You’re protest doesn’t matter to them, only your vote. It’s not like you’re going to vote for the Republican or third party candidate.

She lacks momentum and a charisma that gets people to follow you. So random critics can shout from the bleachers and say how they think she’s doing it wrong. So they tell her to jump and she jumps. They tell her to move this way and she does. It’s always wrong. Because they don’t know what she needs to do either.

They know yelling at Trump is useless. They don’t have any power over him. He’ll do what he wants and says what he wants and we can try to call him out and he doesn’t care and his followers don’t either. In all his ignorance, he has confidence. Arguably because of his ignorance.

In all her intelligence, she’s not sure what to do. But neither do the spectators. I’m not sure what she needs to do, but it probably has to come from somewhere inside herself and proclaim it without apology.

There’s a lot of smart people in that room. I’m not sure there’s much wisdom.

Vampires need to ask permission to enter and physically can’t without permission. Can the ‘can’ be read in both senses here?

From what I’m reading if may have some positive effect on voter share and possibly a negative effect on voter turnout. And that positive messages have have a positive effect on turnout. Isn’t that the claim meme?

And, historically, Democrats win with greater turnout. At least as far as I’m aware.

Disclaimer: I’ve only spent 20 minutes on this. A properly measured response would take longer.

References

How Much Do Campaign Ads Matter?

The researchers found that, in the 2000 election, allowing only positive ads would have increased overall voter turnout from 50.4 percent to 52.4 percent. Meanwhile, airing only negative ads would have decreased turnout to 48.8 percent. The gap between the all-positive and all-negative scenarios was about 10 million voters.

“That’s pretty big,” Gordon says. “It does suggest that negative ads might have a detrimental effect” on election participation.

The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment

This 2007 meta analysis is the most recent meta analysis I could find. It throws into question both claims, that negative ad have a positive effect on voter and negative effect on turnout. There’s been a lot of studies since then, but this still gets cited.

The conventional wisdom about negative political campaigning holds that it works, i.e., it has the consequences its practitioners intend. Many observers also fear that negative campaigning has unintended but detrimental effects on the political system itself. An earlier meta-analytic assessment of the relevant literature found no reliable evidence for these claims, but since then the research literature has more than doubled in size and has greatly improved in quality. We reexamine this literature and find that the major conclusions from the earlier meta-analysis still hold. All told, the research literature does not bear out the idea that negative campaigning is an effective means of winning votes, even though it tends to be more memorable and stimulate knowledge about the campaign. Nor is there any reliable evidence that negative campaigning depresses voter turnout, though it does slightly lower feelings of political efficacy, trust in government, and possibly overall public mood.

Positive Spillovers from Negative Campaigning

Negative advertising is frequent in electoral campaigns, despite its ambiguous effectiveness: Negativity may reduce voters’ evaluation of the targeted politician but may have a backlash effect for the attacker. We study the effect of negative advertising in electoral races with more than two candidates with a large‐scale field experiment during an electoral campaign for mayor in Italy and a survey experiment in a fictitious mayoral campaign. In our field experiment, we find a strong, positive spillover effect on the third main candidate (neither the target nor the attacker). This effect is confirmed in our survey experiment, which creates a controlled environment with no ideological components or strategic voting. The negative ad has no impact on the targeted incumbent, has a sizable backlash effect on the attacker, and largely benefits the idle candidate. The attacker is perceived as less cooperative, less likely to lead a successful government, and more ideologically extreme.

I don’t know why you’re being down voted. The Financial Times laid out the same dire situation yesterday. The New York Times said it two days ago. The best she can do in the first term is play defense and home the ground game gets good. But it’s a hard position to be in because people are looking to either winners change. Without legislation, I don’t know how she can do that.

I wish I had a friend who could just be there while I tried to get it set up. Honestly, I’d peroxide pizza, beer, and video games just so I don’t collapse in a mess of confusion and self doubt when something goes wrong. I don’t mind doing the work, but I don’t know if I have the patience to figure it all out.

Many down ballot positions are unopposed where I live. Of course, I think you only are talking about national seats.

The utility, then, is to note that safe seats operate similarly to unopposed seats especially when it comes to funding by national parties.

I don’t follow.

A vote cast for an unopposed candidate is a vote that doesn’t matter, right?

There are 100 senators.
66 are not on the ballot in 2024.
Of the 34 remaining, 23 are safe and 2 are likely.
That leaves 9 seats. 7 are leaning one way or the other.
2 are toss ups, Ohio and Montana. Vote if live there. Probably even the leaning 7. But the rest…?

As an aside, if all the leans break the way they are leaning, Dems have to hold the two toss ups to have a 50-50 Senate.

Nixon was for stronger gun control even supporting a total handgun ban. Similarly Regan was as governor. Row v. Wade was largely seen as sensible by Republicans when it was determined. Nixon also signed OSHA.

The author’s photo is of her holding two oranges in one hand. I have unexpected joy from this.

Ernie Anastos… That’s an 81 year old I’d vote for.

I realize not everyone shares my opinion here

Your opinion is just wrong.

These people never really think about politics and vote because it’s good.

Everything Bad is Ronald Reagan’s Fault

Here’s a recent poll where Michele Obama came out more than two margins of errors of ahead of Trump.
Also, here’s a pile of salt.

Is the distinction more than pedantic?

Edit: I get the connotation that being hung means your dong is admirable. But in terms of the past tense of hang, both hanged and hung seem to be valid options such as in “I hung the laundry”. And the alternative, “I hanged the laundry” sounds wrong. So pendantry?

It is most certainly not a small sample size. It’s what allows for a margin of error of ±3.5%* at the 95% confidence level. Here’s a graph of the margin of error vs sample size for 95% confidence interval.

With an 11 point margin, there’s a clear separation of the upper limit bar for Trump and lower limit bar for Obama. For a single poll, assuming the rest of it was well designed and executed, this is an important spread. And the reasons are obvious if you look at the report. She’s able to get 10% more Democratic support and 20% more independent voter support.

Ipsos is a high quality polling company. They don’t make rookie mistakes like sample size. There may be other reasons beyond my reasoning that make this a bad use of polling, but sample size is not it.

* The source incorrectly reported the margin of error for the full survey, both registered and unregistered participants.

A list crypto-Trumpists:

• The New York Times: “If the race comes down to a choice between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, the sitting president would be this board’s unequivocal pick. That is how much of a danger Mr. Trump poses. But given that very danger, the stakes for the country and the uneven abilities of Mr. Biden, the United States needs a stronger opponent to the presumptive Republican nominee. To make a call for a new Democratic nominee this late in a campaign is a decision not taken lightly, but it reflects the scale and seriousness of Mr. Trump’s challenge to the values and institutions of this country and the inadequacy of Mr. Biden to confront him.”
• David Remnick of The New Yorker: “For him to remain the Democratic candidate, the central actor in that referendum, would be an act not only of self-delusion but of national endangerment. It is entirely possible that the debate will not much change the polls; it is entirely possible that Biden could have a much stronger debate in September; it is not impossible to imagine that Trump will find a way to lose. But, at this point, should Biden engage the country in that level of jeopardy? To step aside and unleash the admittedly complicated process of locating and nominating a more robust and promising ticket seems the more rational course and would be an act of patriotism. To refuse to do so, to go on contending that his good days are more plentiful than the bad, to ignore the inevitability of time and aging, doesn’t merely risk his legacy—it risks the election and, most important, puts in peril the very issues and principles that Biden has framed as central to his Presidency and essential to the future.”
• The Economist: “There are a lot of arguments for resisting such a drastic step, but the main one is that the election is barely four months away. That may be enough time for Mr Biden to recover in the polls. But with the Democratic convention in August, it would be too brief for the party to find another candidate who could campaign and win. Replacing him could divide Democrats at a time when they need to stay united. Those assertions may have been convincing once. Not any more.”
• Chicago Tribune
• The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

You’re underplaying the severity of his failure. All of these publications understand what you’re saying. Every single one of them know that creating uncertainty now is risky, but in their calculations, it’s worth it. I, ultimately, think they are wrong, but calling them part of the Trump campaign just has to be something only someone trying to win internet points would say.

I’ll end by quoting Steve Bannon Pod Save America co-host Jon Favreau, “Anyone who says this is easy or that we shouldn’t have this debate is not being honest.”

This quote from the article really hits home:

Afterward, his aides would try to explain that he had been sick. He had seen two doctors before the debate. He had a fever, a virus. He wasn’t himself.

But while he may have been sick, he was himself. That was the problem.