Kamala Harris' physics of politics

"The term momentum is a physics concept. Any object with momentum is going to be hard to stop. To stop such an object, it is necessary to apply a force against its motion for a given period of time."

That's from a physics site. And this is from The Washington Post's Aaron Blake. "The race has settled into a more static phase, with no significant Harris bounce out of the Democratic National Convention two weeks ago. And currently both Harris and Trump lead in three swing states, while Nevada is more or less a tie." Blake adds this graph of momentum stalled. 

So there was some serious momentum post-Biden. But as reflected in national polling, Harris is trapped in seemingly endless loops of +2s and +5s. I can't recall so much as one +6, which would be closer, realistically, to triumphing in America's antique and irrational method of choosing a president. In our representative democracy, there is no representation of the tens of millions who cast the most votes.   

The Democratic nominee and America's one salvation, then, lies in the physics concept of momentum. In science it's a hard fact; it cannot stop on its own. In politics the concept is pretty much up for grabs. Does its cessation depend only on physics' one law? — that momentum is unsustainable if a force is applied "against its motion for a given period of time." 

As Harris' opponent would say, many say that Trump is a sorely insufficient force to stop her momentum. Her motion of sustaining and building on current support is independent of him. I subscribe to the many's reconfiguration of physics. Anyone who prefers competence over incompetence and corruption can easily see that Trump is a national disease. And there are more manys in the U.S. than there are the likeminded diseased.   

So I don't see that her momentum has ceased its motion and will remain in stasis. Yet Harris is having problems sustaining it because of other independent factors. They include too many voters who fail to see Trump for what he is; a pounding right-wing propaganda machine of mendacity, delusional thoughts and distractions which long ago replaced the fact-based "liberal media"; and Democrats' tradition of sloth well before Election Day. They would be pro-Harris and say so to pollsters if only they'd become engaged.   

The latter is Harris' biggest problem, yet it's not entirely independent of Harris herself. Her momentum might well regain its motion once her just-begun $370 million ad campaign takes hold in the minds of the heretofore slothful. What is independent of Harris, and happily so, is that Trump has played out his potential "force" since 2016; his ceiling is a low one, and inadjustable. Harris' ceiling is not. As for her on-air persuasions, I'll let The Bulwark elaborate:

"It’s up to the anti-extremist and pro-democracy coalition supporting Harris to make sure that voters do know about [Trump's extremism].... From election denial to vaccine denial to Holocaust denial, the examples pile up. And if voters aren’t allowed to ignore the evidence of extremism, [then] Trump and Vance will be able to avoid a fitting judgment in November."

Comments

[Anne J]

I just get sick of the media constantly complaining that we don't really "know" who Kamala Harris is. Seriously? She's been out on the campaign trail laying out her policies in her stump speeches. She told us about herself in her acceptance speech at the DNC. She's done a CNN interview and they still treat her like a stranger?

Meanwhile, Trump can spew any extreme plan for when he takes office or severely incoherent word salad, and no one bats an eye. Like yesterday when he strung a bunch of words together that added up to a rambling non answer to a very specific question about childcare in a room full of rich people.

I don't know which was more pathetic. His incomprehensible droning, or the fact that the rich people clapped for him when he was done.

[PM]

This morning I read a transcript of his childcare "plan." I'll probably have a word or two about it tomorrow, Anne. Stay tuned.