2024 Election - Trump vs. Harris, important downballot

[Benggaul]

I don't watch the debates because they're fucking pointless in this century.

But what I've gleaned from the comments here is basically just reinforcing what I've known all along: it's really, really easy being in the GOP. As long as you don't shit your pants when you're lying on stage even some on the left will claim you've "won". Meanwhile Democrats are constantly being scolded for "fumbling the ball" because they didn't do more than tell the truth (overall) in a calm manner. What absolute bonkers double standards.

[Endus]

I don't watch the debates because they're fucking pointless in this century.

But what I've gleaned from the comments here is basically just reinforcing what I've known all along: it's really, really easy being in the GOP. As long as you don't shit your pants when you're lying on stage even some on the left will claim you've "won". Meanwhile Democrats are constantly being scolded for "fumbling the ball" because they didn't do more than tell the truth (overall) in a calm manner. What absolute bonkers double standards.

In any decent political system, not only would there never have been a "no fact checking" demand from one party, but they definitely wouldn't have openly whined when the moderators pointed out you just told a giant fib on their stage. That should be the killer moment of the debate; Vance whinging that "the rules were you wouldn't fact check me!" like a goddamned toddler.

Not just that he's lie that blatantly to the American people. That he'll try and make it against the rules to correct his lies, and then he'll whine about it like a baby when he's corrected anyway.

It's just more demonstrations that GOP candidates can do whatever they want without losing a vote. This shit should get Vance laughed out of being a legitimate candidate.

[Draco-Onis]

Louisiana law making abortion drugs controlled substances goes into effect

Oct. 1 (UPI) -- A Louisiana law that makes abortion medications mifepristone and misoprostol "a controlled dangerous substance" took effect Tuesday.

The law -- the first of its kind in the nation -- requires the drugs, which in addition to being used as a cocktail for medical abortions are used for miscarriage management and to stop bleeding after childbirth, to be stored in a locked container like benzodiazepines such as Valium, Xanax and Ativan.

It also establishes penalties of up to five years in prison and a fine of as much as $5,000 for people who possess the pills without a valid prescription, with exceptions for pregnant women who have the drugs for their "own consumption."

Dr. Jenifer Avengo, director of the New Orleans Health Department, noted to NBC News that Louisiana already bans abortion with rare exceptions, meaning that physicians could not prescribe misoprostol and mifepristone for abortions before the law went into effect.

[fwc577]

Here's the thing.

A lot of people here won't like what I'm about to say. I don't like what I'm about to say.

But I think Vance won in a weird way. This election cycle doesn't have a single flying fucking thing to do with facts or policy. The fact and policy people already made up their minds...months ago. These debates do absolutely not a single fucking thing to move the needle either way.

But Vance lied with such confidence and so much and slickly enough that he had that "vibe" the "undecided" voters base their votes on.

The Democrats fumbled this, bad. Like really bad. We needed Waltz to be very combative, we needed him to poke fun at Vance, we needed MEMES and Gif moments and shorts, which should be incredibly easy to do, we needed a circus where Waltz was the better showman. We didn't get that. The other option for winning was Vance fumbling it, but he didn't.

The "vibes" voters seem to be pretty fairly in the Vance camp here.

I'm kind of annoyed to be honest. This was such a missed opportunity. I don't understand what happened.

Yeah except you're completely wrong and just dooming.

- - - Updated - - -

Disappointing debate. Walz fucked up and Vance slimed his way to a narrow win. Awful moderation.

Not according to those with brains.


Here are takes from across news sites:

https://twitter.com/Victorshi2020/st...23172156862835

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/polit...ate/index.html

There was another audience react I can't find where everyone of the undecided voters on the panel said Walz one it except 1 who wasn't sure.

The fact of the matter is, Vance just had to show up and not lose his cool. Walz had to actually have a debate, which he did fine. Nobody won, nobody lost. Both gained favorability. One of the debaters outright lied, got called out on his lie, then whined about the rules.

There are only two things that are going to be remembered from this debate:

"Margaret, the rules were that you were not going to fact check" -- JD Vance

"That was a damning non-answer." -- Tim Walz

Neither of those are good for Trump and his campaign.

[Edge-]

"Margaret, the rules were that you were not going to fact check" -- JD Vance

Jay Dee Hamel crying on live TV about getting gently fact-checked is going in my binders full of political jokes.

[Benggaul]

In any decent political system, not only would there never have been a "no fact checking" demand from one party, but they definitely wouldn't have openly whined when the moderators pointed out you just told a giant fib on their stage. That should be the killer moment of the debate; Vance whinging that "the rules were you wouldn't fact check me!" like a goddamned toddler.

Not just that he's lie that blatantly to the American people. That he'll try and make it against the rules to correct his lies, and then he'll whine about it like a baby when he's corrected anyway.

It's just more demonstrations that GOP candidates can do whatever they want without losing a vote. This shit should get Vance laughed out of being a legitimate candidate.

Absolutely. Meanwhile one promising Democrat frontrunner 20 years ago lost because he yelled in excitement during a speech, which pretty much sums up the double standards that continue on into today. Democrat voters are in a constant state of letting good be the enemy of perfect while GOP candidates are grudgingly praised if they can get through an hour without their brainrot becoming too apparent.

[fwc577]

Absolutely. Meanwhile one promising Democrat frontrunner 20 years ago lost because he yelled in excitement during a speech, which pretty much sums up the double standards that continue on into today. Democrat voters are in a constant state of letting good be the enemy of perfect while GOP candidates are grudgingly praised if they can get through an hour without their brainrot becoming too apparent.

Oh, oh, I will do one.

Democrats had a senator who jokingly looked like he was touching the breast of a reporter and was forced to resign.

Republicans elected someone rumored to be a rapist who admitted to sexually assaulting women on tape then decided he was going to be their candidate a third time after having been proved a rapist in court. He didn't just pretend to stick his fingers in her vag, he literally stuck his fingers in her vag while she said no.

[-aiko-]

The debate was...normal? Surprisingly so, which seems to be reflected in the polling that I've seen. Pretty even. Which I would say might even be a Vance win. If you didn't know much about him, you might think he was rather reasonable after watching the debate.

[Edge-]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2622742.html

Donald Trump is facing backlash for downplaying the traumatic brain injuries suffered by 109 U.S. service members after an Iranian ballistic missile attack in 2020.

The Republican presidential candidate made the remarks at a campaign press event on Tuesday after a reporter asked him if he should have been “tougher” on Iran during his time in the White House following the attack that left troops injured.

“First of all, injured, what does injured mean?” Trump replied. “You mean because they had a headache? Because the bombs never hit the fort.”

More than a dozen missiles struck the al-Asad Air Base in Iraq on January 8, 2020. No U.S. service members were killed but approximately 109 were diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries. Twenty-nine of the injured soldiers received Purple Hearts in the wake of the attack.

At the time, Trump tweeted: “All is well!” – apparently against the advice of his officials.

On Tuesday, Alyssa Farah Griffin, Pentagon spokesperson during the Trump administration, wrote on X that the Department of Defense had advised the White House in January 2020 to avoid saying there were no injuries because “initial assessments are often wrong”. Later, U.S. officials revealed that more than 100 soldiers had suffered brain injuries.

But Trump still repeated the claim on Tuesday, saying that “nobody was ever tougher on Iraq” than him – appearing to confuse Iraq with Iran.

Once more!

Donald is a liar.

Nobody hates our military and veterans more than Republicans and Donald Trump.

Donald is a fucking idiot who is himself severely brain damaged, so it's no surprise he forgot about that from that time he said nothing happened and all was well despite 100+ soldiers suffering brain injuries.

Nobody hates our military and veterans more than Republicans and Donald Trump.

[DarkAmbient]

Not according to those with brains.

Here are takes from across news sites:

https://twitter.com/Victorshi2020/st...23172156862835

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/polit...ate/index.html

It's unlike you to chip in with adolescent snark. Hope you're doing ok out there. But I do appreciate you linking to a poll that supports my remark about Vance's narrow win. Lucky that the debate won't affect anything.

[Not A Cat]

In any decent political system, not only would there never have been a "no fact checking" demand from one party, but they definitely wouldn't have openly whined when the moderators pointed out you just told a giant fib on their stage. That should be the killer moment of the debate; Vance whinging that "the rules were you wouldn't fact check me!" like a goddamned toddler.

Not just that he's lie that blatantly to the American people. That he'll try and make it against the rules to correct his lies, and then he'll whine about it like a baby when he's corrected anyway.

It's just more demonstrations that GOP candidates can do whatever they want without losing a vote. This shit should get Vance laughed out of being a legitimate candidate.

This, his statement should be a major red flag to any normal person and it drives me nuts that it never will be. That's twice now he's admitted that he's making shit up.

The fact that so many people in this country are that blatantly xenophobic and racist kills my soul. I can't think of another reason why someone would choose to believe so blatant a lie.

[fwc577]

It's unlike you to chip in with adolescent snark. Hope you're doing ok out there. But I do appreciate you linking to a poll that supports my remark about Vance's narrow win. Lucky that the debate won't affect anything.

OOOOH Bet you picked that 1% difference and jumped at it and felt like soo good. But you gotta cherry pick SO HARD to have your slim, narrow view of how the debate actually went. Lemme enlighten you since you cannot read past headlines.

Following the debate, 51% of viewers said that Vance did the better job, with 49% picking Walz. In a survey conducted of the same voters prior to the debate, Walz held the advantage as the candidate they expected to perform more strongly, 54% to 45%.

All Vance had to do was not come out there and act like a creepy weirdo. Walz actually had to do work to "win" the debate. Despite this very slim outcome of viewers saying Vance did better (I'd love to hear the survey question they were asked on this, by the way). The numbers after this are FAR MORE damning and tell you who actually won the debate.

90% of debate watchers who support Trump’s candidacy said that Vance did the better job, while a slightly narrower 82% of the Harris supporters who tuned in saw Walz as the winner.

This is a case where Democrats eat their own. We're literally discussing this BS assessment of Dems a couple posts above your post.

Following the debate, 59% of debate watchers said they had a favorable view of Walz, with just 22% viewing him unfavorably – an improvement from his already positive numbers among the same voters pre-debate (46% favorable, 32% unfavorable).

That's a +13 Favorability

Debate watchers came away from the debate with roughly neutral views of Vance: 41% rated him favorably and 44% unfavorably. That’s also an improvement from their image of Vance pre-debate, when his ratings among this group were deeply underwater (30% favorable, 52% unfavorable).

Ouch, only +11 Favorability when all he had to do is not be a creepy "Don't fact check me, bro" wierdo.

Walz boosted his favorability far more among women than men, while Vance’s gains were about the same among voters of both genders. About 1 in 5 Trump supporters (21%) who tuned in now say they have a favorable view of Walz, while Vance’s favorability rating with Harris’ supporters remains at just 8%.

Ouch, Democrat's watching really didn't change their opinions about Vance. 8%? 2 out of 25 Democrat viewers changed their view on Vance.

Meanwhile, 1 in 5 Trump supports having a positive view of Walz post debate is devestating. 21% is a MASSIVE difference in this race vs 8%

A 65% majority of debate watchers now say Walz is qualified to serve as president if necessary, with 58% saying the same of Vance.

If Trump kicks it in the next 4 years (much more likely) vs if Kamala kicks it in the next 4 years, a larger majority would feel better under Walz vs Vance

Debate watchers said, 48% to 35%, that Walz is more in touch than Vance with the needs and problems of people like them, and by a similar margin, 48% to 39%, that Walz, rather than Vance, more closely shares their vision for America.

Basically a wash between these two on whether or not the candidate is in touch with their needs. However, this is rather devastating to the GOP who bills itself as the party of the people and constantly shouts that Democrats are the ones that are out of touch.

Among female voters, Walz has the clear advantage, with half saying he does compared with the 36% who see Vance’s vision as closer to theirs. Male voters split more evenly, 47% Walz to 43% Vance.

Women are going to be putting Kamala in the White House this year.

A negligible 1% of voters who tuned into the debate said it had changed their mind about whom to vote for, with Harris and Trump supporters equally unlikely to view the event as decisive.

I wil say, I hate that they brush over this because the election is literally won/lost by smaller percentages.

- - - Updated - - -

This, his statement should be a major red flag to any normal person and it drives me nuts that it never will be. That's twice now he's admitted that he's making shit up.

The fact that so many people in this country are that blatantly xenophobic and racist kills my soul. I can't think of another reason why someone would choose to believe so blatant a lie.

Huh, I was assured America was a post-racial society because a Black Man was elected to be President back in 2008. /s

[Kaleredar]

OOOOH Bet you picked that 1% difference and jumped at it and felt like soo good. But you gotta cherry pick SO HARD to have your slim, narrow view of how the debate actually went. Lemme enlighten you since you cannot read past headlines.



All Vance had to do was not come out there and act like a creepy weirdo. Walz actually had to do work to "win" the debate. Despite this very slim outcome of viewers saying Vance did better (I'd love to hear the survey question they were asked on this, by the way). The numbers after this are FAR MORE damning and tell you who actually won the debate.



This is a case where Democrats eat their own. We're literally discussing this BS assessment of Dems a couple posts above your post.



That's a +13 Favorability



Ouch, only +11 Favorability when all he had to do is not be a creepy "Don't fact check me, bro" wierdo.



Ouch, Democrat's watching really didn't change their opinions about Vance. 8%? 2 out of 25 Democrat viewers changed their view on Vance.

Meanwhile, 1 in 5 Trump supports having a positive view of Walz post debate is devestating. 21% is a MASSIVE difference in this race vs 8%



If Trump kicks it in the next 4 years (much more likely) vs if Kamala kicks it in the next 4 years, a larger majority would feel better under Walz vs Vance



Basically a wash between these two on whether or not the candidate is in touch with their needs. However, this is rather devastating to the GOP who bills itself as the party of the people and constantly shouts that Democrats are the ones that are out of touch.



Women are going to be putting Kamala in the White House this year.



I wil say, I hate that they brush over this because the election is literally won/lost by smaller percentages.

- - - Updated - - -



Huh, I was assured America was a post-racial society because a Black Man was elected to be President back in 2008. /s

I think people’s “let down expectations” were ones not of Walz doing a bad job, because he didn’t, but of him not dunking on Vance when he should have.

They were spoiled by Harris so thoroughly pasting Trump they thought it’d happen again.

[Lenonis]

All Vance had to do was not come out there and act like a creepy weirdo.

I don't love that the surveys ask "do you think so-and-so won the debate" because that's so horrifically soaked in everyone's individual bias about what winning a debate even means.

I'd much prefer the question be "do you think so-and-so did better or worse than you were anticipating" - I feel like that's a much more informative data set, especially since that ultimately is what would potentially energize or turn off potential voters.

- - - Updated - - -

I think people’s “let down expectations” were ones not of Walz doing a bad job, because he didn’t, but of him not dunking on Vance when he should have.

They were spoiled by Harris so thoroughly pasting Trump they thought it’d happen again.

It should have happened more than it did. If nothing else Walz should have immediately and forcefully called out Vance's lying. And I really think he should have reminded everyone what an awful person he is. Crazy cat ladies and all.

[fwc577]

I'd much prefer the question be "do you think so-and-so did better or worse than you were anticipating" - I feel like that's a much more informative data set, especially since that ultimately is what would potentially energize or turn off potential voters.

I still feel like this metric wouldn't be great, especially in this debate. Post debate saw overall gains for Walz in favorability and pretty substantial gains with the independent crowd.

If we were going to go as the debate being decided based on "do you think so-and-so did better or worse than you were anticipating" then Democrats would lose pretty much every modern debate because the bar is set so low for Republicans.

[Edge-]

https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/la...ate-rcna173630

On the debate stage Tuesday night, Sen. JD Vance found himself agreeing with his opponent, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, that a woman who died from abortion complications in 2022 due to Georgia’s draconian abortion ban should still be alive.

“Governor, I agree with you,” the Republican vice presidential nominee said. “Amber Thurman should still be alive — and there are a lot of people who should still be alive — and I certainly wish that she was.”

Vance’s acknowledgement that Thurman’s death was preventable and his expressed desire for the GOP to “earn people’s trust back” on abortion doesn’t square with Republican lawmakers actively restricting people’s ability to make such choices for themselves. After the debate, Thurman’s family issued a statement condemning the GOP for “seek[ing] to further restrict women’s access to necessary healthcare under the false guise of protection.”

“Amber’s tragic death was a direct result of Georgia’s archaic and dangerously restrictive abortion laws, which denied her the life-saving care she so desperately needed,” Thurman’s family said. “We are grieving an unimaginable loss that no family should have to endure.”

In the debate, Vance said that the American people “just don’t trust” Republicans when it comes to abortion, and that he wanted the GOP to become “pro-family in the fullest sense of the word.” He also claimed that he has never supported a federal abortion ban (Vance did, however, say as recently as 2022 that he “would like abortion to be illegal nationally”) and defended the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

After lamenting Thurman’s death, Vance immediately went on to talk about “partial birth abortion,” a highly misleading political term that refers to an abortion that happens later in pregnancy. He also asserted that allowing states to impose their own abortion laws is the right thing to do, despite that being exactly the circumstance that led to Thurman’s death.

There's a fucking reason women don't trust Republican men on this topic, and Jay Dee Hamel highlighted that very reason in last night's debate as he lamented the lack of that trust.

Also, the family of Amber Thurman doesn't want to hear his bullshit lies.

[Endus]

I think people’s “let down expectations” were ones not of Walz doing a bad job, because he didn’t, but of him not dunking on Vance when he should have.

They were spoiled by Harris so thoroughly pasting Trump they thought it’d happen again.

Look at who Republicans are voting for. There isn't a policy position you could possibly bring up that would change their minds. Walz could have announced a UBI that would set a minimum income for all hard-working Americans at benchmarked cost-of-living equivalent to $45k/year in 2024 dollars, that was fully paid for without any increase in taxes because the Democrats have found a magic money tree, and they'd still condemn Walz for being socialist and that they don't want his bullshit tree money. You can't appeal to them on rational policy arguments.

All you can do is embarrass them enough that they stay home rather than getting fired up to go out and vote. And the way you do that is by underscoring over and over what a fuckin' joke of a person Vance is, and Trump as well (secondarily in the VP debate, though). Walz should've made cracks about couchfucking. He should've asked what brand of guyliner Vance prefers (not because a dude wearing makeup is inherently bad, but because Vance's followers are bigoted shitwads who'll be embarrassed that he does). He should've openly mocked him for whining about fact-checking, and making crybaby noises at him for it.

Is that good discourse? Of course not. We can't have honest discussion until the GOP candidates stop fuckin' lying out their butts about everything. They're not there for discussion, themselves, so offer them mockery and derision until they get fed up and either fuck off or come to the table in good faith.

They don't deserve anything better until that point, and their base won't care about the facts, so making their candidates look like assturds is all you've got.

Yes, this is all incredibly fucking stupid. I'm not saying this state is a "good thing". It's just the reality.

[DarkAmbient]

OOOOH Bet you picked that 1% difference and jumped at it and felt like soo good. But you gotta cherry pick SO HARD to have your slim, narrow view of how the debate actually went. Lemme enlighten you since you cannot read past headlines.

How the debate went is a matter of opinion. In my view Vance edged it because, as someone mentioned earlier, Walz played too nice. Plus he started off badly. Vance is a greaseball, and like many greaseball politicians he slimes his way to the top with the slick application of bullshit.

[Edge-]

Walz played too nice.

This...seems predictable, no? Isn't that a huge part of who he is? A nice guy who's not gonna be spitting fire and dropping dis tracks?

Weird that, "He wasn't mean enough and didn't attack the other guy enough." is viewed as a negative, but I guess it's indicative of the times when many view politics more as some form of blood-sport entertainment or whatever. Just go to a rap battle or something.

[DarkAmbient]

This...seems predictable, no? Isn't that a huge part of who he is? A nice guy who's not gonna be spitting fire and dropping dis tracks?

Weird that, "He wasn't mean enough and didn't attack the other guy enough." is viewed as a negative, but I guess it's indicative of the times when many view politics more as some form of blood-sport entertainment or whatever. Just go to a rap battle or something.

Yes, I view a failure to bring your opponent to account as a negative.