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.
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.
why we’re assuming that she picks up more votes than she loses by making a pivot on Israel
Because thats what the data have to say. That’s why we think that.
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,
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.
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.
It doesn’t even have to be that! She can just make a vague statement about considering conditioning arms sales.
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.
Because thats what the data have to say. That’s why we think that.
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.
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 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.
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.
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. =)
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.
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.
It doesn’t even have to be that! She can just make a vague statement about considering conditioning arms sales.
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.
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.
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.
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. =)
Removed by mod
Thank you.
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.
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.