Hillary did come to Scranton three or four times, just like Trump. But while Trump was ranting in a hockey arena, Hillary was in a mansion meeting $10,000 + donors. Guess which one played better.
Seriously, it’s not that hard… Two hours apart pic.twitter.com/9qYaipeeU0— Aaron Fritschner (@Fritschner) October 13, 2024
Yeah, that was the backstory to one of the world's greatest headlines. The NY Daily News (or maybe the Post) had a picture of the Captain in court, with the headline "Chicken of the Sea"
The Kamala campaign had a winning strategy of humiliating and laughing at Trump. It worked because the media loves conflict and great headlines and it got under Trump's stupid orange skin. The best moments of the debate were when Kamala insulted Trump to his ugly ass face. Good things happened when they were belligerent. Then they started focusing on policy. Now Trump is dominating the discussion and the headlines and Kamala is in the corner discussing her position on ethanol subsidies or some shit. They need to stop Dukakising this campaign, and stat.
They seem to be pretty belligerent to me. Walz just called Trump a fascist. Can't find the video right now, but I watched a clip from one of Harris' stump appearances that was pretty brutal in how it addressed Trump being unfit for office. She's also going on Fox News tomorrow, which is pretty ballsy, IMO. And, of course, what's Trump doing that's leading to him"dominating the discussion and the headlines"? Nothing. Just babbling increasingly authoritarian gibberish, weaving and farting on stage. I mean, yes, that absolutely should lead to him dominating the headlines. But what's Harris supposed to do about the media's seeming attraction to fascism and sane washing Trump? Are you arguing that economic messaging isn't relevant to this election? If so, I beg to differ. In any event,. Harris and Walz have to be able to do both: address head-on Trump's obvious unfitness for the job, but also project a confident message for the future. It all matters.
The problem is one side outright lies about reality while doing the economic messaging, while the other side is critiqued by the media for its economic messaging.
The question, though, is what sort of messaging is effective for the voters the campaign still needs to attract? And what do you mean by "the media'? The NYT? The networks? The campaign has made what's widely considered to be the smart decision to try and connect with voters via local media and alternative platforms (like niche - but sometimes with huge followings - podcasts). The argument is that there are a ton of low information voters out there and people who don't always vote. You have to go where they are in order to connect with them. And they're not reading the NYT or tuning into CNN.
David Plouffe was really good on this topic It's interesting when you break it down. IIRC he says there are only around 6% undecided voters in total - then when you spread them over the battlegrounds - and look at a demo like "POC men under 30" you realise the chance that any of those people in PA would be watching CNN when you are on there is quite small - so you need to be everywhere and not really in the NYT which is overwhelmingly Dem anyway, and doesn't reach that undecided demo of young men under 30
This stems from the fact that a large part of the American electorate does not have either the intelligence, the education or the attention span to actually follow a serious argument about policy. Policy is complex. Trump's demagoguery has the advantage because it is extremely superficial - this makes it attractive for the people with equally superficial thinking. And there are lots of them.
Did Plouffe talk about what I feel are potentially more important groups? - new or low propensity voters - disaffected GOP voters The traditional undecideds are problematic for a number of reasons. Low propensity voters - like the youth vote - are potentially a much bigger get for Harris than they could ever be for the GOP. And a much more viable group than they ever could have been for Biden. Disaffected GOPers are often the equivalent of a six-pointer in soccer. They may have always voted regularly, but as the endorsements by prominent Republicans stack up, one can surmise that it could lead to a steady trickle of traditional GOPers who just can't take any more of Trump and still sleep at night, knowing they voted for him. Huge numbers in either pool? Maybe not, but in a close election, it doesn't take much to tip the scales. Furthermore, it's a lot easier to identify who these people are and develop strategies for how to message to them, than it is to figure out how to connect with undecided whackos who somehow can't make up their "minds" between two vastly different candidates.
Yeah he did - and Sarah Longwell is big on them as well. With new/low propensity, often these people don't like Trump already so the main problem is turning them out. IIRC there is support from the voter registration data of enthusiasm for Harris which could be an edge. Also on disaffected GOP voters, we know many of these people already voted for joe in '20 or, got off the bandwagon after J6 - Longwell focusses a lot on those people. Many of them would have voted for Nikki Haley in the primaries and could well vote for Harris
Nothing about her Fox interview? It was the usual but she held her own, and even had Baier going, "Yes, ma'am" Anyway, gutsy and hilarious because somewhere the NY Times brass is going Regina George.
I just want to point out, she’s having fun. Trump in 2016 was having fun, but this year? He’s just miserable.
My guess is, if he wins, he pardons everybody, dismisses everyone working on cases against him, and as soon as there’s no way for him to be punished for anything, he turns over everything to Peter Thiel and Elon Musk. I mean, J. D. Vance.
I can think of two reasons he wouldn't do this. First, he likes being king. In fact, he is quite certain he deserves to be king. Second, he likes the idea of people bribing the king to do stuff. Whose going to buy his watches and crypto if they don't think it gives access to the President?
No, the Heritage Foundation does this every election cycle, going back to Reagan. Im guessing it’s a big deal now because Trump 2024 is a policy free campaign, unless you think “I’ll cut your electric bill by 50 percent, Five-O” is a policy. IOW, it’s all we have to go on, but since it was written by a think tank rather than a party, it actually says what they want to do.
Hasn't Heritage lurched further and further right in recent years? It may have been an actor in presidential politics going back decades, but it's now embraced the most whackjob elements of Trumpism.
The PSA dudes commented on Harris' appearance on Fox: 7.1M viewers, with the biggest market being Pittsburgh. The exchange where Baier admitted that what Harris said about Milley's quote regarding how dangerous Trump is was accurate, was only the 3rd time that the quote has been referenced on Fox. In short, they though it was a hugely successful appearance, not just for the interview alone, but for how it's been covered by other outlets, how sections of it have naturally found their way into various social media platforms, and how well it can be re-packaged into Harris' own campaign messaging.
But thats also a function of the media favoritism for Trump.. they saw the Kamala momentum build when she started focusing on populism and pure joy and energy so to break that momentum they started attacking her not willing to articulate her plans and policy.. Trump can get away with “concepts of a plan” while she has to explain the minutia to the media. Its all performative, they banked on her tripping up and becoming dull while Trump regained energy.. it just didnt work because she and Walz are able to do both