Vee

No, I think he's just cornered after being asked a dozen times lately and has decided to lean into MAGA and hope for the best.

Not terribly surprising based on what I'd heard of his life and career, but still sad.

There's always going to be spin in either direction - if you ask the Trump campaign it's all about how it's a total disaster, etc. But the mainstream media pundits seems pleased with her going on there and holding strong, as do many or our side. I do think there are more viewers to peel off and penetrate from in that bubble, and Fox cut the interview short. I also think she does better aggressive than trying to play soft.

Meanwhile:

I saw the Semafor version of that same PA piece. It was reaching, the typical off-record Dem bedwetting. The Baier interview seems to have gone well according to mainstream media punditry - Baier was aggressive and so was she. Here's the whole thing, plus some clips: Cueball is charmed and most media seem pleased: Not someone I'll generally ever quotetweet: Meanwhile: Oh, and:

What baffles me is how too many of them (including Jonathan Weisman) now regularly return to 'we have no impact with Trump voters' as an excuse for their coverage. You want to be the greatest paper on Earth but whenever pressed on coverage you say you have no impact?

But Carly is central, and the Spencers are central again. His introductory scenes back were even with Carly. Ergo, Lucas is tied in. Whether they use him properly is another issue.

I think Lucas has plenty of ties and they actually invested in them much more when Carnes returned in the 2010s than ever before - Carly, Bobbie, the unnecessary Jerome/Sam stuff, etc. were all key to his story and interaction back then. My problem isn't with Lucas, who isn't extraneous but with GH and storytelling. At the height of Lucas' pretty heavy use in the Carlivati years it was still with dudes like Brad and Felix who I felt were beneath him, but since then it's been diminishing returns and random lip service. Today I have no faith in them seriously investing in any LGBT characters beyond B or C-story or recurring players like Brad and Terry; if they want me to buy into that change they'd have to show me.

Someone in Antarctica who she can go quest for in the frozen tundra, offscreen. Making a pointless character related to popular characters (or needlessly recasting a forgotten character, like Wagger) doesn't make them less pointless.

Exactly.

Allred has his flaws and I still don't buy we'll flip Texas no matter what the internals say, but this is very good (as was a lot of this debate).

I think there's a big difference between understandably worrying that something will go badly vs. accepting the pre-spin or pre-narrative from any right wing conservative or dead end leftist grifter as though those spin or narratives are actually taking flight among the general public, or having any serious impact. If you listen to every dead-ender online be it on the far left or the right their personal mythology is that of course Harris is a weak candidate, of course she's losing because Gaza or whatever else, of course Walz is a joke. The reality is, none of this appears to be true or has borne out to be the case. Harris is still up in most polling, Gaza is just not a key issue for most of the Dem base in this election (vs. abortion, etc) and Walz is still overwhelmingly popular among the public according to actual numbers. I also don't get any indication that Harris' campaign is frantic in their current media push. I haven't heard that kind of talk anywhere, from anyone reputable online be it a journalist or anyone else. Random people on social media are entitled to their opinions, they're not entitled to make me treat them all credibly or as a bellweather for the larger public. There's signal and then there's noise. I try to filter out noise. It seems like this went well:

A tale of two papers. The NYT's take on Trump's bizarre PA rally: Versus the Post: I am pleased that most papers and TV media have openly begun addressing the age/competence question with Trump more and more directly and clearly in recent days. But while I actually felt the full NYT article's tone was more bemusement and bafflement than anything else, it is presented in such a bloodless way that it absolutely does sound like attempting to rationalize his behavior yet again.

This is where we will differ again, because I don't think most of those interviews hurt her numbers and I don't think there is much that suggests that. But again, as I said above I also don't think there is any sign that her internals are bad or this is a desperation play - that is the right-wing framing about this, but it doesn't have a basis in reality to me. From what I can see it's offense to box Trump in and continue to drive him nuts and dig into his margins.

Kamala is now doing an interview with Bret Baier on Fox and (it's rumored) may be doing Joe Rogan next week. I think these are actually pretty smart because I see the strategy - I don't think Baier will outplay her and she's depriving Trump of his safe spaces, boxing him in. She continues to answer the nagging media question while continuing to push the angles she has been on the stump and in intvs for the last couple weeks; his cognitive decline, asking why he's hiding, why he won't do more interviews, why he won't do another debate, etc. I wouldn't be shocked if she next challenges him to show up for the Fox debate he offered and then rescinded. It's not desperation, it's offense. I hated Sanders doing Rogan bc it felt like it was of a piece with him actively courting that incel/angry white vote in a very different way, coddling who they are, which he did over and over again at that time. Here, Kamala doing both Fox and potentially this feels like a psyop designed to continue to drill down into Trump and drive him nuts, so I can potentially stomach it.

Not Sinead! This is truly off, even for him. @marceline does not miss.

Yes, but you have thought that re: Republicans for almost every cycle on this site that I can remember. I also don't see any Dem win is automatically close but a Republican win would naturally be a mandate/blowout. That's just Politico thinking to me. Wouldn't a close election (if the polling matches the turnout, which I doubt) dictate that a win for either would therefore be close? For me, the facts remain we're up in most polls by one number or another, and turnout is up as well - those numbers have not changed. Then you have these internals, which are pretty rough for the GOP period across the board. I am not seeing a major Trump comeback or likely win/sweep there. YMMV. For me, it's feeling like 2022 (and others have mentioned '12, but I am not there yet). But it could be bigger. Anyway, here is a gift link for a NYT piece re: the Dem ground game vs. Trump's.

I don't see that at all.