With the polls clearly swinging in Harris's favor this week what does Trump need to do and not do to win.....

[DawglegrightinSC]

I agree with some of what you say above.

The Biden and Now Harris messaging is optimistic about the country and goes highly negative on Trump the candidate and person, and he obviously gives them a lot to work with.

Trump is negative on the country and all of our institutions (other than SCOTUS, obviously). Negative on the courts, negative on the DOJ and FBI, negative on our standing in the world, negative on election integrity, on and on. I’m sure you see it differently, but what you and I think isn’t the point. It’s the less engaged middle that’s going to turn the election and I think they are tired of Trump’s routine. You have to admit that it’s been four or five years of non-stop chaos within the GOP.

Regarding Harris’s abilities, she’s going to have to prove some level of competence beyond the current vibes. Do you think Trump is going to expose her in the campaign and during the debates? I’m not sure he can pull it off.

I can’t for the life of me understand why he would be so negative on those items. 🧐

 

[brimur]

There is some truth to this comment, how much we don’t know , but an ABC poll was caught switching up their normal splits to get a certain result. We don’t know about the others but I think it is a fair hypothesis.

That is reflective of someone that doesn’t understand polling. Splits shift based on enthusiasm

 

[PharmDawg08]

Until Rasmussen Polling shows Harris in the lead I’m taking much of this polling with a grain of salt. Rasmussen still has Trump plus 5 and they poll weekly with no deviation in standard. I linked a video on Thursday from them and they were very bullish / confident in their results. They normally poll nationally but no way Trump is not up in swing states if he is up 5% nationally. They also thru some shade on other polling data being reported. Their numbers and Trump numbers could certainly change, but some / much of the current polling is skewed intentionally to build momentum and help dems increase participation. If Rasmussen poll #’s change, I’ll post / comment accordingly

Rasmussen showed 1% Biden advantage in 2020, turned out to be 4.5% in the Popular Vote. I know I know, it was rigged, right?! lol...

 

[brimur]

You know I thought at least the Democrats would drop the “protecting democracy “ schtick when they placed Kamala as the nominee as late in the cycle and hiding Bidens incompetence as they possibly could. But man….. I got to hand it to them. And it’s not their fault, it’s the people that buy it over and over again

You are really comparing a pre-convention change in delegate votes to what Trump did after the last election? Wow

 

[Moosefish]

The Biden and Now Harris messaging is optimistic about the country and goes highly negative on Trump the candidate and person, and he obviously gives them a lot to work with.

I would think they have to, since they've been in charge...but, "Bidenomics is working, you just can't see it!" was not a winning message, which is why Harris has flipped to "I'll fix these problems day 1" which is confusing. Why wait? Where have you been? She can't reject her part of the last 4 years and neither can she embrace the results.

Trump is negative on the country and all of our institutions (other than SCOTUS, obviously). Negative on the courts, negative on the DOJ and FBI

Sure, we have institutions doing things their own IG found inappropriate (FBI) the Justice Department selective prosecutions, etc....there is a whole laundry list that I'm not going to repeat or debate. Because even if you don't agree with with Trump on each of those issues, there at least is a reason for the negativity.

I'm not sure how anybody can honestly believe that he is not treated different by institutions that should treat all the same...and there are several on the Left that agree he's treated differently...because he's a "Threat to Democracy", etc.

negative on our standing in the world, negative on election integrity, on and on. I’m sure you see it differently, but what you and I think isn’t the point.

Yes, we see those issues differently. But, agreeing that he has points on the issues you listed above doesn't make me or anyone agree with him 100% on those subjects. There is a lot of nuance and/or incorrect framing or literal lies about what he says (e.g. "fine people", etc.) But, there are large portions of people who are rabidly anti-Trump that disagree with him simply because he says something.

It’s the less engaged middle that’s going to turn the election and I think they are tired of Trump’s routine.

I think you're wishing this is the case. I'd argue that the "less engaged middle" is much more tired of inflation, housing costs, energy costs, crime (and I swear if you quote the misleading/incomplete FBI statistics I'll roll my eyes so hard they'll fall out of my head 🤣), or any number of other things that have definitively gotten worse the last 3.5 years.

Somebody being "tired" of Trump is not the 'get out & vote!' motivation that 'this country is headed in the wrong direction & my pocketbook is showing it' is. But, maybe I'm wrong.

You have to admit that it’s been four or five years of non-stop chaos within the GOP.

As created & desired by the Left. Plenty of self inflicted wounds? Absolutely. But, norms have been crossed and/or laws broken simply to "get him" since he won in 2016. No matter the excuse, it's undeniable by anybody with a shred of objectivity. The chaos has been exactly what the left has wanted, and the unprecedented lawfare is the easiest example to point out.

Regarding Harris’s abilities, she’s going to have to prove some level of competence beyond the current vibes. Do you think Trump is going to expose her in the campaign and during the debates? I’m not sure he can pull it off.

I think she's her own worst enemy (similar to Biden) and gets in her own way. The more she avoids self-imploding, holding serve and waiting it out...the better her chances. She is not a good candidate and her being the nominee over the course of a normal timeline vs. what we have now would have shown that (as it did quickly in 2020). But, this isn't a normal year & that's her best asset.

 

[DawglegrightinSC]

Dude, you side lied about Biden for 4 years to everybody on the planet. And a day or so ago I listed a handful of outrageous and dangerous lies your side continues to push about Trump, the southern border, crime, the economy, and a whole host of other issues. So don't talk about lying. Your side are the experts. Just as they are the experts on anti-semitism, projection, lawfare, and unconstitutional selective prosecution.

This election is about competency and living in the real world. Your chick and her VP voice are incompetent.

I’ve asked him multiple times to no avail. If they lied to him for 4 years about something that was so obvious (Bidens failing health) and he believed them then how can he be so sure they are not lying about everything else they throw out there. All the video footage and news stories about Biden being a veg for several years but they chose to be blind.

 

[Eastmandawg]

I’ve asked him multiple times to no avail. If they lied to him for 4 years about something that was so obvious (Bidens failing health) and he believed them then how can he be so sure they are not lying about everything else they throw out there. All the video footage and news stories about Biden being a veg for several years but they chose to be blind.

The question does not benefit his/her agenda.

 

[LumpKingDawg]

The polling is media driven. There has been no swing. I believe your assumption is flawed.

Check Rasmussen. It is the least political of the polls and doesn’t fluctuate the polling base.

There has been no swing in favor of Harris except by the media.

Trump is leading because of economic deficiencies of the entire Dem admin.

The key is that it is even more obvious that Biden was not making policy decisions, it was the admin.

Voting Harris changes nothing.

To believe the media, being primarily liberal and democrat (to keep their jobs) really insults a mature adult.

Since you never respond to reasons other than Trump, what makes Harris any different than the last 4 years?

This was a damn good response. Couldn’t have said it any better. The honeymoon period liberals are in is quite funny. Just watch Harris speak for about 2 minutes and you won’t believe how dumb she actually is on basic issues. There’s a REASON that she only wants to debate Trump on sept 10. She wants no part of a Fox debate. She wants protection from ABC, NB, etc. that way it’ll be 3 against 1. She also has an atrocious record. If Trump speaks about her record, policies, cover up of the past 4 years, and her stance on basic issues i honestly don’t see how this race will be close.

 

[willdup]

I’ve asked him multiple times to no avail. If they lied to him for 4 years about something that was so obvious (Bidens failing health) and he believed them then how can he be so sure they are not lying about everything else they throw out there. All the video footage and news stories about Biden being a veg for several years but they chose to be blind.

I’ve already answered this multiple times. Because Biden clearly is not fit to be POTUS through 2028 does not mean he has been a vegetable for the last four years. I understand yall hate his policies, which is fine, but he actually got a lot of his agenda done and, the rate of inflation has almost returned to the target rate.

 

[BulldogJimmy]

I think it’s simple

Debate Harris anywhere anytime

Focusing more on his policy plans he would devour her on stage in my opinion.

But he’d have to focus on policy plans and I have a better chance catching a TD from Carson Beck this fall

Hope Mr Trump don't show His age as President Biden did, especially during a debate. He is a little aged you know.

 

[willdup]

I would think they have to, since they've been in charge...but, "Bidenomics is working, you just can't see it!" was not a winning message, which is why Harris has flipped to "I'll fix these problems day 1" which is confusing. Why wait? Where have you been? She can't reject her part of the last 4 years and neither can she embrace the results.



Sure, we have institutions doing things their own IG found inappropriate (FBI) the Justice Department selective prosecutions, etc....there is a whole laundry list that I'm not going to repeat or debate. Because even if you don't agree with with Trump on each of those issues, there at least is a reason for the negativity.

I'm not sure how anybody can honestly believe that he is not treated different by institutions that should treat all the same...and there are several on the Left that agree he's treated differently...because he's a "Threat to Democracy", etc.



Yes, we see those issues differently. But, agreeing that he has points on the issues you listed above doesn't make me or anyone agree with him 100% on those subjects. There is a lot of nuance and/or incorrect framing or literal lies about what he says (e.g. "fine people", etc.) But, there are large portions of people who are rabidly anti-Trump that disagree with him simply because he says something.



I think you're wishing this is the case. I'd argue that the "less engaged middle" is much more tired of inflation, housing costs, energy costs, crime (and I swear if you quote the misleading/incomplete FBI statistics I'll roll my eyes so hard they'll fall out of my head 🤣), or any number of other things that have definitively gotten worse the last 3.5 years.

Somebody being "tired" of Trump is not the 'get out & vote!' motivation that 'this country is headed in the wrong direction & my pocketbook is showing it' is. But, maybe I'm wrong.



As created & desired by the Left. Plenty of self inflicted wounds? Absolutely. But, norms have been crossed and/or laws broken simply to "get him" since he won in 2016. No matter the excuse, it's undeniable by anybody with a shred of objectivity. The chaos has been exactly what the left has wanted, and the unprecedented lawfare is the easiest example to point out.



I think she's her own worst enemy (similar to Biden) and gets in her own way. The more she avoids self-imploding, holding serve and waiting it out...the better her chances. She is not a good candidate and her being the nominee over the course of a normal timeline vs. what we have now would have shown that (as it did quickly in 2020). But, this isn't a normal year & that's her best asset.

About about to spend the afternoon in the car so it will be a while before I can respond.

I’m the mean time, it’s encouraging to see that Trump remains laser focused on the issues impacting the average American today.

 

[Eastmandawg]

I’ve already answered this multiple times. Because Biden clearly is not fit to be POTUS through 2028 does not mean he has been a vegetable for the last four years. I understand yall hate his policies, which is fine, but he actually got a lot of his agenda done and, the rate of inflation has almost returned to the target rate.

He’s only off more than twice as much with what Trump left him with (1.4%).

Don’t compare the 3.5 years to 3.5….don’t think you would like it, but on second thought…..maybe you would.

Didn’t have that “meany dog” in office for another 4 years for you to deal with.

 

[ToddBburn]

I’ve already answered this multiple times. Because Biden clearly is not fit to be POTUS through 2028 does not mean he has been a vegetable for the last four years. I understand yall hate his policies, which is fine, but he actually got a lot of his agenda done and, the rate of inflation has almost returned to the target rate.

He did not get all of it done. He has not had a cabinet meeting more than 10 months and I can assure you his condition was bad prior to that change. Someone else has been at the wheel for some time and that is part of the biggest lie and threat to our democracy. The continuous lies and cover ups are destroying the foundation of our government much more than Jan 6 could ever do. This has changed the whole ball game and it started more than 7 years ago. Anything to get Trump mindset took over the Democrat party and things were done and are continuing to be done in the name of the greater good so they think. The ends justify the means and that is all that matters.
Look he is an ass and he doesn’t mind saying what he thinks. He was effective as a leader and he ruffled a lot of feathers. I can name many people I would rather have than him in the White House. But the left created all of this and it will blow up in there faces this fall or in 4 more years.
I hate it and I think it is awful for our country. But what the left is doing is much worse.

 

[DawglegrightinSC]

I’ve already answered this multiple times. Because Biden clearly is not fit to be POTUS through 2028 does not mean he has been a vegetable for the last four years. I understand yall hate his policies, which is fine, but he actually got a lot of his agenda done and, the rate of inflation has almost returned to the target rate.

If you answered this then forgive me for missing it. Now, to your answer. You are suggesting he hasn’t been having severe cognitive issues since before he ran in 2020? You don’t believe that somewhere in the last few years he became incapable of running the country and the Dems, intelligence and the MSM kept it from you? You believe he is not mentally able to stand trial but capable of being president and answering the call if we were to be attacked (And not just during his hours of 10-4 M-F)?

 

[DawgWCK]

That is reflective of someone that doesn’t understand polling. Splits shift based on enthusiasm

I think I understand polling SOMEWHAT , if your sample of survey goes from 40% democrats to 43% democrats you are likely to get a 3% change in results or thereabout. That was assertion being made against an ABC poll and their lack of response leads me to believe there was some truth to this assertion. Regardless, by 10th of September polling should be fairly accurate from the front line pollsters.

 

[brimur]

I think I understand polling SOMEWHAT , if your sample of survey goes from 40% democrats to 43% democrats you are likely to get a 3% change in results or thereabout. That was assertion being made against an ABC poll and their lack of response leads me to believe there was some truth to this assertion. Regardless, by 10th of September polling should be fairly accurate from the front line pollsters.

Conversely, if you are polling LIKELY voters and your splits arent changing as fundamentals of the race change (i.e. who is most excited and thus more LIKELY to vote) then its probably not going to be accurate.

 

[DawgWCK]

Rasmussen showed 1% Biden advantage in 2020, turned out to be 4.5% in the Popular Vote. I know I know, it was rigged, right?! lol...

They adjusted their overall sampling methodology as well from 2024 from 2020 based on this final variance. I’m sure Rasmussen is NOT 100% accurate but they are independent and again were fairly bullish about their #’s. I don’t think they are intentionally biased nor or they changing their sample metrics from week to week. Would be surprised if their samples reflect an even tighter race next week, regardless I’ll post them here as I said earlier

 

[DawgWCK]

Conversely, if you are polling LIKELY voters and your splits arent changing as fundamentals of the race change (i.e. who is most excited and thus more LIKELY to vote) then its probably not going to be accurate.

According to Rasmussen they only sample likely and several others do registered. The polling variances posted over last week are too large to explain without looking into polling methods or metrics.

 

[AUBURNDAWG]

No one can deny that at best right now the race is even with the current polling data showing Harris inching ahead. With this being a sprint and not a Marathon how does the Trump administration course correct?

It’s all about feelings right now. Remember this is the same person the powers that be wanted to go around 5 or 6 weeks ago. She has yet to answer questions even from her left wing media cohorts. There is no substance to her. She can’t hide forever. And her running mate is a socialist wanna be coward.

 

[willdup]

If you answered this then forgive me for missing it. Now, to your answer. You are suggesting he hasn’t been having severe cognitive issues since before he ran in 2020? You don’t believe that somewhere in the last few years he became incapable of running the country and the Dems, intelligence and the MSM kept it from you? You believe he is not mentally able to stand trial but capable of being president and answering the call if we were to be attacked (And not just during his hours of 10-4 M-F)?

I don’t believe most of that.

Serious question though. Is Biden today more or less delusional than what we see from Trump in his post from today? This is some seriously crazy stuff and no, he’s not posting it as a joke or to be funny.

 

[MUSMDawgs]

You are really comparing a pre-convention change in delegate votes to what Trump did after the last election? Wow

Well let’s see…. Is Trump still president?

Is Biden?

Which one of those was elected in 2020.

Instead of pre convention what you should of said is POST PRIMARY, but that’s doesn’t fit the narrative

 

[9836dawg]

What the heck?

View embedded media

It's almost like he secretly doesn't want to be president.

 

[mitchelldawg]

About about to spend the afternoon in the car so it will be a while before I can respond.

I’m the mean time, it’s encouraging to see that Trump remains laser focused on the issues impacting the average American today.

View embedded media

Damn! Would love to hear what some on here would day if Biden would have posted some crazy sh** like that!
Oh, that's just Biden being Biden....

 

[nice marmot]

Sure. That and her website only having links to fund raising and no actual policy.

This is from the democrats.org "where we stand" page > "The Democratic Party writes and adopts a new party platform at each Democratic National Convention to detail our shared Democratic values and policy priorities."

I assure you that after the convention, you will have a platform to pick apart and react to, but for obvious strategic reasons, Harris is not going to get in front of that process.

• She's been an active candidate for 21 days.
• She's come to be the nominee by virtue of being part of the existing ticket and because no one wanted to risk disunity to challenge her.

Obviously have a outsized role in shaping the party's platform. But she is going to use that process as a means of consolidating party unity. This is normal. Indeed, for decades this is how party platforms were crafted. Today, we lean more toward executive fiat, but recency doesn't make it the better way.

 

[shonuff253]

This is from the democrats.org "where we stand" page > "The Democratic Party writes and adopts a new party platform at each Democratic National Convention to detail our shared Democratic values and policy priorities."

I assure you that after the convention, you will have a platform to pick apart and react to, but for obvious strategic reasons, Harris is not going to get in front of that process.

• She's been an active candidate for 21 days.
• She's come to be the nominee by virtue of being part of the existing ticket and because no one wanted to risk disunity to challenge her.

Obviously have a outsized role in shaping the party's platform. But she is going to use that process as a means of consolidating party unity. This is normal. Indeed, for decades this is how party platforms were crafted. Today, we lean more toward executive fiat, but recency doesn't make it the better way.

Exactly, she's not going to do any sit down interviews until after the convention. The Dems are being disciplined not releasing their platform too early unlike the GOP. That's the mistake Trump and the GOP made by letting their Project 2025 plan leak out too early and Dems clobbered them with how extreme it was and that was a turning point in the race.

This comes with risk though right, now is the time for the GOP to define Harris and Walz in a way that sticks with normal everyday Americans. But again we're at 86 days with a candidate Americans have very very strong opinions about and another not so much...again that's a huge advantage for Harris because if Trump can't can't break 46 - 47 point on election day he loses

 

[agentorange70]

The issue of popular vote vs electoral college keeps recurring for a reason,..with Al Gore 2020, Hillary Clinton 2016,

Some liberal states such as Cali and NY are 80 percent dem because they are highly populated areas that pushed conservatives away,..and Midwest states are 55-45 Republican and garnish the entire state vote,...the rules to the game are the electoral college votes, so attacking the electoral college because of a loss in the overall vote means that a team losses and wanted to change the rules of the game after losing

 

[Moosefish]

This is from the democrats.org "where we stand" page > "The Democratic Party writes and adopts a new party platform at each Democratic National Convention to detail our shared Democratic values and policy priorities."

That's weird, since the DNC released the Party Platform draft on July 13, 2024.

I assure you that after the convention, you will have a platform to pick apart and react to, but for obvious strategic reasons, Harris is not going to get in front of that process.

• She's been an active candidate for 21 days.
• She's come to be the nominee by virtue of being part of the existing ticket and because no one wanted to risk disunity to challenge her.

So, are there significant changes to the draft they already released? The "not get ahead" is a poor excuse, since they already 'got ahead'. So, no changes? Small changes? Big changes? If she's not going to be subjected to the normal, drawn-out process w/ her potential platform vetted through primaries, she should be active in explaining her governance vision...unless that's a feature, not a bug.

Obviously have a outsized role in shaping the party's platform. But she is going to use that process as a means of consolidating party unity. This is normal. Indeed, for decades this is how party platforms were crafted. Today, we lean more toward executive fiat, but recency doesn't make it the better way.

Again, they've already released a draft. Where will she differ from Biden?

Exactly, she's not going to do any sit down interviews until after the convention. The Dems are being disciplined not releasing their platform too early unlike the GOP. That's the mistake Trump and the GOP made by letting their Project 2025 plan leak out too early and Dems clobbered them with how extreme it was and that was a turning point in the race.

Even though Trump & the GOP didn't "release" Project 2025? And his campaign has an independent platform, available on their site?

So, let's assume that P25 is the "platform" & it got clobbered because it's "extreme". What does Harris have to worry about unless she's going to release something else "extreme", too? Or do we get to claim that the Communist Manifesto is actually her "real" platform, since her own VP pick said "Socialism is just being neighborly, yo!"

That 'turning point' is a fake narrative & only a labeled as such for those determined that no matter what was released, it was going to be "too extreme". Nobody outside the beltway/media circuit cares, unless they've already made up their mind, anyway.

This comes with risk though right, now is the time for the GOP to define Harris and Walz in a way that sticks with normal everyday Americans. But again we're at 86 days with a candidate Americans have very very strong opinions about and another not so much...again that's a huge advantage for Harris because if Trump can't can't break 46 - 47 point on election day he loses

It only being 86 days away is exactly why she should be proactive in clearly defining her beliefs, how she should govern, & put herself in positions to face tough questions. Unless, that's the plan? As I mentioned to will earlier, I think that's actually a good plan because she's a bad candidate. Just a few months ago, there was a push to get her off the ticket, now she's being framed as a generational political talent. I think we all know her best asset is simply "not being Trump"...and that's enough for some people, damn the actual policies or how she would govern.

 

[Moosefish]

That's weird, since the DNC released the Party Platform draft on July 13, 2024.



So, are there significant changes to the draft they already released? The "not get ahead" is a poor excuse, since they already 'got ahead'. So, no changes? Small changes? Big changes? If she's not going to be subjected to the normal, drawn-out process w/ her potential platform vetted through primaries, she should be active in explaining her governance vision...unless that's a feature, not a bug.



Again, they've already released a draft. Where will she differ from Biden?



Even though Trump & the GOP didn't "release" Project 2025? And his campaign has an independent platform, available on their site?

So, let's assume that P25 is the "platform" & it got clobbered because it's "extreme". What does Harris have to worry about unless she's going to release something else "extreme", too? Or do we get to claim that the Communist Manifesto is actually her "real" platform, since her own VP pick said "Socialism is just being neighborly, yo!"

That 'turning point' is a fake narrative & only a labeled as such for those determined that no matter what was released, it was going to be "too extreme". Nobody outside the beltway/media circuit cares, unless they've already made up their mind, anyway.



It only being 86 days away is exactly why she should be proactive in clearly defining her beliefs, how she should govern, & put herself in positions to face tough questions. Unless, that's the plan? As I mentioned to will earlier, I think that's actually a good plan because she's a bad candidate. Just a few months ago, there was a push to get her off the ticket, now she's being framed as a generational political talent. I think we all know her best asset is simply "not being Trump"...and that's enough for some people, damn the actual policies or how she would govern.

I forgot to add...her complete 180 on some important issues (fracking, gun confiscation, etc.) is why she should have more than fund raising on her site and be doing interviews. She was once named the most liberal Senator...would she govern that way? Literally waiting until the last minute to "put yourself out there" in non-tightly-controlled environments is what she owes potential voters, imo...and if her supporters/anti-Trumpers weren't afraid she'd make things worse for herself and were confident she would help herself, they'd be demanding it too. Because the best way to win over new voters is to actively convince them to vote for you...not hide from tough questions & not tell people specifically what you believe.

 

[nice marmot]

Just a few months ago, there was a push to get her off the ticket.

I was not aware of this, so it must not have been a very big push.

Again, they've already released a draft.

They released the draft when Biden was candidate (and after the debate). Good thing it was just a draft, huh?

Where will she differ from Biden?

Do you really think that we won't get answers to this question?

What does Harris have to worry about unless she's going to release something else "extreme", too?

What makes you think she's worried about it?

a good plan because she's a bad candidate.

What makes you think she is a bad candidate?

You seem not to want to accept my suggestion that it might be good politics - (which was once part of being a good candidate) - to have a process. Perhaps she takes this week off from the whirlwind of the past few weeks to work out a platform in collaboration with the party platform committee (or whomever) and it gets released as a revised draft before the convention, allowing the party to officially adopt it then. Perhaps they dial it back even further and are debating particular plans in smoke-filled rooms in Chicago. TBD.

But I think there's a real disconnect here in the way you frame this criticism.

We don't have kings and queens in America. It is true that since the Reagan-era, there has been a trend this century toward vesting greater power in the executive. You're a smart guy, so I am guessing you are aware of the idea of the unitary executive. You may also be aware that Project 2025 is pretty much a pure expression of that idea and proposes a massive expansion of Presidential powers.

My guess, and it is only just that, is that the Democrats will be attempting to offer a contrast, not just in rhetoric, not just by way of process, but in substance, and for that I applaud them.

 

[Moosefish]

I was not aware of this, so it must not have been a very big push.

Literally 10 seconds of a google search gave me a:

NEWSWEEK article "Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has warned that some Democrats who want President Joe Biden to quit the presidential race also want Vice President Kamala Harris off the party's ticket."

and a

CNN story from less than a year ago "Allies of Vice President Kamala Harris and other prominent Democrats are sending a clear message to their fellow party members who speculate that she should be replaced as President Joe Biden’s running mate in 2024: It’s time to stop it."

These aren't exactly conservative sources. There was absolutely "talk", especially as Trump was consistently ahead in the polls. Bottom line: there was enough 'buzz' on this topic to justify national-level stories (like I linked). Why? She was a weak running make & potentially was not helping Biden's ticket. That's a heck of a place to be to now being treated in some places on the Left as a Female-Obama.

It's absolute cognitive dissonance. Let's not pretend like she was previously viewed as something she isn't. She's not Trump...that's clearly enough for some people.

They released the draft when Biden was candidate (and after the debate). Good thing it was just a draft, huh?

Which was my point. They released it when Biden was candidate, now we have to 'wait until the convention'? Pick a lane.

Do you really think that we won't get answers to this question?

I never said that. I've been consistent in saying that it is VERY late in the game to have no concrete stances or anything. She managed to avoid the primary vetting. Getting any answers (especially if they differ from the admin she's currently in) with less than 90 days is foul. Is it really too much to ask to have concrete answers or at least tough interviews before early voting starts? This isn't some crazy request. She's literally had none of it nor been forced to even have a primary debate where she articulates anything.

Pretending that people don't deserve more answers this close to the election is crazy.

What makes you think she's worried about it?

You obviously missed shonuff's point that they aren't going to release anything because they might be "worried" it's treated as "extreme" like the non-Trump affiliated release of Project 2025. I didn't make that point. He did.

What makes you think she is a bad candidate?

Because she was a horrible one before? What has she done or said to make you think she's a good one? She had to drop out before Iowa, previously. What changed?

You seem not to want to accept my suggestion that it might be good politics - (which was once part of being a good candidate) - to have a process. Perhaps she takes this week off from the whirlwind of the past few weeks to work out a platform in collaboration with the party platform committee (or whomever) and it gets released as a revised draft before the convention, allowing the party to officially adopt it then. Perhaps they dial it back even further and are debating particular plans in smoke-filled rooms in Chicago. TBD.

No, as I've said more than once...I think it's actually good politics, because she's so bad. But, being "good politics" doesn't make it "good" for the electorate.

But I think there's a real disconnect here in the way you frame this criticism.

We don't have kings and queens in America. It is true that since the Reagan-era, there has been a trend this century toward vesting greater power in the executive. You're a smart guy, so I am guessing you are aware of the idea of the unitary executive. You may also be aware that Project 2025 is pretty much a pure expression of that idea and proposes a massive expansion of Presidential powers.

My guess, and it is only just that, is that the Democrats will be attempting to offer a contrast, not just in rhetoric, not just by way of process, but in substance, and for that I applaud them.

I'm only criticizing a candidate that was not vetted via the normal process & clearly refuses (as a "strategy") to offer anything other than staged campaign stops & softball framing.

I only brought up Project 2025 because shonuff did. I have no interest in debating what is a complete non-issue, despite the left's desire to make it one.

...and it's unfortunate that you have to guess because we've gotten nothing from the Harris campaign letting anybody know where she stands, other than doing complete 180s on stances she's previously made clear & "stealing" Trump promises like no-tax-tips.

Please share anything of actual substance/process that even the Biden campaign provided that didn't mention Trump and we can have a discussion about that. But, I have my doubts.

 

[kckd]

No one can deny that at best right now the race is even with the current polling data showing Harris inching ahead. With this being a sprint and not a Marathon how does the Trump administration course correct?

I'm not sure he can win, but what he needs to do to win is focus on immigration and inflation. Nothing else he does is helping him.

It preaches to the choir and turns off the swing voters he needs. The race stuff also could help get out some usual non voters that will not vote for him and only vote for Harris. But according to the NYT, when meeting with some donors who complained about these things, he told them "I am who I am". So the gift will likely keep on giving.

 

[Moosefish]

I was not aware of this, so it must not have been a very big push.

Follow-up. This part of your post really confuses me. You seem to be 'paying attention'...yet, you weren't aware of this?

Let me give you a bit more:

A not-conservative Mediate Story:

Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) set tongues wagging when she was asked “Is Vice President Kamala Harris the best running mate for this president?” and, despite effusively praising VP Harris, would only say the choice is the president’s.

Not enough?

How about The Atlantic w/ a story entitled The Kamala Harris Problem: Few people seem to think she’s ready to be president. Why?

I mean, this very liberal story is making my points for me, that I referenced above:

Ease and confidence have not been the prevailing themes of Harris’s vice presidency. Her first year on the job was defined by rhetorical blunders, staff turnover, political missteps, and a poor sense among even her allies of what, exactly, constituted her portfolio.

Within months of taking office, President Joe Biden was forced to confront a public perception that Harris didn’t measure up; ultimately, the White House issued a statement insisting that Biden did, in fact, rely on his vice president as a governing partner. But Harris’s reputation has never quite recovered.

But, back to the VP replacement theory: How about the Washington Post?

Democrats Weird Answers on Kamala Harris:

Democrats can try to play it off as a manufactured controversy all they want. But prominent Democrats’ strained answers about Vice President Harris are getting more conspicuous.

The question of why is valid. Why not just give Harris the kind of full-throated vote of confidence you’d expect from fellow partisans under such circumstances, particularly given that President Biden has signaled he’s committed to Harris on the 2024 ticket?

Questions about Harris’s political prospects have hovered for a long time. Harris isn’t extraordinarily unpopular for a vice president, but her presence looms larger in this election. Voters have serious and growing concerns about Biden’s age and sharpness. And polls show that Americans are more reluctant about the prospect of Harris becoming president than they have been about recent past vice presidents. They are also more reluctant about Harris now than they were in 2020.

Most often, the concerns are spoken about privately. Or they come from lesser-known Democrats outside Washington. But prominent Democrats are increasingly giving the kind of answers that ordinarily would seem designed to fuel questions about the wisdom of proceeding as-is.

New York Magazine: The Case for Biden to Drop Kamala Harris

most Democratic operatives believe that sticking with Biden is the party’s best option. And it’s hard to argue with this assessment for a simple reason: However bad Biden’s numbers are, Vice-President Kamala Harris’s look worse. A CBS News–YouGov poll released last week found 42 percent of Americans saying that the job Harris is doing makes them think worse of the Biden administration, compared to just 18 percent who said it makes them feel better about the White House. Among independents, 48 percent said worse and only 9 percent better. Even among Democrats, only 41 percent said Harris made them think better of the administration. At the same time, only 30 percent of Democrats said that they felt “enthusiastic” about Harris being Biden’s running mate.

Politico: Democrats Might Need a Plan B

The thorniest issue will be Vice President Kamala Harris. Biden’s delegates do not automatically attach to her in his absence. Her poor approval ratings and her performance in the 2020 primaries have not inspired confidence.

Were you seriously unaware about any of this "talk"?

 

[shonuff253]

You obviously missed shonuff's point that they aren't going to release anything because they might be "worried" it's treated as "extreme" like the non-Trump affiliated release of Project 2025. I didn't make that point. He did.

If you're going to quote me at least quote the entire point I was making and not cherry picking words.

The Dems are being disciplined not releasing their platform too early unlike the GOP. That's the mistake Trump and the GOP made by letting their Project 2025 plan leak out too early and Dems clobbered them with how extreme it was and that was a turning point in the race.

I didn't say they are worried their platform will be treated as extreme like Project 2025...I was saying they let their extreme Project 2025 plan out when they should have kept that plan hidden because of literally how extreme it is.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...-to-project-2025-even-as-he-tries-to-deny-it/

And to say Trump has no connections with Project 2025 and that it isn't a blue print for his next administration.....just listen to the man's own words and see whos connected to it and his political apparatus.

"Project 2025 Authors: More than 140 former members of the Trump administration are involved with Project 2025, according to CNN, including six of his former Cabinet secretaries—and several people authored chapters whom the Post reports Trump has suggested could be in his second administration, including former advisor Peter Navarro, former Housing Secretary Ben Carson and former acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller."

 

[Moosefish]

If you're going to quote me at least quote the entire point I was making and not cherry picking words.


I didn't say they are worried their platform will be treated as extreme like Project 2025...I was saying they let their extreme Project 2025 plan out when they should have kept that plan hidden because of literally how extreme it is.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...-to-project-2025-even-as-he-tries-to-deny-it/

And to say Trump has no connections with Project 2025 and that it isn't a blue print for his next administration.....just listen to the man's own words and see whos connected to it and his political apparatus.

"Project 2025 Authors: More than 140 former members of the Trump administration are involved with Project 2025, according to CNN, including six of his former Cabinet secretaries—and several people authored chapters whom the Post reports Trump has suggested could be in his second administration, including former advisor Peter Navarro, former Housing Secretary Ben Carson and former acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller."

You're missing my point: If Harris is NOT doing something due to the reaction to Project 2025...why should Harris be worried? Wasn't that your point of why she's waiting...due to the "reaction"? If it's not 'just as extreme', then there is no benefit to wait.

What's the benefit of waiting, if it's not going to be treated as extreme? Are you admitting that the "extreme" label was politically motivated? Your logic is in a corner, here.

I can only read the words you post, sir.

 

[kckd]

Literally 10 seconds of a google search gave me a:

NEWSWEEK article "Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has warned that some Democrats who want President Joe Biden to quit the presidential race also want Vice President Kamala Harris off the party's ticket."

and a

CNN story from less than a year ago "Allies of Vice President Kamala Harris and other prominent Democrats are sending a clear message to their fellow party members who speculate that she should be replaced as President Joe Biden’s running mate in 2024: It’s time to stop it."

These aren't exactly conservative sources. There was absolutely "talk", especially as Trump was consistently ahead in the polls. Bottom line: there was enough 'buzz' on this topic to justify national-level stories (like I linked). Why? She was a weak running make & potentially was not helping Biden's ticket. That's a heck of a place to be to now being treated in some places on the Left as a Female-Obama.

It's absolute cognitive dissonance. Let's not pretend like she was previously viewed as something she isn't. She's not Trump...that's clearly enough for some people.



Which was my point. They released it when Biden was candidate, now we have to 'wait until the convention'? Pick a lane.



I never said that. I've been consistent in saying that it is VERY late in the game to have no concrete stances or anything. She managed to avoid the primary vetting. Getting any answers (especially if they differ from the admin she's currently in) with less than 90 days is foul. Is it really too much to ask to have concrete answers or at least tough interviews before early voting starts? This isn't some crazy request. She's literally had none of it nor been forced to even have a primary debate where she articulates anything.

Pretending that people don't deserve more answers this close to the election is crazy.



You obviously missed shonuff's point that they aren't going to release anything because they might be "worried" it's treated as "extreme" like the non-Trump affiliated release of Project 2025. I didn't make that point. He did.




Because she was a horrible one before? What has she done or said to make you think she's a good one? She had to drop out before Iowa, previously. What changed?



No, as I've said more than once...I think it's actually good politics, because she's so bad. But, being "good politics" doesn't make it "good" for the electorate.



I'm only criticizing a candidate that was not vetted via the normal process & clearly refuses (as a "strategy") to offer anything other than staged campaign stops & softball framing.

I only brought up Project 2025 because shonuff did. I have no interest in debating what is a complete non-issue, despite the left's desire to make it one.

...and it's unfortunate that you have to guess because we've gotten nothing from the Harris campaign letting anybody know where she stands, other than doing complete 180s on stances she's previously made clear & "stealing" Trump promises like no-tax-tips.

Please share anything of actual substance/process that even the Biden campaign provided that didn't mention Trump and we can have a discussion about that. But, I have my doubts.

She's not Hillary Clinton either. I think Sarah Longwell said it best a few weeks ago when it was seen as likely she would be the candidate, but wasn't confirmed yet. Longwell does focus groups and most of those swing voters that were spoken to said that for the most part they didn't know much about her. This would be different than Clinton and a better possibility of swaying opinion.

Most criticism about her on not doing interviews is coming from people who were never gonna vote for her anyway. To be honest, we get very little answers about policy from Trump. He normally chooses to do interviews with Fox or some other conservative network and while they try (I've seen Hannity and Maria Bartiromo ask him questions about his policy and what he wants to do in his next four years) he gives a very little fluff before going back into attack mode on his opponent. Trump can make her answer questions or dodge them in the debate if he debates as he should. Will he? Probably not. But she will get asked questions there and will have to answer from the moderators.
I agree that she's not a good candidate in a vaccuum. But she is a good candidate, as most would be, vs. Trump. Trump is a bad candidate because he has no ability to gain a majority of voters. It's not what he's interested in. He's interested in being praised by the people who love him.

Most of the people who created 2025 worked with the former POTUS. Do I think Trump cares about it? No. Do I think he cared about Roe v. Wade? No. But Trump operates on a system of "quid pro quo". Maybe that's why he loves Hannibal Lecter. But if someone does him a solid, he expects a solid back and he also operates within this. A lot of his biggest donors support Project 2025. Who picked those justices on the Supreme Court? Mike Pence. He steered the former POTUS to those people and told him which ones he needed to appoint. Trump did him a solid. Then when Trump needed a solid, Pence didn't deliver. Why would anyone think 2025 is a non issue if Trump gets elected? Because he and Don Jr. said so? They would never lie, would they?

In the end, for most, she's a good candidate because he's a bad candidate and she won't just freeze up at a debate or fumble her words or confuse names. And that may be good enough and that infuriates people who are not gonna vote for her. But they had the opportunity at one time to let Trump go and go with someone else. They did not do that.

 

[Moosefish]

She's not Hillary Clinton either. I think Sarah Longwell said it best a few weeks ago when it was seen as likely she would be the candidate, but wasn't confirmed yet. Longwell does focus groups and most of those swing voters that were spoken to said that for the most part they didn't know much about her. This would be different than Clinton and a better possibility of swaying opinion.

Most criticism about her on not doing interviews is coming from people who were never gonna vote for her anyway. To be honest, we get very little answers about policy from Trump. He normally chooses to do interviews with Fox or some other conservative network and while they try (I've seen Hannity and Maria Bartiromo ask him questions about his policy and what he wants to do in his next four years) he gives a very little fluff before going back into attack mode on his opponent. Trump can make her answer questions or dodge them in the debate if he debates as he should. Will he? Probably not. But she will get asked questions there and will have to answer from the moderators.
I agree that she's not a good candidate in a vaccuum. But she is a good candidate, as most would be, vs. Trump. Trump is a bad candidate because he has no ability to gain a majority of voters. It's not what he's interested in. He's interested in being praised by the people who love him.

Most of the people who created 2025 worked with the former POTUS. Do I think Trump cares about it? No. Do I think he cared about Roe v. Wade? No. But Trump operates on a system of "quid pro quo". Maybe that's why he loves Hannibal Lecter. But if someone does him a solid, he expects a solid back and he also operates within this. A lot of his biggest donors support Project 2025. Who picked those justices on the Supreme Court? Mike Pence. He steered the former POTUS to those people and told him which ones he needed to appoint. Trump did him a solid. Then when Trump needed a solid, Pence didn't deliver. Why would anyone think 2025 is a non issue if Trump gets elected? Because he and Don Jr. said so? They would never lie, would they?

In the end, for most, she's a good candidate because he's a bad candidate and she won't just freeze up at a debate or fumble her words or confuse names. And that may be good enough and that infuriates people who are not gonna vote for her. But they had the opportunity at one time to let Trump go and go with someone else, they did not do that.

I agree in some areas. But, I'll repeat myself: She faced no vetting via the Primary Process this cycle or in 2020. I think it's a good strategy to avoid expsoure. But, if she was a 'good' candidate, she'd help herself letting people get to know her. As of now, all we have is a very unpopular term as VP and a complete campaign failure in 2020.

 

[shonuff253]

Like it or not Harris right now is playing the political game as perfectly as possible. Those angry there's not more media coverage of her non-policies you know who you should blame...Trump. Because he can't have a press conference without saying something incredibly racially insensitive or diving into a narsccisitic rants demeaning multiple should be allies. Why cover Harris when Trump is doing his best Archie Bunker impersonation. Blame Trump and not the media.

 

[shonuff253]

You're missing my point: If Harris is NOT doing something due to the reaction to Project 2025...why should Harris be worried? Wasn't that your point of why she's waiting...due to the "reaction"? If it's not 'just as extreme', then there is no benefit to wait.

What's the benefit of waiting, if it's not going to be treated as extreme? Are you admitting that the "extreme" label was politically motivated? Your logic is in a corner, here.

I can only read the words you post, sir.

Check my latest post and take a chill pill and you'll see the point I was making.

 

[Moosefish]

And to say Trump has no connections with Project 2025 and that it isn't a blue print for his next administration

I never said "no connections". But, you treated it like his platform. Again...if we are now "allowed" to treat non-official campaign documents as directly part of the campaign, simply because of "connections"...oh boy.

I'm not sure that's a road you want to travel.

 

[Moosefish]

Like it or not Harris right now is playing the political game as perfectly as possible. Those angry there's not more media coverage of her non-policies you know who you should blame...Trump. Because he can't have a press conference without saying something incredibly racially insensitive or diving into as multiple narsccisitic rants demeaning should be allies. Why cover Harris when Trump is doing his best Archie Bunker impersonation. Blame Trump and not the media.

I've literally already said it's a smart move. Who's "angry"?

...and Trump shouldn't be getting in the way of Harris saying anything of substance. There are plenty of 'friendly' interviews out there.

Check my latest post and take a chill pill and you'll see the point I was making.

Chill pill? I'm not worked up. At all. If you want to play a psycho-analysis game...you're coming across as awfully defensive.