David Plouffle, Jen O'Malley Dillon, etc. on Pod Save America

[wbrocks67]

The two of them, plus Quentin Fulks and Stephanie something (both from messaging, paid media, etc.) were on PSA for an interview with Dan Pfeiffer. Very interesting listen for anyone who wants to get into more of the nitty gritty.

A lot of interesting takes - they were defensive in a way that didn't come off defensive - more of, a lot of explaining why they made certain decisions, and frankly many of them made sense. They owned up to areas where they could've done more or where essentially they get outdone (especially with Trump targeting young men, people not engaged with politics, etc.)

One of the most interesting things was that they did approach Hot Ones, and Hot Ones actually rejected them (and Trump) because they didn't want to get into politics stuff. They also said that Harris was fully ready to do Rogan but they couldn't make the schedule work the day Harris was in TX for the Beyonce event (coincidentally this was the day that Trump actually taped with him)

They mentioned how there were actually quite a lot of popular podcasts who they wanted to do things with but they were rejected from those as well because a lot of those podcasts were similar to Hot Ones in that they did not want to associate their brand with anything politics related, even if the discussion wasn't going to be politics-driven. They mentioned how for who Trump was aiming for - people like Theo Von, Aldin Ross, etc., those people were not as worried about their brand getting affected by politics so they were more willing.

They addressed the trans ads. It was a multi-pronged response that included that they did produce a bunch of responses, none of them tested well to ultimately make a difference, that the ad was much more about the economy/being out of touch than about trans people itself, that it wasn't a "vote mover" and that it was more about the coverage of it (the aim was to hurt her specifically with groups of voters like nonwhite men, etc. especially given where it was aired)

They said their data showed that even when Harris got in the race, she was at a deficit and then once they were able to get it to a dead heat, there was just no moving it, and all 7 states were within the margin of error up until the very end. Their final PA poll was Trump +1.

A lot of it came back to the fact that there was only so much you can do with a 107 day campaign, and even with that, it's less than 107 days, because really your real time frame is after she secured delegates about a week in, up until when early voting starts, so really closer to 2 months, and everything was in a compressed timeline. Also admitted that the political atmosphere was just horrible as we know, and that voters just really wouldn't budge on how Trump's 1st term really didn't seem that awful, so they felt they needed to raise the stakes where they could to try and push how a second term would be really bad, vs. relitigating the 1st term.

[wbrocks67]

They also had an interesting discussion on Super PACs, and how Dems have been at a disadvantage because they only rely on one PAC, while Republicans have multiple ones, and that if Dems had more, it would've been more helpful when they first launched.

Also a section about Liz Cheney and trying to target Republicans and a broader discussion about how you have to do both - as a democrat in swing states, you can't just energize your base - you basically have to win over these moderate voters/grab 5-10% of Republicans and get Independents to win, and because these voters were key in 2020 and 2022, they felt it was necessary to go after them this time. They said there was way too much made about Cheney in particular basically given that it was like 1 day she spent with her and her entire closing message was about the economy, etc.

Good discussion on The View answer and if she should've distanced herself on Biden more. Said how not only was Harris very loyal to Biden and didn't think it was right to criticize or even just discount the president, but that, as I personally suspected, anything she said she would've done differently would've wrought its own 4 day news cycle and a whole new round of 'who, what, when, where' and that is not what they needed in such a short campaign. It was easier and more fruitful for the campaign just to focus on the future, vs. looking at the past.

[GAinDC]

Thanks for the synopsis!

I agree it would have been even worse if she said she would have done more things differently from Biden.

I mean, she’s the second in command and I’m sure is proud of what they accomplished. Why throw that record and your boss under the bus if your instinct is to stand by them? I admire that, even if it wasn’t politically advantageous.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Thanks for the synopsis!

I agree it would have been even worse if she said she would have done more things differently from Biden.

I mean, she’s the second in command and I’m sure is proud of what they accomplished. Why throw that record and your boss under the bus if your instinct is to stand by them? I admire that, even if it wasn’t politically advantageous.

I think the campaign should have considered trying to change perceptions of the Biden administration for the better. I get why they were straddling that, but now with things like Medicare negotiated drug prices, student loan repayments, the CHIPS Act, insulin, etc. The campaign had a real opportunity to promote Biden's positives in a way he wasn't as good at.

That, or/also only really focusing on the rust belt trio, maybe Georgia too. Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina were only barely competitive, and the down-ballot Democrats in those states still probably would have been fine.

Just my armchair critiques, for whatever they're worth. In the end though it seems like nothing would have made this election winnable, I guess that goes to show the lose-lose situation she was always in. I don't know if that makes me feel better or worse...

[Rhode Islander First, American Second]

So did Kamala know going in that she was toast?

[I love MAGA, don’t send me to the camps]

Quentin seemed the most on the ball here, had the most pointed comments.

JOD remains a dud.

[Mr. Smith]

Quentin seemed the most on the ball here, had the most pointed comments.

JOD remains a dud.

Literally was the Beto 2020 chair, who notoriously floundered, even against a random Mayor. And Biden seriously underperformed.

This ought not be a surprise.

[LBJer]

So did Kamala know going in that she was toast?

Hard to see how she would--the race was too close to be certain of the outcome.

[Pericles]

So did Kamala know going in that she was toast?

Hard to see how she would--the race was too close to be certain of the outcome.

They seem to be saying it was no better than a pure tossup throughout. That's not great but it's a reasonable chance, better than other actual winners like Trump 2016.

[LBJer]

So did Kamala know going in that she was toast?

Hard to see how she would--the race was too close to be certain of the outcome.

They seem to be saying it was no better than a pure tossup throughout. That's not great but it's a reasonable chance, better than other actual winners like Trump 2016.

Or Harry Truman in 1948.  Truman was virtually alone in believing he would win.

[GAinDC]

Thanks for the synopsis!

I agree it would have been even worse if she said she would have done more things differently from Biden.

I mean, she’s the second in command and I’m sure is proud of what they accomplished. Why throw that record and your boss under the bus if your instinct is to stand by them? I admire that, even if it wasn’t politically advantageous.

I think the campaign should have considered trying to change perceptions of the Biden administration for the better. I get why they were straddling that, but now with things like Medicare negotiated drug prices, student loan repayments, the CHIPS Act, insulin, etc. The campaign had a real opportunity to promote Biden's positives in a way he wasn't as good at.

That, or/also only really focusing on the rust belt trio, maybe Georgia too. Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina were only barely competitive, and the down-ballot Democrats in those states still probably would have been fine.

Just my armchair critiques, for whatever they're worth. In the end though it seems like nothing would have made this election winnable, I guess that goes to show the lose-lose situation she was always in. I don't know if that makes me feel better or worse...

I totally agree. The Biden admin did a lot of good things, and I was really hoping Harris would talk about them more. It was disappointing

[Open Source Intelligence]

So did Kamala know going in that she was toast?

Hard to see how she would--the race was too close to be certain of the outcome.

They seem to be saying it was no better than a pure tossup throughout. That's not great but it's a reasonable chance, better than other actual winners like Trump 2016.

I can reach way back into the memory banks of July and August and find posters on here starting threads as well as political pundits in a more measured tone saying "this race is over now that Trump is facing Harris, his campaign cannot adjust to not facing Biden". So were all these people dumbasses?

[GAinDC]

So did Kamala know going in that she was toast?

Hard to see how she would--the race was too close to be certain of the outcome.

They seem to be saying it was no better than a pure tossup throughout. That's not great but it's a reasonable chance, better than other actual winners like Trump 2016.

I can reach way back into the memory banks of July and August and find posters on here starting threads as well as political pundits in a more measured tone saying "this race is over now that Trump is facing Harris, his campaign cannot adjust to not facing Biden". So were all these people dumbasses?

I mean, this is a political message board and we’re all just normies following these races along with the rest of America. And we all sometimes get it wrong. So what?

Trump definitely struggled those first few weeks against Harris so that prediction wasn’t completely out of left field.

[somco]

I'm pretty stunned that an actual campaign chair was pushing the whole "the swing states shifted less than the rest of the country" as some sort of victory in a public interview. it's one thing for a poster on here or Election Twitter to make that observation. but you just ran a presidential campaign and you're patting yourself on the back because the states you needed to win only shifted 3 points away from you instead of 8?? wild.

[Averroës]

Thank you for the summary.

It sounds like they were very focused on media. That makes sense for a bottom-feeder like Plouffe, but a campaign chair has broader responsibilities and it's odd for there not to be more reflection on that in a discussion like this. I think of anecdotes like the party chair in Philadelphia complaining that he never heard from the campaign. Maybe he should have been a higher priority than getting on "Hot Ones"?

[Open Source Intelligence]

So did Kamala know going in that she was toast?

Hard to see how she would--the race was too close to be certain of the outcome.

They seem to be saying it was no better than a pure tossup throughout. That's not great but it's a reasonable chance, better than other actual winners like Trump 2016.

I can reach way back into the memory banks of July and August and find posters on here starting threads as well as political pundits in a more measured tone saying "this race is over now that Trump is facing Harris, his campaign cannot adjust to not facing Biden". So were all these people dumbasses?

I mean, this is a political message board and we’re all just normies following these races along with the rest of America. And we all sometimes get it wrong. So what?

Where's this f#cking humility in the months leading up to the election? It's one reason I have little respect for a lot of people on this board. They act like 17-year-olds that think politics is a sports contest. Let's go back and read through every single thread started by wbrocks and DonOLDEST Nominee Ever or whatever bullsh*t name that was and see if there's ever a sliver of "I might be wrong...Harris looks bad here...Trump actually made a good speech yesterday." - you know, actually f#cking discuss politics like a sane human being - instead of being a rah-rah cheerleader that had a direct line to messaging encouraged to be shared by the Biden then Harris campaign and just hit copy paste on the most trivial stuff. Why are they acting like MAGA Trumpists, just ones on the other team? Most of it was spamming bullsh*t as much as anything Jaichind does in the International Discussion Forum, yet, nothing.

There's plenty of threads of "how awful social media is and it's not the real world and it's destroying society", yeah, have you seen this board?

[wbrocks67]

Thank you for the summary.

It sounds like they were very focused on media. That makes sense for a bottom-feeder like Plouffe, but a campaign chair has broader responsibilities and it's odd for there not to be more reflection on that in a discussion like this. I think of anecdotes like the party chair in Philadelphia complaining that he never heard from the campaign. Maybe he should have been a higher priority than getting on "Hot Ones"?

Eh, that's Bob Brady who is notoriously awful. If it was someone else, I'd take their concerns more seriously, but he's super corrupt and was upset that he wasn't getting VIP tickets to events.

[wbrocks67]

I'm pretty stunned that an actual campaign chair was pushing the whole "the swing states shifted less than the rest of the country" as some sort of victory in a public interview. it's one thing for a poster on here or Election Twitter to make that observation. but you just ran a presidential campaign and you're patting yourself on the back because the states you needed to win only shifted 3 points away from you instead of 8?? wild.

Idk that didn't really bother me? She's right? I understand it looks weird for her to highlight that when she's still talking about a loss, but I still think it's important context in that the work they did in the battleground states did matter...

[Agafin]

I'm pretty stunned that an actual campaign chair was pushing the whole "the swing states shifted less than the rest of the country" as some sort of victory in a public interview. it's one thing for a poster on here or Election Twitter to make that observation. but you just ran a presidential campaign and you're patting yourself on the back because the states you needed to win only shifted 3 points away from you instead of 8?? wild.

Yeah that part is quite funny. That argument can only be made if they had at least managed to win a single swing state otherwise it's quite pathetic. "We lost every single swing state but at least we didn't lose any of them by double digits."

[Comrade Funk]

I'm pretty stunned that an actual campaign chair was pushing the whole "the swing states shifted less than the rest of the country" as some sort of victory in a public interview. it's one thing for a poster on here or Election Twitter to make that observation. but you just ran a presidential campaign and you're patting yourself on the back because the states you needed to win only shifted 3 points away from you instead of 8?? wild.

Yeah that part is quite funny. That argument can only be made if they had at least managed to win a single swing state otherwise it's quite pathetic. "We lost every single swing state but at least we didn't lose any of them by double digits."

The Democratic consultant rolodex is a cult.

[GAinDC]

So did Kamala know going in that she was toast?

Hard to see how she would--the race was too close to be certain of the outcome.

They seem to be saying it was no better than a pure tossup throughout. That's not great but it's a reasonable chance, better than other actual winners like Trump 2016.

I can reach way back into the memory banks of July and August and find posters on here starting threads as well as political pundits in a more measured tone saying "this race is over now that Trump is facing Harris, his campaign cannot adjust to not facing Biden". So were all these people dumbasses?

I mean, this is a political message board and we’re all just normies following these races along with the rest of America. And we all sometimes get it wrong. So what?

Where's this f#cking humility in the months leading up to the election? It's one reason I have little respect for a lot of people on this board. They act like 17-year-olds that think politics is a sports contest. Let's go back and read through every single thread started by wbrocks and DonOLDEST Nominee Ever or whatever bullsh*t name that was and see if there's ever a sliver of "I might be wrong...Harris looks bad here...Trump actually made a good speech yesterday." - you know, actually f#cking discuss politics like a sane human being - instead of being a rah-rah cheerleader that had a direct line to messaging encouraged to be shared by the Biden then Harris campaign and just hit copy paste on the most trivial stuff. Why are they acting like MAGA Trumpists, just ones on the other team? Most of it was spamming bullsh*t as much as anything Jaichind does in the International Discussion Forum, yet, nothing.

There's plenty of threads of "how awful social media is and it's not the real world and it's destroying society", yeah, have you seen this board?

Do you want all of us to flagellate ourselves or something? Geez

[Open Source Intelligence]

I'm pretty stunned that an actual campaign chair was pushing the whole "the swing states shifted less than the rest of the country" as some sort of victory in a public interview. it's one thing for a poster on here or Election Twitter to make that observation. but you just ran a presidential campaign and you're patting yourself on the back because the states you needed to win only shifted 3 points away from you instead of 8?? wild.

Yeah that part is quite funny. That argument can only be made if they had at least managed to win a single swing state otherwise it's quite pathetic. "We lost every single swing state but at least we didn't lose any of them by double digits."

The Democratic consultant rolodex is a cult.

Good paying work if you can get it.

[Trends Are Fake]

https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/status/1861507805951201524?s=19

Seems pretty ironic that Harris' and the campaign's total loyalty to Joe Biden seems to have ensured the destruction of his legacy.

[Comrade Funk]

https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/status/1861507805951201524?s=19

Seems pretty ironic that Harris' and the campaign's total loyalty to Joe Biden seems to have ensured the destruction of his legacy.

Democrats are too cowardly to go after their establishment

[somco]

https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1861447951094026343?s=46

this is the kind of stuff I have a massive issue with. instead of looking at things like these as missed opportunities, they’re whining about double standards on a podcast three weeks post-election. this is unserious.