Not sure how you brought in Matt Ygelsias and David Shor. I dont care about either. Do you think they’re the only people who believe that Kamala was too liberal? Exit polling shows that a majority of folks thought Kamala was too liberal rather than too conservative. And who’s “You people” - you think I work for the Biden campaign? I don’t personally care for Kamala Harris or Liz Cheney, but I’m just an outside observer who’s not tied to either of the ideologies (progressives or neocons) but care about winning at all costs. But if you’re going to make the argument that moving far-left would have won the election, you’ll need to provide numbers or evidence that it would have actually done so. I don’t see you listing anything as such, and it’s just a theory as you’ve mentioned.Sure. Answer any of the questions I posed in my previous replies to you. You people got the campaign you wanted. It lost. It lost with a measurable and vast lack of voter enthusiasm from your supposed base. A progressive campaign would have sustained higher levels of voter enthusiasm. There. That's the theory.
Do I believe it would have worked?
NO. Because this election was decided by voter perceptions of the Biden economy and administration. Every other thing - woke, abortion, whatever, was window dressing around that.
...
A bit of background:
Matt Yglesias during the Biden presidency:
Matt Yglesias during the election:
Yglesias after the election:
David Shor was in charge of 900,000,000 dollars to be spent over 3 months for the Harris campaign. He was, alongside Matt Yglesias, the originator of the strategy of "popularism" which is a strategy of moving to the right, and do things based on polling. He was taken on board because of his brilliant prediction that the Democrats would be wiped out in the 2022 midterm senate election.
These are the frauds desperately covering their asses. You don't have to assist them in saving their multi-millionaire status and insider access.
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Again, Harris was tied to Biden’s disastrous immigration record. She never went on record even using the term “illegals”, and she let the campaign team speak for her. Did she ever mention at any of her rallies or interviews that she’ll close up the border? She just used vague examples of her prosecutorial record of shutting down transnational crime and never actually talked about the asylum seekers misusing the system. No swing voter reads the party platform, they however pay close attention to what a candidate says, and a simple layman could scarcely understand how Kamala would improve the border situation based on her word salads.
I've said 4 times now that I don't think moving left (or right) would have won because the administration of which she was the second-most-prominent face had sub-40 approval, largely due to inflation and incompetence, and that proved insurmountable, and these debates on messaging are window-dressing on the failures of the administration, primarily on economics and foreign policy.
What I've added is that she did move appreciably right during the campaign, and it is illogical, and motivated reasoning, to then assume that the reason this campaign lost was because it wasn't right-wing enough.
Google trend data for the Sunrise Movement annd ACLU - clearly the reason for Biden's humiliating loss in 2020, when people were most interested in them.
