I agree with all of this.
This is what enthusiasm looks like.
This. I think the Democrats have a strong message on the border. We can fix this. We tried. Trump is holding us back.
This is certainly true. I despaired during that debate. But i think she is also a very strong candidate. I preferred her to Biden when they were all running against each other. (Biden has outperformed my expectations, i have to admit.)
And yes, enthusiasm is good. Enthusiasm brings out volunteers, and brings out voters. Yes we Kam!
Even in states with easy enrollment and mail-in ballots, it’s hard to get even a third of the youngest to vote.
I see that in my own family - one kid very politically active, two kids who we just can’t convince to be bothered (even when I was on the ballot for a town position). Some of that, by the way, is peer influence- if my daughter’s friends suddenly thought it was important (and not “boring”) she’d be all over it.
The obvious explanation to me is that people, once they form the habit of voting, tend to keep it. As a cohort grows older, more and more of them form the habit, so the percentage of voters rises.
I haven’t seen data that tests this idea, but it makes sense to me.
Yes, I’ve seen studies to that effect. That’s part of my incentive to get them to vote for the first time!
I didn’t read the comments that followed David Axelrod’s ‘triumphalism’ remarks.
A quick parable:
Have you ever heard of Wrigley Chewing Gum? I’m sure you have, but you may not have heard the story told by Mr. Wrigley while speaking at a “marketing” convention sometime in the 1960’s. He told a story about a conversation he had with another gentleman while flying across the nation to visit one of his distribution centers. Mr. Wrigley said he was recognized by a gentleman that asked him why he continued to market his various flavors of chewing gum when he obviously owned the entire market for the product. Now for those who haven’t celebrated their 40th birthday, you may not be familiar with Wrigley’s Juicy Fruit, Spearmint, or Double Mint flavors, but in the 60’s you would have known them well. Mr. Wrigley said he looked the gentleman in the eye and asked “how fast do you think this airplane is traveling?” The man replied around 300 miles an hour he supposed. Mr. Wrigley responded with “do you think that’s fast enough to shut off the engines, surely we could coast to our destination from here”? The gentleman smiled as if Mr. Wrigley was unknowing about flying and said, “No we can’t, in fact the second the engines stopped the plane would begin falling”. Mr. Wrigley smiled and said, “Well, it sounds like you understand why we continue to market after all”.
There’s a reason to be cautious. Enthusiasm isn’t the game. Popular vote isn’t the game. Electoral College victory is the game. It’s the only game.
As long as enthusiasm doesn’t supplant the real end game, I enthusiastically support the enthusiasm 
ETA: also, this:
Two hands working can do more than a thousand hands clasped in prayer.
I hope it’s OK to ask this minor hijack question here, but it by no means warrants its own topic.
I’ve heard three outlets say something to the effect that in Trump’s first rally since Harris became his opponent he went after her, repeatedly mispronouncing her name.
But none of the three, two audio and one print, told me how he mispronounced her name.
I’m curious what he’s saying.
Ka-MA-la
ETA: There was a wrestler with this name who pronounced ka-MA-la. I can’t help but think Trump’s blowing a dog whistle here
RE: Should we worry about her poor 2020 primary campaign?
In 2019, I thought Harris had an excellent shot at the nomination. Besides being smart, articulate and well qualified, her position as a center-left minority woman enabled her to appeal to almost all of the Democratic coalition.
But in retrospect, the problem was that she never found her OWN base. There were multiple other options for minority and women voters, plus Buttigieg siphoning off the gays. Leftists wanted Sanders or Warren, centrists wanted Klobuchar or Bloomberg. Harris didn’t end up as anyone’s first choice.
But now that she IS the candidate, I think that her broad acceptability to Democrats becomes a major advantage and is driving this wonderful spike in enthusiasm that we have been seeing.
I’ve heard different South Asians stress their name either way, KA-ma-la or ka-MA-la. I don’t know the cause of the distinction, but quite possibly from the large diversity of ethnicities and languages.
But I’m fairly certain most Republicans are intentionally saying VP Harris’s name incorrectly because they are bigoted assholes.
Are we talking about the same cohort that used Barack Obama’s middle name (ie, Hussein) as a mantra for … oh … about eight years?
[And who – delightfully – needed to refer to Nikki Haley by her given name (ie, Nimarata), and who haven’t quite adopted a unified bigot-name for Mrs. Usha Vance just yet]
Those assholes??
Or is there another group that I’m having trouble remembering at the moment?
TBH I’m fine with triumphalism. I mean not among the handful of people actually running the Harris campaign, they need to remain cynical and calculating under the assumption the election is going to be won by a dozen swing state voters. But the other 250 million American voters? They can be as triumphalist as they want. Nothing dooms a campaign more than the feeling they are doomed and the other side are gauanteed to win.
Unless that leads to not voting because “it’s already in the can”…
Though I really don’t think thats a thing. Its just not how elections work. People love to vote for a winner, and get despondent and don’t turn up if the think their guy is guaranteed to lose.
I think both things can happen.
Given the ridiculous way voting works in the US (long lines in certain precints, not so in others, voting in a working day) a lot of people have to make a real effort to vote, to the point of losing money they can’t afford sometimes.
If those people are sure their candidate is going to win, it’s logical for them not to vote.
I think that’s part of what happened to Hillary Clinton.
IIRC, that was one of the reasons for Hilary’s unexpected loss in 2016. All the polls (until a few days before election day) showed her with a comfortable lead.
I don’t think this will be an issue in 2024.
In a way they are opposites. Enthusiasm is stepping on the gas, and triumphalism is easing off the gas.
To use an American football analogy, enthusiasm is when you get the ball, see a clear path to the end zone, and put every bit of your strength and effort into getting a touchdown. Triumphalism is when you are at the 5 yard line and slow down to show off in front of the crowd before you’ve actually scored.
You can find YouTube videos full of clips where people did that and got tackled, or dropped the ball, or even tossed the ball away before they crossed the line. They get so caught up in celebrating victory before they achieved it that they sabotage their own success.
It’s also the difference between confidence and hubris. The first is a virtue, the second is a weakness.
But while I see a lot of people excited that Trump has a good chance of losing, I don’t see many people assured that he can’t win. This seems like an unnecessary caution at this point. Only a week ago it was very much a concern that Trump was doing far too well despite everything that should have tanked his campaign, and Biden was losing ground. I don’t think people are spiking the football 4 months early.
Though that was highly influenced by a failure-of-imagination mode as in “c’mon no f’ing way Trump can win”. No such thing this time, I should hope…
I would dispute that. There was absolutely no triumphalism about the Clinton campaign. There was a general feeling that she had probably done enough to push her over the line. Which combined with the lack of enthusiasm may have convinced some Democrats to say home. That’s not the same thing as triumphalism