But what, specifically, would she say to differentiate herself from Biden on issue number 1? Did she, in fact, differ from Biden? You've made it clear that you don't consider the truth relevant and we'll just have to agree to disagree on that, so let's play it your way. What lie should she have told-- concretely and specifically? And if, instead, she should have given us empty bafflegab, why do you think she could have sold it?
Objection. Non-responsive. You remain perfectly free to explain what you think Harris could or should have done differently and why, in your view, it would have helped her win. You don't need anyone's agreement on your assumption to do that; indeed, doing a good job would enhance the believability of your assumption. You have been asked to do that. You have declined. That's your prerogative and I take your declination seriously.
We can agree that you believe that. We don't have to agree that it's true. You can try to establish that it's true by pointing out specific mistakes, telling us what should have been done differently in enough concrete detail to grapple with, and explaining why your suggested changes would likely have moved the needle enough to make the changes outweigh the costs of not making them. You have been asked for that. You have declined. That's your prerogative. And your habit.
As for disagreeing with both P and not-P, you beat me to it.
Forget it, Jake, it's Dark Matter Town. Nothing you can possibly say would get him off his evidence-free belief that, on the face of it (perhaps literally), Harris wasn't up to the job.
To make it easier to work around your reading comprehension problem, I'll pull out the relevant text:
There are two possibilities: (1) she has specific, substantive differences with Biden on how to handle inflation; or (2) she doesn’t. If (2), she can’t, at least not truthfully, throw him under the bus by saying that.
If there's a possibility I missed, you can point it out to me.
If, as you accurately point out, Harris wouldn't have done anything differently than Biden, then (2) applies, and she can't truthfully say what you want her to say. And to lie and say it anyway is throwing Biden under the bus.
She could have done something other than she did, but not truthfully. I happen to think truthfulness is relevant to what you can say. Not everyone agrees, and we've seen that that can work. At least twice.
It would be damn silly for a politician to put it that way. There are two possibilities: (1) she has specific, substantive differences with Biden on how to handle inflation; or (2) she doesn't. If (2), she can't, at least not truthfully, throw him under the bus by saying that. If (1), she can freely say what she would do going forward without casting aspersions on what Biden has already done. (Since most of the reasons for inflation had little to do with policy that she might have disagreed with, this also has the virtue of being honest. Or, at least, I think that's a virtue.) That wouldn't be throwing Biden under the bus.
Harris saying exactly what you said and nothing more would be throwing Biden under the bus, and for no likely gain. That's why no sensible politician would do it that way.
It was? By whom? And why would they have thought that other than wishcasting?
I do know a lot of people who wanted it to come out that way, but that's a different thing.
How long have you had this reading comprehension problem? I said very plainly that whether the election was winnable or unwinnable has nothing to do with what moves you make. You do what gives you the best chance to win regardless. I said as clearly as I know how that I was not basing anything I said on any assumption about whether the election was unwinnable.
If you don't want to, or can't, provide some specific and substantive remarks about inflation and what, if anything, Harris would do differently from Biden that you -- not me, you -- think she should have made, well, that's your prerogative. As long as it's clear what you're doing. Or not doing.
My how we complicate simple things. And how easily avoidable if you said what you meant the first time.
Whether Harris was doomed because of larger forces or not is irrelevant to whether her campaign should have done things calculated to win. That's just professional pride. I have been handed unwinnable cases and still do what is best calculated to win. And then I lose, because the case was unwinnable. So nothing I said depends on whether I make assumption 1 or assumption 2.
The issue, then, is whether Harris saying, and I quote: “I think we should have done more on inflation… I think that we should have taken it more seriously,” was, and I quote: empty and anodyne blather, or something that might have improved Harris's chances to win and, therefore, should have been done.
There doesn't seem to be any dispute that what you originally said she should have said counts as empty and anodyne blather unlikely to move the needle. You now suggest that had she said it anyway she would eventually have to say something more, presumably something specific and substantive.
If you want to revise and extend your remarks and give us something specific and substantive (preferably truthful) that she could and should have said -- not empty noise about feeling your pain or what have you -- please proceed.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024”
To District of Columbia Stadium?
On “From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’”
That's what you've got?
"
But what, specifically, would she say to differentiate herself from Biden on issue number 1? Did she, in fact, differ from Biden? You've made it clear that you don't consider the truth relevant and we'll just have to agree to disagree on that, so let's play it your way. What lie should she have told-- concretely and specifically? And if, instead, she should have given us empty bafflegab, why do you think she could have sold it?
On “Are Republicans Waking Up?”
Growth, economy, jobs, crime… that stuff.
The Democrats would like a word.
On “From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’”
Objection. Non-responsive. You remain perfectly free to explain what you think Harris could or should have done differently and why, in your view, it would have helped her win. You don't need anyone's agreement on your assumption to do that; indeed, doing a good job would enhance the believability of your assumption. You have been asked to do that. You have declined. That's your prerogative and I take your declination seriously.
"
We can agree that you believe that. We don't have to agree that it's true. You can try to establish that it's true by pointing out specific mistakes, telling us what should have been done differently in enough concrete detail to grapple with, and explaining why your suggested changes would likely have moved the needle enough to make the changes outweigh the costs of not making them. You have been asked for that. You have declined. That's your prerogative. And your habit.
As for disagreeing with both P and not-P, you beat me to it.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024”
The complaint:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25460086-trumpselzersuit121624/?mode=document
On “From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’”
Now you know how the rest of us feel.
"
If you continue to do my work for me, I can take the holidays off.
"
At least we now know.
"
But we've already established that that would have been a lie. So (2).
"
So (2).
"
Do you think the answer she actually gave was true or not? Or do you think the truth isn't relevant?
"
Yes, I get that. I got it the first time. So (2).
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024”
Forget it, Jake, it's Dark Matter Town. Nothing you can possibly say would get him off his evidence-free belief that, on the face of it (perhaps literally), Harris wasn't up to the job.
On “From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’”
To make it easier to work around your reading comprehension problem, I'll pull out the relevant text:
There are two possibilities: (1) she has specific, substantive differences with Biden on how to handle inflation; or (2) she doesn’t. If (2), she can’t, at least not truthfully, throw him under the bus by saying that.
If there's a possibility I missed, you can point it out to me.
If, as you accurately point out, Harris wouldn't have done anything differently than Biden, then (2) applies, and she can't truthfully say what you want her to say. And to lie and say it anyway is throwing Biden under the bus.
She could have done something other than she did, but not truthfully. I happen to think truthfulness is relevant to what you can say. Not everyone agrees, and we've seen that that can work. At least twice.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024”
70 is the new 50. At least I hope so.
On “From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’”
So (2).
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024”
Trump brings frivolous lawsuit about the Iowa Seltzer poll:
https://www.aol.com/news/trump-sues-iowa-pollster-ann-142649539.html
On “From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’”
It would be damn silly for a politician to put it that way. There are two possibilities: (1) she has specific, substantive differences with Biden on how to handle inflation; or (2) she doesn't. If (2), she can't, at least not truthfully, throw him under the bus by saying that. If (1), she can freely say what she would do going forward without casting aspersions on what Biden has already done. (Since most of the reasons for inflation had little to do with policy that she might have disagreed with, this also has the virtue of being honest. Or, at least, I think that's a virtue.) That wouldn't be throwing Biden under the bus.
Harris saying exactly what you said and nothing more would be throwing Biden under the bus, and for no likely gain. That's why no sensible politician would do it that way.
Your turn.
On “Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024”
It was pretty much assumed AOC would win
It was? By whom? And why would they have thought that other than wishcasting?
I do know a lot of people who wanted it to come out that way, but that's a different thing.
On “From Semafor: Kamala Harris’ digital chief on Democrats ‘losing hold of culture’”
You can continue to hammer on what you choose. You have made your choice. That is your prerogative. Thanks for playing.
"
How long have you had this reading comprehension problem? I said very plainly that whether the election was winnable or unwinnable has nothing to do with what moves you make. You do what gives you the best chance to win regardless. I said as clearly as I know how that I was not basing anything I said on any assumption about whether the election was unwinnable.
If you don't want to, or can't, provide some specific and substantive remarks about inflation and what, if anything, Harris would do differently from Biden that you -- not me, you -- think she should have made, well, that's your prerogative. As long as it's clear what you're doing. Or not doing.
"
My how we complicate simple things. And how easily avoidable if you said what you meant the first time.
Whether Harris was doomed because of larger forces or not is irrelevant to whether her campaign should have done things calculated to win. That's just professional pride. I have been handed unwinnable cases and still do what is best calculated to win. And then I lose, because the case was unwinnable. So nothing I said depends on whether I make assumption 1 or assumption 2.
The issue, then, is whether Harris saying, and I quote: “I think we should have done more on inflation… I think that we should have taken it more seriously,” was, and I quote: empty and anodyne blather, or something that might have improved Harris's chances to win and, therefore, should have been done.
There doesn't seem to be any dispute that what you originally said she should have said counts as empty and anodyne blather unlikely to move the needle. You now suggest that had she said it anyway she would eventually have to say something more, presumably something specific and substantive.
If you want to revise and extend your remarks and give us something specific and substantive (preferably truthful) that she could and should have said -- not empty noise about feeling your pain or what have you -- please proceed.
"
Clark should "remain neutral" on simple decency? Good to know.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.