Search options (Page 5 of 58)

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.

I don't know why, but optimism from Grizzlor makes me feel better than from anyone else

I think that's true.  And that's why I think Harris should have a slight edge - she has the better ground game, and her voters are more likely to show up anyway.  If she can also get enthusiasm (either from people who love her or really hate Trump), then I'd feel pretty good that she'd win.

His people are less likely to vote but are very enthusiastic.  But if they're going to depend on a vast majority of low propensity voters voting exclusively on Election Day...I still think that's a dodgy proposition.  Weather, long lines, getting off of work (especially blue collar workers) are all potential issues.  And if enthusiasm isn't there, maybe people choose to not vote.  Particularly if those voters think Trump's got it in the bag.

But it wouldn't take much for Trump to win.  His voters love voting for him, and they've been waiting four years to do it.  So hopefully her money advantage and stronger ground game can get low propensity voters (maybe women who listen to Call Her Daddy that never vote) to vote for her, then maybe she can close that gap.

I do think Republicans are looking too much at 2020 to find positives.  Right now, in places like Pennsylvania, Republicans are making up a slightly higher number of early and/or mail-in votes, but I would expect to see that.  In 2020, people were terrified to vote in person.  Harris voters will be more likely than Biden voters to vote in person, and they will be more likely to actually show up in person.  The question is whether low/medium-propensity voters are actually high-propensity voters when Trump is on the ballot.

(You could also ask if low/medium-propensity Harris voters are high-propensity voters when Trump is on the ballot.  I think it goes both ways)

I wasn't really planning on seeing Joker 2 for a while, but Nando v Movies (a YouTuber I really like) said the movie was more interesting than the first movie but maybe not better.  Now I'm a little interested in seeing for myself what the movie is.

I maintain that making it a musical was a fascinating choice considering the fans of the first movie, but I think if you're going to make a Joker movie with no Batman and then a sequel to that movie, you have to think outside the box.  My "outside the box" approach would be to do a more traditional story but just do it from Joker's POV and make Batman the "villain" - some sort of heightened reality where Joker could hypothetically convince himself (and the audience) that he's the good guy and Batman is some sort of psychopath who keeps stalking and attacking him.  That was, again, something that the Suicide Squad game (a game I have never played) could've done a great job at.  I think Batman could be really scary if done as a villain.

But musical.  Sure, that could work too I guess.

Yeah, I guess I mean "is this reaching uninformed voters?"  Because I'm not sure those voters watch any cable news, and I'm assuming (from the friends I know that are like this) that their social media is specifically aimed at avoiding any political news.  I've mentioned this before but the only news my wife gets is from the Today show on NBC, and I just looked at their web site and I don't see it mentioned at all.  And while that's a pretty light show from the bits I watch, they do cover breaking news and stories like that.  And I think this is a story that could hypothetically divert votes from Trump, but I think the bases (who will not be dissuaded) are the only ones that even know about it.

As a journalism guy, I've been pretty annoyed at the media.  I know that all these news outlets are owned by billionaires that are friendly to Trump, but they just don't cover Trump the way they covered Biden.  And I get that Trump's speech the other day where he was slumped over and slurring wasn't as big a stage as the debate, but if Biden had made a speech like that four months ago, it would've been front page news.  And it barely registered.

And if I'm the Harris campaign, I just don't know how you reach people to show them what Trump is in 2024.  I honestly think she'd do better if the news networks aired Trump's stuff live more.  That's where you see the really crazy stuff, and that's where you see his age showing.  The dude is tired because he's old.

******

I'm basically easing into a zone for this election.  If polls are right, Kamala will win the blue wall and Nevada and she has a chance to win all seven battleground states.  If polls are underestimating Trump, he wins - maybe with more electoral votes than Biden got in 2020.  I do think there are some encouraging signs around mail-in voting and early voting, and I'm hoping that those numbers represent Democrats the way they did in the past because that would mean Trump's banking on a lot of people that don't usually vote getting out to vote on a very specific day.

There's good signs for the economy.  The longshoremen didn't strike.  I think the worst news for Harris is the stuff in the Middle East and this romanticism of the Trump years.  If we can just get enough people in Pennsylvania to just feel like things are okay, and enough of them can just get annoyed by what Trump has been doing the last few weeks....I think she's in good shape.

*******

And going back to my point about non-Trump Republicans.  These guys are avoiding so many questions.  They're not spewing Trump's lies.  They're not disputing them, which is important to note, but they're not going along with them.  I think that's all the evidence I need that these guys are bad people but that our politics has a shot to heal once this nonsense is over and Trump is gone.

See, I don't think we should think of it that way.  Obviously, we don't want them to win, but like it or not, we're stuck with these guys.  And we've got to find a way to get back to a sense of normalcy.  Trump supporters deliver our mail and cook our food and defend the falsely accused and make us laugh and teach our kids (I wasn't trying to pick any particular profession here - just tried to get a wide scope of jobs).  And ten years ago, we were cool living next to them.  We probably voted for the same people.  Cheered for the same sports teams.  Sat in movie theaters with them, shopped alongside them, ate in restaurants with them.

You gotta remember that they're not the enemy.  They're our neighbors and fellow Americans.

Now some of them suck.  Some of them belong in jail.  Some of them are hateful monsters that are beyond redemption.  I'm not talking about those guys.  I'm talking about the people who barely pay attention to politics who remember life in 2019 being pretty easy and want to return to that.  People that have been convinced to be afraid of nonsense but are truly afraid.

And we gotta remember that me hating my neighbors with Trump signs is what Putin wants.   It's what Trump wants.  It's what China wants.  I always get a bit uncomfortable when people from both sides talk about splitting the country into a Red USA and a Blue USA because that's the whole point of what Putin and China are trying to do.  They can't beat us when we're united so they try to divide us.  A United States alongside a Trumpistan allows for China to be the dominant force in the world.  Without a united USA to back NATO, Putin can do what he wants.

So we have to get back to a place where we can disagree on politics without hating the other side.  Where we aren't willing to abandon our neighbors because we disagree on how taxes should work.  That's why I want to hold the line and destroy Trump.  He's the only one spewing hate.  The rest of the republicans aren't fighting him on it and they're disgustingly defending him, but I don't believe any prominent Republicans are jumping on the bandwagon and calling Harris mentally impaired.

Trump wants to divide us because Putin wants to divide us.  I think when Trump is gone, a lot of that will also go away.  I think we'll still be polarized, but I think we'll get over it.  And just look at local races.  Trump-Allred has a ton of attack ads that air constantly, but the race isn't anything like Trump-Harris.  Cruz is attacking Allred's policies, but he's not attacking Allred as a person.  He isn't hurling insults.  It's a heated race but I think it isn't unusual.

We can get back to that.  But we gotta beat Trump and show the next Trump that this stuff doesn't work.

Grizzlor, we'd talked previously about Kamala needing to hit the airwaves in every way possible.  She's doing an interview with Wisconsin Public Radio as part of a strategy to engage with local media in key states and nontraditional digital media.  She's also doing a podcast with Stephen Jackson and Matt Barnes called "All the Smoke" - it's a basketball podcast from a couple of former NBA players.  Could be a great opportunity to reach out to some people who might not typically pay attention to politics.  Hopefully people give her a chance and she can come across as down to Earth.

I like this strategy.  I hope she does more podcasts.  As much as I don't like the guy, I don't think it would be a bad idea to even do something like Joe Rogan.  There are people that hate/don't like Trump but don't know anything about her.  This is how you reach those people.

She's also doing a one on one MSNBC interview to balance it out.

I agree about the polls, but I want people to be careful about crosstab diving only when the poll looks good.  NYT had a poll a week ago that had Kamala up 4 in Pennsylvania and tied nationally.  That would obviously be an unusual result, but which is the poll that's wrong?  Or are both of them wrong?  Or is it possible that both are right?  It would be nice if the Pennsylvania poll is right but the national poll and the 3 Sun Belt polls are Republican-leaning.  But as Grizzlor says, polls don't matter.

What might be more interesting in the days and weeks is some of the real-time voting information we get.  How many are voting and what is their party affiliation.  Because, honestly, I'd love if every single Harris voter voted early and Election Day was simply Trump votes.  More to go wrong, more chance of chaos or mischief.  It would make me feel better.  I'm hoping Kamala and her campaign have gotten out the word to vote as early as possible with some sort of infrastructure to help people get to the polls.

******

I'm glad the Nebraska stuff failed.  If they wanted to play fair ball and let Maine do the same thing, that would've been okay with me.  The fact that they waited until Maine's deadline passed was dirty pool.  I'm glad it failed.  I also think it's funny that basically all the arguments they're using in Nebraska are reasons to get rid of the Electoral College entirely.

The Georgia hand-count law makes me nervous.  I think the whole game is to take Georgia off the board.  Because let's remember that Trump doesn't have to get to 270.  He doesn't have to play offense - he can only play defense and he wins in the House.  That's what's nerve-wracking.  But luckily at least one person in Nebraska has stood up for democracy.  We will need a lot more like him to defeat Trump.

***********

I don't believe for a second that if Trump loses in 2024 that he won't be back in 2028.  I will have a ton to say if Trump loses, but I think he'll be back.  He'll be further gone and crazier, but if he's alive, he's running.

********

I also hope Robinson drags Trump down.  What's crazy is that Trump is the ultimate vengeful guy, but no one else seems interested in taking revenge on him.  Trump tried to get Pence killed - Pence won't endorse his opponent.  Trump gets Laura Loomer banished from his presence - she doesn't lash out at him.  Trump turns his back on Robinson - no one says anything.  I keep waiting for one of these Republicans with some real dirt to come out with something to take down Trump, but it never happens.

I cannot wait until his reign over the GOP is over.

So in 2020, pretty much the whole time, I was fairly calm the entire cycle.  I got into some brushups on Twitter with MAGA folks and spent a good deal of my time feeling good about a win.  Even when the election was closer than anticipated, I figured it was only a matter of time.

When Biden was the nominee, I was full of dread.  After the assassination attempt, I was beside myself.

With Harris as the nominee, I was hopeful but scared.  But the more I was exposed to her and saw how people are responding to her, I'm back to a quiet calm.  I'm still nervous at the idea that Trump could be president (probably more nervous than when it was just possible that he would *stay* president), but I'm feeling more confident that he won't be.

At this point, I'm most nervous about:

1. Polling error.  My confidence is based on what we're seeing in the polls, and if they're off more than 2-3 points against her, Trump will win.
2. Some kind of economic disaster in the next six weeks.  The closer we get to the election, the less likely that is.  And as Grizzlor pointed out, it seems more likely that the economy will get better.  I don't know if six weeks of good economy or lower gas prices or higher stock prices are likely to impact enough people that it impacts the election in any meaningful way, but we're maybe in a place where a cumulatively good economy for the last couple years, added with negative feelings on Trump and his economic policies, matched with potential positive feelings about Kamala's economic policies, might sway a "primarily economic" voter to switch from supporting Trump a few months ago to voting for Harris.  Hopefully that extremely run-on sentence made any sense
3. Election day chaos and/or post-election nonsense.  Harris is winning enough states with quality statewide polls that she should get to 270.  And there's enough closeness in Georgia/North Carolina/Arizona and Nevada that she has a couple avenues if she doesn't win Pennsylvania or Wisconsin.  It makes me pretty nervous that Trump just needs to win NC/GA/PA, and he's the favorite to win two of those.  And it makes me nervous that the Trump campaign is competent enough to be aware of this and using that strategy pretty effectively.  And since Georgia seems likely to be Trump because of Georgia's election authorities, then North Carolina is a must-win if she can't win Pennsylvania.  But it's comforting to know she has a backup.  And Robinson in NC might be a big-enough distraction for her to sneak a win there.  So my fear would be that Trump doesn't even care about the election and wants to overturn the results.  And while I think the Democrats are ready, I worry about what kind of unexpected things Trump's team has come up with.

Yeah, I'm sure there's a better metaphor.  I just wanted to express someone who is constantly lied to by someone who doesn't have their best interests at heart.  For whatever reason, Donald Trump is able to speak to these people, but it's so clear that Trump doesn't care about them.  Trump reportedly is constantly insulting his own followers in private.  But they truly believe that he's going to help them.  They truly believe that they will be in mortal danger if he doesn't win. 

For a lot of these people, they're ignorant to truths or they're undereducated about certain things.  And with the echo chamber that a lot of these people live in, he can distort the truth to be whatever he wants, and there's no one there to fact check him.  He can say ridiculous things about tariffs, and people that don't really understand tariffs will believe him.  He can say that he's going to drastically reduce home insurance, and people will believe him.

And even if he doesn't do it, people will love him and trust him.  Even if costs don't go down, Trump can say that things are better, and they'll probably believe him.  It's like when Trump says that gas is $6.00 under Biden, and these same people go out, get gas for $2.89 and it doesn't register with them.

I get that a large swath of Trump supporters are bad people that are racist or misogynist or fascist or whatever.  But I think a lot of Trump supporters are victims of a con man who's really good at conning people.

I love Wasserman.  He's *the* person to follow on election night and he's basically able to call states independently with his "I've seen enough" proclamations.

Polling has been pretty good since the debate.  Nationally, she's gone up in a few polls (including as high as +6 in one), and she was +3 in a Pennsylvania poll that came out last night.

(I know it doesn't matter).

Some commentary:

1. I wouldn't expect a bump from the second "assassination attempt" since Trump was basically in no danger.
2. The national polls don't mean much.  And a highly rated pollster from 2020 did have Trump +3 nationally.  We can't just pay attention to the polls we like.  I'm a little skeptical about pollsters that did well in 2020 because they're all Republican funded or Republican leaning.  And I'm not sure if their success is because they were able to reach more GOP voters or if their success was a coincidence (polls leaned right and they lean right).
3. In the Pennsylvania poll, MAGA was celebrating because Biden and Clinton were both winning that poll bigger in 2020 and 2016, respectively.  I know MAGA is anticipating polls being off big again this year, and I'm just not sure what to say about that.  Fetterman actually performed better than this poll in 2022.
4. It does at least appear that Harris' debate performance caused her to get a slight bump, which was expected.  Since voting starts pretty soon (and may have already started in PA?), hopefully that bump either helps with early voting or carries through to the election.

***********

I have no idea if the Haitian stuff hurts Trump or helps him.  MAGA is pretty emphatically defending the idea that this stuff is happening, including both Trump and Vance.

I also don't know what's going to happen with this Laura Loomer stuff.  She's certifiable.

Maybe.  I agree they should've pivoted right a long time ago.  One survey from a while back found that almost no one thinks that Biden was too liberal on the border so I'm not sure who they think they'll lose if they're harsher on the border. That being said, I think two things are possible:

- Harris needs to do a better job of using statistics.  People think that the border is literally open and people are just walking in.  That's not happening, and we stop millions of people that try to get in.  I know MAGA people might not listen to official statistics, but moderates probably will.

- "THEY'RE EATING THE DOGS" is so hyperbole that people might actually start thinking that Trump is making stuff up or they might start looking into it themselves.  I live in Texas, and I think I'd notice if tens of millions of people had shown up.

On the economy, I think Kamala can make inroads.  She had some specifics, and he had nothing.  One post-debate poll had them pretty close on the economy.  I think the economy will be much more of a factor than the border so if that holds true, I think she'll do okay.

I still don't think anyone really has the inside track.  Unless polling is crazy off, she should win Wisconsin and Michigan - they're the ones seemingly leaning the most in either direction.  That would put her 19 votes away.  Trump would have to basically sweep the rest of the states to win.  If they're all truly tossups, then it will just come down to who shows up to vote.  It could come down to how the economy does in October.  It could come down to how people feel on the day.

Agreed.  Her campaign seems to be pretty solid so I'm sure they're turning over whatever stones they think they need to.  It's hard to know if the stuff in Georgia worked (there still hasn't been any high-quality polls there), but I'm going to trust they know what they're doing.  Even if we know better than them, there's no way they're looking at a Sliders BBoard for advice.  If they are, hire Grizzlor

She has the edge in money and now she's regained some momentum.  Let's see what she does with it.  Looks like she's doing a couple of rallies tomorrow in North Carolina.  Trump is following up in Arizona.

Yeah I understand that.  I do think they can be slow.

This one is 8 25-minute episodes.  I guess some of it could probably be cut but they try to do character development, and that means situations like the movies where the terminator shows up and then they escape.

I don't know, give it a shot if you're interested.  I'm curious what people think about it.

Yeah, I think Harris needs to do a national ad asking about how the deportation would work and whether people trust the government to pull that off.  How could they do this and not deport actual citizens?  I think it would be a great opportunity to take advantage of everyone's mistrust of the government.  Do one of those ads where a family gets woken up in the middle of the night and you see it from their perspective.  Guys with guns knock on the door and wake them up and drag them out of their house!

"We're citizens!  We're citizens!"

"They're on the list, put them in the van"

"Do you trust the government to get it right?"

Do it in English and in Spanish and make it national.

Okay having slept on it, there are my thoughts:

The Good
- I wanted Trump to look old and crazy, and oh boy.  I thought she might lean into him being old, but I guess she didn't think that it would work with Biden being older.  I think it was the only attack that she didn't attempt, but Trump certainly faded as the evening went on.  His final statement was pathetic.
- "THEY'RE EATING THE DOGS" will be the sound byte of the debate.  I imagine we will see the Harris campaign use that to show how unhinged Trump is.
- Trump set up Kamala to be so dumb and incompetent that she didn't really need to do much to surpass those expectations.  She had some flaws (which I'll get to), but she was extremely prepared, she was (mostly) composed, and I think she came across as ready for the job.  I don't want to say "presidential" because I think that word has been mangled a bit, but she did well.
- I was impressed that ABC did any fact checking on the fly, and they hit him on the two biggest points.  Like Grizzlor said, he actually argued with them on the dogs thing which was insane for him.  They also confirmed that in no state is it legal to "execute" a baby which also made him look radical (and dumb).
- Polymarket (which might be slanted to the right, I don't know a ton about it) had her overwhelmingly as the winner and it caused the race to move.  CNN had her winning big (24 points I think).  The pundits made it all about Trump and how crazy he looked.
- I think this will make Trump go even crazier, and I assume it continues to hurt him.

The Bad
- Not a ton, but Kamala did dodge questions.  She ignored the first question about whether people are better off than they were four years ago.  She ignored the question about Afghanistan.  She ignored most of the question about her flip-flopping.  This isn't necessarily a problem because I think she mostly got away with it.  I think it will be important for her to continue to address it.
- She could've been more specific on her plans and separating herself from Biden.  She wants to paint herself as a new direction, but she didn't really respond to how she'd be different than Biden.
- I think she had the opportunity to either own certain things or deflect some of the "blame" on Biden for certain things.  "I will do X different than Biden did" or "Here's how I would have handled X."  To be clear, I would not want her to throw Biden under the bus, but it would've been good for her to distance herself from Biden on a thing or two.
- I also think she needed to hammer home that Trump was responsible for a lot of the economic issues.  I think she was strong on charting a new course for the economy (whether she can do it or not), but I thought she was weak on explaining the truth behind the economy.
- It was good for her to essentially let Trump look argumentative and let him speak, but I think she could've called for another minute of time a few times to call out something Trump said on rebuttal.

The Unknowns
- Does it matter?  Did enough undecideds watch?  Will enough undecideds pay attention?  Did enough soft Republicans get turned off by the version of Trump they saw?  And did any of those people live in the seven battleground states?
- Can Harris capitalize?  She should regain some of the momentum she lost.  I'm sure she made a ton of money last night, and I can't imagine the Trump campaign will be able to fundraise much from that.  Pennsylvania is obviously the golden goose, but there's a path for her to win the other states and win the election.  She needs either North Carolina or Georgia, and she'd need to sweep the others.  She's massively outspending Trump everywhere but Pennsylvania so she needs to match/beat him there and hope to make inroads everywhere else.
- Will the mainstream media cover the debate "normally" or cover some of his unhinged moments?  I watched almost no post-debate coverage so I'm not sure whether "THEY'RE EATING THE DOGS" was shown on the news last night / this morning or if they focused on the more coherent sound bytes.

The Swifties
I think it's better to have Taylor Swift's endorsement, but I don't know if it moves the needle at all.  I assume anyone who was going to vote for Harris already did, and any Trump supporters that listen to Taylor probably won't flip.  I think there's a slight chance that she can bring in some young voters, but I assume a lot of that work was already done.

I think we're going to get a lot of clarity after tonight.  I don't know if the standard voter watched the DNC or any of the Kamala rallies.  They might not have watched the interview with her and Walz or any of her speeches as vice president.  There's a decent chance this will be the first time a lot of people have heard Kamala speak at any length, and I think this could set the table for the final stretch of the campaign. 

I don't think a ton is at stake, but I think enough is at stake to define the election.  Kamala can either win some of the people who are trusting Trump by default (either because he's done the job before or because they have fond memories of the time he was president), or she can lose some of the people that she gained when Biden dropped out (if they decide she's not ready, they don't actually like her, etc).  I don't know if Trump has as much to gain because he's such a known quantity, but he doesn't have to gain much (or for her to lose much) for him to be back in the driver's seat.

I think she needs to look intelligent, competent, responsible, trustworthy, and presidential.  We need him to look old, crazy, selfish, and Trumpy.  51 million people watched the last debate, and I think this one could be even bigger.

I like the positive enthusiasm.

I was very nervous about the Biden/Trump debate.  I'm excited about the Kamala/Trump debate.  It's going to be very difficult for Kamala to navigate a debate like this, but she'll be very prepared and she's good at thinking on her feet.  One thing I read about her is that she needs to try and avoid "meme-able" moments and just put together a good performance.  She's gotten tripped up a couple times in the past trying to make a moment happen.  She should let those moments come to her and let Trump bury himself.

Yeah, that's what I was referring to.  I wonder what kind of language he's going to use when abortion comes up tomorrow.  If he says "reproductive rights" in an attempt to court women, he might lose pro-lifers.  If he doesn't say that, he could continue to lose women that aren't MAGA or crazy pro-life.  I actually don't understand what his original pivot was about because I feel like those groups of people were already pretty clear on what camp they were in.  Pro-lifers are pretty one-issue people, and they already have what they want.  If they feel like they just need to play defense in the Senate and that the Supreme Court is pretty safe, a less-than-pro-life Donald Trump doesn't give them anything.

Now those people won't vote for Kamala Harris, but I'll take a nullified Trump vote.

This is one of the reasons why we need Harris to win.  The DoJ will stop investigating all of this stuff.  We need to maintain a "neutral" justice department (I'm sure it's not purely neutral but it needs to be as neutral as it has been in the past).

Eh.  I didn't love the Acolyte.  I certainly didn't hate it as much as so many other people did.  I watch a ton of stuff and most of it isn't great, but I guess I just have a low threshold for something that is enjoyable and entertaining.  I mean I've watched every single episode of everything show the Walking Dead has spit out.  I hate watch stuff, I watch stuff while I'm working, and I occasionally watch stuff with so little of my attention that I have to go find a recap to figure out what I just spent forty minutes "watching." 

But I thought the Acolyte had a good storyline.  I already brought up what felt like a weird thing regarding the Jedi and how they're portrayed, but I thought the story was engaging.  It presented the Jedi as people who are generally trying to do good in the galaxy but some people got in over their heads...and are now facing consequences.  Some of the "twists" were dumb, and it wasn't anything groundbreaking but it was watchable I thought.  But, again, I might have a lower threshold than most.

Am I torn up that there's not more?  I don't think so.  I thought the story concluded pretty well.  I don't necessarily think the story was over, but I don't think there was a huge need for it to keep going.  I'm not torn up that it's not coming back.  Just like I'm cool with Obi-Wan being done or something like Moon Knight not getting a season two.

I do feel bad for all the people involved who were seemingly ruined before they even got the chance.  Star Wars fans have gotten so toxic.

I like that.  Nate Silver also seems to be hesitant that there will be a huge polling error.  He thinks (and I think I agree) that polling is mostly good but was thrown out of whack by the shift in the electorate in 2016 and the Covid situation in 2020.  That, while it's been 100% happening in every Donald Trump election, that it's a sample size of two and that's not great for a statistician.  It could be one of those "Crime rates and ice cream sales are directly related" things where it looks like they're related but they're not.

I would like some high-quality polling from swing states to feel better.  Feels like it's been forever since we had one.

*******

I read an interesting opinion piece from a conservative.  It was one of those "conservatives are better off if Kamala wins" but not (fully) from the perspectives of a Liz Cheney-like conservative.  The writer (and I would love to link but I couldn't find it in a quick google search) talked about how the GOP is probably going to win the Senate and maybe the House...so even if Harris wanted to do some sort of crazy progressive agenda, it probably wouldn't work.  That Republicans in the House and Senate (and, if needed, the Supreme Court) would be there to push back on anything she wanted to do.  And, then, having a Democrat in the White House would help increase the GOP lead in Congress going into 2028.

It did talk about finally getting Trump out of their party, but that was the piece that they felt least confident in.  That even if Trump was gone, those currently-reliable Republican voters might never come back.

I just thought it was an interesting perspective.  A sort of "Republicans can lose the battle but win the war" and it was actually fairly convincing.  My biggest fear going forward for Democrats is how do they maintain their voting block without Trump to hold them together?  It's hard to appeal to white suburban voters who care about climate change and abortion, while also appealing to blue collar union workers who just care about putting food on the table.

I assume after Trump is gone, whenever that is, that there will be another shift in the electorate and a bunch of the MAGA people will be up for grabs.