When the debate agreement mentions “props” what do they mean? I don’t expect either of them to do a full Carrot Top routine.
How about Gallagher? I wouldn’t cry if Kamala smashed a watermelon at the America-hating fuckstick.
I rarely watch TV, so I have not. But Donald Trump has seen him, and been interviewed by him, and mostly likes him, although this link says it is for his ratings and looks:
Why Trump Hates ABC—but Not David Muir, Its ‘Central Casting’ Debate Anchor
Also Muir doesn’t have a handy nicknameable surname, like Slopadopolis.
I feel like trump made a classic deal with the devil, but instead of asking for actual talent in any area, he asked to have a complete lack of accountability for anything he does or says, no matter how awful or illegal.
All of the focus is going to be on Harris. trump will be trump; everybody pretty much knows what to expect from him, so unless he really goes off the rails, the needle will move little or not at all for him. Harris, on the other hand, has to give a great performance to benefit from this debate.
Which is actually a great deal. I’d rather have “You cannot fail” as my deal, rather than take the chance.
I am trying to get my head around the idea of Trump failing to really go off the rails.
Maybe this is it: Trump is guaranteed to act totally unpresidential by pre-2016 standards. But viewers expecting Trump to make wacky and cruel statements won’t be impressed by them, since they know he does that.
While I have predicted Harris will win the debate, as measured in polling, I can see some reasons to, as a Democrat, be worried. This new finding from a high-quality pollster is worrying:
So all Trump needs to convince middle of the road voters is that something they already believe about the candidates is true. Maybe.
The problem with the question is that Trump in really not, in any sense, a traditional conservative.
It would be interesting to see the results of, instead of liberal/conservative the question would have been framed around left-wing/right-wing. I suspect Harris’ numbers would be about the same, but Trump’s would be much higher.
What Trump has to do in convince those who are Trump-leaning to vote and those who are Harris-leaning not to (or otherwise prevent them from voting).
Of course, Harris needs to do the opposite.
This election will be decided on turnout.
Yeah, Trump is the least conservative politician in this nation’s history. I, personally, am a liberal, and I generally disagree with conservatives, but I still recognize that we as a nation need them, and the lack of conservatives is going to bite us in the butt sooner or later.
Some people do have a poor sense of political direction, however defined. But these are good pollsters who do research as to what question wording works best (not that any works perfectly).
The problem with left/right is that fewer understand those terms.
As for the term conservative: For purposes of this board, Trump is no conservative, traditional or otherwise. He’s a nativist reactionary. But if I was called by the Siena College Research Institute pollster, I would definitely say Trump is too conservative, answering as a middle American regards the term.
Similarly, I distinguish a bit between liberal and progressive in discussions like this (I’m a liberal), but would consider them identical if asked by a pollster.
P.S. Just in case someone is wondering, if asked, by a legitimate pollster, if Harris is too liberal, I would say – don’t know. But I am sure she is not way too liberal, and also sure that Trump is, as the term is commonly used, way too conservative. And I’m sure that Harris needs, on Tuesday night, to convince voters that she is real centrist.
And thusly lose some progressive or more liberal votes. For example, I was happier when I thought she’d ban fracking in PA.
Sure; me too. But she’s not going to lose many of us just because we might disagree on a policy position or two. Policy is not what this election is about. (if it ever is)
Really? Trying to garner centrist votes will cost her progressive votes?
Not sure I agree with that opinion. This is a risk I would certainly take.
You are less happy now, but will you vote Stein, or Trump, or not vote as a result? Pretty sure you will still vote for her. There are simply more votes winnable by being perceived as more more “centrist” than there are that will be lost by such.
My wife is also anti-fracking, knows about Harris’s positions there, and is still certain to vote for her.
We used to live in Montgomery County Pennsylvania, a strongly Democratic NIMBY county, with the second highest per capita income in the state, that pushed through a state law keeping out oil and gas activity.
In low income counties, with oil or gas, opposition to fracking is political poison. Fracking in someone else’s backyard rarely determines a vote.
Oh, I’m still Harris 100%. I was just choosing it as an issue where tacking to the center might tip the balance one way or any other. Obviously there’s no way to make everyone happy.
Even if this was true (which as you say I doubt), for better or worse this country has more centrists (or even non maga conservatives) to win than progressives to lose. Especially when you discount the parts of the Left that have already announced themselves to be lost to begin with, which is likely a significant chunk of the total people who’d actually risk a Trump presidency to begin with.
Did they ask them whether they thought Trump was too nuts?
He’s not conservative. He’s a radical totalitarian who has co-opted the word “conservative”. There is, in the USA, nothing remotely conservative about refusing to accept the peaceful transfer of power.
Works best to do what?
Get a quick either/or answer from people who aren’t thinking, and a refusal to answer the poll from people who are?
Not in mine. The immediate reaction of most of the planning board was that there was money in it and we needed the money. After considerable discussion and supplying of information the (overall very red, and overall quite low income) Town voted to ban it. There was almost no public opposition to that ban.
But a) there are a whole lot of other issues besides that one and b) Trump would certainly frack the hell out of the whole country if he thought he’d get ten cents out of it. So that is in no way a deciding issue for me.
That is definitely a thing. It is the main reason you see progressives and further left not vote for Democrats.
That said, it is very possible that any progressives who think that way are already not voting for Kamala, and only have significant numbers in heavily blue states.
That said, I don’t think there are all that many truly undecided voters left. So if she were to lose a decent number of progressives, there may not be enough undecided voters for her to grab up to more than overcome the difference.
Personally, I don’t see why this is an either/or situation. Have some good progressive policies, but also throw a bone to some centrist policies. Why is it always presented like you have to shift, rather than widen?
It really shouldn’t take all that much to bring any centrist over. So just pick things that aren’t a big deal to progressives.
The whole idea of a “Big Tent” is that there is something for everyone in that tent.
Which specific positions on which issues do you propose? That she hasn’t taken already.