And partly: this is not an election about who will be more effective at accomplishing their goals. We’ve certainly had some of those; but not this one. This is an election about what those goals are.
Actually – since they apparently showed it fairly straight, I’d rather they’d had high ratings. The people who are already voting Harris weren’t likely to be watching it on Fox in the first place. The people who are likely to be watching Fox are the people more likely to vote for Trump or at best stay home; and some of them may never have seen what the Democrats are actually saying. The ones who didn’t watch it probably still have no idea.
The ones who may have been terrified by that sea of mixed black, various shades of brown, and white faces with the white ones willingly and often handing the mic to the brown and black ones – they wouldn’t be voting for Harris anyway. The ones who thought they were terrified of childless cat ladies who hate everybody – if they had a quarter of an eye open, they saw something else at that convention. So the more of them who watched it, the better, IMO.
The only opportunity they missed is that somebody (perhaps Al Sharpton) should have said something along the lines of: “You know, for all his failings, Donald is still a human being, albeit a damaged one. We should pity him for his lack of a normal childhood and for whatever led him to be an unfeeling, lonely, vengeful man whose only pleasure is in hurting other people. So let’s take a moment to feel sorry for this failed human being and to pray for his awakening.”
I’m pretty sure Trump’s rage would have given him a stroke.
The Nielsen ratings are in for Thursday night’s convention program. Harris’s speech attracted about 15 million viewers, which is 22% above what Trump drew for his acceptance speech last month (12.3 million).
Overall, the DNC’s Thursday program averaged 26.2 million viewers, a bit higher than that for the closing night for the RNC (25.4 million).
Since I have argued that campaigning is immaterial, I cannot say you are wrong. But if the election is close enough, maybe it will matter. And reading the acceptance speech transcript, it signaled to me, as a former Republican, that Harris is going about as far to the center as I could hope, and maybe a bit more:
And, as can be seen on SDMB, she got away with it in front of her base.
The Trump campaign – at least the part of it his advisors approve of – is based on painting Harris as a left-wing extremist ashamed of her nationality. On the basis of what Harris said last night, she knows that elections are won in the middle and will continue to make a Trump victory as unlikely as possible.
The 4 on twitter were: Romney; Bush; Beyonce; and Swift. Romney actually tweeted it wasn’t him (and jokingly said it was Swift and sorry to disappoint everyone).
It felt spontaneous. I posted it would be Beyonce and I did that based on an MSNBC reporter who said the live band in the arena was rehearsing a Beyonce song. They were. And all the general buzz multiplied crappy info made something out of nothing. Didn’t pan out.
Generally, I would never go with info that sketchy but it wasn’t very important and I was excited, etc.
Most “leads” were not even that good and just made up.
Was that Scott Jennings? I was watching the convention on that channel and when they cut to the commentator panel I had to laugh at his face – so drawn and woebegone. He tried to criticize but was clearly struggling. That was the face of “Oh, crap, we’re doomed.”
Agreed. My thinking right now is that it’s more important for her to sound natural than “strong” or “assertive.”
That said, I haven’t seen many of Kamala Harris’s speeches recently. Based on what I remember from her in the 2020 primaries, she’s came light years from that. She has truly matured into a fantastic public orator. I have to wonder? Is it possible over the last 4 years, after she became VP, she was taken aside by the Obamas and trained more in public speaking? The thought occurred to me, when Biden picked her as his running mate that got her access to the Obama’s, the Clintons etc…
Could you imagine sitting in a room with Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton? And be able to pick their brains as much as you want to about public speaking and how to run a government and campaigning? I have to wonder if some of that has been happening and not just recently.
I have gradually come to the conclusion that the NYT is predictably anti-Democratic. In a “hey we’re just covering the news here”, damning with faint praise, Just Asking Questions way that has finally tipped me over the brink. They despise trump but are unwilling to treat him as he begs to be treated, as a fascist psychopath who lies in a continuous stream. They are snide, backstabbing, petty, and skilled at instilling doubt where no doubt existed.
Before the convention closed they were already setting the stage for a ‘slickly produced spectacle for partisans but can they sell it to anyone else’ campaign, as witnessed by this truly reprehensible fake slate of ‘undecideds’. Fuck them. And yes, this is a hijack, sorry.
Did anyone notice how Gretchen Whitmer referred to “Mare a Largo”? I suspect it was one of those if you can constantly mispronounce everything we can do that too.
I definitely noticed that as well. Whitmer is my governor, but I don’t know that I’ve ever heard her pronounce Mar-A-Lago. I’m sure she has but I can’t think of any specific examples. It definitely stuck out which makes me think it was deliberate.
I saw a video earlier today of her speaking to a few young ladies who had asked her for tips on public speaking. She told them something along the lines of “imagine you’re on the Titanic and you’re the only one who knows what’s about to happen. You have to make everyone understand completely and quickly that information that you have for them. The most important thing is they receive your message.” She of course explained it better than I just did but I thought it was very good advice and I hope to use it in my public service.
Politics bothers a lot of people. The candidates seem to say one thing, then do another (because the issues are deeply complex and easy to get muddled up on). That guy who fixes your car, he does that very well, but when it comes to the subtleties of socioeconomics, he gets easily confused and, in fact, we might be better off if he just did not participate.
Then there are the other side of the spectrum, who do understand what is going on, all too well, and are simply so frustrated and disgusted by it that they want no part of it. We never seem to get anywhere other than mired in compromises.
You may see it as abdication of responsibility, but that is because it interests you. Many people have lives to live and paying close attention to politics is a significant burden to them, one way or the other, so they just hang back and sometimes catch a soundbite or two. Kind of like, once in a while, I hear something about some basketball team that something or the other, but it means nothing to me because I care nothing for basketball, as opposed to that one guy who wears his SuperSonics shirt everywhere and can go on at length about stat stat stats.