mtutiger

If this is true, then she's just about approaching 2020 Biden polling with black voters... Big big deal

Did it really take until 19 days before the election for this reporter to notice that Trump is a loon?

This is a really good post.... whatever *this* is, it doesn't feel like 2016. And it doesn't feel like 2020 either, which in and of itself was a black swan event because of COVID. There may be things here or there that I might pick nits with, but if she loses, it's not going to be about the campaign she ran. It's going to be on the American people, or at least those in the states that will decide the election, choosing Trump.

I would only add to my post as well, if we're talking about margins, is that you have to consider the percentage of the electorate that these groups might make up versus four years ago as well. I'm not entirely sure what percentage of the electorate is made up of religious conservatives so IDK what that difference might be there, but in terms of rural whites (using them as a proxy here), they make up a smaller amount of the electorate with each passing cycle. What that means is that Trump has to juice more out of that group every time in order to keep up... or find new voters elsewhere in the electorate (which, not sure the degree of success, they clearly have been trying to do with Hispanics/Black Males)

Religious voters are a subset, but Rural Whites really feel like an overlooked group in this election.... so much attention given to other groups (Hispanics, Blacks, Suburban/Col Ed Whites), but while I think the assumption is Trump matches his 2020 run here, honestly IDK. Dobbs looms large here too, not just because of how it might speak to secular rural whites, but also to the pollster's point, the fact that Trump's post-Dobbs positioning is at least marginally a wedge for his more religious supporters.

He's had a lot of bad moments in interviews lately, but in the context of this campaign (and the importance of the Hispanic vote within it), that Univision interview is probably the most damaging. Obviously low expectations for impact as nothing ever seems to matter, but it was by no means a good thing for him.

It's really worth watching the whole thing....

Suffice it to say, he didn't answer the question.

Speaking as somebody who worked at McDonalds, I relate more to the person who actually drew a paycheck from them over the guy pandering for voters.

Considering how the NYT has been all election cycle.... wow

Kamala has received some heat over the past couple of weeks for not being as active as Trump on the campaign trail, but it's hard not to wonder if the tables are gonna turn quickly on that.

Possibly, I didn't watch live but afterward myself. But even still, Fox does get a lot of eyeballs from people who aren't necessarily in the tank for Trump.... there's a reason that Pete Buttigieg shows up there periodically and that the Harris campaign sent Walz onto Fox News Sunday recently. Not to mention the fact that it is default programming in a lot of public spaces in areas of the country. Of course I do think there was benefit beyond the actual Fox audience though - she benefits from proving she can spar and hold her own against all comers. Baier gave no quarter, but she did well and (at times) exceeded IMO. It almost seemed like a form of absolution that she had to go through in the context of this campaign.

Uday and Qusay have never had a single callus on their hands during their entire lives, that much is for sure....

I ended up watching it and agree - she wasn't even really asked about policy, at least in the context of policy that matters in polling (ie. economy, immigration, abortion), it seemed more like a quasi-Hannity style thing to create culture war chum for the base. I don't know that it was a home run, but the people calling it a "disaster" don't realize that the interview wasn't really about them or their needs.... it was about the undecideds or the folks sitting on the fence. I think she did some work there.

Trump could shoot someone on 5th Avenue have a stroke on live TV and nobody would care.

I'm beyond making any declarations about electoral politics because very little seems to matter or change this race.... but just as a practical matter, this guy is toast... and he's not going to get any better. Scary stuff.

In case anybody needed any evidence why his campaign is increasingly hiding Trump from tough interviews, this Bloomberg interview in Chicago is case in point. What a mess.

Yikes

The tariffs are also going to pay for all the debt he plans to add apparently....

By no means a Rogan fan, but his audience is more diverse than you'd think.... a lot of people listen to him, even those who don't necessarily hold his views on or engage in conspiracies. I do think in terms of persuasion though, this latest strategy (Fox and potentially Rogan) is an acknowledgment that partisans are locked in and that there are voters that can be earned on the margins. And that matters a lot in a race that both sides seem to think will be decided on the margins (along with ground game, which is important despite everyone saying "but 2016" when it's brought up) It's not without risk, but I think it's a good thing and there's more to gain than lose by pursuing this. And it lines up a lot with what David Plouffe said while talking to the Pod Bros this weekend - there's potentially more upside with disaffected conservatives and independents than is being picked up both in public and internal polling. These are plays for that space.

Sensing a pattern here

Going on Rogan is a lot of things, but "prevent defense" isn't the term that comes to mind for me.

Speaking of CNBC

Been screaming it into the void for years. But when you add mental decline to the pre-existing deficiencies, the picture ends up so much more bleak