I have to admit that at first I was concerned that switching candidates so close to the election would hurt the party. Im glad I was wrong.
The old rope-a-dope strategy. Put out an old feeble conservative democrat to lull the opponent into a false sense of security. Let the conservative opposition nominate a dog-eating couch-fucker as VP. Then yank the geriatric coot off stage and replace him with someone 30 years younger and normal looking who can string a full sentence together without drooling.
Rock bottom expectations are fully exceeded. Right-wing oppo strategists are sent scrambling for a new messaging game. The median American voter fully forgets these two people were part of the same administration and excitedly claps at the jangling keys.
Not since Reagan cut a deal with the Ayatollah of Iran has any presidential candidate so effortlessly hoodwinked their rivals. Truly a master class in winning elections. We hope.
Wait when did couchboy become a dog eater, are we just reversing their comments as projection?
This is the first time the Democratic strategy hasn’t disappointed me in years. Nealy everyone is pushing in the same direction, and the messaging has been nearly flawless.
Everyone is pushing in the same direction because everything is continuing to slide to the right. People want policy from the left, not this neolib right-of-center crap
Completely agreed. Since the 90’s, the primary lesson democrats have learned is to never cross Wall Street. This is evident in their policy to not implement serious reforms during their terms and then wringing their hands when republicans pull the rug even harder a few years later.
It may give them money they need now, but they’ll find themselves beholden to the same masters as Republicans if they don’t shift back to real liberal ideals soon.
I am very relieved that it looks like Donald won’t win, but I’m also not excited about a Kamala Harris presidency either.
I thought the idea might have been planted to subvert the democrats and push voters from the polls.
Hopefully the energy behind the Harris campaign lead to her presidency and a more blue government.
I’d like to think there is a strategist in her camp who urged Biden to stay in for as long as he did, and only swap out after the first debate, closer to the 3 month runway mark. And that strategist is just waiting until after the election to gloat publicly about the scheme.
Now that’s a conspiracy theory I can get behind.
I’ve had a similar thought about it. The timing of him dropping out was near perfect in hindsight, right after the Republicans locked Trump and Vance in and taking all of the wind out of their sails right when they were eyeing the finish line. If someone planned that far in advance they’ll definitely deserve to gloat!
Oh she did that for me practically on day one of announcing her candidacy.
She is obviously intelligent and has very good political ideas.
But something hit me recently, with George Bush it was said he was the kind of person people would like to have a beer with. Which was allegedly a big reason he won.
But I certainly see that with Kamala Harris much more. Kamala Harris seems like such a genuinely nice person, who can also have a bit of fun.
So Kamala if you find yourself in the neighborhood, feel free to pop in, my treat. 😀 🍺
I know that’s a really silly metric to judge them by, but I think Walz is that x1000.
Walz is the first vp candidate that I think actually brings significant number of voters to the table. Perhaps I’m biased because he’s been an amazing governor.
Yes that’s what my wife (and many others) say, I just haven’t seen any interviews with him yet, I’ve just seen pictures of him on stage with Harris, and a video of him buying donuts.
Everything I read about him is good though, so I believe you. I’ll take the chance and say he can come along too. 😋
Watching Tim Walz get the news in the middle of a live post debate interview that Taylor Swift was endorsing Kamala & him was amazing.
His reaction is so genuine and joyfull. You can tell he’s on the verge of happy tears.
Since I know Tim Walz doesn’t drink, I’ll just invite him over for a friend’s & family cookout instead and feed him too much carne asada.
Link to mentioned video of him getting the news: https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/taylor-swift-endorses-kamala-harris-see-tim-walz-react-live-219048005739
I just haven’t seen any interviews with him yet
Let me help change that, with one of his ‘hot takes’
https://youtu.be/GMIf8KqOKdA?si=JPoe-NY6LlUqwAgU
Here’s another one to add to your watch list.
I mean it is, but also Walz is easily the most positively I’ve ever felt about a politician
otoh I like John Cleese’s line. He said he wanted a candidate so brilliant that he, Cleese, would be afraid to sit at the same table, lest he be proven a complete dunce.
I think it’s more that today’s American politicians reel it in.
Clinton was know as a policy wonk, and Obama would go from community organizing to the U. Chicago law school without missing a beat. Even George W. went to top schools.
Harris could go toe to toe with the best minds out there; she tailored her responses to Donnie’s level.
Can you imagine how incredibly different things would be right now had Biden stayed in the race?
She’s certainly exceeded my expectations, and Trump has not met mine, either.
I thought the GOP would have made more out of the lack of primary voting, and been prepared for Harris. The way they were pushing Biden out of the race, I thought for sure they had a strategy to capitalize on the chaos of switching candidates this late in the seasons.
But Harris herded the kittens in the DNC, and came out swinging. Trump, meanwhile, was clearly unprepared for any of it. I’m very happy to have been completely wrong about it.
“Harris’ popularity is astounding and could very well beat out Biden’s support in 2020… Now, to the polls. Both candidates are NECK AND NECK it’s gonna be a DEAD HEAT until November Trump could very possibly WIN OVER ALL THE SWING STATES.”
That’s unfortunately not really a contradiction though, given the electoral college — I think Harris will obliterate Trump in the popular, but that’s sadly not what matters.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.
If The Superbowl had a roughly 1/5 chance of the winner being declared the loser because of a technicality, we would burn this shit to the ground. Yet, here we are with roughly 1/5 of all presidential elections being overturned by the EC.
Tournament brackets don’t actually decide the most capable team, with NFL the teams that make it to the Superbowl being largely based on chance. A lot of the language around strategy is just being overly verbose about the literal mechanics of the game. Coaches mostly just try to keep their team “playing the game” (literally and figuratively) to give them the best chances of making it.
It’s basically a big lottery machine powered by athletes, funded by ultra-rich team owners, and decided through arbitrary rules and procedures, and everyone wants to know who the winner will be because it’s entertaining to watch.
But nobody burns anything to the ground, we just accept the rules, even though they aren’t really fair.
Right. But I think it’s a mischaracterization to represent the EC as a “technicality,” as it’s very central to the way voting in the USA works. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s stupid and should be abolished, but it’s very much ingrained in the voting system.
I think I’d counter your example — keeping the sports theme — by saying it’s like the World Series: it doesn’t matter if there are three absolute blowouts, all the matters is who wins four games. So you could easily win the World Series, but have fewer total runs across seven games (game = EC votes, runs = popular).
(Again, I think the EC should absolutely be abolished.)
