Well, this pup has no reluctance on that score. “Undecided” voters are pretty much by definition low-information morons. Even if they’re not especially interested in politics – which I would consider a huge abdication of civic responsibility – this convention should have definitively decided any sentient being or AI capable of understanding English. If, as some have actually said, they didn’t “bother” to watch any of it, particularly Harris’ speech at the end, then I rest my case: low-information morons. Yes, the skit was a perfect depiction!
Well, there’s Harris’ opponent. Trump always talks about specific policy in great detail (example: replacing the Affordable Care Act with “something terrific”) and always details those policies with impressive factual accuracy, and always follows through on his detailed promises. MAGA!
Maybe, but that seems like the least likely explanation. The whole Israel-Gaza issue is political dynamite that had no place at the convention. Harris was more or less forced to address it in her closing speech, but she did it briefly and with extreme care.
I’m still not clear on whether the “mystery guest” rumour (taken to mean some superstar performer) was actually planted by conference organizers or just something that spontaneously grew in social media.
For example, some social media posts reported sightings of Taylor Swift’s plane at O’Hare on Thursday night. I can categorically state that this is bullshit. I was so stoked about Swift maybe appearing on the final night that I was following the movements of her plane on a tracking site. She left Stanstead airport outside London on Wednesday at 2:29 PM local time (9:29 AM EDT) and arrived in Nashville in the late afternoon local time. Since then, the plane has gone nowhere. Maybe Swift was approached about possible participation, maybe she wasn’t. but ultimately she was never in the plans.
I also saw it stated that Bruno Mars was doing sound check at one point. Unless I missed something that didn’t happen either. I get the wishful thinking but clearly the “mystery guest” didn’t exist.
As a Speech & Debate coach for 34 years, I agree. She can work on more emphasis, but too much might trip her up. Better to speak the way you do than come off as “unnatural” and “forced.”
This is one of those meta-questions that is hard to deal with. Because, if Trump was capable of being on the other side of 90% of the issues, he wouldn’t be Donald Trump. At least, not the Donald Trump we know.
This is why the Alternate History genre is popular. Playing all the “What if?” games. “What if Donald Trump hadn’t been raised in a life of unearned luxury, with abusive sociopaths for parents?”
I think they meant Leon Panetta. So far as I recall, he wasn’t named on any of the expected guests. Frankly, he’s a pretty big “get,” even if some folks didn’t appreciate his vibe. But what he had to say is important, especially to our allies, and I think that’s who he was mostly speaking to.
I think she was trying to get through it quickly without losing anything, for the sake of not putting people to sleep like Bill Clinton nearly did. She had a very long speech, and I thought she did a masterful job of segueing from one point to the next without wasting any time.
Same with me. My job is such that I have to review large volumes of written and spoken information, consider arguments, and issue written decisions. Plus, there is an expectation that I will issue a certain number of decisions each year.
No mater how well a record is developed, you could ALWAYS obtain more evidence. Some folk in my position act as tho, if they keep searching for more and more information, eventually they will have their decision made for them. But, instead, as I see it the question is whether or not you have sufficient evidence that you can issue a well-reasoned decision. And who has time to write a PERFECT decision. Instead, you aim for a decision that is sufficiently articulated, and addresses the most important points.
If someone says they lack sufficient info to choose between Harris and Trump, well, either they are mentally deficient, they are lying, or they are just putting off or avoiding making a decision.
I, too, want more details from Harris on how she plans to accomplish her goals, but I fully recognize that this nomination acceptance speech was not the place for it. This was the place for her vision and goals.
This thought gives me a bit more sympathy with some of the undecideds - if I were in a situation of “my side’s candidate is a personally odious lying populist criminal but supports my views” I’d be looking to details of the other side’s candidate, to figure out if they were centrist/moderate enough that we could stand their policies for four years - a hard choice given what it means e.g. with the Supreme Court.
That’s consistent with some DNC insider hinting to the media that “Californians will be happy with it”, paraphrasing the reference to the mystery guest. Leon Panetta is from California and has been politically active there; he’s currently chairman of the Panetta Institute for Public Policy which he founded, and which is hosted at the California State University, Monterey Bay, which Panetta helped establish.
Anyway, the man has amazingly impressive credentials and his speech was one of the highlights of the convention.
A couple of notes relevant to this discussion from The Daily Beast:
It starts off pointing out how Panetta was pretty brutal about Trump (and rightfully so).
He said Trump, “tells tyrants like Putin they can do whatever the hell they want” while Harris is the kind of leader who says, “The hell you can. Not on my watch.” He lambasted Trump for calling military veterans “suckers” and “losers” and warned that history could repeat itself if the country puts Trump back in the White House. “We tried that in the 1930s,” Panetta said. “It was foolish and dangerous then, and it’s foolish and dangerous now.”
It then points out that Fox News came in last for ratings during the DNC. It shouldn’t be a surprise, but it’s still nice to read.
According to Mediaite, citing Nielsen figures, MSNBC had the most viewers overall, while CNN performed best in the 25-54 demographic for Monday and Tuesday, with MSNBC doing better on Wednesday. That night, which saw speeches from Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, MSNBC had 5.1 million total viewers, CNN 3.2 million, and Fox News bringing up the rear with 1.8 million.
It gives me zero sympathy with the “undecideds”. If by some quirk of fate someone as odious as Trump represented many of my views, and someone as intelligent and accomplished and dedicated to public service as Kamala Harris opposed my views, it would definitely cause me to seriously re-evaluate my views. This actually does happen in real life to some extent, which is one of the reasons that people do re-evaluate their views, generally based on repeated exposure to such a pattern.
The reality is, we’ve already seen Harris as VP actually accomplish some goals, and we already saw 45 as president generally fail to do much that wasn’t self-serving.
It doesn’t even require that. If the choice was between a Democrat version of Trump, and even a moderately skilled Republican like Kitzinger, it’s still an easy choice. I might not agree with Kitzinger on everything, but I wouldn’t feel an existential dread of him winning, either. I mean, I didn’t like Romney, either, but I didn’t think electing him would risk an actual civil war.
In this particular election, it doesn’t matter what Harris said or didn’t say last night. Or any other time in the last 4 or 40 years. Between her and trump, there is no question that she has to win this election. Trump cannot be returned to the White House. How can anyone be “undecided” about this?? Wake up, sheeple!
If you say “Kitzinger is an easy choice” that depends on you knowing something about Kitzinger, and people not following closely might not know him from, say, Ted Cruz (definitely would be a “harder” choice than Kitzinger). Harris was similarly unknown to people not following politics before now, and even for people following, “her” policies couldn’t be distinguished from Biden’s before the last few weeks.
One more happy thing to note: the anticipated/feared raucous or violent protests never really materialized.
Protest crowds were generally smaller than many had projected, and with the exception of a section of fencing being knocked over by some protesters on Monday, there were few incidents.
As per a press conference by the city of Chicago earlier today:
