522
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
522 points (94.7% liked)
politics
19088 readers
1627 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 easiest way to get back voters for whom this was a deal breaker, is for Kamala to pivot on the issue.
The rhetorical techniques from surrogates have been out there for months. They don't work when the candidate is out there eroding them by saying things like "nothing comes to mind". You can be angry at these voters, you can blame them, but what obviously isn't working is trying to move them by saying "Trump would be worse".
The only answer here that works is a pivot from Kamala.
That's the only answer you want. That's not the only answer that works.
Well its clear that the "rhetoric only" approach isn't working and is insufficient. Bernies rhetoric here and in the video version are good. But its not any different than what we've been seeing, literally the entire time from other surrogates. It sums to "Trump worse".
And its not working. It hasn't moved the needle. Kamala has been declining in polling pretty precisely since she snubbed Muslim's at the DNC and then a week after that doubled down on it saying that "nothing would be different" in her administration relative to Biden's. Since then the scale and scope of Israels genocide have increased, and she's stayed the course to a continual decline in polling. Its not "the answer I want", its what the data have to say.
We're a week out from the election. You've convinced all the voters for whom "Trump worse" is a sufficient rhetorical approach.
Now what about the voters for whom that approach is insufficient. Is your plan to leave them on the table? Because it seems to me you aren't interested in getting their votes, and that puts the campaign in jeopardy.
There is a cohort that appears to be about 5% of voters for whom "Trump worse" is an ineffective argument. If not for a pivot on the part of Harris, what is your argument then to get those voters to show up and vote for her?
I don't know why we're assuming that she picks up more votes than she loses by making a pivot on Israel. Not only will she lose votes from other areas of the base, that pivot will drive turnout among the GOP base. 5% means nothing if they lose 5% from Christians/Jews and turn out all the Christian crazies for the GOP.
Unfortunately I think the Harris campaign is doing the right thing with Israel right now. If other people on the left think this issue is worth losing over, I simply disagree. I don't think there's a good answer where everyone is happy, just one with less dead Palestinians.
Gross.
Because thats what the data have to say. That's why we think that.
What you need to recognize is that this is something YOU think the election is worth losing over. YOU are the one arguing to leave a sufficient block of voters on the table by not pivoting. That 1-3% of voters is what wins or loses all of these tight races.
This is an aspect that makes me irate. People will say that its pure electoral pragmatism to support Israel, but how is losing Michigan over it pragmatic? I have seen no convincing argument that an arms embargo would be more dangerous for her electorally than continuing to tripple down on supporting Israel. If its not taken as a given that genocide is a pragmatic approach, then it seems obvious that the choice that leads to less genocide is correct, but Harris won't take it.
Christ, right? If anything, the data we have suggest a pivot gets her back to being a candidate that had momentum and was increasing their share of likely voters.
There is nothing pragmatic about supporting a policy which is deeply unpopular with your base. This is a turn out election. You have to turn your base out, not off.
It doesn't even have to be that! She can just make a vague statement about considering conditioning arms sales.
Gonna need a source on that, chief
Its linked above.
Sorry, I'm not finding it anywhere. Mind re-linking it?
Apologies, I was not in the thread I thought I was in. I'll find the link, edit this comment, and @ you when I find it.
Here you go: https://apnorc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/October-topline_Middle-East.pdf
Topline, Democrats are deeply dissatisfied with Biden/ Harris's handling of Israel/ Gaza. Democratic voters want a pivot and aren't getting one.
So what is the percentage of voters that she will lose with a pivot? Not the ones she might gain, who does she lose? And what does it do to GOP turnout estimates?
You're completely ignoring that by changing her position, she can gain votes with one group, and lose votes with another. What you and the data you're using haven't done is prove that the former is greater than the latter. It seems pretty apparent to me that the army of data scientists that the Harris campaign is listening to is telling her it's not.
This is the exact same argument that people we're using to argue that we had to "stick with Biden" as the candidate. And it was so completely and wildly wrong, it almost cost Democrats the entire game before the clock actually started. A bunch of hand-wringing and what-ifs'. If you want to make those arguments, thats fine. Go find the data and show me there is a political cost to a pivot, because I've provided data to say there isn't, and in-fact, not pivoting is costing her the election. You don't get to use speculation or uncertainty as a form of evidence.
The evidence is on my side, not yours. If you want to support your argument, go find any kind of evidence you can, work it up, and give us an evidence backed argument to support that position.
Until then the conclusion is that Harris is leaving voters on the table with her position on Israel Gaza, because thats what the data we have says.
You provided half the data and are trying to get people to draw meaningful conclusions about it, while refusing to even acknowledge you're working with incomplete data.
I'm just confused why you think you can lay out exactly half of the equation, know that you're not presenting the whole picture, and say with certainty that the data proves you correct.
Except its not. It is the whole thing, you just don't like what it has to say.
So then how many votes do you think she loses from a pivot? How many percentage points? I fully accept that she will gain votes from a segment of the base that may not vote for her otherwise. I am not arguing that at all. I want to know about the other piece you say youve laid out. You've presented all the data, walk us through that piece..
The same number we lost when people said Biden voters were going to depart in droves if we swapped the nominee.
0
Goose-egg.
Nada.
Okay we're just going to have to agree to disagree then.
Either way, let's do what we can to push the odds further in her favor, even if you don't think she's going to do it herself. I'll be out canvassing again on Saturday, lots of time to win this thing!
I see one.
I feel you. I completely agreed until sometime in spring, when Sen. Sanders first posted an argument very similar to OP's linked article. One of the major reasons I switched stances was environmental damage and global warming which is threatening horrible suffering for hundreds of millions at least. If for no other reason than that Trump must lose. Afterwards those who stand for ethics and proportional response can try to drag the Western leaders out of complicity with war crimes. Never stop criticizing such unethical and illegal policies, but if you're American please vote Democrat.
Exactly. For you, that rhetoric was sufficient. But whats clear in the polling is that there is a small portion of voters for whom that is not enough. Harris needs every single possible vote she can get to pull this out. The campaign needs to offer more than just "Trump worse" if they want voters for whom that rhetoric has been demonstrated to be insufficient.
You lose way more voters than you gain on the issue by resorting to all out condemnation of one of our biggest allies, unfortunate as it is
If only there were some policy between the current enthusiastic unconditional support and all out condemnation.
Maybe if Harris were running as a Republican.
But its not Republican votes she's leaving on the table. Its literally registered Democrats. And Democrats put the responsibility for the state of things on the Israeli government.
Center right republicans are up for grabs here, idk if youve heard but Harris and Trump are pretty much neck and neck in every battleground state. She's trying to reach out to Republicans that are fully sick of Trumpian politics. It's not progressive voters she's courting nor should she
And if she loses as a result? Then who are you going to blame? The Democrats who left her? the Republicans who didnt join her? Or harris for being so committed to genocide she lost to a literal fascist?
Keep in mind the longer she waits the more likely it is those historically democratic voters are lost due to early voting.
Centrists will do what they always do. They will interpret a win as vindication and an indicator that moving to the right works.
They will blame their left for a loss, announce that the left are unreliable voters, and use that as justification for moving to the right.
Yes thats why i dont care about their lesser evil nonsense.
It's her calculus man, not mine. The Harris campaign has decided this is the way to go, if she loses because of it then she loses because of it. I think it's the right way to go but honestly not really any point arguing about it, we're gonna find out real soon either way
indeed we are. but then you'll be stuck knowing you did jack shit to stop a genocide when all you had to do was lie a little bit to make her sweat it out. maybe follow through if your state can take the hit on democratic support. instead you decided your effort was better spent arguing with me and others like me instead of getting in on the game. =)
Understand how policy works. We dumped biden over gaza, union busting, and literally being on the down slope mentally.
Every bit of support we withhold from harris makes the campaign that much more tenuous increasing the likelihood of either: her switching positions now, or giving our congress critters more leverage over declining her terrible policies later. If she loses as a result of these efforts we made no secret about what she'd need to change. Thats on her.
This is why the 'lesser evil' shit is nonsense. You can absolutely crater her support in safe states and still have her win. We've given the dunces plenty of hints the last few weeks what was up. Almost ever thread im in i mention the alternatives to the lesser evil nonsense.
Next time try to support your arab brothers and sisters instead of shitting on them like harris has done and this would have been less stressful for you. Maybe sit down and think about what you're seeing and instead of trying to demand people vote the same way you are demand your policy pigeon change their policy if you dont find whats being requested objectionable. No one wanted us to leave Israel defenseless we want her to stop shipping weapons until the destruction stops and real peace talks begin. The fact people like yourself fought harder against this than in getting harris to fix her nonsense position says more about all of you than us.
You're infuriating me because you know nothing about me. You have no idea the monetary support I've pledged to Palestine. It's not thousands or even hundreds but i don’t have very much and I've given what I can. I've spread the word about Palestine, Mossad, the IDF, regional complacency, debunking conspiracy theories about Hamas and the United Nations, all of it. You know nothing about me and yet because we've swapped a handful of words about American politics you think you do. That's why you're pissing me off, not because we're disagreeing on Kamala's campaign strategy but because you're completely full of yourself. Fuck you. May Kamala win and may the Palestinians some day know peace and prosperity in the land that's rightfully theirs but honestly fuck you.
Im comfortable pissing you off. All youve done is demonstrate my point, youll fight harder to support a genocidal candidate than to get her to not commit genocide . translate that anger into action to get harris to swap positions. i didnt make her back genocidal policies. if she loses its her fault. biden was tanked over gaza, union busting and mental health declines. gaza is not news for harris. she knows her position on it is a huge risk, particularly in states she absolutely needs to win.
the only question you need to ask yourself is would you vote for harris if she committed to following the law and enforcing leahy on israel. if rhe answer is yes you should be doing the same thing ive done.
the harder this win is for harris the better. means less support shell get for her absolutely disgusting treatment of arabs and gaza. itll reduce the fear congress critters have of aipac. etc.
Thank you.
Np mate. We're all doing our part hoping for the best outcome we can manage.
You are literally arguing she make a speculative play to turn Republicans instead of going after registered Democrats that she's lost.
I'm highlighting this to demonstrate for posterity how patently absurd the apologist rhetoric was on this matter.
Not just to turn Republicans, but to depress the Republican vote. Speculation here, but I think it's reasonable to bet there's a large number of Christian Republican voters who will never vote for Harris but aren't motivated enough to vote for Trump...unless Harris condemns Israel. If Harris gains 2% Dem votes from never-genocide lefties but Trump gets 5% votes from Israel-to-the-max Christians, she loses.
I'm just really happy you responded with this, so thank you.
Posterity, when you are looking back on this, the comment above is the kind of wack-a-doodle, baseless, hopium, purely speculative, completely devoid of evidence kind of thinking people were using to defend Kamalas' obvious failures as a candidate.
Tactics in first past the post democracies is indeed whackadoodle, but that's the system we live in.
I'm all about tactics, but I'm all about evidence as well. If you can provide some data, some evidence that what your saying has merit, I'm more than happy to discuss.
That's a complicated one. I think we can agree that in general, Republicans support Israel and don't believe that Israel bears any responsibility for their genocide in Gaza, and largely either don't believe there's a genocide happening or are perfectly happy that it is happening.
Here's an article from back in July where Republican leaders (not voters) condemn Harris for expressing sympathy for Palestinian civilian deaths: https://www.factcheck.org/2024/07/republican-rhetoric-on-harris-position-on-israel-goes-too-far/
About 30% of Republicans want the US to pull back on ceasefire negotiations: https://www.newsweek.com/poll-democrats-republicans-divided-israel-role-war-escalation-1977027
Trump is absolutely courting Jewish Republicans: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-09-05/trump-harris-israel-gaza-hamas-hostages
But I can't find any specific poll numbers asking Republicans "would you be more likely to vote for Trump if Harris denounces Israel?" So I don't have any hard data, just informed guesses.