Hrefna (DHC)
In general I'm of the view that "appealing to people who didn't vote" is a loser's bet
It's too fickle of an audience, too varied of an audience, and too many of them are flat disenfranchised by the system. Not even getting into structural issues.
Yes, I have citations on this, just not at my fingertips, but you can get there with a fermi estimate
Even if those people weren't showing up for a candidate, you'd think they'd show up for issues if they were convertible, and they don't.
Hrefna (DHC)
It's appealing to think "if we just back the right causes we'll get enough people" but that's not how this works (c.f. Politics is for Power). We view our positions as self evidently correct, but that's not how they come across, and even in the 90s the positions were _always_ more popular than the candidates and people would still vote against their interests.
Reliably: people will vote against their own interests or not show up even when their interests _are_ on the ballot.
Azuaron
@hrefna 10 million people who voted Biden in 2020 did not vote in 2024.
Really seems like those people were reachable.
Hrefna (DHC)
In 2016 Bernie won Colorado in the primaries, vs HRC, and not by a small amount.
Then we tried to end prison slavery as a ballot issue, it lost: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/11/17/slavery-is-technically-still-legal-in-colorado-heres-why/
Despite the using prison slavery as a talking point to attack HRC.
You find example after example. The counterfactuals to explain this get increasingly strained.
Harris was a HUGE bit further left than Biden or HRC.
There is simply no evidence that "swinging further left" will win you more votes.
Hrefna (DHC)
@Azuaron I'm sure that Biden was an old white male and that there's been a massive disenfranchisement campaign running for the last four years had nothing to do with that.
Hrefna (DHC)
@Azuaron See also https://mastodon.circle.lt/@dmitry/113448754851650027
Also ignoring the entirety of what has been happening with, e.g., Musk and Twitter or Joe Rogan recruiting young men
Not to mention other factors like the number of people who blame _Biden_ for Dobbs, or who blame Biden for Trump's economic errors
The evidence has been pretty consistent here and it goes back over a century: people vote against their own interests all of the time if there are factors like racism and sexism in play.
Azuaron
@hrefna @hrefna @hrefna I'm not going to say there aren't racist/sexist people that didn't vote for Harris.
But also, Harris was doing everything she could to look like a Republican in an attempt to win unicorn "moderate Republicans", supporting a genocide, and promising to militarize the border. She lost the people she needed to win, while trying to win people who never were going to vote for her.
Hrefna (DHC)
To believe otherwise you have to believe that:
1. There a large number of eligible voters
2. Who are not disenfranchised
3. Who are not showing up even to vote for ballot issues they support or to cast a protest vote.
4. Who are not so racist and/or sexist that they refuse to vote for a Black woman.
5. That are not in an osmotic relationship with some other group of voters.
6. That are sufficiently informed to know the positions and won't be misled by talk of "death panels"
etc.
Hrefna (DHC)
The history of the PPACA and the 1990s "Clintoncare" (which was in most ways further left than the PPACA) issues are instructive here. Same with the attempts to get the public option past Lieberman or the history of the so called "Tea party."
You start to strain reasonable inferences _very_ quickly with counterfactuals of "well if they had just come out EVEN FURTHER LEFT…"
What evidence is there to support that position? Other than vibes, of course.
Hrefna (DHC)
@Azuaron You don't see how this argument strains even vague credibility?
"She lost the people she needed to win": that isn't what any of the evidence shows.
What evidence is there that those people were on board beforehand? Where is the evidence that it was _those specific moves_ that lost the voters in question? Where is the evidence that she _didn't_ gain just as many as she lost?
The counterfactuals at this point get to be just "making things up because it makes us feel better."
Hrefna (DHC)
@Azuaron Again to point out: 40% of Bernie's supporters went to Biden, not Warren.
Also Biden was WORSE ON EVERY ONE OF THESE DIMENSIONS than Harris. Trying to appeal to Republicans? Supporting Israel? All of that are areas where Biden was worse than Harris, and not by a little bit.
So again. Why is it that these things seem to matter for Harris but wouldn't have mattered or didn't matter for Biden? Despite Trump being several orders of magnitude worse in his campaign this election than last.
Hrefna (DHC)
"Oh but she was wishy washy about…"
She has been part of one of the most pro-labor administrations in history and had an even more pro-labor ticket, then ran on explicitly pro-labor issues.
Against one of the most anti-labor administrations in history with a promise to be even more anti-labor.
That's not good enough BY ITSELF? Ignoring literally EVERYTHING else about the candidate, you think that there's some mysterious pool of reachable voters who that wasn't good enough for?
Azuaron
@hrefna I don't know what you're talking about. Harris ran to the right on everything.
Biden promised not to build "another foot of [border] wall constructed on my administration."
"If I'm elected president, we're going to immediately end Trump's assault on the dignity of immigrant communities. We're going to restore our moral standing in the world and our historic role as a safe haven for refugees and asylum-seekers."
He was not engaged in an active genocide.
Hrefna (DHC)
Trump's team wants to dismantle the NLRB, control women's bodies even more, get Obergefell overturned, ban abortion and limit or eliminate birth control nationwide, go back to the days of being disqualified based on preconditions in healthcare, have mass deportations, and so on.
Harris wanted to expand worker protections and healthcare
Yet you expect me to believe there's some nebulous audience that would have swung things _if only_ she hadn't talked to moderate republicans?
Jenniferplusplus
@hrefna I'm actually imagining putting focus on the disenfranchisement and structural obstacles. Not elections as usual, but further left.
If I could suggest tactical electoral priorities, it would be instituting ballot initiatives in states that lack them, universal mail in ballots in states that lack them, ending felony disenfranchisement, and universal ranked choice voting. More or less in that order.
Hrefna (DHC)
@jenniferplusplus I'm a big fan of focusing on disenfranchisement specifically. Including for the ones who can vote, but a mapmaker has removed that vote's impact:
https://election.princeton.edu/articles/gerrymanders-part-2-how-many-voters-were-disenfranchised/
But also extending to those afraid to vote or prevented from doing so (going back to the history of the red shirts, etc)
Jenniferplusplus
@hrefna yes, that too. It's hard to keep it from devolving into administrative wonkery. But very worth doing
Monika Viktorova
@hrefna one thing we shouldn’t discount is that although she was objectively further left, people on the left didn’t perceive her that way. I saw it in my own friend circles - people saw her as right wing. And that’s straight up because of media they’re consuming. Even “leftist” accounts (we can debate how many are organic vs engineered) need outrage and the best outrage is “she’s lying about who she is she’s actually right wing”. Leftists ate it up
Hrefna (DHC)
@mviktoro https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-dont-hate-women-candidates-i-just-hated-hillary-and-coincidentally-im-starting-to-hate-elizabeth-warren
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.