Search options (Page 3 of 57)

Well, two things.

1. Trump isn't for them, which they'll quickly find out.  The educated people who voted for Harris have good jobs that will allow them to get through the economic hurricane we're about to get hit with.  The uneducated people who voted for Trump are living paycheck to paycheck and are going to be wiped out.  And they're the ones that are going to depend on the government programs that are going to be bankrupt.  They're the ones who are going to get sick and die because of RFK Jr.  And, honestly, good.  They're going to get exactly what they voted for.

2. The public is very stupid.  And if Republicans are just going to make up stuff or make mountains out of molehills, then the Democrat is going to have to spend the entire campaign disputing the idea that six year olds are getting sex changes in public schools and that millions of babies are being executed.  Remember that it's impossible to dispute this stuff with these people because they only believe things if Trump said it.  Harris could've paid for thousands of hours of ads disputing literal nonsense, and it wouldn't have mattered because Trump says they're happening.  If people believe in demons and monsters and secret pedophiles and things that are not happening, I don't know how a campaign is supposed to respond to that.

Again, this is a problem with the distribution of stupid people.

I agree with some of this.  I admit that I was intrigued by the idea of Biden being a one-term president, but I think the entire endeavor may have been doomed from the start.  As per usual, the Democrats are 100% on the right side of history but are awful at playing politics.  Even if Biden had agreed on January 21st, 2021 that he was going to be a one-term president, I don't know what you do about Kamala Harris.  She was chosen to appease black voters, and even though she was the best of that group, she obviously wasn't the right candidate for 2024.

Would three years of getting to know her help Kamala?  Or hurt her?  If she was the de facto 2024 candidate, would the Biden Administration have done anything differently?  And if so, why?  Even if Biden expected to run in 2024, he was almost 80 or above 80 for his entire presidency.  Even if he didn't drop out, there was a reasonable chance that she would've been the candidate because of Biden's death.  So it doesn't make sense for them to treat her any differently whether Biden announced he was a one-term president or not.

Would she have gotten credit for more of Biden's wins and allow Biden to take blame for more of his losses?  I guess...but why would Biden do that?  He only gets one term and he's basically using it to prop up Kamala Harris?  I don't see why Biden would do that or why he'd be forced to do it?  I think they probably could've put Kamala up front more.  She obviously worked on her public persona because it went up the more people saw her.  But again...what would she do that she wasn't already doing?

And I still just do not believe in any world would people have been okay with an open primary.  If she wins, it would upset the black vote (which was already teetering) because they would've (rightfully?) seen the party as using her for the win in 2020 and discarding her because they didn't think she could win the big job.  I assume the process would've gone the exact same way as Biden's primary did - a random democrat would've gone against her, there would be no debate, and she'd win every state.  I don't think it would've accomplished anything.

Would the extra time have helped?  Maybe?  But I feel like her campaign did a pretty good job of outlining her proposals.  Time wouldn't have helped her distance from Biden because that was a choice.  I'm also not sure how much distancing from Biden would've helped because you might end up making your base mad if you throw your popular (within the party) president under the bus.

But let's assume that they could've had an open primary without upsetting the black vote (or the women vote).  Who beats her in a primary?  Gavin Newsom?  Does he beat Trump?  Gretchen Whitmer?  Is she any more ready than Harris was?  I like Pete Buttigieg, but I think it was the wrong election to have a gay candidate.

When you look back at it, it seems like no candidate had any chance.  People wanted Trump.  And boy are they going to get him.

******

Now was there something Biden, as president, could have done?  Almost certainly.  I don't understand why more wasn't done at the border.  Seemed like an easy enough win, particularly as his border policy didn't win any voters.  I have to assume his border policy was designed to get Latino votes back, but it sure didn't work.

I think the infrastructure bill was good.  I think progress was made on climate stuff.  But I think the biggest failure was probably Biden's inability to make any progress with the blue collar voters that a) were traditionally democratic and b) voted for Barack Obama.  Even the stuff he did with unions fell on deaf ears.  He saved their pensions, and they still didn't endorse him.

I don't know.  It's a mess.  The only good news is that, if the Republicans allow another presidential election, I think the country is going to be a disaster in 2028.  It will probably be a big enough disaster in 2026 that the Democrats should win huge in 2026.  There will be gas shortages, food shortages, insanely high prices, lost jobs, American troops on at least one battlefield (I assume helping wipe out the Palestinians and maybe finishing off Ukraine), and massive loss of rights.  I assume even some hardcore Trump people are going to massively regret their votes as soon as this time next year.

But what does the Democratic base look like?  I really think trying to figure out how to get all the stupid people back might help.  I don't know how you do that.  More racism?  They seem to like wearing ridiculous clothes.  Maybe Democrats can capitalize on that somehow?  Free meth?

Oh boy, you are really struggling.

Okay.  Republicans love the Electoral College.  Because, prior to last night, the Republicans hadn't won the popular vote in a long time.  So even though no other modern democracy copied it, they have fought every attempt to eliminate it.  The funny part is that the Electoral College was established because the Founding Fathers didn't respect the average American.  They found the average American to be too stupid to understand anything enough to make a decision on who to vote for.  They had the opportunity to give people a direct vote, but the framers thought the people were too stupid to vote.

The people that love the Electoral College and the Founding Fathers are the people the Founding Fathers respected the least so they created the Electoral College.  It is a joke at the expense of Trump voters.  Who are too dumb to vote and who the Founding Fathers did not (and would still not) respect.

If the 18th Century Electoral College had been around, Trump would have gotten zero votes.  Because the electors would have been educated enough to realize that Trump is an idiot.

You are correct that women couldn't vote and minorities couldn't vote and that rich white men were who the elites wanted.  All beside the point.  Kamala also wouldn't be the candidate because she is both a woman and black.  So also beside the point.  There obviously would've been a different candidate for Trump to run against, but the point is no educated person would ever vote for Trump.  And since all the electors were educated, Trump would get zero votes under the system that Republicans love so much.

Because Trump is an idiot and his voters are too stupid to vote under that system.  That's the entire joke.  It wasn't that complicated.

Well, yeah.  Of course.  Almost every one of our presidents has been a rich white man.  But you cannot argue that the vast majority of Trump's voters are the people the Founding Fathers thought were too stupid to vote.  And they were right.

I think America will survive.  This isn't a fatal blow any more than Hitler was a fatal blow for Germany.  We have a very stupid and very selfish president who will sell us out to Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and others.  But he's old and will die sooner than later.  The Supreme Court will be lost for generations, but the country will survive.  The economy will be in tatters, and I assume the world will need to move to a different reserve currency with the shape the dollar will be in.

But extreme autocracies like the one Trump wants don't last forever.  Particularly when Trump, again, is very old and in poor health and has no clear heir.  I think if Trump dies sooner than later, Vance will be more of an existential threat than a physical one.  I assume he'd still be owned by Russia and China, but there's less evidence that he's as comically manipulated by other autocrats.  I also gotta think that Vance is more of an opportunist than a true fascist, and he might allow for a free and fair election if given the choice.

Remember that Hitler died cowering in a bunker.  Mussolini was executed.  Bad men win, but history is full of ones that died horribly.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.  How many people have "too many sex changes for prisoners" as their top issue?  Top 10 issues?  Top 100 issues?  It's a nonsense issue that accounts for basically no expense to taxpayers, and it was a Trump policy.

So prisoners are going to keep getting sex changes, because that's what the Trump administration wants, but he's going to torpedo the economy, deport millions, put Eileen Cannon on the Supreme Court, put RFK Jr in charge of health, remove fluoride from the water supply, ruin farmers, destroy manufacturing in the United States, destroy NATO, and join with Russia, China, and the great autocracies of the world?  Or maybe he will eliminate it and save the country between $16,000 and $128,000 for the two federal inmates who have received public-funded sex changes.

That's 0.000007552% of the federal budget on the high end.  But Dean Phillips was going to mention that on a debate stage and it would've just ended her campaign.  Ridiculous.

I think this is a BS argument.  Kamala wasn't the best candidate ever, but she had a positive approval rating.  She ran a strong campaign and built a ton of enthusiasm.  The primary argument is also bad because there's no evidence that there was any scenario where there would've been a true open primary.  The odds are, even if Biden had announced that he wasn't running for re-election on January 21, 2021, that she would have run unopposed as long as she wanted to run at all.  In fact, even if there had been an open primary, you would've come here and said that "her own party didn't even believe in her enough to crown her as the nominee.

And Trump is historically unpopular so I don't see how he's not a "weak candidate" as well.  I think pretty much anyone should've been able to beat Trump.  I'm not ready to go down the same road as QuinnSlidr, but something is really suspicious about this.  Not even Trump-sponsored polls were this rosy.  Trump is extremely shady, works with people that are extremely shady, and he's been planning something for four years.  For him to win so easily is extremely suspicious.

And since we're unlikely to have legitimate elections in this country any time soon, I'm cool doing a little election denying of my own.

******

I'm so annoyed and frustrated and angry.  So many people voted against their own interests, and they're going to pay.  Farmers in the midwest are going to lose their farms, either because they're crushed by tariffs or crushed by a lack of a workforce.  Poor blue collar workers are going to lose their unions, and they're going to be crushed by increased prices and a dreadful economy.  Latino men that voted overwhelmingly for this man are going to be deported, whether they are citizens or not.  Muslims who did protest votes or voted for Trump will be deported and Gaza will be destroyed.  Republicans who spent decades fighting the Soviets are going to hand Europe to Putin.

If we ever get another true election, Democrats need to find a way to get stupid people back.  Letting all the stupid people be in one party was the biggest mistake that the Democrats made.  But with all the war and disease and poverty that are coming, the Grim Reaper might take care of enough of those guys in the mean time.

Gonna have to hope that the polls that closed late are huge for her in Georgia.  North Carolina doesn't look as bad but not great, obviously.

Looks like we might be hoping for 270-268.  I was hoping for a bigger win than this, but might be time to adjust hopes to *any* win.

I hope you're right.  It'll be impossible to know until later, but I'd be willing to bet that Trump can't get all the voters he needs to show up.  I also think that polls probably overstated his support with Republican women and minority men, but again we won't know.

On Trump's crowd sizes....let's not read too much into that.  There's no correlation between going to rallies and voting.  Trump had huge rallies in 2020 and lost.  Being enthusiastic about sitting in some arena until 1am listening to the same stories they've heard a thousand times and being enthusiastic about voting is very different.  I think what's happened is that Trump's rallies have lost their novelty value with a lot of people.  But I don't necessarily think people are less enthusiastic to vote for him.  I could be wrong and it doesn't matter what I think because we'll know soon enough.

But you're still right that low propensity voters are less likely to vote.

I guess it depends, right?  In 2020, we had the red mirages in all the swing states because a vast majority of mail-in ballots in those states were Democratic.  This year, as republicans love to point out, it's still much more democratic but the gaps have closed.  That means either less Democrats are voting in total (unlikely), more Republicans are voting in total (unlikely), more of both are voting (unlikely), or that more Democrats and less Republicans will be voting on Election Day (the consensus opinion).

And we know some of the stats to at least have an idea of who's going to get more of the mail-in ballots.  If they've finished counting the Election Day votes in Pennsylvania and she's winning?  Then she's winning big.  Even if they finished counting and he's only up a little, she's probably winning big (or at least big enough to call even before a lot of those votes are actually counted).

And I think there will be signs.  Female turnout.  Minority turnout.  White turnout.  There are people that are going to be able to see things that most people can't, and I think we're going to know pretty early whether the polls were right and it's going to take days or if the polls were wrong (in either direction) and it'll just drag out until people feel comfortable officially calling it.  I could be wrong, but I feel like we felt pretty good the next day that Biden was going to win.

I'm hoping and praying for a safe day with no violence.

I'm right there with you.

Yeah, I just can't lump in 70 million people to be like that guy.  I refuse to do to them what they've done to you/us.  When you de-humanize people, it becomes okay to eliminate them.  I don't want Trump voters to die, and I don't think you do either.  We gotta keep our eyes on who the real enemy is, and we can defeat him as soon as tomorrow.

Happy to jump in here.

I think Biden has been overall very good, but I don't think he's done himself or Kamala any favors.  I have been saying, along with Grizzlor, that there were easy wins to be had at the border.  I think the border bill was the right thing to do in a pre-Trump area, but I think it was foolish to think that Trump would let Biden have a win like that in a Senate that Trump basically runs.  There were things that Biden could've done that could've shut that issue down without endangering anyone or being less humanitarian.  John Oliver did a good piece on the border a while back talking about how Biden is *way* better than Trump on the border but we can still do much, much better.

I also think that he needed to have navigated Ukraine and Gaza better.  I don't know if he and Blinken have been the best at world politics this term.  And obviously, I think the thing that Biden could've done better at is promoting Kamala and putting her in a position to succeed.  The border is toxic for Democrats and if he wasn't going to be more hawkish there then he really needed to keep her as far away from it as possible on the chance that he wasn't going to run again.  They needed to put her front and center on some easy wins - obviously not at the expense of Biden getting credit for his own wins.  But some area where Biden was already popular on that they could get her approval rating up.  She's obviously gotten better at this stuff since 2020, and he could've used her.

But I don't think it's super fair to say that Biden's approval rating means he's been terrible.  People blame him for inflation (not his fault) and don't like him because of his age.  I also think we should get used to low approval ratings for all presidents in this environment.  The opposing party will not approve just because, and I think it's reasonable for people in the president's party to say they don't approve of the job he's doing.  I think the days of the president getting a positive approval rating are done.

And as far as valid reasons to vote for Trump, I still think a number of people are voting for the lives they had in 2016-2019 (they forget about 2020 or group it in with Biden's years).  If you don't pay attention to politics or watch cable news, it's easy to forget or not care about who's president.  It's easy to miss the things that Trump says or does.  I'm sure plenty of people have missed the violent rhetoric and are simply thinking "I liked my life better when he was president"

And while that's ignorant and naive, I do think it's valid.

******

The Iowa poll has the potential to be huge if Selzer is right.  If Midwesterners are really flipping to Harris over Trump (maybe because of tariffs?) then she's going to sail to victory.  And as Grizzlor mentioned, the Kansas poll and the Nebraska 2nd district poll are more signs that something is going on.

Nate Silver has said that there's a ridiculous amount of herding going on in polls.  And there seems to be an idea that pollsters are terrified of being wrong again so they're calling every poll a tie and essentially punting on the election cycle.  If Trump wins by 2-3 points, they can say margin of error.  If Harris wins by 2-3 points, they can say margin of error.  They made no official pick and can blame margin of error as a unit.

But some of the smaller, focused polls in specific areas that people really understand are going to Harris.  I'm not ready to declare victory by any stretch, but I feel pretty confident that she's going to win.  I'm praying that it's evident tomorrow night and I can continue to get peaceful sleep, but I just don't know.  As I've said all along, she just needs to get 270, but every state she gets above 270 will make it harder for Trump to successfully steal it.   

I do worry that the bigger her win, the more violence there might be (because it might look to certain people as being more rigged), but I think it's going to be hard to get enough support to overturn a bunch of states.

Yeah that's too many two-syllable words for Trump.

I've been reading some analysis from people on the ground.  It was from a Democratic guy on the ground, but he said in Wisconsin everything but the polling leans towards Harris.  That the Republicans don't really have a ground game or even much of an appearance of a ground game.  Heard similar things in Arizona and a couple other swing states.  The only thing that's pointing toward a potential Trump victory is a) the polling and b) the idea that the polling isn't leaning to the Republicans enough.

Early voting is obviously leaning Democrat but it's also really leaning female.  So either the women of this country are going to save us or are currently stabbing us in the back (and shooting themselves in the foot).  I think Democrats need to keep doing what they're doing but I also think Democrats need to surprise a bit on Election Day. 

And hoping beyond hope that Democrats are doing whatever they can to prepare for anything the MAGA base is going to try and to do disrupt voting or destroy votes.

I feel fairly confident that we got this, but I don't know how to incorporate illegal activities into my analysis.  So I'm just going to hope that someone else is considering all the ways this could go wrong.

So I guess two things:

1. I don't remember, at all, the episode "Combat" nor the character of Titan.  But I looked up a recap, and it seems like it was one of those "bad guy is in a fight and ends up impaled by accident" - let me know if that's incorrect

2. I think my philosophy on Clark is still heavily based on the idea that Clark is responsible for humans (and other non-powered beings) but not super-powered beings.  Whether it's the idea that Clark is "an adult living among children" from (cancelled) or Clark "living in a world made of cardboard" from Justice League Unlimited, I think Clark's actions should represent that responsibility.  I don't really even have a problem with Cavill's Clark killing Zod in Man of Steel because I think Zod would've easily killed millions (billions?) of people if given the chance.  Zod was basically a crazy person with a gun, and Clark was the nearest policeman.

I do think that Clark has a responsibility, as one of the strongest beings in the universe, to protect people from themselves as much as possible.  So Clark's first move shouldn't be to execute someone if there's any other way to save people.  I like a Clark that will jump in front of a kyptonite bullet to save even one person.  But I think if Clark, of sound mind, decides that the only way to save people is to kill, I think it's okay according to whatever system of justice exists in my head for Clark.

But even that, I think, has a limit.  In the Snyder Cut, I had no problem with the Justice League beheading Steppenwolf because I think he was a threat (and I'm not 100% sure what that version of the Justice League was supposed to do with a captured Steppenwolf).  I did think it was bizarre for Superman to cut off Steppenwolf's horn with his heat vision when he didn't really seem to be a threat.  One, I think, fits the definition of justice.  One was overly cruel.

I have no idea if I answered your question.

Here's some more information that I find comforting

https://unrollnow.com/status/1851339376196010260

I'm not fully certain, but I think things are shifting.  I've completely abandoned looking at polls because those waters have been poisoned by conservative polls.  But if you look at all the vibes - how Republicans are manipulating both polling and betting markets, how desperate Trump seems, how he's already talking about election fraud, and how overly optimistic Republican insiders seem to be...this is all signs of a campaign that is shifting toward claiming that the election was rigged.  They're going to say "we were up big in the polls, we were up big in the betting markets, etc"

Oddly enough, I'm less worried about Trump's plan to overturn the election as long as Democrats win the House (and they have an okay chance of having a 50/50 Senate).  He's not going to be president and he's not going to have as many resources to fight back as he did when he was in the White House.  What I'm more worried about at the moment is what we're seeing in Arizona, Oregon, and Washington where votes are being destroyed by rogue Republicans.  I think she can win on a fair vote, but I'm worried that the Republicans are going to do what they can to destroy as many votes as possible.  So hoping that Democrats continue to bank as many early votes as possible.

I'm also cautiously optimistic.  I'm not as confident as I was for Biden but I feel like the chances are greater than 50/50.  I just really have trouble understanding the demographics of this race.  She's winning all women, all college educated, she's regained a lot of the minority support that Biden had.  She's winning a decent number of registered Republicans (although those could be intermingled with the college educated and the women and even some of the minorities).  Trump isn't pulling similar number of registered Democrats.

How is this race 50/50 (even nationally....allegedly) when Trump is literally only winning among uneducated white people?

I also think there will be some people that will tell pollsters they're voting for Trump but will actually vote for Kamala.  Wives of Trump supporters.  It's just going to be impossible to know until Election Day.  It could either be a landslide for Kamala, a landslide for Trump (if polling error is like 2020), or a really close race.  At this point, I'm more worried that Trump supporters are going to destroy legitimate Kamala votes than that she won't get enough votes.

**************

So the Puerto Rico stuff.  It gained a ton of traction online, and I wonder if that traction ends up doing anything.  Puerto Ricans are mad, and there are Puerto Ricans everywhere.  My question is:

1. Are the people that are mad already Kamala voters?
2. Are there any Trump voters who are mad enough to switch?
3. If there are people that are mad that aren't yet registered, is there time in the state they're in to get registered?

Like in Texas, we have a ton of Puerto Ricans but if they aren't registered, their anger gets us nowhere because it's too late to register.  In some of the swing states, there's same-day registration but not all.  And I don't know what percentage of registered Puerto Ricans in swing states were already voting for Harris.

There's also the issue of the fact that Trump himself didn't say it, even if it was at his rally, and that Trump can fairly easily distance from it.  But I think there's a decent chance that this sways at least some people.  And again, every vote hypothetically could make a difference.

********

There's new rumors about the bombshell report that will "end" the Trump campaign.  Now it's rumored to have something to do with the Butler assassination attempt.  At this point, it either needs to be released in the next day or so I don't think it matters.  It might not matter anyway

He said a bunch of times that he would've voted for basically any Republican other than Trump.  I did a little more research and he's never openly come out in favor of either party and says he is a registered Independent.  He says he has voted Democrat a lot in the past, but he's also been pretty equally critical of both parties.

Either way, he did God's work last night on Hannity, and I think his "I would've voted for any other Republican" probably endeared him to the standard Fox News viewer that doesn't know any better than I did.  I can say pretty safely that he's probably one of the few people that's fairly trustworthy who's going to go on Fox News and let Republicans know that it's okay not to vote for Trump.

Stephen A Smith went on Hannity last night, and I think he might've actually been one of Kamala's best surrogates even though he doesn't particularly like her.

- He's a black Republican who said he would've voted for any Republican but Trump
- He tore Trump apart
- He out Hannityed Hannity

I think he spoke to a segment of the Fox News audience that thinks of themselves as conservative/Republican and is uncomfortable with Trump.  I think someone speaking emphatically about those same issues might influence some people.  Enough to make a difference?  Probably not.  But maybe.

Very generous but unnecessary.  If we have to flee the country, we will be able to take care of ourselves.

I read that.  On behalf of the daughter of the donor, I hope the story isn't true.  If the story is true, I obviously hope that my fellow Americans realize that maybe Trump isn't the innocent man people somehow believe that he is, and they reject him on election day.

I just don't have a whole lot of faith in that.  The true MAGA folks will think it's fake no matter who verifies it, and I think a lot of Trump voters know that he's a criminal and a monster and just don't care.  I've been disheartened by a lot of people saying "look, I know he's not a good person and I know he's done bad things, but I think he's going to fix the economy" or whatever.  And so I don't think anything, including him killing someone on Fifth Avenue, is going to cause them to switch.

Now.  If it is true.  And if it gets released.  And if its believable and corroborated and people believe it....I don't see how it doesn't tip the election enough to win it for Harris.  Because it just wouldn't take that many people not voting for him (set aside anyone switching to her) for her to win.  If the polls are to believed, this election is essentially a coinflip and it doesn't take much for a coinflip to go from heads to tails.

But, God Almighty, I hope this man loses and we can soon forget about him.

I watched both videos.  Definitely calming.  We should two weeks from today, I would think.  But wouldn't it be amazing if we even knew on election night?

So the consensus among people seems to be that Kamala going to Texas is about attention and bringing the national discourse to abortion.  Which, I get.  But early voting has been female-leading so far, and the campaign has been fairly focused on abortion.  Maybe this turns out some pro-choice people, but I feel like it's pretty late in the game to be doing that.  I don't know the registration rules in the battleground states, but I think it's too late to register in Texas and voting has already started.

I really, really want to believe that the internals just look really good.

Very interesting.  Kamala is campaigning with Allred in Houston this week.  I'm super fascinated with this because I wonder what it's saying about her internals.  I would think that if the race was as close as the polling implies, she should be spending every possible second in one of the battleground states.  Campaigning with Allred, who I don't expect to win, seems like a waste of time.  Even if the Allred race is looking better than we think, if we lose the White House but pick up one seat in the senate, is that worth it?  I'd rather win the White House and lose the Senate.  Or obviously have Kamala campaign in the battlegrounds and get someone else to campaign with Allred in Houston (Beto, Liz Cheney, one of the Obamas, etc).

So this is either a really weird strategy (as weird as Trump campaigning in California or New York), or something is happening.  There's a sense in Democrat circles that Harris is winning by more than we think.  The way Trump is acting, the way Harris is campaigning, the money on the ground, the people on the ground, and some of the crosstab stuff we're seeing is making people think.  I don't know if that's the case, but for her to come to Texas, I think one of these needs to be true:

1. Her internal data is so confident that she will win that they're willing to donate some of her time to Allred to try and get her a blue senate
2. She's going to be in Houston for some sort of VP work, and her internals look good enough that she's not rushing to a nearby battleground state (Arizona or Georgia would be a quick trip) to maximize her time
3. She's doing something at the border and has time to swing by to help Allred.  But basically the same point as #2 except if she's going to the border, why wouldn't she go to the Arizona border to do two birds with one stone?  And is there enough time to maximize on some sort of border stunt?
4. Allred is close enough that they're looking to make some sort of push to get people out.  But is Kamala the right surrogate for that if the race is really super close?  Beto, Liz Cheney, Mayor Pete, or someone else would probably make more sense so that Kamala and Walz can keep their eyes on the prize.
5. Kamala is losing by so much that it doesn't matter if she campaigns or not, and this is some sort of investment in trying to energize the Texas Democrats with the idea of flipping Texas in the future.  I don't buy that, and if she's actually losing by a ton, I don't think she'd even help with that.  If that's the case, they'd be better off sending Obama.

I guess the other options are 6) something I'm not thinking of, 7) it's some kind of meaningless thing that doesn't say anything, or 8) it's just a mistake by the Harris campaign.  I think 7 and 8 are basically the same thing because if there's no reason to go, she's wasting a precious campaign day on a race that neither person can win.  It's the same kind of stupid mistake Trump is making with his rallies in California and New York.

Anyone have any perspective?

Yeah I think Rosenberg is right.  She has more money, a stronger campaign setup, a younger candidate with more energy, and a desire to reach out to people in the middle.  There are obviously some concerns in the blue wall, but as QuinnSlidr likes to say, the votes will tell the story soon enough. 

I'm hoping that the polls are underestimating Kamala and that she can get a fairly boring win in a couple of weeks.  I know that we have to get through a couple of months of Trump nonsense even if she wins, and but I'll happily gear up for that fight because it means that she's already received more votes.  But if polls are underestimating her support among black Americans, Hispanics, or white women, I think she should have enough.

Two more notes:

1. I think Harris is going to benefit from the media coverage that Trump usually benefits from.  From what I've seen, there's been mostly clips that don't paint either side in a bad light, and the headlines seem mostly positive.  If you were a person who didn't watch and won't seek out clips, you might be inclined to be impressed that she went on a hostile network and that it went pretty well.

2. Trump did a Univision town hall and from what I've seen, it didn't go well.  I'm hoping that undecided voters see the disparity between Trump and Kamala.  If she's going to lose black men, she's going to need to make up for those voters with white women or Hispanics.

Yeah exactly.  She needs to reach Republicans that are irritated by Trump but haven't been convinced by Cheney and other Republicans moving to her.  Maybe they need to hear from her directly.  I know some people who only watch Fox News, and maybe this is what those people need to get on board with her.

And she needs to do better with men.  She'll reach a lot of men.  Even if they don't vote for her, I think a lot of people will respect that she even went on there.  And I think Trump fans are going to think she's going to bomb so if she doesn't, it might upend their worlds a little bit.

Hillary lost because her campaign was terrible and she made a bunch of mistakes.  Kamala may lose, but I think she's running an excellent campaign.  If she loses, I think it was completely out of her control.

A couple interesting developments:

1. Kamala Harris has released her medical records and is punishing Trump on the idea that he won't release his.  It's getting some national traction.  It obviously won't lead to Trump releasing anything, but maybe if it gets enough attention, it can bring back "Trump is old and obviously in decline" back into the national discussion in the next few weeks.

2. Kamala is doing an interview on Fox News.  This will be the first time that I assume a lot of Fox News viewership will get exposed to a one-on-one interview with her.  If Cheney-like Republicans are willing to give her a chance and willing to vote for her, it could be a great opportunity to make a difference.  And just like point #1, there is zero chance that Trump would go onto a hostile network and face tough questions.

It's Max Landis.  He did a video on Superman after Man of Steel and he was refuting the idea that classic Superman was boring.  And I'll paraphrase so as not to directly quote him, but his idea (which I'm sure he didn't come up with) is that if you're a Kryptonian on Earth, you have two options: rule the Earth or try to save it.  And instead of absolute power corrupting him, he always makes the right choice.  And he chooses the right choice, which is to be a superhero.  Not because his parents died and he's on revenge or because he feels obligated to.  Just because it's the right thing to do.

He also talks about Superman killing Zod in Man of Steel and rationalizes it because his "no kill policy" is more about living in a world full of metaphorical children than any sort of moral issue.  Not that Superman isn't moral, but he's willing to make hard decisions to save people.  So when he fights Lex Luthor, it's an adult fighting a child.  When he fights Zod, it's an adult fighting an adult.

I just think that kinda clarified things for me about Superman because I kinda agreed that he was boring.  But it clarified things for me, and now I like that personification of Superman.  And I think Hoechlin and Welling make that personification work.

I gotta think, with only ten episodes, Superman comes back in some form pretty soon.  Eradicator or Cyborg Superman or whatever version of Death of Superman they're doing.

But I agree.  I don't think "Lois and Sons" is going to be as compelling vs Brainiac even if one has powers.