American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Acting smug and visibly raising your eyebrows at a few protesters isn't going to gain votes, but it might potentially lose some. There's no real upside to it, while if that's the tone they continue with, it could depress support among some demographics that she needs to turn out.

She’s campaigning to be the President of the United States, a role where appearing strong, decisive, and in command rank very highly with voters. It would have hurt her image a lot more to lose control of her own rally and stand there frustrated on stage while she was shouted down by hecklers.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Azure

So the Democrats, specifically Harris being complicit of what you call a genocide in Gaza is okay as long as it means she gets elected again because she'll stop climate change from happening and more people from dying in Gaza? That about the gist of it?

Because then it must really, really pain you to know that US oil production has reached a record level under the Biden / Harris administration.

So we've established that you are perfectly okay with the genocide as long as the Democrats are in power, and you are perfectly okay with the US becoming an oil producing power house, even if you believe climate change is worse than genocide, as long as again, the Democrats are in power.

I mean the Republicans long to yell 'drill baby drill', but under the Democrats it actually happens.

That is quite the political perspective you have going on.

Amazing take. Just amazing. Take a bow.

Not only did you accuse me of saying things I didn't say, you've accused me of saying outright horrible things.

Since this is the road you're taking us down, I'd like to point out that you're perfectly ok with the planet turning into a barely-habitable hellscape if it means you get to keep making tons of money from the LNG industry. See how fun this is! I'm really glad we're putting words in each others' mouths!

Anyway...

No, I never said the situation in Gaza is ok. I said it's an inescapable reality regardless of whether the president has a D or an R next to their name. But the Democratic president will make things less bad than the alternative, while at the same time be far, far better on many other fronts, from women's rights to the environment to economic policy to preserving democracy.

And I also never said that fossil fuel energy production in the immediacy is a bad thing, in fact, it's absolutely essential to keep the economy going. But it MUST be counterbalanced with huge investments in green energy. That's what Biden-Harris administration has done in the Inflation Reduction Act. Trump won't put any money in green energy, and will do away with all environmental protections. If you still can't see the difference between one and the other, I don't know what to say to you.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I thought it was obvious that I was speaking from the campaign's perspective vs. the protestors. For the protestors, something like that statement is an actionable item that they can hopefully hold her feet to the fire on if she becomes president. For the campaign, it makes the candidate look like less of an ####### than chastising people who are against genocide does.

I see, I was still dealing with the question about whether the protestors should have done what they did. For them, then, the instrumental goal is to get her to make that statement about supporting a ceasefire. That is instrumental in that the purpose of that isn't as an end in itself, but as a means to get her to do things as president that, in turn, are instrumental to the ultimate goal of fewer dead Palestinian children in the near term, right?

So in that case, you have to be confident about what will happen here - first, that doing this is likely to produce the result of Harris making the statement you want her to make so you can hold her to it later. Second, that once that statement is made, you can hold her to it - her making that statement in response to your chants will be something she will feel tied to and will follow through on once she's in the White House. Third, that she will GET into the White House in order for you to be able to hold her to the statement and take action. And fourth, that whatever action she does take in response to being held to that statement will in fact result in fewer Palestinian children.

Does it really seem reasonable to be confident that shouting "Kamala, you can't hide, we won't vote for genocide" is likely to cause that chain of events to happen? Are you more or less confident in that being the outcome of this action, or that the outcome will be a distraction from her campaign message that makes it less likely for her to get into the White House, which is itself one of the individually necessary conditions for your plan to work?

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Climate change is worse than genocide?

The worst-case scenarios, yes they are.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Do you really believe that a significant segment of the population saw that protest and went "Hmmm....I was gonna vote for Harris, but now I think I'll just stay home?"

I think Harris is a relatively weak candidate and has a very real risk of not getting enough people out to vote for her. I don’t think a Gaza protest will kill her chances alone but she basically has to ride the good vibes wave and not #### up on the campaign trail to win. Gaza is divisive on the left and not so much on the right, maybe don’t have an anti voting message in a tight election.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Azure

The majority of Americans now do not agree with Israeli's actions in Gaza.

So the continued support from the Biden administration is not even in line with the majority of people who are going to vote in the election in November.

Disagreeing with Israel's actions does not equal agreeing with pausing aid to Israel.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Probably anything but "Shut up or you'll get Trump elected."

Did liberals really learn nothing from 2016? Chastising voters is a dog#### strategy to get your candidate elected.

Telling a heckler to stop disrupting the rally is not chastising voters...

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Bonded

I think Harris is a relatively weak candidate and has a very real risk of not getting enough people out to vote for her.

Did you completely miss all the excitement (and donations!) she has generated over the past two weeks? I've been following American politics really closely since the 2000 election, and I haven't seen Dem supporters this fired up since Obama's first run in '08.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Do you really believe that a significant segment of the population saw that protest and went "Hmmm....I was gonna vote for Harris, but now I think I'll just stay home?"

I think that momentum, which her campaign has, is fragile, and that there are a substantial number of voters who would be susceptible to an argument that appeasing the people chanting means she's beholden to the far left wing of the Democratic base, and that the criticism that she passed over Josh Shapiro because he's Jewish probably has some truth to it, and that therefore the criticisms of her as an elitist coastal California liberal must be right, and boom you've just lost Pennsylvania and that's the ball game.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Did you completely miss all the excitement (and donations!) she has generated over the past two weeks? I've been following American politics really closely since the 2000 election, and I haven't seen Dem supporters this fired up since Obama's first run in '08.

She's not Obama, though, clearly. You can see in her events she's not Clinton, but she's certainly not a great campaigner either. Much of the excitement is as a result of a) we have a reasonably normal candidate who makes a reasonably good appearance at campaign stops and you don't have to sit there wincing hoping said candidate doesn't do something to look like he's lost his marbles, and b) there's a chance we might actually win this thing. That's fleeting, and it's important to keep rolling downhill for as long as possible because the race is still a statistical tie and it can easily go back to a Trump advantage within a news cycle or two.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Did you completely miss all the excitement (and donations!) she has generated over the past two weeks? I've been following American politics really closely since the 2000 election, and I haven't seen Dem supporters this fired up since Obama's first run in '08.

Yup. I have several American friends and family down there who are telling me the same thing. There’s finally some excitement and hope again for the Dems.

[ResAlien]

Only Hillary has lost Pennsylvania for the democrats since ‘88. Maybe doing Hillary #### isn’t the best way to win it?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Only Hillary has lost Pennsylvania for the democrats since ‘88. Maybe doing Hillary #### isn’t the best way to win it?

The most recent PA poll, released today, has Trump +2. She could easily lose it. Maybe playing right into the exact things the other campaign is accusing her of this exact week isn't the best way to win it.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Did you completely miss all the excitement (and donations!) she has generated over the past two weeks? I've been following American politics really closely since the 2000 election, and I haven't seen Dem supporters this fired up since Obama's first run in '08.

I did not but I also believe that was mostly driven by Biden dropping out versus a real enthusiasm for her as a candidate. I don’t think she’d be the nominee if they had the time to run an actual nomination process.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

The majority of Americans now do not agree with Israeli's actions in Gaza.

That's one stat.

Percent of Americans who say Israel's reasons for fighting Hamas are valid? 58% valid. 15% not valid. Huge support for Israel.

Percent of Americans who say the way Israel is carrying out its response against Hamas is acceptable? 34% unacceptable. 38% acceptable. Still more support for Israel.

Percent of Americans who say Hamas' reasons for fight Israel are valid? 22% valid. 49% not valid. Huge support for Israel.

Percent of Americans who say the way Hamas carried out the Oct. 7th attack are acceptable? 5% acceptable. 73% unacceptable. Huge support for Israel.

Percent of Americans who say Biden is favoring Israel to much? 22% favoring Israel. 21% striking the right balance. 16% favoring Palestinians. 40% unsure. Most Americans just don't know because they are not informed on the issue (thank you media).

I'm no supporter of Israel in the slightest. I think Israel should have been left to twist in the wind a few decades ago. They're a pain in everyone's asses and should stand alone for their actions. But I am very much in the minority in this country. Israel is a non-issue for most people because it is accepted that the United States will stand beside Israel through thick or thin. No political party who wishes to be taken seriously is going to stand against Israel. NOT ONE. The hope should be to limit the damage Israel can do and then try and find peace. But to do that, you need two sides willing to negotiate. Neither Israel nor Hamas are willing to negotiate and all the asinine protesting in the world will not change that. As a result, the Palestinian people are screwed and doomed to be cannon fodder caught in the middle.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So why would it make anyone else vote for Trump?

I do think there's a real risk that these hecklers (trying to paint Harris as a heartless monster), combined with campus protesters, could cause some independents to vote 3rd party or stay home.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Bonded

I did not but I also believe that was mostly driven by Biden dropping out versus a real enthusiasm for her as a candidate. I don’t think she’d be the nominee if they had the time to run an actual nomination process.

The Florida Panthers did not become the most popular hockey team in Calgary for 2.5 weeks because they were Calgarians who actually loved them lol. Whatever flaws she has she's a live candidate who can put coherent sentences together. Because of that, and as the GOP implosion only gets worse, she can win by simply standing still and shutting the #### up.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The most recent PA poll, released today, has Trump +2. She could easily lose it. Maybe playing right into the exact things the other campaign is accusing her of this exact week isn't the best way to win it.

That’s just it. Harris already passed on Shapiro who was her best path to PA and some of it is definitely the Israeli/Gaza issue. It’s already influenced decisions. Hopefully Walz can get the swing voters with his midwestern small town vibes.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

I do think there's a real risk that these hecklers (trying to paint Harris as a heartless monster), combined with campus protesters, could cause some independents to vote 3rd party or stay home.

Is it these protestors or the government’s actions?

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The Florida Panthers did not become the most popular hockey team in Calgary for 2.5 weeks because they were Calgarians actually loved them lol. Whatever flaws she has she's a live candidate who can put coherent sentences together. Because of that, and as the GOP implosion only gets worse, she can win by simply standing still and shutting the #### up.

Yeah, I definitely think she can win but it’s no guarantee and she has to keep things rolling. At least Hilary is a stark reminder to not get cocky.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Is it these protestors or the government’s actions?

I (and others) have already covered this. Harris can't take an anti-Israel stance without throwing the election to Trump.

The protesters have a choice, help Trump win or don't help Trump win. They're not choosing wisely, in my opinion.