POTUS 2024 - Harris vs Trump - General Election Discussion

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Drake

One of my cousins just posted this on Facebook, and I have to admit, it's kind of funny.

It's a variation of a right wing post from a while back where the original specified that her songs were about choosing the wrong man, which got the response pointing out that it's why she'll be choosing a woman.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Posted without a hint of irony.

Also, Reagan and Bush didn't stop sending anything. They delayed
a couple of shipments and a loan by a month or two. Biden also, similarly, paused a shipment of bombs. There was also no political blowback at the time because in the early 80s and early 90s no one in the US cared about the middle east or gave it much thought. Senate didn't care, the House didn't care, and the general public certainly didn't care then.

This is just more of your politics and diplomacy is as easy as 1, 2, 3 stuff.

The situation with Iran was one of the primary reasons Reagan got elected. It was the biggest story in the country for over a year and half. We literally fought a war in the early 90's in the Middle East. What in the world are you talking about?

And both Reagan and Bush got results. Israel immediately stopped bombing Beirut after Reagan stopped shipments. Bush leveraged loans to get them to stop the settlements. He also demanded they not retaliate against Iraq for launching missiles at them and they didn't. We have immense leverage over them.

All this stuff is well-documented and you can find them in lots of books. The first Gulf War was a pretty big deal. I'm sorry you don't remember that era or never learned about it.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I have repeatedly said we should not be involved in Yemen and should not be selling weapons to Saudi Arabia.

Until your posts supporting Yemen reach at least half the number of pro-Palestinian posts you have here I'm going to just assume you support the genocide of afro-arabs.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And the "best intelligence service" in the world didn't foresee an attack on October 7th by the most surveilled people in the world locked in a concentration camp they control.

Hamas wasn't really being tracked all that closely at the time. Israel had built up their defenses and were overconfident in their ability to deter and counter anything from Hamas. Definitely an intelligence failure, but not because of bad intel. It was because they really weren't watching or expecting anything on that scale.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The same intelligence service that told us that Saddam had WMDs.

I was actually working US intel at the time and there were a number of failures there. The middle east wasn't my area of expertise but I did get to see first hand where our intelligence was failing because it wasn't isolated to just that decision. We didn't go into Iraq because of Israeli intel. We had our own intel biases that were saying Iraq had WMDs that led to the decision to invade. Israel along with other intel just fed our confirmation bias.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

In 10 years you'll pretend you never supported them.

I've said many times on here that I don't support Israel. You just make that assumption because I don't have the same view on it as you. If we withheld weapons I'd support that. I understand it's a difficult political position for this administration though.

Again, progressives are unable to understand who the real enemies to their causes are. They'd prefer to attack the people closest aligned and lump them in with the people that want to see Gaza leveled. Then they complain they can't get a stronger foothold in politics and blame everyone but themselves and their own tactics.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The situation with Iran was one of the primary reasons Reagan got elected. It was the biggest story in the country for over a year and half. We literally fought a war in the early 90's in the Middle East. What in the world are you talking about?

And both Reagan and Bush got results. Israel immediately stopped bombing Beirut after Reagan stopped shipments. Bush leveraged loans to get them to stop the settlements. He also demanded they not retaliate against Iraq for launching missiles at them and they didn't. We have immense leverage over them.

All this stuff is well-documented and you can find them in lots of books. The first Gulf War was a pretty big deal. I'm sorry you don't remember that era or never learned about it.

I was in middle school during the first golf war, but I know the general public isn't as knowledgeable about the Middle East as they are after multiple never ending wars in the region. Senate, the House, and the general public didn't care about withholding weapons at that time. Both had bipartisan support. It wasn't an issue that split parties and the public. Whether you like it or not, Israel/Gaza is pretty split on a national scale and there'd be little support congressionally for halting weapon shipments.

Exactly how split the country is right now depends on how the question is framed. If you just ask if you're for halting weapon shipments while Israel continues to kill Palestinian citizens then a slight majority are for stopping the shipments. If you ask if the US should continue to ship Israel weapons until all hostages are returned then you get something like 60% in favor of continuing to supply weapons.

The frustrating thing on this is your inconsistency on who you support. You keep saying you can't support someone that has supported the genocide in Gaza while pushing both Whitmer, JB, and others on here as options outside of Biden. JB has been a pretty hardline supporter of Israel and Whitmer continues to dodge most questions about it since she got so much backlash for her statements supporting Israel. If you stick with your stance that you can't vote for someone that supports the genocide and use the line in the sand as anything less than stopping weapon shipments then there really aren't very many people out there left to vote for.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Taking her to the 9/11 memorial was a disgrace. The fact that a party nominee for President is traveling with and taking advice from someone spouting off blatant racist bullshit about his opponent is insane, but that's where we are with Trump.

I can't wait to hear from my wife's stepfather on how divisive Obama was and how democrats are the extremists some more.

She is 100% going to be press secretary if he wins.

[JPhillips]

I've said many times on here that I don't support Israel. You just make that assumption because I don't have the same view on it as you. If we withheld weapons I'd support that. I understand it's a difficult political position for this administration though.

This.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Stop sending weapons and aid to Israel as long as they continue to commit genocide and other atrocities. They will stop. Reagan and Bush did it.



Sorry, but I find it cowardly to force people to fight a war for you. Ukraine has forced conscription.

I 100% support immediately stopping sending weapons or any financial support to israel.

Where we differ, is im going to vote and advocate for the person who may actually try to do that, as opposed to taking actions making it more likely the one who will strongly push for even more support of israels terrible acts. This includes not voting or voting 3rd party.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

She is 100% going to be press secretary if he wins.

Over/under on how many days it takes for her to use a slur in a press briefing?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Hamas wasn't really being tracked all that closely at the time. Israel had built up their defenses and were overconfident in their ability to deter and counter anything from Hamas. Definitely an intelligence failure, but not because of bad intel. It was because they really weren't watching or expecting anything on that scale.

This is not true at all. The Gaza Strip is one of the most surveilled strip of land on the planet. Every phone call is recorded, internet traffic is monitored, there are CCTV cameras on every corner, drones in the sky, and spies (willing and unwilling) all over.

But even if you want to pretend that's the case, they keep "accidentally" dropping bombs on humanitarian workers, teachers, journalists, and doctors. If we are to believe those are accidents, it sounds like their intelligence is dogshit.

Originally Posted by Atocep

Again, progressives are unable to understand who the real enemies to their causes are. They'd prefer to attack the people closest aligned and lump them in with the people that want to see Gaza leveled. Then they complain they can't get a stronger foothold in politics and blame everyone but themselves and their own tactics.

Liberals are more closely aligned with conservatives than they are with progressives. This is largely due to both parties being owned by corporations. The idea that progressives will magically convince the average Democrat to go against their corporate donors is fantasy. Just look at how far the party has shifted to the right in just the past 4 years.

And in fairness to them, Democrats don't try to court progressive voters. They have no interest in those policies and don't care if people like me would vote for them. That seems to upset liberal voters which I don't understand.

Originally Posted by Atocep

The frustrating thing on this is your inconsistency on who you support. You keep saying you can't support someone that has supported the genocide in Gaza while pushing both Whitmer, JB, and others on here as options outside of Biden. JB has been a pretty hardline supporter of Israel and Whitmer continues to dodge most questions about it since she got so much backlash for her statements supporting Israel. If you stick with your stance that you can't vote for someone that supports the genocide and use the line in the sand as anything less than stopping weapon shipments then there really aren't very many people out there left to vote for.

Local politicians have no power over what we are carrying out in Gaza. I don't care what my alderman's stance is on Israel because it doesn't matter. I wouldn't vote for JB or Whitmer in a federal election if they continued to support the genocide.

You're correct that there aren't many people left to vote for on a federal level. That's why I brought up the selective enforcement of foreign election interference. We're at a point where multiple countries in the Middle East have turned us into vassal states through bribes alone. I don't care if that's Israel pumping tens of millions into a Congressional primary or the Saudis bribing the Trump family with billions in cheap loans. It's really bad to allow foreign countries to buy your politicians or be free to spread propoganda.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Danny

Where we differ, is im going to vote and advocate for the person who may actually try to do that, as opposed to taking actions making it more likely the one who will strongly push for even more support of israels terrible acts. This includes not voting or voting 3rd party.

There is no evidence she will do anything to stop the war crimes. She has nearly identical views to Biden on Israel and has stated such. And those views are identical to Trump's. They will give Israel whatever they want, no questions asked.

With that said, Trump is a bit of a wildcard regarding Israel. There have been stories that Netanyahu is waiting on him to get elected to end this and give him a huge win as soon as he's elected. Kind of like Iran did for Reagan.

And I do think there will be much more pressure on politicians to end the genocide with Trump in power. Liberals can go back to caring about that stuff again, and the media will be tougher on foreign policy decisions. And Trump gets incredibly bored with shit that doesn't have him at the center, so I could see him getting annoyed and demanding it end. At some point, it gets so unpopular that it just has to end.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by Lathum

She is 100% going to be press secretary if he wins.

I want to say it's 50/50 they're having an affair right now so she might be aiming higher.

[Edward64]

Some evidence. It'd be better if the Dispatch took some time to dig a little further on who/what happened in the picture. Take it FWIW

Goose photograph shows man in Columbus, not Springfield Haitian immigrant

The Columbus man behind a photo of a person carrying a dead goose that was spread among right-wing social media accounts this week said he now regrets taking the photo.

The man, who wished to remain anonymous, took the picture in Columbus on July 28 and decided to share it because it was not "something you see every day," he said.

He never expected it to be used as proof by right-wing figures falsely claiming that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are eating pets and wildlife.

"I wish I never took it, for sure. And I hate that the picture that I took is being weaponized to use against immigrants, or really, any other group. They always have to have somebody to use as a weapon. Some group to be the bad guy," he said.

The article has a link of the pic. See below

Blocked

[Ghost Econ]

Now the Haitians are taking geese? Who is against that? Those Canadian fuckers are the real illegal immigrant problem, shitting and honking all over the place.

Blocked

[JPhillips]

That's not evidence. Columbus and Springfield are a long way apart.

[Lathum]

The latest MAGA "bombshell" is there are reports circulating an ABC employee is going to be a whistleblower and claim Kamala was given the questions ahead of time. Of course these "reports" are all just speculation that is rebounding through the echo chamber and has been picked up by looney Loomer so now it is of course fact.

I can not fathom what her press conferences would look like.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The latest MAGA "bombshell" is there are reports circulating an ABC employee is going to be a whistleblower and claim Kamala was given the questions ahead of time. Of course these "reports" are all just speculation that is rebounding through the echo chamber and has been picked up by looney Loomer so now it is of course fact.

I can not fathom what her press conferences would look like.

I'd love for them to explain which question was supposed to be a curveball, non-obvious question for a Presidential debate.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

People keep acting like her support for genocide is normal and popular. It's not. Most of this country wants it to end and the overwhelming majority of Democrats and Independents want it to end.

Harris is the extremist in her own party on this issue. Not surprising from a party celebrating endorsements from Dick Cheney.

I'll say it again.. Good luck.

[Lathum]

I have a neighbor who I am facebook friends with who seemed normal enough and has just exposed herself as a maniac. She posted she couldn't believe the Haitians eating cats claim so she had to do her own research. so she took to Twitter and found proof from accounts who will tell us the real truth. Highlighted by the thoroughly debunked story about the lady from Canton. She goes on to claim Trump always tells the truth, he just does it in a way that makes him sound crazy and the media then makes him look bad. She claims you can't trust the media nor the mayor, governor, town manager, etc...and the real truth is buried on Twitter exposed by people brave enough to fight the machine. A few people have tried to reason with her to no avail, the possibility she is being lied to just doesn't exist.

This is how this shit works, and it is scary there are tens of millions of people who fall for it.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

I'd love for them to explain which question was supposed to be a curveball, non-obvious question for a Presidential debate.

Saw this in my family group chat. I didn't watch this debate, but having watched debates in the past, I know any moron could reasonably predict most of the questions. So yeah, I agree, I'd love to hear which question Trump got that he was shocked by, and wished he had known about in advance. Also, didn't Trump make the same accusations about Hillary? This stupidity has a good fit, in that people who are likely to fall for crap like this and people who think knowing the questions in a presidential debate is actually an advantage are very similar populations.

[SirFozzie]

Rain, I don't think I've said this to many folks, but you are hard core in a left-wing echo chamber when it comes to this issue (and I understand how personal this issue is, but I strenuously disagree with your viewpoint.)

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Saw this in my family group chat. I didn't watch this debate, but having watched debates in the past, I know any moron could reasonably predict most of the questions. So yeah, I agree, I'd love to hear which question Trump got that he was shocked by, and wished he had known about in advance. Also, didn't Trump make the same accusations about Hillary? This stupidity has a good fit, in that people who are likely to fall for crap like this and people who think knowing the questions in a presidential debate is actually an advantage are very similar populations.

Hilary was given town hall questions by CNN's Donna Brazille in the 2016 DNC Primary

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Hilary was given town hall questions by CNN's Donna Brazille in the 2016 DNC Primary

I actually didn't know that, I just thought Trump claimed Hillary had questions to their debate. I guess according to this article we're both right.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ebate-scandal/

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Hilary was given town hall questions by CNN's Donna Brazille in the 2016 DNC Primary

Yes, but this is not that and anybody that has watched any debate should have known these were going to be the questions. There was nothing asked out of left field, not to mention Kamala didn't really answer many of the questions. Why would it matter if she had knowledge of the questions she never really answered? What she did so well was pivot to things she knew would make Trump sound crazy, and then let Trump sound crazy. He ended up with the most time in the debate, and had the last word on most rounds, and that is why he lost.

[Brian Swartz]

RainMaker is not in a 'left wing echo chamber'. He's constantly arguing with people here. That's the literal opposite of an echo chamber.

He's also right that it makes no sense to assume Harris is more likely to cut off aid to Israel.

I think he's off on his assessment of the conflict in general to some degree, and often grossly exaggerates potentially legitimate points, but a lot of the ganging up on him is no more justified than when it used to happen to conservatives around here.

The echo chamber, to the degree it exists, consists of more 'establishment liberal' or whatever segment of this forum.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm talking about interviews and appearance in non fundraiser/rally events. Kind of like the strategy Obama had in 2008 and 2012 that worked well. I don't know why they're so scared to have Harris do a bunch of interviews, she's a really good talker.

This is one thing I agree with you about. The longer it takes for her to sit down and do some traditional interviews and more national style appearances, the more it seems strange. I think she would kill on Kimmel or Fallon. I think an interview her and Norah O'Donnell would be great. She needs to show up on SNL as they open up their 50th season. She needs to do both personality press as well as some harder interviews.

I feel like they are trying to pitch no hit ball. They are keeping the limits on anything that go negative, like a misstatement or any policy point that is too specific. It is clear both campaign have a common strategy. Trump is going full nut to try to rally his base for turn out, and Kamala is letting Trump go full nut to rally her base for turn out. She has mostly just wanting to look moderate to play to the independents and never-Trumpers and let Trump come out with as many crazy ideas as he can to scare more left leaning people into voting.
The Harris strategy of trying to moderate isn't out of nowhere. The cross tabs in polling shows that her biggest weakness is the idea she is "too liberal." That New York times poll right before the debate that had everyone freaking out had people saying she was extremely liberal at 70+%. The question is first how can she sell to the moderate swing voters and not lose the more of the far left. Then second, how long does she delay really putting herself out there.

[Ksyrup]

She's still in a position where she needs to take calculated risks. She's not so far ahead that she's just looking to run out the clock. So yeah, she should be going out there and doing some fairly softball-type interviews. She doesn't need to volunteer to go on Fox News. That's what Mayor Pete is for.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There is no evidence she will do anything to stop the war crimes. She has nearly identical views to Biden on Israel and has stated such. And those views are identical to Trump's. They will give Israel whatever they want, no questions asked.

With that said, Trump is a bit of a wildcard regarding Israel. There have been stories that Netanyahu is waiting on him to get elected to end this and give him a huge win as soon as he's elected. Kind of like Iran did for Reagan.

And I do think there will be much more pressure on politicians to end the genocide with Trump in power. Liberals can go back to caring about that stuff again, and the media will be tougher on foreign policy decisions. And Trump gets incredibly bored with shit that doesn't have him at the center, so I could see him getting annoyed and demanding it end. At some point, it gets so unpopular that it just has to end.

You want Trump to win and you want Democrats to be punished. Just say it.

You're willing to inflict on others all the bad that would come with a second Trump Administration just so a) there might be a tiny chance that the Gaza situation gets better and b) so Democrats will suffer for their sins.

This is why people are taking issue with your posts, RM.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

He's also right that it makes no sense to assume Harris is more likely to cut off aid to Israel.

.

Maybe, but we know Trump will allow Bibi to turn Gaza to glass.

[SirFozzie]

Here's a poll showing that 60% of americans want to continue funding Israel until the hostages are released. That has to really be the starting point of a cease-fire.

Majority of Americans favor US military aid to Israel until hostages are returned, new polling says | CNN Politics

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Some evidence. It'd be better if the Dispatch took some time to dig a little further on who/what happened in the picture. Take it FWIW

Goose photograph shows man in Columbus, not Springfield Haitian immigrant


The article has a link of the pic. See below

Blocked

This isn't evidence of anything and posting such as disingenuous. Other than an American citizen that isn't from Springfield and has severe mental health issues, no one is eating cats and dogs.

Posting this as proof of anything is no different than using RFK as an example that white people are out there eating peoples pets.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

He's also right that it makes no sense to assume Harris is more likely to cut off aid to Israel.

Trump worked with Israel on a peace plan that would have effecitvely been an annexationof Gaza. He's also said Israel is being too cautious and taking too long. If theyre going to do this it needs to be quicker and they need to see it through to the end. Trump also has zero political pressure from his party for anything other than full support for Israel, while multiple dems have said they would support halting or putting conditions on further weapon shipments if the administration feels it's needed. Bibi also isnt pushing for Trump to win the election so that they can stop receiving weapons.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

but a lot of the ganging up on him is no more justified than when it used to happen to conservatives around here.

Misstating people's stance on something to frame them as pro genocide and telling them they see people as something less than human is going to get reactions.

He has such a strong desire to be right that he's creating enemies out of people that largely agree with him just so he can tell them they were wrong at some point in the future.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's not evidence. Columbus and Springfield are a long way apart.

Originally Posted by Atocep

This isn't evidence of anything and posting such as disingenuous. Other than an American citizen that isn't from Springfield and has severe mental health issues, no one is eating cats and dogs.

This is a fair counter based on what I wrote and linked. I was reading some articles and my comment about "evidence" is for the below statement (I did not link in orig post), which I took to include all of OH.

https://www.newsweek.com/migrants-sp...sponse-1952534

Ohio's Republican Governor Mike DeWine said people should believe officials who have said there are no reports of Haitian migrants eating cats, ducks, and geese.

Posting this as proof of anything is no different than using RFK as an example that white people are out there eating peoples pets.

I said no such thing. There is a wide gap between me stating it was evidence vs me posting it "as proof".

With that said. I would not be surprised at all if it was an immigrant, likely legal, that harvested that goose or picked it up as roadkill (ala RFK Jr. and a college buddy of min). Not a big deal. Now if it was a dog, I would definitely feel differently.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You want Trump to win and you want Democrats to be punished. Just say it.

You're willing to inflict on others all the bad that would come with a second Trump Administration just so a) there might be a tiny chance that the Gaza situation gets better and b) so Democrats will suffer for their sins.

This is why people are taking issue with your posts, RM.

I think this quote really gets to the crux of the issue more than any other. RM's advocacy for ending the war is admirable, but there is definitely a strong whiff of schadenfreude that emanates from his posts.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Trump worked with Israel on a peace plan that would have effecitvely been an annexationof Gaza. He's also said Israel is being too cautious and taking too long. If theyre going to do this it needs to be quicker and they need to see it through to the end. Trump also has zero political pressure from his party for anything other than full support for Israel, while multiple dems have said they would support halting or putting conditions on further weapon shipments if the administration feels it's needed. Bibi also isnt pushing for Trump to win the election so that they can stop receiving weapons.

Eric Trump, who is too dumb to have a filter, also talked at length about how seafront property in Gaza could be quite lucrative. It's not hard to believe that Bibi or a surrogate planted the idea in one of the Trumps' heads that if they let him do what he wanted, they could get in on that real estate action in the future.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

This is one thing I agree with you about. The longer it takes for her to sit down and do some traditional interviews and more national style appearances, the more it seems strange. I think she would kill on Kimmel or Fallon. I think an interview her and Norah O'Donnell would be great. She needs to show up on SNL as they open up their 50th season. She needs to do both personality press as well as some harder interviews.

I feel like they are trying to pitch no hit ball. They are keeping the limits on anything that go negative, like a misstatement or any policy point that is too specific. It is clear both campaign have a common strategy. Trump is going full nut to try to rally his base for turn out, and Kamala is letting Trump go full nut to rally her base for turn out. She has mostly just wanting to look moderate to play to the independents and never-Trumpers and let Trump come out with as many crazy ideas as he can to scare more left leaning people into voting.
The Harris strategy of trying to moderate isn't out of nowhere. The cross tabs in polling shows that her biggest weakness is the idea she is "too liberal." That New York times poll right before the debate that had everyone freaking out had people saying she was extremely liberal at 70+%. The question is first how can she sell to the moderate swing voters and not lose the more of the far left. Then second, how long does she delay really putting herself out there.

I think it's that she has the Biden campaign team running her campaign and they believed in hiding the candidate. That was probably the right strategy with Biden, but it shouldn't be with Harris. Especially when you're trying to make this campaign "normal vs weird". She should really do a bunch of stuff that shows she is normal.

What confuses me about the approach is Obama ran a masterful campaign in 2008 (and even in 2012 to an extent) doing this. He was doing Bill Simmons podcast, calling in to local radio stations, went on SNL, etc. He talked sports, TV shows, and raising daughters. It made him very relatable regardless of your political views. He came across like your friendly neighbor.

That's what the Harris campaign should be doing. Walz should be talking about coaching high school football on Rich Eisen's show. Harris should be doing shows/podcasts talking about raising stepkids, her favorite movies, and what her go to snacks are. It's softball shit but reaches a lot of people and shows they are normal. It's something Trump and Vance can't do because they're inherently weird and socially off-putting.

They're still getting torched with young voters that they need and have to step outside the traditional bubble that only boomers see. Trump is doing Logan Paul and other shows to target that demo.

[Atocep]

Her campaign manager is Biden's but she's pulled in Obama's former campaign manager and deputy campaign manager plus others from the outside. From what I've read she leans heavily on her own people. The person that did her debate prep for Trump was the same that she used for the VP debate I'm 2020, for instance.

From what I've read from some political strategists, there's data that shows big national interviews don't really accomplish much or help a candidate. Interviews with local stations help with engagement, which the campaign did say they will be scheduling more of post debate.

I don't think keeping her off national TV and talk shows is being done to hide her, the belief is that it doesn't really help and has more potential to hurt.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ryche

I want to say it's 50/50 they're having an affair right now so she might be aiming higher.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Her campaign manager is Biden's but she's pulled in Obama's former campaign manager and deputy campaign manager plus others from the outside. From what I've read she leans heavily on her own people. The person that did her debate prep for Trump was the same that she used for the VP debate I'm 2020, for instance.

From what I've read from some political strategists, there's data that shows big national interviews don't really accomplish much or help a candidate. Interviews with local stations help with engagement, which the campaign did say they will be scheduling more of post debate.

I don't think keeping her off national TV and talk shows is being done to hide her, the belief is that it doesn't really help and has more potential to hurt.

That's what I just heard some pundits saying, and I disagree. That's what I was saying about the idea of trying to pitch no-hit ball. She should absolutely do the local stations, and from what I heard she also has plans to do a bunch of non-traditional media (Watch for Kamala on "Hot Ones" coming soon!), but as much they can poo-poo it, the traditional media still gets watched and shared more and to broader audience than just podcasts and web-shows. I get targeting audiences, but she has to appeal nationally as well. What I heard someone say was "yeah, the CNN interview was scene by 6.6 million, but the next interview won't be the same level of event." Hogwash. Her next interview will be the first major interview on her own since announcing. She needs to at least do one, if not two. And why the heck would she be afraid of Fallon?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think it's that she has the Biden campaign team running her campaign and they believed in hiding the candidate. That was probably the right strategy with Biden, but it shouldn't be with Harris. Especially when you're trying to make this campaign "normal vs weird". She should really do a bunch of stuff that shows she is normal.

What confuses me about the approach is Obama ran a masterful campaign in 2008 (and even in 2012 to an extent) doing this. He was doing Bill Simmons podcast, calling in to local radio stations, went on SNL, etc. He talked sports, TV shows, and raising daughters. It made him very relatable regardless of your political views. He came across like your friendly neighbor.

That's what the Harris campaign should be doing. Walz should be talking about coaching high school football on Rich Eisen's show. Harris should be doing shows/podcasts talking about raising stepkids, her favorite movies, and what her go to snacks are. It's softball shit but reaches a lot of people and shows they are normal. It's something Trump and Vance can't do because they're inherently weird and socially off-putting.

They're still getting torched with young voters that they need and have to step outside the traditional bubble that only boomers see. Trump is doing Logan Paul and other shows to target that demo.

That is exactly what they are planning, and I agree with that. But again, you need to do some old school traditional media as well. Young people may not watch CNN, but I guarantee they watch the shared cuts on Tik Tok and Istagram all the time. Target young people, but they still need to hit beyond select groups.

[Lathum]

Supposedly at a Tim Walz rally today the crowd was chanting "we're not eating cats"

lol.

[SirFozzie]

They should go back to the "They're weird". It unhinged them so much that they kept trying to prove how un-weird they were, (and yes, they were very weird in doing so)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

That is exactly what they are planning, and I agree with that. But again, you need to do some old school traditional media as well. Young people may not watch CNN, but I guarantee they watch the shared cuts on Tik Tok and Istagram all the time. Target young people, but they still need to hit beyond select groups.

Yeah, you do a mix of everything. Credit where credit is due, their TikTok is incredibly well done and gets massive engagement.

[albionmoonlight]

Dan Quayle misspelled a word. Never lived it down.
Howard Dean yelled weird. Never lived it down.

It’s crazy how quickly we cycle through things that would have been career-ending a generation ago.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Dan Quayle misspelled a word. Never lived it down.
Howard Dean yelled weird. Never lived it down.

It’s crazy how quickly we cycle through things that would have been career-ending a generation ago.

Trump's flying around with a 31 year old, hugging her, holding her, flirting with her in public, being open that she was the first person he asked to see after he got shot, and it's not getting coverage.

If that were Harris and a guy that wasn't her husband, her campaign would be over.

[JPhillips]

She's staying at Mar-a-Lago according to her.

[GrantDawg]

Harris did an interview with a Channel 6 Philly anchor tonight.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

Trump promised today that if he wins, he is deporting all the Hatians in Springfield to Venezula.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I have a neighbor who I am facebook friends with who seemed normal enough and has just exposed herself as a maniac. She posted she couldn't believe the Haitians eating cats claim so she had to do her own research. so she took to Twitter and found proof from accounts who will tell us the real truth. Highlighted by the thoroughly debunked story about the lady from Canton. She goes on to claim Trump always tells the truth, he just does it in a way that makes him sound crazy and the media then makes him look bad. She claims you can't trust the media nor the mayor, governor, town manager, etc...and the real truth is buried on Twitter exposed by people brave enough to fight the machine. A few people have tried to reason with her to no avail, the possibility she is being lied to just doesn't exist.

This is how this shit works, and it is scary there are tens of millions of people who fall for it.

I really don't like being facebook friends with neighbors for this very reason. I'd rather have plausible deniability on why I like you.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I think this quote really gets to the crux of the issue more than any other. RM's advocacy for ending the war is admirable, but there is definitely a strong whiff of schadenfreude that emanates from his posts.

Agreed. He's a victim of his own passions, and like trumps followers they love to be miserable. Go back and read the 2020 election thread. He was the most miserable sob around, and never knows when to take a W or accept a L.

[Edward64]

MTG + Lindsey Graham + Kellyanne vs Loomer.

Article doesn't actually say Kellyanne is working against Loomer, but you gotta figure she is. Will be entertaining to see how this plays out. Hope Kamala comes out with some ads on Loomer and the dysfunction.

https://www.ibtimes.com/lindsey-grah...loomer-3743183

Loomer, 31, a self-described "proud Islamaphobe" who has called the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, an "inside job," set off a firestorm of controversy earlier this week when she attacked the vice president's Indian ancestry in a posting on X.

"If @KamalaHarris wins, the White House will smell like curry & White House speeches will be facilitated via a call center and the American people will only be able to convey their feedback through a customer satisfaction survey at the end of the call that nobody will understand," Loomer wrote.

Graham, an ally to the former president, called for Trump, 78, to separate himself from Loomer's toxic rhetoric.

"We have policy disagreements but ... I mean, she actually called for Kellyanne Conway's daughter to hang herself," the South Carolina Republican told HuffPost. "I don't know how this all happened, but, no, I don't think it's helpful. I don't think it's helpful at all."

"I think what [Loomer] said about Kamala Harris and the White House is abhorrent, but it's deeper than that," he continued.

"I mean, you know, some of the things she's said about Republicans and others is disturbing. I mean, to call for someone's daughter to hang themselves. Yeah, no, I think that the president would serve himself well to make sure this doesn't become a bigger story," Graham said.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia who has been embroiled in a bitter feud with Loomer since last year, said the provocateur's posting about Harris doesn't work for the MAGA crowd and called for her to remove it from social media.

"This is appalling and extremely racist. It does not represent who we are as Republicans or MAGA. This does not represent President Trump. This type of behavior should not be tolerated ever," she said.

Loomer responded by calling Greene a "raging anti semite."

Graham said he sides with Greene.

[Thomkal]

graham didn't have a problem with the calls for Mike pence to be hung on jan 6, but now he does?