Harris has already slipped 5 pts in the Morning Consult poll since their poll taken after the debate

[highplainsdem]

The poll taken immediately after the debate had Biden at 32% -- down 10 pts from right before the debate -- and Harris at 17%, up 8 pts from right before the debate.

The newest poll from Morning Consult -- see this DU thread for Don Viejo's post about that

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287181252

has Harris at 12%, losing 5 of the 8 points she'd gained from the debate, and Biden at 33%, up 1 point since his sharp drop in the poll after the debate.

[bluewater]

1. How does the Morning Consult Poll select their responders?

They don't actually call people, at least not for their `"16,000 registered voters interviewed" weekly poll.

I was told it's some sort of online poll and that it's not a truly random poll.

I have been trying to find out how people are selected to participate, but I can't find that info anywhere.

Do they "interview", whatever that means, the same people over and over?

Can any registered voter participate?

How are the people selected?

[Dream Girl]

28. They probably have a prescreened panel and use a continuous survey

I’m a researcher and morning consultis highly respected. In fact we are probably going to start using them for our ongoing product tracking study

[brush]

91. Funny, this poll says she's up. Joe is as well against Sanders.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287182383

[flamingdem]

2. She came off as a fighter but the fight was against Biden

and when asked about her priorities she gave a weak answer - a list - and so lost her chance to say who she is - plus the majority of Democrats want someone who will unify.. and the majority of left Democrats want someone who will fight Trump. Biden checks those boxes better.

[DownriverDem]

22. Sad

I hate the tit for tat attacks. It's going to be hard to unite if this is how it is going to go.

[dawg day]

32. I think it will be fine

Most politicians understand give-and-take. They are competitive by nature, and most (not Trump, but then, he's never been a public official) seem to be able to let go of the rivalry when the race is done. Notice how often a nominee will choose a rival for running mate or later for the cabinet-- Reagan chose Bush 1, Obama chose Biden (and Clinton for State), for example.

It's still a year before the convention. And there'll be plenty of "union" there-- everyone united in the goal of rectifying the historic mistake of 2016.

[Dahvia]

94. Totally agree.

[ucrdem]

3. Maybe the merch wasn't such a good idea.

Or the bragging.

[highplainsdem]

4. The t-shirt was a disastrous idea, judging by most of the reactions I saw on Twitter,

[Demsrule86]

15. It pissed me off for sure.

[watoos]

5. lol, polls are nothing but propaganda tools,

Joe better pick up his game is all I know no matter what polls say. I saw what I saw and Harris and Bennet ate Joe's lunch at the debate. No one is going after Bennet but he nailed Joe on extending the Bush tax cuts and for the Sequester.

Joe has a steeper hill to climb since he has been in politics so long, he has more to pick apart.

[ucrdem]

8. It turns out they weren't expecting a strong defense

and that's what they got. I saw it too and I thought Joe slapped her down politely and then zipped it. Of course the MSNBC hosts saw what they wanted to see.

[Mme. Defarge]

27. That's exactly what I saw!

The pundits all piled onto a hot, new narrative and did not describe what actually happened. I’ve been thinking Harris’s stunt could backfire with the general public, though I won’t call them/us “every day Americans”.

[Dream Girl]

30. Yep. He zipped it. You could see he wanted to say more but employed remarkable restraint

For him anyway

[ucrdem]

34. Yep no way the hosts were going to referee that one.

Too much fun to worry about rules! And whadda story! Too bad Joe didn't feed them more copy.

[highplainsdem]

12. I've never seen anyone dismiss polls as a propaganda tool if their candidate was doing well

in them.

[Turin_C3PO]

24. Depends on the poll,

but most polls that DUers post tend to be rated as accurate. They provide a snapshot of opinion and can, of course, change quickly.

[DownriverDem]

25. How far

back should we go? Biden is the best candidate to beat trump no matter what folks who support others think.

[hedda_foil]

43. Your opinion is not fact. It's an opinion. Perhaps you might rephrase that.

[Demsrule86]

46. We don't have to rephrase anything...I will say that I think Biden is the only one who can

rebuild the blue wall and win.

[oasis]

61. Biden's administration would hit the ground running minutes

after the swearing in ceremony.

There is much in this world we need to repair.

[Demsrule86]

67. Yes the administration would and by taking three states he stops Trump...WI, PA and MI.

[marylandblue]

82. They all would do that. Obama did that. Even Trump did that, but he tripped.

There is no special magic to making immediate changes. I am much more concerned about what the next President will actually do, than whether he knows how to place a call to DHS and get children released from prison.

[oasis]

83. Trump did that? It was a disaster then, and now.

The word is "Competence". Biden has the connections to install a competent, effective administration from day one.

[marylandblue]

84. Yes, Trump is incompetent. But for all the Democratic candidates,

they will all hit the ground running. It's really not rocket science and it doesn't require a ton of experience.

Having connections is helpful, but not the main thing. They all have connections and whoever clinches the nomination will immediately have thousands of well-connected experienced people rushing to help them.

[marylandblue]

57. It's been a problem with Biden supporters on DU.

They think they know more than they actually do. I could explain why I think that is, but that would be dwelling in the past, and we all know Biden's campaign is about the future.

[Demsrule86]

74. That is your opinion and why is it a problem for Biden supporters to post their honest opinions? But

OK...for you to well sneer at Biden supporers...We all post our opinions here. Personally, I fear your 'future' could include Trump winning another term.

[marylandblue]

81. Because, in general. Biden supporters state their opinions as if they were facts,

often providing little or no evidence to support their opinions but demand others provide absolute proof. Which is exactly what DownriverDem did right here, and what you frequently do.

[Thekaspervote]

36. 538 one of the most respected polls in the nation has joined forced with morningconsult

Not a propaganda tool. It’s a calculated science. You should read about it. It’s really quite fascinating

[Kaleva]

6. So the takeaway is that one candidate has a net gain while the other has a net loss.

[highplainsdem]

9. The takeaway is that one candidate's much-vaunted post-debate bump declined by more than

half in a couple of days.

That's a very short-lived 8% bump.

[thesquanderer]

23. You can't necessarily equate the two polls (the new one and the one where Biden was down 10)

The one where Biden was down 10 was not a standard Morning Consult poll, it was a specialized poll done for and with 538 for the specific purposes of measuring pre-and-post debate opinions. The participation/selection criteria may or may not be the same as for the usual MC poll, the results may not be any more directly comparable than it would be if compared to an Emerson or Quinnipiac poll. For trends, you can only compare like-to-like, i.e. an Emerson poll with someone at X on Tuesday cannot be seen as an increase or decrease from their Quinnipiac results of Y on Monday... a big difference between the two would be due to methodology/sample rather than any big change from Monday to Tuesday. Since MC does not appear to be promoting the 538 poll as one of their official polls (i.e. not included at https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/ ) I'm not sure methodology is the same and results are directly comparable as they are when they do their own polls from week to week.

[Dream Girl]

39. Coul the 8 point bounce have been taken among viewers of the debates?

In other words a pre/post debate amp intendded viewers with the post wave taken among self identified viewers, in other words a different sample and methodology than their tracing poll, I’m a market researcher and would guess that is wat is happening. Morning Consult is a great polling organization. We are considering using them for our product tracker.

[Celerity]

72. here is the methodology behind that specific 538/MC poll (you are correct, as it is separate from

the regular Morning Consult poll, which is leading to so much confusion, as it is apples and oranges.)

Also, it was NOT a random poll where anyone could just click on something as many times as they want, it was a very controlled group. I see so many people react in such a way that as soon as 'online' is mentioned they have visions of all the dodgy 'have-a-go', 'vote as often as you can clear your cache' (if even that is needed, lol) push-pull 'polls' like Drudge and other sites (of all sorts of ideological bents) do.


https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-poll/

Notes on the methodology:

All the data presented here comes from polling done by Morning Consult for FiveThirtyEight. Morning Consult conducted an online “panel” survey with three rounds of polling (respondents from the first round are reinterviewed in rounds two and three). One round of polling was conducted before the debates began, with follow-up rounds being conducted after each debate.

The first wave of the poll was in the field from June 19 to June 26 among 7,150 registered voters who say they are likely to vote in their state’s Democratic primary or caucus. It has a margin of error of +/- 1 percentage point using the 2016 Democratic primary electorate as the true population.

The second wave of the poll was conducted from June 26 to June 27 among 2,041 respondents who previously responded to the first wave; it has a margin of error of +/- 2 percentage points. Of those respondents, 1,134 watched the first debate.

The third wave of the poll was conducted from June 27 to June 28 among 1,399 respondents who previously responded to the first wave, including 428 who responded to both the first and second waves; it has a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points. Of those respondents, 97 watched the first debate, 89 watched the second debate and 757 watched both debates.

The pool of self-identified Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents in the survey is weighted to match the national population of registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. From this weighted pool of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, we pull the subset of respondents who said they are likely to vote in the Democratic primaries or caucuses. These likely voters are the respondent base for all charts here except where otherwise noted. The respondent pool is subject to some amount of attrition.

The scatter plot comparing candidates’ favorability to their debate performance was calculated by assigning a 0 to 100 score to each respondent’s answer, where “very favorable” is equal to 100, “somewhat favorable” is equal to 75, “heard of, no opinion” is equal to 50, “somewhat unfavorable” is equal to 25 and “very unfavorable” is equal to zero. Scores were then averaged to create an overall favorability index for each candidate. Respondents who hadn’t heard of the candidate were not included.

[Demsrule86]

14. She lost most of her net gain...And what about the Church story gaining traction on the internet?

There is more there there too...

[katmondoo]

19. Harris lost some of more her net gain and opened herself up to more scrutiny

I was watching the debate and my immediate feeling was she should not have done it with busing.

[Thekaspervote]

37. Agree! It was not her best look.. or a presidential one

[Demsrule86]

48. I don't disagree. And I always like her didn't support her in the primaries because I believe Biden

is the one wh can beat Trump...but now, I mixed feeling about Harris...t-shirts really bothered me...so calculating. I would of course vote for her and any other Democratic nominee in the general.

[Kahuna7]

51. Yep. That's what happens. The long knives are going to be out. nt

[thesquanderer]

33. please see post #23 (corrected number)

Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2019, 01:35 PM - Edit history (1)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287181483#post23

[58Sunliner]

70. More there.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/24/kamala-harris-2020-history-224126. Combine it with knowledge about the church story. The SF Chronicle-main paper-was anti-Hallinan and endorsed her, apparently after someone intervened.

[DownriverDem]

26. Turned folks off

I want to see the candidates talk about what they stand for and are going to do. Tit for tat attacks is a big turn off.

[KPN]

99. Exactly -- but you're not supposed to see or point that out.

Bottom line: Biden was damaged.

[peggysue2]

7. Interesting!

That's a pretty quick turnaround. I'll be interested in seeing the poll numbers from other outlets over the next week to 10 days.

We'll see just how effective all this poo-flinging turns out to be.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. These polls are going to oscillate quite a bit for months.

The cable news talking heads will report on every comment, twitch, belch, fart, made-up canard, overdue library book, hiccup, freckle, mole, wart, parking ticket, sneeze, facial expression, weird relative, bad hairdo, credit card balance, nose hairs, wardrobe choice, mismatched socks, pets, lack of pets, children, lack of children, spouse, lack of spouse, armpit sweat, pizza eating technique, hobby, favorite song, boxers or briefs, table manners, hay fever, favorite ethnic cuisine, does he dress on the right or the left, does she wear pantyhose, hardwood floors or carpeting, Grey Poupon or French's, and how many angels are dancing on the heads of each of their pins. And their Dem opponents, GOPers and Russian trolls will have a field day with every minuscule, irrelevant detail, hoping or fearing a tiny twitch in some poll or other.

[highplainsdem]

11. I agree. But at the moment the only real data points on how well candidates are doing are polls,

fundraising reports, endorsements, and crowd sizes.

Those are interesting because -- except for the endorsements -- they represent aggregates of individual opinions.

Otherwise we're left with just individual opinions.

And most of us like to know what others are thinking, if we're really interested in the race.

[Honeycombe8]

20. Gambling odds are informative, too.

The gamblers look at various data to place their bets and get the odds. They look at everything. They, too, thought Clinton would win in 2016, as a whole. But not all of them. One gambler made million, having bet on Trump winning. But the odds reflect a rolling figure based on all the polls.

[marylandblue]

35. The odds also reflect other factors that polls can't account for.

Like some of the informed judgements needed to decide future performance. Right now, the only thing the gamblers really agree on is that there is no true front runner. All these people who think they know who the winner will be can make a fortune on the betting market. So why don't they?

[Honeycombe8]

52. Well, they give Trump the clear advantage, sad to say.

So far, Trump is even odds. No Democrat comes close to that, but Biden is the closest.

[marylandblue]

55. Yeah, well he has gone up in the last few months. That is unfortunate.

I guess it reflects a lack of consensus on that too
I think we really don't understand what has been happening in western democracies, so the betting markets have had spectacular failures since 2016.

[Honeycombe8]

69. So if someone you don't like is ahead, there's a problem with the entity....

that tallies the numbers? I don't know about that.

I'm reminded of the Trump gains in 2016, when people would say the polls were biased or voters were lying to the pollsters, etc. (I think Russia rigged it, all right, but there's no doubt that Trump made gains in 2016 and got much closer to Clinton.)

I think once the Democrats identify their nominee, the polls and odds will start to be more meaningful, tho.

But it is important to note that Trump is ahead in the gambling odds. That's every bit as important as if Biden were ahead of Trump. It may not mean much at this stage, but it does mean something.

Take nothing for granted. We need a large victory to overcome the Russian Effect.

[marylandblue]

95. I have NO idea what you are talking about.

I'm just noting the current position of the betting markets and speculating about what it might mean in a much broader scope than a single election.

There really isn't much more to it than that.

No entities were hurt in the production of this post.

[MineralMan]

18. Exactly.

[Demsrule86]

13. Haha...that explains the new desperate OP about Gay discrimination...

[Iliyah]

16. E Warren (-1) ?

[MineralMan]

17. Joe Biden maintains a double-digit lead.

That's the story of the polls, actually. While a candidate can sometimes gain a few points by flinging poo, a day or two later, when the recipient of that poo has a chance to explain, those points can be quickly lost.

Bottom line, right now, is that Biden's lead is due to people who don't care about such things supporting him. That's why his double-digit lead persists.

Poo-flinging rarely results in permanent gains in polling. Any gains are typically temporary. Now, if something about Harris comes out, which it has, the damage can be even greater.

It's a poor idea, poo-flinging is, generally.

[thesquanderer]

29. I'm not sure whether or not Harris was right to do what she did. But...

...the one thing I do feel sure of is that Biden didn't handle it as well as he could have... and Trump will toss worse at him than that. So it was a revealing exchange in that respect, at least.

The problem with having a long track record is there's lots to find to argue about. If you're running on your decades of experience, you can't also disown what you said and did in those decades, that's the double-edged sword. (Unless maybe you're Bernie Sanders who has been saying pretty much the same thing about every public policy since he learned to speak.) I don't have any problem with any of Biden's positions in the 70s. It's a long time ago. But today, he has a choice of either saying "I wouldn't vote that way today," or saying "actually I still think that was the correct vote, and here's why" and either is justifiable, and he chose something closer to the second... but it still came off as a bit of a mess.

[MineralMan]

31. I think he'll probably figure out the best approach to respond to such

old issues. It's early days, yet. Biden and his team will learn how to deal with this stuff most effectively, I'm sure.

Meanwhile, he still holds a double-digit lead. That's pretty remarkable, considering the size of the field. People aren't recognizing that for what it is. He's still vulnerable, of course, but he'll get better as things proceed.

Besides, the other candidates do not have spotless pasts, either. People will be quick to point that out if the poo-flinging becomes general.

[marylandblue]

40. +1000. He needs better answers, and it's odd he or his staff can't come up with them.

Because I could certainly write one for him and I'm no political expert. Some of his defenders here on DU have better answers than he himself gave. I think people who are concerned about electability really should be thinking about that. I also think this problem will hurt him going forward, even if it doesn't help Harris. In that case, candidates who remained above the fray will benefit. Warren will benefit. And if Biden sinks a lot, a dark horse moderate will probably replace him.

[thesquanderer]

42. I don't blame his staff for his not having comebacks for criticisms of...

...every vote he has cast for 45 years. I'm not sure anyone could have predicted that busing would be raised as an issue.

Ultimately, it comes down to his ability to think on his feet and to well articulate his points. And whether it's his age or not, I don't think these are currently strengths of his.

[marylandblue]

45. Yes, he does have to be able to think on his feet better.

But this busing issue came up months ago, so he should have at least thought about it a bit. Also civil rights was in the news all week, so he could have simply answered with his plans for future improvement in civil rights, ex. "Sorry, I didn't mean to be hurtful, I plan to increase funding for Title I schools so every kid gets a good education regardless of their zip code."

He's actually said this elsewhere, so why couldn't he say it right there? You might be right he just needs to think faster.

[Demsrule86]

49. I think the media and other candidates will continue the attacks which are mostly unfair...and he

will still win the nomination and bet the orange menace.

[marylandblue]

53. We'll see. Negative campaigning is used because it works.

But if he does falter, don't despair. Another moderate with midwestern appeal will replace. I think that replacement would have a better chance against Trump than he does. All dark horses now because Biden dominates the moderate lane. But Beto, Klobuchar, Bennett and Bullock are all in the same lane. You keep asking who else can win the midwest. They can.

Okay, now give me.you baseless speculation.on why it's only Biden, he'll win no matter what, but we shouldn't criticize because that might make him lose.

[Demsrule86]

58. The media should not join in the mudslinging against any candidate...But will say that Harris hurt

herself with her pre-planned attack on Biden complete with t-shirts...she might have had a bounce in the polls that remained had she not done this.

[marylandblue]

63. "The media should not..."

That's your first mistake. They will do what they do. Lion's shouldn't eat sheep, but lions don't care and smart sheep are careful with lions.

[Demsrule86]

65. I don't doubt that...but it is still wrong.

[marylandblue]

68. They don't bother complaining about it. The media is not kind to Biden because he says things

that are easily misconstrued. It's one of his weaknesses as a candidate, and you are really missing the boat if you don't think this could hurt him in the primaries or general election. He might be able to survive it anyway, but ignoring it won't help him.

[Thekaspervote]

41. IMHO only.. Biden was being respectful of another dem and didn't go into attack mode for that

And other reasons. He will handle the dotard quite well. Its an entirely different kettle of fish

[thesquanderer]

44. He didn't need to attack Harris. He needed to better explain his position.

With no attack back at Harris, he could have said something like: "Busing was a complicated issue. Even at the time, many people of all backgrounds--including African Americans--were against it. So I had no issue with busing where people supported it, as was the case where you grew up, but I did not think it was the government's place to impose it even in areas where none of the people involved wanted it, and that's what that vote was about."

And if she "persisted,"... he could wrap it up with something like, "We may see it differently. You and I can discuss it further some time, but I'm not sure our limited time here is the best time and place to discuss a complicated vote from 40 years ago, when there is so much happening right now that we really need to address."

[marylandblue]

47. That would have been a good answer. It would laid the whole thing to rest and

she would have cancelled the tshirt order.

[Demsrule86]

50. I don't consider busing a problem...and I would not even mention it again...

[Demsrule86]

59. He needed to explain a 50 year old failed policy on busing... in 90 seconds...OK

then... I look forward to hearing Senl Harris explain some rather puzzling things about her stint as DA and AG...at the next debate in 90 seconds.

[thesquanderer]

62. I typed a 15 second answer that would have been sufficient to avoid the dust-up.

But yes, Harris should have similarly concise comebacks to criticisms of the things you refer to as well. And it's very possible, she already has them in mind.

[Demsrule86]

66. No way it would have been that simple...it was a pre-planned contrived attack...and it opened the

door for a much more serious look at her days as DA and AG...she opened the door.

[Thekaspervote]

38. +1000

[bluewater]

71. Hillary had a double-digit lead over Obama in 2007

at this point in time too.

late June 2007 Rasmussen Poll

Hillary Clinton 39%, Barack Obama 26%, John Edwards 13%, Bill Richardson 5%, Joe Biden 3%, Dennis Kucinich 3%, Chris Dodd 1%, Mike Gravel 0%, Undecided 9%

She could not seal the deal. Can Biden?

[Demsrule86]

75. There were only two candidates...

When you have 20, it is a different story.

[bluewater]

77. I posted the poll results showing the candidates

There were more than two candidates.

Hillary Clinton 39%, Barack Obama 26%, John Edwards 13%, Bill Richardson 5%, Joe Biden 3%, Dennis Kucinich 3%, Chris Dodd 1%, Mike Gravel 0%, Undecided 9%

That's at least 7 according to this one poll.

Hillary had a double digit lead at the same point as now back then, she was the conventional-wisdom's odds on favorite to win.

She didn't. She could not seal the deal. So, again, can Biden?

[Demsrule86]

78. Obama pulled ahead in a much smaller field who mostly left the primary

quickly leaving two candidates. I dont see Harris as the political rockstar Obama was.

[bluewater]

80. Tell you what...

First, thanks for the discussion.

It would be interesting to compare actual polls for 2019 and those from 2007 as the months go by.

Probably only the broadest trends will be comparable, but it will be interesting to see when in each year the eventual winner emerged.

Second, as for the field... well everyone says it will thin out shortly and certainly before Super Tuesday. I am not so sure. I can see 4 campaigns still viable by then.

Third, no one really knows where the supporters of candidates who withdraw will go. Some people claim it will all be to the "not-Biden" camp, but I don't think that is correct.

I think the primary race will stay contested for a very long time.

[MineralMan]

76. That's correct.

Obama's substantial charisma came through to put him over the top, though.

Biden, Warren, Harris

Biden has solidity.
Warren has plans.
Harris has charisma to spare.

Sanders is also in there, but has no chance of becoming the nominee, I think.

Beyond those four, I don't bother to go.

Back when Kamala Harris announced her candidacy, she gave a rousing speech. when I heard it, I said to my wife, "Watch her. She has something that could take her to the top of the list."

Elizabeth Warren doesn't have the same personal magnetism, but does have ideas to spare and they're well thought-out. She also articulates them well, so she will have great appeal to the policy wonks out there. I don't know if that's enough.

Biden has history, he has executive experience as Obama's second. He has a great deal of legislative experience. He's also a likable person, which is a very good thing in a presidential candidate. That's why he's in the lead right now. If he can maintain that and not get himself in terrible trouble, he'll probably the the nominee. A few gaffes won't take him out, either. I hope that, if he is, he picks on of the other two on my list as VP. Either would be a winning combination.

Biden can seal the deal, and he should be able to pull in a lot of independents. He'll do well with black voters, which will be crucial. He's not a policy guy, so, he'd benefit from Warren there. He's also not a younger woman of color, which Harris is. That would be her benefit to the ticket, along with her outstanding speech making skills. As VP, she'd have a chance to learn the executive branch responsibilities, and would be a great candidate when Biden leaves office.

That's my assessment.

[Polly Hennessey]

79. Sorry, but Ms. Harris does

not have charisma to spare. She is a good senator; stay put Kamala.

[democratisphere]

54. Great news! Uniters will always prevail against dividers.

It is ONLY about getting drumpf out of the oval office.

[Peacetrain]

56. Amen to that!!

[Demsrule86]

60. True that.

[58Sunliner]

64. An interesting article about her roots in SF.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/24/kamala-harris-2020-history-224126

[highplainsdem]

73. Thanks! I hadn't seen it, and I'm curious about what you found most interesting about it.

I'm not sure my take is the same as yours, which is why I'm asking.

What I got from the article is that Harris won applause for saying she wasn't going to indulge in negative attacks, but she made that idealistic statement RIGHT AFTER she'd engaged in such attacks.

Which reminded me of her announcing at the debate the other night that Americans didn't want to see a food fight, they wanted to hear how candidates would help them put food on the table...shortly before she launched what many saw as an unfair attack on Biden that insinuated he was a racist.

So is this her standard debate technique, talking about high ideals for a debate or election while doing what she's saying she disapproves of?

Can't say I'm thrilled with it.

Especially since I would not bet she'd ever be able to use those "ruthless" (borrowing the word in Politico's headline) debate skills against Trump, which many people seem to think would be one of the strongest reasons to have her as our nominee.

I do expect Republicans to try to use her relationship with Willie Brown against her, if she becomes the nominee. I've heard some talk disparagingly about it. But those attacks will come at her from ads, or from social media, where she won't be able to wield negative attacks against the GOP as if she's brandishing a knife as a warning to try to get them to shut up.

And in the meantime, I don't like seeing her try to cut down Democratic rivals ruthlessly.

I tend to view NeverTrumper Tom Nichols as a pretty good barometer of the swing voters the Democratic nominee will have to win if we're going to have an electoral college victory in 2020. He tweeted a lot about Harris's performance during the debate, and her selling a t-shirt later, and he did NOT like it. He said he'd vote for her if she was the nominee, if he had to, to defeat Trump, but she'd dropped in his estimation from one of his top choices to just above Marianne Williamson. And he called her behavior "Trumpian."

[58Sunliner]

96. What struck me, smack in the face, was Hallinan.

Hallinan was getting records from the church and allowing victims to access them, which the powers that be, SF Chron, and I am thinking Willie Brown, who was mayor at that point in SF, and who was a very entrenched political machine in CA and SF, bowed to pressure/cut a deal with the church to oust Hallinan as Hallinan was also opening up an investigation into police misconduct on Willie's watch which Willie may very well have not supported. You don't make Willie look bad. Read up on Willie Brown, because I think you might see parallels with Harris. "And I certainly helped with her (Harris) first race for district attorney in San Francisco.".-quote from WB.
She gets in and boom, no more access to those church records, no interest in pursuing any inquiry into priests who are still active and accused.
Wasn't that eww that she said that about the other 2 candidates? And I bet I know who gave her the info-WB. Cause other than gossip, how would she know? Can't say I'm thrilled either. And I expect repukes to make absolute hay with all of this. Willie also bought her a BMW, appointed her to 2 jobs, which she was not qualified for, supposedly, while she collected another salary-worth, supposedly 400k or so.
Maybe someone can make a t-shirt with a sexual abuse victim that she would not support or help.

[Cha]

85. I wonder why? Seriously.. it would

be most interesting to know the thinking on that.

Thank you for this report, highplainsdem!

[highplainsdem]

86. I think some of the decline might be due to people discovering her attack on Biden had been

planned, and her campaign had been ready to exploit it by tweeting a photo and selling a t-shirt. There were VERY negative reactions to that on Twitter.

So probably a lot of the people who'd been taken in at first by her emotional "you hurt me" speech decided they felt differently after finding out about the planning and the exploitation of the attack

As I mentioned in my OP about this, she undercut her own emotional message.

[Cha]

88. Ah yes.. the immediate aftermath

of the debate. Yeah, I saw a bit of that on twitter, too.

Thank You

[highplainsdem]

90. What struck me most was Tom Nichols -- one of the most influential NeverTrumpers, and someone

who's often quoted here -- saying that he's still going to vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, but that Harris had gone from being one of his top choices to being just above Marianne Williamson.

He called her Trumpian.

[Cha]

93. I actually saw that

on one of the twitter feeds I go to. It really pissed him off.. maybe thinking of the Big Picture?

I looked up to see who Tom Nichols is. He got a lot of flack for that from some influential writers if I remember correctly.. but some tweeters agreed. It was more for Kamala than against.. so that's why I was surprised at this latest Morning Consult poll!

I thought his retorts to those who were calling him out were cognizant.. but I don't like comparing any of our Candidates to anything trump like.

It's been tried on this board about supporters of a certain former VP. Didn't go over very well.

Mahalo!

[Dahvia]

87. Good.

I actually expect her to slip more. Many Democrats are quite taken aback by her shameful race baiting attack on VP Biden. Not only was it unseemly, but to then use her alleged "pain" to make a few dollars selling t-shirts?
Very telling about who this person truly is.

[Claritie Pixie]

89. I feel the same way. I have no time for that sort of thing.

[Dahvia]

92. She definitely made a huge mistake:

She's most certainly alienated more voters than she won over.

[Raine]

98. That kind of attack on another

Dermocrat where race is used is so wrong she deserves to sink for it!

[Raine]

97. Good! nt