The ABC moderators let it happen, but last night's "debate" only proved what critics have long claimed: Presidential debates represent the triumph of style over substance, and Kamala Harris was the better student in being schooled in style over substance by the legions of Leftist political sycophants surrounding her and hiding her record.
American politics and media credibility were once again the biggest losers. A tragic night all around.
The moderators didn't "let it happen," they were on Kamala's team. It almost sounded like Donna Brazile passed the questions along to Kamala like she did for Clinton. To have a blatant cheater like that on ANY news staff gives you an idea of how partisan ABC is.
Yep, there's Brazile, and also George Snuffleupagus, both ABC News personnel and apparently still heavy hitters in the Democratic Party. Then there's a media -- including Fox, sadly -- that apparently has no code of ethics to either prohibit or fully disclose when current or former politicians of either party are paid reporters or commentators for the network.
The eating dogs line was funny. Got a genuine laugh out of Harris.
Otherwise a boring and uneventful debate by two horrid candidates. Trump is unhinged and liable to do nutty things. Harris corrupt and sure to do nothing to stem immigration and funnel money to big corporations and favored NGOs.
Good article and good points. But these “independent” voters have one glaring flaw that very sadly besets most American voters. They don’t follow politics even to an extent where they are generally informed about this issues, and simply put, our country might not last if that doesn’t change.
There are a few realities the anti-Trump side must come to grips with. 1) Trump ALWAYS underpolls by 2 points nationally, a little more in certain states. Cahaley found this in 2016 with his famous "who do you plan to vote for" vs "who do you think your neighbor will vote for" question. This has only gotten worse. MAGA has been so demonized by the left that it has not weakened the MAGA resolve at all, just made people less likely to express their views to a pollster. 2) The NUMBERS reality, which I keep harping on, make polls irrelevant. The NUMBERS do not show Indies surging (which normally you'd think they would if it is a "pox on both your houses" view. Rather the numbers show Rs utterly skyrocketing in PA, AZ, FL (which I think will hit a net R of 1 MILLION today), NC, NV, and all other 25 of the 30 states we can track registrations. These indicate that "indies" or Ds are joining the Rs, not that Ds are becoming indies. 3) Do not in any way downplay what may be the "Dukakis in a tank" moment of the cat/geese murders in Springfield combined with the Venezuelan hotel takeovers in El Paso, Aurora, and elsewhere. These are stunningly powerful ICONS of the absolute worst of the Biden/Harris administration, the open border and the invasion. She cannot, and will not, escape.
I predicted here a day or so ago that Harris needed an absolute Grand Slam debate performance. She didn't get it. I would expect in the next few days to see D donors quietly shifting money, along with the DNC, out of her campaign to the senate and house, where Ds have almost certainly already lost the Senate with two or three more close races likely to go R if Trump's margin in those states is what it has historically been due to underpolling.
The Democrats are unwilling to support, endorse, promote or associate themselves with candidates who think independently. They are dominated by the loud mouth authoritarian social justice activists among them. The Republicans have likewise been dominated for decades by Christian Fundamentalists. The 2 party system no longer functions in the best interests of the majority of voters, but the majority continue to try to squeeze themselves into one of the two camps. As a result, we have two poor candidates to choose from, yet again.
Please name the "Christian Fundamentalists" in U.S. with any political influence that anywhere near approaches the influence of the extreme left wing, the media, and the government (weaponized to arrest and possibility jail political opponents and/or their supporters, and the jack-booted censorship efforts).
There are Fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Catholics on the SCOTUS who wield a lot of power. I do not object to their presence. My point pertained to the level of power the Fundamentalist Christians of any denomination exercise within the Republican Party. And I would say that the burden of proof is on anyone who asserts that the Fundamentalist vote does NOT wield a major influence over the Republican Party’s nominees and platforms.
"Fundamentalism" is an adjective used to describe religious, political or other groups that adhere to a literal interpretation of scriptures or other founding documents, and usually also practice relatively "strict" observance of religious practices. "Constitutional originalism" is an example.
Regarding the domination of the Republican Party by Christian Fundamentalists , or "fundamentalists," if you prefer that term, they make up 25-38% of people who identify as Republican. The current Speaker of the House is one. The Republicans have based their platforms to a large extent on the positions taken by this group because they can't win an election if they do not. We could say that if the Republican Party loses the 2024 presidency, it will be in part due to their adherence to their extreme position on abortion. Trump tried, late in the game, to sell a moderate position on abortion that is closer to the position taken by the majority of Americans, but who would believe at this point that he has any set convictions on the subject at all?
2. Literal interpretation of the scriptures? You mean instead of the "church of what's happening now," where everyone justifies doing whatever they please in order to justify behavior that harms others and themselves?
3. 38% of registered Republicans are fundamentalists? Is that on the voter registration form? Where did that statistic come from?
4. Republican's extreme position on abortion? Three months with exceptions is extreme? But leaving a live baby on the table to die is not extreme? No restrictions whatsover (including late term) is not extreme?
5. Who would believe Trump has any set convictions? That is rich beyond belief, when the Dems are peddling a candidate who refuses to say what her positions are on anything??
Yes Sandra, people who go to church, try to live upright lives, and serve others -- yes, they're the main problem today.
Those "good" people ARE a problem when they try to use government to impose their religious beliefs (including their belief in some sort of "divine being" on others. The authors of the U.S. Constitution -- most of whom were Protestants -- wisely recognized the way that such favoritism leads to religious strife, and designed the Constitution to insure religious neutrality in government affairs. It's curious that advocates of Constitutional "originalism" typically dismiss that feature of the original document and the First Amendment.
On the debate - mild Harris win. Not surprising but not major. In fact she has called for another debate - not the action of someone who believes they crushed their opponent.
Biden - for good or ill - had 50+ years as a perceived moderate to run on. He wasn’t a moderate but he didn’t come across as a crazy. So when people were willing to vote for him they thought “well he’s a moderate democrat he’s not all that bad”. And chose him over Trump in histories stupidest outcome.
Harris does not have that.
I didn’t watch the debate. As anyone I have a favorite and I would see it through that. I’ve read the transcripts. Harris did a good job of ridiculing Trump and attacking his ego making him make uncensored errors. But she never said WHY should would be a moderate. She failed to connect and win the - He’s terrible but I’m acceptable race. Trump got just enough policy points across to make people question her centrism.
You’re right about outcome. A day we will have forgotten (9/10 right before 9/11 already it’s being pushed down)
The ABC moderators let it happen, but last night's "debate" only proved what critics have long claimed: Presidential debates represent the triumph of style over substance, and Kamala Harris was the better student in being schooled in style over substance by the legions of Leftist political sycophants surrounding her and hiding her record.
American politics and media credibility were once again the biggest losers. A tragic night all around.
The moderators didn't "let it happen," they were on Kamala's team. It almost sounded like Donna Brazile passed the questions along to Kamala like she did for Clinton. To have a blatant cheater like that on ANY news staff gives you an idea of how partisan ABC is.
Yep, there's Brazile, and also George Snuffleupagus, both ABC News personnel and apparently still heavy hitters in the Democratic Party. Then there's a media -- including Fox, sadly -- that apparently has no code of ethics to either prohibit or fully disclose when current or former politicians of either party are paid reporters or commentators for the network.
Politicians AND former intel officials!
The eating dogs line was funny. Got a genuine laugh out of Harris.
Otherwise a boring and uneventful debate by two horrid candidates. Trump is unhinged and liable to do nutty things. Harris corrupt and sure to do nothing to stem immigration and funnel money to big corporations and favored NGOs.
Waiting on Vance.
Good article and good points. But these “independent” voters have one glaring flaw that very sadly besets most American voters. They don’t follow politics even to an extent where they are generally informed about this issues, and simply put, our country might not last if that doesn’t change.
There are a few realities the anti-Trump side must come to grips with. 1) Trump ALWAYS underpolls by 2 points nationally, a little more in certain states. Cahaley found this in 2016 with his famous "who do you plan to vote for" vs "who do you think your neighbor will vote for" question. This has only gotten worse. MAGA has been so demonized by the left that it has not weakened the MAGA resolve at all, just made people less likely to express their views to a pollster. 2) The NUMBERS reality, which I keep harping on, make polls irrelevant. The NUMBERS do not show Indies surging (which normally you'd think they would if it is a "pox on both your houses" view. Rather the numbers show Rs utterly skyrocketing in PA, AZ, FL (which I think will hit a net R of 1 MILLION today), NC, NV, and all other 25 of the 30 states we can track registrations. These indicate that "indies" or Ds are joining the Rs, not that Ds are becoming indies. 3) Do not in any way downplay what may be the "Dukakis in a tank" moment of the cat/geese murders in Springfield combined with the Venezuelan hotel takeovers in El Paso, Aurora, and elsewhere. These are stunningly powerful ICONS of the absolute worst of the Biden/Harris administration, the open border and the invasion. She cannot, and will not, escape.
I predicted here a day or so ago that Harris needed an absolute Grand Slam debate performance. She didn't get it. I would expect in the next few days to see D donors quietly shifting money, along with the DNC, out of her campaign to the senate and house, where Ds have almost certainly already lost the Senate with two or three more close races likely to go R if Trump's margin in those states is what it has historically been due to underpolling.
The Democrats are unwilling to support, endorse, promote or associate themselves with candidates who think independently. They are dominated by the loud mouth authoritarian social justice activists among them. The Republicans have likewise been dominated for decades by Christian Fundamentalists. The 2 party system no longer functions in the best interests of the majority of voters, but the majority continue to try to squeeze themselves into one of the two camps. As a result, we have two poor candidates to choose from, yet again.
Please name the "Christian Fundamentalists" in U.S. with any political influence that anywhere near approaches the influence of the extreme left wing, the media, and the government (weaponized to arrest and possibility jail political opponents and/or their supporters, and the jack-booted censorship efforts).
There are Fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Catholics on the SCOTUS who wield a lot of power. I do not object to their presence. My point pertained to the level of power the Fundamentalist Christians of any denomination exercise within the Republican Party. And I would say that the burden of proof is on anyone who asserts that the Fundamentalist vote does NOT wield a major influence over the Republican Party’s nominees and platforms.
I would say that anyone asserts that Christian Fundamentalists dominate the Republican party assumes the burden of proof.
I'm a former Catholic, and never heard of the term "Fundamentalist" Catholic. What is a fundamentalist Catholic?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism#:~:text=Fundamentalism%20is%20a%20tendency%20among,emphasis%20on%20some%20conception%20of
"Fundamentalism" is an adjective used to describe religious, political or other groups that adhere to a literal interpretation of scriptures or other founding documents, and usually also practice relatively "strict" observance of religious practices. "Constitutional originalism" is an example.
Regarding the domination of the Republican Party by Christian Fundamentalists , or "fundamentalists," if you prefer that term, they make up 25-38% of people who identify as Republican. The current Speaker of the House is one. The Republicans have based their platforms to a large extent on the positions taken by this group because they can't win an election if they do not. We could say that if the Republican Party loses the 2024 presidency, it will be in part due to their adherence to their extreme position on abortion. Trump tried, late in the game, to sell a moderate position on abortion that is closer to the position taken by the majority of Americans, but who would believe at this point that he has any set convictions on the subject at all?
Sandra, one at a time:
1. Wikipedia. Really?
2. Literal interpretation of the scriptures? You mean instead of the "church of what's happening now," where everyone justifies doing whatever they please in order to justify behavior that harms others and themselves?
3. 38% of registered Republicans are fundamentalists? Is that on the voter registration form? Where did that statistic come from?
4. Republican's extreme position on abortion? Three months with exceptions is extreme? But leaving a live baby on the table to die is not extreme? No restrictions whatsover (including late term) is not extreme?
5. Who would believe Trump has any set convictions? That is rich beyond belief, when the Dems are peddling a candidate who refuses to say what her positions are on anything??
Yes Sandra, people who go to church, try to live upright lives, and serve others -- yes, they're the main problem today.
Those "good" people ARE a problem when they try to use government to impose their religious beliefs (including their belief in some sort of "divine being" on others. The authors of the U.S. Constitution -- most of whom were Protestants -- wisely recognized the way that such favoritism leads to religious strife, and designed the Constitution to insure religious neutrality in government affairs. It's curious that advocates of Constitutional "originalism" typically dismiss that feature of the original document and the First Amendment.
My $.02 here:
On the debate - mild Harris win. Not surprising but not major. In fact she has called for another debate - not the action of someone who believes they crushed their opponent.
Biden - for good or ill - had 50+ years as a perceived moderate to run on. He wasn’t a moderate but he didn’t come across as a crazy. So when people were willing to vote for him they thought “well he’s a moderate democrat he’s not all that bad”. And chose him over Trump in histories stupidest outcome.
Harris does not have that.
I didn’t watch the debate. As anyone I have a favorite and I would see it through that. I’ve read the transcripts. Harris did a good job of ridiculing Trump and attacking his ego making him make uncensored errors. But she never said WHY should would be a moderate. She failed to connect and win the - He’s terrible but I’m acceptable race. Trump got just enough policy points across to make people question her centrism.
You’re right about outcome. A day we will have forgotten (9/10 right before 9/11 already it’s being pushed down)
Most political analysts say less engaged voters are moved by personality than by issues.