Search options (Page 6 of 58)

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.

So after getting some calming confidence, I'm starting to get a little nervous again.  I feel like the momentum has dipped, and I'd like to see a little more out of the Harris campaign.  I guess the problem is that there's not a lot of great state-level polling at all.  I'm confused on why there hasn't been a NYT poll in a month.

I'm also back to worrying about Pennsylvania - and I'm thinking the entire election comes down there.  And don't get me wrong - I think Tim Walz is a great speaker and a great running mate and I think would be a great VP.  But I'm still uneasy about bypassing Shapiro.  We aren't seeing much movement with Walz on the ticket, and I'm pretty sure Shapiro would've given something.  And as much as it would be great to flip North Carolina or keep Georgia, I'm worried that if Kamala doesn't get Pennsylvania it simply won't matter.

Debate is in a week so let's see if that changes things.

Positives:

- Trump continues to do little to reach middle of the road voters.  He didn't even campaign yesterday.  Other than the national news covering his events, I don't feel like he's doing much to appeal to everyday voters.  I did see my first Trump ad which ran during a college football game I was watching.

- Kamala still has the enthusiasm edge, which Grizzlor likes to point out.  I think that will help.

- When Trump blasts Kamala, he always insults her intelligence.  If you're leaning-Trump voter who hasn't really heard Kamala speak, I assume you have rock-bottom expectations for her.  As long as Kamala has a solid performance, I wonder if people are going to be genuinely surprised at how smart she is.  I wonder if that kind of thing will backfire.  If people are expecting something terrible and that something ends up being okay, the expectation gap will actually make it seem good.  Something good turns into something great.

- I think Trump's reached his ceiling.  I don't think there's anyone left who was going to vote for someone else and is going to switch their vote to Trump.  I think she hasn't hit her ceiling yet.  I think Trump can shed voters by saying/doing something stupid in the debate or annoying them, and I think she can win people over in the debate.  As long as she doesn't absolutely bomb the debate, I think she will have the edge going into election day, no matter how slight.  And considering where we were after the last debate, that's all I can really ask for.

I thought Alien Romulus was worth seeing at the theater.  And Furiosa.  I didn't love either film (but I liked both of them), but I thought seeing it in theaters was enjoyable.  I wish my theater had been a little more raucous in my viewing of Deadpool and Wolverine, but I had to see it on a Monday night after it had already been out a few days.

I also would like to see Megalopolous in theaters, if only to experience whatever they're going to do for the "audience interaction" part of the movie.

I try to see the Marvel movies in theaters if only so I don't have to wait three months and avoid spoilers for that long.  I know it's expensive but my wife and I are both pretty good with not spending for anything crazy so I feel like it's worth it every month or two.

Oh I know.  And I know it doesn't mean anything.  If she's winning by 3, she could be losing by 2.  If she's winning by 5, it could be tied.  Heck if she's winning by 10 she could be losing.

But I've followed a lot of pollsters since 2019ish and I'm just sorta fascinated by polling - especially polling when it comes to Trump.  This is the only way I can really *not* go crazy is to have some sort of vibe on how things are going, and this is the only way I can do that.

I think I'd go crazier if I didn't check it every day.

I completely agree.  I've been reading that she's learned the mistakes from 2016, and that's great.  I think the Georgia bus tour is great, and if it works, I'd like them to do that in as many swing states as possible.  I'd love for something in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin (and NE-2).  I know that North Carolina and Arizona and Nevada are all possible and if they can also tour those states...go for it.  But this election will be technically won in the Blue Wall.  If you get Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska-2, that's 270.

Is 270 enough?  For the first time in US history, maybe not.  But it sounds like the Harris campaign is going to have boots on the ground to combat whatever post-election nonsense that Trump is going to do, and I think her campaign's job should be to get to 270.  If they can get AZ and NV, great.  If they can also get GA and/or NC, even better.  The more states she gets *above* 270, the less likely Trump can steal something.  But the priority, of course, needs to be getting to 270.  And the polls, for whatever reason and giving them the attention they actually deserve, are dipping a bit in Michigan and Wisconsin.  And I think she needs to sore that up.  If she can get Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nebraska 2, then she has so many paths.  Pennsylvania alone.  Nevada plus either Georgia or North Carolina.  Arizona plus Georgia or North Carolina.  It would be nice if Nevada plus Arizona was 19 votes, but that's why Pennsylvania is so important.

*******

One thing to note.  Trump has softened his abortion stance once again (and Vance is joining him).  They're pledging no national abortion ban.  They're using pro-choice language.  And it's starting to really upset the pro-life people.  If any of them decide to sit out the election, that could be a huge swing in some of these places.  They already beat Roe so some of them might think the battle is already won and stick it to the GOP for not being more committed to a national ban.

And as we all know, a few thousands votes here and there could actually matter.

Kamala (I'll call her that if she prefers - I've been trying to use her last name the same way I would a male candidate) and Walz scheduled an interview.  I read that she's been a bit argumentative in the past (heck maybe I read it here) with interviewers, and I'm hoping Walz can help her with that. I think she needs to do a press conference as well.  I'd really love for her to do with Pete has done and go on Fox News and take their questions, but if she hasn't responded well in that setting, that could easily backfire.

But I'll be interested to see how she does.  She's definitely doing more outreach than him.

What's interesting to me, still, is that Trump has actually gained a bit himself.  His campaign is losing, but it's had forward momentum.  There's been plenty of cases of Harris, simply by getting exposure, has won over undecided voters and even some Republicans.  She needs to reach as many people as she can, and she needs to come across as confident and presidential.  People know who Trump is, and he's painted her as this incompetent buffoon.  It won't be difficult for her to overcome that and impress people.

I have a soft spot for the Saw films (I don't know why.  I'm not a horror person and I don't like gore or torture porn or any of that stuff).  I watched Saw X and actually thought it was pretty great.  I was surprised that the franchise had that in them.

I also was pleasantly surprised by The Hunger Games prequel "The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes" - I enjoyed (for the most part) the Hunger Games books and movies but didn't have a ton of interest in seeing a prequel.  But despite being too long, I thought it had a compelling story and kept my attention throughout.

I do wonder what happens to the GOP if Trump loses.  I will choose to speculate on that once that is a reality.  But there's probably two wildly different roads they're going to be on, but I have a feeling they're going to do whatever Trump wants.

One other interesting thing.  I'm not entirely sure how Trump counters any national coverage that Harris gets.  Harris was on national TV with her speech, and then her speech was covered by the morning shows (local and national).

Trump called in to Fox News and then Newsmax.  He didn't reach anyone undecided.

Not only that, I haven't seen a single ad for him.  Now I'm in Texas and my YouTube algorithm should clearly know that not going to vote for Trump, but I haven't seen anything.  I see a Harris ad almost every time I turn on YouTube.  I haven't seen a Harris ad on TV (which is good, I think, no reason to spend the money), but I have seen some ads for Colin Allred on Hulu and on the morning news.

So how is Trump reaching undecideds with his strategy?  Is it all TV advertising in certain states?

Not sure if its recalibration or not (I assume it's too early for convention bumps), but Harris now leads in the polling averages on 538 in MI/WI/PA/NV/NC/AZ.  Trump still leads in Georgia, but it's essentially the same map as 2020 with NC replacing GA.  That would be phenomenal.

If these numbers can be trusted (hard to say) and if there's no huge issues in getting votes cast (harder to say), then I think Harris needs to do three things (in addition to doing a great speech tonight):

1. National interviews.  Multiple interviews with multiple outlets, including getting on as close to conservative media as she can.  It's free advertising and it eliminates one of the few attacks that has stuck to her.
2. Nail the debate.  It doesn't need to be a grand slam like Biden needed, but she needs to look strong and confident and comfortable.
3. Reinforce. Stick to the plan, focus on battleground states, and focus on the votes you need.  Don't work too hard on votes you won't get, but don't leave any stones unturned.

75 days.  Let's do this.

Yeah, I struggle with trying to figure out the right metaphor for the Jedi.  One I come up with is the police.  I think individual policemen can be good, but the police as a whole can be bogged down by systemic problems, bad apples, too much power, etc.

In the Acolyte, the Jedi decide to investigate these murders.  A podcaster I like thought it might be fun if he partnered up with a "space detective" and figured out what happened.  A sort of private eye who specializes in seeing things that no one else sees.  Instead, the Jedi just do it themselves.  Why would they rely on an expert when the Jedi are experts at everything.  Need a peacekeeper?  Jedi.  Detective?  Jedi.  Scholar?  Philosopher?  General?  Monk?  Leader?  Jedi.

And it's sorta like the police.  If you need a soldier or a protector or a social worker or just an adult, people call the police.  They're good at some things, but they're not good at everything.  And when we ask them to be everything, that's when things get out of hand.

But that's a fairly new metaphor so it can't be what Lucas intended.  I wonder if Lucas just accidentally wrote the Jedi as inept.  Or if he just thought of it as destiny and the Jedi's ineptness made the story easier.  Maybe he thinks even if the Jedi were on top of things, Palpatine still would've won.

********

I do wonder if there was a better way to tell the story of the Jedi that fits better with the Original Trilogy.  I wonder if the Jedi should've faded away on their own.  Like if less and less children displayed abilities in the Force.  Or if the Jedi just slowly went away because they weren't needed.  I'm picturing a scenario where the Jedi were mythical figures even when Obi-Wan was young.  What if they'd mostly already died out by the time Anakin showed up, and maybe the plan was for him to bring the Jedi back.  Maybe there were just a handful of Jedi acting in secret, and then the betrayal makes more sense.  And Han saying he didn't believe in the Force makes sense because it'd mostly died out by then.

I really liked the epilogue.  I think the Ben Linus one is a bit silly because it's one of those "rapid fire answer" segments.  If you really cared about answers, I guess its satisfying but it doesn't really do anything for the character stuff I liked.

The Hurley/Walt scene was really cool.  I wish they'd been able to put that into the actual show, but I don't have any idea where it goes into the finale.  I also would've loved to have seen a Hurley/Ben/Walt spinoff show.  Or some kind of rebootquel now.

Oh don't get me wrong.  The Harris campaign, local election officials, state election officials, and every citizen needs to be on guard.  Trump is not a normal candidate and will do anything he can to win.

That being said, Trump is also not a normal candidate and gets away with so much more than most people.  Look at Kari Lake, who is just as Trumpy as Trump but didn't any traction at all when she accused people of stealing the election from her.  I'm not saying that someone couldn't follow in his footsteps, but Trump seems (so far) to have a unique combination that no one else has been able to replicate to the same extent.

No personal attacks, guys.  One of the great things about our democracy is the ability to disagree and still speak civilly (I've never used this word before in text and it looks super weird written out).  We're all on the same team, and Grizzlor isn't some sort of secret MAGA person.  He wants Trump to lose, but coming at it from a different angle.  I've been a part of this board with him for years and I'll vouch for him for whatever that's worth.

And I think it's clear to separate the difference between interference and fraud.  Fraud implies that votes were switched or conducted illegally.  That's the language that Trump (and tons of republicans) use.  There's very little evidence of any fraud in 2016 or 2020.  There was interference in 2016 (and 2020 and there will be in 2024), but Trump's election win (like Biden's) was legitimate.  And it's counterproductive for our democracy to say otherwise.

And to be fair, there were irregularities in 2020 related to laws that were (maybe illegally) changed for covid that possibly assisted in Biden winning.  That's also not fraud, despite what Trump and his allies and his voters want you to think.

I'll go ahead and link to the video since I'm going to use a lot of it as background: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tk664MfQgU You might think the video is long but it's actually part one of at least five videos of varying lengths.

The writers didn't see the show as a long-term project.  They didn't expect it to be successful and when it was, they knew it couldn't be sustained at the same level.  The writers knew as early as season 2 that they weren't going to be able to make the show last forever.  There were just two problems - it was a monster hit that ABC didn't want to let go and shows just didn't operate like that back then.  Nowadays you can have a show like Three Body Problem that's set for three seasons and that's it.  Back then, shows were on until they ran out of steam or until something like Friends or Seinfeld where everyone just decides its over.

To their credit, the writers tried to make it work a couple different ways.  They introduced the Tailies to give more backstories they could show.  They introduced Nikki and Paolo as a way to show a new perspective and maybe even show flashbacks to the Island.  They introduced Others like Juliet that could have their own flashbacks.  Everyone (including the writers) always points to the "Jack's tattoos" episode, but that was after they'd tried a bunch of different things.

What ended up changing things was Carlton and Damon essentially threatening (and preparing) to quit the show.  They didn't want to be involved in a 20-season LOST where Jack has a flashback about how he bought his dad's shoes. 

They wanted two seasons to wrap things up and settled for three.  I think seasons 4-6 are pretty lean, especially for network TV at the time.  I think there's a universe where it went four seasons (where seasons 2 and 3 are combined and seasons 4-6 are just two seasons), but I think the only difference would be less meandering in the beginnings of seasons 2 and 3.  I think the Henry Gale stretch of episodes is one of the strongest outside of season 1 and season 3 (once Jack and Juliet get back with the group) is also incredibly strong.  I could see a version of "Season 2" where Henry is found around episode 4, he captures Jack/Kate/Sawyer midseason, and they get off the Island at the end of Season 2.  But you'd probably lose some meat with the fat in that instance.

I think people didn't love the time travel stuff, but I really think if you look at everything from LOST from a character lens instead of a plot lens, the show is so much better.  Was I extremely satisfied with the answer to "what is the Island?"  No.  But at that point, I honestly didn't care about that.  I loved the characters and just wanted to see what happened to them.  Time travel allowed them to literally live in the past, and the show was all about the past.  The flash sideways was somewhat predictable and cliched, but the whole show was about moving on from their baggage.  There wasn't a better metaphor for that.

I'm not accusing Grizzlor of misunderstanding but there's also a lot of criticism that's directly related to people misunderstanding the end.  They weren't dead the whole time.  They didn't even die at the same time - some people died decades apart from each other.  Some was people not listening and some was bizarre choices like having the final credits roll over images of the empty wreckage on the beach with the sound of waves (which could imply, in a vacuum, that they died in the crash and none of it happened).  The problem is that the show explicitly says that it all happened.

Let's see:

Was a professional, enjoyable product throughout - Yes, I think so.  Season 2 is a bit muddled and the start to season 3 is  a bit of a mess, but I enjoyed it all the way through.  Season 2 and Season 3 end on such highs that I don't think you can say either of them are bad seasons.  Nothing touches season one, but that's an incredibly high bar IMO.

Had a decent run of at least four seasons - Yes

Had no major shifts in production that made the series subfunctional or outright dysfunctional - The most disfunctional part about LOST was behind the scenes with the weirdest producer/studio issue ever.  Disney wanted the show to continue, and Lindelof and Cuse wanted it to end.  LOST almost became a casualty of its own success.  Outside of a dip in the quality of flashback stories, I don't think this issue affected the show as it aired.  There was some cast issues, but none of them were major (depending on how much you liked Mr. Eko).

Had a series finale that served as a satisfying conclusion - This will be the most debatable of the four for some, and it's going to depend on what you were looking for in a conclusion.  If it was a list of answers to questions that may or may not have already been answered, then no.  If you moved beyond the mysteries to care about the characters, then I think overwhelmingly yes.

Curious - when did you stop and would you ever revisit?  A YouTuber named Billiam recently has been doing these supersized videos on the history of LOST and has stoked my interest in LOST again.  It covers an incredible amount of material in a much shorter amount of time than rewatching the series (although it's still a huge time investment).

******

LOST is my favorite show.  I think the best show of all time is The Wire.  It easily satisfies all four of your requirements.  Even if season 5 is the worst season of the show, the conclusion of the show is incredible.

The Simpsons has moved beyond qualifying for the questions you asked, but I have watched more Simpsons than any show ever.

Georgia is making me a little nervous.  Not only is it the state that Harris is doing worst out of the six battleground states, but they recently amped up their election denialism.  No one seems to be panicking about it, but I'm also having a lot of trouble figuring out what happens if the state can't certify its own results.  I know Congress signed some sort of update to help with their certification process, but if a state decides from top to bottom that their results can't be trusted, what even happens?  Do the votes just not count and potentially less than 538 votes could be counted?  Or do the votes have to be cast and there's just a greater likelihood that Trump could essentially steal the state?

I guess the hope is that Kemp and Raffensperger, while both Republicans, don't have a ton of love for Trump.  So even if lower level election officials don't certify the results, I think they have the ability to push it through regardless.  But that's what I worry about.  In my head, we can't count on Georgia to get to 270, even if Harris wins it.

I don't think there's been any news on that.  ireactions might know more than me.

Yeah I guess I mean she needs to nail it.  What I'd like to see:

- Some sort of compromise on the Trump tax cuts.  Either she only increases taxes on the wealthy / wealthier segments, or the taxes don't go all the way back to pre-Trump levels.  No matter the rationale, raising peoples' taxes is not popular.
- Tax protections for families - for childcare, tax credit, etc.  Will help with the "anti-family" argument.
- Something concrete to tackle inflation, even if it's something that just sounds good in theory.
- Something about protection for blue-collar workers.  Trump and Musk attacked unions the other day, and Democrats can reclaim some of the voters Trump might have upset.
- Trump's stupid no tax on tips thing.  I don't think it would have the impact some think it would, but it is popular.
- Very clear explanation for what people will get for their taxes, whether they are increased or not.  I think people are fine paying taxes if it goes toward things they like.

Okay I had a thought that I wanted to throw out.  This probably could've been its own thing but I'll put it here.

One of the big things in the Disney era of Star Wars is the idea that the Jedi weren't that great.  And I'm trying to understand what George Lucas would say to that.  And I'm interested to know what people think about this.  Is the galaxy better off without the Jedi?  Or is it okay to have the Jedi just as long as they allow the Jedi to feel love?

Are the Jedi better off being Vulcans (who have no emotions but can know love)?  Or is the right metaphor for the Jedi the police?  Because in all the pre-Vader media, it seems like the Jedi were trying to wear too many hats?  If the Jedi stayed in their lane (peacekeeping), would they have been better?

Did the Jedi deserve to be destroyed?  Were they a symptom of something that was destroying the entire republic?  Should they be built back just the way they were?  What is the lesson I'm supposed to get from Star Wars on what the Jedi were and what they should be?

Well Trump controls state legislatures and election officials in all these states.  All he needs is a majority of people to question the results (based off no evidence) to gum up the works.  For example, if it's 270-268 and there's some sort of fake "voter irregularity" in Wisconsin, Trump officials there could convince enough people to throw out some votes and give the victory to Trump.  Suddenly it's 278-260 Trump and he wins.  It doesn't take that many votes and it only takes one state.

That's why I think the crucial number is 289.  If Harris can get there, then Trump wouldn't have to overturn one state, he'd need to overturn at least two.  Two is obviously harder than one, and two looks more like Trump is trying to pull something instead of something people might be willing to accept (small voter irregularity isolated to a single place).  If Harris can repeat the 2020 Biden map, then it gets even harder for Trump.  If she gets MI/WI/AZ/NV/GA, and Trump is able to flip Pennsylvania (the biggest of the swing states) through some kind of illegal action, then it's still 284-254.  In that case, he'd need to flip Pennsylvania and either Georgia or Michigan to win.  Not only would he need to flip states, he'd need specific ones.  If he doesn't get those, he'd need to get combinations.  PA/AZ/NV for example.

Can Trump do it?  Sure.  He has people in all these states.  If you look back on 2020, a handful of people in small positions saved the day.  If those break down this time, it could make it more likely that Trump could pull something off.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p … 235069692/

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

That being said, the wheels are coming off a bit for Trump.  He had a disastrous interview with Elon Musk, and he's getting a bit more unhinged.  He accused Harris of using AI to fake crowds - if that can reach undecided voters (who can verify for themselves that the crowds were real any number of ways), then I think she'll pick up more of those.  Trump *only* campaigns to his base.

Right wing people across the board, even those firmly in his camp, are starting to get nervous that he's going off script so much.  Harris needs to keep hammering him and keep him annoyed and pressured.  He'll continue to flail and stumble, and if enough of that can get on mainstream media to reach moderates/undecideds/soft Trump votes, then she'll win.

A poll came out that had Harris within the margin of error in FLORIDA.  If that happens, MAGA is going to flip out and accuse Harris of cheating but at that point, Trump will have lost by so much that it wouldn't matter one bit.  I don't really think Florida is in play, but if it's even sorta in play, Harris is going to cruise.

Another round of good polling for Harris.  It was just one poll, but she's tied in North Carolina.  Its not an exact science, but if she wins North Carolina, she's going to win the election (maybe as big as possible).  Just like a month ago when they were talking about Trump winning Minnesota, that would've been best case for him.

Still a long way to go and Harris will have to defend herself on the debate stage and in interviews, but it's amazing how much things have flipped in such a short amount of time.  She's on the inside track now.

Trump's press conference yesterday was a bit of a disaster, but I don't know if it will matter much.  I wonder if the race has hit a new equilibrium that will take a Biden debate - level event to shake it up.  If that's the case, this race might come down to what undecideds / current RFK voters decide to do on the day.

If we go by 538's polling averages, she's winning the blue wall and she's within 0.5% in Arizona and Georgia.  Surprisingly, there isn't enough polling in Nevada to have an average, and NE-2 hasn't done a poll since Biden dropped out.  I think North Carolina is a pipe dream at this point.  If she wins that, I think she would've swept all the races and it'll just be icing on the cake.

Oh absolutely.  This doesn't end on election day.  That's just the beginning.  That's why this can't be 270-268.  She needs to win a couple of buffer states that can be overturned and she can still win.  I think Trump has the infrastructure to muck up at least one state, but I think it would be hard to overturn more than that.  If she can win the blue wall plus Georgia and Arizona, for example, then that should be enough.  And we're trending in that direction, at least.

If Trump has the infrastructure to overturn more than that, the election literally doesn't matter.

*******

I'm blown away that there were Gaza protesters at Harris' rally.  I seriously don't understand what these people are doing.  Trump has literally promised to jail them, and they're helping him win.

But I thought she handled it magnificently.  I think she also handled the "Lock Him Up" chants well.  As I've said, now that the trials aren't going to accomplish anything before November, we need to stop focusing on that.  Beat him in November.

Nate Silver wrote an article about it today.  I agreed with him in general, and he basically said Walz was the safe pick.  That it was a fairly traditional pick because it added to her.  And I know Shapiro had warts, and I'd certainly worry if he *only* added to Pennsylvania. 

My worries with Walz are:

- Does he give you anything?  I know he doesn't take away from the Gaza vote like Shapiro or from the union vote like Kelly.  But does he give you anything?  Is there anyone who would vote for Harris today who wasn't going to vote for her yesterday?  That's the question.  Maybe he's great.  I just hope he isn't Tim Kaine, who gave Clinton nothing.  I know he's better than Vance, but the bar certainly can't be that low.

- Republicans are celebrating their butts off.  Not the attacks - those have been generic and overblown as usual.  But Republicans thought she'd pick Shapiro and "the race would be over" - They basically saw it as a chance to go for the knockout, but instead they're still in the race.  That worries and bothers me.  It never feels good when you do something and the other side celebrates.

I guess we'll see.  The polls look good and she can still get a bump from the convention.  Maybe she'll get a bump from this.  The Harris campaign is much better than the Biden campaign was so maybe they'll make me eat my words in three months.  I would love nothing more than to be wrong about this.