It’s hard for me to know what is in the mind of undecided/swing voters, but I can tell you as a generally moderate, independent in DC, the way Trump is coming across in podcasts I regularly listen to with people like Andrew Schulz and Joe Rogan is worlds different then he is portrayed in the legacy media, in a good way. JD Vance comes across much better too; just listen to his recent appearance on Tim Dillon’s podcast. However, I recognize that I am a 37 yo male (though a highly educated one), and my wife, who doesn’t listen to any of these podcasters, thinks Trump/Vance are basically scumbags who hate women. Thus, I just really have no idea how this election is going to go. I do think the gender split will be massive.
Trump/Vance are indeed, basically scumbags who hate women. I say this as a 47 year old, highly educated, man. And, are you truly surprised that Trump and Vance come off better in the completely friendly environment of a dumb podcast, where they are not challenged or called out for their various vile actions and statements?
Vance is owned by Peter Thiel, and both of them endorse Curtis Yarvin's garbage about how what this country needs is a king. How well does that "come across"? Trump is dumb, senile and filled with nothing except self-aggrandizement. It doesn't matter the venue, he just rambles nonsensically, trying to say whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear, while being sure to throw in some anti-immigrant stuff and claims about economics that are obviously absurd to anyone with more wisdom than an 8 year old. If you are as "highly educated" as you claim, you would know this already.
Besides the racism, misogyny and bigotry towards our LGBT fellow citizens, the worst thing about Trump/Vance (and indeed, all conservative parties the world over) is their violently anti-worker stance and actions. If you are a working person, then there is simply no reason at all to hold any view of a Republican besides contempt and disgust, as their entire raison d'etre is to make your life worse.
So, what you are saying is, you basically know nothing about your preferred candidate other than what you heard them say on friendly podcasts. Every word I wrote is true and extensively backed by the candidates' own statements and (more importantly) actions. Pardon me for assuming a highly educated person would do the bare minimum of research, instead of just buying unquestioningly into "vibes". Your wife may not bother with the podcasts, but she seems to be able to read.
“you basically know nothing about your preferred candidate other than what you heard them say on friendly podcasts”
I'm sorry, but this sounds like the Iron Law of Woke Projection.
How often do you listen to Newsmax or ONN? How often do you listen to Daily Wire podcasts? How often do you read Poso or Scott Adams or BAP?
You don't need to tell us: never; never; never.
YOU are the one who never leaves their epistemic bubble. Every conservative does constantly: they can't avoid it because liberalism is the default position of the establishment. But you are so immersed in the miasma of liberalism that you can't even notice it surrounding you.
Wrong on all counts! I don't watch TV at all. The only news site I visit every single day is Breitbart. Yeah, the opinions expressed are right wing bullshit, but they have good coverage of topics like the border. For hard news, I take Noah Chomsky's advice and read the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times of London.
Newsmax, ONN, Daily Wire: I'm not going to bother with, because Breitbart covers the same stuff. And I'm above caring about COVID or election conspiracy nonsense. Ah, Jack "PizzaGate" Posobiec. Obviously a reputable and useful source. Scott Adams? The Dilbert guy turned right wing grifter, who is also an open racist, claimed Trump is a "super persuader", and is just trying to peddle his stupid online classes. And BAP? The fascist bodybuilder? Lol, why not throw in Alex Jones, Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes and Mike Enoch while you're at it? I know who all these people are, very well. Well enough, in fact, that I know they have nothing of value to offer. Unless, of course, you are into racism, sexism, obviously stupid and deranged conspiracies, and phony supplements.
"Trump/Vance are indeed, basically scumbags who hate women."
Can you list three specific incidents to support that? I hope you go belong "grab your pussy" and the rape accusation. Even if he did those things, that doesn't mean he hates women.
"Weird"? Clearly you are mistaking me with a conservative. "MSNBC"? I have not watched that channel in probably 15 years. What "coolaid" (by the way, it is spelled "kool-aid")?
Again, every word is true and the evidence is the public words and deeds of Trump/Vance. Not a thing I stated is even controversial. I would LOVE to have it intelligently disputed - I want the other side's STRONGEST arguments. This stuff, it is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Or, if you like, as easy as shooting a dog in a gravel pit, like Trump fave Kristi Noem.
Sorry, Man, but it's irrelevant whether it sounds like a sound bite from the liberal media. How about what the Man says? Are you capable of understanding how offensive his speech is to many other People? Do you care about other people's feelings or is it all about You? Your wife, for instance. Did you ever bother to ask yourself why she and so many other women find Trump so offensive? What's that all about? PMS? Female Hysteria? Weakness? Hormones? Aren't you a little curious about that? Nah!
Eh. I don't think Josh or Paul did anything egregious here with their comments.
This is an election where votes are not unlikely to break down across educational lines (as they have in past Trump elections). Pollsters are specifically weighting for it.
But you can't show a piece of paper on an Internet forum. Your words are you, that's it. Sometimes (mostly young) people try to claim credentials on the Internet, calling themselves highly educated or a lawyer or whatever, but it's unproveable and people ignore it, properly.
We are all supposed to remember the famous New Yorker cartoon: "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."
You can be educated in a useless skill. It's useless, but you're still educated in it. It's like being really good at paper football. That skill won't help you in any way, but it's still technically a skill that you could have.
Also, the "underwater basket-weaving" thing is mostly said by people who look at a list of degrees they know nothing about and conclude "if I haven't heard of this, it's probably dumb."
There are many weird and discouraging things about the electorate, but the fact that Trump made significant gains after the assassination attempt is up there. Being shot at may deserve sympathy, but it’s hardly an accomplishment.
Love seeing all the dipshit trump supporters spining and running scared, mark my word this was a huge campaign mistake and frankly you don't even need to turn off that many people to lose.
I don’t think it sounds that way AT ALL. Stop pigeon holding other people’s views just because it irritates you. We all have a right to an opinion without having to be famous.
I'm not as confident about Vance as I am Trump regarding misogyny. For Trump, we have the Access Hollywood tape, which is pretty solid evidence that... a lot of the accusations around sexual harassment/assault are probably true. A lot of this stuff has been out in the open for decades. This is a guy who would be one of the top answers on Family Feud if there was ever a prompt like "celebrities who disrespect women". And this was the case long before he entered politics.
It is true that Vance did not grow up in an environment of grotesque wealth and privilege that makes Trumps (and Kennedys! Look at RFK Jr as another example of how warped a person raised like that becomes) into disgusting woman haters. However, Vance is foursquare on the side of the worst anti-abortion nutjobs. And we have decades of this in the real world, which shows us how this inevitably leads to the right wing trash wanting to track women's movements and fertility. Imprison them for miscarriages. There is no more pure expression of misogyny.
Vance also used several dog whistles for Christian nationalism in the debate, and the one vote per household comment, ie headship and abolishing the 14th, and the single cat ladies comment.
Does believing (or courting those who believe) that women should be *subject* to men equate to hating women? I believe it’s bad for society, both men and women, and it’s definitely Patriarchal, but I’m not sure it’s hate.
Vance doesn't hate all women, just single women. I mean, should they even be allowed to vote? Also cat ladies, they are the worst. And allegedly couches.
What policy is that? Huge tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations? Massive deficit spending? Intervention in Fed policy to accelerate interest rate reductions/try to juice the economy? Mass deportations? All of these will increase prices/inflation and not be helpful to blue collar workers.
Or is it his initiative to root out the 40 trans athletes in women’s collegiate sports (out of 500,000)?
I am skeptical that Trump’s appeal is about “the issues.”
Exactly right. It was only a few months ago, when the stock market took a sudden drop due to Japan raising interest rates, then recovered a few days later. But the week prior, Trump had been babbling about how the high stock market was due to his brilliance. Then the crash happened, and he immediately started stupidly raving about how this was now the Biden/Harris market. Then the market bounced back and it was back to how it was high because he was going to win.
Issues and, you know, little things like reality have no bearing whatsoever on Trump's support.
I hate the go to "huge tax cuts for the wealth and corporations". I am a retired senior on a fixed income and surely not wealthy. Yet my taxes went down under Trump and will raise under Harris. Why? Because Trump adjusted the TAX BRACKETS which lowered my marginal tax rate. Harris has said she would not renew the Trump tax plan as it is soon to expire which will raise my taxes. So Harris brags that she is not raising taxes on the middle class? It is a lie. She is not raising the TAX RATE but she is moving the TAX BRACKETS lower which will raise taxes for many in the middle class.
Before Trump, our county had one of the highest tax rates in the world for Corporations, putting them at a competitive disadvantage and encouraging them to expand or relocate their business to other countries. Trump's tax break made our businesses competitive in world markets and encourage them to keep their businesses or move their businesses back to the United States.
The problem with our tax code for businesses is not the tax rate, it is the tax loopholes. Some of the largest Corporations in our Country are paying little or zero tax. So the Dems can make the ratee 50% but it will not matter if the loopholes are not eliminated.
Who enacted the loopholes and why doesn't eliminate them? They were enacted by members of Congress who do not want them eliminated because it will make their big donors unhappy.
The lower a person’s income the higher the chance Trump’s “tax cuts” actually increased your tax bill. Our family’s taxes went up $1000-$2000/year (our accountant actually proactively worked it out that year, to warn us so we wouldn’t get surprised by the bill). There was a great feature, where withholding amounts were adjusted down, but that did NOT reduce your tax bill at the end of the year. It reduced the refund amount. It’s modestly good in that the IRS isn’t holding onto my $ (interest free) for several months, but that doesn’t reduce the tax paid.
Further, the personal taxes part (unlike the company tax reduction) was backloaded so personal taxes were designed to go up over time. A cynic shell game con. :/
And the price of tea in China is $3.20 (damned inflation).
We're not talking about electability here. We're talking about Trump's character relative to his media portrayal. The idea that Trump's misogyny is a figment created by the mainstream media is ridiculous.
Trying to turn a marginal issue like Trump's relationship with women into an election winner did not work for Clinton in 2016. Even women are not unified on this misogyny stuff. Negative campaigns basically don't work against a well defined persona is another lesson. Driving up the negatives of Donald Trump at this time is not really possible. In addition, harping over and over on the negative points of your opponent is deleterious to whatever other message (hopefully a positive one, if you want to win) that you might have.
The problem with the Harris campaign, which was inherited from the Biden one, is that there is basically no positive message. Nothing to pick off stragglers from the other side. Whoever thought that was a good idea should be banished from electoral politics. There had to be something that could have been crafted. Maybe lose the "green" and just another New Deal for people who got shafted by the inflation.
So character is irrelevant? What if the man's character, or lack thereof, is that he lies, cheats, steals, cares only for himself, throws everyone else under the bus, and breaks promises? But you like his policy? His policy is what, something he told you? He told you? And you rely on something he SAYS? Good luck with that!
I submit that the character argument was lost in the 1990s with the full throated defense of the serial perjurer, Clinton. At this point, the argument is meaningless. Words mean things, and since he was just lying about sex...obviously criminal activity doesn't matter. We took the lesson to heart.
You are the perfect example of why your candidate is struggling. Rather than debate the policies of these candidates you resort to vile and disgusting personal insults and lies. JD Vance has appeared on any number of left-wing podcasts and interviews. Kamala has not had a press conference and has appeared on only one interview who posed tough questions. Otherwise, she has hidden in the basement with Joe and emerged for sycophants' shows like The View. l
You come across as an unhappy angry person hurling wild rants, insulting roughly half the country with your hateful language. and using your credentials to try to establish yourself as some kind of expert? JD has appeared in the most challenging of interviews on Face the Nation, CNN, CBS News, MSNBC Rachel Madow, Jake Tapper, Martha Raddatz and more.
Not a fan of Trump, but really don't see Vance as a scumbag. More guilt by association. While we hear of a lot of women turned off to Trump, I know plenty of women who are centrist (like my wife) who like Harris even less and especially despise the insinuation that all women MUST vote a certain way, and are voting Trump. The election is going to be quite close, but the idea that women are voting for Harris misses the large number who are actually going to vote for Trump. BTW as a male, there are a lot of us who don't like Trump but still voting for him anyway as Harris/Walz come off as inept for us. Saw a good quote, voting for Trump brings risks (agreed) but voting for Harris/Walz is voting for continued decline. Again, my view, as I fully understand those who feel the opposite.
If your wife is a "centrist", then she would vote Harris. If she favors Trump, then she is a far right conservative. Nothing else makes sense. Trump governed as a far right conservative when in office the first time and he, and everyone around him, is even more extreme this time around.
The "insinuation" that "all women MUST vote a certain way" doesn't actually exist. What does exist is the fact that conservatives want, and are actively seeking, to ban abortion and contraception. And just bear in mind that that means women having their bodies tracked by the government. And it is this extreme misogynistic activity that ought to lead women who don't want this away from voting for Republicans. The "insinuation" you are referring to is simply pointing out that this reality would make it crazy for a woman who is not an anti-abortion extremist to be pro-Trump.
You say that you don't like Trump, but Harris/Walz come off as inept? I just don't even know what to say. Trump is such an inept human being, he cannot even speak or write coherently. As president, he was absurdly incompetent. He was a bad joke. And then finished his term by trying to violently overthrow our democracy. I suppose if you think that firing off sub-grade school level tweets in between golf to be effective leadership, then you would reach the opposite conclusion.
If you are at all honestly concerned with the lot of working people, then there is simply no way you would vote for Trump, whose administration was one of the most anti-worker we have ever seen. And he has not changed in any way.
Finally, you have your money quote about Trump being risky and Harris being for "continued decline". Again, do you actually know anything at all about Trump's administration and policies? You claim to be against "continued decline", but don't say what exactly is declining. The fortunes of the middle and lower classes? If that is the case, why don't you take a look at Trump's NLRB, and then tell me that he means well in ANY way for working people. Do you mean of our political system? As I mentioned above he tried to end democracy when his ego would not allow him to accept defeat in 2020. Is that aptitude and competence? Do you operate on reality and evidence at all? Or is it all just vibes about "decline"?
And all of that is without even addressing the MAGA people in Congress. They are the "Jewish space lasers" caucus. Absolutely nothing except incompetence, ineptitude, insanity. I suppose you think that Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tommy Tuberville, and Lauren Boebert are moderate centrists and paragons of competence? I would say that if it is "decline" you are looking for, their picture would be under the entry in the dictionary.
It is hard to take comments like this, from self-proclaimed "centrists", as anything other than an attempt by an extreme conservative to try and sanewash Trump. But, I suppose I can always be surprised. Can you tell me how Trump represents anything other than right wing extremism?
I think a few other people who have noted why your side is not doing well and the way you come off is an example. I simply explained why and yet you act as if we are frankly idiots. You don't seem to understand that not everyone fits into your view of centrist, far right wing, etc. Yes, you can be a centrist and vote for Trump whether you want to believe it or not. I'm a libertarian. I'm not a fan of everything R's are doing. Same time, the things most important to me are not wht the D's are doing at all. I'm not anti-abortion but do believe in limits. I don't see an issue with people in states deciding what that is. I do have a problem with Harris saying no exceptions for people who don't want to perform one, even if they have a religious view that it is morally wrong. There is a problem with the left where it used to be for dissent, even saying things the majority didn't like, yet, now it appears to be the group who want to shut those up that disagree. We disagree, it's totally fine. But the whole treatment of others as if there is something wrong with them, or are unintelligent (FYI my wife and I both have advanced degrees FWIW) for not seeing things the way you do is why left continues to push more and more away.
Words mean things. You can't claim "centrism", and then favor extreme conservatism. Either you are not a centrist and are being deceptive, or well, idiocy is the only other option. Take abortion, since you brought it up: Democrats want it to be safe and legal. Republicans want to put stop it entirely and through the harshest possible state violence. You claim to be a libertarian and yet the Democrat position IS the libertarian one, and the Republicans are the precise opposite. It simply does not add up.
You did not explain anything, and that is why I examined each of your points: an attempt to get at the truth. Which you keep obscuring. Why is that? I am being completely open. I know what my stances are and how the parties/candidates line up with them, and it is entirely consistent. You, and really, this applies to every "centrist" I have ever encountered, are talking out of both sides of your mouths.
What is it that I'm obscuring? I stated some of my views. I don't feel the need to give you a thesis. I disagree with you and I really don't feel like "explaining" to only have you come back with your views and opinions of how I'm wrong. You know what, if you want to think I'm an extremist, whatever. I honestly don't care if you aren't even willing to listen without telling me how you are right. This is why the left is losing to Trump. You're just seen as more of a threat than him. Since you are so freaked out about him, that should tell you something about how many of us view the left (even those that don't like Trump as a person). The scare tactic of calling anyone who disagrees an extremist, Nazi, racist, "you name it"-phobe, just really no longer works. When you no longer care what others call you, even if its something terrible, simply for having a different view, there is a sweet freedom to that. So... Good luck to you and your candidate. But if you do lose, perhaps think about what I said as to why, as I guarantee you half the country isn't a pack of extremists.
And yet even on Rogan, Trump denied that he lost the 2020 election. It seems pretty alarming to me that that is Trump at his best and most calm and rational!
Also worth noting that many of the crazy things Trump he is saying in his speeches, where he can literally say whatever he wants. No one is forcing him to call Democrats the enemy from within, or to muse constantly about revenge, or to continuously propose a blanket tariff that would tank the economy.
100% this. Trump is a traitor who tried to violently overthrow American democracy on the most spurious grounds imaginable. It is a sign of how broken our system is that he was even allowed to run again. And your point about the crazy shit he constantly says is spot on. Any adult with half a brain would reject him outright just on that basis alone.
Why do you always have to insult and belittle people who do not agree with you. I can understand why you do not like Trump and would never vote for him. But I do not understand why you constantly put half the Country down with personal insults and obscenities who do not share your points of view. It destroys your credibility
Hillary constantly denies that she lost the 2016 election.
Not a single Democrat who pretends to be oh-so concerned about “election denialism” undermining America's “sacred democracy” has ever even once made the wild insinuations about fascism from that fact that they do about Trump.
And that's how everyone knows that you don't really believe it, but are instead cynically trying to manipulate others who really do care.
The comparisons to Hillary Clinton don't withstand scrutiny here.
Hillary Clinton conceded defeat publicly, and made a phone call to Trump regarding her concession. And she attended his inauguration. Whenever I think about the definition of misery, I consider Hillary Clinton attending Trump's inauguration.
Then in interviews in 2019 and 2020, Hillary Clinton said things like "There was a widespread understanding that [the 2016] election was not on the level. We still don’t know what happened … but you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here." She also said he was an "illegitimate President" due to things like voter suppression, purging the vote rolls, etc.
All of this was indefensible, and I criticized it at the time, and it should be criticized by everyone, on both sides of the aisle.
But this is not the same thing as saying up to the election that "The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged", refusing repeatedly to commit to a peaceful transfer of power (as the sitting President, no less), then refusing to concede when the election is completed, saying that you actually won the election, that the reason your opponent "won" was because of widespread election fraud (without evidence), calling on your supporters to help halt the transfer of power, and insisting that the Vice President (your own vice President) reject the certification of the vote.
There is a reason that, for example, January 6th happened on Trump's watch, and that nothing like it had happened before. It had a lot to do with the specific things Trump said, when he said them, and what he didn't say.
The reason DisruptJ20 is a barely a footnote is because it did not turn into an assault on the very seat of our democracy. And a major reason it did not do that is because leaders like Hillary Clinton had nothing to do, and wanted nothing to do, with it. And that is a good thing.
Yes! I'm just staggered at how hard some people try not to see this. There is just so much avoidance on this issue among Trump supporters, and even among people who attempt to stake out a moderate position in our politics.
Even if January 6th had not happened, we should still find what Trump did to be... objectionable to the point of *obvious disqualification from our politics*! Ideally, it should be nearly to the point where an endorsement from Trump is the same as an endorsement from David Duke: toxic to all but the worst parts of the right wing.
I blame the electorate, of course, for losing the moral core that makes democracy possible. And I blame elites in the media and our political leaders for failing to articulate clearly why Trump's behavior was special.
I can see that on Jan 6th and the few months that followed but we're 4 years on, Biden has been president all that time, the riots stopped. Some people still maintain he won, there probably people who believe the 49ers won the Super Bowl. What difference at this point does it make? To quote Hillary Clinton about a completely different thing.
The subject wasn't which crime is being ignored. The subject is why the obsession with wanting Trump to admit he lost? I think it's vindictiveness. To humiliate and belittle him.
It was written in late 2021. The basic idea of it is that there is no longer a "conservative" party in the US, and it is an attempt to extol the virtue of that ideology.
Conservatism is a political philosophy that rose in opposition to Rationalism. Rationalism contended that humans were intelligent, and could use their intelligence and evidence to improve their lives, government etc. Conservatism, on the other hand, held that human knowledge and reasoning was limited, and that there was a "latent wisdom" in the existing law, ceremonies, cultural norms, etc that isn't necessarily noticeable at first... but it does exist. And so there should be caution in changing existing law, ceremonies, cultural norms, etc. Because you have rather little idea what the redounding effects of changing any of these will be. This is what I took away from that essay. It was very interesting.
Now... that we have people, intelligent people, on the political right asking the question "why is he denying he lost such a big thing?" is proof that there's virtually no mooring over there anymore.
But it's so much worse than that. He didn't merely refuse to admit he lost. He claimed that he *won*, he claimed that democracy was under attack, and that if he did not stay in office, democracy would be lost. In fact, he said *the country itself* would be lost. It should surprise you that he did all of this.
It should, unfortunately, not surprise you that some people would *really* believe him, and would act violently to prevent what they believed was a death blow to their democracy.
If that's not a good enough answer, I'll try again: Our election system is the result of thousands of years of smart people trying to figure out how to have a solid, just government that is responsive to the needs of its people. At some point (actually at multiple points), we decided on this very basic principle:
The people who win power win not by winning a battle, but by having the most people willing to raise their hand in support. We have to count the hands. Sometimes there are issues with this, in which case you go to the village elders who know the law (these are courts!), and both sides argue their case. When the loser has exhausted their options, they concede. The concession makes at least 2 things clear:
1. The loser respects the system, ensuring that it continues to be revered by those to whom it has given much prosperity heretofore
2. The loser will not tolerate any of their own supporters who abandon the system by resorting to violence, causing a battle that will destabilize society and squash prosperity
This is why concession speeches almost always involve something about "respecting the will of the American people". This is why Ronald Reagan talked about peaceful transfer of power in America being "the envy of the world". The reason, the main reason, that we are not a "****hole country" is because in America, the loser admits they lost!
If you mess with this stuff, you mess with it *at all of our peril*. Kindly, don't.
Finding out the truth about the 2020 election, that Biden's win was questionable, would destroy a lot of worldviews.
Trump is potentially not wrong, inasmuch as there are sufficient irregularities in any election to encompass a percentage point or two. Finding and squashing those is beyond the capabilities of the US with 50+ separate election systems and about a month and a half to actually investigate. Mostly the reason Nixon gave up in 1960.
In essence, the person declared the winner in any national election is going to get the nod, regardless of what happened to get there. It's only later that people might pay the price.
Those who remember the 2000 election should agree. Gore actually won Florida if you trust later analysis. But he eventually accepted reality also.
Well first, you wouldn't need millions. Just tens of thousands at the outside in the right places. I know for a fact that (political) machines regularly are padding the counts to their benefit. The truth is that most of this crap tends to cancel out, more or less. I grew up in NJ, where such practices were common, at least in urban districts. These benefited Democrats, but the Republicans have their own forms of cheating. The stuff about the dead voting is not new, it's gone on in every election I am aware of in NYC at least, and is relatively easy to confirm by comparing the people voting to the Social Security death rolls. NYC gets picked on because the numbers are big there compared to Bumfuck, IA. But this is happening all over.
Some of the other forms of cheating, such as forged absentee/mail ballots, are harder to confirm. But that kind of fraud is not new either, and not confined to one political party. The 2020 election, with the mass use of mail ballots, offered particular opportunities for such things.
A current example is here in MD, where I am, there have been text messages offering a "vote by phone" service. Essentially, filling out a ballot on behalf of a voter without any personal contact. If performed, this would be grossly illegal, but very difficult to detect.
On a small scale, having poll workers that cast a blind eye to certain violations is not unusual. But we're talking relatively small numbers of votes, as compromising a single precinct's tally is not sufficient to turn say a statewide election.
Anywho I stand by the assertion that there is sufficient fraud in any election to turn it a point or more. Whether it does turn would be a hard road to travel to find all the irregularities. So if you want to pretend that this doesn't exist, have fun with that. But I know better. My stepfather was a politician at the county level in Jersey (Democrat, not that it mattered - party politics hardly mattered when it came to friendships and such). He knew, so did everyone else in his circle.
No, he’s flat out wrong. As is the rest of your post. There is NO reasonable way to make the case that there were discrepancies amounting within even an order of magnitude of the amount required to make it questionable.
It was a lot worse than 2000. But your guy got to serve his 4 years. I was in the tank for Bush in 2000, knowing a lot less than I do now, and I admit he lost and shouldn't have been inaugurated. Gore was robbed. I'm hopeful someday someone will write the book that explains what actually happened in 2020. Admitting the whole scenario was fishy is reasonable. The margins were implausibly close in too many places. I may be dead before the truth is known, but there are no coincidences.
"I may be dead before the truth is known, but there are no coincidences."
Put that on the gravestone of every conspiracy theorist. First of all, yes, there absolutely are coincidences.
Second... "the margins were implausibly close in too many places"? What do you mean? Are you asking yourself "what were the chances that the election would be decided by 4 states, all within less than 1.3 points?"
This isn't serious in the first place, but I'll humor you for a moment by asking a similar question:
"What were the chances that the election would be decided by 3 states, all within less than 0.8 points?"
Sounds pretty unlikely, right? Perhaps even crazier than that other scenario. This is what happened... in 2016. You should demand the truth on 2016. You should be waiting for the book... on the 2016 steal!
We've had 2 very close elections in a row now. This does not mean one or either of them were stolen. It just means they were close.
It was worse only in one of the 2020 candidates was (and remains) a sociopathic sack of shit loser, willing to spout wild lies.
The vote count gap in FL was literally 2 orders of magnitude smaller, and the legal issues real (rather than nonsense dreamt up by inane lackeys of the sociopath).
My wife doesn’t really pay any attention to politics, this is just what she hears from the other women attorneys at her law firm, though her mind was made up when Roe was overturned. I do totally get why people would vote Harris based on the abortion issue alone, so that’s why I tend to think she might come out on top. I don’t think the Trump is racist/fascist stuff plays, however, with anyone who wasn’t already voting for Harris. If I were Harris, 9 out of 10 ads I’m airing in battleground states would be about abortion rights.
You may be right, although I think sprinkling in more economy/immigration messaging would help to shore up that flank.
One small note: it sounds like your wife pays plenty attention to politics. Getting news from coworkers as opposed to podcasts is just a detail, in my mind.
Because “highly educated” women think abortion is a federal issue, not a state issue? 😊 And one that the federal government didn’t address when Congress and the Presidency were controlled by Dems?
Seems more gullible than highly educated. By all means fight for expanded rights to kill babies in the womb for as much time as possible in your state legislature or constitution, but who is prez for the next four years has literally nothing to do with it.
I agree with you that the fascist angle (and the abortion angle) isn’t about appealing to Harris voters but more about dissuading white suburban women from voting for Trump- placing him beyond the pale in polite society. This appeal (or better said, threat of shame) to rich white suburbanites worked for the Dems in 2020 and 2022, so no surprise they are using it again (pols aren’t very creative - stick with what works). A new twist is having the Obama’s out there telling black men they should be ashamed to vote for Trump and black women that they should be ashamed of their boyfriend, hubby or baby daddy votes for Trump.
Shows you they are worried the rich white suburbanites of polite society might not be enough. Everyone must be shamed and “other” Trump and his supporters. Trump makes illegals and Chinese exporters the enemy while the Dems make half the country the enemy. Great vibes!
"Trump makes illegals and Chinese exporters the enemy."
Actually, Trump has made any Americans who don't support him the enemy--"the enemy from within" in fact--and he has said in interviews that he's willing to use the military to subdue them. As the old expression goes, when someone is telling you who they are, you ought to listen.
'Because “highly educated” women think abortion is a federal issue, not a state issue? 😊 And one that the federal government didn’t address when Congress and the Presidency were controlled by Dems?'
The federal government had already addressed abortion prior to Congress and the Presidency being controlled by the Democrats. The Judicial branch of the government addressed it in Roe v. Wade.
Maybe the Democratic Legislature and Executive were naive to think that that court ruling would stand for the foreseeable future, but otherwise they probably felt that status quo was good enough that there were more pressing issues to focus on rather than re-writing laws to enforce things the courts had already ruled were good law.
EDIT: User Tidorith let me know that this isn't the slam dunk I thought it was. Favoring one side or the other on abortion is not the same as caring about the issue. For this data to be really illustrative it would need to be paired with polling on which issues are most important to their votes.
There are certainly enough women and men to care about abortion rights that if people voted on that alone, Democrats would win. The question though, is whether enough of them care enough.
Someone being pro-choice isn't going to help Harris win if that person is still voting for Trump.
As long as you continue thinking about it as “pro-choice”, you will miss the massive shift in public opinion about this topic since Dobbs. There’s a reason Harris frames this as “reproductive freedom”. If you know anything about what happened in Ireland when they outlawed abortions, and what is happening in the US South right now, you will realize this is no longer about being “pro-choice” in the classical sense of the word. Rather, it’s about making sure women don’t die during miscarriages, while having ectopic pregnancies, and while carrying nonviable fetuses. It’s about making sure we don’t go back to coathanger abortions. It’s about maternal mortality and infant mortality rates, which are already rising precipitously. It’s about IVF. It’s about young doctors avoiding OB/GYN specialities like they’re poison.
I can’t speak to what conservative men and women care about. But I can say that “reproductive freedom” has a very different ring to it than “pro-choice“ - dare I say, an anti-big-government and other sentiments traditionally associated with Republican/conservative voters. Whether it will be effective or not - time will tell.
I think you may be right ----- we are not seeing this issue of abortion rights polling very high. If that is ALL Harris has, and really, it does seem to be all she has, her prospects may not be good.
The first response to that crap comment about people not caring about abortion rights showed that they do indeed poll very high. Does being a Trump fan induce selective blindness or something? Produces both a physical AND a mental degeneration?
Abortion + misogyny concerns might very well = more women voting as a block. These women might be too busy juggling their multiple roles to stop and answer polls. They maybe this cycle’s missing voter from the polls.
Have you read the articles on "ghost women" voters? This sort of thinking, that they're there and will vote, but they can't be polled, because they are young and have no record, or your reasons.
I'm a lawyer and most of the female lawyers I've known were fiercely pro-choice but recognized that Roe was a badly reasoned attempt by the Court to legislate policy (a position I agree with). Most lawyers understand that this is and always should have been a state issue or a Congressional issue, not one done by judicial fiat. Also, Trump is not an abortion extremist, he's said repeatedly he wouldn't seek a law banning abortion (much to the chagrin of many on the Right). Nevertheless, abortion is Harris's best issue, especially among college-educated women. Among the rest of the voters, the economy and immigration are much more important.
This is the basic conservative playbook. Hammer him on fascism? "Why vote for Harris, she doesn't even care about abortion". Hammer him on abortion? "Why vote for Harris, she doesn't even care about fascism".
It's definitely overstated and wrong how many people say that men should always do what their wives want them to/never disagree with their wives. And yeah, that's probably what Jason meant. It's sexist and is not going to make the world a better place.
That said, men should definitely still listen to their wives though. Or their husbands as it may be. People should listen to their spouses. People should listen to each other more in general.
And do wives not listen to their husbands? This is a symmetric relationship that ostensibly helps republicans more as married women trend conservative.
I listened to Trump on Rogan just because so many people recommended it. I thought he said just as many deranged, idiotic things that he always says but he said them in a much calmer, more conversational tone. So I guess if we're grading on a curve he did very well
It is truly baffling that someone, anyone, has not just, to his face, been like, "That was stupid and incoherent. Did you have a stroke? What the fuck are you talking about? None of that made sense."
There is no one on Earth more in need of being brutally torn down in person. It would be the simplest thing imaginable to just shred him, and yet no one has stepped up, in all these years.
Same reason politicians kiss babies. To make herself relatable to an audience that is currently totally nonresponsive to her.
But, she'd have to be real in that environment. I would guess that Condoleezza Rice might fare slightly better there, and that ain't saying much. Trump is charismatic, she isn't, so not putting her on stages and platforms where their performances can be compared is probably a wise campaign strategy.
I'd point out the obvious that Rogan's environment was analogous to a flyover country bar. Same inane conversation, etc. So let's recap, he works the fryer and takeout window at Mccie D's and shows up at a bar analogue and shoots the shit. This kind of stuff, making yourself relatable to the voting public, is why traditionally you'd see campaigns copying each other in these kind of performative sessions, regardless of the proclivities of the candidate. See "Dukakis in the tank". The fact Harris is not doing so is ceding the field. Screaming "fascist" and "misogynist" is no substitute.
And to be clear to progressives who might have a hard time getting their head around this, screaming "fascist" and "misogynist" is no substitute *even if they're true*. I'm sure Trump is a misogynist. It wouldn't surprise me if he's a fascist, but it's not clear to me how much ideology he has at all.
That still doesn't make it good political strategy. In fact, if Trump is indeed a fascist, screaming "fascist" at him - which might even make him more sympathetic when it isn't well received - instead of doing something productive could be considered *supporting* fascism.
Fascists needs a popular enemy. People can make an enemy out of anyone, but making it *easy* for them to do so is not helping things.
And *that's* true even if Trump and no one in the Republican party is fascist at all. The world doesn't stop if Trump loses this election. Strengthening divisions in the US is not a small price to pay, even for something as important as preventing an anti-democratic (small D) President being elected (for those who agree that that's what's at stake).
In her spot, I would have done the Hail Mary without conditions and lay off the sauce a bit. Things are not looking good and that could have turned things around in my opinion. But if her job is to just juice up the base, then that makes more sense.
No he isn’t. Rogan said in a daily mail article the disagreement was about location and she wanted to do 1 hour vs three. He refused to move his show for her. The time thing he sounded softer about. You really gotta stop it with the shitting on people for telling the truth or you’re going to get ignored. Last warning.
I've voted for him three times. I can't stand listening to him. I voted for him three times because he's a tormentor of people I despise. As I said in 2016, a whirling monkey wrench headed towards the cabal of hegemonic neocons in DC that are going to get us nuked.
It read like Beavis and Butthead in a bar, with Trump being the one who was three drinks ahead.
Question from Rogan, unrelated rambling from Trump, back and forth about the rambling, rephrase the question, synchronized pair rambling, conjoined Harris insults, rephrase the question, on topic rambling.
Wash rinse repeat.
And Trump was having so much fun that he completely lost sense of time. Again, the three drinks ahead problem.
Lucky for him, he is worshipped by the people who were waiting at the rally.
Trump can certainly sound more normal in certain contexts, but it's hardly surprising that "Trump says outrageous thing" is news and "Trump sounds relaxed and normal" is not. Nor is it *that* reassuring if someone *sometimes* says sensible or normal things if they *also* frequently say deranged and bigoted ones.
I think the main difference is observing what people say vs what they do.
Trump rambles on Joe Rogan for 3 hours about nonsense and comes off as a goofy grandpa figure and a lot of men think that makes him likeable and worth voting for, whereas a lot of women see roe v. Wade being removed and the way he treats women as more indicative of his character.
Maybe you and wife have different opinions about them because she considers rape and sexual assault to be disqualifying factors whereas many men consider it to be funny or not that big of a deal. I've noticed that a lot anecdotally. You could try asking your wife if she really thinks women getting raped is such a bad thing to get her opinion on it. But who knows. Women, amiright?
The main difference, to me, is words vs. Actions. They tell a different story.
I detest smug liberals, most independents do. They repeat MSM talking points and are incapable of original thought or nuisance. In short, they think far too highly of themselves.
You don't have to be Jon Stewart or John Oliver to recognize that Trump told lie after lie in the Rogan episode and was ultimately entirely incoherent.
Wait, I'm confused. Wasn't it the left who convinced us that Biden was sharp as a tack? Wasn't it Harris who was against fracking, then for it, then against it? Was she against the wall, then for some sort of a wall? Who's lying again?
Since you've assured us that you are "highly educated", would you care to share the evidence that Trump and Vance *aren't* scumbags who hate women? Your wife seems to have a clear read on these guys. Maybe you should listen a little more to her, and a little less to the ass-kissing Trump podcasters whom you've decided somehow magically erase Trump's confirmed history of rape, and his elimination of Roe vs Wade. For the health of your marriage, at a minimum.
That's not how the rules of debate and argumentation work. If you present a claim that someone is X, then you have to present the evidence for it, as well. You cannot flip the script and say, "well prove to me you're NOT X!"
As a 67 woman, I have a completely take. I came of age just after Roe v Wade and I always been able to access reproductive health care. I had a miscarriage when we were starting a family. I fetus had died and I was bleeding profusely. The accepted medical treatment in the civilized world is a D&C, and lots of states it still is. But if my daughter were to to suffer the same medical issue in, say, Florida, my daughter would have to be close to death to receive care. Doctors could face jail time for providing the appropriate care.
This is a major issue for me and many other women. Trump has takes credit for it.
That Trump brags about sacrificing women's heathcare for political expediency remains a critical issue, no matter how reasonable he sounds in friendly podcasts.
Btw, this is why Harris invited people to watch Trump rallies. Because he’s even more sad there in “lost old man” way, here Rogan was working to try keep him on track. “Your weave is getting to wide” 🙄 or something like that.
But the rallies are a lot more batshit & a lot more obvious and frankly trash America to a grotesque extent. Dude is VERY down on the country, and it’s all for the reason to sell himself as some sort of messiahic solution. Which is crazy talk, of course.
Anyone who thinks Trump is normal is not a highly educated man. Like Musk, they may have other reasons to support him, which is fine. I can understand people feeling differently about JD Vance because he's educated and unlike Trump, reads.
JD Vance is much, much better at lying and manipulation than Trump. He’s clearly very charming, and directs his considerable intelligence to horrific aims. He reminds me exactly of Netanyahu, and therefore scares me far more than Trump does.
Just having the substack app and watching Tim Dillion's podcast puts you in another planet from swing voters. Swing voters seem like a giant biological version of a Roulette wheel do decide elections.
It’s interesting how much more “likable trump” media they are putting out in this closing stretch, never seen that at any point in either 2016 or 2020 or this cycle
I remember the last Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden: 1992, Bill Clinton spoke.
In non-Nazi news, a Jew walking to his synagogue in non-Nazi-ruled Chicago was shot by a peace-loving Muslim chanting Allahu Akbar. Must not be important as not a peep from Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, AOC
You sure that's non-Nazi news? Making up stories in order to stir up fear and hatred of "the other" is right out of the Nazi playbook.
The only part of what you wrote that's known to be true is that a Jewish man was shot while walking to synagogue.
It's not true that the shooter yelled Allahu Akbar when he shot him. (The shooter yelled that later during a shootout with police.)
The police don't even know yet if he was a Muslim ("Allahu Akbar" means "God is great," and it is used by non-Muslims, including Arabic Christians.)
The police are still investigating, and said they will add hate crime charges if the evidence warrants it.
From the President of the Jewish United Fund:
'“Law enforcement has been very forthcoming with us,” Nasatir said. “This is a serious crime that will be thrown at this guy, including shooting a police officer, and in Illinois you add a hate crime offense, which in some cases can up charges from a misdemeanor to a felony, but in this case you’re already getting attempted murder.” '
Something tells me you're the type of person that the Jewish United Fund was referencing when they said this (quote is taken from the second article you linked, which, like the first, doesn't say anything about the shooter's religion):
'"CPD recognizes that the pace of publicly available information about the investigation adds an additional layer of frustration for our community," JUF's statement read. "Unfortunately, unsubstantiated and outright false information is spreading and is significantly contributing to unnecessary, unhelpful anxiety. Law enforcement's priority is doing nothing to jeopardize the investigation and eventual prosecution'
But of course you know that, and you're not here for the facts, so it's pointless to continue this back and forth.
I've seen nothing about this on the national news. For that matter only one channel had it on local news here in Chicago that I saw. Bad for the narrative this week, I guess.
You're right: it was in the Jerusalem Post, various American Jewish publications and The Daily Wire, but not mainstream media, including Reuters, AP News.
I guess it does matter to them, since, according to the links you yourself posted, national media picked the story up shortly after you wrote your comments.
I noticed you haven't said anything about that. Not a peep out of the pro-Trump faction. Must not matter much to you.
But that article is super-long (ha!), here's a summary, with direct quotes:
- In 1989, he told Larry King (regarding his crusade against the innocent Central Park Five): "maybe hate is what we need if we're gonna get something done."
- Also in 1989, Trump said to a journalist "Black guys [are] counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes.... Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else... Besides that, I've got to tell you something else. I think that the guy's lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks."
- In 2000, Trump funded advertisements that said "Are these the new neighbors we want?" referring to Native American groups who were building casinos that would compete with his. He was made to publicly apologize for illegally concealing his involvement.
- in 2016, while campaigning in Maine, he said "We've just seen many, many crimes getting worse all the time, and as Maine knows—a major destination for Somali refugees—right, am I right?" He was citing imaginary crime data that didn't exist.
- While president, he asked a Black reporter "Are they friends of yours?" referring to the Congressional Black Caucus.
- In a 2017 staff meeting, he said of Haitian immigrants "they all have AIDS" and said that Nigerians wouldn't "go back to their huts."
- Around 2017, Trump said to his attorney "Tell me one country run by a Black person that isn't a shithole."
- In 2018, he was being briefed by a CIA analyst about Pakistan. He asked where she was from. She told him she was born in New York. He later asked an adviser why "the pretty Korean lady" wasn't negotiating for him in North Korea instead of briefing him on Pakistan.
- In 2019, he said of three nonwhite House members who are were born in the US: "Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came."
- In 2020, he described COVID-19 as "Kung Flu."
- In 2020, he adopted the slogan "When the looting starts, the shooting starts" which was made famous by segregationist candidate George Wallace in the 1960s.
- In 2020, he posted a video of a supporter demonstration in Flordia, where they chanted "White Power!" Trump said of it "Thank you to the great people of The Villages."
- His "birther" claims against Obama are famous, but lesser known is that in 2020 he claimed that Kamala Harris wasn't born in the US, either: "They're saying that she doesn't qualify because she wasn't born in this country" he mused, citing no one. Umm, what's the one thing Obama and Harris have in common..?
- In 2020, speaking before a exclusively white crowd in Minnesota, he said "You have good genes, you know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn't it, don't you believe? The racehorse theory? You think we're so different. You have good genes in Minnesota."
- In 2022, he referred to his own Secretary of Transportation, Elaine Chao, as "China-loving Coco Chow." Chao is Taiwanese-American whose parents fled China during the revolution.
- In 2023, he accused immigrants as "poisoning the blood of our country." This is a direct quote from Adolf Hitler. He has continued to use the slogan throughout his 2024 campaign.
- In February, he said without even anecdotal evidence to support it, "You know who embraced [my mug shot] more than anyone else? The Black population."
- In 2024, He has repeatedly referred to immigrants from South American countries as "not people," "not humans," "animals." Contrast that with him saying that the US should *increase* immigration from "places like Norway."
Anyway, that's just some of his lesser known direct quotes. He of course is infamous for racist comments using sly language which can be denied or spun, so I didn't include even the most famous examples (stuff like "stand back and stand by" or "fine people on both sides").
I think your bar for "racist" is so ridiculously low as to be disqualifying. Looking at the vast majority of these statements i personally don't find them to be racist. Eye of the beholder.
One more thing: you might want to consider that the polling for this year indicates that Trump will make significant increases in his minority support.
For a group that votes almost entirely based on innuendo and assumptions about someone’s character—such as interpreting charts on illegal immigration to conclude that “Biden and Harris don’t care about America”—and flat-out denial of obvious evidence that Trump is primarily self-interested (like blackmailing foreign leaders for opposition research or asking officials to “find” votes), the demand for specifics to prove that Trump is overtly racist is ironic.
I think your bar for "racist" is so ridiculously low as to be disqualifying. Looking at the vast majority of these statements i personally don't find them to be racist. Eye of the beholder.
One more thing: you might want to consider that the polling for this year indicates that Trump will make significant increases in his minority support.
Most of them are only Trump supporters to the extent that Mother Russia tells them to be. The bots & operatives started a big push around the time that early voting started. It's pointless to engage with them.
Some of these big talkers are going to be digging themselves an internet bunker come election night if things don't go there way. We won't see them again.
I think/hope that Harris' line of "Trump has an enemies' list; I have a to-do list" can both address Trump's complete lack of fitness as well as the concerns of those who still feel like they don't know much about Harris
Either way, it looks like the MSG event may drive the final news cycles before the election. I can't imagine undecided swing voters being more likely to vote for Trump - too weird for normal Americans
You think calling Puerto Rico a trash heap was wise? I rolled my eyes at some of the jokes, but was like whatever they are jokes, but the idiot "comedian" unprompted with no set-up just attacks Puerto Rico, like why? I hope the PA Puerto Rico voters do right and vote against this scum. Bad Bunny already endorsed harris cause of it and he didn't want to endorse any one.
Multiple articles pointed out he stays out of politics and his camp confirmed it was the rally that changed his mind (Bunnys). Also this election is on a knifes edge, why risk something so unessary and stupid literally the week before. This won't swing the election it self, but Harris just grabbed at least a few extra K votes in PA and Florida.
It’s not just bad bunny (and Ricky Martin and J lo). People in Puerto Rico are not happy. It’s all over the news in PR today. I’m sure it is in Philly too. With margins so narrow, it could cost trump PA.
Except Harris is going to cackle from the Ellipse in DC tomorrow and grab the news cycle back with her idiotic negativity. Closing with vitriol and division won't work and it makes her look like the petty, over-rated politician that she is. Harris is Trumps best asset. The more she talks, the more Trump wins.
Now there’s a half decent argument. Why didn’t you say that first instead of the weird thing about Harris being too negative, vitriolic, and divisive, when those have been the defining features of Trumpism since 2016?
I'm betting a majority of Americans would rather hear someone laugh (or "cackle" as you say) vs. yelling at the sky about pets being eaten and the media "out to get me" by reporting on things he's said and done. If Trump wants the media to stop reporting on bad stuff he keeps saying, the easiest thing for him to do would be to stop saying those things.
I've never seen someone more scared to act like a real man and own up to one's failures on the journey to becoming a better person. In real life we have lots of names for people like that, none of them complimentary.
Note that you are still after all this time talking about Haitian illegals eating pets: as soon as that came out in the debate I realized the point was to get Republican Moreno over the line as a senatorial candidate. And wow, did it ever work.
But undecided voters at this point in the election cycle are generally not “normal” Americans, they are more often than not the lowest information ones.
It's true that lower-information voters who used to skew more Democratic now skew more Republican. But I think they're good people and are capable of making a good choice if given good information. Could be wrong, though
The Democrats are readying attack ads with footage from the rally in it. And they are texting every voter from Puerto Rico in pennsylvania with same. Which surprisingly is 6% of the electorate there. Oops
I suspect we have differing views of what the definition of ‘racist’ is. As quoted from Webster:
Adjective - 1. having, reflecting, or fostering the belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. 2. of, relating to, or characterized by the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another.
My suggestion that a musician with a following that includes many people with similar racial characteristics, may influence the actions or behavior of that group is nether suggesting inherent superiority from or by that musician, nor is it a suggestion of systemic oppression by that musician. Therefore I do not think or believe the inflammatory adjective ‘racist’ is applicable to my comment.
The MSG rally was only controversial for Democrats. Also, there is ZERO chance Harris is more popular than Trump. Approval ratings can be manipulated. Popular vote polling and EV data show that Dems are getting wrecked comparatively to previous years. Discount Trump all you want. I understand you need to do everything you can to keep Democrats engaged but Repubs are swamping this things and there is nothing Dems can do about it.
Trump has NEVER been popular, except among his cult. If what you say were true, then Trump would not have gotten completely blown out by MILLIONS in, you know, actual voting.
Weird that polling is so much more positive of Trump's admin than Biden's admin. Methinks you are in for a rude awakening next week. This election is a referendum on the Biden/Harris admin, which is the Democrats worst nightmare.
The issue isn't that Trump might win. Of course he might. It's a really close election, according to the data we've got.
The issue is that you seem to think that if Trump loses, it doesn't say anything bad about Trump, but when Biden or Harris loses, you think it *does* say something bad about them.
My nightmare started 8+ years ago. This election ain't it, it's just not over yet.
I feel a lower turnout coming than people presume. Draw what conclusions you wish, but remember that percentages are calculated from who shows up. People are by no means as fired up as in 2020. This is gonna be weird.
He lost by millions every time he has run, true, but he didn’t get “blown out” - he even managed a technical victory in one of the races, and the other was still within a few points.
The conversation was about popularity. The Electoral College has little to do with popularity, as evidenced by the two, increasingly large, blow outs Trump has suffered in the POPULAR vote.
Even thought it may have an increased likelihood as compared to every other time he has run, it remains highly unlikely. I am not remotely concerned about the possibility. Trump is not changing anyone's mind. The undecided electorate is incredibly small.
Elsewhere in the world, COVID was seen to result in blowout election results in *favour* of incumbents. So it definitely had something to do with the (perceived or actual) response to the pandemic rather than just "blame the virus".
I never even bothered with the polls and such in the 2020 election. It was obvious that nobody could survive politically such a catastrophe as Covid was.
In fact, I didn't realize until all the commentary around this election that Trump lost it by so little! No wonder he convinced himself he didn't lose at all ----- I assumed he'd lost big to a big disaster event.
There was no covid in 2016, and yet he lost by millions to a public figure that Republicans had spent decades tearing down. His presidency caused that number to double. I recommend losing the fantasy.
I don’t think a 51-48 loss or a 49-48 loss is a “blowout”. Out of the 25 elections in the 20th century, I think only five of them had a popular vote margin of less than 5% the way that every election in the 21st century has.
It depends on the definition of “popular”. Trump has been over-hyped by the very media which claims to dislike him. Being well-known is a plus when running for election. It is probably hard for those of us subscribing to Nate’s substack to appreciate how relatively unknown this Walz guy is or how few people have heard of Vance’s book compared to those who watched the Apprentice shows on TV. Now Taylor Swift — popular by any definition…
I'm not sure whether I should take you seriously based on your other comments, but I want to point out that Clinton supporters had the same attitude as you in 2016. I genuinely have no idea who will win, but if you truly believe what you're saying, then you may be in for a rude awakening next week
I cannot even guess how accurate the polling is. I don't think anyone has a valid turnout model, either. I think there is significant nonresponse bias, and not just for the same reasons as in '16 and '20. I think there is less interest this time also. I'm confounded and ready for whatever happens on the 5th.
The polls only show a narrow GOP advantage like in '22 (Pennsylvania is, at most, only very slightly leaning Trump right now), but conservatives and the media are getting carried away with the vibes again. It will be different in that, if Trump wins, it won't really matter if it's relatively close whereas narrowly winning the House was a huge underperformance (in historical terms) and had a huge effect on how they governed. And there's always a possibility that the polls will miss again and Trump will win handily. But we should all be clear that the polls are not making Trump the overwhelming favorite, and the exuberance of Trump supporters is based on their opinions (ie, wishes). And if Harris wins, the fact that "everyone knew" Trump had it in the bag will be used as an excuse to do all the things they tried in '20, times ten.
This is true because it supports what I said (and was excoriated for by some) right at the beginning of Harris's campaign: her track record is as an absolutely terrible campaigner who alienates potential voters every time she opens her mouth. She did it in 2019 (going from 20% in polls to 3% and dropping out in humiliation before a vote was cast), and she's doing it again this time. The only reason it hasn't been so severe this time is that her campaign team has wisely kept her as far away from unscripted public appearances as possible. The absolute worst thing that could happen to the Harris campaign is that voters might hear from their candidate.
Eh, if this were totally true, she wouldn't show up for an interview with Brett Baier. Unless you argue that that was scripted? And she was looking for another debate, too.
You're making my point for me. If looking for another debate is a Hail Mary... she's making a last-ditch desperate attempt to win voters by... actively pushing for a major, televised *unscripted event*.
Bringing it back home: this is how you know the idea that her campaign strategy is to "keep her as far away from unscripted public appearances as possible"... cannot be accurate.
Again, for the sake of argument, let's say the answer is "she is afraid that Joe Rogan will embarrass her by asking her hard questions and pulling up clips of her advocating for far-left positions in 2019". This does not dent my argument.
This is because I'm not arguing that she is using every opportunity to do unscripted events. What I'm arguing is that the idea she is trying to "keep as far away from unscripted public appearances as possible" isn't compatible with the fact that she went on Baier, and the fact that she was pushing for another debate. She obviously didn't have to do either of these things.
Did you watch the Brett Baier interview? It was a disaster. He would ask a question, she would launch into a scripted non answer and when he tried to bring her back to subject she would drift off into a word salad that ended with Its all Trump's fault.
I didn't watch the interview, but let's just say she performed poorly for the sake of argument. The point is that I can grant you that she performed poorly, and I have *still demonstrated* that her campaign's strategy is not to "[keep] her as far away from unscripted public appearances as possible".
You may want to re-watch the Bash one though. I don't have a dog in this fight but a friend pointed it out to me after Harris/Baier aired. I find them pretty equivalent.
We know that she only agrees to do interviews when she has had sight of the questions in advance. So yes, the Baier interview was at least semi-scripted. She knew what she was going to be asked and could be coached on what answers to give. Even that didn't go well, and so she has abandoned even that much ever since.
The fundamentals are completely in Trump’s favor. It’s always been his election to lose. And they’re neck and neck. I think that shows she’s done a decent, if not excellent, job.
I read all the time in the liberal media that this is the best economy in the history of America. Incumbents also have a well-known advantage. And Trump is a convicted felon who has nearly the entire media, cultural, bureaucratic, and academic establishment against him.
So no, this has always been an uphill battle for Trump. If Harris manages to lose despite all her advantages, that will be a devastating indictment not only of her skills as a politician but of the judgement of everyone who backed her for this position instead of having an open convention.
"I read all the time in the liberal media that this is the best economy in the history of America."
...and the reason it doesn't stick is because of inflation, among other things. Despite what the media says, most Americans aren't happy with the economy, and that's what's meant by "fundamentals".
"Incumbents also have a well-known advantage."
...that diminishes with the unpopularity of the current administration (which is quite unpopular), and is unproven in our time of uniquely high levels of polarization. There's also the factor that Biden is no longer the candidate, that Harris has never been President, and that Trump has. So if there is an advantage associated with having already been President, it goes to Trump and not Harris. These are major confounding factors.
"And Trump is a convicted felon..."
Yes, but now we're getting way outside of election fundamentals, right? The fundamentals favor Trump, because Americans don't feel good about the economy, don't feel good about immigration, don't like the current foreign policy situation, and in general, don't much care for the current administration. Those are the fundamentals. They're not overwhelmingly in Trump's favor, but they are in his favor.
"who has nearly the entire media, cultural, bureaucratic, and academic establishment against him"
Democrats have had a historical advantage on this for a while now, but it's true that these are more arrayed against the Republican than ever. In a vacuum, this would matter more. The reason it hasn't is because an alternative culture has risen around Trump, and alternative media... "institutions" such as X (run by the world's richest man and probably the single most important backer of Trump), the constellation that includes Rogan, along with the fact that people are getting their news from social media rather than traditional media greatly softens this blow. This shift away from our traditional institutions has been significant for years, and Trump's supporters have been rejoicing about this for years.
Setting the fundamentals aside:
Trump has major liabilities, but he has been historically able to move beyond them. This is a quirk of his candidacy, and it's arguably his greatest advantage. In addition, he has been the target of two assassination attempts, one of which wounded him. This made him sympathetic, and it brought Musk among other elites off the sidelines in his favor.
Harris is a weak candidate due to her association with the current administration (which is unpopular), she had relatively little time to define herself as a candidate, and her nomination was mainly the result of the incumbent's endorsement (commonly overlooked that this was *the* key event in her selection) which irritated many people who didn't like Harris, and saw her selection as anti-democratic. None of these are really "fundamentals", but you'll notice that none of these things actually have to do with Harris' actions either. She's in an unprecedented situation here, and it's not favorable.
Unless the result of the election is substantially different from what is predicted, we are gonna have no idea what happened. It would take something close to a Trump landslide to say that the election was "devastating indictment ... of her skills as a politician".
I think the only significant point against this is that the positions she took in 2019 have been a liability in this election. That is her fault. But the shift in the political winds on a lot of that stuff, coupled with the circumstances that arose due to Biden's unpopularity and his dropping out... it's not clear you could pin blame on her or anyone for failing to predict this.
I guess I'd maybe agree more with the sentiment around having a convention... but that also would've been a huge risk with the available timeline. I don't know how much the Israel/Palestine issue matters, for example, but the divisiveness of a convention would've split that wound wide open.
I don't know what the media interpretations of this election will be. But I think Biden and his circle of advisors (which... probably doesn't include Harris) should shoulder most of the blame for a Harris loss. Biden should have been a one-term President, and he should have announced such 2 years ago. I'm confident that Harris would not have won the nomination, and Trump would simply not have been a match for Whitmer, Beshear, Mark Kelly, Shapiro.
All other points aside, "there should have been an open convention" is ridiculous. What does that even mean? There was no time for a primary. It would just be a bunch of elites in a room making the call, which is what it was anyway. And no matter how much or how "openly" they might have deliberated, there were only ever two people who could possibly have hit the ground running with a national campaign with three months to go - Harris or Newsom. And Harris was pretty clearly the least worst choice between them. No reason to make it more complicated.
Now if Biden had just never run for reelection at all, that would be different. Then we could have had a real primary and the ticket would probably be Whitmer or Beshear or who knows, and they would be vetted and battle-hardened and it would have been much better. I really wish Biden had had the foresight to do that. But he didn't. And none of those other choices were viable come August. So here we are.
It's always easy to spot the misogynists in the comments. You simultaneously claim that she has control of her campaign ("she's a terrible campaigner"), and that her campaign controls her because she's not smart enough to make decisions for herself.
The truth is that her campaign is doing just fine when it comes to reaching potential voters. Which you aren't. And she knows that. She's not targeting your demographic.
I know it's hard to accept that a woman might not care what you think about her or whether you vote for her, but it's true.
Ah, no, you've misunderstood: there's no contradiction. There's an ambiguity on the word “campaign” that has thrown you.
Harris the candidate is very bad at the personal act of campaigning, including interviews and what one might call “retail politics”. This campaigning behaviour is unavoidably the individual candidate's domain in any election. Trump has a flair for it; Biden does too; Harris doesn't.
“The Harris campaign” as a metonym for the entire apparatus is a separate concept, encompassing primarily the strategists and staffers who make most practical decisions for the candidate. This is true of Trump, too. I'm sure he doesn't decide personally where to do his next events, other than general outlines or okaying special events like the Butler return, any more than Harris does.
So that's not “misogyny”, it's just how campaigns work. You should read histories of past campaigns, like Heilemann and Halperin's “Game Change” and “Double Down”, for insight into how campaign staff actually have a lot of say over how the campaign progresses (sometimes too much!). They're very interesting, I recommend them.
Just admit that you really don't like Harris even though you don't have any substantive reasons to hate her. It's beyond obvious from what you've written here that nothing she says or does would ever change your mind. That's called being part of a cult.
A cult? I'm not even American. I don't have a horse in this race. I'm just calling it as I see it, without fear or favour. “Y'all” can elect who you like—I think you'd be better off with Trump, but I think the rest of us would be better off with Harris, at your expense, so that works for me.
And of course there is plenty she could theoretically do to change my mind about her abilities. Let's say she went on Joe Rogan's podcast (or really anyone who wasn't already in the tank for her, like the pro-promiscuity sex podcast she went on was) and stayed competent and erudite. Or even if she just demonstrated an ability to perform in an election above replacement value for a generic Democrat, which she has notably failed to do in this election or at any other time in her career. I still might not want to hang out with her, but I'd happily say that she had proven herself as a competent campaigner and that I was wrong.
But you see, she won't ever do either of those things or anything like them because *I'm not wrong*.
She went on Fox News with Brett Baier, far more hostile and far more credible than Joe Rogan, and handled his extremely aggressive questioning perfectly competently. If you weren't biased against her, you would give her credibility based on that alone. But as I said, you've already made up your mind on her, for reasons I won't even try to speculate about.
Every time MAGA is reduced to 'racist', 'misogynist', 'fascist', or 'Hitler', 10 new Trump voters are 'born'. It's damn stupid. No one buys it anymore, and that's a beautiful thing.
Do you read the Silver Bulletin or just comment here? Because Nate has repeatedly said (and supported it by data) that there are virtually no “new” Trump voters. It’s simply a matter of turnout at this point for him.
That’s been baked in for many many months. There’s been very little shift in the Trump overall percentages or the ceiling on his level of support. This is exactly why he isn’t trying much at all to attract new people but has shifted almost entirely to a GOTV strategy.
There is some suggestion that Trump's rise in the polling over the last two weeks is because undecided voters are breaking in his direction. Are you sure everything is "baked in"?
Are you arguing that Trump is truly a fascist but that America is too stupid to recognize it or, worse, is looking for a fascist leader? Outside of the warped mind of the Trump-deranged, I don't think that logic works. The reality is much more likely to be that Trump is NOT a fascist/Hitlerian character and it's the Trump-deranged can't handle the truth because their worldview begins to crumble of Trump isn't actually Hitler.
Well, people were dumb enough to elect Hitler the first time. Why think Americans in 2024 are so much smarter than Germans in 1933? Also, do you apply this sort of reasoning to all things most Americans think? There's nothing you think the majority are wrong about? Not to mention that whilst voting from Trump is mainstream so is the "Trump is a fascist" idea, so one large group of normal Americans have to be wrong either way.
I don't think Trump is Hitler, but that's because Hitler was unusually bad morally in his plans *even for a fascist*, and because he was actually quite competent at establishing a dictatorship and not 78. Plus it's not even clear Trump really wants a dictatorship, as opposed to just baiting his enemies about it, though he definitely tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election to stay in power. But I think he has no real commitment to democracy and is quite racist, and that on a personal level he is a liar, a rapist (sorry "sexual assault") and probably a fraudster.
I suppose that's what you get when you stab the standard bearer of your party in the back and assume he'll just lie down and take it. Obama/Pelosi assumed they'd get to select the replacement for Biden...and Biden made sure they couldn't. Pretty savvy of the old man...
Any man who admires Trump and others like him was raised to value dominance over compassion and empathy. For some that valuation has generated worldly success. For them and for many more it has led to hurt, loneliness, anger, and fear. Trump should not have an important job that enables him to more easily hurt other people.
Oh good Lord. Was there ever a more representative posting of the current democrat mindset. One sits around moping over the unfairness of life and pointing fingers at the successful because of one's own inability to address his own failings. Not to worry, Harris will save you with lots of free stuff.
How in the world do you interpret someone encouraging compassion and empathy as them "moping"? Quite the leap and just shows how your own vision is clouded by bias. What a sad life.
This is so ironic because the entire thesis of the 2024 Trump campaign has been "the government can fix everything for you and make your life better, and Biden/Harris just haven't been doing that." It seems that the ideas of personal responsibility mean nothing to conservatives anymore, who all blame the government for inflation even though the US has lower inflation than almost any other developed nation. You're delusional, and your comment looks insane in the context of the campaign Trump has been running, where he's constantly dangling "free stuff" to his voters. There is one side that has the literal richest man in the world offering millions of dollars to people for them to vote, and it's not the Democrats. Try being a little more serious in your analysis next time.
You’re so stuck. It’s so sad. Modern therapy won’t cost a big share of your success. It’s less expensive for you than what another Trump administration would cost everyone.
That's funny, I read it more as a Christian mindset. But Heaven knows Christianity has been dead as a doornail in this country for years now, despite what modern "Christians" might think. Most of us are in for a rude wakeup call come Pearly Gates time (and no, I'm not necessarily excluding myself from that list, either).
Sadly, the old adage "nice guys finish last" couldn't be more true. Trump proves that over and over. He and his sick supporters go for the jugular every time in as dirty way as possible to appeal to the worst of human nature and still win. Clearly, they know something about people the rest of us don't.
Their motto is "there is no low below which we will not go." And it certainly appears as though it will be a winning one for him.
Maybe he wins, but that doesn’t make him or the men who adopt the same values wind up with happier, more fulfilling lives. He is not enviable and never has been to anyone who is sane.
I forget who I’m quoting, but “the difference between a man who has $11 million and the man who has 11 children is that the latter is the only one who doesn’t want more.” Achieving the goals of a dominance paradigm gets you nothing if it’s not tempered with a life that includes love and compassion. Trump is the poorest man on Earth.
I am so sick of the Nazi rally nonsense, though it may work with some who are already totally committed to Harris. I guess it easy to forget that alongside the rally of 1939 we probably also should mention Roosevelt's campaign speeches there of 36 and 40 (fascist label anyone). There was also Kennedy's birthday bash where everyone celebrated Monroe's outfit (comparisons to Eva Braun anyone). Of course there were also those democrat conventions of 76, 80, and 92 - fascists one and all I presume. Because of that Bill fellow, 92 would seem particularly inconvenient for Hillary Clinton's abuse of history.
I agree with the national audience observation. Understanding that, I am surprised you did not also include Trump's three-hour discussion with Joe Rogan. I admit, he represents a class of the electorate the cultured reader of the NY Times would find off putting, but as of this morning, that podcast has had 33 million views. I suspect even honest democrats would concede Harris wouldn't last 30 minutes in that venue.
This is feeling more and more like an electoral landslide.
It's just really weird because Madison Square Garden was built in 1968. Previous buildings at different sites had the same name, but weren't this building or this site. There was quite literally never a Nazi rally at MSG. And Hitler did not make an appearance in NYC in 1939. I really just think Hillary Clinton is a lot dumber than we've all given her credit for.
I think Hillary is a prime example of how poisonous loss is, how angry it makes some people. We see it here. Those of us who think we're winning are pretty mellow and inclined to humor --- those who think they are losing are FURIOUS and lashing out for no good purpose I can see: it isn't likely to change any votes to call us names, and many of us have voted already anyway.
The ones who think they are losing are the angries --- but let's remember nobody has lost anything yet. We could be fooled. I sure was in 2016. I was for Trump, but I awoke dismayed that all these commentators and pollsters I had believed in had every one of them led me wrong. Now I know that can happen.
A lot of history of Madison Square Garden events is coming out today: yours was good and I like the point that the original (Nazi) one was torn down and the current MSG is a mile and a half distant from that site.
The worst is that problem about Bill Clinton having campaigned there just like Trump. Hillary either forgot that or hoped everyone else would. I think she is showing a lot of toxic anger for nine years after her loss. And seems to be deteriorating rapidly.
How are the comments on these posts always such a cesspool? I can't tell whether they're paid shills, or if there are actually this many people _on both sides_ convinced that you're cooking the books.
If they think you/your model/your underlying data is fraudulent, why are they even reading these posts?
As one of your GOP subscribers, I doubt Trump being in the news will hurt him, no matter how the media try to spin it. Harris needs to give undecided an affirmative reason to vote for her, and she still hasn't supplied one. I don't see "I'm a woman of color and Orange Man Bad" getting her over the finish line.
There are 3 things for America that I love this cycle and give me hope that maybe, no matter who wins, we'll be okay.
1. The MSM starting to die (including hopefully Fox news. They are partisan hacks and secretly they love that Trump is at the fore front because it gives them so much material. Independent journalism is the way of the future. Hopefully the MSM can correct themselves because we do need a press we can trust.
2. Split ticket voting. Shows people are moving away from R or D
3. Mitch McConnell not being Senate Majority leader lol
I like your no. 1 and 2! Oh, how I would love neutral, old-timey news reporting without gotcha clickbait headlines, without the text being full of words like "lied" and "falsely." I didn't think of independent journalism, but I've already subscribed to a number of them this election, I realize. Note that the WaPo is absolutely on the edge of collapse: thousands and thousands of subscribers have cancelled and there are big boycott moves on social media and memes where people post a screen-capture of their subscription cancellation. I don't see how they can survive this election. Independent media and let the subscribers support it, the free market at work.
I think the jokes blended in with what other speakers said during the rally. I mean look at Trump's speech. He was still talking about killing fellow Americans whose opinions differ from his - the enemy within. By that logic, to me, you would be the enemy within or if you support Trump and your close family member supports Harris your mother would be the enemy from within. Trump urges you to hate your close family member
This has been consistent throughout. Trump is least popular when people actually hear from him, and becomes more popular when he’s quiet.
My worry is that the same is true about Harris, and her speech at the Ellipse - which will wrongly focus on “democracy” and not Trump’s idiocy or her plans to make things better - will drown out the bad vibes for Trump.
They were terrible jokes and really dumb to have a comedian like that on stage. They could have used the opportunity to do an internal roast or something.
I doubt it moves the needle at all. 95% of people can take a joke even at their expense, they can even be offended, but it probably won't change their vote.
As long as you restrict your Google searches of "Dave Chappelle" to pre-2016 you should be good. Things between him and white people didn't stay copacetic.
Actually, I'm a huge stand up nerd, which would explain our different definitions. Stand-up comedians, when they talk about making fun of an audience, what you think they mean is directly joshing them about who they are, "white people drive like this" jokes, but that's not what they mean. They mean picking on your sacred cows. No group of guys gets butthurt about a comedian making jokes like you define being made fun of. Like literally no group of guys anywhere ever. You're talking about some point I didn't make. But God bless.
It’s hard for me to know what is in the mind of undecided/swing voters, but I can tell you as a generally moderate, independent in DC, the way Trump is coming across in podcasts I regularly listen to with people like Andrew Schulz and Joe Rogan is worlds different then he is portrayed in the legacy media, in a good way. JD Vance comes across much better too; just listen to his recent appearance on Tim Dillon’s podcast. However, I recognize that I am a 37 yo male (though a highly educated one), and my wife, who doesn’t listen to any of these podcasters, thinks Trump/Vance are basically scumbags who hate women. Thus, I just really have no idea how this election is going to go. I do think the gender split will be massive.
Trump/Vance are indeed, basically scumbags who hate women. I say this as a 47 year old, highly educated, man. And, are you truly surprised that Trump and Vance come off better in the completely friendly environment of a dumb podcast, where they are not challenged or called out for their various vile actions and statements?
Vance is owned by Peter Thiel, and both of them endorse Curtis Yarvin's garbage about how what this country needs is a king. How well does that "come across"? Trump is dumb, senile and filled with nothing except self-aggrandizement. It doesn't matter the venue, he just rambles nonsensically, trying to say whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear, while being sure to throw in some anti-immigrant stuff and claims about economics that are obviously absurd to anyone with more wisdom than an 8 year old. If you are as "highly educated" as you claim, you would know this already.
Besides the racism, misogyny and bigotry towards our LGBT fellow citizens, the worst thing about Trump/Vance (and indeed, all conservative parties the world over) is their violently anti-worker stance and actions. If you are a working person, then there is simply no reason at all to hold any view of a Republican besides contempt and disgust, as their entire raison d'etre is to make your life worse.
Sorry, man, but this sounds like a sound bite from MSNBC or Keith Olbermann’s unhinged twitter account. It’s just bs to me.
So, what you are saying is, you basically know nothing about your preferred candidate other than what you heard them say on friendly podcasts. Every word I wrote is true and extensively backed by the candidates' own statements and (more importantly) actions. Pardon me for assuming a highly educated person would do the bare minimum of research, instead of just buying unquestioningly into "vibes". Your wife may not bother with the podcasts, but she seems to be able to read.
“you basically know nothing about your preferred candidate other than what you heard them say on friendly podcasts”
I'm sorry, but this sounds like the Iron Law of Woke Projection.
How often do you listen to Newsmax or ONN? How often do you listen to Daily Wire podcasts? How often do you read Poso or Scott Adams or BAP?
You don't need to tell us: never; never; never.
YOU are the one who never leaves their epistemic bubble. Every conservative does constantly: they can't avoid it because liberalism is the default position of the establishment. But you are so immersed in the miasma of liberalism that you can't even notice it surrounding you.
“You’re in a bubble” can only come from someone in a bubble?
JFC, it’s projection turtles all the way down. :/
PS Although if you didn’t notice Rogan calling out his never providing evidence for his wild election fraud claims…
Wrong on all counts! I don't watch TV at all. The only news site I visit every single day is Breitbart. Yeah, the opinions expressed are right wing bullshit, but they have good coverage of topics like the border. For hard news, I take Noah Chomsky's advice and read the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times of London.
Newsmax, ONN, Daily Wire: I'm not going to bother with, because Breitbart covers the same stuff. And I'm above caring about COVID or election conspiracy nonsense. Ah, Jack "PizzaGate" Posobiec. Obviously a reputable and useful source. Scott Adams? The Dilbert guy turned right wing grifter, who is also an open racist, claimed Trump is a "super persuader", and is just trying to peddle his stupid online classes. And BAP? The fascist bodybuilder? Lol, why not throw in Alex Jones, Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes and Mike Enoch while you're at it? I know who all these people are, very well. Well enough, in fact, that I know they have nothing of value to offer. Unless, of course, you are into racism, sexism, obviously stupid and deranged conspiracies, and phony supplements.
"Trump/Vance are indeed, basically scumbags who hate women."
Can you list three specific incidents to support that? I hope you go belong "grab your pussy" and the rape accusation. Even if he did those things, that doesn't mean he hates women.
You read it here, folks: Robert says raping a woman is not grounds for calling the rapist a woman-hater.
"Weird"? Clearly you are mistaking me with a conservative. "MSNBC"? I have not watched that channel in probably 15 years. What "coolaid" (by the way, it is spelled "kool-aid")?
Again, every word is true and the evidence is the public words and deeds of Trump/Vance. Not a thing I stated is even controversial. I would LOVE to have it intelligently disputed - I want the other side's STRONGEST arguments. This stuff, it is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Or, if you like, as easy as shooting a dog in a gravel pit, like Trump fave Kristi Noem.
Sorry, Man, but it's irrelevant whether it sounds like a sound bite from the liberal media. How about what the Man says? Are you capable of understanding how offensive his speech is to many other People? Do you care about other people's feelings or is it all about You? Your wife, for instance. Did you ever bother to ask yourself why she and so many other women find Trump so offensive? What's that all about? PMS? Female Hysteria? Weakness? Hormones? Aren't you a little curious about that? Nah!
Oh, I think most husbands have a pretty solid idea of where their wives get their ideas from, and vice-versa.
JFC
🙄
Isn't "highly educated" like "artist," something other people can say about you but you can't say about yourself?
I mean, no? If you have an advanced degree, you're highly educated, objectively.
That's what that piece of paper means, "We're an institute of higher learning and we educated you to these standards."
I think the point was that generally it’s not a good look to post your CV in internet comment sections in support of your opinions.
Eh. I don't think Josh or Paul did anything egregious here with their comments.
This is an election where votes are not unlikely to break down across educational lines (as they have in past Trump elections). Pollsters are specifically weighting for it.
Self described education is relevant.
But you can't show a piece of paper on an Internet forum. Your words are you, that's it. Sometimes (mostly young) people try to claim credentials on the Internet, calling themselves highly educated or a lawyer or whatever, but it's unproveable and people ignore it, properly.
We are all supposed to remember the famous New Yorker cartoon: "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog."
🤣🤣🤣
What if your degree is in underwater basket weaving?
Then you are highly educated in that narrow field!
You can be educated in a useless skill. It's useless, but you're still educated in it. It's like being really good at paper football. That skill won't help you in any way, but it's still technically a skill that you could have.
Also, the "underwater basket-weaving" thing is mostly said by people who look at a list of degrees they know nothing about and conclude "if I haven't heard of this, it's probably dumb."
Have you ever bothered listen to Trump? 🤣🤣🤣
There are many weird and discouraging things about the electorate, but the fact that Trump made significant gains after the assassination attempt is up there. Being shot at may deserve sympathy, but it’s hardly an accomplishment.
Zuckerberg specifically referenced Trump jumping to his feet and yelling "Fight!" As "The most badass thing i have ever seen".
"Brilliantly staged, sir. Right on cue! Better than Cats!"
Now this is just the foil hat territory.
Yup, it was.
Too bad the rest of the package is a con artist garbage.
"Being shot at may deserve sympathy, but it’s hardly an accomplishment."
Being shot at is not an accomplishment. Living is.
Not particularly in this case.
Somebody call the Secret Service.
Love seeing all the dipshit trump supporters spining and running scared, mark my word this was a huge campaign mistake and frankly you don't even need to turn off that many people to lose.
I don’t think it sounds that way AT ALL. Stop pigeon holding other people’s views just because it irritates you. We all have a right to an opinion without having to be famous.
I'm not as confident about Vance as I am Trump regarding misogyny. For Trump, we have the Access Hollywood tape, which is pretty solid evidence that... a lot of the accusations around sexual harassment/assault are probably true. A lot of this stuff has been out in the open for decades. This is a guy who would be one of the top answers on Family Feud if there was ever a prompt like "celebrities who disrespect women". And this was the case long before he entered politics.
It is true that Vance did not grow up in an environment of grotesque wealth and privilege that makes Trumps (and Kennedys! Look at RFK Jr as another example of how warped a person raised like that becomes) into disgusting woman haters. However, Vance is foursquare on the side of the worst anti-abortion nutjobs. And we have decades of this in the real world, which shows us how this inevitably leads to the right wing trash wanting to track women's movements and fertility. Imprison them for miscarriages. There is no more pure expression of misogyny.
Vance also used several dog whistles for Christian nationalism in the debate, and the one vote per household comment, ie headship and abolishing the 14th, and the single cat ladies comment.
Does believing (or courting those who believe) that women should be *subject* to men equate to hating women? I believe it’s bad for society, both men and women, and it’s definitely Patriarchal, but I’m not sure it’s hate.
Vance doesn't hate all women, just single women. I mean, should they even be allowed to vote? Also cat ladies, they are the worst. And allegedly couches.
People are voting on policy not his character.
What policy is that? Huge tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations? Massive deficit spending? Intervention in Fed policy to accelerate interest rate reductions/try to juice the economy? Mass deportations? All of these will increase prices/inflation and not be helpful to blue collar workers.
Or is it his initiative to root out the 40 trans athletes in women’s collegiate sports (out of 500,000)?
I am skeptical that Trump’s appeal is about “the issues.”
Exactly right. It was only a few months ago, when the stock market took a sudden drop due to Japan raising interest rates, then recovered a few days later. But the week prior, Trump had been babbling about how the high stock market was due to his brilliance. Then the crash happened, and he immediately started stupidly raving about how this was now the Biden/Harris market. Then the market bounced back and it was back to how it was high because he was going to win.
Issues and, you know, little things like reality have no bearing whatsoever on Trump's support.
I hate the go to "huge tax cuts for the wealth and corporations". I am a retired senior on a fixed income and surely not wealthy. Yet my taxes went down under Trump and will raise under Harris. Why? Because Trump adjusted the TAX BRACKETS which lowered my marginal tax rate. Harris has said she would not renew the Trump tax plan as it is soon to expire which will raise my taxes. So Harris brags that she is not raising taxes on the middle class? It is a lie. She is not raising the TAX RATE but she is moving the TAX BRACKETS lower which will raise taxes for many in the middle class.
Before Trump, our county had one of the highest tax rates in the world for Corporations, putting them at a competitive disadvantage and encouraging them to expand or relocate their business to other countries. Trump's tax break made our businesses competitive in world markets and encourage them to keep their businesses or move their businesses back to the United States.
The problem with our tax code for businesses is not the tax rate, it is the tax loopholes. Some of the largest Corporations in our Country are paying little or zero tax. So the Dems can make the ratee 50% but it will not matter if the loopholes are not eliminated.
Who enacted the loopholes and why doesn't eliminate them? They were enacted by members of Congress who do not want them eliminated because it will make their big donors unhappy.
You’re an oddity….if it’s even true.
The lower a person’s income the higher the chance Trump’s “tax cuts” actually increased your tax bill. Our family’s taxes went up $1000-$2000/year (our accountant actually proactively worked it out that year, to warn us so we wouldn’t get surprised by the bill). There was a great feature, where withholding amounts were adjusted down, but that did NOT reduce your tax bill at the end of the year. It reduced the refund amount. It’s modestly good in that the IRS isn’t holding onto my $ (interest free) for several months, but that doesn’t reduce the tax paid.
Further, the personal taxes part (unlike the company tax reduction) was backloaded so personal taxes were designed to go up over time. A cynic shell game con. :/
And the price of tea in China is $3.20 (damned inflation).
We're not talking about electability here. We're talking about Trump's character relative to his media portrayal. The idea that Trump's misogyny is a figment created by the mainstream media is ridiculous.
This is a politics website, not religion.
Trying to turn a marginal issue like Trump's relationship with women into an election winner did not work for Clinton in 2016. Even women are not unified on this misogyny stuff. Negative campaigns basically don't work against a well defined persona is another lesson. Driving up the negatives of Donald Trump at this time is not really possible. In addition, harping over and over on the negative points of your opponent is deleterious to whatever other message (hopefully a positive one, if you want to win) that you might have.
The problem with the Harris campaign, which was inherited from the Biden one, is that there is basically no positive message. Nothing to pick off stragglers from the other side. Whoever thought that was a good idea should be banished from electoral politics. There had to be something that could have been crafted. Maybe lose the "green" and just another New Deal for people who got shafted by the inflation.
I'm a woman. I don't agree. The behavior of magats last night was astonishing. I assume the polls will move against them now.
🙄
If you can’t hear it maybe you’ve got blood coming out of your eyes, out of your…whatever.
Even when he thinks he’s being nice. He argues businesses definitely should hire women because they can pay them less. JFC 🤦♂️
So character is irrelevant? What if the man's character, or lack thereof, is that he lies, cheats, steals, cares only for himself, throws everyone else under the bus, and breaks promises? But you like his policy? His policy is what, something he told you? He told you? And you rely on something he SAYS? Good luck with that!
I submit that the character argument was lost in the 1990s with the full throated defense of the serial perjurer, Clinton. At this point, the argument is meaningless. Words mean things, and since he was just lying about sex...obviously criminal activity doesn't matter. We took the lesson to heart.
You are the perfect example of why your candidate is struggling. Rather than debate the policies of these candidates you resort to vile and disgusting personal insults and lies. JD Vance has appeared on any number of left-wing podcasts and interviews. Kamala has not had a press conference and has appeared on only one interview who posed tough questions. Otherwise, she has hidden in the basement with Joe and emerged for sycophants' shows like The View. l
Which "left-wing podcasts" did Vance appear on?
yeah he’s so racist that he just keeps forcing more and more blacks and Hispanics to keep voting for him! The nerve!
Oh wait….
Stupidity crosses all racial and ethnic lines.
Are they also Uncle Tom's?
No. The correct term is "Uncle Clarence Thomases".
I'm sure they're all strumming banjo and eating fried chicken and watermelon.
It crosses political lines too, I think you forgot that part :)
You come across as an unhappy angry person hurling wild rants, insulting roughly half the country with your hateful language. and using your credentials to try to establish yourself as some kind of expert? JD has appeared in the most challenging of interviews on Face the Nation, CNN, CBS News, MSNBC Rachel Madow, Jake Tapper, Martha Raddatz and more.
Not a fan of Trump, but really don't see Vance as a scumbag. More guilt by association. While we hear of a lot of women turned off to Trump, I know plenty of women who are centrist (like my wife) who like Harris even less and especially despise the insinuation that all women MUST vote a certain way, and are voting Trump. The election is going to be quite close, but the idea that women are voting for Harris misses the large number who are actually going to vote for Trump. BTW as a male, there are a lot of us who don't like Trump but still voting for him anyway as Harris/Walz come off as inept for us. Saw a good quote, voting for Trump brings risks (agreed) but voting for Harris/Walz is voting for continued decline. Again, my view, as I fully understand those who feel the opposite.
I would just address a couple of your points:
If your wife is a "centrist", then she would vote Harris. If she favors Trump, then she is a far right conservative. Nothing else makes sense. Trump governed as a far right conservative when in office the first time and he, and everyone around him, is even more extreme this time around.
The "insinuation" that "all women MUST vote a certain way" doesn't actually exist. What does exist is the fact that conservatives want, and are actively seeking, to ban abortion and contraception. And just bear in mind that that means women having their bodies tracked by the government. And it is this extreme misogynistic activity that ought to lead women who don't want this away from voting for Republicans. The "insinuation" you are referring to is simply pointing out that this reality would make it crazy for a woman who is not an anti-abortion extremist to be pro-Trump.
You say that you don't like Trump, but Harris/Walz come off as inept? I just don't even know what to say. Trump is such an inept human being, he cannot even speak or write coherently. As president, he was absurdly incompetent. He was a bad joke. And then finished his term by trying to violently overthrow our democracy. I suppose if you think that firing off sub-grade school level tweets in between golf to be effective leadership, then you would reach the opposite conclusion.
If you are at all honestly concerned with the lot of working people, then there is simply no way you would vote for Trump, whose administration was one of the most anti-worker we have ever seen. And he has not changed in any way.
Finally, you have your money quote about Trump being risky and Harris being for "continued decline". Again, do you actually know anything at all about Trump's administration and policies? You claim to be against "continued decline", but don't say what exactly is declining. The fortunes of the middle and lower classes? If that is the case, why don't you take a look at Trump's NLRB, and then tell me that he means well in ANY way for working people. Do you mean of our political system? As I mentioned above he tried to end democracy when his ego would not allow him to accept defeat in 2020. Is that aptitude and competence? Do you operate on reality and evidence at all? Or is it all just vibes about "decline"?
And all of that is without even addressing the MAGA people in Congress. They are the "Jewish space lasers" caucus. Absolutely nothing except incompetence, ineptitude, insanity. I suppose you think that Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tommy Tuberville, and Lauren Boebert are moderate centrists and paragons of competence? I would say that if it is "decline" you are looking for, their picture would be under the entry in the dictionary.
It is hard to take comments like this, from self-proclaimed "centrists", as anything other than an attempt by an extreme conservative to try and sanewash Trump. But, I suppose I can always be surprised. Can you tell me how Trump represents anything other than right wing extremism?
I think a few other people who have noted why your side is not doing well and the way you come off is an example. I simply explained why and yet you act as if we are frankly idiots. You don't seem to understand that not everyone fits into your view of centrist, far right wing, etc. Yes, you can be a centrist and vote for Trump whether you want to believe it or not. I'm a libertarian. I'm not a fan of everything R's are doing. Same time, the things most important to me are not wht the D's are doing at all. I'm not anti-abortion but do believe in limits. I don't see an issue with people in states deciding what that is. I do have a problem with Harris saying no exceptions for people who don't want to perform one, even if they have a religious view that it is morally wrong. There is a problem with the left where it used to be for dissent, even saying things the majority didn't like, yet, now it appears to be the group who want to shut those up that disagree. We disagree, it's totally fine. But the whole treatment of others as if there is something wrong with them, or are unintelligent (FYI my wife and I both have advanced degrees FWIW) for not seeing things the way you do is why left continues to push more and more away.
Words mean things. You can't claim "centrism", and then favor extreme conservatism. Either you are not a centrist and are being deceptive, or well, idiocy is the only other option. Take abortion, since you brought it up: Democrats want it to be safe and legal. Republicans want to put stop it entirely and through the harshest possible state violence. You claim to be a libertarian and yet the Democrat position IS the libertarian one, and the Republicans are the precise opposite. It simply does not add up.
You did not explain anything, and that is why I examined each of your points: an attempt to get at the truth. Which you keep obscuring. Why is that? I am being completely open. I know what my stances are and how the parties/candidates line up with them, and it is entirely consistent. You, and really, this applies to every "centrist" I have ever encountered, are talking out of both sides of your mouths.
What is it that I'm obscuring? I stated some of my views. I don't feel the need to give you a thesis. I disagree with you and I really don't feel like "explaining" to only have you come back with your views and opinions of how I'm wrong. You know what, if you want to think I'm an extremist, whatever. I honestly don't care if you aren't even willing to listen without telling me how you are right. This is why the left is losing to Trump. You're just seen as more of a threat than him. Since you are so freaked out about him, that should tell you something about how many of us view the left (even those that don't like Trump as a person). The scare tactic of calling anyone who disagrees an extremist, Nazi, racist, "you name it"-phobe, just really no longer works. When you no longer care what others call you, even if its something terrible, simply for having a different view, there is a sweet freedom to that. So... Good luck to you and your candidate. But if you do lose, perhaps think about what I said as to why, as I guarantee you half the country isn't a pack of extremists.
Glad you said you were highly educated because it is not obvious.
Rachel, is that you?
And yet even on Rogan, Trump denied that he lost the 2020 election. It seems pretty alarming to me that that is Trump at his best and most calm and rational!
Also worth noting that many of the crazy things Trump he is saying in his speeches, where he can literally say whatever he wants. No one is forcing him to call Democrats the enemy from within, or to muse constantly about revenge, or to continuously propose a blanket tariff that would tank the economy.
100% this. Trump is a traitor who tried to violently overthrow American democracy on the most spurious grounds imaginable. It is a sign of how broken our system is that he was even allowed to run again. And your point about the crazy shit he constantly says is spot on. Any adult with half a brain would reject him outright just on that basis alone.
Why do you always have to insult and belittle people who do not agree with you. I can understand why you do not like Trump and would never vote for him. But I do not understand why you constantly put half the Country down with personal insults and obscenities who do not share your points of view. It destroys your credibility
Sorry. We've noticed the Republicans are all about personal insults and obscenities.
Hillary constantly denies that she lost the 2016 election.
Not a single Democrat who pretends to be oh-so concerned about “election denialism” undermining America's “sacred democracy” has ever even once made the wild insinuations about fascism from that fact that they do about Trump.
And that's how everyone knows that you don't really believe it, but are instead cynically trying to manipulate others who really do care.
The comparisons to Hillary Clinton don't withstand scrutiny here.
Hillary Clinton conceded defeat publicly, and made a phone call to Trump regarding her concession. And she attended his inauguration. Whenever I think about the definition of misery, I consider Hillary Clinton attending Trump's inauguration.
Then in interviews in 2019 and 2020, Hillary Clinton said things like "There was a widespread understanding that [the 2016] election was not on the level. We still don’t know what happened … but you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here." She also said he was an "illegitimate President" due to things like voter suppression, purging the vote rolls, etc.
All of this was indefensible, and I criticized it at the time, and it should be criticized by everyone, on both sides of the aisle.
But this is not the same thing as saying up to the election that "The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged", refusing repeatedly to commit to a peaceful transfer of power (as the sitting President, no less), then refusing to concede when the election is completed, saying that you actually won the election, that the reason your opponent "won" was because of widespread election fraud (without evidence), calling on your supporters to help halt the transfer of power, and insisting that the Vice President (your own vice President) reject the certification of the vote.
There is a reason that, for example, January 6th happened on Trump's watch, and that nothing like it had happened before. It had a lot to do with the specific things Trump said, when he said them, and what he didn't say.
"nothing like it has happened before" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisruptJ20
Yes, that is nothing like January 6th.
The reason DisruptJ20 is a barely a footnote is because it did not turn into an assault on the very seat of our democracy. And a major reason it did not do that is because leaders like Hillary Clinton had nothing to do, and wanted nothing to do, with it. And that is a good thing.
Are you actually confused about this?
whatever you need to tell yourself, friend
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Exactly. Not remotely the same.
Hillary literally conceded the next day. It’s not even a comparison. And she admits she lost. Want me to dig up some quotes here?
🤣🤣🤣🤣
The only consistent thing in your post is the reimagining of reality, repeating that patently false talking point 🙄
Why is his denying he lost such a big thing? Is it like holding your little brother down until he cried "Uncle"? I don't get it.
Because Trump denying he lost was the spark for Jan 6, which was a real thing.
Yes! I'm just staggered at how hard some people try not to see this. There is just so much avoidance on this issue among Trump supporters, and even among people who attempt to stake out a moderate position in our politics.
Even if January 6th had not happened, we should still find what Trump did to be... objectionable to the point of *obvious disqualification from our politics*! Ideally, it should be nearly to the point where an endorsement from Trump is the same as an endorsement from David Duke: toxic to all but the worst parts of the right wing.
I blame the electorate, of course, for losing the moral core that makes democracy possible. And I blame elites in the media and our political leaders for failing to articulate clearly why Trump's behavior was special.
I can see that on Jan 6th and the few months that followed but we're 4 years on, Biden has been president all that time, the riots stopped. Some people still maintain he won, there probably people who believe the 49ers won the Super Bowl. What difference at this point does it make? To quote Hillary Clinton about a completely different thing.
What else is on the list of crimes you are willing to ignore?
The subject wasn't which crime is being ignored. The subject is why the obsession with wanting Trump to admit he lost? I think it's vindictiveness. To humiliate and belittle him.
This comment reminded me of an essay I read in The Atlantic. I went back and found it: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/brooks-true-conservatism-dead-fox-news-voter-suppression/620853/
It was written in late 2021. The basic idea of it is that there is no longer a "conservative" party in the US, and it is an attempt to extol the virtue of that ideology.
Conservatism is a political philosophy that rose in opposition to Rationalism. Rationalism contended that humans were intelligent, and could use their intelligence and evidence to improve their lives, government etc. Conservatism, on the other hand, held that human knowledge and reasoning was limited, and that there was a "latent wisdom" in the existing law, ceremonies, cultural norms, etc that isn't necessarily noticeable at first... but it does exist. And so there should be caution in changing existing law, ceremonies, cultural norms, etc. Because you have rather little idea what the redounding effects of changing any of these will be. This is what I took away from that essay. It was very interesting.
Now... that we have people, intelligent people, on the political right asking the question "why is he denying he lost such a big thing?" is proof that there's virtually no mooring over there anymore.
But it's so much worse than that. He didn't merely refuse to admit he lost. He claimed that he *won*, he claimed that democracy was under attack, and that if he did not stay in office, democracy would be lost. In fact, he said *the country itself* would be lost. It should surprise you that he did all of this.
It should, unfortunately, not surprise you that some people would *really* believe him, and would act violently to prevent what they believed was a death blow to their democracy.
If that's not a good enough answer, I'll try again: Our election system is the result of thousands of years of smart people trying to figure out how to have a solid, just government that is responsive to the needs of its people. At some point (actually at multiple points), we decided on this very basic principle:
The people who win power win not by winning a battle, but by having the most people willing to raise their hand in support. We have to count the hands. Sometimes there are issues with this, in which case you go to the village elders who know the law (these are courts!), and both sides argue their case. When the loser has exhausted their options, they concede. The concession makes at least 2 things clear:
1. The loser respects the system, ensuring that it continues to be revered by those to whom it has given much prosperity heretofore
2. The loser will not tolerate any of their own supporters who abandon the system by resorting to violence, causing a battle that will destabilize society and squash prosperity
This is why concession speeches almost always involve something about "respecting the will of the American people". This is why Ronald Reagan talked about peaceful transfer of power in America being "the envy of the world". The reason, the main reason, that we are not a "****hole country" is because in America, the loser admits they lost!
If you mess with this stuff, you mess with it *at all of our peril*. Kindly, don't.
Did you sleep through January 6?
Finding out the truth about the 2020 election, that Biden's win was questionable, would destroy a lot of worldviews.
Trump is potentially not wrong, inasmuch as there are sufficient irregularities in any election to encompass a percentage point or two. Finding and squashing those is beyond the capabilities of the US with 50+ separate election systems and about a month and a half to actually investigate. Mostly the reason Nixon gave up in 1960.
In essence, the person declared the winner in any national election is going to get the nod, regardless of what happened to get there. It's only later that people might pay the price.
Those who remember the 2000 election should agree. Gore actually won Florida if you trust later analysis. But he eventually accepted reality also.
Please provide evidence that there are "sufficient irregularities in any election to encompass a percentage point or two" in a US election.
Just a shred of proof.
Not random hypotheticals. Not false captioned videos.
Something where there is reasonable data that millions of votes were flipped, inserted, etc.
Well first, you wouldn't need millions. Just tens of thousands at the outside in the right places. I know for a fact that (political) machines regularly are padding the counts to their benefit. The truth is that most of this crap tends to cancel out, more or less. I grew up in NJ, where such practices were common, at least in urban districts. These benefited Democrats, but the Republicans have their own forms of cheating. The stuff about the dead voting is not new, it's gone on in every election I am aware of in NYC at least, and is relatively easy to confirm by comparing the people voting to the Social Security death rolls. NYC gets picked on because the numbers are big there compared to Bumfuck, IA. But this is happening all over.
Some of the other forms of cheating, such as forged absentee/mail ballots, are harder to confirm. But that kind of fraud is not new either, and not confined to one political party. The 2020 election, with the mass use of mail ballots, offered particular opportunities for such things.
A current example is here in MD, where I am, there have been text messages offering a "vote by phone" service. Essentially, filling out a ballot on behalf of a voter without any personal contact. If performed, this would be grossly illegal, but very difficult to detect.
On a small scale, having poll workers that cast a blind eye to certain violations is not unusual. But we're talking relatively small numbers of votes, as compromising a single precinct's tally is not sufficient to turn say a statewide election.
Anywho I stand by the assertion that there is sufficient fraud in any election to turn it a point or more. Whether it does turn would be a hard road to travel to find all the irregularities. So if you want to pretend that this doesn't exist, have fun with that. But I know better. My stepfather was a politician at the county level in Jersey (Democrat, not that it mattered - party politics hardly mattered when it came to friendships and such). He knew, so did everyone else in his circle.
https://nypost.com/2013/12/30/the-dead-can-vote-in-nyc/
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/dead-voter-list-long-island-nassau-county-newsday/1958314/
https://www.silive.com/politics/2020/11/records-show-dead-people-caught-voting-in-nyc-report-says.html
https://www.ire.org/potential-exists-for-deceased-to-still-vote-in-ny/
You said a percentage or two.
But we'll work with your new goal posts.
And your evidence is random hypotheticals.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/aug/26/viral-image/no-dead-people-didnt-cast-half-joe-bidens-2020-pre/
“ Trump is potentially not wrong,”
No, he’s flat out wrong. As is the rest of your post. There is NO reasonable way to make the case that there were discrepancies amounting within even an order of magnitude of the amount required to make it questionable.
It wasn’t 2000, it wasn’t remotely 2000.
It was a lot worse than 2000. But your guy got to serve his 4 years. I was in the tank for Bush in 2000, knowing a lot less than I do now, and I admit he lost and shouldn't have been inaugurated. Gore was robbed. I'm hopeful someday someone will write the book that explains what actually happened in 2020. Admitting the whole scenario was fishy is reasonable. The margins were implausibly close in too many places. I may be dead before the truth is known, but there are no coincidences.
"I may be dead before the truth is known, but there are no coincidences."
Put that on the gravestone of every conspiracy theorist. First of all, yes, there absolutely are coincidences.
Second... "the margins were implausibly close in too many places"? What do you mean? Are you asking yourself "what were the chances that the election would be decided by 4 states, all within less than 1.3 points?"
This isn't serious in the first place, but I'll humor you for a moment by asking a similar question:
"What were the chances that the election would be decided by 3 states, all within less than 0.8 points?"
Sounds pretty unlikely, right? Perhaps even crazier than that other scenario. This is what happened... in 2016. You should demand the truth on 2016. You should be waiting for the book... on the 2016 steal!
We've had 2 very close elections in a row now. This does not mean one or either of them were stolen. It just means they were close.
It was worse only in one of the 2020 candidates was (and remains) a sociopathic sack of shit loser, willing to spout wild lies.
The vote count gap in FL was literally 2 orders of magnitude smaller, and the legal issues real (rather than nonsense dreamt up by inane lackeys of the sociopath).
As a good piece of general advice, listen to your wife.
My wife doesn’t really pay any attention to politics, this is just what she hears from the other women attorneys at her law firm, though her mind was made up when Roe was overturned. I do totally get why people would vote Harris based on the abortion issue alone, so that’s why I tend to think she might come out on top. I don’t think the Trump is racist/fascist stuff plays, however, with anyone who wasn’t already voting for Harris. If I were Harris, 9 out of 10 ads I’m airing in battleground states would be about abortion rights.
You may be right, although I think sprinkling in more economy/immigration messaging would help to shore up that flank.
One small note: it sounds like your wife pays plenty attention to politics. Getting news from coworkers as opposed to podcasts is just a detail, in my mind.
I have subs to WaPo and NYT. I read mainstream news all the time.
Because “highly educated” women think abortion is a federal issue, not a state issue? 😊 And one that the federal government didn’t address when Congress and the Presidency were controlled by Dems?
Seems more gullible than highly educated. By all means fight for expanded rights to kill babies in the womb for as much time as possible in your state legislature or constitution, but who is prez for the next four years has literally nothing to do with it.
I agree with you that the fascist angle (and the abortion angle) isn’t about appealing to Harris voters but more about dissuading white suburban women from voting for Trump- placing him beyond the pale in polite society. This appeal (or better said, threat of shame) to rich white suburbanites worked for the Dems in 2020 and 2022, so no surprise they are using it again (pols aren’t very creative - stick with what works). A new twist is having the Obama’s out there telling black men they should be ashamed to vote for Trump and black women that they should be ashamed of their boyfriend, hubby or baby daddy votes for Trump.
Shows you they are worried the rich white suburbanites of polite society might not be enough. Everyone must be shamed and “other” Trump and his supporters. Trump makes illegals and Chinese exporters the enemy while the Dems make half the country the enemy. Great vibes!
Agreed, black men shouldn’t be ashamed to vote for Trump. Anyone should be.
"Trump makes illegals and Chinese exporters the enemy."
Actually, Trump has made any Americans who don't support him the enemy--"the enemy from within" in fact--and he has said in interviews that he's willing to use the military to subdue them. As the old expression goes, when someone is telling you who they are, you ought to listen.
The late great Maya Angelou
'Because “highly educated” women think abortion is a federal issue, not a state issue? 😊 And one that the federal government didn’t address when Congress and the Presidency were controlled by Dems?'
The federal government had already addressed abortion prior to Congress and the Presidency being controlled by the Democrats. The Judicial branch of the government addressed it in Roe v. Wade.
Maybe the Democratic Legislature and Executive were naive to think that that court ruling would stand for the foreseeable future, but otherwise they probably felt that status quo was good enough that there were more pressing issues to focus on rather than re-writing laws to enforce things the courts had already ruled were good law.
Conservative women and most men don’t care about abortion rights enough for this to work.
"Majorities of both men (61%) and women (64%) express support for legal abortion."
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
EDIT: User Tidorith let me know that this isn't the slam dunk I thought it was. Favoring one side or the other on abortion is not the same as caring about the issue. For this data to be really illustrative it would need to be paired with polling on which issues are most important to their votes.
There are certainly enough women and men to care about abortion rights that if people voted on that alone, Democrats would win. The question though, is whether enough of them care enough.
Someone being pro-choice isn't going to help Harris win if that person is still voting for Trump.
As long as you continue thinking about it as “pro-choice”, you will miss the massive shift in public opinion about this topic since Dobbs. There’s a reason Harris frames this as “reproductive freedom”. If you know anything about what happened in Ireland when they outlawed abortions, and what is happening in the US South right now, you will realize this is no longer about being “pro-choice” in the classical sense of the word. Rather, it’s about making sure women don’t die during miscarriages, while having ectopic pregnancies, and while carrying nonviable fetuses. It’s about making sure we don’t go back to coathanger abortions. It’s about maternal mortality and infant mortality rates, which are already rising precipitously. It’s about IVF. It’s about young doctors avoiding OB/GYN specialities like they’re poison.
I can’t speak to what conservative men and women care about. But I can say that “reproductive freedom” has a very different ring to it than “pro-choice“ - dare I say, an anti-big-government and other sentiments traditionally associated with Republican/conservative voters. Whether it will be effective or not - time will tell.
That's true. I'm going to edit my comment with that caveat
I think you may be right ----- we are not seeing this issue of abortion rights polling very high. If that is ALL Harris has, and really, it does seem to be all she has, her prospects may not be good.
The first response to that crap comment about people not caring about abortion rights showed that they do indeed poll very high. Does being a Trump fan induce selective blindness or something? Produces both a physical AND a mental degeneration?
On the list of voters concerns abortion is typically outranked by the economy and illegal immigration.
Abortion + misogyny concerns might very well = more women voting as a block. These women might be too busy juggling their multiple roles to stop and answer polls. They maybe this cycle’s missing voter from the polls.
Have you read the articles on "ghost women" voters? This sort of thinking, that they're there and will vote, but they can't be polled, because they are young and have no record, or your reasons.
I'm a lawyer and most of the female lawyers I've known were fiercely pro-choice but recognized that Roe was a badly reasoned attempt by the Court to legislate policy (a position I agree with). Most lawyers understand that this is and always should have been a state issue or a Congressional issue, not one done by judicial fiat. Also, Trump is not an abortion extremist, he's said repeatedly he wouldn't seek a law banning abortion (much to the chagrin of many on the Right). Nevertheless, abortion is Harris's best issue, especially among college-educated women. Among the rest of the voters, the economy and immigration are much more important.
Ah yes, and Trump always does what he says he will, rather than flip flop opinions based on how the people around him react in the moment.
This is the basic conservative playbook. Hammer him on fascism? "Why vote for Harris, she doesn't even care about abortion". Hammer him on abortion? "Why vote for Harris, she doesn't even care about fascism".
Ah yes, lord knows men can't have independent thoughts.
It's definitely overstated and wrong how many people say that men should always do what their wives want them to/never disagree with their wives. And yeah, that's probably what Jason meant. It's sexist and is not going to make the world a better place.
That said, men should definitely still listen to their wives though. Or their husbands as it may be. People should listen to their spouses. People should listen to each other more in general.
And men should *especially* listen to their wives on the topic of reproductive rights.
And do wives not listen to their husbands? This is a symmetric relationship that ostensibly helps republicans more as married women trend conservative.
I listened to Trump on Rogan just because so many people recommended it. I thought he said just as many deranged, idiotic things that he always says but he said them in a much calmer, more conversational tone. So I guess if we're grading on a curve he did very well
It is truly baffling that someone, anyone, has not just, to his face, been like, "That was stupid and incoherent. Did you have a stroke? What the fuck are you talking about? None of that made sense."
There is no one on Earth more in need of being brutally torn down in person. It would be the simplest thing imaginable to just shred him, and yet no one has stepped up, in all these years.
Kamala tore him down in the debate. That's why he refused to do another one.
Did you see the debate? Kamala shredded him. He was practically foaming at the mouth before she was done with him
Trump did Rogan. Harris was supposed to do Rogan but after the Fox interview she went gun shy. Draw your own conclusions.
I can't see why she would spend time with Rogan based on what he said while talking to Trump.
The Fox interview made it clear that even fake journalists on the right can't have do a civilized interview.
And Rogan is clearly not even pretending to be a journalist.
Same reason politicians kiss babies. To make herself relatable to an audience that is currently totally nonresponsive to her.
But, she'd have to be real in that environment. I would guess that Condoleezza Rice might fare slightly better there, and that ain't saying much. Trump is charismatic, she isn't, so not putting her on stages and platforms where their performances can be compared is probably a wise campaign strategy.
I'd point out the obvious that Rogan's environment was analogous to a flyover country bar. Same inane conversation, etc. So let's recap, he works the fryer and takeout window at Mccie D's and shows up at a bar analogue and shoots the shit. This kind of stuff, making yourself relatable to the voting public, is why traditionally you'd see campaigns copying each other in these kind of performative sessions, regardless of the proclivities of the candidate. See "Dukakis in the tank". The fact Harris is not doing so is ceding the field. Screaming "fascist" and "misogynist" is no substitute.
And to be clear to progressives who might have a hard time getting their head around this, screaming "fascist" and "misogynist" is no substitute *even if they're true*. I'm sure Trump is a misogynist. It wouldn't surprise me if he's a fascist, but it's not clear to me how much ideology he has at all.
That still doesn't make it good political strategy. In fact, if Trump is indeed a fascist, screaming "fascist" at him - which might even make him more sympathetic when it isn't well received - instead of doing something productive could be considered *supporting* fascism.
Fascists needs a popular enemy. People can make an enemy out of anyone, but making it *easy* for them to do so is not helping things.
And *that's* true even if Trump and no one in the Republican party is fascist at all. The world doesn't stop if Trump loses this election. Strengthening divisions in the US is not a small price to pay, even for something as important as preventing an anti-democratic (small D) President being elected (for those who agree that that's what's at stake).
Rogan is completely in the tank for Trump, up to and including broad insults against Harris and laughing support for Trump's insults.
Harris talking to him wasn't going to get her any votes.
As such it would have been a waste of precious time.
The word is that she had "conditions" that Rogan would not agree to.
What were the conditions? Who knows - maybe questions in advance, right to edit, breaks to consult with staff? I'd like to know.
In her spot, I would have done the Hail Mary without conditions and lay off the sauce a bit. Things are not looking good and that could have turned things around in my opinion. But if her job is to just juice up the base, then that makes more sense.
You are making things up.
No he isn’t. Rogan said in a daily mail article the disagreement was about location and she wanted to do 1 hour vs three. He refused to move his show for her. The time thing he sounded softer about. You really gotta stop it with the shitting on people for telling the truth or you’re going to get ignored. Last warning.
I've voted for him three times. I can't stand listening to him. I voted for him three times because he's a tormentor of people I despise. As I said in 2016, a whirling monkey wrench headed towards the cabal of hegemonic neocons in DC that are going to get us nuked.
Stop presuming you are the only one who noticed.
Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is actually just an idiot.
I lack means to accomplish what I want short of this.
I read the transcript.
It read like Beavis and Butthead in a bar, with Trump being the one who was three drinks ahead.
Question from Rogan, unrelated rambling from Trump, back and forth about the rambling, rephrase the question, synchronized pair rambling, conjoined Harris insults, rephrase the question, on topic rambling.
Wash rinse repeat.
And Trump was having so much fun that he completely lost sense of time. Again, the three drinks ahead problem.
Lucky for him, he is worshipped by the people who were waiting at the rally.
Trump can certainly sound more normal in certain contexts, but it's hardly surprising that "Trump says outrageous thing" is news and "Trump sounds relaxed and normal" is not. Nor is it *that* reassuring if someone *sometimes* says sensible or normal things if they *also* frequently say deranged and bigoted ones.
I don’t know, “Trump says normal things” would seem a quite surprising headline.
Well played
Joe Rogan: "Are you gonna *present* this [evidence]... ever?"
Donald Trump: "Uhhhh...."
This dude literally fell for propaganda pieces. The whole point of going on Joe Rogan and similar podcasts is to sane wash these guys.
I think the main difference is observing what people say vs what they do.
Trump rambles on Joe Rogan for 3 hours about nonsense and comes off as a goofy grandpa figure and a lot of men think that makes him likeable and worth voting for, whereas a lot of women see roe v. Wade being removed and the way he treats women as more indicative of his character.
Maybe you and wife have different opinions about them because she considers rape and sexual assault to be disqualifying factors whereas many men consider it to be funny or not that big of a deal. I've noticed that a lot anecdotally. You could try asking your wife if she really thinks women getting raped is such a bad thing to get her opinion on it. But who knows. Women, amiright?
The main difference, to me, is words vs. Actions. They tell a different story.
Thank you.
Stating you're highly educated and also giving Trump a favorable review on Rogan is kinda telling on yourself my guy.
I detest smug liberals, most independents do. They repeat MSM talking points and are incapable of original thought or nuisance. In short, they think far too highly of themselves.
You don't have to be Jon Stewart or John Oliver to recognize that Trump told lie after lie in the Rogan episode and was ultimately entirely incoherent.
Wait, I'm confused. Wasn't it the left who convinced us that Biden was sharp as a tack? Wasn't it Harris who was against fracking, then for it, then against it? Was she against the wall, then for some sort of a wall? Who's lying again?
Since you've assured us that you are "highly educated", would you care to share the evidence that Trump and Vance *aren't* scumbags who hate women? Your wife seems to have a clear read on these guys. Maybe you should listen a little more to her, and a little less to the ass-kissing Trump podcasters whom you've decided somehow magically erase Trump's confirmed history of rape, and his elimination of Roe vs Wade. For the health of your marriage, at a minimum.
That's not how the rules of debate and argumentation work. If you present a claim that someone is X, then you have to present the evidence for it, as well. You cannot flip the script and say, "well prove to me you're NOT X!"
Except when the evidence is so plentiful that it’s pretty darn obvious to anyone
Another highly educated man here and I can confirm Trump and Vance are indeed scumbags who hate women
Josh, he grabs women whenever he wants. He could do that to your wife too. And you are here thinking he comes across nice in a stupid podcast.
As a 67 woman, I have a completely take. I came of age just after Roe v Wade and I always been able to access reproductive health care. I had a miscarriage when we were starting a family. I fetus had died and I was bleeding profusely. The accepted medical treatment in the civilized world is a D&C, and lots of states it still is. But if my daughter were to to suffer the same medical issue in, say, Florida, my daughter would have to be close to death to receive care. Doctors could face jail time for providing the appropriate care.
This is a major issue for me and many other women. Trump has takes credit for it.
That Trump brags about sacrificing women's heathcare for political expediency remains a critical issue, no matter how reasonable he sounds in friendly podcasts.
Btw, this is why Harris invited people to watch Trump rallies. Because he’s even more sad there in “lost old man” way, here Rogan was working to try keep him on track. “Your weave is getting to wide” 🙄 or something like that.
But the rallies are a lot more batshit & a lot more obvious and frankly trash America to a grotesque extent. Dude is VERY down on the country, and it’s all for the reason to sell himself as some sort of messiahic solution. Which is crazy talk, of course.
Precisely accurate
Anyone who thinks Trump is normal is not a highly educated man. Like Musk, they may have other reasons to support him, which is fine. I can understand people feeling differently about JD Vance because he's educated and unlike Trump, reads.
JD Vance is much, much better at lying and manipulation than Trump. He’s clearly very charming, and directs his considerable intelligence to horrific aims. He reminds me exactly of Netanyahu, and therefore scares me far more than Trump does.
Just having the substack app and watching Tim Dillion's podcast puts you in another planet from swing voters. Swing voters seem like a giant biological version of a Roulette wheel do decide elections.
It’s interesting how much more “likable trump” media they are putting out in this closing stretch, never seen that at any point in either 2016 or 2020 or this cycle
Absolutely amazing turn here.
We’re knocking on 4 more years of Trump.
Finally. A return to someone who cares about America.
I’m really, really excited for the future, for the first time in a long time!!!
John loves racism. 🤷♂️
i cant escape the feeling he might be a bot...
He posts the exact same comment on every post recently, so if he's not a bot, he might as well be.
Bro I have literally posted twice, outside of some comments
It’s almost comical how biased you brainless twats are
Fuck off with your liberal drivel
“Anyone who disagrees with me is a bot!”
70IQ-ass comment. What a loser!
“Someone who cares about America”
Lol. Lmao, even. What an outlandishly misguided opinion.
Lol
Yes!!!
I remember the last Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden: 1992, Bill Clinton spoke.
In non-Nazi news, a Jew walking to his synagogue in non-Nazi-ruled Chicago was shot by a peace-loving Muslim chanting Allahu Akbar. Must not be important as not a peep from Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, AOC
You sure that's non-Nazi news? Making up stories in order to stir up fear and hatred of "the other" is right out of the Nazi playbook.
The only part of what you wrote that's known to be true is that a Jewish man was shot while walking to synagogue.
It's not true that the shooter yelled Allahu Akbar when he shot him. (The shooter yelled that later during a shootout with police.)
The police don't even know yet if he was a Muslim ("Allahu Akbar" means "God is great," and it is used by non-Muslims, including Arabic Christians.)
The police are still investigating, and said they will add hate crime charges if the evidence warrants it.
From the President of the Jewish United Fund:
'“Law enforcement has been very forthcoming with us,” Nasatir said. “This is a serious crime that will be thrown at this guy, including shooting a police officer, and in Illinois you add a hate crime offense, which in some cases can up charges from a misdemeanor to a felony, but in this case you’re already getting attempted murder.” '
Absolutely certain it was a Muslim shooter. Not to worry, Holocaust denial is well known phenomenon
https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2024/10/28/jewish-man-shot-way-to-synagogue-police-shooting-west-ridge-shootout
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/man-charged-with-attempted-murder-of-police-officers-after-possible-hate-fueled-attack/3585897/
Something tells me you're the type of person that the Jewish United Fund was referencing when they said this (quote is taken from the second article you linked, which, like the first, doesn't say anything about the shooter's religion):
'"CPD recognizes that the pace of publicly available information about the investigation adds an additional layer of frustration for our community," JUF's statement read. "Unfortunately, unsubstantiated and outright false information is spreading and is significantly contributing to unnecessary, unhelpful anxiety. Law enforcement's priority is doing nothing to jeopardize the investigation and eventual prosecution'
But of course you know that, and you're not here for the facts, so it's pointless to continue this back and forth.
I've seen nothing about this on the national news. For that matter only one channel had it on local news here in Chicago that I saw. Bad for the narrative this week, I guess.
You're right: it was in the Jerusalem Post, various American Jewish publications and The Daily Wire, but not mainstream media, including Reuters, AP News.
Must not matter much to them.
I guess it does matter to them, since, according to the links you yourself posted, national media picked the story up shortly after you wrote your comments.
I noticed you haven't said anything about that. Not a peep out of the pro-Trump faction. Must not matter much to you.
Random murders pretty much never gain traction in the national news unless a white woman is involved.
If the police find evidence that it was a hate crime then it'll probably make national news.
Definitely a terrible thing, regardless of the motivation.
That thing you're feeling, yeah, it's called denial.
A Nazi rally with Jewish, black, and Hindu speakers, attended by supportive Holocaust survivors?
Now I've heard it all.
"Germany is for Germans and Germans only." --Adolf Hitler 1934
"America is for Americans and Americans only." --Stephen Miller, top policy advisor to former president Trump, 10/27/2024 MSG
lol cope and seethe, bootlicker
Please do tell us ONE SINGULAR racist thing Donald Trump said. I will wait.
Conveniently, there's an entire Wikipedia article devoted to Trump's racist comments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump
But that article is super-long (ha!), here's a summary, with direct quotes:
- In 1989, he told Larry King (regarding his crusade against the innocent Central Park Five): "maybe hate is what we need if we're gonna get something done."
- Also in 1989, Trump said to a journalist "Black guys [are] counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes.... Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else... Besides that, I've got to tell you something else. I think that the guy's lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks."
- In 2000, Trump funded advertisements that said "Are these the new neighbors we want?" referring to Native American groups who were building casinos that would compete with his. He was made to publicly apologize for illegally concealing his involvement.
- in 2016, while campaigning in Maine, he said "We've just seen many, many crimes getting worse all the time, and as Maine knows—a major destination for Somali refugees—right, am I right?" He was citing imaginary crime data that didn't exist.
- While president, he asked a Black reporter "Are they friends of yours?" referring to the Congressional Black Caucus.
- In a 2017 staff meeting, he said of Haitian immigrants "they all have AIDS" and said that Nigerians wouldn't "go back to their huts."
- Around 2017, Trump said to his attorney "Tell me one country run by a Black person that isn't a shithole."
- In 2018, he was being briefed by a CIA analyst about Pakistan. He asked where she was from. She told him she was born in New York. He later asked an adviser why "the pretty Korean lady" wasn't negotiating for him in North Korea instead of briefing him on Pakistan.
- In 2019, he said of three nonwhite House members who are were born in the US: "Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came."
- In 2020, he described COVID-19 as "Kung Flu."
- In 2020, he adopted the slogan "When the looting starts, the shooting starts" which was made famous by segregationist candidate George Wallace in the 1960s.
- In 2020, he posted a video of a supporter demonstration in Flordia, where they chanted "White Power!" Trump said of it "Thank you to the great people of The Villages."
- His "birther" claims against Obama are famous, but lesser known is that in 2020 he claimed that Kamala Harris wasn't born in the US, either: "They're saying that she doesn't qualify because she wasn't born in this country" he mused, citing no one. Umm, what's the one thing Obama and Harris have in common..?
- In 2020, speaking before a exclusively white crowd in Minnesota, he said "You have good genes, you know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn't it, don't you believe? The racehorse theory? You think we're so different. You have good genes in Minnesota."
- In 2022, he referred to his own Secretary of Transportation, Elaine Chao, as "China-loving Coco Chow." Chao is Taiwanese-American whose parents fled China during the revolution.
- In 2023, he accused immigrants as "poisoning the blood of our country." This is a direct quote from Adolf Hitler. He has continued to use the slogan throughout his 2024 campaign.
- In February, he said without even anecdotal evidence to support it, "You know who embraced [my mug shot] more than anyone else? The Black population."
- In 2024, He has repeatedly referred to immigrants from South American countries as "not people," "not humans," "animals." Contrast that with him saying that the US should *increase* immigration from "places like Norway."
Anyway, that's just some of his lesser known direct quotes. He of course is infamous for racist comments using sly language which can be denied or spun, so I didn't include even the most famous examples (stuff like "stand back and stand by" or "fine people on both sides").
I hope it was worth the wait.
I think your bar for "racist" is so ridiculously low as to be disqualifying. Looking at the vast majority of these statements i personally don't find them to be racist. Eye of the beholder.
One more thing: you might want to consider that the polling for this year indicates that Trump will make significant increases in his minority support.
For a group that votes almost entirely based on innuendo and assumptions about someone’s character—such as interpreting charts on illegal immigration to conclude that “Biden and Harris don’t care about America”—and flat-out denial of obvious evidence that Trump is primarily self-interested (like blackmailing foreign leaders for opposition research or asking officials to “find” votes), the demand for specifics to prove that Trump is overtly racist is ironic.
I am guessing a lot of people are holding their nose and voting for Trump because of the economy, crime, illegal immigration, etc.
Since they're holding their nose they may be dissuade given enough evidence. Where has Trump said anything overtly racist?
When he says America is the world's garbage can, what do you suppose he is implying is the garbage?
Criminals and mental patients.
https://open.substack.com/pub/natesilver/p/trumps-dominating-the-news-again?r=7xaoi&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=74466247
I think your bar for "racist" is so ridiculously low as to be disqualifying. Looking at the vast majority of these statements i personally don't find them to be racist. Eye of the beholder.
One more thing: you might want to consider that the polling for this year indicates that Trump will make significant increases in his minority support.
Most of them are only Trump supporters to the extent that Mother Russia tells them to be. The bots & operatives started a big push around the time that early voting started. It's pointless to engage with them.
https://img.ifunny.co/images/3e3a9a43a85fa50de8653699aa9728b8c85148f29072b49b3afb1b67f7d4e2aa_1.jpg
Oh, shush. At least show some originality. All you did was edit out “Hitler” and replace it with “a Russian bot.”
Some of these big talkers are going to be digging themselves an internet bunker come election night if things don't go there way. We won't see them again.
The most diverse Nazi rally ever: Jews, Hispanics, Asians, Blacks. Is this the DEI Nazis?
I liked the pun --- very clever. [:-)
I think/hope that Harris' line of "Trump has an enemies' list; I have a to-do list" can both address Trump's complete lack of fitness as well as the concerns of those who still feel like they don't know much about Harris
Either way, it looks like the MSG event may drive the final news cycles before the election. I can't imagine undecided swing voters being more likely to vote for Trump - too weird for normal Americans
You think calling Puerto Rico a trash heap was wise? I rolled my eyes at some of the jokes, but was like whatever they are jokes, but the idiot "comedian" unprompted with no set-up just attacks Puerto Rico, like why? I hope the PA Puerto Rico voters do right and vote against this scum. Bad Bunny already endorsed harris cause of it and he didn't want to endorse any one.
I'm pretty sure every knew Bad Bunny was voting for Harris. I'm also pretty sure celebrity endorsements don't matter as much as you think.
Multiple articles pointed out he stays out of politics and his camp confirmed it was the rally that changed his mind (Bunnys). Also this election is on a knifes edge, why risk something so unessary and stupid literally the week before. This won't swing the election it self, but Harris just grabbed at least a few extra K votes in PA and Florida.
Again, everyone knows every major celebrity votes democrats.
It was a dumb thing to have a comedian there.
It was a dumb thing to have a Don Rickles-style insult comic there.
Insults comics need to go away in general. Honestly it isn't even funny because it isn't creative at all.
It’s not just bad bunny (and Ricky Martin and J lo). People in Puerto Rico are not happy. It’s all over the news in PR today. I’m sure it is in Philly too. With margins so narrow, it could cost trump PA.
It's probably given the PR independence movement the biggest boost they've had in decades!
Not sure if you meant to reply to me - I agree with you that it was very dumb and bad
Except Harris is going to cackle from the Ellipse in DC tomorrow and grab the news cycle back with her idiotic negativity. Closing with vitriol and division won't work and it makes her look like the petty, over-rated politician that she is. Harris is Trumps best asset. The more she talks, the more Trump wins.
Versus Trump, a man notorious for his positive and sunny campaign style
Empty suit politics is a loser.
Now there’s a half decent argument. Why didn’t you say that first instead of the weird thing about Harris being too negative, vitriolic, and divisive, when those have been the defining features of Trumpism since 2016?
He's definitely a bot. And a poorly programmed one at that. Notice how he doesn't actually respond to anything anyone says.
No no, what matters is that Harris is a woman, so the most important things are the sound of her voice, or appearance, etc.
1 week to go! Should be interesting!
It’s like you don’t know what irony is.
I see red people....
I'm betting a majority of Americans would rather hear someone laugh (or "cackle" as you say) vs. yelling at the sky about pets being eaten and the media "out to get me" by reporting on things he's said and done. If Trump wants the media to stop reporting on bad stuff he keeps saying, the easiest thing for him to do would be to stop saying those things.
I've never seen someone more scared to act like a real man and own up to one's failures on the journey to becoming a better person. In real life we have lots of names for people like that, none of them complimentary.
Note that you are still after all this time talking about Haitian illegals eating pets: as soon as that came out in the debate I realized the point was to get Republican Moreno over the line as a senatorial candidate. And wow, did it ever work.
Conservatives in general know the media is very biased. This is not specific to Trump or even the USA.
Lots of people betting the other way....
Which is irrelevant to the truth of what he said.
But undecided voters at this point in the election cycle are generally not “normal” Americans, they are more often than not the lowest information ones.
It's true that lower-information voters who used to skew more Democratic now skew more Republican. But I think they're good people and are capable of making a good choice if given good information. Could be wrong, though
Only bad people vote Trump?
Strictly they're implying that the only people that vote for Trump are bad people or have bad information. Still not a great thing to be saying.
That event got Bad Bunny to endorse, potentially bringing the Latino block with him 🤞
The Democrats are readying attack ads with footage from the rally in it. And they are texting every voter from Puerto Rico in pennsylvania with same. Which surprisingly is 6% of the electorate there. Oops
Kinda racist to think that one celebrity endorsement could secure such a large and diverse group of voters.
I suspect we have differing views of what the definition of ‘racist’ is. As quoted from Webster:
Adjective - 1. having, reflecting, or fostering the belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. 2. of, relating to, or characterized by the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another.
My suggestion that a musician with a following that includes many people with similar racial characteristics, may influence the actions or behavior of that group is nether suggesting inherent superiority from or by that musician, nor is it a suggestion of systemic oppression by that musician. Therefore I do not think or believe the inflammatory adjective ‘racist’ is applicable to my comment.
The MSG rally was only controversial for Democrats. Also, there is ZERO chance Harris is more popular than Trump. Approval ratings can be manipulated. Popular vote polling and EV data show that Dems are getting wrecked comparatively to previous years. Discount Trump all you want. I understand you need to do everything you can to keep Democrats engaged but Repubs are swamping this things and there is nothing Dems can do about it.
Trump has NEVER been popular, except among his cult. If what you say were true, then Trump would not have gotten completely blown out by MILLIONS in, you know, actual voting.
Weird that polling is so much more positive of Trump's admin than Biden's admin. Methinks you are in for a rude awakening next week. This election is a referendum on the Biden/Harris admin, which is the Democrats worst nightmare.
Trump lost to Clinton by almost 4 million votes, and to Biden by 8. He has never even sniffed 50% popularity. Mic dropped.
The issue isn't that Trump might win. Of course he might. It's a really close election, according to the data we've got.
The issue is that you seem to think that if Trump loses, it doesn't say anything bad about Trump, but when Biden or Harris loses, you think it *does* say something bad about them.
My nightmare started 8+ years ago. This election ain't it, it's just not over yet.
I feel a lower turnout coming than people presume. Draw what conclusions you wish, but remember that percentages are calculated from who shows up. People are by no means as fired up as in 2020. This is gonna be weird.
Some people are not as fired up, some are more fired up.
He lost by millions every time he has run, true, but he didn’t get “blown out” - he even managed a technical victory in one of the races, and the other was still within a few points.
The conversation was about popularity. The Electoral College has little to do with popularity, as evidenced by the two, increasingly large, blow outs Trump has suffered in the POPULAR vote.
I wonder what you will say if he wins the popular vote this time, as looks increasingly likely.
Even thought it may have an increased likelihood as compared to every other time he has run, it remains highly unlikely. I am not remotely concerned about the possibility. Trump is not changing anyone's mind. The undecided electorate is incredibly small.
So you think Trump will win the presidency via the Electoral College but won't win the popular national vote.
I think he will because he's eating away at so much of the big-city votes, so we are reading.
The only reason Trump lost in 2020 was Covid. We're about to see what the real ceiling on his popularity is.
Or perhaps his response to Covid.
Aside from his NATO posturing, and Putin worship, the deficit spending he did jolted the economy slightly.
Trump essentially had one major crisis and he tried to lie and bluster his way through it.
Turns out lying and blustering has no effect on a virus.
Elsewhere in the world, COVID was seen to result in blowout election results in *favour* of incumbents. So it definitely had something to do with the (perceived or actual) response to the pandemic rather than just "blame the virus".
Which incumbents were re-elected in the same time frame as Covid?
I never even bothered with the polls and such in the 2020 election. It was obvious that nobody could survive politically such a catastrophe as Covid was.
In fact, I didn't realize until all the commentary around this election that Trump lost it by so little! No wonder he convinced himself he didn't lose at all ----- I assumed he'd lost big to a big disaster event.
I agree: now we'll see.
There was no covid in 2016, and yet he lost by millions to a public figure that Republicans had spent decades tearing down. His presidency caused that number to double. I recommend losing the fantasy.
He won in 2016. That's the difference.
I don’t think a 51-48 loss or a 49-48 loss is a “blowout”. Out of the 25 elections in the 20th century, I think only five of them had a popular vote margin of less than 5% the way that every election in the 21st century has.
See you on November 5th!
It depends on the definition of “popular”. Trump has been over-hyped by the very media which claims to dislike him. Being well-known is a plus when running for election. It is probably hard for those of us subscribing to Nate’s substack to appreciate how relatively unknown this Walz guy is or how few people have heard of Vance’s book compared to those who watched the Apprentice shows on TV. Now Taylor Swift — popular by any definition…
I'm not sure whether I should take you seriously based on your other comments, but I want to point out that Clinton supporters had the same attitude as you in 2016. I genuinely have no idea who will win, but if you truly believe what you're saying, then you may be in for a rude awakening next week
I believe in the "aspirations, dreams, and amibitions of the people of the United States"!!! See you in a week my friend!
Thanks for the reply - we shall see what happens
I cannot even guess how accurate the polling is. I don't think anyone has a valid turnout model, either. I think there is significant nonresponse bias, and not just for the same reasons as in '16 and '20. I think there is less interest this time also. I'm confounded and ready for whatever happens on the 5th.
Red wave coming, just like in '22!
Based on the polling in '22 it did not look like there would be a red wave. The media just kept saying there would be based on prior midterms.
Yes, anyone who suggests that this is similar to '22 is sufficiently ignorant that they can be completed ignored.
The polls only show a narrow GOP advantage like in '22 (Pennsylvania is, at most, only very slightly leaning Trump right now), but conservatives and the media are getting carried away with the vibes again. It will be different in that, if Trump wins, it won't really matter if it's relatively close whereas narrowly winning the House was a huge underperformance (in historical terms) and had a huge effect on how they governed. And there's always a possibility that the polls will miss again and Trump will win handily. But we should all be clear that the polls are not making Trump the overwhelming favorite, and the exuberance of Trump supporters is based on their opinions (ie, wishes). And if Harris wins, the fact that "everyone knew" Trump had it in the bag will be used as an excuse to do all the things they tried in '20, times ten.
EXACTLY!!!! 😆
On this very blog you are commenting on Harris is +1.2 points in popularity. I'm not sure why you're reading this if you disagree with it so strongly.
This is true because it supports what I said (and was excoriated for by some) right at the beginning of Harris's campaign: her track record is as an absolutely terrible campaigner who alienates potential voters every time she opens her mouth. She did it in 2019 (going from 20% in polls to 3% and dropping out in humiliation before a vote was cast), and she's doing it again this time. The only reason it hasn't been so severe this time is that her campaign team has wisely kept her as far away from unscripted public appearances as possible. The absolute worst thing that could happen to the Harris campaign is that voters might hear from their candidate.
Eh, if this were totally true, she wouldn't show up for an interview with Brett Baier. Unless you argue that that was scripted? And she was looking for another debate, too.
That was a last ditch Hail Mary. I'm looking forward to the tell alls from disaffected members of her campaign next year.
You're making my point for me. If looking for another debate is a Hail Mary... she's making a last-ditch desperate attempt to win voters by... actively pushing for a major, televised *unscripted event*.
Bringing it back home: this is how you know the idea that her campaign strategy is to "keep her as far away from unscripted public appearances as possible"... cannot be accurate.
She is bleeding support from young men. Why not do Rogan?
Again, for the sake of argument, let's say the answer is "she is afraid that Joe Rogan will embarrass her by asking her hard questions and pulling up clips of her advocating for far-left positions in 2019". This does not dent my argument.
This is because I'm not arguing that she is using every opportunity to do unscripted events. What I'm arguing is that the idea she is trying to "keep as far away from unscripted public appearances as possible" isn't compatible with the fact that she went on Baier, and the fact that she was pushing for another debate. She obviously didn't have to do either of these things.
She was supposed to do Fox and Rogan
After the Fox interview Rogan somehow disappeared from the schedule.
Young men don’t vote.
Not even one?
Chicago Bears fan here. About Hail Marys.........
I'm sorry for your loss
Packers fan here. *Laughs maniacally in Peak Aaron Rodgers*
Did you watch the Brett Baier interview? It was a disaster. He would ask a question, she would launch into a scripted non answer and when he tried to bring her back to subject she would drift off into a word salad that ended with Its all Trump's fault.
I didn't watch the interview, but let's just say she performed poorly for the sake of argument. The point is that I can grant you that she performed poorly, and I have *still demonstrated* that her campaign's strategy is not to "[keep] her as far away from unscripted public appearances as possible".
What happened to the Joe Rogan interview?
Most likely they dug into it and figured out he is a partisan clown.
Where is the similar interview for Trump?
You know - the one where a over caffeinated left wing zombie interrupts every 30 seconds.
There's been two with Vance - Tapper this weekend and Bash a month or so ago.
(make no mistake, I'm a quadruple hater - most of all to Biden for clearing the field and not giving voters a legitimate choice)
I asked about Trump.
And neither of those interviews were even near the performance Baier put on.
True, not Trump.
You may want to re-watch the Bash one though. I don't have a dog in this fight but a friend pointed it out to me after Harris/Baier aired. I find them pretty equivalent.
We know that she only agrees to do interviews when she has had sight of the questions in advance. So yes, the Baier interview was at least semi-scripted. She knew what she was going to be asked and could be coached on what answers to give. Even that didn't go well, and so she has abandoned even that much ever since.
You made that up.
Not true. Fox did not give her the questions ahead of time. No reputable company would do that (not saying Fox is reputable).
Actually it very much can be true.
The fundamentals are completely in Trump’s favor. It’s always been his election to lose. And they’re neck and neck. I think that shows she’s done a decent, if not excellent, job.
I read all the time in the liberal media that this is the best economy in the history of America. Incumbents also have a well-known advantage. And Trump is a convicted felon who has nearly the entire media, cultural, bureaucratic, and academic establishment against him.
So no, this has always been an uphill battle for Trump. If Harris manages to lose despite all her advantages, that will be a devastating indictment not only of her skills as a politician but of the judgement of everyone who backed her for this position instead of having an open convention.
"I read all the time in the liberal media that this is the best economy in the history of America."
...and the reason it doesn't stick is because of inflation, among other things. Despite what the media says, most Americans aren't happy with the economy, and that's what's meant by "fundamentals".
"Incumbents also have a well-known advantage."
...that diminishes with the unpopularity of the current administration (which is quite unpopular), and is unproven in our time of uniquely high levels of polarization. There's also the factor that Biden is no longer the candidate, that Harris has never been President, and that Trump has. So if there is an advantage associated with having already been President, it goes to Trump and not Harris. These are major confounding factors.
"And Trump is a convicted felon..."
Yes, but now we're getting way outside of election fundamentals, right? The fundamentals favor Trump, because Americans don't feel good about the economy, don't feel good about immigration, don't like the current foreign policy situation, and in general, don't much care for the current administration. Those are the fundamentals. They're not overwhelmingly in Trump's favor, but they are in his favor.
"who has nearly the entire media, cultural, bureaucratic, and academic establishment against him"
Democrats have had a historical advantage on this for a while now, but it's true that these are more arrayed against the Republican than ever. In a vacuum, this would matter more. The reason it hasn't is because an alternative culture has risen around Trump, and alternative media... "institutions" such as X (run by the world's richest man and probably the single most important backer of Trump), the constellation that includes Rogan, along with the fact that people are getting their news from social media rather than traditional media greatly softens this blow. This shift away from our traditional institutions has been significant for years, and Trump's supporters have been rejoicing about this for years.
Setting the fundamentals aside:
Trump has major liabilities, but he has been historically able to move beyond them. This is a quirk of his candidacy, and it's arguably his greatest advantage. In addition, he has been the target of two assassination attempts, one of which wounded him. This made him sympathetic, and it brought Musk among other elites off the sidelines in his favor.
Harris is a weak candidate due to her association with the current administration (which is unpopular), she had relatively little time to define herself as a candidate, and her nomination was mainly the result of the incumbent's endorsement (commonly overlooked that this was *the* key event in her selection) which irritated many people who didn't like Harris, and saw her selection as anti-democratic. None of these are really "fundamentals", but you'll notice that none of these things actually have to do with Harris' actions either. She's in an unprecedented situation here, and it's not favorable.
Unless the result of the election is substantially different from what is predicted, we are gonna have no idea what happened. It would take something close to a Trump landslide to say that the election was "devastating indictment ... of her skills as a politician".
I think the only significant point against this is that the positions she took in 2019 have been a liability in this election. That is her fault. But the shift in the political winds on a lot of that stuff, coupled with the circumstances that arose due to Biden's unpopularity and his dropping out... it's not clear you could pin blame on her or anyone for failing to predict this.
I guess I'd maybe agree more with the sentiment around having a convention... but that also would've been a huge risk with the available timeline. I don't know how much the Israel/Palestine issue matters, for example, but the divisiveness of a convention would've split that wound wide open.
I don't know what the media interpretations of this election will be. But I think Biden and his circle of advisors (which... probably doesn't include Harris) should shoulder most of the blame for a Harris loss. Biden should have been a one-term President, and he should have announced such 2 years ago. I'm confident that Harris would not have won the nomination, and Trump would simply not have been a match for Whitmer, Beshear, Mark Kelly, Shapiro.
All other points aside, "there should have been an open convention" is ridiculous. What does that even mean? There was no time for a primary. It would just be a bunch of elites in a room making the call, which is what it was anyway. And no matter how much or how "openly" they might have deliberated, there were only ever two people who could possibly have hit the ground running with a national campaign with three months to go - Harris or Newsom. And Harris was pretty clearly the least worst choice between them. No reason to make it more complicated.
Now if Biden had just never run for reelection at all, that would be different. Then we could have had a real primary and the ticket would probably be Whitmer or Beshear or who knows, and they would be vetted and battle-hardened and it would have been much better. I really wish Biden had had the foresight to do that. But he didn't. And none of those other choices were viable come August. So here we are.
VPs have a very bad record in elections immediately following the VP term where they haven't already been promoted into the Oval Office.
And the economic recovery from Covid and Putin's oil price shock ate up two years.
Okay, bud
Convincing argument, I'll give it a lot of thought. Thanks for the detailed contribution to the discourse.
"This is true because it supports what I said" - yep, that's about what I expect.
Well, she owned Trump in the debate and owned that fox new's Bauer that's for sure
Sure, she owned Baier so hard that her polling fell and she cancelled all her plans to do other interviews in case she “owned” as much in those too.
It's always easy to spot the misogynists in the comments. You simultaneously claim that she has control of her campaign ("she's a terrible campaigner"), and that her campaign controls her because she's not smart enough to make decisions for herself.
The truth is that her campaign is doing just fine when it comes to reaching potential voters. Which you aren't. And she knows that. She's not targeting your demographic.
I know it's hard to accept that a woman might not care what you think about her or whether you vote for her, but it's true.
Ah, no, you've misunderstood: there's no contradiction. There's an ambiguity on the word “campaign” that has thrown you.
Harris the candidate is very bad at the personal act of campaigning, including interviews and what one might call “retail politics”. This campaigning behaviour is unavoidably the individual candidate's domain in any election. Trump has a flair for it; Biden does too; Harris doesn't.
“The Harris campaign” as a metonym for the entire apparatus is a separate concept, encompassing primarily the strategists and staffers who make most practical decisions for the candidate. This is true of Trump, too. I'm sure he doesn't decide personally where to do his next events, other than general outlines or okaying special events like the Butler return, any more than Harris does.
So that's not “misogyny”, it's just how campaigns work. You should read histories of past campaigns, like Heilemann and Halperin's “Game Change” and “Double Down”, for insight into how campaign staff actually have a lot of say over how the campaign progresses (sometimes too much!). They're very interesting, I recommend them.
Just admit that you really don't like Harris even though you don't have any substantive reasons to hate her. It's beyond obvious from what you've written here that nothing she says or does would ever change your mind. That's called being part of a cult.
A cult? I'm not even American. I don't have a horse in this race. I'm just calling it as I see it, without fear or favour. “Y'all” can elect who you like—I think you'd be better off with Trump, but I think the rest of us would be better off with Harris, at your expense, so that works for me.
And of course there is plenty she could theoretically do to change my mind about her abilities. Let's say she went on Joe Rogan's podcast (or really anyone who wasn't already in the tank for her, like the pro-promiscuity sex podcast she went on was) and stayed competent and erudite. Or even if she just demonstrated an ability to perform in an election above replacement value for a generic Democrat, which she has notably failed to do in this election or at any other time in her career. I still might not want to hang out with her, but I'd happily say that she had proven herself as a competent campaigner and that I was wrong.
But you see, she won't ever do either of those things or anything like them because *I'm not wrong*.
She went on Fox News with Brett Baier, far more hostile and far more credible than Joe Rogan, and handled his extremely aggressive questioning perfectly competently. If you weren't biased against her, you would give her credibility based on that alone. But as I said, you've already made up your mind on her, for reasons I won't even try to speculate about.
Every time MAGA is reduced to 'racist', 'misogynist', 'fascist', or 'Hitler', 10 new Trump voters are 'born'. It's damn stupid. No one buys it anymore, and that's a beautiful thing.
Do you read the Silver Bulletin or just comment here? Because Nate has repeatedly said (and supported it by data) that there are virtually no “new” Trump voters. It’s simply a matter of turnout at this point for him.
That makes zero sense. Pollsters anticipate that Trump will do much, much better with minority voters this time out.
That’s been baked in for many many months. There’s been very little shift in the Trump overall percentages or the ceiling on his level of support. This is exactly why he isn’t trying much at all to attract new people but has shifted almost entirely to a GOTV strategy.
The theory behind that polling is that Trump has picked up minority voters but the Democrats are keeping it close by stealing away white voters.
Either way those minority voters should absolutely be classified as "new" Trump supporters.
What part of “that’s been baked in for many many months” did you miss?
There is some suggestion that Trump's rise in the polling over the last two weeks is because undecided voters are breaking in his direction. Are you sure everything is "baked in"?
Accusations against Trump can be both true AND unpopular. Sometimes people just can't handle the truth!
Are you arguing that Trump is truly a fascist but that America is too stupid to recognize it or, worse, is looking for a fascist leader? Outside of the warped mind of the Trump-deranged, I don't think that logic works. The reality is much more likely to be that Trump is NOT a fascist/Hitlerian character and it's the Trump-deranged can't handle the truth because their worldview begins to crumble of Trump isn't actually Hitler.
Well, people were dumb enough to elect Hitler the first time. Why think Americans in 2024 are so much smarter than Germans in 1933? Also, do you apply this sort of reasoning to all things most Americans think? There's nothing you think the majority are wrong about? Not to mention that whilst voting from Trump is mainstream so is the "Trump is a fascist" idea, so one large group of normal Americans have to be wrong either way.
I don't think Trump is Hitler, but that's because Hitler was unusually bad morally in his plans *even for a fascist*, and because he was actually quite competent at establishing a dictatorship and not 78. Plus it's not even clear Trump really wants a dictatorship, as opposed to just baiting his enemies about it, though he definitely tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election to stay in power. But I think he has no real commitment to democracy and is quite racist, and that on a personal level he is a liar, a rapist (sorry "sexual assault") and probably a fraudster.
Lesser of two evils. Harris should be way in the lead. But she’s a terrible candidate.
I suppose that's what you get when you stab the standard bearer of your party in the back and assume he'll just lie down and take it. Obama/Pelosi assumed they'd get to select the replacement for Biden...and Biden made sure they couldn't. Pretty savvy of the old man...
Any man who admires Trump and others like him was raised to value dominance over compassion and empathy. For some that valuation has generated worldly success. For them and for many more it has led to hurt, loneliness, anger, and fear. Trump should not have an important job that enables him to more easily hurt other people.
Oh good Lord. Was there ever a more representative posting of the current democrat mindset. One sits around moping over the unfairness of life and pointing fingers at the successful because of one's own inability to address his own failings. Not to worry, Harris will save you with lots of free stuff.
How in the world do you interpret someone encouraging compassion and empathy as them "moping"? Quite the leap and just shows how your own vision is clouded by bias. What a sad life.
Trump gave away a lot of free stuff as President.
I didn't get anything.
His tax cuts added well over $1T to the debt.
That is a lot of stuff.
Sorry you missed out.
This is so ironic because the entire thesis of the 2024 Trump campaign has been "the government can fix everything for you and make your life better, and Biden/Harris just haven't been doing that." It seems that the ideas of personal responsibility mean nothing to conservatives anymore, who all blame the government for inflation even though the US has lower inflation than almost any other developed nation. You're delusional, and your comment looks insane in the context of the campaign Trump has been running, where he's constantly dangling "free stuff" to his voters. There is one side that has the literal richest man in the world offering millions of dollars to people for them to vote, and it's not the Democrats. Try being a little more serious in your analysis next time.
You’re so stuck. It’s so sad. Modern therapy won’t cost a big share of your success. It’s less expensive for you than what another Trump administration would cost everyone.
That's funny, I read it more as a Christian mindset. But Heaven knows Christianity has been dead as a doornail in this country for years now, despite what modern "Christians" might think. Most of us are in for a rude wakeup call come Pearly Gates time (and no, I'm not necessarily excluding myself from that list, either).
Sadly, the old adage "nice guys finish last" couldn't be more true. Trump proves that over and over. He and his sick supporters go for the jugular every time in as dirty way as possible to appeal to the worst of human nature and still win. Clearly, they know something about people the rest of us don't.
Their motto is "there is no low below which we will not go." And it certainly appears as though it will be a winning one for him.
Maybe he wins, but that doesn’t make him or the men who adopt the same values wind up with happier, more fulfilling lives. He is not enviable and never has been to anyone who is sane.
I forget who I’m quoting, but “the difference between a man who has $11 million and the man who has 11 children is that the latter is the only one who doesn’t want more.” Achieving the goals of a dominance paradigm gets you nothing if it’s not tempered with a life that includes love and compassion. Trump is the poorest man on Earth.
Jon, please get off your high horse.
I am so sick of the Nazi rally nonsense, though it may work with some who are already totally committed to Harris. I guess it easy to forget that alongside the rally of 1939 we probably also should mention Roosevelt's campaign speeches there of 36 and 40 (fascist label anyone). There was also Kennedy's birthday bash where everyone celebrated Monroe's outfit (comparisons to Eva Braun anyone). Of course there were also those democrat conventions of 76, 80, and 92 - fascists one and all I presume. Because of that Bill fellow, 92 would seem particularly inconvenient for Hillary Clinton's abuse of history.
I agree with the national audience observation. Understanding that, I am surprised you did not also include Trump's three-hour discussion with Joe Rogan. I admit, he represents a class of the electorate the cultured reader of the NY Times would find off putting, but as of this morning, that podcast has had 33 million views. I suspect even honest democrats would concede Harris wouldn't last 30 minutes in that venue.
This is feeling more and more like an electoral landslide.
It's just really weird because Madison Square Garden was built in 1968. Previous buildings at different sites had the same name, but weren't this building or this site. There was quite literally never a Nazi rally at MSG. And Hitler did not make an appearance in NYC in 1939. I really just think Hillary Clinton is a lot dumber than we've all given her credit for.
I think Hillary is a prime example of how poisonous loss is, how angry it makes some people. We see it here. Those of us who think we're winning are pretty mellow and inclined to humor --- those who think they are losing are FURIOUS and lashing out for no good purpose I can see: it isn't likely to change any votes to call us names, and many of us have voted already anyway.
The ones who think they are losing are the angries --- but let's remember nobody has lost anything yet. We could be fooled. I sure was in 2016. I was for Trump, but I awoke dismayed that all these commentators and pollsters I had believed in had every one of them led me wrong. Now I know that can happen.
"I really just think Hillary Clinton is a lot dumber than we've all given her credit for."
Speak for yourself.
A lot of history of Madison Square Garden events is coming out today: yours was good and I like the point that the original (Nazi) one was torn down and the current MSG is a mile and a half distant from that site.
The worst is that problem about Bill Clinton having campaigned there just like Trump. Hillary either forgot that or hoped everyone else would. I think she is showing a lot of toxic anger for nine years after her loss. And seems to be deteriorating rapidly.
I do think the entire Trump camp is getting too cocky though
It's the early voting returns. That's the main culprit I think.
Are we sure that spike is due to the MSG rally? The Rogan interview (33 million views just on YouTube) could also have caused it.
Except that the comedian isn't put into relevant context. Would be interesting to his graph next to Rogan's graph.
Ok, I went and graphed it: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&geo=US&q=joe%20rogan,Tony%20Hinchcliffe,donald%20trump&hl=en
Rogan bounce is bigger, but the comedian bounce is also not small.
How are the comments on these posts always such a cesspool? I can't tell whether they're paid shills, or if there are actually this many people _on both sides_ convinced that you're cooking the books.
If they think you/your model/your underlying data is fraudulent, why are they even reading these posts?
As soon as it looks like Trump had a chance all of these magats almost all white men descended
I do miss the comments making obscure points about statistics and Nate's model
This post is really just about general politics though as compared to the model, stats, polling, etc.
Also, let's not forget the DNC had to have safe rooms for Jews.
College campuses had to safe places for Jews.
The media has been crickets on that for months.
As one of your GOP subscribers, I doubt Trump being in the news will hurt him, no matter how the media try to spin it. Harris needs to give undecided an affirmative reason to vote for her, and she still hasn't supplied one. I don't see "I'm a woman of color and Orange Man Bad" getting her over the finish line.
Yup - Harris needs a detailed 75 step plan, and Trump gets votes with sharks, Hannibal Lector, and economic word salad that would tank the economy.
Don't forget the tax breaks going to every group under the sun. Which after the election will just go to the usual rich people and corporations
Harris rarely speaks about being a woman of color.
Why?
Setting aside your presumption that she hasn’t.
Let's also be real here:
The jokes were offensive, but they were done by an asshole comedian. It was mostly just a poor poor choice from the campaign.
The entire mainstream media has called the rally a nazi rally for about 2 weeks. Tim Walz drew the parallels. Harris drew parallels to fascism.
A racist joke is bad, but so is the other stuff
Conservatives is general know the media is very biased. This is not just an American phenomenon either.
There are 3 things for America that I love this cycle and give me hope that maybe, no matter who wins, we'll be okay.
1. The MSM starting to die (including hopefully Fox news. They are partisan hacks and secretly they love that Trump is at the fore front because it gives them so much material. Independent journalism is the way of the future. Hopefully the MSM can correct themselves because we do need a press we can trust.
2. Split ticket voting. Shows people are moving away from R or D
3. Mitch McConnell not being Senate Majority leader lol
I like your no. 1 and 2! Oh, how I would love neutral, old-timey news reporting without gotcha clickbait headlines, without the text being full of words like "lied" and "falsely." I didn't think of independent journalism, but I've already subscribed to a number of them this election, I realize. Note that the WaPo is absolutely on the edge of collapse: thousands and thousands of subscribers have cancelled and there are big boycott moves on social media and memes where people post a screen-capture of their subscription cancellation. I don't see how they can survive this election. Independent media and let the subscribers support it, the free market at work.
I think the jokes blended in with what other speakers said during the rally. I mean look at Trump's speech. He was still talking about killing fellow Americans whose opinions differ from his - the enemy within. By that logic, to me, you would be the enemy within or if you support Trump and your close family member supports Harris your mother would be the enemy from within. Trump urges you to hate your close family member
This has been consistent throughout. Trump is least popular when people actually hear from him, and becomes more popular when he’s quiet.
My worry is that the same is true about Harris, and her speech at the Ellipse - which will wrongly focus on “democracy” and not Trump’s idiocy or her plans to make things better - will drown out the bad vibes for Trump.
They were terrible jokes and really dumb to have a comedian like that on stage. They could have used the opportunity to do an internal roast or something.
I doubt it moves the needle at all. 95% of people can take a joke even at their expense, they can even be offended, but it probably won't change their vote.
White people are basically the one group you can't joke about. Everybody else just doesn't get phased.
Dude, Chappelle dressed up as a white dude all the time and it was hilarious.
As long as you restrict your Google searches of "Dave Chappelle" to pre-2016 you should be good. Things between him and white people didn't stay copacetic.
I'm beginning to think you haven't watched any comedy....like ever.
White people are made fun of, no one cares.
Actually, I'm a huge stand up nerd, which would explain our different definitions. Stand-up comedians, when they talk about making fun of an audience, what you think they mean is directly joshing them about who they are, "white people drive like this" jokes, but that's not what they mean. They mean picking on your sacred cows. No group of guys gets butthurt about a comedian making jokes like you define being made fun of. Like literally no group of guys anywhere ever. You're talking about some point I didn't make. But God bless.