Alex Thompson informs me today that Kamala Harris no longer supports Medicare for All; says she won’t ban fracking; wants to increase funding for the border; and doesn’t want to require people to sell their assault weapons back to the government. Obviously this means that Harris has wisely decided to shift a bit toward the center now that she's in a general election contest for the presidency. That's pretty standard triangulating.
But it probably doesn't matter all that much. This is policy stuff, and most voters care about policy only in the broadest terms: for or against abortion, pro or anti gay marriage, and so forth. What they care about a lot more are social values, and even that's mostly on the level of vibes.
This is what J.D. Vance was getting at with his oddball comment about "childless cat ladies." He was using that as a metaphor for lefty women who like to spoil everyone's fun by harrumphing about racism and mass transit and single-use plastic bags. Obviously Vance chose his metaphor badly, but the point he was making is very, very common on the right. They believe that liberals aren't just wrong, but really annoying.
And often we are! This is where Harris would also be wise to shift slightly to the center. Not a lot. Lefty values are more popular than conservatives like to admit. But it wouldn't hurt to make some noises about the evidence on gender affirming care being unsettled. Or that, yes, DEI training can sometimes be a bit on the ridiculous side. Or that the Bible is the word of God (which she presumably believes, being a Baptist and all).
These are the kinds of things that can make centrist voters more comfortable without really ceding anything that's of concrete value to the liberal project. It's basically just a way of putting across the idea that she's a normie, not a nutball extremist. And it draws a contrast with Trump and Vance, who are nutball extremists.
Mock Bill Clinton's Sister Souljah moment all you want, but it worked—and since the liberal coalition isn't in favor of killing white people it didn't concede anything of value. A little bit of this goes a long way, especially if it comes as a bit of surprise and gets some press.
Obama was excellent at this kind of thing.
https://www.politico.com/story/2008/07/obamas-steady-centrism-011880
My view of Obama always was that he was a center-right Democrat, and that it wasn't "positioning" but was mostly what he thought, in economics. Chicago was his professional and academic home, where Friedman's influence is in the air they breathe, and I think he genuinely believed it. I don't know, though, how his community-organizing experience connected with that; maybe the two together were the basic shape of the ACA. Beyond economics I grant the distance from Iraq, yes, and credit for that, but he was really a true believer in the Afghanistan mission, as it turned out.
Of course he famously had to bury any inclination to show even normal anger in any and all circumstances, unlike Clinton, because of the "angry black man" trope. And beyond that, far more urgently than Clinton he not only had to create distance from Jesse Jackson but also to differentiate himself from, and distance himself from, Elijah Muhammad as well. And in national-level politics he had a tricky time with that because of things his preacher said.
I'm not saying Politico was wrong, just that I think there's a lot more to the story.
My view of Obama always was that he was a center-right Democrat
There was some of that, sure. But we're a arguably a center right nation, and you can't govern if you don't win. And for all his failings (and going too small on stimulus was massive), Obama enacted the largest retributive measure since the Great Society.
erm... *redistributive* measure lol
Uh, no, no we're not. Revealed preferences and all that.
But we're a arguably a center right nation
I see people say (and often unambiguously) that we are a center-right nation. I have to say that I not only don't agree but I don't even understand what that's supposed to mean.
The left-right dichotomy can be problematical at times. It often depends how you define the terms and the issues that matter. It's also tricky at times drawing inferences about large groups comprising disparate smaller factions and individuals.
But let's talk in general terms anyway. You can say Alabama is to the right California. On the whole, that seems uncontroversial. (It even works on a map!) Austin is to the left of the rest of Texas. Jews are to the left of MAGAs. MBAs are to the right of jazz musicians. Republicans are to the right of Democrats.
You can say all those things because you're comparing one thing to another. "To the right" and "to the left" are relative positions. That's fair.
But how can our nation be "center right"? Compared to what? Itself? A nation cannot be "center right" of itself. It makes no more sense than saying "America is a center-east nation" on a map. Center-east of what? Say that and anyone would understand you're speaking nonsense. So it is in saying the nation (i.e., the politics of the people) is center-right.
(Yes, it would be possible to compare the politics of the US to other nations but that's not the context when people say "we're a center right nation.")
So why does the oft-repeated idea "we're a center-right nation" persist? I think it's a piece of propaganda that people use to justify political positions. On the right, people say it to explain why things must be the way they want them to be. On the left, people say it to explain why things cannot be the way they want them to be.
For people on the left, I'd suggest they stop saying "we're a center-right nation" because (a) it's not true, (b) it's definitionally nonsense, and (c) it's a self-defeatist belief that holds them back from the progress they profess to be working toward.
Maybe you're unpersuaded because our political outcomes arguably end up more often to the right than to the left. In that case, it's not that the politics of the people are to the right. The median voter can only be at the center. The problem is that the playing field is not level. The structure of our government is not designed for a fair contest between the left and the right. Institutions like the Electoral College, the Senate, gerrymanders, the filibuster, and so on have tilted political outcomes in recent years to such a degree that one of our major parties has long ago given up on the idea of winning the median voter. Now the leaders of the party have gone so far they have given up on the idea of democracy itself.
The nation's voters, both left and right, would be in better shape if other institutions were doing a better job of providing balance. But Big Money. Big Media, and others, on the whole lean hard to the right. The people at best get a distorted view of what's actually going on. Nonsense runs rampant and the truth remains an underdog.
What's a politician to do? The successful ones operate within the bounds of what is permitted and possible. In my adult years, we had the following Democratic presidents: Carter, a Southerner (first D prez from the South since the Civil War) who began the unwind from the New Deal Era; Clinton, another Southerner and more conservative than his party; Obama, an historic moderate whose biggest accomplishments came in just two years as the country responded to an economic catastrophe; Biden, the first to push against the consensus that prevailed after 1968. Biden's wins were historic and will endure only if Democrats win this election.
If the years that follow go as I hope, people will look back and realize the idea "we're a center-right nation" was a silly, nonsensical conceit that no one who gave it a moment's thought should have ever believed.
JH, it has evolved to being "non-sensical" - because there are two definitions (at least) for "polarization" - (1) we disagree on the solution to a given policy question, and (2) we completely disagree on which policy questions are important.
Most of my adult life was in situation (1), but no longer.
We are at situation (2), and in situation (2) there is no "center."
There is not a center to be found between: we need policies to address global warming (L), and climate change is a hoax (R).
That's just one example. What Kevin keeps bringing up, in posts such as this, is "wouldn't it be good to just shut up about Issue A during election season so as to not give the other side a reminder of why NOT to vote for us." Sounds kind of West Wing-y when you break it down, it has a sniff of superficial tactical intelligence, but frankly, in an era where there is no center as JH correctly points out, I see little to no utility in it.
My comment was addressing how we describe ourselves (left, right, center) as a nation, and why it's a mistake to think we are "center-right." It wasn't to recommend a particular strategy that would best win an election.
Our electoral system is quirky, to put it in a nice way. We all know that the voter preferences of 95% or more of the country are meaningless during presidential campaigns. All that matters is the ultimate preference of undecided voters in a few battleground states. It's a terrible way to run a democracy but it's the only one we have for now.
It's easy to see some differences between Kamala Harris in this race and the one in 2019-20. She was a new face in crowded field of Democratic primary candidates back then. Now she's the presumptive nominee running against a bonkers ticket that threatens our democracy. The difference is not really about left and right. It's a difference about trying to carve out an identity as a relative unknown to Democratic voters (then) and trying to establish a mantel of leadership to guide a country under threat (today).
I don't agree with Kevin that she needs to cede some points that she or Democrats may have supported earlier to help connect with voters on the right. I do think though that she ought to be leading with a different message and set of priorities than what she did last time.
Yes, it IS "the context" when people say that. It implies, for instance, that we're not Germany. It implies, for instance, that we're not New Zealand. It screams "We're not Sweden!"
I don't understand why you don't see that.
I don't see it that way. (I don't know why you don't see it my way! jk)
One.
99% of all discussions about "left" and "right" are in reference to politics within our country. So it is when people say we're a "center-right" country. Substitute "conservative" for "right" and "liberal" for "left," and what they are saying is that the country has more conservatives than liberals. They're not generally referring to our conservative/liberal divide compared to the divide in other countries. I don't agree with their assessment but will spare you a much longer discussion. Still, the "center-right" phrasing is nonsense.
Two.
You can compare the US to other countries if you want. But do most people saying the US is "center-right" mean in comparison to a mere handful of social democracies in Western Europe and elsewhere? What about the rest of the world's 200 nations? Do people think left and right in regard to Africa and South America. Few countries in Asia are to our "left." You could include China and Vietnam, I guess, but that's not what people generally mean when that say it. I think the US is to the right if you cherry-pick the countries you compare us to, but overall I doubt the comparison holds up.
Thanks for your comment. Slightly different perspective of Obama from here:
1) Influenced as much or more by the Columbia history/poli sci depts as the UC economists. (And probably more by Jeep Jones & the Chicago Dem machine than either.)
2) Aimed to be at the center of the Dems' center-left coalition (as Clinton & Biden did; as Lincoln did first with the anti-slavery movement and then with the Republican party).
3) As you mentioned, his brief organizing career (think of it as another master's degree) is another influence that shows up throughout his career; specifically, the "pragmatic progressive" approach to trying to get things done.
I'm not convinced.
Nor am I convinced about the Clinton example.
Trump has some reach to the center with his occasional, but substantial in policy terms, pronouncements that violate the MAGA code.
His supporters largely let him do so, partly because cult, partly because they want to win - and will argue about details later.
Progressives, on the other hand, insist on total fidelity to their agenda, and Democratic politicians, facing that reality, move slowly, if at all, to the center. And that's why Democrats lose close elections.
Yeah, Biden lost in 2020.
Oh, wait.
Biden won more or less by luck, as did Trump in 2016. Ten of thousands of votes in a couple states and it’s no Trump or eight years of Trump. It’ll be the same this year- a hard rain in Milwaukee or Pittsburgh could decide it.
Well...
Millions of more votes, but Biden needed some good luck in swing states.
As for HRC, she also won by millions of votes, but lost because of bad luck in a few states.
The more votes thing doesn’t count, both in a legal sense, but also because voters know if their state matters or not and adjust their behavior accordingly. We don’t really know if Biden or Hillary would have won a real popular vote election- maybe there are a ton of Republicans in CA who aren’t currently bothering to vote. We only know what we know, and that’s that both those elections were a matter of inches.
This doesnt make any sense.
You say 'we only know what we know', but apparently it doesn't count that we know the popular vote because you can pretend 'what if the popular vote was different?'
Bizarre huh?
somebody123 is just making the point that the current implementation of the Electoral College is hurting our democracy.
😉
It does make sense. Just use your little grey cells. We know what the popular vote is when the election is not determined by the popular vote. We don't know what the popular vote would have been if the pop vote determine the presidency. Voting would be very different as would the campaigning of the candidates.
Yes. I never understood why some people use popular vote counts as an argument for how the country would vote if the election was decided by a popular vote. They're talking about a score to a game that was never played. This is true for the reason you mentioned, but also the campaigning tactics of the candidates would be totally different.
Atticus supported the murderer in Texas running over pedestrians and then shooting them for complaining; and supports restricting reproductive healthcare in a way that increases mortality from pregnancies and for infants.
Good one.
Thanks for your comment. FWIW, I think one of the under-absorbed realities of today's politics is the extent to which Democratic progressives and centrists have learned to negotiate, compromise, and work together---both federally and in many states (e.g., Minnesota, Michigan).
Fuck off, troll. You think _I'm_ a 'progressive', whatever the hell you've decided that term denotes today.
What did he do, policywise, that was centrist?
jfc Kevin. stop with the transphobia. I know you’re old, but stop. it would be the touch of death with voters under 45 if Kamala said anything like that.
Seriously. It's good to know that we can be thrown under the bus, for no particularly good reason either - nor in line with the current science - and apparently no one will care. This is how you lose coalitions, by showing the more marginal members that they're expendable. Other groups might start becoming concerned if they're next
right? the only people who should be worrying about a trans minor are:
1. the minor
2. their parents
3. their medical and psychological professionals
Anyone else is a pervert who wants to talk about children’s genitals.
Perfect answer, thank you.
+1
Even Biden was strong on trans rights. Never hurt him.
the "at least three" piece.
kevin's angling for a guestspot on jessie singal & katy hercog's podcast.
Exactly, you have to stand strong on human rights. If some voters are a little uncomfortable, the message is "Harris is standing strong on their freedom, she will stand strong on your issue". Obviously, with finessed wording.
Kevin, I've been commenting on your blog for over 20 years now. If you know anything, you know I'm a left conservative. I strive for temperance, and compassion.
PLEASE, lay off the trans thing. You are wrong about it. You want to put your reading of a few papers on equal footing with my life, my (trans) daughter's life, and the clinical experiences of medical professionals going back at least 50 years.
I am not asking you to become an advocate. That would be great, but it takes a lot of engagement with trans people and ideas, and you don't have a stake that would motivate you the way I do.
What I am asking you is to just stop with the anti-trans statements. Say nothing.
Honestly, I don't expect Harris to be leading the charge on this either. I understand trans acceptance to be a slog, not a sprint. I also understand that there are some very, very conservative allies in the fight for better trans acceptance.
So merely ducking the issue is good enough for me. These issues have very serious impact on the welfare of trans people. Many, many times I have heard other parents describe their child's transition as "it was like a light being switched on" - in a good way, of course.
So, all this "lack of evidence" comes from motivated reasoning, if you ask me. It isn't well sourced, they paraded one person around to several state legislatures. Is one disgruntled person all it takes to activate your skepticism? Over the long-term repeated medical professionals? Really?
Exactly.
I have read Kevin's blog for more than twenty years. I transitioned half a decade before he started blogging.
The evidence is fucking clear. We used to have 50% suicide rates. We don't anymore.
But the number of kids with gender dysphoria amongst the homeless population is still too many. To many being made unwelcome or thrown out of their homes by their own parents.
Oh, that's why Bernie is holding out and still in negotiations with the Harris team about his endorsement.
Put this guy on the ticket. That'll bring Bernie around:
https://x.com/Tim_Walz/status/1817566038147436552
harris will be an extension of the biden regime, of which she was vp, & which bernie very much supported.
bernie's haggling now is more to do with his disregard for, & distrust of, women pols, as with his overthetop diatribes about crooked hillary & putdowns of elizabeth warren, than with policy.
i think the only woman democrat nominee he might support would be his wife, jane o'meara sanders, or stepdaughter, corrina o'driscoll.
Yes. And his wife's departure from her academic position as in circumstances that I recall as being questionable.
Considering that this is the common wisdom and approach for literally every Democrat, along with the widespread success of the party that has few popular positions.....its not clear that this strategy has a real record of success.
But it is what the wise centrists always advise....
are we questioning the instincts of john judis, ruy teixeira, johnathan chait, nicholas kristoff, & ed kilgore, et. al., whose record in campaigns is about the same as taxachusetts liberal bob shrum?
there's a reason that, like shrum, people like judis & kilgore are resigned to throwing cherrybombs at woke neoliberal democrats from the lamestream media peanut gallery instead of serving as policy advisors in democrat presidential regimes. that is, judis, kilgore, chait, kristoff don't actually know how to win a campaign. they don't know how to win, from the center, whereas shrum doesn't know how to win, from the left, but in the end, ideology doesn't matter -- they all lose.
harris shouldn't be taking advice from them. or david shor. or any of the altleft's whiteworkingclass whisperers.
not even kevin drum.
No record?
Every Democrat who won the Presidency did it. Every one that failed wasn't able to appear to do it.
If the idea is to show that she isn't an annoying, hectoring lib, then pointing out how weird Vance and others in the trump circle are seems like a good start to me. She's positioning herself with the normies, and has the great virtue of pointing to something that's true-- these people have an icky vibe.
OTOH it seems to me that the effective gop attacks on libs have tended to be more like "they're coming for your jobs, they're coming for your guns, they're coming for everything that makes you feel good, they're coming for your sense of security, and they're going to tax you into the poorhouse and give your money to the criminals and oddballs and let them run roughshod over you, and all because they don't care about people like you."
From that point of view (because this is a really old gop framing) the Sistah Souljah moment was Clinton speaking to the underlying premise, ie not caring about "people like you," by saying yeah, black people talking about killing white people instead of each other is kind of unnerving. But I think far more important in that vein was the distance it put between himself and Jesse Jackson, who she was closely linked with.
Is anyone today comparable to Jesse Jackson? I don't know that anyone is, honestly. But if there is someone like that, her goal would be to say something relatively anodyne to get that person to publicly distance from her. *That's* the smooth power move that Clinton was so good at.
Don't tell people that you're not an annoying, hectoring 'liberal'. Tell people the other guy is a couch-fucker.
yup.
swiftboat him.
????
"Move to the center" is code for "move to the right." We've been hearing this ever since Bill Clinton and his "triangulation." End welfare as we know it! Again!
You know, that Ruy Teixeira makes a lot of sense! Democrats need to peel off hard core MAGA voters by adopting right-wing policies that will have millions of slightly progressive voters staying home.
Somebody that stays at home in an election between Harris and Trump is not a "slightly progressive". It is a nutter.
I am not saying it is not an issue, but we should use the right terms.
+1
"Move to the center" is code for "move to the right."
Right. Ohio and Iowa and about ten other states have slipped out of our grasp because we're insufficiently progressive on Gaza, migrants and crime.
Did nobody notice that Trump dominates these states by telling voters the Iraq War was stupid and health care will be so cheap they wont bill you?
It wouldn't be possible to "notice" this because that is most definitely not why Trump dominates them. By your reasoning, Massachusetts and California would long ago have slipped into the MAGA column given that skepticism about militarism and support for the safety net are stronger there than in the red states.
Most of the evidence suggests immigration more than any other issue has driven the MAGAication of formerly purple states in recent cycles. As an immigration enthusiast liberal, I wish it weren't so, but it seems to be the case. Various other cultural issues are in second, third, four etc place.
This particular cycle, the inflation burst (now over thank God) is also playing a role (in other countries, too, not just the US).
Democrats obviously cannot and should not follow Republicans down the primrose path of hard right wingery. They just can't be stupid about the issues they do highlight and they have to be careful with language. That's it.
This dude is a legitimate, union-supporting Social Democrat. He's also gun-owner and football coach who's way smarter about communication than the typical Democrat in office. This kinda thing is all Democrats need to do.Take a look:
https://x.com/3vanSutton/status/1817586760429555917
this is rich coming from a pla chaos agent.
New troll is poor at trolling long time poster.
I’m unaware of significant Palestinian or Muslim populations in Ohio or Iowa, for Gaza to be an issue deciding their elections.
I’m unaware of significant Palestinian or Muslim populations in Ohio or Iowa, for Gaza to be an issue deciding their elections.
Vice President Harris didn't issue an anti-Hamas statement the other day because she thought it would cost her votes...
Clearly, mainstream Democratic politicians do worry about the impact of the extremist, pro-Hamas left on our politics...
Hamas polls only marginally better in Gaza than Trump in Ohio.
Yes. Hamas isn't popular. Which is why the hard left pro-Hamas contingent makes Democratic politicians nervous. Which is why they do things like issue anti-Hamas statements.
You don't need to carry water for JD or Trump. When they make weird statements, let them attempt to fix their own maladroit metaphors and malapropisms.
Why correct the record for people who constantly make shit up? I mean, don't you have better things to do?
exactly right.
jimbo's harangue about childless catladies -- oddly praiseworthy in the eyes of the internet's og childless catblogger -- had nothing to do with single middleaged women micromanaging how people shop (reusable bags) or what language to use (say latinx or die, honky). it was quite the opposite. in james donald's world, childless people are actively choosing not to participate in the world & are contributing to extinction of the race (as mr bowman-hamel is largely concerned with the perfidy of white catladies, like taylor swift) & conversion of america from a shining city on the hill for white european immigrants into a babel of mudpeople from mexico, west africa, & the inscrutable east of asia.
Yeah, the childless comment is more about white nationalism and saying that people who choose not to have children are an Other and others are the enemy. It has nothing to do with whatever Kevin seems to think it is, except insofar as those things are also ways that the right codifies who is an Other.
It's more of the conservative navel-gazing writers on the left have done since Trump won in 2016. Going on eight years now, that 'must understand the workings of conservative culture' has complete lacked explaining the workings of liberal culture to conservatives.
I get that we do it to avoid causing pearl-clutching. But most of what liberals believe is boring basic rights and limiting people up enough so that they can also participate.
Otherwise, we let Vance's mansplaining liberal cat ladies stand for the real words of liberal cat ladies.
"limiting people up enough"?
Needs editing.
Never mind. Too late.
Autocorrect changed 'lifting' to 'limiting.' not even the same number of keystrokes.
AI correction is not all that clever.
Depends on the AI. Some of it is the cognition of a fly, some of it is the cognition of a conservative.
I don't expect a chart, but some evidence to support this assertion would make Kevin's post more persuasive.
The most recent Pew survey found inflation to be the most important problem facing the country.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/05/23/publics-positive-economic-ratings-slip-inflation-still-widely-viewed-as-major-problem/
I suggest persuading swing voters that she is better placed than Trump to tackle these problems will make them more "comfortable" voting for her than proclaiming that the Bible really is the word of God - which would definitely make a lot of liberals very uncomfortable.
That article is over 2 months old. A lot has changed since then.
However if Harris wants to remind voters that about how Trump scuttled the immigration bill this year it wouldn't hurt. Even better, she could talk about how in 2013 the Democratic Senate passed an immigration bill that increased border security and the Republican House refused to vote on it I'd say that would be a good move.
She could endlessly repeat how in 2013 Republicans voted against immigration bills because they only want to run on the issue, not fix it. And of course how they want to end LEGAL immigration.
As for inflation, she could also mention how Biden has been fighting to reinstate anti-trust enforcement. How prices would fall if so many companies, including food giants, weren't holding a monopoly on so many things. But the rules changed over 30 years ago and it will take years to make things more competitive. And how Trump has no intention of doing anything like this. Let's be honest, Trump wouldn't even know HOW to do this.
I'm an atheist, but Biden, Obama, & Clinton all talked about God. I have no problem with it.
I have never been a fan of Harris. She was not one of my top 5 prez candidates on 2020. She was not one of my top 5 picks for VP. There are more than a few things about her record I don’t like. (Dr.Jill feels the same way. It will be interesting to see if she does anything for Harris.)
… And yet, I, a guy who was planning to vote third-party instead of for Biden, not only will vote for her, I even sent her money. (Not much. I’m a poor person. But payday is tomorrow and I hope to send her more.) I can understand and tolerate her moving to the mainstream Republican center (since there are very few mainstream Republicans left) , and then I will work to undermine her mainstream republican plans after she wins.
… hmmmmm Maybe a Harris tote bag for my shopping. And that coffee mug of her as a child *is* cute
Whereas my first pick in 2015 was Harris. Something about enough with the cis white men already. Although to be honest, it was probably enough with the men.
i was in on inslee, harris, & buttigieg in that order in 2019.
& i was right out on sanders, warren, gabbard, ryan, & Moulton.
clown candidates like yang & messam & schultz were not even worth shitting on.
"I have never been a fan of Harris."
You? Who are you?
A long time commenter?
In my first election for governor, I had some opponents who were talking about how they were going to deliver universal health care in Michigan. And I think it’s a value we all have. But I know enough about state government to know what I can and can’t do. I also know enough about politics in Michigan and how the lines are drawn for our legislature, especially when we were in 2018, about what was doable and not doable. And I’m not going to promise people to do something that I know I can’t accomplish. I’d rather be the person who sets optimistic expectations but is realistic as well. And I do worry about people losing faith in government because so many people exaggerate what they can accomplish. I do worry about people checking out because over and over again these people who make these fake promises don’t deliver and then they think we’re all that same way and that government can never get anything done. So I think it’s not just smart to manage expectations and overdeliver; I think it’s responsible too, because we can’t let more people be frustrated with government and check out. We need people to check in more than ever.
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer.
Or, you know, just tell everyone to fuck off. It pays, I think, to be realistic about the world we live in. We can't help everyone. Heck, most of the time we can't even help people we know. Oh well. I think it's fine for me to tell centrists and republicans to fuck off. I'm not going to help them. They don't want it anyway. Politicians have to be more sympathetic.
Fuck this troll.
You gain nothing by such comments.
And Justin is not a troll. He expresses positions that you seem to think are immoral, but that is not being a troll.
This place needs a way to alert about unacceptable comments like other blogs have, among other things. But I repeat myself.
But I keep reading it because it's an otherwise excellent blog offering a somewhat different and intelligent perspective.
"You gain nothing by such comments." You'd be right if there was a block feature, or an up/down vote button. But we don't, so you're wrong.
Justin keeps acting like the most extreme liberal is actually representative of Biden, Harris, and the Democratic congress. The reality is that the bills written and the policies declared and the speeches given are nothing like those extremist positions.
On the other hand, Republicans regularly write bills and make policies that exactly echo the clownish drunk at the end of the bar. Justin often acts like he's unaware of this even though I bet he knows all about it.
He also spends a lot of time arguing about liberals as Fox News sees them. Not how they actually act and how they actually talk. The vast majority of Democrats don't need to stop having an opinion they never had. Or start having an opinion they always had. That often sounds more trollish than just having a different opinion.
Justin is definitely a troll. A bigot, too.
The troll sucks, They supported murdering a pedestrian just because they were armed. They support bigotry and dehumanization.
And of course, they use this quote incorrectly.
We are annoying because we tell the truth, and conservatives don't want to hear the truth. They want to hide their head in the sand that Black people are disproportionately mistreated by police, that climate change is real and our fault, that we are partially responsible for the creation of al Qaeda and ISIS, that the United States is the ONLY country with major gun violence and death, that the United States is the ONLY major country where health insurance isn't universal and a medical debt can ruin a family.
But mostly they don't want to hear that we have to change, to take action, to be different to address these things! Like 14 year olds, they think they are right and entitled to whatever they want and don't want Mom or Dad or the principal or priest telling them otherwise.
We're not annoying. They're annoyed.
If they didn’t have structural advantages in the House (gerrymandering), Senate (red states get more votes than blue ones) and the Presidency (electoral college), we could just ignore conservatives completely. This explains why basically every single one of our peers is more left of center than we are: they lack the thumbs on the scale for their conservative parties.
Nicely stated, Kevin. I think that Kamala gets this, as you can see from her comments about pro-Palestinian demonstrators. And to you folks criticizing Kevin, remember, he is not talking changing substance as much as the anecdotal vibe she gives off.
And to you folks criticizing Kevin, remember, he is not talking changing substance as much as the anecdotal vibe she gives off.
Exactly, Kevin specifically states:
Emphasis mine.
Kevin's talking about things like rhetoric and word choice—I'm pretty sure he's not suggesting that Harris advocate the repeal of Social Security or the abandonment of support for reproductive rights.
I think what some people are missing is that politicians tend to "code" as having certain attributes in the minds of voters. It's not rational, but some politicians (say, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, George W. Bush Tim Walz, Andy Beshear, Tammy Balwin, Bernie Sanders) "code" as possessing the common touch—the type of person voters claim they'd want to have a beer with. Other politicians (say, Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi or Al Gore or Elizabeth Warren or Ron DeSantis) come across as more "elitist" or "out of touch."
This is all enormously inane and very unfair, but this phenomenon seems to be quite real. So this is a long way of saying: some politicians have to be more careful than others to reassure persuadable (ie, centrist) voters. I mentioned Sanders: he's obviously far to the left of the median Democratic voter, but he's had a pretty successful political career in part because, with his rumpled clothes, messy hair, thick Brooklyn accent and lack of "polish," Bernie exudes authenticity and earnestness. You don't get the impression he'd jump down your throat if you accidentally used the wrong pronoun. Voters have a certain comfort level with that.
It's early days for Harris. She seems to be off to an amazing start. It's great to be on offense again. So, we'll see. But she has spent the entirety of her political career in the Bay Area and DC, and her major political challenges have generally been Democratic primaries, not general elections. Running nationally is a lot different from running in California. And the Republicans have only just started to begin their attacks. So far they they don't seem to be very effective. And I'm cautiously optimistic we're going to win this thing. But again, it's early days. And Kamala Harris probably does need to reassure some persuadables that she's not whatever it is MAGA is going to accuse her of being (Marxist? Radical? Gun grabber? Open Borders Queen?).
At this early juncture, Harris seems to get this. So I'm optimistic.
+1. Great comment.
Harris was in Sacramento for a while though - 2011 to 2017. Also lived in Montreal from age 12 through her first year in college.
And I'd love to quaff some brews with Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore or Elizabeth Warren. And throw one in DeSantis' face, including the mug.
And I'd love to quaff some brews with Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi
Likewise. But it's pretty unlikely we're representative of typical persuadable voters in the exurbs of Grand Rapids or Reno.
Noted, you skipped past what the comments were - pro Hamas isn't pro Palestinian nor pro human rights - to your own point of view.
People are always more eager to talk about other people's sex lives than their own. (tm)
Endlessly people talk about other people's sex lives rather than have one (tm 2nd one tonight!)
Sigh...I am with Kevin on this...Ms Harris must tact to the center, Mr Clinton did have his Sister Souljah moment and won, Ms Clinton...did not, and she lost. Take what lessons you might from this simple calculus.
On much more dangerous ground...what's all this about Trans People? Have they always existed in these numbers? I ask these having been...pretty involved in gay politics, (though a lipstick lesbian wife...her first husband shot her in the mouth, it is a long story),
There have always been lots of gay people, some transvestites, some trans, but I am not sure it is medical advances or...people just more easily coming out of the that particular closet...
And stepping off the bridge here....I am a bit queezy over gender affirming surgery or normal therapy for minors. I would go further on this conundrum but discretion compels...discretion.
By in large, best advice is for people to have less compulsion to stick their noises in other people's business. Traveller
as a raw number, sure, there are more trans people than ever, given overall population growth & the linear passage of time.
as a percentage, no, there aren't.
Yea, as a percentage, there are more trans people.
But this is tempered that in the 90s, studies found up to a 1:2 rate of attempted suicide. We faced higher death rates from basically everything, especially AIDS. And it's still legal to discriminate against us in most atates, denying us housing.
However, gender affirmative care has become the norm. Less gatekeeping. Better outcomes mean more of us are able to be ourselves instead of let die on the street.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Tyra_Hunter
And now we're seeing it again;
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/05/family-sues-police-paramedics-over-unexpected-death-of-distressed-trans-woman/
I tend to doubt that transgender will be a determinative issue this year, although I still remember 2004 in which I strongly suspect Bush's victory was helped if not pushed over the top by the big push for same-sex marriage that year. I remember thinking "Hey, let's get through the election and then go there."
The transgender thing is about minors. Most people have only the vaguest idea of what "gender-affirming care" is, but I can imagine a lot of centrist voters in the heartland being spooked by the idea that teenagers may be getting what used to be called sex change operations without their parents' knowledge, whether or not this is really happening.
Not sure I know how to deal with this one, but just keep in mind that it is pretty much all about minors.
It's not happening.
Basically all of it is lying about what gender affirming care is while denying trans kids the same treatment they'd get as cisgender kids for cancer and precocious puberty.
What makes me queasy is the thought of more harassed young people being forced to live an identity with which they are uncomfortable, all because of others' reactions to what is not their business - & possibly committing suicide as a result.
Thank you.
Feeling queasy about gender transition is fine. I feel icky about abortion AND childbirth. But just like my feelings rightfully have no say in whether women in my (purplish-blue) state have an abortion or give birth, nobody else should have any say in whether adults or youth undergo gender transitions either. The only people involved in that decision should be the patient, the doctor and (in the case of a minor) the parents (unless the minor can prove to a judge that their parents are abusive, incapacitated or otherwise don’t have their children’s best interests at heart). Everyone else should take their feelings and keep them to their fucking selves, like they do with everything else that’s legal but icky or queasy in some people’s minds.
+1
This is the essence of the issue, and well stated.
Your iPhone or something may be sabotaging your comments. Editing is available here, but you have to be really fast.
Also maybe you mean puberty blocking drugs as "normal therapy" for minors, but the shrink kind of therapy comes to mind for me anyway when just "therapy" is mentioned.
Yeah, the 'normal' therapy of gender affirming care is... let kids be what they want to. Talk therapy, allow them gender expression beyong the strict prescriptivist gender essentialism that they're chafing against.
The only time drugs are involved is if they're having dysphoria over experiencing puberty, or have chosen social transition and wish to fit in with their peers.
Basically, they go as far as they feel good about the effects - and no further. There is no single path.
When I was in the youth trans group thirty years ago (well, 29) even then we had some who transitioned. Others who took hormone blockers (like me), and others who took hormones but didn't transition. It was all about finding what parts solved the dysphoria.
Tho honestly, one of the biggest sources of dysphoria is bigotry.
As a transgender person who has been on hormones for 45 years, thank you for declaring that my medical care -- unlike yours presumably -- is not really that important.
As for that tired idea that affirming care is unproven, here, once again are the organizations that say it IS proven. You decide.
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Dermatology, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Nursing, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Physician Assistants, American College Health Association, American College of Nurse-Midwives, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Physicians, American Counseling Association, American Heart Association, American Medical Association, American Nurses Association, American Osteopathic Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Public Health Association, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, Endocrine Society, National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women’s Health, National Association of Social Workers, National Commission on Correctional Health Care, Pediatric Endocrine Society, Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, World Medical Association, World Professional Association for Transgender Health
+1
Kevin shows his age when one of his first thought about how a pol should shift to the center is by kicking trans people to the curb.
Thank you so much. All to common on the left right now though I'm afraid. It's not about right vs wrong -- it's about expendable vs. essential in pursuit of crossover voters.
And, gven the extremes to which those on the right insist on their own personal freedoms - including to deprive the rest of humanity theirs - why can we make this about the the cry of "freedom " ald
"The right to nonconformity is the hallmark of a free society" --Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation.
The good
Germanssuburbans like Kevin will always jettison the interests of smaller groups in favor of appeasing their political foes, which often are also their neighbors and coworkers. Comity in their daily life is the goal above all.in kevin's case, hus lunching krew.
Here here.
29 years ago I started hormone blockers.
I've been a woman longer than Kevin has been a blogger.
The flaw in this idea is that there doesn't exist any such "center" to move to.
The cultural hot buttons that motivate the MAGA and MAGA-curious are deeply personal and binary.
The actions of the MAGA school boards and local governments have shown that they don't want to tighten third trimester abortion regulations or slightly trim DEI or perhaps offer alternative treatment of trans kids.
Their rhetoric is eliminationist and doesn't leave any room for compromise.
Even Kevin's example here shows this- What exactly does it mean to say that "the evidence on gender affirming care [is] unsettled"?
The thrust of the Harris position is that we should welcome and accept trans people as full equals, period.
This is what is so vehemently opposed. The divide has nothing to do with what sort of treatment they get or when or how or where.
Equivocating on their acceptance won't peel off a single MAGA vote but will confuse and depress our own turnout.
Yes!! This is exactly the crux of the matter. People are still looking at this election as though it was still 1992. There is no discernable center anymore, so "tacking to the center" is, if anything, going to be a net loss as you pursue voters who don't exist and lose support from ones who do.
I've said this before, but I'll repeat: This election is about one thing and one thing only: DJT. There is practically no one who is undecided about him and the chances of changing anyone's mind about him are vanishingly small. This election will be decided by turnout. Motivate people who support you to vote and you win.
"Motivate people who support you to vote and you win."
If you assume that Trump is the only issue (which I agree it should be), then this advice is positively useless, because people that object to trump come in all stripes, and motivating different "stripes" require different positions.
This is where I disagree. There is only one position: you support Trump or you oppose him (doesn't really matter why). Everything else is superfluous. There are more than enough votes to defeat him. I can't imagine any significant number of people who voted for Biden four years ago changing their mind and voting for Trump this year. Trump wins if they stay home.
"There is only one position: you support Trump or you oppose him"
That what we think. But many voters think otherwise. Obviously, anybody that stays at home apparently has a third position (they are neutral), and there are other positions.
You seem to assume (with many others in this thread) that your point of view (which on Trump is similar to mine), is shared by anybody else. That is obviously not true, and even in this thread you can see that.
I know lots of people who love Trump. I know lots of people who are adamantly opposed to him. I've never met anyone who's ambivalent. They may be out there, but I haven't encountered them and I don't think there are more than an infinitesimal number.
There are many reasons to be opposed to him, but I don't think it really matters. Turnout four years ago broke all records. As I said above, it's just a matter of getting everyone who voted for Biden four years ago to vote this time. Harris just has to motivate them to vote.
I was skeptical about Biden stepping down and whether Harris would do any better. I was wrong. There is a palpable change in the dynamic of the race. People were not motivated by Biden. There is a different energy for Harris.
And who are you?
There is no discernable center anymore
One thousand percent wrong. Somewhere between 10% and 20% of the electorate is persuadable. Famously, "Obama-Trump" voters (that is, Obama voters who voted for Trump in 2016) played a decisive role in helping the rapist win the White House. About 13% of Donnie's voters in 2016 had previously voted for Obama.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/
It is true the percentage of true swing voters is vastly smaller than forty or fifty years ago. That's the main reason we see so much less ticket splitting these days. But it's also true that, in a very closely divided nation, those 20 million or so voters are decisive.
And yes, fortunately Joe got a lot of these voters back in 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama%E2%80%93Trump_voters
I'm always skeptical of these kind of studies because every election is unique. Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate for a number of reasons and Donald Trump was not as well known. Four years later the situation was very different. It was a turnout-driven election. As Donnie likes to point out, he got more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016. But the anti-Trump voters turned out en masse. I personally know a lot of people who voted for Trump in 2016, but voted for Biden in 2020. I don't know anyone who voted for Clinton and then for Trump. There may have been persuadable people in 2016. I doubt there are many in 2024.
No, she wasn't a bad candidate. She was a very good one.
Yes, this canard should be put to rest. She was not only well-qualified, she had been "most admired woman" - until she had the nerve to run for president! Being ambitious & determined doesn't necessarily mean that someone is cold & calculating. Those pejorative really amazed & annoyed me, especially given the total unqualifying character of her opponent
I dunno, I'm not sure that she was that great. Not necessarily her fault, but nobody forced her to advise environmentalists opposed to fracking to get a life, for example.
I honestly think that the Dems' selection of Clinton as the 2016 candidate was an example of media siloing--not as bad as on the right, to be sure, but running a candidate who the other side had a three-decade head start on demonizing and thus was already saddled with high unfavorability numbers was always going to be an uphill battle.
(and to say nothing of the misgivings many of us had--me included--about electing a close family member of a former president to the presidency; I dunno about you, but I don't really like dynasties in my democracy).
That said, the 2016 election was so close, in most other timelines, Clinton won and Trump lost. We just happen to live in the unlucky timeline where reality rolled snake eyes and Trump caught nearly every break.
Shifting poll numbers and approval ratings show that people do change sides. Both Trump and Biden have been up and down in approval. The variation may be less than in previous decades, but it is enough to decide the election.
This not to say that get-out-the-vote isn't important. As close as polling is, everything should be done.
I disagree. Folks aren't shifting the population polled is along with decisions on whether or not to vote, aka the likely voter screen. And even if there are a few shapeshifting nuts who cannot make up their mind, I strongly feel at this point they are so few in number that the GOTV is the fare more likely factor to victory.
It frustrates me that every issue has to be coded as "left" or "right." We can't seem to prioritize science, math, and logic. The most pronounced, to me, is climate change. The Right has successfully defined climate -- which is entirely a matter of science and math -- as a "left" issue, and many progressives have eagerly jumped right into that trap.
Regarding Harris's position on climate, it would be wise for her too adopt the narrative that *science* will be her guide. Is that "tacking to the center"? It shouldn't be, but many progressives will characterize it that way if it's framed as "Fracking ban -- yes or no?" The response should be "What does the science say?" Not the science according to Bill McKibben, but the science according to actual scientists. We currently have an EPA methane leakage abatement regulation that was instituted under Biden. If it continues in force -- an "if" that depends entirely on the election -- it will obviate or at least diminish the argument for banning fracking.
I could go on, but my point is that policies framed by the politicos as "shifting to the center" are, more often than not, really shifting toward reality, common sense, and science. And therein lie votes.
I share your frustration with everything being coded left or right, but all decisions being reduced to binary choices is inevitable in a duopolistic electoral system like the US is permanently saddled with until we rewrite the constitution. (There are many parts of the constitution that reinforce only two parties being realistically able to win offices.)
Tranferable votes can fix it, for the congress and state legislatures without any change to the constitution.
That really should be the number two priority for democrats (beating Trump is number one).
She seems to be emphasizing her experience as a prosecutor, which is probably smart because it's not only "centrist" but also implicitly reminds people of Trump's various problems with the law.
Also obviously goes against the usual "soft on crime liberal" accusation.
Kamala and the DNC should do a rousing BBC Prom Night using Land Of Faith And Glory as the song and attendees waving the US and state flags. Nothing else is worth the effort.
had me going in the first half, not gonna lie.
thought a bbc prom was a terf cotillion.
"He was using that as a metaphor for lefty women who like to spoil everyone's fun by harrumphing about racism and mass transit and single-use plastic bags. Obviously Vance chose his metaphor badly, but the point he was making is very, very common on the right. They believe that liberals aren't just wrong, but really annoying."
lol
reactionary centrists can't help themselves in carrying GOP water for the party.
correction to my post about sean trende: you do not in fact have to hand it to him.
" He was using that as a metaphor for lefty women who like to spoil everyone's fun by harrumphing about racism and mass transit and single-use plastic bags."
That's why it failed: this guy supposedly from a rural background uses a metaphor that works if you live in a DC suburb?
"But it wouldn't hurt to make some noises about the evidence on gender affirming care being unsettled. Or that, yes, DEI training can sometimes be a bit on the ridiculous side. Or that the Bible is the word of God (which she presumably believes, being a Baptist and all)."
As several of your readers have pointed out, one of these things is not like the others. And given that, like every other democratic candidate, Harris openly acknowledges God, it's pretty strange to insist she should do the thing she's done all her life as if reassuring people she isn't an atheist is important; it's weird to equate expressing a belief in God with suggesting "gender affirming care" evidence is "unsettled." And it's cruel to behave as if expressing an opinion on the existence of God (which is different from advocating prayer in schools or mandatory Christian religious services) equates with equivocating when it comes to medical care individual people are receiving right now.
As it happens, Gallop polls on "Americans who believe in God": the answer is somewhere around 80% (they ask different questions), meaning 20% of Americans do not believe in God. Kevin, do you really think the number of Americans uncomfortable with "gender affirming care" is 80%?
Harris would be a fool to get into an extended conversation about gender affirming care anyway, because it's a wedge issue invented by the right: the best estimate I could find is that trans and non-binary identifying Americans make up between 0.5 to 1.6% of the population but that people polled overestimate on the order of thinking 20% of Americans are trans/non-binary.
The correct response, should someone bring up the issue at all, is something like this:
I am outraged that Republicans, who opposed cheap healthcare for the poor on the grounds that it meant the government getting between people and their doctors, are so eager to see individual state governments meddle with the medical care citizens receive. You wouldn't consult a man in New York real estate about your cancer treatment. You wouldn't trust a lawyer to tell you how best to treat your heart disease. And you certainly wouldn't go ask the mayor what to do if you're having problems with your pregnancy.
And then go on about abortion rights. Talk about how a bunch of unqualified old men passed extreme laws banning a medical procedure that can be life-saving, without even bothering to educate themselves about it. Talk about actual cases where women risked death because hospitals refused to perform a life-saving medical procedure that was legal in their state because the law was written so poorly. Ask why Republicans are more worried about a teenaged girl having to compete in a track event with a transperson than about her dying in the ER because the hospital refused to perform a life-saving operation thanks to the state's abortion ban.
Then, if asked again about gender affirming care, the response is "that should be a decision between the patient in consultation with those who love and support them, and medical professionals, and as a politician it is not my job to interfere." I don't want to speak for the transpeople posting comments here, but I don't think anyone believes Harris would ban gender affirming care or allow it to be banned as president in the first place, so taking a position that defends it while picking a fight on a different issue isn't an abandonment of those seeking such care. Kevin's suggestion would be.
that estimate of percentage of trans/nonbinary people in the us, as given by those squishy to opposed to trans, of 20% makes me think a third party with dual planks of stopping trans (20% of the us pop) & stopping foreign aid (20% of the us federal budget) could win a landslide victory.
" Kevin, do you really think the number of Americans uncomfortable with "gender affirming care" is 80%?"
If you're talking about children, yes, I'd think it's up around there.
Nope. This simple proposition is widely held by Americans, that decisions about gender affirming care for minors should involve only three parties:
1) The minor;
2) The minor's parents;
3) Their doctor.
Everyone else can f*ck right off.
Identifying parallels between this issue and abortion is left as an exercise.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I stand by mine.
You said 80% of Americans share your opinion on this. Citation needed.
Lol. WTF are you talking about? Do you ask people for some kind of a graph or study every time some expresses an opinion? That’s very weird.
Dude, you're the one making the false equivalence of 'kids being allowed to have gender expression' without it being dictated by their anatomy while completely ignoring the harm your position does to trans and intersex kids.
Atticus, you supported a murderer killing a pedestrian for having the temerity to complain about being threatened with a car.
You support policies which kill more women and children.
...And we"re supposed to believe your lies about trans kids?
Good one.
As a senator, one can be 1 of 100 and express views which appeal to the voters of your state, which express your own views, or which are political in nature. However, as president, one has tremendous power in both legislating and in foreign affairs or military affairs or just setting a tone for the nation. It's different.
That said, if someone is shifting all over the place (see Sinema), the people wonder if you have any core values or goals. So, a few shifts which relate to the change in position (senator to president) or which show you can govern the entire nation is not surprising. It's to be expected.
Donald Trump has always been about himself, so this is lost on him. Democrats have always understood it. And, Kamala Harris understands it.
We shouldn't have lines at the border. It's ridiculous that we do.
Fracking can be useful where it"s not fouling water; users should be paying for remediation when they do.
Medicare for all seems... We should just stop price discrimination for medical care. And allow anyone to opt into medicare if they want or need. All? Unnecessary. Open? Why not?
We should all remember what the "Sista Soulja" moment was.
In the aftermath of some police killings, Sista Soulja made some remark about how black folks should stop killing each other and kill white people instead.
A stupid comment, shared by virtually nobody anywhere outside the fringes.
So Clinton was literally just saying "Um, No, we shouldn't be killing people."
A comparable example today would be if some radical trans activist were to say that children should be given forced gender transitions. Then Harris could act all statesmanlike and say that gender transitions should be voluntary.
Trouble is, you'd have to scrape the darkest regions of the internet to find someone saying stupid stuff like that because the two sides are not symmetrical.
The leadership of the Republican Party wants to eliminate trans people from existence and make it impossible for them to live as normal people. This isn't a fringe position any more, its the positions of people who control half of the country.
The "Center" position is that trans people should be welcomed as fully equal beings.
yup.
sistah souljah was an example of nutpicking, something kevin drum claims to abhor.
One may discretely scratch one's nuts, but should never pick them.
Your idea of the center and my idea of the center are far, far apart.
Define slightly. Giving in to the transphobic people is not going to convince them to vote for you. Rejecting scientific proof that trans health care is not undecided is not only ignorant but dangerous to the health and well being of trans people. There are things you can soften your stances on, the health care and freedom of anyone should not be one of them. I assume she wouldn't soften her stance on abortion would she? Why do it on trans Healthcare?
I have long thought that Democratic pols spend far too little time talking about principles. In place of principles, they offer up a laundry list of policy particulars curated to appeal to this or that segment of the party's perceived coalition. This often comes with a steep cost in setting up the party for criticism that it no longer represents "normal" (read white and middle class) Americans.
I think it would be far smarter to start with a few central principles: that all Americans deserve to be protected equally by our government and laws; that voting should be accessible to all citizens; that a fair, uncorrupted economy serves everyone's interests; and that the American ideal serves as an example to governments around the world.
These few principles cover wide swathes of policy. Anyh politician that can't tie their policy proposals to one or more of them isn't worthy of the job. We have ceded to a mutant rump of the Republican Party the freedom to call for rigging the game against anyone and everyone they suspect won't vote for them.
We can force them to come clean if we choose to.
????
These are weird examples. Taking on Sister Soljah on killing white people isn't really much like taking on the AMA on gender affirming care. Drum describes this as not ceding anything of value, but the crackpot attacks on gender affirming care is used to justify passing laws that do violate the values of much of the Democratic party. And while the Republicans are beclowning themselves with racist attacks around DEI should Harris really be saying they have a point about that silly DEI thing?
In general this seems to be a list from an old person on how to not attract the votes of young people. Anybody who does not like to see their religion treated like a joke is not voting for Donald Trump, and yet most religious people will vote for him because their religion is more tribal than theological.
Sure if something comes up which involves the left shooting itself in the foot politically, Harris can distance herself from that. But these examples seem to suggest that there isn't really a good example of that today, just things that are new to old people. At least Drum didn't suggest that Harris come out against caring about the lives of Palestinians. That would fit with his actual list and might even have made it closer to 10/7.
Thank you!
MAGAs don't act like they do because they are annoyed - that is absurd. Their motivation is a real fear of loss of tribal supremacy based on race and religion. The left has been winning the culture war. Non-whites have continuously though erratically been granted more equality, and even a considerable amount of restitution in the form of education and job preference. People don't consistently lose their ability to reason and their grasp of reality, which is what MAGAs have done, because they are annoyed. At this point ideas of what is right and wrong are not based on ideology or practicality, much less annoyance, they are based on group identity - for MAGAs anything the other side does is wrong and anything the leader of their side does is right.
All Republicans are now anti-woke and "woke" is mainly a euphemism for anti-racism. But it also stands for things which deviate from rightist "Christian" morality, which includes subordination of women and suppression of non-standard sexuality. This is what Vance was recently playing on. Positions on these things are symbols of belonging to the tribe.
To think that MAGAs, that is lower-income whites, prefer Republicans for economic reasons is even more absurd, despite what media pundits keep insisting. Trump demonstrated in his administration that he, like other Republicans, puts the interests of the rich above everything. This cycle he is blatantly selling his support on economic issues to the highest bidders.
The question with respect to the election is how all this plays with the voters who are not committed, either tribally or ideologically. A lot of these people are low-information voters. Most Independents do favor economic policies of Democratic politicians but they do not favor positions held by the extreme left, such as open borders (or even increased immigration) or defunding the police. Biden was actually very careful to avoid the extreme cultural positions, but it didn't seem to do him a lot of good. Harris doesn't need to shift away from Biden, she just needs to make it clear that she does not belong to the extreme cultural left. Nobody ultimately knows what the uncommitted voters will consider important.
Harris doesn't need to shift away from Biden, she just needs to make it clear that she does not belong to the extreme cultural left.
Bingo.
And look, it's possible she may not even have to do this. Possible! But, as heartened as I am by her very strong start, the early polling suggests she's largely erased Trump's lead in the polls. It doesn't suggest she's pulled out to the 4-5 point lead she'll need to prevail in the Electoral College. I hope and pray she gets there—everything depends on it. But that's the reality: the Electoral College math suggests she's still the underdog unless polling evidence comes in that definitively suggests otherwise.
Thanks, James Madison!