mtutiger

I tend to think this overstates Trump's position here, but YMMV

I agree. Hillary also had a lot of intervening events, such as the Comey Letter being released two weeks in advance of election day and (believe it or not) Wikileaks that helped bring her down as well. Along with poor campaign strategy in terms of where she visited and where she didn't. She was also a Democrat running for a third consecutive D term in a country that generally doesn't reward in-parties like that. All of which to say is that you can point to many different factors in a race that was decided by about 80,000 votes in three states. It isn't just because labeling him a bully didn't work. But I do think that looking at everything through the lens of 2016 (as many still do) ignores the ways in which the electorate and the candidate are much different today than they were eight years ago. Donald Trump was much more of an enigma, much less defined, and (believe it or not) was perceived as much more of a moderate on social issues than he is in 2024. His performance in the suburbs in 2016 was likely the high water mark, and it's possible (if not likely) he will do worse there in 2024 than he did in 2020. Then you get to his personal characteristics... he's 78 years old, much less coherent than he was eight years ago (which is saying something), he's been implicated in legal fights and issues (yes voters are aware of this), isn't focused enough to actually talk policy or carry out a campaign strategy (see: NABJ Conference). He's not a Colossus, and talking yourself into learned helplessness, saying things like "can't do that" or "what about 2016?" over every single thing (such as "weird") that comes up to accentuate the personal or character differences between the two candidates seems like a self-defeating strategy in its own right. Yes, they need to focus on policy and highlighting the phony nature of Trump's populism, but you need to layer in supporting data to support the charge of "phony"... and a lot of that is going to be by poking at their weaknesses in character.

That almost seems like their mission statement, isn't it? I get that shifts in the economy can happen in ways that aren't ideal, but it's not Fox or the people that watch that network that worry me in terms of how it is perceived; it's everyone else.

Yeah, he's scared

I don't think anyone is suggesting that any single event (even Trump's NABJ debacle) is the *argument* against either of these guys, for what it's worth. But in order to make the latter argument, you have to take comments that they make to layer that argument. Some may matter more than others (I doubt JD Vance's story ranks highly as well), but I don't think we should lose sight of that either...

Real North Korea vibes...

There's a part of me that questions whether he made that up... Which seems even worse when you think about it lol

Politically, I would be more concerned if Biden was still running... But this far, Kamala has been surprisingly close to Trump in polling on the economy (likely tied to the idea that she, not Trump, is the change candidate). And their campaign hasn't shown much ability or interest in fixing that before perceptions harden

The health of the economy has also been judged a lot more on prices versus employment figures over the last couple of years. Which is a bit of a curveball as well

Definitely not a cult... No-siree...

Too much of a libertarian streak and, to the extent that it (unfortunately) matters, his sexuality.

Ouch indeed. Shapiro also demonstrates that, while I'm sure the Trump folks would like to weaken Kamala (and potentially Shapiro himself if he's the pick) by going after them on consistency or sincerity, it's an incredibly tough sell coming from a ticket composed of Donald Trump and JD Vance. Just objectively terrible messengers for that argument all around.

I doubt it would end up being Pritzker, but it's crazy how little his name has come up throughout all of this...

Probably closer to 1% of actual registered voters, though. And other groups can and do shift election to election as well... It isn't a nothing concern, but Pennsylvania is the most important state in this election. If they think he helps bring that state along, that is going to weigh heavily into their CBA

It's all one in the same to me... And it is all very embarrassing

Michigan is a very large state, and I think this conversation often loses sight of that. Just my two cents

There's a real arrogance that we have to take a match between two people who aren't even from America and shoe-horn it into whatever stupid culture war bull**** that some of our residents insist on arguing about at any given moment It's really embarrassing, to be honest. We should be better than that.

Gonna go out on a limb and say this won't factor in to a decision

lol, true to form Your non-answer suggests you're cool with Trump labeling him Hamas. Thanks for confirming

Does disagreeing with Netanyahu on how he conducts policy (as Schumer is quoted in the article) make him "Hamas" in your view? How is Donald Trump, who is not Jewish, qualified to make judgments on who is or isn't Jewish?

Meanwhile, Trump (goy as they come) is out there calling Chuck Schumer (of all people) Hamas. And, naturally, we get crickets.

It's really weird how obsessed conservatives have become with identity politics these days....

They've gone WOKE...

Very similar to what took down Bob Menendez.... does that mean we can call him "Gold Bars Don" now?

It's a good point... The switch, the VP pick and the DNC all happening in about a month could potentially be a bonanza for both fundraising and earned media coverage.