• 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

Staff ideas about a boss are not going to interest the low information voter. Even less than pictures of Ivanka on Trump's lap and Trump with Epstein.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
So did Hillary, but there is such a wide and deep vein of anti expertise, anti intellectualism, and anti bright & capable females who are a threat to the natural order of things in this country…
Click to expand...

As I noted elsewhere, Magats on Twitter accused her of wanting to cheat in the TV debate by using notes.
 
Earlier today I saw where that POS Trump was threatening to jail people who had donated money to the Harris Presidental Campaign.

Soon after I heard this bit of news I donated $25.00 to the Harris Presidential Campaign.
 
acbytesla said:
The article was behind a paywall. I didn't read it.
I perhaps made an incorrect inference.
Click to expand...


Found a non-paywall version.


Kamala Harris Ran Her Office Like A Prosecutor

“It’s stressful to brief her, because she’s read all the materials,
has annotated it and is prepared to talk through it,” said one former aide.

“You can’t come to the vice president and just ask her to do something,”
said another staffer. “You need to have a why.”

That behavior manifests in other encounters, the staffer continued, such as
when someone pays her compliments. “She’ll turn to them and say ‘why?,’
and that throws them off,” the staffer said.
Click to expand...


Flattery will get you nowhere, I suppose.
 
The voter has no idea (90% of them) how the president relates to the economy.

The voter may well be right in deciding that the party in power is responsible for the government part of the economy. The normal economic cycles are a fuzzy concept to them. But the facts do not really get to the voter, and there is a lag time of up to a year to see any affect the current administration has on the economy. Working class will only remember that "Biden tried to forgive student loans for those college folks." Even the jobs numbers mean nothing if you have a crappy job.
 
Tero said:
The voter has no idea (90% of them) how the president relates to the economy.
Click to expand...
Hell, even economists argue vehemently about it
Tero said:
The voter may well be right in deciding that the party in power is responsible for the government part of the economy. The normal economic cycles are a fuzzy concept to them. But the facts do not really get to the voter, and there is a lag time of up to a year to see any affect the current administration has on the economy. Working class will only remember that "Biden tried to forgive student loans for those college folks." Even the jobs numbers mean nothing if you have a crappy job.
Click to expand...

.And they might not be. The reality is the economy is like a super tanker. It takes a lot of time for it to respond.
 
Last edited:
Crossbow said:
Earlier today I saw where that POS Trump was threatening to jail people who had donated money to the Harris Presidental Campaign.

Soon after I heard this bit of news I donated $25.00 to the Harris Presidential Campaign.
Click to expand...

I did the same. I’ll put in the ground any MAGAT who tries to put their hands on me for doing so.
 
Tero said:
The voter has no idea (90% of them) how the president relates to the economy... Even the jobs numbers mean nothing if you have a crappy job.
Click to expand...
Several weeks ago I saw a survey, not on candidate preference, but on how people interpret economic news. Some of the standard economic indicators that media like to use to show how good the economy is were seen as exactly the opposite by most people. Those indicators have gotten so detached from real people's real lives, and the economy has been getting worse for so many years while the media have switched back & forth between admitting and denying it, that people either don't listen anymore or do but figure the news is actually bad when the media say stuff that they expect to sound good.
 
We keep looping back to different versions of the same base idea. Once you get away from politically active people (which are NOT the biggest voting demographic by far) who actually read up on and care about the issues and/or are a political fanboy for one of the parties the great massive demographic of actual voters is making their decision based on NOTHING that politician can actually account for.

A vague, gut feeling that is only loosely and emotionally attached at best to any real issue IS the biggest driving force in politics by such a margin that everything we and the talking heads on television talk about might as well not matter.

And that is both deeply weird and very, very hard to account for.
 
JoeMorgue said:
We keep looping back to different versions of the same base idea. Once you get away from politically active people (which are NOT the biggest voting demographic by far) who actually read up on and care about the issues and/or are a political fanboy for one of the parties the great massive demographic of actual voters is making their decision based on NOTHING that politician can actually account for.

A vague, gut feeling that is only loosely and emotionally attached at best to any real issue IS the biggest driving force in politics by such a margin that everything we and the talking heads on television talk about might as well not matter.

And that is both deeply weird and very, very hard to account for.
Click to expand...

Like every other decision, we did not know how we made it. It is spme kind of rule of thumb or general feel. Tversky and Kahmeman stuff:
tversky%20kahneman.jpg
 
Okay but this kind of "Every decision is really random" nihilism both strikes me as lazy and completely non-useful.

We're one step away from arguing free will and I like to hope we can improve the political environment of the US without getting that deep in esoteria.
 
It's not random. It just means elections are won on feelings, not policy. Feelings are why Clinton lost the rust belt, despite having a detailed plan for revitalization that started with "accept that your family's way of life is dying and never coming back," while the other guy promised to wave his dick around and conjure jobs from Gyna.

A simpler hard truth I'd like to see accepted more is that voting isn't a zero-sum game. Votes shifting from party A to party B largely isn't people deciding to vote B instead of A, it's some of A staying home and some of B being motivated to vote. The proportion of people who actually switch themselves is vanishingly small, especially in times as divided as this.

What that means in practical terms is that instead of party A's campaign chasing reluctant B voters, who are again largely not going to vote for A despite a relentless pursuit of the middle, they can motivate the A base to increase their own turnout, even if it's nowhere near B. And may we never need to see a sit-down interview in a small diner in Iowa again.
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
It's not random. It just means elections are won on feelings, not policy. Feelings are why Clinton lost the rust belt, despite having a detailed plan for revitalization that started with "accept that your family's way of life is dying and never coming back," while the other guy promised to wave his dick around and conjure jobs from Gyna.

A simpler hard truth I'd like to see accepted more is that voting isn't a zero-sum game. Votes shifting from party A to party B largely isn't people deciding to vote B instead of A, it's some of A staying home and some of B being motivated to vote. The proportion of people who actually switch themselves is vanishingly small, especially in times as divided as this.

What that means in practical terms is that instead of party A's campaign chasing reluctant B voters, who are again largely not going to vote for A despite a relentless pursuit of the middle, they can motivate the A base to increase their own turnout, even if it's nowhere near B. And may we never need to see a sit-down interview in a small diner in Iowa again.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong, but I don't think it's as simple as a pure "facts/feelings" dichotomy, although that's a big part of it.

This is brushing up against a broader topic, it's cultural level above even just politics, that's been on my mind for some time now.

(This is going to be very rambling and stream of consciousness, feel free to skip, it's mostly me talking stuff out that's been on my mind for a bit)

It's something I'm still trying to fully verbalize so this is not going to be super clear but (very) loosely speaking it's this. We as a society currently have ways to talk about what we have to do. What can you make me do, what can I make you do, what we should be allowed to use the force of societal pressure and government intervention to make each other do. We as a society are absolutely crap about talking about what we SHOULD do.

The rather crass metaphor that's been bumping around in my head is a public pool. People go to this pool to have fun and relax in the water. One day while floating on your back a turd floats by you. You get out of the pool. Everybody else gets out of the pool. Turns out someone crapped in the pool.

But the person didn't mean to. They have a condition; they can't help it. They have a note from their doctor, they are super apologetic, they completely understand why you got out of the pool.

Somebody steps up and demands that the offending party be banned from the pool. You (oh and by the way the "yous" are all general and non-directed in this metaphor) goes "No wait we can't do that. It's not his fault. We have no valid reason to ban him." A debate among all the pool goers is held and in the end the consensus is that the group has no right to prevent the individual from going in the pool.

And then... nobody gets back in the pool because nobody wants to be in turd filled water. A consensus on enforcement has been reached, but life is very rarely about enforcement. 99% of society interactions happen on a voluntary level, not an enforcement level.

Nobody feels the have a right to ban the individual who craps in the pool from the pool, but nobody wants to be in the pool with a turd, you can't keep a pool open for just one guy to crap in, so the pool closes and, to return to a phrase I use a lot, nobody wins in that scenario.

A lot of discourse seem to be unable to make that distinction. A lot of good, smart, well meaning people don't get that:

"I hate left handed people so I'm going to hurt them, try to prevent them using public spaces, spread lies and falsehoods about them in actual news sources, and try to enact laws that hurt them"

and

"I hate left handed people so I'm going to not interact with them in ways which are totally voluntary on my part"

are not the same thing. Not hiring black people and not inviting them over for dinner are both racism, but we can't "enforce" the latter the way we can (and should) enforce the former.

Tolerance is an amazing thing that a society needs to thrive and we could certainly do with more of, but a society can't run on tolerance. You need acceptance, and embracement, stuff like that.

A society where the Left Handers and the Right Handers hate each other but have come to a mutual tolerance pact is a center that cannot hold.

This came about because of something someone said in a totally different topic and context that got me thinking.

You run a small business. Which one of these is actually a bigger deal in the sense of "I want to retain customers?" The "This place sucks! How dare you not accept my expired coupon! I'm not shopping here again! You've just lost a customer! (Slams door on way out)" types or the perfectly polite, civil people who walk into your store, browse for a few minutes, are 100% delightful to deal with while they are in the store, but then walk out without buying anything because your store doesn't offer them what they want at the price they want?

I basically expanded that to politics. Who loses you more actual votes? People who don't like your policies or people who just don't like you?

Most people are they voting for "Left versus Right" or "Is a world full of stodgy old white men in suits or gender fluid people with dyed hair and cats eye glasses the just world I want to live in?"

I have NO idea if anything made sense in that rambling and thank anyone who actually read it. There's a nugget of something in there I think that we need to talk about sooner or later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom