Money is pouring in for Kamala Harris as U.S. presidential candidate

[MsAmerica]

And I confess myself very surprised.

Kamala Harris' fundraising reaches a record-breaking $100 million since Biden's exit
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/23/fundraising-for-kamala-harris-tops-100-million-shattering-records/74509043007/

Historic flood of cash pours into Harris campaign and allied groups
www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/historic-flood-of-cash-pours-into-harris-campaign-and-allied-groups/ar-BB1qvtCj?ocid=BingNewsSerp

I think people are very clear on why they don't like Trump. He's anti-democratic for starters as witnessed by his actions.

Yeah I don’t think the majority of the US electorate doesn’t know what they like. They may have shitty taste, but it is their taste.

Its also true that every time media publish party platforms without identifying information or labels a fairly high percentage of Republican voters are shocked and oppose their own party’s policies. But even the ones who are discomfited usually fall back into line—like Bill Barr, trump’s hatchet man, declaring Trump a danger to the country and then saying he planned to vote for him again. Party discipline is very high in the US.

Absolutely. He's that and much more.

Yes. And this is fairly typical of people with a narcissistic pathology. I’ve seen it in RL. Their beliefs and values change with the wind. It is confusing. I think it’s also evident in the fact that Trump didn’t particularly ever know whether he was a republican or a democrat.

Trump absolutely has fixed positions: he is a lifelong racist, as was his father, and a predatory capitalist. He has the prejudices and policies of his class.

Even by Trump’s standards his latest comments are batshit!

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-if-reelected-wont-have-to-vote-fixed-1235069397/

Oh 100%

I can't understand why this alone doesn't make his voters start to question.

What I said came from a textbook about politics, nothing to do with my opinions or mindset, and I didn't refer to just race, if you read what I wrote more carefully. So you are completely incorrect all round.

I was absolutely posting in good faith, and I assumed that you would have your sources at your finger tips. So far this thread has been very pro Kamala, very anti Trump, a lot of personal insults but not much substance, and your contribution had slightly more substance than other posters but your post still looked like cherry picking anodine topics - things you could pick out for or against any party or poster without really getting to the crux of why you would be voting one way or the other - and otherwise subjective and partisan. Your sources would have been interesting but it is up to you whether you share.

In the UK people with strong views can usually explain really well and briefly why they vote one way or the other. That isn't happening on this thread. Most of the posters here are not in the US and do not have the same day to day knowledge of the policies and issues as US based people. Please do share sources if you can.

I am in the US. And I vote in every election. No one needs to “prove” anything to you to hold an opinion about US politics. No one needs to show their work.

Political parties and their representatives may create subjective feelings in voters. But their history, plans, goals, and policies are quite objective. It is not an insult to say Trump is a racist, misogynist, felon and rapist. Those are known facts. They are true even if his voters love that about him (and they do! Just read their signs and listen to their defenses of him).

If it makes you uncomfortable to read posts that take for granted that Trump is awful you can head over to Truth Social and mainline pro Trump stuff right into your veins.

I like both of them, but absolute favourite is the Bulwark podcast which is a daily one run by ex republicans who are now never Trumpers. I can really recommend it, main host is Tim Miller, was part of Jeb Bush campaign, but gives a very centrist and fair position, but he is very funny and honest. They have a few others that are weekly, the Next level, george conway explains it all ( was very focused on legal issues) and the Focus Group ( pretty obvious by the name).

If you're on twitter then Tim is a good follow, as is the bulwark editor, Sarah Longwell.

I enjoy the nevertrumpers for some of their shtick but their viewpoint is not “fair” and “centrist.” Their viewpoint, for the most part, is that Trumpism makes the GOP toxic to normie voters. But Trump, though awful, is just the current avatar of the party. He is more vulgar, corrupt, and greedy than the usual but he does not fundamentally differ on policy from any other republican president.

So nevertrumper statements in re what democrats should or will do occupy an interesting propaganda space. For the most part they 1) are simply grifting and fundraising in democratic pocket books until they can return to receiving money from right wing billionaires. 2) they support democrats conditionally or situationally until a restoration of whatever flavour of GOP they like can lead the country and enforce their chosen policies.

That's @DetMcNulty I'm a historian I love listening to a range of views - I suppose they look centrist compared to the Trumpers!

You see the splintering of politics in democracies as a phenomenon globally, I see that Tommy Robinson is rallying in London today...

I worked with a bunch of people based in Atlanta Georgia for some years and was thrilled to see lifelong republicans voting for Biden last time.

Well not professionally a historian! Not that there are many left these days.

George conway donated $1million to Joe Biden and blew up his marriage to Kelly-Anne, bit of a long grift if that's the case. Maybe they just do believe Trump is a risk to democracy, and they've said in past the risk is small, but even if it's 10% why take that risk, particularly when he is so divisive and in policy terms is world's apart from the Reagan style republicanism they believe in.

They definitely have more conservative views than I do, but are more fiscally conservative, socially liberal types. They have a pretty wide range of guests on too, so not an echo chamber.

George Conway is an exception—he was a true believer but eventually flipped. Just like Trump’s Lawyer Michael Cohen. But Steve Schmidt, David French, et al are still basically disappointed Republicans.

At any rate I’m not arguing against your epicurean interest in the car wreck that is American Politics. Of course I and my children who have to fight for our lives and rights against Trump and Vance’s plans to deport millions of immigrants, end abortion rights, make contraception and divorce illegal or impossible to get, etc…etc… might feel a tad less sunny.

I disagree with getting people to riot, but I think technically the issue was that he thought that the democratic process had been tampered with, and people should fight against that.

Are you having a laugh? It was Trump trying to tamper with the democratic process, asking officials to "find" votes for him. Thankfully he failed, but he brought a world of hell to election officials and violence to the Whitehouse.

He didn't do it to defend democratic process @thebaloneywar. It was yet another one of his attacks on the democratic process.

Fair enough @pikkumyy77 we could've moved back to the US several times, dd was born in US too and I'd be terrified if she wanted to move there as it stands.

I absolutely agree re Steve Schmidt and the Lincoln project team or the dispatch, wouldn't trust them at all, but don't believe the bulwark team fall into that same category. They're pretty pro immigration, both sarah and Tim are gay, Tim has an adopted black daughter and I would say share many of your concerns, which is why I say they're socially liberal and not just anti trump, but anti trumpism and the direction of the GOP.

I lived in the US for many years of my adult life, and voted there. I don't live there any more and can't vote there, but I'm still invested in and knowledgeable about US politics due to family and personal ties - what happens there affects me and my wider family and network, and also the wider world.

I covered the key topics - economy, environment, immigration, foreign policy, character pretty clearly I think. They're not anodyne topics, they're the most fundamental as any glance over any party manifesto will show you.

I didn't believe you posted in good faith because if you know anything about politics, you wouldn't characterise these topics as 'anodyne'.

If you don't know anything about politics, then you're still posting in bad faith, because how can you so confidently characterise certain themes as only personal if you don't understand?

I could go and seek out sources for you but that's not my job. I posted facts, you can go look them up if you like. I don't submit to be evaluated by you.

If you think posters should be more like what you characterise as typical in the UK - in your words people with strong views can usually explain really well and briefly why they vote one way or the other then, to be brief:

I don't agree with Trump's policies on all key issues including the environment, education, the arts, the economy and foreign policy. I think they're radically unjust and will cause suffering and deprivation of rights for most American citizens and endanger the world. Furthermore, I think the leader of a country should have an admirable character and I find him to be a very poor role model due to his obnoxiousness and self-centredness amongst other things. In general, I wouldn't vote for Republicans as they have nominated as their representative someone who encouraged a violent insurrection and threatened democracy, the political system I believe in.

Very well said @twodowntwotogo

Seconded @twodowntwotogo . Very well said!

Thirded.