2024 Elections Thread

[lightning]

I'm with Scalzi, more or less, though if this was meant as some huge fake out of Republicans, it won't last long, and a better fake out would be for Biden to resign and give Harris the gift of incumbency. Also, Republicans are demanding it, which we all know means that they don't really want it or expect it to happen!

This worries me:

You may or may not think this is a reductive observation, but if you do, I suspect you may be a straight white person who decided not to vote for Clinton "because of her emails," or because she was "unlikeable," or whatever, i.e., you were looking for any reason not to vote for the candidate who was actually qualified for the job, in order to vote for the unfathomably shitty person the other side hauled up out of the incompetent depths, who had no platform besides his own cretinous id and still does not. It's 2024, I'm done pretending that sexism and racism, implicit or explicit, aren't huge fucking motivators for the white people vote here in the US.

The refusal to acknowledge that there are any substantive reasons for moderate voters to reject Clinton in 2016 or Harris in 2024 is arrogant at best, and self-destructive at worst. The extreme progressive stuff that the Democrats have assented to in order to please the activists do not sit well with lots of middle-of-the-road voters. The more the party and the media present Harris as the absolutely unquestionable second coming, the more chance there is for them to be disappointed on election night like in 2016.

Middle-of-the-road voters were horrified with Jan. 6. When it's time to pull the lever, extreme progressive leftists will be the lesser of the two evils, to these middle-of-the-road voters.

[jimbogumbo]

The extreme progressive stuff that the Democrats have assented to in order to please the activists do not sit well with lots of middle-of-the-road voters.

Really curious as to what you believe some of these are. For example, I don't think banning bump stocks or AR type weapons is an example, nor would I class single payer health care in that vein.

Some things that are mentioned a lot don't even exist (see the numerous reports showing there is no crime wave, let alone a migrant crime wave). Do you have any examples we can agree actually exist besides abortion rights?

[Ruralguy]

Unfortunately, some people strongly believe these misconceptions. There are probably a few reasons why. However, my main point is that until someone convinces them otherwise, they'll have the opinions they have and they will likely be resistant to a Harris ticket. i don't think its impossible, or that she can't win, just that the resistance spoken of by Marsh is real, even if it isn't completely based on reality.

[secundem_artem]

I do find it interesting that until about 4pm on Sunday, Harris was largely viewed as in over her head, ran a poor campaign in 2020, did nothing about the border etc etc etc.  Given the level of attention most people pay to the VEEP, who knows how much of that was actually true.

But, by 5pm Sunday, she was the second coming of Obama, FDR, and Clinton (Bill) combined.  $100 million dollars in donations later, she's the savior of the D's.

But Marshie is right.  If the D's don't quiet down their SJW wing on trans rights, Free Palestine, BLM, and similar hot button social issues, they're going to have a problem.  All are noble goals that I don't especially disagree with.  But when Joe & Mary Middle America are mostly worried about the price of groceries, the woes of those in Gaza don't merit much concern.

If Kamala's first policy statement is "Fvck it.  Let's build the d@mn wall." she'd take half the air out of the R's balloon.

[Ruralguy]

First of all, I think almost any reasonable Democrat politician under 60 with some national recognition would have gotten similar numbers. Certainly 10's of millions. There was a lot in limbo over the last several weeks.

I do think the culture war issues and Middle East tensions over Israel and Palestine can be a problem. Her best bet is to focus more on abortion rights at least where the culture war is concerned, and then tow the administration's line on Middle East since she's still part of the administration (which in this case can probably help a little, since they are at least perceived to be middle of the road). Unfortunately, I don't think Sinwar or Netanyahu want to give themselves or Biden/Harris the gift of a war pause or end, so "not getting any worse"  may be the best to be hoped for in the next couple of months. An unexpected gift in this area could be at least somewhat helpful to Harris, though as has been said, people will always care more about the economy (which actually isn't bad, but even with decreasing inflation, you can't make the old cummulative inflation go away--at least not most of it). As far as the border goes, yes, at least go as far right as the proposed legislation a few months ago would be smart, and maybe even a bit more. I assume the wall comment was facetious, but if the gist is that she should lean more conservative in that area, then, yes.

[Sun_Worshiper]

^^^ Probably true about the numbers. But it is worth nothing that none of those other folks have the nation-wide, name-brand recognition that Harris does. In any case, the Democrats have instantaneously closed the enthusiasm and financing gaps with Republicans. That does not necessarily mean they are in a better place with swing state voters, but it will help to get their traditional base voters off the couch in November.

As for her strategy, I'm sure she will try to stay as far away from commenting on BLM, trans rights, or Palestine as possible - not that those are really the issues that drive the electorate. Instead, her talking points will revolve around a new era of leadership, fighting for working class voters, abortion, and the contrast to Trump (flabby and sick old criminal vs. vibrant and youthful prosecutor).

That may not work if Republicans can successfully tie her to the border, to inflation, to Hamas, to drag queen story hour, to BLM, and to whatever else they think can scare suburban soccer moms. We'll see. We'll also see whether they can keep the racism and sexism that is sure to come from their activists, their politicians, and their nominee from blowing up in their faces.

[Sun_Worshiper]

I will also say that this was a masterstroke of timing. Dems will get a polling boost from all the excitement this week around Harris, at a time when Trump should be getting one from the R convention. Then they'll roll into the Democratic convention, which will be a star studded affair, in contrast to the RNC freakshow. If they play their card right, and if the economy continues to cooperate, Dems will be rolling into September in a strong position to win this thing.

[dismalist]

Elections are hardly ever about individual issues. They're about bundles of issues, not to say the revolution.

Harris seems to be a successful California politician. And in California, none of her policy stances would be at all controversial.

Her problem is that California is not the United States.

[Sun_Worshiper]

^^^ That could be a good analysis if this was 2020

[Ruralguy]

SW,

I think your scenario is a bit too perfect for Democrats. Though elements of that will probably happen, Trump has a way of reshaping things, Biden is still out there doing stuff and still gaffe prone, and Harris may fall into her own problems.

So, though I can generally see a positive trend for Democrats for the next month or so,
after that, who knows. There are only so many converts. Neither of the candidates is likely to get Reagan like buy in.

And I agree with Dismalist. Standard CA Dem is not the same ssme Az Dem or PA Dem.
Thats where maybe a good VP pick might help at the fringes.

[Sun_Worshiper]

SW,

I think your scenario is a bit too perfect for Democrats. Though elements of that will probably happen, Trump has a way of reshaping things, Biden is still out there doing stuff and still gaffe prone, and Harris may fall into her own problems.

So, though I can generally see a positive trend for Democrats for the next month or so,
after that, who knows. There are only so many converts. Neither of the candidates is likely to get Reagan like buy in.

And I agree with Dismalist. Standard CA Dem is not the same ssme Az Dem or PA Dem.
Thats where maybe a good VP pick might help at the fringes.

Sure, I'm not saying Dems will necessarily win - certainly not that they will get Reagan-like buy in. Just that they are well positioned for a few polling bumps between now and September, which should put them in a good competitive position as we get to the heart of the race. There could be twists and turns, of course, which is why forecasting is always iffy, but I'm working with the info we have now.

As for being a standard CA Dem, that was perhaps her persona in 2020, but this time she's in a very different position, running essentially a presidential incumbent. She'll surely be presenting herself as a centrist with an emphasis on the middle class and job creation, not to mention abortion.  That may or may not be convincing to swing state voters and I agree that picking the right VP could help at the margins in that regard.

[dismalist]

SW,

I think your scenario is a bit too perfect for Democrats. Though elements of that will probably happen, Trump has a way of reshaping things, Biden is still out there doing stuff and still gaffe prone, and Harris may fall into her own problems.

So, though I can generally see a positive trend for Democrats for the next month or so,
after that, who knows. There are only so many converts. Neither of the candidates is likely to get Reagan like buy in.

And I agree with Dismalist. Standard CA Dem is not the same ssme Az Dem or PA Dem.
Thats where maybe a good VP pick might help at the fringes.

Sure, I'm not saying Dems will necessarily win - certainly not that they will get Reagan-like buy in. Just that they are well positioned for a few polling bumps between now and September, which should put them in a good competitive position as we get to the heart of the race. There could be twists and turns, of course, which is why forecasting is always iffy, but I'm working with the info we have now.

As for being a standard CA Dem, that was perhaps her persona in 2020, but this time she's in a very different position, running essentially a presidential incumbent. She'll surely be presenting herself as a centrist with an emphasis on the middle class and job creation, not to mention abortion.  That may or may not be convincing to swing state voters and I agree that picking the right VP could help at the margins in that regard.

Yeah, but nobody runs as a centrist anymore. Used to be that way once upon a time.

This is puzzling. I think the solution is to recognize that the US has three parties -- the Reps, the Dems, and the non voters. This last group is large and variable by the standards of western democracies.

Thus, I think the parties do not charge to the median -- no one knows who that is anyway, but they push only slightly toward each other, so as not to lose more from their so-called base than they gain from moving toward the median.

For this election, while you can take the girl out of California, you have to take California out of the girl, at least a little!

[Sun_Worshiper]

SW,

I think your scenario is a bit too perfect for Democrats. Though elements of that will probably happen, Trump has a way of reshaping things, Biden is still out there doing stuff and still gaffe prone, and Harris may fall into her own problems.

So, though I can generally see a positive trend for Democrats for the next month or so,
after that, who knows. There are only so many converts. Neither of the candidates is likely to get Reagan like buy in.

And I agree with Dismalist. Standard CA Dem is not the same ssme Az Dem or PA Dem.
Thats where maybe a good VP pick might help at the fringes.

Sure, I'm not saying Dems will necessarily win - certainly not that they will get Reagan-like buy in. Just that they are well positioned for a few polling bumps between now and September, which should put them in a good competitive position as we get to the heart of the race. There could be twists and turns, of course, which is why forecasting is always iffy, but I'm working with the info we have now.

As for being a standard CA Dem, that was perhaps her persona in 2020, but this time she's in a very different position, running essentially a presidential incumbent. She'll surely be presenting herself as a centrist with an emphasis on the middle class and job creation, not to mention abortion.  That may or may not be convincing to swing state voters and I agree that picking the right VP could help at the margins in that regard.

Yeah, but nobody runs as a centrist anymore. Used to be that way once upon a time.

This is puzzling. I think the solution is to recognize that the US has three parties -- the Reps, the Dems, and the non voters. This last group is large and variable by the standards of western democracies.

Thus, I think the parties do not charge for the median -- no one knows who that is anyway, but they push only slightly toward each other, so as not to lose more from their so-called base than they gain from moving toward the median.

For this election, while you can take the girl out of California, you have to take California out of the girl!

What I'm saying is that she'll try to run as a moderate Democrat - more an AZ or PA Democrat than CA Democrat, to use RG's terms. And these days people know her as the VP, rather than a CA senator.

[apl68]

I do find it interesting that until about 4pm on Sunday, Harris was largely viewed as in over her head, ran a poor campaign in 2020, did nothing about the border etc etc etc.  Given the level of attention most people pay to the VEEP, who knows how much of that was actually true.

But, by 5pm Sunday, she was the second coming of Obama, FDR, and Clinton (Bill) combined.  $100 million dollars in donations later, she's the savior of the D's.

That's always been the paradox of the party primary system.  Different factions within a party can fight tooth-and-nail over who will be the right nominee, and even sling a good deal of mud at each other.  But once one has been chosen, everybody in the party has to get busy talking the anointed one up for the sake of winning the national election.  Unless they feel so strongly about the unfitness of the chosen candidate that they essentially feel it's necessary to throw the election to the other party.

Of course all the former opponents of the chosen candidate in Our Party who are now talking out of the other side of their mouths by supporting them are being good, pragmatic, statesmanlike team players.  All those in Their Party who spoke against the anointed candidate in the past and are now supporting that candidate are unprincipled power-seekers who have sold their souls.

[ciao_yall]

Yeah, but nobody runs as a centrist anymore. Used to be that way once upon a time.

This is puzzling. I think the solution is to recognize that the US has three parties -- the Reps, the Dems, and the non voters. This last group is large and variable by the standards of western democracies.

Thus, I think the parties do not charge to the median -- no one knows who that is anyway, but they push only slightly toward each other, so as not to lose more from their so-called base than they gain from moving toward the median.

For this election, while you can take the girl out of California, you have to take California out of the girl, at least a little!

Speaking as a long-time San Fransiscan, KH was known (by SF standards) to be a hard-nosed prosecutor and considered as right-wing as they come.

Watch her questioning of Brett K at his confirmation hearing.

Nobody will accuse her of being a bleeding-heart CA liberal wimp.