More than a dozen former Ronald Reagan staff members have joined dozens of other Republican figures endorsing the Democratic nominee and vice-president, Kamala Harris, saying their support was “less about supporting the Democratic party and more about our resounding support for democracy”.

  • Belgdore@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Taking one vote from another candidate is worth two votes from someone who is not voting, or who is voting for a non-viable third party.

    I know plenty of people who wanted to vote for Kennedy but will probably vote for Trump now that he’s out. This group is likely to listen to former Reagan staffers and republican presidents that they liked.

    • Red Army Dog Cooper@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      except the slice of the pie being argued over is so small now, you have to get the group of people who vote republican, but are willing to conseve of voting for the democrat, and then pull them off …

      the math does not add up when to the left of democrats there is a large untapped market, you can see some of this by the lesser evilism argumentation, that there are people once agian near the drop off point of being able to approve of the democratic canidate. Even one step to the left would open up a large amount of voters back up, aswell as father sure up and engage the base, allowing for a more energetic and larger voter turnout.

      also agian… the staffers and cheney should be enough given no denouncement or rejection of the endorsement to get anyone who was alive during those times who was opposed to them to keep from supporting harris, or atleast question the suport

      • Belgdore@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        The issue with appealing to the left is how fractured it is. Various factions will say whatever policies are presented are not left enough, and still refuse to vote. It’s hard to predict from the campaign’s perspective. Whereas they are unlikely to lose votes from obtaining the support of conservatives while possibly pulling votes from the other side.

        • Red Army Dog Cooper@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          19 hours ago

          I mean thats bullshit, because they are being told move left, and they are saying “well we dont know how left so we are going to move right vote for us your your terrible” that is not the way to handle this. You start to move left and you will gain more voters, and if you keep moving you will find the point that satifies most of them.

          You are very likely to lose votes by doing this, see the decreased voter turn out, and the varuable voter turn out, you are losing people as they stop approving of you, and the likelyhood of you gaining new voters shrinks as you chace a narrower and narrower market

          • Belgdore@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            18 hours ago

            You are talking about long term consequences. Like capitalists who only look to the current quarter’s profits, politicians only look to the current election.

            A smaller voter base is easier to appeal to. Both parties have relatively small voter bases and no competition because of the first past the post system and the electoral college.