Trump and his allies had a plan for how to hit Harris. Then he opened his mouth.
“They don’t have a narrative that they’re comfortable with about how to take down Harris,” said Chuck Coughlin, an Arizona-based political strategist. “He’s grasping around. I think he’s desperately grasping around with his instincts. I don’t think his team has any way to put their handle on this, and so he’s instinctually grasping around for what to say.”
The Trump machine had in recent days begun a multi-million-dollar TV advertising blitz hammering Harris for her record on the border, an issue the former president’s campaign sees as a winner — and portraying her as ideologically out of the mainstream. One ad from a pro-Trump group labeled the vice president a “dangerous San Francisco liberal.”
Harris had even begun defending herself from the attacks, hitting back Tuesday night in Atlanta about her border record, and simultaneously releasing a nearly minute-long video framing her as pro-border security.
But Trump’s comments Wednesday on Harris’ racial background drew some of the biggest gasps from the audience, and provided Democrats with ammunition. During the appearance, Trump said Harris “happen[ed] to turn Black … She was Indian all the way and all of a sudden she made a turn and she became a Black woman.”
Oh god, he doesn't know that Kamala Harris isn't Nikki Haley, does he?
He didn't know the difference between Nancy Pelosi and Nikki Haley.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-confuses-nikki-haley-pelosi-talking-jan-6-rcna134863
Oh my G-d, I didn't even think of this. This makes so much sense. What an absolute buffoon.
You spelled dementia-riddled-narcissist-sociopath wrong.
Kamala Haley is a dangerous radical liberal! Everybody says so!
“Why didn’t Kamala Pelosi stop January 6th from happening? She was in charge of security that day, I’ll never forgive her for that.”
He might not, but questioning his opponents race is a pretty standard tactic of his.
Or Elisabeth Warren...
He said Indian, not Native American.
I guarantee Trump hears the i-word slur when someone says Indian to him.
Dude admits that it's what they all are thinking, he's just aware enough to know that it doesn't sound good and won't say that shit in public. Coward.
It sounds like hes saying he's not doing it on the air, but he still believes that nonsense.
Notice he called the attacks "stupid," not racist.
Hes saying it's bad politics, not that he disagrees.
“No plan survives contact with the enemy” - Paraphrasing Helmuth von Moltke
"Covfefe" - Donald J. Trump
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." - Pogo
"When the enemy does something unexpected, they owe you for the resources you wasted chasing the wrong strategy." - Sun Tzu, The Art of Being an Upwards Failing Fuckup
His performance may have drawn some gasps from the audience, but I doubt it had the same effect on his fan base. He was not there to speak to the US as a whole; he was there to speak to his die hard supporters - those who actually enjoy his racist, sexist, hateful remarks and voted for him in 2016 because of them; the same people who were willing to stage a coup in his favour in 2021, after four years of ignorance, pettiness and hatred.
His strategy against Biden was winning because it gathered him bipartisan support - even Democrats were dubious about Biden being able to do a good job - but now that that's out of the question, Trump has fallen back to his usual script, because it's too late to do anything else. After all, questioning Obama's birth and throwing sexist remarks against Clinton won him an election; why wouldn't it work again? Just stick to the fanbase that won you an election once and almost won you another the second time, and hope for the best.
People always talk about how he is doing things to please his fan base. Maybe. But they are at most 30% of the country and he needs more than that to win.
This is not going to help him with people who are not in his fan base.
I’d love to agree but gerrymandering, along with other dubious anti-democratic policies, means that Republicans have a gross advantage. This presidential election will probably be as close as the last.
Gerrymandering has nothing to do with a presidential election. It doesn't even help with senatorial elections.
Sure, but the Electoral College affords Republicans the same advantage in Presidential races.
If that were true, Biden wouldn't be president. Nor would Obama have.
I said they have an advantage. Not an insurmountable one.
It's not for nothing that the Republicans have only won the popular vote in the presidential election once in the last 25 years, and yet we've had three Republican presidential terms.
But one of those times was due to a SCOTUS decision over Florida ballots. Gore would have won even with the electoral college if that bogus decision hadn't been made. So you need to discount the 2000 election in that list if you're talking about an EC advantage. Really, you can only go with Trump in 2016 at that point.
Even with the vote count the SC ratified, Bush still didn't win the popular vote in 2000.
It still wasn't an EC issue that got him elected.
It was, though. Just one that was exacerbated by the Supreme Court.
The Electoral College is the reason the Supreme Court even mattered in that election. If it wasn't for them, the vote count in Florida would not have been instrumental to the final decision. Gore's lead would have been too great for it to matter.
The last two Republican presidents both lost the popular vote but still became president anyway.
https://www.history.com/news/presidents-electoral-college-popular-vote
Hell, one of those two didn't even win the fuckin electoral college and still became president.
Anyone remember how sleepy we all felt that day? Or maybe there was something really good to watch on TV or something. Idk, I'd just turned 10 so I couldn't even vote
That wasn't their point. Go back and reread the whole thing. They're just saying the popular vote is meaningless and that Republicans have multiple political advantages that favor them
Oh, no, it's having quite an effect on the fanbase. Mostly, they recognize what a losing strategy it is, even if they agree with it.
Just take a look at the old conservative stallwart site, Free Republic: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/4255438/posts
There's a few people weakly defending it, but there's a general tenor of "oh shit, we fucked up".
Amusingly, there's a few people saying they should try winning on policy, not race. This after the Heritage Foundation put out a 900+ page PDF with their dream policies, and Americans were horrified by it. Guys, if you could win on policy, you wouldn't have ever needed Trump.
Dementia Don flounders when the unexpected comes along. He's a bad leader. A good leader knows how to manage the unexpected (like a change in a presidential campaign) and take appropriate action (stick to the issues and avoid the racist card). Not Old Sleepy Don! It's just like when the global pandemic came around. The horrible leader didn't rely on experts for help and made up things that got people killed. His narcissism prevents him from getting advice better than his own poor knowledge base. He lost in 2020 and he still stinks. He'll lose in 2024 if people get out and vote. Vote blue not pee-yew!
Such a weirdo
He said that because Vivek sold out to the WASPs so completely that he figured Kamalas “indian half” should have as well. He thinks that because he was raised a Presbyterian. A racist one too. He’s a fucking idiot, what can you expect?
Vote, idiots.
That headline is priceless.
He actually likes the taste of foot i guess
::: spoiler Politico Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
:::
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.
::: spoiler Footer
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community. :::
How are there two "pro border security" people up for election? Is there no meaningful opposition to that position?
I think Harris is trying to capture a group of Americans that hardlines on immigration, unfortunately some of what she'll concede on during this election cycle will likely alienate progressives in favor of tempting the opposition. It's strategically valuable because progressives will still vote for her, but maybe a few conservative voters will be swayed.
Imo it's more important to pay attention to how she's voted, how she acts, and whether she will change her mind when presented with important information. In that way she's by far our most trustworthy candidate even on issues like this one.
The bigots who buy the "migrant crime" narrative were always gonna vote Trump. Being the lesser evil holds no appeal to them. But the party covets votes it will never get and will throw marginalized people under as many buses as necessary in hopeless pursuit of the vote of the fictional "good" bigot.
Here's the dumbest part, the only problem with the American/Mexican border is that the U.S. is too slow at processing migrants and getting them into the country. The far-right has invented a narrative of a migrant crime wave requiring harsh restrictions at the border, the public bought the lie, and now Democrats are trying to pass legislation based on the lie to appeal to the public.
All they gotta do is remind everybody how many non violent drug offenders she sent to the living hell that is the CDCR. I despise Harris for that because I have been incarcerated for non violent drug offenses and I despise anybody who could possibly live with themselves after doing that to anybody. I'm not voting for Trump either mind you.
While I respect that this is an emotional issue for you, I want to remind you that an AG has a duty to enforce the law as it is. Harris did not choose to make non-violent drug offences a crime. There are laws, and sometimes those laws are bad, but an AG is not a king who can simply strike down any laws they disagree with.
The AG can choose not to enforce the law or give lax sentences and plea deals.
You gotta do something sometimes to keep up appearances, but you definitely don't have to go full throttle either.
And that's exactly what she did. She frequently pushed for diversion instead of incarceration, declined to seek the death penalty even in the case of a cop killer, and created a program to give young offenders job training instead of jail time (including clearing their criminal records so they could seek jobs without being marked as felons).
Her record isn't perfect. No one's is. You're never going to get to vote for an angel. But as former prosecutors go, she basically did all the things you're asking for.
I actually know nothing about her, I was just replying to your reply basically saying she had to enforce the law to the person saying she went too far.
If she did what I said as much as she could then that's great
Guy who knows nothing about Kamala Harris accuses her of going "full-throttle" against non-violent offenders...
Propaganda is a hell of a thing. Makes people say stupid shit they don't know anything about.
The first person did. Then the 2nd guy replied she had to.
Edit: The 2nd person could have said she actually did do what she could and what I said in their initial reply, but didn't. They just said she had to which isn't (and supposedly wasnt) true
Edit: and my reply to be clear was what I DID know about. The AG does not need to enforce the law on every person. They have discretion and can influence to some extent other DA's and the police.
Just so you know, the AG doesn't have the liberty to just not enforce the law. She really didn't have a choice here, the law wasn't justified, but her job was to uphold the law. If someone committed a nonviolent drug offense, and the DA in that jurisdiction wanted to prosecute, she didn't have the power to stop it just because she disagrees with the law. That would be impeachable.
What decisions her job did allow her to make were more progressive than any of her predecessors or peers. For an AG, she was actually a damn good example. She wasn't perfect, and she was part of a deeply flawed system, but she wasn't a villain. She was fighting a war on drugs or demanding military-like powers for police forces like some AGs do...
She has been outspoken about drug decriminalization and legalization, and prison reform, and lighter sentencing, and rehabilitation, and harm reduction, and police reform, and pretty much everything that needs to happen to meaningfully improve the world the way you want it to improve.
As a senator, her voting record was closer to Bernie Sanders' record than any other Senator. She endorses strong social safety nets, and universal healthcare.
But go ahead and sit out the vote because someone online told you "ACAB includes Kamala Harris because she called herself a cop while AG". If Trump wins you don't need need to worry about voting again anyway, he'll have it all fixed.
You are absolutely correct but unfortunately this is the best we can do. She's inarguably better than Trump and Biden
Correct about what? Show me even one receipt of her endorsing harsh penalties for nonviolent offenders.
Bullcrap. Can't do the time, don't do the crime. I knew the risks and I don't blame anyone else for the time I did when I got busted. I agree the laws are wrong but it is delusional to blame anyone other than yourself when you knew what the risks and penalties were.
Don't downvote this guy just because he has an opinion contrary to the rest of the thread, okay?
Maybe try not committing crimes? 🤷🏽♂️
Fuck you. If I want to non violently enjoy the fruits of life. I will.
Don’t get mad that crimes have consequences. You knew the risks. I don’t agree that non violent drug crimes should have jail time but that is the law. If you don’t want the time, don’t do the crime as the saying goes.
To be fair though, you knew the consequences of doing drugs. Blaming someone for you getting in trouble for something you knew was illegal is pretty weak.
Now, is the law shit, yes. Does it need changed yes.