Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney was supposed to appeal to right leaning voters but backfired because it fed the narrative of Harris as a warmonger.
No republicans I know have referred to Harris as a warmonger but I have heard complaints from progressives about her stance on Gaza. So your comment implies that her campaigning with Cheney backfired by costing her votes from progressives. Which reinforces what you claim to be an establishment democrat narrative: that an increase amount of progressives didn’t vote for Harris in 2024. So you’re contradicting yourself again.
She damaged herself with the very same right leaning voters that she was trying to appeal to.
Again, I’ve only heard complaints from progressives about her stance on the war in Gaza. In my experience republicans only complained about the money being spent in Gaza and Ukraine because they were told that was the cause of inflation.
The left is used to Democrats leaning right because that’s been a constant since at least Bill Clinton. But Harris making rightward moves that damaged her with right leaning voters was insanity. The Democratic establishment lives in a bubble that hasn’t changed it’s modeling since the 90s.
Since the 90s there have been 9 presidential elections and democrats have won 5 of them. It makes perfect sense for them to continue with at least some of the strategies that have earned them the majority of elections.
Asking for evidence to a claim is fine, but not when done in bad faith. First of all, I am not the only one here making claims.
How is asking for evidence done in bad faith? By doing so I found out that there was some truth to your claim that people on the further ends of the political spectrum tend to be more engaged.
Also I found out that there was no credibility to your claim that “we” know how to reach people and that democrats can’t be interested.
Second of all, you are nitpicking half the links I gave, while ignoring what you can’t nitpick. You made no acknowledgement of that Pew study at all. I supplied my proof, and my complaint was for having to cast pearls before swine and the shitty way you went about asking for it without providing any evidence of your own claims, or even arguments as to why your claims should be believed.
I pointed out that a screenshot of a heat map with no legend or any of the required information like quantity of donors or quantity of donations posted on Reddit, is not evidence of anything. That’s not nitpicking. That’s telling you what you should already know.
The Pew study showed that people furthest left and right on the spectrum were more politically engaged. They defined that as taking more about politics and being more likely to vote. Your claim was that the further left someone’s ideology the more likely they are to vote and vote democrat. I acknowledge the Pew study supports that they are more likely to vote but it doesn’t say they vote democrat, they are just as likely to be voting 3rd party.
As I said, I’ll be happy to find a better link for you on the fundraising map, as soon as you start providing some evidence for your own bald assertions. It’s not going to be a one way street.
What bald assertions are you referring to? I told you why I claimed that progressives didn’t show up to vote for Harris. I acknowledge that it is based on anecdotal evidence. You reinforced that anecdotal evidence by saying it’s true.
Well, you would know bad faith arguments, but that’s hardly applicable in this case. We are talking about how Democrats perform in elections so there is no reasonable ambiguity when I refer to Democrats “doing better”. That’s the last I’m going to say on this dumb side argument.
Yes, this isn’t my first day on the internet. For that reason I am familiar with bad faith arguments. “Doing better” could imply a better approval rating, more progressive policies, higher voter turnout, winning over more republican voters, winning over more progressive voters, earning more seats in Congress or the house and on and on. I didn’t even put effort into all the different things “doing better” could refer to but you’re getting upset because I’m calling out a common tactic in bad faith arguments.
An interview is not a town hall, and I didn’t just say that Bernie did a town hall on Fox, I linked to the video. Unlike Harris’ interview, the town hall included a right leaning audience that was responding well to left leaning arguments, which directly addressed what you asked me to address.
That “right leaning audience” sure did like his response about trusting scientists when it comes to corona virus and climate change. So the opposite of how a right leaning audience would respond. I live in a red state and there were political ads at this time of politicians killing Dr. Fauci. Those politicians won. This audience is far from “right leaning”.
None of this supports your claim that progressives know how to win over the disengaged voters in the middle of the ideological spectrum.
If you want to move the goalposts and look at just election results, that’s fine. Look into how many voters who split their ticket between AOC and Trump, and what they said when interviewed. You can find your own links until you start supporting your claims with something other than repetition.
This supports my point about the Pew study you shared: the farthest left voters are more likely to vote, just not necessarily for democrats.
Which brings us full circle back to my original point. A remarkable amount of progressives didn’t vote for Harris.
Which reinforces what you claim to be an establishment democrat narrative: that an increase amount of progressives didn’t vote for Harris in 2024. So you’re contradicting yourself again.
Liz Cheney is far more hated by the right than the left. (A flaw with the left from my perspective.)
BTW: I’m still waiting for any evidence whatsoever that progressives didn’t show for Harris.
Since the 90s there have been 9 presidential elections and democrats have won 5 of them. It makes perfect sense for them to continue with at least some of the strategies that have earned them the majority of elections.
And every time the Democrats move to the right, so do the Republicans. That is the process that got us to Trump so, no, I don’t think any sane person would look at where the country is today and pat the Democrats on the back. Aiming to be just a bit better than the Republicans just gives the Republicans space to be even worse. In the last 3 presidential elections, Democrats were so ineffective that they lost to Trump. The working class of this country has been on a steady downhill road for the last 50 years, and the messaging Bill Clinton used doesn’t work anymore.
Also, in at least one of those elections, Obama was the upstart populist candidate. Both Hillary and McCain were establishment candidates in that election. Obama then went full establishment as soon as he won, but his next opponent was Romney, who was also an establishment candidate. I don’t expect the Republicans to be running another milquetoast establishment candidate for a long time. It could even be argued that Bill Clinton ran as a populist for at least his first run, then moved to the center just like Obama. Reagan absolutely ran as a populist.
How is asking for evidence done in bad faith?
I literally explained this immediately after I said it.
I found out that there was some truth to your claim that people on the further ends of the political spectrum tend to be more engaged.
That’s literally what the Pew study showed. Your unfounded and ridiculous argument that they vote Republican notwithstanding. You could argue that they disproportionately vote for third party candidates but, since the libertarian party regularly outperforms the greens, progressives are far more loyal than the right. Anyways, third parties were clearly irrelevant this cycle, so now you have to pretend progressives are voting for Republicans.
I acknowledge that it is based on anecdotal evidence.
So, “just trust me bro”. Anecdotal evidence, especially filtered though a partisan hack, is worthless.
This supports my point about the Pew study you shared: the farthest left voters are more likely to vote, just not necessarily for democrats.
Funny how you assume that AOC/Trump voters are progressives voting for a Republican and not conservatives voting for a progressive, or liberals voting for a conservative and a progressive. The only reason you assumed the first is because it reinforces what you already believe. A rational analysis would consider the possibility that there is some other factor at play than ideological self identification. If you actually looked into the interviews done with these voters you would have seen the answer. They aren’t progressive, or liberal, or conservative. These are the voters I described before who don’t even think about politics until right before an election, then vote based on vibes. I guarantee that you know a lot of these people. Their choice was made on the populist-establishment spectrum, not the left-right spectrum. When people’s lives are shit, it’s populist messaging that gets their vote.
You think establishment Democrats would be more popular without criticism from progressives, but you actually have it wrong. This is a populist age and you can’t just make voters love the establishment, at least not without putting them in camps for brainwashing. With no populist left messaging, people aren’t just going to swing to the establishment. They will go populist right. At least with a populist left making noise in the Democratic camp, people have a reason to think that Democrats hear them. There is at least a hope that the Democrats will address their problems. Establishment Democrats think bragging about a great economy just tells people they aren’t seen. Even a con-artist like Trump seems like a better choice than just being invisible. When Democrats address this at all, it’s with a throw-away line in a speech and crocodile tears. People need a narrative. Trump gave them one, and Harris didn’t. Republicans nurture their populist base, while Democrats try to suppress theirs.
No republicans I know have referred to Harris as a warmonger but I have heard complaints from progressives about her stance on Gaza. So your comment implies that her campaigning with Cheney backfired by costing her votes from progressives. Which reinforces what you claim to be an establishment democrat narrative: that an increase amount of progressives didn’t vote for Harris in 2024. So you’re contradicting yourself again.
Again, I’ve only heard complaints from progressives about her stance on the war in Gaza. In my experience republicans only complained about the money being spent in Gaza and Ukraine because they were told that was the cause of inflation.
Since the 90s there have been 9 presidential elections and democrats have won 5 of them. It makes perfect sense for them to continue with at least some of the strategies that have earned them the majority of elections.
How is asking for evidence done in bad faith? By doing so I found out that there was some truth to your claim that people on the further ends of the political spectrum tend to be more engaged.
Also I found out that there was no credibility to your claim that “we” know how to reach people and that democrats can’t be interested.
I pointed out that a screenshot of a heat map with no legend or any of the required information like quantity of donors or quantity of donations posted on Reddit, is not evidence of anything. That’s not nitpicking. That’s telling you what you should already know.
The Pew study showed that people furthest left and right on the spectrum were more politically engaged. They defined that as taking more about politics and being more likely to vote. Your claim was that the further left someone’s ideology the more likely they are to vote and vote democrat. I acknowledge the Pew study supports that they are more likely to vote but it doesn’t say they vote democrat, they are just as likely to be voting 3rd party.
What bald assertions are you referring to? I told you why I claimed that progressives didn’t show up to vote for Harris. I acknowledge that it is based on anecdotal evidence. You reinforced that anecdotal evidence by saying it’s true.
Yes, this isn’t my first day on the internet. For that reason I am familiar with bad faith arguments. “Doing better” could imply a better approval rating, more progressive policies, higher voter turnout, winning over more republican voters, winning over more progressive voters, earning more seats in Congress or the house and on and on. I didn’t even put effort into all the different things “doing better” could refer to but you’re getting upset because I’m calling out a common tactic in bad faith arguments.
That “right leaning audience” sure did like his response about trusting scientists when it comes to corona virus and climate change. So the opposite of how a right leaning audience would respond. I live in a red state and there were political ads at this time of politicians killing Dr. Fauci. Those politicians won. This audience is far from “right leaning”.
Even Fox News’s Bret Baier Admits Harris Outsmarted Him in Interview
None of this supports your claim that progressives know how to win over the disengaged voters in the middle of the ideological spectrum.
This supports my point about the Pew study you shared: the farthest left voters are more likely to vote, just not necessarily for democrats.
Which brings us full circle back to my original point. A remarkable amount of progressives didn’t vote for Harris.
Split ticket voters offer some bracing lessons for the Democratic Party
There’s the evidence to support the claim.
You still haven’t supported your original claims.
Trump - JD Vance - Joe Rogan - Glenn Greenwald - Newsweek
Liz Cheney is far more hated by the right than the left. (A flaw with the left from my perspective.) BTW: I’m still waiting for any evidence whatsoever that progressives didn’t show for Harris.
And every time the Democrats move to the right, so do the Republicans. That is the process that got us to Trump so, no, I don’t think any sane person would look at where the country is today and pat the Democrats on the back. Aiming to be just a bit better than the Republicans just gives the Republicans space to be even worse. In the last 3 presidential elections, Democrats were so ineffective that they lost to Trump. The working class of this country has been on a steady downhill road for the last 50 years, and the messaging Bill Clinton used doesn’t work anymore.
Also, in at least one of those elections, Obama was the upstart populist candidate. Both Hillary and McCain were establishment candidates in that election. Obama then went full establishment as soon as he won, but his next opponent was Romney, who was also an establishment candidate. I don’t expect the Republicans to be running another milquetoast establishment candidate for a long time. It could even be argued that Bill Clinton ran as a populist for at least his first run, then moved to the center just like Obama. Reagan absolutely ran as a populist.
I literally explained this immediately after I said it.
That’s literally what the Pew study showed. Your unfounded and ridiculous argument that they vote Republican notwithstanding. You could argue that they disproportionately vote for third party candidates but, since the libertarian party regularly outperforms the greens, progressives are far more loyal than the right. Anyways, third parties were clearly irrelevant this cycle, so now you have to pretend progressives are voting for Republicans.
So, “just trust me bro”. Anecdotal evidence, especially filtered though a partisan hack, is worthless.
Funny how you assume that AOC/Trump voters are progressives voting for a Republican and not conservatives voting for a progressive, or liberals voting for a conservative and a progressive. The only reason you assumed the first is because it reinforces what you already believe. A rational analysis would consider the possibility that there is some other factor at play than ideological self identification. If you actually looked into the interviews done with these voters you would have seen the answer. They aren’t progressive, or liberal, or conservative. These are the voters I described before who don’t even think about politics until right before an election, then vote based on vibes. I guarantee that you know a lot of these people. Their choice was made on the populist-establishment spectrum, not the left-right spectrum. When people’s lives are shit, it’s populist messaging that gets their vote.
You think establishment Democrats would be more popular without criticism from progressives, but you actually have it wrong. This is a populist age and you can’t just make voters love the establishment, at least not without putting them in camps for brainwashing. With no populist left messaging, people aren’t just going to swing to the establishment. They will go populist right. At least with a populist left making noise in the Democratic camp, people have a reason to think that Democrats hear them. There is at least a hope that the Democrats will address their problems. Establishment Democrats think bragging about a great economy just tells people they aren’t seen. Even a con-artist like Trump seems like a better choice than just being invisible. When Democrats address this at all, it’s with a throw-away line in a speech and crocodile tears. People need a narrative. Trump gave them one, and Harris didn’t. Republicans nurture their populist base, while Democrats try to suppress theirs.