The Race For 2024

[Politesse]

Also, I really suspect that Copernicus would not feel “more comfortable landing some more of our lethal troops on foreign shores,” though I will let him/her speak for his/herself. I believe it was you who leveled this kind of charge at me once and it’s really rather disgusting.

It's not an accusation, I don't think he would either. Cop is educated anough to know that's a disaster in the making, and human enough to care about dead children and the like. But the lethality of our soldiers is irrelevant if you aren't planning to use them, even if I agreed that maximum lethality is the most important goal of a military body, as I do not.

 

[pood]

Let’s elect her and then see what she actually does.

I know more or less exactly what she'll do, or more importantly, won't do. The Overton Window is a bitch when there are neo-Nazis in the halls of Congress. We've been seeing this play out for the last four years. It will be meaningless after the fact to point out that "I told you so", but I suppose I probably will anyway...

Which is why I said she should stress the importance of brooming out he MAGGOTS (neo-Nazis) in Congress. But your Overton Window is a fact of life in American politics. We can open the window wider if people can be convinced to quit mainlining on Donald Dump and his MAGGOT party. Do you disagree with that? What else would you have Harris or anyone do, but try?

 

[Politesse]

But your Overton Window is a fact of life in American politics.

And that's why I'm depressed. We have a minority party pushing strongly toward authoritarian rule, and a disunified majority opposition pushing back as weakly as possible. Any student of history knows what this situation looks like, what it should remind people of. But seeing it does not help you prevent it.

 

[pood]

But your Overton Window is a fact of life in American politics.

And that's why I'm depressed. We have a minority party pushing strongly toward authoritarian rule, and a disunified majority opposition pushing back as weakly as possible. Any student of history knows what this situation looks like, what it should remind people of. But seeing it does not help you prevent it.

It strikes me that exactly the opposite is currently the case. A “disunified majority opposition pushing back as weakly as possible” is what we had under Joe Biden, fairly or unfairly to him. That has completely turned around under Harris, and the polls verify this.

 

[pood]

What was the Overton window like back in antebellum America? Would acceptable discourse have allowed contemplating not just the freedom of the slaves, but giving them the vote?

What was the window like in 1965 for gay people? Back then gay relations were practically universally criminalized in the U.S., and in addition, the psychiatric industry categorized gays as mentally ill.

I can cite many other examples. The point is that the widow opens over time, but it takes US to open it. Bitching and moaning that Kamala made some boilerplate support of lethal U.S. military forces misses the larger point. Elect her and give her a Congress she can work with, and she will push us forward, as Biden has skillfully done with a polarized Congress. Biden is already getting high marks among academic historians, for what that is worth, and his stock will rise over time, I think.

 

[Ford]

With the caveat that Nate Silver's predictions should be taken with a grain of salt (or perhaps a ring of it around a margarita glass), as of today...

Harris wins 58 times out of 100.

 

[blastula]

RFK was robbed.

 

[ZiprHead]

Or go into a Bergdorf Goodman.

 

[Elixir]

With the caveat that Nate Silver's predictions should be taken with a grain of salt (or perhaps a ring of it around a margarita glass), as of today...

Harris wins 58 times out of 100.

How many tries are we going to give Trump? Did Nate account for the cheat factor?

 

[Copernicus]

With the caveat that Nate Silver's predictions should be taken with a grain of salt (or perhaps a ring of it around a margarita glass), as of today...

Harris wins 58 times out of 100.

How many tries are we going to give Trump? Did Nate account for the cheat factor?

Both of you, listen up. Nate Silver left 538 a few years ago and has nothing to do with it now. Look on the page you linked to and notice that "ABC News" now owns and manages it. Nate Silver is alive and well at:

Silver Bulletin​

If you want to monitor his 2024 election forecast, including swing state aggregates, you'll find it at

Silver Bulletin 2024 presidential election forecast​

 

[laughing dog]

Or go into a Bergdorf Goodman.

To me, Trump looks and sounds pretty decrepit in that video.

 

[Copernicus]

But your Overton Window is a fact of life in American politics.

And that's why I'm depressed. We have a minority party pushing strongly toward authoritarian rule, and a disunified majority opposition pushing back as weakly as possible. Any student of history knows what this situation looks like, what it should remind people of. But seeing it does not help you prevent it.

Reinhold Niebuhr's advice, with a little secular revision of the wording:

Seek the serenity to accept the things you cannot change, the courage to change the things you can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

 

[Derec]

The vice president also proposed to make permanent a $3,600 per child tax credit approved through 2025 for eligible families, while offering a new $6,000 tax credit for those with newborn children.

I said it when Biden proposed his extended child tax credit of $3/3.6k/a - it will never be enough. No matter how high it is, some Helen "won't somebody please think of the children" Lovejoyesque politician will want more. Now KH is demanding $3.6/6k/a. Much more generous than even Biden's plan. It's easy to be generous with other people's money. The eligibility for this plan is also into six figures ($200k). That means that child-free people making $30 or $40k have to pay for subsidies for people making 5 or 6 times as much money as them, either directly through taxes or indirectly through higher inflation and/or interest rates. Madness!

Also wanting to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit for some workers.

EITC is another child tax credit in disguise. Both the income limits and the amounts one can claim are far more generous for those with children. So much so that hardly any child-free people ever qualify.

The plan includes a major expansion in the child tax credit. Low- and middle-income families would get up to $6,000 when they have a new baby. And Harris said she wants to restore the pandemic-era program that gave families up to $3,600 per child.

The income limits for the Biden plan were very high. Hardly "low and middle income". I have not seen any indication that KH wants to dial down eligibility below six figures.

A bigger child tax credit has also been proposed by Republicans. Vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance said on Sunday that he would like to see it expanded to $5,000 per child.

He is just as wrong.

Great competition.

And those who suffer under it are us child-free taxpayers.

“We believe in a future where every person has the opportunity to build a business, to own a home, to build intergenerational wealth

But if you have no children, fuck you. You may pay for all the subsidizes we give to those who have.

She pledged on “Day 1” to take on “price gouging.”

Otherwise known as price controls.

In her stump speeches, she ticks through plans to lower costs that echo the administration’s existing efforts: ban hidden fees and cap unfair rent hikes and prescription drug costs.

How does one define "unfair rent hikes"?
Instead of a form of rent control, the proper way would be to remove barriers to entry into the rental market by relaxing zoning and onerous regulation (like the side discussion about European rental buildings that followed). If you make it more difficult to make a profit renting apartments out, fewer will be built, not more.

 

[Derec]

I know more or less exactly what she'll do, or more importantly, won't do.

Can you enlighten us then? Because her plans have been rather opaque. There is - still - not an "Issues" tab on the Harris/Walz website.

Also, I do not see what your issue is with Kami. She is slated to be to the left of Biden, who was one probably the most left-wing president since FDR.

 

[Derec]

While President Biden has made climate change a signature issue, signing into law the largest clean energy investments in American history, Ms. Harris has yet to detail for voters her climate or clean-energy positions.

To be fair, she has yet to detail her positions on almost everything.

Some analysts chalked that up to strategy

Strategy being relying on "memes and vibes" and avoiding substantive discussions.

and said new promises to slash greenhouse gas emissions or rein in fossil fuels could alienate voters particularly in the energy-rich swing state of Pennsylvania.

That is true. I am all in favor of reducing greenhouse emissions, but hamstringing domestic energy production, esp. of cleaner-burning and less carbon intensive natural gas, is not the best way.

“I think they are worried if she takes a strong position on climate, even it fits the same position that Biden took, it will make her look too progressive,” Mr. Book said, adding, “It’s a divisive issue and they need both sides as much as possible to win Pennsylvania.”

This is in stark contrast to 2019 Kamala who infamously pledged to ban all fracking and offshore drilling.

More from NY Times:

Mr. Walz signed a law requiring Minnesota to get all of its electricity from wind, solar and other carbon-free sources by 2040.

From EIA: "In 2022, renewables accounted for 31% of total in-state electricity net generation, coal fueled 27%, nuclear power supplied 24%, and natural gas contributed 18%".
That means going from 55% to 100% in less than two decades. Possible, but only if nuclear is also expanded, which is anathema to many on the left. Coal burning should be tackled first. It is the most dirty and carbon-intensive fuel source.

As senator from California, Ms. Harris cosponsored the Green New Deal, a nonbinding resolution that called for a transition away from fossil fuels to clean energy this decade. The Harris campaign hasn’t said whether she still supports the Green New Deal, and has emphasized that her climate focus is on implementing the Inflation Reduction Act.
During her 2019 presidential run, Ms. Harris positioned herself to the left of Mr. Biden, calling for a fracking ban and a tax on carbon pollution, as well as changes to federal dietary guidelines to encourage less meat consumption. She did not advocate those positions once she became Mr. Biden’s running mate and then vice president.

Those positions were as extreme as they were stupid. Hopefully she will not pursue any of this while in office. However, her vagueness together with the extreme positions she took makes me fear she will just go back to them once elected.

If you're worried about war, but aren't worried about Harris gladly crowing about how "as Commander-in-Chief", she "will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world", I don't know what to tell you. That is not a promise to stop our reckless imperial adventurism overseas.

What's wrong with having a strong military? The world is a dangerous place. You see more aggressive stances from Russia, China, Iran.

Because we do not actually have the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world,

Who does?

nor does having the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world necessarily win wars.

No, but it does help.

 

[Derec]

And a meth head couldn’t represent Florida well?

It certainly doesn't help.

GOP picked DeSantis over Putnam and have fully supported his stupid shit into a second term. Don’t forget that Florida is so fucked that the Dems thought they had to run a Republican in 2022 and picked Crist over Fried to challenge DeSantis.

In 2022 DeSantis was a popular incumbent. It was a Hail Mary no matter whom Dems nominated.
2018 was different. An open seat. And even the very flawed candidate like Gillum (who was under federal investigation at the time) came within 0.4% of beating DeSantis. A more credible nominee would surely have won.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

While President Biden has made climate change a signature issue, signing into law the largest clean energy investments in American history, Ms. Harris has yet to detail for voters her climate or clean-energy positions.

To be fair, she has yet to detail her positions on almost everything.

Some analysts chalked that up to strategy

Strategy being relying on "memes and vibes" and avoiding substantive discussions.

and said new promises to slash greenhouse gas emissions or rein in fossil fuels could alienate voters particularly in the energy-rich swing state of Pennsylvania.

That is true. I am all in favor of reducing greenhouse emissions, but hamstringing domestic energy production, esp. of cleaner-burning and less carbon intensive natural gas, is not the best way.

“I think they are worried if she takes a strong position on climate, even it fits the same position that Biden took, it will make her look too progressive,” Mr. Book said, adding, “It’s a divisive issue and they need both sides as much as possible to win Pennsylvania.”

This is in stark contrast to 2019 Kamala who infamously pledged to ban all fracking and offshore drilling.

More from NY Times:

Mr. Walz signed a law requiring Minnesota to get all of its electricity from wind, solar and other carbon-free sources by 2040.

From EIA: "In 2022, renewables accounted for 31% of total in-state electricity net generation, coal fueled 27%, nuclear power supplied 24%, and natural gas contributed 18%".
That means going from 55% to 100% in less than two decades. Possible, but only if nuclear is also expanded, which is anathema to many on the left. Coal burning should be tackled first. It is the most dirty and carbon-intensive fuel source.

As senator from California, Ms. Harris cosponsored the Green New Deal, a nonbinding resolution that called for a transition away from fossil fuels to clean energy this decade. The Harris campaign hasn’t said whether she still supports the Green New Deal, and has emphasized that her climate focus is on implementing the Inflation Reduction Act.
During her 2019 presidential run, Ms. Harris positioned herself to the left of Mr. Biden, calling for a fracking ban and a tax on carbon pollution, as well as changes to federal dietary guidelines to encourage less meat consumption. She did not advocate those positions once she became Mr. Biden’s running mate and then vice president.

Those positions were as extreme as they were stupid. Hopefully she will not pursue any of this while in office. However, her vagueness together with the extreme positions she took makes me fear she will just go back to them once elected.

You aren't particularly familiar with how this works, are you? Harris will not cut back domestic drilling to increase the price of oil. Even with a blue wave, the Democrats won't have a congressional mandate to accomplish anything that considered "extreme". She'll pretty much govern as Biden has, which isn't bad. Biden hasn't done a bad job. Trump did a bad job. W did a bad job. The option is Trump or Harris. Worrying about windmills is ridiculous.

 

[Toni]

If I feel the need to get depressed, all I have to do is think about global warming or all the wars going on.

If you're worried about global warming, you should be pretty worried that Harris and Walz are pulling back from addressing climate change.

Harris Goes Light on Climate Policy. Green Leaders Are OK With That.

While President Biden has made climate change a signature issue, signing into law the largest clean energy investments in American history, Ms. Harris has yet to detail for voters her climate or clean-energy positions. Some analysts chalked that up to strategy and said new promises to slash greenhouse gas emissions or rein in fossil fuels could alienate voters particularly in the energy-rich swing state of Pennsylvania.

“This doesn’t look accidental, it looks like a deliberate choice,” said Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington-based research firm, referring to the sparse mentions of climate change in the speeches of Ms. Harris and Mr. Walz.

“I think they are worried if she takes a strong position on climate, even it fits the same position that Biden took, it will make her look too progressive,” Mr. Book said, adding, “It’s a divisive issue and they need both sides as much as possible to win Pennsylvania.”

If you're worried about war, but aren't worried about Harris gladly crowing about how "as Commander-in-Chief", she "will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world", I don't know what to tell you. That is not a promise to stop our reckless imperial adventurism overseas.

Or is it just the very likely if not inevitable possibility of losing some of those proxy wars that concerns you? Would you feel more comfortable if we were landing some more of our lethal troops on foreign shores, to kill some more bad guys and make you safe? Because that is unlikely to change the outcome. Because we do not actually have the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world, nor does having the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world necessarily win wars.

I’m unhappy that women must act hawkish in order to deflect a tiny bit of the perception that women are weak and emotional. I’m less concerned that Harry’s would be quick to go to war or even to deploy armaments. There are zero persons in the world who, if elected POTUS would eliminate the potential for war. I do believe that Democrats in general have a much better record of improving the environment.

Unfortunately, politics is all about compromise between competing needs, wants, and perspectives.

Campaigns are built on mass appeal. Unfortunately. And unfortunately ( but not really unfortunate at all), POTUS does not legislate ( except through the unfortunate use of executive powers which is dangerous, even when I agree with any particular order). In order to improve the lives of most Americans, we need to eject more Dems in down ballot races. All politics are local, at the heart.

Too close a pursuit of the perfect can obscure the good.

 

[Politesse]

If I feel the need to get depressed, all I have to do is think about global warming or all the wars going on.

If you're worried about global warming, you should be pretty worried that Harris and Walz are pulling back from addressing climate change.

Harris Goes Light on Climate Policy. Green Leaders Are OK With That.

While President Biden has made climate change a signature issue, signing into law the largest clean energy investments in American history, Ms. Harris has yet to detail for voters her climate or clean-energy positions. Some analysts chalked that up to strategy and said new promises to slash greenhouse gas emissions or rein in fossil fuels could alienate voters particularly in the energy-rich swing state of Pennsylvania.

“This doesn’t look accidental, it looks like a deliberate choice,” said Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington-based research firm, referring to the sparse mentions of climate change in the speeches of Ms. Harris and Mr. Walz.

“I think they are worried if she takes a strong position on climate, even it fits the same position that Biden took, it will make her look too progressive,” Mr. Book said, adding, “It’s a divisive issue and they need both sides as much as possible to win Pennsylvania.”

If you're worried about war, but aren't worried about Harris gladly crowing about how "as Commander-in-Chief", she "will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world", I don't know what to tell you. That is not a promise to stop our reckless imperial adventurism overseas.

Or is it just the very likely if not inevitable possibility of losing some of those proxy wars that concerns you? Would you feel more comfortable if we were landing some more of our lethal troops on foreign shores, to kill some more bad guys and make you safe? Because that is unlikely to change the outcome. Because we do not actually have the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world, nor does having the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world necessarily win wars.

I’m unhappy that women must act hawkish in order to deflect a tiny bit of the perception that women are weak and emotional. I’m less concerned that Harry’s would be quick to go to war or even to deploy armaments. There are zero persons in the world who, if elected POTUS would eliminate the potential for war. I do believe that Democrats in general have a much better record of improving the environment.

Unfortunately, politics is all about compromise between competing needs, wants, and perspectives.

Campaigns are built on mass appeal. Unfortunately. And unfortunately ( but not really unfortunate at all), POTUS does not legislate ( except through the unfortunate use of executive powers which is dangerous, even when I agree with any particular order). In order to improve the lives of most Americans, we need to eject more Dems in down ballot races. All politics are local, at the heart.

Too close a pursuit of the perfect can obscure the good.

I fucking hate that deflection. You cannot declare yourself or anyone else guiltless of any and all criticism just by saying "no one's perfect". We might as well give up all politics, law, and philosophy if that's the standard. It is not.

We counter-signed a genocide less than a year ago, and now we're bragging about the lethality of our military. It may seem trivial when its aimed at other nations and cultures, but its the very same military that Trump wants to turn against the domestic population if he wins. Muslims aren't targeted for their faith, they are targeted because there are "the enemy". To nearly half of the poltiicians and employees of your government, you are also "the enemy". It won't always be people who aren't important to you under the gun.

I don't see how you can treat the continued escalation of presidential powers as an unfortunate aside rather than the immediate and pressing crisis that it is. Biden could walk into a press conference right now and murder any reporter he dislikes, without consequences. He doesn't even need the defense of the law any more, the Court has ruled that he is not subject to it, and Harris/Trump won't be either. If the President has unchecked power over our country and many others, it matters what they think and say. We cannot afford to treat this election as light entertainment.

 

[Copernicus]

The headlines right now are all about criticizing Kamala Harris for setting inspired goals but being light on policy specifics or how she plans to achieve them. In the absence of details, there is a struggle on both sides to define them. That takes the spotlight off of Donald Trump, who has released his own detailed list of plans in Agenda 47. The press hardly mentions it, because Donald Trump seldom mentions it and probably doesn't recall many details of what is in it. Harris has been thrust into a role where she is still only a Vice President who must carry out existing policies and quickly develop a set of her own detailed plans on how to achieve those goals with a Congress that does not exist and an existing Supreme Court that is hostile to her goals and bent on doing what it can to thwart them.

Agenda 47 aligns well with Project 2025, but avoids mentioning many of the most controversial plans mentioned in that lengthy document. The press has done some light reporting on it but has largely ignored it, focusing instead on some of the more controversial details from Project 2025 that are not in Agenda 47. Beyond that, nobody really cares about either document. The DNC also has a similarly detailed party platform that the press similarly ignores. If the politicians don't talk about the details of their platforms, then nobody is going to debate them. The race isn't really about substance, because the public isn't interested in wonky debates.

Should Kamala Harris spell out her plans in more detail than she already has or than what exists in the DNC platform? It seems to me to be a fool's errand, because that will contribute to the delusion that the race is just about whether to vote for or against her. The reality is that it is to vote for her or to vote for Donald Trump. That is what the public is going to focus on, not the lack of detail in Harris's policy plans. People who don't vote or who vote for a third alternative are simply endorsing the binary choice that other people will make for them. So I see this criticism of Harris as primarily a double standard that benefits Trump. In speeches, he is even less focused on his published policy plans than she is. The fact is that we won't know for sure what Harris will do until after we vote her into office, but we do know what Donald Trump intends to achieve. That is sufficient information to inform our vote.

In a representative democracy, you vote for the representative that you trust to carry out plans and goals that you agree with. You can't know in advance how he or she will achieve them, but it is necessary to have at least a general understanding of where they stand on issues. You vote on the basis of which candidate you think will achieve what you want, not necessarily on how detailed their plans are.