Get ready Kamala fans...this is just the beginning

[Valcazar]

Looks like Biden is speaking Monday night at the convention. That should be interesting.

The line-up is basically the Democrat's greatest hits..........along with Biden there's Hillary, Obama and Bill.

I think the first night is usually "greatest hits from past stars", isn't it?

EDIT - I just looked at the 2020 schedule. They spaced out the big names from the past over the first three nights last time, so I seem to be wrong.
This just seems like they are taking a different approach in how they are grouping the speakers.

 

[Valcazar]

This is kind of funny and sad. Colbert is dead serious when he says CNN is objective and just reports the news as it is. The audience thinks he's joking.

All you have to do is watch the first 1:30 minutes. Colbert seems surprised by the audience reaction. Obviously, the audience had their own ideas about CNN. And Colbert is clueless.

I think you're being misled by the edit here.

Any edit like that should make you suspect, since he was clearly cut off mid-sentence, so I went and watched the interview clip.

The "CNN is objective" is just boiler plate "don't attack the guest" patter to get to the real question, which was about how despite the official "objectivity" they still have their own feelings and their own bets about what happens and did they anticipate Biden dropping out.

It's throat clearing and signalling it is safe to answer the question he is asking about the behind the scenes thoughts and that he won't use any admission there as an attack on their purported objectivity.

Yes, he didn't think it would result in a laugh line from the audience, but "he's clueless" doesn't seem to track, really.

 

[WyattEarp]

I think you're being misled by the edit here.

Any edit like that should make you suspect, since he was clearly cut off mid-sentence, so I went and watched the interview clip.

The "CNN is objective" is just boiler plate "don't attack the guest" patter to get to the real question, which was about how despite the official "objectivity" they still have their own feelings and their own bets about what happens and did they anticipate Biden dropping out.

It's throat clearing and signalling it is safe to answer the question he is asking about the behind the scenes thoughts and that he won't use any admission there as an attack on their purported objectivity.

Yes, he didn't think it would result in a laugh line from the audience, but "he's clueless" doesn't seem to track, really.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. The video clip of Colbert with the CNN host speaks for itself. The audience's spontaneous and unintended reaction created an awkward moment. One is free to disagree with the Breaking Point hosts take on things.

When someone tells me there is video evidence of something else happening, I'm like "okay where is it?".

 

[silentkisser]

I think you're being misled by the edit here.

Any edit like that should make you suspect, since he was clearly cut off mid-sentence, so I went and watched the interview clip.

The "CNN is objective" is just boiler plate "don't attack the guest" patter to get to the real question, which was about how despite the official "objectivity" they still have their own feelings and their own bets about what happens and did they anticipate Biden dropping out.

It's throat clearing and signalling it is safe to answer the question he is asking about the behind the scenes thoughts and that he won't use any admission there as an attack on their purported objectivity.

Yes, he didn't think it would result in a laugh line from the audience, but "he's clueless" doesn't seem to track, really.

Oddly enough Ben Shapiro wrote an op-ed about this in the Sun today. He says the "legacy" media is just stenographers for Harris and the Dems. I find it very rich that he would say something like that, considering all he really ever does is ignore or spin shit when Trump says anything dumb or bad.

One thing to recognize is the right-wing slams the MSM if they don't cover a story they're all hot and bothered about. It's a red herring, its designed to shame them into reporting on a non-story so they don't get attacked for some sort of non-existent bias.

Anyways, I will say that CNN is a hell of a lot less biased compared to Fox....even Fox's hard news side, which is a shadow of its former self with the news it chooses to cover, and how they report on it. The opinion side was always a fever swamp of right-wing grievances and outrage farming...

 

[Valcazar]

From everything I've seen, it's a close race. Do we really have 82 more days of this poll cheering and bashing?

Here's a tip. Kamala's poll numbers will go up a bit after next week's convention. Yeahhh! Of course, that's a staged and scripted event that is executed by both parties. Then her numbers will subside back over September and October. If Kamala doesn't do press conferences and articulate her policies, it could work against her. It's not for sure that she will avoid questions/policies nor is it for sure voters will react negatively if that is her strategy.

The debate could trigger a move but barring that, pollsters will try to measure granular moves and then try to take microscopic views of battleground states.

Obsessive poll watching isn't useful.

As for the closeness of the race, there are two theories about what's going on with the numbers.

Theory 1 ) This is the bump you would expect from the race changing and some big media events. Like you say, there will be a bump from the convention and then this will all settle down to the mean.
The equilbrium may have shifted some (that's always the hope for a campaign) but it is more like a 3-4 point bump from a convention or a debate that then regresses to the mean and results in a 1 point shift.

Theory 2) This is a case of momentum breaking through to a new equilibrium and will only escalate.

I am in theory 1, personally. I think most people are. But there are clearly some theory 2 people floating around the internet.

 

[Valcazar]

That law would be struck down as unconstitutional in a heartbeat. This is simply fear mongering.

I've always loved this argument.

"Yes, they want to do this horrible thing! But vote them in anyway, something else will stop them!"

 

[Valcazar]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. The video clip of Colbert with the CNN host speaks for itself. The audience's spontaneous and unintended reaction created an awkward moment. One is free to disagree with the Breaking Point hosts take on things.

I didn't say it wasn't an awkward moment.
I am disagreeing with your interpretation of what happened.
This isn't evidence that Colbert believes they are objective and was shocked that his audience doesn't but is clueless.

This is Colbert not expecting that to be a laugh line.

But the question was about how despite the position of CNN as objective, they all have their own views about what's really going on and what did they really think.
That's not the question of someone who is clueless about how media news works.

When someone tells me there is video evidence of something else happening, I'm like "okay where is it?".

And yet you didn't just go look yourself.

 

[Valcazar]

Oddly enough Ben Shapiro wrote an op-ed about this in the Sun today. He says the "legacy" media is just stenographers for Harris and the Dems. I find it very rich that he would say something like that, considering all he really ever does is ignore or spin shit when Trump says anything dumb or bad.

Shapiro is a wildly partisan hack, though. (And possibly something of an idiot outside some very narrow things he is good at. Hard to say.)

Thinking the MSM are stenographers for the Democratic Party is so detached from reality it would be laughable.

In this case, though, I doubt it is delusion. It's just "working the refs".

One thing to recognize is the right-wing slams the MSM if they don't cover a story they're all hot and bothered about. It's a red herring, its designed to shame them into reporting on a non-story so they don't get attacked for some sort of non-existent bias.

Exactly.
Working the refs.

This is how they help keep the MSM knee-jerk reacting to bias accusations by being biased towards Republican messaging.

Anyways, I will say that CNN is a hell of a lot less biased compared to Fox....even Fox's hard news side, which is a shadow of its former self with the news it chooses to cover, and how they report on it. The opinion side was always a fever swamp of right-wing grievances and outrage farming...

CNN is far less biased, sure.
But it has lots of biases built in. Some are from the personalities involved, others are from financial incentives shaped by the nature of the business they are in.

 

[Frankfooter]

Obsessive poll watching isn't useful.

As for the closeness of the race, there are two theories about what's going on with the numbers.

Theory 1 ) This is the bump you would expect from the race changing and some big media events. Like you say, there will be a bump from the convention and then this will all settle down to the mean.
The equilbrium may have shifted some (that's always the hope for a campaign) but it is more like a 3-4 point bump from a convention or a debate that then regresses to the mean and results in a 1 point shift.

Theory 2) This is a case of momentum breaking through to a new equilibrium and will only escalate.

I am in theory 1, personally. I think most people are. But there are clearly some theory 2 people floating around the internet.

I'd argue theory 2) is occurring.

There is such a change in tone all around now, from the dems calling MAGA 'weird' to the way rump pulled out a bunch of groceries to read about inflation at his last presser. There is no obvious line of attack from MAGA as of yet with the Harris crowd's taking the one thing that rump could brag about.

Its early yet but there is also only less than 3 months to go.

 

[squeezer]

Kaitlan is hot. I am going to be having dreams of unbuttoning that dress with my teeth tonight dammit!

 

[Valcazar]

I'd argue theory 2) is occurring.

There is such a change in tone all around now, from the dems calling MAGA 'weird' to the way rump pulled out a bunch of groceries to read about inflation at his last presser. There is no obvious line of attack from MAGA as of yet with the Harris crowd's taking the one thing that rump could brag about.

Its early yet but there is also only less than 3 months to go.

Theory 2 isn't impossible.
I think it is less likely because the US electorate has been pretty thermostatic for a while.

We probably won't know until a couple of weeks after the DNC convention.

If they get the normal bounce that will just be part of the upward trajectory we have been seeing. The question then becomes does it level off and recede some.

Of course, they might get NO bounce, like the RNC did.
There are lots of people on the internet working very hard to make that happen. If they can get cops and protesters fighting in the streets a-la 1968, they will probably succeed.

We will only really know in retrospect.

 

[Valcazar]

Kaitlan is hot. I am going to be having dreams of unbuttoning that dress with my teeth tonight dammit!

She's pretty easy on the eyes.
No idea if she is any good as an actual reporter or anchor, though.

 

[WyattEarp]

Oddly enough Ben Shapiro wrote an op-ed about this in the Sun today. He says the "legacy" media is just stenographers for Harris and the Dems. I find it very rich that he would say something like that, considering all he really ever does is ignore or spin shit when Trump says anything dumb or bad.

What's odd is your trying to equate apples with broccoli. Ben Shapiro is a conservative political commentator. You don't listen to him for news reporting. Just like someone who follows Rachel Maddow doesn't expect her to objectively report the news.

The rest of the stuff you said about Fox News really depends on what hour you're watching. I can tell liberals here and in my personal circle get really aggravated when the news side of Fox News doesn't report the Biden Administration's in the most favorable light. It's a different tone on the same information.

They want to hear the economy is great. Inflation is not his fault. He wanted to cut an immigration deal this year. Etc. etc. etc.

 

[WyattEarp]

Obsessive poll watching isn't useful.

As for the closeness of the race, there are two theories about what's going on with the numbers.

Theory 1 ) This is the bump you would expect from the race changing and some big media events. Like you say, there will be a bump from the convention and then this will all settle down to the mean.
The equilbrium may have shifted some (that's always the hope for a campaign) but it is more like a 3-4 point bump from a convention or a debate that then regresses to the mean and results in a 1 point shift.

Theory 2) This is a case of momentum breaking through to a new equilibrium and will only escalate.

I am in theory 1, personally. I think most people are. But there are clearly some theory 2 people floating around the internet.

You deserve some credit for having tempered enthusiasm.

I also think we are in Theory 1. However, Kamala has a chance to breakthrough with the debate. Trump is showing signs of inflexibility in his approach. Some conservative commentators have said it's hard to get a 78 year-old to change. I agree. He needs to tighten it up and get focused.

The Trump campaign has brought back some previous campaign advisors. Perhaps one or two of them can be Trump whisperers.

Don Junior is a clown. He literally married Fox News and he's in an echo chamber. I'm also curious to know if a son and a rich, outspoken father can have blunt conversations.

 

[WyattEarp]

Kaitlan is hot. I am going to be having dreams of unbuttoning that dress with my teeth tonight dammit!

There is something about Kaitlan Collins. She's not movie actress hot, but she has a certain something. High cheekbones and a great smile go a long way.

 

[WyattEarp]

I've always loved this argument.

"Yes, they want to do this horrible thing! But vote them in anyway, something else will stop them!"

That's an oversimplification. The more you get down to district levels in states you have constituents with strong opinions that are distasteful nationally.

 

[Valcazar]

You deserve some credit for having tempered enthusiasm.

I also think we are in Theory 1. However, Kamala has a chance to breakthrough with the debate. Trump is showing signs of inflexibility in his approach. Some conservative commentators have said it's hard to get a 78 year-old to change. I agree. He needs to tighten it up and get focused.

I'm mostly in theory 1 because nothing seems to move Trump's core numbers.
The debate didn't do it, the assassination attempt didn't do it, the RNC didn't do it, Biden stepping down didn't do it.

All the movement is on the democratic side as people who were ambivalent move in or out of support.
(That's support numbers, not voting, because those don't line up the same.)

So I think some of that momentum is people who were mostly "fuck this rematch" getting excited.
A bunch of those are more generally "fuck this system" people though, and will drop back off.

That's my gut, and we end up back with a close, polarized electorate and an election that turns on a few votes in key places because it is so shittily designed.

The Trump campaign has brought back some previous campaign advisors. Perhaps one or two of them can be Trump whisperers.

Don Junior is a clown. He literally married Fox News and he's in an echo chamber. I'm also curious to know if a son and a rich, outspoken father can have blunt conversations.

I would be amazed if Don Jr and Don Sr can have blunt and honest conversations. It just doesn't seem in their nature.
I don't know who can serve that kind of role with Trump. I suspect people were able to do so in the past, but don't know about now.

 

[WyattEarp]

Thinking the MSM are stenographers for the Democratic Party is so detached from reality it would be laughable.

Are you saying the MSM also runs out to get the Democratic Party their lunch?

 

[Insidious Von]

Why did The King of Kings listen to his imbecile sons, JD Vance is dragging down his march to the White House. Now even Smol has denounced him!

When asked, Smol said he would piss on Vance's leg.

 

[Valcazar]

That's an oversimplification. The more you get down to district levels in states you have constituents with strong opinions that are distasteful nationally.

Sure, but the argument here isn't "It's a fringe position with little support".
It's "this will be unconstitutional".

So the pitch really is "Yeah, they want to do it and they can do it, but someone will stop them eventually."
It's not really a compelling counter argument to "Don't vote for these guys, they want to do this horrible thing."