US Election & Presidency

(12-09-2024 09:13 )Charlemagne Wrote:  Trump has always come up with stupid remarks and his supporters have mostly believed him.
The eating dogs comment has totally blown any doubt about him being unfit for office. But he wasn't fit for office the last time.

Having watched the debate online my view is that Harris performed better than Trump but to little or no meaningful effect.

It's important to remember here that the election will be decided by a very small number of people in a very small number of counties in a very small number of states. The people that both Harris and Trump need onside are the undecided voters. The ones who are possibly equally cynical about both candidates for different reasons. And dare I say it inherently more discerning in respect of that cynicism. The intelligent floating voter needs persuasion for a positive policy vision. These folk already know the character of Trump. They have already identified what they like and dislike about him. He is the devil they know in terms of policy vision and personality.

They don't need Harris to make him look a fool. He is plenty good enough at that himself. Harris needs to put across a positive, coherent policy vision between now and polling day. She needs also to set an ideological agenda to persuade people that she can achieve reform and stability where it is perceived that Biden did not.
Many Americans it seems to me feel disenfranchised and perhaps that the state doesn't listen to them anywhere near enough.

Trump played on that in 2016 and won through setting himself up as the anti establishment candidate. The populist option.
He could succeed again unless Harris adjusts her course.

Recognition of the frustration of those who feel betrayed and let down is a must. Stating the way forward to alleviate their concerns through policy ideas is quite another thing and just as important.
Trump applies a simpleton logic to win populist support.

For Harris the task is tougher. She needs to not only demonstrate sincere contrition that people feel left out but also present a way forward that those people can get behind. Serious politics for serious times.

Belittling Trump is the card being played to an audience that has already made up it's mind. But it won't win hearts and minds of the people she needs to persuade. I like Harris a lot. I really do. But the dynamics of her campaign now need to shift into a different gear.
If they don't she could fall victim to an agonising defeat.

I happen to live in one of those vital swing states

Sadly, the American Audience NEEDS to be reminded of prior events, we tend to have awful memories. The fact checking on Trump was nice to hear to be honest. Some took umbrage with it (yes even "They're Eating The Dogs" upset people that it WAS Fact Checked)

The Mainstream Media's coverage isn't helping matters. They cater to their demographic, so will report how they see fit (even though some on FOX News gave Harris her due)
MSNBC was a love fest over Harris (honestly I thought she did a good job of not directly answering Questions)
The Alternative Right Wing Media is a whole other beast. Recently, it was revealed that some Right Wing Influencers were being paid with Russian Money

At the end of the day you have to make up your own mind, but in the world of algorithms, you get bombarded with a lot of false info
Trump is good at making headlines, but we aren't as adapt to actually read beyond the headlines.

The whole "fake news" epidemic is just a way for Denialists to argue their point till they are blue in the face. Can we look any worse to the rest of the world

Oh, Trump was discussing the missing pets at his rally in Arizona

Anyone think Trump can win?

^ Don't forget that it's the Americans who are voting.

Last La-La comment from Trump "They are eating Springfield's geese now".

i thought right wing were into hunting thats why they need AR 15's

(13-09-2024 02:44 )ukusagolf Wrote:  … The fact checking on Trump was nice to hear to be honest. Some took umbrage with it (yes even "They're Eating The Dogs" upset people that it WAS Fact Checked)

The fact checking is a tough call.

Live fact checking in a debate is actually unusual. It would be more common to let the candidates fact-check each other. After one candidate says something like “inflation is worse than it’s ever been”, they could turn to the other candidate and say, “how do you respond to the claim about inflation?”

It’s only since Trump’s arrival on the scene — with a barrage of constant lies, hyperbole and belligerence — that networks have adapted debate formats to include things like muted microphones and live fact-checking.

Now I’ve heard many on Fox News parrot the line that it’s not really “fact checking”, if they only fact-check one of the candidates. There is some merit to that.

They didn’t press either candidate to actually answer the question that was put to them. That actually favoured Harris, who tends to dodge direct questions by speaking in platitudes.

And they let some of Trump’s more obvious exaggerations go unchallenged. “Millions” of illegal immigrants from prisons and mental asylums! (…it was actually 14,000 last year); “Highest inflation in American history!” (…not even the highest inflation in my lifetime). Generally speaking, whenever Trump finishes a sentence with “in the history of our country”, it is almost certainly a lie or a wild exaggeration.

But they didn’t fact-check any of that. They only picked him up on the insane claims about baby-killing and pet-eating.

If only for the appearance of neutrality, however, they might’ve slapped Harris down for saying that Trump would sign a national abortion ban (he wouldn’t), that they inherited the worst unemployment since the Great Depression (they didn’t), or the accusation that Trump has said there would be a “bloodbath” if he loses the election (a word taken completely out of context and they know it).

So, on balance, I think there is some merit in the suggestion that moderators were biased. It’s a shame, because I think she would have won the debate even without the extra help, and the bias just gives Trumpers a legitimate excuse for his poor performance.

(13-09-2024 15:57 )Charlemagne Wrote:  ^ Don't forget that it's the Americans who are voting.

Last La-La comment from Trump "They are eating Springfield's geese now".

I hope it doesn't come down to my vote

I'm more curious what you guys think on the matter.
Both sides over here are sure their candidate will win. It's the undecided voter who will decided the election. What issues are most pressing to them? Who knows

It's just about getting the 270 Electoral Votes
Still a few more weeks for someone to emerge or slip up(and it's probably not going to be known on election day either)

We shall see if the missing Geese move the needle

There's the real world and the media world, and both have become a blur as far as gauging what's real and what isn't. Sad times

From the media world, Trump is Trump. He generates headlines, people find his antics entertaining. Polls are irrelevant when it comes to Trump. He generates revenue for people, so they will just keep talking about him. Any press is good press as far as they are concerned.

The eating of pets, and the backlash over the racial overtones is a different kind of press. It does turn off advertisers which at the end of the day is all that matters to networks and social media journalists/influencers. CNN had to cut away from Trump's "very weird statements" during his Arizona rally Yes there are also real repercussions going on with Haitians at the moment Nothing new in the world of scaring voters
Elon's machine isn't helping matters, as you just get a bunch of ass kissers just using the news for their own benefit. Seriously, way too many "political influencers" nowadays with a lot of False Claims

In my honest opinion, he's been slipping since the Assassination attempt. He's always been bat shit crazy, and that is his appeal to some. He has a ceiling with voters. He won't win the popular vote (no Republican has in 20 years)

I do know people in real life who will still go to bat for him