Rock the Vote '24: update (08/27) - 200+ former GOP staffers endorse Harris

[finaljedi]

6 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

This is what drives me nuts.  There's an army of political consultants and party big-wigs kneecapping their incumbent candidate and calling for him to step down and their reasoning is that "generic democrat polls better than Biden, so a replacement would do better", yet they can't point to a single poll where a specific replacement does better than Biden outside the MOE. (Harris consistently polls worse)

 

Then when this is pointed out their response is "Oh well but they will once the campaign gets going", and they have literally no evidence to support this except vibes.  So the argument comes down to "let's throw out the tremendous advantages of incumbency and overlook what happens historically when you do so because vibes".

 

Even typically shrewd veterans like Carville are saying this shit.  I don't know what's going on but suddenly all the veterans of the party are acting like they just got into partisan politics yesterday.

 

With the renewed calls the cynical side of me starts to think probably don't mind a Trump win as much so one of them gets to run against Vance.

[Spork3245]

29 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

with ya know actually being able to speak

 

*remembers 2020 primaries*

 

31 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

a woman and a minority, which basically hits all of the dems base,

 

I somehow don't think the dem base will really be the issue come November.

[GeneticBlueprint]

3 hours ago, thewhyteboar said:

Sorry for rule breaking, but Jesus:

 

People really want to vote for Younger Democrat. 

 

Polls like this get a lot less rosey once you put a specific, real person in there.

[PaladinSolo]

Obama is telling people Joe needs to seriously consider his campaigns viability, hard to believe thats not critical mass.

[Massdriver]

1 hour ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

This is what drives me nuts.  There's an army of political consultants and party big-wigs kneecapping their incumbent candidate and calling for him to step down and their reasoning is that "generic democrat polls better than Biden, so a replacement would do better", yet they can't point to a single poll where a specific replacement does better than Biden outside the MOE. (Harris consistently polls worse)

 

Then when this is pointed out their response is "Oh well but they will once the campaign gets going", and they have literally no evidence to support this except vibes.  So the argument comes down to "let's throw out the tremendous advantages of incumbency and overlook what happens historically when you do so because vibes".

 

Even typically shrewd veterans like Carville are saying this shit.  I don't know what's going on but suddenly all the veterans of the party are acting like they just got into partisan politics yesterday.

I think I've read that there are internal polls that show Biden is hurting Congressional Democrats in their districts with him at the top of the ticket compared to Harris or someone else. Until those polls improve, Democrats in Congress will want Biden to step aside. So it may be less about these presidential match up polls and more about those internal district by district polls.

[skillzdadirecta]

2 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

I think I've read that there are internal polls that show Biden is hurting Congressional Democrats in their districts with him at the top of the ticket compared to Harris or someone else. Until those polls improve, Democrats in Congress will want Biden to step aside. So it may be less about these presidential match up polls and more about those internal district by district polls.

[GeneticBlueprint]

3 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

I think I've read that there are internal polls that show Biden is hurting Congressional Democrats in their districts with him at the top of the ticket compared to Harris or someone else. Until those polls improve, Democrats in Congress will want Biden to step aside. So it may be less about these presidential match up polls and more about those internal district by district polls.

 

I mean there's something to be said for it. If Trump wins the White House you absolutely need as many House Seats as possible.

[Spork3245]

3 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

I mean there's something to be said for it. If Trump wins the White House you absolutely need as many House Seats as possible.

 

SCOTUS will proclaim that the House and/or Senate can't vote down measures from a President if said President is orange, so will it really matter?

[PaladinSolo]

Harris just does better with the base, and because of that they're more likely to show up, or if they are going to show up, not vote 3rd party, she has more upside and basically the same floor.

[Spork3245]

I cannot fathom someone who's part of the DNC's base that would vote for Harris but not Biden... or Butti... or Warren... or FDR's head in a jar. Perhaps I have a different definition of who the base is.

[Spork3245]

8 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

Perhaps I have a different definition of who the base is.

 

Let me clarify: to me, the base is the vote blue no matter who people, the foundation of voters that always vote dem; the base, as in, the substructure, the foundation, the bottom, the floor. It's those who make up the block of voters above the base who typically vote dem that you need to worry about and entice. In this current poling, yea, Harris has a lead, but, as I've mentioned, my fear is that these people who are polling that way just rabidly want someone younger and know little to nothing of Kamala. I'm very worried that once she starts campaigning, once the media is focused on her, and, especially, once she debates Trump, it's not going to continue with a lead for her. Hypothetical poll numbers are just not something I feel as though are trust worthy.

[Jwheel86]

12 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

I cannot fathom someone who's part of the DNC's base that would vote for Harris but not Biden... or Butti... or Warren... or FDR's head in a jar. Perhaps I have a different definition of who the base is.

 

None of those, except maybe FDR's head (even then a majority of people would probably say "who?"), would excite voters because they all carry something that makes people angsty about being able to win, imaginary or not. It is all about turn out. 

 

A milktoast boring ass midwest Governor would win because it would give people the belief they can win. That literal was the theory behind Biden in 2020, a boring VP everybody thought could beat Trump, did. 

[Chris-]

Gotta say, the way Nancy Pelosi orchestrated the effort has been nothing short of masterclass; the steady, escalating, and deft layers layers of pressure were *chef kiss*. Regardless of your personal feelings toward her, you simply cannot deny when someone knows ball.

 

[PaladinSolo]

2024 National GE: Donald Trump 46% (+4) Joe Biden 42% .

@MorningConsult

, 9,414 RV, 7/15-17

 

Last poll was +2

 

Party break down.

 

 

If we can't get to 90% of dems backing the candidate we're toast, losing independents just means we're extra crispy.

[Greatoneshere]

A country that's been unwilling to elect a female president for its entire history will change its mind and do it in less than 4 months via a sudden shift through a previously unlikeable candidate (Harris) who couldn't win the nomination in 2020? If they go Harris, I'll back her fully, but that sort of situation is not a winning one.

[mclumber1]

Joe's gotta go

[Spork3245]

33 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

would excite voters

 

I'm not talking about the general block, I'm very specifically talking about the base, as that's what I was responding to.

[osxmatt]

8 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

A country that's been unwilling to elect a female president for its entire history will change its mind and do it in less than 4 months via a sudden shift through a previously unlikeable candidate (Harris) who couldn't win the nomination in 2020? If they go Harris, I'll back her fully, but that sort of situation is not a winning one.

I had this exact conversation with my brother a few days ago. Almost verbatim. 

[Spork3245]

14 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

A country that's been unwilling to elect a female president for its entire history will change its mind and do it in less than 4 months via a sudden shift through a previously unlikeable candidate (Harris) who couldn't win the nomination in 2020? If they go Harris, I'll back her fully, but that sort of situation is not a winning one.

 

Yep, that's what I've been screaming ITT. I will vote for her, I very much want to be wrong, but the misogyny in this country is a steep climb, and add racism on top of that - then, as you mentioned, consider her 2020 performance. I have no idea what the pro-Harris people are smoking, but I'd very much like some. You can argue that Biden needs to step aside, sure, but I'd be more for it if we had a better secondary option. I really blame Biden and his team for picking such a no-charisma VP to begin with.

[Chris-]

40 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

A country that's been unwilling to elect a female president for its entire history will change its mind and do it in less than 4 months via a sudden shift through a previously unlikeable candidate (Harris) who couldn't win the nomination in 2020? If they go Harris, I'll back her fully, but that sort of situation is not a winning one.

 

31 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

I had this exact conversation with my brother a few days ago. Almost verbatim. 

 

26 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

Yep, that's what I've been screaming ITT. I will vote for her, I very much want to be wrong, but the misogyny in this country is a steep climb, and add racism on top of that - then, as you mentioned, consider her 2020 performance. I have no idea what the pro-Harris people are smoking, but I'd very much like some. You can argue that Biden needs to step aside, sure, but I'd be more for it if we had a better secondary option. I really blame Biden and his team for picking such a no-charisma VP to begin with.

 

This line of thinking completely ignores that we live in a post-Dobbs political climate. It ain't 2016 or even 2020, and the window doesn't need to shift within 4 months - it's already been shifting for two years.

[Jwheel86]

33 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

I'm not talking about the general block, I'm very specifically talking about the base, as that's what I was responding to.

 

Even the base. The base right now is depressed about everything and resigned itself to a 2nd Trump Administration, and as a result might not turn out. But if you give the base someone who they think has a fighting chance, that might be the shot in the arm the base needs to turn out. 

[Spork3245]

9 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

 

 

This line of thinking completely ignores that we live in a post-Dobbs political climate. It ain't 2016 or even 2020, and the window doesn't need to shift within 4 months - it's already been shifting for two years.

 

 

Kamala not being charismatic hasn't changed or shifted in two years.

 

6 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

Even the base. The base right now is depressed about everything and resigned itself to a 2nd Trump Administration, and as a result might not turn out. But if you give the base someone who they think has a fighting chance, that might be the shot in the arm the base needs to turn out. 

 

Exciting the base is important, that trickles (... foams?) upward into the "typically dem" voters, and then into independents. I disagree that the base won't show up, because... that's literally what the base is and is what I am stating - they are the ones who are "vote blue no matter who", just like the GOP base is red straight down the line. The base of the party is like, what, 30% of democrats and 30% of republicans? "The base won't show up with Biden on the ticket!" is a weird argument, because that's literally what the base is; the ones who always show up. I'm stating that the base isn't who you need to worry about not showing up.

[PaladinSolo]

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

A country that's been unwilling to elect a female president for its entire history will change its mind and do it in less than 4 months via a sudden shift through a previously unlikeable candidate (Harris) who couldn't win the nomination in 2020? If they go Harris, I'll back her fully, but that sort of situation is not a winning one.

There has been exactly 1 woman nominated by one of the major parties to run for president, and she got a plurality of votes.  She did not lose because she was a woman, nevermind that the gender gap between parties has only grown since.

[SaysWho?]

5 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Yeah that’s the thing right? younger democrat in general sounds good but put a name on them and support drops to just a few points above Biden now. Which is notable and yet not shocking if you talk to actual human beings and not the internet. 

 

Like Harris, who is younger, but she doesn't poll the same as "Younger Democrat."

 

3 hours ago, Best said:

Back on topic.

 

My last apartment was 64 degrees at night, 68 degrees during the day. I like seeing my breath. 

 

Our man Best I think finally understands how the CEB operates.

[Spork3245]

Are we seriously arguing that misogyny didn’t play a role in Hillary Clinton not getting the plurality of votes in the handful of states that decides elections in this country’s shitty system when she was up against Donald fucking Trump before he turned the GOP into his cult?

[legend]

3 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

Are we seriously arguing that misogyny didn’t play a role in Hillary Clinton not getting the plurality of votes in the handful of states that decides elections in this country’s shitty system when she was up against Donald fucking Trump before he turned the GOP into his cult?

 

I'm sure it played a role, but I think there were lots of factors and things were close enough that if you removed almost any of those factors she probably would have won.

[Chris-]

10 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

Are we seriously arguing that misogyny didn’t play a role in Hillary Clinton not getting the plurality of votes in the handful of states that decides elections in this country’s shitty system when she was up against Donald fucking Trump before he turned the GOP into his cult?

 

You mean one of the states which has since elected a woman as governor, who happens to be one of the most popular Democratic politicians currently in office? 

[PaladinSolo]

She lost because people saw her as corrupt, thats like the whole thing, and despite that she probably still wins if Comey doesn't lose his god damned mind days before the election.

[mclumber1]

12 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

Are we seriously arguing that misogyny didn’t play a role in Hillary Clinton not getting the plurality of votes in the handful of states that decides elections in this country’s shitty system when she was up against Donald fucking Trump before he turned the GOP into his cult?

 

She was a weak candidate with too much baggage that had nothing to do with her gender.  

[Spork3245]

8 minutes ago, legend said:

 

I'm sure it played a role, but I think there were lots of factors and things were close enough that if you removed almost any of those factors she probably would have won.

 

3 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

You mean one of the states which has since elected a woman as governor, who happens to be one of the most popular Democratic politicians currently in office? 

I didn’t say it couldn’t be overcome nor did I say it was the main or only reason. To pretend it didn’t factor in at all is a new one for me.

[SaysWho?]

It's easier to understand something when it's simplified, but there are a billion reasons why she lost.

 

Yes, there was misogyny.

Yes, some still thought she was weak by staying with Bill back in the 90s.

Yes, she didn't campaign in Wisconsin and barely campaigned in Michigan.

Yes, some black voters sat out in these states because they didn't feel Democrats did much while in power.

Yes, a bigger push to the right for white voters meant states such as Ohio and Iowa went way more to the right than previous elections.

Yes, corruption issues surrounded her, fairly or unfairly.

Yes, she dealt with a multidecadal smear campaign from Republicans and couldn't get the stink off.

[Spork3245]

1 minute ago, SaysWho? said:

Yes, there was misogyny.

That’s literally all I’m saying.  

[Chris-]

2 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

I didn’t say it couldn’t be overcome nor did I say it was the main or only reason. To pretend it didn’t factor in at all is a new one for me.

 

Misogyny is evergreen for women in public spaces - of course it's a factor. But if it can be overcome - which it clearly can be - then there is no reason to make it a determining factor.

[Spork3245]

1 minute ago, Chris- said:

 

Misogyny is evergreen for women in public spaces - of course it's a factor. But if it can be overcome - which it clearly can be - then there is no reason to make it a determining factor.

I didn’t say it was a determining factor. I said it’s a hill to climb… because… it is.

[Fizzzzle]

I find it increasingly baffling and frustrating that it's become general decorum that incumbent presidents just aren't seriously challenged in the primary. It hasn't always been that way. In fact, it generally wasn't that way until Clinton, outside of wartime. George H.W. Bush got a strong pushback from Pat Buchanan in 1992. Then Bush lost the election, so no one ever did it again, despite the fact that it was a pretty close election and Ross Perot won like 20% of the vote so who the hell knows why Bush lost.

 

Ever since Clinton, it's just kind of assumed that no one will seriously challenge the incumbent president within their own party. I guess because people think it makes the party look weaker, which is the most stupid fucking thing I've ever heard. In the 1800's it was fairly common. Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, Ulysses Grant and Chester Arthur all DID get primaried by their own party. Then of course you have 1912 when Roosevelt tried to primary Taft, barely failed, then started his own party instead, which is unfortunately how we wound up with Woodrow Wilson.