What happens to Kamala’s momentum now the DNC is over?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, please provide data to a reporter or academic who can analyze the likely number and rate of troll/bot posts in this forum.

The transparent bad faith talking-point trolling is really off the charts here

Is it so hard for you to believe that there are people posting here that have a different perspective than you?

Nope. I know plenty of people in real life who disagree with me — that’s fine — but on other sites I can see (a) who is repeat posting at a high volume and/or sock-puppeting, and (b) the likelihood that any particular post was written by a legit user vs. a troll.

Many, many posts here feel very off. But even if they didn’t, we’d all be foolish to assume that this site is somehow (uniquely among similar sites) free from influence campaigns. Unfortunately, that’s just not a reasonable assumption in 2024.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She can't even do an interview on CNN alone. Tim Walz has to be there with her. Good grief.

Not every president needs to hide their VP away or try to get them off to the gallows. Believe it or not, Harris decided on a VP that is an asset to her campaign and to the country. Give a candidate a try that can make quality decisions. You might like it.

+1. I love how the lack of interviews is triggering the MAGAs. They have nothing else to criticize or anything that would stick. Don't play their game, Kamala.

Are you saying she shouldn’t do her job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, please provide data to a reporter or academic who can analyze the likely number and rate of troll/bot posts in this forum.

The transparent bad faith talking-point trolling is really off the charts here

Is it so hard for you to believe that there are people posting here that have a different perspective than you?

Nope. I know plenty of people in real life who disagree with me — that’s fine — but on other sites I can see (a) who is repeat posting at a high volume and/or sock-puppeting, and (b) the likelihood that any particular post was written by a legit user vs. a troll.

Many, many posts here feel very off. But even if they didn’t, we’d all be foolish to assume that this site is somehow (uniquely among similar sites) free from influence campaigns. Unfortunately, that’s just not a reasonable assumption in 2024.

Agree. The high volume of non sequiturs and flagrant lies really detracts. I’m perfectly comfortable with people disagreeing with me but when they’re just spouting made up nonsense, it’s silly to engage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, please provide data to a reporter or academic who can analyze the likely number and rate of troll/bot posts in this forum.

The transparent bad faith talking-point trolling is really off the charts here

Is it so hard for you to believe that there are people posting here that have a different perspective than you?

Nope. I know plenty of people in real life who disagree with me — that’s fine — but on other sites I can see (a) who is repeat posting at a high volume and/or sock-puppeting, and (b) the likelihood that any particular post was written by a legit user vs. a troll.

Many, many posts here feel very off. But even if they didn’t, we’d all be foolish to assume that this site is somehow (uniquely among similar sites) free from influence campaigns. Unfortunately, that’s just not a reasonable assumption in 2024.

Also, this should go without saying, but I don’t want any bad faith sock puppets, influence campaigns, bots, or trolls, of *any* political background or opinion. Neither should any of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, please provide data to a reporter or academic who can analyze the likely number and rate of troll/bot posts in this forum.

The transparent bad faith talking-point trolling is really off the charts here

Is it so hard for you to believe that there are people posting here that have a different perspective than you?

Nope. I know plenty of people in real life who disagree with me — that’s fine — but on other sites I can see (a) who is repeat posting at a high volume and/or sock-puppeting, and (b) the likelihood that any particular post was written by a legit user vs. a troll.

Many, many posts here feel very off. But even if they didn’t, we’d all be foolish to assume that this site is somehow (uniquely among similar sites) free from influence campaigns. Unfortunately, that’s just not a reasonable assumption in 2024.

Also, this should go without saying, but I don’t want any bad faith sock puppets, influence campaigns, bots, or trolls, of *any* political background or opinion. Neither should any of us.

+3ish with you sane people. Although it’s felt weird and then not and then weird again here for months, like something wakes and then goes back to sleep. I don’t know enough about the internet to know more but that’s my sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New York Times is starting to turn on her also.

"Joy is not a strategy"

The “joy” strategy just makes her look clueless.

Joy is to explain her nervous laughter.

Reagan was joyful but he knew how to deliver lines without world salad and he was much older than Kamala.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Interview will be prerecorded, not live.

Of course it will be prerecorded so they can carefully edit it to make her look less stupid. The fact she needs Walz to act as an emotional support animal during the interview is even more pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She can't even do an interview on CNN alone. Tim Walz has to be there with her. Good grief.

Not every president needs to hide their VP away or try to get them off to the gallows. Believe it or not, Harris decided on a VP that is an asset to her campaign and to the country. Give a candidate a try that can make quality decisions. You might like it.

+1. I love how the lack of interviews is triggering the MAGAs. They have nothing else to criticize or anything that would stick. Don't play their game, Kamala.

Your candidate dropped out of the 2020 primaries before a vote was cast because your own party disliked her that much. Keep on thinking she’s the next Obama and she stands a chance and project about cope.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Interview will be prerecorded, not live.

Of course it will be prerecorded so they can carefully edit it to make her look less stupid. The fact she needs Walz to act as an emotional support animal during the interview is even more pathetic.

I cannot stand Hillary, but at least she was capable enough to stand on her own.

This is actually embarrassing for a female POC to have old, white man as a crutch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, please provide data to a reporter or academic who can analyze the likely number and rate of troll/bot posts in this forum.

The transparent bad faith talking-point trolling is really off the charts here

Is it so hard for you to believe that there are people posting here that have a different perspective than you?

Nope. I know plenty of people in real life who disagree with me — that’s fine — but on other sites I can see (a) who is repeat posting at a high volume and/or sock-puppeting, and (b) the likelihood that any particular post was written by a legit user vs. a troll.

Many, many posts here feel very off. But even if they didn’t, we’d all be foolish to assume that this site is somehow (uniquely among similar sites) free from influence campaigns. Unfortunately, that’s just not a reasonable assumption in 2024.

Agree. The high volume of non sequiturs and flagrant lies really detracts. I’m perfectly comfortable with people disagreeing with me but when they’re just spouting made up nonsense, it’s silly to engage.

Which lies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She can't even do an interview on CNN alone. Tim Walz has to be there with her. Good grief.

Not every president needs to hide their VP away or try to get them off to the gallows. Believe it or not, Harris decided on a VP that is an asset to her campaign and to the country. Give a candidate a try that can make quality decisions. You might like it.

+1. I love how the lack of interviews is triggering the MAGAs. They have nothing else to criticize or anything that would stick. Don't play their game, Kamala.

Are you saying she shouldn’t do her job?

Exactly. It's interesting that the PP is actually *hoping* KH doesn't do any interviews. What does that tell us??
NP

[Anonymous]

Why is the interview with both of them? Why not separate interviews for each?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is the interview with both of them? Why not separate interviews for each?

This is a guess on my part.

Harris and Walz are campaigning together in Georgia starting tomorrow. CNN is headquartered in Atlanta, so it makes sense that the interview is with CNN while they’re in Georgia.

Walz still does not have much name recognition. I can’t remember the numbers exactly, but something like 40% of Americans don’t know anything about him. Given that he has high approvals among the people that know him, it makes sense then to try and introduce him to a wider audience. A joint interview will serve that purpose very well. People that won’t tune in just for him (apparently Vance has done a bunch of interviews; did anyone care?) will more likely tune in because Harris is also there. It will also give the audience the opportunity to see how they work together.

I would love to see a Trump-Vance joint interview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Kamala giving an interview today?

Tomorrow?

She said before the end of the month.

I know you are trying to make this a thing.

Just so you, I am not worried. She is a candidate that keeps her word and pays attention to details so she would not have made this commitment without planning to meet it.

I realize this is confusing to Trump supporters as he was always promising some sort of plan (e.g. healthcare, infrastructure) in two weeks and that two weeks never came.

Harris will keep her word and she will show up at the debate prepared and she will share more policy details.

The thing is, the vast majority of people calling for these details do not care, they support a candidate that provides no details, flips wherever and whenever is serves his interest.

You are not looking for solutions to the country’s issues, you are looking for sound bites that misconstrue the policies.

She has said what she intends to do and that she is pragmatic and will govern with common sense.

Everything else is MAGA flailing for a sound bite.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She can't even do an interview on CNN alone. Tim Walz has to be there with her. Good grief.

Between them they’ve been on this earth 120 years and they haven’t spent one day in the private sector.

Wow. Explains so much.