Well its clear that the “rhetoric only” approach isn’t working and is insufficient. Bernies rhetoric here and in the video version are good. But its not any different than what we’ve been seeing, literally the entire time from other surrogates. It sums to “Trump worse”.
And its not working. It hasn’t moved the needle. Kamala has been declining in polling pretty precisely since she snubbed Muslim’s at the DNC and then a week after that doubled down on it saying that “nothing would be different” in her administration relative to Biden’s. Since then the scale and scope of Israels genocide have increased, and she’s stayed the course to a continual decline in polling. Its not “the answer I want”, its what the data have to say.
We’re a week out from the election. You’ve convinced all the voters for whom “Trump worse” is a sufficient rhetorical approach.
Now what about the voters for whom that approach is insufficient. Is your plan to leave them on the table? Because it seems to me you aren’t interested in getting their votes, and that puts the campaign in jeopardy.
There is a cohort that appears to be about 5% of voters for whom “Trump worse” is an ineffective argument. If not for a pivot on the part of Harris, what is your argument then to get those voters to show up and vote for her?
I don’t know why we’re assuming that she picks up more votes than she loses by making a pivot on Israel. Not only will she lose votes from other areas of the base, that pivot will drive turnout among the GOP base. 5% means nothing if they lose 5% from Christians/Jews and turn out all the Christian crazies for the GOP.
Unfortunately I think the Harris campaign is doing the right thing with Israel right now. If other people on the left think this issue is worth losing over, I simply disagree. I don’t think there’s a good answer where everyone is happy, just one with less dead Palestinians.
why we’re assuming that she picks up more votes than she loses by making a pivot on Israel
Because thats what the data have to say. That’s why we think that.
I think the Harris campaign is doing the right thing with Israel right now. If other people on the left think this issue is worth losing over,
What you need to recognize is that this is something YOU think the election is worth losing over. YOU are the one arguing to leave a sufficient block of voters on the table by not pivoting. That 1-3% of voters is what wins or loses all of these tight races.
This is an aspect that makes me irate. People will say that its pure electoral pragmatism to support Israel, but how is losing Michigan over it pragmatic? I have seen no convincing argument that an arms embargo would be more dangerous for her electorally than continuing to tripple down on supporting Israel. If its not taken as a given that genocide is a pragmatic approach, then it seems obvious that the choice that leads to less genocide is correct, but Harris won’t take it.
Christ, right? If anything, the data we have suggest a pivot gets her back to being a candidate that had momentum and was increasing their share of likely voters.
There is nothing pragmatic about supporting a policy which is deeply unpopular with your base. This is a turn out election. You have to turn your base out, not off.
I have seen no convincing argument that an arms embargo would be more dangerous for her electorally than continuing to tripple down on supporting Israel.
It doesn’t even have to be that! She can just make a vague statement about considering conditioning arms sales.
Because thats what the data have to say. That’s why we think that.
So what is the percentage of voters that she will lose with a pivot? Not the ones she might gain, who does she lose? And what does it do to GOP turnout estimates?
You’re completely ignoring that by changing her position, she can gain votes with one group, and lose votes with another. What you and the data you’re using haven’t done is prove that the former is greater than the latter. It seems pretty apparent to me that the army of data scientists that the Harris campaign is listening to is telling her it’s not.
This is the exact same argument that people we’re using to argue that we had to “stick with Biden” as the candidate. And it was so completely and wildly wrong, it almost cost Democrats the entire game before the clock actually started. A bunch of hand-wringing and what-ifs’. If you want to make those arguments, thats fine. Go find the data and show me there is a political cost to a pivot, because I’ve provided data to say there isn’t, and in-fact, not pivoting is costing her the election. You don’t get to use speculation or uncertainty as a form of evidence.
The evidence is on my side, not yours. If you want to support your argument, go find any kind of evidence you can, work it up, and give us an evidence backed argument to support that position.
Until then the conclusion is that Harris is leaving voters on the table with her position on Israel Gaza, because thats what the data we have says.
Go find the data and show me there is a political cost to a pivot, because I’ve provided data to say there isn’t, and in-fact, not pivoting is costing her the election.
You provided half the data and are trying to get people to draw meaningful conclusions about it, while refusing to even acknowledge you’re working with incomplete data.
I’m just confused why you think you can lay out exactly half of the equation, know that you’re not presenting the whole picture, and say with certainty that the data proves you correct.
So then how many votes do you think she loses from a pivot? How many percentage points? I fully accept that she will gain votes from a segment of the base that may not vote for her otherwise. I am not arguing that at all. I want to know about the other piece you say youve laid out. You’ve presented all the data, walk us through that piece…
Well its clear that the “rhetoric only” approach isn’t working and is insufficient. Bernies rhetoric here and in the video version are good. But its not any different than what we’ve been seeing, literally the entire time from other surrogates. It sums to “Trump worse”.
And its not working. It hasn’t moved the needle. Kamala has been declining in polling pretty precisely since she snubbed Muslim’s at the DNC and then a week after that doubled down on it saying that “nothing would be different” in her administration relative to Biden’s. Since then the scale and scope of Israels genocide have increased, and she’s stayed the course to a continual decline in polling. Its not “the answer I want”, its what the data have to say.
We’re a week out from the election. You’ve convinced all the voters for whom “Trump worse” is a sufficient rhetorical approach.
Now what about the voters for whom that approach is insufficient. Is your plan to leave them on the table? Because it seems to me you aren’t interested in getting their votes, and that puts the campaign in jeopardy.
There is a cohort that appears to be about 5% of voters for whom “Trump worse” is an ineffective argument. If not for a pivot on the part of Harris, what is your argument then to get those voters to show up and vote for her?
I don’t know why we’re assuming that she picks up more votes than she loses by making a pivot on Israel. Not only will she lose votes from other areas of the base, that pivot will drive turnout among the GOP base. 5% means nothing if they lose 5% from Christians/Jews and turn out all the Christian crazies for the GOP.
Unfortunately I think the Harris campaign is doing the right thing with Israel right now. If other people on the left think this issue is worth losing over, I simply disagree. I don’t think there’s a good answer where everyone is happy, just one with less dead Palestinians.
Gross.
Because thats what the data have to say. That’s why we think that.
What you need to recognize is that this is something YOU think the election is worth losing over. YOU are the one arguing to leave a sufficient block of voters on the table by not pivoting. That 1-3% of voters is what wins or loses all of these tight races.
This is an aspect that makes me irate. People will say that its pure electoral pragmatism to support Israel, but how is losing Michigan over it pragmatic? I have seen no convincing argument that an arms embargo would be more dangerous for her electorally than continuing to tripple down on supporting Israel. If its not taken as a given that genocide is a pragmatic approach, then it seems obvious that the choice that leads to less genocide is correct, but Harris won’t take it.
Christ, right? If anything, the data we have suggest a pivot gets her back to being a candidate that had momentum and was increasing their share of likely voters.
There is nothing pragmatic about supporting a policy which is deeply unpopular with your base. This is a turn out election. You have to turn your base out, not off.
It doesn’t even have to be that! She can just make a vague statement about considering conditioning arms sales.
Gonna need a source on that, chief
Its linked above.
Sorry, I’m not finding it anywhere. Mind re-linking it?
Apologies, I was not in the thread I thought I was in. I’ll find the link, edit this comment, and @ you when I find it.
Here you go: https://apnorc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/October-topline_Middle-East.pdf
Topline, Democrats are deeply dissatisfied with Biden/ Harris’s handling of Israel/ Gaza. Democratic voters want a pivot and aren’t getting one.
So what is the percentage of voters that she will lose with a pivot? Not the ones she might gain, who does she lose? And what does it do to GOP turnout estimates?
You’re completely ignoring that by changing her position, she can gain votes with one group, and lose votes with another. What you and the data you’re using haven’t done is prove that the former is greater than the latter. It seems pretty apparent to me that the army of data scientists that the Harris campaign is listening to is telling her it’s not.
This is the exact same argument that people we’re using to argue that we had to “stick with Biden” as the candidate. And it was so completely and wildly wrong, it almost cost Democrats the entire game before the clock actually started. A bunch of hand-wringing and what-ifs’. If you want to make those arguments, thats fine. Go find the data and show me there is a political cost to a pivot, because I’ve provided data to say there isn’t, and in-fact, not pivoting is costing her the election. You don’t get to use speculation or uncertainty as a form of evidence.
The evidence is on my side, not yours. If you want to support your argument, go find any kind of evidence you can, work it up, and give us an evidence backed argument to support that position.
Until then the conclusion is that Harris is leaving voters on the table with her position on Israel Gaza, because thats what the data we have says.
You provided half the data and are trying to get people to draw meaningful conclusions about it, while refusing to even acknowledge you’re working with incomplete data.
I’m just confused why you think you can lay out exactly half of the equation, know that you’re not presenting the whole picture, and say with certainty that the data proves you correct.
Except its not. It is the whole thing, you just don’t like what it has to say.
So then how many votes do you think she loses from a pivot? How many percentage points? I fully accept that she will gain votes from a segment of the base that may not vote for her otherwise. I am not arguing that at all. I want to know about the other piece you say youve laid out. You’ve presented all the data, walk us through that piece…
I see one.
The same number we lost when people said Biden voters were going to depart in droves if we swapped the nominee.
0
Goose-egg.
Nada.