I am a swing voter. I would like to vote for RFK Jr, but if he can't win then it's a wasted vote. I don't see Harris addressing the reasons that have made me feel that I have no home in the democratic party.
I am against war and against forever wars. I am FOR the environment but skeptical of Big Solar, Big Wind and of Big government remaking the entire economy. (How about adapting? conserving? encouraging small cars). I believe in bodily autononmy- for abortion AND for vaccines. I think free speech is essential and that we have better public health policies when scientists can openly debate. Scientific freedom was suppressed during covid to the detriment of all.
I believe in parental rights. I have profound sympathy for transgender adults. But I do believe that there are two biological sexes and that children should not be encouraged question what gender they are. Adults can do what they want in terms of gender, sex, etc.
At this point, it's obvious to anyone who read this far, why I am not able to vote democrat anymore.
I'm voting Republican for many of the reasons you've laid out. I guarantee we likely don't agree on many issues, but there's room in the party for debate and consensus building. Full transparency, I typically vote Republican, but with several reservations. This is the first year I'm eager to pull the lever. The party/platform has changed...it's moderated on the social issues and shed its neocon element to the Democrats. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than it's been in my lifetime (44 years)? 100%.
I have never been more disgusted with one of America's two primary political parties. I never want to hear Democrats bemoan Trump as an 'existential threat to democracy' again when they run their own party as an oligarchy. The ruling/donor class first selects who may or may not be considered a legitimate candidate (see Bernie Sanders, RFK Jr.) and, even if voters select the preferred candidate, feel perfectly comfortable tossing him (and his voters) overboard when it's clear he cannot win and the funding dries up. It's plainly obvious to anyone who isn't blindly supportive of the Democrat's 'win at any cost' mentality that they, along with the media they control, hid Biden's clear mental decline until he wrapped up the nomination. Once that was out of the way, they scheduled the earliest presidential debate in history in order to expose his incompetence and force him out; thus freeing up the slot for their next useful idiot. It was a beautifully orchestrated lie, as shameless as it was brazen, perfectly timed after the RNC such that the GOP was forced to finalize their ticket and Dems could make their next move. There are so many layers to the treachery here. It is so blatant and so shameless I feel slimy even describing it.
Say what you want about Republicans, but at least they're a functioning party that allows their voters to have a voice. They nominated Donald Trump three times for God's sake, despite everything the establishment/ruling class and government agencies threw at him. I'd rather have my vote count than cede it to the powerful few to do what they please.
You all should be embarrassed, but I know that's expecting way too much. For the sake of our country, I pray you lose this November. If you can pull someone like Kamala Harris across the finish line, then it's clear the office of the President is truly meaningless...a figurehead for the unelected few who lurk in the shadows and actually run the country. I've always resisted the apocalyptic narratives of both parties, but I'm starting to understand why some claim the outcome of this election to be 'existential' for America.
She will grab some who vote for identity politics, but she will lose some of the older voters if she insists on leaning in to progressive activism causes. I'd like to know if she plans to continue with her push for equity over equality, her full-throated endorsement of DEI policies, and I'd like to know if she has ever once not voted with Dems in the Senate or as a tie breaker. This is important because if she isn't able to work in a bipartisan manner, I'm not so sure the country can handle another partisan who isn't even open to new ideas.
Mostly free market economy with appropriate government intervention; flexibility on taxes to support government programs like social security and healthcare; fiscal responsibility; all of the above energy strategy that takes both climate and keeping energy prices low seriously; retaining America’s leadership in the world while minimizing putting our troops in harm’s way; moderate on social issues like abortion and LGBT rights; flexible approach to education, public or private—as long as it’s not at the expense of the poor, etc.
Shapiro is probably the most centrist of all the aforementioned candidates, with Beshear and Cooper second and third, respectively.
-Willing to tax the rich more if necessary, cutting taxes when possible, especially for the middle class.
-15 week ban, maybe 12 week ban. Admittedly, all those governors mentioned are extreme on the spectrum of abortion policy. They’re all pro choice until viability, as far as I know.
I hope the vice-presidency, seeing the country from a bird’s eye view that is center/center-right in its political leanings, has made her aware of the need to moderate some of her past positions. I think the gravity of another Trump presidency puts even more urgency behind that realization.
That's what I don't understand about political types...if someone stakes out super progressive or conservative positions, usually villainizing anyone who disagrees, how do you then take them seriously when they moderate? I tend to vote Republican...am I Hitler? Or am I not Hitler? You don't get to call me Hitler one day and then ask for unity the next. That dog doesn't hunt, at least not for anyone with a shred of integrity.
I guess it depends on what exactly a politician says, how distasteful it is, how often it is said.
In Harris’ case, she staked out progressive policy positions in 2020, but I don’t recall her *villainizing* Republicans, except perhaps for their defending Donald Trump’s stances or behavior that were truly indefensible.
I guess if you’re someone who likes Trump, it won’t matter if she moderates. If you’re not, it could.
the whole 'clear and present danger to democracy' argument was (and is) *villainizing* in my view. That was central to the Biden/Harris sales pitch and I don't expect it to change. And while he would help himself by moderating his language and *behavior*, I'll defend Trump's policies all day long. They're absolutely defensible.
I think you're probably right, but i prefer consistency and principle over political pandering.
Well, I respectfully disagree that talking about Trump's threat to democracy is villainizing. It's a serious accusation, but it is true. And as such it is entirely in bounds as a campaign issue.
I don't think all of Trump's policies are bad, and I am not the kind of partisan who can't give credit where it is due. But I do prefer center-left policies to Trump's center-right. There is plenty of room for debate and learning, and I am always open to changing my mind with good arguments and evidence.
Ethan - I find it hard to believe any Democrat would - at this point in time - accuse someone of being a threat to democracy. Joe Biden still has the knife wounds in his back from Pelosi/Schumer/Obama and all the Democrat billionaires who seemingly run the party.
She may have against policeman, but there was the context of George Floyd in 2020. It wasn’t a good look for them. However, not all cops are bad (most are good), and I’m sure she did go overboard in her criticism. Don’t know of villainizing women.
I think she just needs to follow her tough-on-crime instincts and let the Left hoot and holler. It’s about picking your battles and standing up to them when you have to and making concessions when you have to. That’s what politics is; it’s a leverage and give and take game. It’s no different for the Right—but I think the difference is the right has more power and leverage. Look at what happened to McCarthy when he stood up to Matt Gaetz and the other hard liners and funded the government, paid our veterans, kept the lights on. All for doing his job and compromising when he had to.
Yes, I think we do. And yes, Dems have certainly bemoaned legitimately elected candidates, but none of them have never not conceded. That’s probably *the* fundamental factor for me.
I also vote on policy (and morality/moral character), but I couldn’t vote for a candidate that doesn’t believe in playing by the rules in terms of winner vs. loser.
If we ever get there with both parties, then I guess I will have to reassess for practical reasons. But we’re not there, and I hope we never will be.
I want two healthy parties, and if we are gonna have only two parties, they *have* to be healthy with broad coalitions, in my view. Conservative Democrats, liberal Republicans, etc. This whole “you can’t be a Dem or Republican unless your views on this contentious issue is in lockstep with our party” has to go if we want to survive as a country with a two-party system.
What Republicans did to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger and Dems to Joe Manchin are good cases in point.
There are those of us who remember, "it's the economy, stupid" was Bill Clinton's mantra in 1992. The democrats today hope Americans have forgotten that. Ms. Harris will be spun to the younger voter as cool, doesn’t take herself or life too seriously, she makes mistakes but don’t we all, she’s not some stuffy old man, she cuts loose, she laughs at herself, etc. They will make the election entirely about character. It will probably carry the day.
I find Trump to be an arrogant ass, and completely incapable of winning any Personality contest, even in hell! But personality does not make the economy run, and does not put food on my table, gas in my tank, or wind in my sails.
That then, is our choice: do we vote to make us feel better about ourselves, or do we vote to promote human flourishing.
Do you mean a media that briefly -- briefly -- did billionaires/Clooney/Obama's bidding? No worries, they are back as stenographers again, with their gaggy "Biden is courageous" "Biden is a patriot" etc.
I have read management literature that says when employees work hard and perform at high levels their managers grow to expect that level of performance. It becomes "average" rather than exceptional in the managers' minds. Conversely, when employees waste time and underperform, their bosses resign themselves to that standard, thinking that is the best they can get. When expectations have sunk to the bottom, an employee who manages to show up to work on time stands out and is rewarded.
The Democratic Party elites will not push for President Biden to resign his office before the Democratic National Convention, despite the immense boost that would give to Kamala Harris's prospects. Why?
Because they want to give Kamala the chance to flame out over the next several weeks, the way Biden did. They can't challenge her directly for fear of being seen as opposing the historic candidacy of the first woman of color to potentially win a major party nomination and the Presidency. That's also why no other prominent Democrat has announced a challenge to Harris. But if her candidacy collapses on its own, the party and the other potential candidates are free to swoop in like a flock of vultures. The party elites get to choose a stronger candidate from the pool of governors, senators, and even billionaires waiting for Kamala's failure.
If Kamala does persevere and keep her candidacy intact until the convention, she is likely to win the nomination on the first ballot. At that time, Biden should resign to give her the power of incumbency and the status of first woman President - so that even if she loses to Trump in November, she gets a really nifty consolation prize.
I agree 100% on your theory that Kamala is being given time to flame out, but i don't know if even the Democrats could sell that level of chicanery. How many presumed nominees can a party have before people call it for what it is?
Biden does need to resign, however. Either he competent enough to run the country, which would mean this has been a literal coup within the party. Or he's non combos mantis and is putting us all at real risk. Can't have it both ways.
I think they are counting on the public not seeing it as chicanery. They will say, "Hey, we gave her a fair shot. It's not our fault that she blew it. It's not like the delegates were ever formally pledged to her by party rules - they were pledged to Biden and switched voluntarily to Harris, so they are free to switch voluntarily again to someone else." Democrats are so desperate to beat Trump that they will gladly buy into that in return for a "better" candidate - but I think you are right that outside of those desperate Democrats, a second switch will just make the party look foolish, incompetent, and unprincipled.
As for Biden, he is no less competent to run the country (that is, not at all competent) than he was a month ago. The only difference is that they can't keep his incompetence hidden any longer. Democrats can say they want him to pass the torch to their new nominee after the convention, but they can't say he's incapable of serving out his term, because that invites the questions, "How long has he been incompetent to serve, and when did you all know it?"
He basically resigned via a post-it note, Kamala is off campaigning and mining the billionaires for more and more money. Netanyahu visited yesterday and there was no one home. Our country is an embarrassment.
Agreed. But you notice how he hasn't RESIGNED-resigned? If Kamala Harris is definitely for sure irreversibly the future of the Democratic Party who is going to trounce Trump, why wouldn't he want to give her the power of incumbency right away to boost her stature? Maybe he (meaning the Democratic Party elites pulling his strings) has some doubts about whether Kamala is up to the task, and wants to see whether she falls flat on her face between now and the convention.
I am a swing voter. I would like to vote for RFK Jr, but if he can't win then it's a wasted vote. I don't see Harris addressing the reasons that have made me feel that I have no home in the democratic party.
I am against war and against forever wars. I am FOR the environment but skeptical of Big Solar, Big Wind and of Big government remaking the entire economy. (How about adapting? conserving? encouraging small cars). I believe in bodily autononmy- for abortion AND for vaccines. I think free speech is essential and that we have better public health policies when scientists can openly debate. Scientific freedom was suppressed during covid to the detriment of all.
I believe in parental rights. I have profound sympathy for transgender adults. But I do believe that there are two biological sexes and that children should not be encouraged question what gender they are. Adults can do what they want in terms of gender, sex, etc.
At this point, it's obvious to anyone who read this far, why I am not able to vote democrat anymore.
I'm voting Republican for many of the reasons you've laid out. I guarantee we likely don't agree on many issues, but there's room in the party for debate and consensus building. Full transparency, I typically vote Republican, but with several reservations. This is the first year I'm eager to pull the lever. The party/platform has changed...it's moderated on the social issues and shed its neocon element to the Democrats. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than it's been in my lifetime (44 years)? 100%.
I hear you. I think both parties are changing. The republican change seems to be coming more from the grassroots.
I have never been more disgusted with one of America's two primary political parties. I never want to hear Democrats bemoan Trump as an 'existential threat to democracy' again when they run their own party as an oligarchy. The ruling/donor class first selects who may or may not be considered a legitimate candidate (see Bernie Sanders, RFK Jr.) and, even if voters select the preferred candidate, feel perfectly comfortable tossing him (and his voters) overboard when it's clear he cannot win and the funding dries up. It's plainly obvious to anyone who isn't blindly supportive of the Democrat's 'win at any cost' mentality that they, along with the media they control, hid Biden's clear mental decline until he wrapped up the nomination. Once that was out of the way, they scheduled the earliest presidential debate in history in order to expose his incompetence and force him out; thus freeing up the slot for their next useful idiot. It was a beautifully orchestrated lie, as shameless as it was brazen, perfectly timed after the RNC such that the GOP was forced to finalize their ticket and Dems could make their next move. There are so many layers to the treachery here. It is so blatant and so shameless I feel slimy even describing it.
Say what you want about Republicans, but at least they're a functioning party that allows their voters to have a voice. They nominated Donald Trump three times for God's sake, despite everything the establishment/ruling class and government agencies threw at him. I'd rather have my vote count than cede it to the powerful few to do what they please.
You all should be embarrassed, but I know that's expecting way too much. For the sake of our country, I pray you lose this November. If you can pull someone like Kamala Harris across the finish line, then it's clear the office of the President is truly meaningless...a figurehead for the unelected few who lurk in the shadows and actually run the country. I've always resisted the apocalyptic narratives of both parties, but I'm starting to understand why some claim the outcome of this election to be 'existential' for America.
Do better.
She will grab some who vote for identity politics, but she will lose some of the older voters if she insists on leaning in to progressive activism causes. I'd like to know if she plans to continue with her push for equity over equality, her full-throated endorsement of DEI policies, and I'd like to know if she has ever once not voted with Dems in the Senate or as a tie breaker. This is important because if she isn't able to work in a bipartisan manner, I'm not so sure the country can handle another partisan who isn't even open to new ideas.
A centrist Dem Governor like Josh Shapiro, Roy Cooper, or Andy Beshear would be a solid first step in the right direction.
Agreed. Yes.
Define centrist please.
Mostly free market economy with appropriate government intervention; flexibility on taxes to support government programs like social security and healthcare; fiscal responsibility; all of the above energy strategy that takes both climate and keeping energy prices low seriously; retaining America’s leadership in the world while minimizing putting our troops in harm’s way; moderate on social issues like abortion and LGBT rights; flexible approach to education, public or private—as long as it’s not at the expense of the poor, etc.
Shapiro is probably the most centrist of all the aforementioned candidates, with Beshear and Cooper second and third, respectively.
Define: flexibility on taxes
Define: moderate on abortion and LGBT 'rights'
-Willing to tax the rich more if necessary, cutting taxes when possible, especially for the middle class.
-15 week ban, maybe 12 week ban. Admittedly, all those governors mentioned are extreme on the spectrum of abortion policy. They’re all pro choice until viability, as far as I know.
Not sure the Hamas wing of the D party will accept Josh Shapiro. Beshear is a nepo baby. Cooper is 67.
We’ll see. I think chances are good that they’re a paper tiger.
The nepo baby doesn’t bother me that much, as long as you don’t act like one. Beshear seems like a solid guy.
And yes, Cooper is older. Think that’s a disadvantage for his chances.
I hope the vice-presidency, seeing the country from a bird’s eye view that is center/center-right in its political leanings, has made her aware of the need to moderate some of her past positions. I think the gravity of another Trump presidency puts even more urgency behind that realization.
I'd love to have the old school dems back. One can hope.
That's what I don't understand about political types...if someone stakes out super progressive or conservative positions, usually villainizing anyone who disagrees, how do you then take them seriously when they moderate? I tend to vote Republican...am I Hitler? Or am I not Hitler? You don't get to call me Hitler one day and then ask for unity the next. That dog doesn't hunt, at least not for anyone with a shred of integrity.
I guess it depends on what exactly a politician says, how distasteful it is, how often it is said.
In Harris’ case, she staked out progressive policy positions in 2020, but I don’t recall her *villainizing* Republicans, except perhaps for their defending Donald Trump’s stances or behavior that were truly indefensible.
I guess if you’re someone who likes Trump, it won’t matter if she moderates. If you’re not, it could.
the whole 'clear and present danger to democracy' argument was (and is) *villainizing* in my view. That was central to the Biden/Harris sales pitch and I don't expect it to change. And while he would help himself by moderating his language and *behavior*, I'll defend Trump's policies all day long. They're absolutely defensible.
I think you're probably right, but i prefer consistency and principle over political pandering.
Well, I respectfully disagree that talking about Trump's threat to democracy is villainizing. It's a serious accusation, but it is true. And as such it is entirely in bounds as a campaign issue.
I don't think all of Trump's policies are bad, and I am not the kind of partisan who can't give credit where it is due. But I do prefer center-left policies to Trump's center-right. There is plenty of room for debate and learning, and I am always open to changing my mind with good arguments and evidence.
Ethan - I find it hard to believe any Democrat would - at this point in time - accuse someone of being a threat to democracy. Joe Biden still has the knife wounds in his back from Pelosi/Schumer/Obama and all the Democrat billionaires who seemingly run the party.
She definitely villainized policemen and women.
She may have against policeman, but there was the context of George Floyd in 2020. It wasn’t a good look for them. However, not all cops are bad (most are good), and I’m sure she did go overboard in her criticism. Don’t know of villainizing women.
I think she just needs to follow her tough-on-crime instincts and let the Left hoot and holler. It’s about picking your battles and standing up to them when you have to and making concessions when you have to. That’s what politics is; it’s a leverage and give and take game. It’s no different for the Right—but I think the difference is the right has more power and leverage. Look at what happened to McCarthy when he stood up to Matt Gaetz and the other hard liners and funded the government, paid our veterans, kept the lights on. All for doing his job and compromising when he had to.
It’s too bad.
Yes, I think we do. And yes, Dems have certainly bemoaned legitimately elected candidates, but none of them have never not conceded. That’s probably *the* fundamental factor for me.
I also vote on policy (and morality/moral character), but I couldn’t vote for a candidate that doesn’t believe in playing by the rules in terms of winner vs. loser.
If we ever get there with both parties, then I guess I will have to reassess for practical reasons. But we’re not there, and I hope we never will be.
I want two healthy parties, and if we are gonna have only two parties, they *have* to be healthy with broad coalitions, in my view. Conservative Democrats, liberal Republicans, etc. This whole “you can’t be a Dem or Republican unless your views on this contentious issue is in lockstep with our party” has to go if we want to survive as a country with a two-party system.
What Republicans did to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger and Dems to Joe Manchin are good cases in point.
@marcia I wrote about that issue here: https://open.substack.com/pub/ethanstuart/p/democrats-and-republicans-must-broaden?r=1vgpn&utm_medium=ios
😉👍🏻
There are those of us who remember, "it's the economy, stupid" was Bill Clinton's mantra in 1992. The democrats today hope Americans have forgotten that. Ms. Harris will be spun to the younger voter as cool, doesn’t take herself or life too seriously, she makes mistakes but don’t we all, she’s not some stuffy old man, she cuts loose, she laughs at herself, etc. They will make the election entirely about character. It will probably carry the day.
I find Trump to be an arrogant ass, and completely incapable of winning any Personality contest, even in hell! But personality does not make the economy run, and does not put food on my table, gas in my tank, or wind in my sails.
That then, is our choice: do we vote to make us feel better about ourselves, or do we vote to promote human flourishing.
"The obstacles against him—...a hostile media..."
Do you mean a media that briefly -- briefly -- did billionaires/Clooney/Obama's bidding? No worries, they are back as stenographers again, with their gaggy "Biden is courageous" "Biden is a patriot" etc.
I have read management literature that says when employees work hard and perform at high levels their managers grow to expect that level of performance. It becomes "average" rather than exceptional in the managers' minds. Conversely, when employees waste time and underperform, their bosses resign themselves to that standard, thinking that is the best they can get. When expectations have sunk to the bottom, an employee who manages to show up to work on time stands out and is rewarded.
The Democratic Party elites will not push for President Biden to resign his office before the Democratic National Convention, despite the immense boost that would give to Kamala Harris's prospects. Why?
Because they want to give Kamala the chance to flame out over the next several weeks, the way Biden did. They can't challenge her directly for fear of being seen as opposing the historic candidacy of the first woman of color to potentially win a major party nomination and the Presidency. That's also why no other prominent Democrat has announced a challenge to Harris. But if her candidacy collapses on its own, the party and the other potential candidates are free to swoop in like a flock of vultures. The party elites get to choose a stronger candidate from the pool of governors, senators, and even billionaires waiting for Kamala's failure.
If Kamala does persevere and keep her candidacy intact until the convention, she is likely to win the nomination on the first ballot. At that time, Biden should resign to give her the power of incumbency and the status of first woman President - so that even if she loses to Trump in November, she gets a really nifty consolation prize.
I agree 100% on your theory that Kamala is being given time to flame out, but i don't know if even the Democrats could sell that level of chicanery. How many presumed nominees can a party have before people call it for what it is?
Biden does need to resign, however. Either he competent enough to run the country, which would mean this has been a literal coup within the party. Or he's non combos mantis and is putting us all at real risk. Can't have it both ways.
I think they are counting on the public not seeing it as chicanery. They will say, "Hey, we gave her a fair shot. It's not our fault that she blew it. It's not like the delegates were ever formally pledged to her by party rules - they were pledged to Biden and switched voluntarily to Harris, so they are free to switch voluntarily again to someone else." Democrats are so desperate to beat Trump that they will gladly buy into that in return for a "better" candidate - but I think you are right that outside of those desperate Democrats, a second switch will just make the party look foolish, incompetent, and unprincipled.
As for Biden, he is no less competent to run the country (that is, not at all competent) than he was a month ago. The only difference is that they can't keep his incompetence hidden any longer. Democrats can say they want him to pass the torch to their new nominee after the convention, but they can't say he's incapable of serving out his term, because that invites the questions, "How long has he been incompetent to serve, and when did you all know it?"
He basically resigned via a post-it note, Kamala is off campaigning and mining the billionaires for more and more money. Netanyahu visited yesterday and there was no one home. Our country is an embarrassment.
Agreed. But you notice how he hasn't RESIGNED-resigned? If Kamala Harris is definitely for sure irreversibly the future of the Democratic Party who is going to trounce Trump, why wouldn't he want to give her the power of incumbency right away to boost her stature? Maybe he (meaning the Democratic Party elites pulling his strings) has some doubts about whether Kamala is up to the task, and wants to see whether she falls flat on her face between now and the convention.