ClashAndBurn Posted October 12 Posted October 12 It's so great how no matter who wins the election, Republicans will have a seat in the White House administration. Meaning that they will win either way, while the left becomes even more disenfranchised than ever before while bleating delusional platitudes about moving her left after she's elected. Bipartisanship is DOG ****, and the fact that she's running on it as a cornerstone of her campaign for the sake of it shows why she deserves to lose just like Hillary Clinton did. She's bringing in advisors who will seek to undermine her every waking moment of every day for the next eight years. Absolutely beyond foolish. 1 1 1
Jackson Posted October 12 Posted October 12 1 hour ago, Communion said: I don't mean to get technocratic here - since other girlies were trying to question each other's sources and the claws were coming out - but the "poll" you're trying to cite is a survey published by a healthcare firm and paid for literally by BlueCross BlueShield dddd: It becomes tiring a bit because the popularity of these policies haven't wavered to the point It should be commonly known. Data For Progress' poll from August 2024 shows two-thirds of American voters support a single-payer healthcare system, even when Dems have abandoned the idea. https://www.dataforprogress.org/insights/2024/8/6/democrats-should-run-on-a-progressive-economic-agenda-americans-are-ready And why denial or feigned ignorance to these policies' popularity feels like people trying to hide behind their own personal aversion to these policies. Especially if, for example, you frame the only conceding you'll do as not being willing to admit Democrats' shortcomings and choice to let poor people die. That you of course support progressive policies - a myriad of policies that are apparently already being done under our nose and by the Biden admin no less. I say this not as an attack, but to give context to why some posts by leftists may come off hostile - because it's tiring. On the other hand, I have taken 2020's lesson to remember not everyone - just many - who defend being against progressive policies are doing so because they're the rich trying to dagger the poor. Some people genuinely identify with Democrats as a cultural group, and thus trust elected Democrats when they say "we sincerely want to pass [x policy] but can't" despite the facts saying this is a lie. I am sympathetic to this view and assume you fall into the latter more than the former. If we're questioning poll citations (which we should!), Data For Progress is hardly a neutral party either. I haven't done an exhaustive search, but the first couple pages of Google didn't turn up any neutral or nonpartisan polls conducted within the past couple years. Dems claim that the focus of their platform is on achievable goals that can be implemented on Day 1, or that the current policy is indicative of the current administration is. Whatever the real reason is, if Dems really are as spineless as some leftists claim, why would they not just adopt the popular policy that would win them votes? If Kamala is running on a more moderate policy, I think the only explanations are that she either thinks that's where the current consensus is, or she doesn't want to burden herself with promises she knows she can't keep. I think that gets at my fundamental disagreement with a lot of leftists. It's easy to always claim the moral high ground when you're not tasked with actually governing, building coalitions, and improving lives. Even if Democrats only make incremental change, they're the only ones implementing positive legislation. The Biden administration passed the largest climate bill in human history, cancelled billions of dollars of student loans, and enacted the biggest gun bill in a generation. These are just facts. They also absolutely ****** up on foreign policy and weren't able to cancel all of the student debt promised. But I will gladly continue to vote for the party that makes positive, if incremental, changes. A lot of leftists are happy to let Republicans lead if it means making life terrible enough that people just might want swing further back to the left next time. But that also allows Republicans a window to give up on Ukraine, hand Netanyahu a blank check for the entire Middle East, demonize trans people, pass national abortion bans, jail election workers, and carry out mass deportations. That's a morally reprehensible outcome that leftists help enable. You really can't claim that every Democrat is responsible for poor people dying when leftists won't do much of anything beyond the comfort of their keyboard. I know you're extremely passionate about these things, and I appreciate that you have experiences in life that have driven you to take these stances beyond just wanting to "own the libs". To be honest, I hardly engage in Democratic party politics outside of election season. I'm essentially a single issue housing/transit advocate and spend most of my time in local politics in my blue bubble trying to get crosswalks and apartments built. I can't wait for this election to be over so I can go back to trying to make my community better in ways I can actually influence. 6
wastedpotential Posted October 12 Posted October 12 (edited) I very much understand the knee-jerk reaction to the bipartisan council thing (especially from girls who feel like those who represent their beliefs have been purged from the system and do not feel represented) but also there's a part of me that feels that no matter the outcome of the election, we still have to inhabit the same country as the 70-80M Trump voters, and by and large they're far better armed than anyone on the left (Glockamala aside, apparently), I don't think an attempt at an empty platitude proposal that will have basically zero impact on the functioning of the country is necessarily a bad thing. Maybe I'm getting the wrong read, but this seems like some collection of never-Trumpers that'll meet once a year for a photo-op and might send one of her advisors their thoughts on the various legislation that reaches the president's desk and literally nothing more And I know some of y'all are bracing for Steve Bannon: Secretary of State (and the optics of the way Harris is proposing this are not beneficial) but there's no way it's not gonna be like... Adam Kinzinger as VA Sec. or one of the Great Plains states centrist governors from the 2010s as the Ag Sec. and it'll just be some empty symbolic thing and they won't even be allowed to speak in the meetings Edited October 12 by wastedpotential 10
ClashAndBurn Posted October 12 Posted October 12 5 minutes ago, wastedpotential said: I very much understand the knee-jerk reaction to the bipartisan council thing (especially from girls who feel like those who represent their beliefs have been purged from the system and do not feel represented) but also there's a part of me that feels that no matter the outcome of the election, we still have to inhabit the same country as the 70-80M Trump voters, and by and large they're far better armed than anyone on the left (Glockamala aside, apparently), I don't think an attempt at an empty platitude proposal that will have basically zero impact on the functioning of the country is necessarily a bad thing. Maybe I'm getting the wrong read, but this seems like some collection of never-Trumpers that'll meet once a year for a photo-op and might send one of her advisors their thoughts on the various legislation that reaches the president's desk and literally nothing more And I know some of y'all are bracing for Steve Bannon: Secretary of State (and the optics of the way Harris is proposing this are not beneficial) but there's no way it's not gonna be like... Adam Kinzinger as VA Sec. or one of the Great Plains states centrist governors from the 2010s as the Ag Sec. and it'll just be some empty symbolic thing and they won't even be allowed to speak in the meetings If anything, I'm expecting Liz Cheney to be announced as Chief of Staff, Scaramucci as WH Comms Director and Alyssa Farah Griffin to be Press Secretary. Probably a lot more bad choices than that if she doesn't want her cabinet to be filled with impotent "acting" secretaries due to stonewalling from future Majority Leader Rick Scott. 1 3
wastedpotential Posted October 12 Posted October 12 8 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said: If anything, I'm expecting Liz Cheney to be announced as Chief of Staff, Scaramucci as WH Comms Director and Alyssa Farah Griffin to be Press Secretary. Probably a lot more bad choices than that if she doesn't want her cabinet to be filled with impotent "acting" secretaries due to stonewalling from future Majority Leader Rick Scott. You're right, she'll probably never get a cabinet through without major concessions. I guess a cabinet that's only partially Republican is marginally better than one that's entirely Republican
ClashAndBurn Posted October 12 Posted October 12 4 minutes ago, wastedpotential said: You're right, she'll probably never get a cabinet through without major concessions. I guess a cabinet that's only partially Republican is marginally better than one that's entirely Republican Which is why conceding a month before the election is kind of nonsense. It kind of feels like, yeah, they know the future of the Senate is already baked in and they're selling it like "Oh, we're planning on having a Republican SOMEWHERE in the cabinet" when… likely, there might be a lot fewer Democrats that could even get a confirmation hearing at all. If any. My most charitable interpretation is that… I guess they're hoping it softens the blow when, inevitably, there's going to be so many Republicans in the cabinet that Trump might as well be getting elected anyway.
woohoo Posted October 12 Posted October 12 Honestly this country is getting no where. Short of a miracle, the senate is gone. And if Rick Scott is majority leader there's no point in Kamala even winning. Every thing she does from judges to policy to cabinet is getting blocked. 2 1
ATRL Moderator Bloo Posted October 12 ATRL Moderator Posted October 12 6 hours ago, DevilsRollTheDice said: You're making up things and pulling an article about European elections. Once again, the American presidential race is decided by swing state voters. This is a remarkably small amount of people, especially when you consider that the majority of voters are already decided and won't change their minds. European elections are fundamentally different. It is this specific group of voters Dems must win. You're comparing apples and oranges to try and land a point that doesn't work in this context. I'm not pretending to be the ultimate authority on this, but I can link articles, too. You have no more scientific basis for your claim than I do. I do have more basis for my claims. First, the fact is Kamala’s polling numbers are going down right as she’s pivoting hardcore to the right. That’s a pretty clear signal that that is a losing strategy. Secondly, the European example is a solid parallel to political patterns in the US. And, yes, swing state voters win the election. But I don’t see how that somehow discredits how people respond to lame political messaging.
shelven Posted October 12 Posted October 12 In addition to what others have already covered in here, the "bipartisan council" is really frustrating and demoralizing because like... why do Republicans get to completely laugh off the idea of bipartisanship while Democrats have convinced themselves that they'll lose in a blowout unless they constantly declare their respect and admiration for a party that vocally wants nothing to do with them? Trump has been the most anti-bipartisan presidential candidate in decades (maybe literally ever? ) and yet he's received over 46% of the vote in two elections in a row. When you add on all the Democratic voters who also don't want bipartisanship and are voting Democratic in spite of their appeals to bipartisanship and not because of them, it becomes incredibly difficult to make the claim that "most Americans want bipartisan leaders." I've made it clear that I personally subscribe to the harm reduction principle in elections, but I can totally understand why a lot of left-leaning voters feel so demoralized that they can't even bring themselves to vote for harm reduction. It really is a huge slap in the face to watch the other side celebrate how much they love pissing off your side, while your side keeps trying to beg the other side to love them instead of just focusing on what their own core voters actually want. 1 4
Thuggin Posted October 12 Posted October 12 I don't like it, but what's done is done. This is the path Kamala's chosen to pursue. So this pivot right better at least WORK. Like if they're so confident that appeals to moderate Republicans / right leaning independents who are just so eager to vote for Kamala provided she can offer a few concessions will put her over the edge, we better see it play out in the polls. Otherwise it seems like an awful strategy to depress the Democratic base, particularly young voters who didn't show up for Hillary but won Biden the White House last time, just a month before the election. And btw before anyone gets up in arms, this is coming from someone who is voting for Kamala anyway 5 1
Thuggin Posted October 12 Posted October 12 4 minutes ago, shelven said: In addition to what others have already covered in here, the "bipartisan council" is really frustrating and demoralizing because like... why do Republicans get to completely laugh off the idea of bipartisanship while Democrats have convinced themselves that they'll lose in a blowout unless they constantly declare their respect and admiration for a party that vocally wants nothing to do with them? Trump has been the most anti-bipartisan presidential candidate in decades (maybe literally ever? ) and yet he's received over 46% of the vote in two elections in a row. When you add on all the Democratic voters who also don't want bipartisanship and are voting Democratic in spite of their appeals to bipartisanship and not because of them, it becomes incredibly difficult to make the claim that "most Americans want bipartisan leaders." I've made it clear that I personally subscribe to the harm reduction principle in elections, but I can totally understand why a lot of left-leaning voters feel so demoralized that they can't even bring themselves to vote for harm reduction. It really is a huge slap in the face to watch the other side celebrate how much they love pissing off your side, while your side keeps trying to beg the other side to love them instead of just focusing on what their own core voters actually want. Democrats: "We were able to pass this bipartisan law thanks to our good friends across the aisle!" (even if only a handful of Republicans voted for it) Republicans: "The evil leftist Marxist Democrats wants to destroy the country and they all need to be deported or imprisoned!" The Democratic Party is so cucked They keep telling everyone that Republicans are good, competent leaders while Republicans only trash Democrats, so why wouldn't voters vote for Republicans? 5 1
ClashAndBurn Posted October 12 Posted October 12 3 minutes ago, Thuggin said: I don't like it, but what's done is done. This is the path Kamala's chosen to pursue. So this pivot right better at least WORK. Like if they're so confident that appeals to moderate Republicans / right leaning independents who are just so eager to vote for Kamala provided she can offer a few concessions will put her over the edge, we better see it play out in the polls. Otherwise it seems like an awful strategy to depress the Democratic base, particularly young voters who didn't show up for Hillary but won Biden the White House last time, just a month before the election. And btw before anyone gets up in arms, this is coming from someone who is voting for Kamala anyway The pessimist in me wants to say that it's designed to not work at all, but give the Dems a way to scapegoat the left for their loss and not face accountability for the choices their establishment has been making for the past few years, going all the way back to Joe Biden's mindnumbingly stupid decision to try to run again heading off any hope for a competitive, meaningful primary. He locked us into a running-mate who was specifically chosen to fail at overshadowing and succeeding him. Their relationship had been publicly frosty for the last five years since she called him a segregationist on the debate stage and now we're supposed to believe they've been besties and good faith partners this whole time? Please. He literally set her up to fail by putting her in charge of "the border crisis," so… 1
GhostBox Posted October 12 Posted October 12 (edited) 35 minutes ago, woohoo said: Honestly this country is getting no where. Short of a miracle, the senate is gone. And if Rick Scott is majority leader there's no point in Kamala even winning. Every thing she does from judges to policy to cabinet is getting blocked. Um yes there's many points as to why her winning is important even if the gop controls the senate. In fact it's even more important 💀 Edited October 12 by GhostBox
ClashAndBurn Posted October 12 Posted October 12 36 minutes ago, GhostBox said: Um yes there's many points as to why her winning is important even if the gop controls the senate. In fact it's even more important 💀 The Senate going to Republicans will be indicative of where the country goes with the next Presidential election, just like how Dems losing it in 2014 should have been seen as a harbinger of Trump's impending victory. Kamala will very likely be an extremely unsuccessful one-term president and Project 2025 will just become Project 2029. There is no future in which the temperature "cools down" no matter how hard Democrats pray for it. The country will be even more divided under Kamala than it was under Biden. I also fully expect the next Republican president to be far worse than Trump. But because Democrats have focused all of their energy on exclusively hating Trump, the "most important election of our lifetimes" rhetoric won't land as well. 1 1 2
GhostBox Posted October 12 Posted October 12 (edited) 37 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said: The Senate going to Republicans will be indicative of where the country goes with the next Presidential election, just like how Dems losing it in 2014 should have been seen as a harbinger of Trump's impending victory. Kamala will very likely be an extremely unsuccessful one-term president and Project 2025 will just become Project 2029. There is no future in which the temperature "cools down" no matter how hard Democrats pray for it. The country will be even more divided under Kamala than it was under Biden. I also fully expect the next Republican president to be far worse than Trump. But because Democrats have focused all of their energy on exclusively hating Trump, the "most important election of our lifetimes" rhetoric won't land as well. Listen I get what you are saying (and I sorta agree), but just because something bad might happen in the future anyway doesn't mean you should give up and make/let it happen now 💀 Edited October 12 by GhostBox 2
Raspberries Posted October 12 Posted October 12 I don't see the point of that Detroit ad. Detroit is already 95% Kamala country and Michigan residents outside of Detroit will agree with Trump She needs to target those suburban women 1 1
RihRihGirrrl Posted October 12 Posted October 12 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Raspberries said: I don't see the point of that Detroit ad. Detroit is already 95% Kamala country and Michigan residents outside of Detroit will agree with Trump She needs to target those suburban women Trump is trying to lesson the amount he looses by in big cities to give himself a better shot at winning in the swing states....it's why he was campaigning in Detroit. The ad could help to blunt any potential ground he could make in Detroit. She's been targeting suburban women heavy with ads around Abortion. Edited October 12 by RihRihGirrrl
midnightdawn Posted October 12 Posted October 12 (edited) Just six of 12 Pennsylvania swing voters who backed Donald Trump in 2016 but switched to Joe Biden in 2020 said they're all-in for Vice President Kamala Harris in our latest Engagious/Sago focus group. Two others said they're going back to Trump, while the remaining four lean toward Harris but reserve the right to change their minds, as they grapple with uncertainty or mixed emotion. "The idea that this close out, four Biden voters the last time around are not locked in for Harris is a sign of vulnerability," said Engagious president Rich Thau, who moderated the focus groups. "That only half of them are locked in for Harris, that to me is consequential," Thau said. "It's not apathy. These are folks that will vote. The question is, for whom?" The online panels, conducted Tuesday night, were comprised of four Republicans, three Democrats and five independents. While a focus group is not a statistically significant sample like a poll, the responses show how some voters are thinking and talking about current events. One undecided who leans toward Harris had a vote-splitting approach. If Democrats are poised to lose control of the Senate, keeping a Democrat in the White House could provide a political counterbalance. While the Harris campaign has deployed Republican surrogates including former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) to try to win over swing voters, just one of the undecided or Trump-leaning voters in this week's focus group viewed Cheney's recent endorsement of Harris favorably. At the same time, 8 in 12 saw Democrats' argument that this presidential election is the most consequential of their lifetimes as an exaggeration. "Many of these Pennsylvania swing voters have grown skeptical of end-of-democracy warnings, and now suffer from 'Most-Consequential-Election Fatigue,'" Thau said. Between the lines: Conspiracy theories continue to shape some voters' mindsets. Trump was targeted in two apparent assassination attempts this year — one in Butler, Pa., as well as another at his golf course in West Palm Beach, Fla. Despite no evidence, five say they think it's possible Trump staged the attempt. https://www.axios.com/2024/10/11/pennsylvania-swing-voters-2024-harris-trump Edited October 12 by midnightdawn 3 1
Recommended Posts