I’m a big Harris fan. I want her to win, I support her on most things, and I think overall her campaign has been very smart. Her warmth and laughter, her ability to empathize, her desire to move forward with a positive message for the future are all great.
There are a couple of points that rub me wrong about Harris’s campaign.
First, I’m not a fan of the practice of tipping, so I think making tips income tax free will be detrimental. I think the idea of giving tip workers a slight break on one expense is too simplistic. I think it will drive companies to shift more wages to tip-based for their own gain at the expense of workers. But that’s a minor policy disagreement that can easily fall apart in legislation attempts.
I think her messaging on fracking is a bit of a spin. She says she made clear in 2019 and 2020 she supports fracking, but the record is less definitive. Rather she got on board with Biden’s policy, but she didn’t actuality say that she changed her mind at that time. Now I fully accept her change of positive, that she has made it clear she does not intend to seek fracking bans. But I don’t think she was quite so clear in 2020. But that’s a small thing that doesn’t affect me. I understand concerns over fracking as a drilling technique and that it is causing a lot of local issues. But we need the energy independence, and she needs the support of oil and gas workers.
I don’t like her framing on Gun Control. The 2nd Amendment folk are in full tilt against her seeking “gun bans”. Her response is, “I’m not going to ban guns, a I’m a gun owner myself.” Except she wants to reinstate the assault weapons ban to take dangerous guns off the street with a mandatory buyback. That may not be a full “gun ban” in the sense of making all huns illegal, but it is a partial gun ban. So the right taking about his she wants to take away their guns is fairly correct, she does want to take away some of their guns.
She seems to be hitting the all-or-nothing interpretation because it seems more benevolent than the “partial ban is a ban” that the right is pushing, but that makes them more correct.
I’m not sure a better phrasing. I just feel the “no bans” wording is a bit too like Bill Clinton parsing statements. It’s like “oral sex isn’t sexual relations” in veracity.
I suppose if those are all I’ve got, I’m found to sound a little nit-picky. But those irk me.
Harris has learned that while taking positions in the middle wins elections. She’ll annoy people on both sides who want perfection. And so what? How many positions other than abortion are ever proclaimed by politicians that are full tilt on? Fuzziness works. The soft center, the undecided voters who are just now tuning in, the ones who want something good but don’t care about details. Nobody who posts in P&E is in that group. Nevertheless they exist, they vote, and they decide elections.
She has backed off on the mandatory buyback. That was some time ago. Now, she supports Biden’s plan of a ban on sales of assault weapons, like the Feds had in the past.
There is a difference between a flip/flop, saying one thing then the opposite to a different crowd a short time after- vs having your viewpoint change after 4 years. Sane adults can change their viewpoints, given time and wisdom. Harris is sane. trump is not.
Fracking in some areas is a ecological nightmare, that causes ground movement, and ruins the water supply. In other areas, we are getting moderately cheap oil. There should be no- 'all in" for either side- fracking is fine in many areas- and a disaster in others. I believe this is Harris’s current viewpoint. The fracking people have shown they can do it safely and economically. So, with a solid ecological report, it should be allowed on a case by case basius.
These policy statements are not aimed at you. The target audience is low-information morons who form their small amount of political awareness based on tiny sound bites filtered third-hand through mediocre journalism. These are designed to present a simplistic yet vaguely appealing nugget of pseudo-policy which withstands the carving-away of nuance and complexity that is American news coverage. The argument is not whether these policies make sense or hold up logically, the argument is about whether these are properly formed so a positive message will survive the gauntlet of noise and stupidity to reach the mouth-breathers at the end of the communication chain.
I agree. It seems like both sides are using vague language, and it isn’t fair to call out Harris while ignoring the right. “She’s coming for our guns,” and “gun ban” do sound like she’s for eliminating all private gun ownership, and the gun right she’s think all Dems want to ban all guns, so the message does counter that narrative.
That’s what I have to remind myself. Nuance is easily lost. Pithy one-liners help the message get through.
Oh certainly, and I never meant to imply otherwise. I’m not at all concerned that she changed her position. I’m nitpicking the way she is explaining her opinion changes.
I’m fine with the “my values have not changed” line, though it’s become a cliche. I know the debate wasn’t the place for elaborating on her position details, but sitting down for another interview with, say, Jake Tapper or a Diane Sawyer or David Muir and let them ask the pointed questions that give her time for nuanced reply would be a good way to calm the middle who hear rumors and would be interested in the truth.
Also, she’s created a reputation that she won’t be available for interviews or press conferences, so doing one would jewel with that criticism.
And that fits the recommendation from CNN analyst I mentioned in another thread that Harris needs to talk more to win.
Rule of thumb: anything spoken out loud is consciously aimed at the television audience and is therefore simplified to just above the point of meaninglessness. If you want actual substance, you gotta read.
I fully support Kamala. She has broken out from underneath the wing of Biden and the general Democratic party to establish her own position. It’s not perfect, it has a few holes but her views, demeanor, attitude, competence, etc., make are an excellent president. When you add in the issues (gross understatement) with her opponent, Kamala is the much, much, much better candidate.
But she does not have the required 270 electoral votes to win the election.
Her opponent is playing on two issues Kalama remains vulnerable, the economy and immigration. Her opponent is using fear-mongering to great success in several swing states. It’s all he has and it’s working. Kamala must tackle economic and immigration issues head on, especially in several swing states. If she doesn’t, she loses those electoral votes, and the election, to her opponent.
Kamala’s supporters need to take the feel good euphoria, rose colored glasses from the debate off and face the reality. Kamala needs to face the reality. Kamala must be clear and decisive on her plans on the economy and immigration, concentrating on the swing states.
To steal a comment I read somewhere, this election is about moving the country forward, or the country will cease to exist.
She’ll be called all sorts of crap whether it’s true or not. If she tried not to say anything that’ll get her called names by the people currently calling themselves Republicans, she wouldn’t be able to say anything at all. (And would, of course, be criticized for that.)
In addition:
Harris – or anybody, with the possible exception of Trump if he succeeds in arresting a lot of them – can’t do a lot of the policy stuff claimed without the help of both houses of Congress. Getting anything at all through both houses of Congress – even if the Democrats manage to take both of them – is almost certainly going to require some compromises; so whatever nuance you’re after, Harris may not be able to accomplish it.
“jewel with”?
I think I get your sense. But is that a typo/autoincorrect for something, and if so, for what?
We’re not going to know that until November 5. If then.
I think it’s fair that we avoid creating our own bubble, and we should be honest about areas we don’t support Harris. I’ve said many times, I’m more of a centrist than progressive, and in some places I have libertarian tendencies. I really bristle at nanny state stuff where the purpose is to protect me from myself. If you can’t show that I’m a risk to someone else, leave me alone.
Not taxing tips is utterly stupid. Beyond being a pander, and beyond the fact that if you want to give tax relief it should not be based on the type of income, it creates a situation where the $40,000/yr waiter has a lower tax burden than a $40,000/yr laborer. How that’s not obviously stupid is beyond me. Oh, and I do agree that tipping is getting absurd and should not be encouraged by policy.
I also think that giving money to help with home down payments is just idiotic. There is very much a housing crisis, but it’s almost entirely supply driven, and throwing more money at a supply-driven inflationary situation is the exact opposite of helping. It’s largely a state and local issue, and to the extent the feds have any power at all, it would be by overriding some of the restrictive zoning we have. Which may not be possible, and will not be popular.
Definitely autocorrect. I forget my actual words. Something like “counter”. How that ended up “jewel with” perplexes me.
One of the big housing issues is that builders are focused on mid to high priced homes and few are building smaller, “starter” homes. This raises the bar to entry.
I wonder about the “tiny home” movement. Is it a means of making houses more affordable? Is there some other driving feature?
Fair enough. Although I can’t see how it matters much. She could have 100 policies I disagree with and 1) she doesn’t care, and 2) it won’t change my vote. I assume she knows better than I whether pandering on tip income is going to help or hurt. (IMO, not a good proposal for reasons you outline). If she gets elected, we can write our representatives about any disagreements with her proposals.
Right, all the media talkers and most of their followers in P&E forums want Harris to talk to the media. The people that Harris is addressing, on the other hand, don’t watch or read media or else they wouldn’t be uninformed. Worse, they have been taught that the media is full of elites who condescend to them and are probably lying to boot. They just want her to sit down with Oprah and have a nice conversation, so they can get introduced to her. Harris’ strategy is the right one for this point in the campaign, IMO.
I agree with this. People who work for tips already have a way of not paying taxes on tips - they pocket cash tips. You need to pay social security and medicaid on your income so you are contributing to those services and then you can get those services in kind. I have a friend who was a server for 30 years before she became disabled. She made a lot of money as a server which is why she stuck with it for 30 years. But when she filed for disability her payout is ridiculously low because it’s based on her declared income, which didn’t include the oodles of cash tips she pocketed. She’ll also get screwed in the same way when it comes to collecting Social Security.
I don’t see the rationality in basically allowing and encouraging everyone to “pocket tips” by not levying taxes against them. When they need their income to qualify for federal and state income based services do they get those services based on their full income or non-tipped income only? Are we going to be giving people Social Security payouts based on forgiven Social Security taxes or worse, are we going to only give them their Social Security based on their non-tipped, $3.25/hr income? It doesn’t work out for anyone.
We all know there’s a huge chasm between the positions taken by D and R politicians on just about every major issue. You take any major D and any major R politician, and 95% of the difference between their positions will be due to the gulf between the parties, and only about 5% will be due to the two politicians’ individual stances.
And since we have a political system where (assuming Harris wins) any substantial policy changes have to be passed by Congress, the individual politician’s policy differences don’t matter that much.
If Harris can’t get essentially all the Dem Senators and all but a handful of Dem Representatives (I assume the Dems will win back the House at least) to buy into her idea about tipping, it won’t pass and won’t become law. So the details we’re discussing here will matter very little.
Straying somewhat from topic, that’s what bugs me about the whole “we need to know more about Harris’ policy positions” nonsense. We basically know where she stands, simply because she’s a Democrat with her party clearly behind her. Climate change? Dems want to do something about it, Repubs don’t believe it’s real. Abortion? Dems fully support a woman’s right to bodily autonomy; Repubs want to ban practically all abortions, and may have their sights set on birth control next. Gun control? Dems want more of it, Repubs are opposed to doing any of it. And so forth down the line. She’s a Democrat. We know where she stands in far more than enough precision to be able to choose between her and Velveeta Voldemort.
Agree. Harris should not spend too much time on these voters - they will never be satisfied with whatever amount of detail she provides. At this point they are essentially MAGA voters seeking attention - “I am undecided so I am special!”