I am removing this post for we dont do buts or howevers here at Hopium. All the polling news is positive. We lead in the national polling and consistently lead in the battlegrounds. All of what we are seeing is good news, and a huge improvement over where we were. Thank you.
Certainly your prerogative. I don't think my post was fundamentally different than when you said multiple times when Trump had a slight lead in the polls but well within the margin of error that "this is a close competitive election, but we're not where we want to be". In this case, VP Harris's lead in PA could be categorized in the same way. If you disagree, great. Responding to my post explaining why would have been preferable to deleting it, IMO. But, your site, your discretion. I'm still grateful to you and the Hopium community.
My understanding is we still enjoy a significant advantage in registered Dem party voters, that those R numbers are new registrants. i saw this on Dkos and they said the article was a little misleading in Newsweek.
Join Field Team 6's daily textbanks to register dems in Swing States, it feels amazing! Once you're trained (they do weekly Zoom training sessions on Saturday), you can join in every day and crank out hundreds. Heavy focus on texting to NC and AZ this week, LFG! We've collectively sent hundreds of thousands so far!
This sounds good! I’ve been sending texts with Powered By People to get people registered in Texas, but lately they haven’t had much work to do. I could sign up with Field Team 6 and switch back and forth as their workloads vary.
Hey I have a quick question. I registered on the Kamala Harris site to do an in person phone banking event on Tuesday. How is the location communicated to us ? Will it be through a phone call or text ? It says the location is private and will be given to us later.
Sometimes campaigns will also call that day to be sure folks plan to show up. By the way whether and what emails you get can depend on what one does or does not check in settings.
We are serving up a glorious week of cool temps and sunshine here in Chicago. Looking forward to meeting you on Wednesday. Hopefully you received my RSVP! Thanks for all you do and welcome to the Windy City!
I'm quite willing to acknowledge that there are very very few parallels between the present and the 1988 campaign. Furthermore, people warning we shouldn't be overconfident based on Clinton's lead in 2016 are forgetting that there was nothing like the enthusiasm for Hilary Clinton as there is for the Harris-Walz ticket (and certainly none I recall for Tim Kaine!!)
However, it's good, I think, to keep in mind that we should never be OVER confident (not that I'm saying Simon is - in fact, I think he's been reminding us many times we need to keep active daily right up to election... and even after, to make sure there's no shenanigans by the Trumpistas)
In any case, I thought this was perhaps a helpful reminder to be wary of over confidence:
" A poll conducted on July 21 and 22 of 1988 found that Dukakis had expanded the size of his lead over Bush to 17 points, with 55% of voters surveyed saying they would prefer Dukakis to win, compared to 38% for Bush. His lead soon began to shrink, however."
While I wasn't around ( ok I was actually 1 ) from what I've read Dukakis unfortunately failed to respond to the first real aggressive smear campaign in history ( led by Lee Atwater himself) & just fumbled the ball so to speak. Not exactly the same circumstances as Hillary Clinton but both candidates ended up stepping on multiple land mines. So far NOT THIS TIME !!!
He also had a disastrous debate. I was a new teacher at the time, in a private high school full of children of Cuban refugees, and they were NOT Democrats. When they asked Dukaikis the stupidest question I can ever remember to this day in a debate, what would he do if his own wife was raped ( referencing the "Willie" Horton ad, as the man never called himself by that name, but always "William" ) he seemed stunned and couldn't quite believe it...then he mumbled some stuff on being tough on crime, and the election was lost right then. I can even remember Bush's staff reporting they high fived and said we just won the election....
I remember that debate. Michael Dukakis was known for opposing the death penalty (Bush supported it). During the debate, moderator, Bernard Shaw asked Michael Dukakis if he would still oppose the death penalty if his wife was raped and murdered whereby Dukakis did not handle the question well at all. He seemed to show no feeling at all which turned off a lot of people.
We Democrats are not always the most loyal folks, and create some of our own realities. I never want us to be like the Repubs, but being a team player just shows respect for the voters who cast their ballot for a particular candidate. Loyalty is important.
I'm old enough to have watched that debate and the ensuing controversy and I have a different take on it. For me it's one of those unique campaign events that I just cannot comprehend why it became so massively important and disqualifying (another is Howard Dean's "scream."). I just rewatched a clip of the Q&A, and I still feel the same. While Shaw's question was worded unnecessarily provocatively, it was fair to ask about opposition to the death penalty. Yes, Dukakis gave an unemotional, rational, factual response. What was he supposed to do--start screaming, "Oh my God, Kitty's been raped and killed!?!?" Of course not. He responded reasonably and articulately to the question and got unjustly criticized for it. It's akin to the reason some people voted for George Bush over Al Gore because he seemed like a better guy to have a beer with.
He could have split the difference with an answer that was both emotional and rational, ie, a long pause, a deep breath, then "well, naturally I would want to hunt the guy down and kill him, which is why it's so important that we have the legal and justice system we have because we are a human *society* governed by laws--I might be going after the wrong guy, and even if I'm not, it shouldn't be up to me to be judge, jury, and executioner"
That all may sound like second-guessing hindsight, but Shaw's question didn't come out of the blue the way upset Dems represented at rhe time--the "Willie" Horton ad waa out there, his opposition to the death penalty was out there, he should have been better prepared for a question like this, and I sometimes wonder, given that the no. 1 thing we uniquely expect of presidents is the ability to react appropriately to any eventuality, whether his obvious lack of preparation didn’t hurt him, subliminally at least, more than an answer that was so bloodless it almost seemed like a non-sequitur.
Also it connected to another robotic lack of awareness that really began the collapse of that 17 point lead, his ridiculous tank photo op.
I remember those disgusting Willie Horton TV ads very well. Roger Ailes and Lee Atwater masterminded those ads. Given that Roger Ailes went on to co-found FOX News with Rupert Murdoch; I think it can be argued that those Willie Horton ads were the precursor to FOX News and this massive right wing media we sadly have now.
That's what my read into it was. Like I said I was only a toddler then, but I've seen that clip & documentaries on the whole affair, and from what I've gathered an effective answer, or at least one that would e kept Dukakis in the running would've been one that is framed like you said (I'd want to do this, but our justice system etc...). Additionally I did see an interview with one of the campaign staff who tried to talk Dukakis, or at least the campaign director(s) out of the tank photo op because they knew he wouldn't look that cool in it (but the man was basically told 'shut up and do your job'). A fascinating lesson in how not to run a campaign.
There's a really cool tv series on Apple TV called For All Mankind - which is an alternate history take on the space program. Maybe there should be an alternate history anthology show on what if "this candidate won this presidential race ?"
In those days, voters were FAR less polarized. People voted across party lines fairly often in the presidential elections. Swings could go both ways. This is not a swing, but a collapse. Dukakis was also not running against a convicted felon facing sentencing weeks before election day, who had been impeached twice and lost the last presidential election. Overconfidence is not helpful, but I defy you to find one Democrat who has become LESS excited about voting, volunteering, and donating since Kamala started leading. Their weakness is showing, and we're redoubling our efforts to exploit that weakness.
Also if remember correctly there was something in the Massachusetts constitution about if a budget dispute happened the governor had to remain in the state. So some Republican legislatures created a dispute forcing Dukakis off the campaign trail for almost a month.
I never knew that. If true, disgusting, but not surprising. Unlike a lot of people, I liked Dukakis A LOT, even after that debate. Silly me, I researched his track record, which was very good. I wish he would have found a way to spotlight that.
LOL, ironically, if women actually were stupid enough to vote for a male candidate based on looks (Remember how R’s thought Quayle’s looks would bring in female votes?), Dukakis would have won by a landslide.
Yeah I brought this up previously, but as someone who is “tuned in” to younger a further left voters; the attitudes around Harris rn are like night and day when compared with Hillary in 2016. In 2016, a lot of people were dissatisfied with the mainstream DNC that Hillary represented, bitter about Bernie not getting the nomination (and Hillary’s campaign kind of blew their opportunity to bring dissatisfied Bernie voters back in, imo), not nearly as terrified of Trump as they are now (back then he was still largely viewed as a joke candidate, and even in the event he won a lot of people saw him as a likely paper tiger), and Hillary herself was not viewed as personable or likable at all.
Literally all of the above is completely different with Harris. I think people often tend to overplay the extent to which misogyny played a role in Hillary’s loss; like I’m not going to discount it as a factor entirely, but generalized dislike for her among key groups ran much deeper than anything to do with her gender, and let’s not forget that she underperformed with women as well as men (back then, just in general, gender-related issues were not nearly as prominent in mainstream American politics, Roe v. Wade still stood and was viewed as unshakable political bedrock, this was pre-“Me Too”, feminism was often viewed as either passé or “too radical” and more frequently dismissed by the mainstream, and even LGBTQ issues were less discussed at the time, often being viewed as a struggle that had already been overcome between the national legalization of same-sex marriage and the fact that—unlike now—any attempts at legislatively attacking trans people were met with swift negative reactions from major corporations, who threatened to pull out of states over it—unlike now where the richest man in the world is an open transphobe).
But now the anger of women and gender and sexual minorities against fascists who want to control what we do with our own bodies and essentially wipe out entire demographics of people is boiling over, and generally the stakes have just never been higher, so far from Harris’s gender being a vulnerability, I don’t think there has ever been a more fitting time in US history for their to be a woman president.
Ditto. :-) K is at the right time, in the right place and the right leader, as she knows the type of person that is dealing with.
LOL. All women are, in fact, not the same.
In earlier time, issues included political effectiveness, and an ability to connect with voters. A concern that a few Dem party loyalists had tipped the scale for H did not bring all Dems into the fold.
I know there’s supposed to be a decent amount of protesters but again, it’s not 1968, Vietnam, or the Civil rights movement. So, I don’t believe 100,000 pro Palestinian protesters (if it even ends up being that much) will all the sudden upend the entire week and have some mass violent clash with the police etc. The Chicago Police Department I think is quite prepared for this convention and they KNOW they cannot screw this up! Even though Chicago is on high alert next week, I still instinctively anticipate the alert will turn out to be more of a panic than a reality. I keep having to remind myself…just cuz there are those who want it to be another 1968, doesn’t mean that will feasibly come to fruition.
This convention truly needs to emulate the now winning and near unstoppable message of the campaign…hope, joy, and moving forward, not going back and I anticipate it will be that way. Not to mention, anyone else think like me…Harris…the prosecutor…made damn sure behind the scenes that the city was beyond prepared not to let the spotlight be taken away from the convention? Just sayin!
I do hope the DNC and the Harris-Walz Campaign have taken serious steps to limit and dampen the protests. For the news media is sure to exaggerate any demonstrations and disruptions.
It’s been designated a national security event, so there are lots of things in place to keep protesters under control. They have a designated space to protest and if they try to deviate or cause issues, the full weight of our national security apparatus will fall on them.
I anticipate it will remain peaceful. Right, wrong, or indifferent of the protests themselves…the vast majority of protesters who show up I don’t believe will want to stoke chaos. Not to mention and like I’ve said before…who knows if we’ll even see up to 100,000 anyway. 100,000 permits don’t equal 100,000 in attendance.
I can’t confirm or deny that to be honest but it doesn’t matter. I have a feeling they’ll be able to curtail any significant outside agitation attempts.
I refuse to believe btw, all these uncommitted voters will sit this one out. Harris is in a tricky situation. She CANNOT abandon Israel and she knows that. Her husband is Jewish for crying out loud. I’m not sure having a big speaking spot for a pro Palestinian representative would be effective at the convention cuz again, she can’t risk losing the Jewish vote. She has that majority cuz the majority of Jewish Americans are Democrats anyway despite there being a significant faction of Jewish republicans nonetheless.
That said, the convention can only have room for key players and no room for any potential to stoke flames. So, if she has a Palestinian on stage, she needs an Israeli on stage too. Can’t choose sides and what frustrates me is that both groups keep pushing that pressure.
The uncommitted had too many issues with Biden…so be it. I disagree but now it’s not him anymore and the base is over the moon for a variety of reasons (least of which in my view actually pertain to the Middle Eastern Crisis). I doubt a brokered ceasefire/hostage exchange deal will be made next week sometime although one never truly knows. However, if enacted before the election…the uncommitted voters will come into the fold without hesitation.
Many of them I think will still vote for her regardless (even if in secret against their ‘uncommitted’ stance) cuz I think more of them than I believe we give credit for…know damn well how significantly worse Trump would be. I empathize with the causes and the debates but it’s time for everyone to grow a pair, look at the bigger picture, and stop being self centered. There are FAR MORE issues on the home front that have potential immediate affects both left and right than that of the Middle East conflict, though affecting it may be.
I actually question whether we’ll even see as many as 100,000 protesters to be honest. Ultimately, I anticipate this week will go by under the banner of joy and looking forward and then at the end of the week the city of Chicago will go….’shewww, we got through that in one piece, wasn’t too bad.’
It should be ENOUGH for the majority of Americans to hear her strength in her stance she’s been repeating forever…that she is pro Israel/pro Gaza peace, pro two state solution—-Anti Netanyahu/Anti Hamas. That’s where the MAJORITY stands period!
We will NOT lose over this issue mark my words. Like James Carville said back then…”Its the economy stupid” — this election cycle, as important as economics, immigration, foreign policy, healthcare, LGBTQ matters all are —- this election, I firmly believe “It’s WOMEN stupid!” If my instincts prove right on that, I think we’ll not only win, but bigger that even you and I anticipate.
Michael Moore is encouraging his readers to protest - although he very clearly is instructing them to do so peacefully & is making clear he wants to elect Harris. I'm not nearly as antsy as I was 2/3 days ago.
He's just encouraging people to show up & oppose Gaza - like demanding it for the platform I think. He's made it VERY CLEAR he supports Harris and sees her as a breath of fresh air - but he's been very outspoken about the Gaza humanitarian crisis
It would all be different if all those hostages were rightfully returned. Yes, it's all devastating, but I find it difficult to see the real moral righteousness from people who don't care about those innocent hostages who are still not freed.
It was the whole point of what Hamas did to Israel. Innocent people have been in harms way from Day 1, yet that seems okay with some? Bring Them Home.
For us Boomers, we remember 1968. I was little, but I recall that the world was very different than it is today. America literally was on fire. There were protests across the country in opposition to a very divisive war. There was a draft. My mom was elected a delegate to the DNC because she wanted to protest the war. (Sadly, she could not serve,) There was a huge division between factions of the Democratic Party because of the war. The leading candidate, Bobby Kennedy, was murdered in June. MLK had been murdered two months prior to that. The brokered convention produced a candidate that many opposed. The result was Nixon. I really feel we Democrats have learned our lesson. The Republicans, apparently, have not yet learned.
And I hope this little bit of history isn't forgotten: the 68 event was officially declared to have been a "police riot". Mayor Daly was castigated for setting up the atmosphere that resulted in turning a peaceful demostration into a full-on attack by police on the protestors. Chicago since has learned from those mistakes, and it looks like this will be a positive experience. T & Co. know how much they have on the line if they are seen to be encouraging misbehavior.
Chicago-goers, have an incredible time! I wish I could join you and thanks for representing Hopium with Simon! It's going to be the Party of the Year....until November 5 surpasses it. : >
So far, the Harris campaign has not made a mistake. I’m trusting that they know the scale and scope of any protests and are fully prepared to make sure it doesn’t affect the Convention.
The pro-Palestinian activists are losing a lot of ground on social media (Twitter and TikTok) these last two weeks. There has been a lot of anger directed at Black Americans who are “betraying their cause” by voting for Kamala Harris. The anti-Blackness and misogynoir has fully hit the movement and they’re splintering a lot of US support.
Jamelle Bouie (NYT Opinion Columnist) has been doing a series of videos on what happens to movements that become anti-Black (short answer- nothing good).
All of this is to say, I don’t think the protests are going to be anything close to what the keyboard warriors are claiming it will be.
Yes, except that our VP isn't the first...Shirley Chisholm and Carol Moseley Braun also ran, and I wanted to see if there were others, and there were: 11 in total have run, including our VP. So happy to know this, and so proud of them all!
I do remember reading that. But let's be real, those were not serious contenders; I was actually at Jesse Jackson's appearance in 1988 in Sewaren NJ as a member of the press; I was up close. There were maybe 50 people there, and this was a couple hundred yards across the water from NYC; you'd have thought there would be a lot of press there, but no. And he was a high profile figure. But he was never seriously in the running. Harris has not only been the VP for the last four years, I think she is favored to win. This is very different. By the way, 20 years later I'd see Jesse Jackson in tears as Barack Obama came out on stage on election night after his win; I was in recovery from cancer surgery, half stoned, hoping they got it all ( they did ) and I will never forget it. The nurses, doctors, porters, patients, every one, stopped to watch the tv.
Shirley Chisolm should have been considered a serious candidate. She never got the credit she deserved for the work she did. Not even at the convention. Both parties systematically excluded women from recognition, but it was expecially galling where Shirley was concerned. Jesse Jackson was also shafted, but still not disregarded in the way women were. That attitude was still at work when Clinton ran too. The one that really sticks in my craw is how LBJ got the networks to cut away from Fannie Lou Hamer's speech just as she took the podium. Good for whoever made the decision to keep the tape rolling: we got to see and hear her deliver her powerful speech, which is still available.
And now, at last, we have Kamala Harris, who is being taken very seriously indeed. I have literally been waiting all my life for this. She chose well in selecting Tim Walz as running mate, but make no mistake, this is about Kamala. And I hope that in the process the names of all those women, black, white, indigenous, Latina, asian who opened the way are brought forward in history, so that we remember what they gave us.
The way I see it, those women paved the way for our VP. There always has to be a first, a maverick, someone to brave everyone saying they have no chance....even if they know they have no chance. Every one of those women opened the door a little more for the next. I never want to dismiss or forget them. Perhaps that's what Jackson did for Obama. I remember when he ran, and people didn't take him seriously. It's still important that he did. I do remember the video of Jackson in tears. It still chokes me up. I love that so many at the hospital shared in that moment...and I'm so glad everything turned out well for you.
Few candidates have the experience of four years as VP. I do not see any relationship to prior candidates who had no experience. Every candidate is unique. No categorization is needed.
It seems we have very similar social media experiences/algorithms. I’ve been fascinated to see this movement crumble online the past couple weeks, including some outing of nefarious players. I do hope that translates to a deflation of physical presence at the convention. There are an awful lot of ppl behind the movement that are truly just Harris/Democratic spoilers, not sincere protesters, and I expect they will still be full steam ahead.
Watched on youtube [general search, not campaign website] Tim Walz event in Omaha. He was introduced by his wife Gwen. WOW she is dynamic. She was high school speech and debate coach - a statewide competitive school activity.
GOP craziness 2? saw on Jarrod Moskowitz Nitter that Congr. Oversight Committee plans to investigate Tim Walz's ties to China. From his bio he taught in China on a World Teach program, speaks Mandarin, I think, and retains his ties in support of democracy in China. Am I correct in thinking they are insane to give him a free all-day forum in which to show his foreign policy creds?
Does the Washington Post headline highlight the Likely Voter numbers of their new poll? Of course not! In order avoid reporting overly good news for Kamala Harris, they stick to Registered Voters and write:
. "Harris holds slight national lead over Trump, Post-ABC-Ipsos poll finds"
Honest headlines might have been:
. "Harris opens 6-point national lead over Trump"
. "More than half of America’s likely voters intend to vote for Harris, new poll reveals"
I recently resubscribed after receiving a ridiculously cheap offer. To me it’s worth it to be able to read the few stellar journalists/columnists they still have – such as Jennifer Rubin.
I got Simon’s email and quickly went to the WaPo article, expecting to see a headline and/or story reporting Harris opening up a statistically significant lead and detailing how Trump is faltering. Nope.
Instead, had a good chuckle at the WaPo’s strained efforts to maintain the horse race narrative. They bury the LV numbers. They don’t mention the 6-point LV spread in favor of Harris at all. Not a single reference. Only RVs, and in that regard WaPo stresses that the RV numbers are within the MOE. Yet, the poll clearly shows a 51 - 45 lead for Harris among LVs which is outside the MOE.
This is really sad to see on so many levels - these bastions of journalism subjugating obvious truth to further political spectacle and ultimately, profit interests.
And another reason we need folks like Simon leading us through these times. I would not have gone to the underlying poll data but for Simon’s message. I would have had no idea Harris had a 6-point lead among LVs.
A +/- 2% MOE means that a candidate’s performance in an actual election should, to a 95% degree of confidence, be within +/- 2% of what the poll provides. So, in a worst case scenario, Harris could be 2% lower and Trump could be 2% higher, in which case they would either be tied or Trump would be ahead in the RV results.
To be outside the MOE, the poll must show a spread between the candidates that is 2X the MOE.
You are correct. The LV results are outside the MOE. The RV results are not but they are close to being so.
Curious...when was the last time they actually were left-leaning? Back in the Watergate days? I'm 61, started paying attention to politics in the mid-'80s and especially '90s, and don't remember the media leaning left ever. Maybe it ended in the "greed is good" era.
Oh, I just love "truth-leaning." And SC's quote is masterful, as usual. I finally lost my naivete when I joined Hopium and found that I wasn't the only one disillusioned by MSM.
I'm super excited about all the great speeches and reminders of why Democrats are responsible for championing the four freedoms from Chicago. When I'm not listening to or viewing those speeches from here in Durham I'm going to be canvassing, registering voters, phonebanking and postcarding. What we do now will have an even greater effect on the GOTV efforts we'll be making when early voting starts and I know the entire Hopium family is with me! Believe!!!!
One storyline of the DNC that fascinates me is the potential role that sane/anti-Trump Republicans may play. I just saw an unconfirmed report that Adam Kinzinger is speaking this coming week. If true, I hope this performance drives a stake into the heart of MAGA.
This is great, hadn't heard he was going to speak. The Republicans for Harris movement is very heartening. I have to say, I've been surprised at Liz Cheney's absence, since she has vowed she'd do anything to stop Trump. Regardless of what she decides, I have great admiration for her and her courage.
Yes, and I'm waiting to hear from Liz Cheney, too. She's from the hardline RW policy-wise, so we'll see how committed she is. What I really want to see is these sane republicans staying with us until maga is destroyed. This will take more than one election; it will take defeats in every election cycle on local/state/federal levels before the movement loses all power. So winning this election is vital, and so is every other election going forward.
Hi, Russell...I wish I felt the same! I could be wrong and this is just my view, but several anti-Trump GOP operatives have said the same, that this is bigger than trump. This is a movement that's been building and needs to be defanged. Just look at maga 2.0, with JD Vance and other young autocrats, with tech oligarchs funding them. That's why he was chosen as VP, to carry on the legacy.
I'm just saying that our work continues beyond this election. We shouldn't be lulled into thinking that once they're defeated in Nov, they'll all retreat. (Note Jan 6, 2021.) When an entire party and our Supreme Court has been overtaken by fascists, my view is that it's going to take more than one or two electoral defeats to relegate them to the dustbin of history.
But this isn't a bad thing...it just means we continue to do the good work of democracy and keep being involved. For that is what makes democracy work...when everyone has a stake!
I am removing this post for we dont do buts or howevers here at Hopium. All the polling news is positive. We lead in the national polling and consistently lead in the battlegrounds. All of what we are seeing is good news, and a huge improvement over where we were. Thank you.
Certainly your prerogative. I don't think my post was fundamentally different than when you said multiple times when Trump had a slight lead in the polls but well within the margin of error that "this is a close competitive election, but we're not where we want to be". In this case, VP Harris's lead in PA could be categorized in the same way. If you disagree, great. Responding to my post explaining why would have been preferable to deleting it, IMO. But, your site, your discretion. I'm still grateful to you and the Hopium community.
Hmmm Interesting - I hope the Dems continue to gain in registration - seems as if they need to make up some ground. I still think we will win in PA.
My understanding is we still enjoy a significant advantage in registered Dem party voters, that those R numbers are new registrants. i saw this on Dkos and they said the article was a little misleading in Newsweek.
FT 6 is hard at work in Pa. https://www.fieldteam6.org/
My home town is in Lawrence County -- W.Pa. Went 2-1 for Trump in 2020. Anecdotally, I hear from many anti-Trump Republicans.
Phew!
"Do more. Worry Less."
Join Field Team 6's daily textbanks to register dems in Swing States, it feels amazing! Once you're trained (they do weekly Zoom training sessions on Saturday), you can join in every day and crank out hundreds. Heavy focus on texting to NC and AZ this week, LFG! We've collectively sent hundreds of thousands so far!
This sounds good! I’ve been sending texts with Powered By People to get people registered in Texas, but lately they haven’t had much work to do. I could sign up with Field Team 6 and switch back and forth as their workloads vary.
Yes, Field Team 6 seems to have big lists to text to all the time, and they're hitting them more than once.
I had a feeling this wud happen . It made sense that we lagged in July considering our party was in crisis
Hey I have a quick question. I registered on the Kamala Harris site to do an in person phone banking event on Tuesday. How is the location communicated to us ? Will it be through a phone call or text ? It says the location is private and will be given to us later.
There should be an email (check junk?) as well as a text if you agreed to receive texts … you can just sign up again if you didn’t receive…
Sometimes campaigns will also call that day to be sure folks plan to show up. By the way whether and what emails you get can depend on what one does or does not check in settings.
Got the location, thanks
FT 6 also has phone banking, Calls are mostly to non-registered folk who trend Democratic.
https://www.mobilize.us/ft6/?q=phone%20banks&tag_ids=20038
Looking forward to the Harris-Walz event here in western PA today! Excitement and energy at a fever pitch with the Beaver County Democratic Committee!
hey Blue, former Point Breeze and Shadyside yinzer here, originally from "Sauth Heels." I miss it all, deeply ...
Oh yay, lucky you! Sounds so fun!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmzbHbnMtk8 Here's the replay by PBS.
We are serving up a glorious week of cool temps and sunshine here in Chicago. Looking forward to meeting you on Wednesday. Hopefully you received my RSVP! Thanks for all you do and welcome to the Windy City!
HOPESCROLLING, is what each Hopium Chronicles post is part of!
Love this!!!
I'm quite willing to acknowledge that there are very very few parallels between the present and the 1988 campaign. Furthermore, people warning we shouldn't be overconfident based on Clinton's lead in 2016 are forgetting that there was nothing like the enthusiasm for Hilary Clinton as there is for the Harris-Walz ticket (and certainly none I recall for Tim Kaine!!)
However, it's good, I think, to keep in mind that we should never be OVER confident (not that I'm saying Simon is - in fact, I think he's been reminding us many times we need to keep active daily right up to election... and even after, to make sure there's no shenanigans by the Trumpistas)
In any case, I thought this was perhaps a helpful reminder to be wary of over confidence:
" A poll conducted on July 21 and 22 of 1988 found that Dukakis had expanded the size of his lead over Bush to 17 points, with 55% of voters surveyed saying they would prefer Dukakis to win, compared to 38% for Bush. His lead soon began to shrink, however."
While I wasn't around ( ok I was actually 1 ) from what I've read Dukakis unfortunately failed to respond to the first real aggressive smear campaign in history ( led by Lee Atwater himself) & just fumbled the ball so to speak. Not exactly the same circumstances as Hillary Clinton but both candidates ended up stepping on multiple land mines. So far NOT THIS TIME !!!
He also had a disastrous debate. I was a new teacher at the time, in a private high school full of children of Cuban refugees, and they were NOT Democrats. When they asked Dukaikis the stupidest question I can ever remember to this day in a debate, what would he do if his own wife was raped ( referencing the "Willie" Horton ad, as the man never called himself by that name, but always "William" ) he seemed stunned and couldn't quite believe it...then he mumbled some stuff on being tough on crime, and the election was lost right then. I can even remember Bush's staff reporting they high fived and said we just won the election....
Oh the Bernard Shaw question ?! That's right - I saw a clip of that. Yeah I think it was that his answer was not emotional and purely statistical.
I remember that debate. Michael Dukakis was known for opposing the death penalty (Bush supported it). During the debate, moderator, Bernard Shaw asked Michael Dukakis if he would still oppose the death penalty if his wife was raped and murdered whereby Dukakis did not handle the question well at all. He seemed to show no feeling at all which turned off a lot of people.
He later said he had the flu. Don't debate when you are sick.
Sounds like Biden. when he had that bad debate.
We Democrats are not always the most loyal folks, and create some of our own realities. I never want us to be like the Repubs, but being a team player just shows respect for the voters who cast their ballot for a particular candidate. Loyalty is important.
Such a horrible question.
I'm old enough to have watched that debate and the ensuing controversy and I have a different take on it. For me it's one of those unique campaign events that I just cannot comprehend why it became so massively important and disqualifying (another is Howard Dean's "scream."). I just rewatched a clip of the Q&A, and I still feel the same. While Shaw's question was worded unnecessarily provocatively, it was fair to ask about opposition to the death penalty. Yes, Dukakis gave an unemotional, rational, factual response. What was he supposed to do--start screaming, "Oh my God, Kitty's been raped and killed!?!?" Of course not. He responded reasonably and articulately to the question and got unjustly criticized for it. It's akin to the reason some people voted for George Bush over Al Gore because he seemed like a better guy to have a beer with.
He could have split the difference with an answer that was both emotional and rational, ie, a long pause, a deep breath, then "well, naturally I would want to hunt the guy down and kill him, which is why it's so important that we have the legal and justice system we have because we are a human *society* governed by laws--I might be going after the wrong guy, and even if I'm not, it shouldn't be up to me to be judge, jury, and executioner"
That all may sound like second-guessing hindsight, but Shaw's question didn't come out of the blue the way upset Dems represented at rhe time--the "Willie" Horton ad waa out there, his opposition to the death penalty was out there, he should have been better prepared for a question like this, and I sometimes wonder, given that the no. 1 thing we uniquely expect of presidents is the ability to react appropriately to any eventuality, whether his obvious lack of preparation didn’t hurt him, subliminally at least, more than an answer that was so bloodless it almost seemed like a non-sequitur.
Also it connected to another robotic lack of awareness that really began the collapse of that 17 point lead, his ridiculous tank photo op.
I remember those disgusting Willie Horton TV ads very well. Roger Ailes and Lee Atwater masterminded those ads. Given that Roger Ailes went on to co-found FOX News with Rupert Murdoch; I think it can be argued that those Willie Horton ads were the precursor to FOX News and this massive right wing media we sadly have now.
That's what my read into it was. Like I said I was only a toddler then, but I've seen that clip & documentaries on the whole affair, and from what I've gathered an effective answer, or at least one that would e kept Dukakis in the running would've been one that is framed like you said (I'd want to do this, but our justice system etc...). Additionally I did see an interview with one of the campaign staff who tried to talk Dukakis, or at least the campaign director(s) out of the tank photo op because they knew he wouldn't look that cool in it (but the man was basically told 'shut up and do your job'). A fascinating lesson in how not to run a campaign.
Poor Mike. He was a good governor for MA.
There's a really cool tv series on Apple TV called For All Mankind - which is an alternate history take on the space program. Maybe there should be an alternate history anthology show on what if "this candidate won this presidential race ?"
I really enjoyed that show. It would be an interesting study (and perhaps sad).
Hillary did come with baggage on day 1 (even if unfair, it was true), so I would never compare her experience with Kamala, in any way.
In those days, voters were FAR less polarized. People voted across party lines fairly often in the presidential elections. Swings could go both ways. This is not a swing, but a collapse. Dukakis was also not running against a convicted felon facing sentencing weeks before election day, who had been impeached twice and lost the last presidential election. Overconfidence is not helpful, but I defy you to find one Democrat who has become LESS excited about voting, volunteering, and donating since Kamala started leading. Their weakness is showing, and we're redoubling our efforts to exploit that weakness.
Also if remember correctly there was something in the Massachusetts constitution about if a budget dispute happened the governor had to remain in the state. So some Republican legislatures created a dispute forcing Dukakis off the campaign trail for almost a month.
I never knew that. If true, disgusting, but not surprising. Unlike a lot of people, I liked Dukakis A LOT, even after that debate. Silly me, I researched his track record, which was very good. I wish he would have found a way to spotlight that.
LOL, ironically, if women actually were stupid enough to vote for a male candidate based on looks (Remember how R’s thought Quayle’s looks would bring in female votes?), Dukakis would have won by a landslide.
Yeah I brought this up previously, but as someone who is “tuned in” to younger a further left voters; the attitudes around Harris rn are like night and day when compared with Hillary in 2016. In 2016, a lot of people were dissatisfied with the mainstream DNC that Hillary represented, bitter about Bernie not getting the nomination (and Hillary’s campaign kind of blew their opportunity to bring dissatisfied Bernie voters back in, imo), not nearly as terrified of Trump as they are now (back then he was still largely viewed as a joke candidate, and even in the event he won a lot of people saw him as a likely paper tiger), and Hillary herself was not viewed as personable or likable at all.
Literally all of the above is completely different with Harris. I think people often tend to overplay the extent to which misogyny played a role in Hillary’s loss; like I’m not going to discount it as a factor entirely, but generalized dislike for her among key groups ran much deeper than anything to do with her gender, and let’s not forget that she underperformed with women as well as men (back then, just in general, gender-related issues were not nearly as prominent in mainstream American politics, Roe v. Wade still stood and was viewed as unshakable political bedrock, this was pre-“Me Too”, feminism was often viewed as either passé or “too radical” and more frequently dismissed by the mainstream, and even LGBTQ issues were less discussed at the time, often being viewed as a struggle that had already been overcome between the national legalization of same-sex marriage and the fact that—unlike now—any attempts at legislatively attacking trans people were met with swift negative reactions from major corporations, who threatened to pull out of states over it—unlike now where the richest man in the world is an open transphobe).
But now the anger of women and gender and sexual minorities against fascists who want to control what we do with our own bodies and essentially wipe out entire demographics of people is boiling over, and generally the stakes have just never been higher, so far from Harris’s gender being a vulnerability, I don’t think there has ever been a more fitting time in US history for their to be a woman president.
Ditto. :-) K is at the right time, in the right place and the right leader, as she knows the type of person that is dealing with.
LOL. All women are, in fact, not the same.
In earlier time, issues included political effectiveness, and an ability to connect with voters. A concern that a few Dem party loyalists had tipped the scale for H did not bring all Dems into the fold.
I know there’s supposed to be a decent amount of protesters but again, it’s not 1968, Vietnam, or the Civil rights movement. So, I don’t believe 100,000 pro Palestinian protesters (if it even ends up being that much) will all the sudden upend the entire week and have some mass violent clash with the police etc. The Chicago Police Department I think is quite prepared for this convention and they KNOW they cannot screw this up! Even though Chicago is on high alert next week, I still instinctively anticipate the alert will turn out to be more of a panic than a reality. I keep having to remind myself…just cuz there are those who want it to be another 1968, doesn’t mean that will feasibly come to fruition.
This convention truly needs to emulate the now winning and near unstoppable message of the campaign…hope, joy, and moving forward, not going back and I anticipate it will be that way. Not to mention, anyone else think like me…Harris…the prosecutor…made damn sure behind the scenes that the city was beyond prepared not to let the spotlight be taken away from the convention? Just sayin!
I do hope the DNC and the Harris-Walz Campaign have taken serious steps to limit and dampen the protests. For the news media is sure to exaggerate any demonstrations and disruptions.
Yes. I hope all are safe.
I remember the dire warnings Repubs publicized about tr in the nyc court case. Ended up being almost no one protesting justice being procured.
It’s been designated a national security event, so there are lots of things in place to keep protesters under control. They have a designated space to protest and if they try to deviate or cause issues, the full weight of our national security apparatus will fall on them.
Potential protesters include a small but significant number of DNC delegates.
I know some are in talks with the Harris campaign - at least according a NYT article
I anticipate it will remain peaceful. Right, wrong, or indifferent of the protests themselves…the vast majority of protesters who show up I don’t believe will want to stoke chaos. Not to mention and like I’ve said before…who knows if we’ll even see up to 100,000 anyway. 100,000 permits don’t equal 100,000 in attendance.
It's our old friend Comrade Jill Stein who is spearheading a lot of it. Tells you all you need to know.
I can’t confirm or deny that to be honest but it doesn’t matter. I have a feeling they’ll be able to curtail any significant outside agitation attempts.
I refuse to believe btw, all these uncommitted voters will sit this one out. Harris is in a tricky situation. She CANNOT abandon Israel and she knows that. Her husband is Jewish for crying out loud. I’m not sure having a big speaking spot for a pro Palestinian representative would be effective at the convention cuz again, she can’t risk losing the Jewish vote. She has that majority cuz the majority of Jewish Americans are Democrats anyway despite there being a significant faction of Jewish republicans nonetheless.
That said, the convention can only have room for key players and no room for any potential to stoke flames. So, if she has a Palestinian on stage, she needs an Israeli on stage too. Can’t choose sides and what frustrates me is that both groups keep pushing that pressure.
The uncommitted had too many issues with Biden…so be it. I disagree but now it’s not him anymore and the base is over the moon for a variety of reasons (least of which in my view actually pertain to the Middle Eastern Crisis). I doubt a brokered ceasefire/hostage exchange deal will be made next week sometime although one never truly knows. However, if enacted before the election…the uncommitted voters will come into the fold without hesitation.
Many of them I think will still vote for her regardless (even if in secret against their ‘uncommitted’ stance) cuz I think more of them than I believe we give credit for…know damn well how significantly worse Trump would be. I empathize with the causes and the debates but it’s time for everyone to grow a pair, look at the bigger picture, and stop being self centered. There are FAR MORE issues on the home front that have potential immediate affects both left and right than that of the Middle East conflict, though affecting it may be.
I actually question whether we’ll even see as many as 100,000 protesters to be honest. Ultimately, I anticipate this week will go by under the banner of joy and looking forward and then at the end of the week the city of Chicago will go….’shewww, we got through that in one piece, wasn’t too bad.’
It should be ENOUGH for the majority of Americans to hear her strength in her stance she’s been repeating forever…that she is pro Israel/pro Gaza peace, pro two state solution—-Anti Netanyahu/Anti Hamas. That’s where the MAJORITY stands period!
We will NOT lose over this issue mark my words. Like James Carville said back then…”Its the economy stupid” — this election cycle, as important as economics, immigration, foreign policy, healthcare, LGBTQ matters all are —- this election, I firmly believe “It’s WOMEN stupid!” If my instincts prove right on that, I think we’ll not only win, but bigger that even you and I anticipate.
Michael Moore is encouraging his readers to protest - although he very clearly is instructing them to do so peacefully & is making clear he wants to elect Harris. I'm not nearly as antsy as I was 2/3 days ago.
What is Mr Moore protesting?
Personally, I don't care. I am excited to watch the convention every night! 💙💙💙💙
He's just encouraging people to show up & oppose Gaza - like demanding it for the platform I think. He's made it VERY CLEAR he supports Harris and sees her as a breath of fresh air - but he's been very outspoken about the Gaza humanitarian crisis
I don't get the sense he's trying to be a spoiler
I understand. I am just over him in general.
It would all be different if all those hostages were rightfully returned. Yes, it's all devastating, but I find it difficult to see the real moral righteousness from people who don't care about those innocent hostages who are still not freed.
It was the whole point of what Hamas did to Israel. Innocent people have been in harms way from Day 1, yet that seems okay with some? Bring Them Home.
For us Boomers, we remember 1968. I was little, but I recall that the world was very different than it is today. America literally was on fire. There were protests across the country in opposition to a very divisive war. There was a draft. My mom was elected a delegate to the DNC because she wanted to protest the war. (Sadly, she could not serve,) There was a huge division between factions of the Democratic Party because of the war. The leading candidate, Bobby Kennedy, was murdered in June. MLK had been murdered two months prior to that. The brokered convention produced a candidate that many opposed. The result was Nixon. I really feel we Democrats have learned our lesson. The Republicans, apparently, have not yet learned.
And I hope this little bit of history isn't forgotten: the 68 event was officially declared to have been a "police riot". Mayor Daly was castigated for setting up the atmosphere that resulted in turning a peaceful demostration into a full-on attack by police on the protestors. Chicago since has learned from those mistakes, and it looks like this will be a positive experience. T & Co. know how much they have on the line if they are seen to be encouraging misbehavior.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2024/08/14/chicago-dnc-protests-police-reforms
I remember when he was assassinated (I was too young to fully understand).
Chicago-goers, have an incredible time! I wish I could join you and thanks for representing Hopium with Simon! It's going to be the Party of the Year....until November 5 surpasses it. : >
Agree. Wish I could be there—at the Hopium party. Only. I’d hate the convention itself.
So far, the Harris campaign has not made a mistake. I’m trusting that they know the scale and scope of any protests and are fully prepared to make sure it doesn’t affect the Convention.
The pro-Palestinian activists are losing a lot of ground on social media (Twitter and TikTok) these last two weeks. There has been a lot of anger directed at Black Americans who are “betraying their cause” by voting for Kamala Harris. The anti-Blackness and misogynoir has fully hit the movement and they’re splintering a lot of US support.
Jamelle Bouie (NYT Opinion Columnist) has been doing a series of videos on what happens to movements that become anti-Black (short answer- nothing good).
All of this is to say, I don’t think the protests are going to be anything close to what the keyboard warriors are claiming it will be.
Thanks for this info. Also wanted to say that I love the terms "misogynoir" and "keyboard warriors."
“Misogynoir” - I absolutely love it!!!!
Malcolm Nance said much the same; attacking the first Black woman to run for president is not gonna go over well with the Black community.
Yes, except that our VP isn't the first...Shirley Chisholm and Carol Moseley Braun also ran, and I wanted to see if there were others, and there were: 11 in total have run, including our VP. So happy to know this, and so proud of them all!
I do remember reading that. But let's be real, those were not serious contenders; I was actually at Jesse Jackson's appearance in 1988 in Sewaren NJ as a member of the press; I was up close. There were maybe 50 people there, and this was a couple hundred yards across the water from NYC; you'd have thought there would be a lot of press there, but no. And he was a high profile figure. But he was never seriously in the running. Harris has not only been the VP for the last four years, I think she is favored to win. This is very different. By the way, 20 years later I'd see Jesse Jackson in tears as Barack Obama came out on stage on election night after his win; I was in recovery from cancer surgery, half stoned, hoping they got it all ( they did ) and I will never forget it. The nurses, doctors, porters, patients, every one, stopped to watch the tv.
Shirley Chisolm should have been considered a serious candidate. She never got the credit she deserved for the work she did. Not even at the convention. Both parties systematically excluded women from recognition, but it was expecially galling where Shirley was concerned. Jesse Jackson was also shafted, but still not disregarded in the way women were. That attitude was still at work when Clinton ran too. The one that really sticks in my craw is how LBJ got the networks to cut away from Fannie Lou Hamer's speech just as she took the podium. Good for whoever made the decision to keep the tape rolling: we got to see and hear her deliver her powerful speech, which is still available.
And now, at last, we have Kamala Harris, who is being taken very seriously indeed. I have literally been waiting all my life for this. She chose well in selecting Tim Walz as running mate, but make no mistake, this is about Kamala. And I hope that in the process the names of all those women, black, white, indigenous, Latina, asian who opened the way are brought forward in history, so that we remember what they gave us.
The way I see it, those women paved the way for our VP. There always has to be a first, a maverick, someone to brave everyone saying they have no chance....even if they know they have no chance. Every one of those women opened the door a little more for the next. I never want to dismiss or forget them. Perhaps that's what Jackson did for Obama. I remember when he ran, and people didn't take him seriously. It's still important that he did. I do remember the video of Jackson in tears. It still chokes me up. I love that so many at the hospital shared in that moment...and I'm so glad everything turned out well for you.
Few candidates have the experience of four years as VP. I do not see any relationship to prior candidates who had no experience. Every candidate is unique. No categorization is needed.
Angela Davis was twice a Vice Presidential candidate, although hardly for a mainstream party.
It seems we have very similar social media experiences/algorithms. I’ve been fascinated to see this movement crumble online the past couple weeks, including some outing of nefarious players. I do hope that translates to a deflation of physical presence at the convention. There are an awful lot of ppl behind the movement that are truly just Harris/Democratic spoilers, not sincere protesters, and I expect they will still be full steam ahead.
Just like their leader. They have nothing else to say.
Trying to paste a little video from Dem Cast for “ vote on day one“. Not sure if it’ll work.
https://share.icloud.com/photos/0famIFvmN90bkyaQ6CY7ttvuw

Watched on youtube [general search, not campaign website] Tim Walz event in Omaha. He was introduced by his wife Gwen. WOW she is dynamic. She was high school speech and debate coach - a statewide competitive school activity.
GOP craziness 2? saw on Jarrod Moskowitz Nitter that Congr. Oversight Committee plans to investigate Tim Walz's ties to China. From his bio he taught in China on a World Teach program, speaks Mandarin, I think, and retains his ties in support of democracy in China. Am I correct in thinking they are insane to give him a free all-day forum in which to show his foreign policy creds?
I would love to see that. I had no idea! (And of course they're investigating him...they have nothing better to do, right?)
They TRULY have nothing better to do
yes, they have nothing. and I assume T instructed them to do it
love the caps
Oy! One Trick Pony this lot.
Does the Washington Post headline highlight the Likely Voter numbers of their new poll? Of course not! In order avoid reporting overly good news for Kamala Harris, they stick to Registered Voters and write:
. "Harris holds slight national lead over Trump, Post-ABC-Ipsos poll finds"
Honest headlines might have been:
. "Harris opens 6-point national lead over Trump"
. "More than half of America’s likely voters intend to vote for Harris, new poll reveals"
Yeah, Dkos had a whole diary on this; not a good look that they seemed to downplay the LV numbers.
I am over the Washington Post.
I recently resubscribed after receiving a ridiculously cheap offer. To me it’s worth it to be able to read the few stellar journalists/columnists they still have – such as Jennifer Rubin.
I got Simon’s email and quickly went to the WaPo article, expecting to see a headline and/or story reporting Harris opening up a statistically significant lead and detailing how Trump is faltering. Nope.
Instead, had a good chuckle at the WaPo’s strained efforts to maintain the horse race narrative. They bury the LV numbers. They don’t mention the 6-point LV spread in favor of Harris at all. Not a single reference. Only RVs, and in that regard WaPo stresses that the RV numbers are within the MOE. Yet, the poll clearly shows a 51 - 45 lead for Harris among LVs which is outside the MOE.
This is really sad to see on so many levels - these bastions of journalism subjugating obvious truth to further political spectacle and ultimately, profit interests.
And another reason we need folks like Simon leading us through these times. I would not have gone to the underlying poll data but for Simon’s message. I would have had no idea Harris had a 6-point lead among LVs.
A +/- 2% MOE means that a candidate’s performance in an actual election should, to a 95% degree of confidence, be within +/- 2% of what the poll provides. So, in a worst case scenario, Harris could be 2% lower and Trump could be 2% higher, in which case they would either be tied or Trump would be ahead in the RV results.
To be outside the MOE, the poll must show a spread between the candidates that is 2X the MOE.
You are correct. The LV results are outside the MOE. The RV results are not but they are close to being so.
A bastion of journalism?
The Washington Post and the New York Times are now bastardizations of journalism!
Curious...when was the last time they actually were left-leaning? Back in the Watergate days? I'm 61, started paying attention to politics in the mid-'80s and especially '90s, and don't remember the media leaning left ever. Maybe it ended in the "greed is good" era.
There was a time when WaPo was "truth-leaning".
And as Stephen Colbert famously quipped, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." I suppose that applies to Truth as well.
Oh, I just love "truth-leaning." And SC's quote is masterful, as usual. I finally lost my naivete when I joined Hopium and found that I wasn't the only one disillusioned by MSM.
I think they need to delete that byline, "Democracy dies in darkness." I do not believe they care. :-)
NYT, my former home town paper, has always been considered conservative but not so actively right-wing as now.
Corporate media.
I'm not seeing any 51-45 LV margin in the Post's story or the detailed crosstabs they link to at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/tablet/2024/08/15/aug-9-13-2024-washington-post-abc-news-ipsos-poll/. The closest I see is 50-45 in question #3:
Vote preference excluding “would not vote”: 8/13/24 Harris 50 Trump 45 Someone else 4 Skip 1
Can anyone point to where the 51-45 result is?
https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1234a2HarrisvsTrump.pdf
That's the press release, but the 51-45 LV figure appears nowhere in the original source data.
It is in the graphic I brought into my Hopium post which is from the article.
I'm super excited about all the great speeches and reminders of why Democrats are responsible for championing the four freedoms from Chicago. When I'm not listening to or viewing those speeches from here in Durham I'm going to be canvassing, registering voters, phonebanking and postcarding. What we do now will have an even greater effect on the GOTV efforts we'll be making when early voting starts and I know the entire Hopium family is with me! Believe!!!!
One storyline of the DNC that fascinates me is the potential role that sane/anti-Trump Republicans may play. I just saw an unconfirmed report that Adam Kinzinger is speaking this coming week. If true, I hope this performance drives a stake into the heart of MAGA.
This is great, hadn't heard he was going to speak. The Republicans for Harris movement is very heartening. I have to say, I've been surprised at Liz Cheney's absence, since she has vowed she'd do anything to stop Trump. Regardless of what she decides, I have great admiration for her and her courage.
Yes, and I'm waiting to hear from Liz Cheney, too. She's from the hardline RW policy-wise, so we'll see how committed she is. What I really want to see is these sane republicans staying with us until maga is destroyed. This will take more than one election; it will take defeats in every election cycle on local/state/federal levels before the movement loses all power. So winning this election is vital, and so is every other election going forward.
Hi, Russell...I wish I felt the same! I could be wrong and this is just my view, but several anti-Trump GOP operatives have said the same, that this is bigger than trump. This is a movement that's been building and needs to be defanged. Just look at maga 2.0, with JD Vance and other young autocrats, with tech oligarchs funding them. That's why he was chosen as VP, to carry on the legacy.
I'm just saying that our work continues beyond this election. We shouldn't be lulled into thinking that once they're defeated in Nov, they'll all retreat. (Note Jan 6, 2021.) When an entire party and our Supreme Court has been overtaken by fascists, my view is that it's going to take more than one or two electoral defeats to relegate them to the dustbin of history.
But this isn't a bad thing...it just means we continue to do the good work of democracy and keep being involved. For that is what makes democracy work...when everyone has a stake!
Well, there is a lot yet to play out on the legal side and imo it will, especially if we do our part. pedal to the metal as we all are saying.
Haven't seen Kinzinger confirmed yet. If anyone sees he's on the schedule, please give a shout out! Would love to hear him drive that stake!