Pyrrhic victories are meaningless. In the end, who actually followed through with change?
Obama himself, the first black President, sympathized with you that change never seems to come quickly enough. Partly because people like Trump are so damaging and disruptive to progress. In their absence, we'd be far more free to advance more quickly. Alas, that's just dreaming.
So in the end, it was those liberals in Congress who passed the monumental change. And without question, MLK had more allies among them than he did the Confederate successors in the KKK, obviously.
In the end, some change is better than no change is better than regression through entropy.
I'd argue that driving up the support for Harris in the popular vote is critical. If Trump wins Electorally, it's still rhetorically important to stifle the notion of a mandate by not letting him get 50%.
Blue states have fallen in the past or can shift purple if the line isn't held.
That said, I'm glad you're not in a swing state at least.
Reminder that it was Biden who just recently issued a forceful formal apology to the indigenous people of America. GOP didn't it. Trump mocked it by having a rally on their sacred grounds no less.
I'm glad you're willing to throw that all away, but you're also throwing it away for my family, too... So thanks, I guess...?
And for what? To get Trump elected? You do understand mathematically you're supporting Trump's chances, correct?
Let's also not forget that if Harris is complicit in genocide in Gaza, then you're not voting for Harris means you condone and are complicit on Russia's genocide in Ukraine.
Respectfully, what you wrote doesn't change the binary choice at play:
Trump or Harris will become President no matter what you do.
You could at least help my daughter, my mother, my sister by ensuring the one who supports women's rights gets elected? Who supports LGBTQ+? Who supports climate change initiatives? That's even pretending Harris is equally bad on Gaza or that things couldn't obviously get worse for Palestinians.
I agree but it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.
They're trying to negotiate a ceasefire; they're trying to get aid into Gaza.
The problem with withholding large amounts of aid is the antisemitic attack ads will have more bite, AIPAC as the most powerful lobbyist will go crazy, and there's a non-zero chance Bibi stages a false flag attack to paint Democrats as leaving them defenseless.
The most substantive quote you have is a blatant editorializing by Zateo of the YouGov data. Nowhere does the polling datasay "withholding all aid." Conditioning Aid != Withholding Aid, which implies all aid. If we're going down this path, then Biden has already withheld some aid to Israel. And when he did, there was a massive backlash.
Moreover all of these studies are many months old and thus subject to drastic changes since the likes of May. Moreover they don't factor in the blow-back effect of withholding aid and the risk of there being a false flag on Israeli soil and how that would be portrayed against Democrats. Moreover it does not reflect the attack ads that would be used in battleground states with further bite by the GOP if Harris/Biden did this.
Biden and Harris have repeatedly sought a permanent ceasefire solution; Trump by contrast reached out to Bibi to undermine said ceasefire negotiation. Both sides obviously deny this call because it would be blatantly illegal and undermining in public optics, but we know this is par for the course for both of them. It is in the interest of both Trump and Bibi to deny the ceasefire in order to make Biden/Harris look bad through the election.
I think it's kind of strange people think Harris wants to be associated with this Genocide. If it were that black-and-white, she clearly would've taken a harder position.
But if she does, then the larger Israeli-sympathetic Jewish voting bloc in PA that dwarfs the Muslim vote in Michigan (with less Electoral votes, mind you) gets jeopardized. If she doesn't toe the line, she loses, Trump wins, and Gazans are definitely fucked.
Like it's completely obvious why she has to have this position, lest she's immediately cast as antisemitic.
I think you're giving Trump far too much credit that he was dancing on stage because he had nothing to do and coasting to victory and that wasn't just an obvious sign of dementia. Let's be honest, here, the polls have been pretty much tied and within the margin of error this entire time. So I find this to be a bit speculative and expecting more than Trump than he is really capable of.
I'm nowhere saying this is a shoe-in. I am just explicitly responding and providing context to, "republican voting is up in places it matters"
I also disagree that she campaigned poorly. I think she campaigned exceptionally given the time she had and the needle she needed to thread with both distancing from Biden but also citing that the economy is, in fact, improving phenomenally on the world stage and post pandemic. To pick up the mantle in three months and run as well as she had? The Democrats have honestly not been this united since 2008 maybe, and that speaks to the fact that she brought onboard 5 veteran Obama campaign staffers. Regardless of the outcome, this has been historic.
Sounds like your main gripe is really her policy on Gaza, which unfortunately during election season you need to get the votes needed to cross the finish-line... Which means catering to the Jewish votes in Pennsylvania perhaps more so than the Uncommitted voters in Michigan by the nature of electoral votes. You saw that Elon Musk is spending millions in PA with attack ads with opposite messages targeting BOTH the (larger) Jewish community and the Muslim community in PA — yes? She literally has no choice but to toe the line between these two groups.
Moreover, I want to know at what specific point in time in polling anyone had confidence we were heading for a blue wave when polls are all we know?
The Iowa poll which has been dead-on in terms of gauging turnout in 2016 and 2020 compared to nearly any other pollster just gave Harris a +3 in Iowa. A +3 in Iowa. Keep that in mind.
If we're going to go into more speculation as you're suggesting we do, then I can point to 2022 and show that the Red Wave turned into a Red Mirage. Why? Simply: Pollsters did not account for the over-performance of Democrats post-Roe Reversal. Polling volatility given registration numbers and cross-over from Republicans is very volatile right now. It is entirely possible we see that same over-performance again, and thus a red wave turns into a blue mist, wave, or tsunami even given that Platinum-tier Iowa poll. Don't forget 538 had 59:41 odds of GOP getting the Senate.
In the end who knows and I'll hope for the best and expect the worst. But given the circumstances I think the Harris campaign has done great. I don't think we as laypeople could do better. Easy to throw peanuts from the sidelines.
You're going to see more registered Republicans crossing over to vote for Harris than perhaps any Democrat has previously received.
More are voting early, but that's to be expected given Trump learned from the 2020 mistake of dissuading his voters from early voting. It doesn't mean greater turnout; it just means the same voters Trump had before are voting earlier.
Reassurance is women are out-voting men by 10pts in early voting.
Fully 35% of black voters say they plan to vote on election day alone.
538 gave 59% odda GOP to take the Senate in 2022.
Not only do these polls have a margin of error, but they are only predictive insofar as their likely voter models are accurate, and registration volatility and GOP crossover support for Harris means they likely aren't.
There is no evidence that the low propensity incel bro vote is churning out as hoped.
lennybird @ lennybird @lemmy.world Posts 6Comments 2,547Joined 2 yr. ago
Good rules. Good moderation, thanks.