HawkShack.com

It's come up in a few conversations here but I thought, as I see it as the potential lynchpin of the upcoming election (it seems to be both resonating with the left and seriously annoying the right) it deserved it own thread.

Ryan Coogan of The Independent wrote an interesting piece on it:

If you haven’t heard, the big attack line against Republicans at the moment is as clever as it is basic – simply pointing out the fact that Trump, and “Trumpism” as a concept, are at their core extremely “weird”.

What does that mean? Well, it’s exactly what it sounds like: pointing out that he says weird stuff. That his most ardent defenders are a bunch of weirdos. That he looks, acts, and sounds weird. Prominent Democrats are selling the line in interviews, and the Harris campaign even put out a press release calling Trump “quite old and weird”.

The angle is getting a lot of traction because it’s so undeniably true – “Trump Republicans” are so much weirder than your regular, bread-and-butter conservatives. That might have been an asset at some point – people rebelled against Hillary Clinton precisely because they wanted to “shake up the system” by appointing an outsider – but now the appetite for normal, boring politics seems to have returned, and “weirdness” is no longer the virtue it once was.

You wouldn’t think that a political movement built on insults, lies and obfuscation would be so taken aback by such a straightforward bit of name-calling, but it really seems to be working. Republican-presidential-hopeful-turned-Trump-cheerleader Vivek Ramaswamy went on the defence last week, calling the argument “dumb & juvenile” – as if his boss didn’t once mock a disabled reporter by doing an impression of him during a campaign speech.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... b504&ei=16

As I said in the other thread, I think it's a brilliant strategy to use simple, relatively inoffensive one syllable adjectives like "weird", "strange", and "odd" as a way of indicating that it is Trump and his followers who are the ones that are outside of the norm. Use very simple language without being insulting. "Strange dude", "peculiar," and "bizarre" are other terms they might consider using.

And I saw that quote from Vivek Ramaswamy, calling the attacks "dumb" and "juvenile" when just a week ago, his puppet master was mocking Kamala Harris by intentionally mis-pronouncing her name. Talk about childish.

If Trump is going to turn this thing around and reverse the momentum that Kamala Harris has built up since Biden stepped down, he needs to quit with this silly personal behavior of his and concentrate on the issues, ie immigration, the economy, Israel/Ukraine, etc. But it's a little like trying to keep a rooster from crowing at the sun. Trump can't help himself.

I also see where Trump is trying to wiggle out of debating Harris by claiming that he is already ahead in the polls (which he is not, as most show them tied or with Harris having a slight lead) and that people already know both him and Harris. I'm sure that this is attempt to duck the debates is at the behest of his campaign officials, who have to have been horrified after Trump's interview in Chicago earlier this week. They'll be keeping him under wraps just like the Dems were doing with Biden.

I agree, with all of that, but especially your third paragraph.

River Dog wrote:As I said in the other thread, I think it's a brilliant strategy to use simple, relatively inoffensive one syllable adjectives like "weird", "strange", and "odd" as a way of indicating that it is Trump and his followers who are the ones that are outside of the norm. Use very simple language without being insulting. "Strange dude", "peculiar," and "bizarre" are other terms they might consider using.

And I saw that quote from Vivek Ramaswamy, calling the attacks "dumb" and "juvenile" when just a week ago, his puppet master was mocking Kamala Harris by intentionally mis-pronouncing her name. Talk about childish.

If Trump is going to turn this thing around and reverse the momentum that Kamala Harris has built up since Biden stepped down, he needs to quit with this silly personal behavior of his and concentrate on the issues, ie immigration, the economy, Israel/Ukraine, etc. But it's a little like trying to keep a rooster from crowing at the sun. Trump can't help himself.

I also see where Trump is trying to wiggle out of debating Harris by claiming that he is already ahead in the polls (which he is not, as most show them tied or with Harris having a slight lead) and that people already know both him and Harris. I'm sure that this is attempt to duck the debates is at the behest of his campaign officials, who have to have been horrified after Trump's interview in Chicago earlier this week. They'll be keeping him under wraps just like the Dems were doing with Biden.

I can't believe it, but I agree with every word you said, Riv. That's a first. He didn't do himself any favors yesterday with the NABJ panel..it just continues to feed the 'weird' narrative. I think we'll end up having a debate after the DNC. It's really his only chance to gain back momentum, but Kamala isn't going to be as easy to spar with as Joe.

River Dog wrote:As I said in the other thread, I think it's a brilliant strategy to use simple, relatively inoffensive one syllable adjectives like "weird", "strange", and "odd" as a way of indicating that it is Trump and his followers who are the ones that are outside of the norm. Use very simple language without being insulting. "Strange dude", "peculiar," and "bizarre" are other terms they might consider using.

And I saw that quote from Vivek Ramaswamy, calling the attacks "dumb" and "juvenile" when just a week ago, his puppet master was mocking Kamala Harris by intentionally mis-pronouncing her name. Talk about childish.

If Trump is going to turn this thing around and reverse the momentum that Kamala Harris has built up since Biden stepped down, he needs to quit with this silly personal behavior of his and concentrate on the issues, ie immigration, the economy, Israel/Ukraine, etc. But it's a little like trying to keep a rooster from crowing at the sun. Trump can't help himself.

I also see where Trump is trying to wiggle out of debating Harris by claiming that he is already ahead in the polls (which he is not, as most show them tied or with Harris having a slight lead) and that people already know both him and Harris. I'm sure that this is attempt to duck the debates is at the behest of his campaign officials, who have to have been horrified after Trump's interview in Chicago earlier this week. They'll be keeping him under wraps just like the Dems were doing with Biden.

I-5 wrote:I can't believe it, but I agree with every word you said, Riv. That's a first. He didn't do himself any favors yesterday with the NABJ panel..it just continues to feed the 'weird' narrative. I think we'll end up having a debate after the DNC. It's really his only chance to gain back momentum, but Kamala isn't going to be as easy to spar with as Joe.

When the subject is Donald Trump, I'm the biggest bed wetting liberal you ever saw.

Trump's going to have to be significantly behind in the polls before his managers will let him anywhere near a podium in a debate against a seasoned lawyer as Harris is, and that could happen as we still have a VP announcement and the convention where if Harris plays her cards right, she should get a bump from each one. The problem for him is that he's been jacking his jaws saying that he's going to debate her, putting himself between a rock and a hard spot. I just saw a quote where the female Harris told Trump to "man up" and agree to a debate. That's gotta hurt.

I also saw where Harris now has enough votes to secure the nomination, as if that were ever in doubt.

US Vice-President Kamala Harris has passed the threshold to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination in a vote of party delegates. She is due to speak this lunchtime as the virtual roll call continues ahead of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago this month.

At least it's official and she doesn't have to worry about being premature in announcing her VP selection, which could come any time.

Trump's handlers have no control of him as has been shown many times. Not even sure why you would bring that up Riverdog considering Trump has never shown concern with handlers or anyone including his own party leadership. He doesn't care.

The debate will happen regardless of the polls. Trump likes going head to head.

I'm waiting for this to get real myself. This pre-fight build up is pretty worthless. Kamala is finalized. The campaigning is about to start in earnest. Three months to go.

This will come down to the economy and a handful of issues. The full court press is about to get rolling.

This "weird" angle will not decide the election outcome. It's another one of those side stories getting press because what else is there.

Unemployment rate just rose to 4.3 percent. Stock market dropped hard due to the bad employment report. If I'm the Republicans, I'm hopping on any bad economic reports fast because Harris is not known for promoting good economics.

I don't think the using inoffensive language is a "brilliant" strategy. More time wasting in an election where the economy is the number one issue. That's what will be discussed in the upcoming debate and attack ads. Economics, immigration, and abortion, the top three issues on voters minds according to polls.

One thing I do think would be wise for the Democrats to do is paint Trump as the befuddled old man now. He's been making Biden like gaffes lately and his command of his mouthpiece is not what it was 8 years ago when he debated Hilary and won the Republican nomination against a wide field. 78 is a far cry from the 69 or 70 he was 8 years ago.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Trump's handlers have no control of him as has been shown many times. Not even sure why you would bring that up Riverdog considering Trump has never shown concern with handlers or anyone including his own party leadership. He doesn't care.

The debate will happen regardless of the polls. Trump likes going head to head.

I'm waiting for this to get real myself. This pre-fight build up is pretty worthless. Kamala is finalized. The campaigning is about to start in earnest. Three months to go.

This will come down to the economy and a handful of issues. The full court press is about to get rolling.

This "weird" angle will not decide the election outcome. It's another one of those side stories getting press because what else is there.

Unemployment rate just rose to 4.3 percent. Stock market dropped hard due to the bad employment report. If I'm the Republicans, I'm hopping on any bad economic reports fast because Harris is not known for promoting good economics.

I don't think the using inoffensive language is a "brilliant" strategy. More time wasting in an election where the economy is the number one issue. That's what will be discussed in the upcoming debate and attack ads. Economics, immigration, and abortion, the top three issues on voters minds according to polls.

One thing I do think would be wise for the Democrats to do is paint Trump as the befuddled old man now. He's been making Biden like gaffes lately and his command of his mouthpiece is not what it was 8 years ago when he debated Hilary and won the Republican nomination against a wide field. 78 is a far cry from the 69 or 70 he was 8 years ago.

Trump didn't debate any of the R candidates in the primaries, saying at the time that he was ahead in the polls and that people already knows who he is. When asked if he's going to debate Harris, Trump himself has flip flopped several times, sometimes saying that he would, other times saying that he might not.

The simple, inoffensive terminology is a brilliant strategy, if for nothing else, because it's unnerving Trump and his supporters, especially if he ducks the debate. It's easier to for Joe 6 Pack to understand than something like narcissist. But I agree that has a Flavor of the Day feeling to it, kinda like "Where's the Beef?" a popular Wendy's hamburger commercial that Reagan supporters used back in '84 to represent that his opponent Walter Mondale had no substance. But I still like it.

There's mixed news in the latest economic numbers. Hiring was down, but that could mean that we're reaching full employment. And the job market cooling off should help inflation, as the Fed is already talking about an interest rate cut. Some are saying that July was an anomaly, that in particular the storms in Texas had something to do with the slight uptick in unemployment. This could very well be just a blip. Besides, 4.3% is nothing. Full employment generally defined as being around 3-5%. The economy is always a factor in any election, but I don't think it's going to be a huge problem for the Dems.

And the other dirty little secret is that illegal border crossings are way down, and that will definitely take some of the bite out of Trump's biggest issue.

Trump's been making those gaffes for months. Do you remember when he confused Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi? The problem was that Trump's gaffes were being overshadowed by Biden's because he was/is the POTUS. Now, with Sleepy Joe fading into the background, the spotlight will turn to Trump and his frequent gaffes. That's why they don't want to debate.

Republicans are bedwetters, too…just saying’

If the election comes down to one or two issues, I have been saying this for 2 years, but the biggest will be protecting a woman’s right to choose, and that goes for conservative women as well. We’ve argued back and forth what SCOTUS did or didn’t do, but at this point it comes down to which candidate supports a woman’s right to choose, period. It doesn’t help trump that there are clips of him bragging about killing Roe v Wade. Poor choice of words.

The economy, the border, gun control, Israel are all issues, but I don’t see any of them moving the needle like the abortion issue will.

Economy is the number one issue. There’s no one not affected by it. Whoever articulates the best plan to turn it around will have the best shot.

River Dog wrote:Trump didn't debate any of the R candidates in the primaries, saying at the time that he was ahead in the polls and that people already knows who he is. When asked if he's going to debate Harris, Trump himself has flip flopped several times, sometimes saying that he would, other times saying that he might not.

In 2016, he did debate them. He beat them in the debate. This time he was so far ahead, he did not need to against the other Rs.

The simple, inoffensive terminology is a brilliant strategy, if for nothing else, because it's unnerving Trump and his supporters, especially if he ducks the debate. It's easier to for Joe 6 Pack to understand than something like narcissist. But I agree that has a Flavor of the Day feeling to it, kinda like "Where's the Beef?" a popular Wendy's hamburger commercial that Reagan supporters used back in '84 to represent that his opponent Walter Mondale had no substance. But I still like it.

You like it. It's not brilliant. It's a gimmick. Trump and the Republicans aren't worried about it at all. You're just reading stories to suit your confirmation bias. Not even sure why you sit there imagining Trump and his followers worried or scared other than I guess it makes you feel something. 78 year old billionaires aren't scared of much, apparently even getting shot at or getting COVID. That's why Trump talks like he talks. He doesn't care what people think. He doesn't have to care.

There's mixed news in the latest economic numbers. Hiring was down, but that could mean that we're reaching full employment. And the job market cooling off should help inflation, as the Fed is already talking about an interest rate cut. Some are saying that July was an anomaly, that in particular the storms in Texas had something to do with the slight uptick in unemployment. This could very well be just a blip. Besides, 4.3% is nothing. Full employment generally defined as being around 3-5%. The economy is always a factor in any election, but I don't think it's going to be a huge problem for the Dems.

Perception is what matters. People seeing their 401ks drop hard and companies laying off on top of the bad inflation is an easy win for the Rs.

But Kamala may receive a gift from The Fed soon in the form of rate cuts. Rate cuts will favor the incumbent if it gives the stock market a big boost. So many people have their retirements tied up in the stock market at this point that major moves are felt by Wall Street and Main Street.

And the other dirty little secret is that illegal border crossings are way down, and that will definitely take some of the bite out of Trump's biggest issue.

No, it won't. The anti-immigration folks don't care. It's still high enough to drive them to the polls on behalf of Trump. They are absolutely certain the Democrats are badly managing immigration and selling the country out to immigrants.

You expecting rational thought on this is strange to me. I haven't heard a single Republican voter think the Democrats are handling immigration well, no one who considers immigration a strong issue thinks this.

Trump's been making those gaffes for months. Do you remember when he confused Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi? The problem was that Trump's gaffes were being overshadowed by Biden's because he was/is the POTUS. Now, with Sleepy Joe fading into the background, the spotlight will turn to Trump and his frequent gaffes. That's why they don't want to debate.

And those gaffes seemed minor when running against Joe Biden. Now they will be glaring. In that we agree.

The debate will happen. I have never in my life seen a presidential candidate not debate the other candidate. Maybe you have seen this, but I have not. Trump and his team know there is no way to avoid a debate. It has to happen. It's one of those things everyone expects and if it doesn't happen, then it misses a huge opportunity to get swing voters. The already decided voters may not care about a debate, but to swing voters a national debate is expected and essential. Even in years when the incumbent is likely to win and crushing their opponent like Reagan, I believe they had a debate. Trump is nowhere near in that strong a position.

This thing is just getting rolling. I want to see how long the Kamala effect lasts once the attack ads start as she has a lot of chinks in her armor. I don't think she's as bad as Hilary, but she has a lot going on that is going to come out in the next few months. You talk about things wearing off and I expect this initial surge of happiness by the Dems to wear off. I consider it a relief surge from Biden dropping out and an at least serviceable candidate stepping up.

Is this swing state surge real or will it fall over time. We will see in the next few months.

Kamala has a huge war chest much like Hilary. She has more money and more of the media backing her including Hollywood. Her candidacy should secure Americans of African descent and women. By how much, I don't know.

We're going to have plenty to chat about politically for the run up. We all hope for a nice boring Kamala presidency with a split Congress. Then I can see the first female president to add to my list of firsts. I think next I'd like to see someone land a human on Mars. A Latin or Jewish president would be cool too. Definitely want to see a human land on mars and start of the age of robots in the form of the first fully functional commercial humanoid robot for the home.

I-5 wrote:Republicans are bedwetters, too…just saying’

If the election comes down to one or two issues, I have been saying this for 2 years, but the biggest will be protecting a woman’s right to choose, and that goes for conservative women as well. We’ve argued back and forth what SCOTUS did or didn’t do, but at this point it comes down to which candidate supports a woman’s right to choose, period. It doesn’t help trump that there are clips of him bragging about killing Roe v Wade. Poor choice of words.

The economy, the border, gun control, Israel are all issues, but I don’t see any of them moving the needle like the abortion issue will.

I don't know why you can't see the problem with the abortion issue. The reason it isn't number one is because it became a state issue and most states still allow it. Not even sure Trump cares about abortion other than to sell to his Evangelicals. You and few others been telling us abortion is going to be an issue for years and it didn't even help the Dems win Congress last election cycle and Congress is more important with the abortion issue than the president. President literally cannot do anything about abortion until Congress is in their favor. Republican planners know it would be ridiculously dumb to enact a nationwide ban as that would lose them the presidency and Congress in the next election cycle.

Economy is number one by a mile. Immigration and abortion are roughly equal to me. Both issues extremely important to a certain percentage of voters who believe in it almost religiously.

A lot of Republicans are like myself and RD, don't want much more than basic enforcement of immigration laws and some kind of reasonable limit on abortion. Abortion and immigration are pretty low on the list of issues I care about or will vote for. In Washington State, I don't have to worry about either.

Aseahawkfan wrote:And those gaffes seemed minor when running against Joe Biden. Now they will be glaring. In that we agree.

The debate will happen. I have never in my life seen a presidential candidate not debate the other candidate. Maybe you have seen this, but I have not. Trump and his team know there is no way to avoid a debate. It has to happen. It's one of those things everyone expects and if it doesn't happen, then it misses a huge opportunity to get swing voters. The already decided voters may not care about a debate, but to swing voters a national debate is expected and essential. Even in years when the incumbent is likely to win and crushing their opponent like Reagan, I believe they had a debate. Trump is nowhere near in that strong a position.

Biden's gaffes were worse because they included other senior moments, like his painstakingly slow climbs and descents into and out of AF1, his losing his train of thought, his low, raspy voice, his wandering off a stage in the wrong direction, compounded by all of the reports in various meetings of a noticeable mental decline. None of that was present with Trump.

It's been a while since the two candidates didn't debate, but it's not unprecedented. For 12 years in the 60's and early 70's, there weren't any presidential debates at all. In 1964, LBJ was way ahead in the polls and didn't see anything in it to gain for him. After his disastrous performance in 1960, Richard Nixon refused to debate in both '68 and '72. And in 1980, Jimmy Carter refused a debate because it included John Anderson, an independent. And don't forget, Trump has already participated in a presidential debate, so he can argue that people have had a chance to see him in a debate, not to mention his 4 years as POTUS, so there isn't anything in it to be gained for him, and on that point, I agree with him.

I agree that there's going to be a lot of pressure on Trump to have at least one debate with Harris, but by no means do I feel that it is a foregone conclusion. It depends on how the race stands in September and October. If Harris has a big lead, the Trump campaign might figure that they need to roll the dice and hope for the best. If Trump is in the lead, they probably won't. I know that I wouldn't if I were him.

And just like that, I was wrong:

Trump says he will debate VP Harris on Fox News on Sept. 4

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said he will debate Democratic U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris on Fox News on Sept. 4, in a post on Truth Social late on Friday, though the Harris campaign did not confirm the event.

"Rules will be similar to the rules of my debate with Sleepy Joe, who has been treated horribly by his party, but with a full arena audience," Trump said, referring to President Joe Biden, who has since dropped his reelection bid.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ngNewsSerp

It's going to be damn tough for him to back out now.

River Dog wrote:And just like that, I was wrong:

Trump says he will debate VP Harris on Fox News on Sept. 4

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said he will debate Democratic U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris on Fox News on Sept. 4, in a post on Truth Social late on Friday, though the Harris campaign did not confirm the event.

"Rules will be similar to the rules of my debate with Sleepy Joe, who has been treated horribly by his party, but with a full arena audience," Trump said, referring to President Joe Biden, who has since dropped his reelection bid.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ngNewsSerp

It's going to be damn tough for him to back out now.

Trump has no interest in backing out. The dude lives to be on TV. If he could live on TV, he would probably do it, especially if he could monetize it.

8 years of this guy and you still think he thinks like a rational person or feels emotions like fear and such over things like debates or being on TV or listens to his handlers. What part of this guy's behavior makes you think he operates like that? Did you miss him saying stupid things at the podium while president? Constantly arguing with Democrats and his own party in public? Did you miss him at his rallies? He don't care. He thinks he can do or say anything in public barring murder I guess and just call some lawyers to handle it if there is a problem.

Now can the press run with it? Yeah. Will Trump care? No. He'll just brush it all off and ramble away like he always does.

What does he have to lose? His wife didn't even want to move into the White House because she felt like she was moving into the slums. Trump is the first president in my lifetime who is losing money being president and whose wife doesn't want him to do it. Pretty sure Ivanka at this point doesn't want him to do it. His oldest sons seem to still be onboard with it.

Guy is doing it for pure ego at this point. Being president doesn't improve his life position at all and he's 78, he doesn't need to do it. Trump is playing with house money at this point for ego and his personal entertainment.

That's why I never voted for him. He doesn't care about the country as much as his followers claim. He's doing this because he can. His whole mindset is, "I'm Donald Trump. I'm rich as s***. I can run the country better than these political clowns." I wouldn't be surprised if he made some bet he could win with some rich friends and is bragging about it on the golf courses or private parties with his billionaire, rich buddies. Just pure ego and spite driving him now.

Aseahawkfan wrote:
I don't know why you can't see the problem with the abortion issue. The reason it isn't number one is because it became a state issue and most states still allow it. Not even sure Trump cares about abortion other than to sell to his Evangelicals. You and few others been telling us abortion is going to be an issue for years and it didn't even help the Dems win Congress last election cycle and Congress is more important with the abortion issue than the president. President literally cannot do anything about abortion until Congress is in their favor. Republican planners know it would be ridiculously dumb to enact a nationwide ban as that would lose them the presidency and Congress in the next election cycle.

Economy is number one by a mile. Immigration and abortion are roughly equal to me. Both issues extremely important to a certain percentage of voters who believe in it almost religiously.

A lot of Republicans are like myself and RD, don't want much more than basic enforcement of immigration laws and some kind of reasonable limit on abortion. Abortion and immigration are pretty low on the list of issues I care about or will vote for. In Washington State, I don't have to worry about either.

I’ll tell you why I don’t think economy is #1. Most people understand that inflation is a global issue, and that the US is AHEAD of other developed nations in recovering from a high of almost 9%, and there is no data to support that republicans can handle inflation any better. However, abortion is a very CLEAR issue which party supports a woman’s right to choose. Like I said earlier, SCOTUS vs states rights is irrelevant at this point. It’s the republicans problem to carry across every election, like it or not.

Trump got weirder today. At a rally in Georgia, he was attacking the popular Republican governor, Brian Kemp. Spewing 2020 election stealing BS again.
https://x.com/briankempga/status/181985 ... pMkhpLC7ng

I-5 wrote:I’ll tell you why I don’t think economy is #1. Most people understand that inflation is a global issue, and that the US is AHEAD of other developed nations in recovering from a high of almost 9%, and there is no data to support that republicans can handle inflation any better. However, abortion is a very CLEAR issue which party supports a woman’s right to choose. Like I said earlier, SCOTUS vs states rights is irrelevant at this point. It’s the republicans problem to carry across every election, like it or not.

You're expressing a personal opinion vs. presenting actual surveys or questionnaires.

What are the top three issues the voters will be deciding when they vote for the candidate of their choice? 72% of the voters believe that the economy is the most important issues. The other key issues are the future of American Democracy (69%) and inflation (68%).

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/us ... ngNewsSerp

Abortion/reproductive rights resonate with Democratic voters, border security with Republican voters, which likely explains why you feel that abortion is a major issue. But neither issue comes out on top when it comes to all voters in general. Had the election been held in 2022 shortly after the overturning of Roe v Wade, it likely would have been a bigger issue than it is. But voters have a short memory.

Having said that, there are a couple of key states, like in Florida where there are some that think that the state might be in play, and in Arizona, a swing state, that have abortion rights issues on the November ballot, and that could attract voters who otherwise wouldn't participate.

Stream Hawk wrote:Trump got weirder today. At a rally in Georgia, he was attacking the popular Republican governor, Brian Kemp. Spewing 2020 election stealing BS again.
https://x.com/briankempga/status/181985 ... pMkhpLC7ng

Yeah, that's pretty stupid strategy. Only about 1/3 of the public, in other words, hard core Trump supporters on the far right, believe that the election was stolen. Those folks will be voting for him even if he committed a mass shooting. What he should be hammering Harris on is the economy, and he has some pretty good evidence as witnessed in the most recent July numbers.

He probably needs to go light on border security, too, as illegal border crossings are way down. The Dems could mount a legitimate counterattack if he dwells too much on that issue.

I remember Richard Nixon saying that to win the nomination, you have to go conservative, but that in the general election, you have to move your campaign back to the center. Trump needs to be going after the moderate and undecided voters, and that means the economy/inflation.

Except as it relates to inflation, the economy isn't a huge issue for me, either, and even inflation has culprits on both sides of the aisle, like these completely unnecessary Covid payments that both parties supported. The number one issue for me is the same as it's been in the past two elections: Donald Trump.

River Dog wrote:You're expressing a personal opinion vs. presenting actual surveys or questionnaires.

I'm aware of those surveys. Yes I'm giving my opinion and reasoning, just like every commenter here. For people who say that economy is #1, are they blaming Biden for overal global inflation? I guess if you travel regularly as some of us do, it's self evident that a president isn't responsible for a global trend and that we are living in a post pandemic world that is still affected by it. I agree that each party has its pet issues, like the border. Regarding the border, I always wish I'd hear a republican talk about how to make legal immigration easier, just like voting. It would be refreashing to hear the GOP promote the idea of making election day a national holiday and champion mail in ballots. The more people that vote legally, the better, right?

I-5 wrote:I’ll tell you why I don’t think economy is #1. Most people understand that inflation is a global issue, and that the US is AHEAD of other developed nations in recovering from a high of almost 9%, and there is no data to support that republicans can handle inflation any better. However, abortion is a very CLEAR issue which party supports a woman’s right to choose. Like I said earlier, SCOTUS vs states rights is irrelevant at this point. It’s the republicans problem to carry across every election, like it or not.

Complete agreement here. I was roundly disagreed with when I expressed the same opinion here too.

Trump is the only candidate I've ever seen in history who made his life worse by winning the presidency. He makes less money. Lives in worse accommodations at the White House. Damages his reputation. Makes half the country hate him. Ruins his international relations. Damages his businesses. He's invited massive legal action against him he would have avoided if he had not run. That's why I don't see Trump scared at all as he is the only candidate in history who would benefit from losing. Winning the presidency is bad for Trump, but once Trump locks in his win at all costs mentality kicks in.

Trump's wife prays he loses. His daughter prays he loses. The guy is driven by ego and pugnaciousness to be president even though it is bad for him in almost every way.

Trump is a lesson to all billionaires and overly wealthy people without some family legacy like Bush Jr. on why you should never run for president. It's not worth it financially, mentally, physically, or in any way if your life is already far better than life as president.

I hate seeing some billionaire reality TV star run for president because he thinks of Americans as so stupid and easily manipulated that he is willing to ruin his life just to be a rich jerk who wants to brag to his friends. It disgusts me.

I hope Trump loses already and goes away. Trump can go sit in his 30,000 square foot gold inlaid penthouse, eat some Viagra, and cheat with some more pornstars or nude models to soothe his wounded ego. I hope Kamala wins to get rid of this guy. I'm so tired of American politics being all about Trump, when all he has done is give himself and his billionaire friends a bunch of government money that they gladly accepted.

And Biden tries to give middle class or poor Americans student loan relief and Republicans cry about it and make it seem unfair, but say nothing like a bunch of total idiots when Trump hands billions back to millionaires and billionaires. They keep voting for him and other Republicans who hand out welfare and tax breaks to rich folk that they gladly accept and makes them even richer.

Middle class and poor folk should applaud the government finally giving something back to middle class or poor folk whether it's "deserved" or not just like the millionaires and billionaires don't refuse such handouts and welfare when they get it. They certainly don't argue about whether they deserve it.

Three more damn months until we see whether we endure four more years of crazy billionaire narcissist or San Francisco Democrat Kamala. Then I must hope that four years from now with Trump finally gone one way or the other, some sensible candidate will rise.

Really, I should just start writing books to try to educate the public on how to manage the country rather than relying just on politicians to do so. They are not the greatest at and are far too bought and sold by special interests to do it well. There must be some way to elevate the ability of regular people to better govern with their vote.

I-5 wrote:
I'm aware of those surveys. Yes I'm giving my opinion and reasoning, just like every commenter here. For people who say that economy is #1, are they blaming Biden for overal global inflation? I guess if you travel regularly as some of us do, it's self evident that a president isn't responsible for a global trend and that we are living in a post pandemic world that is still affected by it. I agree that each party has its pet issues, like the border. Regarding the border, I always wish I'd hear a republican talk about how to make legal immigration easier, just like voting. It would be refreashing to hear the GOP promote the idea of making election day a national holiday and champion mail in ballots. The more people that vote legally, the better, right?

You’re not going to be able to avoid people blaming the sitting president for a bad economy (in whatever form that takes). Some of us do know that’s not the case, but, good or bad, it tends to stick to whoever is there at the time.

The point of the economy being number 1 isn’t about blame. It’s about Americans saddled with high prices for goods and services as well as high mortgage rates (relative, I know. I wasn’t alive for the double digit rates 40ish years ago) and retirement accounts that have taken a beating. They want to know if there’s an end in sight. Trump will tout his previous presidency’s economy. Doesn’t matter if it wasn’t all his doing (it wasn’t no more than it is any other president’s), he’ll take credit for it and sell that he can turn it around if he’s elected. Kamala has to somehow explain that the economy of the Biden admin and by extension, hers, is not a sign of things to come and state how it will get better. That’s the crux of it. It affects everyone. There’s nothing divisive about a better economy.

Immigration and abortion are definitely there, but I don’t see how they trump economy when it comes to the average person struggling to make it right now.

I-5 wrote:
I'm aware of those surveys. Yes I'm giving my opinion and reasoning, just like every commenter here. For people who say that economy is #1, are they blaming Biden for overal global inflation? I guess if you travel regularly as some of us do, it's self evident that a president isn't responsible for a global trend and that we are living in a post pandemic world that is still affected by it. I agree that each party has its pet issues, like the border. Regarding the border, I always wish I'd hear a republican talk about how to make legal immigration easier, just like voting. It would be refreashing to hear the GOP promote the idea of making election day a national holiday and champion mail in ballots. The more people that vote legally, the better, right?

MackStrongIsMyHero wrote:You’re not going to be able to avoid people blaming the sitting president for a bad economy (in whatever form that takes). Some of us do know that’s not the case, but, good or bad, it tends to stick to whoever is there at the time.

The point of the economy being number 1 isn’t about blame. It’s about Americans saddled with high prices for goods and services as well as high mortgage rates (relative, I know. I wasn’t alive for the double digit rates 40ish years ago) and retirement accounts that have taken a beating. They want to know if there’s an end in sight. Trump will tout his previous presidency’s economy. Doesn’t matter if it wasn’t all his doing (it wasn’t no more than it is any other president’s), he’ll take credit for it and sell that he can turn it around if he’s elected. Kamala has to somehow explain that the economy of the Biden admin and by extension, hers, is not a sign of things to come and state how it will get better. That’s the crux of it. It affects everyone. There’s nothing divisive about a better economy.

Immigration and abortion are definitely there, but I don’t see how they trump economy when it comes to the average person struggling to make it right now.

This is true. The poor economy in 1980 wasn't Jimmy Carter's fault, but he got blamed for it. The same was true in 1992 when Bush 41 lost to Clinton. "It's the economy, stupid!" was the Flavor of the Day motto back then. The American voter is relatively stupid and doesn't bother to dig into the why's as we do here. And, regardless of our personal opinions, voters in general tend to trust Republicans on the economy more than they do Democrats. Bottom line is that if the economy struggles, the sitting POTUS is going to have to defend it while the challenger will use it to his/her advantage.

Our personal opinions are certainly OK discuss here, and I didn't mean to suggest that they aren't a legitimate topic. After all, it is an 'opinion' forum. But it's important to differentiate them from known facts, such as that the opinion polls and surveys have abortion pegged much lower than what several posters perceive them to be. My #1 criteria, that Donald Trump is a lying, stupid, corrupt POS that should be anywhere near the Oval Office, doesn't rank up there at the top of the surveys, either.

Harris/Walz ticket confirmed. 110,000,000 votes. Easily. The 4th and 5th terms……

What do you mean by all of those votes? And 4th and 5th term?

Stream Hawk wrote:What do you mean by all of those votes? And 4th and 5th term?

I assume sarcasm. And that the 4th and 5th term would be extensions of the Obama presidency.

River Dog wrote:This is true. The poor economy in 1980 wasn't Jimmy Carter's fault, but he got blamed for it. The same was true in 1992 when Bush 41 lost to Clinton. "It's the economy, stupid!" was the Flavor of the Day motto back then. The American voter is relatively stupid and doesn't bother to dig into the why's as we do here. And, regardless of our personal opinions, voters in general tend to trust Republicans on the economy more than they do Democrats. Bottom line is that if the economy struggles, the sitting POTUS is going to have to defend it while the challenger will use it to his/her advantage.

Our personal opinions are certainly OK discuss here, and I didn't mean to suggest that they aren't a legitimate topic. After all, it is an 'opinion' forum. But it's important to differentiate them from known facts, such as that the opinion polls and surveys have abortion pegged much lower than what several posters perceive them to be. My #1 criteria, that Donald Trump is a lying, stupid, corrupt POS that should be anywhere near the Oval Office, doesn't rank up there at the top of the surveys, either.

Is there any empirical evidence that the republicans know how handle high prices any better/differently than the democrats? Republicans' fiscal policy are known for primarily 2 things: cutting taxes (mostly to the rich) and cutting social services (mostly to the vulnerable). How is that going to lower gas prices? We all know it's not.

Presidents don't have a lot to do with economic health. Congress handles the majority of the taxes and budget. A lot of welfare programs are handled at the state level with some Federal support.

Cutting taxes to the wealthy increases profits which drives up stock prices and investment. Cutting taxes to the middle class increases demand by freeing up more money for consumption. Both have a moderate effect on the economy depending on your current economic health. They can both provide influxes of cash to bolster an economy.

Cutting interest rates by The Fed can push up an economy by making money cheap increasing borrowing for consumption or investment.

The Fed buying securities can bolster companies by providing investment capital and taking assets like stocks out of circulation providing a stronger floor on the stock price.

Spending bills by the government can bolster an economy as government spending acts in a similar manner to private investment by bolstering key areas of the economy or the government picking up unemployment slack when the economy crashes as they did during The Great Depression. That is why G is a big part of the GDP equation.

Tax increases are only effective if the money is spent on bolstering some key area of the economy that is underserved otherwise tax increases put downward pressure on the economy to increase government revenues which are often inefficiently deployed with very little return on capital to increase the value of the money spent. Which is why even tax increases and government spending should have an return on investment purpose to ensure taxpayer monies are spent in an intelligent way to further bolster the economy.

Payments to drug addicts or highly unproductive lazy people. Very bad return on investment.

Though spending on welfare and unemployment for those periods when the economy has high unemployment to maintain consumption and ensure people can maintain subsistence living can bolster the economy during periods of economy destruction in the economy.

It comes down like usual to who you are giving the money to and when and for what purpose as to whether it is money well spent.

Then there are deeper economic discussions on certain areas of the economy like universal healthcare bolstering a capitalist economy by ensuring the labor force stays healthy enough to maintain productive behavior without encountering life destroying medical costs. But that's a fairly deep discussion.

River Dog wrote:This is true. The poor economy in 1980 wasn't Jimmy Carter's fault, but he got blamed for it. The same was true in 1992 when Bush 41 lost to Clinton. "It's the economy, stupid!" was the Flavor of the Day motto back then. The American voter is relatively stupid and doesn't bother to dig into the why's as we do here. And, regardless of our personal opinions, voters in general tend to trust Republicans on the economy more than they do Democrats. Bottom line is that if the economy struggles, the sitting POTUS is going to have to defend it while the challenger will use it to his/her advantage.

Our personal opinions are certainly OK discuss here, and I didn't mean to suggest that they aren't a legitimate topic. After all, it is an 'opinion' forum. But it's important to differentiate them from known facts, such as that the opinion polls and surveys have abortion pegged much lower than what several posters perceive them to be. My #1 criteria, that Donald Trump is a lying, stupid, corrupt POS that should be anywhere near the Oval Office, doesn't rank up there at the top of the surveys, either.

I-5 wrote:Is there any empirical evidence that the republicans know how handle high prices any better/differently than the democrats? Republicans' fiscal policy are known for primarily 2 things: cutting taxes (mostly to the rich) and cutting social services (mostly to the vulnerable). How is that going to lower gas prices? We all know it's not.

First off, I didn't say that R's know how to handle high prices better or differently than D's. What I said was that voters tend to trust R's more than D's on the economy, which is a fact supported by multiple surveys.

On both the economy and gas prices, 36 percent of Americans trust Republicans more than Democrats —12 and 14 points higher than the percentage of people who trust Democrats on those issues, respectively.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/2 ... l-00063062

Secondly, I don't know if empirical evidence that either party "knows how to handle high prices any differently" exists. There are too many things beyond their control, like the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, tensions in the Middle East, that have a huge influence on both the US economy as well as worldwide. However, on the state and local level, such as in the state of California, the two parties can and do have a huge influence on local economies.

Looks like the tide may be turning on who voters trust more with the economy. The latest poll from Financial Times/Michigan Ross shows 42% favor Harris vs 41% for Trump with handling the economy.

https://www.ft.com/content/861365e3-9275-447c-abeb-a5111fc9b0b9

The economy is always going to be near the top of the list, but this issue doesn't have a clear leader. That's why I said reproductive rights will be the difference maker, even with the rhetoric about the border, since the democrats can refute anything Trump claims about open borders.

Depends on the polling agency and who they polled. The FT-MI Ross polled 1000 voters nation wide. those who trusted the candidates equally or were not sure were not included in the results.

A poll by AP-NORC, also polling 1000 voters nationwide, came to a different conclusion:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/a ... poll-finds

45% for Trump; 38% for Harris.

It begs the question: which polling agency got the more representative data?

If anything it shows it’s not that lopsided. Which is part of my point.

Trump sounds like a rambling fool right now. I guess we'll see what happens when they go head to head. But as far as listening to these interviews, Trump sounds like the rambling 78 year old now and Kamala just has to sound coherent to win if Trump keeps rambling like he is. He is not the Trump of 2016 or even 2020. He sounds like an unfocused old man relying on old arguments and not making very many good points. He's not particularly sharp.

Let's see how they look head to head as that will solidify more. Right now Kamala is playing the "Let Trump hang himself" while avoiding the press strategy and Trump is indeed hanging himself. She's gaining points while doing nothing because Trump sounds incoherent and unfocused. If he rambles like this during the debate while Kamala sounds mildly coherent, he's going to further fall behind in my opinion.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Trump sounds like a rambling fool right now. I guess we'll see what happens when they go head to head. But as far as listening to these interviews, Trump sounds like the rambling 78 year old now and Kamala just has to sound coherent to win if Trump keeps rambling like he is. He is not the Trump of 2016 or even 2020. He sounds like an unfocused old man relying on old arguments and not making very many good points. He's not particularly sharp.

Let's see how they look head to head as that will solidify more. Right now Kamala is playing the "Let Trump hang himself" while avoiding the press strategy and Trump is indeed hanging himself. She's gaining points while doing nothing because Trump sounds incoherent and unfocused. If he rambles like this during the debate while Kamala sounds mildly coherent, he's going to further fall behind in my opinion.

Yup. She does better just by not engaging in his nonsense. I hope she'll keep it like that. Same with the VP race. Vance is trying to bait Walz into the military service thing, and Walz being smart, says that he thanks everyone who has served, including Vance. Politics is supposed to be a mud slinging affair, but so far the dems are proving that you don't have to do that, as long as nothing sticks, and so far nothing is sticking.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Trump sounds like a rambling fool right now. I guess we'll see what happens when they go head to head. But as far as listening to these interviews, Trump sounds like the rambling 78 year old now and Kamala just has to sound coherent to win if Trump keeps rambling like he is. He is not the Trump of 2016 or even 2020. He sounds like an unfocused old man relying on old arguments and not making very many good points. He's not particularly sharp.

Let's see how they look head to head as that will solidify more. Right now Kamala is playing the "Let Trump hang himself" while avoiding the press strategy and Trump is indeed hanging himself. She's gaining points while doing nothing because Trump sounds incoherent and unfocused. If he rambles like this during the debate while Kamala sounds mildly coherent, he's going to further fall behind in my opinion.

Yeah, he gave a speech that was supposed to be about the economy, and all he did was revert to his familiar rants about illegal immigration and attacks on Kamala Harris. One columnist wondered out loud if Trump even knew how to spell "economy." It's obvious that Trump's handlers and supporters are pushing him to focus in on the economy as there are a lot of opportunities for a challenger, but he just can't do it. Part of me thinks that he's basically stupid and can't hold a conversation on something that technical, that he has to depend on hitting hot button emotional issues like abortion, crime, and immigration, and why he so often veers into personal attacks as he doesn't know how to do anything else.

Trump and Harris have agreed to two debates plus the Harris camp agreed to a VP debate. It'll be entertaining, but I doubt that we'll come away learning anything about the candidates that we don't already know.

The only thing we'll learn is how they'll spar head to head. Vance is going to try to pull Walz into the mud for sure, and so is Trump. A lot can happen before then, so let's see how each side plays their cards. Right now, the republicans cannot derail the excitement that follows Harris/Walz.

I-5 wrote:Yup. She does better just by not engaging in his nonsense. I hope she'll keep it like that. Same with the VP race. Vance is trying to bait Walz into the military service thing, and Walz being smart, says that he thanks everyone who has served, including Vance. Politics is supposed to be a mud slinging affair, but so far the dems are proving that you don't have to do that, as long as nothing sticks, and so far nothing is sticking.

I've said more than a few times the best way to beat Trump is to ignore him. He doesn't know what to do if he doesn't have poop from his diapers to fling. If you start flinging back, you just end in a poop fight and he can win those. If you leave Trump in his dirty diapers, he looks like an idiot playing with his own poop.

River Dog wrote:Yeah, he gave a speech that was supposed to be about the economy, and all he did was revert to his familiar rants about illegal immigration and attacks on Kamala Harris. One columnist wondered out loud if Trump even knew how to spell "economy." It's obvious that Trump's handlers and supporters are pushing him to focus in on the economy as there are a lot of opportunities for a challenger, but he just can't do it. Part of me thinks that he's basically stupid and can't hold a conversation on something that technical, that he has to depend on hitting hot button emotional issues like abortion, crime, and immigration, and why he so often veers into personal attacks as he doesn't know how to do anything else.

Trump and Harris have agreed to two debates plus the Harris camp agreed to a VP debate. It'll be entertaining, but I doubt that we'll come away learning anything about the candidates that we don't already know.

No one is ever going to get me to think Trump is stupid. He's old now though and not particularly sharp any longer. There was a time when Trump could be sharp and discuss topics with more depth and respond in a more intelligent manner, but that time has passed. Now he's an entitled billionaire that has spent a quarter of his life as a television star and more than half of of his life as a man so wealthy he pays other people to handle the details of his business. His age is showing without Biden's cognitive decline to contrast his cognitive decline against. I doubt his appeal at 78 with swing voters is going to carry him this election unless he really shows up in the debates and starts to look like less of a rambling old man than he does right now.

I don't see much excitement from anyone but die hard Democrats with Harris and Walz. If the Republicans could have fielded even a mildly better candidate than Trump, Harris and Walz would be getting beat. But the Republicans stuck with Trump and the Democrats move to Harris and Walz has brought them even to slightly ahead against a 78 year old Trump.

But that's these times. The media trying to hype up a couple of bad candidates because our political parties cannot produce good leadership right now. Then again over the years we've had lots of bad to mediocre presidents and the country has run mostly fine. We always seem to find a quality president in the really bad times.

Aseahawkfan wrote:No one is ever going to get me to think Trump is stupid. He's old now though and not particularly sharp any longer. There was a time when Trump could be sharp and discuss topics with more depth and respond in a more intelligent manner, but that time has passed. Now he's an entitled billionaire that has spent a quarter of his life as a television star and more than half of of his life as a man so wealthy he pays other people to handle the details of his business. His age is showing without Biden's cognitive decline to contrast his cognitive decline against. I doubt his appeal at 78 with swing voters is going to carry him this election unless he really shows up in the debates and starts to look like less of a rambling old man than he does right now.

I don't see much excitement from anyone but die hard Democrats with Harris and Walz. If the Republicans could have fielded even a mildly better candidate than Trump, Harris and Walz would be getting beat. But the Republicans stuck with Trump and the Democrats move to Harris and Walz has brought them even to slightly ahead against a 78 year old Trump.

But that's these times. The media trying to hype up a couple of bad candidates because our political parties cannot produce good leadership right now. Then again over the years we've had lots of bad to mediocre presidents and the country has run mostly fine. We always seem to find a quality president in the really bad times.

How else can you explain, back during Trump's presidency when he was 4-8 years younger than he is today, that he thought that Paris was in Germany, that Colorado shared a border with Mexico, and that India didn't have China on their doorstep other than pure stupidity? And those weren't questions sprung on him in a debate or interview that might have caught him off guard, they're statements/tweets made when he had plenty of time to reflect on them. The man isn't all there, and it's been like that for some time.

Trump can't be factual in debates and speeches because he doesn't have the mental capacity to process and retain information on subjects like the economy, so he defaults back to issues that have served him well over the past 8 years, mainly immigration. He'd blame global warming on illegal aliens.

River Dog wrote:How else can you explain, back during Trump's presidency when he was 4-8 years younger than he is today, that he thought that Paris was in Germany, that Colorado shared a border with Mexico, and that India didn't have China on their doorstep other than pure stupidity? And those weren't questions sprung on him in a debate or interview that might have caught him off guard, they're statements/tweets made when he had plenty of time to reflect on them. The man isn't all there, and it's been like that for some time.

Trump can't be factual in debates and speeches because he doesn't have the mental capacity to process and retain information on subjects like the economy, so he defaults back to issues that have served him well over the past 8 years, mainly immigration. He'd blame global warming on illegal aliens.

Trump is a good deal smarter than most people. Him spacing out while rambling on TV is no more an indication of his intelligence than it is for anyone else. Trump's been to Paris, been to Berlin, traveled around the world, and done business all over. He rambled too much and didn't think before speaking. If you sat down with Trump in his 40s or 50s, he would talk circles around you about the subjects he knows like real estate, business management, and the like. I've heard Trump discuss business and other subjects he knows and he knows what he's talking about. He's educated at the Wharton School of Business and has been participating in business for a long time.

You seem to confuse catching a person's speech mistakes while being sifted by the media as a sign of intelligence, which I'm betting if you talked on TV as much as Trump could be found for you as well. Just as screw ups from Obama, Clinton, Bush Jr, and just about everyone has been found and posted even though Bush Jr. is supposed to have an IQ in the 130s and Obama was also very intelligent. You'll have gaffes when you talk a lot. I'm pretty sure you've had gaffes when posting or talking and I doubt you're stupid. If someone sifted your life, found some key mistakes, then posted them as a sign of your intelligence, would that be representative? I doubt it.

You just don't like Trump and like to believe he's stupid. The guy intelligently managed his business empire and name for a long, long time building up from a multimillionaire to a billionaire. He's spoke on TV for decades. He sounded a lot more intelligent and lucid when he was much younger. But he's old now and rambles.

Biggest mistake Trump ever made was stepping into politics and thinking he didn't have to play ball.

I've listened to Trump when younger and followed his ascent and he's very smart about a lot of subjects, especially in the real estate and the business world. Since he's been to the very places he made a mistake on, there's little reason to believe he doesn't know where those places are. Just a momentary lapse of reason.

It's a pointless debate. You hate him, have a bias against him, and would come with any excuse to dismiss his education and credentials like the rest of the Trump Haters who like to pretend they could have done what he did or better under the same circumstances, which I highly doubt. Trump exceeded his father and none of his kids have matched him in wealth or power. Few other rich kids have matched him in many wealthy families.

Trump is a great American success story that took a very wrong turn at the end unfortunately. I know most on here don't care, but I'm sad to see it given how Trump successfully turned himself into an international icon from the biggest city in America that has now turned himself into an American joke and idiot. It's a shame to see a man ruin himself at the end of his life by using his sales skills to appeal to the baser nature of the Republican Party to win the White House.

Oh well, Trump will be done soon whether he wins or loses. This Trump presidential era will put a big old bad mark on his life. That part at least was stupid.