On a small lighter note, Kamala has had a bug named after her for her environmental work.
I dunno. Her numbers have been going steadily up, and she seems to hold a good 5-6% lead over Trump nationally. I’d call that bounce-ish.
That is just why she didnt. She got the bounce after the Dems came together for her, and assured her nomination. This was not a normal election year.
She does??
What poll aggregator are you following?
538 has her up 2.6. NYT up 3. RCP up 2.1.
Where are you getting 5 to 6? Only looking at the Reuters Ipsos one?
Do you have a problem with the Reuters/Ipsos one? This article shows Harris with a 7% lead. It’s like watching the news: MSNBC and Fox will make you feel like you live in two different worlds. Pick the poll you like best. The point was that I think Harris has had a bounce, though more of a prolonged one. Great interview today too with Stephanie Ruhle. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris-builds-lead-over-trump-voters-see-her-debate-winner-reutersipsos-poll-2024-09-12/
Yep, just watched the interview with Stephanie Ruhle. Harris did very well. Those saying she’s scared of the press and is hiding from them are more and more wrong with each passing day.
This latest Reuters/Ipsos poll is a significant improvement from the one 12 days ago. Best lead yet for Harris. The many different stories and anecdotes about Trump’s dysfunctional campaign may be part of the reason, but Harris is also doing a great job on the campaign trail.
May the trend continue. Forty days to go!
I have no more problem with Reuters Ipsos than I have with the poll that showed a virtual tie. (I linked to it a few posts back even.) And there is value to see a positive trend between polls by the same house.
Which one is the correct snapshot, the near tie or the one that reports the bigger lead than any other? Of course no way to know. Throw it in the mix. Don’t just only “pick the poll you like best” and ignore the rest. Cmon.
Fair enough. But that’s how it is with the news these days. Polls too. I think Trump is getting flustered while Harris is showing increased confidence. That will have a bearing, I think. We shall see.
You may be right, but is it relevant? The only way to notice a gradual process of change in a candidate (whether flustered, or confident) is to pay attention. And people who’ve been paying attention have already made up their minds,
The problem is the undecideds (more properly described as “the non-caring”). These are the folks who don’t pay attention to the news, and don’t care. They will probably vote (if they vote at all) based on their family’s recommendation, not based on what they see on TV ads during the football game.
For fun, in our current environment what level of victory (please) would you think would warrant Harris declaring “a mandate”? Would being able to declare that be able to accomplish getting any more goods done?
I assume one that also gets Dem majority in both houses. Otherwise, we know the drill.
Yup. Stopping Trump is the biggie. But to actually get anything done, the Dems need the trifecta.
A 2008-level sweep would probably constitute a “mandate,” but it won’t help Harris any more than it helped Obama. Voters were so thrilled with his mandate they handed Congress back to the GOP two years later.
Presidents have a “mandate” if members of Congress fear that opposing his or her agenda will lead to them suffering negative electoral consequences. So, Reagan was able to pass his tax cuts with support from a significant number of Democrats in conservative/swing districts because they feared upsetting their constituents. Yet Clinton couldn’t use his “mandate” to get health care reform passed even though his party controlled both chambers of Congress.
I can’t see Harris having any sort of “mandate” coming out of the election. She’s not running on some popular set of policy positions where even Republicans would worry about opposing her. And she doesn’t have the intense personal popularity and loyalty within her own party where Democrats in office would just go along with whatever she wants to do. Her popular mandate is to stop Trump from taking office, and that’s accomplished once the election is decided.
If she beats Trump, I think she’ll be very popular among democrats.
Abortion rights are pretty damn popular, but Republicans would rather lose than compromise on that.
Disagree some. Local politics. They represent their individual districts and the candidates have to win their primaries. They’d rather compromise but they lose a segment that votes for them on that single issue and don’t even get to the general.
I personally don’t think it’s a mandate unless it is also a Blue wave along with a national repudiation of Trumpism.
Happy if it is squeak by win!
No doubt! 
But the eternal question in politics is “what have you done for me lately?” Once the glow of finally (?) putting a dagger through the heart of Trump’s presidential ambitions subsides, it’s going to be a challenge to wrangle Democrats behind a governing agenda. Even if they do hold both sides of the Capitol, it will be by razor-thin margins. Can Harris successfully prod, persuade, flatter, threaten, cajole and bribe the various tribes in the Democratic party to get behind her agenda? I hope so!
If she wins, and Dems win both houses, and reproductive rights referenda pass in Florida and elsewhere, then she might claim to have a mandate on proposing nationwide reproductive rights legislation. But without an impossible 60-40 Senate majority, that mandate and $7 will get you a Big Mac.