345
Trump rolls out bonkers Harris plane conspiracy—but photographer disproves it
(www.thedailybeast.com)
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
345 points (98.3% liked)
politics
19125 readers
4225 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's absolutely true, of course. But that doesn't mean showing unity between old-guard, establishment Democrats and more progressive factions will be a bad thing. For one, Clinton's image has improved substantially compared to the orange turd. For another, this will definitely be seen as a positive, passing-of-the-torch kind of deal.
In fact, I'm leaning towards the opinion that denying the Clintons opportunities to speak in support of Harris would have been seen as divisive at a time when optimism and unity are driving her campaign. And independents definitely like to see optimism and unity.
Not trying to be combative here but do you have any sources? It's been hard finding recent data, but in 2018 her favorability was still very low. ^[1] The best I can find is 19% (compared to Harris 29%) backing Hillary as nominee should Biden drop out back in February. ^[2]
I can see your arguments, but I'm also wary of halting the momentum of the campaign, which has somehow managed to position itself as new and fresh and unburdened by what has been (establishment democrats).
No worries, I'll never be upset by requests for citations. Those are always legitimate to ask for.
According to YouGov, her current popularity is 42%, her "Disliked By" rating is 38%, and 18% feel neutral about her. I'd assume those numbers shift when looking only at Democrats and independents, but regardless, it's quite a distance from her 2018 favorability ratings. Source: https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Hillary_Clinton
It's impressive I guess that she's clawed back to barely favourable, I'll give her that. However, I don't think you can think about only her appeal to other democrats. The DNC doesn't exist in a vacuum. The republicans have a vast array of old Hillary attack angles ready to go, and footage of Harris and Hillary together puts all of those back in play. Trump and his cronies can and will use them all in hopes of swaying independents and undecideds who still dislike Clinton. It's a vulnerability I don't think the campaign needs in exchange for dubious gains.
It's important to remember this is just a speech, not an invitation for the Clintons back into the White House. I trust the Harris team to have thought this through.
And it occurs to me they have an obvious response: "Why are you campaigning against Hillary Clinton? That's a weird thing to do, she's not running."
Politics has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with optics - if it wasn't already known since before, then the Trump win in 2016 definitively proved it. Maybe I'm overly cautious though, I just am wary of opening actual angles of attack. Right now Trump's side has nothing.