Sending Obama out to scold black voters for being insufficiently motivated and releasing her medical records while nudging Trump to do the same. I can't see a campaign that believes they're winning doing either of those things three weeks before the election.
There is this idea that campaigns know exactly where the race is AND presumably where its going to be in the end.
But of course they dont. Their polling might be marginally better than public polling, but ultimately this is a close race and one would expect her to treat it like a race she could very well lose, even if her polling doesn't suggest that she's losing or even all that likely to lose.
She might lose, and Mark will look like a genius, as pessimists always do when things go poorly.
Releasing the records sounds like it's pretty standard, especially for the candidates who went against Trump. The Fox appearance, I'm not sold on, but one election twitter figure I follow mentioned that such a move is done from a position of strength with the base and an intent to expand the scope of her message. So it may very well indicate that she's holding up strong.
I do agree that Obama's recent comments don't covey any confidence.
I highly doubt that. Obama is a very effective communicator and campaigner. Months before this the Harris campaign was already utilizing Obama on online YouTube ads for fundraising. He's very effective in mobilizing and convincing people. Heck he convinced me to donate to the Harris campaign so there's that. At worst she's just hedging her bets, which I expect any competent campaign to do.
I think you have to be looking for signs of doom in order to interpret either of those actions as anything other than normal campaign moves in a competitive race. I would expect those from her in pretty much any circumstances, even if she had data showing Utah was a swing state.
Obama was always going to campaign for Harris. He’s the most popular living former president, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Harris team had data showing he would be most effective with black men. There may be data showing she has a problem with that segment of the vote, but that does not imply she thinks she is losing.
And isn’t it customary to release health records? When your opponent is the oldest presidential candidate in history, showing pretty obvious signs of mental decline, is borderline obese with a horrible diet and refuses to release his medical records it would be political negligence not to try to make it an issue.
With respect to those struggling with their weight, ain't nothing borderline about it. I do think Democrats could have made a few more attacks on Trump's age and health, given that Republicans had managed to weaponize that so thoroughly against Biden.
If Democrats were given the same leeway as Republicans, that would be true. Unfortunately we are not, not to mention they can throw "you guys nominated old Biden" back in our faces. Yes, Biden left the race and Harris took over, but he was chosen by Democratic Party voters. She was not.
We aren't given the same leeway, but perhaps we can try and take it every now and then. The Republicans and the media established clearly that "old and feeble" is bad. Trump is old, and his many insane rants can be presented in a way that speaks to dementia, rather than just megalomania (since many voters generally don't seem to have a problem with megalomania).
I don't think we can gleam anything from that one way or the other.
A well run campaign should seek to improve where they think they can, even if they believe they are on the path to an easy victory. If the actions come with large risks, or are preternaturally safe, then we can maybe use that as insight into the state of the race from the campaign's view. More so the former than the latter.
In this case neither strikes me as meaningfully risky. The risks are primarily opportunity cost: maybe that time could be better spent elsewhere.
That's not to say that everything is necessarily honky dory. I don't know either way. Just my take that these actions do not inform us that things are bad or trending bad.
What campaign moves has she made that make you think she thinks she’s losing?
Sending Obama out to scold black voters for being insufficiently motivated and releasing her medical records while nudging Trump to do the same. I can't see a campaign that believes they're winning doing either of those things three weeks before the election.
I can, if they believe they're leading but not securely.
There is this idea that campaigns know exactly where the race is AND presumably where its going to be in the end.
But of course they dont. Their polling might be marginally better than public polling, but ultimately this is a close race and one would expect her to treat it like a race she could very well lose, even if her polling doesn't suggest that she's losing or even all that likely to lose.
She might lose, and Mark will look like a genius, as pessimists always do when things go poorly.
Releasing the records sounds like it's pretty standard, especially for the candidates who went against Trump. The Fox appearance, I'm not sold on, but one election twitter figure I follow mentioned that such a move is done from a position of strength with the base and an intent to expand the scope of her message. So it may very well indicate that she's holding up strong.
I do agree that Obama's recent comments don't covey any confidence.
I think it's a sign of strength(shocking that I think Mark is wrong; we shall see soon enough)
The Fox appearance to me exudes confidence, Obama’s comments the precise opposite. Do something for both the optimists and the pessimists, there.
Medical records stuff is so utterly small ball that it’s not even worth analyzing.
I highly doubt that. Obama is a very effective communicator and campaigner. Months before this the Harris campaign was already utilizing Obama on online YouTube ads for fundraising. He's very effective in mobilizing and convincing people. Heck he convinced me to donate to the Harris campaign so there's that. At worst she's just hedging her bets, which I expect any competent campaign to do.
It's called, 'touching all the bases'
I think you have to be looking for signs of doom in order to interpret either of those actions as anything other than normal campaign moves in a competitive race. I would expect those from her in pretty much any circumstances, even if she had data showing Utah was a swing state.
Obama was always going to campaign for Harris. He’s the most popular living former president, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Harris team had data showing he would be most effective with black men. There may be data showing she has a problem with that segment of the vote, but that does not imply she thinks she is losing.
And isn’t it customary to release health records? When your opponent is the oldest presidential candidate in history, showing pretty obvious signs of mental decline, is borderline obese with a horrible diet and refuses to release his medical records it would be political negligence not to try to make it an issue.
With respect to those struggling with their weight, ain't nothing borderline about it. I do think Democrats could have made a few more attacks on Trump's age and health, given that Republicans had managed to weaponize that so thoroughly against Biden.
If Democrats were given the same leeway as Republicans, that would be true. Unfortunately we are not, not to mention they can throw "you guys nominated old Biden" back in our faces. Yes, Biden left the race and Harris took over, but he was chosen by Democratic Party voters. She was not.
We aren't given the same leeway, but perhaps we can try and take it every now and then. The Republicans and the media established clearly that "old and feeble" is bad. Trump is old, and his many insane rants can be presented in a way that speaks to dementia, rather than just megalomania (since many voters generally don't seem to have a problem with megalomania).
Shouldn't campaigns do everything they can to win, every time, and not just when they're behind?
I don't think we can gleam anything from that one way or the other.
A well run campaign should seek to improve where they think they can, even if they believe they are on the path to an easy victory. If the actions come with large risks, or are preternaturally safe, then we can maybe use that as insight into the state of the race from the campaign's view. More so the former than the latter.
In this case neither strikes me as meaningfully risky. The risks are primarily opportunity cost: maybe that time could be better spent elsewhere.
That's not to say that everything is necessarily honky dory. I don't know either way. Just my take that these actions do not inform us that things are bad or trending bad.