Someone calculated that if the debate convinced 50% of the undecided voters and 20% of Republican voters who say they "could be swayed" to vote for Harris, that would add up to less than 2 percentage points in the overall polling.
Almost as if the election process in the US is much longer than it needs to be...
Thinking through that calculation... I'm guessing if someone is undecided at this point, it means all of what Trump has said and done to this point isn't enough to push them to Harris, but they also aren't convinced with Harris maybe because of the last 4 years from their own personal perspective. Don't think the debate does much to move 50% of them to Harris. Trump was Trump as usual, and Harris wouldn't have been able to convince them that the next 4 years under here will be better than the last 4 years under her as VP. The Republicans who said they could be swayed, I can see being swayed after Trump's disasterous performance given they weren't 100% committed to him.
Someone calculated that if the debate convinced 50% of the undecided voters and 20% of Republican voters who say they "could be swayed" to vote for Harris, that would add up to less than 2 percentage points in the overall polling.
Almost as if the election process in the US is much longer than it needs to be...
2% movement either way would absolutely decide the election. 1% might.
I don't understand why it is so difficult for some people to understand that Harris has mixed race heritage and can identify as either any time she wants too. Also, people around the world cook with curry regardless of their heritage. It would be like saying so-and-so is on video saying he is Italian and makes spaghetti.
I'm pretty sure Loomer's original tweet just said that the White House would smell like curry and be a call center. It was clearly racist in intent.
As deplorable as this Laura Loomer person is, it is refreshing to see someone nominally on MTG's 'side' have the wherewithal to call her a "trailer trash harpy".
Thinking through that calculation... I'm guessing if someone is undecided at this point, it means all of what Trump has said and done to this point isn't enough to push them to Harris, but they also aren't convinced with Harris maybe because of the last 4 years from their own personal perspective. Don't think the debate does much to move 50% of them to Harris. Trump was Trump as usual, and Harris wouldn't have been able to convince them that the next 4 years under here will be better than the last 4 years under her as VP. The Republicans who said they could be swayed, I can see being swayed after Trump's disasterous performance given they weren't 100% committed to him.
The economy is the key and Harris' message hasn't resonated yet.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
2% movement either way would absolutely decide the election. 1% might.
Maybe. The point.of that exercise is that even if there is massive movement relatively speaking, it would barely show up in polls.
The obvious follow-up to that it's very realistic that the election is decided already, that there just isn't enough undecideds who will vote to make a difference.
The economy is the key and Harris' message hasn't resonated yet.
The typical American doesn't understand the economy, nor do they understand that the president can do little to influence inflation directly.
They're not willing to actually put any effort in, they just hear Trump say "I'm cutting taxes on the rich, raising them for you" and they jump up and down.
After that "they're eating the dogs" thing, if anyone is supporting Trump, they're not a serious person. The republic fell in 2016, it's just that no one realized it, since the decay is slow, but I'm not sure you can stop it. It's going to take the better part of 10-20 years to fix the damage caused by Trump, and it will be impossible to fix if he's re-elected.
__________________
Who is in charge of this product and why haven't they been fired yet?
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to kermitology For This Useful Post:
I just have a hard time picturing a lot of people genuinely being "undecided" at this point. Maybe in a "will I go out and vote or not?" kind of way, but in a "Trump or Harris" kind of way? I doubt we're talking about a large tranche of the voting pool here.
for those of you younger posters that don't realize how insane it was that Trump was referring to the leader of the Taliban as 'Abdul' here is where the idiot got 'Abdul' from, my grandfather used to sing this song to me when I was a kid, Abdul is the generic name for any arab to the over 70's
Trump promised not to sell any stock in his company when he’s eligible to do so next week. If he does, that seems to be stock manipulation. Attn.: @SEC
The typical American doesn't understand the economy, nor do they understand that the president can do little to influence inflation directly.
To be fair, I don't think a lot of people in general understand that. Even in Canada, you get a lot of people in the "taxes bad, tax cuts good" club. Talking about tax cuts is really low hanging fruit to entice people to vote for them when those people have little political engagement.
__________________
"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:
1) she cannot explain why inflation went up in a way that the public doesn't blame the current government. she's a lawyer, not an economist.
2) her economic plan is flawed, especially the part about price-gouging which was panned by Democrats economists. There were called 'populist gimmicks'
3) she really has to go after Trump and tariffs.
To win, Harris needs to make the case to voters that they will be better off with her as president. This will require showing how her plans are effective and superior to those of her opponent.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Trump promised not to sell any stock in his company when he’s eligible to do so next week. If he does, that seems to be stock manipulation. Attn.: @SEC
F*** I wish I shorted the s*** out of DJT when it first hit. I knew exactly all this would happen. Price would spike because of his moron base, it would tank because it has absolutely zero real value, and then he would sell out regardless of price because it's literally free money for him.
1) she cannot explain why inflation went up in a way that the public doesn't blame the current government. she's a lawyer, not an economist.
She is stuck with this one no matter what unfortunately. People won't care about any answer she gives. Cost of living greatly increased under Biden and the Democrats will get blamed. The price gouging thing is an attempt at shifting the blame and its impact was probably limited.
“Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth” -Mike Tyson
I took in the debate a second time. I have great interest in debates and forums and have taken part in eight as a municipal election candidate. I think this debate was important and will significantly influence the election outcome. I took notes. (Sorry for the long post; I’ve given this a lot of thought.)
Harris started the debate poorly, I thought. She seemed nervous, stammering a bit. She warmed up quickly, however, as she soon hit her stride. Trump’s strategy (as if) seemed to be to portray Harris as an extension of Biden, while Harris’s was showing herself as a new, younger candidate with fresh ideas - actual plans compared to no-plan Trump. Harris’s walk over to Trump to shake his hand was a power move that showed that she’d be aggressive and put him on his heels. It worked masterfully as he didn’t expect it. She didn’t win the debate with that move, but it was like a football team taking the opening kickoff back for a TD.
I thought Harris partly dodged the first question on the economy, sounding nervous. She did state a basis of a plan but quickly turned the question around to Trump, which seemed to be her strategy all evening. She was constantly on offence attacking Trump’s “policies” (ha) at every opportunity. Her goal seemed to be to give Trump opportunities to discuss his unpopular plans such as abortion and whacky theories such as cat and dog eating. He fell for it. Big time! The debate turned when he made his stupid claim that abortions could happen in the ninth month and even after birth. This and the moderators’ correction were the turning point. Harris pulled out his big guns as she went to personal stories of women and girls being harmed by his abortion stories. There are other big issues, of course, but this is the issue that I think costs Trump the election.
It’s around this time that Harris’s debate prep stood out, and Trump’s shoddy prep failed him (or his refusal to stick to the plan given to him). Harris mentioned Trump’s instructions to Republicans to kill the border bill, which you had to know was coming and was successful. Then she mentioned Trump’s rallies, and Trump again took the bait. He made silly statements of his rallies being the biggest and best ever and hers attracting few supporters. Harris laughed as she did often during the debate and Trump as he did throughout wouldn’t look at her. By the way, his refusal to look at her hurt him.
Then came my favourite moment. “In Springfield they’re eating the dogs, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there.” The moderator revealed that they had checked with the city manager who debunked that allegation. Harris laughing at that claim was epic. (The memes on this topic that have circulated after the debate have been hilarious.) Harris got under Trump’s skin here and the debate would be won by this time, as long as she could held serve. She spent the rest of the debate baiting Trump; he fell for it epically. Trump dodged a question on immigration and made the claim of millions of illegal immigrant flooding the country causing a crime wave. He was challenged about by the moderator who said that crime rates are down under Biden-Harris as the FBI is saying.
Harris did dodge some questions, but did so skillfully as she seized opportunities to bait Trump. She lured out crazy Trump, which will harm him. He did some of that as he brought up J6, his theory about a stolen election and his assertion that Biden hates Harris. I believe that Trump’s team warned him not to take the bait and deviate into wild conspiracy theories, but Harris did a masterful job of luring him and he couldn’t help himself. Conversely, Harris’s team did a great job of preparing her, and she stuck o the script.
Harris won this debate handily; it was a dominant performance. Barring any missteps of unexpected events, this election is hers to lose. Trump had a wonderful opportunity to show himself as a sane candidate with actual, actionable policies; he let his ego get in the way and failed miserably.
Now the moderators: I think they did a really good job; they called Trump’s lies. I would have preferred if he wasn’t called President Trump, but understand that that’s customary. they should have cut Trump off faster when his time was up and he continued his rants.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MoneyGuy For This Useful Post:
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
In blow to Newsmax, judge rules Smartmatic’s case over 2020 election lies will go to trial this month
Quote:
A major defamation case against Newsmax will proceed to trial later this month, a judge ruled Thursday, dealing a blow to the right-wing network and setting the stage for the 2020 election to be relitigated during the final stretch of the 2024 race.
Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis rejected Newsmax’s attempt to shut down the case, which was brought by the voting technology company Smartmatic, without even holding a trial. Instead, Davis concluded that key questions about Newsmax’s actions in 2020 would be weighed by a jury, barring a pre-trial settlement.
“Newsmax reported on allegations regarding the Election and Smartmatic, but there remains a dispute as to whether Newsmax recklessly disregarded the truth,” Davis wrote. “The jury must determine if Newsmax was doing what media organizations typically do — inform the public of newsworthy events—or did Newsmax purposely avoid the truth and defame Smartmatic.
