I think it was Andrew Coyne, one of our more au courant monarchists, who proposed that William and Kate relocate to Canada, with William and his descendants getting automatically getting the Governor-General appointments. IOW, a de facto monarchy for Canada alone.
Watched the full video at the NBJC. He could not get over how rude that one woman was, . . . .
What Trump was really saying was that [content warning: racial slur]
she was an uppity Black woman
.
As always.
Trump is weak. Trump is thin skinned. Trump is racist. Trump is misogynist. Trump only cares about Trump.
I have been and remain a big fan of Joe Biden. I am sad with the way he's been treated. However, the shift in narrative and focus is notable. Harris's campaign is exciting and energetic. Trump is just the same old shtick.
Whilst Trump has is solid base, I remain of the view that most Americans don't want him. If he is revealed by the campaign for who he really is, I think he loses.
Whilst Trump has a solid base, I remain of the view that most Americans don't want him.
Polls bear that out, as do the popular election results in 2016 and in 2020. Of course, as in 2016, that may not matter.
(I quoted your corrected version!)*
Yep. It's just amazing how the feel has changed. The shift in media focus, the energy.
The election will be decided on low-information voters realising what a Trump victory means. The election will be decided on generating Democratic enthusiasm. The election will be decided on turn-out.
As I've said before, I believe Biden did intend to run but the timing of his decision to pull-out was a perfect ambush of the Trump campaign. There was a lethargy about Biden and the media just wouldn't shut up about it. This was dangerous and there's no drop in the MAGAs motivation. But the change in landscape has been such a breath of fresh air.
Counting no chickens. Let's not pretend that it's easy for a Black person to win. Let's not pretend that it's easy for a woman to win. However, it feels positive at the moment.
AFZ
*Hypocaffaemia is a serious condition and we all must remember to treat it when it occurs.
Watched the full video at the NBJC. He could not get over how rude that one woman was, . . . .
What Trump was really saying was that [content warning: racial slur]
she was an uppity Black woman
.
[edited for content warning - Alan Cresswell, Admin]
As was apparent back in 2016, while it's true that not all of Trump's supporters are racist, it is clear that by supporting Trump they're indicating that his racism isn't a deal breaker for them.
Harris's campaign is exciting and energetic. Trump is just the same old shtick.
Whilst Trump has is solid base, I remain of the view that most Americans don't want him. If he is revealed by the campaign for who he really is, I think he loses.
A couple points here. Trump's support is said to have a high floor and a low ceiling. In other words, a fanatical core of between 27% and 40% of the voting public who will cast their ballots for him no matter what, but that the extremism and racism are a bit turn-off to the rest of voters so a critical factor for Trump's electoral success is the degree to which the public can be either kept in the dark about Trump's likely policies or diverted to third party candidates. 2016 was kind of a high water mark for third party voting in modern U.S. electoral history, with 5.7% of the electorate voting for someone other than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. In 2020 that number was 1.8%. I'm not sure how aware people are of the degree to which Trump's electoral strategy is to divert low information voters to third parties.
One of the weaknesses of the right wing scream machine is that it takes time for it to sink in. None of its attacks are particularly devastating but it works by building up over time, until a low information voter doesn't know any of the particulars of why a particular right wing hate object is bad, they just know that there's something wrong. Hillary Clinton was a classic example of this, being a right wing hate object since the early 1990s. I think one of the problems for the Trump campaign right now is that Kamala Harris has not been the subject of such a long term smear campaign and, since these things are supposed to work over a span of years (if not decades) it's too late to effectively start now.
Watched the full video at the NBJC. He could not get over how rude that one woman was, . . . .
What Trump was really saying was that [content warning: racial slur]
she was an uppity Black woman
.
[edited for content warning - Alan Cresswell, Admin]
As was apparent back in 2016, while it's true that not all of Trump's supporters are racist, it is clear that by supporting Trump they're indicating that his racism isn't a deal breaker for them.
Harris's campaign is exciting and energetic. Trump is just the same old shtick.
Whilst Trump has is solid base, I remain of the view that most Americans don't want him. If he is revealed by the campaign for who he really is, I think he loses.
A couple points here. Trump's support is said to have a high floor and a low ceiling. In other words, a fanatical core of between 27% and 40% of the voting public who will cast their ballots for him no matter what, but that the extremism and racism are a bit turn-off to the rest of voters so a critical factor for Trump's electoral success is the degree to which the public can be either kept in the dark about Trump's likely policies or diverted to third party candidates. 2016 was kind of a high water mark for third party voting in modern U.S. electoral history, with 5.7% of the electorate voting for someone other than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. In 2020 that number was 1.8%. I'm not sure how aware people are of the degree to which Trump's electoral strategy is to divert low information voters to third parties.
One of the weaknesses of the right wing scream machine is that it takes time for it to sink in. None of its attacks are particularly devastating but it works by building up over time, until a low information voter doesn't know any of the particulars of why a particular right wing hate object is bad, they just know that there's something wrong. Hillary Clinton was a classic example of this, being a right wing hate object since the early 1990s. I think one of the problems for the Trump campaign right now is that Kamala Harris has not been the subject of such a long term smear campaign and, since these things are supposed to work over a span of years (if not decades) it's too late to effectively start now.
(emphasis mine)
I agree with all of that. They've cultivated the Joe is too old and cannot do the job* narrative really well. They have basically nothing on Harris. The Emphasis bit is something not talked about enough. There are a group of voters who would never vote for Trump but if they can be persuaded by the they're all as bad as each other routine will vote third party. If enough voters do that in swing states, Trump wins.
AFZ
*The irony that any honest analysis is that he is at least 100x more capable than Trump is clearly lost on them but as a strategy it was clearly cutting through.
If you click through to the Vanity Fair piece Politico cites, you'll see that Curtis Yarvin, the influence in question, has switched to saying monarch instead of the term he previously used: dictator. He "seems to be trying to promote a friendlier face of authoritarianism... " it says.
One of the things recent political developments have impressed upon me is the degree to which some of the political terminology first developed in ancient Greece is still incredibly useful today. For example, the distinction between tyranny and monarchy. Both are theoretically systems of one man (and it's almost always a man) rule, but are very different in application.
A monarch's powers are described by a constitution or by customary limits. Those powers may be vast or tiny, but there are some limits based either in written law or tradition. A tyrant is someone who exercises power outside whatever constitutional order theoretically exists in a state. My impression is that Yarvin (and others of his ilk) are promoting tyranny (in the classic Greek sense of the term) and trying to pretty it up by calling it "monarchy", counting on the fact that the distinction is lost on most modern audiences.
Let's face it. We would all vote for Havelock Vetinari if we had the chance.
Well, no. He's an interesting character but if I recall correctly, rather ruthless. I don't want that in a president. (Nor anarchy.)
I don't think that monarchy is intrinsically evil, even otherwise a good thing, but as Lewis said,
“I am a democrat [proponent of democracy] because I believe in the Fall of Man.
I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that every one deserved a share in the government.
The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true. . . . I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost. Much less a nation. . . .
The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.”
Now Trump says he will debate Harris on Sept 4 on Fox News. Harris, on the other hand, is sticking with the previously agreed debate schedule agreed to between Biden and Trump on ABC on Sept 12.
I wonder who is going to blink first.
Personally, I do not think Harris has anything to gain going toe to toe with Trump.
Let's face it. We would all vote for Havelock Vetinari if we had the chance.
Well, no. He's an interesting character but if I recall correctly, rather ruthless. I don't want that in a president. (Nor anarchy.)
I don't think that monarchy is intrinsically evil, even otherwise a good thing, but as Lewis said,
“I am a democrat [proponent of democracy] because I believe in the Fall of Man.
I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that every one deserved a share in the government.
The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true. . . . I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost. Much less a nation. . . .
The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.”
― C.S. Lewis, Present Concerns
I have argued for a long time that the genius of democracy is that the governing are accountable to the governed.
The idea that the populace is wise and that a government should always do what the people want is deeply flawed.
As I have learnt, there is very little I have ever said that Lewis hasn't said better.
Now Trump says he will debate Harris on Sept 4 on Fox News. Harris, on the other hand, is sticking with the previously agreed debate schedule agreed to between Biden and Trump on ABC on Sept 12.
ABC has said if Trump doesn't show up, they'll devote the time to a discussion with Harris. So she'd get a bunch of free air time, plus all the media reporting on the discussion.
Personally, I do not think Harris has anything to gain going toe to toe with Trump.
Why? I think she'd wipe the floor with him, and smile while doing it. He can't stay on message and he's mean. He couldn't even stick with attacking Harris at his last rally in Atlanta - he kept attacking the popular Republican governor of Georgia for refusing to overturn the 2020 election, though Kemp is supporting him in this election.
Now Trump says he will debate Harris on Sept 4 on Fox News. Harris, on the other hand, is sticking with the previously agreed debate schedule agreed to between Biden and Trump on ABC on Sept 12.
I wonder who is going to blink first.
Personally, I do not think Harris has anything to gain going toe to toe with Trump.
A lot of media sources pitched this announcement as Trump "agreeing" to debate Harris, despite having no agreement from Harris (or even Fox News, which Trump insists host the debate).
The proper understanding is more along the lines of Trump backing out of the already agreed upon debate on September 10 and insisting on a "debate" "moderated" by Fox "News" to be held in stadium full of his supporters.
On The Media (NPR) had an interesting discussion on Revenge of the Cat Ladies The summary of the program says a lot.
Vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance’s remarks on childless cat ladies have ties to a movement urging people to have more children. On this week’s On the Media, find out why declining birth rates are regarded by some as a harbinger of doom. Plus, the storied history of so-called cat ladies, and why they often face contempt.
I particularly liked the last segment beginning at 32:55 which gives the background to the phrase.
Yeah, it's wild. If I didn't think he was just inherently wacky, I'd swear the Republicans put him up to this to make Trump seem like not the weirdest person running. (I hate myself a little for picking up the word of the moment for Dems - weird - but it really is apt.)
I understand Harris is likely to announce her VP pick today, Anyone have any thoughts/predictions? Personally I'm hoping for Mark Kelly. Just because it would be so cool to have an astronaut VP. And he's the husband of Gabby Giffords.
The left of the party would like it to be Governor Walz of Minnesota, though United Auto Workers chief wants Governor Beshear of Kentucky,m because he walked on a picket line.
The UAW chief has recommended against Senator Kelly of Arizona because they don’t think he has been pro union enough in the Senate.
Moderate pundits and Never Trump Republicans really like Governor Shapiro of Pennsylvania, although they also speak positively about Senator Kelly of Arizona because he is seen as being able to blunt Republican attacks on immigration.
Progressive activists from many corners seem to be united in opposing Governor Shapiro of Pennsylvania because he once supported school vouchers (subsidies parents can use to attend private schools), which public school teacher unions and the left of the party in general hate. He also has been very critical of pro-Palestinian campus protestors and wrote an article in a student paper while at university making a pretty racist argument that Palestinians were inherently unable to live in peace with each other and therefore would inevitably attack Israel if they attained statehood. He has since endorsed a two state solution, but pro-Palestinian activists within the party seem united in their opposition to Shapiro because they are worried about the votes they have already lost over the war in Gaza when Biden was the candidate and worried that they may have a hard time winning those votes back with Harris who was Biden’s VP and who has very similar policies if somewhat different rhetoric over Gaza.
Wealthy Democratic donors seem to be able to work with any of the potential nominees, so it seems that none of them, even Walz with his more progressive rhetoric, seem to be much of a threat to their interests, especially as a VP, which can’t do much anyway.
I’ve heard almost no serious discussion of Pete Buttigieg being the nominee. Despite his national profile and skill at defending the administration on Fox News, he has not been elected to any office higher than mayor of a not-terribly-big city.
The choice that would piss the least amount of people off is Beshear, but despite being a popular blue governor in a red state and eager to paint JD Vance as unauthentic in his claim of an Appalachian identity, I’m not sure that he’s as good at speeches, interviews, and debates as the other candidates.
If Shapiro doesn’t fracture the left and make protests over Gaza outside the upcoming convention in Chicago (hmm, I wonder if anything similar has happened there before?) much worse than they already could be, he might be able to help Harris more in the electoral college (because of Pennsylvania) and with moderates and independents than any other candidate…or so the moderate pundits and Nate Silver data wonk types say. But I’m not so sure.
Governor Walz of Minnesota is from a small town in a part of the state that has gone pretty heavily for Trump. He's a veteran and a former high school football coach. He managed to get votes while in Congress from people who also voted for Trump for president. His voice sounds like he could be (if you have white relatives in the Midwest or West) your uncle who voted for Trump. But I'm just not sure that those qualities, that make highly politically engaged coastal Democrats who love seeing him on MSNBC (which is like the Democratic version of Fox News, for those outside the US) fall in love with him, would really appeal to swing voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, despite Minnesota's similarities to some of those states (particularly Wisconsin and Michigan).
I can easily see Walz, despite his biography and mannerisms, be easily painted by anyone who feels culturally alienated from social progressivism as "that guy who called you weird" (even if he is at pains to explain that he was referring to Trump and pro-Trump politicians, not their voters). And I can also see the pundit class, even those working for center-left media outlets, as pigeonholing him as "on the left", thereby making it harder for him to appeal to the center, even though he is also at pains to challenge this by daring Republicans to call his policies in Minnesota, like free school breakfast and lunch and paid family and medical leave, "government handouts."
I'm terrified that his comments about Republicans being weird, despite all of his attempts to say that we should not be calling Republican voters weird and that we need to try to engage with them and not dehumanize them because voters like them are "his people" that he grew up with, would stick to him and to Harris and Democrats if he is chosen as her running mate just like the Deplorables comment stuck to Hillary.
I feel like Harris's VP choice will tell us more about whether her campaign is prioritizing the rustbelt or the sunbelt than it will about her political direction. As soon as someone becomes her running mate, her positions become his.
Does anyone know if the poll numbers mean popular vote or electoral vote? I am guessing popular but was not sure when they say a candidate is ahead by 2 points.
I’ve heard almost no serious discussion of Pete Buttigieg being the nominee. Despite his national profile and skill at defending the administration on Fox News, he has not been elected to any office higher than mayor of a not-terribly-big city.
Though might that city have an outsized cultural importance as a result of hosting an iconic Catholic university?
Does anyone know if the poll numbers mean popular vote or electoral vote? I am guessing popular but was not sure when they say a candidate is ahead by 2 points.
I always assume it to be popular vote, unless otherwise stated. Usually, they state the overall numbers, and if it's in percentages, that's popular vote.
Does anyone know if the poll numbers mean popular vote or electoral vote? I am guessing popular but was not sure when they say a candidate is ahead by 2 points.
They typically want you to understand them as a representation of the popular vote. What they really represent is either registered voters or what the pollster considers to be "likely voters", under whatever criteria they use to make that determination. It's an approximation of the opinion of the people the pollster thinks will cast a ballot on election day.
Trump has been telling his supporters he will not need their vote come November, he has got the election in the bag. How can this be?
Some people are thinking he has infiltrated a number of local, county and state election boards with election deniers whose job will be to object to the results of the vote. The election deniers have tried this in several by elections over the past four years.
The thought is there will be enough people on these election boards who will raise objections to the results that it will throw everything to the courts--and ultimately, the Conservative majority SCOTUS. The hope is if the courts do not accept the results it will go to the Republican lead House of Representatives.
Therefore, Trump does not need any votes from his supporters.
I’ve heard almost no serious discussion of Pete Buttigieg being the nominee. Despite his national profile and skill at defending the administration on Fox News, he has not been elected to any office higher than mayor of a not-terribly-big city.
Though might that city have an outsized cultural importance as a result of hosting an iconic Catholic university?
Ha! No. Notre Dame does not make South Bend important.
I wonder if the campaign is feeling more confident in swinging PA blue than we know. I’d have guessed that common thinking was that a Shapiro Veep pick would make that more likely to happen. Walz’s state is safely blue, so maybe PA is in better shape for Dems than previously thought?
I wonder if the campaign is feeling more confident in swinging PA blue than we know. I’d have guessed that common thinking was that a Shapiro Veep pick would make that more likely to happen. Walz’s state is safely blue, so maybe PA is in better shape for Dems than previously thought?
Hard to say. Campaigns have access to . . . well, not better polling per se than is publicly available but more granular polling. (e.g. what's the level of support among suburban women in Pennsylvania or Hispanic infrequent voters in Arizona.) However, since we don't have access to the campaign's internal polling data (unlike the Russian government) we can only guess at what they're seeing.
Still, there's always a balancing act. I can see worrying that Shapiro's more conservative positions (relative to Walz) might have cost votes elsewhere even if he could lock in Pennsylvania (which is itself a questionable proposition).
I think the idea that a VP pick can help win his or her state is more lore than something historically borne out. Harris may think Walz’s military background is more helpful than anyone’s residency. And he may not be an astronaut, but he was a high school football coach.
I think the idea that a VP pick can help win his or her state is more lore than something historically borne out. Harris may think Walz’s military background is more helpful than anyone’s residency. And he may not be an astronaut, but he was a high school football coach.
According to this article citing The Book on this subject (re: a VP Candidate's state), it does not.
"While presidential candidates typically enjoy a home-state advantage (approximately 3 points to 7 points), vice presidential candidates generally do not. … [A] presidential ticket performs no better in the vice presidential candidate’s home state than we would expect otherwise. Statistically speaking, the effect is zero."
I think the idea that a VP pick can help win his or her state is more lore than something historically borne out.
I agree. The one exception seems to be if the running mate is an office holder from a relatively small state. In such a situation the personal connections of an already existing political network can really make a difference. Pennsylvania is obviously big enough that it does not fall into this category.
Interesting counterfactual: Al Gore was at one point considering Jeanne Shaheen as his running mate. New Hampshire is exactly the kind of state where a local running mate might make a difference. If Gore carried New Hampshire it wouldn't have mattered what happened in Florida.
Harris may think Walz’s military background is more helpful than anyone’s residency.
Walz left the army as a Command Sergeant Major. This may be a very valuable perspective for hypothetical President Harris to have access to. The enlisted man's point of view is one that's not very often heard in high level policy discussions.
And he may not be an astronaut, but he was a high school football coach.
A high school football coach and a teacher. There's value in repeating things in simple language until the audience finally gets it that is sometimes lost on politicians impressed by their own rhetorical cleverness.
As far as Kelly goes, there are enough downsides to removing a popular purple state senator from his seat that the upsides would have to be pretty darn spectacular. As a former senator herself, Harris would have been very aware of this. While Kelly had definite strengths, I'm not sure they overcame the negatives of throwing a Senate seat into the hazard.
Tim Walz comes from a conservative corner of Minnesota. He seems to do well among conservatives. He might put Iowa and the Dakotas into play. Attached is a picture of Mr. Walz. To my knowledge, he is on the only ticket that seems to laugh a lot. Weird.
As I said before, I am voting for the ticket where the nominees laugh.
PS. Mrs Gramps and I are having adiscussion on how to pronounce his last name. She says it is a soft z, I am arguing it is a hart tz. I think I may have won the argument because she admits when her ancestors came from Germany, they added the tz to their name to keep it in line with the German pronunciation.
And. Walz is Lutheran. The only other Lutheran to have been nominated to VP position was Walter Mondale.
And. Walz is Lutheran. The only other Lutheran to have been nominated to VP position was Walter Mondale.
Walz also bears the distinction of being the first Democratic vice presidential nominee since 1964 who has never attended law school. Not sure exactly what that says about Walz or the way Democratic presidential candidates pick their running mates, but it seems notable.
And. Walz is Lutheran. The only other Lutheran to have been nominated to VP position was Walter Mondale.
Walz also bears the distinction of being the first Democratic vice presidential nominee since 1964 who has never attended law school. Not sure exactly what that says about Walz or the way Democratic presidential candidates pick their running mates, but it seems notable.
Well, I cannot think of a lawyer who would be caught dead holding a piglet. ]:)
I found Gwen Waltz interesting.according to her state bio, some of her passions include "teaching at prisons and promoting criminal justice reform, to advocating for the LGBTQ movement" with a goal to "build a more just and equitable world."
Comments
I think it was Andrew Coyne, one of our more au courant monarchists, who proposed that William and Kate relocate to Canada, with William and his descendants getting automatically getting the Governor-General appointments. IOW, a de facto monarchy for Canada alone.
Doesn't matter. Putting tea in salt water is such a grave insult to all True Englishmen.
That is very traditional: To appoint one's 'wayward' son to be governor of an unloved province...
As always.
Trump is weak. Trump is thin skinned. Trump is racist. Trump is misogynist. Trump only cares about Trump.
I have been and remain a big fan of Joe Biden. I am sad with the way he's been treated. However, the shift in narrative and focus is notable. Harris's campaign is exciting and energetic. Trump is just the same old shtick.
Whilst Trump has is solid base, I remain of the view that most Americans don't want him. If he is revealed by the campaign for who he really is, I think he loses.
AFZ
Polls bear that out, as do the popular election results in 2016 and in 2020. Of course, as in 2020, that may not matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2024/aug/01/ben-jennings-on-trump-questioning-racial-identity-of-kamala-harris-cartoon
Yep. It's just amazing how the feel has changed. The shift in media focus, the energy.
The election will be decided on low-information voters realising what a Trump victory means. The election will be decided on generating Democratic enthusiasm. The election will be decided on turn-out.
As I've said before, I believe Biden did intend to run but the timing of his decision to pull-out was a perfect ambush of the Trump campaign. There was a lethargy about Biden and the media just wouldn't shut up about it. This was dangerous and there's no drop in the MAGAs motivation. But the change in landscape has been such a breath of fresh air.
Counting no chickens. Let's not pretend that it's easy for a Black person to win. Let's not pretend that it's easy for a woman to win. However, it feels positive at the moment.
AFZ
*Hypocaffaemia is a serious condition and we all must remember to treat it when it occurs.
As was apparent back in 2016, while it's true that not all of Trump's supporters are racist, it is clear that by supporting Trump they're indicating that his racism isn't a deal breaker for them.
A couple points here. Trump's support is said to have a high floor and a low ceiling. In other words, a fanatical core of between 27% and 40% of the voting public who will cast their ballots for him no matter what, but that the extremism and racism are a bit turn-off to the rest of voters so a critical factor for Trump's electoral success is the degree to which the public can be either kept in the dark about Trump's likely policies or diverted to third party candidates. 2016 was kind of a high water mark for third party voting in modern U.S. electoral history, with 5.7% of the electorate voting for someone other than Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. In 2020 that number was 1.8%. I'm not sure how aware people are of the degree to which Trump's electoral strategy is to divert low information voters to third parties.
One of the weaknesses of the right wing scream machine is that it takes time for it to sink in. None of its attacks are particularly devastating but it works by building up over time, until a low information voter doesn't know any of the particulars of why a particular right wing hate object is bad, they just know that there's something wrong. Hillary Clinton was a classic example of this, being a right wing hate object since the early 1990s. I think one of the problems for the Trump campaign right now is that Kamala Harris has not been the subject of such a long term smear campaign and, since these things are supposed to work over a span of years (if not decades) it's too late to effectively start now.
(emphasis mine)
I agree with all of that. They've cultivated the Joe is too old and cannot do the job* narrative really well. They have basically nothing on Harris. The Emphasis bit is something not talked about enough. There are a group of voters who would never vote for Trump but if they can be persuaded by the they're all as bad as each other routine will vote third party. If enough voters do that in swing states, Trump wins.
AFZ
*The irony that any honest analysis is that he is at least 100x more capable than Trump is clearly lost on them but as a strategy it was clearly cutting through.
One of the things recent political developments have impressed upon me is the degree to which some of the political terminology first developed in ancient Greece is still incredibly useful today. For example, the distinction between tyranny and monarchy. Both are theoretically systems of one man (and it's almost always a man) rule, but are very different in application.
A monarch's powers are described by a constitution or by customary limits. Those powers may be vast or tiny, but there are some limits based either in written law or tradition. A tyrant is someone who exercises power outside whatever constitutional order theoretically exists in a state. My impression is that Yarvin (and others of his ilk) are promoting tyranny (in the classic Greek sense of the term) and trying to pretty it up by calling it "monarchy", counting on the fact that the distinction is lost on most modern audiences.
I'm thinking either William Rushton or Terry Pratchett.
Well, no. He's an interesting character but if I recall correctly, rather ruthless. I don't want that in a president. (Nor anarchy.)
I don't think that monarchy is intrinsically evil, even otherwise a good thing, but as Lewis said,
I wonder who is going to blink first.
Personally, I do not think Harris has anything to gain going toe to toe with Trump.
I have argued for a long time that the genius of democracy is that the governing are accountable to the governed.
The idea that the populace is wise and that a government should always do what the people want is deeply flawed.
As I have learnt, there is very little I have ever said that Lewis hasn't said better.
AFZ
Why? I think she'd wipe the floor with him, and smile while doing it. He can't stay on message and he's mean. He couldn't even stick with attacking Harris at his last rally in Atlanta - he kept attacking the popular Republican governor of Georgia for refusing to overturn the 2020 election, though Kemp is supporting him in this election.
A lot of media sources pitched this announcement as Trump "agreeing" to debate Harris, despite having no agreement from Harris (or even Fox News, which Trump insists host the debate).
The proper understanding is more along the lines of Trump backing out of the already agreed upon debate on September 10 and insisting on a "debate" "moderated" by Fox "News" to be held in stadium full of his supporters.
HARRIS' VEEP CANDIDATE QUESTIONS REVEALED
Label this as comedy or satire. From Daily Beast
I particularly liked the last segment beginning at 32:55 which gives the background to the phrase.
BTW, I hear Jimmy Carter has become alert and plans to vote for Harris. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jimmy-carter-says-he-hopes-to-cast-vote-for-kamala-harris/ar-AA1odEr8?ocid=BingNewsSerp
(For those who may not have followed this:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/09/politics/rfk-jr-parastic-worm-brain/index.html)
The UAW chief has recommended against Senator Kelly of Arizona because they don’t think he has been pro union enough in the Senate.
Moderate pundits and Never Trump Republicans really like Governor Shapiro of Pennsylvania, although they also speak positively about Senator Kelly of Arizona because he is seen as being able to blunt Republican attacks on immigration.
Progressive activists from many corners seem to be united in opposing Governor Shapiro of Pennsylvania because he once supported school vouchers (subsidies parents can use to attend private schools), which public school teacher unions and the left of the party in general hate. He also has been very critical of pro-Palestinian campus protestors and wrote an article in a student paper while at university making a pretty racist argument that Palestinians were inherently unable to live in peace with each other and therefore would inevitably attack Israel if they attained statehood. He has since endorsed a two state solution, but pro-Palestinian activists within the party seem united in their opposition to Shapiro because they are worried about the votes they have already lost over the war in Gaza when Biden was the candidate and worried that they may have a hard time winning those votes back with Harris who was Biden’s VP and who has very similar policies if somewhat different rhetoric over Gaza.
Wealthy Democratic donors seem to be able to work with any of the potential nominees, so it seems that none of them, even Walz with his more progressive rhetoric, seem to be much of a threat to their interests, especially as a VP, which can’t do much anyway.
I’ve heard almost no serious discussion of Pete Buttigieg being the nominee. Despite his national profile and skill at defending the administration on Fox News, he has not been elected to any office higher than mayor of a not-terribly-big city.
The choice that would piss the least amount of people off is Beshear, but despite being a popular blue governor in a red state and eager to paint JD Vance as unauthentic in his claim of an Appalachian identity, I’m not sure that he’s as good at speeches, interviews, and debates as the other candidates.
If Shapiro doesn’t fracture the left and make protests over Gaza outside the upcoming convention in Chicago (hmm, I wonder if anything similar has happened there before?) much worse than they already could be, he might be able to help Harris more in the electoral college (because of Pennsylvania) and with moderates and independents than any other candidate…or so the moderate pundits and Nate Silver data wonk types say. But I’m not so sure.
I can easily see Walz, despite his biography and mannerisms, be easily painted by anyone who feels culturally alienated from social progressivism as "that guy who called you weird" (even if he is at pains to explain that he was referring to Trump and pro-Trump politicians, not their voters). And I can also see the pundit class, even those working for center-left media outlets, as pigeonholing him as "on the left", thereby making it harder for him to appeal to the center, even though he is also at pains to challenge this by daring Republicans to call his policies in Minnesota, like free school breakfast and lunch and paid family and medical leave, "government handouts."
I'm terrified that his comments about Republicans being weird, despite all of his attempts to say that we should not be calling Republican voters weird and that we need to try to engage with them and not dehumanize them because voters like them are "his people" that he grew up with, would stick to him and to Harris and Democrats if he is chosen as her running mate just like the Deplorables comment stuck to Hillary.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/shapiro-seeks-to-downplay-his-time-as-idf-volunteer-after-college-op-ed-resurfaces/#:~:text=Pennsylvania Governor and potential Democratic,to pursue peace with Israel.
Though might that city have an outsized cultural importance as a result of hosting an iconic Catholic university?
I always assume it to be popular vote, unless otherwise stated. Usually, they state the overall numbers, and if it's in percentages, that's popular vote.
They typically want you to understand them as a representation of the popular vote. What they really represent is either registered voters or what the pollster considers to be "likely voters", under whatever criteria they use to make that determination. It's an approximation of the opinion of the people the pollster thinks will cast a ballot on election day.
Some people are thinking he has infiltrated a number of local, county and state election boards with election deniers whose job will be to object to the results of the vote. The election deniers have tried this in several by elections over the past four years.
The thought is there will be enough people on these election boards who will raise objections to the results that it will throw everything to the courts--and ultimately, the Conservative majority SCOTUS. The hope is if the courts do not accept the results it will go to the Republican lead House of Representatives.
Therefore, Trump does not need any votes from his supporters.
For more information, go here.
Ha! No. Notre Dame does not make South Bend important.
I wonder if the campaign is feeling more confident in swinging PA blue than we know. I’d have guessed that common thinking was that a Shapiro Veep pick would make that more likely to happen. Walz’s state is safely blue, so maybe PA is in better shape for Dems than previously thought?
Hard to say. Campaigns have access to . . . well, not better polling per se than is publicly available but more granular polling. (e.g. what's the level of support among suburban women in Pennsylvania or Hispanic infrequent voters in Arizona.) However, since we don't have access to the campaign's internal polling data (unlike the Russian government) we can only guess at what they're seeing.
Still, there's always a balancing act. I can see worrying that Shapiro's more conservative positions (relative to Walz) might have cost votes elsewhere even if he could lock in Pennsylvania (which is itself a questionable proposition).
I think the idea that a VP pick can help win his or her state is more lore than something historically borne out. Harris may think Walz’s military background is more helpful than anyone’s residency. And he may not be an astronaut, but he was a high school football coach.
According to this article citing The Book on this subject (re: a VP Candidate's state), it does not.
"While presidential candidates typically enjoy a home-state advantage (approximately 3 points to 7 points), vice presidential candidates generally do not. … [A] presidential ticket performs no better in the vice presidential candidate’s home state than we would expect otherwise. Statistically speaking, the effect is zero."
Okay, then.
I agree. The one exception seems to be if the running mate is an office holder from a relatively small state. In such a situation the personal connections of an already existing political network can really make a difference. Pennsylvania is obviously big enough that it does not fall into this category.
Interesting counterfactual: Al Gore was at one point considering Jeanne Shaheen as his running mate. New Hampshire is exactly the kind of state where a local running mate might make a difference. If Gore carried New Hampshire it wouldn't have mattered what happened in Florida.
Walz left the army as a Command Sergeant Major. This may be a very valuable perspective for hypothetical President Harris to have access to. The enlisted man's point of view is one that's not very often heard in high level policy discussions.
A high school football coach and a teacher. There's value in repeating things in simple language until the audience finally gets it that is sometimes lost on politicians impressed by their own rhetorical cleverness.
As far as Kelly goes, there are enough downsides to removing a popular purple state senator from his seat that the upsides would have to be pretty darn spectacular. As a former senator herself, Harris would have been very aware of this. While Kelly had definite strengths, I'm not sure they overcame the negatives of throwing a Senate seat into the hazard.
As I said before, I am voting for the ticket where the nominees laugh.
PS. Mrs Gramps and I are having adiscussion on how to pronounce his last name. She says it is a soft z, I am arguing it is a hart tz. I think I may have won the argument because she admits when her ancestors came from Germany, they added the tz to their name to keep it in line with the German pronunciation.
And. Walz is Lutheran. The only other Lutheran to have been nominated to VP position was Walter Mondale.
Ha.
No they weren't. There's a whole sewer of antisemitism they can't tap into now...
Walz also bears the distinction of being the first Democratic vice presidential nominee since 1964 who has never attended law school. Not sure exactly what that says about Walz or the way Democratic presidential candidates pick their running mates, but it seems notable.
Well, I cannot think of a lawyer who would be caught dead holding a piglet. ]:)