Controversial but I was surprised at how well trump did for himself.
He managed to dial down the lies and rhetoric from “how stupid does he think the audience is” to “obviously bullshit”.
Well done to Harris of course, in particular for calling his playbook tactics out at the start, then repeatedly calling out the lies and dog whistling each time - the way to beat a manipulating bully is to shine a light on their behaviour plainly in public and she nailed it.
Bonus points to Harris as well for laughing at him whilst maintaining class.
I thought he would lose control more but he did go into several crazy rants.
Harris I thought did a good job but I wanted her to point out not just his lies but his constant hyperbole and wild exaggerations.
Yeah, I wanted Harris to completely eviscerate Trump, which didn’t exactly happen. But I don’t think that’s because she did poorly — it’s because I know who I’m voting for, and I’m not the target audience.
Had it been the proverbial bloodbath that I wanted to see, it might not have played well with independents/those on the fence (which I blame largely on sexism — a ruthless woman is “a bitch,” but a ruthless man is “strong,” etc.).
Judging from the headlines and conversations I’m seeing, I think she really threaded the needle — came across as strong, intelligent, leader-like, all the while giving Trump enough rope to hang himself. More might have alienated voters, and less might have come across as too soft. Really good stuff from her and her campaign.
And this coming from a noted (and respected) conservative think tank. It really says a lot.
A good debate is where both sides have some points to try and establish evidence for. That’s a rarity in today’s political election cycles. Here, Harris just had to show who was the adult in the room and maybe get some talking points out to anyone who hadn’t heard them yet. It could have been a town hall or campaign rally with a screaming toddler in the background, same effect.
A good debate is one that informs voters and helps undecided folk decide
What you are describing is an entertaining episode of the West Wing
Harris did a good job showing everyone why they shouldn’t vote for Trump. She did very little to show why people should vote for her. People may prefer her over Trump, but if they don’t show up to vote, she will lose.
Other than the abortion issue, which only affects you in a deep red state, she had no energizing policy positions.
Bad on the economy. Terrible on social issues, health care. Awful on immigration. Dogshit on Gaza.
Choosing not to vote is an option if both candidates aren’t going to improve people’s lives, especially considering that voting is made such a burden.
Opinions on the policies aside, I agree with your point, votes are the only way she can win. That we have such low turnouts in a country founded on the idea of voting in representation is a travesty, no matter what party you prefer.
I disagree that not voting is a valid option, as there are plenty of ways to vote even if you hate both main Presidential candidates. At least the Green/Communist party voters are trying to make a statement, even if it’s not going to change anything (my opinion). And down ticket you can vote for local people that will affect you more directly, so not voting at all is a loss of your voice.
As for voting being a burden, you can thank Republicans for that. It’s their best way of ensuring seats and power.
You go right ahead and ignore the lever, I’m sure all the people on both sets of tracks understand you not wanting to get involved since it doesn’t benefit you to pull it.
Two levers installed by the capitalist ruling class. Go ahead and pull one to pretend it makes a difference.
Corporations are donors to both parties.
Ya’ think?
