In a way it's the best outcome, and as I think I mentioned months ago, most major organisations have plans b and c war-roomed as hypotheticals, so there may have been a rough idea floating out there. Plus with Biden being ancient, Harris' advisors must similarly have had a drop out plan too.
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
The answer was not great but she doesn't have much room to maneuver. Biden is still the president and she's his employee.
Well, she is the current VP, so there is not that much imagination to be made. Sure she might deviate a bit, but so far, doesn't seem promising and on the same line as democrats since 2016 "I do not have much to offer besides I am not as shitty as Trump" and if Harris wins, same story in 2028
And she will propose her platform and policies and when she will be criticize for some of them being obviously shitty, she will say: " but look at Trump!"
What would have been a good answer from her in your view? Because she has multiple things she needs to juggle right now - it's not all about appeasing the left wing of the party, but also about appearing firm and keeping the good momentum going.
Supposedly it was around a handful of people. Bowing down to them at a rally would also not have been a good look.
VPs famously don't share major positions with Presidents, and agree to serve anyway.
You're clearly judging her policies before seeing them.
I don't know if policy disagreements are all that significant when there is a fundemental disagreement about the validity of democracy as a system of government.
The current Republican party is pushing an authoritarian political movement that rejects the principles of of liberal and neoliberal democracy that the US has been based on. The core issue that splits the two parties today is not policy, it is the political system itself.
Unfortunately that argument is too complicated for the electorate, most of which have no idea what a liberal democracy is, which results in a belief that this is about policy (back Ukraine vs not, tax vs no tax, progressive vs Conservative, abortion access vs ban, hawk vs diplomacy etc). Biden tried to make that point, but it just didn't stick and he just came across as a worried old man.
A lot of the "noise" around the election is concentrated around policy and value disagreements that are completely fair in a democratic system - but the most important difference is the fundemantal disagreement in how to run government, elections, presidential power, the international system and the role of the various branches of government.
In the US you have three main forces, two of which are driven by voters who haven't been helped by the neoliberal democracy model and one that fights for the status quo.
Two of them are in the Democratic party - progressive who want a return to classic liberal democracy and neoliberals or "moderates" who want to maintain the status quo with the belief that neoliberalism has secured US position as an undisputed hegemon. Within those two groups there are policy differences that put them left and right of centre - but there are almost no one arguing against the system. Within the Republican party the neoliberals have more or less been pushed aside by the authoritarian MAGA movement.
While the neoliberals and liberals all agree on principles about how the system is supposed to work - MAGA authoritarianism rejects those principles. As an ideology it is incompatible with liberal and neoliberal democracy. Therefore any disagreement on policy becomes essentially meaningless.
For instance; liberals and neoliberals argue about how much influence a president should have, MAGA pushes for unitarian monarchy. Liberals and Neoliberals disagree on specifics on abortion legislation, MAGA rejects the legislative branch. We see liberals and neoliberals disagree on who should vote and the structure of the electoral college, while MAGA rejects the very concept of elections.
How do you have policy discussions when faced with that?
Turns out she'd met with a group of people of Palestinian heritage whose families have suffered loss prior to the speech. She should have mentioned something about that I think.
Quite a few bookies have gone Kamala fav (including Betfair)
Seems like Walz' military record is an attack point for Republicans, accusing him of stealing valor.
It's what they always do. Kerry was a genuine military hero, if you're into that sort if thing, and they did it with him too.
I do remember reading about the Swift Vets campaign against Kerry. How did Kerry counter it?
And even to their own like John McCain. Trump: "He's a military hero, because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured".
That's not a lie, of course, just ridiculously disrespectful.
More notably, the human scum, sorry political advisor that led that campaign against Kerry is the same person running Trump's campaign.
The Kerry stuff was later proved to all be made up, btw, not that history remembers.
I don't get this line of thinking at all.
That Trump appearance at the black journalists event was diabolical.
There was absolutely zero upside to it and he looked appalling.
You can be firm without being a condescending prick.
It was. I'm not sure his awful performance will ultimately be what matters though. I think, going forward, the right's narrative will be that Trump is willing to put his ass on the line in hostile environments whereas Harris avoids even softball interactions. That criticism is only going to grow in strength while Trump's woeful performance wanes into the ether.
Prince Andrew didn't do great in that interview, but at least he put himself out there.
I give her a bit of leeway on the Anderson interview because she's been put in the really quite terrible position of having to defend Biden's indefensible performance on the fly. She's also still got a bit of time to roll out some policy proposals. Post-convention, though, she's gotta be fielding questions and doing intimate back and forths - otherwise she's just going to let her enemies define her policies for her.
Expound a bit on the last line of your post.
Agree with this. Basically, the Dems strategy is again 'but Trump is bad' rather than this is what we offer, and similarly to Biden, protect Kamala at all costs to not do anything except reading from a teleprompter. It might work out in the end, because Trump is such a shit candidate, but it is extremely underwhelming.
I am not the biggest fan of Harris. Indeed, I would’ve picked someone else to lead us in November. See my previous posts.
However:
1. She is the nominee
2. She’s not perfect, but I really think that she looks better than in 2020
3. She had to put together a campaign and pick a running mate in a very short period of time (2 weeks), including all the vetting process. That’s difficult. There was no time for interviews and deep discussions about policies
4. The trips to the Midwest right after the Walz pick are right. Ride the momentum wave, introduce yourself and your runner mate to more people, especially in that part of the country.
5. Interviews and so on will happen, particularly after the convention. We stil have 90 days for that.
6. Regarding the answer on Gaza: I still believe that it was good given the circumstances (but, as I said last night, she could’ve shown more empathy). Not a perfect answer, to the extent there is one, but definitely not bad either.
7. We did hear some talk about policies, including when she introduced Walz.
8. Yes, “Trump is bad” is important too, and must be said. It’s not the entire campaign, but it’s part of it. We will hear more about it, and we SHOULD.
9. The threat to democracy scores well with many Americans as an important issue. For me, it’s by far the issue Number 1. I’m an economist, but I don’t vote on the economy, but democracy. Trump frightens me and many like me, and so his name should be mentioned.
10. We have some good momentum, it seems, and so let’s not rush to judge her and bring her down when she just started running for the job. Let’s not hurt ourselves. We did that in 2016, and we saw what happened.
However:
1. She is the nominee
2. She’s not perfect, but I really think that she looks better than in 2020
3. She had to put together a campaign and pick a running mate in a very short period of time (2 weeks), including all the vetting process. That’s difficult. There was no time for interviews and deep discussions about policies
4. The trips to the Midwest right after the Walz pick are right. Ride the momentum wave, introduce yourself and your runner mate to more people, especially in that part of the country.
5. Interviews and so on will happen, particularly after the convention. We stil have 90 days for that.
6. Regarding the answer on Gaza: I still believe that it was good given the circumstances (but, as I said last night, she could’ve shown more empathy). Not a perfect answer, to the extent there is one, but definitely not bad either.
7. We did hear some talk about policies, including when she introduced Walz.
8. Yes, “Trump is bad” is important too, and must be said. It’s not the entire campaign, but it’s part of it. We will hear more about it, and we SHOULD.
9. The threat to democracy scores well with many Americans as an important issue. For me, it’s by far the issue Number 1. I’m an economist, but I don’t vote on the economy, but democracy. Trump frightens me and many like me, and so his name should be mentioned.
10. We have some good momentum, it seems, and so let’s not rush to judge her and bring her down when she just started running for the job. Let’s not hurt ourselves. We did that in 2016, and we saw what happened.
Trump is who declined the debate, not her
No, I meant in general.
Trump's offer to do it in Fox while he is able to bully her when she is talking, and his acolytes are booing obviously needed to be rejected.
538 gives it a 3 star rating (top), Nate Silver rates it as A/B. Not sure where the A+ is coming from and I'm unfamiliar with the source. It is a true result though.
Edit: This is likely voters. It is Harris 52-48 among all registered voters. Previous iteration had Biden/Trump at 50:50 among registered voters, with Trump leading 51:49 among likely voters.
Last edited:
Exactly
He doesn't need his MAGA folks to win though. If he's playing to them, he will lose.
They were literally roaring laughing at him at this event. The videos won't just disappear.
Good summary.
The videos won't disappear, neither will the assassination attempt on Trump. Equally they won't gain in power either - they become footnotes. What matters is narrative. Harris has managed to grasp the initiative and so far is doing a good job of running with it. This can only last so long though; at some point not doing interviews adds traction to the story Republicans want to tell - and I don't think this particular story only plays to Trump's base.
More cross party support for Walz. This time published on Fox News:
I Served with Tim Walz as a Republican in The House. He'll be a good Vice President
Edit: To be fair, on further investigation this guy was a Republican House Representative from Hawaii, left the party in 2019 and endorsed Biden in 2020.
I Served with Tim Walz as a Republican in The House. He'll be a good Vice President
Edit: To be fair, on further investigation this guy was a Republican House Representative from Hawaii, left the party in 2019 and endorsed Biden in 2020.
People are oversaturated with bla bla. Kamala doesn't need to do anything as long as she is in the news all the time anyway. If Trump manages to dominate the narrative, which he hasn't so far, she will need to do interviews etc.
Otherwise it's a smart move to limit her exposure right now. She isn't super charismatic, if she tried to be in the media Trump style people would tire of her before November.
Otherwise it's a smart move to limit her exposure right now. She isn't super charismatic, if she tried to be in the media Trump style people would tire of her before November.
Still, good to see an article like this, especially on Fox News.
"Intersectionally oppressed, woke crap". Finkelstein sounding like Trump here. Much of this could easily be a Trump rant at one of his rallies.
They are trying to swiftboat him. Won't work given that he was in the military for six times as long as Vance and Trump famously got a deferment for bone spurs (no doubt from a highly credible doctor who wasn't paid off or anything).
If J.D. Vance had actually seen action it might be a little more effective, but of course he was in a Public Affairs section.
That's not a slight on Vance since a vast majority of people in combat zones are actually there in support roles from logistics, to IT, to housing, maintenance, contracting, medical etc, and don't actually do any fighting. What he's doing to Walz however is reprehensible given that the latter was in the military for 24 years to Vance's 4, and Walz's battalion actually did deploy to Europe (Italy iirc) in the early days of the Afghanistan war.
Apparently Trump has announced a press conference later today. Probably just some bullshit about the debate or his policies, but I give it a 3% chance that he has ditched JD.
I don't see why that would happen via press conference.
I mean, J.D.'s appearances are barely one step up from Four Seasons Total Landscaping debacle so it wouldn't shock me.