Likewise, the Compact is likely to be deemed unconstitutional in SCOTUS, should it ever be put to use.
**I like the Compact’s goal, but not its chance of success**
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
**I like the Compact’s goal, but not its chance of success**
I think the legal argument is murky, technically there’s nothing in the Constitution specifically against it, since states are free to elect their electors.
It’s of course a no go with the current court, but the Compact itself isn’t quite there yet anyway, I think it’s like 50 votes pending to 260 and then you still need 1 swing state to join, which is very difficult, but still many folds easier than the Amendment route.
Another short term solution would be to uncap the house and bring the average district population to something like 550k as opposed to the current 700+, still doesn’t address Senate imbalance though.
Probably for the same reason Ukraine has technically invaded Russia, using western weapons, without Putin using nuclear weapons.
The red lines set have happened and nothing has happened. First defensive weapons went. Then offensive weapons. Then those weapons were used against Russians. Then used In Russia. Sweden and Finland joined NATO. Ukraine struck inside territory Russia insists is it's own (as well as territory legally accepted as Russian by everyone) with drones and/or special forces. Now they've invaded Russia proper with regular army units.
And still the response from Putin has not been what he promised (nuclear strikes). At any point.
Its the same with this situation. At the beginning of the conflict, there were pages of arguments (including I believe you) about whether Israel would dare strike at a hospital. It's now a year later and the healthcare system is essentially destroyed. Rafah was a US red line. That's gone. The corridor was an Egyptian red line. That's gone. Humanitarian zoned were a red line. They're struck regularly. Humanitarian aid was a red line. Gone. There is no red line which Israel has not crossed.
And, as with the example above, there was no response. In fact, the weapons have continued to flow. The US has continued to provide cast iron diplomatic cover. They are seriously talking about sanctioning countries and organisations supporting the ICJ case. They continue to provide intelligence and defensive capabilites for the IDF.
If there was a serious risk of sanction or weapons drying up,there would be an increased chance of Netanyahu acting differently. Not cast iron sure. But increased . There are literally no negative consequences to him continuing the war because there is no serious push back from the superpower backer.
Also not sure an appeal to authority is a particularly good idea considering it took an incredibly awful debate performance before the DNC finally kicked into action and started trying to push Biden out.
What was decided in the end about muting microphones?
Muted, no notes, same as 1st debate.
I see. To be honest, I'm not sure I agree it would have been better for Harris to have him unmuted and rambling on.
Why are people talking about muslim voters? Relax, guys, we've been told over and over they're irrelevant.
Is there any discourse that Silver hasn’t got a fecking clue since he didn’t have a clue at the last two elections?
Trump has already been President so I guess that's the standard
It’s B-
Why do you use ChatGPT instead of live source data for quick checks? Feels like an odd choice.
No one has said that and you know it.
I'll try to take some time to get the quotes later.
History books on this period of American history are going to be wild.
Good luck with that. Saying that Gaza is not one of the top issues to American voters is not the same as saying Muslim voters are "irrelevant".
You conveniently didn't include her comments she made at the DNC re the Palestinians suffering and their right to determine their own future. Nor her not attending Bibi's address to congress - that gives a clear indication of what she feels.
What should she have said?
You have to be realistic. As VP, she cant disavow of discredit her boss's approach, especially if a deal is trying to be brokered. Nor does she want to be seen as potentially blocking a deal because her policy may be advantageous to one side holding out until next.
Splitting with Biden re Israel now just creates an open wound for Trump to push his dirty finger into. We all know Bibi would love to see Trump be elected.
There are more than just a few polls showing Trump is having trouble in NC, i wonder what it will take for his campaign to start pouring in money there, as they do in Georgia and PA, though, they might have issues with fundraising, maybe they can't afford to match dems spending across all 3 states?
It is what it is.
Biden wanted the mics muted for all debates, which Biden may have felt was advantageous to him. The Trump team have carried across those rules.
It would have been better for Harris to have mics on, especially given that Harris is the prosecutor and has shown she can put men like Brett Kavanaugh and Mike Pence to the sword. But she needs the airtime and the debate more than Trump, so she had to adhere to what Biden had already agreed.
I think her team wanted the mics open more so Trump could interrupt her, thus looking rude and trying to be a bully. She will have plenty of time to counter his lies while still getting her message across. Nothing Trump will say hasn't been said by him a million times before, so she should have her counters lined up.
I really don't understand this thing about Trump looking rude and trying to be a bully. That's what he is. It's what he's been at every debate he's been involved in for the past decade.
There's nothing new there. Everyone in the country at this point knows what he brings in this field and I don't think seeing it again with Harris is going to shift anyone's dial.
People see thing differently, clearly. To one person it's bullying, to another its strength.
Remember Harris shutting up Pence with "Im speaking My Vice President"? Im sure the Trump team doesn't want to give her that same opportunity to create a viral moment.
There is no doubt that Trump is better when his mic is off. It prevents his opposition fact checking him in real time. It removes his instinct to snap back, which sometimes works well, but could also backfire against a prosecutor.
I think I read somewhere that ABC has the option to keep mics open during "heated exchanges" or something like that.
They will have to, especially with this clown dragging down the ticket...
https://www.theassemblync.com/polit...or-republican-mark-robinson-porn-allegations/
Harris has a very viable path with MI, WI, NV and NC.
I can see Trump focusing in on PA, NC, GA, NV and AZ.
The KamalaHQ troll game is strong...
Yes but my point is that Trump isn't a newcomer. This is all known. He bullied/showed strength his republican competitors. In 16 and again in 24. He did it to Hillary. He did it to Biden earlier this year.
This tactic isn't new and at this point,nobody is going to watch a debate and think....it was OK when trump interrupted Rubio or Hillary or Haley or Biden but it's now too much when he's doing it against Harris.
Everyone will already have their minds made up whether they see it as bullying (and most importantly whether it's bad enough to not vote for him) or strength( in which case they were always going to).
It's for the fabled 'swing voters' or maybe that sliver of GOP base who like civility and normality above tax breaks.
The key for me tonight is Harris' ability to show Trump isn't even Trump of 2016, but an old, sad, deteriorated force. Which he is.
The key for me tonight is Harris' ability to show Trump isn't even Trump of 2016, but an old, sad, deteriorated force. Which he is.
Golf, sharks, or women he most certainly positively never touched? All aboard the wheel of Trumpian fortune.
I know. It was very clearly said they are irrelevant. Not as people, of course, but as a voting block.
Till these polls, they have been so beholden to the party that they were irrelevant. This is the only way to gain relevance - as I've posted before, Jewish Americans voted Republican en masse in the 1946 midterms, and so pushed Truman to support Israel more.
People have very short memories. They seem to have forgotten the 1mil people plus who died of COVID under his watch. They have forgotten that the majoroty of his cabitet resigned and are now voting for Harris.
And remember, we have multiple news networks who have made Trump into a demigod who can do no wrong. Even when he has his supporters storm the capital, Fox News find ways to shift blame away from Trump and his supporters.
So the debate is one opportunity for the public to see him as he is.
That's correct. All of these issues are already baked into Trump's candidacy, and have been since 2016. Harris would be squandering precious time talking about this in lieu of actually promoting why her policies are better than Trump's. Of course that would also depend on Harris actually having a comprehensive list of published policies to begin with.
Kamala's greatest ever debate moment....
The published rules say mikes are off, which will be a bit awkward for Harris since Trump can continue talking during her speaking time and she can hear it, but the home audience can't.
I agree. I think I heard the "heated exchange thing" on the PSA podcast last weekend when they were discussing CNN vs. ABC rules with Danna Bash.
edit: I think Bash also said something along the lines of the moderators being able to directly tell the candidates to knock it off if they are speaking out of turn since the audience will not see it.
To give Trump some credit, he wasn't cutting into Biden during the last debate. But then again, he didnt need to as letting Biden mumble along was the best strategy.
To be fair, Trump doesn't need to get personal. He can simply spend the entire night attacking Biden-Harris on inflation, the cost of living, the Afghanistan withdrawal, and the border, and have it be a successful night for him. She is ostensibly representing the incumbent administration so its easier for the challenger to attack an existing record than Harris to attack Trump for his first term.
I was looking for its rating back in 2020, and google didn't help.
I actually think he won't launch personal attacks much, and that could be his surprise for Harris. Nevertheless, if the night drags on, it will be hard to maintain a position out of character.
Totally agree. He did exactly that Vs Biden.
It is obvious what he will say and she needs to have strong retorts to all of the attacks while also giving a vision for her administration.
She better be more prepared than she was for that Dana Bash softball of "What are you going to do Day 1 as President?"