this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
121 points (94.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35907 readers
1287 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ja2@lemmy.world
_MoveSwiftly@lemmy.world
Rooki@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
automodbeta@lemmy.world
L3s@lemmy.world
121
Do all these former Republican leaders endorsing Harris do her any good? (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by expatriado@lemmy.world to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
54 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] radix@lemmy.world 125 points 2 months ago

The idea is that it gives moderate republicans a path to voting for her.

Without the endorsements, they would feel like they're betraying their principles and their party to vote D. With them, they can make a choice: Lots of rank and file voters will stick with Trump, but if a few party leaders, recently respected within the party, can vote for Harris, maybe that isn't such a betrayal after all.

Will it change the vote by 5-10%? Basically zero chance of that. But if it swings a few thousand voters in some strategic areas, it can make a difference. It's not a strategy aimed at very many people, but those votes on the margins matter.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 44 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Its unclear how many "moderate republicans" will vote for her. In large part because it is unclear how many "moderate republicans" there actually are and it is worth remembering that folk like liz cheney and romney largely voted in lockstep with trump and the magats outside of MAYBE one or two issues that personally impact them. And it isn't like any of the "former Republican leaders" have particularly strong support bases considering they lost to the magats years ago.

The reality is that this is just part of the republican party trying to prepare for a post-trump election. trump supported candidates consistently lost downballot and the primaries for this election were a shitshow. maga/tea party republicans die with trump so they are making sure they can go back to reagan/bush style "We are the party of decorum and church rights. You need to meet us in the middle and let us kill just a few trans folk per day"

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The scary part is now they basically can't ever be trusted with power again. Project 25 is their platform and they're not going to turn away from it. How can there be any path forward besides not them and how long can that be sustained?

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 7 points 2 months ago

project 2025 likely ends with trump and the magats. Because it is almost entirely based upon the idea of a POTUS who actively has no idea how government works and doesn't want to do anything other than get headlines.

Because under a romney or a cheney? They don't need project 2025 because steps will already be taken. Just like they have been since reagan with the bushes gradually eroding away democracy.

And... the reality is that it is inevitable that republicans will gain power again. Because The Left will pretty rapidly be at each other's throats once trump is gone (just note all the Bernie Or Bust crew who still can't shut the fuck up about the most important event in the past 8 years...). And people will lose interest in voting because they didn't get exactly what they want.

The hope is that Kamala actually acts and works to restore those checks and balances so that four years of a republican is four years of a mess for Democrats to clean up and not the first four years of Gilead.

[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 28 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Kamala came in with some lip service to progressives at the beginning and has essentially adopted bidens platform with little in the way of changes. She's doubled down on fracking, distanced herself from the green new deal, and courted the center right (Democrat or Republican) from the DNC forward. It's not surprising but it's disheartening to see so many people get fooled by what has been the typical Democrat playbook since the 90s. Biden was bad optics so they traded him out. Vote for her because she isn't trump, but don't pretend that she'll do anything different than follow the party line like her and everybody before her.

If you want to make some real change go ahead and vote for the Democrat. Then stop paying attention to electoral politics. Organize in your community. Agitate for worker unions in your work places and tenant unions in your neighborhood, start a political theory reading group, organize a food drive, free store, tool library, something. Literally anything other than wasting your precious time and energy on following the clown show in DC. None of them care about you. None of them want to help you. None of them are planning to make your life easier.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Republicans are not center right

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 15 points 2 months ago

Yeah that’s the Dems, Republicans are far-right.

[–] Teils13 8 points 2 months ago

currently most republicans are not center-right, but OP was referring to the (now narrow, but still existing) circle of center-right republicans, not to all the republicans.

[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Broadly I agree with you and have said more or less the same thing. But there are people who label themselves republican and fall in line somewhere closer to democrat. The two parties aren't as far apart as we'd all like to think

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think that's more of a case of mislabelling than of the parties being close together. If 90% of the party disagrees with you, you're not really representative of the party's beliefs.

[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I understand that but they're still in the party. AOC and Omar are Social Democrats but they still run under the Democrat ticket, for example. On the right we see a mix of right libertarians, fascists, Christian nationalists, white nationalists, esoteric fascistss, and neo-monarchists (I'm sure I'm missing a few), but they're all running under the Republican ticket because our two party system is broken and incapable of capturing the sheer depth and diversity of political ideologies within the country. The labels of democrat and republican are largely useless on an interpersonal basis and only vaguely useful on a systemic scale.

I'm an anarchist but my voter registration says democrat because I checked that box when I was 18 and never bothered changing it. You'd be "right" to call me a democrat, but only to a superficial and largely unimportant degree. I'm sure there are republicans in a similar situation as well and people who may be closer to democrats but choose to vote Republican due to specific policy issues. Abortion is one that comes to mind. It may be hard to believe but there truly are people out there who only care about abortion and otherwise have no strong political opinions outside of that. They would be a better fit for Republicans than Democrats. Again, the 2 party system is fucked and splitting hairs over people who don't nearly fit into one of the boxes (which is 99.9% of people) is a pointless distraction

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There aren't two boxes. There are two groups of opinions, and the one you're closest to is the one that you vote for. Your affiliation probably won't match the majority of a party for every possible issue, but that's fine, because there's no need to put anyone in boxes. Your party is, for all intents and purposes, the one which you most agree with. I don't know where you think I'm splitting hairs, unless you just mean that people close to 50/50 on party agreement can't be neatly categorized, which should be obvious.

Single-issue voters don't have my respect. Mostly because I don't believe they actually have a single issue; I believe many would choose a new issue if theirs became obsolete, that many are hypocritical in their views on their own single issue or related issues, and most importantly, that valuing one issue over the dozens of other problems that they should be caring about is immoral.

[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm ideologically opposed to party and institutional politics on a foundational level. The fact that people are forced to compromise on their values, the "lesser of two evils" system, the whole "closest to your values" thing is a horrible way to approach politics. It rings true if you don't think about it too hard but it's pretty bullshit. At the end of the day, when you are only permitted a political voice at the ballot box, you are forcing yourself into the labels you've been given by a group of parasites that do not share your interests..

And yeah, single.issue voters probably have other issues. That doesn't mean they fit within their chosen party's platform. There are plenty of pro-lifers who fit better in the democratic camp on other issues but value abortion above the rest. I'm not saying it makes sense or is worthy of respect. It's simply a thing that is

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

you are forcing yourself into the labels you’ve been given by a group of parasites that do not share your interests…

I mean, it really depends how close to each party's most common views you (general "you") are, doesn't it? If you're complaining about compromising on the last 5% of your different views, grow up. If you legitimately think both parties are similar, fuck you, pay more attention. Again, general "you", not you-"you" in particular.

[–] Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 months ago

I have the hope that she'll end up being more progressive after votes are counted.

Partially because she has Walz which is a good sign, but mostly I'm hoping for hopes sake. 🤞

[–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Do you people realize that if you go against fracking you WILL lose Pennsylvania and then the election? There's a reason for what they're doing...

[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee -3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

You people? Please enlighten me, who am I?

Sorry that I'm maintaining some degree of this esoteric concept known as having principles. If extremely mild criticism is enough to upset you then I'm not really interested in anything you've got to say. Take it easy

[–] ulkesh@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If those principles help bring about another Trump presidency, then they wouldn’t have done you much good.

[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

Did you miss the part where I said vote for Kamala? Twice?

[–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Boy you are touchy for such an innocuous reply.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It was a personal attack.

[–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago

Not at all but go on.

[–] ashok36@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

If your predecessor beat the guy by using platform A, it stands to reason that a pretty safe campaign strategy is to not deviate from platform A very much.

[–] Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 2 months ago (9 children)

From a game theory perspective, a trumper discouraged to vote is worth 1 vote, a flipped Republican vote is worth 2 votes.

So the appeal to the right makes sense if it works, because every vote from that camp is also a negative vote from Trump.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Can't hurt.

However I don't really care what Republican leaders say at all, hopefully Republican voters do.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

In part it might be trying to head off trouble during and after the election with Republican state officials interfering with the election process—they might be more hesitant if they see other Republican leaders supporting Harris.

[–] Sundial@lemm.ee 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We'll know after the election.

It might be that these endorsements help bring in some more moderate Republicans to her side but there's also a very real possibility that she disincentive the more left leaning voters from voting for her as well. Remember, Hillary lost because she didn't do enough to incentivize people to vote for her. She just relied on people hating Trump and didn't rely on people actually liking her. Regardless, this is all conjecture. It's too early to tell and no one will have a definitive answer until the results are in and a winner is announced.

[–] kersploosh@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Hillary lost because she didn't do enough to incentivize people to vote for her.

Hilary got more than enough votes. She received 2.9M more votes than Trump. Her problem was that her support was much too concentrated in a small number of states. The Electoral College math punishes candidates in that situation.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

A big part of where she excelled in votes was because she spent too much time in safe states and didn't spend a lot of time campaigning in the states that ended up being decided on thin margins.

[–] vaderaj@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Completly out of context, but I want to ask an important question

I am from India, currently studying in Australia and back home I was actively involved in politics. Being involved in politics means I have to give a damn about the US, and for the first time in my life I happened to watch the presidental debate. Ever since, I have been wondering how Trump has so much following and how was he a president of your country? Not a single statement of his made sense, and not to mention how he always deviated from the topic being discussed. Can someone please explain what is happening in the US?

[–] JTskulk@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think the simplest answer is that Trump "owns the libs" and that's enough to make people who don't follow politics vote for him. Hillary ran a pretty shitty campaign also. Trump has definitely gotten older and way more whacky so I guess we wait and see what happens in November.

[–] vaderaj@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Are libs of US that naive/insane to blindly follow him? I observed that good number democrats(supporter's) acknowledge that Kamala is not the perfect solution. Are libs truly that naive/insane?

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

It means he makes libs mad, and that's all his right wing supporters care about.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It’s misspelled slang

“Trump pwns the libs” == “ Trump defeats the liberals”

Conservative/Reactionaries love anything to beat the liberals who are trying to bring change

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It’s difficult for at least half of us to understand as well, but the only answer is repressed anger, desperation, fear of change. People are unhappy and Trump gives them an outlet with his rants, identifies scapegoats to hate, attacks changes they are afraid of. Even his open flouting of the law attracts those who feel stifled by overbearing laws.

Let’s take the Department of Education as an example. Here, education is mostly at the state and local level. The federal department of education doesn’t have much say, but they can give money with strings attached. In the last few decades, those strings included requirements for the disabled, racial and gender equity in school sports, separation of church and state (like our Constitution requires), programs to uplift the impoverished or poorly served, as well as programs to identify and remediate failing schools. For example my town just built a new high school: some of the reasons for the insane cost are federal requirements because they paid for most of it. People may not be comfortable with all these changes imposed by the federal government, despite the funding that comes with it and regardless of the overall good. Demagogues like Trump can stoke outrage based on outsiders telling people what to do.

Now it’s a core Republican plank to shut down the Department of Education, so state and local governments can run Education their way. I don’t believe they even think about what they’d lose, who they’d lose it for, or how much worse off they’d be., just “stop telling us what to do”

[–] sailingbythelee@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is the conclusion I've come to as well. I used to be frustrated at how stupid Trump supporters are. I would wonder how anyone could be so gullible, cynical, racist, or mysogynist as to vote for Trump. How does he get away with, even prosper, saying such crazy and harmful things? But I've come to the conclusion that Trump voters are just extremely unhappy. A vote for Trump is a big fuck-you to the establishment. Both parties were basically run by a modern day aristocracy. The Kennedys, the Clintons, and the Bushes are the most obvious dynasties, but they also have many, many surrogates. More importantly, they defined a kind of cursus honorum for becoming president, including all of the right schools, fraternities, clubs, contacts, donors, etc that you have to follow to move up through the various offices to get to the top. The Tea Party disrupted the Republican aristocracy, but then Trump came along and just obliterated it.

Now, on the one hand, we can probably all get behind the idea that breaking up the aristocratic hold on political parties is a good thing. However, history has also shown that supporting populist demagogues who specialize in chaos and hateful rhetoric often leads to a bad time for the country and the people.

These last five years are the first time in my life that I'm genuinely worried for the stability of the republic. It has been said many times by people who have lived through it that people never think civil war will actually happen until it does. And then they look back and the signs were obvious. Whoever actually wins, when half of the population is voting for a hateful chaos candidate, that's a big red flag.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

A vote for Trump is a big fuck-you to the establishment.

This was true in 2016, but it isn't any more. Trump IS the establishment as far as the GOP is concerned, and voters are doubly stupid for believing otherwise.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago

I suspect a big part of it is that he actually acknowledged that people are having problems, while Hilary decided to go "America is already great" as if their problems aren't real.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc 1 points 2 months ago

There are 2 important factors.

  1. Very few people are doing their research and making a logical decision about who will best represent their interests. They will just vote for whoever their friends vote for.

  2. The way the president is elected through the electoral college means that a few states are over represented. IDK the numbers but for example, it might be possible to become president with as few as 40% of the votes.

[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 9 points 2 months ago

Maybe. Republicans usually toe the line. DEMs individually fight about what the line is all the time, it’s a defining characteristic. Not so much with repubs. So, maybe.

[–] Euphorazine@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Undecided voters aren't undecided between Trump and Harris, they are undecided on leaving the couch to go vote.

So I don't really think it's changing the mind of voters and I don't see it motivating people to go vote.

Just seems like an attempt at counter narrative for "Comrade Harris". I don't see it moving the needle.

[–] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 4 points 2 months ago

...and I don't see it motivating people to go vote.

But it can do the opposite perhaps

"motivate" people to stay home who would otherwise vote R. Not that, in general, we should be celebrating voter apathy, but I think that some of these endorsements could dishearten folks enough that they end up abstaining.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 4 points 2 months ago

In that it is evidence of the Republican party dissolving, yes.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 2 points 2 months ago

They would there vote for "opposition" and provide her with platfrom than a third party alternative...

Regimes primary imperative is...

[–] infinitevalence@discuss.online -2 points 2 months ago

For me personally, no.

load more comments
view more: next ›