“They don’t have a narrative that they’re comfortable with about how to take down Harris,” said Chuck Coughlin, an Arizona-based political strategist. “He’s grasping around. I think he’s desperately grasping around with his instincts. I don’t think his team has any way to put their handle on this, and so he’s instinctually grasping around for what to say.”

The Trump machine had in recent days begun a multi-million-dollar TV advertising blitz hammering Harris for her record on the border, an issue the former president’s campaign sees as a winner — and portraying her as ideologically out of the mainstream. One ad from a pro-Trump group labeled the vice president a “dangerous San Francisco liberal.”

Harris had even begun defending herself from the attacks, hitting back Tuesday night in Atlanta about her border record, and simultaneously releasing a nearly minute-long video framing her as pro-border security.

But Trump’s comments Wednesday on Harris’ racial background drew some of the biggest gasps from the audience, and provided Democrats with ammunition. During the appearance, Trump said Harris “happen[ed] to turn Black … She was Indian all the way and all of a sudden she made a turn and she became a Black woman.”

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    ·
    5 months ago

    John Fredericks, a Trump-aligned conservative radio host, told POLITICO on Monday that the “personal attacks against Kamala Harris are really ill-advised and ill-placed, and have no upside in this campaign,” saying some Republicans’ recent DEI references were “stupid.”

    “Certainly on the air, I’m not doing it,” Fredericks said.

    Dude admits that it’s what they all are thinking, he’s just aware enough to know that it doesn’t sound good and won’t say that shit in public. Coward.

      • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Notice he called the attacks “stupid,” not racist.

        Hes saying it’s bad politics, not that he disagrees.

  • scops@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    5 months ago

    “No plan survives contact with the enemy” - Paraphrasing Helmuth von Moltke

    “Covfefe” - Donald J. Trump

  • Aielman15@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    His performance may have drawn some gasps from the audience, but I doubt it had the same effect on his fan base. He was not there to speak to the US as a whole; he was there to speak to his die hard supporters - those who actually enjoy his racist, sexist, hateful remarks and voted for him in 2016 because of them; the same people who were willing to stage a coup in his favour in 2021, after four years of ignorance, pettiness and hatred.

    His strategy against Biden was winning because it gathered him bipartisan support - even Democrats were dubious about Biden being able to do a good job - but now that that’s out of the question, Trump has fallen back to his usual script, because it’s too late to do anything else. After all, questioning Obama’s birth and throwing sexist remarks against Clinton won him an election; why wouldn’t it work again? Just stick to the fanbase that won you an election once and almost won you another the second time, and hope for the best.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      5 months ago

      People always talk about how he is doing things to please his fan base. Maybe. But they are at most 30% of the country and he needs more than that to win.

      This is not going to help him with people who are not in his fan base.

      • tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’d love to agree but gerrymandering, along with other dubious anti-democratic policies, means that Republicans have a gross advantage. This presidential election will probably be as close as the last.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          5 months ago

          Gerrymandering has nothing to do with a presidential election. It doesn’t even help with senatorial elections.

              • ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                22
                ·
                5 months ago

                I said they have an advantage. Not an insurmountable one.

                It’s not for nothing that the Republicans have only won the popular vote in the presidential election once in the last 25 years, and yet we’ve had three Republican presidential terms.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  But one of those times was due to a SCOTUS decision over Florida ballots. Gore would have won even with the electoral college if that bogus decision hadn’t been made. So you need to discount the 2000 election in that list if you’re talking about an EC advantage. Really, you can only go with Trump in 2016 at that point.

                • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Hell, one of those two didn’t even win the fuckin electoral college and still became president.

                  Anyone remember how sleepy we all felt that day? Or maybe there was something really good to watch on TV or something. Idk, I’d just turned 10 so I couldn’t even vote

          • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            That wasn’t their point. Go back and reread the whole thing. They’re just saying the popular vote is meaningless and that Republicans have multiple political advantages that favor them

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Oh, no, it’s having quite an effect on the fanbase. Mostly, they recognize what a losing strategy it is, even if they agree with it.

      Just take a look at the old conservative stallwart site, Free Republic: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/4255438/posts

      There’s a few people weakly defending it, but there’s a general tenor of “oh shit, we fucked up”.

      Amusingly, there’s a few people saying they should try winning on policy, not race. This after the Heritage Foundation put out a 900+ page PDF with their dream policies, and Americans were horrified by it. Guys, if you could win on policy, you wouldn’t have ever needed Trump.

  • bradinutah@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    5 months ago

    Dementia Don flounders when the unexpected comes along. He’s a bad leader. A good leader knows how to manage the unexpected (like a change in a presidential campaign) and take appropriate action (stick to the issues and avoid the racist card). Not Old Sleepy Don! It’s just like when the global pandemic came around. The horrible leader didn’t rely on experts for help and made up things that got people killed. His narcissism prevents him from getting advice better than his own poor knowledge base. He lost in 2020 and he still stinks. He’ll lose in 2024 if people get out and vote. Vote blue not pee-yew!

  • jprice@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    He said that because Vivek sold out to the WASPs so completely that he figured Kamalas “indian half” should have as well. He thinks that because he was raised a Presbyterian. A racist one too. He’s a fucking idiot, what can you expect?

    Vote, idiots.

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    5 months ago
    Politico Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)

    Name: Politico Bias: Left-Center
    Factual Reporting: High
    Country: United States of America
    Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politico/

    Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News


    Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
    Please consider supporting them by donating.

    Footer

    Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
    If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.

  • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    5 months ago

    How are there two “pro border security” people up for election? Is there no meaningful opposition to that position?

    • 0x01@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      5 months ago

      I think Harris is trying to capture a group of Americans that hardlines on immigration, unfortunately some of what she’ll concede on during this election cycle will likely alienate progressives in favor of tempting the opposition. It’s strategically valuable because progressives will still vote for her, but maybe a few conservative voters will be swayed.

      Imo it’s more important to pay attention to how she’s voted, how she acts, and whether she will change her mind when presented with important information. In that way she’s by far our most trustworthy candidate even on issues like this one.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think Harris is trying to capture a group of Americans that hardlines on immigration, unfortunately some of what she’ll concede on during this election cycle will likely alienate progressives in favor of tempting the opposition. It’s strategically valuable because progressives will still vote for her, but maybe a few conservative voters will be swayed.

        The bigots who buy the “migrant crime” narrative were always gonna vote Trump. Being the lesser evil holds no appeal to them. But the party covets votes it will never get and will throw marginalized people under as many buses as necessary in hopeless pursuit of the vote of the fictional “good” bigot.

    • djsoren19@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      5 months ago

      Here’s the dumbest part, the only problem with the American/Mexican border is that the U.S. is too slow at processing migrants and getting them into the country. The far-right has invented a narrative of a migrant crime wave requiring harsh restrictions at the border, the public bought the lie, and now Democrats are trying to pass legislation based on the lie to appeal to the public.

  • Texas_Hangover@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    33
    ·
    5 months ago

    All they gotta do is remind everybody how many non violent drug offenders she sent to the living hell that is the CDCR. I despise Harris for that because I have been incarcerated for non violent drug offenses and I despise anybody who could possibly live with themselves after doing that to anybody. I’m not voting for Trump either mind you.

    • Voroxpete
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      While I respect that this is an emotional issue for you, I want to remind you that an AG has a duty to enforce the law as it is. Harris did not choose to make non-violent drug offences a crime. There are laws, and sometimes those laws are bad, but an AG is not a king who can simply strike down any laws they disagree with.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        The AG can choose not to enforce the law or give lax sentences and plea deals.

        You gotta do something sometimes to keep up appearances, but you definitely don’t have to go full throttle either.

        • Voroxpete
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          5 months ago

          And that’s exactly what she did. She frequently pushed for diversion instead of incarceration, declined to seek the death penalty even in the case of a cop killer, and created a program to give young offenders job training instead of jail time (including clearing their criminal records so they could seek jobs without being marked as felons).

          Her record isn’t perfect. No one’s is. You’re never going to get to vote for an angel. But as former prosecutors go, she basically did all the things you’re asking for.

          • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            I actually know nothing about her, I was just replying to your reply basically saying she had to enforce the law to the person saying she went too far.

            If she did what I said as much as she could then that’s great

            • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Guy who knows nothing about Kamala Harris accuses her of going “full-throttle” against non-violent offenders…

              Propaganda is a hell of a thing. Makes people say stupid shit they don’t know anything about.

              • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                The first person did. Then the 2nd guy replied she had to.

                Edit: The 2nd person could have said she actually did do what she could and what I said in their initial reply, but didn’t. They just said she had to which isn’t (and supposedly wasnt) true

                Edit: and my reply to be clear was what I DID know about. The AG does not need to enforce the law on every person. They have discretion and can influence to some extent other DA’s and the police.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      5 months ago

      Just so you know, the AG doesn’t have the liberty to just not enforce the law. She really didn’t have a choice here, the law wasn’t justified, but her job was to uphold the law. If someone committed a nonviolent drug offense, and the DA in that jurisdiction wanted to prosecute, she didn’t have the power to stop it just because she disagrees with the law. That would be impeachable.

      What decisions her job did allow her to make were more progressive than any of her predecessors or peers. For an AG, she was actually a damn good example. She wasn’t perfect, and she was part of a deeply flawed system, but she wasn’t a villain. She was fighting a war on drugs or demanding military-like powers for police forces like some AGs do…

      She has been outspoken about drug decriminalization and legalization, and prison reform, and lighter sentencing, and rehabilitation, and harm reduction, and police reform, and pretty much everything that needs to happen to meaningfully improve the world the way you want it to improve.

      As a senator, her voting record was closer to Bernie Sanders’ record than any other Senator. She endorses strong social safety nets, and universal healthcare.

      But go ahead and sit out the vote because someone online told you “ACAB includes Kamala Harris because she called herself a cop while AG”. If Trump wins you don’t need need to worry about voting again anyway, he’ll have it all fixed.

    • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      You are absolutely correct but unfortunately this is the best we can do. She’s inarguably better than Trump and Biden

      • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Correct about what? Show me even one receipt of her endorsing harsh penalties for nonviolent offenders.

    • fritobugger2017@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Bullcrap. Can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. I knew the risks and I don’t blame anyone else for the time I did when I got busted. I agree the laws are wrong but it is delusional to blame anyone other than yourself when you knew what the risks and penalties were.

    • Schmuppes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Don’t downvote this guy just because he has an opinion contrary to the rest of the thread, okay?

    • InternetUser2012@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      5 months ago

      To be fair though, you knew the consequences of doing drugs. Blaming someone for you getting in trouble for something you knew was illegal is pretty weak.

      Now, is the law shit, yes. Does it need changed yes.

        • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          Don’t get mad that crimes have consequences. You knew the risks. I don’t agree that non violent drug crimes should have jail time but that is the law. If you don’t want the time, don’t do the crime as the saying goes.