2024 US Presidential Election

[Lisnaholic]

I finally listened to it and the stuff he's talking about aren't things that Trump's platform is interested in. He's a sucker if he believes Trump will apply any of that.

I heard he went to the Harris campaign and they ignored him so he went to Trump and Trump supposedly promised him a role in his cabinet which I doubt he will follow through with that's if he even wins.

^ Yep RFKJr must be a fool if he imagines he can hold Trump to the terms of any kind of quid-pro-quo deal.

That political pancake* Nikki Haley is an example that RFKJr could take note of, as she shows how Trump prefers subjugation to deal-making.

* Real easy to flip, with no moral conscience to get in the way.
___________________________

RFK's endorsement is recent news and so his policies, his supporters have been discussed here in some detail; but what about another side of a different coin, a different block of voters ? I'm talking about HV4H - aka Haley Voters For Harris.  They are, or they have a PAC, but I'm struggling to find any info that relates their size or importance to that of RFK's followers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haley_Voters_for_Harris

 

[SGR]

Harris, Who Once Called Trump's Border Wall 'Un-American,' Now Pledges To Continue Building It

First it was 'No tax on tips', now it's 'Build the wall', I gotta respect the gumption of the Harris campaign in its imitation.

But I think she should show a little more chutzpah and just go all the way...really lean into it, you know? Fire up that Twitter account Madam Vice President, and let the country know you mean business. 

[SGR]

[Jwb]

What do you make of the recent spat between the two sides over whether the mics should be muted? Incase you didn't hear, Kamala's team tried to suggest they should leave the mics hot and Trump's team insisted on the original rules.  It wasn't clear that was coming from Trump himself since he said he thought they should probably be left on.  So Kamala's camp were trolling Trump about him seemingly being constrained by his "handlers" who apparently think the muted mics actually benefit him.  Ironic given our previous discussion.

Ultimately last I heard supposedly the two sides  agreed to the original rules,  so at least an apparent victory for the Trump team.  Also very ironic that the debate rules which were initially crafted to help Biden are now being leaned on by the Trump team to assist their candidate.  Definite backfire there for the Dems,  assuming the strategy continues to benefit Trump in debates.

That much isn't actually clear to me.  It benefited him clearly in the Biden debate because Biden self imploded,  and any interruption by Trump could only have distracted from that train wreck of a performance.  I don't think that will be true with Kamala.

In fact I expect that if they are restricted to giving two minute long monologs with no interruptions, that dynamic actually clearly favors Kamala. And in fact to the extent that Trump has done well in previous debates it was more in those back and forth moments which gave rise to so many of his provocative debate moments.  Clearly,  despite making noise about letting Trump be Trump,  they're terrified to let him employ that strategy on Kamala on the debate stage.  And on the flip side,  the Dems seemingly wanted nothing more than to change the rules to cultivate just such a moment. But I still think both camps are incorrect and that Kamala is clearly the one who is favored by muting the mics. What do you think?

[SGR]

What do you make of the recent spat between the two sides over whether the mics should be muted? Incase you didn't hear, Kamala's team tried to suggest they should leave the mics hot and Trump's team insisted on the original rules.  It wasn't clear that was coming from Trump himself since he said he thought they should probably be left on.  So Kamala's camp were trolling Trump about him seemingly being constrained by his "handlers" who apparently think the muted mics actually benefit him.  Ironic given our previous discussion.

Ultimately last I heard supposedly the two sides  agreed to the original rules,  so at least an apparent victory for the Trump team.  Also very ironic that the debate rules which were initially crafted to help Biden are now being leaned on by the Trump team to assist their candidate.  Definite backfire there for the Dems,  assuming the strategy continues to benefit Trump in debates.

That much isn't actually clear to me.  It benefited him clearly in the Biden debate because Biden self imploded,  and any interruption by Trump could only have distracted from that train wreck of a performance.  I don't think that will be true with Kamala.

In fact I expect that if they are restricted to giving two minute long monologs with no interruptions, that dynamic actually clearly favors Kamala. And in fact to the extent that Trump has done well in previous debates it was more in those back and forth moments which gave rise to so many of his provocative debate moments.  Clearly,  despite making noise about letting Trump be Trump,  they're terrified to let him employ that strategy on Kamala on the debate stage.  And on the flip side,  the Dems seemingly wanted nothing more than to change the rules to cultivate just such a moment. But I still think both camps are incorrect and that Kamala is clearly the one who is favored by muting the mics. What do you think?

It's all a bunch of media positioning and posturing to me - since both campaigns are now flouting the Commission On Presidential Debates, they both have the luxury of negotiating their own rules with each other in regards to an appearance on a media outlet. Trump originally complained and moaned about the rules for the debate with Biden on CNN, oh they were so unfair. Then Trump tries to change things up afterwards because there was a change in the ticket ("the agreement was made with Biden, not you"), trying to add more debates, one of which was on Fox, a network one would assume would be more favorable to him, with Kamala telling Trump that he can't chicken out of an agreement he already made, and he needs to 'man up' and stick with his promise. Then Kamala tries to change those same rules, and Trump tries to stick to the script of what was originally negotiated with the Biden campaign. It's just both candidates and campaigns vying for any small advantage they can gain, leveraging pressure in a game of chicken in a tight race dependent on the unstated belief of 'who needs this debate more?'.

To your point, I don't know if muted mics or hot mics benefit Trump more, though I'd probably lean towards the former. I don't think Trump has a lot to gain with the use of hot mics, at least in this particular debate. I've seen Kamala in two (or three) debates: the 2020 Dem primary debate(s) [I don't remember if she was in one or two, I think it was two though], and the VP debate with Pence. She had a good, or at least memorable moment with her "That little girl was me" story in which she implied Biden opposed desegregated busing policies, not so subtly implying he was a racist. She then had an awful moment in which Tulsi Gabbard picked apart her hypocrisies as a D.A., her nonchalant story of marijuana use when she locked people up for non-violent drug crimes, etc. She had a decent debate against Pence, and was quite possibly the winner in the eyes of voters, not so much for the substance of her arguments, but for her 'Excuse me, I'm speaking...' moments and the fly landing on Pence's head.

People could claim it's unfair, but it just doesn't look great when a man interrupts a woman, and I think Harris very much wants to have another 'excuse me' moment, she wants the ability to get under Trump's skin and bring out the worst in him. And Trump very well might fall into that trap. If she could manage to do that in a hot mic debate, she wouldn't really need to win many arguments with him on the substance of the debate, because the substance of the debate won't be widely spread after it's all said and done, it will be the soundbites that will be spread far and wide, on Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, etc. - and that's largely what will shape opinion, because most people won't watch the whole debate anyways. The hot mics worked to Trump's advantage against Hillary I think for two reasons: (1) Hillary had largely already been very well defined, and was well known politically in the minds of voters (unlike Trump at that point), and many people did not like her - as a result, voters knew, at least to some degree, about her weaknesses (2) Hillary was actually a policy wonk, she knew her shit, and she was actually a really good debater [at least in the academic sense of the word], so for Trump, as the lesser debater, it was to his advantage to try and use the hot mics to throw her off her game [which, despite some very famous soundbites, he rarely achieved, and most people seem to have thought Hillary won those debates]. Kamala is in a similar position as Trump was in 2016 in regards to hot mics being an advantage. Trump, like Hillary then, is very well defined and well known politicaly in voters minds, including his weaknesses. Kamala, like Trump in 2016, is not well defined, politically. On the contrary, when Trump was well-defined politically, and against an opponent who was much less disliked generally in 2020 than Hillary was (Biden), his hot mic bullying and interruptions served as a huge detriment to him.

To your point, many of Trump's famous debate moments were born as a result of him being aggressive and impolite to his opponents, attacking them in ways that normally, no politician on a debate stage would do - they were ill-prepared for that and often looked like deer in headlights. This served to both make Trump the center of attention and it also served to entertain, guaranteeing more free press. I think the reality is that Trump is really good at sussing out an opponent's insecurities and weaknesses, largely due to his experience as a corporate boardroom cutthroat, and attacking them mercilessly on those grounds - in an attempt to define them by their insecurities ("Lyin' Ted", "Low Energy Jeb", "Crooked Hillary", "Little Marco", etc) and driving that home again and again through repetition. But he is not really a good debater in any academic/classical sense. He has difficulty staying on topic, has difficulty focusing his arguments, and has difficulty concisely laying out causality and effect. That being said, I think Kamala is probably an even worse debater, but I don't know exactly why (anxiety, nervousness, insecurity, etc?) - I watched her make arguments as a senator, for example, during the Kavanaugh hearings, where she seems poignant, confident, and in control - but in these settings, she's the one asking questions, not the one being interrogated which may prove the difference. She has been terrible at providing explanations for things in a coherent manner, has displayed over and over a tendency to laugh at inappropriate times (some kind of nervous tic perhaps), and she was, only two months ago, the VP with the worst favorability rating in the history of polling on the matter. As I pointed out earlier in this thread to Lisna, even many Democrats after the Trump/Biden debate were floating the idea of a replacement to right the ship - not a replacement of Biden, but of Kamala on the ticket, seeing her as a big liability. Kamala is at her weakest during unscripted moments - if it was so simple, easy, and assured that she could give convincing, coherent and persuasive 2 minute answers to questions, she'd be out there right now doing interviews and press conferences - but she's not doing that. What does that tell us?

All this to say that I don't think muting the mics clearly favors Trump or Kamala. I think Trump's camp believes that muted mics will expose Kamala's biggest weakness - talking unscripted and explaining herself and her positions in the face of hostile questions. Kamala's team seems to believe that muted mics will minimize Trump's biggest weakness - his pettiness, proclivity to be rude and obnoxious, and to purposefully derail any meaningful discussion. Even with the muted mics though, it's very possible that given Kamala's (relatively) young age, she effectively manages succinct and understandable responses to questions and criticisms after doing extensive debate prep while on the other hand, it's possible that something Kamala says with her time sets Trump off and Trump decides to be rude and obnoxious with the time he's alotted, airing his personal grievances and gripes and ignoring the concerns of the voter, appearing petulant, ill-tempered, old, and unfit to lead. It's also possible hot mics could work in either Trump or Kamala's favor in a similar way. 

It should make for an interesting debate, regardless of what the rules end up being.

[DJChameleon]

Kamala and Tim have a scheduled joint interview Thursday night at 9pm.

I honestly think she should've done it by herself because I know people are gonna bring up that fact as an attack on her.

[SGR]

Kamala and Tim have a scheduled joint interview Thursday night at 9pm.

I honestly think she should've done it by herself because I know people are gonna bring up that fact as an attack on her.

Typically, I believe a presidential nominee gives a joint interview with their VP-nominee after the convention (at least there are some things about this election that are still typical ).

But yes, in general, I think Kamala just needs to start putting herself out to media more, if her team believe that criticism needs to be mitigated.

[DJChameleon]

Typically, I believe a presidential nominee gives a joint interview with their VP-nominee after the convention (at least there are some things about this election that are still typical ).

But yes, in general, I think Kamala just needs to start putting herself out to media more, if her team believe that criticism needs to be mitigated.

That's good to know that's a normal precedent.

Just like clockwork I knew the pundits would jump on it though.

https://x.com/DefiyantlyFree/status/1828603231305359556?t=3rih9N4ZwvNoSAJa_lc2ng&s=19

[SGR]

That's good to know that's a normal precedent.

Just like clockwork I knew the pundits would jump on it though.

https://x.com/DefiyantlyFree/status/1828603231305359556?t=3rih9N4ZwvNoSAJa_lc2ng&s=19

Yeah, that doesn't surprise me. It's just another way to criticize the fact that she hasn't yet done an interview (as the presumptive and now official Democrat nominee) until now, which is a valid criticism, I think.

The other thing too is, in my opinion, if time goes on and she continues to largely evade press interviews/appearances, I think the press, even the more left-leaning press, will become more hostile/aggressive with their questions and their scrutiny will become greater - because the message it sends to them is: "I don't need to do interviews or conferences with you to win this election". I think we're starting to see hints of that even now; a recent opinion piece from the New York Times for example:

NYT: Joy Is Not a Strategy

This is a winnable race for Harris, but she hasn't won it yet. Far from it. She hasn't been tested — really tested — since Biden stepped aside. She hasn't given a single interview or news conference to face hard questions. But it's really the debates that will be her test. Her advisers think she might get away with doing just one against Trump. I think they underestimate her challenge in earning voters' trust. She needs to start proving herself outside her comfort zone.

Ultimately, she needs more voters in the swing states to trust her to handle the economy better than her opponent. Barack Obama earned that trust through nearly two hard years of campaigning; he didn't coast on "hope and change." Harris can't coast on "joy." If she shows she can stand up under pressure, she can beat Trump and consign him for eternity to just playing God on Fox News.

[DJChameleon]

NYT isn't as left leaning as you might think. Their upper management are also zionists so they push through hit pieces on anyone that supports Palestinians.

[SGR]

NYT isn't as left leaning as you might think. Their upper management are also zionists so they push through hit pieces on anyone that supports Palestinians.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that the NYT were left like Jacobin is left, but rather that they're simply an historical mainstay of western liberal orthodoxy. Look no further than the fact they've only endorsed Democrat nominees in the general election since JFK. There are some other interesting endorsements in the list too farther back in history - and to your point, the NYT endorsed the Republican nominee each time that the left-leaning, anti-American Imperialism populist William Jennings Bryan ran as the nominee for the Democrats (he'd later go on to join the Socialist Party).

But yeah, Democrat or Republican, if you're not sufficiently supportive of Israel, or even worse, a critic of Israel, you'll quickly see the AIPAC-funded negative attack ads about you start getting pushed.

Did you watch the Kamala interview? If so, what were your thoughts on it? My initial takeaway is that I doubt it's going to move the needle in any real way, and calls for her to do more press/interviews will continue to persist.

Here it is for those interested - sure would be nice if CNN put it all in one video, but no, things always need to be difficult:

[DJChameleon]

Thanks for the videos. I watched part of it last night but dozed off on it.

It seemed kind of awkward having Tim Walz there in the first half where she's only talking to Kamala and every once in awhile the camera would slightly pan over to Walz just sitting there. I'll give my opinion after watching the full thing. What I did see so far I think was enough to have some people back off but I'm sure there are others that weren't satisfied with the interview and want to push for more of them even though the debate is coming up in two weeks.

I'm going to a watch party for it because I'm also gonna facilitate a meeting for the Working Families Party.

[SGR]

Hilarious. Even RFK Jr.s brain worm makes an appearance! 

[DJChameleon]

11 Republican Former White House lawyers endorse Harris. Deem Trump unfit for presidency.

[Psy-Fi]

'Abandon Harris' campaign tries to swing Muslim-Americans against veep in key swing states