That stuck with me too. Michelle really nailed her speech.
Agreed
Was there perhaps still some negotiation going on with the uncommitted Palestinian focus delegates to get a spot in return for a full throated endorsement (which they declined to give)? And that was slop in the schedule to allow for it with Cooper filling in the extra space?
Not only that, there should have been more emphasis that she will be making the next couple of Supreme Court nominations. If Trump wins we will get more justices like Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
Curated through whatever media they chose.
I’m not trying to rain on anyone’s parade. This is beginning not the end.
This is what I’m talkin’ 'bout:
A close race brings fresh fears of election interference by Trump allies
Gift link: https://wapo.st/4cFOcLH
…
In the month since President Joe Biden ended his reelection bid, Democrats have cheered Harris’s rise in the polls. But with their renewed optimism has come concern among some that the newly competitive race will invite election interference. Trump has said that the only way Democrats can win this fall is by cheating, and he has not committed to accepting the results if he loses.
…
Democrats and voting rights advocates said they are paying particularly close attention to efforts to empower local election officials not to certify results, which could impede the process of declaring a winner and create an opportunity for violence or disorder by stoking unsubstantiated worries that fraud tainted the election result.
…
And on and on…
The legions of Leon Panetta fans worldwide were pumped up!
But you can only curate things so much. Were there any real “gaffes”? I can’t recall anything that made me roll my eyes, or think, “Shouldn’t have said that!”
Sure, you can frame an argument your way, but if you’re showing a clip, you risk the viewer deciding you’re an idiot. “Look at this nonsense that this extreme leftist wants you to vote for: >Clip of Harris supporting small businesses and parents<!”
I mean, we’ve already seen Trump ‘warning’ us that if she wins, everyone will have health care. And several instances of Harris’ team just re-posting Republican “attacks” against Harris with, “I endorse this message” added to the end.
I made a (far too) long post on this kind of reporting yesterday. The key items to remember:
- Those reporters did not speak with Undecideds. They spoke with Republicans. (The only potential exception I see in your linked article is Ryan from Phoenix.)
- Some of those Republicans aren’t the ordinary, everyday Republicans they’re held out to be. They are explicity Republican operatives.
- While I can’t prove it, I’d happily bet that the several of the so-called “Undecideds” were recruited by other Republican operatives to speak with the reporters.
That’s a reasonable expectation, but this is also an unusual year in that this convention and the last few weeks are also proxy for an entire missed primary season, during which the leading candidate generally increases in the polls as they get better known.
Picayune detail that might mean something. I watched Ms Harris’ speech and there was one small thing that troubled me about her delivery. She was frequently sliding off the ends of her sentences, going into a sort of breathy trail off. Which might be fine for the fanbase, but I think to be seriously considered for the office, she has to be just a little firmer, slap her sentences down at the end instead of floating them off in the air, because people want a President who projects assertiveness.
Start micromanaging your speech patterns and you lose your natural strength as a result.
And several people in that article admitted that they “didn’t bother” to watch the convention or her speech. That hardly qualifies as a reaction to the content of her speech.
Never forget:
The New York Times has been caught, once again, passing off Republican operatives as “regular” Republican voters…
It raises serious questions about whether Times editors and reporters, rather than actually trying to determine how voters feel, are setting out to find people to mouth the words they need for predetermined story lines…
This isn’t the first Times story of this kind to feature ringers.
And so on and so on.
While this Salon article is from four years ago, I think it is absolutely still relevant to a thread on the DNC in 2024. The same dynamic – the same misleading (i.e., dishonest) reporting and analysis from the “mainstream media” – will stain post-convention analysis.
Didn’t read the article and don’t intend to, but what a stupid comment. Exactly when did any candidate express specifics that were subsequently enacted (with the exception of things that could be done vi executive order)? If these fuckers don’t perceive enough to show a clear difference between the candidates such that they could make their minds up one way or the other, then they are being intentionally obtuse.
Undecided voters have questions.
(SNL skit)
CNN had undecided voters. I wish they had specified how they voted previously but it seems a bit more balanced.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/these-undecided-voters-said-kamala-s-speech-made-up-their-mind-hear-why/vi-AA1phNPv?ocid=socialshare&cvid=764c340830384e90b0f1613ac3eff032&ei=88
“I need more specifics” is just cover that translates to “I’m not voting for that guy but I don’t want to explain my reasons.”
People are poking fun of the “vibe” convention, but vibes (broadly defined) are what determines who people vote for. People argue about policy, but that doesn’t change votes. I wouldn’t vote for Trump even if he was on my side on 90% of the issues.
Perfect. Closer to truth than we really want to concede.
I get this all the time at work - people who “need more info” before making a decision, basically stalling and/or buying time while someone (usually me) has to run off and chase-up some info that will, in the end, make no difference in their decision. It’s the same here IRL politics where people demand “more specifics” - they will never be satisfied, no matter how specific an answer is provided. They also need “more specifics” from only one candidate, I would bet.