I just don’t know if I believe that. Whitmer would be the same issue as Harris in terms of a few things and wouldn’t have energized the minority base. Newsom, I just don’t see how he’s doing better than she would be. I just keep looking at the roster and thinking we’d be in the same damn place. It’s a 47-47 country and you are just fighting for a couple of percent.
They want their strongman down there, and they are trending towards getting him and I’m not sure there was an amazing candidate out there to avoid it.
None of them stepped either, most of them right away said they wouldn't run.
I don't think Newsom wanted to walk into a buzzsaw and torpedo his political career and chance at being president. Most of them are lining up for a proper run in 2028.
I just don’t know if I believe that. Whitmer would be the same issue as Harris in terms of a few things and wouldn’t have energized the minority base. Newsom, I just don’t see how he’s doing better than she would be. I just keep looking at the roster and thinking we’d be in the same damn place. It’s a 47-47 country and you are just fighting for a couple of percent.
They want their strongman down there, and they are trending towards getting him and I’m not sure there was an amazing candidate out there to avoid it.
Oh I don't disagree, but Harris was probably the weakest of the people I mentioned. Considering how razor thin this will be someone who can eek out even 0.5% more might be the difference. I've already said "not Trump" should be enough, but Murica. She's run a mediocre campaign, at best, and has done nothing with her chances to build on momentum (DNC, the Debate).
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Oh I don't disagree, but Harris was probably the weakest of the people I mentioned. Considering how razor thin this will be someone who can eek out even 0.5% more might be the difference. I've already said "not Trump" should be enough, but Murica. She's run a mediocre campaign, at best, and has done nothing with her chances to build on momentum (DNC, the Debate).
I don't know about that.
I think the challenge of not having a standard nomination process is that most of the candidates had issues much similar to Harris so it was hard to say that one was obviously better.
As an example: Shapiro had his support for Israel which would alienate a lot of the left. Whitmer is also a woman just like Harris, which is problematic for lots of older voters. Newsom would not go down well in swing states - both for his personality and being from California.
I suspect in a regular nomination process we'd realize who was the best, but this wasn't that case.
I do agree she hasn't run a good campaign though. She hasn't been visible so people still don't know who she is or what her policies are.
I still think the Dems will pull this out, but it’s gonna be tight and team MAGA will tie it up in the courts for months on end, refuse to certify, etc… It’ll be a colossal mess.
I still think the Dems will pull this out, but it’s gonna be tight and team MAGA will tie it up in the courts for months on end, refuse to certify, etc… It’ll be a colossal mess.
This feels like a Bush/Gore scenario but much uglier this time around.
Diaper baby is not just going to go away if it's that close.
Oh I don't disagree, but Harris was probably the weakest of the people I mentioned. Considering how razor thin this will be someone who can eek out even 0.5% more might be the difference. I've already said "not Trump" should be enough, but Murica. She's run a mediocre campaign, at best, and has done nothing with her chances to build on momentum (DNC, the Debate).
You mentioned Walz, and his popularity and charisma only lasted a few weeks. His debate performance added a tick to the current momentum swing from Harris. It's not always easy to predict if a likeable person will still be likeable once they start campaigning on the big stage.
Inflation was always going to be the toughest hurdle to overcome. Trump is really the only reason this is close. If a generic moderate Republican was running, they probably win easily.
It is definitely a challenge for Harris or any other democrat right now to message properly on inflation because it requires a fair amount of nuance and explaining that no one is going to listen to.
For some, it just comes down to inflation was bad under Biden, add in some confirmation bias that liberal policies cause inflation, and inflation not being a problem under Trump, and the Democrat has to go.
It was always going to be a tough election to win, hopefully she can squeak it out.
I've always found it interesting how much charisma has to do with who we elect.
I think it's more that we want to elect people that are like us, or that we'd like to hang out with (which is often, people who are like us).
This is kind of weird, as the biggest part of the job is having a plan that makes the country better and then executing on that plan.
Charisma is great to have on top of all this, but it shouldn't be the first order of making a decision.
This is a huge part of it.
Many politicos will talk about how the best politicians have this aura that sort of draws you in when they walk into a room. You know those people that, as soon as they step into a room, the room seems to sort of glance over or the energy moves towards that person. They think that is the best politician - for elections.
Fundraising, debates, soundbites, ads. These people attract attention and dollars.
Honestly, look at someone like Trudeau. That guy had/has it, which helped him early on.
Ive heard similar things of PP, as opposed to guys like Sheer etc.
I've always found it interesting how much charisma has to do with who we elect.
I think it's more that we want to elect people that are like us, or that we'd like to hang out with (which is often, people who are like us).
This is kind of weird, as the biggest part of the job is having a plan that makes the country better and then executing on that plan.
Charisma is great to have on top of all this, but it shouldn't be the first order of making a decision.
Charisma is irrelevant, except that it inspires engagement.
I have no doubt Harris will be a fine President.
I am less confident she will get that vote out
PP has anti-charisma. If there was another choice on the board at all he would be polling terribly.
I personally think Harris has a lot of charm. Walz too. I enjoy watching her and feel like she is a reasonably good speaker. She has none of the ickyness talking down type of tone that Hillary had. She's smart. She makes effective points. She's pandering to the middle a bit now but that's a textbook play so hard to criticize too hard.
I don't know, I genuinely think it's the Black woman thing that is preventing massive popularity. So, yeah, America be america but IMO it's dumb to say she doesn't have "it". Watch her on Colbert for example.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Monahammer For This Useful Post:
PP has anti-charisma. If there was another choice on the board at all he would be polling terribly.
I personally think Harris has a lot of charm. Walz too. I enjoy watching her and feel like she is a reasonably good speaker. She has none of the ickyness talking down type of tone that Hillary had. She's smart. She makes effective points. She's pandering to the middle a bit now but that's a textbook play so hard to criticize too hard.
I don't know, I genuinely think it's the Black woman thing that is preventing massive popularity. So, yeah, America be america but IMO it's dumb to say she doesn't have "it". Watch her on Colbert for example.
Michelle Obama might win the largest electoral margin in history. Or not, but it would not even be close. It's a Harris thing more than it a black female thing.
Possibly what you are missing is that it's really not about a choice, it's about getting the vote out.
Last edited by EldrickOnIce; 10-11-2024 at 10:36 AM.
sorry, but if the question is "how is this still close?", I'm not looking at Harris. I'm looking at the ####ing electorate which sees the two options available and still decides it's going to be a super close election, dependent on a handful of states.
Kamala's weak point right now is actually being part of the current administration. But I don't understand why it's so hard for people to openly disagree with colleagues they mostly agree with. I turned off her Colbert interview as soon as she started answering the questions about what she "would do differently than Biden." She so obviously avoided answering it, it's so frustrating. I understand she's in a hard place you don't want to undermine him in public, but you can easily have a canned response like:
"The President and I don't agree on everything, but he is in charge and he makes his choices and it's my duty to give him my (sometimes opposing) opinion and then stand behind this decisions. But there will be changes and big decisions made once I am in charge and I hope my campaign and my history in public service does enough to cue which way those decisions will go when in my hands. but I won't undermine the current President of the United States in public, sorry."
Still doesn't say much of anything specific, but just say exactly why you're not going to answer the question.
Michelle Obama might win the largest electoral margin in history. Or not, but it would not even be close. It's a Harris thing more than it a black female thing.
Possibly what you are missing is that it's really not about a choice, it's about getting the vote out.
I disagree profoundly. Michelle Obama, a wonderful speaker with tons of charisma, would get absolutely pummeled by Trump for being a worse version of Hillary Clinton. It's actually insane, IMO, to think that she wouldn't get badgered by the exact same points and succumb to them in worse ways.
Which part? Electing a RW nutjob? Electing a leader who gets less than the majority of the popular vote?
sadly, RW nutjobs being elected is more of a global problem. I'm talking about Trump specifically. The US has had a decade to watch this guy up close. He has always been a racist narcissist, but since being elected in 2016, he's overseen 4 terrible years in office, he completely botched the pandemic, he staged a ####ing insurrection, he was convicted of rape, he was convicted of 34 felonies and so on and so forth. Even a tiny fraction of that would have killed the career of virtually every other politician. And yet, we're still looking at the election as a toss-up because dozens of millions Americans see all of that and say "you know what, sounds good to me! Better than a woke leftist, amirite?" I'm tired of people looking at Harris and go "meh, she's not that good of a speaker" or "meh, her plans are not that specific" and so on. There's still completely different standards applied to the two candidates, just like in 2016. It's insane.
And yeah, the electoral college should be abolished too, but that's obviously not happening.
Last edited by devo22; 10-11-2024 at 10:57 AM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to devo22 For This Useful Post:
sadly, RW nutjobs being elected is more of a global problem. I'm talking about Trump specifically. The US has had a decade to watch this guy up close. He has always been a racist narcissist, but since being elected in 2016, he's overseen 4 terrible years in office, he completely botched the pandemic, he staged a ####ing insurrection, he was convicted of rape, he was convicted of 34 felonies and so on and so forth. Even a tiny fraction of that would have killed the career of virtually every other politician. And yet, we're still looking at the election as a toss-up because dozens of millions Americans see all of that and say "you know what, sounds good to me! Better than a woke leftist, amirite?" I'm tired of people looking at Harris and go "meh, she's not that good of a speaker" or "meh, her plans are not that specific" and so on. There's still completely different standards applied to the two candidates, just like in 2016. It's insane.
And yeah, the electoral college should be abolished too, but that's obviously not happening.
Except that, if every eligible person in America voted, it would probably be a 60/40 split. Ish. And most of that 40 is simply entrenched as republican. And yeah that sounds loony, but what it also means is that reasonable, thinking Americans just need to vote.
Michelle Obama might win the largest electoral margin in history. Or not, but it would not even be close. It's a Harris thing more than it a black female thing.
Possibly what you are missing is that it's really not about a choice, it's about getting the vote out.
I've never really bought into that. A lot of Michelle Obama's popularity comes from staying above the fray of politics. Once she becomes a candidate and has defend herself, answer policy questions and look presidential, that all changes.
Maybe she'd be better than Harris, but she could be more exposed as being more inexperienced in a lot of areas and also run into some of the same problems Harris is.
Trump would dismantle NATO and can't be trusted with confidential information. Not new news, but a nice reminder from his own National Security Advisor. It's weird to agree with John Bolton. Despite disagreeing with pretty much his entire world view, he's a direct and interesting speaker.
You don't have to listen to his opponents. His own Secretary of Defence, Chairman of Joint Chiefs, multiple Generals, NSA advisor, communications directors, attorney general, the list goes on. They all think he's a menace.
__________________
Last edited by Coach; 10-11-2024 at 11:33 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
Both are not 'awful', only one is. There is a very clear choice in this election based on intellect, wit, leadership, logic, international credibility, and most importantly of all, integrity. Hint: it's not Trump.
The fact that this isn't obvious to people is outstandingly embarrassing.
Barack said last night Kamala is the most qualified candidate EVER. Hillary had a great resume too, but lost.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
