Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Brown

Apparently the interview has already occurred.    https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/29/politics/kamala-harris-tim-walz-cnntv/index.html  I thought it was going to be live.

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Say what?? ...... Well that is a surprise (NOT)...... Great choice for her and avoiding the word salad lol

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Trump fumbles from time to time.....everyone does, but there is literally tons of video out there with her regurgitating word salad and cackling like a hyena.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Why did I think this was live?  I guess because CNN and other outlets have been promoting this as a big deal, and also promoting this as an answer to Harris' critics who have harped on her going 38 days or so without an unscripted interview.  I would think that Harris would want to answer those critics too.  A recorded interview with a friendly questioner on a friendly cable outlet is not going to answer the critics.   

It raises an interesting strategy question.  Should the Harris campaign continue to script her appearances?  She is up in the popular vote, but Nate Silver currently has her as a slight underdog in the electoral college in part because she is a very slight underdog in PA.  As her convention bounce fades this could change - Silver's model factors in a normal convention bounce, and if she did not get a good one, the model may be underrating her at this point.  Opposite is true too.

Bottom line, the race is effectively tied in the swing states.  Should Harris risk some unscripted moments to make her appear more genuine to undecideds, or should she continue to carefully manage her appearances?

September 10 is going to be the first or second most important debate of our time, maybe even more important than the debate that ended Biden's career since Harris is so new to this campaign.

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

It's not you, it's the GOP that has changed over time (and not for the good). They are unrecognizable as the GOP of the Reagan years.

Originally Posted by James Brown

I love this sort of thing.  But I prefer Nate Silver.  Much more of a statistician.  

I have a couple of comments about Lichtman's analysis:  

1.  According to his "Keys to the White House" metrics, Biden would have one less "false" than Harris (true incumbency, see #3) and therefore Biden would be more likely to win the White House than Harris, according to these 13 metrics.  That is obviously a grave flaw in his test.

2.  His economic indicator cites only "recession" not "inflation" as a vote driver.  (#5) He must have formulated this after Jimmy Carter lost 49 states to Reagan.

3.  He gives Harris a pass on foreign policy disasters (#s 12 and 13).  That is one point of view I suppose.  I think half the country would think the illegal border crossings, Russia's invasion of a sovereign European nation, and Hamas's massacres of innocent Israelis plus the resulting war would qualify as "major failure in foreign or military affairs."  No nuclear war though...

4.  #8 states:  "Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. TRUE"  In my view, this is indefensible.  We have had the most sustained social unrest since the 60s over the past several years.  (Trump would have gotten a "False" here too).

4. Last, he gives Trump a "no charisma" vote in #11.  Charisma is one thing Trump does have, if one talks to those who like him.  

Thus, I think Lichtman's bias is showing in factors 5, 8, 11, 12, and 13.  If those factors were marked as FALSE, then Trump wins easily.  I hope we remember to revisit this after election day.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Harris certainly has momentum, and I do hope that she wins, because of the alternative.  Even so, I am not at all happy with Harris' favored policies on the economy or the Supreme Court.  So I hope the Senate becomes, and the House stays R.   Jim

Originally Posted by James Brown

Even with gridlock, we'll fund Ukraine.  We'll fund the Department of Education too.  Don't be ridiculous.  Gridlock does not mean a federal budget of zero!   Gridlock means the federal government can not easily expand and hopefully any politically motivated monkeying around with the Courts is dead on arrival.   

Georgia's failure to pass a red flag law is a bad idea in my opinion.  Colorado's seems to work well and not unduly restrict gun owner's rights.  But Rod, I'm sure you know that Georgia's red flag law (and the vast majority of education spending) is a state law thing and has nothing to do with President Harris.  Why bring it up in the context of our discussion?  Should red states be controlled from Washington or Sacramento too?

Last, "federalist society darlings" my ass.  I have explained to you the tension between conservative and liberal jurisprudence many times.  I also have also explained to you that these are very different legal philosophies, with neither being right or wrong.   This is sadly incomprehensible to you.  You are the forum's best example, (now that Rich has moved on of course) of a partisan tribalist who reflexively attributes evil intent to those you disagree with.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg would not support your narrow and harmful point of view.