It always has been! This has been my complaint about Democrats my whole adult life. They fail to grasp this concept. Yeah it should be about policy, decision making, political philosophy, etc. but it’s not presidential elections are basically high school popularity contests. The DNC has failed to grasp this despite stumbling into two of the most charismatic, enthusiasm building candidates, in Bill Clinton and Obama. With those two candidates they walked to victory in both terms yet every other election they insisted on nominating effective career politicians who came across as dull and uncharismatic.
They have stumbled across that winning formula again in Harris and I couldn’t be happier
That “vote for a woman” message for Clinton turned off some men goobers because they took the message as somehow being anti-men. If she avoids the “vote for a woman” message and targets actual policy, she might be able to win some back.
I appreciate that article. Yes, Kamala has a natural, healthy, authentic laugh.
I missed that. Someone must have said it. But I question that it is common.
However I will give another positive side-effect of something I am temperamentally against — enthusiasm.
One of the most damaging things a politician can do is fundraising. It is at high risk for scandal, such as when the candidate spends time with a rich person seeking influence. And to raise money, you have to please your base at risk of alienating centrists. Remember Clinton’s deplorables gaffe? She said that at a fundraiser.
With all this all this enthusiasm, and associated small donor contributions, maybe Harris will conclude she no longer needs to personally raise funds. Risk averted.
I don’t think they ever stop. Ever. Regardless of party or anything else. Fundraising is a top task for all politicians. It’s not just for themselves but also fundraising for the party to help down-ticket candidates. It never stops. They will never think they have enough.
And the funny thing is that of course if you don’t have enough funding you are unlikely to win, but the reverse isn’t necessarily true; raising obscene amounts of money won’t translate into a win. I’ve seen many times where the person who earns more doesn’t win.
On the other hand, I’ve seen it argued in the reverse; not that making more money leads to winning, but winning leads to more money. In other words, when people are more motivated to donate, they’re also more motivated to vote. So rather than fundraising being the cause of strength for a campaign, it might be a sign of strength.
I’ve also never seen it said that making a lot of money is bad. If one campaign is bringing in better money, that’s generally a very good sign.
They never stop. They do go from Full Steam ahead to “1/4 speed” but they cant stop.
I doubt this.
It wasnt a gaffe. It was damn true.“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”
The MAGAs took it out of context- like the Dems “I can see Alaska from my house” (which at least was clearly a joke). In context it was and in 100% true.
Here’s a statistic. Over 38,000 new voter registrations since Sunday, most under the age of 34. Could they all be misogynistic Trump supporters angry at the possibility of a woman President? Sure. However, more likely they are apathetic voters now energized by Harris’ candidacy. People who are motivated to register are often motivated to vote.
Kamala has to be getting under The Donald’s skin already.
All she needs to do is “You tiny handed, senile old douche scared to debate a strong, confident black woman? What are you, a wuss?”
Kamala should agree to a Faux debate as long as the rules are response, retort, and muted during the agreed opponent speaking time. Doesn’t matter how the moderators pose questions or try to moderate as long as the format is followed. Hell, take a page from saint Ronald, “There you go again Donny boy, just senile made up babble from a old felon. Let me correct your verbal diarrhea.” point game match
Trump has demonstrated many times that he has absolutely no problem being a coward, as long as he has a ready excuse. And he’s already given one by claiming that only Fox News could host a fair debate (by of course agreeing to rules that Trump sets). If Kamala won’t do so, then he can just claim she’s trying to have an unfair debate.
And of course, any such taunts from her, subtle or otherwise, can be simply countered by Trump claiming that she’s the coward by refusing to debate on Fox. In other words, “Nuh-uh, you are.”
On yesterday’s Pod Save America podcast, there was discussion about whether she should debate Trump at all. There was a pretty good case for her not debating. It’s all performance at this point, not real debate, and it would require her to stop campaigning for a chunk of time to prepare. She’s riding a wave right now. I’m sure Trump would love to break her stride right now by getting her to agree to a debate. She wouldn’t gain much, and could lose significantly in terms of time and momentum.
So, I reluctantly agree that she shouldn’t do it unless her campaign takes a serious downturn. If that happens, she should mop the floor with him, and I’d love to watch that, but I hope it doesn’t happen.
I think she can honestly say that she doesn’t have time to debate Trump because of her compressed time to campaign.
I think you fundamentally and profoundly misunderstand the effect of enthusiasm in politics.
Campaigns have paid staff, sure–but they’re paid through donations, and they can’t do their job unless their efforts are multiplied by volunteers. The only way to get those volunteers and donations in sufficient quantities is by getting people excited, by building enthusiasm. Good campaigners and good campaign staff build enthusiasm and then leverage it.
If Harris says, “Oh, people are enthusiastic, I don’t need to raise funds,” she’d be an incompetent politician. Instead, she should say, “Oh, people are enthusiastic, this is a great time to raise funds.” She should say, “Oh, people are enthusiastic, this is the time to ask them to commit to volunteering.”
And that’s exactly what she’s doing.
You might personally find enthusiasm off-putting. Okay, that’s your right. But Harris and her allies are absolutely right to pump up the crowds and get people excited.
David Axelrod. Where do I know him from? Didn’t he work for some guy who said things like, “Yes we can” and wrote about “The audacity of hope” and who ran a campaign that raised enthusiasm to new heights?
There’s some audacity going on here, but it’s the audacity of hypocritical cynicism, the audacity of desperately trying to be relevant.
It’s nuts to view enthusiasm as anything but positive. Sounds like Chuck Todd Syndrome: “Democrats tepid about Biden, that’s bad news for Democrats. Democrats enthusiastic about Harris, bad news for Democrats.”
If Democrats turn out, Democrats win. We already know the MAGAciles are going to vote even if they have to crawl over barbed wire, broken glass, and hot coals in the nude to do it. Getting excited about Harris isn’t going to fire up the opposition because they are perpetually fired up.
The Hill used the word “enthusiasm”; Axelrod warned against too much “triumphalism”.
They are not the same thing.
I have lots of enthusiasm right now and zero triumphalism.
Triumphalism leads to cockiness.
There is now a much better chance of a win but realistically at this point Team D is still the under dog, with the back up quarterback coming after the half 9 points down starting at the 10 yard line and clearly marching the team down the field with a series of quick first downs.
I’m cheering. I’m excited. I’m on my feet even. This is a quarterback who might be able to pull this comeback off! But I’m not pretending my team isn’t still down.
I am also ready to get worried when the other team gains possession and afraid of a turnover.
It’s not time to get cocky. Some here are now predicting a landslide win, so on. Way premature. There will be setbacks. We need to be psychologically ready for them. Don’t plan the parade. Execute each play.
Great analogy! I shudder when I see the Joe Namath-y “I guarantee this is gonna happen” threads and comments like “she’s a prohibitive favorite now”.
It’s the trope about the guy throwing a no-hitter. You shouldn’t start talking in the dugout in the 6th inning about “oh you’ve got this now, Congratulations!”.
Safe to say that we all feel more optimistic than we did seven days ago, but right now I feel like we’re about to fly home from the honeymoon and return to “the real world”.
As an older guy, I am disappointed at the future my generation has made for our kids/grandkids. I do not know the answer, and speaking with younger folk, realize they feel similarly helpless. I’ve been disappointed at the apparent lack of political involvement by younger voters.
Having said all of that, my understanding is that younger voters make up the largest share of undecideds/unmotivateds. It truly would be a wonderful inflection point if large numbers of younger folk took this as an opportunity to influence events and chart a positive, forward-looking path.
