36 Comments
User's avatar
тна Return to thread
Scott Christensen's avatar

It should never be this close and picking one person over another should not be the main issue. There will be worse reasons than a vp pick.

Expand full comment
Tom A's avatar

But everyone expected it to be close. Whatever you think of how we should be blowing Trump out - no one in three tries has figured out how to break his spell over his followers. Not in the GOP primary and not in the general.

If she loses there will be alot of - did Harris bowing to left wing pressure to not pick Shapiro (basically because he's Jewish and thus presumed to be more Israel friendly than Walz or Harris or any other mainstream Dem who has more or less the same opinion on Israel/Gaza) cost her the election.

VPs dont bring alot - but the half a percent or so that a popular governor would bring in his home state might be definitive in PA whereas its useless in Minnesota.

Expand full comment
Caspian's avatar

The only way to "break his spell" is for Trump to betray his followers *in ways they actually care about*.

They don't care about taxes, or corruption, or cuts to essential services. They care about punishing people for daring to be women, minorities, or gay.

Trump wholeheartedly believes that too, though, so he won't - he can't - betray them here. It's just not going to happen, because he is one of them.

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

I would argue that they DO care about those things. They just want THEIR issues to be addressed and not "those people"'s. The New Deal was popular precisely because it almost exclusively benefitted White southerners and (White) "ethnic" voters in the Northeast and Midwest. The only way Ye Olde New Deal Coalition would and will ever be recreated is if the national demographics just magically reverted back to what they were in the 1930s/1940s.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Well stated, but isn't it an exaggeration to say that the New Deal "almost exclusively benefitted" whites?

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

Millions of non whites benefited imo

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

"Last hired and first fired" would not have become a saying for African Americans during the Depression years if my statement weren't true. Not to mention despite having a PwD in the White House, if anything we actually went BACKWARD on disability rights during his Presidency. Subminimum wages were introduced.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Nobody would claim that Black people were first hired and last fired, but they did benefit, or at least some of them did.

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

I never said there were no benefits given to African Americans. Even Strom Thurmond - who in the 1930s and 1940s (prior to his 1948 run for President) was a VERY hardcore New Dealer - supported SOME social programs for African Americans. There is no getting around however that those who benefitted the most from said programs were those whom I described. "Almost exclusively" does not mean "exclusively." My point is that those same programs would not get nearly the same support today because of race and the fact that left populism doesn't appeal nearly as much to people who feel they have "made it."

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I definitely take your point.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

My argument would be that the 1936 election was a major realignment of AA voters from the Republican party to the Democratic party; that tells me that black voters thought that Roosevelt was trying hard to benefit them(that's how politics works); it's clearly a debatable topic but I stick to my opinion above

Expand full comment
Stargate77's avatar

IIRC, 1936 was the first time that a Democrat won the Black vote in a Presidential election. FDR lost the Black vote in 1932.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

My point exactly; if blacks were not benefiting from the New Deal, I find it highly unlikely that for the first time in history they would abandon the Party of Lincoln and vote Democratic; and just because this person thinks he can attack me personally and with ad hominem insults will somehow get me to change my opinion is laughable to say the least(every post I've made here has been extremely anodyne); as opposed to personal\ad hominem from him

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

I don't agree

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

Then why "last fired and first fired?"

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

I think that millions of non whites benefited from the New Deal; I stick to that opinion; pretty simple

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

No answer for "last hired and first fired." Sorry, we Democrats are supposed to be the reality based party.

Expand full comment
benamery21's avatar

Pretty sure I just peeped which former Kossack this is, lol.

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

ItтАЩs not presumed; itтАЩs a fact. Not to mention that he supported school vouchers. He would have cost her thousands of votes in Michigan alone.

Expand full comment
Henrik's avatar

If polling is to be believed the issues with Michigan Arab voters is baked in regardless of the VP. That said, the voucher thing could and would have been a major distraction, and he himself seemed to agree with Harris that he wasnтАЩt the best at being a Number Two

Expand full comment
IggySD's avatar

ThereтАЩs also the sexual harassment scandal. Now I will freely admit it has been quickly forgotten since he has no longer been a candidate. So itтАЩs possible there was a lot more smoke than fire. But if he had been picked that smoke would have been even thicker and had the potential to have a significant cost.

Expand full comment
Em Jay's avatar

Exactly. You see how they've blown very minor things in Walz's bio into BIG DEALS...imagine what they'd do with actual chicanery

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

Rightly or wrongly there's a word for candidates who bank on the rationality of voters: losers.

Expand full comment
Em Jay's avatar

If people were thinking rationally this race wouldnt be close.

Expand full comment
Tim Nguyen's avatar

I know this sounds quite morbid, but the simplest way to break Trump's spell is for him to effectively no longer run for office and go away (whether via death or just disappearing from the media which he won't). No Republicans have been able to match let alone replicate Trump's levels of support no matter how MAGA they go, not DeSantis, not Noem, not nobody. Once he's gone, his impact likely evaporates too. Except the stain of his legacy will continue to poison conservative politics and Republicans for years.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

I hope you are right but even if Trump loses, imo he will still have a certain percentage of Republican\MAGA politicians that still embrace him(obviously for their own selfish reasons)

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

We have to realize that there are 7 close states and must work to win them all

Expand full comment
ErrorError