President Kamala Harris.

[DocWatts]

Partisan Loyalty Without Issue Awareness: They may vote consistently for a party without a deep understanding of that party's current platform.

 

Brings to mind that a shocking number of Americans have zero idea which political party is behind major policies that impact them directly. 

A good recent example are misconceptions that Biden's $35 a month insulin price cap was a bipartisan effort, when in actuality every single Republican voted against it.  Many of these folks knew someone (such as an elderly family member) who directly benefited from this policy.

I personally know people who bitch and moan that the economy isn't working for ordinary Americans, or that our taxes should be doing more to help poor people. And  when elections come around they cast their ballots for the Republican Party. It's kind of wild how banal this sort of thing has become, to be honest.

 

Edited August 11 by DocWatts

[Hatfort]

Walz is a hype for Democrats, and compensates for some of Kamala Harris's flaws. He is natural, approachable, speaks well, and defends his positions strongly, not defensively.

Rogan endorsed RFK, that will deduct from Trump more than from Harris.

But the race has to be run, a good campaign is crucial.

[Buck Edwards]

1 minute ago, DocWatts said:

Partisan Loyalty Without Issue Awareness: They may vote consistently for a party without a deep understanding of that party's current platform.

 

Brings to mind that a shocking number of Americans have zero idea which political party is behind major policies that impact them directly. 

A good recent example are misconceptions that Biden's $35 a month insulin price cap was a bipartisan effort, when in actuality every single Republican voted against it.  Many of these folks knew someone (such as an elderly family member) who directly benefited from this policy.

I personally know people who bitch and moan that the economy isn't working for ordinary Americans, or that our taxes should be doing more to help poor people. And  when elections come around they cast their ballots for the Republican Party. It's kind of wild how banal this sort of thing has become, to be honest.

 

Yea this one. 

[Princess Arabia]

1 hour ago, Beans said:

@Leo Gura  I don’t appreciate this kind of. Unfruitful and Toxic Behavior. I assumed this form was about spirituality? And didn’t honor low iq standards.  

Even Einstein lightened up a bit. There's plenty of low iq grammar in your sentence. Be careful of your criticisms; they usually backfire. Spiritual enough for you?

[Princess Arabia]

51 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It was an inside joke. You had to be there.

Exactly

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

There's plenty of low iq grammar in your sentence.

Take it easy. Jeez. They are new here. Don't be a jerk to newbies.

Edited August 11 by Leo Gura

[DocWatts]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

That's just Devil in Spanish.

If Devil is cool... Diablo is even cooler.

It makes Trump sound like a legendary dessert wanderer in an old Western movie set in El Paso in the 1800s.

The last thing we need Trump associated with is a challenging hot sauce you that your friends dare you to try... and bet you $20 that you'll chicken out and not follow through.

It all emphasizes strength. But rhetorically... it's far more effective to emphasize weakness.

If we're sticking with Spanish, how about 'la caca naranja'? 😆

Edited August 11 by DocWatts

[Princess Arabia]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Take it easy. Jeez. They are new here. Don't be a jerk to newbies.

Sorry, didn't check their status, but they did throw a punch first and insulted me. I have low-tolerance for disrespect. I need to practice and ignore. Takes time. Working on it.

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course people don't vote on policy.

Values != policy.

Values are first and foresome vibes.

Banning gays is values.

Deporting browns is values.

Owning Libs is values.

And being normal... and not weird is also values.

That's why the weird attacks work.

Edited August 11 by Emerald

[Metaman]

It is very very unlikely she becomes president.

Simply because the stage orange corporate CEOs with all the power, money & lobbying powers are better off electing trump + JD vance.

Why?

Well, Trump is isolationist, Vance even more so.

One of their biggest propositions is pulling US funding from the war in Ukraine, demoting America's role in NATO and taxing EU imports.

Source : https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/17/trump-jd-vance-vp-ukraine

If this happens the EU will most certainly weaken. (maybe even collapse).

A weaker EU means a weaker China. Period.

China's technological sector relies so heavily on the EU selling them Semi-conductor technology in the first place, Which is how they can compete with US technology. (And the American Economy) 

American corporations fucking hate this lol. So they imposed sanctions on EU imports to China.

SOURCE : https://www.ft.com/content/d4fd8f5f-be0e-417e-bce6-f9219557e4a7

IF the EU is weakened ( or collapses) it would also weaken China, Weakening two superpowers (two birds one stone).

This would firmly maintain Americas position as a global superpower. 

my money is on trump.

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Metaman said:

It is very very unlikely she becomes president.

Simply because the stage orange corporate CEOs with all the power, money & lobbying powers are better off electing trump + JD vance.

Why?

Well, Trump is isolationist, Vance even more so.

One of their biggest propositions is pulling US funding from the war in Ukraine, demoting America's role in NATO and taxing EU imports.

Source : https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/17/trump-jd-vance-vp-ukraine

If this happens the EU will most certainly weaken. (maybe even collapse).

A weaker EU means a weaker China. Period.

China's technological sector relies so heavily on the EU selling them Semi-conductor technology in the first place, Which is how they can compete with US technology. (And the American Economy) 

American corporations fucking hate this lol. So they imposed sanctions on EU imports to China.

SOURCE : https://www.ft.com/content/d4fd8f5f-be0e-417e-bce6-f9219557e4a7

IF the EU is weakened ( or collapses) it would also weaken China, Weakening two superpowers (two birds one stone).

This would firmly maintain Americas position as a global superpower. 

my money is on trump.

Yeah, I worry about all of that. However, apparently a majority of the business community wants Harris/Walz because they don't feel comfortable with the bad extreme anti-business policies of Trump such as high tariffs, anti-global trade, anti-manufacturing, against funding the war in Ukraine, and anti-immigration. Most of them don't like how insane and chaotic Trump is. They've found the policies of Harris/Walz and the Democrats to be more in line with corporations. 

Remember, the Democratic party is still very much captured by corporate interests and by the interests of urban and suburban educated white collar professionals. In fact, the Democrats has increasingly represented suburban voters who now makeup the majority of voters in America.

Also, America is still the most powerful country in the world by far. No other country can come close to matching its power and influence in the world.

Edited August 11 by Hardkill

[Forestluv]

Recently, I've been intrigued by the interplay between organic / grassroots and the campaign team. A few observations:

1) Kamala and Tim Walz have really good chemistry. Together, there is a new emergent quality. After she gave her final pitch during last night's Nevada rally, Kamala began waving to the crowd, she turned. saw Tim and her face spontaneously lit up. I think they really like each other, appreciate each other and complement each other. 

2) From their first rally in Philly, I could tell that Kamala like's referring to Tim as "Coach". To me, there is a sweet, genuine vibe to it. It was well received by the crowd and I think the campaign is doing well co-creating with grassroots supporters without 'manufacturing' or 'pushing' something onto them. For example, the campaign was in a school in Las Vegas in which teachers and kids were creating artful posters with the images of "Kamala and the Coach". As well, the campaign created "Coach" signs for rally-goers. This seems like a really good balance to me. Yet I think the campaign needs to be careful not to lean to hard into these phenomenon or try to ride it too long. 

3) One of the most brilliant lines I've seen in politics was the line: "If he's willing to get of the coach and show up to the debate" line. This integrated many different elements / dynamics of which I could write pages about. Suffice it to say, it came across as light-hearted humor, yet it also cut very deep. . . I imagine it would be extremely tempting for the campaign to double-dip into their best line of the campaign. I'm very impressed that they had the instincts to know not to say it again. That would have ruined it.

4) I think they need to be careful not to lean too hard into genuineness and good vibes. For example, the campaign is reclaiming the essence of "Freedom". The have a real, genuine and powerful example of this with Walz's family history with IVF, naming his daughter "Hope" and the fun relationship he's had with her. . . Tim tells this story every rally and I saw a new development in Arizona that was a major red flag. . . When a campaign want to create a new chant, the speaker will repeat the phrase in the cadence of a chant. This is how Kamala and her campaign created the "We're not going back" chant (which is fully embraced by their supporters). . . During the Arizona rally, when Walz got to the end of the IVF story, he put extra stress on the line "We named her Hope". Then he forcefully said it again (which they hadn't done before). To me, it looked like the campaign trying to start the chant "Hope!. . . Hope!. . . Hope!" chant - which would be a powerful chant because it integrates multiple messages. Yet the campaign would need for it to arise organically. . . The crowd began chanting "Hope! Hope! Hope!" with relatively low energy and Tim responded like he was surprised and deeply touched. There is probably some truth to that, yet I strongly sense the campaign was trying to start that chant as a new organic phenomenon and it was pre-planned. . . Imo, that enters into manipulation and could cut into the sense of genuineness and relatability - which is one of the foundations of their good vibe right now. I'm relieved they didn't try it during the next rally. I haven't seen anyone online pick up and this. I think they flew under the radar of what could have been a major unforced error.

5) I'm impressed with how the left is reclaiming things like Patriotism and Freedom. It was brilliant for Kamala to praise the gold-medal-winning basketball and soccer teams. . . then for the crowd to spontaneously chant "U.S.A.!". . . I think contrasting healthy Patriotism vs unhealthy Nationalism is a winning issue for them. . . Moreso, they are making a much stronger move to reclaim "Freedom". This has become the top theme in their campaign. I think they are winning big on this theme and the campaign knows it.  In Las Vegas, they tried to take it to the next level when Kamala said "If they want to come after our Freedom, I say "Bring It On!". She said the phrase multiple times trying to encourage the crowd to start chanting "Bring It On". The crowd did so, yet tepidly. There was not an explosion of energy with a "Bring It On!" chant. In the beginning of the chant, it sounded like a regular half-hearted rally chant. I'm really impressed that Kamala allowed it to incubate. After several rounds, the crowd started chanting with more force and the energy leveled up. . . I can see the campaign inviting more of this to get the battle to be about protecting rights and freedoms. I think the Dems would win that battle.

6) To me, the campaign is trying to build a coalition of subgroups - with a "Something for Everyone" approach: each subgroup gets something, yet not as much as they fully want. Yet again, it's enough (at least for now). For example, Kamala allowed the Palestinian protestors to have their voice acknowledged on a huge national stage and to move Kamala to call for a "Ceasefire" and a return of hostages. That's significant, yet not enough. That subgroup wants serious actions toward a ceasefire and an arms embargo (which they will not get). . . However, I could see a Harris that moving further left and placing conditions on the arms sent to Israel, which I think would seem reasonable and have mainstream support. . . On the other end of the spectrum. . . today Kamala is with major donors in San Franciso. Similarly, I can see a dynamic in which donors get something they want, yet not nearly everything they want. . . I think what holds the groups together is a shared disdain for Trump and a strong appetite for something new into the future.

7) A Taylor Swift endorsement would obviously have a positive impact - yet I think it could potentially have an enormous impact. If Taylor simply endorses from a distance as her own personal choice it would have a modest impact, imo. Yet she could cause a big cultural shift toward Kamala if she becomes part of the movement, even if she is tangentially involved.

8) If the energy / momentum continues, I think the voices of reasonable Republicans will get louder. If Trump loses, his political career is over. Period. Trump could still have influence, yet there is no way he will be able to run in 2028 and his power will be greatly diminished. Many on the right-wing will try to be the next Trump, yet I don't think that will work as every mini-Trump effort has failed terribly. . . The dynamic of Trumpism was there before Trump and will be there after Trump. Yet there will be no copycat Trump that works. In spite of all his failings, Trump is extremely good at capturing media attention for the immediate news cycle. Yet what was once an asset is becoming a liability. . . 

9) I've noticed a significant shift. . . In the 2015 campaign, Trump would say things that would have ended other politician's careers. Things like "Mexican's are criminals and rapists", "Good people on both sides" and ""Grab them by the pussy" - actually empowered Trump and his movement. Yet there seems to be a different dynamic now. I think Trump's NABJ interview in 2015 would actually have empowered him and his movement and they would have leaned into it. Yet in 2024, it had a strong negative impact on his campaign. 

10) I think the mainstream media has a vested interest in a close race. Kamala and Tim are getting a lot of positive coverage. There is a strong appetite for an Obama-eque vibe of something new and historic. Yet they are also covering Trump as a relatively normal politician running for president. For example, after Trump's press conference this week, most headlines were something like "Trump attacks Harris' record on immigration". This has some truth, yet there is also truth in headlines such as "Deranged old man rambles about Helicopter delusions".

[Forestluv]

11) I forgot to mention. . . I was impressed with Kamala's improved response to the pro-Palestine protestors. Also, I was very impressed with how she then got back into her zone. My job is 80% public speaking and it challenging to let go of disruptions / fumbles and get back into the zone.

12) During the Nevada rally, I noticed more of Kamala's mindspace went to vigilance than previous rallies. Normally, a portion of our mindspace is vigilant of our surroundings, usually subconcious and in a protective mode. For example, if you were walking through a somewhat rough area in a foreign city, vigilance would increase - which could be subconscious. . . During any high energy rally, there will be splatters of shouting things out - often in support. Things like "We believe in you!" or "Unions are for Kamala". During the Nevada rally, I noticed Kamala was very sensitive to shouts from the crowd - a nervous sensitivity, anticipating another disruption from protestors. 

Edited August 11 by Forestluv

[Joshe]

1 minute ago, Forestluv said:

1) Kamala and Tim Walz have really good chemistry. Together, there is a new emergent quality. After she gave her final pitch during last night's Nevada rally, Kamala began waving to the crowd, she turned. saw Tim and her face spontaneously lit up. I think they really like each other, appreciate each other and complement each other. 

I agree. Walz has a quality about him that is positively reassuring, which I thought would serve as a beacon of confidence/strength for Kamala, or anyone really. His energy is infectious. 

10 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

During the Arizona rally, when Walz got to the end of the IVF story, he put extra stress on the line "We named her Hope". Then he forcefully said it again (which they hadn't done before). To me, it looked like the campaign trying to start the chant "Hope!. . . Hope!. . . Hope!" chant - which would be a powerful chant because it integrates multiple messages. Yet the campaign would need for it to arise organically. . . The crowd began chanting "Hope! Hope! Hope!" with relatively low energy and Tim responded like he was surprised and deeply touched. There is probably some truth to that, yet I strongly sense the campaign was trying to start that chant as a new organic phenomenon and it was pre-planned. . . Imo, that enters into manipulation and could cut into the sense of genuineness and relatability - which is one of the foundations of their good vibe right now. I'm relieved they didn't try it during the next rally. I haven't seen anyone online pick up and this. I think they flew under the radar of what could have been a major unforced error.

I didn't watch the rally but I think you have good instincts. I suppose they have to try certain tactics to see what performs well, like A/B split tests. From what I've seen so far, the campaign is more strategic than I thought it'd be. They seem able to test and adapt quickly.

I strongly agree it's important for them to avoid coming off like tryhards by telling the same jokes or greatest hits. Not only does it come off as tryhard, it makes people feel like they're being manipulated. It's not natural and organic. 

They need a steady supply of powerful content. Fresh shows every time. 

 

[ryandesreu]

6 hours ago, Hatfort said:

Walz is a hype for Democrats, and compensates for some of Kamala Harris's flaws. He is natural, approachable, speaks well, and defends his positions strongly, not defensively.

Rogan endorsed RFK, that will deduct from Trump more than from Harris.

But the race has to be run, a good campaign is crucial.

Build the Walz!

[Forestluv]

@Joshe

10 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I suppose they have to try certain tactics to see what performs well, like A/B split tests. From what I've seen so far, the campaign is more strategic than I thought it'd be. They seem able to test and adapt quickly.

To me, it's an intriguing interplay between science and art. The science aspect is strategizing based off data analysis, logic, focus groups etc. The art is about the actual expression, connection, intuition, flow and co-creation. I think both are important and the Harris/Walz campaign is doing very well so far. 

[Metaman]

1 hour ago, Hardkill said:

Most of them don't like how insane and chaotic Trump is. They've found the policies of Harris/Walz and the Democrats to be more in line with corporations. 

Also, America is still the most powerful country in the world by far. No other country can come close to matching its power and influence in the world.

If they do not like Trump, They 100% won't like Vance. His policies are even more insane lmao.

Have these corporations publicly stated their support for the democratic party? (or indirectly through donations, campaign funding) 

1 hour ago, Hardkill said:

Also, America is still the most powerful country in the world by far. No other country can come close to matching its power and influence in the world.

I agree, So many people say China will overtake America. Highly doubt it.

 

 

[soos_mite_ah]

@Forestluv I don't have much to add to all of the points you listed above and expanded on but I did want to say that I agree and I enjoyed reading your assessment of the campaign

[Joshe]

5 hours ago, Forestluv said:

To me, it's an intriguing interplay between science and art. The science aspect is strategizing based off data analysis, logic, focus groups etc. The art is about the actual expression, connection, intuition, flow and co-creation. I think both are important and the Harris/Walz campaign is doing very well so far. 

Very well-said! I totally agree. I hope they can keep it up. 

[Joshe]

20 hours ago, Forestluv said:

11) I forgot to mention. . . I was impressed with Kamala's improved response to the pro-Palestine protestors. Also, I was very impressed with how she then got back into her zone. My job is 80% public speaking and it challenging to let go of disruptions / fumbles and get back into the zone.

I thought she handled this beautifully too. I don't know if she was self-comforting or but when the heckler was heckling she repeated something like "it's all good", seemingly to herself, which made me sympathize with her. I might have read that wrong but not sure. I think any intelligent person should know better at this point the focus should be on Trump, not Palestine. I'm glad she made that clear. 

Edited August 12 by Joshe