The Democratic assumption that women are ignorant and their votes can be “bought” by Hollywood stars assuming they are all dumb as rocks and afraid of their husbands, may very well fail. Women have to lie to their husbands? Really!
Democrats Trash-Talk the Voters
From ‘deplorables’ to ‘garbage,’ contempt doesn’t seem to be a winning message.
The Republicans rolled out Newt Gingrich to talk about how spouses have to be honest with each other.
Gingrich: For them to tell people to lie is just one further example of the depth of their corruption. How do you run a country, saying wives should lie to their husbands, husbands should lie to their wives? pic.twitter.com/agBEKYU2Sd
just as I was about to thank @joanne for presenting the cat video as a refreshing break from all the hateful speech filling our screens from both parties, someone felt required to step on the tails of singing cats!
Sing away…
I’ve seen the ad detailed in your second post, several hours ago. My family don’t interpret the post-vote comment as lying. We see it as speaking truth without unnecessary details. Perhaps that’s because our parents supported different parties yet respected the sanctity of the booth. (They’d debate issues and events, they’d describe for us what they saw at the booth but never divulged what their actual votes were)
That's twice I've seen this blog rolled out as proof that Hinchcliffe was really actually talking about a real trash crisis in PR. When you and terp print out Wednesday's article and jump into a time machine to present it to Hinchcliffe before last Sunday, remind him not to refer to it or anything to do with it. Just get him to say "garbage" and "Puerto Rico" like we all know what he's talking about and instantly move on to Travis Kelce.
No matter how you spin it, I can't imagine any Puerto Ricans seeing the humor.
And given Trump's remarks in the past about brown and black people and their ancestral countries, it isn't a great leap to conclude that Hinchcliffe was referring to the people as the garbage.
On the plus side, I now know that Puerto Rico has a landfill problem.
WSJ editorial board today offers the would’ve could’ve of the candidates …
Journal Writers Reflect on the Trump vs. Harris Campaign
Biggest surprise? Better vice-presidential choice? We have answers to these and other questions.
Nov. 1, 2024 at 4:37 pm ET
What development in the Trump-vs.-Harris campaign most surprised you?
William McGurn, columnist: If Donald Trump wins, he will claim his victory was the greatest in American history. The surprising thing is that he’d have a good case. Before, during and after his presidency, he faced an FBI investigation, violent protests at his inauguration, a stacked Jan. 6 congressional committee, two dubious impeachments, special prosecutors, dozens of felony indictments and an unrelenting assault by a press that abandoned even the pretense of objectivity. His support grew, in part because voters sense that the elites in both parties look down on them and he doesn’t.
Karl Rove, columnist: That both candidates were so ill-prepared for important moments they knew were coming. Kamala Harris’s campaign told reporters she would try getting under his skin at the debate, and when she did by belittling his rallies, he fell for it. She knew she’d be asked in interviews what she would have done differently from President Biden, and she couldn’t think of one example.
Would Democrats have been better off sticking with Joe Biden and why?
Mene Ukueberuwa, editorial board member: Ms. Harris’s strength compared with Mr. Biden is harder to see today than it was in July. The label “California progressive” stuck to her as voters learned about her record, whereas some voters still see Mr. Biden as the moderate “Scranton Joe.” Even so, Mr. Biden’s age and record sank his prospects. Nearly any Democrat would have outperformed him.
Tunku Varadarajan, contributor: Yes, though it isn’t a slam-dunk. Mr. Biden suffered the weirdest defenestration in history, continuing in his office after his party deemed him unfit to run for it. Voters likely would have forgotten the debate after a month. With Mr. Biden, the Democrats wouldn’t have lost as many male voters as they have with Ms. Harris. In the event of a loss, Democrats could blame it on Mr. Biden. If Ms. Harris loses, they’ll need to question the direction of their party.
William McGurn: If Ms. Harris loses, expect leaks from the White House along the lines of I’m the only guy to beat Donald Trump and they still dumped me for her. But that doesn’t mean Mr. Biden would have won. His disastrous debate exposed his mental decline, and everything he did or said after would be seen through that prism. The Democrats’ real mistake was to wait so long rather than force him out a year ago. Even if Ms. Harris loses, she made it a closer race than Mr. Biden would have.
Would Republicans have been better off with a different nominee and why?
Kyle Peterson, editorial board member: Probably. About two-thirds of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, as Mr. Biden has presided over inflation and a porous border. So why is the race close at all? Because Republicans nominated Mr. Trump. During the primaries, some polls showed Nikki Haleyleading Mr. Biden by 9 points or more. Yet she wouldn’t have been a shoo-in for the nomination if Mr. Trump had skipped 2024. Would Ron DeSantis have prevailed? Would Greg Abbott have run? Who knows.
Allysia Finley, columnist: Despite Mr. Trump’s liabilities, he has unique valuable assets, including his record of peace and prosperity and his knack for tapping into America’s populist zeitgeist. Is his net value as a candidate greater than Nikki Haley’s? She would have appealed to a broader group of voters—especially college-educated white suburbanites. But she might have inspired less enthusiasm among working-class voters, including minorities, because she doesn’t have Mr. Trump’s presidential record and everyman appeal.
Mene Ukueberuwa: GOP primary voters would accept no alternative to Mr. Trump. That bet looks surprisingly close to paying off. But although voters prefer Mr. Trump to Ms. Harris on most issues, his denial that he lost the 2020 election is still the biggest drag on Republicans’ chances of retaking the White House. It’s likely that Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley would have a bigger lead, offering a change of direction without the Jan. 6 baggage.
Who was the better vice-presidential choice, Tim Walz or JD Vance, and why?
Gerard Baker, columnist: Mr. Vance. Mr. Walz was picked for two main reasons: first, he wasn’t Josh Shapiro, who was toxic for too many in the Democratic Party; second, as a kind of mascot, a caricature of a regular guy intended to balance Ms. Harris’s image as a Bay Area uber-progressive. But the campaign quickly exposed him as not just a buffoon, but a buffoon with uber-progressive views and an unreliable relationship with the truth. Mr. Vance added needed intellectual heft to the GOP ticket, fleshing out Mr. Trump’s instinctive populism with reason and argument and cementing the party’s political realignment.
Karl Rove: Mr. Walz. Vice-presidential candidates don’t have much of an impact on the election’s outcome, but the Minnesota governor hasn’t tied himself into as many knots as Mr. Vance has over campaign missteps. Why couldn’t Mr. Vance simply say the comedic insult of Puerto Rico at Sunday’s Madison Square Garden rally was a mistake rather than trying to dismiss it? He would have come across as a decent human being rather than an insensitive politician.
Collin Levy, editorial board member: Mr. Vance earned negative headlines for dumb remarks about “childless cat ladies” and Haitian migrants, but he was redeemed by his performance in the vice-presidential debate. He demonstrated an ability to explain complex policies and tie them back to core American ideals. His debate fluency allowed voters to see past the chaos of the campaign and imagine that future candidates may be able to form complete thoughts and appeal to voters’ intelligence, not their worst instincts.
Kyle Peterson: Mr. Vance, though both picks were uninspired. His elevation pleased Mr. Trump’s base, while doing little to expand it. But the same goes for Kamala Harris’s choice of Tim Walz, given his Minnesota record. The difference is that Mr. Vance has proved more adept at answering—and parrying—tough questions, and if Ms. Harris loses Pennsylvania, passing over Mr. Shapiro will be a blunder for the ages.
What was each candidate’s biggest mistake?
Allysia Finley: Kamala Harris’s was sprinting to the left in 2019 to win the Democratic nomination. This year she has been forced to walk back many of her prior positions, reinforcing voters’ perception that she’s two-faced. Mr. Trump’s campaign has been a comedy of unforced errors, but his refusal to enlist Nikki Haley to stump for him is probably his greatest.
Tunku Varadarajan: Mr. Trump’s biggest mistake is to believe that he is incapable of committing a mistake. His blithe certitude could be his undoing.
Barton Swaim, editorial page writer: Mr. Trump’s failure to prepare for his debate with Ms. Harris sent his campaign into a downward spiral. Irate, flummoxed—he looked and sounded a lot like the scary figure Democrats claimed him to be. Her biggest mistake was to assume he would always conform to that image. In the final weeks of the campaign, she talked about little but his menace to democracy, while he served fries at McDonald’s, told uproarious stories with Joe Rogan, drove a garbage truck and delivered his speech in a reflective vest. She would have been better off introducing herself than trying to convince America that this showman is a fascist.
James Freeman, assistant editor: Ironically, Mr. Trump’s biggest unforced error was placing too much trust in a major media outlet. He consented to participate in a debate hosted by ABC News despite the network’s relentlessly negative coverage. Ms. Harris’s was declining to attend the Al Smith Dinner, and not only because she needlessly insulted Catholics. The event, featuring scripted comedic speeches, was tailor-made for a campaign seeking to define itself with vague joyfulness. Every zinger she directed at Mr. Trump could have been replayed generously on networks like ABC.
Kyle Peterson: Neither pitched to the median voter. Ms. Harris promises to raise taxes by $5 trillion, while restructuring the Supreme Court. Mr. Trump insults IQs, thinks out loud about 1,000% tariffs, rages about punishing CBS, brings a 9/11 truther to a 9/11 memorial, pledges to let Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “go wild on the medicines,” and so forth.
What was the worst policy either candidate proposed?
Matthew Hennessey, deputy editorial features editor: Ms. Harris’s vow to sacrifice the Senate filibuster at the altar of abortion rights is both bad policy and politically short-sighted. Americans may be reluctant to ban abortion outright, but that doesn’t mean they’re comfortable with it. Certainly not as comfortable as the Democratic platform, which urges no restrictions whatever. As happened after 2013, when Harry Reid took the nuclear option for nominees, Democrats will regret doing this—maybe sooner than they realize. Republicans will gladly push their own priorities through a filibuster-free Senate when they have 51 votes, the House and the presidency.
Gerard Baker: A wide and competitive field, this. It was a race to the bottom for bad ideas. For Mr. Trump, I’d pick the ever-expanding cornucopia of tax cuts for special groups: tips, interest on car loans, Social Security payments, etc. For Ms. Harris, the first policy announcement out of her mouth: the proposal to quell inflation with measures to ban “price-gouging” by companies, especially retailers. Thank goodness the campaign discussion was decided by more important things than policy, like garbage and joy.
Collin Levy: Donald Trump’s worst policy idea may be his promise to raise tariffs to 10% or 20%. It’s a mistake to treat voters like they don’t understand basic economics. Mr. Trump claims the tariffs will be paid by the foreign suppliers, but of course they will be absorbed by importers and American consumers.
Kyle Peterson: Does Mr. Trump really think he can end the income tax, which raises roughly $2 trillion, by replacing it with steep tariffs on about $3 trillion of total U.S. imports? Yet for a combination of hazardousness and earnestness, it might be hard to beat Kamala Harris’s endorsement of Supreme Court “reform.” The judiciary is the branch of government that’s functioning and insulated from partisanship, including when it turned away Mr. Trump’s bogus 2020 fraud claims. Remaking the court in a fury would be destabilizing, as even Joe Biden’s commission warned.
What is your most counterintuitive or unconventional observation about the election?
Allysia Finley: Kamala Harris may draw fewer black voters than Joe Biden would have. While she advertises her middle-class upbringing, she can come off as a hoity-toity elite who is out of touch with ordinary folks, including blacks. While lacking Mr. Biden’s common touch, she is saddled with his unpopular record.
Tunku Varadarajan: If Mr. Trump wins, I’d attribute his victory to his being unpresidential. He deliberately embraced a political style that is more mayoral. Nothing is too picayune for his attention. Everything is ad hominem. People, not principles, are his focus. There’s a grubbiness to his campaign that’s mayoral, and a folksiness, too. It brings him closer to America’s heart.
Collin Levy: If Donald Trump wins, it will be in part because of the ebb of Never Trump voters. Many of the Republicans who swore off Mr. Trump for his bluster, unpleasant personality and lack of conservative principles have moved on. They may still dislike him, but they figure the country survived the first term and that a repeat is preferable to court-packing and left-wing policies. Liz Cheney’s wholesale embrace of Kamala Harris has further alienated these GOP voters, who are still philosophically conservative and see Ms. Harris’s progressivism as anathema.
Kimberley A. Strassel, columnist: One surprising feature of this election has been the inverse relationship between Kamala Harris’s pander to unions and actual Harris union support. The “most pro-labor administration in American history” may notch a modern Democratic low among union members. The mistake was thinking labor-law assists would deliver loyalty. It couldn’t make up for inflation, border chaos, international disorder and cultural stances that offend many mainstream Americans—union workers included. Thus the Teamsters and Firefighters unions’ shocking decisions to forgo a Harris endorsement, and the potential for Donald Trump on Tuesday to collect record union votes.
Karl Rove: Early voting is looking very different from 2020. Republicans are running ahead in Nevada, where Democrats have always beaten the GOP by big margins, and in North Carolina. And Pennsylvania and Wisconsin may get their mail-in ballots tabulated much faster than they did four years ago. While these states didn’t change their misguided laws that mail-in ballots can’t be worked before the polls open on Tuesday morning, perhaps they’ve got more people and better procedures in place to work them faster than in 2020. Let us hope.
Barton Swaim: Why did Democrats nominate an unaccomplished San Francisco progressive with few political skills? For the same reason they favored harsh lockdowns during the pandemic, the same reason they refuse to use force against America’s enemies—an insane fear of risk. Nominating a presidential candidate by an open primary is risky. Democrats did the safe thing—a reminder that sometimes the safe thing is the dumbest risk of all.
The Republicans rolled out Newt Gingrich to talk about how spouses have to be honest with each other.
It gets better.
Donald Trump opines on the importance of honesty in a marriage.
Trump: "Can you imagine a wife not telling a husband who she's voting for? Did you ever hear anything like that? Even if you had a horrible -- if you had a bad relationship, you're gonna tell your husband." pic.twitter.com/gd5of817VY
It's not surprising though they aren't concerned there are wives who don't think they can tell their husbands they voted for Harris.
somewhere there exists a room full of people who scour everything that prominent Dems say. They look for anything, sometimes even single words, that can be twisted or otherwise manipulated into a talking point that will inflame MAGA idiots.
The issue is bizarre. It’s called a secret ballot for a reason - it’s private!!
I don’t tell my hubby everything - he doesn’t need to know the intimate details of my gynae and breast cancer consultations! He just needs the ‘exec summary’ and the results!! Same with voting.
@joanne — different strokes for different folks, of course , but I disagree with you re the sharing of medical details with a close loved one. As the “healthy” person in a similar scenario with a relative undergoing very rigorous cancer treatment, we both agreed we were in this fight together and no holding back.
It's not surprising though they aren't concerned there are wives who don't think they can tell their husbands they voted for Harris.
That’s why trump hates Liz Cheney so much, because she has emerged as the key figure in the Republican Party encouraging women to vote against him. He’s freaking out that white women are abandoning him. He’s seeing this happening, he’s seeing the huge gender gap showing up in early voting, just like I see it. That’s why the right wing nuts are attempting to force their wives to vote as their husbands vote. They feel they have lost the power they had to control every aspect of women’s lives. It’s all about making America great again right? I am sure they think their women aren’t as smart as they are in selecting a president…. I would even go as far as saying that they feel women should lose the ability to vote altogether. trump knows he’s gonna lose to a woman of color and it’s going to drive him crazy, I’m enjoying this.
Hubby doesn’t speak medicalese, and his cancer was different to mine. He doesn’t need to know how long the doc physically fondled my breasts nor which one he started with He doesn’t need to know how the various scans work, nor how the meds work. He just needs to know that the surgical team are happy with their latest results and don’t need to see me for a year. Or if my treatment changes. Similarly, I carefully research each candidate in my electorate, and make contact with them. I ask specific questions and gauge their replies, as well as Party policies. I want the right person representing our patch. Hubby quickly scans latest Party policies, then votes. He’s too busy with work and study to even discuss those Party policies with me (he’s a public servant as well as a trainer and a uni student). He wants a good State leader. I still don’t know how he voted a week ago.
@joanne — different strokes for different folks, of course , but I disagree with you re the sharing of medical details with a close loved one. As the “healthy” person in a similar scenario with a relative undergoing very rigorous cancer treatment, we both agreed we were in this fight together and no holding back.
Just clarifying the above, after asking Hubby how he feels. If I thought something was inappropriate or unexplained, he wants to know, and wants to advocate for me. He knows who my various specialists are, and he’s my medical POA/advocate anyway. More importantly, he knows how to get the right advice/info if I can’t tell him. My siblings understand more of the details since we share various genetic conditions.
The White House’s alleged rewriting of the official record of the president’s remarks probably won’t go down in history as Joe Biden’s most consequential manufacturing of misinformation. That distinction likely belongs to his denial and suppression of accurate reports about his family business, his pressuring of social media firms to enforce his Covid narratives, or perhaps his habitual telling of an economic fairy tale. As for perhaps the greatest misinformation of the Biden-Harris era—that he remains sharp as a tack behind closed doors and is fully capable of handling the rigors of the presidency—Mr. Biden’s level of involvement in that particular manufacturing process remains unclear. Nevertheless, this week’s Orwellian story of allegedly editing a White House transcript invites further scrutiny of the Biden-Harris administration’s efforts to control and manipulate information.
Aamer Madhani and Zeke Miller report for the AP that the president’s press team edited a transcript that appeared to show Mr. Biden calling Trump supporters “garbage” so that it showed Mr. Biden only criticizing one comedian who appeared at a Trump event. According to the AP report:
The change was made after the press office “conferred with the president,” according to an internal email from the head of the stenographers’ office that was obtained by The AP. The authenticity of the email was confirmed by two government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters.
The supervisor, in the email, called the press office’s handling of the matter “a breach of protocol and spoliation of transcript integrity between the Stenography and Press Offices.”
“If there is a difference in interpretation, the Press Office may choose to withhold the transcript but cannot edit it independently,” the supervisor wrote, adding, “Our Stenography Office transcript — released to our distro, which includes the National Archives — is now different than the version edited and released to the public by Press Office staff.”
Perhaps this is just one disturbing incident. Still, media “fact checkers” who like to label true statements by conservatives as false because they allegedly lack necessary context could make themselves useful by exploring the larger context of Biden-Harris misinformation. There’s quite a pattern here. For example, just this week Catherine Herridge posted on X:
IRS whistleblowers say the FBI, IRS, and Justice Department knew immediately the Hunter Biden laptop was real in late 2019 and that there was no basis for the statement from 51 former intelligence officials that the laptop had the “classic earmarks” of a Russian information operation.
Four years ago, if voters had known the truth about the millions of dollars flowing from overseas to the Biden family, would they have elected Joe Biden and Kamala Harris?
Things worked out very well for both Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris, and the experience doesn’t seem to have persuaded either one of them to appreciate the value of transparency. Why, just the other day Vice President Harris told NBC’s Hallie Jackson that Joe Biden is “capable in every way that anyone would want” of serving as president.
If voters give Ms. Harris the promotion she seeks next week, there’s no reason to expect more honest governance.
Trump closing argument: "If people get to vote, we lose."
Trump: They are fighting so hard to steal this damn thing. Look at what's going on. Look at what's going on in your state. Every day they're talking about extending hours and -- what? Who ever heard of this stuff? pic.twitter.com/oqx1jIqnTB
and 
, but mostly 
It’s called a secret ballot for a reason - it’s private!! 
Ms. Strassel labels the teaching of all of American history as "weird", which is all we need to know about her viewpoints.