Stern is trying to come across as a serious interviewer these days. Gone are the Sybian rides and strippers having blue cheese put in their asscrack for an idiot to consume.
Trying? No, Howard Stern is a serious interviewer, and a fantastic one at that; probably one of the best in the business. His 'shock jock' schtick is long gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownInFlames
He's also trying to pretend he never wore blackface or made homophobic jokes.
I listened to a little bit of the Stern interview, it was ok. I like listening to interviews like that where the candidate is more casual and have more personality. Still some canned answers, but some personal stuff too like taste in music and shows and stuff.
I remember when Hillary when on Stern's show after she lost the election, it was a fantastic interview, she showed way more personality and sense of humor, seemed like a different person than what you'd see on TV all the time. For days, maybe weeks, after that interview there were people calling the show and really surprised how much they liked Hillary after listening to her. She wouldn't have won the election just from going on Stern's show, but if she would have done a lot more shows like that, that showed of her personality a lot more....who knows.
Today it was pretty interesting having Howard listing off so many things that Trump has said, or lied about.......stunning the U.S. lets him run for top office. Broken.
The Following User Says Thank You to KootenayFlamesFan For This Useful Post:
Today it was pretty interesting having Howard listing off so many things that Trump has said, or lied about.......stunning the U.S. lets him run for top office. Broken.
Remember just a couple weeks ago when his staff got into an altercation at Arlington National Cemetery because they were using it as a campaign prop? He does so much crap it gets lost in the avalanche.
I saw it said he isnt really running a political campaign, more of a misinformation campaign. Lies upon lies. Trying to get people to remember things differently than they really were. Asking if you were better off 4 years ago..should be a no brainer, right? High point of Covid and his horrendous response to it, but he wants people to recall it differently. Claiming things for himself as accomplishments that others did. Stuff Obama did, stuff Biden did, stuff he was stopped from doing by guys like McCain...he claims it as his win.
The Following User Says Thank You to puffnstuff For This Useful Post:
The Rest is Politics did a 4-part series with Anthony Scaramucci on how Trump won in 2016. Got PTSD listening to this but very interesting behind the scenes stuff.
I listened to a little bit of the Stern interview, it was ok. I like listening to interviews like that where the candidate is more casual and have more personality. Still some canned answers, but some personal stuff too like taste in music and shows and stuff.
I remember when Hillary when on Stern's show after she lost the election, it was a fantastic interview, she showed way more personality and sense of humor, seemed like a different person than what you'd see on TV all the time. For days, maybe weeks, after that interview there were people calling the show and really surprised how much they liked Hillary after listening to her. She wouldn't have won the election just from going on Stern's show, but if she would have done a lot more shows like that, that showed of her personality a lot more....who knows.
Today it was pretty interesting having Howard listing off so many things that Trump has said, or lied about.......stunning the U.S. lets him run for top office. Broken.
Maybe being honest and open is what people want to see instead of the highly scripted 'Political Candidate' afraid to make anyone mad? I think Bernie showed how effective that can be. Agreed. Broken.
A theory I've been rolling around in my mind regarding polls possibly *still* underrating Trump's support, but for a different reason.
I'm pessimistic that what the polls say about undecided voters is true. This is entirely anecdotal and so not something you can wrap into a polling model, but every time I read surveys with undecided voters, I read them saying things that suggest that they aren't going to behave like traditional undecided voters that are simply low-information. For example after the debate, on one panel I read an undecided saying how weird it was that Harris was so articulate when she was usually 'word salad', while Trump on the other hand seemed to get distracted far more easily, almost like he had been drugged, and that there was something suspicious going on with the whole debate. That's voter is not someone you can win over by being the better candidate. That's just one particularly egregious example, but there have been others.
In this environment where each candidate has been so well known for so long, I wonder how many people who claim to be undecided are simply people who have built skepticism into their self-identity. I've thought a lot about how people get roped into conspiracy theories and how hard it is to break them out of believing them (and how easy it is for such people to get roped into additional conspiracy theories). The more someone sees being skeptical as part of who they are, the more they're going to resist evidence, no matter how convincing, because it forces them to change their self-identity. And potentially at least some of those people are going to always answer a poll as being undecided because being undecided validates that self-identity. Those people would consider being undecided on the election as being a virtue.
Again, I acknowledge that this is anecdotal. If I was a pollster, something I'd test here is polling to see if there's any correlation between undecided voters and belief in various conspiracy theories like chemtrails or vaccines causing autism. I'd expect that most people who are heavily invested in conspiracy theories are already strong Trump supporters, including those who believe absolutely in these conspiracy theories. But my hunch is that you'd find undecideds giving validity to conspiracy theories at a higher overall rate than the average population, particularly if you allowed a response like 'I think that this is a valid concern that needs more research.'
All of this comes out of reading an article today suggesting that the polls are better than we think for Harris because the number of undecideds are so small, and a +2 lead with 3% undecided is much better than a +2 lead with 10% undecided (as Hillary was sometimes during 2016). But my concern is that these 'skepticism is a virtue' crowd make up a significant amount of that undecided percentage and that most of them will ultimately vote for Trump because the conspiracy theory bubble has far more conspiracies about the left. Maybe I'm vastly overrating the number of people who behave like that, or maybe they're mostly already identifying as Trump supporters in polls. But it's a mindset that I'm very nervous about.
A theory I've been rolling around in my mind regarding polls possibly *still* underrating Trump's support, but for a different reason.
I'm pessimistic that what the polls say about undecided voters is true. This is entirely anecdotal and so not something you can wrap into a polling model, but every time I read surveys with undecided voters, I read them saying things that suggest that they aren't going to behave like traditional undecided voters that are simply low-information. For example after the debate, on one panel I read an undecided saying how weird it was that Harris was so articulate when she was usually 'word salad', while Trump on the other hand seemed to get distracted far more easily, almost like he had been drugged, and that there was something suspicious going on with the whole debate. That's voter is not someone you can win over by being the better candidate. That's just one particularly egregious example, but there have been others.
In this environment where each candidate has been so well known for so long, I wonder how many people who claim to be undecided are simply people who have built skepticism into their self-identity. I've thought a lot about how people get roped into conspiracy theories and how hard it is to break them out of believing them (and how easy it is for such people to get roped into additional conspiracy theories). The more someone sees being skeptical as part of who they are, the more they're going to resist evidence, no matter how convincing, because it forces them to change their self-identity. And potentially at least some of those people are going to always answer a poll as being undecided because being undecided validates that self-identity. Those people would consider being undecided on the election as being a virtue.
Again, I acknowledge that this is anecdotal. If I was a pollster, something I'd test here is polling to see if there's any correlation between undecided voters and belief in various conspiracy theories like chemtrails or vaccines causing autism. I'd expect that most people who are heavily invested in conspiracy theories are already strong Trump supporters, including those who believe absolutely in these conspiracy theories. But my hunch is that you'd find undecideds giving validity to conspiracy theories at a higher overall rate than the average population, particularly if you allowed a response like 'I think that this is a valid concern that needs more research.'
All of this comes out of reading an article today suggesting that the polls are better than we think for Harris because the number of undecideds are so small, and a +2 lead with 3% undecided is much better than a +2 lead with 10% undecided (as Hillary was sometimes during 2016). But my concern is that these 'skepticism is a virtue' crowd make up a significant amount of that undecided percentage and that most of them will ultimately vote for Trump because the conspiracy theory bubble has far more conspiracies about the left. Maybe I'm vastly overrating the number of people who behave like that, or maybe they're mostly already identifying as Trump supporters in polls. But it's a mindset that I'm very nervous about.
I am hopeful it will be the reverse this year, that polls will over estimate Trumps support for the simple reason he has completely cheaped out and ignored the ground level organization necessary to get the vote out, I suspect a lot of Trumps supporters will say they want to vote Trump but without the local office calling them up and letting them know where the polling station is, hours etc and nagging them a larger than usual percentage wont actually vote.
Trump has all but ignored ground level organization and dismantled the GOP's in house staff that should support the state level organizations, the effect of this though will not be caught by polls at all
Once again these polls are all over the place. Just a few days ago they were showing Harris was up in all three of those states. The day to day swings in the polls are really bizarre.
So, NBC was speaking about this earlier and mentioned that the Harris campaign is not getting good feedback around Harris' response when she's asked what changes she would make from the last 4 years if she becomes the next President. Apparently, she was asked the same question earlier and also said that she'd change nothing, and then later in the same interview wanted to go back to that question, adding that the one thing she'd change is she'd add a Republican to her cabinet.
I don't envy her as she is obviously needing to be careful with her answer given Biden is still the President and they can't appear divided. I do think though she needs to come up with a better response then what she's provided so far around how her administration would be different from the last 4 years in a constructive way that doesn't come across as tearing Biden down. She can do better than saying she's not Biden and she's not Trump.
So, NBC was speaking about this earlier and mentioned that the Harris campaign is not getting good feedback around Harris' response when she's asked what changes she would make from the last 4 years if she becomes the next President. Apparently, she was asked the same question earlier and also said that she'd change nothing, and then later in the same interview wanted to go back to that question, adding that the one thing she'd change is she'd add a Republican to her cabinet.
I don't envy her as she is obviously needing to be careful with her answer given Biden is still the President and they can't appear divided. I do think though she needs to come up with a better response then what she's provided so far around how her administration would be different from the last 4 years in a constructive way that doesn't come across as tearing Biden down. She can do better than saying she's not Biden and she's not Trump.
I'm no political consultant, but it seems the obvious answer to that question is to say that Joe Biden had to spend the last four years rebuilding trust in the federal government and salvaging America's global reputation after the terrible mess he inherited from Trump. With that work now largely finished, she would be able to focus on [insert policy initiatives here].
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
So, NBC was speaking about this earlier and mentioned that the Harris campaign is not getting good feedback around Harris' response when she's asked what changes she would make from the last 4 years if she becomes the next President. Apparently, she was asked the same question earlier and also said that she'd change nothing, and then later in the same interview wanted to go back to that question, adding that the one thing she'd change is she'd add a Republican to her cabinet.
I don't envy her as she is obviously needing to be careful with her answer given Biden is still the President and they can't appear divided. I do think though she needs to come up with a better response then what she's provided so far around how her administration would be different from the last 4 years in a constructive way that doesn't come across as tearing Biden down. She can do better than saying she's not Biden and she's not Trump.
This is why Democratic strategists didn’t want an open nomination. You wind up with Democrat leadership hopefuls being put in a position where they have to run against a Democrat incumbent.
The transition from Biden to Harris went about as smoothly as you could hope. But Harris is still in an awkward position. If she runs on steady-as-she-goes, she turns off voters who are unhappy with the last four years (and there are lots of them). If she campaigns on change, she’s undermining the current administration - of which she is a core member.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
As Hurricane Milton bears down on Florida, some of the dialogue on social media includes baseless theories that the storm has been geo-engineered, that the government is involved in hurricane creation and that such storms are being directed to hit predominantly Republican areas.
"Not only is that absurd, it's frustrating," said Amber Silver, an assistant professor at the University at Albany's College of Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security and Cybersecurity.
Man some people are dumb.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
I'm no political consultant, but it seems the obvious answer to that question is to say that Joe Biden had to spend the last four years rebuilding trust in the federal government and salvaging America's global reputation after the terrible mess he inherited from Trump. With that work now largely finished, she would be able to focus on [insert policy initiatives here].
The only people who care about that are already all in on voting for Harris.
The truth no one wants to hear is that they did a decent job managing the economy. Some hurt was necessary. It was either going to be higher prices or brutal recession and they did about as well as they could, but almost no one believes or understands that.
She can and has offer up policies that will help people deal with higher prices and housing, but nearly all of those will be rebutted as leading to higher inflation. Obviously Trump's ideas that same problem times 10!
Balance is coming back to the economy, interest rates are going back down and rising costs and housing should ease. Stay the course economically and don't let Trump implement his bat #### crazy economic policies is probably the correct answer, but no one wants to hear that.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nfotiu For This Useful Post:
