Agreed. I’ve said exactly this in about five posts over the last six years or so.
That sounds like a tactic that could backfire. Border crossings are way up under Biden and Harris was supposedly given a lead role on immigration and border security early in the Biden administration. Trump’s already been mudslinging at Harris over immigration. A TV ad discussing her record gives Trump and his campaign a target for focused attacks.
Proposed future Trump quote:
“You know how Sleepy Joe, when he was talking in public, he liked to make things up? Well it looks like Kamala’s imitating her boss. She’s got a horrible record on immigration, but rather than admit it, she runs lying commercials hoping voters don’t realize how terrible Harris and Biden were at guarding the border.”
You mean waiting for Biden to die? Or are you expecting a tied Senate vote or the funeral of a foreign leader sometime soon?
Literally as I read that, there was a report on MSNBC that border crossings are way down in the last few months.
And that’s one of the truthy bits of our age.
It doesn’t matter if something is actually true if it simply feels true to enough people.
And would-be demagogues are almost always safe combining this with the feared ‘other’, which in this case are rampaging hordes of furriners attempting to invade our land and women.
“They raped the towns and pillaged the women. They were truly evil men.”
It’s all about the tale you want to tell. Border apprehensions are down significantly over the last few months – after an enormous spike toward the end of last year. Average illegal border crossings under Biden are still higher than under Trump and Obama.
Obviously the Harris campaign would like to play up the trend, and Trump the average.
I just ran some EC numbers.
If Harris loses Pennsylvania (and Nevada), but wins MI and WI, she’ll need two of the three next-tier states (AZ, NC, and GA) to win.
(I assumed she’d win one of the two purple NE/ME districts).
Of these three states, she’s currently forecast to just win Arizona — barely (she could easily lose it). If she just wins AZ, Trump wins, 276-262.
Same if she just wins Georgia, or just wins North Carolina (Trump wins 271-267 in each case).
The upshot is…Harris could very easily lose Pennsylvania, based on current forecasts (it’s by far her weakest of the the three “blue wall” states). And, Nevada looks quite iffy.
She — all of us — MUST prepare for this by focusing campaigning and get-out-the-vote efforts in at least two of the three states of AZ, NC, and GA. If time and money are limited, we need to pick the two states very soon (without entirely neglecting the third).
A friend sent me this vid this morning. Safe for work, cute, if a bit repetitive.
When you’re getting taunts like this, maybe you’re done.
According to 538, Harris was 2.7 points above Trump at the last measurement, two days ago (August 13, 2020).
And according to 538, Biden was 8.1 points above Trump four years before that (August. 13, 2020).
If I look at the most likely tipping point state, Pennsylvania, the now vs. then point spread is 1.6 and 6.5 points respectively – almost as bad as the national numbers.
So if the so-called shy Trumper effect is the same now and then, Trump is still ahead.
Do I really believe that? No, the pollsters probably have made some progress with weighting to reduce the Shy Trumper thing. I buy Nate Silver’s model saying it is essentially a tie now. And I think the Democratic ticket will be helped by debates. But, well, it also is possible that the pollsters have NOT fixed the Shy Trumper thing, in which case Harris could get another small bounce or two and still lose.
Re my state, the Democratic registration advantage today is only half what it was four years ago. That’s just one data point, but no reason for Democratic glee.
And no, the race is not determined by which candidate works harder or has more enthusiastic rah-rah supporters. Politics is not a meritocracy.
Sure, but either way, average that out (say a 12 month rolling average) and there’s not a massive increase or decrease over the last decade or two. Or not to the degree people seem to believe. Sure, some ups and even some downs but not a doubling or an order of magnitude difference. We’re still not at the levels seen in 2000 which was almost a quarter century ago.
I’m not saying there’s not issues to be addressed, but the actual severity of the issue and effect on people’s lives is massively overstated.
But either way, the “uncontrolled hordes are coming for our jobs and our freedoms” is still a very safe card to play. Because it obviously works.
It’s not on the MSNBC website. CBS News has this:
The problem is that 3-year low in crossings is still higher than it was under the Trump administration. It’s easy to turn that type of news into a position that the illegal immigration situation is still really awfully bad, even if it’s not as very awfully bad as it’s been for most of the Biden/Harris administration.
Remember men. Loot then burn, not the other way around. Also, it’s kill the dogs and rape the women. Again, not the other way around.
“Supposedly” is doing a lot of work in something that’s flat-out false. Her role had nothing to do with border security. Her role was to tackle the root causes of undocumented immigration to the US. That is, figure out why people were coming here without documentation, and see what could be done to change those reasons.
To that end, she visited different Central American countries, helped set up anti-corruption task forces in those countries, worked with corporate CEOs to create jobs in those countries, and so on.
Blaming her for not addressing border security is like blaming the EPA for not reducing the cost of asthma inhalers.
Trump and his cultists are absolutely lying about Harris’s role, but there’s no reason to amplify their lies.
Could happen. And …
And
Are very true.
Harris is having a great run holding on to positive news cycles and Trump’s attempts to get the cycle on him have failed. In face of that the polling has moved from Biden’s persistent stuck below to Harris very modestly ahead.
Of course there is the possibility of some systemic polling error. Not “shy Trumper” but many possibilities. Forecasting based on data from polling is not a precise hard science and the means of reaching voters is a dynamic thing. There is a reasonable possibility of significant error.
There is the possibility of Harris having bad news cycles coming up, or Trump a good one.
There is the possibility of tactical errors in misplacing resources.
Personally I think remaining hopeful and somewhat anxious until the votes are all in and all certified is the rational place to be. I’ll hold off on celebration until then.
How can Donald Trump win at his point? By Harris losing.
- Harris could lose momentum. The honeymoon period isn’t going to last.
- Harris could say something stupid about the Israel/Gaza conflict and alienate Jewish voters.
- Harris could say something stupid about the Israel/Gaza conflict and alienate Muslim voters.
- Possibilities 2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive.
- Harris could perform badly in the Presidential debate.
- Harris could use a derogatory term that alienates a section of voters, similar to the Hillary Clinton “deplorables” mistake.
- Harris could focus on the Trump negatives instead of the positives of her becoming president.
- Biden could say or do something stupid that bleeds over into the Harris campaign.
- Biden may have said derogatory things about Harris that were recorded and the recording could be leaked.
- Harris could adopt a strategy that she’s ahead and just needs to run out the clock, and then the Trump campaign could have a late surge of good publicity that turns voters his way.
Latest national polling averages: Harris 49%, Trump 47%. Essentially a tie.
I’m not getting the irrational exuberance. Way too much can happen between now and November.
It’s a time for wary optimism, and organization of energetic getting-out-the-vote efforts.
I’ve crafted a response to the charge “she never visited the border”. The Harris campaign is welcome to use it.
“I was given the task of identifying the root causes of migration to the US. Those causes are crime and poverty in Central and South America…and therefore, the solution lies not in Laredo TX but in Mexico City, Caracas, Guatemala City, and Washington. And to that last point: we had bi-partisan legislation to address the crisis on the border, ready for approval by both houses of Congress and President Biden. But this guy (points to Trump) would rather have an issue, than a solution, so he got his cowardly minions in Congress to back away from making any real progress.”
Here’s an Associated Press article from March 2021.
First paragraph:
President Joe Biden has tapped Vice President Kamala Harris to lead the White House effort to tackle the migration challenge at the U.S. southern border and work with Central American nations to address root causes of the problem.
Quote from Biden:
“When she speaks, she speaks for me.”
You can argue about how that role was implemented, or how much of it was reality or publicity. But my statement:
is flat-out true.
I agree with some points and not others.
1- Yes honeymoons don’t last forever. But she hasn’t even had her convention bounce yet.
2, 3, and 4- I suppose but she isn’t prone to gaffes. She has no chance of losing the state with the most Jewish voters, NY, and is comfortably ahead in MI where the most Muslims live (plus MN)
5- Not gonna happen
6- All those who clutched their pearls and headed to the fainting couch over “deplorables” were never going to vote for Hillary in the first place.
7- She has to strike the right balance, indeed.
8- Biden at this point has become irrelevant to the race
9- I doubt any such recording exists and if it does, would not surface.
10- She shows no sign of complacency yet and I doubt she will.
We must take the polls with a dose of salt. The thing is I believe sampling has become more difficult. In the old days when everyone had landlines, it was easier. You want to get some working class whites in a certain neighborhood, just get the area code and first three digits of the phone numbers used in such a neighborhood. Now how do they know if they’re sampling people of a certain race or social class or political party? I guess they must ask whoever picks up the cell phone but they may not be truthful. Also, it’s not certain which group turns out. Maybe the past electorate was 55% Republican and 45% Democratic, but suppose Republican turnout is sluggish and Democrats turn out in droves. If you sample based on past turnouts, you’re going to be inaccurate.
“Border security” appears nowhere in her job remit. I just don’t see how you can persist in claiming that it does.
Also from that article:
The only “border security” she addressed was that in other countries.