Because Trump is energizing his base with lies and propaganda designed to get them angry and motivated, while Kamala has squandered the enthusiasm her base had for her by pursuing disaffected center-right never-Trumpers. It’s basically the same strategy Hillary Clinton ran in 2016 and it’s terrifying to watch the Democrats gamble on it yet again.
its because their corporate owners don’t want to have to implement left wing economic policies for the good of the nation. unfortunately we’ll continue to have fascist bogey men until people start holding dems accountable.
There’s also the fact that this, “centrist liberal,” strategy worked exactly once in 1992 (and that may have had more to do with Ross Perot than anything else), but now there’s an entire pundit and strategist class built around it. Most of these people don’t mind losing elections if it means they can keep their jobs.
The Harris campaign must pursue those voters in order to win. They are the voters who live in battleground states. Pursuing a hard-left strategy the way everyone on lemmy wants is a guaranteed loss.
This is the problem with the non-proportional EC makeup. Unfortunately it’s not going to change any time soon because the party who wins got there on the old system.
Thank you, this is a spectacular example of how Democrats use faulty logic and bad faith arguments to defeat themselves. I’m going to break it down for everybody so we can all understand why they keep losing.
The Harris campaign must pursue those voters in order to win. They are the voters who live in battleground states.
This is confidently stated as fact, but not only is there no evidence to support this statement, there’s strong evidence against it. This is, at its core, the same statement that Chuck Schumer made when predicting a Democratic sweep in 2016:
“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia. And you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
Not only did this strategy fail spectacularly in 2016, we’re watching it fail in 2024; Harris has recently dropped in all crucial swing states. The only thing backing up this argument is its proponents’ self-confidence (or self-delusion).
Moving on:
Pursuing a hard-left strategy the way everyone on lemmy wants is a guaranteed loss.
Here, we leave behind false assertions and move into bad-faith arguments. Notice how the user completely ignored the voters I mentioned (her base) in order to pivot to what they think is an easier target: Lemmy users. Sure, if Kamala Harris came out in support of the abolition of capitalism, she’d lose, but no (or at least no one serious) is saying she’d win if she did.
What people are actually saying is much more tangible and and reasonable: sharpen your criticism of Israel and increase your Palestinian outreach if you want to win Michigan; don’t just talk about the middle-class, get your working-class base out with transformative social programs (like Biden proposed in 2020; stop hanging out with Liz Fucking Cheney, for Christ sake. These are all criticisms the user sidestepped by creating a false dichotomy between the, “hard-left,” and Harris’ current strategy.
Finally:
This is the problem with the non-proportional EC makeup. Unfortunately it’s not going to change any time soon because the party who wins got there on the old system.
This is unrelated, but incorrect. The Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections; they would abolish the Electoral College in a heartbeat, but it would require a constitutional amendment, which they’ll never get passed. It has nothing to do with the fact that, “the party who wins got there on the old system.”
Anyway, this is how the Democrats continuously fail. First, they convinced themselves that the only way to win is to get centrist voters, even though evidence doesn’t bear that out. Next, they dismiss criticism of this strategy as, “far-left.” Finally, if they lose (which is looking alarming possible this election), they will blame leftists for not supporting them strongly enough, thus allowing them to continue the same strategy next election without self-reflection…assuming there is a next election, which no longer feels like a given.
Well, first, let’s look at the last 6 elections. In 2000, Al Gore ran a centrist campaign and lost. 2004, John Kerry ran a centrist campaign and lost. 2008, Barack Obama ran a very progressive campaign, promising universal healthcare, Wall Street reform, homeowner bailouts, closing Guantanamo…he wound up governing from the center, but he ran far to the left (by American standards). Even in 2012, the center of his reelection campaign was dealing with wealth inequality, and he won despite being called a communist. In 2016…well, we all know what happened there…and 2020, Biden, ran on a very progressive platform and strong support for labor (and he was actually surprisingly committed to it, especially student loan forgiveness).
But election results have many factors and are open to interpretation, so let’s look at some data, specifically from 2016. Clinton and the Democrats’ strategy was to go to the center to pick up moderate Republicans, but the data shows they failed spectacularly. Clinton picked up about 4% of voters who identified as Republican by going to the center, while Trump picked up 5% of Democrats by going far-right. Clinton got 42% of Independents, Trump got 43%. Even in the target demographic, people with mixed political views (AKA moderates), she got 42% to Trump’s 48%. And even if she’d won the center, it’s not clear that it would have helped much, as there’s relatively new data that shows that moderates are less likely to get involved in politics, including voting. In short, 2016 is a case study in why centrism is a losing strategy.
Those semi-con swing voters are deciding this election though. Nobody else is “on the fence” right now.
Jesus christ, we saw two assassination attempts on Trump and it didn’t change polls. While polls are trash and not to be trusted, they still would have changed if there was some large amount of moderate undecided voters.
And lets not forget H. Clinton won the popular vote by millions of votes. Yes, the Dems are addicting to losing and make the worst decisions in order to appeal to the most useless people, but they’re also playing against a stacked deck here.
I broke this down in another comment, but there’s really no evidence that this moderate strategy will work. Democrats win when their base turns out, and they lose when their base isn’t motivated. Watching Harris campaign with Liz Cheney doesn’t motivate the base. They may pick up some moderate voters in PA (though, again, it didn’t work in 2016, so there’s no reason to think it will work now), but it’s not going to matter if she loses Michigan because of a hard-right position on Israel.
Because Trump is energizing his base with lies and propaganda designed to get them angry and motivated, while Kamala has squandered the enthusiasm her base had for her by pursuing disaffected center-right never-Trumpers. It’s basically the same strategy Hillary Clinton ran in 2016 and it’s terrifying to watch the Democrats gamble on it yet again.
its because their corporate owners don’t want to have to implement left wing economic policies for the good of the nation. unfortunately we’ll continue to have fascist bogey men until people start holding dems accountable.
It’s because the media, who teach most people how to think, is mostly owned by corporations who benefit from pro-corpo status quo policies.
media is just an amplifier. but yes you could make such an argument; though its deeper than that.
Obviously it’s the sort of thing one could write doctoral theses about, but I reckon that much is not contentious.
There’s also the fact that this, “centrist liberal,” strategy worked exactly once in 1992 (and that may have had more to do with Ross Perot than anything else), but now there’s an entire pundit and strategist class built around it. Most of these people don’t mind losing elections if it means they can keep their jobs.
The Harris campaign must pursue those voters in order to win. They are the voters who live in battleground states. Pursuing a hard-left strategy the way everyone on lemmy wants is a guaranteed loss.
This is the problem with the non-proportional EC makeup. Unfortunately it’s not going to change any time soon because the party who wins got there on the old system.
Thank you, this is a spectacular example of how Democrats use faulty logic and bad faith arguments to defeat themselves. I’m going to break it down for everybody so we can all understand why they keep losing.
This is confidently stated as fact, but not only is there no evidence to support this statement, there’s strong evidence against it. This is, at its core, the same statement that Chuck Schumer made when predicting a Democratic sweep in 2016:
Not only did this strategy fail spectacularly in 2016, we’re watching it fail in 2024; Harris has recently dropped in all crucial swing states. The only thing backing up this argument is its proponents’ self-confidence (or self-delusion).
Moving on:
Here, we leave behind false assertions and move into bad-faith arguments. Notice how the user completely ignored the voters I mentioned (her base) in order to pivot to what they think is an easier target: Lemmy users. Sure, if Kamala Harris came out in support of the abolition of capitalism, she’d lose, but no (or at least no one serious) is saying she’d win if she did.
What people are actually saying is much more tangible and and reasonable: sharpen your criticism of Israel and increase your Palestinian outreach if you want to win Michigan; don’t just talk about the middle-class, get your working-class base out with transformative social programs (like Biden proposed in 2020; stop hanging out with Liz Fucking Cheney, for Christ sake. These are all criticisms the user sidestepped by creating a false dichotomy between the, “hard-left,” and Harris’ current strategy.
Finally:
This is unrelated, but incorrect. The Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections; they would abolish the Electoral College in a heartbeat, but it would require a constitutional amendment, which they’ll never get passed. It has nothing to do with the fact that, “the party who wins got there on the old system.”
Anyway, this is how the Democrats continuously fail. First, they convinced themselves that the only way to win is to get centrist voters, even though evidence doesn’t bear that out. Next, they dismiss criticism of this strategy as, “far-left.” Finally, if they lose (which is looking alarming possible this election), they will blame leftists for not supporting them strongly enough, thus allowing them to continue the same strategy next election without self-reflection…assuming there is a next election, which no longer feels like a given.
i agreed with all of the other statements in your comment and this one’s the most fascinating to me: can you share some of this evidence, please?
Well, first, let’s look at the last 6 elections. In 2000, Al Gore ran a centrist campaign and lost. 2004, John Kerry ran a centrist campaign and lost. 2008, Barack Obama ran a very progressive campaign, promising universal healthcare, Wall Street reform, homeowner bailouts, closing Guantanamo…he wound up governing from the center, but he ran far to the left (by American standards). Even in 2012, the center of his reelection campaign was dealing with wealth inequality, and he won despite being called a communist. In 2016…well, we all know what happened there…and 2020, Biden, ran on a very progressive platform and strong support for labor (and he was actually surprisingly committed to it, especially student loan forgiveness).
But election results have many factors and are open to interpretation, so let’s look at some data, specifically from 2016. Clinton and the Democrats’ strategy was to go to the center to pick up moderate Republicans, but the data shows they failed spectacularly. Clinton picked up about 4% of voters who identified as Republican by going to the center, while Trump picked up 5% of Democrats by going far-right. Clinton got 42% of Independents, Trump got 43%. Even in the target demographic, people with mixed political views (AKA moderates), she got 42% to Trump’s 48%. And even if she’d won the center, it’s not clear that it would have helped much, as there’s relatively new data that shows that moderates are less likely to get involved in politics, including voting. In short, 2016 is a case study in why centrism is a losing strategy.
It’s also worth noting that, overall, Americans are not centrist. Sure, if you ask them if they like socialism, the results are pretty devisive, but if you ask them about progressive policies, they’re all for them: raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations, single-payer healthcare, and even Universal Basic Income enjoy widespread support across the country. Shrinking away from these policies in favor of more moderate positions simply doesn’t make sense.
Ok.
Those semi-con swing voters are deciding this election though. Nobody else is “on the fence” right now.
Jesus christ, we saw two assassination attempts on Trump and it didn’t change polls. While polls are trash and not to be trusted, they still would have changed if there was some large amount of moderate undecided voters.
And lets not forget H. Clinton won the popular vote by millions of votes. Yes, the Dems are addicting to losing and make the worst decisions in order to appeal to the most useless people, but they’re also playing against a stacked deck here.
I broke this down in another comment, but there’s really no evidence that this moderate strategy will work. Democrats win when their base turns out, and they lose when their base isn’t motivated. Watching Harris campaign with Liz Cheney doesn’t motivate the base. They may pick up some moderate voters in PA (though, again, it didn’t work in 2016, so there’s no reason to think it will work now), but it’s not going to matter if she loses Michigan because of a hard-right position on Israel.
that they’re helping perpetuate.