Kamala Harris Election Campaign

[Stacyhs]

Sure, sure. Tax-funded comprehensive education through post-secondary school, including trade schools, is totally a republican position. As is the position of having all doctors, hospitals, and the entire delivery of care in the US be run by the government - absolutely a right wing talking point. And legalized marijuana and psychedelics, yep, totally republican. And females being eligible for the draft. And revising the criminal justice system so that those who have repaid their debt to society get full reinstatement of all rights once the sentence is served, and prisoners should be allowed to vote because they're still citizens. Yep, I'm just full to the brim of right wing views.

You make this mistake over and over. You err in thinking that "not progressive" is the same as "right wing".

Interestingly, I see no mention above of immigration, abortion rights, or the economy. Those would be the most telling issues of your general position.
I'd like to know what major Trump policies you do support and which major Harris policies you don't.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Interestingly, I see no mention above of immigration, abortion rights, or the economy. Those would be the most telling issues of your general position.
I'd like to know what major Trump policies you do support and which major Harris policies you don't.

I don't have a clear policy in mind for immigration. Generally, I think we need to have our borders be less porous, and we need to figure out some way to mitigate the volumes coming through claiming asylum - especially since most of them are fleeing poverty and corruption, not political or religious persecution. I don't think it's reasonable to allow in a large volume of people with a decade long waiting list when 95% of them aren't going to meet the threshold for asylum. It's an undue burden on our already strained economy, as well as cruel to those people. But I don't have enough of a specific outline for a solution to state anything of my own.

Sort of the same thing with the economy. Right now it's pretty well screwed, but there are so many problems I don't know where to start. I don't want to raise taxes on lower or middle income people, I think a moderate increase on higher income is reasonable. I think the corporate rate should be higher and I want some changes in what can be deducted prior to taxes. I don't think that taxing wealth is a good idea, but I don't know enough when it comes to investments, stocks, bonds, etc to have a reasonable suggestion for those.

I want abortion rights to pretty much go back to what they were under Roe: Completely discretionary prior to viability, limited past viability to situations involving a risk to health or material disability. It's a reasonable position that grants autonomy to the mother while also acknowledging that at some point in the process it's no longer just a fetus, it's a baby.

 

[johnny karate]

Sure, sure. Tax-funded comprehensive education through post-secondary school, including trade schools, is totally a republican position. As is the position of having all doctors, hospitals, and the entire delivery of care in the US be run by the government - absolutely a right wing talking point. And legalized marijuana and psychedelics, yep, totally republican. And females being eligible for the draft. And revising the criminal justice system so that those who have repaid their debt to society get full reinstatement of all rights once the sentence is served, and prisoners should be allowed to vote because they're still citizens. Yep, I'm just full to the brim of right wing views.

You make this mistake over and over. You err in thinking that "not progressive" is the same as "right wing".

I love it when totally not Trump supporters play the “Just because I’m not progressive doesn’t mean I’m right wing!” card.

Newsflash: No ever said it did.

It’s the repetition of right wing lies and propaganda that makes everyone think you’re right wing.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't have a clear policy in mind for immigration. Generally, I think we need to have our borders be less porous, and we need to figure out some way to mitigate the volumes coming through claiming asylum - especially since most of them are fleeing poverty and corruption, not political or religious persecution. I don't think it's reasonable to allow in a large volume of people with a decade long waiting list when 95% of them aren't going to meet the threshold for asylum. It's an undue burden on our already strained economy, as well as cruel to those people. But I don't have enough of a specific outline for a solution to state anything of my own.

Sort of the same thing with the economy. Right now it's pretty well screwed, but there are so many problems I don't know where to start. I don't want to raise taxes on lower or middle income people, I think a moderate increase on higher income is reasonable. I think the corporate rate should be higher and I want some changes in what can be deducted prior to taxes. I don't think that taxing wealth is a good idea, but I don't know enough when it comes to investments, stocks, bonds, etc to have a reasonable suggestion for those.

I want abortion rights to pretty much go back to what they were under Roe: Completely discretionary prior to viability, limited past viability to situations involving a risk to health or material disability. It's a reasonable position that grants autonomy to the mother while also acknowledging that at some point in the process it's no longer just a fetus, it's a baby.

"I don't have a clear policy in mind for immigration. Generally, I think we need to have our borders be less porous, and we need to figure out some way to mitigate the volumes coming through claiming asylum - especially since most of them are fleeing poverty and corruption, not political or religious persecution. I don't think it's reasonable to allow in a large volume of people with a decade long waiting list when 95% of them aren't going to meet the threshold for asylum. It's an undue burden on our already strained economy, as well as cruel to those people. But I don't have enough of a specific outline for a solution to state anything of my own."

Harris: "further tightening of asylum restrictions." "More serious criminal charges" for migrants who repeatedly cross the border illegally, as well as a new requirement that asylum claims be made only at official U.S. ports of entry. "I reject the false choice that suggests we must choose either between securing our border and creating a system that is orderly, safe and humane," she said during the border visit."
"Harris highlights her support for the bipartisan border security bill that Trump helped kill earlier this year. The bill would have provided new funding for 1,500 new border agents, as well as funding for "more detection technology to intercept fentanyl." (The legislation would also have "given the president greater authority to shut down the border when crossings are high" and closed some asylum loopholes, said The Washington Post.) Harris said she would revive that bill — part of an approach that includes both "strong border security and an earned pathway to citizenship" for migrants, her website said."
"After hitting a record high in December 2023, the numbers of migrants crossing the border has plummeted since then."

Trump: close down the border, use the National Guard to round up millions of immigrants for mass expulsions through deportation camps.

Closing the border is not feasible as thousands of legal residents and citizens cross the border every day, some daily. Hundreds of businesses transport goods between the borders daily. It would cause a huge crisis.

 

[Stacyhs]

Sort of the same thing with the economy. Right now it's pretty well screwed, but there are so many problems I don't know where to start. I don't want to raise taxes on lower or middle income people, I think a moderate increase on higher income is reasonable. I think the corporate rate should be higher and I want some changes in what can be deducted prior to taxes. I don't think that taxing wealth is a good idea, but I don't know enough when it comes to investments, stocks, bonds, etc to have a reasonable suggestion for those.

The economy is NOT "pretty well screwed":

Inflation: "The annual inflation rate for the United States was 2.4% for the 12 months ending September, compared to the previous rate increase of 2.5%, according to U.S. Labor Department data published on October 10, 2024."

Sept. and Oct. Unemployment: "4.1%" "In general, most experts deem unemployment between 3% and 5% to be ideal"

Stock Market: Dow Jones above 42,000 today. "Stock market today: Dow, S&P 500 close at record highs, Nasdaq surges amid rate cut euphoria" (Sept 15, 2024)

Wall Street Journal Oct. 31, 2014: "U.S. Economic Growth Extends Solid Streak. GDP rose at a 2.8% annual rate in the third quarter, easing slightly from the previous quarter"

TAXES:

HARRIS: " Harris’s tax proposals generally fit within a well-defined framework. She backs tax cuts for low- and moderate-income households. And she especially favors families with children.
At the same time, she’d raise taxes on high-income households and corporations. With one big exception, she’d stay well within the boundaries of the current income tax system.

TRUMP: "Trump, by contrast, would blow a major hole in the income tax. He’d slash the corporate income tax rate and exempt wide swaths of income from the individual income tax. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Trump’s tax cuts would reduce federal revenues by about $9.5 trillion over the next decade, about one-quarter of projected individual income and corporate income tax revenues."
"Most importantly, he claims he’d replace the income tax with worldwide tariffs—an idea that is impossible to achieve but sends an important signal about his intentions. Project2025, drafted by many former Trump advisers, explicitly calls for replacing the income tax with some form of consumption tax."

"Harris would raise the current 21 percent corporate tax rate to 28 percent while Trump would cut the rate to 20 percent for most corporations and 15 percent for those that manufacture their products in the US.

For high-income households, Harris would increase the top tax rates on ordinary income and capital gains and impose a 25 percent minimum tax on unrealized capital gains of those with net worth in excess of $100 million.

Trump has identified only two sources of new tax revenue: His tariffs and full repeal of the green energy provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, which would save about $700 billion over 10 years. In sharp contrast to Harris, he has proposed no explicit tax increases targeted to those with high incomes."

Trump's tax plan would increase the national debt twice as much as Harris' plan:

" The CRFB estimates Harris’s tax and spending plans would, on net, add about $4 trillion to the federal debt over the next decade. The group calculates Trump would add almost $8 trillion to the debt. He’d also accelerate Social Security’s insolvency by 3 years, according to CRFB.

 

[Stacyhs]

"Emily's Cat said:
I want abortion rights to pretty much go back to what they were under Roe: Completely discretionary prior to viability, limited past viability to situations involving a risk to health or material disability. It's a reasonable position that grants autonomy to the mother while also acknowledging that at some point in the process it's no longer just a fetus, it's a baby."

And you're voting for Trump whose SC justices threw out R v W which led to many states virtually outlawing abortions and causing irreparable harm to women?

Sorry, but so far, you've only given me good reasons to vote for Harris and not a single one to vote for Trump.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

marriage strictly limited to a male-female pairing, significant reduction in the size of government and a rollback of regulations, reduced taxes on corporations and the wealthy?

Are these the policy positions that you agree with Trump on?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I love it when totally not Trump supporters play the “Just because I’m not progressive doesn’t mean I’m right wing!” card.

Newsflash: No ever said it did.

It’s the repetition of right wing lies and propaganda that makes everyone think you’re right wing.

It's funny how she insists that she supports Trump because of his policy positions, yet pretty much every policy position she describes herself as having is the opposite of Trump and Republicans stand for. It's almost like she's a one-issue voter (anti-trans).

 

[psionl0]

My views on 3rd party voting are that they are just a different way of supporting Trump, yes.

That's not true. FPTP means that 3rd party voting is the same as not voting. Which party benefits depends on which party you would have voted for otherwise.

 

[The Don]

I don't have any special insight, and your tune changed pretty quick in this follow up. You never said "toss up" or anything similar. You said not enough Republicans are voting and Trump will "likely" win the electoral college when in fact you have no idea.

Like I said, you do this in everything and then when you get called out you do this exact same thing. Now it's humming and hawing about it being a toss up.

Yes, not enough Republicans in the swing states have changed their vote because it shouldn't even be close, much less a nail-biting toss-up. VP Harris should be miles ahead in all but the reddest of red states. The vast majority of Republicans who vote are going to vote for President Trump.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

That's not true. FPTP means that 3rd party voting is the same as not voting. Which party benefits depends on which party you would have voted for otherwise.

You could almost say "Third party voting benefits the candidate you like least"

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Being a Dedicated Centrist requires one to hold the unwavering view that "both sides are equally bad." If this means that one must put their thumb on the scales in order to maintain the belief, then so be it.

Dedicated Centrists will spout the view that "both sides are equally bad" but all too often they fall in line behind the person furthest to the right.

 

[Darat]

"Emily's Cat said:
I want abortion rights to pretty much go back to what they were under Roe: Completely discretionary prior to viability, limited past viability to situations involving a risk to health or material disability. It's a reasonable position that grants autonomy to the mother while also acknowledging that at some point in the process it's no longer just a fetus, it's a baby."

And you're voting for Trump whose SC justices threw out R v W which led to many states virtually outlawing abortions and causing irreparable harm to women?

Sorry, but so far, you've only given me good reasons to vote for Harris and not a single one to vote for Trump.

I am sure now that you've demonstrated that Harris will deliver on the things EC says are important to them and you have shown Trump will not they will change their voting intention.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Maybe not definitive, but Copilot tells me...

Is the National Guard part of the United States Armed Forces?

Yes, the National Guard is part of the United States Armed Forces. It serves both state and federal functions. When under state control, governors can call upon the National Guard for emergencies like natural disasters. But under federal activation, the President can deploy them for national missions, often alongside regular military forces.

Quite the dual role, huh? What sparked your interest in the National Guard?

Technically speaking isn't every adult living the US potentially part of the military, as part of the Unregulated Militia?

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

E

Interestingly, I see no mention above of immigration, abortion rights, or the economy. Those would be the most telling issues of your general position.
I'd like to know what major Trump policies you do support and which major Harris policies you don't.

Emily's Cat is also heavily invested in anti-trans too.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

E

Emily's Cat is also heavily invested in anti-trans too.

She's kept that quiet...

 

[johnny karate]

This is a real offer: I will donate $100 to a charity of their choice if anyone claiming Trump is better on policy can cite one of those polices and a) explain in detail the net benefit of that policy and b) use only his words or official campaign materials as a source.

I don't want to see any Trumpsplaining. I want to see you quote Trump's statements on said policy and then defend his exact words.

And again, details please. "We need to close the border" isn't a policy position, it's a slogan. You would need to provide details on how the policy of closing the border would be carried out and why it's a net benefit, as Trump or his campaign has explained it.

Once you've met all those requirements, you can provide a link to your charity of choice and I will provide a receipt for the $100 donation.

Bumping this again. I’ve recently seen at least two posters enthusiastically announce that they’re voting for Trump and yet strangely I have no takers for this offer.

I’m start to suspect that Trump supporters don’t really support him because of his policy positions…

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Bumping this again. I’ve recently seen at least two posters enthusiastically announce that they’re voting for Trump and yet strangely I have no takers for this offer.

I’m start to suspect that Trump supporters don’t really support him because of his policy positions…

Reminds me of two threads for a while back. One of them asked Dump supporters to list the good things he had done in their eyes. There were nearly no replies. The second asked Dump opponents to list his achievements. That thread was pages and pages long, I seem to recall, lots of people who despised Dump and were terrified of him were still able to name things he had done that they agreed were good for the country.

It does tell me two things: That they're cultists who have grown accustomed to repeating shallow talking points, and struggle when asked to actually think for themselves or contribute anything beyond the talking points they receive from Drumpf and his pundits, and that, as you say, they don't care about policies in the first place. It's all about fear, nationalism and fascism, and a desire for acts of cruelty.

Edit: Oh, and it just occured to me --part of the reason why they didn't reply was probably that the things were things they couldn't say out loud. You know, like "He's hurting liberal peoples' feelings", "he's sticking it to the gay and trans people", and "we finally have a proper racist in power!"? Those things. Things they can't express outside of backyard BBQs with the boys, or edgy online echo chambers.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Perhaps you have some special insight which allows you to be confident of a VP Harris victory, but from this side of the pond it looks uncomfortably like a toss up.

I'll share what I have. tl;dr - the polls are kinda sus, but there's no way of telling exactly until the only poll that counts on Nov 5th.

If you read one meta-article about polling, make it this one:

No Matter What Happens In This Election, Nobody Is Allowed To Get Mad At Me | Defector

We are less than two weeks out from the 2024 presidential election, and it’s time to take stock of the race. As regular readers of Defector are certainly aware, I have spent the last few months using my proprietary prediction model, which was first created to project Tom Brady’s weekly levels of...

defector.com

It's only half joking. Thing is, no one is calling it a toss-up. It could be a toss up, or a landslide either way. They're not saying. They don't know.

Trump and Harris are both a normal polling error away from a blowout

How accurate will the polls of the 2024 presidential election be?

abcnews.go.com

Whatever happens, whoever wins, the pollsters are going to claim they predicted it because almost every possible result is within reaching distance of where they've been all race.

And they've been unusually steady in that middle of the road, enough so that Nate Silver thinks they're crap. Basically the same thing that happened in 2016, only now everyone is smoothing it into a horse race so whatever happens they can't get called out for being wrong like in 2016.

Nate Silver: ‘Cheating’ Pollsters Are Putting ‘Finger on the Scale’

“I kind of trust pollsters less,” said Silver about election forecasts, alleging that pollsters are putting their “finger on the scale.”

www.thedailybeast.com

(although note he ends with "but then who knows, maybe it is a tossup, nobody get mad at me if I'm wrong")

There's at least one minor data house trying to make a name for themselves by forecasting a Harris blowout:

Vantage Data House

app.vantagedatahouse.com

Whether you agree or not it's an interesting read. This is basically a pitch for their services, the kind of data analysis campaigns want to do internally. Far more useful than "who u vote for?" Their argument is based on correlations with senate race polling, which is much more favorable for Democrats. They also make a very compelling point about Mark Robinson, the Black Nazi in North Carolina:

One particularly confusing case is in North Carolina where Lt. Governor Mark Robinson’s disastrous gubernatorial campaign is sinking every race on the ticket. Robinson is trailing by 22 points overall and a staggering 41 points among women. Yet, Trump is leading by 0.4-1.2 in the averages. It’s hard to imagine a Republican losing by 41 points among women while Trump is supposedly running a close race. Even without the gender gap, the idea that Robinson is down 22 points while Trump is ahead defies logic. This would be a 23% split ticket margin, which would be astonishing.




There's other more subjective takes about vibes, enthusiasm, leaked reports of internal polling, but if vibes and enthusiasm were enough to sway you the Harris campaign already has all you'd need there. We'll see on Tuesday. Either way you can't get mad at me.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Apparently the number of women voting far outweights the men (can't imagine why), which I take to be a good sign.