Limits? I’ve been hearing about Reagan’s “morning in America”, “bright, shining city on a hill” bullshit for 40 years.
Sure, but at the same time Bush’s “Thousand Points of Light” are now mostly remembered as a reference in a thirty-plus year old Neil Young song.
I get the happiness that the apparent albatross had been removed from the Democratic campaign. But I don’t see how that was going to hold up for four months with new developments in the world every day.
I agree with this. Harris suddenly saying ‘here are fifty things I’ll do differently than Biden’ would be decried as ‘flip-flopping’ by the Jake Tappers of the media world—it would be hit on relentlessly until November 5.
It’s also the case that Harris suddenly trying to say she’d do things differently than Biden would be perceived by many as… well, ungrateful. As a betrayal of the person who lifted her up. And that, too, would be ballyhooed by the mainstream media (along with the right, of course).
It would be a mistake. What makes sense is the ‘Republican cabinet members’ idea; that’s enough. Harris should not be pushing ideas that could be taken as criticism of Biden.
Let’s not forget that one of the most important ways that Donald Trump can win at this point, is with the help and support of careerist “journalists” such as Tapper, Bash, and a few at MSNBC, too, who clearly believe that they will prosper by being seen to attack Harris. Look at me, look how Fair and Balanced I am! is their self-deluding cry.
Agreed. Your point is correct, and it’s a no-win question at this stage. If that messaging were to be done, which maybe it should have been done to some extent, it needed to be designed with care at the beginning of her campaign.
Yes. Any of that shit legitimizes Trump as a “real, potentially acceptable” candidate, just as every aspect of this election has done so.
I have been thinking lately that a constitutional amendment that disallows a person who has run for president and won the nomination of a political party from ever running for president or vice president again would be good for the country. It would have prevented Nixon from running again (good thing) and ended the Trump Trauma in 2020 (as for Grover Cleveland, his second presidency seems to have been a bit of a mess, though he is not typically described as an evil person).
Here is some positive news out of PA:
I don’t just post links to any little thing. This seems significant.
I think that’s the part that can’t be emphasized enough. The question wasn’t really “what would you do differently?” The question was “will you please talk some shit about Biden?” The question parsed in its literal form already has a simple and obvious answer: she’s going to do everything differently because she’s not Joe Biden. But if she dared to say that on national television, the headline would be that she repudiates everything Joe Biden ever did. In today’s world, the media can’t figure out how to survive without headlines like “you’ll never guess what Kamala Harris said about Joe Biden!”
Removed off topic post.
Here’s how I wish she answered it:
Q: “What would you do differently than President Biden?”
A: “I’d appoint many more Supreme Court justices then he has done.”
(I know, I know, not his fault, but…)
That’s a distortion and an unfair burden on journalists. These folks are career journalists with integrity. That means they aren’t partisan hacks like FOX dipshits. It’s their job to scrutinize for the American people. They are supposed to ask tough questions of politicians, in office and as candidates.
It just so happens that the norms are so far broken on one side it’s almost impossible to call that side out hard enough. I mean, short of starting every remark, “Donald Trump lied about this today. The Republicans are distorting the facts heavily on this topic.” For just about every topic and comment and statement. That is truth, but it’s also just not possible.
But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t hold Democrats responsible for their remarks and positions. A fair system has to call out wrongs from both sides, even if one side’s wrongs are social faux pas versus the other side’s felonies. And it should also point out when each side is right.
Harris-Walz and the Democrats do have errors. Getting them to acknowledge those shows the Dems are reasonable and open to correction and willing to listen.
In contrast, those journalists also call out the Republicans pretty heavily.
Jake Tapper may have criticized the Harris campaign for not doing a lot of interviews, but that’s working with conventional wisdom that interviews are an important part of the campaign.
But I’ve seen him hammer Republicans on his show for non- answers and lies.
The Dems control their own message, and they control how they respond to criticism. Ignoring legitimate criticism reflects poorly on them.
Now a case can certainly be made that the mainstream press, especially the political press, could do a lot better calling out Trump’s mental decline. They could point out much more solidly the new ways Trump bungles words, scrambles names, and generally makes covfefe come out of his mouth. Those are objectively different than his speeches from even four years ago. They are different than his longstanding meandering and self-interruptions that are attributable to style. Sure, the MAGAs won’t hear it, but the independents and sane right will.
Oh, hogwash. You just said she’s a different person and will obviously do some things differently. Why is it poor form to ask in what ways will she be different?
A clean answer doesn’t have to fault Biden, either. She could stress that Biden had the inordinately challenging job of taking over after Trump spent for years destroying all the norms of how the government runs and gutting the career government employees that knew the job and how things worked. He had to establish normal. And he had to do it in the wake of the covid crisis and the subsequent global economic impact. And he had to do it with an even more obstructionist Congress, especially the House that feel into such disarray the Republicans couldn’t even pick their own Speaker, and then tanked him for attempting to be an adult.
So she could say, “Now that Biden had helped lead the US economic recovery and set us back on a path of growth, I want to focus on improving the ways we focus on helping the American middle class.”
“Biden has been challenged by a Supreme Court that has overturned precedent and given up a coherent legal philosophy for political expediency. They have made dangerous decisions that jeopardize our democracy. I plan to work with Congress to put limitations on this unchecked power by instituting ethical controls, and by transforming the selection process. That may mean it’s time to increase the size of the Court to match the number of federal circuits. It may mean we need to set term limits and an orderly process that ensures replacement opportunities each Presidential term.”
“Our country is in a different place now than when Biden took office. Naturally I will be taking actions to suit the challenges of today as opposed to four years ago.”
The Republican response would have been “See? Even she says he was ineffective! Do you really believe she would be any different than her master?”
Once again, you have the mistaken belief that a different response would get a different result, when the truth is it doesn’t matter what she said because the Republican have her set on “Auto-wrong”. No matter what she says she is already wrong, period.
Why, if it actually the truth?
Start every campaign speech with, “How has the GOP lied since yesterday?” Start every newscast with the same.
But we have “rumors about FEMA funding money back to Biden, Harris to follow his insubordination.” Or some shit.
Media and Harris/Walz campaign looks like a begging community. “No! Not true!” And nothing followed other than fact checks. No one reads that.
Uh huh:
" if you have access to the various private and internal polling being conducted by and shared only amongst the elites, Wall Street, and Members of Congress, then you already know that this election was over weeks ago…"
Absolute bullshit. He knows of no such polls.
Because their job is to inform people about events and topics. At some point you have to say something besides “Donald Trump lied,” and there’s only so much time in a day.
Because they start to sound like the biased liberal cheerleaders that conservatives accuse them of being.
Because at some point it becomes white noise. Some could argue we are already at that point.
But that’s not journalism, at least the kind with integrity that they harken to. That’s FOX shit.
And the alternative is to not say it at all? Since when is the choice between “Say it all the time”, and “Never say it”?
They do say it.
But the media DOES say it; it’s just that at this point, you’ve stopped noticing because it’s am hourly occurrence. You can’t smell your own boogers.
May I use this in work situations? Will I owe you a royalty?
It’s my gift to the human race.
Man, the polls on 538 through October 8 look absolutely terrible. They claim Trump ahead in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia (which I’ve written off due to Republican altering of election rules anyway) and Arizona, and tied in Michigan. All narrow, narrow margins but the risk here is huge. One poll - from someone called Activote - claims Trump is ahead nationally. Yikes. Through October 7, a few more polls indicating possible Trump leads in Wisconsin and Michigan. (And Ohio is clearly out of reach.)
I’m waiting for the collapse of the Trump campaign people in this thread were very confident was already happening. When’s that taking place? Hello?
Nate Silver, meanwhile, while noting Trump did well recently, still breaks it down as:
HARRIS IS WINNING IN
The entire USA: +3.2
Pennsylvania: +1.2
Michigan: +1.4
Wisconsin: +1.5
Nevada: +1.8
Minnesota by a lot
NM by a lot
TRUMP IS WINNING IN:
North Carolina +0.7
Georgia +0.9
Arizona +1.3
Florida +5.5
Texas by more than six
This would mean Harris 277, Trump 261, assuming NE-1 goes Harris. But Michigan would flip it (or Wisconsin) and I honestly think Trump has at worst a coin flip there.