Trump On Lex Fridman... Just Dropped

[Frankfooter]

I did read it.
That's not the question I said they didn't poll.

They said it would result in a 6% increase in votes.
But they didn't ask that.
They asked if it would make you "more or less likely to vote for her".

Not, "would you vote for her".

It's a very interesting omission.

I can't see why they wouldn't straight up ask the question instead.
Either as a follow up question with undecideds or just as a general question for everyone to see if a policy change would make them switch their vote.

If that was the information they wanted, they should have asked for it.
It's just bad poll design, especially since the poll is clearly partially intended to prove that a policy switch would have a measurable effect.

They asked the same of rump and the it made about a 1% difference to voters. You've also argued that voters are very rarely single issue based. So to try to turn the poll into a poll that found single issue voters wouldn't really be that useful. Its way more to useful to check on what policy changes might move voters, student loans, immigration and finally, Palestine.

They think if Harris demands a ceasefire she can get a 6% boost in votes.
Now you just need to get that message to her, knowing how tight the race is.

Or would you rather she lose to rump and stand with the genocide?

 

[Valcazar]

They asked the same of rump and the it made about a 1% difference to voters. You've also argued that voters are very rarely single issue based. So to try to turn the poll into a poll that found single issue voters wouldn't really be that useful. Its way more to useful to check on what policy changes might move voters, student loans, immigration and finally, Palestine.

But that isn't what the punch line you are claiming is.
I completely agree that asking a bunch of "if they did this would it make it more or less likely" makes sense. Especially for long term comparisons.
But you highlighted their conclusion that it WOULD move it 6%.
They didn't ask that.
They are inferring that.

It might even be a good inference.

I still think asking the actual question would be better if they wanted to claim a specific movement.

They think if Harris demands a ceasefire she can get a 6% boost in votes.
Now you just need to get that message to her, knowing how tight the race is.

Or would you rather she lose to rump and stand with the genocide?

That's what I'm saying.
They have completely undercut their message by NOT asking that question.

The goal is "if you do this ONE POLICY CHANGE you get 6% more of the vote!"

That's a HUGE number!
You want to make that case as strong as possible, and they fucked it up by not asking the actual question and instead just saying that if you dig into the cross tabs and make some choices we think that's what will happen.

 

[Frankfooter]

But that isn't what the punch line you are claiming is.
I completely agree that asking a bunch of "if they did this would it make it more or less likely" makes sense. Especially for long term comparisons.
But you highlighted their conclusion that it WOULD move it 6%.
They didn't ask that.
They are inferring that.

It might even be a good inference.

I still think asking the actual question would be better if they wanted to claim a specific movement.

Maybe, but its also just as likely that it would only identify single issue voters.
They asked a series of questions of both rump and Harris supporters and came up with this 6% as an amalgamation of those questions and answers.

That's what I'm saying.
They have completely undercut their message by NOT asking that question.

The goal is "if you do this ONE POLICY CHANGE you get 6% more of the vote!"

That's a HUGE number!
You want to make that case as strong as possible, and they fucked it up by not asking the actual question and instead just saying that if you dig into the cross tabs and make some choices we think that's what will happen.

Possibly, but this could be more realistic.
Yes, 6% is a huge number but what do you expect, genocide is a pretty massive issue.
I know you don't care, but a lot of people don't want to vote for a government that is clearly aiding genocide.

This is with the MSM giving Palestine less coverage that rump's senility as well.
The numbers with the youth and minority voters should be making both parties want to walk away from AIPAC.

The question is will Harris hear this information, would should she change or will she lose the election over support of genocide?

 

[wigglee]

Trump only does interviews with buttlickers like Hannity who allow him to lie unchallenged and try to help him when he sticks his foot in his mouth. He doesn't answer questions, he just babbles nonsense and lies

 

[Frankfooter]

Trump only does interviews with buttlickers like Hannity who allow him to lie unchallenged and try to help him when he sticks his foot in his mouth. He doesn't answer questions, he just babbles nonsense and lies

I may have to watch the debate tomorrow night, will it be as dramatic as the one that ended Biden?

 

[richaceg]

That wasn't a "hardball" interview.
The political press is a joke.
That was mostly gossip questions and re-framed GOP talking points.

Wyatt keeps asking for a "probing" interview about policy but no one from the Press wants to do that.

Policy interviews are hard and require you doing homework.
They also mean you don't get a viral moment that will generate clicks and eyeballs.
The press just has no incentive to do that kind of interview these days. (Sadly.)

Harris did perfectly well in the Bash interview, but it isn't like there was anything newsworthy in there.

But you can tell the difference between the Bash-Harris interview vs. Bash-Vance interview...heck you can compare that to Trump-NABJ interview as well...

 

[silentkisser]

What was this video supposed to be about? It says it is not available in Canada....Is it Russian??? lol

 

[silentkisser]

I think Canadians here seem to confuse their system of government with the unique American system. You have a bias that a U.S. President (particularly a Democrat) has a mandate to govern. It's not only too simplistic, it's just wrong.

The Congress has an equally important mandate. The architects of our Constitution didn't want to have a powerful President. The power of the American Presidency has grown through expansion of the administrative state and the military over the last two and half centuries.

The Canadian system features unified governance by virtue of Parliament selecting the Prime Minister. There's no inherent conflict. If any conflict is not acceptable to Parliament, they can replace the Prime Minister.

As far as the Republicans not being bipartisan for 25 or so years, this incidentally coincides with Republicans routinely winning the House. Between 1955-1994, the Democrats controlled the House uninterrupted. During those years, the Democrats chairing the House Ways & Mean committee which controls budgets were considered the second most important politician in Washington. I haven't heard that position described that way in decades.

Our Constitution actually grants appropriations authority to Congress with the President only having approval. You wouldn't know that by watching some Presidential administrations.

You are right for the most part. But here's the thing. During the period of Democrats holding the house, they routinely did bipartisan bills. When Newt Gingrich took power as speaker, that changed. It became significantly more confrontational, more of a zero sum game (where I win if you lose). That did not really help the United States. There are numerous reasons for this, but in the 30 years since 1994, the GOP has stripped norms every year.

Generally, I like to think the more details you offer to the public the more of a "mandate" you have. Of course, being true to that agenda is important. There is nothing wrong with running on "values" but this tends to come at the detriment of policy discussions.



Bernie Sanders is routinely the most progressive Senator. Based on her votes, Kamala Harris was ranked a close second in the Senate by even progressive organizations.

Again, I don't disagree with what you're saying. I think Harris needs to do more interviews. But, she's campaigning, while Donny isn't. He's basically sent Vance to be the mouthpiece....which is odd, because he likability numbers continue to slip. But, I think in the coming weeks, especially after tomorrow, she'll do more media stuff. As for her progressive record, I know that sounds like pure evil from the righties here, but I honestly don't see anything too crazy with her past voting history.

Liberals define legislative success based on the number of bills with typically a corresponding increase in the role of the government. Conservatives have a different perspective. To just put this in context, I'm guessing the government in Beijing passes a lot of bills.

That's a weird analogy. Let's face facts: they are in the house to debate and pass legislation. The GOP led house could barely pass a bill to keep the government operating. It really had nothing to do with increasing the size of government. In fact, they could have passed bills to address this. Instead, they tried to impeach the head of Homeland, booted their speaker and held useless impeachment hearings on Biden which was about as impressive as a fart in church. They didn't really do anything to help business or the middle class. they didn't address issues or work on fixing problems. The GOP was like monkeys at the zoo, throwing shit at everyone. Go back a couple of years, and the Democrats passed the infrastrucutre bill, the CHIPS act and several important pieces of legislation that is helping millions of Americans...

I think we can all see how the government can help poor people but I don't believe the middle class automatically thrives under progressive governance. The answer to that might lie within why Canada has fallen far behind the U.S. in the last twenty years.

By the way, I agree tariffs hurt consumers but it is also overly-simplistic headline commentary driven by the media. The tariffs likely won't help the trade deficit. However, they can protect industries like electric vehicles from unfair competition. It will also accelerate companies moving production out of China to other friendlier countries.

I don't think tariffs on China are a big, negative deal in the scheme of things. No offense, but you like a lot of other posters seem to fall sway to the power of a headline.

I agree, the middle class does not automatically thrive under Democrat or Liberals. But, they did better under Biden than Trump. Again, his tax cuts really helped the 1% and in many cases, raised taxes on the middle class.

As for tariffs, depending on how they are used, they can be beneficial to domestic industries. I have no problem with the tariffs on EVs from China. Will companies move manufacturing because of them? That is certainly debatable. Many companies have stopped investing in China for many reasons (human rights issues with factories, the regulatory system and the potential for nationalization of industries are but a few), but that really has nothing to do with tariffs.

It would be interesting to hear Trump articulate what exactly he would target with his tariffs, because it sounds like EVERYTHING from China would get one...which would start a trade dispute....

 

[WyattEarp]

What was this video supposed to be about? It says it is not available in Canada....Is it Russian??? lol

It's just Joe Biden as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee saying he wouldn't let George Bush Senior appoint a Supreme Court Justice during an election year.

It's also CBS News reporting this in 2016 because we know how much even straight reporting from Fox News bothers you.

 

[Valcazar]

Maybe, but its also just as likely that it would only identify single issue voters.

They were trying to identify single issue voters, though.
At least according to the press release.

They make specific claims:

If Vice-President Harris were to demand an immediate ceasefire that would allow unimpeded aid into Gaza,
such a move would be strongly supported by her voters while being opposed by only a scant number. A
detailed view of the cross-tabulations shows significant gain and very little risk for Harris by taking this stand -
including very positive outcomes and few negatives among most key groups, including a plurality of Jewish
voters. It would also win her the support of a plurality of those voters who are currently supporting third
party candidates or who remain undecided.

Overall, if Harris where to take this stand, her vote tally would increase from 44% to 50%.

The same results hold true if Harris were to suspend arms shipments and withhold diplomatic support for
Israel until there was a ceasefire and withdrawal of forces from Gaza. Such a stand would also increase her
support from 44% to 49%

Those are definitive statements with specific results.

They are claiming, straight up, that all Harris has to do to get a 6% increase in the vote is "demand an immediate ceasefire that would allow unimpeded aid into Gaza".

NOT EVEN SUCCEED! JUST DEMAND!

You can understand why I am skeptical of this claim, right?

Especially since they also claim that she would only get a 5% increase if she were to "suspend arms shipments and withhold diplomatic support for
Israel until there was a ceasefire and withdrawal of forces from Gaza".

In other words, the more concrete action would be less beneficial.

Now, maybe that's a sign of how honest these results are! Concrete action causes more backlash, while vague statements of intent are more welcome by everybody.
I don't know.

But again, it is all based on "people say they would be more likely to support her if she did this, but we never asked if it would actually make them vote for her". Nonetheless, they are claiming exact and dramatic percentage increases in vote share.

They may have a good methodology to claim that! I don't know the organization and they don't explain their methodology in the paper.
But it really irks me that they want to make a specific claim and that specific claim is something they made sure not to ask. (And don't explain why they didn't ask it or how they got to the numbers they got.)

They asked a series of questions of both rump and Harris supporters and came up with this 6% as an amalgamation of those questions and answers.

Without explaining how.
Which, again, they may have very good math behind.
But they didn't bother to show their work.

Possibly, but this could be more realistic.
Yes, 6% is a huge number but what do you expect, genocide is a pretty massive issue.

Do you know any other issue anyone is claiming that kind of percentage shift for?
I can't think of ONE.

If the strategy of releasing this is flat out "LOOK, this one issue will WIN YOU THE ELECTION" why wouldn't you make your case as convincing as possible?

 

[Valcazar]

I may have to watch the debate tomorrow night, will it be as dramatic as the one that ended Biden?

Very unlikely.

 

[Valcazar]

But you can tell the difference between the Bash-Harris interview vs. Bash-Vance interview...heck you can compare that to Trump-NABJ interview as well...

From the clips I've seen, Harris handled it better than Vance, but the two interviews don't seem that different in terms of Bash being unimpressive and asking dumb gossipy shit.

 

[Valcazar]

It's just Joe Biden as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee saying he wouldn't let George Bush Senior appoint a Supreme Court Justice during an election year.

Care to find a copy of it that is available in Canada?
Because I'm pretty sure that's not what he said.

It's also CBS News reporting this in 2016 because we know how much even straight reporting from Fox News bothers you.

CBS getting it wrong wouldn't shock me.

 

[WyattEarp]

Care to find a copy of it that is available in Canada?
Because I'm pretty sure that's not what he said.



CBS getting it wrong wouldn't shock me.

 

[Valcazar]

Found the actual CBS one and this SHOULD play for Canadians.

Joe Biden once took GOP's position on Supreme Court vacancy

A 1992 floor speech shows him saying Bush shouldn't replace a Supreme Court justice in case of a vacancy, though he did not rule out supporting a Bush nominee

www.cbsnews.com

So I was right, CBS got it wrong.
BUT, in their defense, this was Feb 22 and right after the video got unearthed.
So it makes a lot of sense that they were reporting it the way they were.

 

[WyattEarp]

Found the actual CBS one and this SHOULD play for Canadians.

Joe Biden once took GOP's position on Supreme Court vacancy

A 1992 floor speech shows him saying Bush shouldn't replace a Supreme Court justice in case of a vacancy, though he did not rule out supporting a Bush nominee

www.cbsnews.com

So I was right, CBS got it wrong.
BUT, in their defense, this was Feb 22 and right after the video got unearthed.
So it makes a lot of sense that they were reporting it the way they were.

It's up for interpretation. He's not saying what he would do other then he believes in delaying an appointment until after a Presidential election. One would think losing re-election would change the dynamic.

Believe me, I've heard from many of my liberal friends that the Senate Republicans should have confirmed Merrick Garland in 2016. There's only one big problem. The Senate is not obligated to confirm appointments.

It's not necessarily a great precedence. The first time we have an appointment when Senate control is in the hands of a different party than the President it could become extremely contentious.

 

[Valcazar]

It's up for interpretation. He's not saying what he would do other then he believes in delaying an appointment until after a Presidential election. One would think losing re-election would change the dynamic.

And that it is a summer issue.

But especially when the CBS report came out (which was before Obama had named anyone) I think the reporting as "Biden suggested the same thing" is valid.
(Even if I think Biden could have countered.)

The difference is that he didn't say " he wouldn't let George Bush Senior appoint a Supreme Court Justice during an election year. ".
That's just false.

You may want to think he would have said that if a vacancy opened up and real stakes were on the table and who knows how it would have played out, but he didn't say that.

To be fair, at the time of the CBS report, I don't think McConnell had said he wouldn't even allow any nominee to be brought to a vote. (The report does say he had vowed to block any nominee, though, so that might just be splitting a difference.)

Believe me, I've heard from many of my liberal friends that the Senate Republicans should have confirmed Merrick Garland in 2016. There's only one big problem. The Senate is not obligated to confirm appointments.

They are not.
It was a norm to have a more bipartisan approach and one that eroded and McConnell took full advantage of the power he had to control the Supreme Court.

The sheer stupidity of the process currently used is one of the reasons Supreme Court reform is needed.

It's not necessarily a great precedence. The first time we have an appointment when Senate control is in the hands of a different party than the President it could become extremely contentious.

That already happened.
McConnell blocked any vote.

I doubt there is anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton would have been allowed to seat anyone on the Supreme Court if the Republicans still controlled the senate.

I strongly suspect there will never be a justice seated when an opposite party controls the Senate again until there is court reform.

 

[Frankfooter]

They were trying to identify single issue voters, though.
At least according to the press release.

They make specific claims:



Those are definitive statements with specific results.

They are claiming, straight up, that all Harris has to do to get a 6% increase in the vote is "demand an immediate ceasefire that would allow unimpeded aid into Gaza".

NOT EVEN SUCCEED! JUST DEMAND!

You can understand why I am skeptical of this claim, right?

Especially since they also claim that she would only get a 5% increase if she were to "suspend arms shipments and withhold diplomatic support for
Israel until there was a ceasefire and withdrawal of forces from Gaza".

In other words, the more concrete action would be less beneficial.

Now, maybe that's a sign of how honest these results are! Concrete action causes more backlash, while vague statements of intent are more welcome by everybody.
I don't know.

But again, it is all based on "people say they would be more likely to support her if she did this, but we never asked if it would actually make them vote for her". Nonetheless, they are claiming exact and dramatic percentage increases in vote share.

They may have a good methodology to claim that! I don't know the organization and they don't explain their methodology in the paper.
But it really irks me that they want to make a specific claim and that specific claim is something they made sure not to ask. (And don't explain why they didn't ask it or how they got to the numbers they got.)



Without explaining how.
Which, again, they may have very good math behind.
But they didn't bother to show their work.



Do you know any other issue anyone is claiming that kind of percentage shift for?
I can't think of ONE.

If the strategy of releasing this is flat out "LOOK, this one issue will WIN YOU THE ELECTION" why wouldn't you make your case as convincing as possible?

Nobody else will commission a poll on this subject, or at least a public poll.
I get that the results bother you, but really, given the polls for support of a ceasefire and ending arms in general by dems, are you really that surprised?
If 71% of dems back a ceasefire, you don't think backing a ceasefire will increase her odds?

Its already at the point where Harris can't do town hall meetings because of the protests.
How many people do you think see this:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833219009937838485

 

[Frankfooter]

Very unlikely.

I'm not sure, Harris will have studied the Clinton and Biden debates.
I would expect she can get under rump's skin.

 

[richaceg]

From the clips I've seen, Harris handled it better than Vance, but the two interviews don't seem that different in terms of Bash being unimpressive and asking dumb gossipy shit.

That's the thing, Bash was aggressive with Vance, She wasn't with Kamala...very tame...It's no secret CNN leans democrat but at least do it low key...of course Harris handled it better...she was treated with kid gloves.