The stakes in this election are high, and past experience makes people fearful, but this isn't 2016.

[lees1975]

https://signalpress.blogspot.com/2024/10/high-stakes-and-past-experience-makes.html

2016 was a shock. But there were some issues then that we don't have now. There was too much confidence from the Clinton campaign in the "Blue wall," and clearly not enough effort made by the Clinton campaign to shore it up when a week's worth of campaign appearances across those three states would clearly have been enough to eke out wins. We're not making that mistake, the Harris campaign has the money and they are using a multi-faceted strategy to reach voters on the margins. Evidence? She's now leading among independent voters and her lead is trending her direction.

If you want some re-assurance, go to the website for WCPT Radio 820 in Chicago, and listen to yesterday's Joan Esposito show. She had a guest host, a political analyst who made some observations about the campaign much clearer, including pointing out clues about what the internal data is showing, the strategies used, how effective they are and what Harris' money advantage is doing for her, compared to the scatter shooting, "do what we want" approach that Trump's PAC supporters take. This included a reminder that Harris has a large pack of billionaire donors on her side. Citizens United is terrible, but if those are the rules you want to play by, the other side can use it to their advantage, too. And we are.

Trump's second attempt at an election, his re-election, was a failure. And his run through the GOP primaries this time around, having already been in the White House once, can also be considered a failure. He had opponents, and with all of the face time he's had in the media, and all of the attention focused on him as the potential nominee from the day he left Washington, he got around 72% of the primary voters' support. Considering the absolute nobodies who ran against him, and the money he spent, that's a sub-standard performance.

And I believe a majority of Americans know what's at stake, and are not blinded by prejudice, religious bigotry or influenced by propaganda posing as the free press. I feel fearful of being too optimistic and then being hugely disappointed, but I also have some confidence that the positive direction Harris has given to her campaign, and the obvious contrast between her good character, as well as that of Tim Walz, with a convicted rapist, criminal, insurrectionist liar and J.D. Vance, an opportunist who has proven to be a duplicitous liar like Trump, is a highly visible factor. Because of that, Harris will become Madame President-Elect whenever the election results are finalized.

[mopinko]

1. she's running a near flawless campaign.

and swimming in money. i aint worried.

[lees1975]

2. It's really incredible, isn't it? Put together in just a few weeks, but they've got the best campaign advisors

in the world, literally.

And they're not taking anything for granted. This really isn't 2016.

[betsuni]

3. If Trump wins, Harris will be blamed just as Hillary was. They'll say Kamala didn't have an economic

message and concentrated too much on reproductive freedom and democracy while voters only cared about prices; she didn't fundamentally prove herself different from Biden (as if Biden is terrible); her campaign either too confident or not confident enough while Trump inspired confidence and majority thinks him better on economy and immigration; she didn't do enough to earn votes -- if only she'd had two more rallies in Beaver County she wouldn't have lost; went too negative on Trump and only message was "I'm not Trump." Etc. Guaranteed.

This is just too fucking ironic: now Harris having billionaire donors is perfectly fine. Hillary was constantly called an evil corrupt elite establishment election-rigging Wall Street monster because of perfectly regular campaign contributions. They tried it in 2020 too but didn't work so well.

As the author is a big Christian, maybe they should familiarize themselves with Hillary's long and very active relationship with churches. But no, that doesn't exist. She should've done more rallies and her fault Trump won. Whatever.

[lees1975]

4. Whoever "they" are, huh, yeah. Clinton and her campaign managers were her own best critics.

They are the ones who analyzed their own campaign and where it fell short. Another rally in Beaver County won't make a difference, but Harris' overall strategy sure will.

As far as Hillary's long and active relationship with churches, I'm well aware of that. Not sure what you mean. This isn't a "bash Hillary" post, it's pointing out why I think Democrats are so edgy about this election and why it's not 2016 again.