• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Kamala Harris Election Campaign

Delvo said:
Those slogans stood for reducing immigration, ending corruption, and bringing the corrupt to justice. Along with those, but maybe not so sloganable, he also talked about improving the economic situation for the lower/working/middle classes, for whom it has spent decades getting worse.

His opponent was the one whose ads only ever mentioned a policy issue 26% the time, and who, when she did respond to people bringing up the economy or systematic corruption, insisted that everything's fine so nothing needs to be done.
Click to expand...

everything was kinda fine for capitalism. definitely better than Bush years
 
The Great Zaganza said:
the windfall in donations is primarily an indicator that Harris/Walz have a much more energized base than Biden had - it does not necessarily translate into more vote.

And it is doubtful how this campaign can spend, what? a billion now?, before November in a more impactful way than they could have spend just the Biden Nest Egg.
Click to expand...

down ballot. Get more Democrats in the House and hold the Senate. Maybe flip a few state legislatures while they are at it.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
the windfall in donations is primarily an indicator that Harris/Walz have a much more energized base than Biden had - it does not necessarily translate into more vote.

And it is doubtful how this campaign can spend, what? a billion now?, before November in a more impactful way than they could have spend just the Biden Nest Egg.
Click to expand...

I would disagree entirely. Money can be reflective of a more energized base. But not necessarily. Depends on if that is a lot of smaller donations or fewer larger donations. And a more energized base almost always means more votes.

You would also be surprised at how easy it is to spend billions of dollars effectively. While I would agree early money is more effective than later money. Later money is almost always ad buys. Early money tends to be spent on organizing.
 
"Energized base" is one of the most meaningless and overused buzzwords in politics. Renfield didn't love Dracula as much as Democrats love "getting energized" and then not voting. Like real talk. Go on Twitter or Reddit or... well here. Find the 10 biggest, loudest Democrats, the real hardcore "The future of the world depends on this election" types. I'd bet a mortgage payment 3 of them minimum aren't going to actually vote.

Protesting is sexy. Getting in screaming matches with the other side is sexy. Voting is boring and bureaucratic and uses "the system" and it's the same thing the boring old white people do to win elections.

The one advantage the Republicans have is their base doesn't have the "I won't do anything unless it feels like rebellion, I'm less a Democrat then some sad sack who's angry I missed the 60s" types.

(Some) liberals are bad because unless it feels like a revolution, they don't want to do it.

The only meaningful action for every average citizen within a rounding error in politics is voting. Literally everything else is 99.999% meaningless. Angry Tweets don't win EC Votes.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
But ALL presidential campaigns are terrible at passing some of their excess cash down to local candidates.
Click to expand...

True, the Obama campaigns were apparently really terrible at this.

But, maybe the Harris campaign wil lbe slightly less terrible.
 
The Democrats ignoring/being too good for state level power has been an untalked about issue for a long time.

"You might not be interested in politics, but that doesn't stop it from being interested in you" is more true for State Level politics then anything.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"Energized base" is one of the most meaningless and overused buzzwords in politics. Renfield didn't love Dracula as much as Democrats love "getting energized" and then not voting. Like real talk. Go on Twitter or Reddit or... well here. Find the 10 biggest, loudest Democrats, the real hardcore "The future of the world depends on this election" types. I'd bet a mortgage payment 3 of them minimum aren't going to actually vote.

Protesting is sexy. Getting in screaming matches with the other side is sexy. Voting is boring and bureaucratic and uses "the system" and it's the same thing the boring old white people do to win elections.

The one advantage the Republicans have is their base doesn't have the "I won't do anything unless it feels like rebellion, I'm less a Democrat then some sad sack who's angry I missed the 60s" types.

(Some) liberals are bad because unless it feels like a revolution, they don't want to do it.

The only meaningful action for every average citizen within a rounding error in politics is voting. Literally everything else is 99.999% meaningless. Angry Tweets don't win EC Votes.
Click to expand...
Minor bit of both sides, I do think the GOP has something similar what you describe for the dems. A big part of the GOP base, the part that really loves trump, might hate the old GOP establishment more than they hate dems, or at least its close as to who they hate more.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
the windfall in donations is primarily an indicator that Harris/Walz have a much more energized base than Biden had - it does not necessarily translate into more vote.

And it is doubtful how this campaign can spend, what? a billion now?, before November in a more impactful way than they could have spend just the Biden Nest Egg.
Click to expand...

I have a sort of practical approach to donating. I don't donate until about now. So this time I was the one that sent the money in the right direction. I also think a lot of advertising money is wasted until September. The personal stories...like wicked witch Trump now melting...will develop as news stories without my interfrerence.
 
JoeMorgue said:
The Democrats ignoring/being too good for state level power has been an untalked about issue for a long time.

"You might not be interested in politics, but that doesn't stop it from being interested in you" is more true for State Level politics then anything.
Click to expand...

doesn't that go against your rant above, though? If the democrats aren't engaging people at their elvel and showing how the Democrats are better for the issues that affect them, why do you think those people are going to show up to vote in local and midterm elections?
 
Trump is failing with Kamala attacks. I did not dislike Hillary, I thought she was a good politician and had leadership skills. But I also did not really need to know more about her. I was not a fan. Kamala is showing more charisma and is more likeable. Her speeches are not better than Hillary's. But she nevertheless is reaching the low information voters.
 
Last edited:
Tero said:
Trump is failing with Kamala attacks. I did not dislike Hillary, I thought she was a good politician and had leadership skills. But I also did not really need to know more about her. I was not a fan. Kamala is showing more charisma and is more likeable. Her speeches are not better than Hillary's. But she nevertheless is reaching the low information voters.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with this. I've read she was very good with one on one interactions. Super smart. Incredibly hard worker. But she never came off that appealing in crowds. It's like the difference between a great actor and a movie star. We all appreciate a great actor. But most of the time people pay to see the movie star.
 
ahhell said:
I'm pretty sure they aren't legally allowed to pass cash down to local candidates.
Click to expand...

They absolutely are. There is a sepcific carve out in the campaign finance laws that allow one political campaign to donate to another. They can also donate to the aprties themselves.
 
ahhell said:
I'm pretty sure they aren't legally allowed to pass cash down to local candidates.
Click to expand...

Depends on how it was donated. Let's just say that most of it they can in fact pass it down.

Ninja'd by Donal.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
If you can't share resources what's the point of a political party?
Click to expand...
Part of the reasons the US parties don't matter that much anymore is because the individual candidates can raise money so easily on the internet.

Well, I learned something. Not sure how I feel about it, I mean, if I give to Harris, I kind of expect it to go to her, not some guy in Arkansas. I think that's different than if I donate money to the party, in which case, I hope they'd spend it on whatever candidate needs it and where it would do the most good. I wouldn't want them to spend it in some district where the candidate doesn't have a chance or where the other candidate doesn't have a chance.
 
If you are donating to any presidential candidate, you ostensibly suppor their agenda. A president needs a House and Senate to pass said agenda.

We've also seen that campaign funds to have a point of diminishing returns. there are only so many TV spots you can buy.
 
Last edited:
Donal said:
If you are donating to any presidential candidate, you ostensibly suppor their agenda. A president needs a House and Senate to pass said agenda.

We've also seen that campaign funds to have a point of diminishing returns. there are only so many TV spots you can buy.
Click to expand...

None of that is wrong, like I said, I'm not sure how I feel about it. Partly, I'm of a mind that if I want to donate to the party generally, I can, so if I'm donating to a specific candidate, I think the money ought to go to that candidate. Partly, I agree with what you've said. Its possible I like a particular candidate but not the party generally. It's a bit like that controversy from a while back where the red cross got a bunch of money after a particular hurricane and folks were upset that the money mostly just went to their general funds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom