For me trying to convince people not to vote for Trump, the most consistent obstacle has been people’s tendency to say “no matter how bad he is, the Democrat candidate is worse.” This is usually either because they’re not stating the real reason (force of habit, tribalism, or something worse), and partly because right-wing media has done a great job of indoctrinating them with a system of lies and false equivalencies.
Of courrse that in itself may not be enough to turn people out, but it’s a powerful force in getting persuadable voters to stay home.
Wanting to elect Harris, in part, because we’re ready for a female President (after 250 years of males) isn’t “identity politics” in my book. Of course, I’m never sure what identity politics is. Seems like other catch phrases on the right like “woke” and “social justice warrior.”
You’ve laid out a number reasons why Kamala Harris should win that are logical, articulate, and well thought out. But what you haven’t considered is that a large portion of Americans are morons who will vote their party, regardless of who is on the ballot.
And that’s before you even get into controversial policies Harris is proposing like giving first-time home buyers $25 or price-fixing food items.
I noticed this in 2016. If you asked a Trump supporter why they were voting for him, they couldn’t answer without mentioning Hillary Clinton.
And that’s why I think he won in 2016. Ms. Clinton, in particular, had such strong negatives. Some of it was prejudice against a woman, but most of it was the targeted right wing attacks that went back decades. As such, even if people didn’t know anything particular about her, they had absorbed they idea that she was dishonest, and power hungry.
I suspect a similar thing may befall Trump this time. Even for low information voters, it has likely seeped into the consciousness that “Trump has legal problems”, and he’s “dishonest” or, at the least, a “bullshitter”. I think women, generally, have probably formed a very negative view of his character, and it’s getting harder to associate with the religious right, as crude as he is known to be.
Another aspect of this is “scandal”. I believe people got sick to death of hearing about Hillary Clinton’s scandals, and just didn’t want to deal with it during her entire presidency. Trump, if elected, has pending legal and financial issues that are going to mean scandal after scandal.
These are persistent negatives that were, in my opinion, unfairly attached to Clinton. With Trump, they have legitimate underpinnings, and will bog down any future political career.
I won’t be surprised if voters reject him partly on that basis.
I agree that appealing to the mindset of “it’s time to move on” would be effective with lots of voters who don’t hate Trump but don’t love him either and are just tired of the same scandal show let alone blather. It’s just a hard message for Harris to articulate without disrespecting Biden.
OTOH it would be very powerful for Biden to say it.
One mistake we must make is believing that the religious right will ever behave consistently with their principles. This is a movement built entirely on squaring all sorts of unsquareable circles - one must do this to participate in a movement dedicated to disregarding science and factual inquiry.
To make that a bit more concrete, I recall in 2016-2017 era they were responding to criticism of Trump by comparing him to Cyrus the Great, famously not a Christian, but who let Jews return to their homeland and rebuild the temple. Not to put too fine a point on it - the ends justify the actor. The religious right has no expectations whatosever of Trump reflecting their character or values; they just want him to exercise power on their behalf.
So, do not ever hope for anything from the religious right, ever. Their only guiding principle is that they should rule.
There is something to this. I’ve heard a number of right and center-right people say they’re sitting out the election because they’re tired of hearing liberals babble about “orange man bad”. Of course this is a rationalization - they know exactly how bad he is because they’ve seen it - but being conservatives, they don’t care that they supported a horrendous person, they just don’t want to be reminded of how terrible their choice was.
They won’t admit it, but many of these people are most satisfied when their party has no real governing responsibilities, which would be the times while they’re out of power, and the brief rush of triumph after winning an election but before the consequences become evident. Since Trump never really went away, they’re exhausted with him, and Harris presents endless opportunities for armchair quarterbacking, so they may well be primed to sit this one out.
I like pointing out to them that Jews did not pick Cyrus the Great. They didn’t look at Cyrus and say, “Hey, this is a good man we want to follow.” They had no choice. Millions of Americans looked at Trump, with the pussy grabbing, attacking POWs, and his general bad behavior and said, “Yeah, that’s the man who represents my values.”
Half of then said “He represents my values”. The other half said “He is carrying the banner labeled (R) and that’s my values.”
They’re that blinkered.
OTOH as I’ve said a few times, it’s dangerous that many Ds, including me a time or 3, have said that “I’d vote for a chimp w a (D) behind his name before a saint with an (R).”
With luck we’ll never get to test that hypothesis, but be careful which vows you make: you may be forced to enact them some day.
Here’s why I don’t think wanting a woman or a POC to be president is “identity politics.”
Electing a woman president amounts to proof of concept. You do it once, you can do it again. And then things can be even because we, as a country, at least to a greater extent, are OK with electing a woman president.
But I’m not seeing this take reflected anywhere else. Specifically, I have not seen anyone express the fear that Harris is plateauing; or that, without Pennsylvania, she has no realistic path to victory; or that we should be especially worried about her prospects in Pennsylvania. Mind you, none of these contentions sounds absurd to my ear, but I just haven’t seen anyone express fear along these lines (or, in the case of a Republican, enthusiasm).
Thus, are you saying that this is your particular insight, or are you saying that this is in essence the CW or CW-adjacent? Any cites would be welcome.
In contrast, everyone on our side was worried about Biden, and everyone on their side seemed excited by the state of the race before Harris stepped in. The CW was clearly negative about Biden’s prospects after the debate (and often before it).
Every analyst, commentator, and poll expert I have heard has said this (and, it’s obvious to anyone who looks at the numbers – try it yourself! “270-to-win” is an easy place for you to do play around with them, but there are many other sites. Pencil and paper works well, too). It’s not about whether it’s “conventional wisdom” (though it is certainly that as well). It’s about whether 1 plus 1 equals 2.
I only have a couple minutes free now, but I’ll gather a few of the thousands of cites for you:
“The election forecaster Nate Silver calculates that Pennsylvania is more than twice as likely as any other to be the “tipping point” state for presidential victory this fall.”
“With 19 electoral votes – one of the highest counts among all states – the Keystone State again will be a major prize in November, this time for either former President Donald Trump or the new presumptive Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris. That number alone points to it as potentially the most important swing state in this year’s race for the White House.”
“President Biden is locked in a tight race with former President Donald J. Trump in Pennsylvania, a state that Mr. Biden barely won in 2020 and that is critical to his re-election hopes.”
“Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro was previously considered the favorite to be named Harris’ running mate. He was seen as a way for Harris to secure a win in Pennsylvania, whose 19 electoral votes make it the most crucial battleground state of the election.”
“Such green policies may come back to bite her in November, especially in the decisive swing state of Pennsylvania, which is second to Texas in producing natural gas.”
Finally (for now), I’ll find another Doper’s cite of a poll analyst (Nate Cohn? Nate Silver? Can’t recall) whose model gives Trump about a 95% chance of winning it all if he wins Pennsylvania, but gives Harris about a 95% chance of winning it all if she wins it.
But like I said, best if you just “pee on the electric fence” yourself. Do the math – it’s not that hard (and I’m slow with math!).
ETA: Do I understand you to be skeptical of PA’s importance – or is it that you’re skeptical that the polling shows a very tight race in PA – that among the three “blue wall” states, it has been shown to be the most “stubborn” – i.e., that polls in the last ten days show that it’s stuck very close to 50/50, certainly deep within any margin of error – unlike WI and MI, where Harris’ numbers have gotten better enough for us to breathe a little easier (though not entirely out of the woods yet)?
If you need cites for that, easy peasy. Check any poll or poll aggregator.
Look at the top line of the list, halfway down the essay.
—
As I’ve said repeatedly, Harris could win without PA, but almost certainly this would only happen if she did win both Arizona and North Carolina. (Do the math, and observe her recent polling in those states, compared to other swing states).
—
I get it. You think it’s going to be a blowout — that millions of Trumpers will come to their senses, at long last, so there won’t be any crucial state, just as there wasn’t one for Reagan in 1984. It could happen! But, alas, unlikely.
Wahington Examiner is like a Natuional Enquirer of politics. That is shy they put the Washington word in the name. They are the ones that run stories of Harris as a mere DEI hire with no job or skills. Other articles show the PA vote is still quite in flux, not stuck at 50/50. https://whyy.org/articles/pennsylvania-hispanic-voters-kamala-harris-joe-biden-donald-trump/
Are you for real? I don’t care if the quote is from Pravda. Math is math! The numbers are all that matters! (Though I am also assessing Aeschines’ curiosity about the “conventional wisdom”).
Sure–but that article was particularly short on math. Here’s the link again:
The closest it comes to math is nonsense like this:
“Biden only won the state” because more people in the state voted for him. Acreage, municipalities, and geographic features don’t vote, people do, and terrible phrasing that refers to geographic locales going for candidates obscures the fact that the majority of Pennsylvania voters voted Blue.
Fine — skip that particular article. I told you I only had a couple minutes to find many cites about whether PA is a crucial state or not — to satisfy the question about “conventional wisdom,” which is (all together now!) less important than the mathematical facts.
FWIW there are other paths to a win losing PA. Still win MI WI then add in GA and AZ while losing NC and NV for example. Or add in NC and GA instead (which reasonably might travel together) still losing AZ …. They are though less likely scenarios than the paths that include PA.
NYT tracker has Harris up by only 1 in PA. Yes that is toss up.