trump off the CO ballot

[President Bush]

It is my belief that if she had stood up a few months ago and said

"Males shouldn't be allowed to play in girls' sports." And
"Abortion should be illegal in the third trimester except in cases where it is necessary to save the mother's life," and
"My administration will not support any payments to individuals for reparations related to their ancestors' slavery."

If she had said those things, I believe the election would be over. Trump would have no chance. She didn't. As a result, Donald Trump may very well return to the White House.

Nope. Utter baloney.

The voters to whom those are real issues are already voting Trump.

So what do you think will make the difference for those people? You've heard what Bill Maher and I think about it, but if we're wrong, what is actually the sticking point that prevents them from picking one side or the other?

Voting booth selfie huffing less throat color spray paint over-cringe.

[Meadmaker]

So what do you think will make the difference for those people? You've heard what Bill Maher and I think about it, but if we're wrong, what is actually the sticking point that prevents them from picking one side or the other?

I think your biggest problem is the vast number of people who don't vote.

Holding the election on a Tuesday is crazy, but that's America.

Certainly more people voting would make a difference, and conventional wisdom is that high turnout favors Democrats.

But that's a bit of ignoring the issue. People do vote, Of those people who are not automatic voters for one party, and are not never Trumpers, what do you think is important to them in making their decision?

I think that for an awful lot of them, they don't like Trump, and they don't like "woke", and they're having trouble deciding which one they like less. I think there's enough of those people that if Kamala had made some staunchly anti-woke statements, she would have the race in the bag.

[Admin]

But that's a bit of ignoring the issue. People do vote, Of those people who are not automatic voters for one party, and are not never Trumpers, what do you think is important to them in making their decision?

The economy.

Despite all the good economic news, rents are outstripping wages and people are struggling. Those are people who would naturally vote Democrat, but there needs to be an incentive. Harris is at least trying.

I think that for an awful lot of them, they don't like Trump, and they don't like "woke", and they're having trouble deciding which one they like less. I think there's enough of those people that if Kamala had made some staunchly anti-woke statements, she would have the race in the bag.

Nah, it's still bullshit.

If trans people using bathrooms means more to the voters than things like economic stability and world leadership, then they are exactly those insane old cunts I already mentioned.

[Meadmaker]

If trans people using bathrooms means more to the voters than things like economic stability and world leadership, then they are exactly those insane old cunts I already mentioned.

It's not necessarily a question of "meaning more".

It might mean that they don't really know which candidate will deliver economic stability. (For example, I don't know which candidate will deliver economic stability.....although Trump's promise of tariffs strikes me as not so stable, but he can't impose those without help from Congress, so I'm still not sure.) So, that's an important issue, but it's a wash.

Or, they might have very strong opinions about which one is better on the economy, but in that case they are mostly in an "unreachable" camp already.

But then you get to something like immigration, Donald Trump's signature issue.

If people think that illegal immigrants are dangerous villains who are raping our women and eating our cats, that's probably a Trump voter, and there's not much point in trying to persuade them. However, there are an awful lot of people, like me, who feel that the abundance of illegal immigrants in America is a real problem, regardless of their calorie sources. For me, it's not enough to overcome Donald Trump's personal flaws, but for other people it's a bigger issue, and they see recent moves to tighten the border as too little and/or too late. Bill Maher said that Kamala ought to say something like, "We've learned our lesson and we won't let that happen again." I think she would get some votes if she did.

[President Bush]

If trans people using bathrooms means more to the voters than things like economic stability and world leadership, then they are exactly those insane old cunts I already mentioned.

It's not necessarily a question of "meaning more".

It might mean that they don't really know which candidate will deliver economic stability. (For example, I don't know which candidate will deliver economic stability.....although Trump's promise of tariffs strikes me as not so stable, but he can't impose those without help from Congress, so I'm still not sure.) So, that's an important issue, but it's a wash.

Or, they might have very strong opinions about which one is better on the economy, but in that case they are mostly in an "unreachable" camp already.

But then you get to something like immigration, Donald Trump's signature issue.

If people think that illegal immigrants are dangerous villains who are raping our women and eating our cats, that's probably a Trump voter, and there's not much point in trying to persuade them. However, there are an awful lot of people, like me, who feel that the abundance of illegal immigrants in America is a real problem, regardless of their calorie sources. For me, it's not enough to overcome Donald Trump's personal flaws, but for other people it's a bigger issue, and they see recent moves to tighten the border as too little and/or too late. Bill Maher said that Kamala ought to say something like, "We've learned our lesson and we won't let that happen again." I think she would get some votes if she did.

Great idea.

The Harris campaign could run an ad showing Trump using terrible language describing immigrant populations.

Likewise, the Trump campaign could run an ad showing Trump using terrible language describing immigrant populations.

Which would be more effective at convincing you that they were the right candidate, Meadmaker?

[arthwollipot]

But come November, there will be a winner and a loser, and especially the people who wish those roles were reversed will really need to ask themselves how their candidate managed to lose.

Unfortunately, for one side, the answer to that question will be "because the other side cheated and stole our country from us".

[Meadmaker]

But come November, there will be a winner and a loser, and especially the people who wish those roles were reversed will really need to ask themselves how their candidate managed to lose.

Unfortunately, for one side, the answer to that question will be "because the other side cheated and stole our country from us".

Yeah....I guess introspection is not their strong suit.

[Meadmaker]

Great idea.

The Harris campaign could run an ad showing Trump using terrible language describing immigrant populations.

Likewise, the Trump campaign could run an ad showing Trump using terrible language describing immigrant populations.

Which would be more effective at convincing you that they were the right candidate, Meadmaker?

I don't understand the question.

Eo you actually mean me, or do you mean that in the generic sense? i.e. which one do you think is more effective at convincing a generic voter?

Trump does run such ads, or at least ads that use terrible language against immigrants, and end with "I'm Donald Trump and I approved this message." They are effective.

When Harris, or surrogates, run such ads, they're marginally effective, because she is not trying to make a point about immigration. She's making a point that Donald Trump is unhinged. I think that has a small effect. I think there are plenty of voters who think he's unhinged, but are wondering if that's a good reason to vote for Harris. To the extent that it amplifies the feeling that he's unhinged, it does something.

On the other hand, there's a danger for Harris in such an ad. (I haven't seen one like that from her, specifically. I've seen some from surrogates, though.) If the voters viewing a pro-Harris ad like that get the feeling, "Ok. Sure Trump is going overboard saying that they're eating cats, but at least he will do something about the real problem! Harris doesn't seem to care about millions of illegal immigrants." If that's the message that a voter draws from those ads, it's a win for Trump.

What Maher, and I, would say, is that she has to deliver the message, "I understand that we need to do something about illegal immigration, and we have learned our lesson*, and we're fixing it. But we're sane, unlike our opponent."

As for me, specifically, I don't think either one matters, because illegal immigration isn't something I care all that much about. When it comes to policy approaches, I suppose I'm kind of along Trump's side. I think the border should be secured and illegal aliens deported, although I'm willing to compromise on that last part, because there are so many of them now it might not be practical. So on principle I agree with Trump's approach, even if I don't agree with his rhetoric, and I might think we have to compromise for practicality.



*Maher literally used the words "learned out lesson" when talking how Harris should have responded to an interview question.

[President Bush]

Great idea.

The Harris campaign could run an ad showing Trump using terrible language describing immigrant populations.

Likewise, the Trump campaign could run an ad showing Trump using terrible language describing immigrant populations.

Which would be more effective at convincing you that they were the right candidate, Meadmaker?

I don't understand the question.

Eo you actually mean me, or do you mean that in the generic sense? i.e. which one do you think is more effective at convincing a generic voter?

Trump does run such ads, or at least ads that use terrible language against immigrants, and end with "I'm Donald Trump and I approved this message." They are effective.

When Harris, or surrogates, run such ads, they're marginally effective, because she is not trying to make a point about immigration. She's making a point that Donald Trump is unhinged. I think that has a small effect. I think there are plenty of voters who think he's unhinged, but are wondering if that's a good reason to vote for Harris. To the extent that it amplifies the feeling that he's unhinged, it does something.

On the other hand, there's a danger for Harris in such an ad. (I haven't seen one like that from her, specifically. I've seen some from surrogates, though.) If the voters viewing a pro-Harris ad like that get the feeling, "Ok. Sure Trump is going overboard saying that they're eating cats, but at least he will do something about the real problem! Harris doesn't seem to care about millions of illegal immigrants." If that's the message that a voter draws from those ads, it's a win for Trump.

To answer your question... I was asking you. I have no idea what a generic voter is.

The Harris campaign could run an ad showing Trump using terrible language describing immigrant populations.

Likewise, the Trump campaign could run an ad showing Trump using terrible language describing immigrant populations.

Which would be more effective at convincing you that they were the right candidate, Meadmaker?

Come to think of it, we had been talking about independent voters here. The voters who are going to decide this election.

You seem to be placing what normally might be considered legitimate policy options way over towards extreme Trump territory. That's not where independent voters reside.

Harris is required to walk on eggshells with independent voters while Trump can be as extreme as ever because, well, everybody knows that's how he is?

Seems like very biased thinking.

[Admin]

Harris is required to walk on eggshells with independent voters while Trump ...

...can say out loud he wants to be a Fascist.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-t ... 4214d7cdcb

And say shit like this:

“It doesn’t cost 60,000 bucks to bury a fucking Mexican!” Trump allegedly said when he found out the cost, according to witnesses in the room at the time. The funeral was for Vanessa Guillén, a 20-year-old Army private and daughter of Mexican immigrants who was bludgeoned to death by a fellow soldier in April 2020.

But not coming out anti-trans matters.