Accepting the endorsement of Liz Cheney seems cynical, counting on most voters to have short enough memories to see Liz Cheney, only in terms of the last thing she was getting headlines for, ie., being a Republican that took a hardline NeverTrump stance. It seems like Harris is also trying to come off as being gracious. It goes along with the whole moderate outreach the Harris-Walz campaign has been doing. I'd also say praising Dick Cheney was laying it on way too thick. She could have just accepted the endorsement and left it at that... or just commented generally about "uniting across party lines to save Democracy" or similar.
Accepting the endorsement of Liz Cheney seems cynical, counting on most voters to have short enough memories to see Liz Cheney, only in terms of the last thing she was getting headlines for, ie., being a Republican that took a hardline NeverTrump stance. It seems like Harris is also trying to come off as being gracious. It goes along with the whole moderate outreach the Harris-Walz campaign has been doing. I'd also say praising Dick Cheney was laying it on way too thick. She could have just accepted the endorsement and left it at that... or just commented generally about "uniting across party lines to save Democracy" or similar.
The idea I think, is to embrace these "permission" endorsements from prominent Republicans, with the perception being that the endorsements give Republican voters "permission" to switch sides and vote for Harris to express their disdain for Trump. I'm skeptical that this kind of Faustian bargain is even going to have any impact. I doubt many voters who admire Dick Cheney would be inclined to vote for Harris under any circumstances. Obviously its going to be off-putting to some of Harris' potential voters, but I don't think it will be enough to induce a person who was committed to voting for Harris-Walz to suddenly say "Oh Harris accepted the Cheney's endorsement? That's it I'm not voting for Harris anymore!" I'm guessing that most Democratically inclined voters for whom this is the most upsetting were already not voting for Harris anyway.
Either way, I agree that it kinda sucks, in that I think it was unnecessary. It's not going to add any votes, and it just makes committed Harris-Walz voters have to cringe/facepalm.
Her comment seemed to me nothing more than decorum. Standard respect for the office thing that used to be very common; "thank him for all he's done to serve our country" wouldn't have been a showstopper 20 years ago. It isn't now, either, really - bare in mind, CFC OT is far more preachy than the general American voting public, most of whom haven't read those comments and wouldn't have a strong reaction if they did.
The more pragmatic will still vote Harris. If Biden may blunder into a war, Trump appears eager for the sort of macho posturing(via stealth bombers) that's far more likely to lead to one.
She didn't HAVE to, but that she did is so low priority of concern to me that I'm reserving my outrage capital for issues with more ROI, personally.
By now, ‘preacher’ seems to sound like a subtype of ‘billionaire’.
Which crime are we talking about in particular? The
As it was in 2020, as it was in 2016, etc.
I have the same hunch. Difficulties of quantification on the effects of those. The scale of a country of 330 million does leave room for mismanagement to be astonishingly lethal, though guesstimations are an integral part of it. Guesstimated inefficiency of policy vs replacement.
Primary. 1 month before a general election... eh. Nah.
Obama had a range of 253 - 256 Democrat Representatives and a range of 55 - 58 Democrat Senators with 2 Independents who caucused with them during the 211th Congress (2009 and 2010), easily enough to get through any bill they wanted.
People can, will, and in fact, have.
Noteworthy contrast.
