Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 12
It’s do or die time, or it’s a nail biter right down to the vote counting on election night and the inevitable protests and crying from Republicans if they don’t win. Tomorrow’s debate, I think, is the last chance to move the polls in a single-stroke meaningful way. There will be gentle rises and falls for the next two months, most likely, but big moves need big impetus, and as the calendar lays out, the debate seems the only event likely to change that. (Absent war, assassination attempt, etc.)
So here is my recommendation to Kamala’s advisors:
Land hard on school shootings. To this point Trump’s response has been “Get past it”. And Vance’s response has been “It’s a fact of life” (iow: live with it.)
I believe she should come down hard on “We will NOT just get past it. She should say “We will *try* to solve it, like other problems we have faced.” We will try to stop 14 year olds from having semi-automatic weapons. We will prosecute parents who allow easy access to weapons in the home. We will do anything and everything we can think of, including equipping schools to handle this plague with screening, mental health support, or any other solutions as can be devised” and WE WILL NOT LET THIS STAND.
“While Republicans are content to do nothing, and put the nations’ children at risk, we will TRY to help. We may not succeed, but we will not stand idly by and let this carnage continue.”
Even if memories are short, staking out an *extreme* position here is good, because there will be more school shootings. And by drawing a vivid contrast with Republicans who just want to forget about it (“Now is not the time to talk about it” “Get over it” “You’re trying to take my guns”) it should profit with the 70% of the country that is appalled by the gun culture the minority has managed to foist on the rest of us.
No. of Recommendations: 7
One additional recommendation I will repeat from the prior debacle...
Do not attempt to refute every bit of Trump blather in real time with your responses. Much of that blather can be anticipated in advance. Prepare for it. Have bullet points pre-drafted by your communications team. Have your communications team "blog" the debate in real time. Each time Trump brings up a known blather point, simply state "I don't have time in a one minute response to cite all of the reason's your wrong but my staff does. Surf to harris2024.com/debate if you want to see all of the reasons Mr. Trump is wrong. In the mean time, here's what is important about issue X..."
Have the communications team continually update that website in real time with the counter-arguments. It not only frees up your debate time for making YOUR points, it frees you from having to remember the counter-points, further simplifying the task of remembering YOUR message and communicating it clearly.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 16
So here is my recommendation to Kamala’s advisors:
Land hard on school shootings.
Do you think federal gun control policy is a high priority for voters in WI, MI, and PA?
Personally, I think Kamala needs to land hard on the economy and abortion. Abortion, because it's the Democrats' best issue among issues that have high saliency among voters. The economy, because it's the most important issue for most voters.
I think Harris should mostly (but not entirely) be taking this debate as an opportunity less to engage with Trump, and primarily as an opportunity to speak to the viewing audience. She should have her points that she wants to communicate to the audience, and they should mostly (but not entirely) be points about her positions and not about Trump.
Gun control might be a small part of that - you can't not mention it in the aftermath of yet another school shooting - but I don't see that it's a critical issue that Harris should go out of her way to stress.
No. of Recommendations: 5
I agree. Gun control won't fly in many states. The economy and abortion are the two winning issues for Dems.
With the current SCOTUS, talking gun control is not productive. Lots of angst and hand-wringing, but it won't make any difference. People aren't going to be thinking about a new SCOTUS justice appointment (will there even be one in the next four years?). Some folks here might think about that, but most voters won't. Economy and abortion are near the top. Also immigration, which Dems can emphasize the convict killing the compromise bill because he needed a campaign issue.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Personally, I think Kamala needs to land hard on the economy and abortion. Abortion, because it's the Democrats' best issue among issues that have high saliency among voters. The economy, because it's the most important issue for most voters.
What's she going to say about the economy? That's a weak point for her.
No. of Recommendations: 6
What's she going to say about the economy? That's a weak point for her.
Weak point or no, it's the most important issue for most voters. So she'll have to emphasize how her (and her party's) economic policies will benefit the country - and also outline some differences between her policies and Biden's.
If I were making a list for her, I would suggest the following:
1) YIMBY (yes in my backyard) on development, especially housing. Return America to an America that builds. More money for affordable housing, streamline permitting for projects, release surplus federal land for housing, etc.
2) Health care as an economic issue and an inflation issue - emphasize how Obamacare reduced health care costs for people in the plans, negotiating drug prices (and propose to expand on that), and that she'll defend Medicare.
3) Energy - she has to tread lightly here, but environmental groups are giving her lots of space. So emphasize the fact that under the Biden Administration the US is producing record amounts of energy - all-time highs in oil and gas production.
4) Taxes - She's made a break with the Biden proposal, and come in for a smaller increase in capital gains tax (28% up from 20%, rather than 39%). "Tax the rich" is popular, and I think she can talk about that in a way that paints it as finding a responsible way to fund the government to provide for working class needs while making sure that all income is taxed fairly, whether it's from a salary or investments.
No. of Recommendations: 1
So she'll have to emphasize how her (and her party's) economic policies will benefit the country - and also outline some differences between her policies and Biden's.
The problem with that is...she's the incumbent, and she's open to loads of attacks, including having cast the deciding vote on the Inflation Reduction Act...which did nothing to reduce inflation.
No. of Recommendations: 6
With the current SCOTUS, talking gun control is not productive.---------------------------
With the current SCOTUS, talking abortion is not as productive as one might first think. I mentioned this during the DNC. There is no way a federal law will be passed re-instating abortion rights in all 50 states even if Harris wins the Presidency and the Democrats win both the House and Senate. Why?
1) It will still require 60% control of the Senate to block a filibuster of
any proposed abortion rights bill.
2) Even if Democrates win 60% control of the Senate, any law passed and signed
will be IMMEDIATELY appealed through the courts all the way to the SCOTUS
whose 6-3 fringe conservative majority will overturn the law as unconstitutional.
3) Overcoming THAT barrier will require either:
a) packing the court by adding at least four new justices
b) a constitutional amendment which requires
i) a 2/3rds vote in the House and Senate to initiate OR
ii) 2/3rds of state legislatures to initiate
iii) 3/4ths of states to approve (38 of 50)
And remember, option (3a) would also require control of 60% of the Senate otherwise Republicans will just filibuster every SCOTUS nominee and refuse to fill the new seats.
Politicians and the public have utterly failed to grasp or explain how far back the
Dobbs rulling set abortion rights in the country. If abortion comes up in the debate, THIS is the point that Harris needs to make in order to promote not only turnout to vote for her, but unprecedented turnout to vote for Democrates up and down the ballot in races not even thought to be contested right now. Otherwise, nothing will change at the national level with abortion rights and the related reproductive care calamity
Dobbs has created. NOTHING.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 7
The problem with that is...she's the incumbent, and she's open to loads of attacks, including having cast the deciding vote on the Inflation Reduction Act...which did nothing to reduce inflation.
Of course she's open to attacks. Every candidate in every debate is, whether they're the incumbent or not. No one gets to walk in as a completely clean slate - even challengers have (usually) either held some other public office or have made various statements and speeches that can be criticized.
What a candidate wants to primarily accomplish in a debate varies. Some use it as an opportunity to attack their opponent, others as a way to draw contrasts in their positions. I think Harris' best use of this platform is as an opportunity to speak to camera about what she wants to do as President, directly to the audience, and (mostly) leave Trump to do whatever he's going to do. This may be her best chance to speak to a few million undecided or persuadable voters, and what she needs more than zingers or snappy putdowns is to concisely put forward the theory of her Presidency, should she be chosen in the election.
No. of Recommendations: 12
The problem with that is...she's the incumbent, and she's open to loads of attacks, including having cast the deciding vote on the Inflation Reduction Act...which did nothing to reduce inflation.
The Inflation Reduction Act was passed in the 3rd quarter of 2022. In 2022, the annual inflation rate was 8%.
In 2023, the annual inflation rate was cut in half, to 4.1%.
In August 2024 (latest data we have), the annual inflation rate is 2.9%.
While the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act can be argued (and it’s impact is still ongoing), it’s going to be tough to pin thin this on Harris given inflation has been considerably reduced.
Besides, Trump doesn’t do nuance. His forte is spewing outright lies.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Vance’s response has been “It’s a fact of life” (iow: live with it.) - Goofy
-------------
It took longer than I thought for the liberals to start establishing the latest "fact of life" hoax.
You side needed some new material, the "very fine people" hoax was getting stale.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Vance’s response has been “It’s a fact of life” (iow: live with it.) - Goofy
-------------
It took longer than I thought for the liberals to start establishing the latest "fact of life" hoax.
Your side needed some new material, the "very fine people" hoax was getting stale.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Abortion is motivating a lot of voters. I was just reading very recently that abortion rights are many voters' top issue. So even if the feds aren't going to be able to do anything, not stopping the states from passing pro-choice laws is still a thing. Several states are trying to enshrine it in their constitutions. Federal law could trump that, so having an administration not hostile to bodily autonomy would be a good thing.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Not a hoax. The convict did say "very fine people on both sides". It may be getting stale, but it is not a hoax. I've seen the video.
The "fact of life" comment also is not a hoax. Vance actually said it. I've seen the video. And it's too new to say it's "stale" yet.
No. of Recommendations: 2
and what she needs more than zingers or snappy putdowns is to concisely put forward the theory of her Presidency, should she be chosen in the election.
But that's not her plan. She's relying on the vial YASS KWEEN girlboss moment; that's why the muted mics are a big problem for her.
No. of Recommendations: 2
It may be getting stale, but it is not a hoax. I've seen the video.
It's a hoax because the libs took it miles out of context, as did what Vance said.
No. of Recommendations: 4
But that's not her plan. She's relying on the viral YASS KWEEN girlboss moment; that's why the muted mics are a big problem for her.
Perhaps it's not her plan. I can only say what I think she should do, not control what she will do.
That said, she can (and should) have multiple things she wants to get done in the debate. I'm sure she'd like to provoke some sort of outrageous response from Trump, if she can - needle him while he's talking. As a prosecutor, I'm sure she thinks that she can rattle an opponent during a debate (though I personally am not so sure the skills translate). That certainly would have been a worthwhile goal while she wasn't the speaker.
But overall, I think her top goal should be to use the debate as a platform for promoting her theory of her Presidency. That's something you can do in a 90-minute debate, which you can't really do with ads. Many voters say they want to know more about what she would do as President, and I think that this is one of her best chances to meet that head on.
No. of Recommendations: 1
What's she going to say about the economy? - Dope
---------------------
She already has proclaimed, That is called Bidenomics, and we are very proud of Bidenomics."
No. of Recommendations: 1
The "fact of life" comment also is not a hoax. Vance actually said it. I've seen the video. - 1pg=============
Funny how four little words get omitted from your news coverage
https://checkyourfact.com/2024/09/06/fact-check-ha....
.
.
.
The quote has been taken out of context, which is revealed in the video Kamala HQ included. Vance said, in full, “I don’t like to admit this;
I don’t like that this is a fact of life.” He then said, “We’ve got to bolster security so that if a psycho wants to walk through a front door and kill a bunch of children, they’re not able to.
No. of Recommendations: 5
“I don’t like to admit this; I don’t like that this is a fact of life.” He then said, “We’ve got to bolster security so that if a psycho wants to walk through a front door and kill a bunch of children, they’re not able to.
But that's still terrible in exactly the same way?
School shootings aren't an ineluctable consequence of the laws of nature. They result from choices we've made as a society.
So Vance is probably correct that school shootings are "a fact of life" if we have a country where private ownership of firearms is protected under the Second Amendment as recently construed by the Supreme Court. If you stipulate that regulatory environment and freedom of ownership with minimal restrictions, then it probably is unavoidable that school kids will get shot up.
But....that's the point? That it's wrong to continue to insist that we maintain that level of minimally restricted gun ownership if the consequence is having kids subject to being massacred at school? That it's terrible to (metaphorically) throw up one's hands and accept it as a fact of life, rather than being outraged enough to question and change the underlying conditions that allow this to happen? It's not a "fact of life." It's a consequence of our choices.
There's a reason why the ironic Onion headline reads "‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens" after every shooting. It's because there is a way to prevent this. We just choose not to. Countries like Japan or the UK don't have school shootings like this, despite having large populations that will unavoidably include young people with mental health issues.
You can make an argument that this is the right choice. We constantly accept peril in order to have freedom. We don't stop driving, even though "it's a fact of life" that having lots of driving will result in avoidable deaths. But if you make that argument, it's completely appropriate for people to criticize you based on their different priorities - and to especially criticize you for speaking as if these events aren't something we could do something about, but choose not to.
No. of Recommendations: 8
It took longer than I thought for the liberals to start establishing the latest "fact of life" hoax.
Those words did come out of his actual mouth, but if they bother you so, here’s the sentence that immediately followed:
“We don't have to like the reality that we live in, but it is the reality we live in.”
Hope this helps.
No. of Recommendations: 2
“We don't have to like the reality that we live in, but it is the reality we live in.”
Hope this helps. - Goofy
-----------
It most certainly doesn't. We were talking about an actual Vance statement that included the words "fact of life".
No. of Recommendations: 14
We were talking about an actual Vance statement that included the words "fact of life".
Sigh. Here is the actual statement, unabridged:
Strict gun laws is not the thing that is gonna solve this problem," said Vance. "I don't like that this is a fact of life, but if you are a psycho and you want to make headlines, you realize that our schools are soft targets ... We've got to bolster security so that if a psycho wants to walk through the front door and kill a bunch of children, they're not able to."
"If these psychos are going to go after our kids, we've got to be prepared for it," he added. "We don't have to like the reality that we live in, but it is the reality we live in. We've got to deal with it
Sure sounds like he thinks it is ‘a fact of life’.
His only solution, apparently, is to make schools “a hard target”. At which times “churches” will become the soft target. But maybe we’ll put screening devices for parishioners, at which time WalMart will become the soft target. So we’ll erect barricades in front of WalMart, at which time Little League games will be the soft target. So we’ll…
I could keep doing this all day.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I could keep doing this all day.
You mean take some comments out of context, and then use that to belittle an actual policy position?
Yes. Yes you can, and do.
Vance is 100% correct. Schools with police and/or armed security tend to have fewer problems with violent crime. Why's that...hmm...let's think: oh, yeah - criminals like soft targets.
I bet you lock your doors at night. Why is that? What are you afraid of?
No. of Recommendations: 14
You mean take some comments out of context, and then use that to belittle an actual policy position?
They're not taking the comments out of context.
They are citing the comments correctly for the argument that Vance was making. Specifically, he argued that since we can't stop school shootings with gun control laws, a consequence of that is that we have to harden schools (as targets) in order to reduce their attractiveness for deranged killers.
He is being criticized - deservedly so - for a bad argument. It is not true that we can't stop school shootings with gun control laws. We can't do it with any gun control laws that JD Vance might be willing to support, it's true - but there are lots of countries that don't have deranged people going in and killing children in schools every year. They avoid that consequence with very strict gun control laws. It is not a "fact of life" that we have to endure these horrors; it is a result of our choices.
The critique of that position is that it's not a good choice to harden schools instead of getting the guns under control, like in most other western developed countries. That it's bad to throw up your hands and say it's "the reality we live in" that unfortified schools will be targeted by deranged killers, rather than that being something that we have the power to change with a different regulatory regime on guns.
Again, you can argue that the freedoms that come with very limited regulation of private ownership of firearms are worth the increased incidence of children being shoot to death at school. But not that it's "a fact of life" that we have to face that choice.
No. of Recommendations: 2
They are citing the comments correctly for the argument that Vance was making. Specifically, he argued that since we can't stop school shootings with gun control laws, a consequence of that is that we have to harden schools (as targets) in order to reduce their attractiveness for deranged killers.
No, they're trying to imply that Vance threw up his hands and thinks there's nothing to do. That's the part that's flat out dishonest. He, as you point out, said or implied anything such thing.
No. of Recommendations: 16
No, they're trying to imply that Vance threw up his hands and thinks there's nothing to do.
But he did.
He threw up his hands and said there's nothing that gun control laws can do. That the only choice was to harden the schools (which is not always feasible, and horrible in it's own right to do to children).
But that's false. Not only is it false, but it's something that Vance should know is false. We're the only advanced western country on earth that regularly has school shootings, and it's not because our school hardening choices are an outlier. It's because we're the only advanced western country that has the gun regulation regime and gun culture that we have. Every other nation has managed to avoid having these horrors be a "fact of life," a regular occurrence that can be expected (usually multiple times) every year.
He is resigned to a nation where the only choice is to harden schools - to turn childhood places into fortified facilities. That "there's nothing to do" other than accept that there's no way to prevent school shootings by using gun regulation. That only by turning every single school in America into a single-entry fortified defensive campus can we stop this from regularly happening....even though every other rich country on earth has managed to stop it from regularly happening without hardening their schools.
That's a terrible argument, and Vance deserves every bit of the heat he's getting for making it. He's not being taken out of context - in context, with the full quote and everything before and after it, his argument is a bad argument.
No. of Recommendations: 2
He threw up his hands and said there's nothing that gun control laws can do. That the only choice was to harden the schools (which is not always feasible, and horrible in it's own right to do to children).Again, no. Let's go to what he said:
“I don’t like that this is a fact of life,” Vance said. “But if you are a psycho and you want to make headlines, you realize that our schools are soft targets. And we have got to bolster security at our schools. We’ve got to bolster security so if a psycho wants to walk through the front door and kill a bunch of children they’re not able.”"I don't like that this is a fact of life" points to the next sentence: "if you are a psycho and you want to make headlines, you realize that our schools are soft targets".
Which many are, thanks to school districts ostentatiously removing security. Like here in Seattle, for example:
https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/police-...Following a rush of similar moves across the country, the Seattle School Board voted Wednesday to suspend a partnership that stations five armed police officers at Seattle schools.
Board members unanimously approved the measure....all done as part of the wave of wokeness that washed over the country in 2020.
The real fact of life is that 100% gun control won't stop the problem, which is that we have psychos willing to do this in the first place.
He is resigned to a nation where the only choice is to harden schools - to turn childhood places into fortified facilities. No, he's saying we have a lot of psychos. That's clear from the sentence structure.
No. of Recommendations: 3
That the only choice was to harden the schools (which is not always feasible, and horrible in it's own right to do to children).
Like every other modern democracy has had to do, right? Jeez. We know what the answer is and it is NOT turning our schools into fortresses.
