Mr. Connor: A phrase came to mind.
“How many more stinking double-downer sideshows like this until I, and at least 20 million people I tend to agree with, come to our senses enough to hold some sort of national election?” Do we have to go through this and have the chance to vote for something instead of always having to make the old choice of choosing the lesser of two evils?”
-Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72
And the lesser of two evils seems to be more likely to suffer, including whoever your opponent is this round.
Written by Thomas Neuberger. It was first published in god’s spy
I try not to comment too much on the election, but I want to say this. It’s a race Harris should lose, and she might lose, too.
why?
Reform election?
Some analysts believe this is still a transformative election – I am one of them – and Many voters are still fed up with the billionaire lifestyle.. So what can those seeking change do in this election? The Democratic Party remains the party of “maintaining the status quo and making it better.” It doesn’t change much. At least, not enough.
So what’s left? Voters who want change can support disruptors (i.e. definitely trump) and completely overturns the cart. Otherwise, they can stay at home. Since Trump already has all the voters (see below), the choice becomes either Harris or stay home.
Is it non-strategic? You could say so. But angry people are generally not perfect strategists. very Getting angry is not strategic at all.
In my view, the stay-at-home strategy is the most damaging to Harris since President Trump. Raised his voting rank to the maximum In the distant past, his peak was always near 48%, but Harris was able to extend her peak while still in TBD. But instead of winning new votes, her growth has stalled or gone backwards. (See graph above.) Undecideds are not changing in her direction, at least not in sufficient numbers. Her campaign stalled.
working class voters
Trying to figure out why Harris stalled. investigation Center for Working Class Politics, YouGov, and Jacobins The magazine tested different messages with workers in Pennsylvania, a key battleground state. They selected five ideas and two alternatives gleaned from her actual campaigns and tried to see what worked best.
The actual message tested (based on her campaign) is:
- of soft populist The message acknowledges that most companies are job creators and play by the rules, but blames big business and Wall Street for price gouging and not paying their fair share of taxes. There is.
- of medium economical The message focuses on Harris’ economic vision of an “opportunity economy” that focuses on achieving broad-based growth and cutting taxes for middle-class Americans.
- of threat to democracy The message highlights President Trump’s felony convictions and urges voters to protect democracy and liberal norms from the threat posed by Trump.
- of defend abortion The message emphasized Harris’ support for abortion rights in response to Republican proposals to enact a nationwide abortion ban, and attributed her position to Trump. There is.
- of immigration issue The message highlights Harris’ support for increased border security while promoting a path to citizenship for rule-abiding immigrants.
message It wasn’t Here are some from her campaign:
- of strong populist This message more aggressively targets economic elites to get rich while working Americans suffer, striking a strong contrast between the working class and the billionaire class (soft (like the populist message) criticizes not just economic elites and Trump, but broader circles in Washington. Politicians who left workers behind.
- of progressive economy The message brings to the fore progressive economic positions that Harris already supports but often doesn’t emphasize, as well as some policies that stray from her campaign’s current policy proposals. These policies include putting Americans back to work, guaranteeing jobs for everyone looking for work, and expanding access to Medicare for young Americans who don’t have adequate health insurance. Contains.
Matt Karp summed it up like this: result. The solution is clear. Nonpartisan populism trumps all other messagesincluding partisan, anti-Trump populism. and ‘Threat to democracy’ message actually loses some voters.
Apparently people still hate billionaires. But Harris and her strategists continue to tout a message of partisan populism and a “threat to democracy.” She doesn’t seem like the answer to working-class voters who are convinced the system is (still) rigged.
Democracy under threat
The failure of a message that threatens democracy deserves comment. Trump has certainly forgiven himself. The flag of the strong flies, It proves to liberals that this threat is real. So why is this message not accepted by the working class?
The answer is implied in the discussion above, but some writers have made it clear. The main national victims of billionaire greed are working class people. So what to do they are Do you think Republicans or billionaires are a threat?
Karl Beijer’s view is as follows:The message “democracy is at risk” only works in democracies”. From the paywalled part of his article:
I would argue that the “democracy in crisis” message only works in a functioning democracy. And since most people don’t think the United States is a functioning democracy, they don’t think the United States is actually “in crisis” in any meaningful sense.
Referring to the research mentioned above, he explains:
(W) Even as Democrats start making noise about how President Trump can cancel elections, suppress free speech, and launch all kinds of attacks on liberal democracy, many people I just shrug my shoulders because I don’t think I have anything to lose.
The advantage of this explanation is that It also explains the popularity of strong populist messages. This message reiterates that DC actually answers to those in power, not the people.. (emphasis mine)
Yes, people may believe that democracy is in danger. But maybe, just maybe, they define this issue as a bipartisan issue, and Ms. Harris is going to great lengths to (to borrow the words of a once popular populist) “stand against the billionaires.” It doesn’t seem like an answer because you haven’t done what you did.
Of course, you’ll quickly find out what worked and what didn’t. But the “embrace Dick Cheney and comfort the rich” approach could cost her dearly.
