I think they should point out how he is old and unfit as often as possible. Maybe not Harris herself, but everyone else should. But I think we’re in the wrong thread. I’ll move us into the right thread.
Seems the Harris campaign is doing this to some extent (at least for now).
Full title: Democrats are hard selling Kamala Harris’ message that Trump and Vance are ‘weird’
The Democratic Party’s sudden unification was on full display across the broadcast and cable news networks on Sunday as the party’s biggest stars lined up to deliver talking points on three issues: the strength of Harris’s resume, the perceived weirdness of Trump and his vice presidential candidate JD Vance, and Joe Biden’s lame-duck agenda item, Supreme Court reform. Today marked the first round of Sunday news talk shows (minus Meet the Press, pre-empted by the Olympics) since Biden’s decision to drop out of the race was announced last Sunday afternoon.
Hey- as a self admitted weird person, this is an insult to be compared to those two! 
Hubert Humphrey in 1968 tried to put a little daylight - just a little, mind you - between him and LBJ over Vietnam. Nixon immediately blamed Humphrey for weakening the U.S. position in the Vietnam negotiations, emboldening the enemy. He also opened a back channel to negotiate directly with North Vietnam, thus weakening the U.S. position.
A lot. If it is so important for Biden to do something different right now, why isn’t he being pressured by party leaders including Harris? Most Americans believe Biden gave in to such pressure before.
She can say that our policy up to now is reasonable, but here’s how we need to pivot next year.
I recall seeing signs around here saying “Keep (this city) Weird” – hopefully that could be done without the help of those two.
Those two are the ick kind of weird, not the good kind.
AIUI, all potential Democratic candidates had until yesterday to declare their candidacy and until 7/30 to get enough delegates to qualify. Since I haven’t heard otherwise, I am assuming that there are no other official candidates? If this is true then the virtual nomination starts on 8/1 and I don’t see there being any hesitation so Harris should be the official candidate by the end of the week.
Trump’s still waffling over whether or not he’ll debate Kamala. I’m still waffling on whether she should do so.
Unclear where exactly to post this … but since the basis of the link is recent movement in Harris’ favorability numbers, it should fit well here.
@PhillyGuy , the malleability of (some portion of) the voting public is a topic we’ve both touched on here and there in this forum. Both of us have seemed to doubt that there was much slack in the respective levels of support for each ticket. But I don’t know? Does Giridharadas (bio) have a point?
EDIT:
Jay Kuo cited Giridharadas’ tweet, and added:
I have long argued that the “double doubters” in this election—voters who disliked both former choices of either Biden and Trump—were likely to determine the election, just as they had in 2016 (bad late shift) and 2020 (good late shift). The idea here is simple: Give that group of double doubters a different choice , and many will rethink their position. The inescapable fact is, Democrats were able to do that, but Republicans were not.
Jennifer Palmieri (veteran of Hillary Clinton’s campaign) made a good point (in the New Yorker Radio Hour podcast):
One reason countries like the UK have had woman national leaders before the US is that some have parliamentary systems — so a woman can become a leader BEFORE she faces a nationwide election, and thus show that a woman in charge is possible (without having to convince voters of this hypothetical during a primary process)….
….and this is effectively what happened to Harris.
I still have my doubts on exactly how persuadable people are on candidates. I don’t think it’s zero but I think it’s lower than many people think.
But where I have always thought something like this will make a difference is turnout. An injection of excitement in the race could have some people deciding to come out and actually vote who otherwise might have just stayed at home, and that’s a good thing!
There was a significant jump in voter turnout in 2020 (in both absolute and percentage terms) over the trend of the last several decades, and a backsliding was a major concern of mine for this cycle.
Even if many of them don’t vote the way I would prefer, actual participatory democracy is something we should celebrate.
Good point. I often must remind myself that my personal preferences are immaterial–the real question is Which candidate can draw votes from the center, from the 5-10% of undecided voters whose choices will determine the winner.
This seems an odd distinction. For decades, we’ve had plenty of examples in the US of women in positions of authority – Cabinet Secretaries, Governors, Senators and Representatives (including the Speaker of the House). These are at least as important leadership roles as anything a person can achieve short of the PM in a parliamentary system.
Well, no, this misses my point. I don’t think it’s 5-10%.
I think there are more than 5-10% of the voting age population who usually/always stay home who might be persuaded to actually cast a ballot this time. As they did in 2020 in a big way. I don’t think they’re ‘undecided’. I think they choose to be non-voters, for whatever reason, but do usually have a preference in candidates.
But not 5-10% who already come out who can be persuaded to change their minds (short of major flub or scandal, and even then…). I think that number is much smaller.
And there’s a large pool of eligible but non-voting people who can absolutely swing elections up and down the ballot.
An X account that’s dedicated to raising funds for Kamala has been suspended. No clear explanation from Musk or X headquarters.
But what’s omitted there is that in the most common parliamentary system, the PM is not personally chosen by the voters at-large to be the candidate for PM. She is only running as a member from her riding/constituency/party list and already has risen to be the leader of the party through internal processes and upon achieving majority she ascends to the PM post. (Meanwhile in other presidential systems there is also more of a sense of a vote for the party and the candidate rises within it first. )
In the US meanwhile we have developed this system by which you have to individually sell yourself to the media, the donor class, the punditocracy, AND the fine people of Corn Syrup Falls IA and, oddly, preferrably as running in spite of your own party establishment.
The difference is that in the parliamentary system, the potential candidates for PM are already on the national stage, and are going head-to-head with the current PM.
They don’t have to start campaigning for PM by introducing themselves on the national stage, which is what the primary system in the US requires. It’s not like Jimmy Carter having to explain to voters in New Hampshire thst he’s the Governor of Georgia and is running for President.
Margaret Thatcher, for example, took down Heath in a leadership contest that played out nationally, and then was Leader of the Opposition for four years. That’s four years on the national stage, challenging the PM in Parliament, and setting out her policies throughout that period. By the time of the 1979election, the British voters knew her well. How many people outside California knew Harris in early 2020?
And @JRDelirious ’s point is also significant. To be the leader of a national party in a parliamentary system, you have to make connections within that party from the moment you apply for the local nomination. To reach the very top rung, you have to be successful at step-by-step politics within the party, starting as a new backbencher and climbing the ladder. That makes it easier for someone who may be an outsider to work their way up in the party and winning party trust, than having to come in from the outside and do it all in the early primary season.
Thatcher’s a good example again. By the time she was challenging Heath, she had substantial support within the Conservative Party, nationally.
That sort of step by step, over years, makes it easier for a potential outsider to become a true insider in a parliamentary system, and gives the people a lot longer to asses the candidate. I think that may give women candidates something of an easier path, than a system that emphasizes doing it all within the space of a few months.
I think she should require that he come to her. And even then, decide whether it is worthwhile.
Trump doesn’t debate (not that any candidate does.) But all he wants is a big platform to spew his lies. IF she agrees to debate him, she should insist that the rules do not favor him, and it should not be on Fox. But, I don’t think she ought to make a big deal out of demanding that he debate.
She should play it so that whether a debate happens, the arrangements, and the debate itself not give him more publicity than simply declining.
Nate Silver’s election model has been turned back on!
Harris is given a 54% chance of winning the popular vote, but only a 38% chance of winning the (insert your own expletives here) Electoral College. Not great, but still better than Biden, who was at 27% when he dropped out. Also, there are many important swing States that haven’t had good polling since the change of candidates, so this could change significantly once that data comes in.