Kamala Harris' time is up

[krtek a houby]

I think Rob Ray's point is that it's not 'too late in the day', rather that it's not an effective strategy.

I get that, but there's been talk here over the years that the Dems needed to get nasty in order to achieve something of the success that the Republicans have achieved.

 

[Rob Ray]

I've never been of that persuasion, and in fact think turning to it stinks of desperation. For me their biggest failing is straightforwardly that they have no vision to draw on or narrative to tell. Trump sells renewal through aggressive nationalism and reaction. The Dems are still sitting in the shadow of Obama selling a Hope that never arrived and orienting themselves as "not Trump".

It's the same crisis of marketing post-2008 neoliberalism that killed the neocons, in fact (and is also looming on the horizon for Starmer's Labour)

 

[krtek a houby]

I've never been of that persuasion, and in fact think turning to it stinks of desperation. For me their biggest failing is straightforwardly that they have no vision to draw on or narrative to tell. Trump sells renewal through aggressive nationalism and reaction. The Dems are still sitting in the shadow of Obama selling a Hope that never arrived and orienting themselves as "not Trump".

It's the same crisis of marketing post-2008 neoliberalism that killed the neocons, in fact (and is also looming on the horizon for Starmer's Labour)

And I agree, it's more of the same at the end of the day. Even in the unlikely event that Harris wins, not a lot will change. The far right and allies will still be there.

 

[Sue]

I get that, but there's been talk here over the years that the Dems needed to get nasty in order to achieve something of the success that the Republicans have achieved.

There's been a lot of talk about a lot of things. What the Democrats (well politicians in general) need to do is address the underlying reasons why people are voting for things that are directly against their own interests and present a vision of how doing something else would look. Aka as hope rather than more of the same.

But that requires hard work and honesty and takes a lot of time to do/feel the effects of so is unlikely to happen.

Fwiw, the taking the piss stuff seems more effective than being 'nasty'. Which is why the 'weird' thing resonated while the direct insults don't appear to have.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I've never been of that persuasion, and in fact think turning to it stinks of desperation. For me their biggest failing is straightforwardly that they have no vision to draw on or narrative to tell. Trump sells renewal through aggressive nationalism and reaction. The Dems are still sitting in the shadow of Obama selling a Hope that never arrived and orienting themselves as "not Trump".

It's the same crisis of marketing post-2008 neoliberalism that killed the neocons, in fact (and is also looming on the horizon for Starmer's Labour)

The Harris/Wals platform is pretty solidly left populist. Watch their speeches, they consistently voice support for worker’s rights and trade unions, denounce Trump as a scab and pour scorn over billionaires. Trump by contrast just rants about ‘the radical left’, trans people and immigrants.

Yes, you could say the dems platform is just platitudes (for example, they say they will ‘reinstate roe v Wade’ - yeah? How?) but (1) it is at least in the context of the most pro-worker administration for many, many decades (low bar I know, but still…) and (2) Trump’s platform isn’t even coherent enough to constitute platitudes and he didn’t achieve any of his objectives during his first term (other than stuffing the courts with deeply reactionary, anti-working class judges).

The discourse in this election isn’t neo-liberal fluff vs Strasserism, it’s left populism vs barely coherent fascism. The latter is popular largely because a significant section of the US populace - white, rural, small town America - have had their brains rotted by Fux News, Musk’s X and other similar shitholes.

 

[ska invita]

.

They’re not voting for him because they think his character has value, they’re voting for him because he pisses off the right kind of people for them. I don’t know how you break that

By not being or at least acting like one of those kind of people

 

[krtek a houby]

There's been a lot of talk about a lot of things. What the Democrats (well politicians in general) need to do is address the underlying reasons why people are voting for things that are directly against their own interests and present a vision of how doing something else would look. Aka as hope rather than more of the same.

But that requires hard work and honesty and takes a lot of time to do/feel the effects of so is unlikely to happen.

Fwiw, the taking the piss stuff seems more effective than being 'nasty'. Which is why the 'weird' thing resonated while the direct insults don't appear to have.

Good point.

The "weird" accusations worked because, well, you can't really argue with it.

The hard work needs to be done but it's all about getting into government above all else, so tackling the roots of the malaise will end up on the back burner as usual.

 

[ska invita]

The Harris/Wals platform is pretty solidly left populist. Watch their speeches, they consistently voice support for worker’s rights and trade unions, denounce Trump as a scab and pour scorn over billionaires.

Headlines count though and that's not the message making it through via headlines (from what I've seen)

 

[Rob Ray]

The Harris/Wals platform is pretty solidly left populist. Watch their speeches, they consistently voice support for worker’s rights and trade unions, denounce Trump as a scab and pour scorn over billionaires. Trump by contrast just rants about ‘the radical left’, trans people and immigrants.

Yes, you could say the dems platform is just platitudes (for example, they say they will ‘reinstate roe v Wade’ - yeah? How?) but (1) it is at least in the context of the most pro-worker administration for many, many decades (low bar I know, but still…) and (2) Trump’s platform isn’t even coherent enough to constitute platitudes and he didn’t achieve any of his objectives during his first term (other than stuffing the courts with deeply reactionary, anti-working class judges).

The discourse in this election isn’t neo-liberal fluff vs Strasserism, it’s left populism vs barely coherent fascism. The latter is popular largely because a significant section of the US populace - white, rural, small town America - have had their brains rotted by Fux News, Musk’s X and other similar shitholes.

The problem is everyone knows it's still neoliberalism, because Kamala is continuity Biden, and Biden is continuity Obama/Clinton. You can't spend decades dog whistling (Hope) without providing the meat and expect your dogs to keep listening. That's the failure of the narrative. As you say yourself, "yeah, how?"

 

[Dogsauce]

They’re not voting for him because they think his character has value, they’re voting for him because he pisses off the right kind of people for them. I don’t know how you break that, but it certainly isn’t by screaming about what a threat he is. His people want him to be a threat to the establishment.

Or if you want a comparison, remember how we all laughed at the British right-wing press attacking Corbyn as some kind of Stalinist hardliner, or the ludicrous attacks on Ed fucking Milliband as some kind of extreme left threat to the establishment. Didn’t dissuade anyone, more people probably felt like voting for him just because it made the Daily Mail apoplectic.

That’s probably exactly how Trump supporters feel when the media go after him.

 

[andysays]

I get that, but there's been talk here over the years that the Dems needed to get nasty in order to achieve something of the success that the Republicans have achieved.

If by "here" you're referring to Urban, I really don't remember that being significant. If anything, many people have been arguing that simply calling Trump mad, bad, dangerous etc won't do any good, right back to the 2016 election.

Talk has been much more about the Democrats needing to provide proper policies which will win back disaffected working class voters. You can can agree or disagree on whether the voice of Urban is correct if you want, but let's not misrepresent what most people have actually been saying.

 

[andysays]

There's been a lot of talk about a lot of things. What the Democrats (well politicians in general) need to do is address the underlying reasons why people are voting for things that are directly against their own interests and present a vision of how doing something else would look. Aka as hope rather than more of the same.

But that requires hard work and honesty and takes a lot of time to do/feel the effects of so is unlikely to happen.

Fwiw, the taking the piss stuff seems more effective than being 'nasty'. Which is why the 'weird' thing resonated while the direct insults don't appear to have.

It's now starting to look like the "weird" thing only resonated for a brief period of time and is no longer having the effect it did originally.

The rest of your post is spot on.

 

[PursuedByBears]

Tbh imo, if Harris loses this election at least one of the key reasons as to why is her and the current administration's position regarding Israel.

I doubt most US voters give a shit

 

[Ax^]

Tbh imo, if Harris loses this election at least one of the key reasons as to why is her and the current administration's position regarding Israel.

what is the republican position on Israel again ...

it is a protest vote that is an odd position..

 

[teqniq]

I doubt most US voters give a shit

what is the republican position on Israel again ...

it is a protest vote that is an odd position..

Whilst I agree that the majority of Americans are likely to not give a shit, Arab Americans seem to be pretty furious with Biden/Harris over Gaza and none too impressed with the Republicans either. Whether that translates into crucial deciding votes or lack of them I will leave to the polling anoraks on here. However there are a number of articles to be found with a quick DuckDuckGo search that indicate they are extremely displeased:

arab americans unhappy with biden harris at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

 

[Wilf]

There was this summary by David Frum (yes, I know) on twatter:







Basically, there isn’t really any more dirt to throw at Trump that would have any effect whatsoever, given how he still has mass support despite what is already known.

They’re not voting for him because they think his character has value, they’re voting for him because he pisses off the right kind of people for them. I don’t know how you break that, but it certainly isn’t by screaming about what a threat he is. His people want him to be a threat to the establishment.

Yes, there's a (probably pointless) thought experiment: what would Trump have to do now to generate that revulsion? I'm not even sure that video evidence of one of his sexual assaults would do the trick.

 

[Ax^]

Whilst I agree that the majority of Americans are likely to not give a shit, Arab Americans seem to be pretty furious with Biden/Harris over Gaza and none too impressed with the Republicans either. Whether that translates into crucial deciding votes or lack of them I will leave to the polling anoraks on here. However there are a number of articles to be found with a quick DuckDuckGo search that indicate they are extremely displeased:

arab americans unhappy with biden harris at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

for Arab Americans it more understandable but the alternative option is still worse for that group in the long run

and have you seen that the green party in the states has come out saying that want to steal vote from the Dems for this very reason .

protest votes leading to a worse outcome all around is a strange position but what can you do

 

[chandlerp]

As far as I'm concerned the only "message" the Dems need is, "we're not dribbling maniacs"

 

[The39thStep]

Whilst I agree that the majority of Americans are likely to not give a shit, Arab Americans seem to be pretty furious with Biden/Harris over Gaza and none too impressed with the Republicans either. Whether that translates into crucial deciding votes or lack of them I will leave to the polling anoraks on here. However there are a number of articles to be found with a quick DuckDuckGo search that indicate they are extremely displeased:

arab americans unhappy with biden harris at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

I watched a video clip of Arab Americans explaining their positions . Only four on it , three were voting for third parties and one for Trump . All vehemently opposed to the Democrats supporting genocide. If that is playing out on a larger scale , and that maybe a big if , it might be a contribution to why Harris is now left focussing on Republicans .

 

[Petcha]

Prolly already been posted but quite funny. Although arguably not as funny as the actual interview.

 

[Ax^]

I watched a video clip of Arab Americans explaining their positions . Only four on it , three were voting for third parties and one for Trump . All vehemently opposed to the Democrats supporting genocide. If that is playing out on a larger scale , and that maybe a big if , it might be a contribution to why Harris is now left focussing on Republicans .

focusing the non foaming at the mouth religious trumpers of the republican party is not a bad idea

trump and his follower have left behind a lot of the party's non crazy members but as entrenched as voting is in the states I don't see many voting for harris

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

I've never been of that persuasion, and in fact think turning to it stinks of desperation. For me their biggest failing is straightforwardly that they have no vision to draw on or narrative to tell. Trump sells renewal through aggressive nationalism and reaction. The Dems are still sitting in the shadow of Obama selling a Hope that never arrived and orienting themselves as "not Trump".

It's the same crisis of marketing post-2008 neoliberalism that killed the neocons, in fact (and is also looming on the horizon for Starmer's Labour)

That was Starmer's policy, ie not to have any policies. If you don't set out any policies, your opponents can't tear them apart, can't campaign against them.

 

[Pickman's model]

That was Starmer's policy, ie not to have any policies. If you don't set out any policies, your opponents can't tear them apart, can't campaign against them.

Tbh starmer could have said whatever he wanted, people voted labour almost entirely to get the shitty tories out. And now he's shown that he's really shitty his polling has gone down the shitter. And it's not even winter yet.

Harris is playing the adult in the room card but I don't think that that's going to cut through to the extent the dems think it will

 

[Rob Ray]

Yep, and it was a crap policy when Starmer did it. if the Tories had been anything like competent without 14 years of humiliating failure and a massive split looming he'd have been absolutely monstered. He got fewer people out than Corbyn even with every possible advantage.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yep, and it was a crap policy when Starmer did it. if the Tories had been anything like competent without 14 years of humiliating failure and a massive split looming he'd have been absolutely monstered. He got fewer people out than Corbyn even with every possible advantage.

Loads of tories didn't vote, if they do next time he'll be fucked

 

[Ax^]

load of Tory voted reform methinks

 

[miktheword]

I watched a video clip of Arab Americans explaining their positions . Only four on it , three were voting for third parties and one for Trump . All vehemently opposed to the Democrats supporting genocide. If that is playing out on a larger scale , and that maybe a big if , it might be a contribution to why Harris is now left focussing on Republicans .

don't know if anyone's posted this today from The Guardian

Perhaps more interesting is this survey that the Guardian’s Robert Tait wrote up yesterday showing that Arab Americans are now narrowly leaning towards Donald Trump, after strongly backing Joe Biden in 2020. That shift is likely a consequence of Biden’s support for Israel’s invasion of Gaza following the 7 October attack, and could imperil Kamala Harris’s chances of winning the White House. Here’s more:

Arab Americans are slightly more likely to vote for Donald Trump than Kamala Harris, according to a new poll, in a worrying sign for the Democratic nominee’s chances of carrying the battleground state of Michigan, which is home to a large Arab American population.

The survey, conducted by the Arab News Research and Studies Unit along with YouGov, shows 43% supporting Trump compared with 41% for Harris, and 4% backing the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein.

The figures are broadly in line with a previous poll carried out this month by the Arab American Institute. Together they suggest that Harris’s support in the community has been undermined by the Biden administration’s backing for Israel’s year-long war against Hamas in Gaza.

The latest poll also shows Trump leading Harris by 39% to 33% on the question of which candidate would be most likely resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while the candidates were tied at 38% apiece on who would be “better for the Middle East in general”.

Support for Trump is particularly striking given that the same poll shows twice as many respondents – 46% to 23% – think anti-Arab racism and hate crimes are likely to increase under a Trump presidency compared with under Harris.


Arab Americans slightly favor Trump over Harris, says new poll
Read more

 

[Jeff Robinson]

The problem is everyone knows it's still neoliberalism, because Kamala is continuity Biden, and Biden is continuity Obama/Clinton. You can't spend decades dog whistling (Hope) without providing the meat and expect your dogs to keep listening. That's the failure of the narrative. As you say yourself, "yeah, how?"

Depends what you mean by continuity I guess. My understanding is that there has been a left shift on domestic politics from Clinton > Obama > Biden. Biden, for example has collaborated with Bernie Sanders and his allies and Sanders has described Biden as the most progressive US president since FDR.

I don’t say this to idealise the democrats btw, they operate in a system full of bottlenecks and veto points - from the bipartisan stalemate in congress, to the filibuster to the reactionary judiciary - that make doing anything incredibly difficult. And they operate in a system where money rules - super pacs, campaign donations and the like mean both parties are, to some degree for sale. On many issues the dems and reps are as bad as each other (both parties are steadfast in their support for industrial animal torture for example) and on foreign policy of course they both serve the interests of the American empire.

With that said though, support for Trump has grown at the same time the dems have moved left, possibly even in part because they’ve moved left, so the ‘misplaced vote against neoliberalism’ narrative some on the left advance isn’t the whole picture.

 

[redsquirrel]

The Harris/Wals platform is pretty solidly left populist.

Appearing with Liz Chaney is populist? Pushing all those anti-Trump Republicans is populist? The whole Biden and Harris platform has been about protecting the US democratic structure, good governance etc. The Clinton's and Obama's are still Democratic royalty

I'd agree with you that Biden did move to the left compared with Obama, but it would be ludicrous to claim that the politics of his presidency are anything but neoliberalism. In 2020 the party was smart enough to see that the progressive crowd was a part of their base they needed and had to be given some love, rather than deliberated attacked and dismissed as Clinton did. But it is still a (very) small part of the party and there should be no doubt where the power lies.

Democrats to open their tent to all-comers, from neocons to the self-proclaimed socialist left. It is now the party of labour and of capital; the party of debtors and of bankers; the party that mocks the Ivy League but is largely run by Ivy Leaguers; the party of anti-monopolists and of Silicon Valley; the party for immigrants and for border security; the party of insiders and of the marginalised; the party of the football team and of the sorority; the party of family and of freedom; the party of ceasefires and of the war machine; the party that opposes fascism but abets a genocide

The uneasiness of that alliance became clear the next night when Bernie Sanders asserted that ‘billionaires in both parties should not be able to buy elections, including primary elections.’ It was a reference to his thwarted 2016 challenge to Hillary Clinton, but also to the recent defeat of two left-leaning congressional incumbents, Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush, who had spoken out against Israel’s war in Gaza, to candidates funded by AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee). Sanders was followed by J.B. Pritzker, governor of Illinois and son of the president of Hyatt Hotels. ‘Donald Trump thinks that we should trust him on the economy,’ Pritzker said, ‘because he claims to be very rich. But take it from an actual billionaire, Trump is rich in only one thing: stupidity!’ The applause from the hometown audience was overwhelming – it wasn’t a tough crowd – and the woman to my right, who had spent Sanders’s speech discussing Taylor Swift with the woman on her other side, gushed: ‘He’s such a badass!’ The juxtaposition showed that the Democratic tent is big enough for firebrands who denounce billionaires as well as the right sort of billionaire.

It is interesting to compare to the message the Democrats were pushing at their national convention with the one they are doing now, retreating into the message outlined by Rob

The convention leaned heavily on biography and family, a mix of relatability, struggle and aspiration. It had the feeling of a party thrown for the departing grandparents by the aunts and uncles, with an audience of cheering grandchildren. The Democrats have learned the lessons of 2016: no more will Donald Trump’s supporters be tarred as racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise ‘deplorable’. Instead, the opponents were Trump ‘and his allies’ or Trump and his ‘billionaire allies’, who are ‘weird’, selfish, narcissistic, tortured by their own inadequacies, ‘lapdogs for the billionaire class who only serve themselves’. For the most part Trump wasn’t framed as an existential threat to democracy, as he was in the campaign playbook Biden was following until he exited the race. Instead, he was belittled as a ‘small man’, ‘not a serious man’, a ‘two-bit union buster’, a ‘scab’, a ‘bad ex-boyfriend’.

 

[ska invita]

Regarding the campaign tone:

"Harris’s most-aired TV spots have focused on her prosecutorial and middle class background, defence of reproductive rights, and claims that Trump cares only about the wealthy. Others focus on her rival as being “too unstable to lead”.

Trump’s most-aired ads have been about the economy, blaming Harris and President Joe Biden’s economic agenda for the high cost of living. But his most played spot attacks the vice-president for supporting gender affirming care for prison inmates, telling voters: “Kamala’s agenda is they/them, not you.”"

Who the hell is advising the Harris campaign? I thought these people were meant to be expert with special knowledge about swing voters interests?

THe article goes on to talk about regional microtargeting, but the above is very telling