Harris is a pretty good candidate doing a pretty good job.
Against that we have other plausible candidates who might have done better jobs, but the reasons boil down to vibes and alternative but comparable sets of weaknesses.
Because the real point is that Trump supporters are malignant, feral toddlers who evidently cannot control themselves, but we must never, ever says as much.
So a set of liabilities that can be matched more or less one-for-one with Pritzker’s liabilities, with the exception of the intangible “charisma”, somehow prove that the Dems aren’t taking the threat posed by Trump seriously enough, and thus no one but Democrats will have any responsibility for his victory should it come to pass.
Surely not the people who vote for him, the Republicans who vote for him, the maniac billionaires who’ve bankrolled his candidacy, the media outlets that cover for him out of fear and or greed.
Just a bunch of people in the other party who disagreed with you about which plausible Presidential candidate was better than replacement level.
I have no doubt Kamala Harris is qualified to the do the job (nor do I doubt Pritzker is).
However, when I'm looking at candidates to bet on to beat Trump, it's really not obvious why "Illinois Governor" is anything like a safe bet.
With Shapiro, at least, you have his record of winning and generally sustaining popularity in a key battleground state.
And I'm not sure his potential scandals are more dangerous than Pritzker, what with the whole "Illinois Governor" thing and the "arguably tried to buy an appointment from Rod Blagojevich" thing.
(Yes, I did just spend a few minutes Googling Pritzker to further my crusade for Internet points. Why do you ask?)
“Generic Democrat” would be whupping Trump this election, no doubt.
Because... why? What specific thing about Harris sets her apart from Generic Democrat?
From where I'm sitting her unusual path towards nomination makes her much more closer to Generic Democrat than usual, as it's the primary where the differentiation happens.
Harris is an actual candidate with actual strengths and weaknesses, as any candidate would be.
Against that we have suspicions that Shapiro would be better, say, without considering which of the potential scandals, if any, would have blown up if he'd been the guy.
Nor is there an obvious mechanism for him being the guy, for that matter.
Like nothing in the tradeoffs you outlined indicate a lack of taking Trump seriously as a threat.
(Less familiar with Pritzker than Shapiro which is why I built the argument around him.)
Trump still has no small number of crooks, frauds, and grifters in his orbit, but he seems to have acquired many more shrewd policy entrepreneurs who have spent the Biden years mapping out ways to make the policy impacts much harsher.
Like, they'll be hindered by the chaos I'm sure, but I expect they'll be hindered much less than last time.
And none of the people in the inner circle will be there because they're hoping they can keep the train on the rails by working on the inside.
Yeah but your complaints about Harris are indistinguishable from "wrong rock" kind of stuff.
Like Dems were sufficiently freaked that they took the more-or-less unprecedented step of replacing the incumbent President with the VP but that's not enough because the VP got heckled at a rally or gave some dodgy answers in an interview.
If the hijab is a diversity symbol than so is the tichel and if the tichel is oppressive than so is the hijab. This is one of the areas where I think we should demand ideological consistency.
And if non-Orthodox Jewish women don't go along with the plan, then what?
I see a bunch of people who are engaging in altruistic punishment of the various owners involved and so that makes me think that we’re not in “this doesn’t matter” territory. I mean, *THEY* seem to think that this is harmful-enough-to-deserve-punishment.
I believe it's harmful to the overall fabric of American civic life.
And it's even more harmful to the Post's credibility.
Either one would make me consider canceling a subscription if I had one.
There're more to life than just the immediate horse race.
I would say that it does not matter one whit from a short term electoral standpoint.
I think it will have significant long term consequences for the media, and by degrading the overall credibility of the Washington Post among the people who actually did believe it was credible.
As skeptical as I am of the basic notion of non-partisan media, I think that's a net negative.
No shade against LeeEsq, but given how many screenshots get circulated these days with fake headlines, I think the actual link is always worth including.
Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell asked Vice President Kamala Harris in a rare joint statement to tone down her rhetoric in the lead-up to Election Day, days after Harris said she considered Donald Trump a fascist.
The two top Republicans accused Harris of fanning “the flames beneath a boiling cauldron of political animus” and said her words in recent days “seem to dare it to boil over.”
Obviously newspaper endorsements for President are completely meaningless in terms of electoral impact, but the nonfeasance of the LA Times and, much more importantly, the Post, are doing a lot to validate Team Blue's suspicion that the self-styled non-partisan media are tacitly Trumpist.
Yes oil is still a globally traded commodity but the region has never mattered less as far as American interests are concerned.
We are committed to the Middle East because we have important regional allies, and our regional allies are important because we are committed to the Middle East!
On “What If Trump Wins?”
Really I think this gives away too much.
Harris is a pretty good candidate doing a pretty good job.
Against that we have other plausible candidates who might have done better jobs, but the reasons boil down to vibes and alternative but comparable sets of weaknesses.
Because the real point is that Trump supporters are malignant, feral toddlers who evidently cannot control themselves, but we must never, ever says as much.
"
So a set of liabilities that can be matched more or less one-for-one with Pritzker’s liabilities, with the exception of the intangible “charisma”, somehow prove that the Dems aren’t taking the threat posed by Trump seriously enough, and thus no one but Democrats will have any responsibility for his victory should it come to pass.
Surely not the people who vote for him, the Republicans who vote for him, the maniac billionaires who’ve bankrolled his candidacy, the media outlets that cover for him out of fear and or greed.
Just a bunch of people in the other party who disagreed with you about which plausible Presidential candidate was better than replacement level.
"
I have no doubt Kamala Harris is qualified to the do the job (nor do I doubt Pritzker is).
However, when I'm looking at candidates to bet on to beat Trump, it's really not obvious why "Illinois Governor" is anything like a safe bet.
With Shapiro, at least, you have his record of winning and generally sustaining popularity in a key battleground state.
And I'm not sure his potential scandals are more dangerous than Pritzker, what with the whole "Illinois Governor" thing and the "arguably tried to buy an appointment from Rod Blagojevich" thing.
(Yes, I did just spend a few minutes Googling Pritzker to further my crusade for Internet points. Why do you ask?)
"
Because... why? What specific thing about Harris sets her apart from Generic Democrat?
From where I'm sitting her unusual path towards nomination makes her much more closer to Generic Democrat than usual, as it's the primary where the differentiation happens.
"
Yup I was right it's totally the wrong rock.
Harris is an actual candidate with actual strengths and weaknesses, as any candidate would be.
Against that we have suspicions that Shapiro would be better, say, without considering which of the potential scandals, if any, would have blown up if he'd been the guy.
Nor is there an obvious mechanism for him being the guy, for that matter.
Like nothing in the tradeoffs you outlined indicate a lack of taking Trump seriously as a threat.
(Less familiar with Pritzker than Shapiro which is why I built the argument around him.)
"
Trump still has no small number of crooks, frauds, and grifters in his orbit, but he seems to have acquired many more shrewd policy entrepreneurs who have spent the Biden years mapping out ways to make the policy impacts much harsher.
Like, they'll be hindered by the chaos I'm sure, but I expect they'll be hindered much less than last time.
And none of the people in the inner circle will be there because they're hoping they can keep the train on the rails by working on the inside.
"
Yeah but your complaints about Harris are indistinguishable from "wrong rock" kind of stuff.
Like Dems were sufficiently freaked that they took the more-or-less unprecedented step of replacing the incumbent President with the VP but that's not enough because the VP got heckled at a rally or gave some dodgy answers in an interview.
"
Shoot them in the street, let a Blue State governor pardon us, and then write it off as just another round of a game of iterated Prisoner's Dilemma?
"
Coffee isn't the issue. Fasting for a blood test is the issue.
Maybe I'll do better after som fishing food.
"
"Over the course of two primary elections, I sent more than 20 candidates who aren't Donald Trump."
"
Yes as always the only people who have any responsibility for Rightward actions are Democrats.
"
Is it appropriate for Nazis to shoot Leftist protesters in the street for no reason and then be pardoned by Red State governors?
I mean, I know you think the answer is, "Yes," which makes the way you're pressing Mr H on merely throwing hands pretty puzzling.
"
Glad to have the OT commentariat reminding us that the biggest danger if Trump is re-elected is angry liberals hurting conservatives' feelings.
On “Ukraine and the Axis of Evil”
But if you're not saying that, what communal determination isn't being respected here?
"
And if non-Orthodox Jewish women don't go along with the plan, then what?
On “From The Washington Post: On Political Endorsement”
I believe it's harmful to the overall fabric of American civic life.
And it's even more harmful to the Post's credibility.
Either one would make me consider canceling a subscription if I had one.
There're more to life than just the immediate horse race.
"
Yes.
"
I would say that it does not matter one whit from a short term electoral standpoint.
I think it will have significant long term consequences for the media, and by degrading the overall credibility of the Washington Post among the people who actually did believe it was credible.
As skeptical as I am of the basic notion of non-partisan media, I think that's a net negative.
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/21/2024”
Here's a link to the actual Politico story.
No shade against LeeEsq, but given how many screenshots get circulated these days with fake headlines, I think the actual link is always worth including.
"
I don't know whether calling Trump a fascist is going to work as a closing argument for the election, but it looks like GOP Congressional leadership thinks it'll be effective.
"
Also, Latino men going 10% for RFK Jr? Nyah.
"
Honestly the uptick among black men isn't that remarkable, even.
Latino men going Trump at a higher rate than white men and no real gender split among whites both seem pretty wild, though.
On “From The Washington Post: On Political Endorsement”
Obviously newspaper endorsements for President are completely meaningless in terms of electoral impact, but the nonfeasance of the LA Times and, much more importantly, the Post, are doing a lot to validate Team Blue's suspicion that the self-styled non-partisan media are tacitly Trumpist.
On “Ukraine and the Axis of Evil”
Yes oil is still a globally traded commodity but the region has never mattered less as far as American interests are concerned.
We are committed to the Middle East because we have important regional allies, and our regional allies are important because we are committed to the Middle East!
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/21/2024”
Eight years later, the same magazine published a story where Trump's former Chief of Staff called Trump a fascist.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.