stevenkesslar

In his defense, I don't think he said he can't vote for her. He said she dodged questions, which she did. Baier is a good journalist. I always like watching him for a sound but right of center take on the news. So he did a good job of stringing together pretty much every awkward question she has NOT been drilled on. I suppose he could have added something about whether her hubby Doug was really abusive to women. But you get the point. I'll just repeat my argument. I'm glad he attacked her. It showed she is tough and she can handle someone going after her and not even letting her finish a sentence. Sean Spicer should know something about how Presidents communicate. His reaction to this was that "Kamala did herself no favors." And she missed the mark in communicating to Fox News viewers. I disagree. And it probably shows how even somebody who was a White House Press Secretary sees what he wants to see. Harris made one argument very well: lots of conservative Republicans think Trump is toxic and he can't be given power ever again. If that was her goal, she did her job. And I think we know a significant slice of Republicans who watch Fox have deep doubts about Trump. That's the question historians will be asking for as long as the US exists. You and I agree about Trump. It's a good question why so many people don't. I think @lookin is correct that a necessary part of this is that a lot of people, a significant minority of voters, just really like an authoritarian leader. Even if he constantly lies and breaks rules and laws at will. I don't get it. But MAGA clearly loves it. This is necessary, but not sufficient, for Trump to win. I think the sufficient reason Trump could win is basically inflation. It's technically a non-issue now, since it is down to 2.4 %. Trump would call that "a perfect number" if he had to defend it. And if inflation had been 2.4 % for each of the last four years, I think Harris would win handily. And she obviously can't change the past. But that is THE issue to me. And Baier hammered her hard. You were in power when this happened. Why did you let this happen? Are people stupid for not wanting more of that? They were good questions. I think she gave good answers and showed exactly why she was an excellent prosecutor of facts. But it is about the economy, stupid. Majority of Americans Feel Worse Off Than Four Years Ago Since part of your argument is that "it's the economy, stupid" does not apply this year, I'm going to add several wonky paragraphs about why the economy matters. I think it is actually worse than you think, @Suckrates. The MAGA faithful are so cultish and so loyal to Trump that they believe almost any bullshit or filth or lie that comes out of his deceitful mouth. So they have a completely distorted view of the economy. Harris would not say these people are stupid on camera. And most of them are not stupid. But they do not understand the economy they are living in. The irony is that Trump lost in 2020 despite the fact that he literally presided over "the best economy" ever, if you believe the poll above. And Harris is about to win despite presiding over, as Veep, "the worst economy" ever, according to the poll above. To me, this thing about how bad the economy sucks right now is kind of a sick joke. And it is a joke on Trump voters. They lost in 2020 and are about to lose again. So we can at least feel sorry for them, since they really have pulled a sick joke on themselves. That Gallup poll says 52 % of Americans think they and their family are WORSE OFF than four years ago. That is a stunning number. And it could easily be taken as the only thing you need to know to explain why Harris will lose. As @KYTOP pointed out, it is the woman at the grocery store who knows damn well that prices are a lot higher now than when Donald Trump was President. That is a fact. This has to mean Harris will lose, right? Well, maybe not. Maybe it's not just the economy, stupid. The same Gallup poll said in 2020 55 % of voters said they and their family were BETTER OFF than four years ago. So Trump had to win in 2020, right? The economy in 2020 was better than any other Presidential election, according to voters in that Gallup poll. And yet Trump lost. How did that happen? I have a great anecdotal answer. One of my brothers who loves John McCain voted for Trump in 2016 because he thought he would be better for the economy than Clinton. He voted for Biden in 2020 because after seeing Donald in action he decided Trump was a "megalomaniac". I asked him if he would have voted only on the economy in 2020, who would he have voted for. He immediately said Trump. I asked him why. He said the balance of his retirement account went up a lot under Trump. Great answer. So he was better off than four years ago, but despises Trump for being such a complete asshole. It's not just the economy, stupid, I guess. I think that family anecdote is a pretty good all purpose explanation for why Trump lost in 2020, and will lose again in 2024. So that is the sick joke that MAGA is pulling on themselves. Which I think explains why Trump is going to lose. Despite the fact that a Gallup poll says 52 % of Americans think the economy is worse than four years ago. Democrats have not changed much. At no point in the last decade have most Democrats felt particularly good about the economy. The thing I know about Democrats, especially from my nieces and nephews and tenants, is that this economy works better for the Top 1 % than for the working class. So you have all these young people, some of whom are my relatives, who are pissed that home prices and interest rates are so high that they can't buy a home. But that is not a reason to vote for Trump. A lot of Democrats and Independents who are not fans of the current economy are going to vote for Harris because they will decide to give her a chance, I predict. Because they saw what Trump did in power and 52 % of Americans say they do not like the man. Republicans are all over the map in that chart above. To their credit, they at least kind of noticed when Trump was POTUS and the economy completely went off a cliff in 2020. But I guess they forget how fucked up everything was, and how many people were out of work. The math is very simple. In 2019 60 % of Americans said the Trump economy was good. Now only 23 % of voters say the Biden/Harris economy is good. So that means Harris has to lose, right? Nope. All it tells us is that Republicans have a very distorted view of reality. I will end with one paragraph on objective reality. Inflation is 2.4 %. The "misery index" (inflation plus unemployment) was 7.9 % in Nov. 2020. It is 6.5 % in Sept. 2024. So people are actually BETTER OFF in 2024, if we are measuring inflation, jobs, and objective reality. The stock market is higher than ever. If you own a home, like 2 in 3 Americans do, it is worth more than ever. Net worth went up 30 % in recent years, according to a recent Fed analysis. Trump's argument is rich, for a billionaire loser: the economy sucks because your net worth is maybe $100,000 more, but you have to pay maybe $1 more for a gallon of gas. Boo hoo! It's a loser's argument. Which is why he is going to lose. I really do think this is a sick joke Trump voters are playing on themselves. I really do feel sorry for them. Mark Halperin recently argued that those of us who despise Trump will have no clue why he won if he wins. I disagree. I think I understand why Trump could win, and I just explained it. There are working class people who don't own homes or stocks that have had a rough ride under Biden and Harris. I think this is why she can not and is not declaring victory. Despite all the objectively good facts I cited above. Obama had the same problem in 2012, when the economy was improving but people were not feeling it. Harris does not want to sound elitist and out of touch. But the main reality here is that Trump voters have a very distorted view of just how fucked up things are when Trump is not President ..... or dictator. And they are going to be very disappointed when their asshole leads them to defeat .................. yet again. Like in 2018. And 2020. And 2022. The poor losers keep losing, even though losers don't like to lose. And I will try hard not to laugh at Trump losers who are simply out of touch.

If you are talking about the expanded child tax credits, the polling on that was interesting. I'm a huge supporter of the idea, of course. Until Republicans and Manchin helped kill them, the expanded credits briefly cut child poverty in half. And it is a concrete way to help tens of millions of working class Americans. It is expensive. And I am a deficit hawk, too. (See Clinton, Bill, budget surplus). I would argue this should be a priority. But the polling when the credits were in place was about 50/50. The obvious people who liked it most were the people who got it. Just like the people who like Obamacare and Social Security the most are people on it. The main opponents were people who did not receive credits and think it cost too much. Whatever one thinks of child tax credits, it is a great example of a specific policy proposal Harris has made. And she will happily talk about that, and why it might be better than more tax cuts for the Top 1 %. And arguably that is more important to most people than prisoners who want sex changes. You basically reinforced Wegmans's point, if I understand your point correctly. You come off as a very reasonable and moderate guy. So if you are not a fan of child tax credits, probably most Fox News viewers agree with you. That would argue Wegman is correct. Don't talk about liberal programs on Fox News. Talk about what Mike Pence and Liz Cheney and lots of conservative generals think about the sick, deranged man Donald Trump is. Again, whether Wegman is right is debatable. But he has a good point. Only tangentially related, check this out: That's the electoral college map of 1996. Can anyone possibly imagine any Democrat winning any time soon with an electoral map like this? The 1976 map was even more focused on the South, thanks to Jimmy Carter. No doubt that had something to do with the fact that the only Democrats to win the White House between 1961 and 2008 were Southern Democrats. I'm not holding out hope for Kentucky voting for a Democratic President anytime soon. The reason I post this in the context of Harris and Fox News is that it seems like the necessary political project, if Democrats want a governing majority, is how do you win the Presidency as a Democrat with a map like that again? At the beginning of this century Ruy Teixeira argued Democrats were in fact moving toward a working governing majority. Which the election of Obama seemed to manifest. Oops! Spoke too soon. Now Teixeira argues Democrats have to somehow embrace lots more centrist positions, especially on culture war issues. The reason I am particularly interested in ideas like child tax credits is that the formula that usually works seems to be economic populism, tied to cultural moderation. In theory that was what worked for Southern Democrats for generations. Although you could argue a good dose of George Wallace virulent racism often helped. One way to go to the heart of it is that the problem with the Fox News interview was that it should have been Andy Beshear, not Kamala Harris, being interviewed. If Democrats want an electoral map like the one above, maybe the issue is that nominating (sort of) a liberal Black woman from left wing San Francisco is not the best idea, period. I am from California and I genuinely like and respect Harris. But if Harris loses, it will open that debate. And even if she wins, how do Democrats ever hope to have 60 votes in the Senate again? My hope is that Democrats will adjust their policies, rebrand economic populism - however we want to define it - and tone down the culture war stuff. Immigration is a very good start. Which will be painful. But the basic idea of economic populism + going for the cultural center is what worked for Bill Clinton pretty well. Also, again, Clinton running a surplus didn't hurt his Presidency or his legacy. And it is a way to be able to show up on Fox News and genuinely connect. If that is the goal.

You made a bunch of interesting comments. If Harris loses, there will be a list of 1000 reasons why. At the top of most lists will be the idea that was mentioned by a lot of talking heads when she first took over for Biden. She needed to name 3 ways she would be different than Biden. She has not done that. So a lot of the criticism boils down to the idea that she is just playing it safe. 60 Minutes seemed like a textbook example of saying nothing. In part due to weird editing and in part due to playing it safe. So what made Fox interesting is neither Baier nor Harris were playing it safe. Even a hard hitting journalist like Mark Halperin argued (to Sean Spicer, on his 2Way podcast) that Baier was disrespectful to the office of VP. I disagree. I'd rather have her pressed by adversarial journalists. Again, I think it made her look tough. It demonstrated something about what she feels in her gut. That said, you could also argue it was a disservice by Fox to make it seem like what we all really need to know about is whether prisoners need sex changes. Baier talked more about prisoner sex changes then the tens of millions of working class families that got expanded child tax credits, some of whom must watch Fox News. Harris wants to restore those credits. That will have more of an impact on grocery bills for tens of millions of Americans than whether a few prisoners got their dicks chopped off. Harris got her point across, I think. Let's talk about child tax credits and down payments on homes. For some strange reason, people care about that more than prisoner sex changes. Baier was clearly interested in throwing red meat at Fox News viewers, as well as talking about grocery prices. I tend to agree with you. That said, we both may be wrong. I just read this interesting analysis of the interview. 'Mission Accomplished': Harris Targets Haley Holdouts in Fox News Interview Wegman is simply voicing his own opinion, just like you and me. So whether he has his finger on the pulse of Haley voters is not something I am qualified to comment on. But his argument makes sense. Right of center Fox News viewers who like Haley and dislike Trump have two choices. If they want to vote based on policy - like immigration policy, or food prices, or gas prices, or whether we need more liberal programs - they are very likely to vote for Trump. That is why they are right of center Fox viewers who voted for Haley, after all. So Harris arguably had one card to play with them: Trump is toxic. Ask Mike Pence, who says Trump is toxic. Ask Liz Cheney, who says Trump is toxic. Ask the generals who served for him, conservatives ones and all, who say he is a a disturbed man who should never be given power again. Not what you wanted to hear. And not what I need to hear to persuade me. Like you, I'd rather have the policy debate. But Wegman may be right that Harris prosecuted the case against Trump in the only way right of center Haley voters will buy.

More! More! More! I think Harris thrives in these adversarial interviews. At least when they are tethered to reality, as anything Bret Baier says actually is. As opposed to a Tucker Carlson interview where we are led to believe most people actually do eat cats and dogs. It was kind of her biggest weaknesses, all real. I think she did great. The prosecutor in her came out. She fought, and I think she won. She looked rough, and not like a UN diplomat. I found that 60 Minutes interview particularly awful. Some of it was the editing, no doubt. But both characters in that interview seemed like Ai inventions who were designed to speak UN, not English. This Fox News thing was about two real and smart people fighting it out. Whether it wins her the votes of Fox News voters or not, it makes her look smart and tough to swing voters. No pablum. What she communicated to me is that I want solutions to real problems, like actual real voters do.

It's possible his testicles are bigger than Trump's. If some guy can pull off the right look, this is it. And below is a Lichtman/Luntz love fest. As always, he says the polls have little reliable value in making predictions. Helpfully, he reminded us that right around now in October 2012 Romney was supposedly surging. His prediction that Obama would win proved accurate.

I'll add this as an anecdotal postscript to my point about turnout. First bad news, then good news. Dems see warning signs for Harris with Latino men in Pennsylvania Harris’ performance with Pennsylvania’s 580,000 registered Latino voters could tip the entire election. Okay. Bad news: that headline sounds ominous. The article notes that Trump is three things Harris can never be: macho, macho, and macho. The theory has been around for a while that, particularly with Latino men, the testicle vote really matters. I think we all know that if it comes down to who has bigger balls, Trump beats Harris every time. Not that it's saying much, of course. 😉 There's also the theory that Trump appeals to the Hispanic male working class because, after all, he's a working class kind of guy. Who is good to the working class. Well, not really. But if there is a possibly fatal "wall of lava" coming at Harris, as one consultant aptly put it, the volcano that caused it was Mount Inflation. That said, I'm guessing most working class Hispanic Dads would prefer tax credits for their kids to tax cuts for billionaire investors. Either way, when you read the whole story you get this: I'm tempted to say that sounds like Trump has one hand tied behind his back when it comes to turnout. But it's more like he doesn't have hands at all, compared to Harris door knockers. At least he has those balls. They count for something, you know. If the 2024 election is won on organizing and turnout, Harris and Democrats win.

Trump considers bucking presidential transition system Democracy? Who the fuck cares? Good government? Ha ha. It's about the power and money, stupid. This makes all the worries about Project 2025 seem both real, and quaint by comparison. Of course, Deceitful Donald has always been a dutiful whore to the richest and most powerful. He's a perfect mark. An entertainer and clown who fails on his own, and thus is beholden to the two groups who bail him out every time: the rich, and the Russians. Deceitful Donald whored deeply and dutifully on his signature policy achievement during his failed Presidency. He handed out money to the Top 1 %, and now wants to do it again. Federal deficit? Come on! Who the fuck cares! Deceitful Donald whored even more deeply and dutifully to Genocide Man, like all his favorite authoritarian monsters. Of course Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump won in 2020. Why fight and kill Russians and destroy Russia's economy, which Putin is doing thanks to Biden and Harris, when Trump would have handed NATO to him on a platter? The deep whore money always comes from Putin's buddies when Trump needs it most. Trump whores to the genocidal Russian machine even more than he whores to the American rich. Deep whoring and whore money from Russia is what put DJT on the map. in only the most recent example of Trump's willingness to sell America for his own personal and family gain. All of Trump's Russia ties, in seven charts.

There's two big unknowns, both of which make a good argument for Democratic optimism. 1. To quote Bill Clinton, "arithmetic." Trump is viewed unfavorably by 52.6 % of voters, according to the 538 average. Harris is viewed unfavorably by 47.2 % of voters. The math is simple. A majority of voters could vote for Harris, in what is now a sharp two way race. And not one of them would view her unfavorably. But for Trump to get over 48 %, which he never has, he needs people who don't like him to vote for him. Possible, but not likely. I think this shows in the Senate races. Name a swing state, and [name a Democratic Senate candidate] is outperforming Harris. There are clearly voters who plan to vote for the Democratic Senate candidate, including in states like Pennsylvania and Arizona and Nevada, but are not yet sold on Kamala. It's possible they will split their tickets. But it is probably more likely that these voters will break for Harris. In this case it may be less about holding their nose and more about tolerating the fact that Harris is still somewhat of an unknown. Kudos to you for putting your money where your mouth is. There's no question Harris is rocking on money, as is the whole field. Since Labor Day I have been donating weekly to Harris, Tester, Brown, and then I threw in Florida as a guess for the most likely Senate upset. In retrospect, probably if there is a lucky break it will be Texas. But that would have required a Democratic surge that has not happened. If anything, there has been a modest Republican surge recently . The most likely scenario for Democrats holding the Senate is both Brown and Tester manage to beat the odds. Which is probably way less than 50/50. But still worth a gamble and a donation. 2. Turnout, turnout, and turnout There's no objective way I know of to really measure who has built the best turnout machine. That said, for the reasons you state, I'd rather be a Democrat than a Republican in a close race, if turnout mattered. Democrats have had both time and money to build a massive turnout machine, helped by the huge Harris surge when Biden dropped out. Again, this is really 80 % math. If Democrats can get their voters out they will win. This goes to the heart of why polling is useless right now, at least to predict whether Harris will win. It is a reasonable argument that since polls underestimated Trump in both 2016 and 2020, they will do so again in 2024. But pollsters have no basis for actually measuring who will turn out. Which is the problem. Alan Lichtman will add that in addition to being useless in general, since 2020 polls have mostly overcompensated and underestimated Democrats, not Republicans. Hence the AWOL "red wave" in 2022. I have a turnout theory that explains why 2024 looks favorable that makes sense to me as a community organizer, but can't be proved. In 2016 there was a feel of a grassroots insurgency to Trump. He was new and fresh, at least to politics. Hillary carried decades of baggage. And suffered from a deep and divisive split in the 2016 primary. Which Lichtman would identify as one of the key nails in her coffin. All of this would seem to have helped Trump and hurt Clinton with turnout at the margin. And Clinton lost in 2016 at the margin. In 2020 Trump faced headwinds, thanks to all the COVID disasters that many people have chosen to forget. But all through 2019 and 2020 there were stories about how Trump was building this massive turnout machine. Four years later, I still can't find any decent analysis about what that was about, and what impact - if any- it had. So it could be just campaign bullshit. But what we do know is that what was supposed to be a blue wave ended up being a very close race. And especially in SoCal a lot of Democratic House members that won in 2018 lost. Those losses helped set up the Democratic loss of the House in 2022. And at the local level lots of those Democratic incumbents said that the single most important nail in their coffin in 2020 was that Democrats were timid about grassroots turnout, thanks to COVID. Whereas Republicans were much more aggressive, at least according to lots of articles at the time. That alone could explain why Trump and Republicans, while losing, exceeded expectations in 2020. 2024 is almost certainly wired well for Democratic turnout. As we have both stated, there is massive grassroots energy on the Harris side - both in terms of money and volunteers. Trump has the feeling of a social movement, like in 2016. But it is no greater than 2016, and probably smaller. Since it seems to be limited to his minority base. Yet all these swing voters are definitely NOT feeling that great MAGA vibe that only a precious few can genuinely savor, like dear @EmmetK 🤢 Meanwhile, he has farmed out turnout to outside paid groups who have no real motivation other than to get paid shitty wages, I'd guess. Republicans who know how campaigns work have been raising red flags about this in articles for months. So the idea that Trump always outperforms his poll numbers (well, twice) may not hold up that well in 2024. I think Democrats are extremely likely to outperform Republicans on turnout - the opposite of 2020.

And she's going for a Black job. Ugh! And she is ahead in the polls. Have I ever mentioned how charming you are? And how intelligent? So glad you are back, just in time to lose. 🤪 (Disclaimer, Donald J. Trump, a felon, lost the 2020 election.)

Oh, sweetie. You bet I will! I never deduct points for reason and logic. 😉 Or a millennium ago. As long as we have society, we will have social disease. Nuthin new here. I recall stories in 2012 about how social media helped Barack Obama win. There was some line I read somewhere about how Obama won Florida because young voters who Mitt Romney didn't even know existed were organized to vote against him on Facebook or other social media. True. We also had that wonderful meme, put out by savvy Democrats, about how Mitt Romney thought the real enemy of truth and justice was ...............wait for it ............... Big Bird! My point is that I think we are all to blame for letting ignorance and dumb memes take over for logic and reason. But this is nothing new, and is not really a product of the iternet (see 20th Century, McCarthyism, Maoism, Stalinism, Nazi ideology, etc.) The good news is we live in a world that is less poor and more educated than ever. If Kamala Harris and leaders like her win all over the world, and grow the economy and keep the peace, that's why. We did that. The glass is half full. The US is on its way to being the strongest multi-racial capitalist democracy in the world. Woo hoo! What does an economy like Russia in the 1990's - drunk and weak - bestow on the world? The plague of Putinism. Death, genocide, economic decay and rot. No freedom and little hope. And that nicely sums it up. Economic self interest. Or, more pointedly, short-term economic self-interest. Or, you could argue, short-sighted economic self interest. This also is nothing new, as your example of Typhoid Mary aptly demonstrates. It took a slaughtered German economy in the 1920's and 30's to stir up the Holocaust of Hitler. Poor Mary is small ball by comparison. If Trump wins, which he could, one Never Trump Republican politico summed it up nicely. There is a "wall of lava" coming at Kamala, he said, because lots of people - especially working class people - are pissed about inflation, interest rates, higher prices, etc. There's no evidence whatsoever that more tax cuts for billionaires and corporations and more attempts to cut Obamacare will make anything better for anyone working class. So all we can hope for is that Harris sells her message well and people think it through. Everything we need to know about this election boils down to this absolutely clear fact: if the people who vote the most and are most informed prevail, Harris wins in a landslide. If the people who vote least and are least informed prevail, Trump wins big. Ignorance is not new. It will exist as long as humans do. There are plenty of people who are good decent centrist people who will vote against Harris simply because they don't like higher prices. Even though Trump has no plan to do anything about it and Harris does. Here's a pro-people prediction. Unlike 2016 and 2020, the polls may not underweight Trump in 2024. In 2016 he did have the momentum of what I think of as a failed peasants' revolt behind him. Especially in ailing Rust Belt communities. In 2020 Democrats did weak grassroots organizing because of COVID. But since 2020, Democrats have often been underweighted in polls. In 2024 Harris has driven grassroots organizing and GOTV up. While the lagging and low energy Trump campaign depends heavily on paid canvassers with no particular loyalty to anything other than getting paid. If Harris wins, which my soothsayer Alan Lichtman says is inevitable, it will be in part because she inspired millions of informed and motivated voters to do something. That's how you beat a social disease. That's how you beat ignorance.

Oh, my genocide defending and lying friend Let's face facts, not Genocide Man's lies and propaganda: Putin issues nuclear warning to the West over strikes on Russia from Ukraine Putin could of course "win" the war with Ukraine by nuking it. But that would just hasten the collapse of the rotten and failing Russian Federation, and Putin knows it. Not to mention turn Moscow into a pile of radioactive waste. So all those article you cited are about the restraint practiced by the US, the EU, NATO, and leaders around the world who despise Genocide Man but resist the war and genocide Putin started. Putin's economy is weak, and fueled by turning hundreds of thousands of Russians into meat. It's an unsustainable Genocide Economy and Putin knows it. What must sicken Genocide Man to death is that his every attempt to weaken democracy only makes it stronger. People in the US are voting in record numbers. And the vast majority are on the side of defending Ukraine from Putin's genocide. All Putin's lies and propaganda and murder can't change that. Once Trump loses - again - Murderous Vlad's best chance for subverting democracy dies. Poor sick weak old Genocide Man! What will happen when poor sick weak old Genocide Man does? Dunno. But I sure hope poor sick weak old Genocide Man lives for a long time. Murderous Vlad excels at killing Russians and turning the Russian economy into a stagnant mess that requires killing Russians. The world can just sit back and let Genocide Man further destabilize and destroy his own rotten nation. I pray for the Russians who want something better than death or stagnation! Genocide Man's Russian-devouring and Ukrainian-killing economy doesn't even match up to one US state. Instead of producing energy, Russia thrives on the killing of Russians and the global distribution of disgust about Putin. Woo hoo! Poor losers! All you can do is lose and whine and delude yourselves that your collapsing Genocide Economy is actually strong. You have organized the whole world against you. Even Master Xi will cut his murderous pit bull loose when the time comes. Ever wonder why the world will rejoice when the Russian Federation collapses? (Granted, India will have to find a new arms supplier, and Master Xi will find cheap gas elsewhere.)

And yet another great Trump investment opportunity. How can one man have so much to contribute to America? God has never created a better and smarter person than DJT, and most likely will never again. Or you can watch the same video here. TikTok does not seem to embed as easily as YouTube. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=532136342551850

Take that up with him. He keeps arguing that people say that every four years. We never had a Black man before. We never had Twitter before. We never had women voting before! But in his mind the fundamentals never change. He does get it right every time, pretty much. He did predict Gore in 2000. And nay sayers dispute whether he is really predicting the popular vote or the electoral college. Either way, his system is way more complex and correct than a "clerk" like Silver simply aggregating polls and coming up with models that aren't really very good at all. In an election like 2000 where it came down to a very small number of votes in one state, I don't think it takes much away from the logic of Lichtman's keys even if you assume he was wrong about Gore. Same with 2016. That was not as close because it involved three states, not one. And Lichtman did predict Trump. But 2024 may be on the edge of a knife again. So it definitely makes it harder to predict.

I watched Allan Lichtman's podcast a lot in the lead up to his prediction that Harris will win. The person he despises is Nate Silver, who he refers to as a "clerk". They got in some public spat years ago because Silver trashed Lichtman's system. The point Lichtman makes is he puts his ass on the line every four years and actually makes a prediction. Like now he says Harris will win. Silver covers his ass by saying there is a 75 % chance Hillary Dumpty will win. So when Donald Dumpty wins instead, Silver says, "See. Told ya so. Trump had a 25 % chance of winning." The thing I like most about Lichtman, and what makes him unpopular with clerks like Silver, is he actually has sound ideas about why people will win, based on his keys. People like Silver create the impression that what really matters is the drip drip drip of polls.

Nice word. Like conducting a genocide in Ukraine has nothing to do with "imposing" your views on others. I tend to be overly optimistic about democracy. You are a cynic who comes here to rationalize murderous authoritarianism and attack ideas you know nothing about. You're entitled to your Russian pro-Genocide Man opinion. So go ahead and call me a parasite on democracy. It's a free country. Ours, I mean. Not yours. Genocide Man is a parasite on democracy. He will kill every Russian before he allows democracy in your failed state.

Geez Louise! And all this time I was wrong. I thought if you crossed Murderous Vlad you ended up with a bullet in your head. But I gotta admit. I was wrong. It is a well known fact that Putin is a huge Kamala Harris supporter. After all, he said so! And yet @Moses is trashing Harris. And he is apparently still alive. WTF? Maybe Genocide Man is sweeter than I thought. No reason to think he eats dogs and cats. Anyhoo,@Moses, not to worry. Trump is anti-union, Harris is pro-union. That's why the vast majority of union members support her, 57 to 41..

Did anyone ever tell you how adorable you are when you're angry, dear Sis?

Yup. No one would ever associate Trump businesses with a lack of profit. Who knew? 😉 See @Suckrates I can do short posts. 🤪

So here's an interesting tidbit buried on Page 15 of a very long post-debate YouGov poll. 53 % of voters say they would not consider voting for Trump. 47 % say they will consider voting for Trump. 48 % of voters say they would not consider voting for Harris. 52 % say they will consider voting for Harris. If voters literally had to choose between only two names, Trump or Harris, that pretty much assures Harris will win. Unless voters are lying, or change their mind. Trump won in 2016 in large part thanks to all those third party voters, who lowered the ceiling so Trump could win with 47 % of the vote. In the same poll, here is what YouGov says the horse race looks like: 46 % Harris. 45 % Trump. 6 % don't know. 2 % other. 1 % won't vote. So let's take these voters at their word. On the days this poll was conducted, Sept.10-11, Harris was leading Trump 1.5 % in the RCP average and 2.4 % in the 538 average. So this poll is not an outlier. If anything, it slightly underestimates the level of support for Harris. So I am assuming that if 53 % of voters in this poll say they would not consider voting for Trump, that is reliable. So the math is simple. Of the 6 % who are undecided, Trump can get no more than 2 % of them, meaning he wins 47 % of the vote. That was his ceiling in 2016. Meanwhile, the other 4 % likely goes to Harris, taking her to 50 % of the vote. That's slightly less than Biden won in 2020. Again, people can change their mind. But if 53 % of voters have ruled out Trump as an option, that pretty much leaves Harris as the other option. When Harris was leading by 2.4 % in the 538 polls on Sept. 11, she was carrying Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Nevada. When Harris was leading by 1.5 % in the RCP average on Sept. 11, she was carrying Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada. Pennsylvania was literally tied. All of these states polls were within the margin of error. But my point is that if Harris wins nationally by 4 %, all the RCP and 538 averages suggest she would carry all seven swing states, including North Carolina. The biggest problem with this theory is that there are all these marginal voters who never or rarely vote in midterms but do turn out for Trump. So maybe the idea that 53 % of the actual electorate will not even consider voting for Trump is just wrong. But given that he got 47 % of the vote in 2016 and 48 % in 2020, it sounds pretty right to me. And I would bet money that turnout in 2024 will favor Democrats, compared to 2020. In 2020 Democrats had weak face to face organizing thanks to COVID, whereas Trump was the incumbent with a well funded turnout army. In 2024 Harris has loads of money and a massive turnout army. Trump is weak in everything, including turnout. They farmed turnout out to outside groups, which I would bet is going to prove to be a mistake. So what happened with turnout in 2020 has to be viewed as a best case scenario for Trump that is unlikely to repeat in 2024. I'll throw in one other fascinating Mark Halperin video about a focus group he conducted that I think helps explain why Harris will win. The point of that focus group to Halperin is that anybody who is willing to listen should be able to understand why a core of voters are undecided between Trump and Harris. Because they believe both fall short. The parts of that video that actually involved focus group members runs from 21:00 to 40:00. It's worth a listen. In the final segment all eight voters are asked what is the biggest worry they have if each candidate is elected, expressed in a few words. These two videos last only about one minute each. I will cite verbatim what they say their biggest worries about Harris and Trump are. Harris: 1) inexperience, 2) far left policies, 3) unknown policies 4) too liberal 5) too establishment 6) unproven 7) far left 8 ) unserious Trump: 1) his ego 2) his ego on steroids 3) division 4) undisciplined 5) narcissism 6) no focus chaos 7) 2020 craziness and8) lacks focus As Halperin noted, all the Trump worries are about his personality. Which won't change. The Harris concerns are all about policy. She won't be less liberal. But she is about as liberal as Obama, who was elected in 2008 and 2012. She is getting better known. As that happens, so far her favorable ratings are going up. And she is now net positive favorable in both the TCP and 538 averages. While most polls say Trump is more trusted on the economy, that is slowly shifting. A new FT poll shows Harris is more trusted on the economy over Trump, 44/42. There are lots of things Harris can do to make herself better known to voters, and assuage their concerns about her policies. While she is mostly playing it safe and being vague, the polls show evidence she is gradually getting to be better known. There is little Trump can do to change his personality. The polls indicate he is making it hard, even for voters who prefer his policies, to vote for such a narcissistic and chaotic asshole.

Except he lost in 2020 because most voters don't trust him, and think he is a fool and President Chaos. That did not work in his favor. Not did it work in the favor of all the cops his supporters beat the shit out of during their Trump-directed attack on democracy. Trump excels at two things: branding, and losing. He has branded himself a loser.

Vance: Dems need to ‘cut this crap out’ after possible assassination attempt “I’d say that’s pretty strong evidence that the left needs to tone down the rhetoric and needs to cut this crap out,” the Ohio senator said. More complete and total partisan bullshit. More pathetic lies that insult the intelligence of average Americans. I think this second assassination attempt may actually help drive Trump's loss. There are three clear facts. First, Trump is a weak and failed leader when it comes to Ukraine. He leans into Putin, who flatters him and has rich friends who help Trump and his family financially. Two, Trump's wannabe assassin was very clear that Trump is weak and a failure when it comes to Ukraine. And he thought Trump deserved to die for that reason. Three, Trump and Vance are now lying the exact same way Trump lied about losing the 2020 election. The words coming out of their sick lying mouths are outrageously and obviously completely false. They treat Americans like we are stupid idiots. Which only shows us what dumb fucks they are. Americans are divided about whether or not we should send more weapons to Ukraine. But we are not divided about the basic question of whether we should stick with NATO, defend democracy abroad, and stop Genocide Man. Poll after poll shows most Americans side with Ukrainians, not Genocide Man, even though we split hairs over specific policy proposals. So what this highlights is simple: Trump is weak, and a failure, and the kind of dipshit that is prone to being buddies with dictators who flatter him. Harris proved that in their debate, without having to wave a gun. But some nut with a gun does see Trump as weak, a failure, and chaotic, and a loser. He is right. He is not right to want to kill Trump. But he is right that Trump is weak, and a failure, and chaotic. And he will throw Ukraine and democracy under the bus in a heartbeat. All Trump and Vance are proving now, yet again, is they are dumb fucks who insult us with obvious lies. The 50 % of Trump voters who buy any bullshit he says will buy this. But Independent voters will be insulted. As they should be.

To your point about how this shifted "immigrants eating dogs and cats" out of the headlines, I'd argue this is Trump once again stupidly stepping over his own headlines. What a dumb fuck! He must be suffering from RFK Jr.'s brain worm. Or Tulsi Gabbards transparently self-serving dumb fuck thinking. As if we are all stupid! We know Trump is weak. We know he caves to Putin's flattery and favors. We know his losing, failing grift stock DJT only exists thanks to the favors and funding of Murderous Vlad's rich pals. We know that Trump has a very complicated and thoughtful plan on Russia and Ukraine: 1) weakness, 2) weakness, and 3) weakness. So some nut tries to kill Trump because he is a nut, and Trump is weak on Ukraine. And then Trump blames it on Biden and Harris? WTF? This would be laughable if it were not so tragic. Genocide Man wantonly slaughters women and children in Ukraine in constant acts of terror. That is where my sympathy lies. Not with the weak dumb fuck who Genocide Man controls with flattery and favors. Trump certainly does not deserve to be killed. Thank God he is safe. But he also certainly does not deserve to be President again. Thank God he is failing.

Be careful what you wish for. 😲 But I'll give you six who maybe know how to do the job. Problem is, I think they are all dead. Three of Six Shooters of JFK Had Ties to CIA I'm still working the JFK conspiracy theme. The thing that is interesting about both Trump assassination attempts is that they pass the smell test in this sense: this is what it looks like when some lone nut tries to kill a President. There are not 5000 or so amazing coincidences and "fingerprints of intelligence everywhere you look," to use former Sen. Richard Schweiker's phrase, describing Oswald's remarkable number of connections to the CIA, FBI, and military intelligence. These two guys who tried to kill Trump do seem like lone nuts. That said, there are some curious things about this one. There is a guy disgruntled about how Trump isn't into a forever war in Ukraine. And how did he know Trump would be on the golf course? Mostly, though, it seems like this was all put together with Elmer's Glue. I almost feel sorry for Trump. After two assassination attempts, which more or less invites copycats seeking attention, they will have him encased in bubble wrap. Or ceramic tiles, maybe. 😉

I think you are right. Three strikes and he is out. People are tired of it. Trump will lose. If assassinations attempts were going to win an election, I think we would have known after Pennsylvania. What helped Trump the most at that time was that Biden looked old and tired. Now Trump looks old and tired. What will win Trump the election, in theory, is inflation and immigration. But not if his argument is that immigrants are eating dogs and cats. If anything, people who would naturally feel sympathetic to any politician who some nut tries to kill - Steve Scalise comes to mind - probably have less sympathy for Trump. Just because we have had to put up with his hate, bullshit, and lies for a decade. I'm glad he's safe. But I don't feel sympathy for him. If the topic is who will win, you know who my heartthrob is and always has been: Allan Lichtman. And he's now out and proud. He says Kamala Harris is going to win. If you asked him, he'd say assassination attempts have no impact on his keys. I'll add one more thing, just because I happened to read it today. The group whose net worth has gone up the most under Biden is ................. wait for it ........................ young voters. The same young voters who everyone is worried may not vote, or may vote for Trump because of inflation or rent or interest rates. Like their net worth doubled. For people under 35, net worth went from $16,000 in 2019 to $39,000 in 2022. That's mostly stock market gains. For people 55 to 64, net worth went up 30 %, over $100,000. I think that factors into both 2022 and 2024. As compared to 2010, for example. If we were in a Great Recession and unemployment were 10 % and there were mass foreclosures and people's stock and home equity were wiped out, voters probably would throw the bums out like in 2008 and 2010. People are actually doing well. Inflation may be annoying. And for working class and poor people who don't own stocks or homes, it's a real burden - which Harris clearly gets. But I think this is what people care about, and why she will win. Whether Trump has kooks going after him with assault weapons that should be banned is not America's top priority.

I'll take the bait. No charts, but here goes: 1. Sounds like the Secret Service did their job this time. Whereas the Pennsylvania very close call does sound like they fucked up. I don't get how sharp shooters on other nearby roofs, who killed the guy, did not see a guy with a gun on the roof. 2. That said, Trump is reaping what he sows. He speaks the language of political violence, and then denies it. Republicans don't want to do a thing about assault weapons, which were two potential assassins' weapons of choice. I'm not saying this is Trump's fault. But it's hard to have much sympathy for a guy who has been preaching the language of violence and stirring the pot of extremism for a decade. 3. Nothing I've heard so far sounds like a well thought out conspiracy. We know nothing about Florida Dude, yet. But these seem like random kooks. Now, that said, I'll talk about what would be weird. What would be truly weird is if the nut in Pennsylvania turned out to have a best friend who was a Russian immigrant who was anti-Communist, and a former Nazi, and a CIA asset. And it would be truly weird if that Russian immigrant, who was close friends with a Presidential assassin, turned out to also be friends with the Director of the CIA, who within a decade or so would be POTUS. That would be truly weird. For those of you who have gone deep down the JFK conspiracy rabbit hole, I am of course referring to George de Mohrenschildt, the Russian immigrant and CIA asset who was buddies with Oswald in 1963. Then later George wrote a personal letter to another George, H.W. Bush, an old pal and fellow member of the Dallas Petroleum Club, when he was head of the CIA. Small world. Shortly after this, on the day an investigator from the House Committee on Assassinations knocked on his door, poor George ended up dead of a bullet in the head, apparently a suicide That happened a lot back then when you happened to know something about a possible conspiracy. The part I find most interesting is just very weird conincidences. The Texas School Book Depository was owned by right wing Texas oil baron DH Byrd. The DalTex building, the other ideal building for a rifleman, was where Abraham Zapruder worked, who was also a right wing Russian emigre and Dallas Petroleum Club member. Zapruder's co-worker became de Mohrenschild's second wife. Byrd founded the Civil Air Patrol, which Lee Harvey Oswald was a member of as a teenager. Maybe it was a coincidence that Oswald just happened to get a job at Byrd's building before the motorcade route was known. Then again, the woman who arranged it, Ruth Paine, has a Dad and sister that worked for the CIA. Just a coincidence, no doubt I could go on forever. My point is that Trump and MAGA make weird bedfellows in all this. The theology of Trumpism is that there is this Deep State of dark forces that starts endless wars, like Ukraine. And will do whatever it takes to stop guys like Trump from draining the swamp. Oliver Stone's version of JFK is actually similar in broad outlines. With a Deep State of CIA assets who assassinate leaders all over the world, and rich right wingers and oil men and military hawks who are happy to fund them. Add Allen Dulles and J Edgar Hoover, mix, and stir. Presto! You have a conspiracy. I don't think the CIA or Secret Service is out to get Trump. I think the guys are kooks. But Republicans helped create this environment, and won't do a thing about assault weapons.