The Politics Thread

43 minutes ago, Liberty City said:

Oh, we've got this. Now people gotta get their behinds to the fücking polls in November.

yes, we do! 

kamala has really learned from hillary’s missteps in 2016: this ad is such a striking contrast to hillary’s in 2016, which focused only the threat trump presented — absolutely nothing about why to vote for her

Edited July 25, 20241 yr by wonderwoman1951

22 minutes ago, wonderwoman1951 said:

yes, we do! 

kamala has really learned from hillary’s missteps in 2016: this ad is such a striking contrast to hillary’s in 2016, which focused only the threat trump presented — absolutely nothing about why to vote for her

VP Harris has a built-in example of the gravity of what the Trump years produced-chief among them, the erosion of women’s bodily autonomy. When Hillary warned of the perils that a Trump presidency could yield, unfortunately, many underestimated the catastrophic consequences that this would bring to bear. As I recall, even after the election of 2016, there were some who were still underestimating just how catastrophic it would be.

By her own admission, Hillary did say in her recent Op-Ed (definitely worth a read) that she underplayed the huge significance of her run as a woman because she likely didn’t want it to be counted as a vulnerability against her. Many now have learned the hard way that just by being that other half of a population regarded as woman, many will regard us a vulnerable no matter how high we climb. Might as well declare it and fight for it.

 

Meanwhile:

Edited July 25, 20241 yr by Vee

Whoever Kamala Harris picks for her VP, I hope that her campaign continues to hammer home for voters not just that they are not Trump/Vance, but that represent a new, fresh form of leadership.

To quote the Talking Heads: Watch out, you might get what you're after.

Many already suspected this, no?

FBI uncertain whether Trump was hit by a bullet or struck by shrapnel during assassination attempt

1 hour ago, DramatistDreamer said:

VP Harris has a built-in example of the gravity of what the Trump years produced-chief among them, the erosion of women’s bodily autonomy. When Hillary warned of the perils that a Trump presidency could yield, unfortunately, many underestimated the catastrophic consequences that this would bring to bear. As I recall, even after the election of 2016, there were some who were still underestimating just how catastrophic it would be.

By her own admission, Hillary did say in her recent Op-Ed (definitely worth a read) that she underplayed the huge significance of her run as a woman because she likely didn’t want it to be counted as a vulnerability against her. Many now have learned the hard way that just by being that other half of a population regarded as woman, many will regard us a vulnerable no matter how high we climb. Might as well declare it and fight for it.

agreed. however, this isn’t just about gender.

i live in massachusetts — a very blue state — but new hampshire, a swing state, is in the boston media market. and in 2016 hillary’s ads were nothing more than how catastrophic trump would be — nothing about what she would do as president — just that she wasn’t him.

and her campaign carpet-bombed the media with those ads — sometimes 6 in an hour — so much so that for some undecided voters they may well have been counter-productive and they either voted for trump, or not at all.  

assuming this was the case in other swing states — this strategy may well have played a significant role in her defeat 

Edited July 25, 20241 yr by wonderwoman1951

 

32 minutes ago, wonderwoman1951 said:

agreed. however, this isn’t just about gender.

i live in massachusetts — a very blue state — but new hampshire, a swing state, is in the boston media market. and in 2016 hillary’s ads were nothing more than how catastrophic trump would be — nothing about what she would do as president — just that she wasn’t him.

and her campaign carpet-bombed the media with those ads — sometimes 6 in an hour — so much so that for some undecided voters they may well have been counter-productive and they either voted for trump, or not at all.  

assuming this was the case in other swing states — this strategy may well have played a significant role in her defeat 

That’s interesting how ads are tailored to particular states/regions. I don’t remember seeing those ads. Perhaps because in the NYC tri-state area, it’s assumed that people already knew who Trump was and he was already massively unpopular here.

5 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

That’s interesting how ads are tailored to particular states/regions. I don’t remember seeing those ads. Perhaps because in the NYC tri-state area, it’s assumed that people already knew who Trump was and he was already massively unpopular here.

exactly! why waste money in a state you know you can’t win.

but, as i said, new hampshire is a swing state next to a blue state. so in a presidential election year, we here in eastern massachusetts are barraged with political ads, both for the primary and general election.

can’t wait for what’s coming:)

2 minutes ago, wonderwoman1951 said:

exactly! why waste money in a state you know you can’t win.

but, as i said, new hampshire is a swing state next to a blue state. so in a presidential election year, we here in eastern massachusetts are barraged with political ads, both for the primary and general election.

can’t wait for what’s coming:)

No doubt those ads were targeted upstate but yes, I know her budget would have been tailored not to spend as much on the NYC metro area as upstate and other regions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile, a profile in courage: