Nobody should care too much what a national poll says though. Clinton won the popular vote — but it’s the electoral college that matters, and we aren’t at the stage when we have publicly available...
Nobody should care too much what a national poll says though. Clinton won the popular vote — but it’s the electoral college that matters, and we aren’t at the stage when we have publicly available good quality state level data yet.
And the electoral college in recent elections has had a 2ish percentage point bias towards Republicans in the tipping point state. So in order for the electoral college to be “tied” Harris needs...
And the electoral college in recent elections has had a 2ish percentage point bias towards Republicans in the tipping point state.
So in order for the electoral college to be “tied” Harris needs to be up by at least 2% in national polls and you have to hope those polls are not systematically off like they were in 2016.
If you scroll through the headlines at /r/politics you would get the impression that Harris has already won and with a slam dunk. It is fairly disgusting that with all of the many thinks Trump has...
If you scroll through the headlines at /r/politics you would get the impression that Harris has already won and with a slam dunk.
It is fairly disgusting that with all of the many thinks Trump has to detract voters from him that he is still in such a strong position.
I think they ( and everyone else ) did. Many redditors are quick to point out that polls are unreliable. However, in /r/politics the subculture has changed to vote down things they don't want to...
I think they ( and everyone else ) did. Many redditors are quick to point out that polls are unreliable. However, in /r/politics the subculture has changed to vote down things they don't want to hear and to post hyperbolic headlines that support what they want to see happen.
I had gotten such a skewed impression myself from the headlines there. Then I opened up a few of the articles to see that Harris leads were only a few points in different isolated polls.
Trump has one thing going for him- he's "not democrat." Seriously, many people aren't voting for Trump because they have positive opinions of Trump, but instead because they have strong negative...
Trump has one thing going for him- he's "not democrat."
Seriously, many people aren't voting for Trump because they have positive opinions of Trump, but instead because they have strong negative opinions of democrats.
In the last few elections, the Republicans switched their messaging a bit. They used to (at least claim to) be the party of small government, have a goal to reduce taxation, retain the right to bear arms, etc. Now, they're the anti-democrat party. All of their messaging is just "anti" with no real plan for anything. Trump is certainly a big part of this pivot.
But it's at least somewhat working. Because it reminds republican voters of how "awful" democrats are, how they'll transform our schools and bathrooms, how they'll endanger the country, whatever talking points they can come up with.
While Trump does have a following, that alone isn't what will get him re-elected. It's if his messaging is strong enough to get people to vote for "not democrat."
She would be better off if she'd stop fucking trying to capture this mythical centerist that aligns with trump but can be reasoned with... Even if that is a real group it's fucking tiny and just...
She would be better off if she'd stop fucking trying to capture this mythical centerist that aligns with trump but can be reasoned with... Even if that is a real group it's fucking tiny and just continues to drag the Overton window right. She needs to just go full send left and try and capture what sanders originally ignited before the Dems and the DNC conspired against him.
Fully disagree. The group that the 'going full left' appeals to appears much bigger on the internet than they are in reality, and the demographics that actually vote won't show up for it.
Fully disagree. The group that the 'going full left' appeals to appears much bigger on the internet than they are in reality, and the demographics that actually vote won't show up for it.
That's an unsupported assertion. Perhaps they would if they saw a candidate trying to appeal to them, specifically, with unapologetically progressive policies that they want. That's politics,...
The group that the 'going full left' appeals to appears much bigger on the internet than they are in reality,
That's an unsupported assertion.
and the demographics that actually vote won't show up for it.
Perhaps they would if they saw a candidate trying to appeal to them, specifically, with unapologetically progressive policies that they want. That's politics, isn't it?
Thank you for bringing a bit of objectivity/neutral positioning on this. What most liberals fail to see, is that Kamala is actioning EXACTLY how Hil-dawg did in 2016. Disallowing Palestinian...
Exemplary
Thank you for bringing a bit of objectivity/neutral positioning on this.
What most liberals fail to see, is that Kamala is actioning EXACTLY how Hil-dawg did in 2016. Disallowing Palestinian speakers at the DNC, actively working to break up anti-genocide demonstrations, and bringing up former Trump admins as speakers is an attempt to signal towards such a specific group. They are targeting Republican voters that don't necessarily like Trump AND are an active voter base. This is basically the same strategy Clinton ran on by ignoring a more left/progressive wing of the Democratic part in order to capture right leaning centrists. She totally shit on/took for granted the union voters and alienated the youth vote that Sanders managed to interest. Then when she lost, like a petulant group of children, the Democrats blamed the "left" for not voting for Hilary when they offered NOTHING to that base. They spit on the left either taking them for granted with the line of thinking of "Who the fuck else are you gonna vote for?" or by blaming them for the loss to Trump.
Here we are in 2024 and apparently the dems have learned NOTHING. Progressive policies are popular. Not leaning into them is a mistake. Leaning into dumb centrist/right leaning policies to simply try to capture this weird fucking middle right group of people is a miscalculation in my opinion. Claiming that you're going to make the American military stronger? Making dumb promises like "my cabinet will be a bi-partisan composition and I intend to include republicans" is dumb. What are you gonna do next? Start talking about making NATO stronger? Literally no one gives a fuck about NATO. Not drawing a line in the sand and breaking from policy from the Biden admin is folly. At this point the only real thing differentiating Kamala from Biden are vibes and that is going to gas out real quick unless there is a substantial policy break and I think she needs to break to the left hard. If Trump wins again, dems will FOR SURE blame the left for not activating for Kamala... but what do you want them to activate for? You're giving them nothing. Dems cannot perpetually run on defensive/preventative messaging. You have to give people SOMETHING. I mean the Harris administration STILL HASN'T TALKED TO THE TEAMSTERS YET. Sean O'Brien is a big dumb piece of shit, but he still leads one of the biggest unions in the US. The fact that Harris hasn't talked to him yet is MASSIVELY problematic.
I won’t claim to be particularly knowledgeable, but the impression I get is that some progressive policies are popular, while the general public is more lukewarm on at best and occasionally not...
I won’t claim to be particularly knowledgeable, but the impression I get is that some progressive policies are popular, while the general public is more lukewarm on at best and occasionally not receptive to others. If that’s the case I can see why a candidate might take a more cautious approach, picking and choosing only those which seem solidly “safe”, because a miscalculation could be costly.
I may be totally wrong in this evaluation, though. For certain there are parts of the US that skew much more progressive (two of which I’ve lived in), but it varies a great deal from place to place.
Off the top of my head, no, but I’ve long been aware that my politics often don’t line up with those of others. My father for instance, though staunchly anti-trump and generally supportive of the...
Off the top of my head, no, but I’ve long been aware that my politics often don’t line up with those of others.
My father for instance, though staunchly anti-trump and generally supportive of the past couple of democratic candidates probably doesn’t see eye to eye with me on subjects like immigration and is pro-union in some ways and anti-union in others. He used to be somewhat aligned with old-style republicans in some ways, but was receptive to Obama becoming president and has held a favorable opinion of him since.
As noted before, this isn’t my specialty by any means but I get the impression that in the US there’s probably more people like my dad than me. Outside of polarization, it’s unusual for people to sit firmly in one camp or the other.
Can I ask why you say this? It's not that the Democratic party is offering nothing to the left, it's that the left wants them to offer everything. Biden has been a very progressive president, but...
Then when she lost, like a petulant group of children, the Democrats blamed the "left" for not voting for Hilary when they offered NOTHING to that base.
Can I ask why you say this? It's not that the Democratic party is offering nothing to the left, it's that the left wants them to offer everything. Biden has been a very progressive president, but he's not a king - if congress and SCOTUS don't go along, he's limited in what he can do.
Unless there are some data to back up the size of the progressive left considering voting Democrat and the size of the middle left/right considering voting Democrat, this is list of arguments that...
Unless there are some data to back up the size of the progressive left considering voting Democrat and the size of the middle left/right considering voting Democrat, this is list of arguments that hold well only if the data back up what you claim about the electorate. It may well be that the undecided middle left/right are the bigger group than undecided progressives. The numbers are the closest we can get to neutral and objective, is my point. I don't know the numbers myself--I'm neither undecided nor a party strategy person, but the makeup of the electorate is a big assumption that you could verify if those numbers are available.
Progressive policies win. Perfect example of this is that Barak Obama won the Floridian Cuban vote in 2008 (not in 2012) running on progressive policies and was primarily carried by young cuban...
Progressive policies win. Perfect example of this is that Barak Obama won the Floridian Cuban vote in 2008 (not in 2012) running on progressive policies and was primarily carried by young cuban voters.
Activation of a largely disincentivized progressive, young base of support garners far more traction then trying to capture a mythical "uncommitted" center/center right. The numbers just aren't there. The cuban Florida demographic does NOT vote Democrat. There are 2 narratives at play for that.
Latino voters resonate with religious rhetoric
Cuban voters in Florida will always mobilize against any sort of mention of socialism or communism. It's important to understand that they are against those two concept for reasons different than you would assume.
Going back to Barak, he then did substantially worse in 2012 on that same voter base because in his first term in office he really did nothing for the progressives and then in 2012, he backed away from the progressive platform.
I'm not one to say that everyone in America is a leftist that doesn't realize it yet, but I do think there's some validity to the idea that Democrats lose a lot of potential votes when they take...
I'm not one to say that everyone in America is a leftist that doesn't realize it yet, but I do think there's some validity to the idea that Democrats lose a lot of potential votes when they take the center position.
For starters, it essentially says to voters that they are there to uphold the status quo. Given the rise of Trump, Sanders, and the success of the 08 Obama campaign, of which "change" was one of the key promises, it doesn't speak to America's clear desire to have something different. I think that's what fuels the idea that left-wing policies could be popular. The one thing most Americans can agree on right now is things aren't great and the little guy keeps getting screwed. Well-paying jobs, healthcare, child care, better infrastructure, making college more affordable, etc. - can't fault someone for thinking that might win an election.
Also, when you remove the Democrat label from their policies, they end up being pretty popular. One of the most popular examples of this is Florida in 2020. Donald Trump won by about 3.5 points while at the same time, 60% of the state voted to raise the minimum wage and almost 80% of the state voted to restore voting rights to former felons. And let's not forger the amount of times Republicans take credit for things like infrastructure funding or expanding Medicaid/Medicare even though they voted against it. Hell, I've lost count of the number of times I've seen right-wingers unironically post anti-corporate George Carlin videos. At the very least, the seeds are there.
It's frustrating, because at times it feels like there is this leader/follower dynamic between the Republicans and Democrats. Republicans tend to move the voters, Democrats tend to meet the voters. Take Harris's CNN interview, for example. She touted a bipartisan border bill that funded Trump's border wall then reaffirmed her newfound support for fracking. And she has to do some of that now because Democrats constantly run away from their progressive policies at the first sign of criticism. pours one out for the green new deal
All of this is moot anyway. Fact is, we haven't seen what a truly progressive Democratic nominee looks like and by the looks of things, we aren't going to see one anytime soon. You could argue that Obama 08 is the closest thing to it, but he was also incredibly charismatic and was coming off of a disastrous Bush term. So I guess all we can go on is current polling in a climate where only a handful of politicians are advocating for left-wing policies.
Republicans don’t move shit. Fox News and Newsmax moves voters, Republican elected follow them like bleating sheep. Guys like Romney or Larry Hogan are a dying breed with almost no pull at the...
Republicans don’t move shit. Fox News and Newsmax moves voters, Republican elected follow them like bleating sheep. Guys like Romney or Larry Hogan are a dying breed with almost no pull at the national level anymore.
And the idea that Democrats have moved right over any length of time since the 90s is deluded to the point that I question if people are actually paying attention to the history or just complaining that they’re not where the person is right now. During Obama’s first term the Democrats had like 8-10 guys like Joe Manchin in the senate and dozens in the House. They’re all gone now. We’ve seen a wave of unionization that hasn’t been observed in my lifetime thanks largely to Biden’s DoL and NLRB.
One in the same, really. At the very least, Republican politicians help normalize radical policies to the CNN viewers and enlightened centrists of the world. Ok? I don't know where you got this. I...
Republicans don’t move shit. Fox News and Newsmax moves voters
One in the same, really. At the very least, Republican politicians help normalize radical policies to the CNN viewers and enlightened centrists of the world.
And the idea that Democrats have moved right over any length of time since the 90s is deluded to the point that I question if people are actually paying attention to the history or just complaining that they’re not where the person is right now.
Ok? I don't know where you got this. I didn't say that, I haven't said that, and I don't see it mentioned elsewhere in the thread. For the most part, I've been talking about the politics not the policies and how I'm tired of seeing Democrats capitulate to right wing framing and/or cast their net to the center right at the expense of those on the left.
We’ve seen a wave of unionization that hasn’t been observed in my lifetime thanks largely to Biden’s DoL and NLRB.
Credit to the Biden administration and their support for unions. On the grassroots level, I think there were other figures in the Democratic Party that played a bigger role to ignite the support and enthusiasm we've seen over the past few years, but as usual, I probably don't have "the juice" to understand why I'm wrong.
The group that supports going full left is an unactivated voting base that feels no compelling reason to vote. The demographic I am referring to is the youth vote, which is the same base that...
The group that supports going full left is an unactivated voting base that feels no compelling reason to vote. The demographic I am referring to is the youth vote, which is the same base that Sanders captured. Right now we are talking about "margin of error" difference between Trump and Harris and her campaign strategy is based largely on the Obama playbook relating to vibes. Do you think that there is some voter base she will alienate by actually campaigning on arms embargos and financially hamstringing Israel that arent strongly in the Trump camp already? Are you saying that she will lose significant numbers of voters if she doesn't continue to signal that she will support Israel's genocidal campaign? What a wild take. If she full sends left she loses a small percent of moderates that were already on the fence and activates an obvious group that's right within reach. She will also prevent the potential of the "October Surprise" that will most likely come when Bibi does something insane and colleges erupt.
There is no statistical or historic evidence that there is any mass constituency that is waiting for a candidate who is left enough to awaken to politics. It’s just not a real thing. There’s lots...
The group that supports going full left is an unactivated voting base that feels no compelling reason to vote.
There is no statistical or historic evidence that there is any mass constituency that is waiting for a candidate who is left enough to awaken to politics. It’s just not a real thing.
There’s lots of people who just kind of don’t care enough to vote regularly or at all, but they’re generally not staunchly leftists they’re more idiosyncratic in their views.
Barak Obama in 2008. Activated cubans in Florida (younger/youth vote) and won a historically Republican slanted demographic. Did not happen in 2012 because of the lack of sufficient progressive...
There is no statistical or historic evidence that there is any mass constituency that is waiting for a candidate who is left enough to awaken to politics. It’s just not a real thing.
Barak Obama in 2008. Activated cubans in Florida (younger/youth vote) and won a historically Republican slanted demographic. Did not happen in 2012 because of the lack of sufficient progressive policy during his first term and he actively avoided progressive policy in his 2012 run.
And that, folks, is how you lose elections. The center is absolutely vital for her to win this election. If she's given a strong majority in Congress along with the presidency, some progressive...
And that, folks, is how you lose elections.
The center is absolutely vital for her to win this election. If she's given a strong majority in Congress along with the presidency, some progressive policies are likely to result.
They won't be enough for the far left, but it would be a hell of a lot better than what a gop administration would do.
Hey remember when the everyone said that replacing Biden would be an absolute disaster for Democrats? Yeah, me neither. I think it's going to be a close one, but gun to my head I'd say Trump's...
Hey remember when the everyone said that replacing Biden would be an absolute disaster for Democrats? Yeah, me neither.
I think it's going to be a close one, but gun to my head I'd say Trump's campaign is too insane/incompetent to squeak by. Still, it's way too early to take a full victory lap.
As a reluctant/damage control voter, I am really nervous about the Harris campaign's apparent push to persuade the Democratic Party's white whale - aka the mythical centrist voter - especially when it comes to the Israel/Palestine issue. According to a recent CBS poll (which I can't find at the moment because I'm on mobile and my Google skills are subpar), the majority of Americans oppose weapons aid to Israel, including ~75% of Democrats and ~60% of independents. Nevertheless, she continues to double down on the deeply unpopular Biden policy. Btw here's some polling from May that backs up the general premise if you aren't convinced. It's crazy to me, especially given the fact that there is a large contingent of voters that say they will vote for her if she changes course. But I guess that's Democrats for ya. When voters want something, they can't do it because the parliamentarian says so. When voters don't want something, Democrats will do it anyway even if it goes against US and international law. Anyway, fingers crossed we have an Indian brat summer.
On the other hand, here’s a chart showing that almost nobody, Democrat or Republican, considers foreign policy to be the most important issue. It suggests that even if some people are unhappy...
On the other hand, here’s a chart showing that almost nobody, Democrat or Republican, considers foreign policy to be the most important issue. It suggests that even if some people are unhappy about Israel, it might not make much difference?
I don’t see anyone who is pro- Palestinian voting for Trump, so at most it might affect turnout.
Exactly. And as Democrats love to say, a no-vote/3rd party vote might as well be a vote for Trump when the margins are this thin. And given the fact that most people are apathetic towards foreign...
I don’t see anyone who is pro- Palestinian voting for Trump, so at most it might affect turnout.
Exactly. And as Democrats love to say, a no-vote/3rd party vote might as well be a vote for Trump when the margins are this thin.
And given the fact that most people are apathetic towards foreign policy, a pivot towards ceasefire/arms embargo only serves to benefit the Harris campaign since there is a significant group of uncommitted voters in key battleground states, Michigan in particular.
In case you or anyone else reading this missed my other comment in the thread:
In Pennsylvania, 34% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if the nominee vowed to withhold weapons to Israel, compared to 7% who said they would be less likely. The rest said it would make no difference. In Arizona, 35% said they’d be more likely, while 5% would be less likely. And in Georgia, 39% said they’d be more likely, also compared to 5% who would be less likely.
Those states are a coin toss right now. Setting aside the moral aspect (which, frankly, we shouldn't), at the end of the day it's still better politics. For the life of me, I will never understand why Democrats run away from their base of support, especially when the policies are popular nationally.
AIPAC donations are a heavy influence on support for Israel, and this money firehose is hard to dismiss. [I'm saying this as a non-religious American Jew who's disgusted at the long time...
AIPAC donations are a heavy influence on support for Israel, and this money firehose is hard to dismiss. [I'm saying this as a non-religious American Jew who's disgusted at the long time abrogation of Palestinian human rights, let alone the current genocidal land grab.]
I think there's been a conscious political calculation to throw away the vote abstainers in Michigan on the basis that other voters will turn out for Democrats, particularly the blue collar pro-union laborers.
I sure hope you're right and that move pays off. After watching the convention speech and the CNN interview, I worry that they are taking both groups for granted and trying appeal to the the Nikki...
I think there's been a conscious political calculation to throw away the vote abstainers in Michigan on the basis that other voters will turn out for Democrats, particularly the blue collar pro-union laborers.
I sure hope you're right and that move pays off. After watching the convention speech and the CNN interview, I worry that they are taking both groups for granted and trying appeal to the the Nikki Haley voters. Hopefully we see more focus on labor and less talk about border security and military aid over the next few weeks.
Did you look into the full report attached to that article? While I know Americans can hold inherently contradictory views, I think the article is being misleading. So yeah, we can massage the...
Did you look into the full report attached to that article? While I know Americans can hold inherently contradictory views, I think the article is being misleading.
While there is public backing for US support for Israel until the hostages are released, there is substantial support for restricting US military aid to Israel. A bare majority of Americans (53%) agree on restricting military aid to Israel so it cannot use the aid toward military operations against Palestinians, similar to previous readings.
Combined, nearly two-thirds of Americans (64%) also say the United States should pressure Israel to accept a ceasefire ... nearly half of Democrats (47%) and a plurality of Independents (42%) say the United States should pressure Israel to accept a ceasefire by reducing its weapons transfers.
In a survey by Defense Priorities fielded July 18-24, 2024, a plurality of Americans (44%) said the United States should condition its aid to Israel so it takes more care to avoid civilian casualties (22%) and doesn't involve the United States in a wider war (20%). At the same time, a third (34%) said the United States should stop sending aid to Israel altogether because of the humanitarian situation in Gaza (20%) and the risk of a wider regional war (20%) ... Although one in four (24%) also said the United States should give unconditional aid to Israel, most Americans in this survey insisted that the United States either condition or withdraw such aid because of it's humanitarian impact and exacerbation of regional tensions.
So yeah, we can massage the numbers to make it look like things are relatively fine, but when you dive into specifics on the issue of ceasefire/unconditional aid, it becomes pretty clear that a significantly higher percentage of Americans think we should change course. I wonder why this corporate-backed think tank headed by a NATO ambassador and Obama foreign policy advisor would have us think otherwise?
But again, even if the numbers were less favorable for that position, it would still be politically advantageous because there are no signs of an Israel or bust movement within the Democratic coalition. There is, however, an incredibly loud, incredibly passionate group of holdouts that is large enough to tip the scales. Also, we just saw what it looks like when the Democrats do something the base wants when there was the explosion of support and enthusiasm after replacing Biden on the ticket. Then they continued that momentum by picking Walz as VP even though Shapiro was seen as the safer candidate. Those were two somewhat courageous moves that defied the traditional playbook but appealed to the base and they both paid off. Now Harris has a choice to either double down on an incredibly unpopular Biden policy (~35% approve) or listen to the base and to the people who have been screaming at her rallies, at protests, and at college campuses all around the country.
It can't hurt to position yourself against US involvement in an unpopular war where the words "genocide" and "war crimes" are used to describe it. In fact, I think it worked out pretty well for the Democrats last time they had a candidate like that.
I think you're reaching to say the least. There is no candidate who's going to set aside morals, look at these numbers, and say "clearly politically it's best for me to do X". Morally there are...
I think you're reaching to say the least. There is no candidate who's going to set aside morals, look at these numbers, and say "clearly politically it's best for me to do X".
Morally there are arguments, statistically it's a mess, and I think your equivocating with Obama is just out there.
I actually came across some good articles in the news about a number of examples from history where the Democrats lost after replacing candidates for late in the game. I personally hope that does...
Hey remember when the everyone said that replacing Biden would be an absolute disaster for Democrats? Yeah, me neither.
I actually came across some good articles in the news about a number of examples from history where the Democrats lost after replacing candidates for late in the game. I personally hope that does not happen. Biden was in a statistical tie with Trump when he left. Now Harris is in a statistical tie. The only difference is that she is a few single points above the line, and Biden was a few single points below the line.
I think it's going to be a close one, but gun to my head I'd say Trump's campaign is too insane/incompetent to squeak by
None of that is new. Voter turn out actually increased in 2020 with a large part of that being non-voters turning out to vote for Trump.
The issue in Gaza is a whole other conversation. I personally think Harris could take a lot of political damage taking a stronger stance on the issue and lose the election. My priority voting is voting to save the United States from Trump, Project 2025, and a dictatorship. I think many other voters, despite what they may think about Gaza, see that too.
What Harris does have going for her is a large number of volunteers and an impressive amount of donated cash. She also has energy, work ethic and a bit of charisma. It is far from a done deal but...
What Harris does have going for her is a large number of volunteers and an impressive amount of donated cash.
She also has energy, work ethic and a bit of charisma.
It is far from a done deal but I think she has a real shot by providing a focus for the antitrumpers who is not old
The last minute change up annoys me because the narrative went from "Biden is fine and the presidency is in good hands, stop worrying over nothing" to "the new iPhone's out and it's the first...
The last minute change up annoys me because the narrative went from "Biden is fine and the presidency is in good hands, stop worrying over nothing" to "the new iPhone's out and it's the first female president!!" And if the Republicans have the message discipline to call that out and corner Harris on if she is or is not the progressive she was in 2019, that would be a powerful line of attack. And I get that trying to land the plane on Biden versus subbing in Harris for the nod is a calculated risk, but an overconfident Democratic Party in an election with an outgoing Dem president is how we got this way in the first place, and I don't like the vibes.
Yeah, I remember those making the rounds. I guess my problem with that - and I say this as someone who has a degree in history and loves to draw comparisons from the past - is that there have...
I actually came across some good articles in the news about a number of examples from history where the Democrats lost after replacing candidates for late in the game
Yeah, I remember those making the rounds. I guess my problem with that - and I say this as someone who has a degree in history and loves to draw comparisons from the past - is that there have never been circumstances like the ones we were facing with Biden. He had historically bad approval ratings and was unable to shake the perception that he was going through cognitive decline. I mean, the guy couldn't go 10 minutes without a major slip up. But there's no need to relitigate all that.
I personally think Harris could take a lot of political damage taking a stronger stance on the issue and lose the election
Is there anything fueling that perception aside from the Democratic Party's approach and the surrounding punditry? Looking at the numbers I just shared, it doesn't make sense.
Actually, I know I just said there was no reason to relitigate the Biden thing, but it reminds me of the Biden thing. There weren't any signs that there was a "Biden or Bust," movement within the Democratic party, just like there aren't any signs that there is an Israel or Bust movement now. Demographically, it doesn't make much sense because the most ardent Israel supporters are (a) evangelical Christians who will never vote blue and (b) Jewish people who don't make up a large block of voters in swing states - at least not enough to counterbalance the uncommitted movement.
My suspicion is that most of the ~20% of Democrats who don't support a ceasefire or restricting military aid are part of the "Blue no matter who" crowd and the independents don't really give a shit. In fact, there is some evidence to support that.
A significant share of Democrats and independent voters in pivotal swing states Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona are more likely to vote for the Democratic presidential nominee (presumptively Kamala Harris) if said nominee pledges support for an arms embargo to Israel, and if President Joe Biden secures a permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
...
In Pennsylvania, 34% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if the nominee vowed to withhold weapons to Israel, compared to 7% who said they would be less likely. The rest said it would make no difference. In Arizona, 35% said they’d be more likely, while 5% would be less likely. And in Georgia, 39% said they’d be more likely, also compared to 5% who would be less likely.
...
The results were particularly stark when looking at responses by those who voted for Biden in 2020 and are currently undecided. In Pennsylvania, 57% of such voters said they’d be more likely to support the Democratic nominee if they pledged to withhold additional weapons to Israel for committing human rights abuses; in Arizona, 44% said the same; in Georgia, 34% said so.
Nobody should care too much what a national poll says though. Clinton won the popular vote — but it’s the electoral college that matters, and we aren’t at the stage when we have publicly available good quality state level data yet.
And the electoral college in recent elections has had a 2ish percentage point bias towards Republicans in the tipping point state.
So in order for the electoral college to be “tied” Harris needs to be up by at least 2% in national polls and you have to hope those polls are not systematically off like they were in 2016.
If you scroll through the headlines at /r/politics you would get the impression that Harris has already won and with a slam dunk.
It is fairly disgusting that with all of the many thinks Trump has to detract voters from him that he is still in such a strong position.
I think they ( and everyone else ) did. Many redditors are quick to point out that polls are unreliable. However, in /r/politics the subculture has changed to vote down things they don't want to hear and to post hyperbolic headlines that support what they want to see happen.
I had gotten such a skewed impression myself from the headlines there. Then I opened up a few of the articles to see that Harris leads were only a few points in different isolated polls.
I quit in 2019 because of the echo chamber, and after I quit, I looked back and realized that it had been that way for a long time already.
Trump has one thing going for him- he's "not democrat."
Seriously, many people aren't voting for Trump because they have positive opinions of Trump, but instead because they have strong negative opinions of democrats.
In the last few elections, the Republicans switched their messaging a bit. They used to (at least claim to) be the party of small government, have a goal to reduce taxation, retain the right to bear arms, etc. Now, they're the anti-democrat party. All of their messaging is just "anti" with no real plan for anything. Trump is certainly a big part of this pivot.
But it's at least somewhat working. Because it reminds republican voters of how "awful" democrats are, how they'll transform our schools and bathrooms, how they'll endanger the country, whatever talking points they can come up with.
While Trump does have a following, that alone isn't what will get him re-elected. It's if his messaging is strong enough to get people to vote for "not democrat."
She would be better off if she'd stop fucking trying to capture this mythical centerist that aligns with trump but can be reasoned with... Even if that is a real group it's fucking tiny and just continues to drag the Overton window right. She needs to just go full send left and try and capture what sanders originally ignited before the Dems and the DNC conspired against him.
Fully disagree. The group that the 'going full left' appeals to appears much bigger on the internet than they are in reality, and the demographics that actually vote won't show up for it.
That's an unsupported assertion.
Perhaps they would if they saw a candidate trying to appeal to them, specifically, with unapologetically progressive policies that they want. That's politics, isn't it?
Thank you for bringing a bit of objectivity/neutral positioning on this.
What most liberals fail to see, is that Kamala is actioning EXACTLY how Hil-dawg did in 2016. Disallowing Palestinian speakers at the DNC, actively working to break up anti-genocide demonstrations, and bringing up former Trump admins as speakers is an attempt to signal towards such a specific group. They are targeting Republican voters that don't necessarily like Trump AND are an active voter base. This is basically the same strategy Clinton ran on by ignoring a more left/progressive wing of the Democratic part in order to capture right leaning centrists. She totally shit on/took for granted the union voters and alienated the youth vote that Sanders managed to interest. Then when she lost, like a petulant group of children, the Democrats blamed the "left" for not voting for Hilary when they offered NOTHING to that base. They spit on the left either taking them for granted with the line of thinking of "Who the fuck else are you gonna vote for?" or by blaming them for the loss to Trump.
Here we are in 2024 and apparently the dems have learned NOTHING. Progressive policies are popular. Not leaning into them is a mistake. Leaning into dumb centrist/right leaning policies to simply try to capture this weird fucking middle right group of people is a miscalculation in my opinion. Claiming that you're going to make the American military stronger? Making dumb promises like "my cabinet will be a bi-partisan composition and I intend to include republicans" is dumb. What are you gonna do next? Start talking about making NATO stronger? Literally no one gives a fuck about NATO. Not drawing a line in the sand and breaking from policy from the Biden admin is folly. At this point the only real thing differentiating Kamala from Biden are vibes and that is going to gas out real quick unless there is a substantial policy break and I think she needs to break to the left hard. If Trump wins again, dems will FOR SURE blame the left for not activating for Kamala... but what do you want them to activate for? You're giving them nothing. Dems cannot perpetually run on defensive/preventative messaging. You have to give people SOMETHING. I mean the Harris administration STILL HASN'T TALKED TO THE TEAMSTERS YET. Sean O'Brien is a big dumb piece of shit, but he still leads one of the biggest unions in the US. The fact that Harris hasn't talked to him yet is MASSIVELY problematic.
I won’t claim to be particularly knowledgeable, but the impression I get is that some progressive policies are popular, while the general public is more lukewarm on at best and occasionally not receptive to others. If that’s the case I can see why a candidate might take a more cautious approach, picking and choosing only those which seem solidly “safe”, because a miscalculation could be costly.
I may be totally wrong in this evaluation, though. For certain there are parts of the US that skew much more progressive (two of which I’ve lived in), but it varies a great deal from place to place.
Is there a particular policy you view as progressive that you do not like (as an example)?
Off the top of my head, no, but I’ve long been aware that my politics often don’t line up with those of others.
My father for instance, though staunchly anti-trump and generally supportive of the past couple of democratic candidates probably doesn’t see eye to eye with me on subjects like immigration and is pro-union in some ways and anti-union in others. He used to be somewhat aligned with old-style republicans in some ways, but was receptive to Obama becoming president and has held a favorable opinion of him since.
As noted before, this isn’t my specialty by any means but I get the impression that in the US there’s probably more people like my dad than me. Outside of polarization, it’s unusual for people to sit firmly in one camp or the other.
Can I ask why you say this? It's not that the Democratic party is offering nothing to the left, it's that the left wants them to offer everything. Biden has been a very progressive president, but he's not a king - if congress and SCOTUS don't go along, he's limited in what he can do.
Unless there are some data to back up the size of the progressive left considering voting Democrat and the size of the middle left/right considering voting Democrat, this is list of arguments that hold well only if the data back up what you claim about the electorate. It may well be that the undecided middle left/right are the bigger group than undecided progressives. The numbers are the closest we can get to neutral and objective, is my point. I don't know the numbers myself--I'm neither undecided nor a party strategy person, but the makeup of the electorate is a big assumption that you could verify if those numbers are available.
Progressive policies win. Perfect example of this is that Barak Obama won the Floridian Cuban vote in 2008 (not in 2012) running on progressive policies and was primarily carried by young cuban voters.
Activation of a largely disincentivized progressive, young base of support garners far more traction then trying to capture a mythical "uncommitted" center/center right. The numbers just aren't there. The cuban Florida demographic does NOT vote Democrat. There are 2 narratives at play for that.
Going back to Barak, he then did substantially worse in 2012 on that same voter base because in his first term in office he really did nothing for the progressives and then in 2012, he backed away from the progressive platform.
I'm not one to say that everyone in America is a leftist that doesn't realize it yet, but I do think there's some validity to the idea that Democrats lose a lot of potential votes when they take the center position.
For starters, it essentially says to voters that they are there to uphold the status quo. Given the rise of Trump, Sanders, and the success of the 08 Obama campaign, of which "change" was one of the key promises, it doesn't speak to America's clear desire to have something different. I think that's what fuels the idea that left-wing policies could be popular. The one thing most Americans can agree on right now is things aren't great and the little guy keeps getting screwed. Well-paying jobs, healthcare, child care, better infrastructure, making college more affordable, etc. - can't fault someone for thinking that might win an election.
Also, when you remove the Democrat label from their policies, they end up being pretty popular. One of the most popular examples of this is Florida in 2020. Donald Trump won by about 3.5 points while at the same time, 60% of the state voted to raise the minimum wage and almost 80% of the state voted to restore voting rights to former felons. And let's not forger the amount of times Republicans take credit for things like infrastructure funding or expanding Medicaid/Medicare even though they voted against it. Hell, I've lost count of the number of times I've seen right-wingers unironically post anti-corporate George Carlin videos. At the very least, the seeds are there.
It's frustrating, because at times it feels like there is this leader/follower dynamic between the Republicans and Democrats. Republicans tend to move the voters, Democrats tend to meet the voters. Take Harris's CNN interview, for example. She touted a bipartisan border bill that funded Trump's border wall then reaffirmed her newfound support for fracking. And she has to do some of that now because Democrats constantly run away from their progressive policies at the first sign of criticism. pours one out for the green new deal
All of this is moot anyway. Fact is, we haven't seen what a truly progressive Democratic nominee looks like and by the looks of things, we aren't going to see one anytime soon. You could argue that Obama 08 is the closest thing to it, but he was also incredibly charismatic and was coming off of a disastrous Bush term. So I guess all we can go on is current polling in a climate where only a handful of politicians are advocating for left-wing policies.
Republicans don’t move shit. Fox News and Newsmax moves voters, Republican elected follow them like bleating sheep. Guys like Romney or Larry Hogan are a dying breed with almost no pull at the national level anymore.
And the idea that Democrats have moved right over any length of time since the 90s is deluded to the point that I question if people are actually paying attention to the history or just complaining that they’re not where the person is right now. During Obama’s first term the Democrats had like 8-10 guys like Joe Manchin in the senate and dozens in the House. They’re all gone now. We’ve seen a wave of unionization that hasn’t been observed in my lifetime thanks largely to Biden’s DoL and NLRB.
One in the same, really. At the very least, Republican politicians help normalize radical policies to the CNN viewers and enlightened centrists of the world.
Ok? I don't know where you got this. I didn't say that, I haven't said that, and I don't see it mentioned elsewhere in the thread. For the most part, I've been talking about the politics not the policies and how I'm tired of seeing Democrats capitulate to right wing framing and/or cast their net to the center right at the expense of those on the left.
Credit to the Biden administration and their support for unions. On the grassroots level, I think there were other figures in the Democratic Party that played a bigger role to ignite the support and enthusiasm we've seen over the past few years, but as usual, I probably don't have "the juice" to understand why I'm wrong.
The group that supports going full left is an unactivated voting base that feels no compelling reason to vote. The demographic I am referring to is the youth vote, which is the same base that Sanders captured. Right now we are talking about "margin of error" difference between Trump and Harris and her campaign strategy is based largely on the Obama playbook relating to vibes. Do you think that there is some voter base she will alienate by actually campaigning on arms embargos and financially hamstringing Israel that arent strongly in the Trump camp already? Are you saying that she will lose significant numbers of voters if she doesn't continue to signal that she will support Israel's genocidal campaign? What a wild take. If she full sends left she loses a small percent of moderates that were already on the fence and activates an obvious group that's right within reach. She will also prevent the potential of the "October Surprise" that will most likely come when Bibi does something insane and colleges erupt.
There is no statistical or historic evidence that there is any mass constituency that is waiting for a candidate who is left enough to awaken to politics. It’s just not a real thing.
There’s lots of people who just kind of don’t care enough to vote regularly or at all, but they’re generally not staunchly leftists they’re more idiosyncratic in their views.
Barak Obama in 2008. Activated cubans in Florida (younger/youth vote) and won a historically Republican slanted demographic. Did not happen in 2012 because of the lack of sufficient progressive policy during his first term and he actively avoided progressive policy in his 2012 run.
Yeah that's exactly what I said you got me.
And that, folks, is how you lose elections.
The center is absolutely vital for her to win this election. If she's given a strong majority in Congress along with the presidency, some progressive policies are likely to result.
They won't be enough for the far left, but it would be a hell of a lot better than what a gop administration would do.
Politics is compromise.
Hey remember when the everyone said that replacing Biden would be an absolute disaster for Democrats? Yeah, me neither.
I think it's going to be a close one, but gun to my head I'd say Trump's campaign is too insane/incompetent to squeak by. Still, it's way too early to take a full victory lap.
As a reluctant/damage control voter, I am really nervous about the Harris campaign's apparent push to persuade the Democratic Party's white whale - aka the mythical centrist voter - especially when it comes to the Israel/Palestine issue. According to a recent CBS poll (which I can't find at the moment because I'm on mobile and my Google skills are subpar), the majority of Americans oppose weapons aid to Israel, including ~75% of Democrats and ~60% of independents. Nevertheless, she continues to double down on the deeply unpopular Biden policy. Btw here's some polling from May that backs up the general premise if you aren't convinced. It's crazy to me, especially given the fact that there is a large contingent of voters that say they will vote for her if she changes course. But I guess that's Democrats for ya. When voters want something, they can't do it because the parliamentarian says so. When voters don't want something, Democrats will do it anyway even if it goes against US and international law. Anyway, fingers crossed we have an Indian brat summer.
On the other hand, here’s a chart showing that almost nobody, Democrat or Republican, considers foreign policy to be the most important issue. It suggests that even if some people are unhappy about Israel, it might not make much difference?
I don’t see anyone who is pro- Palestinian voting for Trump, so at most it might affect turnout.
Exactly. And as Democrats love to say, a no-vote/3rd party vote might as well be a vote for Trump when the margins are this thin.
And given the fact that most people are apathetic towards foreign policy, a pivot towards ceasefire/arms embargo only serves to benefit the Harris campaign since there is a significant group of uncommitted voters in key battleground states, Michigan in particular.
In case you or anyone else reading this missed my other comment in the thread:
Those states are a coin toss right now. Setting aside the moral aspect (which, frankly, we shouldn't), at the end of the day it's still better politics. For the life of me, I will never understand why Democrats run away from their base of support, especially when the policies are popular nationally.
AIPAC donations are a heavy influence on support for Israel, and this money firehose is hard to dismiss. [I'm saying this as a non-religious American Jew who's disgusted at the long time abrogation of Palestinian human rights, let alone the current genocidal land grab.]
I think there's been a conscious political calculation to throw away the vote abstainers in Michigan on the basis that other voters will turn out for Democrats, particularly the blue collar pro-union laborers.
I sure hope you're right and that move pays off. After watching the convention speech and the CNN interview, I worry that they are taking both groups for granted and trying appeal to the the Nikki Haley voters. Hopefully we see more focus on labor and less talk about border security and military aid over the next few weeks.
The only recent information I can find about it, show's it's far from certain it's "better politics"
https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/americans-see-united-states-playing-positive-role-middle-east?utm_source=media&utm_campaign=ccs&utm_medium=cnn
Did you look into the full report attached to that article? While I know Americans can hold inherently contradictory views, I think the article is being misleading.
So yeah, we can massage the numbers to make it look like things are relatively fine, but when you dive into specifics on the issue of ceasefire/unconditional aid, it becomes pretty clear that a significantly higher percentage of Americans think we should change course. I wonder why this corporate-backed think tank headed by a NATO ambassador and Obama foreign policy advisor would have us think otherwise?
But again, even if the numbers were less favorable for that position, it would still be politically advantageous because there are no signs of an Israel or bust movement within the Democratic coalition. There is, however, an incredibly loud, incredibly passionate group of holdouts that is large enough to tip the scales. Also, we just saw what it looks like when the Democrats do something the base wants when there was the explosion of support and enthusiasm after replacing Biden on the ticket. Then they continued that momentum by picking Walz as VP even though Shapiro was seen as the safer candidate. Those were two somewhat courageous moves that defied the traditional playbook but appealed to the base and they both paid off. Now Harris has a choice to either double down on an incredibly unpopular Biden policy (~35% approve) or listen to the base and to the people who have been screaming at her rallies, at protests, and at college campuses all around the country.
It can't hurt to position yourself against US involvement in an unpopular war where the words "genocide" and "war crimes" are used to describe it. In fact, I think it worked out pretty well for the Democrats last time they had a candidate like that.
I think you're reaching to say the least. There is no candidate who's going to set aside morals, look at these numbers, and say "clearly politically it's best for me to do X".
Morally there are arguments, statistically it's a mess, and I think your equivocating with Obama is just out there.
Oh, ok. I think I get it now.
I actually came across some good articles in the news about a number of examples from history where the Democrats lost after replacing candidates for late in the game. I personally hope that does not happen. Biden was in a statistical tie with Trump when he left. Now Harris is in a statistical tie. The only difference is that she is a few single points above the line, and Biden was a few single points below the line.
None of that is new. Voter turn out actually increased in 2020 with a large part of that being non-voters turning out to vote for Trump.
The issue in Gaza is a whole other conversation. I personally think Harris could take a lot of political damage taking a stronger stance on the issue and lose the election. My priority voting is voting to save the United States from Trump, Project 2025, and a dictatorship. I think many other voters, despite what they may think about Gaza, see that too.
What Harris does have going for her is a large number of volunteers and an impressive amount of donated cash.
She also has energy, work ethic and a bit of charisma.
It is far from a done deal but I think she has a real shot by providing a focus for the antitrumpers who is not old
The last minute change up annoys me because the narrative went from "Biden is fine and the presidency is in good hands, stop worrying over nothing" to "the new iPhone's out and it's the first female president!!" And if the Republicans have the message discipline to call that out and corner Harris on if she is or is not the progressive she was in 2019, that would be a powerful line of attack. And I get that trying to land the plane on Biden versus subbing in Harris for the nod is a calculated risk, but an overconfident Democratic Party in an election with an outgoing Dem president is how we got this way in the first place, and I don't like the vibes.
Yeah, I remember those making the rounds. I guess my problem with that - and I say this as someone who has a degree in history and loves to draw comparisons from the past - is that there have never been circumstances like the ones we were facing with Biden. He had historically bad approval ratings and was unable to shake the perception that he was going through cognitive decline. I mean, the guy couldn't go 10 minutes without a major slip up. But there's no need to relitigate all that.
Is there anything fueling that perception aside from the Democratic Party's approach and the surrounding punditry? Looking at the numbers I just shared, it doesn't make sense.
Actually, I know I just said there was no reason to relitigate the Biden thing, but it reminds me of the Biden thing. There weren't any signs that there was a "Biden or Bust," movement within the Democratic party, just like there aren't any signs that there is an Israel or Bust movement now. Demographically, it doesn't make much sense because the most ardent Israel supporters are (a) evangelical Christians who will never vote blue and (b) Jewish people who don't make up a large block of voters in swing states - at least not enough to counterbalance the uncommitted movement.
My suspicion is that most of the ~20% of Democrats who don't support a ceasefire or restricting military aid are part of the "Blue no matter who" crowd and the independents don't really give a shit. In fact, there is some evidence to support that.
...
...
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-harris is handy