This is a junk comment. She's the VP, so what you're suggesting is that she just try and take control she doesn't have right now. Either you've got no idea what you're talking about or you're just talking shit.
scarabine
joined 1 year ago
Yeah, it's a terrible strategy for a number of reasons. The big one isn't even that they can't be courted - they CAN. It's just that the thing that courts them isn't "we can be really Republican, too!" - it's actually progressive policy.
It turns out that being stridently pro-worker, pro-healthcare, pro-education, pro-small business, and pro-social safety are all incredibly popular stances with broad support. Time and time again, openly supporting these things draws Republican support. The noise that emerges online and in the outrage merchant pundit class is just that - noise, made up to try and steer the conversation.
Which is the big risk to doing any of this pro-worker stuff - it's mostly about Fox News or the talk show host nutjobs branding it as evil and starting a propaganda war about it, and the rest of the media world just following along like insipid stenographers.
It's a branding war, basically, the Overton window doesn't need to shift further right at all.
She’s repeatedly said that she wants a ceasefire, and even said she’s trying to help press for one right now. Literally one rally after the one you’re talking about she paused her talk during a protest and spoke about it to talk about driving for a ceasefire, before resuming the rally.
There’s only so much that is going to happen during a campaign. I understand a degree of general mistrust for politicians overall, but it’s honestly out of her hands unless she gets elected.
Meanwhile the other guy is definitely pro genocide. No room for doubt at all there.
“Unilaterally halt 70 years of treaties, force a foreign country to obey your will, seize unlawful control of our military, and do it all in a few weeks while campaigning, all as VP” is quite the tall order to all of anyone just in exchange for votes that, let’s be honest, you weren’t going to give anyway.
If you’re going to threaten to stand aside and allow someone way worse to take over, and those are your criteria, then this is just online noise you’re making and not genuine at all.
If you’re looking for something less, such as statements - she’s made them. They’re pretty clear about being about stopping the genocide. So even in that direction, if it isn’t enough, then again this is just online noise you’re making, and not genuine at all.
You just don’t care.
The really optimistic-for-Harris forecast I’ve cited a few times has even odds for Harris and Trump on NC. Basically if we don’t see huge turnout numbers it’s Trump’s. The best we can hope for is that Robinson really, really put people off of voting.
According to some of the forecasts I’ve seen that suggest a strong chance for a Harris win (as in, 77% chance) she only has a 3% chance to turn FL blue. So, not really plausible, but there are a few scenarios that see her winning it.
Yeah, every time I wind up looking deeply at polls I find more questions than answers. I recognize they're a snapshot of a segment, not representative of the whole segment but sort of a sampling of it.
For example, the 3 polls there from Franklin, and the 4 from Morning Consult: the same methodology and around the same sample size, conducted at the same time frame. Each poll with different outcomes from their sample set.
I also recognize that as long as X% are "undecided", the poll can't really show anything other than trend motions. And these polls are actually kind of static. Like if you plot them all out, they don't seem to have an upper or downward trend trajectory.
It's frustratingly ambiguous stuff.
Oh shoot, sorry, I meant 18-29. The groups are:
- 18-29 (Harris down 10 from Biden 2020)
- 30-39 (Harris up 10 from Biden 2020)
- 40-49 (Harris up 1 from Biden 2020)
- 50-64 (Trump up 4 from 2020)
- 65+ (Harris up 10 from Biden 2020)
It's worth mentioning that these groups are not equal! 18-29 is usually a very low representation, where 40-49 is pretty big, and 50-64 / 65+ are huge.
Watching early vote exit polls is kind of a tough game to play prognosticator on, but it begins to give us a sense of what the polls mean, because the info is a lot more concrete than polls. Basically, polls have a segment of responses that are undecided, meanwhile exit polls don't. The idea as I understand it is that you can contrast exit polls with polls in order to discern what that undecided vote really seems to be breaking for.
In 2016, that undecided segment broke hard for Trump. It hasn't in any election since.
Here's what exit polls so far say about Trump (vs 2020) and Harris (vs Biden & Obama):
- Trump's support isn't showing any major improvements on exit polls at this time except with non-college educated white folks, specifically ages 50-64. His support in that same demographic actually has lessened in a bunch of other age groups, with a small boost in 18-39. This is, however, only with men.
- Harris has met or beat both Biden and Obama 2012 numbers in most every demographic, with the exception of hispanic women / younger age groups, which have gone down a little bit. Most notably her support with white folks is strong, and her support with white women is at historic levels. She's overperforming dramatically with independents.
Obviously, again, exit polls are subject to swings and changes over time and so it's all contingent on this continuing, but right now the early votes exit polls are at severe contrast with the aggregators. Like, embarrassingly severe.
One remaining thing from the exit polls worth mentioning - the last minute surge of support for Trump in 2020 was largely because the Republican leadership was stalwart in telling everyone to vote only on election day. That isn't happening this year, though, which means that Republicans aren't going to be able to expect the same kind of last-minute surge this year. Meanwhile, the opposite seems true for Harris: a lot of early votes for Harris are first time voters or infrequent voters, and not from the pool of 2020 early voters.
So, at this point the early vote is around 40m, or 25% of total votes in 2020. In order to get back to the "surprising Trump upswell" that we're all worried about, this trend would have to not only stop, but AGGRESSIVELY reverse course. Either that or all the exit polls are horribly wrong.
What actions does that involve? Which treaties would that break? Which other treaties can we then be ready for others to assume we’ll break? How will we respond to that in a way that prevents cascading trust collapse? Is there any way to guarantee to other allies that we won’t turn on them when expedient? How can we guarantee peace is even on the table if we’re suddenly regarded by the whole world as a betrayer? As even less reliable than we’ve already become?
One of the options is “unilaterally subject another country to our will”. I take it that’s what you want?
This dude thinks EVERYONE is thinking what he’s thinking and we just don’t say it out loud. He thinks ANY of us are one drunk post away from spewing the same garbage. In his mind he’s just guilty of posting under the influence because of that.