Communion Posted July 31 Posted July 31 7 minutes ago, Rotunda said: I don't think that's what's happening at all though? This reads to me as a very generic defense against the weakest part of her record. She has to explain that she was trying and will do something about the border. Her focusing on human traffickers and drug traffickers at the border rather than specific illegal immigrants current living in the U.S. is the correct framing. Hearing her frame her speech around criminals and not regular migrants. Hearing her end the 1-minute set-up with "and that's why the first thing I'll do is pass the bipartisan immigration bill when I'm president" 1
Rotunda Posted July 31 Posted July 31 6 minutes ago, Bloo said: Saying that she is running with Biden's policy when he has been shifting to a conservative hardline policy against asylum seekers is over the top and unhelpful. If anything, should be drawing more disassociation with Biden's policies. She can claim the popular bits of Biden's presidency (mostly his pro-union rhetoric and his work with the NLRB). But, he was widely despised on immigration and, even from a politically cynical lens, it makes no sense to broadly embrace Biden's rhetoric on immigration. I'm wondering if you're referring to her overall positioning recently and I'm just talking about the ad on the last page, so that may be the disconnect. If so, sorry for the confusion.
Tovitov Posted July 31 Posted July 31 Like, for real. Imagine if a group of bipartisan senators came together and worked out a national abortion bill that legalized it everywhere but Biden came out against it because he wanted to run on womans rights in 2024. Thats legit what Trump did with the border bill and why Harris needs to bring it up constantly. 4
Vermillion Posted July 31 Posted July 31 12 minutes ago, Bloo said: Saying that she is running with Biden's policy when he has been shifting to a conservative hardline policy against asylum seekers is over the top and unhelpful. If anything, should be drawing more disassociation with Biden's policies. She can claim the popular bits of Biden's presidency (mostly his pro-union rhetoric and his work with the NLRB). But, he was widely despised on immigration and, even from a politically cynical lens, it makes no sense to broadly embrace Biden's rhetoric on immigration. This gets back to my original point on how far she's afforded to break from Biden on any issue in return for Biden having agreed to step down in the first place. The notion there's been an overhaul of the election team and by default, advisors, is false. I'm not saying I agree with it at all but the best we can hope for is a campaign Kamala and President Kamala on the issues she's perceived as weakest by independents. Now is that in itself a problem and a sign of political cowardice? Absolutely one could argue that. My devil's advocate theory, which isn't giving her credit, is there's layers as to why she's doing it. There's probably reams of internal polling they considered on what holds onto enough independents without doing too much damage to the base, but I don't have the energy to pull up the stats that agree with or counter that line of thinking. Maybe @Communion has some
Communion Posted July 31 Posted July 31 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Sannie said: Acting like she's moving to the right of Trump The "bipartisan immigration bill" is - objectively - more conservative and harsher than anything Trump passed or proposed (bar eliminating birthright citizenship) during his tenure. If you think she has to pivot that far right to win voters, you're more than free to make the argument. But she's not just signaling vague platitudes. She put her name on a piece of legislation. We know how that legislation stacks vs Trump. Edited July 31 by Communion 1
Communion Posted July 31 Posted July 31 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Tovitov said: Like, for real. Imagine if a group of bipartisan senators came together and worked out a national abortion bill that legalized it everywhere That's... not what happened. Biden demanded Democrats push through funding for wars in Israel and Ukraine and they offered up a hard-right turn on immigration to barter. Edited July 31 by Communion 1
ATRL Moderator Bloo Posted July 31 ATRL Moderator Posted July 31 9 minutes ago, Tovitov said: I disagree. Trump killing the bipartisan border bill to score politicial points isnt being talked about enough It's Trump's number 1 issue and him being a massive hypocrite should be immensely damaging. Calling out Trump's hypocrisy isn't the issue. 2 minutes ago, Rotunda said: I'm wondering if you're referring to her overall positioning recently and I'm just talking about the ad on the last page, so that may be the disconnect. If so, sorry for the confusion. I think the general posturing on the issue. The ad is mostly fine. My main issue with it is the border patrol comment which should have been left in the drafts. I have no issue with Trump's hypocrisy being called out, but it shouldn't be done to the extent of highlighting how little Democrats care about immigration. Obama was the "deporter in chief" and he never would have run ads bragging about it. 2
ATRL Moderator Bloo Posted July 31 ATRL Moderator Posted July 31 4 minutes ago, Tovitov said: Like, for real. Imagine if a group of bipartisan senators came together and worked out a national abortion bill that legalized it everywhere but Biden came out against it because he wanted to run on womans rights in 2024. Thats legit what Trump did with the border bill and why Harris needs to bring it up constantly. I don't care if something is bipartisan. I care if something is good. Something isn't inherently good if it's bipartisan. Case in point: the TikTok ban was laughably stupid and anti-free speech; but it was exceedingly bipartisan. 1
Tovitov Posted July 31 Posted July 31 Just now, Bloo said: Calling out Trump's hypocrisy isn't the issue. I think the general posturing on the issue. The ad is mostly fine. My main issue with it is the border patrol comment which should have been left in the drafts. I have no issue with Trump's hypocrisy being called out, but it shouldn't be done to the extent of highlighting how little Democrats care about immigration. Obama was the "deporter in chief" and he never would have run ads bragging about it. Not to sound like a Republican, but Obama never dealt with +2 million border crossings a year. 1
Tovitov Posted July 31 Posted July 31 4 minutes ago, Communion said: That's... not what happened. Biden demanded Democrats push through funding for wars in Israel and Ukraine and they offered up a hard-right turn on immigration to parder. Republicans demanded a border bill in exchange for Ukraine funding. 1
Harrier Posted July 31 Posted July 31 People need to look at polling on immigration - the left leaning view has completely collapsed. Mainstream Democrats are simply responding to this shift among voters which is why they are now backing this bipartisan legislation as their position. Leftist members might say it's because they're not messaging on immigration any more and that they completely let the Republicans run rampant on the issue for the last 4 years - and I'd agree. But 100 days out from the most important election of the 21st century so far is not the time to try and convince voters to change their minds on a big issue, it's the time to appeal for their votes and this is the right path for that. 4
Rotunda Posted July 31 Posted July 31 Regardless Kamala needs a platform instead of breadcrumbing us with backtracking and new framings
Communion Posted July 31 Posted July 31 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Tovitov said: Republicans demanded a border bill in exchange for Ukraine funding. You're just rephrasing what I've already said to you without any difference in distinction. Democrats wrote an immigration bill that most Democratic-leaning voters would never actually support if they knew what's in it and is vocally criticized by those who do know. You cite Obama and yet his poor handling of immigration - he was literally dubbed the Deporter-in-Chief - cost Hillary with Latino voters. Trump also plucked Obama's advisers on immigration for his own administration. We're now 16 years into Republican-built, far-right immigration policy. Edited July 31 by Communion 1
ATRL Moderator Bloo Posted July 31 ATRL Moderator Posted July 31 6 minutes ago, Tovitov said: Not to sound like a Republican, but Obama never dealt with +2 million border crossings a year. This would be more compelling if illegal immigration was a top 5 issue for Independents or Democrats. It is not. https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/DLqDe/3/#
ATRL Moderator Bloo Posted July 31 ATRL Moderator Posted July 31 1 minute ago, MAKSIM said: Seems like a Shapiro pick. Not Kamala forgetting about the context of all in which she lived and what came before her.
Blade Posted July 31 Posted July 31 @Communion @Vermillion My last bit of crumbs to hold on to: Quote If Harris chooses Shapiro as her running mate, Philadelphia would make an obvious place to roll out the news, given that he hails from the area's suburbs. But it's also a diverse, vote-rich city that every presidential nominee must tend to thanks to the state's 19 electoral votes, and it's possible Harris' plans don't signal anything beyond that. A Harris campaign aide cautioned against reading too much into the first city chosen for the tour. Harris said a decision about her No. 2 spot on ticket has not been finalized. Asked by reporters on Tuesday if she has selected her running mate, she said "not yet."
ATRL Moderator Bloo Posted July 31 ATRL Moderator Posted July 31 4 minutes ago, Rotunda said: Regardless Kamala needs a platform instead of breadcrumbing us with backtracking and new framings I mean... this is why I hated Kamala in 2020. She had no platform and yoyo-ed back and forth between positions by the day.
Relampago. Posted July 31 Posted July 31 I think the immigration ad situation is multi-faceted. 1.) I don't think Kamala is trying to move to the right of Trump… that's a little silly and of all the issues to do it on this isn't the one. I think she's just trying to show Trump is inept and she's capable of taking action vs. Trump's inability to make things happen. 2.) To me, this signals she's not going with Kelly. Like people said already, immigration is simply NOT a huge issue across the country. However, it definitely is in Arizona, it's always brought up here. I feel like her going harder on immigration is her way of making up for not picking Kelly as her VP, but we'll see. 3.) I wouldn't expect her to move to the left on anything except maybe the courts, Gaza and possibly things like student debt forgiveness. Kamala has never been this progressive darling and there's really no reason to expect she'll change that any time soon. 4.) Considering the last point, I DO think Kamala is more malleable when it comes to pushing progressive policy, so people like Bernie, AOC, etc need to keep their foots on her neck because Kamala has a legacy she wants to secure and if she can be convinced the progressive wing of the party is no longer something that can be ignored (especially as Gen Z/Millennials take over more and more of the electorate), then I could see some progress happening. But that won't be until well into her administration. 1
Recommended Posts