Its unclear how many “moderate republicans” will vote for her. In large part because it is unclear how many “moderate republicans” there actually are and it is worth remembering that folk like liz cheney and romney largely voted in lockstep with trump and the magats outside of MAYBE one or two issues that personally impact them. And it isn’t like any of the “former Republican leaders” have particularly strong support bases considering they lost to the magats years ago.
The reality is that this is just part of the republican party trying to prepare for a post-trump election. trump supported candidates consistently lost downballot and the primaries for this election were a shitshow. maga/tea party republicans die with trump so they are making sure they can go back to reagan/bush style “We are the party of decorum and church rights. You need to meet us in the middle and let us kill just a few trans folk per day”
From a game theory perspective, a trumper discouraged to vote is worth 1 vote, a flipped Republican vote is worth 2 votes.
So the appeal to the right makes sense if it works, because every vote from that camp is also a negative vote from Trump.
But from the other side, an endorsement from Bush and Cheney might flip some Democrats, specifically the Muslims who are already pissed off about the “helping the Gazan Genocide” thing.
Hillary lost my vote by campaigning with Kissinger. If he escaped Hell and went on campaign with Harris I’d abstain again, no question. Maybe just an endorsement could slide but it’d have to be unasked for and she’d need to take a stance on immediate execution of zombies.
In part it might be trying to head off trouble during and after the election with Republican state officials interfering with the election process—they might be more hesitant if they see other Republican leaders supporting Harris.
We’ll know after the election.
It might be that these endorsements help bring in some more moderate Republicans to her side but there’s also a very real possibility that she disincentive the more left leaning voters from voting for her as well. Remember, Hillary lost because she didn’t do enough to incentivize people to vote for her. She just relied on people hating Trump and didn’t rely on people actually liking her. Regardless, this is all conjecture. It’s too early to tell and no one will have a definitive answer until the results are in and a winner is announced.
Hillary lost because she didn’t do enough to incentivize people to vote for her.
Hilary got more than enough votes. She received 2.9M more votes than Trump. Her problem was that her support was much too concentrated in a small number of states. The Electoral College math punishes candidates in that situation.
A big part of where she excelled in votes was because she spent too much time in safe states and didn’t spend a lot of time campaigning in the states that ended up being decided on thin margins.
Undecided voters aren’t undecided between Trump and Harris, they are undecided on leaving the couch to go vote.
So I don’t really think it’s changing the mind of voters and I don’t see it motivating people to go vote.
Just seems like an attempt at counter narrative for “Comrade Harris”. I don’t see it moving the needle.
…and I don’t see it motivating people to go vote.
But it can do the opposite perhaps — “motivate” people to stay home who would otherwise vote R. Not that, in general, we should be celebrating voter apathy, but I think that some of these endorsements could dishearten folks enough that they end up abstaining.
Completly out of context, but I want to ask an important question
I am from India, currently studying in Australia and back home I was actively involved in politics. Being involved in politics means I have to give a damn about the US, and for the first time in my life I happened to watch the presidental debate. Ever since, I have been wondering how Trump has so much following and how was he a president of your country? Not a single statement of his made sense, and not to mention how he always deviated from the topic being discussed. Can someone please explain what is happening in the US?
It’s difficult for at least half of us to understand as well, but the only answer is repressed anger, desperation, fear of change. People are unhappy and Trump gives them an outlet with his rants, identifies scapegoats to hate, attacks changes they are afraid of. Even his open flouting of the law attracts those who feel stifled by overbearing laws.
Let’s take the Department of Education as an example. Here, education is mostly at the state and local level. The federal department of education doesn’t have much say, but they can give money with strings attached. In the last few decades, those strings included requirements for the disabled, racial and gender equity in school sports, separation of church and state (like our Constitution requires), programs to uplift the impoverished or poorly served, as well as programs to identify and remediate failing schools. For example my town just built a new high school: some of the reasons for the insane cost are federal requirements because they paid for most of it. People may not be comfortable with all these changes imposed by the federal government, despite the funding that comes with it and regardless of the overall good. Demagogues like Trump can stoke outrage based on outsiders telling people what to do.
Now it’s a core Republican plank to shut down the Department of Education, so state and local governments can run Education their way. I don’t believe they even think about what they’d lose, who they’d lose it for, or how much worse off they’d be., just “stop telling us what to do”
I suspect a big part of it is that he actually acknowledged that people are having problems, while Hilary decided to go “America is already great” as if their problems aren’t real.
There are 2 important factors.
-
Very few people are doing their research and making a logical decision about who will best represent their interests. They will just vote for whoever their friends vote for.
-
The way the president is elected through the electoral college means that a few states are over represented. IDK the numbers but for example, it might be possible to become president with as few as 40% of the votes.
-
In that it is evidence of the Republican party dissolving, yes.
For me personally, no.
They would there vote for “opposition” and provide her with platfrom than a third party alternative…
Regimes primary imperative is…
