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
1674 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
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.