American Politics: Discuss and Debate (Page 51 of 57)

A couple of notes of note:

- Regarding polling error.  This is my big worry because we literally won't know the error until it's essentially too late.  In 2020, the error was pretty huge in some cases so the whole thing makes me nervous.  The polling error in 2020 was enormous, but it was also a pretty unusual year (obviously).  With lockdowns going on across the country and Democrats more locked down than usual, the samples could've been incorrect.  There was also the "shy Trump voter" issue at hand as Trump was extremely unpopular.

There was some thought earlier in the year that Biden might've had the same issue.  Biden was so unpopular that people might've been "shy Biden voters" and told pollsters that they were voting for who they were perceiving is/was the more popular candidate at the time.

Are there still shy Trump voters?  I feel like Republicans would be more likely now to admit that they are supporting Trump - the legal stuff might have dissuaded them a little bit, but that seems to have passed a bit.  I also think you're seeing Biden voters saying they're switching to Trump so I think that bit of polling error might have been corrected a bit.  Obviously the covid stuff is over so the sampling issue might be fixed.  There's a thought that Republicans are just against polls and are less likely to take them.  So that could still be an issue.

Of course, during the primaries, Biden overperformed his polls and Trump underperformed his.  Is there a chance that pollsters, in an attempt to correct 2020, overcorrected and are oversampling Republicans?  Is it the other theory that Republican-funded polls that lean right are flooding the market and affecting polling averages?  Maybe?  I would love if the polling was wrong but in our direction.  I guess we won't know until November.

- Trump is flirting with dropping out of the debate.  If he does, Harris needs to use the time.  Trump is doing exactly zero to court voters in the middle, and she could have a great opportunity to reach people.  I think Trump would be making a huge mistake by not debating, and I think she may be the one who doesn't need it.  I think, obviously, she needs to appear to want to do it no matter what.

- Has she scheduled a national TV interview yet?  She said she would by the end of the month.  She really needs to do that because it's an attack that the right will continue to use on her.  And it's an attack that I think is hitting her.  I know she's trying to campaign as much as possible, but she needs to make this a priority.  And I think she should do a bunch of interviews if she can.

- She and Walz are doing a bus tour of Georgia.  Georgia is the only state that she's behind in the 538 polling average so I'm interested in what her campaign is thinking.  Do they think there's huge gains they can make in Georgia?  I would think that something like this could be more effective in places like Pennsylvania or even North Carolina, but maybe there's plans for that too.  Best case scenario for democracy is for her to sweep all seven battleground states, but Georgia makes me nervous because of all of the control that Republicans have over the election process.  I think it's the state that's most likely to be flipped.  I'll be interested to see if the bus tour works (Trump is also focused on Georgia so maybe she can just play defense and make Trump focus on Georgia which could help her in Pennsylvania).

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.

Contrast that to Trump who makes everyone around him call him Mr. President.

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.

Yeah, that's why I'm hesitant to fully trust the Harris campaign's strategy to go after Georgia.  Again, maybe there are plans to do this in other states, but outside of forcing Trump to spend money there, I'm sorta counting Georgia as a loss.  If you need to focus resources in that area, focus them in North Carolina.  But even then, I think my strategy would be to (in order of necessity):

1. Shore up Pennsylvania
2. Shore up Michigan / Wisconsin / Nebraska-2
3. Build up the vote in Arizona
4. Build up the vote in Nevada
5. Try to win North Carolina
6. Try to win Georgia

If you win PA / MI / WI / NE2 / AZ / NV, it's 287-251.  The worry there would be Trump somehow flipping Pennsylvania and winning, but if you focus on Pennsylvania as your top priority (in all aspects, including protecting the vote and working to make sure Trump can't do anything illegal), then it's two birds with one stone.  At 287, Trump would need to flip two non-PA battleground states, and he wouldn't even have the one he's more likely to flip (Georgia).

So maybe she's going to try and do a tour of every battleground state and she's just doing Georgia first.  If not, I think she's misusing time and resources on a state that Trump is best suited to win and/or steal.

*****

Cook Political report did move North Carolina to toss up which is cool.  It basically only leaves Nebraska-2 as a "Lean" vote on either side.  There are no longer any Lean Republican states.  So they're basically saying all seven are toss ups and the rest of the votes are pretty safe.  I will feel better when/if they move states like Michigan or Wisconsin to Lean Democrat, but I don't know if that will happen before the election.

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.

NEVER

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.

I mean at the end of the day, it's all meaningless.  Polls have errors, and the models that are built are based on the erred polls.  Betting markets don't mean anything, as any sports fan will tell you.  Upsets happen all the time no matter how good Vegas does at creating betting lines.  Even when a game isn't against the spread, David beats Goliath in sports enough that it always needs to be considered.

It's going to be a close election that comes down to election day and a few thousand people in a few states.  A thousand different factors could affect the result, including weather and unpredictable human nonsense.

But for me, it's about vibes and confidence.  When I see that my team is favored to win a game, no matter how many times betting lines have been wrong, I feel better going into the game.  I don't feel cheated or angry if it goes the wrong way, but it just makes me feel better.  The idea that Harris is polling better makes me feel better.  The fact that these pollsters make millions of dollars to predict this stuff and get raked across the coals when they get it wrong makes me feel better about trusting them.

I've had so much existential dread about this stupid election that I just want to feel okay that a literal psychopath won't be running my country for another four years.  I know it's dumb and I know that it means nothing and I know that we aren't going to know anything until after November 3rd.  But if you think that's going to stop me, just start ignoring my dumb little posts

I completely agree, but I also wonder if we're just not seeing it because she's not focusing on either of our states (rightly).  Our votes don't matter so our experience might be different than the experience of someone in one of the seven battlegrounds.

I am weirded out by her not doing more national stuff, but the national vote doesn't really matter.  If the stuff they're doing on the state level isn't working, that's more of a problem.  But if it's working, then less national stuff doesn't bother me.  Again we haven't had any quality state level polling (I don't know how that's possible - what are they doing?) in a long time so we don't really have any idea how her bus trip through Georgia impacted anything.

*******

This story is also not super important, but it's a nice indicator that Harris could/should win.  Lichtman uses different "keys" that have to be unlocked to see who the winner is.  He missed Bush/Gore (which was crazy close) and actually underestimated Trump in the popular vote in 2016.  It also doesn't mean anything, but it's another positive sign that she might be able to win.

https://news.yahoo.com/news/polling-exp … 48920.html

NYT came out with a poll yesterday that had Trump up one.  Everyone lost their minds, but it obviously went in two different camps.  GOP said it was clear that the Harris honeymoon is over and everyone came back to their original camps.  Liberals said there were crosstabs issues (oversampling of both Republicans and evangelicals).  I'm sure both are possible.

(I know it doesn't matter, Grizzlor, but I'm doing this anyway).

My aunt is a pretty avid MSNBC watcher and fairly active in politics.  She's one of the large number of people who listens in on a lot of the Harris activist zoom calls, and she comes to me for analysis on some of the things she's hearing and doing.  For her, she's struggling with the idea that people would've switched to Trump in the last month or so.  She can't understand why anyone would jump on the Trump train now.  For me, it would need to be someone in one of three camps:

1. RFK Jr voters.  Whether they were going to vote for Trump the whole time or not, these are people that either love RFK so much that they'll listen to his endorsement and vote for Trump or vote for Trump to get RFK Jr involved in the government somewhere.

2. Double haters.  These are people that hated Trump and hated Biden.  Maybe some of them initially jumped on the Harris bandwagon because she was *literally anyone else* but either struggled to connect with her or just decided that they liked something about Trump better.

3. Undecideds who finally just decided to land on Trump instead of Harris.  They needed to make a decision and just made a decision.

I think all of these situations are possible, and all of these shifts could have already happened or could happen all the way up until election day.

Now who's going to go into the Harris camp?  It's basically the same group of people:

1. Double haters.  People that hated Trump and were turned off by Biden at some point in the last four years.  Harris is new and refreshing and so they go with her.

2. Undecideds that make their decision.  Instead of picking Trump, they pick Kamala.

3. People Trump sheds.  I think it's possible that *some* RFK voters could go to Kamala, but I don't think it's a big-enough group to rely on.  I Think RFK voters are going to either still vote for RFK, write in RFK where he's no longer on the ballot, vote for a different 3rd party on the ballot, or vote for Trump.  Any Democrats who were going to vote for RFK based off of name recognition, I think, switched to Harris when Biden dropped out (I think they were "Double Haters").  So I think that's insignificant.  Now I do think there's a chance that Trump sheds some votes in the next 50 days, and I think a lot of it relies on tomorrow's debate.  If Trump looks rambly and old and crazy tomorrow night, I think some people might reconsider.  I assume a lot of non-MAGA Trump votes are coming from people who just think he's more reliable because he's done the job before.  If Trump can actually look a little bit like the way they saw Biden (old and possibly losing his marbles), I think those votes could go to Harris.

I think there's a chance that Trump says or does something that loses him pro-life voters, but I don't think those people go to Kamala.  It can help her if they don't vote for him, but obviously it's better if they get those votes.  And there's just no way they vote for her.  Maybe I'm underestimating it, but I think the endorsements of the Cheneys doesn't move the needle much.  I think the Bush/Cheney conservatives have already left, and I think Liz has been openly anti-Trump for a long-enough time that nothing would change.

One thing that could possibly make a dent is Liz Cheney saying that "not voting for Trump is not enough - you need to vote for Kamala."  I think there's a slight chance that makes a difference with some people.  People like Mitt Romney have always said they've written in some classical Republican, but there's a chance that Liz Cheney can convince some anti-Trump Republicans that they have permission to vote for a Democrat not just for president but downballot as well (she also endorsed Colin Allred in Texas...not sure if she endorsed others but that was obviously news here).

Again, I think Liz Cheney has been visible and active enough that she's convinced all the people she was going to convince.  But if she can convince enough people that were going to write someone in to vote for her, it could make a difference in some places.  Hopefully she does some sort of ad in the battleground states.

But if you look at the polls, Trump has been pretty consistent.  I don't think he's losing voters or adding voters.  I think if he has a average/standard debate, the number of people that were going to vote for him in July are still going to vote for him in November.  I think it's all about people that actually choose to vote for Kamala.

And that's why I think the debate tomorrow is important.  If Trump answers questions like he answered the "Child Care costs" question from the weekend, I think he could lose people who don't pay much attention to the 2024 version of Trump.  And I think Harris could impress people who aren't familiar with her at all (or lose those same people if she looks unprepared or in over her head).

I know she's working really hard at debate prep (and has gotten much better than the 2019 debates that she struggled with) and he's not prepping at all.  He doesn't really debate and he lies so much that he doesn't really need to learn facts or figures.  I'm sure she'll be prepared, but I'm hoping she can walk the tightrope, both standing up to him and refuting his lies and actually delivering the types of answers that people are looking for.  If I were advising her (and I should not be advising her), my advice would be for her to mostly ignore Trump and just answer questions.  I think if she looks professional and knowledgeable, I think she'll look presidential.  I think she should leave the fact-checking to the analysts, even though I have little faith that they'll do that.  But ignoring Trump and delivering a message will allow her the better chance of coming out with more voters than she came in with.

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.

Yeah I hope it comes up tomorrow.  And I assume his answer will be something like "I did what everyone wanted and I moved it back to the states.  That's what everyone wanted.  They wanted it to go back to the states and that's where it is.  Hannibal Lecter.  Sharks.  Tariffs.  I'm a Christian."

The Sienna/NYT poll has a R+3 lean, it's not a bias, it's just based on their sample.  You cannot poll anybody under the age of 40, as they will not respond to unknown phone numbers and often emails.  I'm older than that, and I sure don't!!!

I am as nervous as a Blockbuster manager during the rise of Netflix. I'm not sure what will happen. And you know what? I'm proud of that.

I used to have a very obvious anxiety disorder that I couldn't manage properly at the time. There was someone I looked up to, who was a bit of a shock jock sort of person. He held Libertarian views like Tracy Torme, and he would offer a lot of political views boldly and a lot of hypercritical perspectives of anything and everything (art, science, housing, parking spaces) with total certainty. I never talked to anyone else who expressed so little doubt, and because I was severely overstocked with doubt, I admired and envied him.

He said that Clinton was certain to win in 2016. He said, upon Trump's win, that Trump had lived in a blue state for most of his life and would tone down the insanity. He said that the presidency was not a very powerful position or office and that whoever was president didn't fundamentally change anything. He said that Biden was doomed to lose the 2020 election and that Trump was a master showman who would run rings around Biden.

He was wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.

He never conceded his errors. He never even acknowledged his errors and that his prognostications were not correct, that the world didn't work the way he thought it would, that the outcomes weren't the ones he expected. He never reviewed his errors and why his predictions were off. He had no self-doubt. He kept making them with the same level of certainty even when that absolute confidence had proven absolutely wrong.

And because I loved him and admired him and valued him, I got upset with him and I... didn't handle my frustration well; I became increasingly incensed by what I perceived as ego and vanity... which is pretty absurd because I have plenty of ego and vanity myself. Nobody writes nine SLIDERS scripts unpaid and ropes podcasters in to talk about it without some arrogance.

But regardless, my friend did not acknowledge that he was often wrong, that he didn't really know what was going to happen, that the world didn't always work the way he thought it did our should, and that he wasn't sure.

I won't make that mistake. Simon Rosenberg paints a pretty picture balanced by realism; it could still be unbalanced. He could still be wrong and he'd be the first person to tell you that. He's not a god. More specifically, Rosenberg is not Quinn Mallory or Professor Arturo; he is not a mathematician.

He is an analyst, a pundit, and he is biased to say Kamala is doing well because he wants her to be doing well. He was right in 2022 that the red wave was an illusion; he is right to say that 2024 isn't 2022 -- but there's always more to the picture than anyone can see, and it's entirely possible that he's overlooked a key item that would change his assessment if he knew to factor it in. It's also possible that he's overlooked things that, in the end, won't matter.

I share his words because they sound good to me, but let us never forget that I am posting what I want to hear, and sometimes, what I want to hear is not accurate.

I have made predictions before and they were wrong. It shook me. It rattled me. It terrified me. I'm not absolutely confident. I have doubts. But I don't doubt reality, which is that The New York Times is looking at one poll and Simon Rosenberg is looking at 12. But what is going to happen?

I'm not too proud to say I don't know and I'm not sure.

Oh wow, that went super well for Kamala.  Trump rambled on and on and on and on, which I didn't think he'd be able to do in two minutes.  Kamala was great - I think she dodged a couple major questions, but I think she was overall very strong and intelligent.

I don't know how much it matters, but I think this was a home run.  I'm hoping undecided voters watched and paid attention because they saw an old crazy person and someone who wants to turn the page.

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.

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.

Yeah I wonder if he realizes that Kennedy is mostly toxic.  Or he is such an afterthought that Trump literally forgot about him.

I was also surprised that Kamala didn't mention that she would put a Republican in her cabinet.  I think a lot of Americans would be interested in some sort of coalition government, and I figured that would help with Republicans that really don't want to vote for Trump.  I assume she means someone like Kinzinger or Cheney, but it could maybe give anti-Trump Republicans an excuse to vote for her (and, like Liz Cheney urged people, to not just write in some Republican but actually vote for her).

But, yeah, he looked so awful with absolutely no ideas.  I can't imagine any undecideds who were impressed by him, and that's where I think she could've been a little better in defining herself.  But I would assume she at least opened the door for some of those people to leave Trump or vote for her, and she's going to need to really hit the ground running.  I completely agree that she needs to reach more "normal people" but I wonder if she's doing that locally in places like Pennsylvania and North Carolina and we just don't see it in Texas or New York (or are you NJ?)

I assume the Harris campaign knows what they're doing, but you're absolutely right that there are light and easy venues she could take advantage of.  Before she was the actual nominee, I was thinking she needed to really blanket the airwaves.  Show up on all kinds of shows - CMT, BET, MTV.  Do all kinds of podcasts/YouTube shows/TikTok channels, even people that aren't traditionally political.  I'm old and out of the loop, but I'm thinking it might be fun for her to do something like Dude Perfect and have her screw around with a football or foosball or pickleball.  Reach some people who never pay attention to politics and show that she's fun and outgoing and stuff like that.

Again, she probably knows better than me.  But I'd be doing something like that literally every day.  Call in to podcasts and make any video stuff come to you.  Because they will.

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.

At this point, you're not going to convince people who still cannot make up their minds.  It's a fallacy.  They either won't vote, or they're just lying to poll takers.  Trump continues to lead by a significant margin on immigration and the economy.  As humiliated as he got the other night, it may not end up mattering.  He certainly won't debate again.  It's going to continue to be an uphill fight for Democrats over the next several weeks, and they can push their supporters to vote, with emphasis on abortion and Trump's authoritarianism.  Immigration is a lost cause, everything that's been said, has been said.  Joe Biden and/or those in his administration (possibly including the VP) just simply failed on that issue.  For anyone who finds it to be a deciding factor, you lost them awhile ago.  I felt her economic proposals were good, and hopefully they can advertise those more wherever they are, and go.  Becomes a battle to see who gets more people out to vote.

Well, another loon, with a gun, attempted to shoot Trump down.  This time it was at his local golf course, before USSS intervened.  This man has a history of run in's with the law, and neighbors described him essentially as a complete nutjob, and probably a dangerous one.  This followed a bizarre tweet by Trump "I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT," earlier in the day.

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.