Hopium & Copium: After The Convention

I tweeted this:

What I’m 👀 for the campaign:

1. Harris VP pick
2. Convention Speech

Would hope to see her do some interviews (actual, non-soft ones) after that. Am increasingly convinced that she’s a fundamentally different candidate from 2020.

— Tom Nixon (@litcityblues) August 2, 2024

#1: Nailed it. 

I get that Walz has some detractors in the Punditocracy, but Harris is working on a condensed timeline and has not time for an intraparty fight, even if it might be one worth having. Shapiro would have helped in Pennsylvania, but he also would have meant an intraparty fight and she ain't got time for that. Walz helps in the Upper Midwest (MN, WI and probably MI) and it doesn't hurt that he used to be a teacher, served in the national guard and is an effective communicator to boot.

I have not worn a uniform, so I'm going to let the folks who have litigate any fights over the nature of his service. To me and probably a lot of other normie voters, the fact that he wore the uniform for 24 years says that the military evidently thought he was at least competent at his job and I don't think you stay in that long unless you're getting some value out of it as well. (Also: both he and Vance served. I think we should call it even and leave it at that, but oh well.)

A better attack line for the Right might have been the Walz Flavor of Blue State Governance. For sure, it's not California-- which makes Walz a far stronger pick, IMO than Newsom ever will be. But is it an effective flavor of Blue State Governance? (I would argue, yes, but I think folks on the Right might be able to marshall some more effective critiques.) But so far, whatever they've flung at Walz doesn't appear to have stuck.

The weird thing was brilliant. The 'mind your own damn business' line is fucking sensational. Four years ago, the Left was the weird intrusive party of scolds. Now the Right is.

#2: I watched the convention speech the morning after and you know what? Nailed it. Couldn't have asked for anything better than that-- it was a nice blend of biography and introducing herself to the country and it struck all the right rhetorical notes. I think female candidates for higher office have any number of unfair bars to clear, but Kamala Harris looked Presidential last night. When she laughs, you can argue that it can be a little much sometimes, but it's genuine. There's a warmth to her personality that doesn't feel forced and I think voters pick up on that.

I think conventional wisdom on conventions is probably overrated and it would be interesting to see how that shifts going forward-- looking for the traditional bounce in an age of social and new media might be hard to quantify this time out, though I'm sure mainstream pundits will try. What the DNC did, though, was the unite the party, up the enthusiasm factor and crazily, make liberal patriotism cool again. Chants of 'USA USA USA' broke out multiple times and this was at the DNC? Vibes, as the kids say, be shifting.

I think the debates are going to be key. All anyone has of Harris in a debate is when Tulsi knifed her on stage over her prosecutorial record-- that's the clip. There are others (like when Harris pushed back on Tulsi being in a Democratic primary at all or her performance against Pence, which I don't remember being a trainwreck) but that's the clip she's going to need to overcome. Can she overcome it? I don't know... but a credible debate performance is going to go a long way to closing the deal, I think. If she gets Trump ranting and raving instead of being focused on his game, it might maybe be a clincher?  (I hate to put that much into a debate-- but projecting 'refreshingly normal' and 'not crazy' and 'closer to 50 than 90' could be all it takes. It may well be just that simple.)

I also don't mind her media strategy at all. I do think we're going to see interviews and sitdowns going forward at some point-- but I think it's going to be of her time, place, and choice and if it's going to help her win. Non-traditional venues (I've seen a lot of suggestions that she go on 'Hot Ones' which would be brilliant) wouldn't surprise me, but the bigger picture here is this: she is a candidate who recognizes that her interests and the corporate/mainstream media's interests are different. That's an amazing realization for a Democratic candidate to have and I love it, because for as cloying liberal as the mainstream media is, make no mistake: they would elect Mussolini's reanimated corpse if it helped their ratings and they absolutely want Trump back in there. He prints money for them.

Do I think that says a lot about the state of our media? It does. Is there any easy fix to that? No. But is keeping the media at arm's length and kind of shitting on them a bit going to hurt her in any way? Not at all. For all the charges I've seen of her ducking the media, I've seen clips of her taking questions from reporters on campaign stops and doing just fine with her answers-- better than fine, even. 

That's not to say that there haven't been missteps: Democrats still don't know how to overcome right-wing framing of tax policy effectively yet-- I don't think unrealized gains are even going to get taxed but I do think there are sensible policy solutions out there that could be found. I don't think it's going to hurt her with her base at all, but it probably raised an eyebrow or two among independents. 

The 'price control' thing caused consternation online, but I expect not a lot of other places. If you say Big Box Store A brought in 300 billion in profits last year, minutia about the margins that grocery chains operate at-- (pretty low % from what I can tell) isn't going to break through to average voters. They're going to hear 300 billion in profits and wonder why they're getting bent over on grocery prices by a greedy corporation. That just seems to be the pattern we're in Democratic politicians rant about price gouging/corporate greed and the need to do something about it, and corporations suddenly discover a love for lower prices-- whether in reaction to political rants or (say in the case of fast food) just because people ain't buying their product anymore, I don't know.

Our food system desperately needs to be looked at from an anti-trust point of view, not because I think any of the companies qualify as monopolies per se, but I think if we started looking into big juicy things like 'price collusion' I wonder what we would find? It would have been better if Harris had just gone at that issue head-on, but eh, let's call it a draw.

(More policy specifics from the Harris Campaign would be nice-- I don't like a website with no information on it.)

I'm going to say: so far, so good-- if you're a fan of either candidate, you've got reasons to worry and to hope. I don't think this is going to be a landslide and Harris could still legitimately lose this election-- Trump absolutely could. What I do think this is going to come down to is not polls-- but turnout. Harris seems to be raising ludicrous amounts of money and if she doesn't construct a turnout machine with it, she'll be doing herself a massive disservice. 

Polls? There has been data noise about Florida and Texas that has gotten Democrats excited, but I want to see more data before I believe it. I also worry that Democrats are being overconfident in Virginia. (Mississippi remains a long-term investment that Democrats should put money into and I remain convinced you could flip Mississippi before you flip Texas.)

Let's see how we all feel after the debates.