175

Harris Ran to Trump’s Right on Immigration — and Gained Absolutely Nothing For It (theintercept.com)

submitted 21 hours ago by Keeponstalin@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Donald Trump railed against immigrants, presenting them as a threat to a supposed American way of life. Kamala Harris, for her part, embraced this same narrative, if not the rhetoric, and yet had nothing to show for it on Wednesday morning.

About 71 percent of Americans, including majorities across the political spectrum, believe economic factors are largely behind the recent influx of migrants, whether it’s better opportunities in the U.S. or poor conditions in their home countries, according to a report from the Pew Research Center. Sixty-five percent pointed to violence in migrants’ home countries as a major reason for driving so many people to the U.S.

Last year, border state Reps. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, and Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., tried warning Biden again.

“Rather than re-imposing Trump-era deterrence policies,” they wrote, “we must demonstrate a sharp contrast with these approaches by showing compassion towards migrants and upholding our asylum obligations, while simultaneously seeking to curb the broad-based sanctions that contribute to widespread suffering and spur increased migration.”

top 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world 52 points 20 hours ago

Did she run on some right talking points on immigration that were shitty to run on and should have been cast out? Yeah absolutely. Did she run to Trumps right on Immigration? Fuck no. She never advocated for mass deportations and if she was running to the right of Trump she would have.

The article makes good points, but that headline is trash.

[-] chakan2@lemmy.world 18 points 17 hours ago

The correct answer in the debates was "The Republicans voted against border protection...that bill had Trump's wall in it, and they still voted it down."

But alas...I don't think it mattered. The R's have had this election locked for a while.

[-] Pistcow@lemm.ee 34 points 21 hours ago

Because she said she was going to start small business loans instead of fighting for basic necessities of food and shelter. Funny thing is the folks voting for Trump think costs will lower but they will not.

[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 11 points 20 hours ago

Once things start getting worse he'll double down and invade Mexico, Cuba, and/or Venezuela. Trade deals with other nations will be suspended resulting in mass hardships, in which he'll triple down. Project 2025 calls for mass conscription of young adults into the military. Those conscriptes will be sent to reclaim lost resources over seas

[-] Pistcow@lemm.ee 6 points 17 hours ago

Love that I have a millionaire in-law who onwes a huge chunk of California, hates Mexicans, and will lose everything once no one is willing to harvest for dollars a day.

Now, I'm worried they'll just shift to institutionalized slavery and put the marginalized in prison to work the fields.

[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 0 points 11 hours ago

And California just reaffirmed slavery so it's not unlikely

[-] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 17 points 21 hours ago

The tragedy of having a conservative party and a fascist cancer for leadership.

Except just the cancer now.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 16 points 21 hours ago

Harris gained nothing for literally every position she ran to the right on. Any one who provided cover, defended her in these positions, or provided other forms of apologetics: This loss is on you.

[-] rowrowrowyourboat@sh.itjust.works 37 points 21 hours ago

Nah, the loss is on stupid Americans. No matter her position on these issues, it should have been a landslide victory for anyone but Trump.

[-] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

Even if that was true, the stupid Americans will vote again in 4 years, and their votes count for as much if not more than the rest of voters. Blaming them won't win 2028, or even midterms. They got exactly what they wanted, why would they change?

[-] AmidFuror@fedia.io 18 points 20 hours ago

I think the lesson is that if you want to win, you need to target stupid people with the kinds of stupid ideas that they like. And put them in the stupid places they congregate, online and off.

It would help to buy a bunch of media outlets and have billionaires on your team (by supporting policies that will make them more money), because they can buy up the media and then amplify any kind of nonsense you want.

This is the "when they go low, we go lower" that people are clamoring for and may be the only way to win future elections.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 8 points 20 hours ago

The messaging needs to be simple and address their stupid concerns, not cater to their stupid solutions. Campaigning on improving the immigration process to handle the influx instead of mass deportations can be kept simple and successful without being terrible and stupid.

[-] droporain@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 17 hours ago

Wrong the stupid people were voting Trump no matter what Harris position was. The only path to victory was to ensure everyone with a brain voted, but they weren't even offered a primary.

[-] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 13 hours ago

It's not the stupid voters. It's the lazy fucks who decided not to vote at all.

Hope they are ready to get fucked because that's what their inaction brought about.

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 2 points 20 hours ago

Two years.

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

Nah, the loss is on stupid Americans.

Thats what they said

this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024

175 points (90.3% liked)

politics

19097 readers

4759 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News