My opinion of her abilities to be President have not really changed. But my opinion of her chances to win have changed considerably.
The people who say polls are "meaningless" are just as wrong as people who put all their faith in polls. People like to point to the results in 2016 as an example of how wrong polls can be, but every state finished within the margin of error based on the last polls.
Right now the polls are so close in most states that Trump and Harris overlap within the margin of error. The polls can't tell us who will win, but they can sure tell us it is close.
Much closer than I thought it would be. I never felt that there was anything particularly offensive about Harris but when she tried to run in '20 she completely bombed out. I did not know a lot about her at the time, but I thought that crime was a weak issue for the Democrats and she might try to spin her experience as DA for San Francisco into some sort of a Democrat version of "tough on crime". But ger campaign never even got off the ground.
When Biden picked her she was qualified for the position, but I certainly felt like he was playing politics with a brown woman. Despite a popular myth he never said he would pick a minority or a woman as his VP, but it sure seemed that way.
When she took over for Biden I figured she would be dead in the water. That is why I started the thread linked above. But she has motivated a lot of young voters and minorities.
And that is what makes this debate so important. Trump is not going to say or do anything that will change anyone's opinion of him. But Harris is actually very unknown for a Presidential candidate. She was not in national politics long enough to make any impact. She was only a Senator for 4 years. Since she did not really even make into the Democratic primaries for 2020 (when Dems did not have an incumbent) no one said much about her. As Biden's VP she debated Pence, but no one remembers that. Very few people care about the VP debate.
The thing about going through the primaries for your own party is that you get toughened up by facing attacks before you go into the general election. But Harris has not really had any experience with that in either 2020 or this year.
Trump is not going to go up or down much based on this next debate, but Harris could either soar or completely fall on her face.
My prediction is that Trump will ramble and repeat a few of his favorite speaking points multiple times. There will be times when his answer does not even mention the subject of the question.
Harris will be able to stay on point but she will use too much complicated political jargon to try and make herself sound smart. She will try to be everything for everyone, but will have trouble sounding sincere. This means a lot. Hillary Clinton was just as smart as Bill. The only difference between them was that Bill was a charmer while no one trusted her even when she did tell the truth. If Kamala is going to have any change she is going to have to stop looking like a bad actress playing a Presidential candidate.
I don't know what is going to happen, but it is going to be worth watching.
When Biden picked her she was qualified for the position, but I certainly felt like he was playing politics with a brown woman. Despite a popular myth he never said he would pick a minority or a woman as his VP, but it sure seemed that way.
Obviously, the only thing that "THIS DEBATE IS ACTUALLY GOING TO MEAN" is that, as usual, you are:
What is your opinion of Camala now ? You never described your opinion of her then. Just her chances of winning.
Why didn't you describe your described your opinion of her then. Why are you not doing it now ? Could it be that she has pulled a Biden, hiding from the American public ? Do you think just one interview with friendly media answer all the questions Americans have ? Are the Dumbs scared of her looking worse mentally than Biden due to her word salads, and cackling laugh in response to questions ? Trump answers all questions anytime.
Is just one debate on her friendly ground going to decide to vote for her, maybe against her ?
Originally posted by cliffw: Are the Dumbs scared of her looking worse mentally than Biden due to her word salads, and cackling laugh in response to questions ?
No.
She obviously has some flaws, but not as bad as Biden.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Trump answers all questions anytime.
He answers them the way he wants to. This sometimes means that his answer does not address anything he was asked about.
Ray talks a lot about "lies," but the frustrating thing to me is that Kamala, and in general... Democrats seem to always resist wanting to do debates and / or big interviews unless they have some control over them. I have thoughts, but I'd appreciate yours.
Kamala only wants 1 debate (though she says she wants more, and then says her team hasn't agreed to them). But the common consensus is that keeping her out of the spotlight is better for her prospects. The same was said for Joe Biden. I'd agree that they're correct... and honestly, the less Kamala has unscripted air time, the better for her. But why? It's not because she'll make a fool of herself, but it's because the Democrats are concerned that their views are going to be unpopular. This was not unlike some of the stuff that President Obama was doling out going into his first and second term. The interviews were largely scripted... meaning the questions were to an extent, known ahead of time, pre-recorded. Hillary did this same thing too... there was even a scandal where she was given the questions ahead of time.
Bottom line, I really dislike the fact that the media plays favorites... mostly for Democrats. I also don't like the fact that the media seems to ignore the fact that Trump is willing to go on any TV show, at any point, and discuss policies, while the Democrats are reluctant at all to be on air, and have huge demands and safety-controls for the rare times that she does. Again... what bothers me more than anything is that they realize their policies are largely unfavorable. Is this because they acknowledge they're bad policies ... or do they simply think people are too dumb to properly understand them?
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: what bothers me more than anything is that they realize their policies are largely unfavorable. Is this because they acknowledge they're bad policies ... or do they simply think people are too dumb to properly understand them?
I'll help you out here a little.
You are not omniscient and you can not read the minds of other people. You have no idea what Democrats think of their policies.
Democrats do not think their policies are unpopular. In fact Democrats have been kicking Republican ass over the last few years in elections at both the State and National level. And although it is still too close to call Harris has moved up and passed Trump on most polls.
So it seems Republicans are the ones too stupid to understand.
Originally posted by BingB: I'll help you out here a little.
You are not omniscient and you can not read the minds of other people. You have no idea what Democrats think of their policies.
Democrats do not think their policies are unpopular. In fact Democrats have been kicking Republican ass over the last few years in elections at both the State and National level. And although it is still too close to call Harris has moved up and passed Trump on most polls.
So it seems Republicans are the ones too stupid to understand.
A Venezuelan gangster likes his policies, and he can kick your ass, therefore the gangster is smarter than you and deserves success.
he said exactly what he thinks the listener wants to hear
so no problem with lying today about what he use to say a while ago just say what ever he feels like saying now shift with the wind anti-abortion right up until the backlash statred now 6 weeks is too short despite the state law that each state got their pick or tariff is not a tax until you got to pay for it then it is a tax or morals multi divorce p$$n stars playboy bunnys paid cash also epstines flying buddy who was killed on his watch
nut - con conman cult leader want-to-be criminal mob boss what a perfect Gop guy
Originally posted by BingB: He answers them the way he wants to. This sometimes means that his answer does not address anything he was asked about.
There are very few politicians or business people who answer questions directly They take the opportunity to get across the points that they want to make.
Originally posted by BingB: I'll help you out here a little.
You are not omniscient and you can not read the minds of other people. You have no idea what Democrats think of their policies.
Democrats do not think their policies are unpopular. In fact Democrats have been kicking Republican ass over the last few years in elections at both the State and National level. And although it is still too close to call Harris has moved up and passed Trump on most polls.
So it seems Republicans are the ones too stupid to understand.
There are very few politicians or business people who answer questions directly They take the opportunity to get across the points that they want to make.
Originally posted by BingB: I'll help you out here a little.
You are not omniscient and you can not read the minds of other people. You have no idea what Democrats think of their policies.
Democrats do not think their policies are unpopular. In fact Democrats have been kicking Republican ass over the last few years in elections at both the State and National level. And although it is still too close to call Harris has moved up and passed Trump on most polls.
So it seems Republicans are the ones too stupid to understand.
Ok, let's say you're right... I'm totally wrong, stupid, etc.
Can you explain to me why the Democrats seem to absolutely resist debates as much as possible, and why they resist one-on-one "unscripted" interviews? To that point, I've heard the "policies aren't favorable" from both CNN and OANN (I don't watch Fox). CNN has stated it a bit more kindly... "Voters may not be as receptive to things like the Green New Deal when inflation is high, etc."
He had to change his mind after Harris embarrassed him with this tweet
“It’s interesting how ‘any time, any place’ becomes ‘one specific time, one specific safe space.’ I’ll be there on September 10th, like he agreed to. I hope to see him there.”
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 09-03-2024).]
Trump was the one who tried to back out of the debate on ABC.
No, Giggle told you wrong again.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: He had to change his mind after Harris embarrassed him with this tweet ...
quote
Camala “It’s interesting how ‘any time, any place’ becomes ‘one specific time, one specific safe space.’ I’ll be there on September 10th, like he agreed to. I hope to see him there.”
Trump never agreed to debate Camala. Plans change. Just ask Biden. It is not unusual for all to adapt to them. Trump wants three debates.
quote
“I’ll see her on September 4th (Fox News) or, I won’t see her at all,” the former president wrote in a Truth Social post.
Camala proclaims Trump wants a specific safe space. Why will she not commit to another one and why is she scared of Fox News ? America is the home of the brave. Camala said "I'm ready, lets go".
You did not answer 82-T/A [At Work]'s question.
Todd, it is because truth scatters bullzhit.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 09-03-2024).]
He had to change his mind after Harris embarrassed him with this tweet
“It’s interesting how ‘any time, any place’ becomes ‘one specific time, one specific safe space.’ I’ll be there on September 10th, like he agreed to. I hope to see him there.”
He asked me why democrats avoid debates and I pointed out that Trump was the one trying to avoid the debate not Harris.
The only "debate" that Harris has declined was a make believe one on September 4th that Trump scheduled on Fox after he "cancelled" the one for September 10 on ABC.
Harris has not refused any legitimate offers to debate.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 09-03-2024).]
Hillary Clinton was just as smart as Bill. The only difference between them was that Bill was a charmer while no one trusted her even when she did tell the truth.
Glad that you mentioned old "Cankles Clinton". That provides the perfect segue to ask you to give us a verified instance of Republicans doing this for a presidential debate:
Originally posted by BingB: When Biden picked her she was qualified for the position, but I certainly felt like he was playing politics with a brown woman. Despite a popular myth he never said he would pick a minority or a woman as his VP, but it sure seemed that way.
This completely misunderstands what an inclusivity and diversity are trying to accomplish. The argument for DEI hiring goes something like:
P1. There is a difference in opportunities available, not just outcomes, for some groups P2. Those groups are equally capable of performing in the roles this lack of opportunity impacts C. Opportunities should be directly extended to those groups impacted by this gap
If you believe that all gender and racial groups have the exact same access to opportunities, then DEI hiring/staffing/whatever will make no sense; you disagree with a core premise of their rationale. If you assume a "brown woman" will naturally perform worse than a a more traditionally colored or gendered candidate, DEI hires will make no sense; again you disagree with a core premise of their rationale.
I think the worst thing about Kamala Harris' campaign is she is such a boringly safe choice. She secures huge voting blocks, and outside of an overly-conservative law enforcement career, she's exactly the kind of party player the Democrat's strategy calls for. The anti-DEI argument "but that's just about what she looks like!" falls awful flat when it comes from a group that votes exclusively for taller-than-average, middle-aged-or-older, white men (or maybe I'm mistaken and you all supported Obama and/or Hillary). Speaking of, I still think the Democrats should have run Romney (assuming he'd take the nomination).
I'd say whether Harris was made VP (and then Presidential candidate) solely because she's a "brown woman" or because she was a good choice for candidate will be largely determined by her performance during this election cycle, which includes the debate. Extremely polished, experienced, and connected candidates have been ground up by Trump in debates; it will become harder to back up "she's just some brown lady they picked because they feel bad for brown ladies" as she continues to do well against him.
I'm also really unsure where the idea that Harris needs to be protected from herself comes from. Are there examples of gaffes that have set her back, or a history of providing false information? From a more balanced vantage, it seems they're defending a position where traditional candidates (which Harris is) are much more impacted by gaffes than Trump is. It doesn't matter to his numbers if what he says is incorrect, insulting, or inflammatory; a large amount of support for him is based off of him doing just that. That's an almost unique attribute among candidates and seems a much more reasonable explanation for the differences in media appearances between him and all of his opponents.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 09-04-2024).]
This completely misunderstands what an inclusivity and diversity are trying to accomplish. The argument for DEI hiring goes something like:
P1. There is a difference in opportunities available, not just outcomes, for some groups P2. Those groups are equally capable of performing in the roles this lack of opportunity impacts C. Opportunities should be directly extended to those groups impacted by this gap
If you believe that all gender and racial groups have the exact same access to opportunities, then DEI hiring/staffing/whatever will make no sense; you disagree with a core premise of their rationale. If you assume a "brown woman" will naturally perform worse than a a more traditionally colored or gendered candidate, DEI hires will make no sense; again you disagree with a core premise of their rationale.
There is a difference between making a DEI hire in the corporate world and making a DEI "hire" for a publicity contest like an election. Both hires might be made on the basis of predicted performance, but the latter is more likely to seem to instead be a plea for popularity.
He asked me why democrats avoid debates and I pointed out that Trump was the one trying to avoid the debate not Harris.
The only "debate" that Harris has declined was a make believe one on September 4th that Trump scheduled on Fox after he "cancelled" the one for September 10 on ABC.
Harris has not refused any legitimate offers to debate.
Why is a debate by Fox News not a legitimate debate offer ? Why is it make believe ? Because they will be too mean and not give camala the questions in advance ?
Or is it like Todd says ? They are scared.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 09-04-2024).]
Originally posted by NewDustin: The argument for DEI hiring goes something like:
P1. There is a difference in opportunities available, not just outcomes, for some groups P2. Those groups are equally capable of performing in the roles this lack of opportunity impacts C. Opportunities should be directly extended to those groups impacted by this gap
If you believe that all gender and racial groups have the exact same access to opportunities, then DEI hiring/staffing/whatever will make no sense; you disagree with a core premise of their rationale. If you assume a "brown woman" will naturally perform worse than a a more traditionally colored or gendered candidate, DEI hires will make no sense; again you disagree with a core premise of their rationale.
Are some of a gender or race, not able to be considered for an opportunity, equal to those of those who were considered ? Opportunities are made, not given.
Ya' know, DEI is just the same as affirmative action that SCOTUS struck down.
Originally posted by BingB: Democrats do not think their policies are unpopular. In fact Democrats have been kicking Republican ass over the last few years in elections at both the State and National level. And although it is still too close to call Harris has moved up and passed Trump on most polls.
So it seems Republicans are the ones too stupid to understand.
If you could step out and look at your posts, you would see the depths of your dillusions are deeply disturbing.
There is no path to victory for MagaMan.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: Democrats do not think their policies are unpopular.
Of course not. Dumbocrats love government cheese. Student loan forgiveness, $25,000.00 home buying credit, free ice cream, free health insurance, ...
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 09-04-2024).]
Why is a debate by Fox News not a legitimate debate offer ?
Because it was never authorized by Fox News.
But the important point was that he tried to cancel the debate on ABC. He was trying to get out of it. He was doing exactly what 82TA was accusing Harris of doing.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 09-05-2024).]
Of course not. Dumbocrats love government cheese. Student loan forgiveness, $25,000.00 home buying credit, free ice cream, free health insurance, ...
Obviously you are unaware that the Trump administration's unfunded tax cuts cause deficit spending to DOUBLE over the Obama administration even BEFORE covid. All Trump did was run up the deficit to buy votes.
So maybe voters just don't like the massive financial crisis and 20 year Wars in the middle east the Republican administrations brought about.
Or maybe they don't like living in a Christians Theocracy that will force women to carry the babies of their rapists and deny equal protection under the law to homosexuals.
Or maybe they don't like footing the bill for permanent tax breaks to corporations while they only got temporary tax breaks.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 09-05-2024).]
