Please be positive and upbeat in your interactions, and avoid making negative or pessimistic comments. Instead, focus on the potential opportunities.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 2
“If Walz is the safe VP choice, what does safe mean exactly? Does the Walz choice indicate Shapiro is the unsafe choice. If part of the calculus in not choosing Shapiro is about his religion, what does that say about our country? “
https://x.com/ChrisCuomo/status/182099119864931539...
No. of Recommendations: 9
If Walz is the safe VP choice, what does safe mean exactly?
It means everyone in the Democratic caucus liked him - from the Squad to Joe Manchin. There were no internal downsides to picking him.
Shapiro had some stronger language about university protestors, some more centrist positions on a few issues (like school vouchers) that annoyed the progressive base of the party, and (apparently) there was enough of an internal beef in local PA politics that Fetterman was not on Team Shapiro. With Walz out there - beloved by everyone in the party and not from the East Coast technocrat segment of the party - that was enough.
No. of Recommendations: 0
" It means everyone in the Democratic caucus liked him - from the Squad to Joe Manchin. There were no internal downsides to picking him."
good morning, we shall see bud. There is 1 chance in 4 that trump can man up, become a serious candidate and talk the issues. If not, it's over. In two weeks' time Harris went from the most unliked VP in American history to the favorite to be our next president. Only trump could Fk up the hand he was dealt. UNreal !!
No. of Recommendations: 6
good morning, we shall see bud. There is 1 chance in 4 that trump can man up, become a serious candidate and talk the issues. If not, it's over. In two weeks' time Harris went from the most unliked VP in American history to the favorite to be our next president. Only trump could Fk up the hand he was dealt. UNreal !!
Loathe as I am to defend that vapid narcissist, I think it's unfair to lay the recent turn of events at his feet. Accepting the early debate was the right move on his part, and it's not his fault that Biden forked up so spectacularly that he was replaced as the nominee.
So now he finds himself facing a new nominee with less than a hundred days to go....and what do you expect? His campaign - correctly - had been entirely geared towards facing Biden. The GOP had invested massive political capital and resources into softening up Biden - the Hunter stuff, the impeachment inquiries, the "Crooked Joe" attacks. All of that stuff takes time to build up, and it can't be recreated in a few weeks for a new person.
And Trump just isn't a candidate that can turn on a dime. He is who he is. He's not an issues guy - he never was, and by nominating him the Republicans chose a guy who isn't an issues guy. His major problem is he crafts his political messages much the same way a stand-up comedian hones their act - he tries out a lot of stuff in front of an audience, and he intuits what's landing and what's not. His skill in doing that was always underestimated, and it's a major component of his ability to appeal to the GOP base. But that takes time. Consultants and oppo researchers and focus groups can come up with a new attack line pretty quickly; but if your method isn't to use those things, but instead use rally audiences to come up with a message, you're going to be much slower in responding.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Loathe as I am to defend that vapid narcissist,
Loath. A typo I assume. (Sorry - inveterate word Nazi.😉)
No. of Recommendations: 0
" Loathe as I am to defend that vapid narcissist, I think it's unfair to lay the recent turn of events at his feet. Accepting the early debate was the right move on his part, and it's not his fault that Biden forked up so spectacularly that he was replaced as the nominee."
Come on man, if trump is going to claim he knows nothing about project 25, you don't pick Vance. IF trump is going to claim he's pro choice up to 12-14 weeks, you don't pick Vance. He should have dumped Vance last week and BEGGED Haley to help him reset. Who told Harris she isn't black? IF trump really believes Harris is low IQ, dumb as a rock, a DEI classic case, he should be willing to debate Harris in Joy Behar's bedroom, 5 days a week, no?
No. of Recommendations: 9
Come on man, if trump is going to claim he knows nothing about project 25, you don't pick Vance. IF trump is going to claim he's pro choice up to 12-14 weeks, you don't pick Vance. He should have dumped Vance last week and BEGGED Haley to help him reset. Who told Harris she isn't black? IF trump really believes Harris is low IQ, dumb as a rock, a DEI classic case, he should be willing to debate Harris in Joy Behar's bedroom, 5 days a week, no?
All VP picks come with baggage, downsides, and positions that don't match up with the top of the ticket. That just comes with the territory. Trump chose Vance for one of the same reasons that Harris chose Walz - he didn't want to create an internal division within his supporters by picking someone they might have a problem with.
Dumping Vance for Haley would eliminate some of the Vance pain (boy, is he unpopular for a Veep pick!), but it would come at a heavy cost. Not only does that three-week flip look indecisive and admitting a mistake (which goes against the Trump brand), but you then alienate the huge part of the base that wants Vance (and thinks the liberal media are treating him unfairly) and doesn't want Haley.
As for Harris not being black, it's what I talked about upthread - Trump doesn't have an attack line on her, and he's just fishing around to see what his supporters will respond to. Trump thinks it's a little weird for her to identify as both Black and Indian (and to talk about one or the other at times)....maybe his base will think so, too? No? Okay, let's move on to something else. Maybe we call her dumb? A DEI pick? Is any of that working the way "Lock Her Up" or "Crooked Hillary" or "Build the Wall" did?
As for the debate, Trump is a TV guy. He knew the visual of him split-screening with Biden would be great for him no matter what the format. He knows the visual of him split-screening with Harris in a silent room and no ability to interrupt will be bad for him. He's a dominance kind of politician ("Strong and wrong" beats "weak and right"), and there's no way for him to project dominance in the format he agreed to when Biden was in the race. The debate would be bad bad bad for him. Maybe it's not as bad for him as skipping the debate, but it's probably the right move on his part to try not to have that exact debate.
No. of Recommendations: 1
IF trump really believes Harris is low IQ, dumb as a rock, a DEI classic case, he should be willing to debate Harris in Joy Behar's bedroom, 5 days a week, no?
Have you ever seen Harris when she has to think on her feet? She doesn't have very much confidence as a speaker and it shows - she devolves into word salad like no other politician in history.
There's a reason why they're hiding her from the media: the democrats KNOW she's awful when she has to find and use her own words.
The democrats had this election in the bag if they'd picked Shapiro. The guy is a vote getting machine and would have handed Pennsylvania and the parts of Michigan not called Hamtramck and Dearborn plus Wisconsin. Layup win.
But they picked one of the most extreme governors with the one of the easiest records to attack. A hilariously bad choice. Wait until Walz's record comes out.
No. of Recommendations: 0
" Have you ever seen Harris when she has to think on her feet? She doesn't have very much confidence as a speaker and it shows - she devolves into word salad like no other politician in history."
yep, you made the point, so why not debate her anywhere anytime ?
No. of Recommendations: 2
The debate would be bad bad bad for him. Maybe it's not as bad for him as skipping the debate, but it's probably the right move on his part to try not to have that exact debate.
Why should he agree to the same rules - rules that were designed to handicap him and favor Biden - and do the same thing with Harris? That doesn't make sense for DT.
Rather, he should be loudly pushing for debates with Harris in front of audiences on Fox and other non traditional outlets.
No. of Recommendations: 0
" All VP picks come with baggage, downsides, and positions that don't match up with the top of the ticket. That just comes with the territory. Trump chose Vance for one of the same reasons that Harris chose Walz - he didn't want to create an internal division within his supporters by picking someone they might have a problem with."
IF I ever get caught being a bad boy, I'm telling my princess to call you, I'm hiring you to defend me. Trump has committed more unforced errors than a high school tennis rookie, end of story. Pickleball time, have a grand day.
No. of Recommendations: 2
yep, you made the point, so why not debate her anywhere anytime ?
He absolutely will. The dems are pretending that the old rules are the requirement going forward but they're forgetting a number of things:
-The old rules were meant to be so odious for Trump that he'd turn them down and they could claim he was afraid
-Biden isn't the nominee anymore, Harris is, and as such any agreement between Trump and Biden is null and void.
Trump's already pitched a debate in front of an audience on Fox. The left wigged out because they absolutely don't want that; a live audience in front of reasonable moderators is doom for Harris and they know it. So...they're going to keep pushing for a liberal set of moderators, on a liberal network, with no audience and a rapid mute button to cut Trump off. In their minds stacking the deck in their favor is what "fair" means but to most people that's called...stacking the deck.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Have you ever seen Harris when she has to think on her feet? She doesn't have very much confidence as a speaker and it shows - she devolves into word salad like no other politician in history.
I know another politician who tends to devolve into word salad.....
The democrats had this election in the bag if they'd picked Shapiro. The guy is a vote getting machine and would have handed Pennsylvania and the parts of Michigan not called Hamtramck and Dearborn plus Wisconsin. Layup win.
There's no evidence that VP's offer much advantage in their home state. There's no reason to think that Shapiro would have been any more successful in bringing in votes in Michigan than Walz.
Had she picked Shapiro, the GOP playbook would have been pretty much the same - portray him as a far lefty who supports trans rights and socialism. The real-world facts that distinguish him from that caricature wouldn't have mattered (any more than they matter for Walz); the GOP would be claiming that Democrats would have had the election in the bag if they'd picked Walz, an authentic midwesterner who served in the military and had triangulated purple districts for years instead of yet another East Coast Liberal Technocrat Lawyer. Wait until Shapiro's record comes out!
No. of Recommendations: 5
...she devolves into word salad like no other politician in history.
That is hilarious coming from a Trump supporter. Do you have an inkling of how foolish you sound?
No. of Recommendations: 5
"Only trump could Fk up the hand he was dealt."
Semantic quibble: Trump wasn't dealt a hand. He extorted it by leveraging groups with gripes and a willfully ignorant population.
The majority -foiled by and antiquated electoral system- reject him.
No. of Recommendations: 7
“If Walz is the safe VP choice, what does safe mean exactly? Does the Walz choice indicate Shapiro is the unsafe choice. If part of the calculus in not choosing Shapiro is about his religion, what does that say about our country? “
I hate dishonest analysis like this. There is no evidence that Shapiro's religion was part of the calculus in not choosing Shapiro. None. People who imply it are being dishonest.
