This is stupid. How about you make a play for disenchanted progressives who actually could be convinced to vote for you? Republicans are not going to vote for Harris in any great numbers. The evidence is in the fact that every republican who has come out to support Harris is retired from politic life either by choice or by having been voted out by the rabid faction that makes up the vast bulk of the republican base. Republican voters make up about 30% of eligible voters and democrats make up another ~30%. How about you go after the 40% that sit between the two groups by making it worth their while to get off the couch and go vote?
The thing is progressive policy gets the votes Harris is chasing here too
When Obama flipped red ststaes in 08 it wasn’t because progressives turned out, because progressives always turn out.
He flipped red states by flipping moderate voters with progressive policy.
While moderates have favored the Democratic candidate in each of the past five elections, Barack Obama gained the support of more voters in the ideological “middle” than did either John Kerry or Al Gore before him. He won at least half the votes of independents (52% vs. 49% for Kerry), suburban voters (50% vs. 47% for Kerry), Catholics (54% vs. 47% for Kerry), and other key swing groups in the electorate.
The thing is progressive policy gets the votes Harris is chasing here too
He flipped red states by flipping moderate voters with progressive policy.
I suspect this worked in part because he tailored his policy and his messaging in the battleground states, specifically so his policy would appeal to the swing voters there. (Another part is that progressive policy is just that good, naturally.)
So this may work again for Harris, but the messaging has to be done in a tailored way.
Even if we lose some votes, progressive policy is a net gain.
That’s the fear - that an untailored, or badly or wrongly tailored, policy might cause more damage - a net loss of votes in the battleground states overall, where we can’t really afford that loss.
They don’t honestly need that butter. They need to wake up and realize that there are enough small dollar donors out there to make up for any big dollar donors they lose. Look at how much Bernie Sanders raked in from small donors by courting progressives.
They don’t want to have to put in the work. They want that easy money. DC is like a fucking casino and nobody wants the money-train to end.
Actually standing up for constituents takes the real work of politics. Just shrugging and doing whatever Bezos told you for a cool half a mill is so much easier.
Half the time legislation is literally actually written by lobbyists, not legislators. They don’t even have to write the bill! The work is done for them! Voters, on the other hand, will expect results!
Oh, you sweet summer child. They are so very much cheaper than that. Most of the pols in DC can be bought for tens of thousands or even just thousands of dollars. No need to get into six figures.
The evidence is in the fact that every republican who has come out to support Harris is retired from politic life either by choice or by having been voted out by the rabid faction that makes up the vast bulk of the republican base.
Your evidence shows that Republicans whose careers no longer depend on Trump are the ones who can be convinced to turn on him. The same is true of many (formerly) Republican voters.
Progressives who dont vote for Harris are even dumber than Republicans. Not sure if talking to them would help since they would need to stop focussing on breathing just to listen to you.
There are plenty of people in the area between the two extremes who support progressive policies, while not considering themselves progressives, but are not sufficiently motivated to bother voting because neither candidate is explicitly supporting those policies. Those are the votes that are available. Those are the people she should be convincing, not low hanging republican fruit.
Well, it’s not this straightforward. I’m not sure where you got your numbers and percentages from, but working on the assumption that they are correct:
It also matters where the votes come from. If the remaining 40% is all clustered in California and New York, and they all are convinced to go out and vote, and also vote blue, that doesn’t have an effect on the outcome.
Also, look at the small margins that Biden won on the swing states according to https://www.npr.org/2020/12/02/940689086/narrow-wins-in-these-key-states-powered-biden-to-the-presidency. So what this could mean, assuming that the 4% holds generally, is that the 4% difference cause by split ticket voting is greater than the margin that Biden won in those swing states. So without winning those folks - those moderate Republicans - over, the Dems lose the Electoral College and thus the Presidency.
This is stupid. How about you make a play for disenchanted progressives who actually could be convinced to vote for you? Republicans are not going to vote for Harris in any great numbers. The evidence is in the fact that every republican who has come out to support Harris is retired from politic life either by choice or by having been voted out by the rabid faction that makes up the vast bulk of the republican base. Republican voters make up about 30% of eligible voters and democrats make up another ~30%. How about you go after the 40% that sit between the two groups by making it worth their while to get off the couch and go vote?
The thing is progressive policy gets the votes Harris is chasing here too
When Obama flipped red ststaes in 08 it wasn’t because progressives turned out, because progressives always turn out.
He flipped red states by flipping moderate voters with progressive policy.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2008/11/05/inside-obamas-sweeping-victory/
And that’s even with the PUMA movement Clinton’s campaign started to get Dems to vote for Kerry.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_United_Means_Action
Even if we lose some votes, progressive policy is a net gain.
Do they? I thought they were one of the more unreliable demographics.
Nope, feel free to luck up any exit polling
President Bernie Sanders tends to agree with you.
I suspect this worked in part because he tailored his policy and his messaging in the battleground states, specifically so his policy would appeal to the swing voters there. (Another part is that progressive policy is just that good, naturally.)
So this may work again for Harris, but the messaging has to be done in a tailored way.
That’s the fear - that an untailored, or badly or wrongly tailored, policy might cause more damage - a net loss of votes in the battleground states overall, where we can’t really afford that loss.
They can’t or won’t because their bread is buttered by the same people buttering the bread of Republicans: rich donors and SuperPACs.
They don’t honestly need that butter. They need to wake up and realize that there are enough small dollar donors out there to make up for any big dollar donors they lose. Look at how much Bernie Sanders raked in from small donors by courting progressives.
They don’t want to have to put in the work. They want that easy money. DC is like a fucking casino and nobody wants the money-train to end.
Actually standing up for constituents takes the real work of politics. Just shrugging and doing whatever Bezos told you for a cool half a mill is so much easier.
Half the time legislation is literally actually written by lobbyists, not legislators. They don’t even have to write the bill! The work is done for them! Voters, on the other hand, will expect results!
Oh, you sweet summer child. They are so very much cheaper than that. Most of the pols in DC can be bought for tens of thousands or even just thousands of dollars. No need to get into six figures.
I actually aimed low in respect to what I was speaking about, which is stuff like SuperPACs.
https://www.axios.com/2024/10/16/musk-trump-donation-america-pac-republican-mega-donor
Musk gave Trump $75 million in one go because laws don’t apply to the rich.
The rest of us have real legal limits on what we can give.
And if those Bernie dollars had turned into votes maybe she’d be going after them. Also, Bernie endorsed her.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bernie-sanders-ends-holdout-and-endorses-kamala-harris-for-president/ar-BB1qKBPw
All the “progressives” in Congress endorsed her. Guess that’s not enough, eh?
Why wouldn’t they?
And endorsement doesn’t mean someone has zero room for improvement and they agree on everything.
It just means they’re the best available option
When Dick Cheney endorsed Kamala, did you think they agree on everything?
Your evidence shows that Republicans whose careers no longer depend on Trump are the ones who can be convinced to turn on him. The same is true of many (formerly) Republican voters.
Democrats would rather lose democracy forever than treat progressives like constituents with agency.
That’s just the argument you constantly complain about turned on its head.
I would very much like to argue with you, but I have nothing to support such an argument. :(
Progressives who dont vote for Harris are even dumber than Republicans. Not sure if talking to them would help since they would need to stop focussing on breathing just to listen to you.
There are plenty of people in the area between the two extremes who support progressive policies, while not considering themselves progressives, but are not sufficiently motivated to bother voting because neither candidate is explicitly supporting those policies. Those are the votes that are available. Those are the people she should be convincing, not low hanging republican fruit.
Because progressives are probably smart enough to know why they need to vote for Harris instead of letting fascism keep them on their couch
Well, it’s not this straightforward. I’m not sure where you got your numbers and percentages from, but working on the assumption that they are correct:
It also matters where the votes come from. If the remaining 40% is all clustered in California and New York, and they all are convinced to go out and vote, and also vote blue, that doesn’t have an effect on the outcome.
Why? Electoral College.
See this chart, showing that split ticket voting (in particular, folks who voted all Republican EXCEPT for the President, where they voted Biden) was about 4% out of everyone who voted in 2020: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/10/PP_2020.10.21_split-icket-voting_0-01.png
Also, look at the small margins that Biden won on the swing states according to https://www.npr.org/2020/12/02/940689086/narrow-wins-in-these-key-states-powered-biden-to-the-presidency. So what this could mean, assuming that the 4% holds generally, is that the 4% difference cause by split ticket voting is greater than the margin that Biden won in those swing states. So without winning those folks - those moderate Republicans - over, the Dems lose the Electoral College and thus the Presidency.