Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 19
In a sane, rational world, the only viable conclusion about the Harris / Trump debate on September 10 was that Harris wiped the floor with Trump. However, we are not deally with a totally rational electorate so that simple answer is mostly immaterial. The debate was like a tennis match in which the victor won in straight sets. That's an easy way to summarize the match on TV but voters should be more concerned about all of the individual points played because they can be HIGHLY instructive about the strength of each player's complete game. And the Presidency is not a game in which we want a player with multiple fatal weaknesses in their game.
In no particular order...
Trump and Math -- Trump not only doesn't understand math, he doesn't understand NUMBERS. For four years, Trump has backed his claim that he won the 2020 election because in that election, he won more votes than any prior Republican candidate. Ummm, Donald… America is a big country. America is a big, growing country. Every year, the population gets larger. If you won 49 percent of the vote of a growing voter population, your VOTE COUNT will go up. But you don't WIN by winning more votes than you did four years ago or more than any other Republican. You have to win more votes than your OPPONENT. This is the logic that comes out of the mouth of an innumerate narcissist who cannot accept losing. Sadly, it is logic that seems to work with his equally innumerate MAGA base.
Trump and Ukraine -- Trump refused to answer the simple yes/no question from David Muir. Do you want Ukraine to win the war or not? He argued he simply wanted the war to end as soon as possible and that he would end the war in a matter of days. He then pivoted to blaming Europe for tempting Putin in the first place via his normal "NATO dues" rant. Of course, Trump is overlooking the fact that Europe has in fact contributed MIGHTILY to the war effort in Ukraine, most notably by accepting something like 3 million refugees from Ukraine who fled the country and required housing, schools and extra resources in hospitals, etc. all over Europe. Germany alone has taken in 1.2 million refugees. God knows a Trump Administration would never welcome Ukrainian refugees to the US.
Exiting Afghanistan -- Trump made completely illogical points about the causes and effects of the US military exit from Afghanistan. For the most part, his own incoherence was sufficient to lose this point on his own but Harris failed to hammer home the point as effectively as possible and deserved. First, Trump negotiated the Status of Forces agreement and final exit date that drove American withdrawal and his own military advisors argued at the time it would be fraught with risk for American interests and stability in Afghanistan. Biden shifted the actual data around by a month but the core result was dictated not even by the fact that Trump set the date. The core result was dictated by the fact the US lost the war in Afghanistan. We altered our goal at least four times over twenty years and failed to achieve a SINGLE goal. When you lose a war abroad after twenty years, you aren't going to spend the money and inflate your risk to troops by trying to "evacuate" ten to twenty year old used-up gear. You destroy it and get your people out as quickly as possible.
Combatting Iranian Influence -- Trump argued that he re-instated sanctions against Iran but he also terminated the 2015 agreement with Iran that had suspended development of uranium refinement capabilities. He gave Iranian hard-liners a rationale for further hyping anti-American sentiment rather than dealing with its own vast economic problems. Trump's exit from the deal wasn't driven by any certifiable expert proving that Iran was not complying with the deal. He terminated the deal because it was made by Obama and he didn't want any deal of a predecessor standing when he was supposed to be the great deal maker.
Trump Was Right on One Thing -- In the midst of a much larger topic Trump is wrong about, Trump did make one correct point. In the segment addressing abortion, Trump stated it won't be up to Harris to vote for a law re-instating a national right to abortion across all states. He is correct because such a law cannot be passed until Democrats win 60% of the Senate to thwart filibusters which will normally kill this bil. But even that's not enough. If passed by the House and Senate and signed by Harris, the law would be immediately appealed to the USSC which has already shown they would kill at as unconstitutional. That means no national law re-instating abortion rights will remain law until the USSC balance is altered through retirements or packing. Harris should have used this point of Trump to turn to the camera and say "This is why this election is about more than me. Every American who cares about this issue needs to vote for Democrats in the House and Senate to begin building that majority needed for legislation and altering the USSC.
Trump Needs Schoolhouse Rock -- At one point, Trump said that Harris should just walk out of the debate, return to Washington DC and the White House, wake Joe Biden up and sign a bill to fix the immigration problem. Just sign a bill. Make it happen. It isn't clear Trump understands how the law making process functions. The changes he would impose have already been attempted by both his first administration and the Biden administration as executive orders and they have been rejected by courts. The fact that Trump doesn't understand how a bill becomes a law is somewhat incredulous given his appetite for television. I would have thought through sheer probability he would have stumbled across I'm Just a Bill by Schoolhouse Rock in reruns amidst Saturday morning cartoons.
Manipulating a Narcissist -- Harris' performance in the debate was a masterclass in the manipulation of psychologically flawed personalities. Her preparation clearly cemented a model in her head for optimizing each turn at bat. How much time to I spend refuting one of his bullets? How much time do I devote to MY points? Based on the conversation so far, what is my next trigger word to dangle in front of him to distract him and further take him off message? The exact mix varied but after five minutes, you could practically watch Harris do the calculus in her head. Each time, she could end with a magic trigger word such as McCain and he would immediately latch onto that like a shark and not let go. This reminded the public exactly how petty Trump has always been but it also demonstrated how simply he can be manipulated, either by strokes to his ego or references to his enemies, a list which grows by the day. He is unfit for haggling with a souvenir vendor in Tijuana, much less negotiating in a room with a foreign adversary with national security at stake.
Object Permanence -- Trump routine states contradictory views to different audiences as if those audiences will NEVER talk to one another or hear what happened in the other event. In his answer on abortion, he attempted to argue two different points for two different audiences, as if each was deaf and blind to the "other" message. They're all watching you live on TV. You can't argue that you AREN'T in favor of a national ban because it isn't necessary cuz the issue has been pushed to the states when the audience in favor of a national ban is working wherever possible to push exactly that national ban. More importantly, you can't argue overturning Roe was a win for people who WANT abortion rights because it pushes the issue back to state control when the Supreme Court hinted in its Dobbs decision that additional reproductive rights are in jeopardy if the right case comes along (hint…hint…hint…). Trump cannot comprehend that making these two arguments SIMULTANEOUSLY in front of a non-segregated office wins him NO votes, only distrust. Even most pets master the concept of object permanence and that an object doesn't disappear when placed behind another object.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 10
WTH,
As usual, a great and thorough analysis.
However, despite a masterful performance by Harris (since being endorsed by Biden, she has been extraordinarily impressive), this still looks like it will be a very close race due to several factors.
Trump’s base is incredibly loyal and active. Nothing logical seems to dissuade them, not even ridiculous claims of immigrants eating pets or overrunning towns. They take his bait as gospel, every single time.
The October surprise. Whatever stupidity is thrown at the last minute will amplified by right wing media, his base, and foreign enemies who salivate at the potential of another Trump term.
The antiquated Electoral College. Born out of slavery and unholy compromises, it is long overdue for the trash bin of history. But I have no illusion that will happen in my lifetime.
Voter suppression (wholesale voter “cleaning”, gerrymandering, new rules encouraging not certifying elections, voter intimidation, lack of voting machines in Democrat leaning districts, limited mail-in ballots, etc, etc.) is still, sadly, very much alive and well.
Folks, just voting is not enough in this election. Everyone has to become more active. Talk to neighbors and friends and respectfully encourage them to vote. VOLUNTEER! Write letters, join phone banks, go door-to-door, donate. Contact your local political party to find out about opportunities to help.
This is no time to rest on laurels.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Voter suppression (wholesale voter “cleaning”, gerrymandering, new rules encouraging not certifying elections, voter intimidation, lack of voting machines in Democrat leaning districts, limited mail-in ballots, etc, etc.) is still, sadly, very much alive and well.
I recently read an article that several states (including GA) have changed how elections are certified, opening the possibility that individuals could override the actual result by claiming "irregularities" (without proof).
This is no time to rest on laurels.
Agreed. But I'm not sure what we can do to counter shenanigans like that.
No. of Recommendations: 2
But I'm not sure what we can do to counter shenanigans like that.
Win by a big enough margin that the shenanigans can't overcome it. While the standard is 270 electoral college votes, Democrats should be working as if they need 300, so that if shenanigans actually come to pass--and I'm fairly sure there will be some, the only question is how much--it will take at least two states succumbing to the shenanigans to put the outcome into question.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 2
1pgI recently read an article that several states (including GA) have changed how elections are certified, opening the possibility that individuals could override the actual result by claiming "irregularities" (without proof).
This is no time to rest on laurels.
Agreed. But I'm not sure what we can do to counter shenanigans like that.
Me too. I'm hoping there's some law somewhere at either the fed or state level that can be applied, but none of the articles mentioned anything. Maybe Albaby knows something. :)
No. of Recommendations: 7
I'm hoping there's some law somewhere at either the fed or state level that can be applied, but none of the articles mentioned anything.
--------------
This is why voters in all states need to pay close attention to shenanigans in any state. States are no longer labs of democracy, where new, inventive, efficient ways of serving the public are devised, implemented and tested in the hopes of sharing across the country. They are instead places where fringe groups work to perfect language for legislation or regulations that best obfuscates intent to allow enactment or adoption while drawing the least attention from opponents. Once that mix of obfuscation / impact is perfected, the results are spread to other states before most of the public figures out what is going on.
These current tactics being implemented in Georgia can be laid directly at the feet of Chief Justice Roberts, who crassly claimed America achieved a state of post-racial zen and no longer needed voting rights protections. It was a truly cynical bit of mental jujitsu. By claiming prior voting rights protections WORKED, he was presumably patting progressives patronizingly on the head (good job, your plan was needed forty years ago, it worked!) while claiming humans were now perfect and would never backslide so those pesky protections weren't needed.
It's the equivalent of examining guardrails along ten miles of highway, determining no vehicle has run into them in the last ten years, then concluding they should be removed.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 3
Maybe Albaby knows something. :)
Not me. States are in charge of conducting their own elections. Even for federal offices. There's a ton of federal statutes that cover some aspects of how elections are managed (for example, and famously, the Civil Rights Act) - but outside the contours of those federal rules, it's up to the states to run their own contests.
No. of Recommendations: 4
WTH:
It's the equivalent of examining guardrails along ten miles of highway, determining no vehicle has run into them in the last ten years, then concluding they should be removed.
It's depressing seeing protections dismantled by either new laws or new interpretations of the law. We take a step forward and a half step back. There's a lot of energy devoted to suppressing and manipulating the vote. The reason we passed the 17th - taking away the power to appoint Senators from the state legislatures and giving it to the people - was because state legislatures were very susceptible to corruption. Look at all that corrupt energy.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Al:
Not me. States are in charge of conducting their own elections. Even for federal offices. There's a ton of federal statutes that cover some aspects of how elections are managed (for example, and famously, the Civil Rights Act) - but outside the contours of those federal rules, it's up to the states to run their own contests.
Thanks, Albaby. I was afraid that's what you'd say. We may have an interesting election.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Me too. I'm hoping there's some law somewhere at either the fed or state level that can be applied, but none of the articles mentioned anything. Maybe Albaby knows something.Marc Elias runs a site called Democracy Docket which has a lot of state focused election news. Link below.
Mr. Elias is very active (and successful) in keeping states honest to the law.
If you like the site, make a donation or buy some merchandise from them. It’s a worthwhile cause.
https://www.democracydocket.com/
No. of Recommendations: 2
Marc Elias runs a site called Democracy Docket which has a lot of state focused election news. Link below.
Mr. Elias is very active (and successful) in keeping states honest to the law.
If you like the site, make a donation or buy some merchandise from them. It’s a worthwhile cause.
Yes, I follow Mark Elias on twitter - or maybe threads. I think he's great. I've donated myself out to Harris, reached my max. I will though in the future as I like his work.
