this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2024
310 points (95.9% liked)

News

22892 readers
4130 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are veering sharply in how they gear up for Tuesday’s presidential debate, setting up a showdown that reflects not just two separate visions for the country but two politicians who approach big moments very differently.

The vice president is cloistered in a historic hotel in downtown Pittsburgh where she can focus on honing crisp two-minute answers, per the debate’s rules. She’s been working with aides since Thursday and chose a venue that allows the Democratic nominee the option of mingling with swing-state voters.

Trump, the Republican nominee, publicly dismisses the value of studying for the debate. The former president is choosing instead to fill his days with campaign-related events on the premise that he’ll know what he needs to do once he steps on the debate stage at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.

“You can go in with all the strategy you want but you have to sort of feel it out as the debate’s taking place,” he said during a town hall with Fox News host Sean Hannity.

Trump then quoted former boxing great Mike Tyson, who said, “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 week ago (3 children)

On one hand, my knee jerk reaction is to say debates don't really matter.

On the other hand, Biden literally dropped out over the last one.

[–] Oxymoron 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Yeah kinda special case there though I think. But of course they matter to an extent. I think there’s trumps strong hardcore nutter fans who would rather have Putin govern them than Biden or Kamala (actually heard one of them say this on a YT video about Biden).

These people won’t be swayed away from him by anything, therefore debate is irrelevant for them.

Then there are also hardcore anti trump people, the only sensible position to have, frankly. That would be the category I fall into but I’m not American so irrelevant for me lol.

But yeah, for those people, whatever percentage that is the debate doesn’t really matter either.

Then there are some people who are hardcore republicans. Really don’t like Dems but also do kind care about trump being cray cray and maybe cancelling all future elections if he gets in. So these people might be swayed I guess? I dunno. As I’ve wrote this out, I’ve actually more or less come to the conclusion that there really shouldn’t be many people who the debate will change their mind on anything.

But there has to be some undecided but it’s a weird position that I can’t really understand so who knows if it will sway those people either way. Some of them I guess. Also the evidence for these charges against Trump are coming out in a week or so I think, whenever that happens, that’s not gonna be good for trump. That’s for sure. How bad it will affect him I can’t really say, but it’s certainty not gonna increase his support.

So I can only imagine it will thankfully DECREASE IT. Overall I think Trumps bitten off more than he can chew. With these charges and with him basically alienating half the population (women) over abortion, I’d like to THINK, the Dems have this in the bag. But fucking vote people!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There are a certain subset of people that just vote R because they always have because of where they grew up or how their parents voted or what have you and pay attention to basically fucking nothing but the biggest of headlines. These are the ones he might still be able to lose if he fucks up hard enough, because at this point I suspect a lot of them are not exactly hyped about voting for him anyway and are just coasting on a combination of sunk cost fallacy and a nigh on pathological fear of change.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is why I think he might just bail on the debate; he can only lose votes if he debates.

Also, he's a coward.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

If he does, great. He can't interrupt or defend any questions. Let the back and forth go through as normal with emphasis on the quiet that would be Trump's responses

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

I hope that's how it works out, if he lives up to expectations.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

republicans are going to deludedly believe that kamala bombed this debate no matter what, they will literally believe anything if it suits their narrative.

So as long as kamala has a reasonable performance and gives trump a run for his money that's all that's required, dig into real policy, dig into real statements, don't let him get away with anything, and i think it should pretty much only go well for her at that point.

[–] SulaymanF 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

71% of voters say that their mind is made up about Trump. 51% of voters said the same about Harris. There’s a lot of ground for Harris to gain.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

At this point, as a non american, i just cannot comprehend at all why people would doubt on who to vote. Trump fanatics have made up their mind and will never vote Harris, I get that. If you dont like trump, there's only one other option and that's Harris, right?

But is there really a big group of people that actually STILL need to compare candidates and think "not so fast, that trump guy may have a point". What makes them think he is a sane choice? Are these people that voted biden, are disappointed in his presidency and now think "it was better under trump"?

It's not like European countries where you need to choose between like 10 different parties. If you dont like trump, you vote harris; simple as that, right? (Obviously not, so I really want to understand the dynamic in play here)

[–] ikidd 4 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Anyone with sense was saying Biden needed to step down before the debate. It was plain as day to everyone except the Democratic strategists, and, well, Lemmy.

[–] RememberTheApollo_ 10 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I don’t think that’s the case at all regarding Lemmy.

I think Lemmy Dems vastly agreed that Biden was not the choice they would have preferred, however he was not a bad president and had some really good policy gains (and definitely some fails). Even if people were sick of old white men being President, they would vote for Biden because he was still a damn sight better than trump. Him stepping down was not really on the table because the only people beating that drum were the “genocide Joe” crowd who were just as critical of democrats in general.

[–] ikidd 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

For a lot of people, him stepping down wasn't on the table because of Genocide Joe, it was because he wasn't going to win the election against Trump no matter how much his supporters hoped.

But of course, on Lemmy, the Dump Joe camp was all painted by the same brush as naysayers that didn't understand that he was the only shining light that could save the election. That was proven wrong in several ways in the days since (though who knows what happens yet), but I would hope in retrospect that the people that were shitting on the many other people that wanted a change have figured out that they were plainly wrong.

[–] RememberTheApollo_ 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I doubt the veracity of everything you just said. You essentially repeated what the previous poster said that I disagreed with, and as far as I know the polling showed Biden and trump relatively equal despite Biden’s poor performance at the debate.

Again, nobody saw Biden as a savior (edit: as in someone who can effect great change to the country, he was a decent president who was saving us from trump), he was simply the only available choice thanks to the way politics work in the US. Until he stepped down, anyway. We are now left with the de facto “choice” of Harris, who, like Biden, is who we are stuck with. I don’t doubt her being a better candidate at all.

[–] Oxymoron 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Exactly this! There weren’t Joe Biden fanatics about! There were people looking at the polling and hedging their bets on Biden. It’s easy to say we were wrong in hindsight. But we weren’t really wrong at the time.

No one knew how popular or unpopular Harris would turn out to be (although up until that point she was certainly UNPOPULAR).

[–] RememberTheApollo_ 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Don’t know why you’re downvoted. That’s pretty much it. I don’t know if Lemmy has the memory of a gnat or is just being hypocritical, but after Biden’s debate performance there were some calls here for him to step down and probably just as many “wait and see, he’s still better that trump” replies. Nobody was fanatical, more than a few pointed out his accomplishments as ameliorating factors, but nobody was really happy about it. Also, people looked around for other candidates who the wished were in the running, from Buttegieg to several others. Lemmy all but ignored Harris, or at least offered soft criticism of some of the negative aspects of her time as a prosecutor and how she’s essentially a centrist with left leaning social stances. She wasn’t popular at all here.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Him stepping down was not really on the table

I must be misreading this or something. How can you say him stepping down "wasn't on the table" when he, you know, stepped down?

[–] RememberTheApollo_ 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It wasn’t. Nobody expected it. The DNC didn’t want it. Biden didn’t want it.

You do realize that things can change, right? Stepping down wasn’t on the table…until it was.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I guess we must have different definitions of "on the table." Where I come from, it means that there's a reasonable possibility that it could happen, not that it's guaranteed to happen. There was always a reasonable possibility that it could happen.

[–] RememberTheApollo_ 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Perhaps. I used the term “on the table” as “being considered” in an official sense, not as in what we on Lemmy think. I think both definitions are correct, however I’m sorry it wasn’t clear that I’d restricted my use to official consideration of stepping down.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago

It was never going to be officially considered until it was a done deal. You don't just go, "I was thinking of dropping out of the race out of concern that I'm too old... but I decided to stay in!" That just legitimizes criticism that you're too old. The moment it was officially acknowledged as a possibility, it had already been settled privately.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

i think ultimately, biden fulfilled the term and position he needed to, and now is a good time to hand it off to another candidate who can do more work piggybacking on the back of the previously successful admin.

The voter cost of not dropping biden may have been significant, but i doubt it would've mattered in terms of governmental policy. His admin was good this time around, it would likely be good the next time around.

I think we have enough potential to be able to do even more in this cycle specifically though.

[–] RememberTheApollo_ 2 points 1 week ago

Agreed on all counts.

[–] Oxymoron 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I wasn’t in favour of him stepping down. And all the polls at the time showed Harris as being less popular so it just didn’t make sense.

After that debate I was still not really in favour of him stepping down from a pure just looking at the numbers stance that I’m sure still showed him as being more popular than her.

However when he called Zelensky, Putin, I knew the game was up. It was clear that he literally couldn’t function even when he wasn’t in a pressurised debate.

I don’t think it was obvious that there was a chance that Harris was going to be more popular than him until before that point really. Even then you couldn’t say for sure.

But it was obvious he just wasn’t going to make it to the election. You can’t mix up Zelensky and Putin and just carry on after that. I really think that was a much lower low than the debate.

The Democrats fucked up by not replacing Biden from the beginning, that was the time when it made sense to get rid of him. I was fully in favour of it at that point.

To change your candidate THIS close to the election of course seemed like an insane idea. The choice just got taken away in the end and he just had to go.

Thankfully it’s worked out really well but it’s easy to say that we should have changed him straight after or before that debate. The choice was not as obvious as you are making it out to be beforehand. Because the dem voters weren’t obsessed with Biden like the reps are obsessed with Trump. Everyone wanted whoever would be the best candidate to beat Trump. Literally no one gave a shit whether it was Biden or not, he just looked like the best choice until very late on.

[–] Furbag 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

We should've held a goddamn primary. If the Democrats were so convinced that the incumbency effect was worth skipping on a primary, they should've put it to the test and asked the American voters if they thought Biden was still the best guy for the job. Not a choice between Biden and Trump, but a choice between Biden and a number of other qualified candidates.

If we're being honest, pre-debate I would have still chosen Biden. I still think he's capable of doing the job of President despite the poor showing, because I know that's not Biden 100% of the time, that's him 1% of the time when not on top of his game.

Couldn't be happier with the Harris replacement, though. It brought the energy we were sorely lacking. I'm just crossing my fingers and praying that people show up in November. Please, god, don't let that fucking crook back in.

[–] LiveFreeDie8 4 points 1 week ago

I think Biden would have still won. Incumbency and name recognition is huge advantage among people who bother to vote in primaries.

It would basically be Biden on one side with several candidates splitting the anti-Biden vote.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

If the Democrats were so convinced that the incumbency effect was worth skipping on a primary, they should’ve put it to the test and asked the American voters if they thought Biden was still the best guy for the job.

now to be clear, we didn't quite lose the incumbency advantage, given that kamala is a VP currently, so there's actually a much less significant cost here in this case.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Not everyone with sense. The question was if Harris is electable, if the dems would rally behind her instead of infighting, and if there was enough time to spin up a campaign. Biden was previously electable, had the majority of dems supporting him, and didn't need to spin up a campaign.

Now, in hindsight, Kamala was the right choice. She's been great and people have responded well. But that was by no means a sure thing