🦄 The Casual 2024 Presidential Election

[NewNinetyNine]

Given the recent history of how Democrats have been treated in the media, it was understandable that there was some apprehension on their part.

What recent history? The media bent over backwards to cover for Biden until that effort snapped under the weight of his debate meltdown. I remember how "cheap fakes" were being reported on the week beforehand - cropped videos that portrayed Biden in a slightly less flattering light.

When we compare general coverage to partisan-filtered social media, the general coverage will seem infuriating, but it's hardly a bear trap for Dems.

 

[monsterscraponme]

What's your obsession with Biden?

 

[Scifigod]

Considering how the last 10-20 years have been absolutely insane, I can only think of one way for Harris to placate everyone:

She's going to have to appear on America's Got Talent, and bust some moves.

That could be her "Clinton plays the sax" moment.

View: https://youtu.be/a_WuGDYawFQ

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Some day, I hope more people realize you have to accomplish the things you can accomplish. This reads like the laments of all the Bernie supporters who weirdly believed that Sanders would somehow pass a bunch of stuff that lacked Congressional support to get through.

Whether you wanted other, impossible things or not, Biden did a very good job of getting deals in place and passing important things that could be passed.

If you want an imaginary candidate that isn't bound by the Congress, good luck in finding that. Maybe that's what Trump supporters are hoping for - someone that will just ignore Congress and the court system and say "fuck it, I'm going to do what I want."

If you tell voters to sit down, shut up, and take whatever scraps your politicians can slip past your lobbyists, they will eventually pine for a strongman who can just get things done. "We didn't deliver for reasons that are perfectly fine with us" only works for the in-group.

And if Dems find themselves perpetually short on votes to pass what they promise or perpetually heavy on lobbyists, that means that the party has to course correct. "We promise big things but struggle to break 50 Senators" is a poor rallying cry.

This is on top of executive-only missteps like Garland's non-prosecution, Biden's border EOs, etc.

 

[TheGnome]

I completely agree with your take on the non-prosecution of Trump; he should've been in jail awaiting trial on Jan 7. And the classified documents thing should've kept him there for life.

But you can't blame the Democrats for the systematic flaws that favour the Republicans, or really even for the historical constraints (like gerrymandered electoral maps) that they can't really change in the short term. Add in all the voter suppression/intimidation tactics etc. that the Republicans use to tilt the playing field even further, and you've got a situation in which the Democrats are lucky to still be in the fight, let alone getting legislation passed.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

What's your obsession with Biden?

Yes, how can the current administration's missteps possibly be relevant for a political election that is a referendum on the current administration and an incumbent candidate? Clearly nothing happened between Jan 20 2021 and Oct 17 2024 that might have resulted in a <40% approval rating and nail-biter election.

To zoom out a bit, Biden was handed a critical inflection point in American politics and ended up trying to hand the election to Trump for a small chance at four more years. He literally said in an interview that he was fine with Trump winning as long as he personally could continue trying and thought he tried his best. And his presidency reflected zero urgency for the dangers we face.

Frankly, I find it baffling how anyone could find Trump dangerous/odious and not be furious with Biden's nonchalance.

 

[CatBus]

If you want an imaginary candidate that isn't bound by the Congress, good luck in finding that. Maybe that's what Trump supporters are hoping for - someone that will just ignore Congress and the court system and say "fuck it, I'm going to do what I want."

Imaginary? That's exactly what Trump supporters got last time. The Trump administration was marked by the executive branch plowing ahead and doing things either directly contrary to the law or to the Constitution itself, as if Congress and the Constitution didn't exist. Yes, they got smacked down by the courts continuously, but a lot of those executive actions were performative anyway, in that they weren't part of any real policy, so much as providing rhetorical red meat to the base.

For example, the Muslim ban. Because of legal challenges, he got to ban Muslims six separate times, and his adoring crowds were delighted each time, as if he were doing a new wonderful thing for them every time. As a perhaps unplanned bonus, he successfully wore down the courts and got his last Muslim ban implemented. To be clear, this last part was unnecessary -- he could have continued banning Muslims over & over for the duration of his term, and it would have better suited his purpose.

And now, the courts have been worn down a little more, and they've said Presidents can personally break any law they like, without repercussion. And not coincidentally, Trump has indicated he has a hit list of Americans he wants to use the US military against. I think an unbounded President is exactly what Trump voters want, and I believe ample evidence shows they'll get it if they win.

 

[karolus]

Yes, how can the current administration's missteps possibly be relevant for a political election that is a referendum on the current administration and an incumbent candidate? Clearly nothing happened between Jan 20 2021 and Oct 17 2024 that might have resulted in a <40% approval rating and nail-biter election.

To zoom out a bit, Biden was handed a critical inflection point in American politics and ended up trying to hand the election to Trump for a small chance at four more years. He literally said in an interview that he was fine with Trump winning as long as he personally could continue trying and thought he tried his best. And his presidency reflected zero urgency for the dangers we face.

Frankly, I find it baffling how anyone could find Trump dangerous/odious and not be furious with Biden's nonchalance.

Biden is an institutionalist through and through—and that has its benefits and drawbacks. One key drawback was that it left him unable to effectively deal with anit-institutionalist bomb throwers like Trump and the MAGA faction he ushered in. A key example of this is his pick of Merrick Garland as AG. He was first floated as a milquetoast nominee to the Supreme Court—since it was hoped he would float through the bad-faith nomination processs. Not because he was deemed to be effective. This liminal and dangerous time was not suited for institutionalists, and I still find it surprising that he even got the 2020 nomination. Some people may have wanted a return to normalcy, but that was no longer attaninable.

 

[Dzov]

So apparently an Elon Musk-funded pro-Trump PAC is running a spectacularly cynical and sleazy ploy: in areas with large Arab American populations, they’re running ads saying that Harris is too pro-Israel (including pretty clearly antisemitic dog whistling about Harris’ husband), while in areas with large Jewish populations, they’re running ads saying that Harris is too pro-Palestinian, claiming that she’s sympathetic to antisemites.

Are there such media areas? I'd think any city with a large population of one would also have a large population of the other. Granted, you can probably target those groups over facebook or X.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

I completely agree with your take on the non-prosecution of Trump; he should've been in jail awaiting trial on Jan 7. And the classified documents thing should've kept him there for life.

But you can't blame the Democrats for the systematic flaws that favour the Republicans, or really even for the historical constraints (like gerrymandered electoral maps) that they can't really change in the short term. Add in all the voter suppression/intimidation tactics etc. that the Republicans use to tilt the playing field even further, and you've got a situation in which the Democrats are lucky to still be in the fight, let alone getting legislation passed.

Let's look at a super-blue state that lost the House: New York.

We aren't dealing with GOP voter suppression or diabolical maps. Instead we had a legislsture that was heavily out of step with voter sentiment on crime and a human placeholder of a governor who was advanced as the default candidate after her predecessor was forced from office in scandal, resulting in a promotion.

The gubernatorial election was actually in play enough to airlift national Dems into the state as surrogates. Combine this lack of enthusiasm with newly redrawn maps, and Dems lost enough seats in NY to flip the House with folks like George Santos.

You can see similar deficiencies to the national party, and the solution is to pick better candidates and follow voter priorities more closely. Because elections will always be hard for one reason or another, and holding patterns just decay.

 

[monsterscraponme]

Yes, how can the current administration's missteps possibly be relevant for a political election that is a referendum on the current administration and an incumbent candidate? Clearly nothing happened between Jan 20 2021 and Oct 17 2024 that might have resulted in a <40% approval rating and nail-biter election.

To zoom out a bit, Biden was handed a critical inflection point in American politics and ended up trying to hand the election to Trump for a small chance at four more years. He literally said in an interview that he was fine with Trump winning as long as he personally could continue trying and thought he tried his best. And his presidency reflected zero urgency for the dangers we face.

Frankly, I find it baffling how anyone could find Trump dangerous/odious and not be furious with Biden's nonchalance.

If it helps you baffle a bit less, I, like many others, prioritize my "fury."

America has millions of people, an entire media ecosystem, a lot of wealthy interests, an entire political party, and a Supreme Court that have worked very hard to normalize Trump. Hell, in any sane nation with a half-responsible electorate, January 6th would be on its face disqualifying.

Do I expect Biden's old institutionalist ass to change that reality? No, I don't, and I also don't find value in expending that much energy on the thought. Even in the best-case scenario, I don't think Biden could have unfucked the Trump-era GOP. I get that since 2016 this has become Groundhog's Day; every 4 years the US electorate wants to spend less than a few months unfucking everything at once.

I do not hold Democrats solely responsible for the actions of the GOP, nor do I hold them solely responsible for the success of the GOP.

If Trump wins and we do get a lot more fascist policies/actions in the US, I promise you I won't be sitting there thinking "Man, why did Biden do all of this?" Perhaps that train of thought helps some cope, but for me, it just muddies the waters into a "both-sides" cesspool where progress stalls.

 

[Louis XVI]

Are there such media areas? I'd think any city with a large population of one would also have a large population of the other. Granted, you can probably target those groups over facebook or X.

What’s weird is that both groups are extremely small portions of the US population; the attention they each attract is wildly disproportionate to their numbers. Jews make up 2.4% of the US population, while Arabs are only 0.65% of the population. Only eleven US cities have more than 100,000 Jews, with New York having about 4 times as many as any other city, 2.1 million. Only eleven US states have more than 100,000 Arabs (according to an Arab American Institute survey), with California, Michigan, and New York leading the way.

Neither the Jewish American nor Arab American population seems likely to be nearly big enough to sway the election, so I don’t know what Musk‘s PAC is trying to get out of this. All it shows is the moral bankruptcy of modern Republicans, and their willingness to use both Jews and Arabs as political pawns without caring about either at all.

 

[Defenestrar]

That could be her "Clinton plays the sax" moment.

View: https://youtu.be/a_WuGDYawFQ

That could be good for votes. Dress like that and people will just assume you're on a "mission from God."

 

[CatBus]

Let's look at a super-blue state that lost the House: New York.

We aren't dealing with GOP voter suppression or diabolical maps. Instead we had a legislsture that was heavily out of step with voter sentiment on crime and a human placeholder of a governor who was advanced as the default candidate after her predecessor was forced from office in scandal, resulting in a promotion.

The gubernatorial election was actually in play enough to airlift national Dems into the state as surrogates. Combine this lack of enthusiasm with newly redrawn maps, and Dems lost enough seats in NY to flip the House with folks like George Santos.

You can see similar deficiencies to the national party, and the solution is to pick better candidates and follow voter priorities more closely. Because elections will always be hard for one reason or another, and holding patterns just decay.

IMO it's fairer to say that New York Democrats implemented a map that protected them against losing seats to progressives rather than to Republicans. In that sense, their map worked as designed. The lack of voter enthusiasm is dead right though, and turned their maps against them. The New York Democratic Party is the worst in the nation. And the new maps are basically no different -- they really fear progressive primary wins more than Republican general wins. They're just hoping voter enthusiasm can be salvaged from more of the same -- and with an abortion measure on the ballot, they may just manage it... this cycle.

 

[wco81]

I watched chunks of it and it was pretty mixed. She got some hits in but relentlessly steered every question to the memorized talking point, filibustering the tough stuff.

(Paraphrased)
"You rolled back border provisions and then reinstated them during the election year after a large influx of illegal immigrants. Was that a mistake?"
"Trump killed bipartisan immigration reforms in 2024."
"Right, but that doesn't have anything to do with previous executive orders."
"Biden sent Congress an immigration bill in 2021. Trump killed the bipartisan bill in 2024."
"Your 2021 bill failed to attract a majority of Democratic votes when you controlled Congress. That was before the bipartisan bill even started negotiations."
"Trump killed the bill in 2024."
"Etc."

Welcome to modern politicians responding to the media.

Politicians have been using this tactic for years. Why do you think that is? Could it be that they're coached to do so?

Because it has been effective?

Also, did you expect earnest questions on Fox News?

 

[karolus]

IMO it's fairer to say that New York Democrats implemented a map that protected them against losing seats to progressives rather than to Republicans. In that sense, their map worked as designed. The lack of voter enthusiasm is dead right though, and turned their maps against them. The New York Democratic Party is the worst in the nation. And the new maps are basically no different -- they really fear progressive primary wins more than Republican general wins. They're just hoping voter enthusiasm can be salvaged from more of the same -- and with an abortion measure on the ballot, they may just manage it... this cycle.

Hasn't it been said that Andrew Cuomo was essentially a Republican in disguise, since his actions were often to the detriment of his own party? It was perhaps fortuitous that his own personal behavior essentially ended the dynasty. Although he now has the chutzpah to run for mayor in NYC.

 

[wco81]

Yes, how can the current administration's missteps possibly be relevant for a political election that is a referendum on the current administration and an incumbent candidate? Clearly nothing happened between Jan 20 2021 and Oct 17 2024 that might have resulted in a <40% approval rating and nail-biter election.

To zoom out a bit, Biden was handed a critical inflection point in American politics and ended up trying to hand the election to Trump for a small chance at four more years. He literally said in an interview that he was fine with Trump winning as long as he personally could continue trying and thought he tried his best. And his presidency reflected zero urgency for the dangers we face.

Frankly, I find it baffling how anyone could find Trump dangerous/odious and not be furious with Biden's nonchalance.

No NOTHING happened.

Highest inflation in 40 years though, which had NOTHING to do with what the POTUS did.

If the vibe cession gets Trump back in office, because people are stupid enough to think that things were better under his administration, that is not the fault of Democrats.

It's the triumph of disinformation, turbo-charged right into the brains of millions of feeble-minded Americans.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

IMO it's fairer to say that New York Democrats implemented a map that protected them against losing seats to progressives rather than to Republicans.

The 2022 map was drawn by an independent consultant unfamiliar with NY districts, per court order. It's widely criticized for its inaccuracy.

For example, the poll site where I normally work has served the area for at least 30 years. 2022 was the first year people found themselves having to visit a different, further poll site, due to the redrawn maps. I got an earful from a lot of old ladies in 2022...

It's not just gerrymandering that's a problem: inexperience and incompetence are just as bad when drawing districts.

 

[karolus]

No NOTHING happened.

Highest inflation in 40 years though, which had NOTHING to do with what the POTUS did.

If the vibe cession gets Trump back in office, because people are stupid enough to think that things were better under his administration, that is not the fault of Democrats.

It's the triumph of disinformation, turbo-charged right into the brains of millions of feeble-minded Americans.

Know you like to bring up the term "vibecesson" a lot, but honestly, nothing has changed in the political arena in this aspect. People often credit and blame the president for things beyond their control. It would be no different if the establishment pick Jeb Bush had been nominated and won in 2016, and Trump would have stayed on The Apprentice.

Can't blame political strategists for using this evergreen topic if it gets traction in the voting booth. It's the public who's to blame for believing impossibilities.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

No NOTHING happened.

Highest inflation in 40 years though, which had NOTHING to do with what the POTUS did.

If the vibe cession gets Trump back in office, because people are stupid enough to think that things were better under his administration, that is not the fault of Democrats.

It's the triumph of disinformation, turbo-charged right into the brains of millions of feeble-minded Americans.

But Democrats were the ones who downplayed the existence of inflation and then decided to tout and run on Bidenomics when the electorate was furious. Things were materially better for many under Trump, even if neither president drove those outcomes. We all know that elections are heavily influenced by things like gas prices (another reasons why a blank check for Netanyahu is insane).

You can't control prices, but you can control the quality of your messaging. This is just electoral malpractice:


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna122865

In a September focus group with Pennsylvania swing voters, one participant told the research firm Engagious that the concept was a “jumbled mess,” adding that “it’s really hard to explain.”

Biden is undeterred — at least for now. He has made the state of the nation's economy a central rationale of his re-election pitch, touting “Bidenomics” at events across the country.

Basically, Dems have spent the better part of the election poking the soft spot for voters by slapping the president's name on economic concerns and then bringing up that ownership.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/15/politics/kamala-harris-bidenomics-trump-advertisements/index.html

On an August afternoon last year in Washington, Kamala Harris appeared at a retail village to promote the Biden administration’s economic record.

“Bidenomics is working,” the vice president announced, touting the latest round of job numbers. “That is called Bidenomics, and we are very proud of Bidenomics.”

The Trump campaign and its allies have spent more than $38 million replaying that soundbite almost 70,000 times in campaign advertisements since Harris became the Democratic nominee, looking to capitalize on persistent voter concerns about the economy and blunt Harris’ turn-the-page messaging by yoking her to President Joe Biden’s record.

One of the ads, backed by more than $13 million, simply juxtaposes Harris on the campaign trail in 2024, speaking to voter concerns about rising prices, with the clip from 2023, and includes no other narration.

“Everyday prices are too high – food, rent, gas, back-to-school clothes,” Harris says in the clip featured in the ad. What Immediately follows is the 2023 clip of her saying, “That is called Bidenomics.”

 

[NewNinetyNine]

What’s weird is that both groups are extremely small portions of the US population; the attention they each attract is wildly disproportionate to their numbers. Jews make up 2.4% of the US population, while Arabs are only 0.65% of the population. Only eleven US cities have more than 100,000 Jews, with New York having about 4 times as many as any other city, 2.1 million. Only eleven US states have more than 100,000 Arabs (according to an Arab American Institute survey), with California, Michigan, and New York leading the way.

Neither the Jewish American nor Arab American population seems likely to be nearly big enough to sway the election, so I don’t know what Musk‘s PAC is trying to get out of this. All it shows is the moral bankruptcy of modern Republicans, and their willingness to use both Jews and Arabs as political pawns without caring about either at all.

Elections are decided in swing states, not by national popular voting.

Michigan was decided by 150K votes in 2020, and the election might come down to Michigan. There are 200Kish registered Muslim voters in Michigan, which could be a strong component of dismantling Biden's 2020 margin in 2024.

 

[wco81]

Over half of Americans are worth more than they were 4 years ago.

Yes prices are high and for people who faced high rents as well as high gas and grocery prices, many of them believe Trump would bring prices down to 2019 levels.

We know that isn't happening unless there's some calamitous series of events which trigger global deflation.

Whatever, people are going to "feel" that cost of living will dramatically change for the better based on the outcome of the election.

Hey but Trump and the Republicans have better "messaging."

Apparently Biden's failure was that he didn't lie as well as Trump does.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

If Trump wins and we do get a lot more fascist policies/actions in the US, I promise you I won't be sitting there thinking "Man, why did Biden do all of this?" Perhaps that train of thought helps some cope, but for me, it just muddies the waters into a "both-sides" cesspool where progress stalls.

When sane parties run weak politicians and fail to utilize their political power to meet popular needs, people like Trump may get elected.

Progress stalls when the party that is supposed to be a bulwark against insanity loses winnable elections for the presidency or legislature. When the history books are written, losing and being right is just losing on the page. No one is waxing poetic about Secretary Clinton's policy agenda right now.

 

[NewNinetyNine]

Hey but Trump and the Republicans have better "messaging."

Apparently Biden's failure was that he didn't lie as well as Trump does.

Go back and look at the photo. It's not failing to "lie as well" when you brand a hated economy with your candidate's name and then bring it up to voters over and over. It's electoral malpractice.

And right now Harris hasn't articulated a policy break or wider vision to differentiate herself from that lead balloon. In an election you ignore voters at your peril.

https://thehill.com/business/4934451-trump-harris-economy-poll/

In a survey released by Bankrate on Tuesday, 42 percent of Americans said Trump would be a better choice for their personal finances and inflation, while 45 percent of those polled also said he’d be “best for the economy.”

By contrast, 38 percent of respondents said Harris would be a better choice for their personal finances. Forty percent of those polled also backed her on the economy, and 39 percent said she’d be the best candidate on inflation.

Overall, more Americans, or 41 percent, said they view inflation as the biggest issue when thinking of the coming presidential election. Health care costs stood as the next biggest issue at 14 percent, affordable housing with 11 percent, and jobs and government spending at 8 and 7 percent, respectively.

 

[Happysin]

And right now Harris hasn't articulated a policy break or wider vision to differentiate herself from that lead balloon. In an election you ignore voters at your peril.

She absolutely-fucking-has.

 

[sword_9mm]

Biden really should've made inflation illegal.

Why didn't he? Who knows.

 

[Tofystedeth]

Go back and look at the photo. It's not failing to "lie as well" when you brand a hated economy with your candidate's name and then bring it up to voters over and over. It's electoral malpractice.

And right now Harris hasn't articulated a policy break or wider vision to differentiate herself from that lead balloon. In an election you ignore voters at your peril.

https://thehill.com/business/4934451-trump-harris-economy-poll/

Yes and? The electorate has long believed the lie that Republican policies are better for the economy. How do you counter that except by saying "Actually my policies have improved the economy and here's how" ?

 

[Defenestrar]

Biden really should've made inflation illegal.

Why didn't he? Who knows.

Or he could have just told the treasury to print enough money to pay off the national debt. Then we'd be debt free.

 

[wco81]

Go back and look at the photo. It's not failing to "lie as well" when you brand a hated economy with your candidate's name and then bring it up to voters over and over. It's electoral malpractice.

And right now Harris hasn't articulated a policy break or wider vision to differentiate herself from that lead balloon. In an election you ignore voters at your peril.

https://thehill.com/business/4934451-trump-harris-economy-poll/

We know about polls.

Unfortunately, we are learning in the age of social media and low-information that disinformation is more powerful than ever before.

Every presidential election, the Republicans tout their superiority in managing the economy, against all mountain of evidence.

This may be the first one in which people widely believe disinformation over the evidence.

Because they fucking feel things are bad, which leads to conclusions like the country being in depression or there being high unemployment or the stock market hasn't been hitting record highs this year.

It would be great if we could attribute these failures in processing evidence, how gullibly people are swallowing Trump's lies to brain fog or something.

For years we used to chuckle at things like only a small percentage of American youth being able to pick out the US on a world map or scratch our heads at the growing number of climate change deniers.

But it may only have been a matter of time before the idiocracy took over.

Because millions have been gaslit into believing that we went from the greatest economy ever under Trump to the worst one under Biden-Harris in just 4 short years.

 

[wallinbl]

Yes and? The electorate has long believed the lie that Republican policies are better for the economy. How do you counter that except by saying "Actually my policies have improved the economy and here's how" ?

It's absolutely bonkers that people believe the GOP is good for the economy or the debt. They have a long history of being utterly terrible for them. Trump's outright stated and repeated policies would tank the economy.

Polls just show you that a huge number of people are economically and civically illiterate and lust after con artists willing to promise them bullshit.

 

[Zich]

Biden really should've made inflation illegal.

Why didn't he? Who knows.

Still seeing random stuff around the webs like, "They say inflation is down! Then why is my burger still so expensive!!" Just lack of basic understanding of how anything works.

 

[CatBus]

Still seeing random stuff around the webs like, "They say inflation is down! Then why is my burger still so expensive!!" Just lack of basic understanding of how anything works.

People REALLY want prices to go down. Saying "No, you really don't want that, and here's why" is considered condescending and gets people mad, but reversing inflation would in fact be a serious problem. So with that topic off-limits, you can talk about things that will effectively accomplish the same thing in the eyes of the consumer -- higher wages, lower unemployment. "Your food costs $2000/yr more, but you also earn $2000/yr more, so it's a wash." That'll still get you a side-eye from most people, but at least they won't punch you, and some might nod their head in understanding. Economics is a tricky business to turn into a working election slogan. Well, it's tricky if you want your slogan to somewhat reflect reality, at least. It's pretty easy to run on snake oil.

 

[karolus]

What’s weird is that both groups are extremely small portions of the US population; the attention they each attract is wildly disproportionate to their numbers. Jews make up 2.4% of the US population, while Arabs are only 0.65% of the population. Only eleven US cities have more than 100,000 Jews, with New York having about 4 times as many as any other city, 2.1 million. Only eleven US states have more than 100,000 Arabs (according to an Arab American Institute survey), with California, Michigan, and New York leading the way.

Neither the Jewish American nor Arab American population seems likely to be nearly big enough to sway the election, so I don’t know what Musk‘s PAC is trying to get out of this. All it shows is the moral bankruptcy of modern Republicans, and their willingness to use both Jews and Arabs as political pawns without caring about either at all.

Sadly, it's unsurprising. What are the stats on transgendered people, an issue which the GOP has also whipped up into a campaign issue. It follows the authoritarian playbook of hitting oppressed minorities in order to stir up opprobrium and distract from the real issues. Since a side effect is stochastic terrorism, it should be called out whenever this type of ploy rears its ugly head.

 

[Getting Better]

couple thoughts from the prior couple pages.

It was surprising to see the positive, or at least neutral, reception the Harris interview had here after skimming the google news headlines. I generally like google news because it doesn't do much bubbling other than a "for you" section, so I see the headlines from a bunch of places. And for the interview, the articles linked made me think that the interview was as negative as Biden's debate.

I think this may be variance, and maybe got a more negative selection of articles out of the grab bag than normal probability would predict. But maybe not.

===

As for in person early voting, I can't understand why more people don't do this (in states with reasonable laws).

A week or two ago I spent 10 minutes at lunch time on whatever day struck my fancy and voted. They're open late (till 7:30pm?) a couple days a week as well. Why on earth wouldn't the vast majority of voters do this in places where it's this convenient? Maybe lack of close polling stations - In my state there are only a few early voting locations per county, compared to election day when there are many more sites, so maybe that's it?

I'll have to ask my wife - she always waits till election day despite already having locked in her vote in her mind months/years ago. She works from home and runs errands at will during the day. But still chooses not to vote early.

 

[sword_9mm]

Wife/I voted early for the governor race a couple years ago. Pretty painless and the place was empty.

I believe that opens up Oct 31. Used to be longer but I guess the Rs in the capital didn't like it or whatever.

 

[Visigoth]

As for in person early voting, I can't understand why more people don't do this (in states with reasonable laws).

A week or two ago I spent 10 minutes at lunch time on whatever day struck my fancy and voted. They're open late (till 7:30pm?) a couple days a week as well. Why on earth wouldn't the vast majority of voters do this in places where it's this convenient? Maybe lack of close polling stations - In my state there are only a few early voting locations per county, compared to election day when there are many more sites, so maybe that's it?

I'll have to ask my wife - she always waits till election day despite already having locked in her vote in her mind months/years ago. She works from home and runs errands at will during the day. But still chooses not to vote early.

There's only one polling place in my county for early voting and it's a fair drive from me. Whereas my election day polling place is just down the street from me so a lot more convenient for me to go to on election day. Especially since I'll either go very early in the morning or early afternoon (which seems hit a time to be after people voting on their lunch break and before people get off work) giving me little to no wait to vote.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

couple thoughts from the prior couple pages.

It was surprising to see the positive, or at least neutral, reception the Harris interview had here after skimming the google news headlines. I generally like google news because it doesn't do much bubbling other than a "for you" section, so I see the headlines from a bunch of places. And for the interview, the articles linked made me think that the interview was as negative as Biden's debate.

I think this may be variance, and maybe got a more negative selection of articles out of the grab bag than normal probability would predict. But maybe not.

I've not seen the interview. But this AP article gives me the impression the interviewer was hostile, given his rudeness:

When Baier kept talking as Harris tried to respond to his challenges on immigration, Harris said: “May I please finish? ... You have to let me finish, please.”

Baier challenged Harris over her attestations to Biden’s mental stamina after his disastrous debate with Trump in June that forced his exit from the 2024 presidential race and her elevation to the top of the ticket. She again defended Biden, but added, “Joe Biden is not on the ballot and Donald Trump is.”

I can understand positive reception, since it sounds like the best outcome was to not implode.

 

[wallinbl]

I can understand positive reception, since it sounds like the best outcome was to not implode.

If you can go on Fox News and not call them assholes, idiots, liars, etc, then it's pretty positive.

 

[Da Fish]

Biden is an institutionalist through and through—and that has its benefits and drawbacks. One key drawback was that it left him unable to effectively deal with anit-institutionalist bomb throwers like Trump and the MAGA faction he ushered in. A key example of this is his pick of Merrick Garland as AG. He was first floated as a milquetoast nominee to the Supreme Court—since it was hoped he would float through the bad-faith nomination processs. Not because he was deemed to be effective. This liminal and dangerous time was not suited for institutionalists, and I still find it surprising that he even got the 2020 nomination. Some people may have wanted a return to normalcy, but that was no longer attaninable.

There was some forward thinking around Garland as AG: Moving Merrick Garland from the DC Court of Appeals to AG created an empty seat that was filled by future Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

 

[wco81]

Interview with Layla Elabed, one of the leaders of the Uncommitted movement, which decided not to endorse a candidate for president but urged their followers not to enable Trump to win.

Apparently their leaders faced a big backlash.

Aymann Ismail: Can you tell me what’s happened in the lead-up to the election, after all the activity at the Democratic National Convention?

Layla Elabed: Things have been really hard ever since we came out with our nonendorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris, while also urging voters to block Trump. Abbas [Alawieh, a fellow leader of the movement] came out publicly in the Washington Post saying that if it was a binary choice between Harris or Donald Trump, he would vote for Harris. And then Lexi [Zeidan, another leader] with her anti-Trump video. They are being skinned alive by the community, who are frustrated, feeling like we’ve betrayed the grassroots movement and are offering a soft endorsement of Vice President Harris by saying how bad Trump is. Folks are taking that as “Oh, so you want us to vote for Kamala Harris?”

That isn’t what you’re doing?

We are signaling that to have the most fertile political landscape to continue what we do, we need to block Trump. And in a battleground state like Michigan, voting for Jill Stein could essentially help Donald Trump. There is a percent of uncommitted voters whose hard line is “Without a policy change, there is no way in hell I could ever vote for anybody in this administration, or vote for any candidate that hasn’t promised that they will protect innocent people.” I get that. I am one of those people and intend on skipping the top of the ticket. But there are a significant number of uncommitted voters who cast their vote between February and June as a way to send a message, who are now coming to this realization and the reality that it’s going to be either Vice President Harris or Donald Trump that is going to be president.

This movement is multiracial, multigenerational, multicultural, multireligious. We know that Vice President Harris is not going to be the hero on this issue. Some of our delegates will be voting for her and are really not happy about it. They’re not going to the polls joyous—it’s a very depressing vote and a very depressing election. But when you have someone like Donald Trump, it’s not just a Donald Trump presidency, or even a Republican Party. It’s a MAGA party that wants to defund the Department of Education, to strip away civil liberties, to see an aggressive mass deportation of our immigrant communities, and to criminalize Palestinian advocacy.

Until now, we’ve gone up against the status quo, and we’ve made strides and progress. The best conditions after this election where we can keep building the way that we’ve been building—not just for us, but for everybody that is doing Palestinian advocacy and liberation work, unfortunately—could be under Kamala Harris’ presidency.

How have conversations about this internally played out?

The political landscape in Dearborn is unique. People don’t necessarily want to hear about political strategy. And I don’t blame them. We are saying, “Let’s try to be politically strategic right now and empower ourselves by empowering the Democrats who are with us,” at a time when the level of dehumanization we are experiencing is at an all-time high. Their hard line is punishing this administration for complicity in genocide—which, yes, we all want them punished. Harris is not a hero on this issue, and she’s not very different from Trump on Israel. Blind unconditional support for Israel’s apartheid, occupation, siege, and violence against Palestinians is U.S. policy, not a Trump or Harris or Biden policy. It is a policy of this country to unconditionally support. This is not new. The genocide has only woken everybody up. And for me personally, I don’t think punishing Vice President Kamala Harris at this time is strategically the best thing for us to continue growing the broader Palestinian liberation movement.

Have you succeeded in changing anyone’s mind?

There is a silent group in the community that are holding their nose and voting for Harris because of the threat of a Trump presidency. This is not a narrative that resonates with everyone in our community. If the presidential primary is any indication for how this November election will look, the majority of registered voters in Dearborn will not go out and vote.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/10/kamala-harris-donald-trump-election-israel-michigan.html
She also talks about broader policy goals and the alliances they've made with other activist groups on other issues.

What do you think has been most effective in trying to get people to reconsider not voting?

I don’t know if people remember what it was like under Donald Trump. I remember. I’m a community organizer, and it was, like, every week of rapid response. It was protecting mass deportation of our community members. It was going from Black Lives Matter protests to a Muslim ban rally. And if we are all going to be distracted by blocking a MAGA administration that is stripping away our civil liberties, when are we going to be advocating for Palestinian human rights? When are the United Auto Workers going to be advocating for Palestinian human rights? When is the Movement for Black Lives going to be able to do that, when we are all so distracted by Trump’s Day 1 promise of instituting the largest deportation operation in this country’s history? And around Palestinian advocacy specifically, he has already signaled that he will be targeting students and stripping organizations that are doing Palestinian advocacy work of their 501(c)(3) status. If this work becomes criminalized under a Trump presidency, I can see our allies that have been supportive becoming hesitant, not because they suddenly won’t care about Palestinian human rights, but because they fear losing their nonprofit status and funding, and because they serve a lot of other communities and want to be able to continue doing that.

So what does the uncommitted movement have planned for October and November?

We don’t have a strategy going into November. We put out statements that we weren’t going to endorse Kamala Harris. Now we’re educating the community about the political assessment behind that. We’ve been meeting with coalition partners like Green New Deal and Sunrise Movement to figure out what’s next. Do we create an organization? Hand this work to existing ones? Dismantle and call it a day? Or keep a campaign structure into the 100 days of the next administration? We’re talking to experts, Capitol Hill folks, and political strategists.

There’s a number of ways that the uncommitted infrastructure that we built could be leveraged. Right now, we have 90 Democratic leaders who had signed a letter of support for a resolution to condition aid to Israel. We have the support and allyship of a number of organizations and entities that live within the Democratic coalition: UAW, the teachers union, the American Postal Workers, a number of labor unions, climate change folks, those who led the Green New Deal and Sunrise Movement and Working Families Party, Movement for Black Lives, the Black Church PAC, Rabbis for Ceasefire, and more left anti-Zionist Jewish groups. So I want to see this coalition used in a principled way to be able to continue advocating for Palestinian human rights and create the conditions for a liberated Palestine, hopefully in the near future.

That is one of the reasons why we came to the assessment that we did in our nonendorsement of Vice President Harris, but also our recommendation to block Trump. Because if we are going to use this coalition to continue advocating for Palestinian human rights, then we also have a responsibility to all of our allies and coalition partners that we are ensuring that all of our civil liberties are going to be protected.

Probably going to be too little, too late.

For most of the year, they've let the rage flow freely and now at the 11th hour, they're worried the voting choices may be counterproductive to their near and long-term goals.