Kamala Harris' time is up

[VivaE]

He’s the most consequential Democrat not yet to endorse, and everyone else is falling into line. So I assume he’ll endorse eventually.

I think he might wait until she's the official nominee.

 

[Yossarian]

I think we'll need to see who Harris picks as VP before writing the ticket off as having not enough pull in the Rust Belt, there are some possibilities, including Pennsylvania's governor, who could offset Trump's choice of the Hillbilly Elixir misogynist, who didn't win election to the Senate from Ohio by that big a margin

 

[SE25]

I think we can all agree that a Harris presidency is not going to issue in an era of international peace and global prosperity but it's still better than the Orange Madman getting back in.

What kind of future does this lead to though? There will always be a big scary right wing boogeyman for the "moderates" to point to when they tell the left now is not the time

 

[JimW]

More unambiguously for abortion rights than Biden might help her get women voters out too. Accept the objections, but like ska invita pretty sanguine.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What kind of future does this lead to though? There will always be a big scary right wing boogeyman for the "moderates" to point to when they tell the left now is not the time

Many of the match-up polls in 2016 had Sanders beating Trump. The truism that you have to 'pivot to the centre' when your opponent turns right doesn't have a whole lot of historical weight behind it. With Harris as the person against Trump, clearly that argument has been lost within the Demcratic Party this time. Doesn't mean that will always be the case, though.

The future isn't determined. There isn't a fixed destination. Whatever freedoms we have now we always have to fight to keep them every new generation. But you don't get closer to somewhere you want to be by first moving further away, and victory to Trump means moving further away - it means more attacks on women's reproductive rights, more environment legislation wrecking, accelerated transfer of wealth to the rich. That Harris is also horrible doesn't mean Trump isn't significantly worse, and right now he is the obstacle to be overcome. If I were an American living in a swing state, this year I'd be putting a clothespeg on my nose and voting for Harris.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I think we'll need to see who Harris picks as VP before writing the ticket off as having not enough pull in the Rust Belt, there are some possibilities, including Pennsylvania's governor, who could offset Trump's choice of the Hillbilly Elixir misogynist, who didn't win election to the Senate from Ohio by that big a margin

For 'balance' it'll be a white man won't it? I agree with you the Democrats will want someone 'who speaks to the Rust Belt'.

But how many people vote based on the VP candidate? (genuine question, as I have no idea what imapct the running mate has on voting intention).

 

[Jeff Robinson]

What kind of future does this lead to though? There will always be a big scary right wing boogeyman for the "moderates" to point to when they tell the left now is not the time

Within the US political system, the only realistic way to get a left president is to try and win a left nominee for the democratic party - that is what the left tried with Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020. They lost. So then, after you loose, you're left with a (for all intents and purposes) binary choice - Clinton or Trump, Biden or Trump, Harris or Trump. Given how disasterous a Trump victory could be in 2024 it a lot of sense to pick the less bad option.

There's a famous thought experiment in ethics called the "trolley problem" (Americans call trains trolleys). You imagine you are standing by a train track and a train is careening out of control and heading towards five people who are tied to a track. You are by a lever and if you pull it, the train would divert down a side-track, saving the five. Unfortunately, there is also one person tied to the side track as well so one person would be killed if the train is diverted.



Despite this, most people, when surveyed, say they would pull the lever to save four lives. That seems right to me, and saying "we need safer railways so this sort of thing doesn't happen again" while true, would be cold comfort to five tied up on the track. It makes sense to bring about the best outcome you can within the limited range of options you have whilst also working towards improving those options in the longer term.

 

[kabbes]

The problem with that is that complex real-world problems that involve long-term ramifications are rarely helped by reducing them to short-term simplified binary analogies.

 

[moochedit]

Within the US political system, the only realistic way to get a left president is to try and win a left nominee for the democratic party - that is what the left tried with Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020. They lost. So then, after you loose, you're left with a (for all intents and purposes) binary choice - Clinton or Trump, Biden or Trump, Harris or Trump. Given how disasterous a Trump victory could be in 2024 it a lot of sense to pick the less bad option.

There's a famous thought experiment in ethics called the "trolley problem" (Americans call trains trolleys). You imagine you are standing by a train track and a train is careening out of control and heading towards five people who are tied to a track. You are by a lever and if you pull it, the train would divert down a side-track, saving the five. Unfortunately, there is also one person tied to the side track as well so one person would be killed if the train is diverted.

View attachment 434581

Despite this, most people, when surveyed, say they would pull the lever to save four lives. That seems right to me, and saying "we need safer railways so this sort of thing doesn't happen again" while true, would be cold comfort to five tied up on the track. It makes sense to bring about the best outcome you can within the limited range of options you have whilst also working towards improving those options in the longer term.

prefer this version..

 

[Jeff Robinson]

The problem with that is that complex real-world problems that involve long-term ramifications are rarely helped by reducing them to short-term simplified binary analogies.

I disagree. Simplified analogies are useful for thinking about principles at a high level of abstraction. We can get lost in thicket of issues presented by complex real-world problems and sometimes its useful to step back and try and get a birds eye picture.
For all intents and purposes, the choice faced by Americans about who their future president will be is a binary choice - Trump or (presumably) Harris. That neither are good options doesn't mean that the less bad option shouldn't be taken.

 

[kabbes]

I disagree. Simplified analogies are useful for thinking about principles at a high level of abstraction. We can get lost in thicket of issues presented by complex real-world problems and sometimes its useful to step back and try and get a birds eye picture.
For all intents and purposes, the choice faced by Americans about who their future president will be is a binary choice - Trump or (presumably) Harris. That neither are good options doesn't mean that the less bad option shouldn't be taken.

For a start, your reductive analogy ignores the ramifications of the choice beyond the immediate effect. It also assumes that your individual choice will result in one of the binaries happening and stop the other. These are just the most obvious ways that it is flawed.

 

[Spandex]

But how many people vote based on the VP candidate? (genuine question, as I have no idea what imapct the running mate has on voting intention).

Good question.

According to Devine & Kopek, who wrote
Do Running Mates Matter?
The Influence of Vice Presidential Candidates in Presidential Elections,
the choice of VP makes basically no difference to the outcome in the VP's home state or with specific constituencies:

Why VPs Matter Less Than You Think

But, the choice of VP can indirectly affect perceptions of the Presidential Candidate:

"The selection of a running mate provides voters with information about the presidential candidate—what they value in selecting a key advisor and potential successor, and how that presidential candidate may govern once elected. The data suggest that voters favor vice-presidential candidates who could competently serve in this important role. If there are doubts about the adequacy of the candidate, then that reflects poorly on the presidential candidate and the ticket overall. For example, our statistical models suggest that after John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008 and she committed a series of high-profile gaffes, voters became more likely to view McCain as too old to be president and questioned his judgment." link

 

[Pickman's model]

Good question.

According to Devine & Kopek, who wrote
Do Running Mates Matter?
The Influence of Vice Presidential Candidates in Presidential Elections,
the choice of VP makes basically no difference to the outcome in the VP's home state or with specific constituencies:

Why VPs Matter Less Than You Think

But, the choice of VP can indirectly affect perceptions of the Presidential Candidate:

"The selection of a running mate provides voters with information about the presidential candidate—what they value in selecting a key advisor and potential successor, and how that presidential candidate may govern once elected. The data suggest that voters favor vice-presidential candidates who could competently serve in this important role. If there are doubts about the adequacy of the candidate, then that reflects poorly on the presidential candidate and the ticket overall. For example, our statistical models suggest that after John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008 and she committed a series of high-profile gaffes, voters became more likely to view McCain as too old to be president and questioned his judgment." link

But I wonder how they affect the votes for Congress which occur simultaneously with the presidential election - the vp after all president of the senate

 

[Jeff Robinson]

For a start, your reductive analogy ignores the ramifications of the choice beyond the immediate effect. It also assumes that your individual choice will result in one of the binaries happening and stop the other. These are just the most obvious ways that it is flawed.

I agree those are differences, but only differences of degree rather than kind, the thought experiment could easily be tweaked to accomodate them and still retain its intuitive pull.

 

[kabbes]

I agree those are differences, but only differences of degree rather than kind, the thought experiment could easily be tweaked to accomodate them and still retain its intuitive pull.

You think that the fact that the long-term effects might be different to the short-term effects is a difference only of degree?? Really??

 

[NoXion]

it has begun

Former Colorado Prof Eastman's False Birther Attack on Kamala Harris Already Being Recycled

In 2020, when he was a visiting scholar at the University of Colorado's Benson Center for Western Conservative Thought, John Eastman speculated in a Newsweek op-ed that Democratic vice presidential...

coloradotimesrecorder.com

I'm sure that will be just as effective as the last time they tried to prevent a Presidential candidate of colour from going on to serve two terms.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

You think that the fact that the long-term effects might be different to the short-term effects is a difference only of degree?? Really??

Er yes? They're both effects. Also, I'm not even sure you can make the distinction - what if one of people on one of the tracks is Hitler or a scientist on the cusp of finding a cure for cancer? You could alter the course of history by pulling the lever for all you know.

Anyway, definitely not worth discussing further on the thread. The basic point is simple - to the best of our knowledge a Trump win will be seriously fucking bad for the US and the planet for that matter, and a Harris win would be less bad, so people should do what is their power to stop Trump winning.

 

[kabbes]

Er yes? They're both effects. Also, I'm not even sure you can make the distinction - what if one of people on one of the tracks is Hitler or a scientist on the cusp of finding a cure for cancer? You could alter the course of history by pulling the lever for all you know.

Anyway, definitely not worth discussing further on the thread. The basic point is simple - to the best of our knowledge a Trump win will be seriously fucking bad for the US and the planet for that matter, and a Harris win would be less bad, so people should do what is their power to stop Trump winning.

What if somebody thinks that a vote for Trump will create the kind of short-term instability that leads to an opportunity for better long-term outcomes, whereas a vote for Harris just means more long-term decline? The only way to represent that in your trolley problem is to say that Trump represents one death and Harris five. Are you okay with that?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What if somebody thinks that a vote for Trump will create the kind of short-term instability that leads to an opportunity for better long-term outcomes, whereas a vote for Harris just means more long-term decline? The only way to represent that in your trolley problem is to say that Trump represents one death and Harris five. Are you okay with that?

This argument, or something close to it, has been put forward on here in the past. It's one that needs an entirely different thought experiment to illustrate it, but imo it's an arrogant position. It posits that the short-term suffering of many people who do not deserve to suffer is worth it in the name of highly uncertain ideas about future possibilities, with no concrete proposition as to the mechanism by which things start getting better again after they've got a whole lot worse.

'Things need to get even worse before they can get better' is just bollocks. This isn't chemotherapy.

 

[JimW]

This argument, or something close to it, has been put forward on here in the past. It's one that needs an entirely different thought experiment to illustrate it, but imo it's an arrogant position. It posits that the short-term suffering of many people who do not deserve to suffer is worth it in the name of highly uncertain ideas about future possibilities, with no concrete proposition as to the mechanism by which things start getting better again after they've got a whole lot worse.

Don't think it's necessarily arrogant if you're convinced the status quo is in itself causing immense harm and/or will only get worse; i.e. someone's suffering either way but you think you might end that eventually.

 

[two sheds]

point taken but why would it end that eventually?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Don't think it's necessarily arrogant if you're convinced the status quo is in itself causing immense harm and/or will only get worse; i.e. someone's suffering either way but you think you might end that eventually.

That's not the proposition right now, though. For example, if Trump wins, more women and girls across the USA will die unnecessary deaths seeking back street abortions. That's something we can confidently state.

 

[JimW]

I'm also hoping for a Trump defeat here, so definitely not making the case for this instance, just a general speak your brains.

 

[JimW]

point taken but why would it end that eventually?

The idea is it opens up the possibility of change; not a given of course, and change for the better would need action/work.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The idea is it opens up the possibility of change; not a given of course, and change for the better would need action/work.

Can you think of historical precedents for that?

An extremely vile, nasty ruler replaces a moderately vile, nasty ruler and that opens up possibilities that previously didn't exist that lead to a better place than had existed under the moderately vile, nasty ruler.

I know what the idea is. I just think it's total bollocks.

 

[petee]

Putting her politics to one side and looking at this from a cynical presidential race spectacle point of view,,,,

-she gives off an air of positivity and freshness. She looks really comfortable with the idea of being president.
-while she clearly is solidly PMC what Ive seen so far she doesn't quite have the same air of condescension that someone like Hilary Clinton gives off. I think she is that bit more relatable.
-she is clearly prepared to badmouth Trump and really get stuck in and give at least as good -and I expect better - than she gets during a campaign. A TV debate with Trump could see him KOd.
-im not sure all the old attack lines the republicans have used before will have much landing power

I know she's starting from behind but I think she'll win it. From the little I've seen of her so far I can easily imagine Trump losing his lead, getting desperate and rattled, and Kamala doing enough to get over the line. Despite the shortcomings of her politics I expect she and her team will know enough to say what needs to be said.

she's been all over youtube here since sunday and has hit the ground running. I'm one of those people who'd never heard her voice and she sounds really ready, which is a stupid thing to remark as she had an entire career in politics in CA.

 

[SpookyFrank]

What kind of future does this lead to though? There will always be a big scary right wing boogeyman for the "moderates" to point to when they tell the left now is not the time

The 'moderates' enable the mad fascists by creating the impression that there is an alternative, even if it's one that only ever seems to give the mad fascists a stronger hand next time round.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

What if somebody thinks that a vote for Trump will create the kind of short-term instability that leads to an opportunity for better long-term outcomes, whereas a vote for Harris just means more long-term decline?

I'd say that sort of speculation is a fool's errand. Better to focus on what Trump actually did in his first term and what he's saying he'll do in a potential second. That alone is sufficient to see he's a greater threat, both short and long term.

 

[Kaka Tim]

From what ive seen over the past few days Harris is a far better communicator and more at ease with herself than Biden (or hilary) and can do "human". Shes also clearly very smart. Lets hope she gets under trumps skin to the point where he loses his shit. Or - ideally - suffers a fatal heart siezure.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

From what ive seen over the past few days Harris is a far better communicator and more at ease with herself than Biden (or hilary) and can do "human". Shes also clearly very smart. Lets hope she gets under trumps skin to the point where he loses his shit. Or - ideally - suffers a fatal heart siezure.

Yes, she's undeniably very likeable.