Is Harris too liberal to win? Ask Obama!

[stevenkesslar]

I've been watching a lot of Mark Halperin's daily 2 Way conversations, which is exceptionally good political reporting and rapport by the Game Change co-author.  Some of the Republican regulars keep insisting that when voters find out about how liberal Harris is, she'll tank. 

Newt Gingrich, always a flame thrower, got out early in predicting this sets Democrats up for a McGovern style loss.  Since Gingrich likes to talk history, one would guess he'd know that by August 1972 the polls showed McGovern was in fact headed to a landslide defeat.  The polls now show Harris tied.  Whatever!  Harder to dismiss is Alex Castellanos, a more moderate GOP type who usually doesn't make such far out predictions.  But so far he's holding tight on the idea that Kamala is like Wile E Coyote, running on air.  Look out below!

If that's true, voters don't know it yet.  The polls and momentum and money make that clear.  

Gingrich is calling Harris a "San Francisco radical" and is banking on the fact that her record will indict her.  Funny to think about Harris being indicted.  😉  One of the first factoids that was used is that Harris is more liberal than Bernie Sanders.  Three points on that.  Sanders denied it.  And according to GovTrack, the source used, Sanders is and was the most liberal Senator of all.  But the third and most interesting point is that Harris's liberal voting record is almost exactly the same as this guy named Barack Hussein Obama.  Remember him?

President Barack Obama Voting Record

Vice President Kamala Harris Voting Record

They don't give either a numerical score.  But if you look at that chart as having ten lines with 5 meaning center and 0 meaning most liberal, Obama and Harris would both be right at about 0.7.  That's liberal, for sure.  Obama had eight Senators more liberal than him, including Clinton, Kerry, Sanders, and Sherrod Brown - who manages to keep getting elected in now red Ohio.  Harris had three Senators more liberal than her, including Sanders.  (Brown moved from about 0.5 to about 1.5, probably to keep getting elected in Ohio, I'd imagine.)

Needless to say, the national voting history of Obama, Clinton, and even Kerry and Sanders does not suggest landslide losses.  Kerry is the only one of the four who actually lost the national popular vote.   The polls in Summer 2016 said Sanders would have beat Trump had he been nominated.

Kamala Harris Is Unburdened And Has A Prime Opportunity To Define Herself

That article is the most substantive one I have seen so far on voter perceptions of Kamala Harris.  And trust in her, versus Trump.  Sounds like Harris is being helped by excitement, not ignorance.  Voters know where she stands on abortion, health care, climate, democracy, and rights.   No wonder women, young voters, and non-White voters are flocking to her.

Harris actually does a little bit better than Trump on those issues.  Which may be why she is tied, and in place to open a lead soon.

The attack ads will no doubt find Harris's vulnerabilities and pounce on them.  But the idea that she will be branded as a radical doesn't seem likely - anymore than it led Obama, Clinton, Kerry, or Sanders to landslide losses.  Harris now has the momentum of Obama in 2008.  He won, right?   😉

And then there is this:

Sure, Obama had "Dreams Of My Father" and that whole birtherism mystique.  But a book on crime written by a prosecutor seems more down to earth, and moderate.

Harris is more like Road Runner than Wile E Coyote, I think.  She will likely outpace the Failing Felon, who polls say voters believe is old and lacks mental acuity.  Poor loser!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RockyRoadTravel]

10 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

I've been watching a lot of Mark Halperin's daily 2 Way conversations, which is exceptionally good political reporting and rapport by the Game Change co-author.  Some of the Republican regulars keep insisting that when voters find out about how liberal Harris is, she'll tank. 

Newt Gingrich, always a flame thrower, got out early in predicting this sets Democrats up for a McGovern style loss.  Since Gingrich likes to talk history, one would guess he'd know that by August 1972 the polls showed McGovern was in fact headed to a landslide defeat.  The polls now show Harris tied.  Whatever!  Harder to dismiss is Alex Castellanos, a more moderate GOP type who usually doesn't make such far out predictions.  But so far he's holding tight on the idea that Kamala is like Wile E Coyote, running on air.  Look out below!

If that's true, voters don't know it yet.  The polls and momentum and money make that clear.  

Gingrich is calling Harris a "San Francisco radical" and is banking on the fact that her record will indict her.  Funny to think about Harris being indicted.  😉  One of the first factoids that was used is that Harris is more liberal than Bernie Sanders.  Three points on that.  Sanders denied it.  And according to GovTrack, the source used, Sanders is and was the most liberal Senator of all.  But the third and most interesting point is that Harris's liberal voting record is almost exactly the same as this guy named Barack Hussein Obama.  Remember him?

President Barack Obama Voting Record

Vice President Kamala Harris Voting Record

They don't give either a numerical score.  But if you look at that chart as having ten lines with 5 meaning center and 0 meaning most liberal, Obama and Harris would both be right at about 0.7.  That's liberal, for sure.  Obama had eight Senators more liberal than him, including Clinton, Kerry, Sanders, and Sherrod Brown - who manages to keep getting elected in now red Ohio.  Harris had three Senators more liberal than her, including Sanders.  (Brown moved from about 0.5 to about 1.5, probably to keep getting elected in Ohio, I'd imagine.)

Needless to say, the national voting history of Obama, Clinton, and even Kerry and Sanders does not suggest landslide losses.  Kerry is the only one of the four who actually lost the national popular vote.   The polls in Summer 2016 said Sanders would have beat Trump had he been nominated.

Kamala Harris Is Unburdened And Has A Prime Opportunity To Define Herself

That article is the most substantive one I have seen so far on voter perceptions of Kamala Harris.  And trust in her, versus Trump.  Sounds like Harris is being helped by excitement, not ignorance.  Voters know where she stands on abortion, health care, climate, democracy, and rights.   No wonder women, young voters, and non-White voters are flocking to her.

Harris actually does a little bit better than Trump on those issues.  Which may be why she is tied, and in place to open a lead soon.

The attack ads will no doubt find Harris's vulnerabilities and pounce on them.  But the idea that she will be branded as a radical doesn't seem likely - anymore than it led Obama, Clinton, Kerry, or Sanders to landslide losses.  Harris now has the momentum of Obama in 2008.  He won, right?   😉

And then there is this:

Sure, Obama had "Dreams Of My Father" and that whole birtherism mystique.  But a book on crime written by a prosecutor seems more down to earth, and moderate.

Harris is more like Road Runner than Wile E Coyote, I think.  She will likely outpace the Failing Felon, who polls say voters believe is old and lacks mental acuity.  Poor loser!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you saying she's perceived as a radical or as a liberal?  A liberal is in the center of the political spectrum between left and right.  

[stevenkesslar]

10 hours ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

Are you saying she's perceived as a radical or as a liberal?  A liberal is in the center of the political spectrum between left and right.  

I'm saying she's a liberal, based on Senate career ranking.  And she is perceived as a liberal by voters. 

If we want to use Senate career rankings, Obama was the 7th most liberal Senator during his time, whereas Harris was the 3rd most liberal.  Or, in short, they were both pretty liberal.  Clinton, Kerry, and especially Sanders were ranked as slightly more liberal than either Obama or Harris.   So if we are just going by the facts, you can have a debate about whether any of those people are "too liberal" to win.  Obama obviously did win, twice.  Clinton came close.  So I don't think Harris is too liberal to win.

I'll add this.  She is already making space between herself and "progressives" on issues like fracking.  That makes sense to me.  Stu Stevens, who was Romney's politico, made a good point.  You can argue based on 2020 that Harris is a failed politician at the national level.  But Stevens argues the opposite.  She won every race she was actually on the ballot for.  And she has deftly played her cards and been vague and obtuse when needed to get in position to be Veep, and now POTUS candidate.  So her blurring of lines, much like Obama did, may be helpful.  She can own being a liberal, which is better than being a flip flopper, but also be vague when needed and let people think what they want.

Meanwhile, "San Francisco radical" is the phrase Newt Gingrich coined recently, and Alex Castellano is throwing around, too.  The idea is basically that she can be portrayed as so "radical" that she'll lose badly.  Gingrich is the one who specifically said this will be like McGovern/Nixon in 1972.  I think he is full of himself.  By this point in 1972 McGovern was already losing in a landslide in polls.  So I think the better comparisons are Obama, Clinton, and Kerry.  That includes one win, one landslide win, one popular vote win that was the narrowest of electoral college losses, and one loss.  

Unrelated but related, RFK has melted down in the polls.  So that matters due to Allan Lichtman's keys.  Unless something changes  - namely, a recession - he will very likely predict Harris will win after the convention this month.  According to Lichtman, she has three of his keys against her for sure:  not incumbent, 2022 midterm losses, not charismatic.  It sounds from his YouTube weekly talks  like Lichtman will turn both foreign policy keys against the incumbent party.  That's five keys against Harris.  And his system says it takes six keys against you to lose.  

One other interesting fact.  The only times Lichtman has been wrong, both predicting in advance since 1984 and predicting retrospectively since the Civil War in his book, is when a candidate with five keys against him - meaning he supposed to win - actually lost.  Lichtman judged Grover Cleveland to have five keys against him in 1888. Meaning he should have won.  And he did win the popular vote, 48.6 % to 47.8 %.  But he lost the electoral college to Benjamin Harrison.  Sound familiar?  Same thing in 2000.  Al Gore had five keys against him, and Lichtman did predict in advance he would win.   Again, he did win the popular vote.  But he lost Florida.  Sound familiar?  

So I think that is the worry.  All of this suggests it will be a close race.  And it could end like either 2020 (Harris squeaks by in the electoral college) or 2016 (Harris wins the popular vote but narrowly loses the electoral college).  On this point of "liberal" or "radical", some moderate Republican politico in Pennsylvania who is on TV a lot is also saying that even if she picks Shapiro he just thinks Harris is too liberal to win the state.  Especially due to fracking.  Which also hurt Clinton in 2016, of course.

[stevenkesslar]

I think Tim Walz just solved the label problem.  

What a monster!

I'm lovin it!

 

[stevenkesslar]

Of course, to comment on my own post, why am I not surprised Newt Gingrich does not agree?

 

Hope apparently does spring eternal with Gingrich.  He was a real somebody in 1994!   So he can keep calling Harris and Walz "radical" all he wants.

Walz won by 54 % in 2018 and 53 % of the vote in 2018.  How radical is that?  By comparison, the former Democratic Guv Mark Dayton, who was a scion of a rich liberal Minnesota family, won by 44 % in 2010 and 50 % in 2018.   Minnesota has been accurately described as Iowa, with the Twin Cities - which is what makes it blue.  So Walz has been battle tested.  And survey says he is not radical.

This does set the tone for the election, I think.   Democrats have to do one extremely difficult thing.  They have to open their mouths and tell voters what they believe from the bottom of their hearts.

Meanwhile, Trump and Vance have a very easy job.  They just have to lie, rape, steal, and break laws.

Lies are not lies.   It is Donald Trump being regal and explaining the truth to us morons.

Rape is not rape.  It is Donald Trump being kind enough to fuck America.  

Stealing is not stealing.   It is just Donald Trump letting Mike Pence have fun being hung for once.

And Republicans who break laws are just standing up for law and order.

I will happily vote in a way that I really never have before.  It will be like flushing the toilet of all this nasty hate, shit, and bile that Trump brought to America.   It's time to clean out the asshole.

 

[RockyRoadTravel]

23 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

Of course, to comment on my own post, why am I not surprised Newt Gingrich does not agree?

 

Hope apparently does spring eternal with Gingrich.  He was a real somebody in 1994!   So he can keep calling Harris and Walz "radical" all he wants.

Walz won by 54 % in 2018 and 53 % of the vote in 2018.  How radical is that?  By comparison, the former Democratic Guv Mark Dayton, who was a scion of a rich liberal Minnesota family, won by 44 % in 2010 and 50 % in 2018.   Minnesota has been accurately described as Iowa, with the Twin Cities - which is what makes it blue.  So Walz has been battle tested.  And survey says he is not radical.

This does set the tone for the election, I think.   Democrats have to do one extremely difficult thing.  They have to open their mouths and tell voters what they believe from the bottom of their hearts.

Meanwhile, Trump and Vance have a very easy job.  They just have to lie, rape, steal, and break laws.

Lies are not lies.   It is Donald Trump being regal and explaining the truth to us morons.

Rape is not rape.  It is Donald Trump being kind enough to fuck America.  

Stealing is not stealing.   It is just Donald Trump letting Mike Pence have fun being hung for once.

And Republicans who break laws are just standing up for law and order.

I will happily vote in a way that I really never have before.  It will be like flushing the toilet of all this nasty hate, shit, and bile that Trump brought to America.   It's time to clean out the asshole.

I hope Harris learns something from Obama's presidency. In his first two years he had a substantial majority in the Senate (was it 54 or 56 seats?) and a large majority in the House. If Obama had governed in his first two years as he did in his last two years (having then experienced six years of complete Republican obstructionism) there would have been a renewed Voting Rights Act, Washington DC would be a State, a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban, perhaps Campaign Finance Reform (taking the worst of the obscene amounts of dark money in elections), and Mitch McConnell might not have been able to pack the Courts (Donald took credit, but Trump did none of the strategy and work, of undermining the integrity of the courts and rule of law).

So, hopefully, if there is a Harris presidency, she'll recognize the obstruction she is up against in Congress, and move ahead with whatever is possible to improve the functioning of American democracy and freedoms, and pass the necessary laws to counter act the partisan policy rulings that the extremists on the Supreme Court have been legislating from the bench.   

[stevenkesslar]

2 hours ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

was it 54 or 56 seats?

60.  If we are talking a functional majority.   But 57 Democrats, technically.   Add two Independents that voted Democratic and Arlen Spector who flipped to Democratic, providing a brief 60 vote supermajority.   Recall that Ted Kennedy's death and his replacement by Scott Brown almost derailed Obamacare, because of the 60 votes.

2 hours ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

So, hopefully, if there is a Harris presidency, she'll recognize the obstruction she is up against in Congress, and move ahead with whatever is possible

You are being slightly unfair to Obama.  A friend of mine who was a CEO had met most Presidents.  Either because of the work he did, or because he happened to live in Iowa where it is all very retail - or was.  More than anyone else I know, he's the guy I view as a true Independent (voted for Bush, Bush, Obama, Romney, Clinton, Biden) and also an early warning system.  By no later than March 2009 he was apoplectic that Obama had promised to bring people together, and unify.  But he turned out to be just another partisan hack.  We had many debates about that.  But his perception that Obama promised to be a unifier and failed to deliver is a broadly shared verdict.

So, yes.  One way to look at it, 16 years later, is if Harris has 50 votes (with no Manchin or Sinema, plus Walz) and a House majority she should get rid of the filibuster and get anything she really wants as fast as she can.  Then prepare for two things:  America probably won't like it, and may react badly in 2026.   And Republicans will do the same the first chance they get.

There is something else about Obama you didn't mention, but should.  He was the guy who said the "fever will break" after some election or another.  Well, we're still waiting.  Trump just took "the fever" and turned it into what about half of America sees as a plague.  I don't think there is any getting around it, as long as it lasts.

Steve Kornacki on MSNBC did an excellent factual take down of Walz yesterday.  Specifically, about all the talk about how Walz maybe helps with red America.  One small problem is there is absolutely no evidence of that in 2018 or 2022, when he was elected Guv.  Walz ran up huge majorities in the Twin Cities, and got clobbered everywhere else.  Including in his old Congressional district in southern Minnesota, which I know well since I went to college there.  He's an excellent poster child.  Since you have two versions of the same guy.   When he was a moderate US Rep with an A rating from the NRA, he did just fine in a slightly right of center House district.   But as a progressive Guv, he lost the love.  The lesson I take from that is that if Kamala Harris really wanted to send a signal, she might have chosen Mark Kelly.  Better still, choose Joe Manchin.

That matters in terms of your point.  If Democrats want to win 60 Senate seats, the facts suggest they will have to moderate.  That may be happening, organically.  I liked Cori Bush.  But she was objectively extreme, just like JD Vance is.  Now Cori Bush is history.  So the Democrats are cleaning house in a way Republicans are not.  And I say that as a progressive who wants someone like Claire McCaskill to be able to win in a state like Missouri again.  One would hope, in theory, that voters in Missouri would not think that it is radical to have paid family leave.  Or have fewer White children that are hungry or poor.  But, again, there is no evidence that actually helped make Tim Walz more lovable in rural Minnesota.  If anything, it just helped brand him as one of those radicals.

I actually think the best model we have is Joe Biden.   And, had he been a decade younger, he would have run for re-election and won.  He won some big compromise victories on things that really matter.  So whether Harris has 48 Senate votes or 50, that is probably the best model for now.  Walz can only help, especially in winning House seats and working them for votes if there is a Democratic majority.

Two long terms ideas of what solves the problem you are identifying.  Which is THE problem.

My theory is that Obama may eventually prove to be right.  If Trump loses in 2024, one can at least hope that Republicans will finally realize he led them to a dead end.  I mean, it does seem so simple.  He won once, barely.   And we got tax cuts for the rich, a close call on making health care much worse, a 30 % murder spike, and repealing Roe v. Wade.  That's not an agenda most Americans long for more of.  Then he lost in 2018, 2020, 2022, and presumably 2024.  And Trump himself is just old and senile.  Is there really no hope for the Grand Old Party?

My oldest nephew has a theory that is a bit more brutal, but perhaps true.  Old people just have to "age out".  Demographically, he is correct.  He is Gen X.  And the MAGA crowd, who he finds distasteful even though he is slightly right of center, is heavily focused on Baby Boomers and Gen X.  If the only people who voted were Millennials and Zoomers, Harris/Walz would win in a landslide.  So as Trump and his cohort age, my nephew is probably right.  But it's going to take a long time.

The good news is I never bought Trump's bullshit that somehow young voters and Blacks and Hispanics are falling in love with MAGA.  Some Blacks and Hispanics, like Tim Scott and Marco Rubio, are conservative.  And always have been,   And now they are at home in a Republican Party that used to exclude them.  I'm happy for them.  But it is also now clear that Kamala Harris will crush Trump among voters who are younger and not White.   So I think eventually the problem will solve itself.   And in the meantime Democrats should be able to at least cobble together narrow majorities and compromise victories.

[RockyRoadTravel]

45 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

60.  If we are talking a functional majority.   But 57 Democrats, technically.   Add two Independents that voted Democratic and Arlen Spector who flipped to Democratic, providing a brief 60 vote supermajority.   Recall that Ted Kennedy's death and his replacement by Scott Brown almost derailed Obamacare, because of the 60 votes.

You are being slightly unfair to Obama. 

I believe Obama would agree with me, remember he eventually was legislating off his "bucket" list in the face of total obstruction - GOP leaving the legislating to the life time appointed extremists on the Supreme Court. 

[RockyRoadTravel]

50 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

Steve Kornacki on MSNBC did an excellent factual take down of Walz yesterday.  Specifically, about all the talk about how Walz maybe helps with red America.  One small problem is there is absolutely no evidence of that in 2018 or 2022, when he was elected Guv.  Walz ran up huge majorities in the Twin Cities, and got clobbered everywhere else.  Including in his old Congressional district in southern Minnesota, which I know well since I went to college there.  He's an excellent poster child.  Since you have two versions of the same guy.   When he was a moderate US Rep with an A rating from the NRA, he did just fine in a slightly right of center House district.   But as a progressive Guv, he lost the love.  The lesson I take from that is that if Kamala Harris really wanted to send a signal, she might have chosen Mark Kelly.  Better still, choose Joe Manchin.

 

I think Harris picked Walz because she feels they are going to win if the Democrats stay united. She wasn't picking based on the short term election goal, but the longer term governing goal.   

[stevenkesslar]

24 minutes ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

I believe Obama would agree with me, remember he eventually was legislating off his "bucket" list in the face of total obstruction - GOP leaving the legislating to the life time appointed extremists on the Supreme Court. 

He may.  Whether he would or would not, I mostly agree with your point.  When Harris wins, she should get what she wants while she can.  But the idea that she can win these Senate seats in Montana and Ohio, which she needs just to have 50 votes, is a huge question mark.

Everything that follows is just interesting details.

I have mixed feeling about this part of Obama.   Which is to say, I blame some of it on him.  He was never really a legislator, in my view.   And, if you believe what Harry Reid told him on the fateful day he called young Senator Obama to his office, Reid knew Obama was more of a rock star than a long term legislator like Biden. 

Whatever Reid or Pelosi thought at the time, it had to work out as well as expected, or better.  They got the Presidency for eight years, and they got a lot of stuff done.  2010 sucked.  But to again quote someone very smart, David Axelrod says that he knew by 2009 that the economy was going to get so bad that Democrats would get a shellacking in 2010.  Which they did.  It's the economy, stupid.  2010 was what opened the door for the Tea Party to come in and thrive and fester.  And the Tea Party looks charming and quaint compared to the MAGA cult Trump grew.

 

The Victory of ‘No’

A lot of the reporting done at the time is on your side, an example of which is above.   The basic idea was that if we Republicans work with the Democratic majority, we will always be the minority.  So we have to block them, and make them fail. 

Arguably, it worked.   Republicans were extinct in 2008, until they came roaring back in 2010.  Although I think the argument is weak.  Democrats did do a lot in 2009 and 2010, because they had the votes.  So some would argue they lost badly in 2010 precisely because of what they did.  Like Obamacare, which was unpopular at the time.  Not because of Republican obstruction.  But I agree with Axelrod.  It is the economy, stupid.  And the price Democrats paid for winning so much in 2008 is that they had to own the economic mess in 2010.  Republicans didn't have to do anything other than just wait.

So the question is, once the Republicans took back power in 2010 through no fault of Obama and Democrats - who simply inherited the global financial crisis - what could Obama have done to make deals with The Party Of No?  Your answer would be, nothing.  Which may be true.  But, objectively speaking, Clinton and Biden both got things done that Obama did not.  So I think you can make a good argument that if Obama viewed his Presidency differently, and were a creature of the Senate like Biden or a Bubba deal maker like Clinton, he might have had more success in a second term.  But I recognize you can make a great argument that Mitch McConnell was going to kill anything that could possibly be born under Obama from 2010 to 2016.   

Here's the irony.   If you buy The Gospel Of Allan Lichtman, which I do, "The Victory Of No" did not occur in 2010.  It happened in 2016.  Again, I think the Democratic shellacking in 2010 was about voters who were pissed about a really bad economy.  The reason a red wave did not happen in 2022 and seems very unlikely to happen in 2024 is that we don't have 10 % unemployment and a national foreclosure crisis, like we did in 2010.  Prosperity sure sucks, doesn't it?  Which is why Lichtman thinks Harris will win.  His view of what worked against Clinton in 2016 is she had exactly six keys turned against her.  Which was just enough to seal her fate.  And one of those six keys was Obama's lack of any real accomplishment in his second term, like Obamacare in his first term. 

So you can argue that if Obama had made it his single most important priority to make any deal he needed to make to get something big and bipartisan done in his second term - let's say an infrastructure bill like Biden did - that alone would have made Clinton POTUS in 2016.  Bridges and roads are inherently popular to Republican House members and Senators.  So it's a counterfactual that can't be proved.  But I think Lichtman's whole model is based on common sense.  It would not have hurt Clinton if she could say that she and Obama were bending over backwards to get stuff like roads and bridges done, even if the Republicans were a hard sell.

If you agree with this logic, it means we are both right.  But under different circumstances.  If Harris manages to win a Senate and House majority, which means a clean sweep of all these difficult Senate seats like Ohio and Montana, Lichtman would agree with you that she absolutely should do whatever it takes to win what she can.  So she has a record of victory to run on in 2028.  Even if she gets zero Republican votes, like Obama did.  But if she does not have a legislative majority, your logic suggests she will have zero policy victories.  So what's she gonna do?  To me it is just common sense to think that centrist voters will reward her in 2028 if they see her making whatever deals she has to to accomplish things they care about.  If instead there are four years of party line votes, all of which she loses when it comes to anything important, it makes sense that she would have a harder time in 2028.

Another example of this is Bill Clinton.   He was forced to meet in the middle because of 1994 and Gingrich.  One very granular point I am not sure I agree with Lichtman on is that he says Clinton had no significant policy achievement in either term.  For sure, Hillarycare failed.  But at least in my view Bill Clinton was rewarded by voters in 1996 for the fact that he did compromise with Republicans after 1994 and he did get things done.  Like that led to a budget surplus.  It may be him believing his own bullshit, but the night welfare reform passed Dick Morris said in his book he called President Clinton and said, "Congratulations, Mr. President.  You just won re-election."  Of course, if that is true, it was because Clinton triangulated in a way that drove liberal Democrats crazy.  Regardless, Lichtman predicted Clinton would win in 1996 despite any major policy victory, in part because he was the incumbent.  When Gore then ran in 2000, again with no major Democratic policy achievement and also not being an incumbent, he lost.   So, again, it's a counterfactual.  But you can argue that if Clinton had been able to get something significant and bipartisan done between 1996 and 2000, it would have been enough for Gore to win in 2000.

I love my Lichtman.  So one final point that again mostly reinforces you are correct.  Lichtman has predicted 11 elections in advance, starting in 1984, if we include his likely prediction that Harris will win.  In only 4 of those elections did he give the party in power the "major policy change" key:  Reagan in 1984, Obama in 2012, Trump in 2020, and now Harris in 2024.  (Meaning, they could all run on a policy accomplishment made in the last four years.)  Again, do we really believe there was no major policy change in the US from 1984 to 2012?  Not sure.  But if we go with Lichtman, the only one of those 4 major policy changes that were bipartisan in any way was Reaganomics after his 1980 landslide win.  And that required a Republican Senate majority and being able to muscle down on Southern Democrats in the House whose constituents voted for Reagan, or supported his tax cut ideas.  

So it speaks to your point.  Harris will not win in a landslide.  And if she wants to do something like raise taxes on the rich to help the middle class, or reform SCOTUS, or Voting Rights, DC statehood,  or anything else on your list, she's unlikely to be able to pressure any Republicans to agree, like Reagan could.  So she should get it while she can.  

 

[stevenkesslar]

So I know this thread is a data geek post and I am mostly debating myself.  But here goes with more data.

This is really good news for Harris and Walz.  On a whole list of populist economic issues, Americans support the populist working class Democratic proposal.   So, no, the Democratic/Harris/Walz agenda is NOT too radical. At least according to this poll.  What it reinforces to me is that Republicans need to create hysteria about the border, and violent crime - which went up 30 % under Trump and down 20 % under Biden - and just plain LIE and LIE and LIE.  Because they don't have voters on their side on a lot of bread and butter and working class issues.

So three version of the same results.

Here is the Data For Progress poll.  Below that is an article in The Guardian and a video of Bernie on Velshi talking about how these ideas are wildly popular, even among Independents and Trump voters.

To summarize, this is a list of policies that are supported by at least 2 in 3 Americans, including over 50 % of Independents and Trump voters:

Quote

Expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision and hearing;

Quote

Cutting the cost of prescription drugs in half by making sure that Americans pay no more than what they pay in Europe or Canada;

Quote

Expanding social security benefits by making the wealthy pay the same tax rate as the working class;

Quote

Making the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share of taxes;

There are a lot of other policies in that poll that are supported by a majority of Americans, but not a majority of Independents and Trump voters.  So my point is that if Harris and Walz want policies that are populist and broadly unifying, and that will help Americans in their pocketbooks, they can start and stop with the four above.

That said, I will add the specific poll results for two other policies, since they say a lot about America and Trump's Republicans, I think:

Quote

Re-establishing the child tax credits;

• 58% overall

• 55% independents

• 43% Republicans

• 43% Trump voters

To be clear, this is about the refundable child tax credits of up to $3600 which cut child poverty in half for one year, 2021, until they expired because Manchin and all Republicans refused to go along with continuing them. 

Most Independents and even close to a majority of Trump voters support restoring these credits.  In fact, some of those Trump voters are working class families with kids that might not be Trump voters if Democrats push policies that help them and their kids in their pocketbooks.

The other reason this matters is that there are three groups that have been hit hardest by inflation.  First, anybody poor, by definition.  Inflation has not been hard for billionaires or Silicon Valley venture capitalists.  Second, seniors, because they live on fixed incomes.   Third, working class families with kids, because having kids costs money.  So the top three policies above are, and should be, very popular with seniors.  The child tax credits are overwhelmingly popular among working class families with kids.  Including Trump voters.  This is a way to help them, not demonize them.

One final interesting poll result:

Quote

Passing the Pro Act, which would make it easier for Americans to join unions;

• 48% overall

• 41% independents

• 29% Republicans

• 28% Trump voters

It's noteworthy that this is the LEAST popular policy polled, largely because the party that supports the working class - Republicans??? - overwhelmingly opposes a law to help labor unions.  By the way, most Americans support labor unions - 2 out of 3 - and a majority of labor union members vote Democratic.  Wonder why?

It's worse than that.  In the video below, Bernie Sanders says Republican support in Congress is ZERO.  ZERO Republicans support the Pro Act.  Yet they want to claim they are the party of the working class.

Here's an article in The Guardian and a video of Bernie being interviewed going over the same points and poll results:

 

Democrats should run on a progressive economic agenda. Americans are ready

 

A few partisan political points. 

I think maybe some or most MAGA folk, starting with Trump, genuinely believe Kamala Harris is just a dumb Black woman who is a DEI hire and is not ready.  And can not even speak intelligently.  Let's be compassionate and just stipulate that Trump is a slow learner with limited mental acuity, who is getting a bit up in years.  I think the expectation is that when they debate Harris will get off her teleprompter prosecutor lines about fraud and rape and Trump being a lying felon, all of which are true.  But what happens when she starts talking about corporate taxes, helping seniors, and helping working parents?  Trump is horrible about talking about policy, or anything other than his own grievances.

We're going to get some answers in 2024 to what I consider some of the mysteries of 2016 and 2020.  Bernie was so popular in 2016 that it ended up splitting the party and hurting Hillary, with 20/20 hindsight.  Then he came out roaring in 2020.  Polls in both 2016 and 2020 showed consistently that in a head to head match up with Trump, Bernie would have won.  Meanwhile, Rick Wilson of The Lincoln Project argued that you can forget the polls.  Once Trump got done with Bernie he would have been toast.  And a lot of Democrats agreed.  Because for some reason - still kind of unknown - there was a massive and organic wave for Biden and against Bernie on Super Tuesday 2020.  The conclusion I reached and still hold is that Bernie's policies were wildly popular.  But Bernie himself came off as too much, too quickly.

Once we get past the "vibes" and honeymoon phase, I think this will be a real election with a real debate.  And I'm pretty sure this is the list of very popular policies Harris and Walz will talk about, in the context of helping the working class and middle class.  So it will be a graduate level course in how this plays out in the real world.

 

 

[RockyRoadTravel]

I'm not sure what thread this fits under. Harris current bump in the polls is raising her to the levels that the Senate Democratic Party candidates were already polling at, they were always ahead of Biden's numbers against Trump. If there is any further growth in the numbers, this phase is going to be harder to achieve.   

[stevenkesslar]

5 hours ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

I'm not sure what thread this fits under. Harris current bump in the polls is raising her to the levels that the Senate Democratic Party candidates were already polling at, they were always ahead of Biden's numbers against Trump. If there is any further growth in the numbers, this phase is going to be harder to achieve.   

Agreed.   Some of her bounce seems like it was based on the fact that she's not old, and she is inspiring.   I think we now know for sure that Biden was a drag on teh ticket, as he seemed to be.  Hopefully Joe gets it, and it will helps him forgive Nancy.  And Harris closed some of the gap with Senate candidates.

But there is still a pretty big difference, that in theory shows that she has room to grow   Here's current polling averages on 538 for President.   They don't have averages for Senate races, so I posted the range of recent polls:

Wisconsin President; Harris + 3.5                                Wisconsin Senate; Baldwin +5 to + 11

Pennsylvania President; Harris + 2.1                            Pennsylvania Senate: Casey +5 to +14

Michigan President;  Harris + 3.5                                 Michigan Senate: Slotkin +1 to +10

Arizona President; Harris + 0.7                                    Arizona Senate: Gallego -1 to +11

Nevada President; Trump +0.2                                    Nevada Senate: Rosen +2 to+12

In theory she has room to grow in every one of those states.

Republican Ed Rogers was on Halperin's 2way a few days ago and said he thinks North Carolina is more likely to go Harris's way than Georgia.  He said he has a bad feeling about NC, as a Republican.   Roy Cooper is very popular, and the MAGA Republican Guv candidate is not.  So that's another example of the difference.  Democratic Guv candidate Klein is up between +4 and +10 in polls.  Meanwhile Harris is one point behind Trump in NC when you average the six most recent polls.

It's appropriate that she will now start to talk issues and agenda, as opposed to vibe.  Now she needs to sell it.

[RockyRoadTravel]

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

Agreed.   Some of her bounce seems like it was based on the fact that she's not old, and she is inspiring.   I think we now know for sure that Biden was a drag on teh ticket, as he seemed to be.  Hopefully Joe gets it, and it will helps him forgive Nancy.  And Harris closed some of the gap with Senate candidates.

But there is still a pretty big difference, that in theory shows that she has room to grow   Here's current polling averages on 538 for President.   They don't have averages for Senate races, so I posted the range of recent polls:

Wisconsin President; Harris + 3.5                                Wisconsin Senate; Baldwin +5 to + 11

Pennsylvania President; Harris + 2.1                            Pennsylvania Senate: Casey +5 to +14

Michigan President;  Harris + 3.5                                 Michigan Senate: Slotkin +1 to +10

Arizona President; Harris + 0.7                                    Arizona Senate: Gallego -1 to +11

Nevada President; Trump +0.2                                    Nevada Senate: Rosen +2 to+12

In theory she has room to grow in every one of those states.

Republican Ed Rogers was on Halperin's 2way a few days ago and said he thinks North Carolina is more likely to go Harris's way than Georgia.  He said he has a bad feeling about NC, as a Republican.   Roy Cooper is very popular, and the MAGA Republican Guv candidate is not.  So that's another example of the difference.  Democratic Guv candidate Klein is up between +4 and +10 in polls.  Meanwhile Harris is one point behind Trump in NC when you average the six most recent polls.

It's appropriate that she will now start to talk issues and agenda, as opposed to vibe.  Now she needs to sell it.

This next phase, you call it, with her talking issues and agenda.  While she is doing that, Trump will criticize and complain about her platform, while running away from providing one of his own.  It'll be irritating, as he always is. 

[stevenkesslar]

3 hours ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

Trump will criticize and complain about her platform, while running away from providing one of his own.

That's the funny part.   Tragic for MAGA world.  But funny for me watching the losing raping lying felon just do his level best to lose.  And lose big.  

I mean, they just don't normally make losers that lose so big.  But the losing raping lying felon can't help himself.   He loses, and he breaks law.  Can't stay focused on issues or platforms or messages if his life depended on it.  Which it kind of does, since soon he's headed to the slammer.

This isn't me speculating about what a loser he is.  Ed Rogers did it a few days ago to Mark Halperin.  Alex Castellanos does it constantly.  That's not even mentioning the Never Trumpers like Rick Wilson.  Or the Republican donors.  So we have all these Republican politicos who have won and won and won, all the way back to Reagan, saying Trump is a pathetic lying losing mess.  And he's gone lose.

[RockyRoadTravel]

9 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

That's the funny part.   Tragic for MAGA world.  But funny for me watching the losing raping lying felon just do his level best to lose.  And lose big.  

I mean, they just don't normally make losers that lose so big.  But the losing raping lying felon can't help himself.   He loses, and he breaks law.  Can't stay focused on issues or platforms or messages if his life depended on it.  Which it kind of does, since soon he's headed to the slammer.

This isn't me speculating about what a loser he is.  Ed Rogers did it a few days ago to Mark Halperin.  Alex Castellanos does it constantly.  That's not even mentioning the Never Trumpers like Rick Wilson.  Or the Republican donors.  So we have all these Republican politicos who have won and won and won, all the way back to Reagan, saying Trump is a pathetic lying losing mess.  And he's gone lose.

Today's thought.  The peaceful transition of power, is one of the arguments for Washington DC to be recognized as a State.  Coordinating security between, City police, National Guard and other federal agencies is currently needlessly complicated. The simplest and most efficient policing response in defense of democracy against the right-wing extremist threat to the peaceful transition of power is now, in the Trump era, a reality we have to face. 

[RockyRoadTravel]

On 8/15/2024 at 12:15 AM, stevenkesslar said:

That's the funny part.   Tragic for MAGA world.  But funny for me watching the losing raping lying felon just do his level best to lose.  And lose big.  

I mean, they just don't normally make losers that lose so big.  But the losing raping lying felon can't help himself.   He loses, and he breaks law.  Can't stay focused on issues or platforms or messages if his life depended on it.  Which it kind of does, since soon he's headed to the slammer.

This isn't me speculating about what a loser he is.  Ed Rogers did it a few days ago to Mark Halperin.  Alex Castellanos does it constantly.  That's not even mentioning the Never Trumpers like Rick Wilson.  Or the Republican donors.  So we have all these Republican politicos who have won and won and won, all the way back to Reagan, saying Trump is a pathetic lying losing mess.  And he's gone lose.

Most of the memes and news clip of Michelle Obama's speech are about "maybe the job he's [Trump] running for is a black job."  However, the quote that I thought really nailed the state of the nation was calling out "the affirmative action of generational wealth."  Yes, sister.  

[RockyRoadTravel]

Bill Clinton is speaking tonight. Bill Clinton's response to the Reagan revolution of voodoo economics [as described by George H W Bush] was to take the Democratic Party to the right.  Biden's response to the chaos and greed of Trump was to tact back into the center of American politics, with feelers out to the left.  Clinton and Biden had presidencies going in opposite directions.  Is Clinton speaking to appeal to non-MAGA Republicans and Independents? 

[stevenkesslar]

On 8/21/2024 at 4:19 PM, RockyRoadTravel said:

Bill Clinton is speaking tonight. Bill Clinton's response to the Reagan revolution of voodoo economics [as described by George H W Bush] was to take the Democratic Party to the right.  Biden's response to the chaos and greed of Trump was to tact back into the center of American politics, with feelers out to the left.  Clinton and Biden had presidencies going in opposite directions.  Is Clinton speaking to appeal to non-MAGA Republicans and Independents? 

There was an interesting article about how some politicos think they should send Clinton out to reddish parts of the Rust Belt swing states to do his magic.  Then others said we tried that.  In 2008, when Clinton got a bit uppity, and Obama won.   And in 2016, when it just didn't stop white Bubba guys in the Midwest from nailing his wife's coffin shut.

All politicians have a shelf life.  And my reaction is Bill was underwhelming.  So it could be, to your riff, that his time has simply passed.  As you noted, he was arguably a necessary transition from Reagan back to the left - very slowly.  This was NOT 2012, when a younger Bill gave what I really emotionally felt was THE speech of the convention.  And perhaps it is noteworthy that the 2012 speech was about thinking more than feeling.  In 2012 he was just folksy, and made sense.  The highlights of 2024 DNC to me were about feeling, not thinking.  And Kamala (she wants to be called Kamala) blew the fucking roof off that.  It had to be electric to be there.

To judge 2024 by the same standard as 2012, my feeling is Barack is the new Bill.  Barack felt like the engaging elder statesman who is still relevant.  Bill just felt kind of old, and talked about being old.  Maybe there is some marginal benefit to him going out and talking to old White guys.  But, if there is a benefit, it is marginal. 

The bottom line is that if Kamala is going to lose, she is going to lose because of old White guys.  And, to be mercilessly blunt, these old White guys will die sooner than the multi-racial younger majority that replaces them.  So maybe 2024 is their chance to say, "Fuck y'all, y'all.  Fuck y'all and your fancy Latinx whatever the fuck Gay queer bi shit world I don't like much.  Yeah, fuck y'all. I'm a  man.  And I damn well fucking know what a man is.  So I'm voting for Trump.  I could care less if he grabs pussy, because he is NOT a pussy like your girly men whatever the fuck men are.  Fuck y'all." 

How hillybilly is that?  

So here's two articles that offer an interesting point/counterpoint, neither of which can be judged yet.

The Surprising Word Democrats Keep Using to Describe Kamala Harris’ Campaign

 

The word is "movement".  And that article certainly speaks to the feel of the moment.  At least for Democrats.  But, as most people quoted in the article say, all we really know at this point is that the Harris campaign has elements of a movement.  It is too early to tell. 

This is certainly NOT 1932.  Democrats won't win a landslide victory based on a Great Depression - no matter how pissed off people are about higher costs of living.  The JFK comparison is more interesting.  One of the models for the Biden/Harris era I have had in my mind since 2020 is the 1960's. But in reverse.  Biden is the old party hack, like LBJ, who without LBJ's majority still managed to get a lot of important legislation passed.  Harris is more like a JFK figure.  Can you call it a movement if it was a really close election, like 1960?  Maybe not.

If there is an element of "movement" that makes sense to me, going back to Bubba Bill, it is that there is some obvious "passing of the torch" and generational change at work.  JFK was just a younger and handsome White guy in a line of White guy Presidents.  Harris and her family are like what America is today, and will be in the future.  So that is not necessarily a movement.  But in 20 or 30 years it could be that this is seen as the moment where America really embraced being the vibrant multi-racial democracy it now is.  Where a Black man born in Hawaii or a melting pot woman with a charming Jewish hubby can be POTUS.   Bill, and even Hillary, are just old school by comparison.

I never bought the idea that young people and Blacks and Hispanics were flocking to Trump, which I still view - at core - as the minority movement of pissed off and losing old White guys.  Harris has certainly proved just by being her that young Americans, Blacks, and Hispanics are not thinking, "Gosh. Donald Trump is God.  How did I not get that I just need to be as MAGA as possible?"  MAGA's moment looks more than ever like it has passed.

But, speaking of close elections:

Washington Primary Points Toward Another Nailbiter

That article is a perfect, down to earth antidote to all the magical feelings of movement described in the first article.  Sean Trende, as always, is boring and geeky.  So who gives a shit what he has to say?  Except that he is probably right.

So, if you want to skip a boring and geeky article, his point is that the Washington primary tells us 2024 will be a nail biter.  Again, 1960 and JFK might be a good comparison.  Maybe a feeling of a movement.  But not a landslide.  To be very specific, his data analysis says Harris will do 1.8 % worse than Biden, who won by 52.5 % popular vote in 2020 (that's excluding third party votes, so Trump + Biden = 100 % of votes cast in 2020).  

The good news is that if Trende is right, Harris would win a narrow popular vote victory (52.5 % - 1.8 % = 50.7 %, which is a win).  The bad news is that a 50.7 % Harris popular vote win could mean an electoral college loss.  Certainly, the polls tell us that there is no reason to think Trump will do worse than in 2020, when Democrats were doing better in the polls than today.

Which, again, brings us back to Bubba Bill.  I'll end my rant with a great talk Mark Halperin had with some of the old school top politicos on Harris's chances.  The sobering point that was made several times is that Harris is going to lose if this is up to men.  Especially White men without college degrees.  They slaughtered Hillary in 2016, and they can slaughter her in 2024.  No one disagreed.  But, Doug Sosnik (Bill Clinton's whiz) said if this thing turns into a movement for the future, it can be very hard to stop Harris.  

I think it will be close.  And I think all of these themes speak to the tipping point.  It is now a race between going back to the America of the past, and going forward to the America of the future.  It would be good if Bubba Bill, or Tim Walz, or Joe Biden, could bring some of the old White guys along somehow.

 

 

 

 

 

[Suckrates]

14 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

 

I think it will be close.  And I think all of these themes speak to the tipping point.  It is now a race between going back to the America of the past, and going forward to the America of the future.  It would be good if Bubba Bill, or Tim Walz, or Joe Biden, could bring some of the old White guys along somehow.

 

 

 

 

 

Educated, intelligent OLD white men with common sense have Already progressed and moved forward, and are NOT about all the crazy retro MAGA shit.  Perhaps those are mostly Dems, but little by little the logic of a forward moving country is starting to seep thru to righty's.....   I'll go out on a limb and say the election WILL NOT be as close as pundits are predicting.....I imagine a 1000 ft Wave, and it happens to be BLUE., speckled with just enough RED....

[stevenkesslar]

17 minutes ago, Suckrates said:

I imagine a 1000 ft Wave, and it happens to be BLUE., speckled with just enough RED....

It's like old times, Sis.

I love it when you get excited.

 

[RockyRoadTravel]

42 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

There was an interesting article about how some politicos think they should send Clinton out to reddish parts of the Rust Belt swing states to do his magic.  Then others said we tried that.  In 2008, when Clinton got a bit uppity, and Obama won.   And in 2016, when it just didn't stop white Bubba guys in the Midwest from nailing his wife's coffin shut.

All politicians have a shelf life.  And my reaction is Bill was underwhelming.  So it could be, to your riff, that his time has simply passed.  As you noted, he was arguably a necessary transition from Reagan back to the left - very slowly.  This was NOT 2012, when a younger Bill gave what I really emotionally felt was THE speech of the convention.  And perhaps it is noteworthy that the 2012 speech was about thinking more than feeling.  In 2012 he was just folksy, and made sense.  The highlights of 2024 DNC to me were about feeling, not thinking.  And Kamala (she wants to be called Kamala) blew the fucking roof off that.  It had to be electric to be there.

To judge 2024 by the same standard as 2012, my feeling is Barack is the new Bill.  Barack felt like the engaging elder statesman who is still relevant.  Bill just felt kind of old, and talked about being old.  Maybe there is some marginal benefit to him going out and talking to old White guys.  But, if there is a benefit, it is marginal. 

The bottom line is that if Kamala is going to lose, she is going to lose because of old White guys.  And, to be mercilessly blunt, these old White guys will die sooner than the multi-racial younger majority that replaces them.  So maybe 2024 is their chance to say, "Fuck y'all, y'all.  Fuck y'all and your fancy Latinx whatever the fuck Gay queer bi shit world I don't like much.  Yeah, fuck y'all. I'm a  man.  And I damn well fucking know what a man is.  So I'm voting for Trump.  I could care less if he grabs pussy, because he is NOT a pussy like your girly men whatever the fuck men are.  Fuck y'all." 

How hillybilly is that?  

So here's two articles that offer an interesting point/counterpoint, neither of which can be judged yet.

The Surprising Word Democrats Keep Using to Describe Kamala Harris’ Campaign

 

The word is "movement".  And that article certainly speaks to the feel of the moment.  At least for Democrats.  But, as most people quoted in the article say, all we really know at this point is that the Harris campaign has elements of a movement.  It is too early to tell. 

This is certainly NOT 1932.  Democrats won't win a landslide victory based on a Great Depression - no matter how pissed off people are about higher costs of living.  The JFK comparison is more interesting.  One of the models for the Biden/Harris era I have had in my mind since 2020 is the 1960's. But in reverse.  Biden is the old party hack, like LBJ, who without LBJ's majority still managed to get a lot of important legislation passed.  Harris is more like a JFK figure.  Can you call it a movement if it was a really close election, like 1960?  Maybe not.

If there is an element of "movement" that makes sense to me, going back to Bubba Bill, it is that there is some obvious "passing of the torch" and generational change at work.  JFK was just a younger and handsome White guy in a line of White guy Presidents.  Harris and her family are like what America is today, and will be in the future.  So that is not necessarily a movement.  But in 20 or 30 years it could be that this is seen as the moment where America really embraced being the vibrant multi-racial democracy it now is.  Where a Black man born in Hawaii or a melting pot woman with a charming Jewish hubby can be POTUS.   Bill, and even Hillary, are just old school by comparison.

I never bought the idea that young people and Blacks and Hispanics were flocking to Trump, which I still view as -at core - as the minority movement of pissed off and losing old White guys.  Harris has certainly proved just by being her that young Americans, Blacks, and Hispanics are not thinking, "Gosh. Donald Trump is God.  How did I not get that I just need to be as MAGA as possible?"  MAGA's moment looks more than ever like it has passed.

But, speaking of close elections:

Washington Primary Points Toward Another Nailbiter

That article is a perfect, down to earth antidote to all the magical feelings of movement described in the first article.  Sean Trende, as always, is boring and geeky.  So who gives a shit what he has to say?  Except that he is probably right.

So, if you want to skip a boring and geeky article, his point is that the Washington primary tells us 2024 will be a nail biter.  Again, 1960 and JFK might be a good comparison.  Maybe a feeling of a movement.  But not a landslide.  To be very specific, his data analysis says Harris will do 1.8 % worse than Biden, who won by 52.5 % popular vote in 2020 (that's excluding third party votes, so Trump + Biden = 100 % of votes cast in 2020).  

The good news is that if Trende is right, Harris would win a narrow popular vote victory (52.5 % - 1.8 % = 50.7 %, which is a win).  The bad news is that a 50.7 % Harris popular vote win could mean an electoral college loss.  Certainly, the polls tell us that there is no reason to think Trump will do worse than in 2020, when Democrats were doing better in the polls than today.

Which, again, brings us back to Bubba Bill.  I'll end my rant with a great talk Mark Halperin had with some of the old school top politicos on Harris's chances.  The sobering point that was made several times is that Harris is going to lose if this is up to men.  Especially White men without college degrees.  They slaughtered Hillary in 2016, and they can slaughter her in 2024.  No one disagreed.  But, Doug Sosnik (Bill Clinton's whiz) said if this thing turns into a movement for the future, it can be very hard to stop Harris.  

I think it will be close.  And I think all of these themes speak to the tipping point.  It is now a race between going back to the America of the past, and going forward to the America of the future.  It would be good if Bubba Bill, or Tim Walz, or Joe Biden, could bring some of the old White guys along somehow.

 

 

 

 

 

I think movements and political parties fit into different categories.  There may be a movement for reproductive rights, and the Democrats may have a policy on reproductive rights, and those are different things. In my opinion. 

There are three things which give me optimism about the Harris campaign.

1. In 2020 Biden's results didn't live up to the polling. I think this was partly to do with how they were campaigning, and not working the vote for turn out. They were observing pandemic protocols, remember "Biden campaigning from his basement", and the GOP was working the vote.  That's not happening this time.

2. Unlike 2016 people are no longer embarrassed to support the former defeated President, and so the polls are probably more accurate. 

3. I'm thinking - in spite of all the experts - that North Carolina is more likely than Georgia for the Harris campaign, and a maybe a Democratic governor might help with minimizing election interference by the MAGA element of the GOP. 

[Suckrates]

2 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

It's like old times, Sis.

I love it when you get excited.

 

It's just a semi,  not a full blown Hard-on....   Check back with me in 60 days....

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

I think movements and political parties fit into different categories.  There may be a movement for reproductive rights, and the Democrats may have a policy on reproductive rights, and those are different things. In my opinion. 

There are three things which give me optimism about the Harris campaign.

1. In 2020 Biden's results didn't live up to the polling. I think this was partly to do with how they were campaigning, and not working the vote for turn out. They were observing pandemic protocols, remember "Biden campaigning from his basement", and the GOP was working the vote.  That's not happening this time.

2. Unlike 2016 people are no longer embarrassed to support the former defeated President, and so the polls are probably more accurate. 

3. I'm thinking - in spite of all the experts - that North Carolina is more likely than Georgia for the Harris campaign, and a maybe a Democratic governor might help with minimizing election interference by the MAGA element of the GOP. 

You made several very important points.

I forgot about what you said about 2020.  Nice that all those fears about not wanting to go talk to people because of COVID are now a distant memory.  

There were a lot of people who complained about how Democrats basically had one hand tied behind their backs in 2020.  One specific memory is Lauren Underwood, one of my favorite US Reps.  I grew up in the Chicago burbs, which were red as could be when I was a kid.  So the idea that Lauren Underwood could win a US House seat in the Chicago burbs was unthinkable.  First it was a push to get Harold Washington elected Mayor of Chicago, then Obama as President, and only then could you get a Black Democrat in the Chicago burbs.  But she almost lost in 2020, unexpectedly.  One of the political consultants who worked with her (and a lot of other Dems) wrote an essay at the time saying Democrats screwed up across the board by suppressing their own turnout, in effect.  I gave money and followed all the SoCal House races in 2020, when Democrats lost several of the seats we picked up in 2018.  Several of those candidates, if I recall right Harley Rouda in particular, blamed the reversal on the Republicans doing strong turnout and Democrats being timid due to COVID.

Anyway, if that was an explanation for 2020, that does not apply in 2024 as you say.

That said, the Trump polling underweight makes complete logical sense.  If the only people who voted were the most likely voters, Harris would win big.  If the only people who voted are the people least likely to vote, Trump would win in a landslide.  He attracts people who thinks politics sucks.  So of course it makes sense that the people who don't vote in midterms but will vote for him - maybe - are going to be a wild card.

I didn't think of it until reading your post.  But in that more sobering article from Sean Trende he does mention that one problem with his model is he is using results from the Washington primary, which have been very predictive in the past.  But, as he says, things can change between the primary and the general.  This year would be a perfect example.  The primary was August 6th, after the Kamala Effect had started.  But Democratic enthusiasm went from lagging all year to now being off the charts.  At least as of right now, it looks like the big shift that started right about then could underestimate how well Democrats will do in November.   That does depend on how much the campaign can create the energy of an unstoppable movement.

And one expert who agrees with you about North Carolina is Ed Rogers, the Republican political consultant.  He said on Halperin's 2Way talks that he doesn't see Harris winning Georgia, but he worries about North Carolina.  He pointed to how the NC Democratic Guv is wildly popular, and the MAGA Republican Guv candidate is not.

[RockyRoadTravel]

3 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

You made several very important points.

I forgot about what you said about 2020.  Nice that all those fears about not wanting to go talk to people because of COVID are now a distant memory.  

There were a lot of people who complained about how Democrats basically had one hand tied behind their backs in 2020.  One specific memory is Lauren Underwood, one of my favorite US Reps.  I grew up in the Chicago burbs, which were red as could be when I was a kid.  So the idea that Lauren Underwood could win a US House seat in the Chicago burbs was unthinkable.  First it was a push to get Harold Washington elected Mayor of Chicago, then Obama as President, and only then could you get a Black Democrat in the Chicago burbs.  But she almost lost in 2020, unexpectedly.  One of the political consultants who worked with her (and a lot of other Dems) wrote an essay at the time saying Democrats screwed up across the board by suppressing their own turnout, in effect.  I gave money and followed all the SoCal House races in 2020, when Democrats lost several of the seats we picked up in 2018.  Several of those candidates, if I recall right Harley Rouda in particular, blamed the reversal on the Republicans doing strong turnout and Democrats being timid due to COVID.

Anyway, if that was an explanation for 2020, that does not apply in 2024 as you say.

That said, the Trump polling underweight makes complete logical sense.  If the only people who voted were the most likely voters, Harris would win big.  If the only people who voted are the people least likely to vote, Trump would win in a landslide.  He attracts people who thinks politics sucks.  So of course it makes sense that the people who don't vote in midterms but will vote for him - maybe - are going to be a wild card.

I didn't think of it until reading your post.  But in that more sobering article from Sean Trende he does mention that one problem with his model is he is using results from the Washington primary, which have been very predictive in the past.  But, as he says, things can change between the primary and the general.  This year would be a perfect example.  The primary was August 6th, after the Kamala Effect had started.  But Democratic enthusiasm went from lagging all year to now being off the charts.  At least as of right now, it looks like the big shift that started right about then could underestimate how well Democrats will do in November.   That does depend on how much the campaign can create the energy of an unstoppable movement.

And one expert who agrees with you about North Carolina is Ed Rogers, the Republican political consultant.  He said on Halperin's 2Way talks that he doesn't see Harris winning Georgia, but he worries about North Carolina.  He pointed to how the NC Democratic Guv is wildly popular, and the MAGA Republican Guv candidate is not.

Beyond the polling numbers, I think enthusiasm and the campaign turn out the vote operations are, so far, the sleeper issue in terms of discussions on the election outcomes. Maybe it's just early for that discussion. From what I've read there is more of a Harris ground game than with the Trump campaign.