You're viewing a single thread.
The biggest hot-topic issue this election should have been abortion (and by extension, SCOTUS). But the discussion got side-tracked by all this talk of old age. The debate just reinforced the narrative and concern with Biden. They would have hammered him over and over, with Trump bragging about how quickly he recovered from an injury.
Now, we have:
- A sittingVP with actual Whitehouse experience, who can take credit for all the economic policies under Biden. Also, a former Senator.
- A prosecutor and former Attorney General vs a convicted felon.
- The age issue disappears (in fact, it now becomes a liability against Trump).
- A woman vs the guy who bragged about killing Roe v. Wade.
- Future of SCOTUS.
If she just keeps talking about those topics non-stop, she'll do fine.
The only thing better would have been if Biden had resigned to let people see her in the actual role, but this works. She picks a mid-westerner as VP who can stand up to Vance and it's a whole new ballgame.
I'm actually stoked about this race again.
Unfortunately we also have:
- A non-white candidate
- A non-male candidate
- A very sexist and racist electorate, who basically voted Trump in because they were so upset by the election of Barack Hussein Obama
It remains to be seen if the racists and sexists will prevail.
Having said that, this might energize women who are on the fence and want to see the first female president. It might energize black voters. It will almost certainly energize Indian voters, possibly even all South-Asian voters. It will definitely energize voters who were worried about the age of the candidates. And now, suddenly, Trump has to go on the defensive about his age.
As long as all the democrats fall in line and push for Kamala, it might go really well. If Hillary Clinton goes out and works for Kamala, it could energize the people who are still angry about her loss, and can now channel that into the new option for a first female president. If Biden campaigns for her, it could reassure all the people who just wanted some stability.
OTOH, if there is infighting, and people trying to take her down so that they can become the nominee, then that could be trouble too.
The racists, as OP mentioned, would have voted for Trump regardless. The Dems need to convince the moderate, undecided voters
Not at all. The Nazis would have voted for Trump regardless. But, there are a lot of biased people out there who wouldn't even think of themselves as racist or sexist, they'll just "have doubts".
Unconscious bias is a major issue.
Anybody right now who is undecided is not moderate. The moderates are all already voting against Trump. Anybody undecided is either a very-low-information voter, who mostly gets their news from TikTok or conspiracy forums, or they're a very right-wing voter who hates the democrats with a passion, but are having trouble getting over their dislike of Trump too.
I don't disagree with you, but let's not forget apathetic voters... people that were just disenchanted with both of the old guys and wouldn't vote for either.
Surely Kamala will get some traction with women.
Definitely, I just wonder how that will compare with the sexist vote (both men and women (but mostly men)).
If they chose to vote, sure. Plenty of them that would have stayed home are now going to be highly motivated.
How many people, realistically, would vote for a white male Democrat but NOT a non-white female?
People are talking about this, but I don't know who this voter is. The hard line racists and sexists were not moderates, they're all already Republican.
There are far more democrats that were against Biden because of his age than would be against Harris as a woman. This is a net gain. Fuck the people who won't vote for her along gender or racial lines. I don't want to try and appease them.
Give people something to vote FOR rather than vote against.
How many people, realistically, would vote for a white male Democrat but NOT a non-white female?
Far too many. It doesn't mean they're going to admit, even to themselves, that the reason they're making that choice is that they hate women. But, unconscious bias is a helluva thing.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/hidden-sexism/
Fuck the people who won’t vote for her along gender or racial lines. I don’t want to try and appease them.
Would you rather appease them and win, or not appease them and lose?
Would you rather appease them and win, or not appease them and lose?
Sacrificing your values to win is no true victory.
Here's the way I see it:
If you're right and there are too many closet racists/sexists for a black woman to win, and we run her anyway, then we lose. If we don't run her in order to appease the racists and we "win" we've actually still lost because we sacrificed a core value. That sacrifice will haunt the Democrats as the decay that was already happening will accelerate.
It's the same cowardice that has plagued the Democrats for decades. Choosing appeasement for political convenience over and over, each time removing a section of their spines until there's none of it left. Do not let fear control you.
Sacrificing your values to win is no true victory.
Holding on to your values without compromise and losing is no true victory either. In fact, it's true defeat.
Is a tainted victory better than a complete loss? I'd argue it is, especially in this case where a loss might mean permanent damage to the institutions of the country by a fascist.
Maybe you'd prefer to hold your head up high while you're being trucked off to a re-education camp. I just don't want re-education camps to exist.
Appeasing them is dangerous. I see this line of thinking a lot, but it has never led the dems to victory and it has repeatedly compromised our own values and degraded trust in the party. We cannot and should not cater to the worst people in the room at the expense of our own morals. It is wrong, but it is also a losing strategy.
Right... We become beholden to the laggards of social progress because we think we can't win without them, and we alienate and stagnate the progress of those doing the most.
Appeasing them could be dangerous depending on how it's done, and to what extent. But, what if the appeasement is merely choosing a man for her VP? Maybe that's all it will take.
We cannot and should not cater to the worst people in the room
The worst people in the room are voting for Trump. This is catering to people in the room who are on the fence and might need a nudge. You can stick to your principles and ignore them, or you can consider their opinions. Ignoring them might mean losing the presidential race. And if you lose, then the purity of your agenda and message is meaningless because the other side wins. And, in this election, the other side winning might mean permanent damage to the whole democratic process.
I think you skipped part of the argument. I'm sure those people exist, but what about the number of disengaged voters who were over Joe Biden or disagreed with him on various issues? I think the number of votes lost because of race or gender is not 0, but the gains through reinvigoration are far, far higher.
I think the number of votes lost because of race or gender is not 0, but the gains through reinvigoration are far, far higher.
We don't know, that's what makes this scary. I'm more pessimistic. IMO the whole reason Trump got elected in the first place was backlash over the first black president. I think the US is a lot more sexist and racist than people want to admit. Even people who don't think they're racist or sexist will still show huge cognitive biases in an unconscious bias test. So, they're not going to say "I'm not voting for Kamala because she's a non-white woman", they'll say "I'm not voting for her because she's underqualified" or "I don't like her record as a prosecutor" or "she doesn't seem like someone I'd want to have a beer with".
I see your points here. I don't think they are wrong, but I have a different opinion on Trump's election.
I think the onset of social media created a real shit storm of misinformation particularly during the Obama years. I don't think it was backlash because he was black (though I admit this is not knowable, just my opinion), but more because of the overall grievance with how things operate.
You can't really separate race out of the equation, because I think Democrats had good messaging showing the effects of institutional racism and sexism against minority groups, particularly at a systemic level. However, there was a massive concentration of wealth in America at the same time.
Trumo came along and his message wasn't really that novel. He just said hey, this shit sucks for everyone, not just minorities. White people are getting screwed too. And I'm the guy that's going to fight for the rural voter.
I take your point that it's not outright racism. It's not someone saying I'm not voting for this person solely because they are X, it's some end around way of going about it. But I think Trump played the White Greivance card and I think Democrats are getting a little better at leaning into it. The unfortunate truth is that both things are totally true. White people are getting screwed (concentration of wealth to hover levels) AND minorities groups are getting screwed (because of systematic racist effects that are still residual in daily life for them).
As I'm talking this out, I'm not sure where to land. There's multiple pieces here that intersect with race, but I'm not sure they are the core tenant. I think there might be some voters who realize that everyone is getting screwed, but maybe worry that Harris would prioritize racial issues before overall everyone getting boned issues. Maybe that's the group?
Didn't come to a great conclusion, but your comment had some layers to it so it got me thinking.
but more because of the overall grievance with how things operate.
I think this was the excuse, but the real reason was that Obama was black.
[Trump] came along and his message wasn’t really that novel. He just said hey, this shit sucks for everyone, not just minorities. White people are getting screwed too. And I’m the guy that’s going to fight for the rural voter.
Trump came along and said "show us your birth certificate!" He was the original birther, which was clearly a racist conspiracy theory.
"I want him to show his birth certificate. There is something on that birth certificate that he doesn’t like," he said in an appearance on ABC's "The View." On "Fox & Friends," Trump insisted Obama spent "millions of dollars in legal fees trying to get away from this issue," and floated the idea on Bill O'Reilly's show that the certificate could say the president is a Muslim.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-perpetuated-birther-movement-years/story?id=42138176
This is 2011. This was 5 years before he became president. He wasn't even running for president yet. He didn't run in the 2012 presidential election. His main focus was questioning whether Obama was actually American, and whether he was a secret muslim. In other words, he was already the focal point for all the racists in the country who hated having a black president.
The funny thing is, although Trump is clearly a racist, and has been a racist all his life (see the Central Park 5 stuff as one tiny example), IMO he really threw his energy into the project because he was upset at Obama making fun of him at the White House correspondents dinner. Of course, that's also tied in with racism. It's not just that someone made fun of him, it's that a black man made fun of him.
Sure, by the time he actually officially started running for president in 2015, he had a list of other grievances, and they weren't all overtly racist. But, his entry into national politics in 2011 was essentially focused on racism against Obama. That's where people first started noticing him.
These are great points. I'll have to think on this a bit further - thanks for the info!
There are definitely SOME very center democrats or even centerish republicans who will have reservations about Harris for her categories.
It's not your job to appease them but it's important we get their votes.
Personally I think those votes will be safe regardless, as trimp is just that repugnant.
Both a black guy and a woman have won the popular vote before.
That's nice.
Don't also forget the liability Biden had with Arab-Americans over Gaza. Kamala is not Commander-in-Chief, so even though she's part of the administration she carries none of that baggage.
Can't wait to see what the disinformation brigade cooks up for Lemmy now that they can't keep complaining about Gaza.
I get the issue over Gaza, and I guess that could make some people stay home. But, can anybody honestly think that the guy whose signature policy was a ban on muslims entering the US was going to be better on Gaza than Biden?
Anyhow, you're right that a change in leader offers an opportunity for a new policy on Gaza. I'm sure Netanyahu will redouble his efforts to get Trump elected. OTOH, I'm not convinced Kamala will necessarily be any better than Biden. The US has been backing Israel for decades, vetoing any UN security council resolution that touches Israel, etc. I'd love it if Harris cut ties to Israel, but I can't see it happening.
Oh, of course U.S. policy at large won't change. It hasn't for decades. The difference here, for the election at least, is that Kamala doesn't have to balance words vs actions. Biden and Trump have both lost Arab-Americans. Kamala doesn't have that challenge.
I think the massive majority of Biden voters will take any democrat over trump,.and we also have the opportunity to shed some of the "sins" of the Biden admin, in the sense that Harris can say "i saw how it was first hand, but here's how I'd change it if I were in charge."
The only thing better would have been if Biden had resigned to let people see her in the actual role, but this works.
I used to be an advocate for this, until I realized that in this political environment, whoever President Harris picks for VP would need both House and Senate approval, and this House will take a page from Mitch's book and simply not bother. So you would have your first female and mixed-race President, in a country full of armed bigots, and if they get to her, Mike Johnson becomes President and can start Project 2025 early.
Fortunately she could just order his assassination, call it an official act (“he was obstructing the confirmation of my vice president”), and get off scot-free.
Yes I realize this would never work because
- Harris would never do that, and democrats would never allow it, and
- the Supreme Court would immediately rule this is not an official act for “reasons”.
I wonder if there's political wrangling available for them to just swap lol. Technically each are already confirmed by Congress.
Could we tap Liz Cheney to be our Vance wrangler?
Not a candidate, no, KH will still need a VP.
I just mean a wrangler. Someone who’s sole purpose is to disrupt JD Vance anyway possible…
Maybe she could:
- Follow JD around, constantly whispering that she’s going to grab him by his pussy
- Send him noose shaped flowers and cakes to decorate his new office
- Pay Clint Howard to randomly walk by Vance every day & accuse him of ruining his brother’s directing career
- Leave a conspicuous trail of classified documents behind him
- Lewdly suggest she would have her relations with her attractive child, on camera
- Smear fecal matter on his desk & let Pelosi call of his efforts a bowl of poopoo
- Constantly make contact & remind JD who her father is.
I think Liz Cheney would be awesome at all of these things. As long as we don’t “elect” her, what could go wrong?
As entertaining as the Cheney vs Vance debate would be, she voted an awful lot to support Trump policies. Guessing she's happy to wait for the Trump collapse, then offer herself up as a return to a more traditional GOP.
That’s a really intelligent point… much more intelligent than mine…
Guess all this craziness has left me with the heebie-jeebies.
I’d want Sherrod Brown as the vp if we wouldn’t lose a dem in the senate for it. It would be hilarious if both vp picks were both sitting senators from Ohio. And he’d actually be perfect for her.
I would love for Kamala Harris to be more charismatic and less ineffectual than she currently is, I'll vote for whoever is not Trump. Now is the perfect opportunity to reinvigorate the campaign and turn everything upside down, but I'm not optimistic. They'll probably trot out Hillary Clinton again if it's not Harris, and it'll be a replay of 2016.
Now you have someone who has not been seen since she was elected VP with no time at all to prepare her for a presedential run. You will get Trump again because the dems are so fucking stupid and stabbed Biden in the back this late.
You think she hasn't been preparing for 2028?
She hasnt been doing anything since becoming VP. Biden could have had a sack of rice as VP and the result would be the same.
That's how most VPs act.
Biden and Pence still had public showing and were talked about sometimes. Harris was completely invisible. And most dont randomly jump in less than 4 month before the election.
Ah cool she actually did do something. Just that none of it really got traction or would convince anyone to vote for her. 4 months just isnt enough to build up a candidate best known for shitty prosecution work
Other countries are out here doing it in weeks. If we can't do this in 4 months then we deserve Trump.
Wasn't there at least one major news cycle shitting on Harris for going to foreign countries to address migrants and telling them we can't handle the amount coming in right now? Pretty sure that was super visible.... Unless we're in double standards world now and you're just talking out of your ass.
Oh cool, so she hates immigrants as much as Trump then. That will make more people who dislike Trump want to vote for her. Have fun living in project 2025.
Ehhh, it was during the pandemic when the border was closed for stupid reasons but she actually went out and tried to get people to stop coming so that they wouldn't create more of a health crisis in overcrowded areas.
And then got shit on it by the group that put the border closure in effect. And has since changed her tune once the closure was no longer in effect.Just literally doing VP stuff that was deemed necessary at the time which she got a lot of visibility for, which you seem to have clearly ignored or missed. Also love that you had nothing to say to the other response with 5 clear examples, but came to shit on the one with 1.
Missed the other one. Kamala Harris hates black people even though she is black. So it wasnt too far off to believe she hates immigrants as well. Putting someone as a presedential candidate who knowingly put innocent people in prison is just disgusting. The dems managed to get an even worse candidate. The only good thing now is that a Trump win, while still terrible, is now easier to digest since the alternative, while still better, is just as much of a psycho as he is.
nothing got sidetracked it just was never dealt with or talked about in a meaningful discussion or in any way in the last fifty years of Biden's career
just like the minimum wage is not enough to cover the astronomical costs of food and housing and was not even brought up during the debate
yes lets support a prosecutor that represents the police who want their boots shined with our tongues
Propose someone else who can win.
I know there's a whole chorus of lemmings who cannot fathom uttering anything but criticism, but maybe if you tried you could have an actual idea of your own?
Pro-choice is poison at the General election. It does well as a ballot initiative, but the reality is that very few pro-choice moderates and right-leaning people will change their vote over the issue, whereas pro-lifers are far and away the strongest single-issue voting group.
If Harris and Trump were identical in every way except their stance on abortion, how many Dem voters would flip for Trump in order to vote pro-choice? Would you?
Because millions of people who are otherwise liberal-leaning vote based on their pro-lifer position.
The biggest reason Dems got a Roe boost in 2022 was pro-lifer voters who didn't feel the need to vote Republican because they'd won and could focus on other issues. But running a campaign based on restoring Roe undoes that bump.
That's not what the data tells us. If that was the case the abortion referendums would have failed while Democrats got a push. But they didn't. They consistently succeeded in even the reddest areas. Abortion protections gets people out to vote.
Abortion refferendums are easy.
A pro-choice gun nut won't vote Democrat because he cares more about guns than the right to choose. But when you put it as a ballot initiative he doesn't have to weigh it against anything else.
The thing about single-issue voters is that they can swing elections even though they're a minority. The GOP has survived for decades by embracing the pro-life and pro-gun voters. These are massive groups with voters on one side who will base the entirety of their vote on the issue, while the other side of the debate doesn't.
The GOP has survived for decades because we vote for land, not people. They consistently hold majorities in government with a minority of the population.
2022 should have been a red wave, but wasn't. There are proposals to make draconian anti-abortion laws national and override state protections.
I wouldn't underestimate its power to reengage voters, especially the youth vote.