Yes Vance is an interesting character - trying to sell himself as a self-made man from a hillbilly background, but comes across as a extreme right-wing Walton who rose to the rank of corporal in the army.
Vance's entire public character is fake, he's had to basically recreate himself to get the job- he was an outright never-trumper just a couple of years ago. And it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny- all his past positions are on record, in office and in his book, so like Trump just about everything he says has a rebuttal from Past Vance. Not something trumpers care about but the VP's entire job in the campaign is to broaden support not be exactly the same.
If you want the measure of the man though, check out how he talks about his mum. She got addicted to prescription painkillers, like so many americans. And in the past that's shaped his thinking and his politics, he was one of the rare republicans really hammering the pharmaceutical industry. But now he's seamlessly pivoted to blaming mexicans and using it to attack democrats on the wall.
Sometimes with the MAGA crowd you don't know if they believe it or not, and even the ones that started out moderate you can see sometimes have basically gaslit themselves. And then you get the "whatever I think is true and if I change my mind that's now true too" crowd, Trump most of all of course. But Vance knows it's horseshit and he knows it's wrong and he does it anyway and I think a lot of people are going to see that.
Now the democrats get to pick their counter, it'll be hilarious if they go with Mark Kelly, he's absolute kryptonite to Vance.
As one of only a handful of women here, I’m dreading the bald, leering, sex pest getting a second term as president of America.
Could someone please give me an idea of what chances. C. Harris has of winning the election, with only a few months to go?
Omg...the Republicans are demanding "proof of life" from Joe Biden. They're convinced he's dead, that his signature was forged on the document about his withdrawl. Led by loon-in-chief Lauren Boebart.
Could someone please give me an idea of what chances. C. Harris has of winning the election, with only a few months to go?
Zero. Absolutely nil.
K. Harris might though. I reckon about 60:40 against, currently but with the right VP and depending how badly Trump does, well, being Donald, that could close. The unknown for me is the electoral college system and consequently how hard it is to win certain states irrespective of the merits and flaws.
Could someone please give me an idea of what chances. C. Harris has of winning the election, with only a few months to go?
Right now impossible to say, but probably greater than Biden's (were)
Could someone please give me an idea of what chances. C. Harris has of winning the election, with only a few months to go?
I'd say it's about 50/50 right now but it will take a few weeks for the dust to settle to see any kind of trajectory/trend I think.
I put a £20 bet on her winning last night, potential return £55. Same bet today will only return £50, so from that you could say her chances have increaced in the last18 hours or so.
Deleted...missed the "joke"
Rubbish
Read the post and the reply again, slowly this time 😀
The unknown for me is the electoral college system and consequently how hard it is to win certain states irrespective of the merits and flaws.
Its basically a FPTP system with each state as a constituency. Most states its pretty clear which way they will go. Effectively its down to swing voters in 6-10 states swing states who is president. Its also got a built in republican advantage which is why H.clinton won the popular vote but lost the electoral college.
It makes our shit system look democratic
Its basically a FPTP system with each state as a constituency.
Not quite, each state has multiple constituencies, in some states they split their vote for the higher offices according to the percentage of constituencies won by each party, but in most the party with most constituencies take all the votes, so many voters get zero representation. It is worse that the UK's version of FPTP by some margin. If you tried to design a "pretend" democracy that actively disenfranchises voters it would be hard to beat the college system.
iirc it wasn't envisaged to be that way when the constitution was written, they expected states to split their votes accordingly. However I don't think they saw how it could be abused so didn't specify enough detail in the constitution. So now they operate a corruption of what the writers of the constitution actually wanted, and use constitutional zealotry as an excuse.
Although I think theotherjon, probably meant how it would play out this time rather than a technical description of the system.
Bit of both TBH
The mad thing is that not all states are "winner takes all", Maine and Nebraska have a sort of proportional division, the winner in each of their congressional districts gets 1 vote and then they allocate 2 for the overall winner. It still strongly favours the overall winner- it's pretty rare for them to split, but it at least gives a little power back.
But Maine and Nebraska are like 4 and 5 votes anyway so it's barely relevant, meanwhile California is 54 and winner takes all. Which the founding fathers definitely didn't see coming, since california didn't become a state til 1850
the orange shitgibbon has said he wants to debate Harris
She'll eat him for breakfast, surely?
I think I read they shut the mics off now when it's the others turn to talk so there's no interruptions.. Dunno if anyone can verify that..
I think I read they shut the mics off now when it’s the others turn to talk so there’s no interruptions.. Dunno if anyone can verify that..
They did that for the first (who knows perhaps only) debate - no audience and dead mics when not being questioned. Each debate is hosted by a different TV channel though so how any future debate will be organised and formatted who knows. Could be mud wrestling contest for all we know.
iirc it wasn’t envisaged to be that way when the constitution was written
Wasn't envisaged that it would be gamed and polluted in quite the way it was. Each of those 'votes' a state has is an appointee - an 'elector' who's charged with stating how a state/portion of a state voted in the final tally up. But theres the issue of Faithless Electors - people who charged with delivering that state result deciding they have a better idea
In the 2016 election seven electors decided to post their 'vote' for candidates other than the ones their state had voted for. Votes that should have been poled for Clinton were instead poled for Colin Powell, Faith Spotted Eagle and Bernie Sanders. More electors tried to similar but were either invalidated or replaced as electors
It was the first time since the 70s faithless electors had been an issue but no doubt inspired the trump campaigns 'Fake Electors' plot in 2020
@mattyfez Yes, it’s to stop Trump talking over everyone else.
@maccruiskeen Wikipedia suggests that there have been efforts to reform the electoral college since 1800, the one that’s most likely to succeed is the National Interstate Compact which will come into force when they control 270 of the college votes; they currently have about 200.
Makes sense to me:
Christopher Wray was updating Congress about the assassination attempt on Trump in Butler on Wednesday when he made the explosive statement.
'With respect to former President Trump, there’s some question about whether or not it’s a bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear,' Wray said.
Debated whether to post this, but ties in with the post above.
Seeing a few posts on SM questioning the miraculous healing of Trumps ear. Now it ties into the "fake assassination" conspiracy theory that I'm loathe to stoke up given the people killed and injured, but are there verified photos of his ear since he was shot?
Seen a few unverified pics on SM of a perfectly undamaged ear, but those pics could be old ones being recycled for effect.
I think it's more that Trump has played the "I got shot" card and its possible his ear was "only" grazed by shrapnel. Some are trying to take the political points away from him by suggesting it wasn't that bad, rather than a full on conspiracy, although of course plenty are doing that too, I'm sure.
mattyfez
Full Member
She’ll eat him for breakfast, surely?I think I read they shut the mics off now when it’s the others turn to talk so there’s no interruptions.. Dunno if anyone can verify that..
The problem she will have is that Clinton totally outclassed trump in their debate/s but ultimately it didn't matter. His base just doesnt care about truth or competence. It's a cult.
However, things are different now. They (swing voters, reluctant Dems) know what they are going to get with Trump and a lot of swing voters might see Harris totally outclassing him as the nudge they need to support her.
His base are lost, not even with considering, it's all about motivating Dem voters to go vote and convincing swing voters. I think she has a good chance of doing both. Ill be staying up late for the vote that's for sure!
I’m predicting a Kamala win
Sadly agree, Harris could well win the popular vote but not enough in swing states, she seems a better candidate than Clinton was too.
I think I read they shut the mics off now when it’s the others turn to talk so there’s no interruptions.. Dunno if anyone can verify that..
The problem with the shutting off the mics is that unless the host is prepared to cut in and tell Trump he is lying Harris won't get the chance to do it. He gets a free run to talk complete bollocks and spout lie after lie for 2 his two minutes every time it's his turn.
Debates are irrelevant though. How many of use bothered to watch them here? You might here about the summary of what went on but in the US where the televised 'news' channels are not regulated to same as here those analysis are so biased as to be worthless to anyone on the fence (the 0.0001% of the population) wanting a worthwhile summary.
Debates are irrelevant though.
I see where you are coming from but we need to remember that it was Biden's terrible debate against trump that sealed his fate.
If trump comes off poorly in a debate about abortion for instance, people will take note. They might not watch the debate but they will see highlights on SM and it can have an effect, particularly on emotive topics like abortion and gun control.
The huge advantage Harris has is that the Dems are yet to have their convention. If she comes across well in that and her party stay united she will almost certainly have a polling boost just when it matters most.
Debates are irrelevant though. How many of use bothered to watch them here?
I watched some, but TBF my mind was made up long before, they didn't change my mind but they did at least make me question aspects of Starmer a bit more. And it's worth considering that not everyone is as much of an entrenched 'Anti-Tory' as I am 😉
The Same basically applies in the US: The Donald has his MAGA and GoP core votes sewn up obviously, as will Harris and the Dems. Assuming those core groupings break down to ~1/3rd of the electorate either way, The remaining 1/3rd are your floating body of votes and in theory (stacked electoral collages not withstanding) you only need to sway half of those to take the day.
So an election can easily come down to as little as ~17% of a voting population being nudged by whatever debates/campaign ads/speeches, part of the reason the campaigns watch polling numbers so keenly after a big event like a speech or debate is that they're trying to discern if there's been any effect on those floating voters, if anti-abortion rhetoric seems to play well then they'll suggest to Donald he dials it up, if it's the inverse maybe he can blather more about 2020 being fixed.
Harris will have her own adviser watching the polls reactions to specific things.
Debates have the potential for more substantial swings as perceptions are challenged most when you put both candidates up for a direct compare and contrast. personality and behaviour has the potential to put off vibes based voters as much as policy...
Well, apparently Kamala Harris has just turned black. More racist bollocks from Trump. Who has always identified as a nutty shit covered in melted red Leicester.
^^ Yes, it's interesting. I think he and his campaign staff have been left completely wrong footed by Harris.
He is very close to alienating the more moderate Reps, they might vote for Harris or simply stay at home.
He's incredibly bad at dealing with women in power and it's really showing.
All they did with Hillary was yell about emails and Benghazi. He can't do that with Harris, so now he's got 'but she's black' as his only real option. As always, Jon Stewart did a good bit about the rep's confusion and shit.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/article/2024/jul/30/jon-stewart-republicans-harris-trump
10
Full Member
All they did with Hillary was yell about emails and Benghazi. He can’t do that with Harris, so now he’s got ‘but she’s black’ as his only real option. As always, Jon Stewart did a good bit about the rep’s confusion and shit.https://www.theguardian.com/culture/article/2024/jul/30/jon-stewart-republicans-harris-trump/blockquote >
That Daily Dhow segment is excellent, definitely recommend people watch it for a good chuckle. 😀Thanks for sharing!
There is absolutely no overlap between the "could vote for Trump" and the "could vote for Harris" demographics.
Really, what this is about is motivating the most "could vote for Harris" people to actually bother to vote (ie: not abstain), and similarly demotivating the "could vote for trump" to actually get out and do so.
It's about motivating your respective potential voter pool, and converting that into votes - not increasing the size of the pool.
It feels like potential democrat voters are feeling good about voting for Harris - in a way they weren't about the prospect of voting for Biden. However, I feel like "voting enthusiasm" within Trump's voter pool might be waning.
My observation is that many Americans just want to be on the "winning team". If they feel like Trump/Harris might not win - then I think they'll stop voting for them, to avoid feeling like they "personally" lost. Like avoiding buying a ticket to see a game you think your team is going to lose..... you don't want to be walking home from the stadium feeling like a loser.
I think that attitude applies to both parties.... but is probably much more prevalent in potential Trump voters who (I'm just going to say it) are by-and large less intelligent than their counterparts.
I see hopeful signs that Harris will be able to mobilise and motivate sections of the electorate that were unlikely to vote. The young, BAME and women
That can only be good and we have to hope its enough
I see hopeful signs that Harris will be able to mobilise and motivate sections of the electorate that were unlikely to vote. The young, BAME and women
That can only be good and we have to hope its enough
Agree - but she is not winning-over these voters from Trump - they are potential Democrat voters, waiting for somebody to convince them to actually cast their vote. Hopefully Harris is the person who will get them to do that, where biden clearly wasn't
Christ on a **** ing bike! - just seen a clip of Trump being interviewed by the National Association of Black Journalists...... his most appalling performance to date (in my opinion) by some margin. Toe-curlingly cringeworthy.
Really, what this is about is motivating the most “could vote for Harris” people to actually bother to vote (ie: not abstain), and similarly demotivating the “could vote for trump” to actually get out and do so.
Interesting bit of motivating going on in Texas where registered republicans* are getting leaflets telling them we'll know who didn't vote and we'll tell Trump who you are
“Your voting record is public. … Your neighbors are watching and will know if you miss this critical runoff election. We will notify President Trump if you don’t vote. You can’t afford to have that on your record.”
* I don't get the whole party allegiance on the electoral roll thing in the states
Yep, it's appalling.
Yet he did almost the same thing to Obama and still got elected. He's tapping into the emotive gutter voter; he's saying what they're thinking and saying themselves, and he's been bigly successful in their eyes. He's a white* billionaire*.
The trick is to create a false narrative and go after the people who swallow it whole, much like Reform over here. It's binary politics, but it's effective if left unchecked or unchallenged by a mass media muzzled or even controlled.
Trump is toast. They clearly have no idea what they're doing.
I'll be very, very happy & relieved to revisit those posts above in a few months time if he doesn't get elected, and give respect where it's due.
I'm really not so sure, however.
That black journalists episode was to show the rednecks how racist he is so he can count on their vote (he was getting it anyway) and he has just managed to further alienate himself from anyone (especially minorities) with anything going on between their ears. That'll show them Donny.
batfink
Free Member
There is absolutely no overlap between the “could vote for Trump” and the “could vote for Harris” demographics.
I'm not so sure. The true cultists are lost of course but as CNN pointed out a couple of days back there are a lot of disaffected Republicans** (generally younger, perhaps female and likely college educated) that would have held their noses and voted for Trump as they didn't see Biden as a remotely viable option for them.
Now? With Harris seemingly surprising many Americans with her decent performance so far, the more moderate Rep voters might hold their noses and vote for her as they simply don't like Trumps version of the Republican party. Hell, it's not as good an outcome for Harris but even if she only manages to suppress those Rep moderates from voting, it's still a good outcome.
I think she's got a decent chance of beating Trump and with the Dem convention still to come she will be the centre of attention to hone her image even further. Trump will hate that attention and it will likely lead him to make even more irrational comments that further risk alienating the non cult members
** Like the more more sensible Tory voters that could see Boris/Truss etc were complete fools.
The election is a fair way off but it's difficult to see how trump regains the momentum he seemed to have a couple of weeks ago. Biden stepping aside has taken the wind out of his sails.
He can't intellectualise his way out of it, he only has the same old bs that is stale. They basically need to swap him for a younger model, but they are stuck with his brand now.
kormoran
Free Member
The election is a fair way off but it’s difficult to see how trump regains the momentum he seemed to have a couple of weeks ago.
It's actually pretty incredible how the assassination attempt is already old news. Biden stepping down, hugely ironically, seems to have consigned that to the old news file very quickly! Also ironically, Trump constantly banging on about her at a personal level is keeping her in the news cycle just as much as it does him.
It’s actually pretty incredible how the assassination attempt is already old news
I was actually going to type this but pressed submit to soon! Yes, nobody seems to be talking about it, despite it being an utterly outrageous act. To be fair, I've not really thought much about it either, the spotlight is firmly on harris now
I know I'm probably late to the party here, but does trump have anything at all that is a positive vision for the future? Something you could actually get behind, or look at objectively and say, yes that's a good idea. It seems he has nothing but grievance.
