2024 Presidential Election | ELECTION DAY 2024

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 8K
  • Views: 245K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
Carville has become an old grumpy grandpa. What he said there is unacceptable and beyond the pale. No decency. He can make his point by not denigrating Kamala as a 7th string quarterback. He doesn't think she was the best candidate? Fine. But this is just not appropriate.
Click to expand...
Agree. When Kamala was at her best -- in the first few days after she took over and in the debate -- she was REALLY good. In hindsight, her campaign strategy was deeply flawed. A candidate starting the 400m with a 20 second handicap can't afford ANY flaws, much less the major ones that plagued her campaign. But Kamala herself is a good person and a reasonably good politician, and she does not deserve to be shat upon by once-rans in the Democratic Party. She won't be a viable contender for president in the future, but she can be an important contributor to the future of the party.
 
superrific said:
Carville has become an old grumpy grandpa. What he said there is unacceptable and beyond the pale. No decency. He can make his point by not denigrating Kamala as a 7th string quarterback. He doesn't think she was the best candidate? Fine. But this is just not appropriate.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, but I get a kick out of watching that old codger scream at the clouds.
 
lawtig02 said:
Agree. When Kamala was at her best -- in the first few days after she took over and in the debate -- she was REALLY good. In hindsight, her campaign strategy was deeply flawed. A candidate starting the 400m with a 20 second handicap can't afford ANY flaws, much less the major ones that plagued her campaign. But Kamala herself is a good person and a reasonably good politician, and she does not deserve to be shat upon by once-rans in the Democratic Party. She won't be a viable contender for president in the future, but she can be an important contributor to the future of the party.
Click to expand...
I mean, did Carville forget how rocking the DNC was? The enthusiasm in the Kamala campaign and among the Dem base was unreal. The volunteer efforts were amazing.

What we saw was the limit of the "ground game." And maybe there needs to be some re-strategizing of what ground games are supposed to accomplish (it was always a fair point that knocking five times on the door of someone who is 90% likely to vote isn't maybe the greatest use of resources, though if it's all volunteer . . . ). But the candidate was not the problem, except insofar as she's a black woman.
 
superrific said:
Why are you following an account of a guy who made a "documentary" about Fauci and the World Death Organization?

No wonder you are so misinformed about everything. You are mainlining right-wing propaganda. "Independent" voter my ass.
Click to expand...
99% of the Tweets that I see are from people I don't follow. I actually open Twitter about twice a week. Unless you believe that video of Carville is a fake, why does the source matter?

Also, why are you even worrying about Carville and Harris' lost when "we've got Elon Musk wilding through the US payment system, making ridiculous accusations that USAID created Covid"?
 
superrific said:
I mean, did Carville forget how rocking the DNC was? The enthusiasm in the Kamala campaign and among the Dem base was unreal. The volunteer efforts were amazing.

What we saw was the limit of the "ground game." And maybe there needs to be some re-strategizing of what ground games are supposed to accomplish (it was always a fair point that knocking five times on the door of someone who is 90% likely to vote isn't maybe the greatest use of resources, though if it's all volunteer . . . ). But the candidate was not the problem, except insofar as she's a black woman.
Click to expand...
Agree. The enthusiasm for the campaign was great. Probably the best since 2008. There are a million lessons to be learned from this campaign, but as it relates to this particular issue --

1. You never want to be stepping in at 11:30pm for an unpopular incumbent who has just embarrassed himself on global TV.

2. And you REALLY don't want to be doing that if you were in his administration.

3. Traditional ground games are irrelevant. Nobody is motivated by someone knocking on their door. It's all about social media and controlling the broader media narrative.

4. There is no such thing as too much communication. Volume (in the sense of both amount and loudness) is WAY more important than substance. If you say a million things a day, you get attention, but nobody has time to focus on the stupid things you said amidst the rest of it. If you're not saying something that gets noticed at least once every hour, you're falling way behind.

5. Going high only works if you use it as a contrast to how abso-fucking-lutely low your opponent is.
 
ZenMode said:
99% of the Tweets that I see are for people I don't follow. I actually open Twitter about twice a week. Unless you believe that video of Carville is a fake, why does the source matter?

Also, why are you even worrying about Carville and Harris' lost when "we've got Elon Musk wilding through the US payment system, making ridiculous accusations that USAID created Covid"?
Click to expand...
The source doesn't matter re: this story. The source explains why you have such bizarre and misinformed views. Twitter is feeing you that shit probably because it knows you gobble it up. You digest it, and then poop it out here.
 
lawtig02 said:
Agree. The enthusiasm for the campaign was great. Probably the best since 2008. There are a million lessons to be learned from this campaign, but as it relates to this particular issue --

1. You never want to be stepping in at 11:30pm for an unpopular incumbent who has just embarrassed himself on global TV.

2. And you REALLY don't want to be doing that if you were in his administration.

3. Traditional ground games are irrelevant. Nobody is motivated by someone knocking on their door. It's all about social media and controlling the broader media narrative.

4. There is no such thing as too much communication. Volume (in the sense of both amount and loudness) is WAY more important than substance. If you say a million things a day, you get attention, but nobody has time to focus on the stupid things you said amidst the rest of it. If you're not saying something that gets noticed at least once every hour, you're falling way behind.

5. Going high only works if you use it as a contrast to how abso-fucking-lutely low your opponent is.
Click to expand...
And I learned don’t be woman, especially one of color. America is alarmingly misogynistic. Andy Basher would have beaten Trump. A white man without the Biden Admim baggage (inflation, immigration).
 
lawtig02 said:
Agree. The enthusiasm for the campaign was great. Probably the best since 2008. There are a million lessons to be learned from this campaign, but as it relates to this particular issue --

1. You never want to be stepping in at 11:30pm for an unpopular incumbent who has just embarrassed himself on global TV.

2. And you REALLY don't want to be doing that if you were in his administration.

3. Traditional ground games are irrelevant. Nobody is motivated by someone knocking on their door. It's all about social media and controlling the broader media narrative.

4. There is no such thing as too much communication. Volume (in the sense of both amount and loudness) is WAY more important than substance. If you say a million things a day, you get attention, but nobody has time to focus on the stupid things you said amidst the rest of it. If you're not saying something that gets noticed at least once every hour, you're falling way behind.

5. Going high only works if you use it as a contrast to how abso-fucking-lutely low your opponent is.
Click to expand...
#4 is the main takeaway, in my view. Others have been saying that. Attention is the scarcest commodity.

Problem is that Dems are by nature and temperament unable to flood the zone like right-wingers. So we will need a different strategy.

We need more stunts, apparently.
 
superrific said:
#4 is the main takeaway, in my view. Others have been saying that. Attention is the scarcest commodity.

Problem is that Dems are by nature and temperament unable to flood the zone like right-wingers. So we will need a different strategy.

We need more stunts, apparently.
Click to expand...
What we need is an information distribution system like the right wing has developed. But I'm not sure that's possible, as the Dem base is far less credulous than the Pub base.
 
lawtig02 said:
Agree. When Kamala was at her best -- in the first few days after she took over and in the debate -- she was REALLY good. In hindsight, her campaign strategy was deeply flawed. A candidate starting the 400m with a 20 second handicap can't afford ANY flaws, much less the major ones that plagued her campaign. But Kamala herself is a good person and a reasonably good politician, and she does not deserve to be shat upon by once-rans in the Democratic Party. She won't be a viable contender for president in the future, but she can be an important contributor to the future of the party.
Click to expand...

Perception is reality, you know? I didn't like the way the Carville slammed her, but I will agree on this... one of my issues with Kamala as a candidate was that she wasn't always verbally fluent in unscripted situations. That isn't to say she isn't smart, because she is. But she has a weakness in off-the-cuff communication skills and she knows it, so once the campaign got going she relied heavily on stock phrases ("turn the page," etc) that started sounding canned and trite after you heard it the third time. Which imo led to the perception that she wasn't very capable or confident. Add in the right-wing smear campaign on her laugh and her IQ and you're not winning over a lot of voters. Then she didn't really have time or frankly the inclination to get in front of people (ie Rogan) to dispel the myths. They were able to frame *her* as the unserious candidate with no platform other than a continuation of Biden's unpopular policies. And frankly her campaign didn't do a great job of communicating about new policies, and instead relied on Trump as a fascist boogeyman... when most Americans couldn't even begin to define the word fascism.
 
tallheel95 said:
Perception is reality, you know? I didn't like the way the Carville slammed her, but I will agree on this... one of my issues with Kamala as a candidate was that she wasn't always verbally fluent in unscripted situations. That isn't to say she isn't smart, because she is. But she has a weakness in off-the-cuff communication skills and she knows it, so once the campaign got going she relied heavily on stock phrases ("turn the page," etc) that started sounding canned and trite after you heard it the third time. Which imo led to the perception that she wasn't very capable or confident. Add in the right-wing smear campaign on her laugh and her IQ and you're not winning over a lot of voters. Then she didn't really have time or frankly the inclination to get in front of people (ie Rogan) to dispel the myths. They were able to frame *her* as the unserious candidate with no platform other than a continuation of Biden's unpopular policies. And frankly her campaign didn't do a great job of communicating about new policies, and instead relied on Trump as a fascist boogeyman... when most Americans couldn't even begin to define the word fascism.
Click to expand...
I would be more convinced her lack of precision in unscripted moments was a liability if Donald Fucking Trump hadn't just defeated her. I completely agree her campaign was not adequate. Probably a 5 out of 10, when she needed a 9 to win. But after electing Donald Fucking Trump twice in eight years, I don't think Americans give a crap about how one sounds in unscripted moments. It's all about volume. And appealing to the lizard brain. Which, in presidential elections, is usually about (1) the price of groceries, and (2) the skin color of those one encounters at said grocery store.
 
ZenMode said:
Publicly maybe...

Click to expand...

You’re so easily duped.

Bad Hombre is a right wing provocateur. He’s not the least bit trustworthy.

And, btw, directly after the election, Carville came out and admitted he was dead wrong about his belief that Kamala would win big. He said, “As it turns out, it really is about the economy, stupid.”

If he was saying something else in private, he wouldn’t have any reason to admit he was wrong when what he was saying in private was actually right.

Use your brain.
 
tallheel95 said:
Perception is reality, you know? I didn't like the way the Carville slammed her, but I will agree on this... one of my issues with Kamala as a candidate was that she wasn't always verbally fluent in unscripted situations. That isn't to say she isn't smart, because she is. But she has a weakness in off-the-cuff communication skills and she knows it, so once the campaign got going she relied heavily on stock phrases ("turn the page," etc) that started sounding canned and trite after you heard it the third time. Which imo led to the perception that she wasn't very capable or confident. Add in the right-wing smear campaign on her laugh and her IQ and you're not winning over a lot of voters. Then she didn't really have time or frankly the inclination to get in front of people (ie Rogan) to dispel the myths. They were able to frame *her* as the unserious candidate with no platform other than a continuation of Biden's unpopular policies. And frankly her campaign didn't do a great job of communicating about new policies, and instead relied on Trump as a fascist boogeyman... when most Americans couldn't even begin to define the word fascism.
Click to expand...
I have highlighted the most important words that contributed to Ms. Harris' loss. And let's not forget the correct pronunciation of her name, take your pick, "ka- MAL-la" or "ka-MA-blah".
 
UNCMSinLS said:
I have highlighted the most important words that contributed to Ms. Harris' loss. And let's not forget the correct pronunciation of her name, take your pick, "ka- MAL-la" or "ka-MA-blah".
Click to expand...

Look, I don't disagree at all. I'm a woman, I get it. And that is part of the problem... you have to be twice as good, with virtually no weaknesses, and that wasn't the case.
 
tallheel95 said:
Look, I don't disagree at all. I'm a woman, I get it. And that is part of the problem... you have to be twice as good, with virtually no weaknesses, and that wasn't the case.
Click to expand...
No sane person can argue that Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris wouldn't have been better presidents than Trump. Hell, I would be a better president than Trump. YOU would be a better president than Trump. Almost any random person on the street would be a better president than Trump.

The problem with the Trump elections was not anyone running against him. It was the people who voted for him or chose to "sit it out".
 
lawtig02 said:
Agree. The enthusiasm for the campaign was great. Probably the best since 2008. There are a million lessons to be learned from this campaign, but as it relates to this particular issue --

1. You never want to be stepping in at 11:30pm for an unpopular incumbent who has just embarrassed himself on global TV.

2. And you REALLY don't want to be doing that if you were in his administration.

3. Traditional ground games are irrelevant. Nobody is motivated by someone knocking on their door. It's all about social media and controlling the broader media narrative.

4. There is no such thing as too much communication. Volume (in the sense of both amount and loudness) is WAY more important than substance. If you say a million things a day, you get attention, but nobody has time to focus on the stupid things you said amidst the rest of it. If you're not saying something that gets noticed at least once every hour, you're falling way behind.

5. Going high only works if you use it as a contrast to how abso-fucking-lutely low your opponent is.
Click to expand...
#3 is the one that scares me the most. I don't know how Democrats can control the campaign narrative when so much of our news and social media (including legacy media) is now owned by right-wingers or bosiding brown-nosers like Bezos and the NY Times. Hell, it's going to be hard to just get their narrative out there, much less have it be the dominant one. The last Democrat who was really able to dominate the media narrative was Obama in 2008 and 2012, and by 2028 that will have been sixteen years in the past. The Democrats really need to get some younger types into their PR positions who understand the new social media world we're living in and know how to play the game.
 
UNCMSinLS said:
No sane person can argue that Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris wouldn't have been better presidents than Trump. Hell, I would be a better president than Trump. YOU would be a better president than Trump. Almost any random person on the street would be a better president than Trump.

The problem with the Trump elections was not anyone running against him. It was the people who voted for him or chose to "sit it out".
Click to expand...

But see, that's why I circle back to wishing we had a primary. Because voters may have chosen a different candidate, and we might not be having this argument at all.

Think about Obama. No one thought at the time that America was ready to elect a black man as president. But thankfully we did. Why? He didn't exactly have a lengthy resume that would make him the most qualified person for the presidency. I'd argue it was because he's smart and competent, but also he's an *extremely* gifted orator. He has charm, charisma and confidence, and people gravitate towards that. Confidence and verbal skills are why Pete B. is currently so loved by the Democrats. Like him or not (and I decidedly do not), DJT also has that confidence. Perception... it's all about perception.
 
WaynetheDrain said:
You’re so easily duped.

Bad Hombre is a right wing provocateur. He’s not the least bit trustworthy.

And, btw, directly after the election, Carville came out and admitted he was dead wrong about his belief that Kamala would win big. He said, “As it turns out, it really is about the economy, stupid.”

If he was saying something else in private, he wouldn’t have any reason to admit he was wrong when what he was saying in private was actually right.

Use your brain.
Click to expand...
It was a very specific and accurate prediction, if it's being wrongly attributed to Carville.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top