Random political thought thread.

[The Cat]

No one ever gets out of the woods. Not really. One cannot get out of what's already inside.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I'm not sure you are out of the woods yet. Biden was almost certain to lose to Trump, but I would say Harris is the 2nd most likely candidate to lose to Trump. Switching completely away from the Biden/Harris ticket would have been a brighter idea.

Stop saying that since that would require fully open convention and that opens plenty of other problems. What means that it is questionable if the party would be able to come together in time. In other words before they can come together they can't start making campaign materials and donations would be limited. On the other hand from what I gathered early voting already starts in September. Therefore there simply is no time to think about all of the details.


Therefore getting fully away from Biden/Harris is simply a fantasy at this point. Yeah they should have perhaps searched for someone else a year ago but at this point we have what we have. However I would also dare to say that once you scan the top of democratic party you will see that Harris is one of better choices for this race. Especially once you calculate in the name recognition. Therefore even this "passing of the torch" was done in the last minute and there simply is no time for something complex or building a new candidate from scratch. We can only be thankful that someone decided to test things through a debate this early. If that debate happened in September that would be game over. This way there is at least path forward.

 

[The Cat]

As said above...

So said below.

I never really thought I'd see an American President be the president we need by sacrificing his own ambitions, AND being a stand up enough guy to stand by his Veep. In this day and age.
Cant help but wonder if Barry had looked out for his Veep, we might have had a different 2016...
Let's keep it moving people. No more delays.​

 

[Virtual ghost]

Wisconsin governor endorses Harris (in so close state stuff like that matters)

 

[Virtual ghost]

Britain and Germany team up on defense as fears grow Trump will ditch Ukraine

The mental preparations are being made since the allies will perhaps have to help Ukraine without US.

 

[SensEye]

Stop saying that since that would require fully open convention and that opens plenty of other problems. What means that it is questionable if the party would be able to come together in time. In other words before they can come together they can't start making campaign materials and donations would be limited. On the other hand from what I gathered early voting already starts in September. Therefore there simply is no time to think about all of the details.

I don't really agree. I think this is all part of what I will call the 'great Kamala cop-out'. I think the Dems could quickly rally around an entirely new candidate. Especially if that candidate was to start polling 5 points better than Trump right off the jump. I think it has been yet another Democratic party strategic error to just default to Harris.

However, I agree it's a done deal now, so we will never know. At this point we just have to hope the coin toss lands in Harris favor. It will all work out reasonably well if Harris wins the election. I expect she will prove a terrible POTUS, but she won't destroy the US democratic system, so voters can toss her out in 2028. I'm not sure if this can be said if Trump wins, he might go, but he might not accept any result that isn't a Republican victory in 2028, and he'll have the flunkies to rig the system in place by then. This is why I consider Harris a dangerous gamble.

In other news, I notice the Dems (and the liberal media) are bending over backwards to disassociate Harris with the title 'border czar'. Strange, there seemed to be no objection to that term back in 2021 when it was coined. So if it turns out Harris was never the border czar, then who was dealing with the border crises? No one obviously. Another Democratic party miss-step. They were happy to foster the illusion Harris was dealing with the border crisis to lower the heat in 2021, now they want to say, no, no, not her, and truth be told, not anybody.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I'm fairly optimistic, actually. Somehow.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I don't really agree. I think this is all part of what I will call the 'great Kamala cop-out'. I think the Dems could quickly rally around an entirely new candidate. Especially if that candidate was to start polling 5 points better than Trump right off the jump. I think it has been yet another Democratic party strategic error to just default to Harris.

However, I agree it's a done deal now, so we will never know. At this point we just have to hope the coin toss lands in Harris favor. It will all work out reasonably well if Harris wins the election. I expect she will prove a terrible POTUS, but she won't destroy the US democratic system, so voters can toss her out in 2028. I'm not sure if this can be said if Trump wins, he might go, but he might not accept any result that isn't a Republican victory in 2028, and he'll have the flunkies to rig the system in place by then. This is why I consider Harris a dangerous gamble.

In other news, I notice the Dems (and the liberal media) are bending over backwards to disassociate Harris with the title 'border czar'. Strange, there seemed to be no objection to that term back in 2021 when it was coined. So if it turns out Harris was never the border czar, then who was dealing with the border crises? No one obviously. Another Democratic party miss-step. They were happy to foster the illusion Harris was dealing with the border crisis to lower the heat in 2021, now they want to say, no, no, not her, and truth be told, not anybody.

And I just explained to you why candidate X isn't realistic at this point towards US system. Even this passing of the torch was a system shock for them. Therefore there is just no time to start from scratch. If that were possible we would be talking about exact names, however that isn't the case since we have what we have. Searching for someone else should have been done last year.


However if you want to play a real skeptic on the issue then it should be argued that these elections aren't really going to turn the ship around. 35,000,000,000,000 $ in public debt that is still ballooning (that is 276 000 $ per taxpayer without interest), mass ignorance, greed, weak public services, weak public safety, climate change, border, mass substance abuse, geopolitical chaos ... etc. Therefore the combination of that is probably too much for both of candidates. Neither of us is going to vote in these elections so we can be honest about the real state of things.

 

[The Cat]

 

[SensEye]

And I just explained to you why candidate X isn't realistic at this point towards US system. Even this passing of the torch was a system shock for them. Therefore there is just no time to start from scratch. If that were possible we would be talking about exact names, however that isn't the case since we have what we have. Searching for someone else should have been done last year.

You have a theory that there is no time and possibly no money (due to what you presume would be a lack of campaign donations). I just don't agree with it. I recently read a long time pollster state that polls should be ignored until after Labor Day (Sep 2 this year). This tells me there would be plenty of time to organize a successful campaign over the Sep-Oct timeframe for a new candidate. I further think things like Obama not coming out pro Kamala right away is telling. Indicates to me he feels that there would be time to consider alternatives. Nobody really knows, as the situation is unprecedented.

This disagreement originally kicked off when I was responding to a comment that the Dems are not that good with bright ideas. I think a 'bright' idea would be being bold enough to move away from the whole Biden/Harris ticket. I don't know it would work, but I would risk it given the stakes of the potential damage a 2nd Trump presidency could bring. You don't agree, but I don't think your crystal ball is any clearer than mine.

It's certainly the safe call to go with the current VP. We both agree not ousting Biden months ago through proper primary was a bad call. At this point, we won't know if going with Harris is a good call until Nov. Given the Dems track record, and Harris reputation, I'm not convinced it is.

 

[Virtual ghost]

You have a theory that there is no time and possibly no money (due to what you presume would be a lack of campaign donations). I just don't agree with it. I recently read a long time pollster state that polls should be ignored until after Labor Day (Sep 2 this year). This tells me there would be plenty of time to organize a successful campaign over the Sep-Oct timeframe for a new candidate. I further think things like Obama not coming out pro Kamala right away is telling. Indicates to me he feels that there would be time to consider alternatives. Nobody really knows, as the situation is unprecedented.

This disagreement originally kicked off when I was responding to a comment that the Dems are not that good with bright ideas. I think a 'bright' idea would be being bold enough to move away from the whole Biden/Harris ticket. I don't know it would work, but I would risk it given the stakes of the potential damage a 2nd Trump presidency could bring. You don't agree, but I don't think your crystal ball is any clearer than mine.

It's certainly the safe call to go with the current VP. We both agree not ousting Biden months ago through proper primary was a bad call. At this point, we won't know if going with Harris is a good call until Nov. Given the Dems track record, and Harris reputation, I'm not convinced it is.

I absolutely agree that the party should have planned for all of this on the long run. Especially since it was visible that things could come into current situation. However in my book there just isn't room for something completely new. Since you can't be sure that the party would gather around this person (and on time). Also just about everyone accepted that Harris will be the candidate and now starting another change would look very bad on the party. In other words from what I gathered early voting starts in less than two months. Therefore building a new candidate from scratch and then searching VP for them ... that is too long. Various legal deadlines are approaching, materials have to be printed, people need to know to who they are donating .... etc


This is evident gamble but I don't really see alternative at this point.
Maybe a few days ago would still be possible to change this but now people and the party accepted that it will be Harris. Therefore this is what it is, either you will punch through in the end or you wouldn't.

 

[Virtual ghost]

As it says there is very evident deficit of quality polling on "Trump vs Harris" but the map looks pretty bad for dems at this point.

Polling Map for Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump

 

[The Cat]

To change up for a third time would just throw gasoline onto a fire nobody wants to spread.

They need to back the play, and focus on getting dem voters and independants excited to get out and vote blue.

 

[Virtual ghost]

To change up for a third time would just throw gasoline onto a fire nobody wants to spread.

They need to back the play, and focus on getting dem voters and independants excited to get out and vote blue.

Basically the whole party endorsed Harris and therefore this is a done deal. In other words now the party should start with actual campaigning and they have to find VP sooner rather than later. There is no time for looking back.

 

[The Cat]

Project 2025 info.​

 

[SensEye]

For the record, I am not suggesting they change now that everybody has rallied around the Harris flag. I just wish they had paused for a few weeks to consider alternatives and possibly have an open convention. I think they could have really got Trump behind the eight ball with a centrist who would appeal to swing voters. I'm uncertain Harris has that appeal. She may be able to move to the center and we'll see if the public buy it. Trump fear may also yet carry the day for her.

In any event, it's Harris now, so the Dems will sink or swim with her at the top of the ticket.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The change suggests that they're not approaching this with a hidebound mentality. A hidebound mentality is not the mentality they need to win.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Fresh polling says that New Hampshire and Maine are returning to numbers that they had in 2020 result. Not solid blue but they shouldn't really be openly competitive.

538 Latest Polls


However only when Harris gets a nomination and VP is known we will truly know where we are in the terms of polling.

 

[Virtual ghost]

What 8 potential Kamala Harris VP picks bring to the table

If someone wants to go into VP details.

 

[The Cat]