She needs to do town halls and she needs to do them with doubters. News of her campaign stops doesn’t reach further than the state lines, neither does much about what she says. Plus, we all know her speeches are mostly the same, crafted, scripted tested, etc. What people like about trump is that he is unscripted. What he says feels authentic and as if he is in a conversation. People feel like they know him in the same way they’d know a neighbor at a bbq or a fellow parent at a sportsball game. I’m not saying I agree. But she needs to look for opportunities to be just as informal and casual as he is with large groups of people. And she needs to do it in a way and place where it travels across state lines and infiltrates the media. The clips on her socials of her meeting voters one on one are charming but not broad enough. Also, if she does a town hall, she should start every interaction by asking the questioner to tell her some salient things about themselves so she can tailor her answer to their situation. A teacher in Florida asking about the economy is going to be interested in hearing something different than a landlord in New York. But the underlying message of doing things to lift up the middle class is the same. It’s actually why Walz is good. PS - town halls with both of them together would also work
The challenge here is that most USians have only the vaguest of ideas about how "the economy" works, and their notions of how much or how little a president has to do with it are even vaguer. We are an economically ignorant people, and the reasons for that go back many decades, into the 19th century even. Talk about, e.g., "economic justice" still gets one branded a socialist whether one is or not. So we have to talk about "corporate greed" as if it's a personal failing, rather than a feature of "free-market" capitalism. Pinning people down to what they mean by "the economy" is a good strategy. Plenty of people seem to think "the economy" is in bad shape even though they're doing OK, or at least better than they were four years ago. And that has plenty to do with the failings of the mass media as well as general economic ignorance.
Harris doesn't get into the statistics when she talks about the economy. Inflation is down, there have been more good paying jobs created under Biden than any administration, as Bill Clinton said at the convention. We're bringing manufacturing back from China with the CHIPS Act. She needs to explain that she can throw out all these proposals but they have to be made into legislation in the House and Senate. She needs to explain this emphatically.
Yes? But I think part of why trump resonates is because, inexplicably, he seems like he understands people’s day-to-day issues and if she starts saying all the things you suggest, it comes across as being (again inexplicably) out of touch and defensive. Like her neighbor comes to her door to ask for a cup of flour and she doesn’t open the door but tells the neighbor she gave her a cup of sugar last week. Or worse, she gave a different neighbor a stick of butter. The neighbor feels gyped. Meanwhile. trump’s style is to fling open the door, grab the measuring cup, tell the neighbor he’ll be right back, comes back empty handed and tells the neighbor the mailman took their measuring cup but he’ll get back to them with the flour. The neighbor goes home and waits because he has, again inexplicably, given them hope. She needs to figure out how to open the door and reassure the neighbor they’ll get at least some of the flour they need. Not at all sure how she does that but I think the personal connections will help?
You are correct (and you are also good at making very solid analogies).
Thus far, Democratic candidates do a very poor job addressing economic concerns in that they seem unable to adopt the perspective of the people who are struggling to pay for groceries, rent, day care, and transportation.
This empathetic approach was always a strength of Democratic candidates (we all remember Clinton’s “I feel your pain”). That approach works! It persuades people that you have their backs.
Today we have defensiveness about what a great economy we have, or we waspishly complain that—harumph, people should be better educated on economic dynamics. The arguments of losing candidates.
We can still lose this election, and if we do, it will be our candidates’ failure to believably tell people that our focus is to make life affordable for the middle and working classes of this country.
Agree that you have to meet people where they are. To your point, I think she can talk about what Biden-Harris has done to create a strong economy, but only in the context of what that means she will do as president. As long as she consistently makes that transition in her speeches/conversations, she should not relent on the economy. It is a very strong economy on many measures, and she shouldn't shy away from that, but she can't just leave it at that. It has to be an intro, not the final argument.
Weird. I heard a completely different Harris in the debate and in her rallies. I heard her talk about the struggles of high costs for so many people. The media has done a terrible job of covering these issues in a fact-based way. I agree that she should not turn away from that issue because it is reality but she should also talk about the things that they’ve done so far to try to fix this and the things that she will on doing moving forward to fix it. I feel that she is in our living room And at our kitchen table.
Town halls can go off the rails in the best of circumstances for down ballot candidates, and this ain’t that. Understand the enthusiasm but highly doubt they’ll go that direction. Nor in this highly polarized environment with the RW eager to throw a wrench, should they.
Yup. She should do them anyway. If she’s FOR the people, she needs to speak TO the people .
Even better, don’t do a town hall. Do a recorded show with 6-12 undecideds. Ask them to tell her what they’re worried about and what they want/need to know.
Listen more than she talks. But seriously? Just taking to journalists and media hosts is not the same thing as talking to actual humans. Just ask anyone who’s had to navigate all the circles of call center hell.
Town halls town halls and more town halls. I agree! She needs to address Trump’s sudden love of tax cuts for everyone and make counter proposals- yes, get into the weeds! We already know we don’t want to go back and that Donald Trump makes us more nauseous by the day.
She should again stress the positives of Biden’s economic recovery, new job creation record job numbers, wage growth and taming inflation more successfully than other countries. But what undecided voters don’t understand is that we will never get 2019 prices back. How to tell them gently that the racist fascist dictator won’t magically bring back 2019 rents and prices? Propose rent increase controls and minimum wage increases, we need more economic policy proposals that are actually realistic and comprehensive, unlike what Trump proposes
If Trump refuses to debate again, could Harris (and/or Walz) do a televised town hall instead? Or even a series of Youtube videos? Something on Tik Tok? The short span of time she has had to introduce herself as a presidential candidate would suggest some novel approaches might be in order.
Pushing for a debate keeps Harris on offense and the narrative about Trump being scared. I'm terrified to tempt fate again but I trust that Harris and the campaign know what they're doing.
Re Nate Silver, everyone please ignore him. He's up to something and is not an honest broker.
Jason, I've heard this same opinion re: Nate Silver from someone else. What happened to Nate? He used to be "the numbers man." I did a search on the interwebs and couldn't find any info on why he's out of favor. Can you direct me to some info, or expand your comment? I want to understand.
Silver is now working as an advisor to Polymarket, a crypto-based predictions market platform (including making predictions about elections, though that is not legal in US) that is funded in part by Peter Thiel.
More significant is that Silver is clearly miffed that Harris did not choose Josh Shapiro, as Silver had strongly advised based on his calculations regarding the importance of PA electoral votes.
The Thiel connection is nonsense. VCs invest in businesses all the time. And of course a betting site would want one of if not the historically best data guy to advise them.
President Obama won Iowa in 2008 with 53.93% of the vote. John McCain received 44.39%. After reading the 49 page summary of Project 2025 I found from the democracyforward.org website I learned Project 2025 would be disastrous for rural America. In general I feel very strongly it is time to put more emphasis on all aspects of Project 2025. And, why aren't more surrogates out for Harris-Walz? I recall the horrible years of 2016-2021 when there was a Muslim travel ban, child separation of migrants who were sent back, just so much that was so horrible. January 6th of course. The opponents are obviously dangerously racist, fascist, hateful, violent people. Bomb threats in Springfield, Ohio and attacks on Penzy's Spices in Pittsburgh are just vile, criminal acts. Everyone is tired and full of anxiety. 51 more days. We must do all we can. Totally favor another debate - NBC (no Chuck Todd) or CBS.
Imagine if she wasn’t a woman. All of this babble about I don’t know what she stands for is disguised misogyny. I wish we weren’t running a woman against Trump again. Everybody pretends that misogyny is solved in this country, but it isn’t.
Maybe the way we resolve the country’s misogyny is to have a woman run and win against a really despicable opponent. Not cure it—you can’t cure a social ill that easily. But push it down and make it ineffective as a political force? I hope so, anyway.
2. The FEC has to rule. The chair is a Republican appointee, and he hasn't been clear about it yet. Most people knowledgeable in the area think it's pretty straightforward-- she was on the registration paperwork, part of the committee, and listed as a candidate, so she gets access to the funds. However, there could be legal challenges to the ruling either way (conservatives want to challenge so she can't access the funds). Probably won't be decided by the election, but if she doesn't get access, the donations will be returned.
The canvassing team I am on, split in two groups, talk to an average of 425 people/ households a week. Sorry, you are wrong, it is nowhere near enough to tell people that Harris is not an incoherent Nazi…etc.
Harris is top-notch at many aspects of running for president. But she does not have—or doesn’t demonstrate—that skill of communicating her empathy for the huge swath of people (voters) in the middle and working classes who have struggled to pay their bills since Covid. Bill Clinton could believably “feel their pain”. Obama could eloquently speak to them. Perhaps the best at it, as an ancient example, was RFK (the father, not the omnivorous crazy son).
I live in a purple area in a red state. People here still want to feel they’re voting for someone who will fight for their families.
The media is fetishizing these mythical undecided voters living under rocks because they need to make it look like a normal race between two legitimate candidates and voters are weighing their options. This is a very different election. We have an extremely broad coalition (AOC to Dick Cheney!) with more than enough voters to win if we all turn out. The real undecided voters we need to reach are deciding whether or not to vote at all. People who would vote for Harris but not sure it's worth their time and energy to vote.
Wish I could like this 500 times. A lot (not all) of (mostly young) people are just parroting a position they may have heard (read on Twitter/X) 6 weeks ago that took root, and makes them look like serious contemplative voters, when they're really vibes-based: she's light on policy, and she never talks about what she is going to do. This is BS on stilts. If you desperately want to know more about her, go to her freakin' website!!! It has everything-- her background, her platform, what she did in Biden's admin, what her vision is, and a list of issues with each one broken out into separate detailed policy agendas. FFS.
Voter: I want to know more about her. She hasn't earned my vote yet.
Did you watch her CNN interview?
Voter: No
Did you watch the debate?
Voter: No
Do you follow her on Twitter/X?
Voter: No
Did you read her website, it's her name dot com-- really easy to find?
Voter: No
Having said that, you have to meet people where they are. To Dan's point a couple of Substacks ago, I think she and Waltz need to go on some big-time podcasts/shows: Breakfast Club (again), Joe Rogan, Sam Harris, the Daily Show, Stephen A Smith, BTC, etc. And as another commenter said, do more TikTok and YouTube videos centered around economic policy first, and then other stuff. As ridiculous as the situation is, gotta do it.
We must approach this election like it’s going to be razor thin margins of victory. Not letting up one iota until the last ballot is cast. That said, I’m skeptical of the media narrative on pretty much everything having to do with politics AND, polling (especially anything having to do with Nate Silver who btw, is no longer affiliated with 538). I’m hoping that we will all be happily surprised by the margins of victory we see in this election from Harris/Walz all the way down ballot. Like 2022, when all the “polling” and the media predicted a red wave, we actually saw a very different outcome. The big story that no one is talking about is how angry and determined women (and the men who love them) are in this country. WE ARE NOT GOING BACK! Take that to the bank.
It's received wisdom among pundits that the country is "incredibly polarized," but we don't hear much about the specifics. The red-state referendums on reproductive rights since the Dobbs decision suggest that the polarization isn't monolithic. Effective political organizing usually deals in specifics, all the way down to the level of one-on-one. Even the better polls can't dive down that deep. What's going on under the "incredibly polarized" surface is hard to tell.
Looks like we agree about town halls - I think some in the battle ground states are key, but so are some in outlying areas, like Nevada, Arizona, and Oregon (so I can go). The visual of President Biden signing a hat for a Trump supporter and having a great interaction with him is pretty effective. I think if Harris answers questions from citizens it creates both direct dialogue and a viral moment if she doesn't go on too long. This is all assuming Trump won't debate her again. He knows he got beat.
The largely inattentive need a positive, continuous drumbeat message to incentivize them to a preferred course of action—1. Register; 2. Vote; 3. Care about the result; 4. Support the peaceful transfer of power. Something easy—“I like Ike” worked well.
While agree, there is some risk in a 2nd debate. I have no doubt Harris will best Trump again, but is unlikely to dominate as she did during the recent event seeing that even Trump may be a 10% more bait averse the next time.
However, my real concern is the gamification of politics. Not a new phenomenon, but it has become extreme in the digital age.
The election of the next POTUS is NOT a UFC or boxing event. One candidate calling for a 2nd debate – for all the reasons in Dan’s essay – is smart and justified in making the call.
Comparing this to a UFC event, or any sporting event is a horrible metaphor (except I assume, for Trump’s target voters – young men).
However, for Trump I believe e doesn’t see the difference. It’s a competition to win. He lost previously, and as Harris noted, is having “a hard time processing it.”. It’s not about being POTUS – the Federalist goblins will handle that – it’s about putting a W in the box and overriding the L. That is Trump’s objective. Not a thing more.
From the SSRS Poll .PDF of Pre- and Post Debate respondents:
"Surveys were conducted on September 10, 2024 among a sample of 605 registered voters who watched the presidential debate."
Registered voters who watched the debate. That's a good group to poll, right? Most definitely.
But what about the tens of thousands of "Swifties," registered or not yet registered, who watched the debate to see, (maybe for the first time,) what both candidates are like? Is anybody polling them?
How many fans of Taylor Swift are telling their parent, "Wow, Mom! That Trump guy has me motivated to register and vote to get him into office!"
My point is that polling "registered voters" or "likely voters" is meaningful, but it misses a critical demographic that may vote VERY partially in this unique election.
While it's true that debates, this one likely included, don't do much to move the horse race polls, especially when the country is so strongly polarized, what you've neglected to consider is the likely impact of this debate on *voter enthusiasm*. This hugely important metric -- which drives turnout but does not show up in the horse race polls -- was already favorable for Harris (a +14 for Democrats in a Gallup poll taken *before* the DNC), but my guess is that the debate widened that enthusiasm gap by significantly more than it impacted the horse race polls. If that is the case, and if it can be sustained, then Harris's debate thumping of Trump will translate to higher Democratic and lower Republican base turnout, and Harris will significantly outperform poll-based expectations.
She needs to do town halls and she needs to do them with doubters. News of her campaign stops doesn’t reach further than the state lines, neither does much about what she says. Plus, we all know her speeches are mostly the same, crafted, scripted tested, etc. What people like about trump is that he is unscripted. What he says feels authentic and as if he is in a conversation. People feel like they know him in the same way they’d know a neighbor at a bbq or a fellow parent at a sportsball game. I’m not saying I agree. But she needs to look for opportunities to be just as informal and casual as he is with large groups of people. And she needs to do it in a way and place where it travels across state lines and infiltrates the media. The clips on her socials of her meeting voters one on one are charming but not broad enough. Also, if she does a town hall, she should start every interaction by asking the questioner to tell her some salient things about themselves so she can tailor her answer to their situation. A teacher in Florida asking about the economy is going to be interested in hearing something different than a landlord in New York. But the underlying message of doing things to lift up the middle class is the same. It’s actually why Walz is good. PS - town halls with both of them together would also work
The challenge here is that most USians have only the vaguest of ideas about how "the economy" works, and their notions of how much or how little a president has to do with it are even vaguer. We are an economically ignorant people, and the reasons for that go back many decades, into the 19th century even. Talk about, e.g., "economic justice" still gets one branded a socialist whether one is or not. So we have to talk about "corporate greed" as if it's a personal failing, rather than a feature of "free-market" capitalism. Pinning people down to what they mean by "the economy" is a good strategy. Plenty of people seem to think "the economy" is in bad shape even though they're doing OK, or at least better than they were four years ago. And that has plenty to do with the failings of the mass media as well as general economic ignorance.
Harris doesn't get into the statistics when she talks about the economy. Inflation is down, there have been more good paying jobs created under Biden than any administration, as Bill Clinton said at the convention. We're bringing manufacturing back from China with the CHIPS Act. She needs to explain that she can throw out all these proposals but they have to be made into legislation in the House and Senate. She needs to explain this emphatically.
Yes? But I think part of why trump resonates is because, inexplicably, he seems like he understands people’s day-to-day issues and if she starts saying all the things you suggest, it comes across as being (again inexplicably) out of touch and defensive. Like her neighbor comes to her door to ask for a cup of flour and she doesn’t open the door but tells the neighbor she gave her a cup of sugar last week. Or worse, she gave a different neighbor a stick of butter. The neighbor feels gyped. Meanwhile. trump’s style is to fling open the door, grab the measuring cup, tell the neighbor he’ll be right back, comes back empty handed and tells the neighbor the mailman took their measuring cup but he’ll get back to them with the flour. The neighbor goes home and waits because he has, again inexplicably, given them hope. She needs to figure out how to open the door and reassure the neighbor they’ll get at least some of the flour they need. Not at all sure how she does that but I think the personal connections will help?
You are correct (and you are also good at making very solid analogies).
Thus far, Democratic candidates do a very poor job addressing economic concerns in that they seem unable to adopt the perspective of the people who are struggling to pay for groceries, rent, day care, and transportation.
This empathetic approach was always a strength of Democratic candidates (we all remember Clinton’s “I feel your pain”). That approach works! It persuades people that you have their backs.
Today we have defensiveness about what a great economy we have, or we waspishly complain that—harumph, people should be better educated on economic dynamics. The arguments of losing candidates.
We can still lose this election, and if we do, it will be our candidates’ failure to believably tell people that our focus is to make life affordable for the middle and working classes of this country.
Agree that you have to meet people where they are. To your point, I think she can talk about what Biden-Harris has done to create a strong economy, but only in the context of what that means she will do as president. As long as she consistently makes that transition in her speeches/conversations, she should not relent on the economy. It is a very strong economy on many measures, and she shouldn't shy away from that, but she can't just leave it at that. It has to be an intro, not the final argument.
Weird. I heard a completely different Harris in the debate and in her rallies. I heard her talk about the struggles of high costs for so many people. The media has done a terrible job of covering these issues in a fact-based way. I agree that she should not turn away from that issue because it is reality but she should also talk about the things that they’ve done so far to try to fix this and the things that she will on doing moving forward to fix it. I feel that she is in our living room And at our kitchen table.
Town halls can go off the rails in the best of circumstances for down ballot candidates, and this ain’t that. Understand the enthusiasm but highly doubt they’ll go that direction. Nor in this highly polarized environment with the RW eager to throw a wrench, should they.
Yup. She should do them anyway. If she’s FOR the people, she needs to speak TO the people .
Even better, don’t do a town hall. Do a recorded show with 6-12 undecideds. Ask them to tell her what they’re worried about and what they want/need to know.
Listen more than she talks. But seriously? Just taking to journalists and media hosts is not the same thing as talking to actual humans. Just ask anyone who’s had to navigate all the circles of call center hell.
Town halls town halls and more town halls. I agree! She needs to address Trump’s sudden love of tax cuts for everyone and make counter proposals- yes, get into the weeds! We already know we don’t want to go back and that Donald Trump makes us more nauseous by the day.
She should again stress the positives of Biden’s economic recovery, new job creation record job numbers, wage growth and taming inflation more successfully than other countries. But what undecided voters don’t understand is that we will never get 2019 prices back. How to tell them gently that the racist fascist dictator won’t magically bring back 2019 rents and prices? Propose rent increase controls and minimum wage increases, we need more economic policy proposals that are actually realistic and comprehensive, unlike what Trump proposes
Could her team throw out a date and network and then if he doesn't agree or backs out just do a town hall instead?
If Trump refuses to debate again, could Harris (and/or Walz) do a televised town hall instead? Or even a series of Youtube videos? Something on Tik Tok? The short span of time she has had to introduce herself as a presidential candidate would suggest some novel approaches might be in order.
Pushing for a debate keeps Harris on offense and the narrative about Trump being scared. I'm terrified to tempt fate again but I trust that Harris and the campaign know what they're doing.
Re Nate Silver, everyone please ignore him. He's up to something and is not an honest broker.
Jason, I've heard this same opinion re: Nate Silver from someone else. What happened to Nate? He used to be "the numbers man." I did a search on the interwebs and couldn't find any info on why he's out of favor. Can you direct me to some info, or expand your comment? I want to understand.
Silver is now working as an advisor to Polymarket, a crypto-based predictions market platform (including making predictions about elections, though that is not legal in US) that is funded in part by Peter Thiel.
More significant is that Silver is clearly miffed that Harris did not choose Josh Shapiro, as Silver had strongly advised based on his calculations regarding the importance of PA electoral votes.
The Thiel connection is nonsense. VCs invest in businesses all the time. And of course a betting site would want one of if not the historically best data guy to advise them.
Thank you for this context!
It's all very shady. So best to ignore him and not give him any oxygen.
President Obama won Iowa in 2008 with 53.93% of the vote. John McCain received 44.39%. After reading the 49 page summary of Project 2025 I found from the democracyforward.org website I learned Project 2025 would be disastrous for rural America. In general I feel very strongly it is time to put more emphasis on all aspects of Project 2025. And, why aren't more surrogates out for Harris-Walz? I recall the horrible years of 2016-2021 when there was a Muslim travel ban, child separation of migrants who were sent back, just so much that was so horrible. January 6th of course. The opponents are obviously dangerously racist, fascist, hateful, violent people. Bomb threats in Springfield, Ohio and attacks on Penzy's Spices in Pittsburgh are just vile, criminal acts. Everyone is tired and full of anxiety. 51 more days. We must do all we can. Totally favor another debate - NBC (no Chuck Todd) or CBS.
Imagine if she wasn’t a woman. All of this babble about I don’t know what she stands for is disguised misogyny. I wish we weren’t running a woman against Trump again. Everybody pretends that misogyny is solved in this country, but it isn’t.
Maybe the way we resolve the country’s misogyny is to have a woman run and win against a really despicable opponent. Not cure it—you can’t cure a social ill that easily. But push it down and make it ineffective as a political force? I hope so, anyway.
Yeah, the risk is that she might not win because she’s a woman. In this case it’s an unacceptable risk.
Imagine if she weren’t Black for that matter. I think the “undecideds “ would be flocking towards her if she were a white man.
1. The fact that this election is so close — even after the debate — makes me wonder about democracy — today, not Athens.
2. Question: Does Harris get access the dollars I sent Biden?
1. Agree 100000%
2. The FEC has to rule. The chair is a Republican appointee, and he hasn't been clear about it yet. Most people knowledgeable in the area think it's pretty straightforward-- she was on the registration paperwork, part of the committee, and listed as a candidate, so she gets access to the funds. However, there could be legal challenges to the ruling either way (conservatives want to challenge so she can't access the funds). Probably won't be decided by the election, but if she doesn't get access, the donations will be returned.
re 2.—Yes. Originally when you sent money to her campaign, it still said “Biden/Harris”—there was a seamless transition.
The canvassing team I am on, split in two groups, talk to an average of 425 people/ households a week. Sorry, you are wrong, it is nowhere near enough to tell people that Harris is not an incoherent Nazi…etc.
Harris is top-notch at many aspects of running for president. But she does not have—or doesn’t demonstrate—that skill of communicating her empathy for the huge swath of people (voters) in the middle and working classes who have struggled to pay their bills since Covid. Bill Clinton could believably “feel their pain”. Obama could eloquently speak to them. Perhaps the best at it, as an ancient example, was RFK (the father, not the omnivorous crazy son).
I live in a purple area in a red state. People here still want to feel they’re voting for someone who will fight for their families.
The media is fetishizing these mythical undecided voters living under rocks because they need to make it look like a normal race between two legitimate candidates and voters are weighing their options. This is a very different election. We have an extremely broad coalition (AOC to Dick Cheney!) with more than enough voters to win if we all turn out. The real undecided voters we need to reach are deciding whether or not to vote at all. People who would vote for Harris but not sure it's worth their time and energy to vote.
Wish I could like this 500 times. A lot (not all) of (mostly young) people are just parroting a position they may have heard (read on Twitter/X) 6 weeks ago that took root, and makes them look like serious contemplative voters, when they're really vibes-based: she's light on policy, and she never talks about what she is going to do. This is BS on stilts. If you desperately want to know more about her, go to her freakin' website!!! It has everything-- her background, her platform, what she did in Biden's admin, what her vision is, and a list of issues with each one broken out into separate detailed policy agendas. FFS.
Voter: I want to know more about her. She hasn't earned my vote yet.
Did you watch her CNN interview?
Voter: No
Did you watch the debate?
Voter: No
Do you follow her on Twitter/X?
Voter: No
Did you read her website, it's her name dot com-- really easy to find?
Voter: No
Having said that, you have to meet people where they are. To Dan's point a couple of Substacks ago, I think she and Waltz need to go on some big-time podcasts/shows: Breakfast Club (again), Joe Rogan, Sam Harris, the Daily Show, Stephen A Smith, BTC, etc. And as another commenter said, do more TikTok and YouTube videos centered around economic policy first, and then other stuff. As ridiculous as the situation is, gotta do it.
I want to know if the $100s I sent Biden are now Harris’.
We must approach this election like it’s going to be razor thin margins of victory. Not letting up one iota until the last ballot is cast. That said, I’m skeptical of the media narrative on pretty much everything having to do with politics AND, polling (especially anything having to do with Nate Silver who btw, is no longer affiliated with 538). I’m hoping that we will all be happily surprised by the margins of victory we see in this election from Harris/Walz all the way down ballot. Like 2022, when all the “polling” and the media predicted a red wave, we actually saw a very different outcome. The big story that no one is talking about is how angry and determined women (and the men who love them) are in this country. WE ARE NOT GOING BACK! Take that to the bank.
It's received wisdom among pundits that the country is "incredibly polarized," but we don't hear much about the specifics. The red-state referendums on reproductive rights since the Dobbs decision suggest that the polarization isn't monolithic. Effective political organizing usually deals in specifics, all the way down to the level of one-on-one. Even the better polls can't dive down that deep. What's going on under the "incredibly polarized" surface is hard to tell.
Looks like we agree about town halls - I think some in the battle ground states are key, but so are some in outlying areas, like Nevada, Arizona, and Oregon (so I can go). The visual of President Biden signing a hat for a Trump supporter and having a great interaction with him is pretty effective. I think if Harris answers questions from citizens it creates both direct dialogue and a viral moment if she doesn't go on too long. This is all assuming Trump won't debate her again. He knows he got beat.
Dan, what do we do about these falsehoods from her team cited by nyt and cnn?
The largely inattentive need a positive, continuous drumbeat message to incentivize them to a preferred course of action—1. Register; 2. Vote; 3. Care about the result; 4. Support the peaceful transfer of power. Something easy—“I like Ike” worked well.
I'd love a second debate. Why not let VP Harris annihilate him a 2nd time? 😁🔥
While agree, there is some risk in a 2nd debate. I have no doubt Harris will best Trump again, but is unlikely to dominate as she did during the recent event seeing that even Trump may be a 10% more bait averse the next time.
However, my real concern is the gamification of politics. Not a new phenomenon, but it has become extreme in the digital age.
The election of the next POTUS is NOT a UFC or boxing event. One candidate calling for a 2nd debate – for all the reasons in Dan’s essay – is smart and justified in making the call.
Comparing this to a UFC event, or any sporting event is a horrible metaphor (except I assume, for Trump’s target voters – young men).
However, for Trump I believe e doesn’t see the difference. It’s a competition to win. He lost previously, and as Harris noted, is having “a hard time processing it.”. It’s not about being POTUS – the Federalist goblins will handle that – it’s about putting a W in the box and overriding the L. That is Trump’s objective. Not a thing more.
From the SSRS Poll .PDF of Pre- and Post Debate respondents:
"Surveys were conducted on September 10, 2024 among a sample of 605 registered voters who watched the presidential debate."
Registered voters who watched the debate. That's a good group to poll, right? Most definitely.
But what about the tens of thousands of "Swifties," registered or not yet registered, who watched the debate to see, (maybe for the first time,) what both candidates are like? Is anybody polling them?
How many fans of Taylor Swift are telling their parent, "Wow, Mom! That Trump guy has me motivated to register and vote to get him into office!"
My point is that polling "registered voters" or "likely voters" is meaningful, but it misses a critical demographic that may vote VERY partially in this unique election.
While it's true that debates, this one likely included, don't do much to move the horse race polls, especially when the country is so strongly polarized, what you've neglected to consider is the likely impact of this debate on *voter enthusiasm*. This hugely important metric -- which drives turnout but does not show up in the horse race polls -- was already favorable for Harris (a +14 for Democrats in a Gallup poll taken *before* the DNC), but my guess is that the debate widened that enthusiasm gap by significantly more than it impacted the horse race polls. If that is the case, and if it can be sustained, then Harris's debate thumping of Trump will translate to higher Democratic and lower Republican base turnout, and Harris will significantly outperform poll-based expectations.
My own column on this: https://whowhatwhy.org/elections/and-down-goes-donald/.