CNN are saying they didn’t do a celebrity performance to avoid taking the spotlight away from Harris, hence the Panetta speech.
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
A lot of truth here. Agreed.
Someone should probably change his diaper after that.
Thought that was obvious, apologies.
The current frenzy surrounding her has quite a unique but also disconcerting feeling, and shows the desperation that reigned in the Democratic camp until Biden was pushed out. Now everybody just wants to believe, no questions asked.
Under normal circumstances no one would've paid her any attention, let alone chosen her as a presidential candidate and she'd have disappeared into political nothingness. Now she's a quasi Messiah.
From an outsider point of view, this whole convention is nothing short of a circus I'll never understand.
Really believe some people had made their mind up on Harris before any of this kicked off, and nothing will change that until she is (hopefully) a really good President.
I'm sure you can find posts on here from me that bemoaned her as an option because she polled worse than Biden, and had largely been notable by her absence in the past 4 years.
I'm happy to acknowledge that at the very least I was wrong about her ability to put together a campaign (at historically short notice), find a message, stick to that message, deliver excellent speeches consistently and most importantly bring together all of the factions (except the obvious) of the democratic party in a way that is extremely encouraging.
Is she the most qualified candidate most likely to be best placed to beat Trump? I don't know. I wouldn't have thought so and again as the record probably shows would have preferred Whitmer or Newsom.
But ignoring her achievements and capability over the course of the last month just reeks of refusing to admit you might have been wrong. I was. It's okay.
Maybe the enthusiasum wanes and she narrowly loses a few key states and we all look back and blame her. But nothing I've seen in the last month suggests that.
I'm sure you can find posts on here from me that bemoaned her as an option because she polled worse than Biden, and had largely been notable by her absence in the past 4 years.
I'm happy to acknowledge that at the very least I was wrong about her ability to put together a campaign (at historically short notice), find a message, stick to that message, deliver excellent speeches consistently and most importantly bring together all of the factions (except the obvious) of the democratic party in a way that is extremely encouraging.
Is she the most qualified candidate most likely to be best placed to beat Trump? I don't know. I wouldn't have thought so and again as the record probably shows would have preferred Whitmer or Newsom.
But ignoring her achievements and capability over the course of the last month just reeks of refusing to admit you might have been wrong. I was. It's okay.
Maybe the enthusiasum wanes and she narrowly loses a few key states and we all look back and blame her. But nothing I've seen in the last month suggests that.
Kamala Harris's acceptance speech tonight was fantastic. She has risen to the occasion. She is the antidote to Trump's toxicity. Every night of the DNC has featured brilliant speeches and messages of unity and hope and moving forward, leaving these shitty Trump years forever behind us.
It will be fun to read the new polls. The thing to keep in mind about polls is not what they say at the moment (e.g., Harris is +4 in NV) but how the polls move. Whatever the flawed methodology is used by pollsters with bad reputations, as along as they are consistent in their flawed methodology, the shifts in their numbers are relevant, whereas the snapshot is not. So, for instance, Rasmussen might be saying Trump was up by +5 last week, and this week he's +2. The value to take away is he's down 3 points. It matters less that Rasmussen says Trump is up +2 and NYT says Harris is up +4 in the same state, and matters more that in 3 or 4 polls Harris up +16 and Trump is down 9 (I am just throwing out placeholder numbers here).
The pollsters with better reputations provide a better snapshot, but there are so many shoddy pollsters out there that it makes it more difficult to gauge voters' opinions rather than less, with each subsequent poll unless you chart the trends. That said, Harris is trending upwards and outperforming expectations, shoring up traditional Democratic support that was thought to eroding, and winning the majority of "independents".
Harris also raised 4X the amount Trump raised in the last cycle. It's not in the bag, but it's looking very, very good for Harris.
It will be fun to read the new polls. The thing to keep in mind about polls is not what they say at the moment (e.g., Harris is +4 in NV) but how the polls move. Whatever the flawed methodology is used by pollsters with bad reputations, as along as they are consistent in their flawed methodology, the shifts in their numbers are relevant, whereas the snapshot is not. So, for instance, Rasmussen might be saying Trump was up by +5 last week, and this week he's +2. The value to take away is he's down 3 points. It matters less that Rasmussen says Trump is up +2 and NYT says Harris is up +4 in the same state, and matters more that in 3 or 4 polls Harris up +16 and Trump is down 9 (I am just throwing out placeholder numbers here).
The pollsters with better reputations provide a better snapshot, but there are so many shoddy pollsters out there that it makes it more difficult to gauge voters' opinions rather than less, with each subsequent poll unless you chart the trends. That said, Harris is trending upwards and outperforming expectations, shoring up traditional Democratic support that was thought to eroding, and winning the majority of "independents".
Harris also raised 4X the amount Trump raised in the last cycle. It's not in the bag, but it's looking very, very good for Harris.
It's because polls are like footballers, but some are Bebe and others are Berbatov. The time, money, effort, and methodology of how polls are conducted greatly influences their outcome, and there are hundreds of polls being cited with wildly different quality.
People said that she would never support LGBTQ because it would alienate her base - and then she came out with full throated support. She left that neutrality behind in 2019 with the "Lover" album. Swift endorsed Biden-Harris in 2020, so why wouldn't she support Harris solo in 2024? Quote:
The change we need most is to elect a president who recognizes that people of color deserve to feel safe and represented, that women deserve the right to choose what happens to their bodies, and that the LGBTQIA+ community deserves to be acknowledged and included. Everyone deserves a government that takes global health risks seriously and puts the lives of its people first. The only way we can begin to make things better is to choose leaders who are willing to face these issues and find ways to work through them.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/taylor-swift-endorse-kamala-harris.html
Kelly has a great resume but is not a good public speaker. Coach Tim is the one who comes across as a genuine and lovable guy. Good choice, Harris.
Disagree completely. I think Big Gretch was fecking great.
It was incredible, like a speech from The West Wing. She nailed it.
His complete inability to make small talk is quite fascinating. It's almost relatable to me.
"So, how long have you worked here?"
"And how long have you worked here?"
"How long has this place been here?"
Wait... how do you tax unrealized gains? Do people get a refund if things go down the next year?
I think you should review Panetta's resume before dismissing him like that. Congressmen for 16 years, director of the Office of Management and Budget, Secretary of Defense, White House Chief of Staff, Director of the CIA. He was there to add gravitas but to also remind people that the Democrats got Bin Laden, not the Republicans.
As to the Palestinian Democrat, they were most likely denied a speaking role because the past several days of negotiating were fruitless. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators tried to disrupt and embarrass the nominating convention, and a couple times tried to stage "protests" from the convention floor itself - all after very publicly vowing to not support "Killer Kamala" and claiming "Genocide Joe" will live in infamy. In short, they were not to be trusted, they overplayed their hand, and the theme was of unity and thanking the selflessness of Biden in stepping down for the good of the country - all themes that could very easily and very embarrassingly and disastrously been destroyed by a live microphone and an agenda.
That said, Gaza was mentioned several times over the convention and it was made abundantly clear that the Democrats want the war to end, acknowledging the suffering and tragedy, but also demanding the hostages are returned - while reiterating that we will stand by our allies and face up to Iran et al. I think it was the middle way
Unrealized gains explained: https://smartasset.com/investing/what-are-unrealized-gains
It's so painful to watch. Guy has no charisma.His complete inability to make small talk is quite fascinating. It's almost relatable to me.
"So, how long have you worked here?"
"And how long have you worked here?"
"How long has this place been here?"
I'm astounded by how of an absolute disaster he's revealing himself to be.His complete inability to make small talk is quite fascinating. It's almost relatable to me.
"So, how long have you worked here?"
"And how long have you worked here?"
"How long has this place been here?"
I know who Panetta is, the issue here is his speech and appearance only appeal to a very specific demographic, the beltway foreign policy makers and adjacent military/civil servants in that circle, Clinton carted a parade of generals and foreign policy experts on stage in 2016 and it did nothing to her cause.
Palestinian Democrats, on the other hand, is a real issue right now for the party. The bulk of the resistance were alleviated with Biden gone, but those flames were fanned again the past couple of days in those circles. When you have Kyle Kulinski criticising the hawkish content of her speech, and Hasan Piker being ejected live to 60k people after criticising the move to not include a Palestinian speaker, someone vetted and vouched for by your own state Congressman like Frost, it’s a problem. Her team might have made the calculation that Jews are the more important part of her calculation, we will see, but not throwing this bone to the Uncommitteds in this particular manner will have ramifications.
I watched the speech just now. I thought it was a certainly well written speech. I thought she delivered it well - but not great. She just doesn’t have that “it” factor when she speaks. By no means bad, still very good, though.
I don't see it that way at all. I don't know what your level of familiarity is with American politics and elections, seeing as you're in Melbourne, but the party decides which planks go into their official platform. This is done after a bunch of negotiating and horse trading. The point of the convention is to present a unified front with the goal of attracting as many voters as possible. The way Gaza was handled at the convention appeals to the most voters as it is in line with their views. On a recent survey of issues most important to Democratic voters, Gaza didn't make the top 10.
I think people who are not American (don't know if you are) misunderstand the relationship between Israel and America, because it is very different from Israel's relationships with European countries. WWII was a war of choice for us, while it was existential for Europe, and we chose to fight due in no small part to the plan to exterminate the Jewish people. There are more Jews and people of Jewish descent in the USA than anywhere except Israel.
Add to that the evangelical streak running through America that is part of the same Judeo-Christian framework, and it's a unique and strong bond. I don't see that ever changing, and no one with Presidential ambitions will ever go on national TV and denounce Israel or make it appear we are abandoning Israel. That is not the same as reigning in Israel's actions and calling its leaders to task, which does happen all the time, but where that's not going to happen is at the DNC.
I know .. my point was, how do you tax unrealized gains?
If my $100 investment is worth $110 after a year .. then it goes down to $90 after 2 years, how does paying capital gains on the $10 after year 1 make any sense?
This is a post of mine a couple of days ago
I get the point of convention, I know how your political process work. I have participated in US political discussion on this site since 2015 and savvy enough about it to make a pretty penny out of it in 2020. And, with the caveat that I’m not too old to not participate in online culture, I can say that the reaction to this little snub has been universally negative for people that have enthusiastically turned to Harris since the drop out. Is it enough to turn them off voting for her in November? Probably not, and her team is banking on it, but that chance went down when you’ve shown that you have nothing but contempt for them that even a minimal demand is not met. Paying lip service about a ceasefire rings hollow when you are refusing them a platform with a vetted speech. Nobody is naive enough to think the US will alter its relationship with Israel, most people who are calling for an arms embargo probably know deep down it’s not gonna happen and they only hope to negotiate down from that, but when you dont afford them even the courtesy of pretending to care, it only emboldens the more extreme elements in the movement, those who are more interested in critiquing power than having it, and have no qualms about pulling you down to share in that fate.
Just now catching Kamala's speech. She put no wrong foot forward, not a great sspeech but very, very good.
It will be interesting to see what the convention bump will be.
It will be interesting to see what the convention bump will be.
I think generally this is correct, but I can't believe how much it has (rightly) been eroded in the past year. I went to a really Jewish university (American Jews) and so loads of my best friends have really built their lives around their religion. Tbh, I always found the solidarity and community of how tight the Jewish community was to be inspiring and impressive as a devout atheist. Anyway, to a man and woman they're disgusted by what Netanyahu has perpetrated, and it has really challenged their lifetime beliefs. Almost all did the birthright trip, and many have travelled many times back to Israel. There's a massive reverance that I saw towards Israel. But that's been hugely eroded. They're also terrified of what this means for the future, given several were in Israel in the early 00s and lived with the threat of bombings everyday.
Point being: I really think that Biden/Harris can end weapons sales (certainly all offensive ones) and not feel any blow back. These people are 40s/50s now, we're not young, but all support ending this massacre.
The evangelicals are by definition crazy. There's no point in having a discussion with anyone who is naive enough to believe a word of that insanity.
What happened at 6am?
That's great news, I hope they're successful. There's still the two party system, the life long election of Supreme Court judges, the electoral college, etc. but if they can at least change that, it could already be a huge blow for the GOP's future chances. I mean, it's becoming more and more obvious that Trump in reality was a very weak candidate. If he loses the election, he's likely finished and will leave the Republicans in a complete mess. Dealing with that and losing some edge they had thanks to gerrymandering and voter suppression could provide the Democrats with some much needed continuity.
Good question. Dunno.
Trump called in and pledged a -£5m donation
Refund?
Pretty disenchanting but hope dies last I guess
How so?
People say it will kill the republican party and secure democratic power for decades. I think it is far more likely that, over time, republicans will realise there is no power left in pandering to the extreme right wing and they will need to go back to some form of late 20th century conservatism and focus on actual governance again to win back the middle. Fox News might even realise it too.
How's Fayelujah? I'm heading there in October for a few months.