Whats iowa?
I've been trying o1 preview for a few weeks.
Wowza what a clownshow. Can I please just have 3.5 without guardrails?
Its like you are allergic to the plain understanding that how you present this case, is just fucking wrong. No matter how much you wish it was that there were only two choices in this race, thats just not true. You drank the kool-aid. We get it. You see no other options. Other people do. Other people in the world see things differently than you, and clearly, Rashida Tlaib is one of them.
Voters don't have to vote. You can vote green, or blue, or red or purple. Or you can write in some other name. You can't force your opinion on the world when your opinion doesn't match objective reality.
This fantastic world you've locked yourself in, its not the real world. Its an opinion that you have (which is fine), but which is not the same as the objective reality, because people actually can (and should, my opinion) vote however they please.
Both sides are NOT the same, one is CLEARLY better than the other for you and everyone else.
I don't disagree, but you @[email protected] , are going to have to take responsibility for the fact that this rhetorical approach you are using has done more damage to Harris' chances than it has convinced anyone that they need to vote Democrat. Its a view point that has been cultivated, selected for across lemmy which is toxic, not based in reality, and counter productive to the actual goals you suppose to have. Everyone that thinks the way you do has been convinced. Now what are you going to do about the people who don't think the way you do? How are you going to get the voters for whom a genocide is unacceptable? Its too late at this point, but what I'm showing you is how this this toxic culture divided the party and its ability
Blue MAGA/ Blue no matter who; they were always going to vote Democrat. You don't need to work on them. They're just followers and setting your rhetoric up to convince them is a waste of time, because you've already got their votes. Its the people for whom certain issues are a bridge too far that need to be convinced. And when you offer an argument that "they have no choice but to do what you want them to", do you think that is going to convince them. When you abuse them and gaslight them, how convincing do you think they'll find that?
I'm of the opinion that you can't ask a Palestinian or Muslim voter to vote Democrat this year, since Democrats don't even see them as people. They wouldn't even allow a Muslim 3 minutes on stage to make the case to other Muslims why they should vote for Harris. What Tlaib is doing here is probably the right move politically if she wants to hold her seat. Her job is to represent her constituents, not the party, and if she thinks this is the right thing to do, I support her in that.
My argument, is that Democrats have left a lane wide open, and from a purely strategic/ cynical view of things, it would be stupid for some-one/ anyone to not just hop in and take that lane. I think we see Talib, Omar, maybe Porter, any other progressives who’ve been ratfucked by the DNC/ DCCC take that lane as independents. Its a blue ocean/ wide open opportunity that rarely shows itself in politics.
If the Democrats are going to keep heading to the right like Harris has, I expect more progressive Independents to start appearing, striking back to the approach that Bernie Sanders used to great effect in the senate over his tenure.
I guess I’m confused by this response.
Sure just let me know what you need explained.
one should vote for a third-party candidate in this election
Yeah I didn't advocate for a position. Third parties have historically been pretty insignificant and the idea that they are spoilers isn't borne out by reality. The identification of, for example, the greens' in 2016 as spoilers, is so patently absurd, the person making that argument or any argument that follows from probably isn't worth addressing, because whoever is making it doesn't know up from down, or even have the basic ability to count. I dont advocate for any particular voting policy or strategy, but rather try an stay focused on the effectiveness of campaigns in terms of what works or doesn't work. Both major parties are leaving more votes in their respective couch cushions than any modern 3rd party candidate has ever received.
just an obvious sign of dementia
Yeah we just don't know. The whole campaign seemed to have gone into autopilot at that point, because they were doing quite well in the polls. My read was they went into "do no harm mode". Then they did a Nazi rally which kind of blew up that notion.
“republican voting is up in places it matters”
Which it was on my last check in NC and GA. Republican receipts were up a couple percent points in NC and Harris canceled Ad buys. The tea leaf read was that the campaign was throwing in the towel to do damage control in MI.
I also disagree that she campaigned poorly.
That's fine, but we're not going to agree on this. Harris went from a 38 to 50 in a like, 4 weeks. That's meteoric. Not good, not great, shocking. And that happened in the weeks prior to the DNC, when the assumptions we had about the candidate was her platform from 2020. At the DNC we saw her platform an anti-abortion Republican in the slot that was for a Palestinian Democrat from GA. She made no effort to fix this, and its probably going to have cost her MI. Since about a week after the convention, as she continued to step right, her polling started out and went into serious decline. It became clear she' wasn't going to be trying to gather the disaffected votes of Democrats to win this. She wanted "Cheney" Republicans (keeping in mind that Cheney lost her primary, as an incumbent, with only 27% of the vote.). Only in the past 3 days have we had any signal that Harris still has a chance in this race. She ran a teerrrrrrrrrible campaign post convention. Just straight up. Had she stepped to the left and worked off of the things she campaigned on in 2016, had she distanced herself from Israel Gaza, I think her numbers from before the convention would have continued to increase and that she'd be at about 54-56% nationally right now. The facts are on my side for this one. It does us no good to pretend that things were some other way than they actually were. We can just plot her polling over time and see she dropped the ball. Like you can-not pretend that a candidate who had been dropping in polling for the 8 weeks prior to an election is "crushing it".
her policy on Gaza, which unfortunately during election season you need to get the votes needed to cross the finish-line… Which means catering to the Jewish votes in
What makes you think Harris would lose any Jewish voters with a stance against genocide? If you are going to make that claim, you need to back it up with evidence. All that the Arab and Muslim community has asked for is a seat at the table for the party that supposes to represent them, and they were refused. If Harris' loses MI, this is why, and its on her head. There is no evidence to suggest there is any cost to holding Israel accountable when its already in violation of US law. You don't get to just speculate that things were some way you wished they were. What we can defintivelty say is that Harris has lost the support of the Muslim community in Michigan and that very well may cost her the election.
Harris a +3 in Iowa. A +3 in Iowa. Keep that in mind.
+3 in Iowa is fucking wild. I generally go by aggregates not individual pollsters. The only way Harris does this is with a landslide of women voters who are not showing up in most polls. We are seeing women voting at an anomaly level, but we're also seeing republican voting up. Nate silver says don't read anything into early voting, but also, its a post-covid world.
I guess the house goes up for sale and I'm back on duo lingo for my Spanish/ Portuguese?
Unlike most lemmings, I have an actually target on my back, and have been doxxed for my political organizing. I know for a fact I'm in some databases used by fascists/ right-wingers to doxx left wing organizers. I've seen how weak Democrats and their voters are when it comes to standing up to power. And while I hated her with great vitriol, I realized how dependent we were on the acumen of players like Pelosi to just hold this shit together for the four years of Trump we already survived. I hold no hope for the weakness which has been demonstrated to be the 2024 Democratic party.
Theres like, way to much to un-pack under all of this, so I'm just gonna hit the highs.
First - and again, I don’t even know if we disagree on this - is that voting for third party candidates and hoping to shoot the moon with democratic support flipping to, e.g., green (which I feel is a joke/spoiler party in this country, not even legitimate, but just for example) just does not work in a FPTP election.
Yeah I don't think we agree on that. The whole spoiler mythology has been thoroughly debunked. Also, there is a strong strategic reason why the green party focuses on only the presidential race. Its a test of your knowledge of the American political process if you know what that is. Blaming 3rd parties for the political failings of a major parity is so utterly naive, it needs far more time/ space than we have here to address. Hillary's failures in 2016 were her own, just like Gores failure to go through the appropriate hurdles and demand a proper recount in Florida. Democrats failures are squarely to blame for two of the worst election outcomes we've ever had in this country. Blaming third parties when only 60% of the population votes is such a ridiculous notion, we can just write it off.
Second, is that even if it’s illegitimately birthed, the right-wing propaganda alternate-reality pipeline is a hard anchor that makes left candidates legitimately fear that their blue-collar-friendly
Ok, you need to separate out the concept of Left from Democrat. Conservative Democrats behave the way you just describe and struggle because they are chasing the same lanes as their republican opponents. But most of the successes on the Democratic side in the previous 20 years arent' in that lane. They are on the other side of the party in the actually left side of the left, that caucuses with the Democrats, but really didn't find their way into the party till 2016. The fact is that centrism/ moderate appeal is a demonstrated-to-fail strategy over the previous 6 election cycles. And frankley, the same is true for Republican. Neither party does well running to the center because there are no voters in the center. The electorate is, by and large, bimodal at this point. And the important point is that when you at least run, and signal and put on the fan fair thats required to drive out your base, you win (See Obama 08,12, Bernie 16, Biden 20 for examples of running to the left and winning, and see Kerry 04, Hillary 16 for counter examples).
My take is it’s the wrong target to look at left policy as an “open lane,” or even the “long term” vision of losing a few elections to establish a third party
Thats fine, but I dont really agree with the points you've made. And I'm also not even talking about necessarily forming a party. I'm not sure a third party is where the power is or is worth investing in. For example, I think Bernie had his greatest strength as an Independent. Its going to depend on how well the green's do this time around (again for that secret reason that I know that 99% of lemmings don't know about, because as much as they like to come down and spin their wheels, most lemmings really don't know fuck about shit about politics). I gave you some hints where to look for that reason.
Every Palestinian American who has lost a cousin to an American bomb after reading your comment:
I get it. I get it that you are intentionally trying to not understand what is happening right now. But your lack of understanding doesn't change what is hapening.
Its not that they "disagree" with it per se, its that they want it to not be the case.
Down voting statements of fact because they make you feel uncomfortable is what is actually happening. If they were willing to step in and make or defend an argument; thats a separate case. Lemmy just knee-jerk downvotes things that it doesn't want to be true.
Turns out land is still cheap and sunlight still generally free.
You’re going to see more registered Republicans crossing over to vote for Harris than perhaps any Democrat has previously received.
I'm fully aware thats the assumption people are making. Its not clear how good or bad of an assumption that is. Its also not clear what damage Harris has done with Democrats relationship to the Arab/ Muslim/ Anti-genocide Democrats. Two weeks ago this thing was in the bag for Trump to the point he was just dancing on stage cus he knew he didn't need to do anything else to win. Then he had a Nazi rally.
Pretending like this thing is in anyway a shoe-in for Harris seems to be oblivious to the facts on the ground. She campaigned extremely poorly and made bad strategic choices that took her from heading towards a blue-wave the likes of which we've never seen to now, a blue whimper. Look at how Harris is doing relative to down-ballot Democrats (538) (D's left, R's right, senate where possible, house where not):
Pennsylvania:
Harris 47.6, Trump, 47.9: -0.3 to team D. Casey 49, McCormick 46: +3.0 to team D. Harris delta: -3.3
Michigan:
Harris 47.9, Trump 47.1: +0.8 to team D. Slotkin 49, Rogers 47: +2.0 to team D. Harris delta: -1.2
Georgia:
Harris 47, Trump 48.5: -1.5 to team D. Bishop 47, West 44: +3 to team D. Harris delta: -4.5
Arizona:
Harris 46.5, Trump 49: -2.5 to team D. Kelly 48.6, Masters 47.1: +1.5 to team D. Harris delta: -3
North Carolina:
Harris 47, Trump 48.5: -1.5 to team D. Beasley 45.2, Budd 49.5: -4.3 to team D. Harris delta: 3.2
Nevada:
Harris 47.1, Trump 47.9: -.9 to team D. Cortez Masto 45.9, Kaxakt 47.3: -1.4 to team D. Harris delta: 0.5
Wisconsin:
Harris, 48.1, Trump 47.4: +0.6 to team D. Baldwin 49, Hovde 48: +1 to team D. Harris delta: -.4
Averages out to about ~ -1.25
So in general, Harris is under performing "the average Democrat" in the swing states by about 1.25 points. Keep in mind, Harris was leading or damn near leading at one point in most of those races, and was on track for more substantial gains going into the convention.
She may win in-spite of those major mis-steps, but its not a forgone conclusion that she will win either. Also, it still has to get through all the states, the supreme court if that comes up, and then finally through the certification.
0
To win, Harris should talk more about working-class needs and less about Trump
(www.theguardian.com)
I think this will be readable to non-members? I'm at least going to repost the first bit, and if people can't access, I'll copy pasta the whole thing.
Trump’s running a Billboard Lawyer campaign
I’m sure you’ve seen those big billboards for plaintiffs’ attorneys: for whatever reason, there are usually lots of them out near the airport. They usually look something like this:
These billboards are not advertising that the attorney is a nice guy. Because you don’t want a nice guy. You’re not trying to win a popularity context. You’re trying to win a lawsuit. You want someone aggressive. Hit back! Get the Gorilla, whatever that means. In fact, you probably expect the plaintiff’s attorney to be a little bit of an asshole. But he’s your asshole. He’s on your side.
You know who this reminds me of?
One of the most important decisions you face as a forecaster is simply when to publish a statistical model for public consumption. If you’re just running a model for your personal edification — or to make bets with — the threshold may actually be lower. If you’re evaluating the impact of a player injury on an NFL or NBA game that you’re considering betting on, for instance, then you might only get a couple of minutes before some reasonably rational assessment of the impact has already been priced into prevailing betting lines. Under these circumstances, a good first-pass estimate can go a long way. By the time you dot all the ‘i’s and cross all the ‘t’s to incorporate the impact of the injury into a formal model, it may be too late.
When you issue a statistical forecast publicly, though, I think the responsibility is slightly greater. In some cases, probabilistic forecasts can be confusing to people. And in other circumstances, people can take statistical models too seriously and treat them as oracular when in fact all models rely on the researcher’s assumptions. Let’s not get too carried away with this — some assumptions are better than others, which is why some models are better than others. (And putting a model behind a paywall is a pretty useful trick for self-selecting a more knowledgeable reader base.) But there are times when a subjective estimate may be better, especially in unforeseen circumstances that your model wasn’t really designed to handle.
For instance, when Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential race last Sunday, I suppose we could have just done a hot swap and immediately replaced him with Kamala Harris — pollsters have periodically tested the Harris vs. Trump matchup, especially since Biden’s disastrous debate on June 27. But I think this would have misinformed even our smart, self-selected group of Silver Bulletin readers more than it informed them. The polls were already in flux, given Biden’s mounting crisis on top of the assassination attempt against Trump on top of the Republican convention, which is typically a period when polls can produce short-lived bounces. And Harris’s candidacy was still hypothetical, although she was clearly prepared, working behind the scenes to become the Democrats’ presumptive nominee within 24-48 hours.
25
Washington Post: Sen. Mark Warner Forming a Group Of Democratic Senators To Call On Biden To Drop Out
(www.realclearpolitics.com)
view more: next ›
Harris Cheney. Pro pro. War muslim ban.