It seems like there's been little to no penalty from the electorate, party, or fundraisers for Harris not undergoing a primary or facing any real competition. Are primaries overrated or at least way too long?
Personally, I vastly prefer this 3-4 month timeframe to elect a candidate rather than the usual 1-2 year slog. Any possibility we could see lasting change to the way candidates are nominated? Could be a winning issue and give the people what they want: as little craven political bullshit as possible.
I think there's an implicit understanding that Biden's dithering around caused this unusual circumstance, and because of that Dem voters are willing to give the party a "pass" based on that. I do think once this initial hoopla dies down and Repubs start counterattacking, they can definitely hit the "what did she know and when did she know it?" angle and point out how extremely convenient this lack of process was to Harris and the mainstream DNC wing of the party.
Agree on the counterattack. My feeling is however that the Dem power players were more than happy to let Ole Joe's inner circle dither while they built the Kamala launch. AND the late inning pitcher change gives her less time to screw up slash time for enthusiasm to wane. Good things for vulnerable candidate.
But we knew in 2020 that Biden was old, and therefore Harris was no ordinary VP pick—like her or not, she was more likely than the average VP to become president. I think the general feeling among Democrats now is just relief that we’re not trying to prop up an 81-year old and claim he can handle the most demanding job in the world for the next four years. The overwhelming majority of voters have made it very clear to pollsters they didn’t want him, the primary voters who ratified the choice to run Biden for another term have a lot to be modest about at this point.
Seems hard to shorten the primary because our parties are so weak. In a parliamentary system, the party can name a leader and move to the election quickly. In the U.S., a gaggle of mini-celebrities compete for the nomination. Huge incentive for lesser known candidates to start early, build their own staff and try to get name recognition, raise the money they need to compete nationally. Would candidates, or voters, accept a more closed/disciplined system, and parties capable of enforcing that discipline? Who’ll be the party’s gatekeeper?
Speaking on behalf of people in western democracies outside the United States (because we're all homogenous like that), yes, your campaigns are inexplicably, excruciatingly and stupidly long.
Superdelegates, DNC sabotage of challengers, the coronation of Kamala Harris, etc. shows that the Democratic Party has already essentially eliminated their primary. Is that a good thing? Yes. The bases of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are dominated by crazies. This is why Republicans get bad nominees like Kari Lake in Arizona. Since Republicans don’t rig the primaries, they have to resort to bribery. Yes, the Republican Party tried to bribe Kari Lake not to run! The Republican Party needs to wake up and learn from the Democratic Party. The people can have their democracy in the general election. That is good enough.
Question: given how some of the highly-online left feels about Nate, will there be any sort of counter-effect? "Oh, Nate's saying it doesn't make a big difference - he's trying to talk us out of it! We must do it!".
College was so long ago, but wasn't that the Heisenberg effect, that we can't measure something without affecting it? The Silver effect: Nate can't opine without causing a reaction.
If the online left is running Harris’s campaign, she’s going to have a lot of trouble regardless of the VP pick. Hopefully the people running her campaign are tapped into what’s actually going on in all the different communities of potential voters, not just one online group.
Totally irrelevant hypothetical. Would Al Gore have won in 2000 if he'd picked Bob Graham from Florida? Would a net-net of 1,000 voters in Florida have changed their mind based on that pick?
On the balance, I agree the odds of it being a deciding factor are small, but Shapiro is also a Governor and it seems that might count for a little more than being a Congressman or a Senator who is usually in Washington and may only represent a small part of the state (in the former case). He's apparently relatively popular and has been a pretty public figure in PA recently. Like, I wouldn't be surprised if Shapiro was worth 0.75% instead of 0.4%, which is starting to be enough to be significant.
As of July 31st, Nate shows Harris a mere 0.2% behind Trump in Pennsylvania. If Nate's polling averages were dead-on and the election took place tomorrow, even the normal 0.4% bump would tip the scales -- not just for Pennsylvania but for the entire election.
Of course, not even Nate's polling averages are quite that accurate, and we've got a long way to go before November. Still, 2016 was decided by a fraction of a percent in three states, and (as you point out) 2000 was decided by even smaller fractions in two*.
*The other being New Hampshire, which went for Bush by under 10,000 votes and would have been enough for Gore to win, just barely, without Florida.
I lived in NYC for the last several years and I live in Pennsylvania now. I feel like an unintended consequence of Shapiro joining the ticket is that people in PA will react much in the way New Yorkers did when Mayor DeBlasio decided to launch his presidential race after barely starting his second term.
Shapiro is well-liked here, but has been governor for less than two years. Yeah, he won big here but his opponent, Mastriano, was an extremely unpopular ultramaga candidate that the Dems successfully gambled would go down in flames.
If Shapiro looks like he's leaving the car running and planning to ditch at the first opportunity it may not play as well in PA as the rest of the country thinks.
Imagine if Obama would have picked Bayh in 2008 and won Indiana by a few thousand votes. People would absolutely be saying that Bayh delivered the state, even though we of course know the same result happened with Biden. No real point except that narratives can be pretty dumb sometimes.
Nate, there were 100K people that voted Uncommitted in Michigan as an anti Biden protest vote. Those are real people that voted that way, regardless of the left's "political bubble." (does it occur to you that you are in a political bubble where no serious people have any concerns about Israeli war crimes??) If you follow the news in the Detroit area, you would know that there is palpable anger at what is happening in Gaza, and it is directed at the administration and Biden in particular, who doesn't seem to give a shit about Palestinian deaths (as opposed to Israeli deaths, obviously). I had a random uber driver on the way to DTW, who didn't seem to be "very online" at all, and wasn't Arab, tell me that she would have a hard time supporting Biden because of what has been happening in Gaza. If Harris picks Shapiro, this will be a big fuck you to those in Michigan and elsewhere who support Palestinian human rights, as he seems to equate the pro palestinian movement with "anti semitism." This might not make a difference, but in a close election, 50 or 100K normally democratic voters staying home might actually matter. Could she win without Michigan? Maybe. Do you want to bet that that will happen?
Yes I know a lot of people feel that way. On the other hand button has done more than anyone else in the world to help the Palestinian people. What about the weapons you say? Israel can buy as many as it needs from North Korea
The question I have is whether Shapiro’s pro-Israel stance becomes a drag on the ticket in MI and with the hard-left side of the party and youth voters?
Young voters and the hard left aren’t a large voting block and even among youth voters it ranks 15th in importance when it comes to issues (see Harvard’s March poll “Survey of Young Americans’ Attitudes toward Politics and Public Service”). I don’t think they care about the issue like some have mused and opinions on the issue among the youth seem pretty mixed, not polarized, mostly depending on how the poll words the questions.
Electorally speaking there are more Jews in the rust belt than Muslims, and far more Israel supporters. Those who are pro-Israel can in effect also vote twice, once by not voting and twice by voting for Trump. The Pro-hamas fringe of democrats has no such advantage.
If Shapiro is not chosen, this would be my explanation. At the time Trump chose Vance, he was running against Biden (and Harris). I agree with Nate that there is a finite advantage Harris has in getting to choose VP candidate and she should find the best play.
I agree that ideologues tend to speak from their own bubble at times, but some of us are able to look at it from the outside looking in. I believe there needs to be a more robust discussion on what a moderate is now. Trump is way more authoritarian and uncivil than a traditional R, but he is really only to the right of them on immigration and a handful of other issues. On economics and abortion, he and even Vance are to the left of their party. I'd argue the "moderates" (as the media would describe at least) of both parties are less ideologically moderate and more ideologically opportunist (strategic could be a nicer word). They are oligarch-enablers with civility.
I 100% agree that VP picks will have very little effect. Especially with how polarized we are.
True, but about every Democrat was against gay marriage and legal pot in the early 2000s. Views change, though Vance's "evolution" is clearly opportunistic. I'm no fan of Trump or Vance, but they are taking the Republican Party towards the middle on economics, while a lot of folks still refer to them as far right. Alt right isn't really far right, it's just racist in some cases, policy light, authoritarian, and uncivilized. Terrible, yes, but the European far right (what I considered Trump the first time I paid attention to his run for office) is not to the right of the Republican Party on economics at all. That's what makes the terrible ideology more appealing and electable than most would give it credit for.
Ever since we went through the financial and mortgage crisis, voter attitudes have preferred populists. COVID saved us from Trump in '20 (we barely won...70k votes or so in swing states that mattered combined), but the post pandemic stresses (inflation and housing costs/etc.) has pushed us even further in that anti-status quo/anti-institution populist direction.
I believe it would take a really good economy that actually benefits everyone to steer us towards Reagonmics (right) and third way policies ("moderate" side of the Dems) again. Why? Because humans are selfish and, once they perceive they have something, they will be less likely to share.
From CNN (again, opportunistic Trump pleasing): "Former President Donald Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, said two-and-a-half years ago he was open to a national abortion ban, a stark contrast to comments he made this week where the Ohio senator said he adhered to Trump’s view that abortion should be a state issue."
Right, I don’t think for a minute he believes it. Being anti-abortion has been a core part of his political identity. He even said at one point he wanted Ohio to stop women from traveling out of state for an abortion. He’s definitely not a moderate on the issue.
He's not, but he's bowing to Trump who is taking the Rs to the left on the issue (don't take this wrong, they are still well to the right of Dems on the issue, even though Trump used to be pro-choice). Vance is part of the American Compass clique that is very intelligently moving Rs to the left on econ. They are becoming what Southern Democrats used to be. It's weird to watch, but I fear it will be effective. Running on Reaganomics was going to make them unelectable by 2028/32. Their social views/human rights views may do that for them, still, but we will see how the youth vote goes this year (polling has been all over the place with them).
can you please tell me Donald Trump's latest position on Gaza?
does he support a two-state solution?
is Donald Trump more concerned about Palestinian lives than Kamala Harris?
## Donald Trump's Latest Position on Gaza
Donald Trump has recently criticized Vice President Kamala Harris's remarks on the Gaza conflict, labeling them as "disrespectful" to Israel. Trump has emphasized his strong support for Israel and has urged for a quick end to the conflict, primarily due to the negative publicity Israel is receiving. He has stated that the war in Gaza "can't continue to go on like this" and that Israel should "finish what they started" and "get it over with fast" [2][5][7].
## Two-State Solution
Donald Trump has not explicitly reiterated his stance on the two-state solution in his recent statements. Historically, during his presidency, Trump proposed a peace plan that was seen as favoring Israel and did not align with the traditional two-state solution framework. His current comments focus more on ending the conflict swiftly rather than addressing long-term solutions like a two-state arrangement [2][4][7].
## Comparison with Kamala Harris on Palestinian Lives
Kamala Harris has expressed a more nuanced position, acknowledging Israel's right to self-defense while also voicing serious concerns about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. She has stated that she "will not be silent" about the suffering of Palestinians and has pushed for a ceasefire to end the war and alleviate the humanitarian situation [1][3][6].
In contrast, Trump has focused more on supporting Israel and has criticized Harris for her remarks, suggesting they were not supportive enough of Israel. He has not shown the same level of public concern for Palestinian lives as Harris has [2][5][7].
### Summary
- **Donald Trump**: Strongly supports Israel, urges a quick end to the conflict due to negative publicity, has criticized Harris's remarks as disrespectful, and has not shown significant public concern for Palestinian lives.
- **Kamala Harris**: Balances support for Israel with concern for Palestinian suffering, advocates for a ceasefire, and has publicly expressed her commitment to addressing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Overall, Harris appears more concerned about Palestinian lives than Trump, who has focused on supporting Israel and ending the conflict quickly without addressing the humanitarian issues in as much detail.
Was this put in the wrong place? I didn't mention Israel, and I also didn't compare Trump with Kamala. I simply pointed out how calling Trump far right isn't really accurate (compared to traditional Rs as opposed to Ds). I don't think either major candidate wins too many lefties over with their Israel stances, but I agree that Kamala is more sympathetic (though also in the administration supplying weapons). I'm no fan of Trump, and I'm on my local Democratic executive committee. That being said, I'm also not a blind partisan cheerleader, and I like to predict and analyze elections with a realistic point of view.
He is charismatic did amazing work with the i-95 interstate recovery, and 35% of PA Trump supporters like him.
Remember that in Arizona and Georgia in 2020 Biden one by between 10,000-12,000 votes.
In 2000 it came down to hundreds of votes.
While the vice presidential pick might only increase the probability of winning the electoral College by 1% at best, I think we can all agree This election is so important that we should do everything as optimally as possible.
There will not be any polling to help us make this decision.
The Wall Street journal isn't going to run polls of Harris and Shapiro versus Harris and Mark Kelly in the swing states.
We just have to look at individual swing state poles and make the best informed decision we can.
A 0.4% increase probability of what is likely to still be the most decisive state, combined with strong charisma, and good crossover appeal to middle class whites, makes Josh Shapiro the best option in my opinion.
He’s very good. Quick, warm, salty enough, and doesn’t repeat the same memorized lines over and over. I also really like his specifics about Trump’s failures. The first politician I’ve hard done this. He doesn’t focus on Trump’s amorality but rather specific policies or nonsense like suing PA a million times over the election and losing and that is interesting to hear because it’s always about Trump the Repulsive and not enough about the 4 years he was POTUS.
I agree. I don't think there are many scenarios where Harris wins without Pennsylvania. Anything she can do to increase her chances there is probably the best decision for her campaign.
stop trying to make shapiro happen. kamala has a good thing going with positive vibes in contrast to trump’s and vance’s doom and brimstone. the last thing she needs is an abrasive, combative sidekick. beshear would be a way better choice to make a clear contrast in favor of optimism, freedom, safety, love, etc. walz or cooper or kelley would be ok (somehow you didn’t mention the senate implications tho???). shapiro would be a real discouragement for people and not just because of gaza.
bad ballot design in South Florida lost Gore the election by 517 votes. The butterfly ballot was very confusing and a lot of people voted for Nader accidently.
Would Harris lose enough pro Hamas voters in MI or young voters in general to offset whatever benefit she’d see in PA? Another factor is Vance. He’s very popular in western PA which is similar to OH. Wonder if Vance would basically negate Shapiro.
Also, Harry Enten ran a poll of Vance limited to the upper Midwest - Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. It found Vance further underwater - minus 16. If you’ve been following Silver for a while, you’ll recognize Enten’s name. https://www.newsweek.com/jd-vance-cnn-poll-trump-running-mate-ohio-1930582
I'm a fan of Enten's. Let's see where things shake out. Right now, Vance is under withering coordinated attacks from the left, because he's over the target. I'm still of the belief that, when all is said and done, he will be a net positive to the campaign in the Blue Wall states.
I think about this from the prospective VP candidate's point of view. Most of the VP pick examples you describe disappear from politics. Combine those odds with, for example, Kelly's choice - stay in Arizona politics and have a career or end his career by be remembered as the vice presidential candidate to the president who will be constantly blasted for failing to protect the border (a top issue in Arizona), or, Shapiro, being remembered by Jewish donors for campaigning with a presidential candidate who is pro-Hamas. What's in it for them? Why on earth would they ever choose to do this?
I'd bet she's having a tough time finding someone who wants to run for VP.
Being a vice president sets you up to become a presidential candidate. If Harris loses, Shapiro or Kelly would gain national name recognition and have an easier time winning the nomination in 2028. And if Harris wins, they are directly set up for the line of succession. This is more about personal ambition than their policy beliefs.
Would some old hand be so kind as to point me to an explanation of how the level of partisanship is calculated? And recalculated to keep up with reality? I suppose in some sense we are bound to be as surprised when partisanship wanes as we were surprised when it waxed; that's as it should be because change is gradual. But when an analyst was quoted in a Politico article as saying "wave elections don't happen any more", a clock started ticking in my mind: how long until the next wave?
I may have answered my own question by RTFM, assuming that partisanship is synonymous with polarization. Apparently roll call votes in Congress are the model's proxy for polarization ( https://voteview.com/articles/party_polarization ), not anything to do with polling as I might have guessed.
I have maintained Shapiro as the correct pick for the reasons Nate marginalized with data and analytics, colon closed parenthesis. Other reasons such as bogging down the hillbilly by having to elegize in Pittsburgh for the next 100 days is theoretical at best. I suppose NC + AZ is a mitigation strategy against ceding GA + PA. Acknowledging bias toward heat death of the universe, I wouldn't mind seeing NC/AZ/NV/WI go blue and GA/PA/MI go red...entropy in the house x269
It seems like there's been little to no penalty from the electorate, party, or fundraisers for Harris not undergoing a primary or facing any real competition. Are primaries overrated or at least way too long?
Personally, I vastly prefer this 3-4 month timeframe to elect a candidate rather than the usual 1-2 year slog. Any possibility we could see lasting change to the way candidates are nominated? Could be a winning issue and give the people what they want: as little craven political bullshit as possible.
I think there's an implicit understanding that Biden's dithering around caused this unusual circumstance, and because of that Dem voters are willing to give the party a "pass" based on that. I do think once this initial hoopla dies down and Repubs start counterattacking, they can definitely hit the "what did she know and when did she know it?" angle and point out how extremely convenient this lack of process was to Harris and the mainstream DNC wing of the party.
Agree on the counterattack. My feeling is however that the Dem power players were more than happy to let Ole Joe's inner circle dither while they built the Kamala launch. AND the late inning pitcher change gives her less time to screw up slash time for enthusiasm to wane. Good things for vulnerable candidate.
But we knew in 2020 that Biden was old, and therefore Harris was no ordinary VP pick—like her or not, she was more likely than the average VP to become president. I think the general feeling among Democrats now is just relief that we’re not trying to prop up an 81-year old and claim he can handle the most demanding job in the world for the next four years. The overwhelming majority of voters have made it very clear to pollsters they didn’t want him, the primary voters who ratified the choice to run Biden for another term have a lot to be modest about at this point.
Seems hard to shorten the primary because our parties are so weak. In a parliamentary system, the party can name a leader and move to the election quickly. In the U.S., a gaggle of mini-celebrities compete for the nomination. Huge incentive for lesser known candidates to start early, build their own staff and try to get name recognition, raise the money they need to compete nationally. Would candidates, or voters, accept a more closed/disciplined system, and parties capable of enforcing that discipline? Who’ll be the party’s gatekeeper?
Speaking on behalf of people in western democracies outside the United States (because we're all homogenous like that), yes, your campaigns are inexplicably, excruciatingly and stupidly long.
Superdelegates, DNC sabotage of challengers, the coronation of Kamala Harris, etc. shows that the Democratic Party has already essentially eliminated their primary. Is that a good thing? Yes. The bases of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are dominated by crazies. This is why Republicans get bad nominees like Kari Lake in Arizona. Since Republicans don’t rig the primaries, they have to resort to bribery. Yes, the Republican Party tried to bribe Kari Lake not to run! The Republican Party needs to wake up and learn from the Democratic Party. The people can have their democracy in the general election. That is good enough.
Question: given how some of the highly-online left feels about Nate, will there be any sort of counter-effect? "Oh, Nate's saying it doesn't make a big difference - he's trying to talk us out of it! We must do it!".
College was so long ago, but wasn't that the Heisenberg effect, that we can't measure something without affecting it? The Silver effect: Nate can't opine without causing a reaction.
If the online left is running Harris’s campaign, she’s going to have a lot of trouble regardless of the VP pick. Hopefully the people running her campaign are tapped into what’s actually going on in all the different communities of potential voters, not just one online group.
By simply measuring the probability of location and velocity, Nate alters the location and velocity. I like it.
Nate doesn't have that much of an influence. And Shapiro being picked would certainly provoke protests regardless.
Idle fanfiction about your personal twitter experience.
Not mine - Nate's.
Maybe should be termed the 538 Uncertainty Principle...since we don't know, why measure? Sorry, nerd lolling.
Totally irrelevant hypothetical. Would Al Gore have won in 2000 if he'd picked Bob Graham from Florida? Would a net-net of 1,000 voters in Florida have changed their mind based on that pick?
On the balance, I agree the odds of it being a deciding factor are small, but Shapiro is also a Governor and it seems that might count for a little more than being a Congressman or a Senator who is usually in Washington and may only represent a small part of the state (in the former case). He's apparently relatively popular and has been a pretty public figure in PA recently. Like, I wouldn't be surprised if Shapiro was worth 0.75% instead of 0.4%, which is starting to be enough to be significant.
As of July 31st, Nate shows Harris a mere 0.2% behind Trump in Pennsylvania. If Nate's polling averages were dead-on and the election took place tomorrow, even the normal 0.4% bump would tip the scales -- not just for Pennsylvania but for the entire election.
Of course, not even Nate's polling averages are quite that accurate, and we've got a long way to go before November. Still, 2016 was decided by a fraction of a percent in three states, and (as you point out) 2000 was decided by even smaller fractions in two*.
*The other being New Hampshire, which went for Bush by under 10,000 votes and would have been enough for Gore to win, just barely, without Florida.
I lived in NYC for the last several years and I live in Pennsylvania now. I feel like an unintended consequence of Shapiro joining the ticket is that people in PA will react much in the way New Yorkers did when Mayor DeBlasio decided to launch his presidential race after barely starting his second term.
Shapiro is well-liked here, but has been governor for less than two years. Yeah, he won big here but his opponent, Mastriano, was an extremely unpopular ultramaga candidate that the Dems successfully gambled would go down in flames.
If Shapiro looks like he's leaving the car running and planning to ditch at the first opportunity it may not play as well in PA as the rest of the country thinks.
Imagine if Obama would have picked Bayh in 2008 and won Indiana by a few thousand votes. People would absolutely be saying that Bayh delivered the state, even though we of course know the same result happened with Biden. No real point except that narratives can be pretty dumb sometimes.
Nate, there were 100K people that voted Uncommitted in Michigan as an anti Biden protest vote. Those are real people that voted that way, regardless of the left's "political bubble." (does it occur to you that you are in a political bubble where no serious people have any concerns about Israeli war crimes??) If you follow the news in the Detroit area, you would know that there is palpable anger at what is happening in Gaza, and it is directed at the administration and Biden in particular, who doesn't seem to give a shit about Palestinian deaths (as opposed to Israeli deaths, obviously). I had a random uber driver on the way to DTW, who didn't seem to be "very online" at all, and wasn't Arab, tell me that she would have a hard time supporting Biden because of what has been happening in Gaza. If Harris picks Shapiro, this will be a big fuck you to those in Michigan and elsewhere who support Palestinian human rights, as he seems to equate the pro palestinian movement with "anti semitism." This might not make a difference, but in a close election, 50 or 100K normally democratic voters staying home might actually matter. Could she win without Michigan? Maybe. Do you want to bet that that will happen?
Who else are they going to vote for? Trump?
No, but they might stay home and not vote at all.
Definitely. I know a few Dems who say they may stay home because they don’t like Harris and despise Trump. I don’t know how you factor those in.
Yes I know a lot of people feel that way. On the other hand button has done more than anyone else in the world to help the Palestinian people. What about the weapons you say? Israel can buy as many as it needs from North Korea
???
The question I have is whether Shapiro’s pro-Israel stance becomes a drag on the ticket in MI and with the hard-left side of the party and youth voters?
Most Americans support Israel, Shapiro’s pro-Israel stance can only help (especially among people who think Kamala is too far left).
there is a difference between supporting israel and supporting the massacre of palestinians
I don’t disagree with you, I’m just pointing out what the American public thinks.
Young voters and the hard left aren’t a large voting block and even among youth voters it ranks 15th in importance when it comes to issues (see Harvard’s March poll “Survey of Young Americans’ Attitudes toward Politics and Public Service”). I don’t think they care about the issue like some have mused and opinions on the issue among the youth seem pretty mixed, not polarized, mostly depending on how the poll words the questions.
Electorally speaking there are more Jews in the rust belt than Muslims, and far more Israel supporters. Those who are pro-Israel can in effect also vote twice, once by not voting and twice by voting for Trump. The Pro-hamas fringe of democrats has no such advantage.
If Shapiro is not chosen, this would be my explanation. At the time Trump chose Vance, he was running against Biden (and Harris). I agree with Nate that there is a finite advantage Harris has in getting to choose VP candidate and she should find the best play.
I agree that ideologues tend to speak from their own bubble at times, but some of us are able to look at it from the outside looking in. I believe there needs to be a more robust discussion on what a moderate is now. Trump is way more authoritarian and uncivil than a traditional R, but he is really only to the right of them on immigration and a handful of other issues. On economics and abortion, he and even Vance are to the left of their party. I'd argue the "moderates" (as the media would describe at least) of both parties are less ideologically moderate and more ideologically opportunist (strategic could be a nicer word). They are oligarch-enablers with civility.
I 100% agree that VP picks will have very little effect. Especially with how polarized we are.
Vance is definitely not on the left of his party on abortion. What about his beliefs lead you to say that?
Maybe it is him just kissing Trump's ass, but he recently took Trump's stance on the issue.
And what about the dozens of statements before that?
True, but about every Democrat was against gay marriage and legal pot in the early 2000s. Views change, though Vance's "evolution" is clearly opportunistic. I'm no fan of Trump or Vance, but they are taking the Republican Party towards the middle on economics, while a lot of folks still refer to them as far right. Alt right isn't really far right, it's just racist in some cases, policy light, authoritarian, and uncivilized. Terrible, yes, but the European far right (what I considered Trump the first time I paid attention to his run for office) is not to the right of the Republican Party on economics at all. That's what makes the terrible ideology more appealing and electable than most would give it credit for.
Ever since we went through the financial and mortgage crisis, voter attitudes have preferred populists. COVID saved us from Trump in '20 (we barely won...70k votes or so in swing states that mattered combined), but the post pandemic stresses (inflation and housing costs/etc.) has pushed us even further in that anti-status quo/anti-institution populist direction.
I believe it would take a really good economy that actually benefits everyone to steer us towards Reagonmics (right) and third way policies ("moderate" side of the Dems) again. Why? Because humans are selfish and, once they perceive they have something, they will be less likely to share.
From CNN (again, opportunistic Trump pleasing): "Former President Donald Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, said two-and-a-half years ago he was open to a national abortion ban, a stark contrast to comments he made this week where the Ohio senator said he adhered to Trump’s view that abortion should be a state issue."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/17/politics/kfile-jd-vance-abortion-comments/index.html
Right, I don’t think for a minute he believes it. Being anti-abortion has been a core part of his political identity. He even said at one point he wanted Ohio to stop women from traveling out of state for an abortion. He’s definitely not a moderate on the issue.
He's not, but he's bowing to Trump who is taking the Rs to the left on the issue (don't take this wrong, they are still well to the right of Dems on the issue, even though Trump used to be pro-choice). Vance is part of the American Compass clique that is very intelligently moving Rs to the left on econ. They are becoming what Southern Democrats used to be. It's weird to watch, but I fear it will be effective. Running on Reaganomics was going to make them unelectable by 2028/32. Their social views/human rights views may do that for them, still, but we will see how the youth vote goes this year (polling has been all over the place with them).
can you please tell me Donald Trump's latest position on Gaza?
does he support a two-state solution?
is Donald Trump more concerned about Palestinian lives than Kamala Harris?
## Donald Trump's Latest Position on Gaza
Donald Trump has recently criticized Vice President Kamala Harris's remarks on the Gaza conflict, labeling them as "disrespectful" to Israel. Trump has emphasized his strong support for Israel and has urged for a quick end to the conflict, primarily due to the negative publicity Israel is receiving. He has stated that the war in Gaza "can't continue to go on like this" and that Israel should "finish what they started" and "get it over with fast" [2][5][7].
## Two-State Solution
Donald Trump has not explicitly reiterated his stance on the two-state solution in his recent statements. Historically, during his presidency, Trump proposed a peace plan that was seen as favoring Israel and did not align with the traditional two-state solution framework. His current comments focus more on ending the conflict swiftly rather than addressing long-term solutions like a two-state arrangement [2][4][7].
## Comparison with Kamala Harris on Palestinian Lives
Kamala Harris has expressed a more nuanced position, acknowledging Israel's right to self-defense while also voicing serious concerns about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. She has stated that she "will not be silent" about the suffering of Palestinians and has pushed for a ceasefire to end the war and alleviate the humanitarian situation [1][3][6].
In contrast, Trump has focused more on supporting Israel and has criticized Harris for her remarks, suggesting they were not supportive enough of Israel. He has not shown the same level of public concern for Palestinian lives as Harris has [2][5][7].
### Summary
- **Donald Trump**: Strongly supports Israel, urges a quick end to the conflict due to negative publicity, has criticized Harris's remarks as disrespectful, and has not shown significant public concern for Palestinian lives.
- **Kamala Harris**: Balances support for Israel with concern for Palestinian suffering, advocates for a ceasefire, and has publicly expressed her commitment to addressing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Overall, Harris appears more concerned about Palestinian lives than Trump, who has focused on supporting Israel and ending the conflict quickly without addressing the humanitarian issues in as much detail.
Citations:
[1] Harris says she 'will not be silent' on Gaza suffering while telling ... https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/25/politics/harris-netanyahu-israel-hamas-ceasefire/index.html
[2] Donald Trump slams Kamala Harris' remarks on Israel-Hamas war ... https://www.euronews.com/2024/07/26/donald-trump-slams-kamala-harris-remarks-on-israel-hamas-war-as-disrespectful
[3] Trump calls Harris remarks on Gaza war 'disrespectful' as he meets ... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/26/trump-calls-kamala-harris-statement-on-gaza-war-disrespectful
[4] Trump Urges Netanyahu to End War in Gaza Ahead of Friday Meeting https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/25/world/middleeast/trump-netanyahu-israel-gaza.html
[5] Though Critical on Gaza, Trump Cites Good Relations With Netanyahu https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/26/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-gaza-trump-netanyahu.html
[6] Kamala Harris shifts tone on Gaza, but advocates say US voters ... https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/27/kamala-harris-shifts-tone-on-gaza-but-advocates-say-us-voters-want-more
[7] Trump meeting with Netanyahu for first time since departing White ... https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/26/politics/trump-netanyahu-meeting-mar-a-lago/index.html
Anybody who is concerned about Palestinian lives will support Kamala over Trump.
Since only one of those two will win any protest vote against Kamala is effectively going to cost additional Palestinian lives.
In addition to potentially threaten The survival of the Democratic Republic in the United States.
Was this put in the wrong place? I didn't mention Israel, and I also didn't compare Trump with Kamala. I simply pointed out how calling Trump far right isn't really accurate (compared to traditional Rs as opposed to Ds). I don't think either major candidate wins too many lefties over with their Israel stances, but I agree that Kamala is more sympathetic (though also in the administration supplying weapons). I'm no fan of Trump, and I'm on my local Democratic executive committee. That being said, I'm also not a blind partisan cheerleader, and I like to predict and analyze elections with a realistic point of view.
Yes. Put in wrong place.
I also think Shapiro is the best candidate.
He is charismatic did amazing work with the i-95 interstate recovery, and 35% of PA Trump supporters like him.
Remember that in Arizona and Georgia in 2020 Biden one by between 10,000-12,000 votes.
In 2000 it came down to hundreds of votes.
While the vice presidential pick might only increase the probability of winning the electoral College by 1% at best, I think we can all agree This election is so important that we should do everything as optimally as possible.
There will not be any polling to help us make this decision.
The Wall Street journal isn't going to run polls of Harris and Shapiro versus Harris and Mark Kelly in the swing states.
We just have to look at individual swing state poles and make the best informed decision we can.
A 0.4% increase probability of what is likely to still be the most decisive state, combined with strong charisma, and good crossover appeal to middle class whites, makes Josh Shapiro the best option in my opinion.
He’s very good. Quick, warm, salty enough, and doesn’t repeat the same memorized lines over and over. I also really like his specifics about Trump’s failures. The first politician I’ve hard done this. He doesn’t focus on Trump’s amorality but rather specific policies or nonsense like suing PA a million times over the election and losing and that is interesting to hear because it’s always about Trump the Repulsive and not enough about the 4 years he was POTUS.
Agree that specific complaints are much more effective than name-calling.
I agree. I don't think there are many scenarios where Harris wins without Pennsylvania. Anything she can do to increase her chances there is probably the best decision for her campaign.
stop trying to make shapiro happen. kamala has a good thing going with positive vibes in contrast to trump’s and vance’s doom and brimstone. the last thing she needs is an abrasive, combative sidekick. beshear would be a way better choice to make a clear contrast in favor of optimism, freedom, safety, love, etc. walz or cooper or kelley would be ok (somehow you didn’t mention the senate implications tho???). shapiro would be a real discouragement for people and not just because of gaza.
This election cycle is like no other and I suspect that the usual references are going to be of limited predictive value.
I, for one, am voting against Trump and all the illness he empowers more than anything else.
People would do well to look at what the Nader vote gave us, Dubya, followed by the Great Recession.
In any event, I expect a very toxic environment, which won’t affect me in the least.
Eyes on the prize, then you can work on change.
Al Gore should’ve done a better job appealing to Nader voters if he wanted to win then 🤷🏻♀️
bad ballot design in South Florida lost Gore the election by 517 votes. The butterfly ballot was very confusing and a lot of people voted for Nader accidently.
Would Harris lose enough pro Hamas voters in MI or young voters in general to offset whatever benefit she’d see in PA? Another factor is Vance. He’s very popular in western PA which is similar to OH. Wonder if Vance would basically negate Shapiro.
Vance without Shapiro would still be better than Vance with Shapiro for Republicans' chances in PA.
How do we know Vance is popular in western PA?
Youngstown OH where Vance grew up is right on the border with Western PA.
Also, Harry Enten ran a poll of Vance limited to the upper Midwest - Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. It found Vance further underwater - minus 16. If you’ve been following Silver for a while, you’ll recognize Enten’s name. https://www.newsweek.com/jd-vance-cnn-poll-trump-running-mate-ohio-1930582
I'm a fan of Enten's. Let's see where things shake out. Right now, Vance is under withering coordinated attacks from the left, because he's over the target. I'm still of the belief that, when all is said and done, he will be a net positive to the campaign in the Blue Wall states.
Reports of polling on Vance show his approval rating underwater nationally - the first to have a net negative favorable rating (-6) coming out of a convention. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2024/07/25/jd-vance-struggling-in-polls-after-trump-vp-nod/
I'm thinking Shapiro's well may have been poisoned by the recent allegations that he covered up a sexual harassment scandal.
I think about this from the prospective VP candidate's point of view. Most of the VP pick examples you describe disappear from politics. Combine those odds with, for example, Kelly's choice - stay in Arizona politics and have a career or end his career by be remembered as the vice presidential candidate to the president who will be constantly blasted for failing to protect the border (a top issue in Arizona), or, Shapiro, being remembered by Jewish donors for campaigning with a presidential candidate who is pro-Hamas. What's in it for them? Why on earth would they ever choose to do this?
I'd bet she's having a tough time finding someone who wants to run for VP.
In what universe is Harris pro Hamas lmao she's the VP right now while Biden gives 10s of billions of dollars to israel to bomb civilians
Being a vice president sets you up to become a presidential candidate. If Harris loses, Shapiro or Kelly would gain national name recognition and have an easier time winning the nomination in 2028. And if Harris wins, they are directly set up for the line of succession. This is more about personal ambition than their policy beliefs.
Would some old hand be so kind as to point me to an explanation of how the level of partisanship is calculated? And recalculated to keep up with reality? I suppose in some sense we are bound to be as surprised when partisanship wanes as we were surprised when it waxed; that's as it should be because change is gradual. But when an analyst was quoted in a Politico article as saying "wave elections don't happen any more", a clock started ticking in my mind: how long until the next wave?
I may have answered my own question by RTFM, assuming that partisanship is synonymous with polarization. Apparently roll call votes in Congress are the model's proxy for polarization ( https://voteview.com/articles/party_polarization ), not anything to do with polling as I might have guessed.
I have maintained Shapiro as the correct pick for the reasons Nate marginalized with data and analytics, colon closed parenthesis. Other reasons such as bogging down the hillbilly by having to elegize in Pittsburgh for the next 100 days is theoretical at best. I suppose NC + AZ is a mitigation strategy against ceding GA + PA. Acknowledging bias toward heat death of the universe, I wouldn't mind seeing NC/AZ/NV/WI go blue and GA/PA/MI go red...entropy in the house x269