trump off the CO ballot

[Meadmaker]

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

To answer for me, nothing would make me vote for Trump, so the question of ad effectiveness is moot.

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.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

I also don't know where you think 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.

It seems like a simple observation of voter behavior and reactions. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's reality. Kamala Harris and her campaign tream need to be aware of it and campaign in ways that actually reach independent voters, instead of in ways that they think ought to reach independent voters.

I don't knwo what you think that would look like. I see what the campaign actually produces, and some of it is pretty bad. (I'm thinking especially of the "man enough" ads, and the recent attempt to win black male votes by promising access to crypto currency.) Some of it is pretty good, in my opinion, but it doesn't seem to be getting through. When it comes to polls, prediction markets, and other indicators, it really seems like she has lost ground over the last few weeks.

[Meadmaker]

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.

I want to revise my response.

I think Trump's bombastic rhetoric hurts him with independent voters, but it's not enough to turn most of them away from him, and towards Kamala, because they don't really like Kamala, either. "Walking on eggshells" is the last thing that she needs to do to change that, though. She needs to take firm stances that will convince voters that she's not as bad as Trump.

Recently, her approach has mostly been to emphazize just how bad Trump really is, but that can only take her so far.


As an aside, I do think that an even bigger issue with independents is, as TA said, the economy. There's a limit to what she can do about that. I think we give too much credit and too much blame to politicians, especially presidents, on the state of the economy, but we do. If people think the economy is bad, they vote against the incombent, or the party of the incumbent. If she can convince voters that she isn't responsible for inflation, or that she really has good ideas about the economy, she will also win. However, I don't think she can. Her basic approach on the economy is to give away money. That sells with her base, but it turns off a lot of independents.

[stanky]

The majority of the left, imho, want a Scandinavian style government; a social democracy that's forward thinking and environmentally sane. It's what Bernie was selling, and he would have been President if not for duplicitous elite dems who were much more like republicans...and still are. But Bernie's popularity, when he was running strong is a good indicator of where majority of Americans are really at. Corruption skews that view of us because it thwarts that big voice. Then, gutless wonders begin to hedge their bets; second guess the constituency; dumb down so as not to alienate dumb fucks; put republicans in your cabinet and so on.

And the rest of the world gets a warped picture of who we are.
It's "what we are" that's the problem...
I'd call it under siege and suffering a coup.

It started long ago but it became exposed when Hillary broke laws to prevent a Sander's win. Sander's would have beaten Trump soundly, and we wouldn't be in this mess. Now they won't let anyone like Sanders near power again.
They'd rather have Trump than a socialist. I'm done with them. Plus, almost done life,anyway. Harmless.

[President Bush]

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

I don't understand what you are saying here.

I also don't know where you think independent voters reside

Guess I didn't say it well. You seem to be placing the world of legitimate policy options way in extreme Trump territory.

You know, as if the idea of deporting twelve million people from the country or looking at teenagers and wondering what genitals they have were examples of independent thinking.

[Meadmaker]

Guess I didn't say it well. You seem to be placing the world of legitimate policy options way in extreme Trump territory.

You know, as if the idea of deporting twelve million people from the country or looking at teenagers and wondering what genitals they have were examples of independent thinking.

Ok. I'm still not absolutely certain, but I think I get it. I'll try.

I think you are saying that deporting twelve million people is an extreme Trump position, but I am saying it's a mainstream, independent position. I am saying, according to you, that such a policy would appeal to independents. Have I got your position right?

It's a little bit hard to parse, because I'm saying that I think that you think that I think the majority of Americans think that it would be a good idea to deport illegal aliens. That sentence, by the way, is grammatically correct and says what I wanted it to say, but it's really hard to understand, so I'll try to say the idea in a more comprehensible manner.

Most Americans think illegal aliens have no right to be in this country. Most people think that it is ridiculous that so many people have been allowed into our country illegally. We want it stopped. Some of us recognize that there are so many people who are here illegally that mass deportation, while morally justified, isn't practical, and so we have to come up with plan B that is going to involve some form of amnesty. Others of us haven't really thought about it that much. I am saying that tightening border security and deporting illegal aliens as much as it is practical to do so is not an extreme Trump position. It's mainstream thought. If you don't realize that is how most people think, you're living in a media bubble.

Moving on to "looking at teenagers and wondering what sort of genitals they have."

I'm always amused at the ways people try to frame the issue, but, at least in a literal sense, yes, people do that. When someone crosses the finish line three seconds ahead of the rest of the pack in a 200 meter race, or spikes a volleyball at 50 miles per hour, people wonder if that person is really a girl. "Is she really a girl?" is a polite way of saying, "Does she have a penis?" So, yes. We do that. Mainstream people do that. It's not an extreme Trump position to say that biological males should not be allowed in girls' sports.

So, yes, I am saying that independent thinking people are opposed to males in girls' sports, and if you want to say that means we are thinking about what genitals teenagers have, you are correct. I will let you expound, if you so choose, on why you prefer to talk about what genitals they have instead of saying what sex they are, but the meanings are identical, and I'm not a prude, so either one is ok by me. As one fourteen year old girl appearing at a school board meeting in Virginia put it, "Everyone knows what a girl is. Even you." When she said that, she wasn't expressing an extreme Trump opinion.

If you don't believe that's a mainstream position that makes a difference to independent voters, you are living in a media bubble.

[Meadmaker]

Te emphasize a point, the last post was primarily concerned with what people think, as opposed to whether they are right to think it. My own opinions on the subjects I mentioned, which were late term abortions, transgender rights, and reparations, are slightly to the left of where I think mainstream America is at, but I'm emphasizng the political ramifications in this thread.

I am saying that if Kamala Harris loses, it will be because she is identified with "woke" positions. It will be because, in Maher's words, she won't stand up and say, "No, that's fucking ridiculous."

[stanky]

There's some convoluted irony in that. Kamala may lose because she won't say that she's non-woke, and to the right are voters who hate the wokeness. I see 'woke' as awake to societal norms and willing to move in step as they evolve...a good and liberating thing. But Kamala actually isn't woke, but she pretends to be to win the left. She was pretty regressive as A.G. in Cali...more ambitious than principled. Maybe the wavering independents would vote for her if they knew.

Trump is also pretending. He plays bigger asshole than he is. He pretends to be all Jesused-up and anti-embryo killing, but who thinks he's sincere about it? Maybe there's a voting bloc that rewards insincerity. Seems to be plenty whom enjoy relentless lying. But second guessing people's motives and quirks is useless. I'd imagine a time will come when the best looking and sexiest will win.

[Meadmaker]

There's some convoluted irony in that. Kamala may lose because she won't say that she's non-woke, and to the right are voters who hate the wokeness. I see 'woke' as awake to societal norms and willing to move in step as they evolve...a good and liberating thing. But Kamala actually isn't woke, but she pretends to be to win the left. She was pretty regressive as A.G. in Cali...more ambitious than principled. Maybe the wavering independents would vote for her if they knew.

Trump is also pretending. He plays bigger asshole than he is. He pretends to be all Jesused-up and anti-embryo killing, but who thinks he's sincere about it? Maybe there's a voting bloc that rewards insincerity. Seems to be plenty whom enjoy relentless lying. But second guessing people's motives and quirks is useless. I'd imagine a time will come when the best looking and sexiest will win.

(emphasis added)

Except for the part in italics, I agree with all of it. Even for the part in italics, I would partly agree and partly disagree. It's definitely a weird world.

[Meadmaker]

I see that Kamala has finally used the f-word* when describing Trump. I wonder if it will work. My gut tells me that it's a bad move, which will turn off independents. I'm not sure, though. Four years ago, I would have called it totally over the top, but I think we have seen more and more of that tendency from him.


*Fascist

[President Bush]

The majority of the left, imho, want a Scandinavian style government; a social democracy that's forward thinking and environmentally sane. It's what Bernie was selling, and he would have been President if not for duplicitous elite dems who were much more like republicans...and still are. But Bernie's popularity, when he was running strong is a good indicator of where majority of Americans are really at. Corruption skews that view of us because it thwarts that big voice. Then, gutless wonders begin to hedge their bets; second guess the constituency; dumb down so as not to alienate dumb fucks; put republicans in your cabinet and so on.

And the rest of the world gets a warped picture of who we are.
It's "what we are" that's the problem...
I'd call it under siege and suffering a coup.

It started long ago but it became exposed when Hillary broke laws to prevent a Sander's win. Sander's would have beaten Trump soundly, and we wouldn't be in this mess. Now they won't let anyone like Sanders near power again.
They'd rather have Trump than a socialist. I'm done with them. Plus, almost done life,anyway. Harmless.

What I'll be singing this time next week...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxfqESjYPQg