Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

The disappearance of the middle-class' spending power is what has really gone in comparison to what it once was. June Cleaver could stay at home and make lunches while wearing her pearls in 1960 but in 2024 she'd have to be working full time for the family to live as well.


Dave

I lived the "Leave it to Beaver" kind of family life in the 60s.  Mom was a full time housewife at the time (although she also started a career from home that really blossomed between 1980 and now.  She still works every day at 90 years old).  I don't recall her wearing pearls!  Anyway, this post is about expectations and attitudes.  Here is the house I grew up in:  

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/218-W-Hollis-Ln-Fort-Wayne-IN-46807/73124514_zpid/

Our family of five (three boys) lived in 1200 square feet near my mom's old neighborhood.  It was wonderful.  I think mom and dad thought they had everything they needed.  One car.  One radio.  One B&W TV.  This house can be bought for about $145,000 today.  I think any teacher, firefighter, clerk, or cashier could afford the cost of this home and raise a family in it.  Sadly, no one wants a 1200 square foot house in Ft. Wayne, Indiana nowadays.  Especially with three kids.  Where would you hang the big screen TV?  Where would you park the RV?  No walk in closet?  No open concept kitchen?  Ft. Wayne... you kidding me! 

I am not really knocking this change in attitude, I am a wildly irresponsible consumerist myself.   I moved to Colorado where $145k won't buy a trailer.  I am just noting that a lot of expectations, and dare I say, feelings of "entitlement" have grown up in the past 45 years that have a lot to do with the decreased spending power of a middle class wage.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Whose fault is that?

In Canada, do the taxpayers send anyone who wants off to college to study anything that inspires them, with no regard for the job market after graduation?

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

ABC news Australia!? 
Lol!

Ya might has well posted a take from SkyNews Australia...

That said, here's the Republican house member take on it:

"House Republicans bemoan Trump debate performance: ‘Not good’ "

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4873509-trump-harris-debate-house-republicans/


As for the news reporters in the USA:

"anchor Chris Wallace called Tuesday’s presidential debate “devastating” for former President Trump, quipping Vice President Harris “pitched a shutout”
“I didn’t ever think I was ever going to witness a debate as devastating as the one that you and Dana moderated back in June, where Joe Biden basically tanked his reelection campaign. I think tonight was just as devastating,”

The Wall Street Jpurnal:

“Ms. Harris, less well known than the former President, had the most to gain and our guess is she helped herself,” the editorial board wrote Wednesday. “She clearly won the debate, "
“She won the debate because she came in with a strategy to taunt and goad Mr. Trump into diving down rabbit holes of personal grievance and vanity that left her policies and history largely untouched,” they added.

The board also suggested that Trump “always takes the bait” and fell for Harris’s “trap” so that he focused on the past, President Biden or falsely claiming immigrants are eating pets in Ohio."


https://thehill.com/media/4873787-wall-street-journal-kamala-harris-donald-trump-debate-2024/

"Matt Drudge thinks this week’s debate performance between former President Trump and Vice President Harris was the final nail in the coffin of Trump’s campaign ahead of November."
"Starting late Tuesday, as the debate was still going on and into Wednesday morning, the banner headline on Drudge Report read “The End” with a doctored image showing Trump surrounded by cats, ducks and other small animals."

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4874004-drudge-report-donald-trump-debate-performance-2024/

"Respondents in a new survey say Vice President Harris soundly won Tuesday night’s debate over former President Trump"

https://thehill.com/homenews/4873826-harris-trump-debate-winner/

We agree on all that.  I might have to start reading Drudge, that is a funny cover.  But in your opinion did this debate do much to sway the undecideds in swing states?  That is what I am not so sure about.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"But in your opinion did this debate do much to sway the undecideds in swing states?  That is what I am not so sure about."

If the so-called "undecideds" are anything like the ones in the ABC focus group last night, and that the American ABC focus group in Penn, then the answer is a resounding NO!

I couldn't believe what I was seeing/hearing: Supposedly undecided voters, primarily women, from a critical county in the critical swing state of Penn, basically a make or break for any presidential candidate in a close election, and this is what I saw: 

"Undecided": voter: Well, I voted for Trump in 2016, 2020, and I'll vote for him again because I feel the economy was better back then.

"Undecided" voter: The Afghans used our weapons, our ammunition, our equipment, our training, our technical knowhow, etc against us in the pullout and it's Biden/Harris fault!

And these are supposedly "undecideds"?!

WTF!

Genuine undecideds are probably hard to find.  That is not good for Harris.

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

I disagree. He lost last time and he's even more unpopular now - that doesn't seem like a path to victory.

Hi Brian:

The best polling suggests Trump is more popular than when he left office.  Not in California, I imagine, but in the swing states.  Trump probably would have won in '20, but for the pandemic.  Also, the last 4 years have been tough on middle and low income families.  The race is a 50/50 toss up now, which is a significant improvement from when Biden was the nominee.   I'm with Rod on this one.  I think Trump will win.  Trump has outperformed the polling in every race he has run, so a 50/50 tossup now likely favors Trump on election day.   Plenty of time for Harris to make a move, and maybe her debate dominance will pay off.  I personally think she won the debate easily but missed an opportunity to connect with moderate voters in the swing states.   

Also, as detailed by Nate Silver, the electoral college favors Trump.  Harris could easily win the "popular vote" by 1 or 2% and still lose the election. 

The good analysis here might be behind a paywall, I pay a nominal fee to see Silver's full analysis.  I think some of it is public though.  Not sure how much:   https://www.natesilver.net/p/nate-silver-2024-president-election-polls-model

Silver has the race for winning the Electoral College and election at about 60/40 in favor of Trump, which is effectively a tie. Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

David,

You're going to be on the losing end of an argument on Reagan with these guys even if you're right on whatever you're arguing about.

Reagan is to these guys as FDR is to Democrats. Even in the throes of Iran-Contra (which have knocked out a lessor candidate) and in the obvious prodromal stages of Alzheimer's disease, Reagan prevails as a virtual political saint to these guys.  

That's not going to change...

Reagan won 49 states in the general election of '84 Rod.  It wasn't just "us guys."

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

David,

You're going to be on the losing end of an argument on Reagan with these guys even if you're right on whatever you're arguing about.

Reagan is to these guys as FDR is to Democrats. Even in the throes of Iran-Contra (which have knocked out a lessor candidate) and in the obvious prodromal stages of Alzheimer's disease, Reagan prevails as a virtual political saint to these guys.  

That's not going to change...

p.s.  Hopefully David appreciates that this is not an "argument" in the traditional sense.  I, and I am sure Russ too, genuinely appreciate and learn from David's thoughtful take on these issues.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Jim,

Do you agree with Silver's assessment of Trump's mistakes thus far?

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4874360-trump-campaign-mistakes-nate-silver/

Yes and more.  If Trump had the discipline last night to resist Harris's baiting and had instead used every opportunity to simply answer the questions at hand while cementing Harris to the Biden/Harris administration's perceived failures on the border and the economy he would be in really good shape today.   

Instead he was goaded into xenophobic rants, bizarre crowd size rabbit holes, and fantasies about pet eaters.  Trump has a reasonable and popular position on abortion, but he is too stupid to articulate it.  

Maybe his ego and narcissism would have led him into pet eating bizzaroland in any case.  Good grief, for two debates in a row he has said that he would call Putin and get him to drop the war the day after the election.  In the first place, I think that call is illegal.  Secondly, it is clearly delusional.   The man has no business anywhere near the Whitehouse.

I think a better VP choice would have been Nikki Haley, assuming she would have held her nose and said "yes."  But Trump needed a mini-me.  I am sure I agree with Silver on the other issues too.  But mostly I respect his analysis of the polls.  In 2016 he took a lot of flack for calling the race something like 70/30 in favor of Clinton.   Everyone else had it at 99/1.  Silver understands probabilities and models polling data better than everyone else.

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

Too bad you're so far away.  I'd like to wager a beer on it!  I'm an optimist.

I'm an optimist too!  I'll send you a six pack of local microbrew if Harris wins.   If Trump wins you might need to send me something stronger... 

Originally Posted by James Lacey

... I will always be bewildered regarding why anyone would want him in what is arguably the most powerful seat in the world.

Hi James:  I note the word "arguably".  I bet we can agree that the US Executive Branch is the most powerful governing force in the world, maybe co-equal with China and Russia's "executive."   This begs the question though, is the president in control of the US executive?   

I suppose it depends on the president.  Obama did not seem like much of a puppet.  But Joe Biden is in charge right now, and the only way I sleep at night is to assume his staff is diligently and competently running things. 

Harris, in my opinion proved only that she can mop the floor with Donald Trump in the debate.  She missed the opportunity to demonstrate leadership or vision.  Obviously she is better than Trump, but I re-watched the debate with my wife (who was unavailable during the live broadcast) and it does seem like Harris was merely presenting well-rehearsed and well-delivered platitudes when she spoke about herself at all.  Mostly it was laser focus on goading Trump, which is entertaining, but not that revealing.  After this debate, I think it is possible she will be a Biden-like figurehead.  Unfortunately, she really did nothing to let us know one way or the other.   Curious about your take.

If Trump wins, I pray that he is just a figurehead, because he certainly is not a competent leader or executive.

So, is this a big deal?  I've harped ad-nauseum about our robust system.  This is part of it.  No matter who sits in the oval office I truly believe day-to-day governance will be more or less competently rendered, to the extent the government is ever competent, with subtle differences depending on whether the administration is R or D.  Nothing earth shattering will happen.  This must be how so many Rs vote for Trump.  They figure that the staff and career officials actually do all the work.

My confidence breaks down badly if we enter a crisis like a world war.  Heaven help us if that happens between now and January.  Hopefully Harris is up to it next year.  I feel less pessimistic about her chances than I did a few days ago, after processing the debate and coverage.  Jim