2024 US Presidential Election

[DJChameleon]

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:

Such a nothing burger of an interview. There were like two things she said to kind of move centrists to vote for her but other than that. I doubt it did much of anything. The whole putting a Republican in her cabinet pandering and trying to not lose swing voters by being pro fracking.

[SGR]

Such a nothing burger of an interview. There were like two things she said to kind of move centrists to vote for her but other than that. I doubt it did much of anything. The whole putting a Republican in her cabinet pandering and trying to not lose swing voters by being pro fracking.

And it was only 18 minutes. Walz felt mostly like an accessory, but when he did speak, I think he was more convincing than Kamala was. I think the seating positions of Walz and Kamala should've been swapped. And if anyone thought Kamala's position on Israel/Gaza would be substantively different than Biden's, this interview basically dashed those hopes. We've now gotten to the point in the election where the Dem will pander to the right and the Republican will pander to the left in a bid for the center (On Thursday, Trump announced he supports federal taxpayer funding and an insurance mandate for coverage of "all costs associated with IVF treatment."). And if I were to hazard a totally wild guess, they're both being disingenuous with their pandering.

[Lisnaholic]

^ Good observation about the seating, SGR !

To me the Kamala tv interview wasn't much more than a 24-hour news-cycle blip, so no, it didn't move the needle much, and on the news channel I watch it has already been suplanted by Kamala's campaign speeches over the Labor Day weekend.

Another news blip is Trump's Arlington Cemetery fiasco, for which he now says he was set up: whether by Antifa or the FBI, I'm not sure. Luckily it doesn't matter because it'll soon be eclipsed by the next Trump campaign faux pas - or, as I hope, Jack Smith itemising Trump's conduct for the next stage in the case before Judge Chutkin. That, I'm sure would move the needle.

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

^ Perhaps it's just bias confirmation for me, but I think, if they continue, these kinds of drip, drip condemnations of Trump are going to be the stories that move the needle in the run-up to the election.

[Jwb]

The Kamala interview was pretty underwhelming imo. I'm still not convinced she can really do an effective job defending herself when her record gets challenged,  even in the relatively tame way that Dana Bash went about it.  The fracking question seems to sum up Kamala's problem to me: when she's called out on contradictions her response is just to shift her tone and strongly insist there's no contradiction there even when it's obvious there is. It sorta reminded me of that Lester Holt clip of her lying about going to the border.  Though obviously not as blatant.

@SGR might actually be right that strategically they're better off avoiding interviews. But it's not like the issue is just going to disappear if she gets elected. She's going to have to be able to hold her own in press conferences etc.  So I still tend to dislike the idea of trying to shield her from the inevitable just to win the election in the mean time. 

As for the debates,  while I don't think she stands up well to legitimate scrutiny, I don't really think Trump is very adept at making that case.  So I'm still less concerned about her performance there,  unless the mods themselves try to press her.  Maybe I'm giving her too much credit,  but that's my best guess atm. We'll find out soon enough.

On an unrelated note, I just listened the Lex Fridman interview with Trump and it was a complete snooze fest. Lex is such a spineless bore.  The closest thing i saw to any contention was when Lex kinda sorta tried to lightly criticize Trump on bashing Joe Rogan for saying nice things about RFK, and Trump just brushed it off and acted like he never had any problem with Joe. He could have at least read Trump the tweet.  Like what prevents a guy like this from asking the most basic probing questions.  Is it just maintaining access?

[DJChameleon]

I watched 10 mins of the Lex Friedman thing then stopped. It was bad. It kind of reminded me of the Elon Musk interview but Musk interview had more glazing of each other.

[SGR]

Per the Lex Friedman interview, I agree with the sentiments here. Nothing new or insightful in that interview. Lex asked him 2 (or 3?) times about the fake electors scheme, and Trump deflected each time - and then Lex simply gave up on pursuing an answer to that. The Theo Von interview was definitely more interesting.

[SGR]

Here's all the info you need to know for the debate, including where you can stream it.

Interestingly, this will be the first time Trump and Kamala meet in person.

[Shhon]

https://x.com/FahCubeItches/status/1833706853043229096
https://x.com/jgmac1106/status/1833689637648585141

[Shhon]

https://x.com/GorillaOSINT/status/1833705713404629173

[Shhon]

https://x.com/PopeCovidXIX/status/1833704175118774363

[DJChameleon]

That debate was pure comedy. People who are undecided are just confusing to me. I understand the uncommitted voters stance more than I do swing voters/undecideds.

[DJChameleon]

[Shhon]

[SGR]

That debate was pure comedy. People who are undecided are just confusing to me. I understand the uncommitted voters stance more than I do swing voters/undecideds.

It was definitely comedy - can't wait for the remixes (which I will post here as soon as they drop).

A few thoughts after the debate:

I was surprised that Kamala, immediately, went in and established a kind of dominance by closing the distance to Trump's podium and shaking his hand and introducing herself. I think that caught Trump by surprise as well. For what it's worth, there hasn't been a handshake between presidential nominees since Trump/Hillary.

The lighting for the debate was excellent, and both of them looked great. Y'know, for Trump's age that is, he looked great. And Kamala probably has never looked better. Credit to both team's makeup artists.

I think it was fairly clear that there was at least some bias from the moderators in Kamala's favor (which isn't that surprising given the network, Trump would probably be given similar bias from Fox if they did a debate there), given the frequency of the moderators doing real-time rebuttals/fact-checks to things Trump said, but not doing the same for Kamala - and it wasn't for a lack of straight up lies ("Fine people on both sides", "bloodbath", etc.) and lies by omission ("Trump wants a national sales tax" - trying to directly equate a national sales tax to Trump's tarrif plans, without providing context, "Police died on January 6th" - implying the police died during the event, which wasn't the case, etc.). But here's the problem for Trump - he was terrible at refuting these himself. Kamala gave him opportunity after opportunity in which he could've really capitalized, but he simply didn't. It made him seem ill-prepared, and when given opportunities like the 'bipartisan border bill' attack, he responded in a way that seemed like he assumed viewers had all read the bill themselves and understood it, which obviously isn't the case. In terms of 'lies', I don't hold that against either Kamala or Trump - that's just politics and it's a tool of expediency which Kamala, in this debate, utilized better than Trump did.

Kamala was obviously very well coached and it showed. There are former Obama people, from what I've read, who are working with her - and I think she took their advice and prep seriously - whereas with Trump, the message from his campaign was that Trump's debate prep is his rallies, media interviews, etc. and that he doesn't do formal debate prep sessions and doesn't need to. I think it showed. While his improv routine may have worked against Biden, since all he needed to do really was let Biden talk and sink his own ship, it didn't work against Kamala - it was very obvious that Kamala's team had prepared her to take swipes at Trump's ego (e.g. "You're weak..."), and more often than not, Trump would take the bait and try to defend himself on points that don't really matter to voters, like the size of his rallies, or the enthusiasm of the attendees of his rallies - and perhaps most importantly, just admitting he lost the last election which he can't seem to do. Even if Trump is right (I don't think he is) that there was a level of fraud in the 2020 election that caused him to lose, voters don't care about that now. They want to know what you'll do for them in the future - focusing on the past is tying yourself to a liability completely unnecessarily. In some ways, it's the same reason Clinton handily dealt with Bob Dole. Voters want to know what you'll do for them in the future, they don't care about your personal grievances of the past.

People can also criticize both of them for avoiding direct answers to questions - but that doesn't matter. Ultimately, it matters how the answers makes voters feel. It's basic media training. If you're asked a question you don't like or that you can't provide a positive answer for, you instead answer an adjacent question that you would have liked to have been asked. Both Trump and Kamala did this, but Trump too often took the bait seemingly as a point of pride and tried to answer some obviously hostile questions directly - Kamala didn't do that.

And really, that's the story I took away from this debate. Regardless of any possible bias, Trump seemed unprepared to deal with very obvious attack lines, specifically the lies, against him from Kamala. Regardless of platform for the debate, if you can't answer and respond to those effectively, you're not going to win the debate. And Trump didn't win the debate. He did have some very funny and clippable lines, as did Kamala, but I don't think moderates/swing voters/uncommited voters see this as anything but a Kamala win. One candidate seemed to do their homework (Kamala) and one seemingly didn't (Trump).

That being said - there is a possibility given the standing of the race that one state matters more than any other (Pennsylvania). One of their bread and butter issues is fracking. How does this debate go over with them? I don't have numbers, but it might have outsized importance. I expect Kamala to jump 2-3 points in the national polls and the betting odds - don't know if it will last, but they're already asking Trump for another debate. More than likely, Trump will agree if they do it on Fox, to which Kamala's team will smartly decline with the explanation that they're too biased. And ultimately, I doubt there will be another debate. The only way there will be, in my opinion, is if one candidate (likely for reasons other than this debate) starts seriously slipping in the polls. Then it becomes, even if unlikely, a possibility.

[Shhon]