Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are veering sharply in how they gear up for Tuesday’s presidential debate, setting up a showdown that reflects not just two separate visions for the country but two politicians who approach big moments very differently.
The vice president is cloistered in a historic hotel in downtown Pittsburgh where she can focus on honing crisp two-minute answers, per the debate’s rules. She’s been working with aides since Thursday and chose a venue that allows the Democratic nominee the option of mingling with swing-state voters.
Trump, the Republican nominee, publicly dismisses the value of studying for the debate. The former president is choosing instead to fill his days with campaign-related events on the premise that he’ll know what he needs to do once he steps on the debate stage at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.
“You can go in with all the strategy you want but you have to sort of feel it out as the debate’s taking place,” he said during a town hall with Fox News host Sean Hannity.
Trump then quoted former boxing great Mike Tyson, who said, “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.”
If the article said that Trump was huffing paint and doing whippits as prep I would believe it.
I would enjoy it if she brought out a large 2 minute countdown timer to start every time he starts talking.
Kind of ironic that Donnie uses that particular Mike Tyson quote because he’s a whiny little bitch who is afraid of direct confrontation and has only ever punched women.
I wish Tyson would take offense and punch him for it. Tyson would accidentally kill the piece of shit though.
I hope Harris doesn’t over prepare, she does need to maintain a certain level of off the cuff affability.
Over preparation was Biden’s fatal error, he was struggling so hard to hit his talking points he couldn’t keep things straight. Obviously things are vastly different with Harris, but she’d be best to not just be a talking point machine.
well one advantage she has is that she’s not legally dead.
also she seems to actually study things to understand them, not to parrot them by heart. being a prosecutor she probably knows how to study things and make cases.
That’s the main reason I gave up on watching political debates years ago, because nothing ever gets directly answered. It’s all fillers and boasting about past hurrahs and talking points.
If they just answered the fucking questions I’d be happy.
The media spent so much time focusing on zingers over ideas, they kinda created the mess.
Calling these things presidential “debates” is rich, indeed.
I totally see your point.
But with the switch from “when they go low,…” to “fuck it, we can hut below the belt even better”, I gotta admit I am quite interested to see how she will handle a formal debate: Hammer phrases like everyone before or hitting hard and agile.
Idk, somehow I feel we might see something refreshing this time.
Maybe I’ll watch the highlights or something 'cause I can’t stand Trump’s voice, his meandering and the bullshit he spews. His mere existence just pisses me off to no end.
Preach
Biden’s stutter leads him to greatly overprepare.
What she needs to be doing is trumping all over Trump. Like farting all over his face. No cancel that. Not farting. She needs to be consistently SHARTING all over his face, all over his whiskers and in his mouth.
Yessss… yessss.
Side note: fuck Shapiro that guys a fucking sellout like I’ve never liked the guy at all. Obviously. And I’ve never really thought he was actually principled. But like he has always tried to act like he’s super rational and it just makes no sense that he could still be supporting someone who blatantly tried to steal the election to stop the transfer of power.
His excuses to justify still supporting Trump make me sick and he also needs a caking of shart IMO.
Wait, is he gonna take a swing at Harris?
Trump pooped his pants at the last debate. Literally pooped his pants and there is audio evidence of it and no one cared.
He’s going to spout off a bunch of dog whistle, nonsensical bullshit without answering a single question and his base will eat it up.
I ha e hope for Harris, but this debate will change nothing.
Found the clip. It could have just been a REALLY wet fart, but the fact that the lapel mic picked it up makes me think Biden DEFINITELY heard it.
I know you’re supposed to confirm things for yourself but I’m very sensitive to audio and sounds have a tendency to stick in my brain. I’ll take your word on that so that I don’t have to stick my head in a blender later tonight.
I’ll confirm it for you: It’s so wet it sounds like a stomach gurgle. But for the mic to have picked it up, it had to have been loud enough to carry all the way to the mic.
There’s also a good chance that Biden heard it. You can see him look confused for a split second afterwards, then the realization hits him and he shakes his head.
it’s possible it’s a really wet fart, but i don’t know how many people fart in the middle of talking either.
Could be stomach settling noises or swallowing, but he doesn’t seem to be swallowing, idk.
Couldn’t hear it. Quite disappointed. Can you give a time index so I can try again with headphones?
E: ok, I heard it. 🤮 0:14
Skid marks in his underwear after that one for sure,
The low information voters who are still undecided will not respond to a reasonable person, they need a show of strength.
Kamala Harris will be spending a great deal of time both studying policy and practicing with seasoned opponents and people with a deep understanding of Trump’s psychology.
Trump will argue with a cheeseburger.
Hamberder.
cheeberder
Chips.
No coke, Pepsi.
Trump will argue with a cheeseburger
And will angrily eat it when it wins the argument
Loses
That’s a far better summary than anything I’ve seen in the press. Good work!
Hahahaha!!!
The sad part is his base won’t care how stupid he looks and how great she does. They’re beyond reasoning. I do look forward to our future President kicking the shit out of him at the debate though.
Debates aren’t for the candidate’s supporters. They’re for the undecided voters. How anyone is still undecided at this point is the real mystery
There’s a lot of Americans who don’t follow news and to them they only started paying attention after Labor Day.
I was going to say the real mystery is how anyone could vote for the racist, but then yeah, that’s why they’re voting for him. We have a lot of shitty people in this country, but then again, the world is full of shitty people.
I’m convinced anyone who claims they’re undecided is just being polite to the pollster instead of telling them “none of your business”. Or “undecided” is some statistical construct based on the last 70 years of data. Or, someone who hasn’t been paying attention and doesn’t want to admit to their own apathy.
The idea that someone has thoroughly weighed the offerings and is still waiting for more information to make a decision is utter fucking nonsense.
I think it’s not so much people who are undecided about who they will vote for, and more people who are undecided whether they will bother to vote for their preferred candidate or just stay home.
whether they will bother to vote for their preferred candidate or just stay home
It’s more like vote or go to work. I really don’t get why this country doesn’t hold elections on a day where most people can participate. Actually I do get it, but I don’t get how people can still think of the USA as a democracy
I had a quick google of this (I’m from UK) and it seems to indicate that in most states you can actually vote early.
Well specifically it says:
For the 2024 Presidential General Election, early voting will be available from Thursday, October 24, 2024 through Thursday, October 31, 2024 (including Saturday and Sunday) from 7 am to 8 pm.
That’s for Maryland. Gotta say it’s confusing that you seem to have different rules in different states, well not just confusing but actually undemocratic surely? Because it means some people in some states will have an easier time voting than others so are more likely to vote.
Surely it should be exactly the same rules in every state. I’m assuming now that the times you can vote on the actual day may even be different depending on state.
I get that you have different laws in different states for stuff. But surely for voting, it should be the exact same rules, because you’re electing the president of the whole of the USA not your state. (Although maybe you technically actually are only voting for the elector in your state that then casts their vote on your behalf, I even read that there have been rare occasions where the state elector went against what their state voted for!?)
I dunno. Seems a little crazy and quite confusing.
From what I read is that republican led states usually make it harder to vote than democratic states, but I haven’t looked further into this.
Although maybe you technically actually are only voting for the elector in your state that then casts their vote on your behalf, I even read that there have been rare occasions where the state elector went against what their state voted for!?
This whole process of voting in the US seems very outdated to me (I am from Europe too). I know that it is hard to fundamentally change the system as long as nothing goes completely wrong. Germany had big loopholes in the constitution during the Republic of Weimar too. Changing this was easy after the total defeat during the Second World War. I have no idea how you could get through with updating the complete political system of a more or less „functional“ country. Even less if the country is as divided as the US is at the moment
Why have a specific day? Why not have a two week period, this would have almost everyone not having to choose between work and voting.
What time can you vote from then? I think in the UK it’s 7am-10pm so surely anyone can make it at some point during then?? If it’s the same there… but to be honest at least making it a two day thing seems like a decent option.
But I struggle to see how you can’t make it between 7am and 10pm. It should be a legal right that your workplace has to let you have time to vote at some point during the day.
Back in 2004 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney said that if you couldn’t decide between George Bush and John Kerry in five minutes you were too stupid to have a vote.
edit = I had 2000 not 2004. credit wreel for noting it
Al Gore was 2000. John Kerry was 2004. But your point still stands. Any fuckwad who’s “on the fence” might only be barely above “too stupid to breath”.
You are correct and I’ll edit.
I think Harris may be neglecting a key part of necessary prep. She should spend some time at the zoo outside the monkey enclosure dodging their flung shit, or I fear she might lose.
It’s Pennsylvania, so they’re flinging batteries, but otherwise you’re right.
Looking forward to the grand American tradition of having candidates accuse each other of doing good things while vehemently denying the other’s slanderous accusations that they would ever do anything good.
I propose we do debates, and also do roasts like on Comedy Central. The candidates get to point out eachother’s flaws. That would be fun.
I don’t understand how that would be different from the debates.
One is (usually) more serious/professional and the other more casual/fun.
Hah! In that case, what you should propose is that we have a different event that’s actually a serious debate, and rebrand what we have now as comedy roasts, without changing a thing.
Debates are pure entertainment, it’s just a bunch of quips, one-liners, and power plays. There’s no serious, formal discussion of anything. It’s glorified reality TV for nerds who would be too good for it otherwise. And that’s something that predates Trump, it’s part of what set the stage for him.
Preposterous! Nobody has ever accused Donald Trump of doing a good thing.
He gets accused of wanting to deescalate conflicts, pull out of NATO, and generally refusing to uphold the constant state of war that every single US politician wants. The fact that he isn’t ideologically invested in stupid pointless conflicts is literally his only positive quality, so of course it’s where a lot of criticism gets directed, in order to uphold the grand American tradition. Of course, he’s not actually ideologically opposed to stupid pointless wars, so the machinery still gets to run uninterrupted, but he did at least give us an excellent roast of John Bolton, a notorious hawk.
I wish we could ever get offered a candidate who’s actually as isolationist as Trump gets accused of being, but unfortunately he’s not it. We got rising tensions and a trade war with China, which Biden normalized, and we got pushed to the brink of WWIII with the assassination of Soleimani, which Biden’s also following up by supporting Israel’s antics. Voters will never be given any sort of choice or input about such matters, and Trump is no exception, despite what people say.
NATO is a good organisation, it’s a defensive organisation.
Thinking that leaving or destroying/weaken NATO is good is just being fooled by the dictators held in check by NATO.
Why don’t you tell the Libyans about how “defensive” of an organization NATO is? It’s “defensive” in the same way the US department of “defense” has led invasions of countless countries and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even if that were true, the US is an extremely belligerent and aggressive country, so giving it cover only enables it to act aggressively without fear of repercussions or backlash.
Libya and Gadaffi was a french operation. But even, yeah just let Russia have its way right.
On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya
Literally the first sentence lmao.
Yeah you don’t know your history.
By the way, what’s your take on Tianmen square and the Uyghurs?
Well clearly you just don’t understand that the US has to make a living somehow!
Can’t you let a man work?!
US is not NATO. Sheesh.
Well sorta
Dude, Trump would be a nightmare on foreign policy. All Putin would have to do is give him a compliment and he’ll start trading sensitive documents with him.
I suspect a big part of the war lust in America is because politicians are getting hand jobs and bribes from people who benefit in the defence industry. Trump is certainly not above being bribed.
The way he spoke to North Korea’s leader whose name has escaped me for now… king jung un? Or something. The way he spoke to him could have potentially caused a fucking nuclear war. He got lucky and came out of it looking good, there was no skill there just absolute stupid luck.
You want America to pull out of NATO? Wtf? Haha maybe you didn’t mean that? Hopefully not cos that would be crazy and yeah he could well pull the US out of NATO, so again - not good.
I’m not understanding you at all in thinking Trump would be good for foreign policy.
At no point did I say he’d be good for foreign policy. What I said is that he’s (incorrectly) accused of stuff that, if true, would be good for foreign policy.
I suspect a big part of the war lust in America is because politicians are getting hand jobs and bribes from people who benefit in the defence industry. Trump is certainly not above being bribed.
Yes, that’s more or less what I meant when I said that, while he isn’t ideologically committed to being pro-war, he isn’t ideologically opposed either, so the machine can continue uninterrupted.
You want America to pull out of NATO? Wtf? Haha maybe you didn’t mean that? Hopefully not cos that would be crazy and yeah he could well pull the US out of NATO, so again - not good.
Yes, I would like the US to pull out of NATO. I’m an isolationist, and I don’t see how US global hegemony or adventurism benefits me as an American citizen, or anyone else outside of the elite.
Trump isn’t going to pull out of NATO, of course.
He gets accused of wanting to deescalate conflicts, pull out of NATO, and generally refusing to uphold the constant state of war that every single US politician wants.
Just going off e.g. the stunt he pulled with moving the embassy to Jerusalem, I would say this sentence is giving him way too much benefit of the doubt.
The way see it, what he is mostly accused of is claiming to want to do those things (and most candidates would claim they wanted to “solve” e.g. the middle east conflict) but not actually having any kind of realistic idea of how to achieve any of them. Possibly besides pulling out of NATO, which, given the current state of the world, is a stretch to call this a “good thing”.
Also, when it comes to stupid pointless conflicts, I think we can rest assured that he will always be invested in them on the side he believes he can personally profit off the most. Which is an ideology too if you think about it.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard a politician accuse Trump of just “not having a realistic idea to achieve” isolationist goals. They attack him for having isolationist goals at all (which he doesn’t actually have, really), because all of them are extreme interventionists.
Now you’re jumping from “deescalating conflicts” to isolationist goals. That’s not the same thing. However it beautifully illustrates the point of my original comment. It’s highly debatable if “isolationist goals” are a good thing he would be accused of.
(Actually) Deescalating conflicts would be a good thing, I think most would agree. He just won’t be able to, because his idea of deescalating is submitting to dictators. His interest isn’t solving anything, just blocking out the noise and taking credit.
Well, I mean, if you’re invested in the preservation of US hegemony for some reason, then I guess it’s debatable whether keeping up a constant state of war and bloodshed is a good or bad thing. I, however, am not. I don’t give a rat’s ass about US hegemony and I would love to have a president who’s willing to “”“submit to dictators”“” to avoid conflict.
The only people who actually gain anything at all from US hegemony are the people at the top. Nobody else, at home or abroad, benefits from it at all. Rather, we get all our domestic programs cut to fund a war machine that spreads fear and destruction to innocent people around the globe. Unless you’re part of the elite, invest heavily in companies like Lockheed Martin, or have confused national interests with your own, then yes, isolationist policies are a good thing.
You want America to be isolated? In a world where we have a Russia and a China? Are you for real dude?
When the US finally pulled it’s finger out of its arse and stopped just benefiting financially from world war 2 and decided (more like was forced but whatever) to join in and fight Hitler, they were able to end it.
That was a good thing. The UN and NATO originated off the back of that stuff.
You cannot be isolated in a 2024 globalised world. Absolutely bizarre take. I suppose you don’t want to trade with anyone else either right?
I’m not gonna debate this here further. The fact that we obviously disagree proves my point.
“Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.”
Yes they do Donnie. I wonder if you’ll remember that when you’re laid out on the debate stage from the beatdown Kamala inflicts on your orange ass.
He’s into being spanked on the ass. Ask Stormy Daniels.
You don’t think that maybe this was a figure of speech? Like saying, “life slaps you in the face”.
The “beatdown” the comment refers to is also a figure of speech.
Trump will ramble nonstop, hot mic rule will prevent them from moderating him (as if they would) and Harris will look bad because she has to endure his ramblings because getting into a shouting match will look worse.
There’s no way they’re not anticipating this. We didn’t all wake up yesterday to Trump.
They can put him in a bulletproof glass box with option to make it sound proof whenever it’s not his turn.
Let’s hope so. Media is mostly on trumps side. Murdoch that is.
I thought they were going to have microphones muted? So no interrupting possible.
I thought that they weren’t going to have hot mics?
If that means they were going to have them muted then yeah that’s what I understand. That they will be muted just like with the Biden one.
That was what was reported on bbc news well I think they actually said “likely” about their mics being muted so actually it wasn’t conclusive. I know Harris didn’t want them muted.
I agree with her wanting them unmuted, I think that will benefit her. She’s very quick on her feet from clips they showed of her (I literally hadn’t seen her speak until today, so I’m only going by a few clips they showed of her in debates and in congress).
She will be quick. Trump will be senile and slow and she can quickly shut him down while also letting him ramble just enough to show he’s senile.
But Trumps side wants them muted, clearly knowing it will be better for Trump that way. Especially if Trump needs to shart again. He will be hoping he can hold it in until he mic is muted and it’s Harris’s turn to speak.
On one hand, my knee jerk reaction is to say debates don’t really matter.
On the other hand, Biden literally dropped out over the last one.
Yeah kinda special case there though I think. But of course they matter to an extent. I think there’s trumps strong hardcore nutter fans who would rather have Putin govern them than Biden or Kamala (actually heard one of them say this on a YT video about Biden).
These people won’t be swayed away from him by anything, therefore debate is irrelevant for them.
Then there are also hardcore anti trump people, the only sensible position to have, frankly. That would be the category I fall into but I’m not American so irrelevant for me lol.
But yeah, for those people, whatever percentage that is the debate doesn’t really matter either.
Then there are some people who are hardcore republicans. Really don’t like Dems but also do kind care about trump being cray cray and maybe cancelling all future elections if he gets in. So these people might be swayed I guess? I dunno. As I’ve wrote this out, I’ve actually more or less come to the conclusion that there really shouldn’t be many people who the debate will change their mind on anything.
But there has to be some undecided but it’s a weird position that I can’t really understand so who knows if it will sway those people either way. Some of them I guess. Also the evidence for these charges against Trump are coming out in a week or so I think, whenever that happens, that’s not gonna be good for trump. That’s for sure. How bad it will affect him I can’t really say, but it’s certainty not gonna increase his support.
So I can only imagine it will thankfully DECREASE IT. Overall I think Trumps bitten off more than he can chew. With these charges and with him basically alienating half the population (women) over abortion, I’d like to THINK, the Dems have this in the bag. But fucking vote people!
republicans are going to deludedly believe that kamala bombed this debate no matter what, they will literally believe anything if it suits their narrative.
So as long as kamala has a reasonable performance and gives trump a run for his money that’s all that’s required, dig into real policy, dig into real statements, don’t let him get away with anything, and i think it should pretty much only go well for her at that point.
There are a certain subset of people that just vote R because they always have because of where they grew up or how their parents voted or what have you and pay attention to basically fucking nothing but the biggest of headlines. These are the ones he might still be able to lose if he fucks up hard enough, because at this point I suspect a lot of them are not exactly hyped about voting for him anyway and are just coasting on a combination of sunk cost fallacy and a nigh on pathological fear of change.
This is why I think he might just bail on the debate; he can only lose votes if he debates.
Also, he’s a coward.
If he does, great. He can’t interrupt or defend any questions. Let the back and forth go through as normal with emphasis on the quiet that would be Trump’s responses
I hope that’s how it works out, if he lives up to expectations.
Anyone with sense was saying Biden needed to step down before the debate. It was plain as day to everyone except the Democratic strategists, and, well, Lemmy.
I don’t think that’s the case at all regarding Lemmy.
I think Lemmy Dems vastly agreed that Biden was not the choice they would have preferred, however he was not a bad president and had some really good policy gains (and definitely some fails). Even if people were sick of old white men being President, they would vote for Biden because he was still a damn sight better than trump. Him stepping down was not really on the table because the only people beating that drum were the “genocide Joe” crowd who were just as critical of democrats in general.
For a lot of people, him stepping down wasn’t on the table because of Genocide Joe, it was because he wasn’t going to win the election against Trump no matter how much his supporters hoped.
But of course, on Lemmy, the Dump Joe camp was all painted by the same brush as naysayers that didn’t understand that he was the only shining light that could save the election. That was proven wrong in several ways in the days since (though who knows what happens yet), but I would hope in retrospect that the people that were shitting on the many other people that wanted a change have figured out that they were plainly wrong.
I doubt the veracity of everything you just said. You essentially repeated what the previous poster said that I disagreed with, and as far as I know the polling showed Biden and trump relatively equal despite Biden’s poor performance at the debate.
Again, nobody saw Biden as a savior (edit: as in someone who can effect great change to the country, he was a decent president who was saving us from trump), he was simply the only available choice thanks to the way politics work in the US. Until he stepped down, anyway. We are now left with the de facto “choice” of Harris, who, like Biden, is who we are stuck with. I don’t doubt her being a better candidate at all.
Exactly this! There weren’t Joe Biden fanatics about! There were people looking at the polling and hedging their bets on Biden. It’s easy to say we were wrong in hindsight. But we weren’t really wrong at the time.
No one knew how popular or unpopular Harris would turn out to be (although up until that point she was certainly UNPOPULAR).
Don’t know why you’re downvoted. That’s pretty much it. I don’t know if Lemmy has the memory of a gnat or is just being hypocritical, but after Biden’s debate performance there were some calls here for him to step down and probably just as many “wait and see, he’s still better that trump” replies. Nobody was fanatical, more than a few pointed out his accomplishments as ameliorating factors, but nobody was really happy about it. Also, people looked around for other candidates who the wished were in the running, from Buttegieg to several others. Lemmy all but ignored Harris, or at least offered soft criticism of some of the negative aspects of her time as a prosecutor and how she’s essentially a centrist with left leaning social stances. She wasn’t popular at all here.
Him stepping down was not really on the table
I must be misreading this or something. How can you say him stepping down “wasn’t on the table” when he, you know, stepped down?
It wasn’t. Nobody expected it. The DNC didn’t want it. Biden didn’t want it.
You do realize that things can change, right? Stepping down wasn’t on the table…until it was.
I guess we must have different definitions of “on the table.” Where I come from, it means that there’s a reasonable possibility that it could happen, not that it’s guaranteed to happen. There was always a reasonable possibility that it could happen.
Perhaps. I used the term “on the table” as “being considered” in an official sense, not as in what we on Lemmy think. I think both definitions are correct, however I’m sorry it wasn’t clear that I’d restricted my use to official consideration of stepping down.
It was never going to be officially considered until it was a done deal. You don’t just go, “I was thinking of dropping out of the race out of concern that I’m too old… but I decided to stay in!” That just legitimizes criticism that you’re too old. The moment it was officially acknowledged as a possibility, it had already been settled privately.
i think ultimately, biden fulfilled the term and position he needed to, and now is a good time to hand it off to another candidate who can do more work piggybacking on the back of the previously successful admin.
The voter cost of not dropping biden may have been significant, but i doubt it would’ve mattered in terms of governmental policy. His admin was good this time around, it would likely be good the next time around.
I think we have enough potential to be able to do even more in this cycle specifically though.
Agreed on all counts.
I wasn’t in favour of him stepping down. And all the polls at the time showed Harris as being less popular so it just didn’t make sense.
After that debate I was still not really in favour of him stepping down from a pure just looking at the numbers stance that I’m sure still showed him as being more popular than her.
However when he called Zelensky, Putin, I knew the game was up. It was clear that he literally couldn’t function even when he wasn’t in a pressurised debate.
I don’t think it was obvious that there was a chance that Harris was going to be more popular than him until before that point really. Even then you couldn’t say for sure.
But it was obvious he just wasn’t going to make it to the election. You can’t mix up Zelensky and Putin and just carry on after that. I really think that was a much lower low than the debate.
The Democrats fucked up by not replacing Biden from the beginning, that was the time when it made sense to get rid of him. I was fully in favour of it at that point.
To change your candidate THIS close to the election of course seemed like an insane idea. The choice just got taken away in the end and he just had to go.
Thankfully it’s worked out really well but it’s easy to say that we should have changed him straight after or before that debate. The choice was not as obvious as you are making it out to be beforehand. Because the dem voters weren’t obsessed with Biden like the reps are obsessed with Trump. Everyone wanted whoever would be the best candidate to beat Trump. Literally no one gave a shit whether it was Biden or not, he just looked like the best choice until very late on.
We should’ve held a goddamn primary. If the Democrats were so convinced that the incumbency effect was worth skipping on a primary, they should’ve put it to the test and asked the American voters if they thought Biden was still the best guy for the job. Not a choice between Biden and Trump, but a choice between Biden and a number of other qualified candidates.
If we’re being honest, pre-debate I would have still chosen Biden. I still think he’s capable of doing the job of President despite the poor showing, because I know that’s not Biden 100% of the time, that’s him 1% of the time when not on top of his game.
Couldn’t be happier with the Harris replacement, though. It brought the energy we were sorely lacking. I’m just crossing my fingers and praying that people show up in November. Please, god, don’t let that fucking crook back in.
I think Biden would have still won. Incumbency and name recognition is huge advantage among people who bother to vote in primaries.
It would basically be Biden on one side with several candidates splitting the anti-Biden vote.
If the Democrats were so convinced that the incumbency effect was worth skipping on a primary, they should’ve put it to the test and asked the American voters if they thought Biden was still the best guy for the job.
now to be clear, we didn’t quite lose the incumbency advantage, given that kamala is a VP currently, so there’s actually a much less significant cost here in this case.
Not everyone with sense. The question was if Harris is electable, if the dems would rally behind her instead of infighting, and if there was enough time to spin up a campaign. Biden was previously electable, had the majority of dems supporting him, and didn’t need to spin up a campaign.
Now, in hindsight, Kamala was the right choice. She’s been great and people have responded well. But that was by no means a sure thing
deleted by creator
71% of voters say that their mind is made up about Trump. 51% of voters said the same about Harris. There’s a lot of ground for Harris to gain.
At this point, as a non american, i just cannot comprehend at all why people would doubt on who to vote. Trump fanatics have made up their mind and will never vote Harris, I get that. If you dont like trump, there’s only one other option and that’s Harris, right?
But is there really a big group of people that actually STILL need to compare candidates and think “not so fast, that trump guy may have a point”. What makes them think he is a sane choice? Are these people that voted biden, are disappointed in his presidency and now think “it was better under trump”?
It’s not like European countries where you need to choose between like 10 different parties. If you dont like trump, you vote harris; simple as that, right? (Obviously not, so I really want to understand the dynamic in play here)
deleted by creator
So Trump’s plan is to punch her in the face on live TV?
It’s a bold move…If he does I would like the Secret Service let her punch him back just to see his orange surprised pikachu face.
let_them_fight.jpg
You know. That’s actually an interesting hypothetical. How does the Secret Service react if two people with Secret Service protection try to fight each other? I imagine they would first protect whoever has the most seniority, as in the current serving president, then current vice president, etc. But what if say, two former presidents try to duke it out?
Or can the president waive Secret Service protection? Since the president has broad immunity for ‘official acts’, does this mean the president can now duel someone on the White House Lawn at dawn?
Surely they’d just split up the fight lol. If you can grab hold of one of them, then the fight is over isn’t it? So it doesn’t matter who you grab or who you protect, you’ll be protecting the other in the process.
I’d assume that they’re different details and chains-of-command so each to their own.
I imagine it would look something like NFL refs trying to breakup a fight.
They each have their own protection detail. Each will quickly move to protect the one they are responsible for, which will mean separating them (probably by a lot of distance).
Someone under SS protection can choose to waive it. There are some former presidents who deemed it unnecessary later in life.
No idea about the rest of your hypothetical
deleted by creator
