Yes, why should I care what some undecided voter thinks about any political issue at this moment in America? Those people are unknown to me. Their lives, how they think, who they care about is all unknown to me. What is known is that Donald Trump is well known to them, yet they still aren't sure if he should be elected President again? That alone disqualifies their opinion as holding any interest for me. I have disdain for their opinions as ones held by people I have no interest in knowing.
Sounds harsh Janet, but I feel the same. There is no rock big enough to shield them from all that the Felon has done to try to destroy this country. Has something caused them to have second thoughts regarding the Felon, but they remain potentially tied to him due to their abiding racism and the need to hear him spewing his hatred? Are they just too embarrassed to admit they support a felon and a rapist? Are they just seeking attention?
As one comedian posted recently- "Forget the dogs and cats. Somebody please eat the undecided voters".
The undecideds, admitting to themselves that they can’t abandon the racist because deep down, they’re rooting for him to take the heat for policies they secretly endorse
Broadbrush? Perhaps. Ask them all individually to deny it, then ask them why
You'll never get a cogent answer from a person who hasn't done any homework on the issues or the candidates. Whose idea was it to march these voters, afflicted with LLS (limited literacy syndrome), before a national audience to embarrass themselves ?
Exactly! Do your homework, Undecideds. Have you seen Kamala Harris' website? Have you spoken with other voters? How about reading Project 2025? Do you not yet have a stance on women's reproductive freedom? Really?
You are 100% correct...I agree that the "undecided voter" connects with Trump's overt racism, has been persuaded that Trump's grievance rants somehow give her (or him) a voice. America's equally overtly biased mainstream media should be hanging their collective heads in shame, but they plow ahead, continuing to offer U.S. citizens lazy, shabby journalism. They are doing their readers (and the country) a monstrous and terrifying disservice with their 'bothsiderism' and 'sane-washing' of a candidate who has absolutely no business ever being in the White House again. All in the pursuit of ratings and the almighty dollar.
Under the radar are folk who aren't even registered. Millions still trend Democratic. A few minutes after Taylor Swift endorsed, more than 300,000 registered, virtually all new Democrats. FT 6 has sent more than 12 million texts to these folks. It normally takes 3 "touches" before they register. Need more phone calls and canvassing. FT 6 phone bank to FL and PA today. Time is fleeting. Do something!
Couldn't agree more, Janet. Anyone who watched the debate and was willing to publicly say that they're still undecided is not worth paying any attention to.....they are, perhaps, more interested in the attention that they keep getting by publicly maintaining their "undecided" position! Publicity hounds! Not worth my time! I find more reason to turn my TV off than on these days! There are far better things to read and do!!
After watching the debate, I concluded that Donald appeals to folks who are fearful. I have shied away from watching Donald because he is always angry, loud, and crude. One of his crudest remarks of the evening was about Harris “turning black.” In his response to that one he also claimed she”put out” which I heard as a crude sexual slur on how she succeeded in her career. What a disgusting old man he is indeed. Let’s make this creep yesterday’s news. Listening to and watching Donald for 90 minutes was grueling. How Harris and both the commentators kept their cool was impressive. Now back to writing postcards.
I listen to Sarah Longwell's "The Focus Group" podcast. Most of the folks are saying they don't know enough about VP Harris since she hasn't done much as VP :( One actually credited trump with the Chips Act!! So much for messaging...
Did Sarah tell that one who thought Donny passed the Chips act that it was Biden who actually passed it? If not, what is the point of her sessions with these people. She has a responsibility to at least tell a voter when they’re wrong on the facts.
Those interviewees who say they are undecided know in their heart exactly how they plan to vote. They also know, however, that their friends and family are probably watching their fifteen-minutes-of-fame moment and that they might well face a backlash after the broadcast. During these seemingly contentious times, we should at least recognize that those who state their true preference are being a little "brave" for doing so.
Here's the truth, as I see it. This morning, I read the outcome of CNN's "deep" discussion with a group of "undecided" voters - and I am laughing at what I read. Unsurprisingly, they split about 49% for Harris and 45-ish% for Dumpster in terms of who won the debate. The ones who though Kamala won, found her to be hopeful, confident, etc., and the ones who thought Dumpster won, found him to be confident and aggressive. I'm not sure what made those people undecided. It shows me that who they liked depended entirely on who they are. kind people will like Kamala, angry, bitter, blameful, insecure people like Dumpster. To me, finding the kind people who are not registered is where we should spend our efforts. Undecided people will go with the one that most clearly touches their desires.
There are no real undecided just people not willing to voice their picks. The Trump folks at least some of them are not willing to commit publicly. These people interviewed. Are not representative of the voter population
From what uou wrote - which I appreciate because I missed the undecideds’ interview - it seems once again it’s all theater and too many so called “ undecideds” go for form not substance. Though Kamala had both up the wazoo TFG just lost his license to sell snake oil.
The self-proclaimed "undecided" voters are the competition? If you mean they are not undecided at all, I tend to agree. Someone claiming that they need to hear more about Harris plans, goals, policy positions, etc. is stalling while enjoying the attention, or untruthful, or simply unable to pay attention. I was very especially disappointed with the filler material about polls and undecideds used by MSNBC. Enough already.
We’re human and recognize fence sitters need to project a consistent community identity (“I am a Republican who believes in capitalism and self-sufficiency”) while having three daughters and devoted to their autonomous decision-making futures. This from an NPR interview in Atlanta. Am betting she votes for Harris. Let’s care about undecided voters.
It is a question of allocation of time and resources. In 2020, 90 million people did not vote. A majority of them are Democrats. Convincing them to show up should be easier than convincing someone who isn't sure if they want a dictator or a defender of democracy as president.
Some undecided voters are just attention seekers. The problem is we can't know which ones, and they are a black hole that gobbles up our attention. I am glad you care about undecided voters and commend your efforts to change their minds. I am done with them. And i think a lot of Democrats are, too.
I agree with you, Robert, that panels of "undecided" voters, like the one on CNN, are not credible and a waste of media resources. Presumably they are engaged enough to have been chosen to take part in this fatuous exercise. So there's little reason to have not decided by now. But that doesn't mean that undecided voters don't exist, or that we should be contemptuous of them.
Readers of this newsletter take politics (and our democracy) very seriously, thinking and reading about it daily. Many actively contribute time and money. So it may be hard to understand that for millions of our fellow citizens, politics is nothing more than background noise. For them, it's like Hollywood gossip, or professional sports. They're just not interested and don't really care. If asked, they'll likely be categorized as "undecided" because polls don't have an "I don't give a damn" line. Most probably, they won't even vote.
It's tempting to dismiss these "undecideds" as ignorant, or worse as complicit in Trump's attack on our republic. That would be a tragic mistake, an escalation of the divisions our adversaries seek to exploit.
If we believe our work is righteous, it is so precisely because we are doing it for the benefit of all -- most especially for those unable or unwilling, for whatever reason, to do it themselves. This is the heart of progressive political activism.
Thank you for posting about this Robert. I got so annoyed the other night with the interviews of those people – what is it they want? How long is it going to take for them to commit to a candidate? It seems they are just in it for the attention, and someone should just say to them "we don't care what you think, stop wasting our time."
I thought that, by now, liberals/progressives had outgrown the tendency to think of people who don’t share our political views as “deplorables”. However, what I’ve read in post after post is “deplorables” under different names.
It’s illiberal, and it’s politically destructive.
Look at what Kamala Harris has been saying. She’s trying to be a uniter. She’s trying to sweep up people of diverse viewpoints – to heal this nation and to build the kind of majority power that will enable her to enact the kinds of legislation, appoint the kind of judges, etc., that we hope for.
Verbally defecating on people who don’t or haven’t embraced one’s views *in toto* won’t make liberals/progressives more credible to swing or undecided voters. It doesn’t build the path to electoral victory next November.
Sarah Longwell of The Bulwark has been conducting rigorous focus groups among swing voters (aka those who have not yet decided or who have flipped allegiances in different elections) for many years. These conversations can help gain insights into what the sticking points really are. For example she talks in this interview about the concerns some panel members have expressed about a woman as president which Harris's performance helped assuage https://x.com/sarahlongwell25?lang=en I do trust Longwell's methodology, but I doubt the media outlets featuring a group of undecided voters had any methodology at all.
For me, the most egregious example was the woman who was a teacher who'd taught (as I recall) for about 30 years, was still "undecided," and said she needed more information about Harris. A teacher? Who STILL didn't have enough information? After all this time? To quote from a Calvin & Hobbes cartoon, "I suppose research is out of the question" <https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1989/10/27>. Why is she still allowed to teach? A student that uninformed/ignorant would flunk the class.
And the criticism of Harris’s making faces, the Corporate media , the GOP and every sane person in the US should have been making faces at Trump for the last 9 years. Finally somebody has the courage to stand up!
Along with how scared he was to even look at Kamala during the debate. My thought was he’s acting disrespectful of her and thinks that makes him a strongman. The truth is he looked like a fearful A$$ who was never taught how to act in circumstances which challenge him, especially those with women.
Agree! But it’s a woman standing up to him. And she’s a black woman. I think we need to remember that it’s just not Corporate media, it’s racism and sexism within the media writing these criticisms and bias stories.
What a strong and powerful edition you've written tonight! On fire with your analysis of the debate and its aftermath, and calling out the hypocritical silence of the msm to Kamala's presidential demeanor and policy discussion. Your quote from Dahlia Lithwick is what I'm restacking with your newsletter.
"Lithwick writes,
It must be beyond maddening for a political actor to be summoned into a “debate” that is not really a debate, pitted against some frothing amalgam of WWE reenactor and Tasmanian devil, warned that your microphone will be muted while he is speaking, cautioned that he will be allowed to talk over you and the moderators, then be criticized for … blinking? [¶¶]
Harris’ face roamed free and far on Tuesday, and it was thoroughly warranted and frequently enjoyable. I think of her mobile, legible face as a satisfying call-and-response to Trump’s lifelong preference for female adulation and Botox.
Women have faces. Their faces have expressions. If that was upsetting to you during Tuesday’s debate, you might be dismayed to learn that deep beneath our expressive faces lie thoughts, dreams, frustrations, and other markers of human agency. If a woman smiling freaks you out, imagine what happens when a woman votes."
And of all the looney Republicans Trump could have brought along on his trip, he chooses Laura Loomer. I would think the NYT and others in the MSM would have the decency to report Trump's willing courting of a raving racist. Can you imagine how they'd eviscerate a Democrat candidate doing something analogous?
Thanks for the correct spelling of Laura Loomer's first name. I knew Lara was wrong when I wrote it and resolved to correct the mispelling but never got back to it.
This is one your best newsletters of all time, Robert! I'm sending it to everyone I can think of who might have felt that Kamala Harris's performance on Tuesday night did not move the needle on who should be President. She included EVERYTHING she needed to say and then some. As you so clearly point out, in addition to her perfect words about a woman's right to make decisions about her own body, she spoke about helping the middle class with multiple plans that will change their futures significantly - help with buying a house, money when a child is born and more! My fear is that while people felt she successfully baited Trump into behaving badly, they may have missed the incredible substance of her remarks as well as her command of important facts and data. Thank you for this remarkable effort to adequately cover all that she accomplished in a mere 90 minutes!
I agree that she covered "EVERYTHING and then some." It's amazing how well she responded spontaneously to both the moderators' questions and the Republican nominee's nonsense. A debate is not a forum for getting down to policy implementation details as some seem to expect. I hope VP Harris answers some of the questions more thoroughly in other forums. Policies at this stage are aspirational, not operational, so expectations should be adjusted accordingly. Here's a good start on expanding her answers: https://kamalaharris.com/issues/
I'd like to see her take on the "flip-flop" argument more directly. She says her values haven't changed, which is good, and in one response a couple of weeks ago went a bit further (about having learned more, I think). I'd like to see her hone that message. She should admit to learning more and seeking policy positions that work for all Americans without sacrificing her values.
I agree that “Policies at this stage are aspirational, not operational”. However, some detail is necessary to convince people that the policies can be *realized*. Yet not so much detail that the candidate loses flexibility after the election, when policies when policies are honed and enacted.
The moving of the needle discussions are pointless because it only matters in November when people vote. I strongly believe Republicans are and will continue to flooded the polling market.
The most chilling admission by Trump at the debate was when he admitted he would sell Ukraine out to Vladimir Putin. (Kudos to David Muir for asking and sticking with this question.) I can only imagine what it feels like to be a Ukrainian in this moment. Our NATO allies must be shaking their heads in disbelief. We must remove the specter of Trump from ever being in the White House again. VOTE BLUE FULL BALLOT 🩵
trump is a hateful, hate-filled person who actually hates America. He is a human stain on our country, our history and an abject disgrace that anyone supports him.
I second JustRaven, Robert...that was a very cogent and powerful summation of the night's events. Sometimes the sheer surreality of this moment in our history can be so unsettling. "They're eating the cats!" was not a line I would have anticipated nor the media lightly passing over it with some degree of "It's just Trump...40% of Americans will not give it a second thought or will believe it". I keep thinking there has to be a tipping point with this madness soon. Hopefully, that is not mindless optimism!
Art - I'm guessing JD is not a cat person to begin with. Throw in a strong independent woman who thinks he and his ilk are weird...that's got to be a massive trigger for him! :-) I didn't mention those AI generated photos of Trump running with cats from what I assume is some demented person's idea of a threatening mob that showed up a couple days ago. Given his well-documented disdain for dogs, it's hard to believe he's a cat man either. There is something seriously wrong with those folks.
I have also wondered why no one in the mainstream media has pointed out Robert Kennedy's obsession with eating roadkill. If he runs over someone's cat or dog, does he grab up the body (whether already dead or dying?) and stews it up for dinner?
I'm getting worried enough about a chunk of our fellow citizens, as it is. You start learning about him and you have to hope that the subset of the populace who allegedly supported him were really responding to old images of his Dad. This stuff is just so weird.
Last night once again Lawrence O’Donnell showed how the media treated Kamala Harris once she dropped out of the presidential race years ago and was selected as VP. The headlines were demeaning and totally inappropriate and if compared to the coverage of Pence were outrageous. Harris until this debate was underestimated and I am sure the Trump team in part believed the lies. The night after a deranged racists untruthful performance Trump stands with a 9/11 denier on sacred ground and acts like everything is OK. Well it isn’t and if the debate taught us anything it is Trump can be badly beaten and the Harris Walz team will do it but they need our help.
At the time when Kamala Harris dropped out of the Presidential race, a few years ago, I thought she was an overly ambitious lightweight. The Kamala Harris we see today is most definitely not a lightweight.
I suspect that “undecideds” come in many flavors. One flavor is people who dislike Trump but dislike Democratic policies (as they perceive those policies) – people caught between Trump and AOC, for example. I disagree with their hesitation, but don’t put it down as ludicrous.
In fact, castigating undecidedness can appear to be demeaning such people; it may drive them in Trump’s direction.
The corporate media has once again shown it cannot be trusted. My concern is what is going on with the electoral college? How is that looking for Harris? I looked over her platforms, and I think she needs to address agriculture. That is the chapter my Democrats Abroad group is reading and discussing next week. I heard a farmer interviewed in a German documentary that is really recent, called Trumpland. https://youtu.be/g-DPcKF294g?si=uOl8vDgsdg59ml0_
The only undecided person he interviews in the 5 Southern states that he visits (Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia) was a farmer in Georgia who is waiting to find out where each party stands on farming. In Germany and the EU farmers have let their elected representatives know which policies have hurt them. Harris would do well to find this out from our farmers too. We need their sector just as much if not more than chips and AI development. I mean, we all have to eat and don't want to be importing all of our food. From price gouging to the cost of fuel, I am sure there is much that should be addressed on the issues of farmers.
I agree that Harris should not forget this very important voter block, regardless of which state she targets. I also think that Walz can be, and probably has been already, very influential in this realm.
C K can you please write the campaign and ask them to articulate their agriculture policies. I just emailed her campaign and the White House about it today.
Thank you for your clear-eyed commentary and analysis, lengthy, contexual quotes and links in your post--it is why I subscribe and read you every day. I now understand much better and see the bias of mainstream media, especially the NYT.
Please help me with three questions:
1) Why do the national media continue these practices?
2) How can readers demand more unbiased and investigative reporting from national media?
3) What are the best national sources for critical reporting?
Major media is facing an extinction event. Since Trump left office, most media--including leading right wing sites--have seen major declines in viewership and circulation. They understand that Trump is good for business even if he is bad for democracy. The are opting for profit uber alles. See this Pew Research Report: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/28/audiences-are-declining-for-traditional-news-media-in-the-us-with-some-exceptions/ Audiences are declining for traditional news media in the U.S. – with some exceptions
The other thing that is problematic about the response to the debate is the need by media outlets--including MSNBC--to focus and harp on debating prowess and the preparedness of the candidates. Time after time I hear them referring to how ill prepared DirtBag was and how well prepared the Vice President was--as if that is the key issue here--rather than on how the first was shown to be a venal, lying, thieving, felonious, demented, morally bankrupt incompetent jerk and the other a serious, humane, informed, principled, reflective public servant. We should all be sending emails to the major media players about this. And any voter who could not see this clearly from watching the debate is virtually hopeless and in serious need of: 1) a full battery of vision and hearing tests; 2) a complete series of high-school level civics lessons; 3) serious psychological intervention; 4) cult deprogramming; 5) all of the above.
Robert relates: "Among the many insipid criticisms of Kamala Harris was that she used facial expressions to convey her disapproval, amusement, and disbelief over Trump's utterances." In a similar vein, I spent a lot of the debate watching Trump's facial expressions and grimaces during the time Harris was speaking. They have been perfectly captured over the last few years by the skits on SNL. I especially love the head-down grimaces.
Yes, why should I care what some undecided voter thinks about any political issue at this moment in America? Those people are unknown to me. Their lives, how they think, who they care about is all unknown to me. What is known is that Donald Trump is well known to them, yet they still aren't sure if he should be elected President again? That alone disqualifies their opinion as holding any interest for me. I have disdain for their opinions as ones held by people I have no interest in knowing.
Sounds harsh Janet, but I feel the same. There is no rock big enough to shield them from all that the Felon has done to try to destroy this country. Has something caused them to have second thoughts regarding the Felon, but they remain potentially tied to him due to their abiding racism and the need to hear him spewing his hatred? Are they just too embarrassed to admit they support a felon and a rapist? Are they just seeking attention?
As one comedian posted recently- "Forget the dogs and cats. Somebody please eat the undecided voters".
The undecideds, admitting to themselves that they can’t abandon the racist because deep down, they’re rooting for him to take the heat for policies they secretly endorse
Broadbrush? Perhaps. Ask them all individually to deny it, then ask them why
You'll never get a cogent answer from a person who hasn't done any homework on the issues or the candidates. Whose idea was it to march these voters, afflicted with LLS (limited literacy syndrome), before a national audience to embarrass themselves ?
Exactly! Do your homework, Undecideds. Have you seen Kamala Harris' website? Have you spoken with other voters? How about reading Project 2025? Do you not yet have a stance on women's reproductive freedom? Really?
... as the highly intelligent Taylor Swift advised you to do!
You are 100% correct...I agree that the "undecided voter" connects with Trump's overt racism, has been persuaded that Trump's grievance rants somehow give her (or him) a voice. America's equally overtly biased mainstream media should be hanging their collective heads in shame, but they plow ahead, continuing to offer U.S. citizens lazy, shabby journalism. They are doing their readers (and the country) a monstrous and terrifying disservice with their 'bothsiderism' and 'sane-washing' of a candidate who has absolutely no business ever being in the White House again. All in the pursuit of ratings and the almighty dollar.
😀
Under the radar are folk who aren't even registered. Millions still trend Democratic. A few minutes after Taylor Swift endorsed, more than 300,000 registered, virtually all new Democrats. FT 6 has sent more than 12 million texts to these folks. It normally takes 3 "touches" before they register. Need more phone calls and canvassing. FT 6 phone bank to FL and PA today. Time is fleeting. Do something!
https://www.mobilize.us/ft6/?q=phone%20banks&tag_ids=20038
If just one percent of those 300K "Swifties" lives in a swing state, registers and votes for Kamala/Walz, that could potentially affect the election.
The youth may end up becoming 2024's pivotal demographic. They certainly seem to have the most to lose on many different levels.
Tell me what I say! I posted a Substack in May. https://danielsolomon.substack.com/p/is-there-a-swiftie-in-the-house
One guy like you, David, can seal the deal for dozens before registration is ended. Oct. 7 in Florida. In some state we turn into a pumpkin next week.
https://www.fieldteam6.org/fund-the-mission
Couldn't agree more, Janet. Anyone who watched the debate and was willing to publicly say that they're still undecided is not worth paying any attention to.....they are, perhaps, more interested in the attention that they keep getting by publicly maintaining their "undecided" position! Publicity hounds! Not worth my time! I find more reason to turn my TV off than on these days! There are far better things to read and do!!
After watching the debate, I concluded that Donald appeals to folks who are fearful. I have shied away from watching Donald because he is always angry, loud, and crude. One of his crudest remarks of the evening was about Harris “turning black.” In his response to that one he also claimed she”put out” which I heard as a crude sexual slur on how she succeeded in her career. What a disgusting old man he is indeed. Let’s make this creep yesterday’s news. Listening to and watching Donald for 90 minutes was grueling. How Harris and both the commentators kept their cool was impressive. Now back to writing postcards.
I listen to Sarah Longwell's "The Focus Group" podcast. Most of the folks are saying they don't know enough about VP Harris since she hasn't done much as VP :( One actually credited trump with the Chips Act!! So much for messaging...
Did Sarah tell that one who thought Donny passed the Chips act that it was Biden who actually passed it? If not, what is the point of her sessions with these people. She has a responsibility to at least tell a voter when they’re wrong on the facts.
No. She says moderators for focus groups should not get involved with fact checking or commenting at all...
Those interviewees who say they are undecided know in their heart exactly how they plan to vote. They also know, however, that their friends and family are probably watching their fifteen-minutes-of-fame moment and that they might well face a backlash after the broadcast. During these seemingly contentious times, we should at least recognize that those who state their true preference are being a little "brave" for doing so.
You should care because they are the competition and more importantly we need to figure out how to get them to believe in our government and leaders.
Here's the truth, as I see it. This morning, I read the outcome of CNN's "deep" discussion with a group of "undecided" voters - and I am laughing at what I read. Unsurprisingly, they split about 49% for Harris and 45-ish% for Dumpster in terms of who won the debate. The ones who though Kamala won, found her to be hopeful, confident, etc., and the ones who thought Dumpster won, found him to be confident and aggressive. I'm not sure what made those people undecided. It shows me that who they liked depended entirely on who they are. kind people will like Kamala, angry, bitter, blameful, insecure people like Dumpster. To me, finding the kind people who are not registered is where we should spend our efforts. Undecided people will go with the one that most clearly touches their desires.
There are no real undecided just people not willing to voice their picks. The Trump folks at least some of them are not willing to commit publicly. These people interviewed. Are not representative of the voter population
From what uou wrote - which I appreciate because I missed the undecideds’ interview - it seems once again it’s all theater and too many so called “ undecideds” go for form not substance. Though Kamala had both up the wazoo TFG just lost his license to sell snake oil.
The self-proclaimed "undecided" voters are the competition? If you mean they are not undecided at all, I tend to agree. Someone claiming that they need to hear more about Harris plans, goals, policy positions, etc. is stalling while enjoying the attention, or untruthful, or simply unable to pay attention. I was very especially disappointed with the filler material about polls and undecideds used by MSNBC. Enough already.
Enough already is right. 🙏
We’re human and recognize fence sitters need to project a consistent community identity (“I am a Republican who believes in capitalism and self-sufficiency”) while having three daughters and devoted to their autonomous decision-making futures. This from an NPR interview in Atlanta. Am betting she votes for Harris. Let’s care about undecided voters.
It is a question of allocation of time and resources. In 2020, 90 million people did not vote. A majority of them are Democrats. Convincing them to show up should be easier than convincing someone who isn't sure if they want a dictator or a defender of democracy as president.
Some undecided voters are just attention seekers. The problem is we can't know which ones, and they are a black hole that gobbles up our attention. I am glad you care about undecided voters and commend your efforts to change their minds. I am done with them. And i think a lot of Democrats are, too.
I agree with you, Robert, that panels of "undecided" voters, like the one on CNN, are not credible and a waste of media resources. Presumably they are engaged enough to have been chosen to take part in this fatuous exercise. So there's little reason to have not decided by now. But that doesn't mean that undecided voters don't exist, or that we should be contemptuous of them.
Readers of this newsletter take politics (and our democracy) very seriously, thinking and reading about it daily. Many actively contribute time and money. So it may be hard to understand that for millions of our fellow citizens, politics is nothing more than background noise. For them, it's like Hollywood gossip, or professional sports. They're just not interested and don't really care. If asked, they'll likely be categorized as "undecided" because polls don't have an "I don't give a damn" line. Most probably, they won't even vote.
It's tempting to dismiss these "undecideds" as ignorant, or worse as complicit in Trump's attack on our republic. That would be a tragic mistake, an escalation of the divisions our adversaries seek to exploit.
If we believe our work is righteous, it is so precisely because we are doing it for the benefit of all -- most especially for those unable or unwilling, for whatever reason, to do it themselves. This is the heart of progressive political activism.
.
Thank you for posting about this Robert. I got so annoyed the other night with the interviews of those people – what is it they want? How long is it going to take for them to commit to a candidate? It seems they are just in it for the attention, and someone should just say to them "we don't care what you think, stop wasting our time."
I thought that, by now, liberals/progressives had outgrown the tendency to think of people who don’t share our political views as “deplorables”. However, what I’ve read in post after post is “deplorables” under different names.
It’s illiberal, and it’s politically destructive.
Look at what Kamala Harris has been saying. She’s trying to be a uniter. She’s trying to sweep up people of diverse viewpoints – to heal this nation and to build the kind of majority power that will enable her to enact the kinds of legislation, appoint the kind of judges, etc., that we hope for.
Verbally defecating on people who don’t or haven’t embraced one’s views *in toto* won’t make liberals/progressives more credible to swing or undecided voters. It doesn’t build the path to electoral victory next November.
Sarah Longwell of The Bulwark has been conducting rigorous focus groups among swing voters (aka those who have not yet decided or who have flipped allegiances in different elections) for many years. These conversations can help gain insights into what the sticking points really are. For example she talks in this interview about the concerns some panel members have expressed about a woman as president which Harris's performance helped assuage https://x.com/sarahlongwell25?lang=en I do trust Longwell's methodology, but I doubt the media outlets featuring a group of undecided voters had any methodology at all.
They’ll sure know then what they should know now if Project 2025 is implemented
For me, the most egregious example was the woman who was a teacher who'd taught (as I recall) for about 30 years, was still "undecided," and said she needed more information about Harris. A teacher? Who STILL didn't have enough information? After all this time? To quote from a Calvin & Hobbes cartoon, "I suppose research is out of the question" <https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1989/10/27>. Why is she still allowed to teach? A student that uninformed/ignorant would flunk the class.
And the criticism of Harris’s making faces, the Corporate media , the GOP and every sane person in the US should have been making faces at Trump for the last 9 years. Finally somebody has the courage to stand up!
In fact, trump made his stupid faces throughout the debate while kamala was speaking. Crickets.
The distinction between Trump's deadpan look versus Kamala's buoyant face personified the values of their respective contributions to the debate.
Along with how scared he was to even look at Kamala during the debate. My thought was he’s acting disrespectful of her and thinks that makes him a strongman. The truth is he looked like a fearful A$$ who was never taught how to act in circumstances which challenge him, especially those with women.
Agree! But it’s a woman standing up to him. And she’s a black woman. I think we need to remember that it’s just not Corporate media, it’s racism and sexism within the media writing these criticisms and bias stories.
Kamala’s facial expressions served as a Greek Chorus, a double for the rest of us watching. Tone perfect!!
Perfect, indeed!
What a strong and powerful edition you've written tonight! On fire with your analysis of the debate and its aftermath, and calling out the hypocritical silence of the msm to Kamala's presidential demeanor and policy discussion. Your quote from Dahlia Lithwick is what I'm restacking with your newsletter.
"Lithwick writes,
It must be beyond maddening for a political actor to be summoned into a “debate” that is not really a debate, pitted against some frothing amalgam of WWE reenactor and Tasmanian devil, warned that your microphone will be muted while he is speaking, cautioned that he will be allowed to talk over you and the moderators, then be criticized for … blinking? [¶¶]
Harris’ face roamed free and far on Tuesday, and it was thoroughly warranted and frequently enjoyable. I think of her mobile, legible face as a satisfying call-and-response to Trump’s lifelong preference for female adulation and Botox.
Women have faces. Their faces have expressions. If that was upsetting to you during Tuesday’s debate, you might be dismayed to learn that deep beneath our expressive faces lie thoughts, dreams, frustrations, and other markers of human agency. If a woman smiling freaks you out, imagine what happens when a woman votes."
PS edit to add: Beautiful image of NGC 7822!
And of all the looney Republicans Trump could have brought along on his trip, he chooses Laura Loomer. I would think the NYT and others in the MSM would have the decency to report Trump's willing courting of a raving racist. Can you imagine how they'd eviscerate a Democrat candidate doing something analogous?
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/10/nx-s1-5107932/laura-loomer-presidential-debate-donald-trump-2024
Thanks for the correct spelling of Laura Loomer's first name. I knew Lara was wrong when I wrote it and resolved to correct the mispelling but never got back to it.
This is one your best newsletters of all time, Robert! I'm sending it to everyone I can think of who might have felt that Kamala Harris's performance on Tuesday night did not move the needle on who should be President. She included EVERYTHING she needed to say and then some. As you so clearly point out, in addition to her perfect words about a woman's right to make decisions about her own body, she spoke about helping the middle class with multiple plans that will change their futures significantly - help with buying a house, money when a child is born and more! My fear is that while people felt she successfully baited Trump into behaving badly, they may have missed the incredible substance of her remarks as well as her command of important facts and data. Thank you for this remarkable effort to adequately cover all that she accomplished in a mere 90 minutes!
I agree that she covered "EVERYTHING and then some." It's amazing how well she responded spontaneously to both the moderators' questions and the Republican nominee's nonsense. A debate is not a forum for getting down to policy implementation details as some seem to expect. I hope VP Harris answers some of the questions more thoroughly in other forums. Policies at this stage are aspirational, not operational, so expectations should be adjusted accordingly. Here's a good start on expanding her answers: https://kamalaharris.com/issues/
I'd like to see her take on the "flip-flop" argument more directly. She says her values haven't changed, which is good, and in one response a couple of weeks ago went a bit further (about having learned more, I think). I'd like to see her hone that message. She should admit to learning more and seeking policy positions that work for all Americans without sacrificing her values.
I agree that “Policies at this stage are aspirational, not operational”. However, some detail is necessary to convince people that the policies can be *realized*. Yet not so much detail that the candidate loses flexibility after the election, when policies when policies are honed and enacted.
The moving of the needle discussions are pointless because it only matters in November when people vote. I strongly believe Republicans are and will continue to flooded the polling market.
Yes -- the substance was there as well as the excellent bait she dangled.
The most chilling admission by Trump at the debate was when he admitted he would sell Ukraine out to Vladimir Putin. (Kudos to David Muir for asking and sticking with this question.) I can only imagine what it feels like to be a Ukrainian in this moment. Our NATO allies must be shaking their heads in disbelief. We must remove the specter of Trump from ever being in the White House again. VOTE BLUE FULL BALLOT 🩵
Like this: VOTE BLUE FULL BALLOT
Amen 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
Yes!
Trump desecrates everything that is Sacred to the United States. Thanks Robert!
trump is a hateful, hate-filled person who actually hates America. He is a human stain on our country, our history and an abject disgrace that anyone supports him.
I second JustRaven, Robert...that was a very cogent and powerful summation of the night's events. Sometimes the sheer surreality of this moment in our history can be so unsettling. "They're eating the cats!" was not a line I would have anticipated nor the media lightly passing over it with some degree of "It's just Trump...40% of Americans will not give it a second thought or will believe it". I keep thinking there has to be a tipping point with this madness soon. Hopefully, that is not mindless optimism!
Do you suppose JD Vance would mind if immigrants ate the cats of childless cat ladies?
Wonder what JD Vance would have said if trump and the magas were saying Indian immigrants are eating cats and dogs, or something similar?
Wondered the same thing. I hope this cat thing has helped the cat adoptions across the country.
Art - I'm guessing JD is not a cat person to begin with. Throw in a strong independent woman who thinks he and his ilk are weird...that's got to be a massive trigger for him! :-) I didn't mention those AI generated photos of Trump running with cats from what I assume is some demented person's idea of a threatening mob that showed up a couple days ago. Given his well-documented disdain for dogs, it's hard to believe he's a cat man either. There is something seriously wrong with those folks.
The juxtaposition of the statements is striking!
And aren't cats the 2nd leading family pet now?
Yes, it appears they are ... Cat Staff Unite to Elect Kamala! https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/11/feline-frenzy-could-cats-swing-the-us-election?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other.
Note: anyone who has a cat knows that they do not "own" the cat, they are merely "staff".🐈🐈⬛😺
I cannot even laugh at making fun of such a horrific libel - there seems to be no bottom to their degeneracy.
I have also wondered why no one in the mainstream media has pointed out Robert Kennedy's obsession with eating roadkill. If he runs over someone's cat or dog, does he grab up the body (whether already dead or dying?) and stews it up for dinner?
I'm getting worried enough about a chunk of our fellow citizens, as it is. You start learning about him and you have to hope that the subset of the populace who allegedly supported him were really responding to old images of his Dad. This stuff is just so weird.
Last night once again Lawrence O’Donnell showed how the media treated Kamala Harris once she dropped out of the presidential race years ago and was selected as VP. The headlines were demeaning and totally inappropriate and if compared to the coverage of Pence were outrageous. Harris until this debate was underestimated and I am sure the Trump team in part believed the lies. The night after a deranged racists untruthful performance Trump stands with a 9/11 denier on sacred ground and acts like everything is OK. Well it isn’t and if the debate taught us anything it is Trump can be badly beaten and the Harris Walz team will do it but they need our help.
At the time when Kamala Harris dropped out of the Presidential race, a few years ago, I thought she was an overly ambitious lightweight. The Kamala Harris we see today is most definitely not a lightweight.
This is exactly what I meant
Robert, this is among your finest reports ever. A flaming sword of reality packed into this small space. Concise, insightful and hard hitting.
I must 2nd, 3rd, and 4th your statement Dave! Truly eloquent in all the best ways!
Absolutely appreciate the ludicrousness of undecided voters at a moment such as this in history. Thank for this among so many points Robert.
I suspect that “undecideds” come in many flavors. One flavor is people who dislike Trump but dislike Democratic policies (as they perceive those policies) – people caught between Trump and AOC, for example. I disagree with their hesitation, but don’t put it down as ludicrous.
In fact, castigating undecidedness can appear to be demeaning such people; it may drive them in Trump’s direction.
The corporate media has once again shown it cannot be trusted. My concern is what is going on with the electoral college? How is that looking for Harris? I looked over her platforms, and I think she needs to address agriculture. That is the chapter my Democrats Abroad group is reading and discussing next week. I heard a farmer interviewed in a German documentary that is really recent, called Trumpland. https://youtu.be/g-DPcKF294g?si=uOl8vDgsdg59ml0_
The only undecided person he interviews in the 5 Southern states that he visits (Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia) was a farmer in Georgia who is waiting to find out where each party stands on farming. In Germany and the EU farmers have let their elected representatives know which policies have hurt them. Harris would do well to find this out from our farmers too. We need their sector just as much if not more than chips and AI development. I mean, we all have to eat and don't want to be importing all of our food. From price gouging to the cost of fuel, I am sure there is much that should be addressed on the issues of farmers.
I agree that Harris should not forget this very important voter block, regardless of which state she targets. I also think that Walz can be, and probably has been already, very influential in this realm.
C K can you please write the campaign and ask them to articulate their agriculture policies. I just emailed her campaign and the White House about it today.
Yes, I will be happy to do that!
Mr. Hubble,
Thank you for your clear-eyed commentary and analysis, lengthy, contexual quotes and links in your post--it is why I subscribe and read you every day. I now understand much better and see the bias of mainstream media, especially the NYT.
Please help me with three questions:
1) Why do the national media continue these practices?
2) How can readers demand more unbiased and investigative reporting from national media?
3) What are the best national sources for critical reporting?
I appreciate your work and am grateful to you.
Best regards,
Bob Morgan
Major media is facing an extinction event. Since Trump left office, most media--including leading right wing sites--have seen major declines in viewership and circulation. They understand that Trump is good for business even if he is bad for democracy. The are opting for profit uber alles. See this Pew Research Report: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/28/audiences-are-declining-for-traditional-news-media-in-the-us-with-some-exceptions/ Audiences are declining for traditional news media in the U.S. – with some exceptions
The other thing that is problematic about the response to the debate is the need by media outlets--including MSNBC--to focus and harp on debating prowess and the preparedness of the candidates. Time after time I hear them referring to how ill prepared DirtBag was and how well prepared the Vice President was--as if that is the key issue here--rather than on how the first was shown to be a venal, lying, thieving, felonious, demented, morally bankrupt incompetent jerk and the other a serious, humane, informed, principled, reflective public servant. We should all be sending emails to the major media players about this. And any voter who could not see this clearly from watching the debate is virtually hopeless and in serious need of: 1) a full battery of vision and hearing tests; 2) a complete series of high-school level civics lessons; 3) serious psychological intervention; 4) cult deprogramming; 5) all of the above.
Love you and every word you said. Your perspective at the end is most appreciated
Robert relates: "Among the many insipid criticisms of Kamala Harris was that she used facial expressions to convey her disapproval, amusement, and disbelief over Trump's utterances." In a similar vein, I spent a lot of the debate watching Trump's facial expressions and grimaces during the time Harris was speaking. They have been perfectly captured over the last few years by the skits on SNL. I especially love the head-down grimaces.
He looked like a frog. 🐸
In a pot of boiling water