Noted. And also observed that ActiVote’s aggregate tracker is consistently staying at that +5 that it settled at for a bit now. Bump, of whatever size, to come.
Not crazy at all!
True. But it will be modest, partly thanks to RFK’s dropping out and endorsing you-know-who (but not only because of that — its effects are quite small).
It makes sense by itself. But the effect will be weakened (if Harris gets her way) because well informed voters will know that it was only possible because Harris got the rules changed.
No biggie, but I personally think that gamesmanship like this looks bad.
That’s ridiculous. If Trump starts shouting the n-word at her when it’s her turn, no one is going to say, “well, she did insist the mics were hot.” Well, maybe Sean Hannity will.
Well informed voters are already voting for her and won’t care about nitpicking. It’s the uninformed voters that she needs to grab the attention of.
Same here- weird.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/26/kamala-harris-donald-trump-debate-abc-microphones-00176294
I honestly think the Harris campaign is mostly just trolling him with this, gleefully keeping him off balance and out of his rhythm.
Trump just said he’d prefer the mics were left on. “We agreed to the same rules, I don’t know, doesn’t matter to me, I’d rather have it probably on, but the agreement was that it would be the same as it was last time. "
This would be entirely anticipated by the Harris campaign, and lends credence to your theory that they are trolling him. Keep putting him at odds with his advisors.
I’ve been thinking about this today. And I think you may have just hit on exactly what Harris’s campaign is thinking right now. This is a pure troll move. I have no doubt they know exactly what they’re doing.
I don’t think she would say this publicly, but my guess is that she has zero doubts that she could handle Trump in a setting where the mics are always on. This is about keeping Trump off balance because they know, meaning Harris’s campaign, that Trump and his own advisors are at odds right now over how he’s conducting himself publicly.
Shall we gamble on how many times she says to him, “keep digging” ?
| Column 1 | Column 2 |
|---|---|
| Popular vote | Harris Electoral win probability |
| R +0 to +1 | 3.10% |
| D +0 to +1 | 11.40% |
| D +1 to +2 | 34.90% |
| D +2 to +3 | 65.00% |
| D +3 to +4 | 87.80% |
| D +4 to +5 | 96.60% |
| D +5 to +6 | 99.20% |
| D +6 to +7 | 99.80% |
This came from Nate Silver’s paid section, and I thought it was an interesting depiction of the “Electoral College bias”. Basically she has to have at least a two-percentage-point victory in the popular vote, to even have a >= 65% chance of the electoral win.
I knew there was a “bias” that’s always existed, but seeing it laid out like this I thought was interesting.
Having seen that, my first thought was to check by how much Clinton won the popular vote in 2016: just 1.9% according to the Wikipedia article on the election.
I’m hopeful that 3+% is achievable with money, tactical campaigning and the quality of the candidate.
Agreed.
I saw one of her campaign surrogates interviewed, and he said (paraphrasing) that they don’t think that Trump can act presidential if he’s unfiltered, and the American people deserve to see how he acts.
I think that Harris is confident in her ability to withstand any Trump insults, and probably figures that it will assist her image as a tough and formidable person (thereby undermining all the negative media criticizing her laugh, and trying to claim that she’s not serious).
I also think that the campaign is sincere when they state that Trump’s behavior is expected to turn voters off.
That’s my opinion as to why they want the microphones on. If it also exacerbates a rift between Trump and his team, that’s just a bonus.
I think the mics being on are a real risk to Harris too. It’s tough to look presidential when someone is interrupting you constantly. So she says something wilting like “let’s act like adults” or “wait your turn, I’m speaking.” And he just keeps talking over her, and it becomes an absolute mess.
Yes, if you’re really paying attention, you know who caused it and who’s the adult in the room. But many people will just think politics sucks overall, they’re all the same, there’s no sense in voting. And I think those who tune out are more likely to be Harris voters if they did bother.
Actually, the real math is 2.2% – i.e., the percentage difference for the total votes the two of them received, because the others really do not count. Four years ago, Joe the President got 4.6% by the same math. I suspect that Ms Harris will pull between 3 and 4.
But that risk will still be there to some degree for Harris with the mics on or off. Since they are on the same stage a few feet apart she will still be able to hear his blithering and possibly be distracted by it. He won’t shut up just because the mics are off.
Yup. Consistent with the estimate above comparing national with PA’s ( likely tipping point) of 2.6% as the EC advantage estimate right now.
Note though that it is not written in stone, even though it will likely be written in Keystone (state) …
PA might move more D or R ward relative to overall national numbers yet.
Thanks, and no argument from me about the calculations or the prediction.
The message seems to be that the ‘EC advantage’ is real but definitely not insurmountable. And that D+4 means that we’re keeping up nicely, not streets ahead.
Depends on which D+4 entry applies to now. It’s kind of a big jump between the two.