American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Lots of very valid criticisms of Harris to go around, but equating her with Trump and calling her “truly awful” is one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard and is basically on par with something Trump would make up.

Yeah, no offence to CaptainCrunch but that was a truly stupid post. Like what the actual ****.

[Dion]

More lies from Trump...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1844923918542340213

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

https://twitter.com/user/status/1844923918542340213

Not a racist.

But both are awful.

Originally Posted by Dion

More lies from Trump...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1844923918542340213

Last page

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by butterfly

It will, for most people. We don't, have never, and will never live in utopia.

Interesting response to people calling for the killing of migrant “animals.”

“Well, we don’t live in a utopia!”

That trademark insight. Gotta love it.

[puffnstuff]

Some of you may die but its a sacrifice Im willing to make.

Lord Farquaad

[Ped]

Whatever it is, I'm willing to put wave after wave of men at your disposal


Zap Brannigan

[AltaGuy]

I grow more and more pessimistic the closer to this election we get. A NYT podcast a few weeks ago scared the crap out of me: they pointed out that there are a large number of votes that were Biden's in the last election that may swing to Trump at the voting booth.

Essentially the argument - that I found persuasive - was that there is a large built-in level of prejudice throughout much of the population, and especially in those swing states where Biden eeked out his 44,000 vote win.

Basically, racism and misogyny may turn many voters who went Biden into last minute Trump voters. And every time that happens it's actually a two vote swing. I really hope that pundit was wrong, but I can't get it out of my head.

Hopefully Harris can garner enough enthusiasm to get out the vote to counteract that potential outcome.

[direwolf]

That people are willing to destroy their country rather than vote for a black woman is incredibly depressing. It’s been said before in this thread, but women voters and the 18-35 crowd are likely Harris’ only real shot at winning. If she can get these groups to turn out in big numbers, especially in the swing states, I think she’ll take it. But man, it’s gonna be close.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

I grow more and more pessimistic the closer to this election we get. A NYT podcast a few weeks ago scared the crap out of me: they pointed out that there are a large number of votes that were Biden's in the last election that may swing to Trump at the voting booth.

Essentially the argument - that I found persuasive - was that there is a large built-in level of prejudice throughout much of the population, and especially in those swing states where Biden eeked out his 44,000 vote win.

Basically, racism and misogyny may turn many voters who went Biden into last minute Trump voters. And every time that happens it's actually a two vote swing. I really hope that pundit was wrong, but I can't get it out of my head.

Hopefully Harris can garner enough enthusiasm to get out the vote to counteract that potential outcome.

Theres probably some parts of the population that would vote for someone just because they are a woman, and some just because they are a man. Also just because they are white and just because they are people of colour.

I am sure she is gaining votes and losing votes for the same reason. It's probably not just working one way.

It is too bad in this day and age people can't just look at the person behind the race and gender, but in a case like this one could argue it may work as much or more to her advantage as it does against her.

This is what confuses me. Earlier this summer, the polls were in Trumps Favour, before Harris was handed the candidacy. So now that Harris is gaining back some of the voters' how was racism and misogyny the major reason for her not getting some of Biden's votes from 2020. She was gaining back voters that Biden was not going to get.

[opendoor]

I'm sure stuff like this will really energize the Democratic base to get out and vote:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1844836136729940093

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

Theres probably some parts of the population that would vote for someone just because they are a woman, and some just because they are a man. Also just because they are white and just because they are people of colour.

I am sure she is gaining votes and losing votes for the same reason. It's probably not just working one way.

It is too bad in this day and age people can't just look at the person behind the race and gender, but in a case like this one could argue it may work as much or more to her advantage as it does against her.

This is what confuses me. Earlier this summer, the polls were in Trumps Favour, before Harris was handed the candidacy. So now that Harris is gaining back some of the voters' how was racism and misogyny the major reason for her not getting some of Biden's votes from 2020. She was gaining back voters that Biden was not going to get.

No offence, but I think this post:

1. Didn't understand my point at all.
2. Is hopelessly naive.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

No offence, but I think this post:

1. Didn't understand my point at all.
2. Is hopelessly naive.

Great feedback. I'm glad we had this discussion.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I'm sure stuff like this will really energize the Democratic base to get out and vote:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1844836136729940093

Credit where it's due, she's letting us know to bet heavy on Trump in the betting markets.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I'm sure stuff like this will really energize the Democratic base to get out and vote:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1844836136729940093

Yeah true leadership is awful isn’t it?

[Senator Clay Davis]

That's true leadership? Pretty sure it's loser mentality, and why the Dems are on course to blow this, but everyone has their own view I guess. Personally, I kinda think trying to play nice with the side who would slit your throat if you gave them the chance is pretty naive, but at least when the Dems lose they can say they lost the right way or whatever.

[Coach]

As a progressive, I personally like that. I've always thought a country's leader should be the primary "asker of questions" not pretending to be a person with all the answers. They should using their power to seek to the best possible answers from the best possible people and enacting policy based on those answers. I don't expect them to be experts on everything or really anything as much as curious about real answers for everything.

I also think that as soon as the leader is elected, they should be required to leave their party and act as an independent. Have people from different perspectives and parties in their cabinets and run with the best ideas, not the most partisan ones.

Trump is completely uncurious.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by SutterBrother

It's not odd in the slightest.



He has dementia, and it's painfully obvious to anyone who has watched a loved one go through it.



Basically the GOP is engaged in elder abuse in the hopes of getting Vance the presidency shortly after the election.

It's crazy to me that of all the people in the US and potential candidates the only two parties could have offered up, both figured that their best options were senior citizens who are showing signs of dementia. The Democrats were forced into changing their selection when it was made obvious to them thanks to a disaster of a debate by Biden (that everyone else saw happening from a mile away) and it's too late now for the GOP to make any changes.

I'm not sure Trump even remembers what his point is after the first 10 seconds of the below clip.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1844502594875687367€

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Coach

As a progressive, I personally like that. I've always thought a country's leader should be the primary "asker of questions" not pretending to be a person with all the answers. They should using their power to seek to the best possible answers from the best possible people and enacting policy based on those answers. I don't expect them to be experts on everything or really anything as much as curious about real answers for everything.

I also think that as soon as the leader is elected, they should be required to leave their party and act as an independent. Have people from different perspectives and parties in their cabinets and run with the best ideas, not the most partisan ones.

Trump is completely uncurious.

The other side wants to, among other things:

- Eliminate virtually all regulations
- Have the bible supplant most laws
- Virtually eliminate all tax on the wealthy
- Crush workers rights
- Crush women's rights
- Crush minorities
- Subvert democracy

Maybe it's me, but asking for their input seems fairly pointless. What from those ideas is she gonna import into her own policies?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

Yeah true leadership is awful isn’t it?

She has to win the election to be the leader. And when it seems like winning the election is going to hinge on energizing and turning out supporters, watering down your message by making overtures to non-existent Trump voters who are somehow impressed by performative bipartisanship isn't a great strategy.

And it's also completely incongruent with her strongest messaging of the campaign. She came out talking about Project 2025 and how Republicans plan to re-shape American society in their extremist image, and that was effective. She was on the offensive and forcing Republicans to scramble to justify themselves. But now she wants to send out some olive branches and work with those same extremists in setting policy?

[Itse]

The problem with Harris catering to conservatives is that, once again, no one is really catering to the progressive side of the voter base, which like the conservative side is also about 50% of the voters.

This is how you lose people's interest in voting, this is how you lose enthusiasm among your base, this is how you lose the left side of your own party. This is how you lose elections despite being much closer to the median voter.

It's a turnout election, you got to serve your base.