Harris/Walz Catch-All | Kamala blitz in closing stretch

  • Thread starter Thread starter aGDevil2k
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 33K
  • Politics 
Ddseddse said:
Odd. I have read it and I love democracy. I'm not sure there's a more strident pro-democracy voice on this forum than I. Maybe we can swap door knocking stories, you and I?
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to imply that it's only a good read for people who hate democracy. I'm saying that it's written in a tradition that emerged from conservative suspicion of democracy. Still, I will delete that offending sentence because I didn't even mean to keep it in the first place. It's just kind of dangling there at the end of a paragraph.
 
superrific said:
I didn't mean to imply that it's only a good read for people who hate democracy. I'm saying that it's written in a tradition that emerged from conservative suspicion of democracy. Still, I will delete that offending sentence because I didn't even mean to keep it in the first place. It's just kind of dangling there at the end of a paragraph.
Click to expand...
I think maybe we have different approaches. I think maybe you are looking for a type of ideological purity in what ideas you consume. A type of pursuit of perfection.

For me, I know who I am and I know what my values are. Given that, I don't care whole lot about source purity. I'm not afraid that reading something is going to make me wake up one day with a desire to make life a hell on earth for outgroups, or to cancel democracy.

I pick up ideas where i find them as they explain things better than my old ideas., I cast them off when new ones better explain the world around me. I'm not afraid of "not being right", nor am i afraid of becoming contaminated with mean-spiritedness. I'm only afraid of not growing and learning.
 
Ddseddse said:
I think maybe we have different approaches. I think maybe you are looking for a type of ideological purity in what ideas you consume. A type of pursuit of perfection.

For me, I know who I am and I know what my values are. Given that, I don't care whole lot about source purity. I'm not afraid that reading something is going to make me wake up one day with a desire to make life a hell on earth for outgroups, or to cancel democracy.

I pick up ideas where i find them as they explain things better than my old ideas., I cast them off when new ones better explain the world around me. I'm not afraid of "not being right", nor am i afraid of becoming contaminated with mean-spiritedness. I'm only afraid of not growing and learning.
Click to expand...
Not in the slightest. It's not about source purity. It's about who I trust to believe with respect to empirical claims that I can't evaluate for whatever reason. I don't trust anyone fully, and I always try to look at the primary source material myself if possible. But I'm a hell of a lot more likely to believe, say, Elizabeth Warren than some asshole at the Hoover Institute.

The disagreement is mostly about whether we believe that the video communicates any empirical truth. I don't think it has zero validity, but I think it's hilariously over-simplified and lacks, well, much explanatory power at all -- because it doesn't accurately depict, well, anything really.
 
I think this is a smart strategy by Kamala. I think the lack of policy specifics was intentional, as we have discussed on this thread. But the flip side of withholding the "plans" is that they can be release them if it seems like voters are asking for it. Meanwhile, it keeps them one step ahead of the criticism. I previously used the analogy of putting bugs in my computer code so I could fix the complaints from users very easily. Well, so too here. Trump and Vance start training on her lack of specifics -- well, now there are more specifics. And there can be more and more coming.

Basically, "where are your plans" is an easily fixable bug for a Dem, or even a non-Trump Pub.
 
superrific said:
They used to work. Is that the case any more? Seems to me that Trump has never had a plan and he won once and almost won again. Biden didn't have much in the way of plans, though that was a weird election. HRC did have a lot of plans; it did not help her win. Same with Elizabeth Warren, although that's a bit different.

Voters generally don't think "there is no way Congress will pass that," but they also aren't thinking, "I think a graduated increase in the capital gains tax over time and income would be preferable to a one time change." Maybe we're working off different understandings of what is meant by "details" in this context.
Click to expand...
These days people are voting for the candidate they dislike the least overall. And to his credit, Trump has concepts of a plan, he just isn't president yet.

Rocket Raccoon: What percentage of a plan do you have?
Star-Lord: I don't know, 12%?
 
A few comments:
1)I probably should have put a paragraph break in my statement after the second line. The first two sentences were more specifically about Kamala's interview...the last line applies to politicians and spin doctors more broadly. In my line of work, Ive had to do a fair share of rerouting (actually took some media training to learn how to deflect and reroute).

2) I don't need a detailed plan from politicians, but I don't want broad musings either. Yes, there will be a negotiations that impacts what can actually get done.

3) I'm lamenting that being a bit more specific and straightforward has an electoral cost that is usually negative. Sucks that elections speak to the lowest denominations.

4) having said that I do think there are times that candidates do stick to their guns. Just wish they did it more often (and that applies to elections not just in the US).

5) comparing anything to stuff that Trump says really has little traction. Trump has made a career of throwing crap against a wall to see what sticks.
 
Solid stuff.

What a split screen moment with the chaos, the EXHAUSTING chaos, on the other side
 
I think she needs a more concise economy message going forward (cut taxes, childcare credit, first time homeowner $$, keep putting downward pressure on groceries, keep up energy production. The end)

Otherwise she did really really really well last night
 
It's hard because Trump is promising the world (about every issue), so going simple and concise can sometimes appear like she's not "doing enough" in comparison. We can all see through his bluster, but she has to walk a fine line between having simple messaging and recognizing the various concerns people have.
 
JD Heel said:
It's hard because Trump is promising the world (about every issue), so going simple and concise can sometimes appear like she's not "doing enough" in comparison. We can all see through his bluster, but she has to walk a fine line between having simple messaging and recognizing the various concerns people have.
Click to expand...
Agree - but I mainly meant she repeated her same story last night. So the answer bored me. Maybe if someone hadnt heard it before...but I think most folks saw the debate.
 
www.nytimes.com

Harris Hits Core Campaign Themes in Emotional Forum With Oprah Winfrey

Vice President Kamala Harris spoke off the cuff, as guests included a teenager shot at her school and the family of a woman in Georgia who died as a result of the state’s abortion ban.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Harris Hits Core Campaign Themes in Emotional Forum With Oprah Winfrey​

Vice President Kamala Harris spoke off the cuff, as guests included a teenager shot at her school and the family of a woman in Georgia who died as a result of the state’s abortion ban.

“Vice President Kamala Harris harnessed the star power of one of her most powerful surrogates — and one of America’s foremost interviewers — to lay out a powerful pitch for her campaign on Thursday, as she passionately confronted pressing issues during a livestream forum with Oprah Winfrey.

The event, “Unite for America,” was hosted by Ms. Winfrey and drew hundreds of thousands of viewers, bolstering a strategy that Ms. Harris’s campaign sees as crucial to reaching voters in battleground states and beyond in November.

… But the most remarkable moments in the roughly 90-minute forum came when Ms. Winfrey did what she does best: orchestrating an interview that connects with everyday Americans whose experiences illustrate the strife of a country craving empathy. The discussions were heavy at times, with members of the audience — in person and at home — in tears. …”

——

I saw the discussions about abortion and I definitely got misty. My husband said his allergies were acting up.
 




——

Meanwhile, MAGA was out in force claiming Harris was unable to string together a complete sentence, claiming Oprah had to save her and/or Oprah clearly saw how dumb Harris is and that the event was “full of female cringe”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top