​Donald Trump’s campaign insists that they’re pursuing multiple strategies against Kamala Harris, but the true picture that is emerging is that the Trump senior advisers’ grand plan, for now, is to pray that the former US president ​has a good night at the presidential debate next month.

​The game plan, in other words, has become one of hoping that Trump wins the debate so they can regain momentum – a stunning approach that shows the serious predicament for Trump and his campaign as he struggles to find ways to land effective attacks against the vice-president just months before the election.

​What has happened internally in the Trump campaign in recent weeks is the realization that nothing they do in the period up to the debate is likely to cut through in a significant way that blunts Harris’s gains that have her level in key swing state polls, according to people close to the matter.

​And because they don’t think the messaging will cut through, senior advisers are left hoping that Trump can energize voters with his performance on stage, the people said.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    4 months ago

    She’s a former prosecutor. He’s a compulsive liar, misogynist and racist former reality TV star with dementia who isn’t used to being told to wait his turn before he can speak.

    He better pray to every god he can come up with.

    • cygnus
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Harris didn’t do well in 2020 (edit: 2019) though. She was very uncharismatic. To her credit, she seems to have worked on that a lot since then.

        • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          32
          ·
          4 months ago

          She’s also the nominee with all the DNC money and backing. She will have the best consultants, advisors, resources, etc, and she strikes me as the sort of person who listens to constructive feedback. In the primary, she was working against a lot of the best people in the Democratic party. She now has everyone behind her pushing forward, which is entirely different from trying to pull out ahead of a pack.

          In the primary, she was on stage with Biden and Bernie and Warren and Klobuchar and Buttigieg and Yang and Beto and Booker and Castro and Gabbard and at least three other people nobody remembers. Some of those people are better speakers, some are better debaters, some have better records, some are better leaders, some have better ideas, and almost all of them are not entirely batshit insane.

          She now only has to debate Donald Trump. She is a better speaker, better debater, better leader, has a better record, has better ideas, and will be the only candidate on stage who isn’t entirely batshit insane. She will also be the only candidate on stage that isn’t a racist. The only one who isn’t a convicted felon. The only one who isn’t a rapist. The only candidate who didn’t incite an assault on the Capitol building to stop an election. The only candidate who isn’t misogynist. The only candidate who hasn’t sold state secrets to an enemy government. The only candidate who hasn’t committed a felony at Arlington National Cemetery.

          Plus she likes dogs.

          • ElectricAirship@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            she strikes me as the sort of person who listens to constructive feedback.> Is there a particular event or thing I can look up that she did to give you that impression?

            • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              4 months ago

              I would say her general demeanor, her presentation style, if you compare her to 2020, she has clearly gotten better at speaking and energizing a crowd. She seems more polished, more self-aware. I don’t know if she was leaning towards Shapiro, but if rumors are to be believed, she listened to feedback from progressives and chose Walz. Plus, y’know, she’s a rational adult who isn’t a malignant narcissist or raging egomaniac.

    • Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      She’s a former prosecutor. He’s a compulsive liar, misogynist and racist former reality TV star with dementia who isn’t used to being told to wait his turn before he can speak.

      And together they fight grime?

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      She’s a former prosecutor. He’s a compulsive liar

      People developing some real blinkered views of the trustworthiness of prosecutors, all of a sudden. John Corbyn, Greg Abbott, and Ken Paxton are all current/former AGs and they lie like it’s breathing.

      • osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        4 months ago

        They’re saying that speaking in a formal setting to convince people of stuff was literally her whole deal for 90% of her career, not that she won’t lie.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        4 months ago

        Trustworthiness is not even slightly what people mean by that. What they’re talking about is her having exceptional debating skills because that’s what you do in a courtroom.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s about being able to form cogent arguments and rebuttals while publicly speaking. It has nothing to do with trustworthiness.

        I keep asking you this and you keep refusing to answer, but I’ll ask you again: Who should Americans vote for president in November?

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s about being able to form cogent arguments and rebuttals while publicly speaking.

          This isn’t Lincoln-Douglas at the Harvard Yacht Club. People aren’t tuning in to make up their minds.

          Modern presidential debates are just nationally syndicated The Dozens. People tune in to heckle the people they hate and cheer the ones they love.

          Past that, which debate in Harris’s last nine years on the national stage made her look cogent? She’s been at this since 2015. Her claim to fame right now is “You didn’t just fall out of a coconut tree” followed by nervous laughter.

          Who should Americans vote for president in November?

          I’m being told it all rides on this next televised shouting match, so I guess we’ll have to watch the debate to find out.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            4 months ago

            I didn’t ask who will they vote for.

            I asked who should they vote for.

            Who should Americans vote for in November? In your personal opinion.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              4 months ago

              I asked who should they vote for.

              Isn’t that what the debate is supposed to answer? If you go into the debate already having made up your mind, why watch?

              Who should Americans vote for in November? In your personal opinion.

              I must remain undecided until I have heard both candidates fully advance their respective cases.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                4 months ago

                You are being highly dishonest now. You know exactly where both Trump and Harris stand on issues. Don’t suddenly pretend you’re politically naive.

                There is a stark difference between the two candidates. Why can’t you just say who people should vote for?

                But if you really want to play this game, do you pledge to tell me who you believe people should vote for when the debate is over?

                • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  You know exactly where both Trump and Harris stand on issues.

                  Then why do we care about the results of the debate? You want to see Brat Girl Kamala deliver Epic Owns on Trump because… it makes you feel good? Or because you think it will actually win over voters?

                  There is a stark difference between the two candidates.

                  There’s certainly a stark difference in their marketing.

                  But if you really want to play this game, do you pledge to tell me who you believe people should vote for when the debate is over?

                  I’m saving my decision for Voting Day. Last month Kamala wasn’t even at the top of the ticket. How can I tell you who I’m going to vote for when Demolition Ranch has millions of subscribers and Trump is still doing public speaking events?