rely on these corporate winners to fund their campaigns have to be careful about doing some of the very popular things that polls say working class Whites support - like higher taxes on corporations. I think Democrats will eventually figure out how to win again in places like Missouri. But West Virginia may be the poster child of a failed Republican state for a long time. They will elect guys like Joe Manchin and Jim Justice, rich and interested in their own power and wealth as they are. And voters there will mostly be obliging peasants who just want the coal industry back. There. How's that for smug? I do think some of this is just an accident of history. If COVID had struck in early 2021, not early 2020, I think Trump probably would have been re-elected. If Clinton had won in 2016, I think inflation would still have been low from 2016 to 2019. But I get that working class people pissed about how eggs and gas cost more think things were better under Trump. They'll be disappointed again when eggs and gas cost the same and Trump panders to his rich donors again. On race, I will keep going with the idea that there are two Republican parties. There is the party of Trump, which I think panders to the racial grievances of older Whites, as you say. That's been proven in study after study, I think. When the dust settles, I think one reason Harris will win is because she'll get in the ballpark of the percentage vote of Blacks and Hispanics that Biden got in 2020. But there is also the Republican party of Tim Scott or Nikki Haley. It doesn't surprise me that the part of the Black community most likely to vote Republican are younger Blacks, more highly educated, who look and think like Tim Scott. Good for them. There is no shortage of Blacks who says the organic conservatism of the Black community (evangelicals) would make more vote Republican if the Republican Party wasn't so damn racist. Tim Scott makes them less damn racist. The problem I have with Halperin, but what also makes him very good at what he does, is he is fundamentally cynical. So I think that helps explain why he thinks Trump voters will be less shocked if Trump loses. They have a cynical view, anyway. Many of them are authoritarian followers who are happy to follow a cynical authoritarian leader like Trump. I think Halperin views this as just being all part of "The Circus", to steal the name of the show of his former partner in crime (and fellow cynic) John Heilemann. For Halperin, Obama v. McCain would just be a different version of The Circus. And his role is to be the brilliant journalist rooting around for the inside scoop of a cynical game. That is what Game Change was about. And I loved it. The problem is Halperin exudes the feeling that Hitler v. Jews and Gays and Democracy would be viewed kind of the same way, if you are a Straight Christian White centrist. Or, Lincoln v. Slavery would be viewed the same, to use a more American example. It's not a fundamental clash of principles, or two different directions. It's just another version of The Circus. Perhaps just a bit more extreme. It's probably unfair to view Halperin that way. But I think that would help explain why he might think half the country will be shocked if Trump wins. As if there is really nothing to be shocked about.

Trump suggests he won’t debate Harris again, attacks ABC over moderators’ fact-checking I am getting a real kick out of the collective whining about how unfair ABC, and life in general is, to poor spoiled rich boy Donald Trump. He lost a debate because he can't help being a narcissistic liar. And, like a narcissistic liar, he now wants to whine and blame it everyone but himself. He's once against setting up the standard that a Republican in good standing has to take an oath to NOT tell the truth - whether it's about whether Trump lost the election, or some crazy shit he said during a debate. Meanwhile, no Republicans are attacking ABC for giving Trump five more minutes than Harris. Which he used to make himself look like a fool. No Republican is attacking ABC for "rigging" the debate by making the first question to Harris, "Do you think people are better off than four years ago?" That is THE perfect pro-Trump question. Which Trump himself would have asked Harris about a dozen times if he weren't so busy nursing his own man child ego. I have looked at several fact check lists like at BBC and DW. I could not get behind the WSJ's pay wall, which I assume might have the most Trump-friendly of fact check lists. All the items called out about Harris, and some of the ones about Trump, were completely appropriate things for them to say in the context of a debate. It's completely debatable whether Harris was correct about Trump leaving Biden and her with the "worst" unemployment ever. Just like it's debatable whether Biden and Harris created the "worst" inflation ever, as Trump claimed. That is what debates are for. If ABC had continuously fact checked claims like that, I would be pissed. The debate is supposed to be between the candidates. Trump just did a super shitty job. Same with whether Trump supports a national abortion ban. A smart debater often makes claims that force their opponent to deny things. In fact, ABC handed Trump the opportunity to say he would veto a national abortion ban. He would not. At least implying that he does support a national abortion ban. The two things I recall being called out were whether immigrants are eating pets, and whether Democrats are killing babies. Those are bald-faced lies, not open to interpretation. It is illegal to kill babies. There in no proof that immigrants in Ohio are stealing and eating pets. Trump of course wasn't going to be called out on a lie. So of course he has to turn it into a debate with ABC, both then and now. Trump wants to be able to tell any ridiculous lie he wants and never be challenged. Why is everyone not surprised? Trump is a whining loser. That's just a fact.

Read this in Politico today, in an interview with Democratic strategist and former head of a Democratic SuperPAC, Guy Cecil: Sounds like 2024 may be the opposite of 2020, with Democrats having a turnout advantage.

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.

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.

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 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. 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.

My Dad was a Reagan Republican who fought in World War II. 2016 was the last election he voted in before he died. He was appalled at the way Trump sold out the American values he fought for to thugs and kleptocrats like Putin. I'm proud of my Dad and my country. From the dreary failing bubble of Genocide World, you probably can't see what a mess your country is. And why so many people all over the world will rejoice when Genocide Man fails and his crooked, rotting, murderous federation collapses. Hell, Genocide Man even got SWEDEN to take sides. Ukrainians don't love him. They long for him to rot in hell. For now, Master Xi has your sadistic pit bull on his leash. If need be, he'll castrate Murderous Vlad, or even put him down. Xi's economy - meaning all that trade with the West - comes first. Murderous Vlad's wannabe economy is just a teeny tiny fraction of the West's economy. Vlad is old, tired, failing, and shrinking. And you poor losers can't even fire him. DJT actually looks like a great investment compared to the economy of Genocide World. Poor Russians!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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