I concur with Kahn that inactivity and withdrawal are dangerous for Kamala. I disagree with his claim that the best solution is mud-wrestling. The greatest political genius of my lifetime was Bill Clinton, who was able to connect with people without summoning the Dark Side. Everyone in the country already knows who Trump is, what he's like, etc. That he remains a strong candidate demonstrates not only the tribal polarization of the country, but the breathtaking toxicity of many of the Democrats' messages to non-progressive voters. I think Harris has already been trying to reduce that toxicity, and if she can continue in that direction while maintaining a sunny message, she will have done her best.
I disagree with your framing that she has said nothing, done nothing. She has said plenty! She's talked about supporting Ukraine, raising the minimum wage, ensuring reproductive rights for women,, continuing our energy independence and even approving of fracking. Her CNN interview was fine, and I feel her choice for a vice president in Tim Walz was genius, a better choice in authenticity vs Shapiro.
The problem for Harris is that she is still a slight underdog. Nate silver has the race as 60-40 Trump and Polymarket has Trump with a 53-46 advantage. Those numbers can certainly be considered “toss-up” range, but Harris shouldn’t be acting the same as Biden did in 2020 when he was up 7% in the polls and a strong favorite in the betting and prediction markets. And there’s also the fact that Trump beat the polls in 2016 and 2020. Maybe the pollsters have fixed that but maybe not - they underestimated Trump in 2020 more than in 2016.
There is a difference between the national polling numbers and the odds on who will win because of the electoral college. As we know all too well, Trump can lose the popular vote and still win the election. Hence the difference in the odds Nate is giving versus the national polling numbers.
All this may or may not be true, but this is exactly the sort of horse race political coverage that I can get on any number of other platforms. As I see it, Persuasion's value add is the way it does deep dives into issues and policy with an intellectual rigor, honesty and curiosity not often seen in other outlets.
We are slowly getting to know who Kamala Harris is and what she would want to do as President. The missing piece is how Kamala Harris would exercise the powers of the presidency. What is her style of leadership? How would she lead?
Why isn't Harris speaking to Lex Fridman or Joe Rogan? She's not appearing on their podcasts because the former is a tiresome pseudointellectual (who cares whether there is such a thing as free will) and the latter a credulous douchebag who gives every bro in America a bad name.
The audience who are still beating the mRNA dead horse or tumbling down the latest heterodox rabbit hole with Jordan Peterson were never going to vote for Harris in the first place.
But yes, this is the time for Harris to play smashmouth politics of the kind the Lincoln Project is known for. She needs to live in Trump's head as an aggressor not a punching bag.
Kamala needs to be aggressive, but not (like you) by exuding contempt!
She needs to live in every such bro's head as the the offspring of striving immigrants like their own forebears, as the champion of the middle class and of genuine Americana, as the Commander in Chief who isn't afraid to talk about "lethal" force.
Like it or not (and believe it or not), she needs their votes.
Trump might belong in the loony bin, but Kamala loses if she comes off as Nurse Ratched -- showing up at a kegger with a clipboard and wielding a jagged glass of Chardonnay. We've been down that road before (and don't gimme no crap like, "Hillary won the popular vote!").
I concur with Kahn that inactivity and withdrawal are dangerous for Kamala. I disagree with his claim that the best solution is mud-wrestling. The greatest political genius of my lifetime was Bill Clinton, who was able to connect with people without summoning the Dark Side. Everyone in the country already knows who Trump is, what he's like, etc. That he remains a strong candidate demonstrates not only the tribal polarization of the country, but the breathtaking toxicity of many of the Democrats' messages to non-progressive voters. I think Harris has already been trying to reduce that toxicity, and if she can continue in that direction while maintaining a sunny message, she will have done her best.
I disagree with your framing that she has said nothing, done nothing. She has said plenty! She's talked about supporting Ukraine, raising the minimum wage, ensuring reproductive rights for women,, continuing our energy independence and even approving of fracking. Her CNN interview was fine, and I feel her choice for a vice president in Tim Walz was genius, a better choice in authenticity vs Shapiro.
The problem for Harris is that she is still a slight underdog. Nate silver has the race as 60-40 Trump and Polymarket has Trump with a 53-46 advantage. Those numbers can certainly be considered “toss-up” range, but Harris shouldn’t be acting the same as Biden did in 2020 when he was up 7% in the polls and a strong favorite in the betting and prediction markets. And there’s also the fact that Trump beat the polls in 2016 and 2020. Maybe the pollsters have fixed that but maybe not - they underestimated Trump in 2020 more than in 2016.
Where dis you get your polling numbers? Nate Silver's latest national polling average for the Presidential election has Harris leading 47-44.
There is a difference between the national polling numbers and the odds on who will win because of the electoral college. As we know all too well, Trump can lose the popular vote and still win the election. Hence the difference in the odds Nate is giving versus the national polling numbers.
All this may or may not be true, but this is exactly the sort of horse race political coverage that I can get on any number of other platforms. As I see it, Persuasion's value add is the way it does deep dives into issues and policy with an intellectual rigor, honesty and curiosity not often seen in other outlets.
We are slowly getting to know who Kamala Harris is and what she would want to do as President. The missing piece is how Kamala Harris would exercise the powers of the presidency. What is her style of leadership? How would she lead?
Why isn't Harris speaking to Lex Fridman or Joe Rogan? She's not appearing on their podcasts because the former is a tiresome pseudointellectual (who cares whether there is such a thing as free will) and the latter a credulous douchebag who gives every bro in America a bad name.
The audience who are still beating the mRNA dead horse or tumbling down the latest heterodox rabbit hole with Jordan Peterson were never going to vote for Harris in the first place.
But yes, this is the time for Harris to play smashmouth politics of the kind the Lincoln Project is known for. She needs to live in Trump's head as an aggressor not a punching bag.
Kamala needs to be aggressive, but not (like you) by exuding contempt!
She needs to live in every such bro's head as the the offspring of striving immigrants like their own forebears, as the champion of the middle class and of genuine Americana, as the Commander in Chief who isn't afraid to talk about "lethal" force.
Like it or not (and believe it or not), she needs their votes.
Trump might belong in the loony bin, but Kamala loses if she comes off as Nurse Ratched -- showing up at a kegger with a clipboard and wielding a jagged glass of Chardonnay. We've been down that road before (and don't gimme no crap like, "Hillary won the popular vote!").
We need a landslide, not an "expert validation"!