• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Presidential Election 2024 - Trump vs Harris - Vote Hard with a Vengence

Even Foxnews is saying that Harris won that debate…

That being said, I’m not sure the debate will sway anyone who is already decided and I doubt it moves the needle much. But in a tight race even a small shift becomes important.
 
The complaints that the moderators were “3 v 1” is laughable. They just fact-checked him in real time and didn’t let him get away with blatant lies like the pet eating thing.

If anything, they let Trump speak out of turn and always get the last word in.

But I have to give Trump credit for one thing - “I have a concept of a plan” is this year’s “alternative facts” 🤣
 
The EBB (Early Bird Brief) had a link

Well, one name definitely popped up more often in that link…

Jon Stewart weighs in:


His line about Trump always blaming others when he has to face any consequences at the end of the video is absolutely amazing. I don’t want to spoil it so just watch the entire thing.
 
A few things I noticed:

- When asked directly if he wanted Ukraine to win, Trump would not say so or otherwise agree to it. He’s still falsely claiming he would negotiate a peace immediately. The
most favourable interpretation of this for him is that would would essentially abandon Ukraine in a push for a frozen conflict.

- When asked directly, twice, if he had any regrets about his own person actions in January 6th, he went off on a rant and would not answer the question. He still characterizes those convicted of crimes for Jan 6th as being some sort of hard done by victims.

- When the hosts presented recent examples of Trump admitting he lost the 2020 election by a narrow margin, he rejected his own words, claimed he had been speaking “sarcastically”, and continued to uphold The Big Lie that he had won; he still does not accept that he lost.

- When Harris confronted Trump with a claim that world leaders are laughing at him, he went on about Viktor Orban apparently being a fan of his.

- Trump appears to take Putin’s statement that he hopes for a Harris win at face value.

- He was called out for blatant lies on several occasions by both the moderators and by Harris.

Generally speaking he struggled to keep to any sort of consistent script, and generally did not answer or attempt to answer the questions posed, even when redirected back to them by the moderators. He was flailing and easily baited by Harris.

Doubtful that many minds will change on this debate, but all in all it was a very different even from Trump v Biden, and I think a number of Trump’s weaknesses and frailties were on display, for those inclined to see what’s right in front of them.
 
Non-debate related: RFK Jr has won an appeal in the North Carolina Supreme Court that will see state ballots reprinted with his name removed. Conversely, RFK Jr lost pretty much the same case in the Michigan Supreme Court; his name will stay on the ballot in that state.

Both cases were in the top court of their respective states, so that ballot matter is likely now final in both states.
 
A few things I noticed:

- When asked directly if he wanted Ukraine to win, Trump would not say so or otherwise agree to it. He’s still falsely claiming he would negotiate a peace immediately. The
most favourable interpretation of this for him is that would would essentially abandon Ukraine in a push for a frozen conflict.

- When asked directly, twice, if he had any regrets about his own person actions in January 6th, he went off on a rant and would not answer the question. He still characterizes those convicted of crimes for Jan 6th as being some sort of hard done by victims.

- When the hosts presented recent examples of Trump admitting he lost the 2020 election by a narrow margin, he rejected his own words, claimed he had been speaking “sarcastically”, and continued to uphold The Big Lie that he had won; he still does not accept that he lost.

- When Harris confronted Trump with a claim that world leaders are laughing at him, he went on about Viktor Orban apparently being a fan of his.

- Trump appears to take Putin’s statement that he hopes for a Harris win at face value.

- He was called out for blatant lies on several occasions by both the moderators and by Harris.

Generally speaking he struggled to keep to any sort of consistent script, and generally did not answer or attempt to answer the questions posed, even when redirected back to them by the moderators. He was flailing and easily baited by Harris.

Doubtful that many minds will change on this debate, but all in all it was a very different even from Trump v Biden, and I think a number of Trump’s weaknesses and frailties were on display, for those inclined to see what’s right in front of them.
One big one that no one is mentioning for some reason is when he said that Ashley Babbit died “wrongly” on J6.

She was trying to storm the Capitol building.

If I look at the guards wrong on a US Base I have a better than even chance of being on the ground in cuffs.
 
One big one that no one is mentioning for some reason is when he said that Ashley Babbit died “wrongly” on J6.

She was trying to storm the Capitol building.

That’s incorrect. She had already stormed the Capitol building. What she was trying to do was breach the last line of defense between police and legislators whose lives were at risk from the crowd. It’s important to distinguish what she did from, say, simply coming up the front steps to enter the building. She was shot to protect life, not property.

Separately, hearkening back to a conversation a few weeks ago: Taylor Awift has endorsed Harris and Walz following the debate. She must not be too worried about Haitians eating her cat.
 
That’s incorrect. She had already stormed the Capitol building. What she was trying to do was breach the last line of defense between police and legislators whose lives were at risk from the crowd. It’s important to distinguish what she did from, say, simply coming up the front steps to enter the building. She was shot to protect life, not property.

Separately, heartening back to a conversation a few weeks ago: Taylor Awift has endorsed Harris and Walz following the debate. She must not be too worried about Haitians eating her cat.
Nah, Taylor Swift is clearly for eating cats. Probably on her list of requirements when she does shows. A bowl of cats and mineral water.
 
Having watched the majority of the debate tonight (albeit in the background of doing other stuff), I really think that how one assesses tonight's debate performance is indicative of one's grasp of reality. To conclude that Trump's and Harris' performance tonight was equal
Their performances weren't equal. All of left and some of the right agrees that Harris "won". What is also true is that neither candidate did particularly well or poorly. Trump couldn't discipline himself, but didn't plumb new depths that people haven't already seen. Harris didn't achieve either of the two goals of explaining the dichotomy between her "values" and positions, or the dichotomy between having been an important part of the current administration and running as a candidate for "change", but presented well. From what Nate Silver, Harry Enten, and the RCP poll averages are saying, presenting well and enjoying the benefit of positive hype seems to have reached its ceiling for Harris and isn't enough.
 
Never watched the debate, sources I read and trust suggest Trump didn't perform as they hoped against the Harris/Moderator team, but it was expected this would be a difficult debate, given the moderators' obvious affiliation. I believe, by now in 2024, the one-sidedness of the moderators in American politics are well observed, expected, and weighed in most peoples minds.

What doesn't change for the average voter:

  • A Harris administration will be another Biden administration but worse
  • A Trump administration v2 will be like a Trump v1 on steroids
 
Never watched the debate, sources I read and trust suggest Trump didn't perform as they hoped against the Harris/Moderator team, but it was expected this would be a difficult debate, given the moderators' obvious affiliation. I believe, by now in 2024, the one-sidedness of the moderators in American politics are well observed, expected, and weighed in most peoples minds.

What doesn't change for the average voter:

  • A Harris administration will be another Biden administration but worse
  • A Trump administration v2 will be like a Trump v1 on steroids
The moderators had to fact-check a few blatant Trump lies, like the claim that in some states it’s a legal practice to murder babies post-birth. Otherwise it was very lightly moderated, and he frequently interjected after attempts by the moderators to move on to the next topic. He generally insisted on cutting in with a last word or three, and they let him do so. But as you say, you didn’t watch.

I’m sure Trump will be keen to do another debate on, say, Fox if he felt unfairly treated in this one.
 
The moderators had to fact-check a few blatant Trump lies, like the claim that in some states it’s a legal practice to murder babies post-birth.
This is an example in which the literal claim doesn't match reality, but in which fact-checkers find it convenient to limit the amount of information they deliver. It is not legal to kill babies after birth. It is legal to deny them care and permit them to die after an abortion. Obviously it's not the only example of such hair-splitting. People ought to be informed not only of what is wrong, but also of what is right so that they can see where misunderstandings and myths arise.

The moderators did themselves and Harris a disservice by not challenging/correcting one or two of her manifestly false claims. If they'd done it even once it would have mitigated the appearance of moderator bias and the appearance that Harris needs to be handled gently.
 
This is an example in which the literal claim doesn't match reality, but in which fact-checkers find it convenient to limit the amount of information they deliver. It is not legal to kill babies after birth. It is legal to deny them care and permit them to die after an abortion. Obviously it's not the only example of such hair-splitting. People ought to be informed not only of what is wrong, but also of what is right so that they can see where misunderstandings and myths arise.

The moderators did themselves and Harris a disservice by not challenging/correcting one or two of her manifestly false claims. If they'd done it even once it would have mitigated the appearance of moderator bias and the appearance that Harris needs to be handled gently.
It’s not ‘hair splitting’ to say post-birth abortion (Trump used the word “execute”) is a pure fiction. They also corrected him in peddling the lie that migrants in Ohio were kidnapping people’s pets and eating them. That’s the kind of lies that merited moderator action.

They let many other things he said slide- talkies this morning have found 33 outright lies from his part.

Harris didn’t say anything remotely egregious enough to call for moderator intervention. Trump’s affinity for abject fantasy stands on his own. If he doesn’t like lopsided fact checking, he shouldn’t have a lopsided relationship with the truth.

I’m sure Fox will give him a friendlier platform for the next one.
 
It’s not ‘hair splitting’ to say post-birth abortion (Trump used the word “execute”) is a pure fiction.
All politicians (really, all people) make statements that range from misleading to mythical because neither they nor their staff (or friends) have adequately checked the details ("fine people"), or they hear/read what they want to despite what was said/written ("51 intelligence officials..."), or the issue simply becomes fuzzy in their minds (many of Biden's "onion belt" stories). There's almost always some foundation that hasn't been correctly represented and is worthwhile talking about. Being clear and correct and complete are useful; evasion-by-pedantry isn't useful.
They also corrected him in peddling the lie that migrants in Ohio were kidnapping people’s pets and eating them. That’s the kind of lies that merited moderator action.
That's the kind of lies that need to be investigated. One of the foundations of the story appears to be that 20,000 people moved into a community of 60,000 (Springfield OH). Why did that happen, were political agencies involved, and what have been the effects? I can guess that the players and the effects haven't been something the campaign wants to talk about, hence the enthusiasm with which people are using one potentially ridiculous assertion to avoid talking about it at all.
Harris didn’t say anything remotely egregious enough to call for moderator intervention.
That's a pure judgement call.
I’m sure Fox will give him a friendlier platform for the next one.
I'm sure the Harris campaign would consent to a debate on Fox, where they have no control or influence.
 
Back
Top