politics
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.
- 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
Nope.
Trump fans don't care.
Harris fans saw confirmation.
Disinterested voters didn't watch.
Thing is Trump made his most ridiculous statements highly memeable.
"They're eating the dogs!" is gonna live on like "They're turning the fricken frogs gay!"
That might draw enough of the disinterested crowd to figure out what happened that night.
...and a news media that desperately needs a horse race for clicks will continue to hold Harris to a higher standard than the orange Mr. Magoo.
A convicted rapist literally claimed that you’re allowed to murder babies - then we put them side by side and double check if Harris said something that was slightly exaggerated. What’s so weird about it?
Ajnt Ornj: "~~non white~~ 'illegal immigrants' are literally coming to eat your pets and the democrats want to let them"
Media fact checker: "this may not be entirely true, as no evidence has been produced to support the claims, however we found a Twitter post that... "
Harris: "those polling numbers increased by 18%"
Media fact checker: "This is blatantly false. The number actually increased by 17.86%"
Idiots online: BOTH SIDES LIE THEY'RE EXACTLY THE SAME
Trump was barely coherent throughout, but you'll see the media clean up his word salad as 'Trump vigorously defended his economic policies and the handling of the pandemic.'
Clips of this will spread through media and word of mouth, though. People who did watch it can tell their friends stories about it. That's why it's good that she did well. It builds cultural momentum.
It was a highly entertaining debate. Plenty of folks who dislike them both showed up with big bowls of popcorn to root for injuries. And Trump was true to form, just stepping into rake after rake for the full 90 minutes.
I came to count how many times Trump says "millions and millions"
Yep, had a conversation about it with a coworker who won’t be voting. His stance on roe v Wade (he brought it up) was that both sides have points but he didn’t understand what the decision was about as evidenced by him thinking that the government just shouldn’t have a say in medical decisions.
Your coworker sounds like a dumbass.
He doesn’t see understanding the issues as a civic duty so he mostly just watches tone. This means if you politely and non-partisanly explain your left wing beliefs he thinks they make sense. So yeah, but he feels like exactly the average American
Precisely. Harris is losing ground nationally and is losing ground in battleground states. Unless this debate significantly moves the needle, which I don't think it will for the very elegant reasons you summed, current trend lines indicate Harris losing steam and Trump continuing to pick up voters. No amount of wishful thinking will change that.
I've been tracking polling all year and you can see the past few weeks of progress here:
https://lemmy.world/post/19253997
Harris is losing ground in AZ, GA, PA and MI. If that slide continues with no debate bump it's going to be super hard to pull out a win.
WI moved to toss up. MI is on the verge of moving from Harris to toss up next week. PA and AZ have outright moved to the Trump category.
There's time to reverse it... but man...
Yeah. The surprise nominee change and DNC bumps are ebbing and the debate will likely be a blip at best.
It's like there's an unceasing gravity to Trump's numbers, like being choked by a boa constrictor. I think that's largely a result of his polling numbers being much "harder" than Harris, i.e. the percent of each candidates numbers that will never change their mind for and reason whatsoever and will always and fully support their candidate no matter what is much higher for Trump than Harris.
I'll add that it wouldn't surprise me at all if Swift's endorsement did more for Harris than the debate does. Kooky times we live in.