Great listen! As a lifelong republican, the choice I will be making involves many of the items discussed here. I agree that the Harris campaign has found a hole that they can fill and probably will once the election is over. I have heard that people no longer want to be angry at things that are counter to who we are as a country. We know that we are not a perfect nation but pitting one side against the other will not work nor will it help. I believe moderate Republicans will be voting for Harris in numbers that will shut down this MAGA Party and return us to working across the aisle to benefit the people of America and not just the ones who think like them.
I’ve always been “socially Democrat and fiscally Republican,” which makes it VERY easy for me to vote against Trump and for Harris. I really, really hope more Republicans can see the appeal of Harris’s approach.
I also know many moderate Republicans voting Harris. But I know of more moderate democrats voting Trump. And there is a large group of Independents voting Trump- but would never admit it. Going to be a close one for sure!
It’s so strange that literally hundreds, if not thousands of prominent Republicans, former Republican members of Trump’s administration, Nikki Haley Voters for Harris, former Republican members of the Reagan and Bush Administrations, former McCain and Romney staffers, Republican national security leaders, right-leaning economists and more, have publicly endorsed Kamala Harris for President and literally no current prominent Democrats have endorsed Donald Trump, yet you personally know of more moderate Democrats voting for Trump than Republicans voting for Harris. Very strange, indeed.
Speaking from my personal experience: it's mostly RFK. Many of his supporters are crunchy conservatives but just as many are Dem-adjacent folks who felt disaffected by the Democratic Party. They liked RFK, and when he joined the Trump team that gave his supporters the permission structure to support Trump as well (or at least be able to swallow Trump as the bitter pill that smuggles RFK in closer to power). If you've ever read Jessica Reed Kraus' fantastically poetic and effusive - if not realistic - waxing about MAHA and MAGA, it highlights the mindset quite well.
Yeah, I don’t consider RFK Jr to be a Democrat since he left the party to run as an independent. And I guess I do not really consider Dem-adjacent people who are so disaffected with the Democratic Party that they’d support RFK, to be what’s commonly understood to be a “moderate Democrat.”
Agree Emily! I have been a huge supporter of RFK Jr for many years. My vote for Trump is 90% because of RFK Jr.
I’m sure no surprise- also love House in Habit.
There is the entire movement of crunchy holistic health influencers and followers who are doing amazing things right now. Really excited about that movement- regardless of who wins the White House.
I don’t think you’re that unintelligent so I’m pretty sure you do get the point. I actually don’t understand any supporter of RFK, whose life’s work was protecting the environment, who is now supporting Trump, the guy whose answer to everything is drill baby drill and who believes climate change is a hoax.
Whatever Bari Weiss' political affiliation, she certainly doesn't seem inclined to vote for Trump. Her guests cite antisemitism as a big reason they can't support the Democrats, and while I think that placing trust in Trump is misguided, the far left and the far right are meeting each other with the mask-off antisemitism and Dems have generally been reluctant (could also be read: too cowardly) to call it out, which has clearly lost them some voters. The guests also touch on the economy and Ukraine and believe that both were better off during Trump's Presidency *because* of Trump (others might beg to differ...)
From one of my friends- he likes his policies fiscally and border. Doesn’t think he should he running again, but thinks he did a good job his first term. He voted Biden 2020.
I was a Republican until 2012 and thoroughly departed when the party chose violence (and yes, I mean that figuratively… and then literally). I don’t know that they could ever win me back, but then at some point I swore I would never vote for a Democrat. Isn’t it wonderful that we are allowed to say, “I changed my mind” and “I was wrong.” Tremendously freeing!
Thank you for this great conversation! Toward the end I found myself thinking, “WE are the ones we’ve been waiting for!” Each of us, leaning into doing the small things which are in our power (listening to understand, helping in whatever ways we are able, recognizing that we are *neighbors*) can make far more impact than any individual political figure.
I recently heard a segment on NPR where they were discussing how Trump will have no guardrails this time around if he wins. There were people within his last administration helping to keep his worst impulses at bay. Many of them have come forward with their stories and they do this at great personal risk to themselves and their careers. There will be no internal guardrails this time. That combined with SCOTUS’s reversal in Chevron could mean some power grabs the likes of which we’ve never seen. So is the sky literally falling? Perhaps not. But why downplay the very real threat Trump poses to our country? Since we aren’t talking policy, why not focus on the fact that Trump said he wants to be a dictator on day one and take him at his word?
Totally agree. I do feel there is a lot of downplaying and ignoring. These are two very different candidates, not just in how they might envision our future, but how they behave. Trump has been vile, hateful, racist, mysoginistic, anti-semtic, etc. He has said things that are beyond acceptable in polite society, let alone as a representative of this country. He is a convicted felon, a liar and is clearly having some sort of cognitive issues. Now add in the republicans who may control the house and senate, and what you have is a Congress that will do exactly the things Trump wants. None of it will benefit most Americans. He has said he wants to be a dictator. And he may get his wish if he can remove anyone who isn't loyal to him all backed by Congress. Where will the majority of Americans go then? When they control it all, how will we ever return to a two (or more) party system? Project 2025 isn't a joke. JD Vance is ready to step in which is a frightening prospect. I just don't understand this idea that, "Oh, it'll all work out. We're America." Sometimes that pendulum swings so hard, it breaks.
Digesting what you're saying and rewording it to make sure I tracked properly - it makes sense that Kamala wants to preserve the rights we have (or very recently had), and that would qualify her more as a conservative. Trump isn't exactly progressive in the liberal sense, as MAGA is based in regression, a looking toward the past, not the future, whether or not his idea of past is based in reality. It's not that Kamala is more "Republican" and Trump more "Democrat", it's just that Republican ideals have been rooted in preserving the status quo and Democratic ideals have been in changing the status quo, and that is flipping. I hadn't thought about it before this, because it absolutely makes sense. The scariest part of Trump has always been that's he's predictably unpredictable, and I don't know what impulsive thing he's going to do next, and it feels like he's trying to upturn everything that I know, which is not conservativism. Interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing!
Except he is now predictable, because now we know what he’s going to do next. It’s in writing! It’s Project 2025! And it is scarier than unpredictability, and it will upturn everything.
Correct on his policies being predictable between RNC and P2025. How he implements them, talks to people, talks about people etc is where I am constantly surprised. What he says/does/thinks is acceptable and the petty thinks he lies about is unsettling.
Excellent conversation! I had missed this live when it first happened, so glad to be catching up on it now. Echoes a lot of the Governerd discussions that we've been having ❤️
Policies aside…where I find voting for Trump difficult is looking at the morally corrupt person. I’m not even sure he knows what his policies are versus being manipulated by those behind the scenes. It used to be that after an election I never worried about who was president. I always knew the country was first and foremost in their hearts. In Trumps case, the MAGA faithful, it’s about “me” first. It’s just hard to understand how so many can support the individual regardless of any other factor.
The concept of Harris being the more conservative candidate in some respects is intriguing. I think many people forget just how often Trump has changed his political party affiliation, including being a registered Democrat for nearly a decade.
I wish policy based voting could hold its weight. I have friends that have been anti Trump and now pro Trump. I think that fear of something moved the needle for them, not policy.
I enjoyed that conversation - thank you. It would certainly be nice to be in a place where we could discuss policy and nuance - you know, raise the bar. As for this election cycle, the bar is on the floor and the contest is qualified versus unqualified.
Yes! Returning to policy discussions would be lovely! However, I'm intrigued by your last sentence, as I've seen both sides claim THEIR candidate is the only one qualified and the other is 100% unqualified.
Both sides absolutely do make those claims - I have seen it as well. However, only one candidate suggested parts of the Constitution be terminated. Only one candidate engaged in a plot to subvert the certification of a presidential election in an attempt to remain in power. Given the importance of the Constitution, I find that candidate's complete disregard for it to be disqualifying on a foundational level. I suppose that since both candidates are on the ballot they both "technically" qualify. That is where my initial assertion is rooted, though.
Interesting how McKenzie uses Harris as an example of people’s fears regarding free speech, presumably because the Biden Admin. tried to get social media companies to follow their own policies on Covid lies and disinformation while so many people were dying every day. You’d think the better example would be the guy who has come right out and said we’re going to rescind network broadcast licenses because we don’t like what they said, we’re going to change libel and slander laws so we can sue newspapers even when they print the truth, we’re going to throw protesting college students out of the country, who pledged to oppose a merger involving CNN because “it’s anti-Trump,” who demanded that the Postmaster General double Amazon’s shipping rates to punish Jeff Bezos for The Washington Post’s coverage, who claims that people who criticize judges or judicial decisions should be heavily fined or even jailed and who most recently pledged to send the U.S. military after “the enemy within,” the “radical leftist lunatics” who oppose him. And we get a discussion of what it means for one side to call the other side “weird” and nothing regarding calling the other side “human scum that is working so hard to destroy our Once Great Country” or “Communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections and will “do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream.” Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “fair and balanced.” And I’m sorry to say this Sharon but I think your diss of television news and commercials was unfair and a bit hypocritical. All news organizations are facing dwindling ad revenue but need it to stay in business. You do the exact same thing with ads on your podcasts, promotion of your book sales, promoting your paid subscriptions to The Preamble and offering higher tiered founding subscriptions, etc. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, whether you do it or ABC Evening News does it.
Thank you for calling out the false equivalency of an administration attempting to protect the population from a deadly disease by limiting dangerous mis/disinformation, and relentless hateful rhetoric as examples of threats to free speech.
I don't think Sharon was dissing television news *because* of the commercials, necessarily. I understood it to be pointing out that for the investment of your time, reading offers a much higher return on the amount of information you can consume.
You may be right but I got a different impression since that snippet followed close on the heels of “don’t watch television news …” It’s not so different from scrolling through all of Sharon’s book promos to get to the news and information parts of her posts. TV news divisions are businesses just like SharonSaysSo is a business and as I said, there’s nothing wrong with any of them trying to make money to continue their work to inform and explain. I’m all for it.
I agree with most of what you said but I think there is some context missing to her advice to "stop watching the news" that you are omitting. She said this as a direct response or suggestion to people who claim that they wake up with a pit of dread in their stomach every morning due to the political turmoil and strife going on. She is implying that reading about it may be less anxiety provoking and provide a more balanced view, than watching news that comes with a lot of commentary and commercials etc. I don't think this is her advice at large to most people. I had to re-watch to make sure my assumption wasn't out of left field and it is pretty clear to me that comment was directed to those people and not everyone at large.
Sharon has talked at other times about not watching television news because they are more biased. My understanding was not because of ads but because they have to get viewers to get revenue and those that will tune in are in need of more “drama” to stay tuned and are a different type than those who are scrolling to get information. Every news network, regardless of the slant, seems to me personally to be trying to get me emotionally knotted. So I prefer to read. Almost exclusively from bbc and then my local news. Because otherwise the spin has me spinning and I get tired fast.
Bias is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Some Preamble subscribers think Sharon has revealed her terrible liberal bias with some of her factual posts whereas I sometimes become frustrated with Sharon and some of her both-sides-ism. But the fact is, we subscribers are here because we want to be and we want more knowledge and thus by definition we are not typical American voters who get their news mostly from social media or the nightly network news broadcast. You feel like the network news teams are trying to get you emotionally knotted, and they probably are for ratings purposes, but they can’t even compete with the drama, misinformation and emotional spin of social media. It’s a losing battle. I’m sure I’ve mentioned before that my mother was in the news media for decades so I get a little prickly when I feel like it’s being unfairly criticized. So I’m biased in a way, too, I suppose.
I really am interested in your reasons because most often when I hear this, for not liking Trump it’s the obvious. But for not liking Harris, it’s supposedly abortion, but no one that I’ve talked to have actually done the work to dig into the nuances of abortion and really understand the issue. They just assume Harris is all-in on abortion with no limits, which is absolutely not true. No state in the union allows abortion with no restriction.
I think it’s fair for Harris to be “too conservative” for many people who have been life-long progressives. There isn’t really a progressive candidate in this race, and with only two choices, it absolutely makes sense to feel that neither represents you well (same goes for libertarians, moderates, etc).
I agree with you that Harris is more conservative than say, Bernie Sanders. But considering the alternative, should people with progressive values actually not vote in this election? Should people let the perfect be the enemy of the good? Isn’t the Harris candidacy, with endorsements from people across an historically wide range of political ideologies and spectrums (Bernie, AOC, hundreds of former Trump Admin. officials, Liz and Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales and many other Republicans, almost all major labor unions, etc.) the kind of candidacy most of us prefer, with policies that appeal to both sides and not one extreme or another?
While I understand where the progressives are coming from, I do agree with this as a worthy goal for our candidates (especially if we're forced to only have two options!). If I have to choose then I want the big tent that welcomes a multitude of voices, including progressives, and a candidate that's willing to moderate their positions, because true conservatism does offer a good balance progressivism and we need both to be welcomed at the table. Especially when our other option is a cult of personality that actively spurns even fellow Republicans as 'RINOs' if they break from their chosen candidate.
Oh, I absolutely agree. I’d also rather a big tent and wide appeal and I would certainly encourage progressives to vote Harris. But I do get why people would feel disappointed.
Democratic values. Climate change. Pro-choice. Pro Union, pro middle American. Pro-democracy(our votes matter.) January 6! If you can’t accept the outcome of an election in the United States you’re not qualified to run for the position. Simple.!!,
Of course it is! It also happens to be an opinion shared by many conservatives. Many of Donald Trump's policies and positions evoke radical change, and JD Vance is on record saying that, "If we’re going to push back against it, we’re have to get pretty wild, pretty far out there, and go in directions that a lot of conservatives right now are uncomfortable with."
Great listen! As a lifelong republican, the choice I will be making involves many of the items discussed here. I agree that the Harris campaign has found a hole that they can fill and probably will once the election is over. I have heard that people no longer want to be angry at things that are counter to who we are as a country. We know that we are not a perfect nation but pitting one side against the other will not work nor will it help. I believe moderate Republicans will be voting for Harris in numbers that will shut down this MAGA Party and return us to working across the aisle to benefit the people of America and not just the ones who think like them.
I’ve always been “socially Democrat and fiscally Republican,” which makes it VERY easy for me to vote against Trump and for Harris. I really, really hope more Republicans can see the appeal of Harris’s approach.
I also know many moderate Republicans voting Harris. But I know of more moderate democrats voting Trump. And there is a large group of Independents voting Trump- but would never admit it. Going to be a close one for sure!
It’s so strange that literally hundreds, if not thousands of prominent Republicans, former Republican members of Trump’s administration, Nikki Haley Voters for Harris, former Republican members of the Reagan and Bush Administrations, former McCain and Romney staffers, Republican national security leaders, right-leaning economists and more, have publicly endorsed Kamala Harris for President and literally no current prominent Democrats have endorsed Donald Trump, yet you personally know of more moderate Democrats voting for Trump than Republicans voting for Harris. Very strange, indeed.
I was referring to personal - not political figures.
I know. Which is why I used the word “personally.”
Speaking from my personal experience: it's mostly RFK. Many of his supporters are crunchy conservatives but just as many are Dem-adjacent folks who felt disaffected by the Democratic Party. They liked RFK, and when he joined the Trump team that gave his supporters the permission structure to support Trump as well (or at least be able to swallow Trump as the bitter pill that smuggles RFK in closer to power). If you've ever read Jessica Reed Kraus' fantastically poetic and effusive - if not realistic - waxing about MAHA and MAGA, it highlights the mindset quite well.
Yeah, I don’t consider RFK Jr to be a Democrat since he left the party to run as an independent. And I guess I do not really consider Dem-adjacent people who are so disaffected with the Democratic Party that they’d support RFK, to be what’s commonly understood to be a “moderate Democrat.”
Agree Emily! I have been a huge supporter of RFK Jr for many years. My vote for Trump is 90% because of RFK Jr.
I’m sure no surprise- also love House in Habit.
There is the entire movement of crunchy holistic health influencers and followers who are doing amazing things right now. Really excited about that movement- regardless of who wins the White House.
Not sure what your point was, but glad we are on the same page with that term.
I don’t think you’re that unintelligent so I’m pretty sure you do get the point. I actually don’t understand any supporter of RFK, whose life’s work was protecting the environment, who is now supporting Trump, the guy whose answer to everything is drill baby drill and who believes climate change is a hoax.
Interesting. What do you think the moderate democrat is seeing in Trump?
Trump ardour not Strout!
Interesting- there is a podcast episode on Bari Weiss Honestly- The Democrats Voting for Trump. Came out on Oct 15. Very interesting listen!
Don’t think BW is a moderate democrat. Not a source I would go to but thanks!
It was about the guests she has on the episode. 3 democrats voting Trump. I believe she is democrat, herself.
I managed to find a transcript (the layout is horrible, but at least you can skim it: https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/honestly-with-bari-weiss-1971579/episodes/the-democrats-voting-for-trump-226977579/transcript
Whatever Bari Weiss' political affiliation, she certainly doesn't seem inclined to vote for Trump. Her guests cite antisemitism as a big reason they can't support the Democrats, and while I think that placing trust in Trump is misguided, the far left and the far right are meeting each other with the mask-off antisemitism and Dems have generally been reluctant (could also be read: too cowardly) to call it out, which has clearly lost them some voters. The guests also touch on the economy and Ukraine and believe that both were better off during Trump's Presidency *because* of Trump (others might beg to differ...)
From one of my friends- he likes his policies fiscally and border. Doesn’t think he should he running again, but thinks he did a good job his first term. He voted Biden 2020.
I was a Republican until 2012 and thoroughly departed when the party chose violence (and yes, I mean that figuratively… and then literally). I don’t know that they could ever win me back, but then at some point I swore I would never vote for a Democrat. Isn’t it wonderful that we are allowed to say, “I changed my mind” and “I was wrong.” Tremendously freeing!
Thank you for this great conversation! Toward the end I found myself thinking, “WE are the ones we’ve been waiting for!” Each of us, leaning into doing the small things which are in our power (listening to understand, helping in whatever ways we are able, recognizing that we are *neighbors*) can make far more impact than any individual political figure.
Almost choked on my coffee when I heard KH is the more conservative candidate… this goes against what I know about being a dem or republican.
I want to wake up on Nov 6th and not feel afraid. I want predictable. I want concern for others
I recently heard a segment on NPR where they were discussing how Trump will have no guardrails this time around if he wins. There were people within his last administration helping to keep his worst impulses at bay. Many of them have come forward with their stories and they do this at great personal risk to themselves and their careers. There will be no internal guardrails this time. That combined with SCOTUS’s reversal in Chevron could mean some power grabs the likes of which we’ve never seen. So is the sky literally falling? Perhaps not. But why downplay the very real threat Trump poses to our country? Since we aren’t talking policy, why not focus on the fact that Trump said he wants to be a dictator on day one and take him at his word?
Totally agree. I do feel there is a lot of downplaying and ignoring. These are two very different candidates, not just in how they might envision our future, but how they behave. Trump has been vile, hateful, racist, mysoginistic, anti-semtic, etc. He has said things that are beyond acceptable in polite society, let alone as a representative of this country. He is a convicted felon, a liar and is clearly having some sort of cognitive issues. Now add in the republicans who may control the house and senate, and what you have is a Congress that will do exactly the things Trump wants. None of it will benefit most Americans. He has said he wants to be a dictator. And he may get his wish if he can remove anyone who isn't loyal to him all backed by Congress. Where will the majority of Americans go then? When they control it all, how will we ever return to a two (or more) party system? Project 2025 isn't a joke. JD Vance is ready to step in which is a frightening prospect. I just don't understand this idea that, "Oh, it'll all work out. We're America." Sometimes that pendulum swings so hard, it breaks.
Digesting what you're saying and rewording it to make sure I tracked properly - it makes sense that Kamala wants to preserve the rights we have (or very recently had), and that would qualify her more as a conservative. Trump isn't exactly progressive in the liberal sense, as MAGA is based in regression, a looking toward the past, not the future, whether or not his idea of past is based in reality. It's not that Kamala is more "Republican" and Trump more "Democrat", it's just that Republican ideals have been rooted in preserving the status quo and Democratic ideals have been in changing the status quo, and that is flipping. I hadn't thought about it before this, because it absolutely makes sense. The scariest part of Trump has always been that's he's predictably unpredictable, and I don't know what impulsive thing he's going to do next, and it feels like he's trying to upturn everything that I know, which is not conservativism. Interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing!
Except he is now predictable, because now we know what he’s going to do next. It’s in writing! It’s Project 2025! And it is scarier than unpredictability, and it will upturn everything.
Correct on his policies being predictable between RNC and P2025. How he implements them, talks to people, talks about people etc is where I am constantly surprised. What he says/does/thinks is acceptable and the petty thinks he lies about is unsettling.
Yes, unsettling like a slow-motion disaster, and just as dangerous.
Excellent conversation! I had missed this live when it first happened, so glad to be catching up on it now. Echoes a lot of the Governerd discussions that we've been having ❤️
Policies aside…where I find voting for Trump difficult is looking at the morally corrupt person. I’m not even sure he knows what his policies are versus being manipulated by those behind the scenes. It used to be that after an election I never worried about who was president. I always knew the country was first and foremost in their hearts. In Trumps case, the MAGA faithful, it’s about “me” first. It’s just hard to understand how so many can support the individual regardless of any other factor.
The concept of Harris being the more conservative candidate in some respects is intriguing. I think many people forget just how often Trump has changed his political party affiliation, including being a registered Democrat for nearly a decade.
I wish policy based voting could hold its weight. I have friends that have been anti Trump and now pro Trump. I think that fear of something moved the needle for them, not policy.
It’s so hard to understand why/how Trump makes anyone feel better/safer, etc. 😓
I enjoyed that conversation - thank you. It would certainly be nice to be in a place where we could discuss policy and nuance - you know, raise the bar. As for this election cycle, the bar is on the floor and the contest is qualified versus unqualified.
Yes! Returning to policy discussions would be lovely! However, I'm intrigued by your last sentence, as I've seen both sides claim THEIR candidate is the only one qualified and the other is 100% unqualified.
Both sides absolutely do make those claims - I have seen it as well. However, only one candidate suggested parts of the Constitution be terminated. Only one candidate engaged in a plot to subvert the certification of a presidential election in an attempt to remain in power. Given the importance of the Constitution, I find that candidate's complete disregard for it to be disqualifying on a foundational level. I suppose that since both candidates are on the ballot they both "technically" qualify. That is where my initial assertion is rooted, though.
I think we have the same standards of "qualifications." ;)
I am glad to hear it!
Interesting how McKenzie uses Harris as an example of people’s fears regarding free speech, presumably because the Biden Admin. tried to get social media companies to follow their own policies on Covid lies and disinformation while so many people were dying every day. You’d think the better example would be the guy who has come right out and said we’re going to rescind network broadcast licenses because we don’t like what they said, we’re going to change libel and slander laws so we can sue newspapers even when they print the truth, we’re going to throw protesting college students out of the country, who pledged to oppose a merger involving CNN because “it’s anti-Trump,” who demanded that the Postmaster General double Amazon’s shipping rates to punish Jeff Bezos for The Washington Post’s coverage, who claims that people who criticize judges or judicial decisions should be heavily fined or even jailed and who most recently pledged to send the U.S. military after “the enemy within,” the “radical leftist lunatics” who oppose him. And we get a discussion of what it means for one side to call the other side “weird” and nothing regarding calling the other side “human scum that is working so hard to destroy our Once Great Country” or “Communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections and will “do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream.” Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “fair and balanced.” And I’m sorry to say this Sharon but I think your diss of television news and commercials was unfair and a bit hypocritical. All news organizations are facing dwindling ad revenue but need it to stay in business. You do the exact same thing with ads on your podcasts, promotion of your book sales, promoting your paid subscriptions to The Preamble and offering higher tiered founding subscriptions, etc. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, whether you do it or ABC Evening News does it.
Thank you for calling out the false equivalency of an administration attempting to protect the population from a deadly disease by limiting dangerous mis/disinformation, and relentless hateful rhetoric as examples of threats to free speech.
I don't think Sharon was dissing television news *because* of the commercials, necessarily. I understood it to be pointing out that for the investment of your time, reading offers a much higher return on the amount of information you can consume.
You may be right but I got a different impression since that snippet followed close on the heels of “don’t watch television news …” It’s not so different from scrolling through all of Sharon’s book promos to get to the news and information parts of her posts. TV news divisions are businesses just like SharonSaysSo is a business and as I said, there’s nothing wrong with any of them trying to make money to continue their work to inform and explain. I’m all for it.
I agree with most of what you said but I think there is some context missing to her advice to "stop watching the news" that you are omitting. She said this as a direct response or suggestion to people who claim that they wake up with a pit of dread in their stomach every morning due to the political turmoil and strife going on. She is implying that reading about it may be less anxiety provoking and provide a more balanced view, than watching news that comes with a lot of commentary and commercials etc. I don't think this is her advice at large to most people. I had to re-watch to make sure my assumption wasn't out of left field and it is pretty clear to me that comment was directed to those people and not everyone at large.
Sharon has talked at other times about not watching television news because they are more biased. My understanding was not because of ads but because they have to get viewers to get revenue and those that will tune in are in need of more “drama” to stay tuned and are a different type than those who are scrolling to get information. Every news network, regardless of the slant, seems to me personally to be trying to get me emotionally knotted. So I prefer to read. Almost exclusively from bbc and then my local news. Because otherwise the spin has me spinning and I get tired fast.
Bias is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Some Preamble subscribers think Sharon has revealed her terrible liberal bias with some of her factual posts whereas I sometimes become frustrated with Sharon and some of her both-sides-ism. But the fact is, we subscribers are here because we want to be and we want more knowledge and thus by definition we are not typical American voters who get their news mostly from social media or the nightly network news broadcast. You feel like the network news teams are trying to get you emotionally knotted, and they probably are for ratings purposes, but they can’t even compete with the drama, misinformation and emotional spin of social media. It’s a losing battle. I’m sure I’ve mentioned before that my mother was in the news media for decades so I get a little prickly when I feel like it’s being unfairly criticized. So I’m biased in a way, too, I suppose.
Great points. I’d now love to see you and Sharon have a convo!
We all want change. The choice between Harris and Trump is if you want to move forward or backward.
Going to early vote today. I still haven’t decided. I don’t like either choice. Ugh
I really am interested in your reasons because most often when I hear this, for not liking Trump it’s the obvious. But for not liking Harris, it’s supposedly abortion, but no one that I’ve talked to have actually done the work to dig into the nuances of abortion and really understand the issue. They just assume Harris is all-in on abortion with no limits, which is absolutely not true. No state in the union allows abortion with no restriction.
Think about our democracy when voting today. I think the choice could not be more clear.
What don’t you like about Harris?
Let me guess, after listening to this post you think Harris is too conservative for you?
I think it’s fair for Harris to be “too conservative” for many people who have been life-long progressives. There isn’t really a progressive candidate in this race, and with only two choices, it absolutely makes sense to feel that neither represents you well (same goes for libertarians, moderates, etc).
I agree with you that Harris is more conservative than say, Bernie Sanders. But considering the alternative, should people with progressive values actually not vote in this election? Should people let the perfect be the enemy of the good? Isn’t the Harris candidacy, with endorsements from people across an historically wide range of political ideologies and spectrums (Bernie, AOC, hundreds of former Trump Admin. officials, Liz and Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales and many other Republicans, almost all major labor unions, etc.) the kind of candidacy most of us prefer, with policies that appeal to both sides and not one extreme or another?
While I understand where the progressives are coming from, I do agree with this as a worthy goal for our candidates (especially if we're forced to only have two options!). If I have to choose then I want the big tent that welcomes a multitude of voices, including progressives, and a candidate that's willing to moderate their positions, because true conservatism does offer a good balance progressivism and we need both to be welcomed at the table. Especially when our other option is a cult of personality that actively spurns even fellow Republicans as 'RINOs' if they break from their chosen candidate.
Oh, I absolutely agree. I’d also rather a big tent and wide appeal and I would certainly encourage progressives to vote Harris. But I do get why people would feel disappointed.
Democratic values. Climate change. Pro-choice. Pro Union, pro middle American. Pro-democracy(our votes matter.) January 6! If you can’t accept the outcome of an election in the United States you’re not qualified to run for the position. Simple.!!,
Just to be clear, declaring her the “more conservative candidate” is an opinion, not a fact.
Of course it is! It also happens to be an opinion shared by many conservatives. Many of Donald Trump's policies and positions evoke radical change, and JD Vance is on record saying that, "If we’re going to push back against it, we’re have to get pretty wild, pretty far out there, and go in directions that a lot of conservatives right now are uncomfortable with."