ADVERTISEMENT

Kelly on Trump

You claim to ba military guy. You are telling me that Trump yields enough power to actually carry out this plan. You are more delusional than I thought.
I don't claim it, I was a senior Navy officer. I'm retired. Unless martial law is declared, no, I don't believe the flag officers would carry out an order to use the military on US civilians. Depending on the situation, he could use the National Guard in a US civilian setting. However, we should expect that our Commander in Chief is sane and doesn't have insane wishes or give insane orders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ohio Guy
It's not a zero sum game. I agree with a lot that you are saying, but she has to hit a lot of buttons to drive her voters to the poll and that's one of them. My problem with the campaign right now is that it's the loudest one.

Anybody whose primary motivation to vote is their opinion of Donald Trump -- pro or con -- is already going to vote, can't wait to vote, would crawl over broken glass to do it, and is absolutely dead set who they're voting for.

The notion that there are people who aren't all that motivated to vote but who will become motivated to vote because John Kelly thinks Donald Trump is a fascist who aspires to be Hitler is delusional.

And I think that messaging cohesion is extremely important in the homestretch. She needs to be laser focused in her messaging and where it's directed...not throwing out a cacophony.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
Sorry, mcm. Specifics on policy aren't what win elections at this point in the cycle. Maybe back last December or January, but talking about the right topics and reemphasizing generalities that speak to the right voters are what move elections at this point in a race.

The idea that Trump "caught up" is a misnomer. The dynamics of the race since she replaced Biden have been extraordinarily consistent. This is an extremely close turnout election with most preferences on the candidates already shaped. She has to step up in the last 10 days to close the voters predisposed to her and get them to the polls.
Trump has been on the National stage for 9 years. Kamala for a few months. Voters don’t know her. She is the nominee because she is a minority woman, not because she has a history of accomplishments and loyal grassroots support. The more she is out there, the more people know her. Do they like what they see? Her interviews have been a disaster. There are good reasons she makes herself inaccessible.
 
You don't get what I'm saying.

I don't know if you ever listen to the Hacks on Tap podcast -- but it's a really good one to listen to you if you want to get a sense of the conventional wisdom among political strategists (both D and R) who are supportive of the political establishment and opposed to Trump and the populist movement.

The main hosts are David Axelrod and Mike Murphy (and they have other, mostly D, political gurus on). I like to listen to it because these guys are smart and shrewd political strategists -- and, more importantly, I think they do a fairly good job at laying out where they're at rather than just spinning on behalf of the Dems. Spin is useless, it's an attempt to shape thinking rather than convey it.

Anyway, here's something Axelrod said on the latest episode that gets at what I'm talking about:

And the second thing that worries me is…I think that people have made a judgment about Donald Trump. If this were just an up or down referendum on Donald Trump, I don't think he'd get elected. And he still butts up against his ceiling, which is under 50%.
The questions they have are about her because she's brand new. And they haven't completely. This is the key thing. And so, I would be more in the contrast mode between with her and him. And I'd give them a little more information about her probably around middle class economics and basically being a battler for them. And around abortion rights. And I would be doing contrast, contrast, contrast. So, their judgment is they gotta pummel Trump here for the reasons that Plouffe told you.​
Axelrod's point is that the more the narrative is about Trump and not Harris, the worse it is for her.....even if it's in the context of friggin' Hitler. There's nothing anybody can say about Donald Trump that is going to move the needle. It's fully moved.

She needs to close the sale on herself. And the more she or her surrogates are focused on going after Trump, the less they're doing what she needs done.
And I think that is because she doesn't have a case for herself. She is trying to make the Biden case again except she has a record and reputation that he didn't have (although I think the reputation on him was kind of hooey....)

They aren't making the Kamala case because she doesn't have one. She can't sell turning the page or change because she is part of the current page. She can't sell gravitas and accomplishment, her biggest accomplishments that she has always had sold as part of her story she had no control over. You are the first of this skin color and/or that ethnicity to do this or you have a vagina...cool, that is the story when you get the job. Her problem is that is generally where her story has ended because once in those jobs she is wholly unimpressive.

The Democrats are on the verge of potentially losing another election because they had another demographic coronation pick who is just an unlikable person. So they have to make their opponent more unlikable. That might work in tearing down a well thought of candidate but Trump already has his negatives baked in. So while Axelrod is technically probably correct, his advice is unhelpful because the contrast Kamala can make on policy aren't favorable to her now and on personality she doesn't come off well when in public. Catch 22.
 
Harris prez Vance vp. Dem house. Repub senate.

Actually probably the best outcome

So, in the event that the EC ends up in a tie, the House certification vote will be done by the newly minted House (which will convene on January 3rd), not the one that's presently convened.

In this scenario, each state House delegation gets one vote. California gets one vote, Wyoming gets one vote. The number of reps in any delegation is irrelevant -- except in the event that it's a perfectly even split. It also doesn't ultimately matter which party holds the gavel. It will matter which party has more state delegations where they are the majority.

I believe for the present House, 25 states have Republican majority delegations, 23 states have Democratic majority delegations, and 2 states are evenly split.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CO. Hoosier
So, in the event that the EC ends up in a tie, the House certification vote will be done by the newly minted House (which will convene on January 3rd), not the one that's presently convened.

In this scenario, each state House delegation gets one vote. California gets one vote, Wyoming gets one vote. The number of reps in any delegation is irrelevant -- except in the event that it's a perfectly even split. It also doesn't ultimately matter which party holds the gavel. It will matter which party has more state delegations where they are the majority.

I believe for the present House, 25 states have Republican majority delegations, 23 states have Democratic majority delegations, and 2 states are evenly split.
And the prediction is the house will go Dem
 
And I think that is because she doesn't have a case for herself.....She can't sell turning the page or change because she is part of the current page.

I think she could -- she's just been trying to walk a tightrope because of what you're saying. They're kind of stuck on "What are you talking about? The economy's great...and Biden/Harris are responsible for it." And I can fully understand why they are. Much of the economic data is really good. But the voters who she needs to win over don't agree with it.

The Democrats are on the verge of potentially losing another election because they had another demographic coronation pick who is just an unlikable person. So they have to make their opponent more unlikable. That might work in tearing down a well thought of candidate but Trump already has his negatives baked in. So while Axelrod is technically probably correct, his advice is unhelpful because the contrast Kamala can make on policy aren't favorable to her now and on personality she doesn't come off well when in public. Catch 22.

"Trump already has his negatives baked in."

That's the key point here. And you just get the impression that they believe if they can just keep swinging the bat at him, eventually more people will realize how bad of a person he is and vote accordingly. They see him polling more strongly than they expected -- after all the stuff, the 2020 election lie, January 6th, the rape verdict, the classified documents, etc. etc. -- and they can hardly believe that it's possible he could still be a viable candidate.

So the answer to that is to keep flooding the zone with more evidence that he's awful and those people will finally know the truth about him and will come around?
 
Trump has been on the National stage for 9 years. Kamala for a few months. Voters don’t know her. She is the nominee because she is a minority woman, not because she has a history of accomplishments and loyal grassroots support. The more she is out there, the more people know her. Do they like what they see? Her interviews have been a disaster. There are good reasons she makes herself inaccessible.
The first part is what crazed is referring to. But after "voters don't know her", your post is just dumb. She crushed Trump in the debate. It was a big success for her. Her interviews have been successful. She needs to do more of them.
 
That doesn’t matter. Each state delegation has one vote. More states will have GOP control.

The current state delegation count is 25R, 23D, and 2 that are evenly split. It's pretty closely divided. So I don't think anybody can say for sure that Republicans will still have more state delegations.
 
Do you think the way for Harris to get these voters to the polls is by directing attention to how much of an asshole Donald Trump is?
I think that had a huge part in getting Joe Biden elected. Similar to the upcoming election, I don't think there was a ton of excitement to vote for either candidate in 2020. I think a lot of people really hated Donald Trump though.
 
The first part is what crazed is referring to. But after "voters don't know her", your post is just dumb. She crushed Trump in the debate. It was a big success for her. Her interviews have been successful. She needs to do more of them.

I said this right after her interview with Bret Baier. It's not just that she needs to do more interviews, she needs to do them with people who will pose challenging questions as Baier did. I agree with you that it was successful for her. She should find other outlets she can go where the questioning won't be fawning (like "The View", etc.) or just a circle-jerk on dumping on Trump.
 
I think that had a huge part in getting Joe Biden elected. Similar to the upcoming election, I don't think there was a ton of excitement to vote for either candidate in 2020. I think a lot of people really hated Donald Trump though.
The problem with this is that he won in 2016 -- and he was hated just as much then. And, whether he wins or loses this year, his numbers are clearly better than they were in 2020. And he's hated just as much now as he was before.

Trump lost in 2020 because people were pissed off about the pandemic and all that came with it. Saying it was because enough people finally came to their senses in hating him enough to vote him out is, IMO, projection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUCrazy2
I think she could -- she's just been trying to walk a tightrope because of what you're saying. They're kind of stuck on "What are you talking about? The economy's great...and Biden/Harris are responsible for it." And I can fully understand why they are. Much of the economic data is really good. But the voters who she needs to win over don't agree with it.



"Trump already has his negatives baked in."

That's the key point here. And you just get the impression that they believe if they can just keep swinging the bat at him, eventually more people will realize how bad of a person he is and vote accordingly. They see him polling more strongly than they expected -- after all the stuff, the 2020 election lie, January 6th, the rape verdict, the classified documents, etc. etc. -- and they can hardly believe that it's possible he could still be a viable candidate.

So the answer to that is to keep flooding the zone with more evidence that he's awful and those people will finally know the truth about him and will come around?
To your last point, I think there are a bunch of people (myself included) who look at the Democrats and say, "Yeah, this guy is an asshole and he does say stupid stuff and there is a slight risk that he could actually mean some of the stuff he says, BUT, I just dislike everything your party stands for so much that I can't bring myself to vote for you. All your defend Democracy stuff doesn't work because I believe that the way you have reacted to Trump is every bit as damaging to the Republic." As you said, the people who don't like him for him are already going to vote against him. The case she should be making is, "You know what, this border thing, we ****ed up. Some of this stuff we are trying to push in schools is too far. You guys do have some points on those things and I will try and do better so we can come back to a point of detente. I also hear you on the economy and while things appear to be looking up on paper, I understand that 4 years of inflation which included several quarters of extreme inflation are still being felt at your table and here is how we can alleviate that....."

Walz and Vance were having an, "I mostly agree with you except this little thing...." debate. Populism hits many of the same points that traditional Democrat politics used to. I still view Trump as a 90's Clinton Democrat. The party shifted left of him and he stayed pat. Harris was an awful candidate. They messed up by not getting Joe to step aside earlier so they could have a real primary.
 
They messed up by not getting Joe to step aside earlier so they could have a real primary.

I couldn't agree more with that.

All we can do is speculate about this alternative history would've played out. But my guess is that Democratic primary voters would have opted for one of their popular governors from purplish states -- most notably Whitmer or Shapiro (assuming they'd have run, of course). And there are some others like Jared Polis, Roy Cooper, even maybe Andy Beshear.

But it was verboten for Dems to even hint at the notion of pushing Biden out of the race. And part of this is that it's an article of faith in political circles that the power of incumbency is one that you never, ever surrender willingly. After the debate debacle, they were left with no choice. Biden wouldn't only have lost, he'd probably have lost bad enough to drag downballot candidates in competitive races with him.
 
Anybody whose primary motivation to vote is their opinion of Donald Trump -- pro or con -- is already going to vote, can't wait to vote, would crawl over broken glass to do it, and is absolutely dead set who they're voting for.

The notion that there are people who aren't all that motivated to vote but who will become motivated to vote because John Kelly thinks Donald Trump is a fascist who aspires to be Hitler is delusional.

And I think that messaging cohesion is extremely important in the homestretch. She needs to be laser focused in her messaging and where it's directed...not throwing out a cacophony.
I agree that she can't throw out a cacophony, but disagree that anti-Trump energy isn't an important part of motivating turnout. The impact isn't just getting a specific person to vote. It's moving groups to move groups to move groups.

That said, I don't think anything John Kelly can say at this point will move the election. His opinion seems decently well known enough among people who will be moved by what a former Trump admin official says to already be baked in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
If she actually tries to enact any of that policy. She is a full scale lunatic.
It wouldn't go very far and it is all be things that could be dropped, fixed and changed very easily.

Thoughts on Trump's plan to use the military against your fellow citizens? That may have a little longer impact than a temporary tax code.
 
I couldn't agree more with that.

All we can do is speculate about this alternative history would've played out. But my guess is that Democratic primary voters would have opted for one of their popular governors from purplish states -- most notably Whitmer or Shapiro (assuming they'd have run, of course). And there are some others like Jared Polis, Roy Cooper, even maybe Andy Beshear.

But it was verboten for Dems to even hint at the notion of pushing Biden out of the race. And part of this is that it's an article of faith in political circles that the power of incumbency is one that you never, ever surrender willingly. After the debate debacle, they were left with no choice. Biden wouldn't only have lost, he'd probably have lost bad enough to drag downballot candidates in competitive races with him.
Agree in large part but disagree on incumbency. It would be horrible optics after how they took office to push out the black woman. Optics is why they’re stuck with her
 
It wouldn't go very far and it is all be things that could be dropped, fixed and changed very easily.

Thoughts on Trump's plan to use the military against your fellow citizens? That may have a little longer impact than a temporary tax code.
Right. That's exactly what Trump said and meant.

 
It wouldn't go very far and it is all be things that could be dropped, fixed and changed very easily.

Thoughts on Trump's plan to use the military against your fellow citizens? That may have a little longer impact than a temporary tax code.
My thoughts are Trump never said that and you’re an easily manipulate stooge if you believe he did.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Lucy01
I agree that she can't throw out a cacophony, but disagree that anti-Trump energy isn't an important part of motivating turnout.

I'm not saying she should ignore Trump. She needs to make the case that she's a better choice to address the problems concerning the decisive voters than he is. Contrasting herself to him is fine -- that's what she needs. But usurping the limited amount of remaining time and bandwith on pounding Trump's outrageousness is a waste.

The expected turnout of people who are motivated by animus towards Trump is very close to 100%. The expected turnout of people who are motivated by devotion to Trump is, likewise, very close to 100%. That's what Axelrod meant when they said he's not the moving number.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
The problem with this is that he won in 2016 -- and he was hated just as much then. And, whether he wins or loses this year, his numbers are clearly better than they were in 2020. And he's hated just as much now as he was before.

Trump lost in 2020 because people were pissed off about the pandemic and all that came with it. Saying it was because enough people finally came to their senses in hating him enough to vote him out is, IMO, projection.
Interesting take, but I disagree a little. I don't think people hated him as much in 2016 as they did in 2020 because the visceral reaction against Trump isn't limited to just the personal dislike for the guy. There's a lot of Presidential performance animus in there, too. There was a whole slice of people who had just spent four years with him and were not fans. Extrapolate John Kelly out to voters and you have reasons for why the suburbs turned away from Trump and to Biden. The Kellys of the world were up for Trump in 2016, but out in 2020. What's interesting is that Jan 6 came after the election, so you might expect some of that to be hardened, but time heals all wounds. So, the $1,000,000 question is whether the assessment in 2024 will be closer to 2016 or closer to 2020.
 
This is you obfuscating and explaining away the words of Harris. The very thing you accuse Trump supporters of.

Get yourself together joker.
You compared proposed economic policy to using the military against US citizens. Not me.

Why does Harris need to provide and 80 page dissertation on everything she says and we have to take everything she says at face value? Whereas for Trump "it's eh he didn't mean that" or "He's exaggerating for effect".
 
You compared proposed economic policy to using the military against US citizens. Not me.

Why does Harris need to provide and 80 page dissertation on everything she says and we have to take everything she says at face value? Whereas for Trump "it's eh he didn't mean that" or "He's exaggerating for effect".
You ripped that last line from Jon Stewart you absolute unoriginal, waste of space fraud.
 
No thanks Tucker. You never answer a question without a question. You can go cry someplace else.
I’ve answered all your questions in this thread. You on the other hand have plagiarized because you’ve never had an original thought in your life.

You’re an NPC, a useless person.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT