Reminds me of that SNL skit he was in: https://youtu.be/7AWuBh1MbbM?si=UVg016Prcl9WbYYB
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
1033 points (99.4% liked)
politics
19105 readers
4969 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Him being afraid of debating Harris again makes me believe he's a little less braindead than I could assume, lmao.
I'm just trying to imagine the person who drives through town, sees that sign, and makes up their mind on who to vote for based on that message.
Everyones mind is made up. At this point it's just about turn out. If you can make a candidate look more Pathetic right before voting, the enthusiasm to support them by actually doing something that requires a little effort dwindles.
Does this actually boost turnout? Its not particularly functional. You'd maybe think signs about checking your registration and money to help people get to the polls more easily would be a better investment. Does it juice enthusiasm? Is someone seeing this and deciding to vote who otherwise wouldn't?
That appears to be the pitch. Heckling Trump will somehow depress his base of support, rather than riling them up. People will see these signs and feel something other than contempt for the folks putting the banners up and it will become a reminder to show up to the polls.
Is that worth more than money kicked to a campaign office to GOTV the old fashioned way? Idk. Feels more like a campaign staffer is being cheeky and wasting campaign resources on a vanity project to me.
I mostly agree with you. But maybe it would have an impact on Trump himself. Either by motivating him to debate, where he might say more stupid shit which could potentially turn off voters who might be leaning Trump but are still iffy. Or again the impact on Trump when these pics go viral on Twitter, even if it doesn’t motivate him to debate, it could still get to him to where he brings this up at rallies and again says some stupid shit which makes him look bad to tenuous voters.
To do what? Have another debate? Trump not debating is useful, because it gives the media something to hound him over. But having another debate just becomes a new spectacle. It doesn't benefit Harris. She proved she's not Biden, which was the only bar she really needed to cross. A second debate won't materially benefit her.
The shit he's saying doesn't turn off voters because his voters agree with him. The "Black people are eating your dogs" is just a saying-the-quiet-part-out-loud kind of racism that Republicans love. The "Democrats will let you abort a baby after its born" line is a lie that the pro-life people eat up. These statements validate the bigots and the fascists. They don't scare them away.
Waiting for Trump to say something so stupid that he loses the election is just democrats Waiting for Godot.
I think you drastically underestimate how many undecideds are in the county and sit and say nothing. There are many people that don't decide until the day of. Go vote and don't take it for granted.
Undecideds are drastically overestimated. People who poll undecided with such polar candidates may feel disillusioned by both candidates or they prefer a candidate that is outside of what their family or demographic prefers and they feel conflicted about it. If someone is so truly apathetic about these candidates they aren't going to bother to vote for either. Passionate voters are bad enough about showing up to vote. Very few of these people are going to suddenly resonate with a candidate based on positive or negative campaigning. I really think it's all about nudging the ends of the bell curves on voter turnout for either party.
This is not factual. It's blatantly been proven wrong. I did a paper about it in college. A vast majority of the voting population is undecided.
https://www.dataforprogress.org/insights/2024/5/30/measuring-the-swing-evaluating-the-key-voters-of-2024
There is only about 20 percent total of voters that are always on a side. Many can swing either way for many reasons and many don't decide until the last two weeks.
This sort of disinformation leads people to a false sense of security and sways people not to vote thinking that it's already locked up. That is not the truth.
Every time I hear about these mythical people who don’t know a thing about politics until right before an election I envy them.
I mean it's how a lot of people operate. Just paying very little attention to anything other than what is important to them.
I know, I see them doing that while driving all the time.