Revenge for Rishi?
( 
)
Iād include the RNC which theyād all like a chance to redo Iām sure with maybe a different VP pick.
1 Like
Ignoring the weirdness of Trumpās speech and the overall ugliness of much of the content, it was the most professionally put together convention they have had for a long time. Probably since 2008 (2012 explored a Trumpy style approach that Romney dabled with but just never felt comfortable with)ā¦and itās now all for nothing.
If one of the major issues with voters is the border/illegal immigration, and Harris was in charge of this issue, and voters predominately think the border is a mess, how does the Democratic party deal with this?
1 Like
I think itās a major issue with the MAGA crowd, but not so much beyond. It would still be an issue, but more minor.
How would I deal with it? A few things:
-
Talk up Trumpās terrible record on the border.
-
Talk up the legislation the Dems tried to pass, which was blocked by Trump as he leaned on Republican leaders, in order to have a talking point and āwinā this issue. Thereās a serious point to be made here - one party wants to work and get things done, the other party wants to spoil and smear.
-
Talk about the funding needed for more agents and people to process asylum seekers. Talk about how Trump wants to hollow out funding for these things.
-
Paint a big picture of the greatness of America, and how immigrants have shaped and improved the country.
4 Likes
By having someone who will be able to argue that the attacks are baseless and the Republicans dont want to do anything to address the challenges
4 Likes
Just point to the extremes that the republican party have stumped for, and try and be the reasonable party in how to address issue.
Was Harris in control of boarder? VPs donāt usually do anything because they have nothing to do. Itās a traditional weakness of VP candidates. They come off 4 or 8 years of smiling for pictures and everyone thinks theyāre bad candidates because they lost the luster that got them on the ticket as VP.
Sort of. Under Obama Biden was given control of leading the adminās response on the border because it was understood to require a legislative fix and as an animal of the senate it was deemed a good fit for him. When he then won he gave Kamala the same remit for him. Some saw that as a poison pill intended to undercut her success, but some viewed it as an authentic show of high regard to give her something he felt honored to be given when he was VP.
But the reality is no admin can do much success without legislative fixes and so hanging perceived failures around anyone in the White House is a misdirection unless they blew up potential compromises Congress was working towards. Does that better apply to Harris or trump?
3 Likes
Did they not a some stage have the presidency, senate and house? Or was the senate not theirs at the same time? Using my recollection, too lazy to look up so ill trust some of you untrustworthy individuals.
I got un-lazy and checked, and the answer is yes. So it seems at the time the border was more of a selling point to the dems philosophy and only wanted to make changes when it suited them, at which time they lost the house.
Ok, now learn what a senate super majority is
2 Likes
I know 2/3, so your argument is that the dems could not make changes to the border with a simple majority? Sort of like the proposal they attempted to put through recently?
No. And no.
1 Like
Iām not sure if I understand the general thinking on this issue. The recent proposal that was shot down by the house (under Trumps influence), would have been a change to the border/immigration policies and this is being used to bash Trump and the House (Maybe you dont think this was a policy change of note, not sure). And now its being argued that this could not have passed the when the dems had control of house and senate, because it needed a super majority? This is completely contrary to how I understand this.
In sharp contrast to the sluggish GOP response, this ad was out impressively quickly.
4 Likes
Itās cool, but itās from 2020, so not exactly new.
2 Likes
Almost like it is a do-overā¦
1 Like
It really is an antiquated system. My presidential vote is meaningless since I live in a dead red state. It will be about 60,000-80,000 voters in swing states that decide the winner.
Now, please donāt ask me how this system has maintained, and President is the only position that it is used for. Should have been done away with decades ago, especially if we want to call ourselves a ādemocracyā.
7 Likes
My vote is also worthless. I live in a blue state. Voting down ballot matters, but makes no deference in presidential race.
3 Likes
Just want to echo dissatisfaction with the antiquated system. With the UKās FPTP system, and the Electoral College in America, you could get half a dozen people from this forum together and in an afternoon we would make the system in both countries much better.
My State has 11 Presidential Electors. The Dems might win 40% of the Presidential vote here, but will have zero electoral college votes to show for it.
2 Likes