This is stupid. How about you make a play for disenchanted progressives who actually could be convinced to vote for you? Republicans are not going to vote for Harris in any great numbers. The evidence is in the fact that every republican who has come out to support Harris is retired from politic life either by choice or by having been voted out by the rabid faction that makes up the vast bulk of the republican base. Republican voters make up about 30% of eligible voters and democrats make up another ~30%. How about you go after the 40% that sit between the two groups by making it worth their while to get off the couch and go vote?
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
112 points (97.5% liked)
politics
19107 readers
3309 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The thing is progressive policy gets the votes Harris is chasing here too
When Obama flipped red ststaes in 08 it wasn't because progressives turned out, because progressives always turn out.
He flipped red states by flipping moderate voters with progressive policy.
While moderates have favored the Democratic candidate in each of the past five elections, Barack Obama gained the support of more voters in the ideological “middle” than did either John Kerry or Al Gore before him. He won at least half the votes of independents (52% vs. 49% for Kerry), suburban voters (50% vs. 47% for Kerry), Catholics (54% vs. 47% for Kerry), and other key swing groups in the electorate.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2008/11/05/inside-obamas-sweeping-victory/
And that's even with the PUMA movement Clinton's campaign started to get Dems to vote for Kerry.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_United_Means_Action
Even if we lose some votes, progressive policy is a net gain.
because progressives always turn out.
Do they? I thought they were one of the more unreliable demographics.
Nope, feel free to luck up any exit polling
President Bernie Sanders tends to agree with you.
The thing is progressive policy gets the votes Harris is chasing here too
He flipped red states by flipping moderate voters with progressive policy.
I suspect this worked in part because he tailored his policy and his messaging in the battleground states, specifically so his policy would appeal to the swing voters there. (Another part is that progressive policy is just that good, naturally.)
So this may work again for Harris, but the messaging has to be done in a tailored way.
Even if we lose some votes, progressive policy is a net gain.
That's the fear - that an untailored, or badly or wrongly tailored, policy might cause more damage - a net loss of votes in the battleground states overall, where we can't really afford that loss.
How about you go after the 40% that sit between the two groups by making it worth their while to get off the couch and go vote?
They can't or won't because their bread is buttered by the same people buttering the bread of Republicans: rich donors and SuperPACs.
They don't honestly need that butter. They need to wake up and realize that there are enough small dollar donors out there to make up for any big dollar donors they lose. Look at how much Bernie Sanders raked in from small donors by courting progressives.
They don't want to have to put in the work. They want that easy money. DC is like a fucking casino and nobody wants the money-train to end.
Actually standing up for constituents takes the real work of politics. Just shrugging and doing whatever Bezos told you for a cool half a mill is so much easier.
Half the time legislation is literally actually written by lobbyists, not legislators. They don't even have to write the bill! The work is done for them! Voters, on the other hand, will expect results!
...for a cool half a mill
Oh, you sweet summer child. They are so very much cheaper than that. Most of the pols in DC can be bought for tens of thousands or even just thousands of dollars. No need to get into six figures.
I actually aimed low in respect to what I was speaking about, which is stuff like SuperPACs.
https://www.axios.com/2024/10/16/musk-trump-donation-america-pac-republican-mega-donor
Musk gave Trump $75 million in one go because laws don't apply to the rich.
The rest of us have real legal limits on what we can give.
And if those Bernie dollars had turned into votes maybe she'd be going after them. Also, Bernie endorsed her.
All the "progressives" in Congress endorsed her. Guess that's not enough, eh?
Why wouldn't they?
And endorsement doesn't mean someone has zero room for improvement and they agree on everything.
It just means they're the best available option
When Dick Cheney endorsed Kamala, did you think they agree on everything?
The evidence is in the fact that every republican who has come out to support Harris is retired from politic life either by choice or by having been voted out by the rabid faction that makes up the vast bulk of the republican base.
Your evidence shows that Republicans whose careers no longer depend on Trump are the ones who can be convinced to turn on him. The same is true of many (formerly) Republican voters.
This is stupid. How about you make a play for disenchanted progressives who actually could be convinced to vote for you?
Democrats would rather lose democracy forever than treat progressives like constituents with agency.
That's just the argument you constantly complain about turned on its head.
I would very much like to argue with you, but I have nothing to support such an argument. :(
Progressives who dont vote for Harris are even dumber than Republicans. Not sure if talking to them would help since they would need to stop focussing on breathing just to listen to you.
There are plenty of people in the area between the two extremes who support progressive policies, while not considering themselves progressives, but are not sufficiently motivated to bother voting because neither candidate is explicitly supporting those policies. Those are the votes that are available. Those are the people she should be convincing, not low hanging republican fruit.
Because progressives are probably smart enough to know why they need to vote for Harris instead of letting fascism keep them on their couch
Well, it's not this straightforward. I'm not sure where you got your numbers and percentages from, but working on the assumption that they are correct:
It also matters where the votes come from. If the remaining 40% is all clustered in California and New York, and they all are convinced to go out and vote, and also vote blue, that doesn't have an effect on the outcome.
Why? Electoral College.
See this chart, showing that split ticket voting (in particular, folks who voted all Republican EXCEPT for the President, where they voted Biden) was about 4% out of everyone who voted in 2020: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/10/PP_2020.10.21_split-icket-voting_0-01.png
Also, look at the small margins that Biden won on the swing states according to https://www.npr.org/2020/12/02/940689086/narrow-wins-in-these-key-states-powered-biden-to-the-presidency. So what this could mean, assuming that the 4% holds generally, is that the 4% difference cause by split ticket voting is greater than the margin that Biden won in those swing states. So without winning those folks - those moderate Republicans - over, the Dems lose the Electoral College and thus the Presidency.
I know plenty of Republicans in my family who like progressive ideas. Even racists love Bernie and his pro-worker stance. It’s a good play to take Trump voters and turn them into Harris ones. Progressives will already vote. Leftists who are only about one issue probably won’t, and that’s not a big deal.
If only a Democratic candidate could focus on exciting the fucking base instead of trying to become Republican-lite to capture Republican votes. Maybe you'd shatter turnout by actually getting your voters excited, instead of constantly reminding them how ready they are as a party to pander to the unhinged, cruel fucking freaks in the Republican party.
This is just plain wrong. Vox says it better than I can,
It reflects wishful thinking and a rigid set of political priors — namely, that Democrats’ political problems always stem from insufficient motivation of base voters — more than a cold, hard look at what the electoral and demographic data say.
Also, keep this in mind,
Campaigns tailor their messages for swing voters, who are not demographically representative
Source: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/22/13713148/electoral-college-democracy-race-white-voters
The campaign of Harris knows what it is doing. This, sadly, is indeed what it takes to win.
I've been told this absolute bullshit consistently for 40 fucking years while universal healthcare polls in the 80% approval range as long as you don't actually call it "universal healthcare."
I’ve been told this absolute bullshit consistently for 40 fucking years
So the thing is the above can be entirely unrelated to the below
while universal healthcare polls in the 80% approval range as long as you don’t actually call it “universal healthcare.”
Wouldn't it be a huge irony if the 80% that approves all live in safe blue and red states, while the 20% that don't approve all live in the battleground states?
Being in denial of the reasons for the former doesn't actually solve the problem, it will just cause Dems to lose the Electoral College.
That aside, I do recall laughing when Mitt Romney started campaigning against the ACA, and then Obama thanked Romney for the idea (the ACA being based on an earlier universal healthcare scheme for a State that Romney promoted and successfully implemented as its governor).
I suppose you've hit the nail on the head actually - progressive policies can be a win if they're appropriately branded and marketed in the right way to that demographic. But that goes to the point from Vox that I echoed earlier - the campaign has to be tailored to win over the swing voters specifically, rather than the average American - and the former can actually look quite different from the latter.
Would be great if she would energize her own side at some point. There's too much at stake for her to be kowtowing fascists
"Disenchanted Republicans" aren't the fascists. They're the ones who don't want to vote for the fascists, but have been swayed by fifty years of Republican propaganda to be uncomfortable voting for Democrats.
If you want to de-polarize this country, reaching these people is vital. They need to start realizing they have to vote for ideas not parties.
Yes, but she shouldn't do it at the expense of her own side, which she currently is. Low democrat turnout is going to do her in at this rate.
Maybe if we had a more representative electoral system, the republicans could have the option of a more moderate political party. US too, thanks.
2016 called. They want Hillary's campaign back.
Politico - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Politico:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/10/19/2024-elections-live-coverage-updates-analysis/kamala-harris-liz-cheney-campaign-together-00184475