That’s just it. Harris already passed on Shapiro who was her best path to PA and some of it is definitely the Israeli/Gaza issue. It’s already influenced decisions. Hopefully Walz can get the swing voters with his midwestern small town vibes.
Right - the anti-Israel wing of the party didn't want Shapiro for this reason, they wanted Walz, who is more progressive and more of a champion of labor. She picked Walz. Apparently, two days later, they now want her now to make the appropriate noises about ceasefire to genuflect to their issue. To me, this indicates there's no point to doing so - that will then not be enough and she'll have to denounce Israel.
Summary of Trump's speech (obviously not a sympathetic one but who cares).
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Yeah, I definitely think she can win but it’s no guarantee and she has to keep things rolling. At least Hilary is a stark reminder to not get cocky.
Does she need to keep things going? She needs to stay out of the media for miscues, cause look how many posts this thread has had today regarding her telling the protesters off versus the psychosis episode Trump had today. Even applying the usual scale grading to Trump his performance today was wild. She needs to just be smart, don't step on any land mines, and she's got a good shot.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
That’s just it. Harris already passed on Shapiro who was her best path to PA and some of it is definitely the Israeli/Gaza issue. It’s already influenced decisions. Hopefully Walz can get the swing voters with his midwestern small town vibes.
Exactly. She's already done things like choose Walz over Shapiro, refuse to attend Netenyahu's speech, and has called for a ceasefire. But to some, none of it matters because they're not getting EVERYTHING they want. And then they wonder why the Democratic party has ignored the litmus-left for decades. Their unwillingness to accept compromise has not only got them ignored, it has also thrown elections (2000 and 2016) to the republicans and cause far more damage to the world than any amount of good they could have hoped to cause.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mathgod For This Useful Post:
Does she need to keep things going? She needs to stay out of the media for miscues, cause look how many posts this thread has had today regarding her telling the protesters off versus the psychosis episode Trump had today. Even applying the usual scale grading to Trump his performance today was wild.
Eh, I suspect that's in part the result of nobody wanting to watch the guy rave for an hour, and that even if it was "wild" by his standards there's a point at which you've gone so far that even if it was, it's still more of the same overall.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Harris has thus far done a good job of walking a fine line, she needs to look like she supports both sides, Israel and Gaza without actually doing or saying much, not meeting with Netanyahu and not picking Shapiro while saying nothing is her winning strategy, she has a Jewish spouse and hasnt condemned Israel so she will keep the Jewish vote acquiescent while not meeting Bibi and not picking Shapiro keeps the muslim vote in Michigan reasonably happy, all she needs to do
I (and others) have already covered this. Harris can't take an anti-Israel stance without throwing the election to Trump.
The protesters have a choice, help Trump win or don't help Trump win. They're not choosing wisely, in my opinion.
Well, in that case they could just not vote which helps neither Trump nor Harris, no?
I get your position, but at this point in my life I really just believe it’s the party’s responsibility to earn your vote. And if they can’t, because it would cost them more votes in the long run, that’s fine and reasonable. But the onus shouldn’t then be put on the people whose vote they didn’t earn to vote for them anyway. What then is the motivation for them to ever try to earn it?
That’s how Trump got elected in the first place. A lot of establishment Republicans and voters did not like him, but he was the option, so they fell in line. You’re unintentionally promoting the exact same approach that got Trump elected and kept Biden in for so long.
I get your position, but at this point in my life I really just believe it’s the party’s responsibility to earn your vote. And if they can’t, because it would cost them more votes in the long run, that’s fine and reasonable. But the onus shouldn’t then be put on the people whose vote they didn’t earn to vote for them anyway. What then is the motivation for them to ever try to earn it?
If the only way to "earn your vote" is to take a position that is entirely, unequivocally in line with what you think on one specific issue, to the exclusion of all others, rather than simply being CLEARLY closer to your position on that issue than the only other option... yeah, I think that voter is a moron. Which, fair enough, there are a lot of morons in the USA who are giving Trump a better than even chance of getting back into office. I would just include this hypothetical person among them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
That’s how Trump got elected in the first place. A lot of establishment Republicans and voters did not like him, but he was the option, so they fell in line. You’re unintentionally promoting the exact same approach that got Trump elected and kept Biden in for so long.
If you're suggesting that falling in line behind Harris is equivalent to falling in line behind Trump, that's insane. If you're not, and just saying that falling in line behind a candidate who you think is CLEARLY the better option even though they aren't who you'd prefer if you had your druthers is inherently a bad way to decide how you vote, I don't agree.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 08-08-2024 at 06:00 PM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Eh, I suspect that's in part the result of nobody wanting to watch the guy rave for an hour, and that even if it was "wild" by his standards there's a point at which you've gone so far that even if it was, it's still more of the same overall.
That was kind of my point, she has one error (was it even one???) and we basically got 140+ posts about her shouting down some protesters. Whereas we got basically five posts for Trump saying, amongst other things, that January 6 was bigger than MLK's speech. She farts downwind and it'll cause an uproar, Trump can (and at this point probably will) call her the N word and it will mostly be ignored. She just needs a clean three months, can't afford even a minor slip up, and she's in good shape.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Last edited by Senator Clay Davis; 08-08-2024 at 06:04 PM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
If the only way to "earn your vote" is to take a position that is entirely, unequivocally in line with what you think on one specific issue, to the exclusion of all others, rather than simply being CLEARLY closer to your position on that issue than the only other option... yeah, I think that voter is a moron. Which, fair enough, there are a lot of morons in the USA who are giving Trump a better than even chance of getting back into office. I would just include this hypothetical person among them.
If you're suggesting that falling in line behind Harris is equivalent to falling in line behind Trump, that's insane. If you're not, and just saying that falling in line behind a candidate who you think is CLEARLY the better option even though they aren't who you'd prefer if you had your druthers is inherently a bad way to decide how you vote, I don't agree.
You basically just described the evangelical right and their views in abortion. They could care less about trump and the fact he’s devoid of morals they should espouse, he’s been effective at one thing. Stacking a court to get what they want on abortion.
That was kind of my point, she has one error (was it even one???) and we basically got 140+ posts about her shouting down some protesters. Whereas we got basically five posts for Trump saying, amongst other things, that January 6 was bigger than MLK's speech. She farts downwind and it'll cause an uproar, Trump can (and at this probably will) call her the N word and it will mostly be ignored. She just needs a clean three months, can't afford even a minor slip up, and she's in good shape.
That's always been true though since 2016. Teflon Don, whose support is the least fragile among anyone who's ever run for the Presidency. This isn't news. It's the result of being a cult leader rather than a normal politician. Turns out that having people's undying and unwavering devotion to you, even if you don't in any way deserve it, helps a lot in maintaining your baseline support.
Quote:
You basically just described the evangelical right and their views in abortion. They could care less about trump and the fact he’s devoid of morals they should espouse, he’s been effective at one thing. Stacking a court to get what they want on abortion.
Well, sort of. I mean I also think those people are very dumb, sure, but I think that by and large those voters would likely say that Trump has other policies and benefits they approve of and so they're not exactly holding their noses, and they are also often willing to pretend that the numerous instances in which he's proved he's an awful person are "fake news" or whatever.
The better analogy would be, if the GOP nominated someone who wanted to implement even the most mild, common-sense gun ownership restrictions, there would probably be a bunch of 2nd amendment nuts who would behave the same way.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 08-08-2024 at 06:06 PM.
That was kind of my point, she has one error (was it even one???) and we basically got 140+ posts about her shouting down some protesters. Whereas we got basically five posts for Trump saying, amongst other things, that January 6 was bigger than MLK's speech. She farts downwind and it'll cause an uproar, Trump can (and at this probably will) call her the N word and it will mostly be ignored. She just needs a clean three months, can't afford even a minor slip up, and she's in good shape.
Trump has proved he can say whatever the crap he wants amd still get votes. It’s not really interesting at this point. Harris has to run a good campaign while Trump and couch boy will win if she screws up. A lot more pressure on the Dems.
I feel about Harris/Walz the way I feel about Trudeau. They will inevitably prove to be less progressive than I’d hoped and will fail to keep some promises.
But I’d rather have leaders who disappoint a few of my hopes than leaders who will realize all my fears.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to puffnstuff For This Useful Post:
I feel about Harris/Walz the way I feel about Trudeau. They will inevitably prove to be less progressive than I’d hoped and will fail to keep some promises.
But I’d rather have leaders who disappoint a few of my hopes than leaders who will realize all my fears.
I'm stealing that!
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
That’s how Trump got elected in the first place. A lot of establishment Republicans and voters did not like him, but he was the option, so they fell in line. You’re unintentionally promoting the exact same approach that got Trump elected and kept Biden in for so long.
We can't control what the other side does. The choices right now are join forces and stop Trump, or fracture and let Trump win.
Well, in that case they could just not vote which helps neither Trump nor Harris, no?
I get your position, but at this point in my life I really just believe it’s the party’s responsibility to earn your vote. And if they can’t, because it would cost them more votes in the long run, that’s fine and reasonable. But the onus shouldn’t then be put on the people whose vote they didn’t earn to vote for them anyway. What then is the motivation for them to ever try to earn it?
That’s how Trump got elected in the first place. A lot of establishment Republicans and voters did not like him, but he was the option, so they fell in line. You’re unintentionally promoting the exact same approach that got Trump elected and kept Biden in for so long.
They got themselves a supreme court for their troubles. Wouldn't a lot of progressive causes be in better shape today if they all held their noses and showed up for Hillary and had a left leaning supreme court?
Sure, blame Hillary for not doing a better job. But anyone who didn't vote for her shares in the blame for women not being able to get abortions in a big chunk of the country.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to nfotiu For This Useful Post:
Haha, holy smokes. Just saw a few clips of Trump's bats*** insane speech from earlier. Dude is even more unhinged and ridiculous and than usual. He's completely spiralling and sounds scared.
