politics
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
view the rest of the comments
So...no...I disagree strongly with this analysis.
Yes...for reasonable people...Kamala slaughtered Trump.
But that's not what his base cares about. They're the dregs of society that get off on WWF and whatever MTV is these days. He yelled more, he made sensational completely bullshit off the cuff lies, and he rolled over the moderators like a Karen going after the manager.
His base loved it. I think his message of fear, hate and bullshit was compelling (if you still read at a 6th grade level like the majority of Americans).
Yes...reasonable people know Kamala is a better candidate.
Do you really believe someone who is still undecided going into last night's debate is a reasonable person?
I don't think there's any chance of converting his base, though. Surely what she needed to do - and what it sounds like she did, I haven't finished listening to the debate yet - is persuade everyone else to vote for her? His base alone isn't enough to guarantee him a win if there's a strong showing for Harris, as happened for Biden in 2020
I think there are people who have conservative values which they believe are better for the country but also struggle with the thought of supporting Trump. For those people, last night’s debate probably pushed them further away from him. Some may go to Harris which is the hope.
I wish she would have invited those people directly in her closing statement. Something along the lines of “If you don’t agree with me, I’m hear to listen and understand why. Together, we can move forward instead of going back to chaos and anger and division “
She did seem to go after them when she mentioned all the Republicans that have endorsed her.
Undecided are largely not actually undecided. They mostly vote along party lines. The point, in the current political climate, is to demotivate turnout of the other side's undecided. And I think based on that, this was a deep loss for Trump. Outside the pundit sphere, he was literally a punchline and joke the entire night. Memes of the hilariously dumb shit he spewed almost instantly sprouted up and are all over the place.
The demotivated take is solid. I like it...thanks.
As others said, she would mainly be converting independent voters and potentially some Republican leaning voters that don't actually like Trump but are hesitant to cross party lines.
But I also think it's likely that his terrible performance and obvious weakness could be demoralizing to his more devoted followers. The people who buy into the stable genius strong man image he is so desperate to project got a chance to see just what a sad old wreck of a human being he is. Even if virtually none of them switch sides, a decline in enthusiasm likely translates into slightly fewer donations, slightly less engagement, and ultimately slightly less voter turnout.
To put it another way, did Biden's debate performance convert his base into Trump voters? No. But, it sure as hell had an effect on them.
I can tell you, based on what the conservatives were posting last night, they were excited as hell about Trump's performance.
It's weird...so fucking weird. You people (conservatives) are reasonable in real life, how can you watch this shit show and be excited about it?
I would expect the Trump supporters that are posting (particularly the ones posting as they watch) to post their support and approval for everything Trump says and does. Any that are disappointed or discouraged by what they saw are probably more likely to say nothing. People are quick to express the knee-jerk reaction they want to have, but it often takes time to process when they feel let down.
I mean, yes, absolutely, there have to be people who nodded in agreement at everything Trump said, who were excited when he brought up the immigrants eating pets, who felt that Trump was the only sane one there. But there also had to be some that were frustrated with what they were seeing, and who now have a little less energy to devote to the election. Will the latter group be large enough to have an impact? We'll have to wait and see.
Good response...I hope you're right.
People are climaxing to the World Wildlife Fund?
FYI It was renamed WWE in 2002...
His supporters don't know that.
They most certainly do
If there's one thing they know it's TV 'rasslin'.
It's not just about president it's about party. Someone might not like Trump. But at the same time dislike democratic policies and democrats as a party.
So now the have to decide. Do they go against Republicans due to their candidate? Hearing Kamala debate him might convince them that yeah... ok. They're not THAT bad.. at least they (democrats) are better than him (Trump)
Thank you!
I thought I was crazy looking at all these posts... You have to watch this as someone who knows next to nothing about politics. In that frame, Trump seemed wayyyyy stronger than Harris. I was actually really disappointed at so many opportunities she passed up to lay down facts in favor of jumping on talking points... Trump kept spitting out "data" (lies, but the people who don't pay much attention don't know that) and so he appeared more knowledgeable than her, she just kept trying to attack him instead of actually responding to things... Hell, why did we keep the tarrifs? Why not just answer that for us?
One bit that drove me up the wall was when he went on about all the court cases that he "won" and had dismissed... For fucks sake Kamala that's the perfect opportunity to discuss the heritage foundation and the corruption of the courts! Goddamn "judge" Cannon was the piece of shit doing Trump's bidding and tossing these cases... That's a perfect example to provide to the people as to why court reform is important and she could have created a distinction between them, but no she goes back to a talking point that I can't even remember what it was...
Look just say as an idiot, it's way shorter. As an idiot, loud shouty man seemed stronger? If you have no life experience, sure. Loud shouty men look out of control with their emotions, weak, and easily manipulated...which is exactly how Trump seemed to anyone who wasn't an idiot.
Spittle isn't data.
Look, she didn't do perfectly, but she also was alloted much less time and the breaks for commercials(?!) seemed to always screw her over. You're never going to respond to every point in an angry gish gallop and she did about as good as anyone could in my opinion.
I mean, for fuck's sake, as the article says, he lost the exchange on the Afghanistan withdrawal.
But I don't mean idiot, I meant what I said. If anything ignorant would be more concise and keep my meaning. If for some reason you don't pay attention to politics but still find yourself watching the debate Trump seemed to have a lot of responses to criticism and "answers" to problems even if they were all lies.
The end was absolutely infuriating, of course Trump gets the last word... "Why haven't you done any of what you said you want to do already?"
... because we have a fucking Republican Congress! Again any ignorant person wouldn't recognize that and would accept what he said as truth. It makes sense in a way, if you're in power now then why aren't you doing something? That one is not Kamalas fault though, that's ABC always letting Trump have the last word... :/
At times, I thought Trump made arguments like this because he thought it was a good tactic, but ultimately I think he just forgets that Congress is a part of the process at times.
His closing statement was babbling and bordered on incoherent, so I was fine with him having the "last word".
He also kind of complemented her plans in it. "We're going to do all of these wonderful things".
Overall, operation let him talk was a very bigly success IMO.
So let's say she corrects him on a lie. Then what? Correct the next one? The one after that? The one after that? Trump had more lies than Kamala had time.
Responding to lie after lie after lie just lets him control the conversation. What she did was the best option available.
Oh yea, that was a debate point I hated too...she's billing herself as the prosecutor, but when he started uttering complete bullshit about the cases he won, she didn't go after it.
Come on Kamala, fucking get him... that's a underhanded softball pitch thrown by a 6 year old, kill it. Instead she took the safe single and went back to policy.