Republicans took all 3 branches because they donāt criticize their own party. And they attack anyone who does. And they show up to vote no matter what because they donāt get apathetic towards their own party.
What planet do you live on? Ever hear of the Lincoln Project? Do you not remember the Republicans throwing out their own Speaker of the House?
The turnout thing is accurate to a point, but is almost always (intentionally) misunderstood. The more left a voter gets, the more engaged they are, and the more likely they are to show up and vote for Democrats. That has been shown in multiple studies and is well understood even by establishment bobbleheads.
Itās the vast sea of disengaged and ideologically confused working class Americans that sometimes show up and sometimes donāt. We know how to reach these people, and the Democratic establishment just isnāt that interested. Their process is to message to these folks just enough to get 51% in swing states. Thatās what keeps the margins so consistently tight, and Republicans win because reality doesnāt always conform to Democratic expectations.
In order to do better, Democrats have to be willing to anger their patrons. Thatās not something they have been willing to do.
What was unique in this election is that the Republicans managed to pick up a lot of those voters. This election wasnāt swung by voter turnout. The unreliable voters turned out, but they turned out for Republicans. Democrats have now officially become the party of the wealthy,band Republicans are now the party of the working class. Thatās obviously an insane disaster, and itās pathetic that anyone is still defending the Democratic establishment.
The more left a voter gets, the more engaged they are, and the more likely they are to show up and vote for Democrats. That has been shown in multiple studies and is well understood even by establishment bobbleheads.
Care to share those studies?
Itās the vast sea of disengaged and ideologically confused working class Americans that sometimes show up and sometimes donāt.
Whatās your source for this claim?
We know how to reach these people, and the Democratic establishment just isnāt that interested.
Whoās āweā and what makes you so confident that you know how to reach āthese peopleā?
Their process is to message to these folks just enough to get 51% in swing states.
Whatās your source for this claim?
In order to do better, Democrats have to be willing to anger their patrons.
Better in what way?
The unreliable voters turned out, but they turned out for Republicans.
Which indicates that these voters wanted someone furthest right. Meanwhile progressives claim the opposite is true: that democrats need to go further left.
Thatās obviously an insane disaster, and itās pathetic that anyone is still defending the Democratic establishment.
To not support democrats is to support republicans.
Why? Is your belief that progressives donāt show up based on anything but establishment talking points? But sure, Iāll do some work for you. See this Pew study.
Whoās āweā and what makes you so confident that you know how to reach āthese peopleā?
Which indicates that these voters wanted someone furthest right.
Or, maybe the political universe canāt be captured in a single dimension. Most of the American public (barely) pays attention to politics for 3-4 months every 4 years. They arenāt exactly policy wonks. The dominant measure today is populist vs establishment. People donāt know what they believe, but they do know that neither party establishment gives two shits about them. They wanted a disruptor, and astoundingly they managed to figure out which candidate that was. Not that Trump will do shit for them, but they will learn that (again) soon enough.
Meanwhile progressives claim the opposite is true: that democrats need to go further left.
Do you know where left and right come from? It was the French parliament after the revolution. The left stood with the people, and the right stood with royalty. Democrats need to stand with the people. As I said above, left vs right political theory isnāt something that most voters (or politicians if weāre being honest) give a shit about. But, with growing inequality and corporate overreach, people do want politicians taking their sides. Trump had more leftist rhetoric than the Democrats.
To not support democrats is to support republicans.
Supporting Democrats and supporting the Democratic Establishment are two different things. I donāt give a shit about red vs blue, but I know that one party is more assailable than the other, so thatās where I look to make change for a better world.
Why? Is your belief that progressives donāt show up based on anything but establishment talking points? But sure, Iāll do some work for you. See this Pew study.
Nope, itās based on the progressive talking point that democrats lost because Harris wasnāt far enough left. Youāre not doing work for me. I didnāt make the claim. If you canāt be bothered to back up your own claims then they arenāt worth anything.
Progressives, this, and this.
Maybe Iām missing something but I donāt see any source for that map. How did they get the numbers? What are the numbers? It just looks like someone colored a bunch of land and put some names on it. Not to mention itās a Reddit post.
Youāre confident that you know how to reach people that wonāt vote democrat because of a town hall of Bernie? I must be missing something.
Um, get votes? I thought that was pretty obvious.
Iām not going to debate based on assumptions. Use your words.
Or, maybe the political universe canāt be captured in a single dimension.
Voters chose the candidate furthest to the right, it doesnāt get any more conclusive than that when it comes to whether voters want a candidate thatās further left.
Do you know where left and right come from?
The origins of left and right dont change anything. Just to be clear, Iād vote for a more progressive candidate. But they wouldnāt win in my red state. Moderates have won before though because they get a mix of voters that is larger than just right or left. And if our democracy is on the line then it isnāt time to let perfection be the enemy of progress.
If progressives keep sowing apathy for the Democratic Party then less people will vote democrat and the GOP will keep growing in power. That is, if we get to vote again, considering Trumps rhetoric.
Supporting Democrats and supporting the Democratic Establishment are two different things. I donāt give a shit about red vs blue, but I know that one party is more assailable than the other, so thatās where I look to make change for a better world.
Same here. But I donāt sow apathy for the better option because that gives voters a reason to not vote for that option and it doesnāt take a lot of voters staying home to lose an election.
itās based on the progressive talking point that democrats lost because Harris wasnāt far enough left.
Is that a talking point? If so, progressives arenāt sticking to it very well. I mean, itās true, but only because being further left is also further populist. Progressive analysis is far more extensive than ānot left enoughā. What you are talking about is a straw man constructed by establishment democrats. You love sources, so show me one progressive arguing this way.
Youāre not doing work for me.
I am, because this stuff is easy to lookup, and your arguments are nothing but uncritically accepted vibes.
Maybe Iām missing something but I donāt see any source for that map.
Itās a map of individual donors by county in the 2020 Democratic primary. The reddit link was the first to come up when I searched. Iāll find you a better link as soon as you show me a progressive saying Democrats lost because they werenāt left enough.
Iām not going to debate based on assumptions. Use your words.
If I have to explain to you that Democrats doing better in elections means getting more votes, Iāll be writing fucking novels. How about using your mind just a little?
I must be missing something.
Thatās a little understated. You donāt see the significance of the furthest left Democratic candidate getting through to a fox news audience as applicable to the question?
You really donāt get it and, at this point, Iām happy to just leave it that way.
Is that a talking point? If so, progressives arenāt sticking to it very well. I mean, itās true, but only because being further left is also further populist. Progressive analysis is far more extensive than ānot left enoughā. What you are talking about is a straw man constructed by establishment democrats. You love sources, so show me one progressive arguing this way.
You say itās true but claim itās a straw man constructed by establishment democrats, which is it? Youāre contradicting yourself. Every thread on lemmy regarding Harris losing has someone saying it and now I can add you to the sources since youāre saying itās true.
I am, because this stuff is easy to lookup, and your arguments are nothing but uncritically accepted vibes.
Thatās not how the burden of proof works. You make the claim, you provide evidence to support the claim. Otherwise your claim is made up. If that needs to be explained to you then Itās no wonder youāre posting Reddit threads of screenshots with no sources as a source for your claims.
Itās a map of individual donors by county in the 2020 Democratic primary. The reddit link was the first to come up when I searched. Iāll find you a better link as soon as you show me a progressive saying Democrats lost because they werenāt left enough.
My source is the comment section of every post on lemmy regarding Harris losing. If I share an article claiming the same youāve already primed the argument that itās an establishment democrat straw man while also admitting itās true.
If I have to explain to you that Democrats doing better in elections means getting more votes, Iāll be writing fucking novels. How about using your mind just a little?
This is how people making bad faith arguments move the goalpost. They make vague statements and when they are proven wrong they say they werenāt talking about that thing you assumed, they were referring to something else. The only way to prevent this is to call it out and make them be specific about their statements.
Thatās a little understated. You donāt see the significance of the furthest left Democratic candidate getting through to a fox news audience as applicable to the question?
For that to be applicable to the question, he would have to be the only one that did itā¦ Harris interviewed on Fox News also.
So I guess Iām not missing something, you are.
You really donāt get it and, at this point, Iām happy to just leave it that way.
Iām sure youāre happy to run away without any sources to your claims.
You say itās true but claim itās a straw man constructed by establishment democrats, which is it?
Itās definitionally true that the left says the centrist should move left. Thatās what makes them the left. The actual left analysis over why she lost doesnāt begin and end with wanting her to move left. As I said before, mapping voters out on a right to left spectrum is not an accurate representation of voting preferences. Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney was supposed to appeal to right leaning voters but backfired because it fed the narrative of Harris as a warmonger. Meanwhile Trump was coding himself as anti-war. The fact that Trumpās anti-war signaling was bullshit couldnāt be effectively countered because Harris had aligned herself with right wing war mongers. She damaged herself with the very same right leaning voters that she was trying to appeal to. Likewise with bragging about support from Wall Street and the nationās CEOs. The theory that doing so would appeal to right leaning voters was misguided because populists on the right hate those people. Harris made herself the candidate of the wealthy, the deep state, and the status quo, everything that Trump has successfully branded himself as opposing. The left is used to Democrats leaning right because thatās been a constant since at least Bill Clinton. But Harris making rightward moves that damaged her with right leaning voters was insanity. The Democratic establishment lives in a bubble that hasnāt changed itās modeling since the 90s.
You make the claim, you provide evidence to support the claim.
Asking for evidence to a claim is fine, but not when done in bad faith. First of all, I am not the only one here making claims.
Apathy caused democrats to lose voters in the 2024 election. Sowing more apathy wonāt improve voter turnout.
Second of all, you are nitpicking half the links I gave, while ignoring what you canāt nitpick. You made no acknowledgement of that Pew study at all. I supplied my proof, and my complaint was for having to cast pearls before swine and the shitty way you went about asking for it without providing any evidence of your own claims, or even arguments as to why your claims should be believed.
As I said, Iāll be happy to find a better link for you on the fundraising map, as soon as you start providing some evidence for your own bald assertions. Itās not going to be a one way street.
This is how people making bad faith arguments move the goalpost
Well, you would know bad faith arguments, but thatās hardly applicable in this case. We are talking about how Democrats perform in elections so there is no reasonable ambiguity when I refer to Democrats ādoing betterā. Thatās the last Iām going to say on this dumb side argument.
Harris interviewed on Fox News also.
An interview is not a town hall, and I didnāt just say that Bernie did a town hall on Fox, I linked to the video. Unlike Harrisā interview, the town hall included a right leaning audience that was responding well to left leaning arguments, which directly addressed what you asked me to address.
If you want to move the goalposts and look at just election results, thatās fine. Look into how many voters who split their ticket between AOC and Trump, and what they said when interviewed. You can find your own links until you start supporting your claims with something other than repetition.
Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney was supposed to appeal to right leaning voters but backfired because it fed the narrative of Harris as a warmonger.
No republicans I know have referred to Harris as a warmonger but I have heard complaints from progressives about her stance on Gaza. So your comment implies that her campaigning with Cheney backfired by costing her votes from progressives. Which reinforces what you claim to be an establishment democrat narrative: that an increase amount of progressives didnāt vote for Harris in 2024. So youāre contradicting yourself again.
She damaged herself with the very same right leaning voters that she was trying to appeal to.
Again, Iāve only heard complaints from progressives about her stance on the war in Gaza. In my experience republicans only complained about the money being spent in Gaza and Ukraine because they were told that was the cause of inflation.
The left is used to Democrats leaning right because thatās been a constant since at least Bill Clinton. But Harris making rightward moves that damaged her with right leaning voters was insanity. The Democratic establishment lives in a bubble that hasnāt changed itās modeling since the 90s.
Since the 90s there have been 9 presidential elections and democrats have won 5 of them. It makes perfect sense for them to continue with at least some of the strategies that have earned them the majority of elections.
Asking for evidence to a claim is fine, but not when done in bad faith. First of all, I am not the only one here making claims.
How is asking for evidence done in bad faith? By doing so I found out that there was some truth to your claim that people on the further ends of the political spectrum tend to be more engaged.
Also I found out that there was no credibility to your claim that āweā know how to reach people and that democrats canāt be interested.
Second of all, you are nitpicking half the links I gave, while ignoring what you canāt nitpick. You made no acknowledgement of that Pew study at all. I supplied my proof, and my complaint was for having to cast pearls before swine and the shitty way you went about asking for it without providing any evidence of your own claims, or even arguments as to why your claims should be believed.
I pointed out that a screenshot of a heat map with no legend or any of the required information like quantity of donors or quantity of donations posted on Reddit, is not evidence of anything. Thatās not nitpicking. Thatās telling you what you should already know.
The Pew study showed that people furthest left and right on the spectrum were more politically engaged. They defined that as taking more about politics and being more likely to vote. Your claim was that the further left someoneās ideology the more likely they are to vote and vote democrat. I acknowledge the Pew study supports that they are more likely to vote but it doesnāt say they vote democrat, they are just as likely to be voting 3rd party.
As I said, Iāll be happy to find a better link for you on the fundraising map, as soon as you start providing some evidence for your own bald assertions. Itās not going to be a one way street.
What bald assertions are you referring to? I told you why I claimed that progressives didnāt show up to vote for Harris. I acknowledge that it is based on anecdotal evidence. You reinforced that anecdotal evidence by saying itās true.
Well, you would know bad faith arguments, but thatās hardly applicable in this case. We are talking about how Democrats perform in elections so there is no reasonable ambiguity when I refer to Democrats ādoing betterā. Thatās the last Iām going to say on this dumb side argument.
Yes, this isnāt my first day on the internet. For that reason I am familiar with bad faith arguments. āDoing betterā could imply a better approval rating, more progressive policies, higher voter turnout, winning over more republican voters, winning over more progressive voters, earning more seats in Congress or the house and on and on. I didnāt even put effort into all the different things ādoing betterā could refer to but youāre getting upset because Iām calling out a common tactic in bad faith arguments.
An interview is not a town hall, and I didnāt just say that Bernie did a town hall on Fox, I linked to the video. Unlike Harrisā interview, the town hall included a right leaning audience that was responding well to left leaning arguments, which directly addressed what you asked me to address.
That āright leaning audienceā sure did like his response about trusting scientists when it comes to corona virus and climate change. So the opposite of how a right leaning audience would respond. I live in a red state and there were political ads at this time of politicians killing Dr. Fauci. Those politicians won. This audience is far from āright leaningā.
None of this supports your claim that progressives know how to win over the disengaged voters in the middle of the ideological spectrum.
If you want to move the goalposts and look at just election results, thatās fine. Look into how many voters who split their ticket between AOC and Trump, and what they said when interviewed. You can find your own links until you start supporting your claims with something other than repetition.
This supports my point about the Pew study you shared: the farthest left voters are more likely to vote, just not necessarily for democrats.
Which brings us full circle back to my original point. A remarkable amount of progressives didnāt vote for Harris.
Republicans took all 3 branches because they donāt criticize their own party. And they attack anyone who does. And they show up to vote no matter what because they donāt get apathetic towards their own party.
What planet do you live on? Ever hear of the Lincoln Project? Do you not remember the Republicans throwing out their own Speaker of the House?
The turnout thing is accurate to a point, but is almost always (intentionally) misunderstood. The more left a voter gets, the more engaged they are, and the more likely they are to show up and vote for Democrats. That has been shown in multiple studies and is well understood even by establishment bobbleheads.
Itās the vast sea of disengaged and ideologically confused working class Americans that sometimes show up and sometimes donāt. We know how to reach these people, and the Democratic establishment just isnāt that interested. Their process is to message to these folks just enough to get 51% in swing states. Thatās what keeps the margins so consistently tight, and Republicans win because reality doesnāt always conform to Democratic expectations.
In order to do better, Democrats have to be willing to anger their patrons. Thatās not something they have been willing to do.
What was unique in this election is that the Republicans managed to pick up a lot of those voters. This election wasnāt swung by voter turnout. The unreliable voters turned out, but they turned out for Republicans. Democrats have now officially become the party of the wealthy,band Republicans are now the party of the working class. Thatās obviously an insane disaster, and itās pathetic that anyone is still defending the Democratic establishment.
Care to share those studies?
Whatās your source for this claim?
Whoās āweā and what makes you so confident that you know how to reach āthese peopleā?
Whatās your source for this claim?
Better in what way?
Which indicates that these voters wanted someone furthest right. Meanwhile progressives claim the opposite is true: that democrats need to go further left.
To not support democrats is to support republicans.
Why? Is your belief that progressives donāt show up based on anything but establishment talking points? But sure, Iāll do some work for you. See this Pew study.
Progressives, this, and this.
Um, get votes? I thought that was pretty obvious.
Or, maybe the political universe canāt be captured in a single dimension. Most of the American public (barely) pays attention to politics for 3-4 months every 4 years. They arenāt exactly policy wonks. The dominant measure today is populist vs establishment. People donāt know what they believe, but they do know that neither party establishment gives two shits about them. They wanted a disruptor, and astoundingly they managed to figure out which candidate that was. Not that Trump will do shit for them, but they will learn that (again) soon enough.
Do you know where left and right come from? It was the French parliament after the revolution. The left stood with the people, and the right stood with royalty. Democrats need to stand with the people. As I said above, left vs right political theory isnāt something that most voters (or politicians if weāre being honest) give a shit about. But, with growing inequality and corporate overreach, people do want politicians taking their sides. Trump had more leftist rhetoric than the Democrats.
Supporting Democrats and supporting the Democratic Establishment are two different things. I donāt give a shit about red vs blue, but I know that one party is more assailable than the other, so thatās where I look to make change for a better world.
Nope, itās based on the progressive talking point that democrats lost because Harris wasnāt far enough left. Youāre not doing work for me. I didnāt make the claim. If you canāt be bothered to back up your own claims then they arenāt worth anything.
Maybe Iām missing something but I donāt see any source for that map. How did they get the numbers? What are the numbers? It just looks like someone colored a bunch of land and put some names on it. Not to mention itās a Reddit post.
Youāre confident that you know how to reach people that wonāt vote democrat because of a town hall of Bernie? I must be missing something.
Iām not going to debate based on assumptions. Use your words.
Voters chose the candidate furthest to the right, it doesnāt get any more conclusive than that when it comes to whether voters want a candidate thatās further left.
The origins of left and right dont change anything. Just to be clear, Iād vote for a more progressive candidate. But they wouldnāt win in my red state. Moderates have won before though because they get a mix of voters that is larger than just right or left. And if our democracy is on the line then it isnāt time to let perfection be the enemy of progress.
If progressives keep sowing apathy for the Democratic Party then less people will vote democrat and the GOP will keep growing in power. That is, if we get to vote again, considering Trumps rhetoric.
Same here. But I donāt sow apathy for the better option because that gives voters a reason to not vote for that option and it doesnāt take a lot of voters staying home to lose an election.
Is that a talking point? If so, progressives arenāt sticking to it very well. I mean, itās true, but only because being further left is also further populist. Progressive analysis is far more extensive than ānot left enoughā. What you are talking about is a straw man constructed by establishment democrats. You love sources, so show me one progressive arguing this way.
I am, because this stuff is easy to lookup, and your arguments are nothing but uncritically accepted vibes.
Itās a map of individual donors by county in the 2020 Democratic primary. The reddit link was the first to come up when I searched. Iāll find you a better link as soon as you show me a progressive saying Democrats lost because they werenāt left enough.
If I have to explain to you that Democrats doing better in elections means getting more votes, Iāll be writing fucking novels. How about using your mind just a little?
Thatās a little understated. You donāt see the significance of the furthest left Democratic candidate getting through to a fox news audience as applicable to the question?
You really donāt get it and, at this point, Iām happy to just leave it that way.
You say itās true but claim itās a straw man constructed by establishment democrats, which is it? Youāre contradicting yourself. Every thread on lemmy regarding Harris losing has someone saying it and now I can add you to the sources since youāre saying itās true.
Thatās not how the burden of proof works. You make the claim, you provide evidence to support the claim. Otherwise your claim is made up. If that needs to be explained to you then Itās no wonder youāre posting Reddit threads of screenshots with no sources as a source for your claims.
My source is the comment section of every post on lemmy regarding Harris losing. If I share an article claiming the same youāve already primed the argument that itās an establishment democrat straw man while also admitting itās true.
This is how people making bad faith arguments move the goalpost. They make vague statements and when they are proven wrong they say they werenāt talking about that thing you assumed, they were referring to something else. The only way to prevent this is to call it out and make them be specific about their statements.
For that to be applicable to the question, he would have to be the only one that did itā¦ Harris interviewed on Fox News also.
So I guess Iām not missing something, you are.
Iām sure youāre happy to run away without any sources to your claims.
Itās definitionally true that the left says the centrist should move left. Thatās what makes them the left. The actual left analysis over why she lost doesnāt begin and end with wanting her to move left. As I said before, mapping voters out on a right to left spectrum is not an accurate representation of voting preferences. Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney was supposed to appeal to right leaning voters but backfired because it fed the narrative of Harris as a warmonger. Meanwhile Trump was coding himself as anti-war. The fact that Trumpās anti-war signaling was bullshit couldnāt be effectively countered because Harris had aligned herself with right wing war mongers. She damaged herself with the very same right leaning voters that she was trying to appeal to. Likewise with bragging about support from Wall Street and the nationās CEOs. The theory that doing so would appeal to right leaning voters was misguided because populists on the right hate those people. Harris made herself the candidate of the wealthy, the deep state, and the status quo, everything that Trump has successfully branded himself as opposing. The left is used to Democrats leaning right because thatās been a constant since at least Bill Clinton. But Harris making rightward moves that damaged her with right leaning voters was insanity. The Democratic establishment lives in a bubble that hasnāt changed itās modeling since the 90s.
Asking for evidence to a claim is fine, but not when done in bad faith. First of all, I am not the only one here making claims.
Second of all, you are nitpicking half the links I gave, while ignoring what you canāt nitpick. You made no acknowledgement of that Pew study at all. I supplied my proof, and my complaint was for having to cast pearls before swine and the shitty way you went about asking for it without providing any evidence of your own claims, or even arguments as to why your claims should be believed.
As I said, Iāll be happy to find a better link for you on the fundraising map, as soon as you start providing some evidence for your own bald assertions. Itās not going to be a one way street.
Well, you would know bad faith arguments, but thatās hardly applicable in this case. We are talking about how Democrats perform in elections so there is no reasonable ambiguity when I refer to Democrats ādoing betterā. Thatās the last Iām going to say on this dumb side argument.
An interview is not a town hall, and I didnāt just say that Bernie did a town hall on Fox, I linked to the video. Unlike Harrisā interview, the town hall included a right leaning audience that was responding well to left leaning arguments, which directly addressed what you asked me to address.
If you want to move the goalposts and look at just election results, thatās fine. Look into how many voters who split their ticket between AOC and Trump, and what they said when interviewed. You can find your own links until you start supporting your claims with something other than repetition.
No republicans I know have referred to Harris as a warmonger but I have heard complaints from progressives about her stance on Gaza. So your comment implies that her campaigning with Cheney backfired by costing her votes from progressives. Which reinforces what you claim to be an establishment democrat narrative: that an increase amount of progressives didnāt vote for Harris in 2024. So youāre contradicting yourself again.
Again, Iāve only heard complaints from progressives about her stance on the war in Gaza. In my experience republicans only complained about the money being spent in Gaza and Ukraine because they were told that was the cause of inflation.
Since the 90s there have been 9 presidential elections and democrats have won 5 of them. It makes perfect sense for them to continue with at least some of the strategies that have earned them the majority of elections.
How is asking for evidence done in bad faith? By doing so I found out that there was some truth to your claim that people on the further ends of the political spectrum tend to be more engaged.
Also I found out that there was no credibility to your claim that āweā know how to reach people and that democrats canāt be interested.
I pointed out that a screenshot of a heat map with no legend or any of the required information like quantity of donors or quantity of donations posted on Reddit, is not evidence of anything. Thatās not nitpicking. Thatās telling you what you should already know.
The Pew study showed that people furthest left and right on the spectrum were more politically engaged. They defined that as taking more about politics and being more likely to vote. Your claim was that the further left someoneās ideology the more likely they are to vote and vote democrat. I acknowledge the Pew study supports that they are more likely to vote but it doesnāt say they vote democrat, they are just as likely to be voting 3rd party.
What bald assertions are you referring to? I told you why I claimed that progressives didnāt show up to vote for Harris. I acknowledge that it is based on anecdotal evidence. You reinforced that anecdotal evidence by saying itās true.
Yes, this isnāt my first day on the internet. For that reason I am familiar with bad faith arguments. āDoing betterā could imply a better approval rating, more progressive policies, higher voter turnout, winning over more republican voters, winning over more progressive voters, earning more seats in Congress or the house and on and on. I didnāt even put effort into all the different things ādoing betterā could refer to but youāre getting upset because Iām calling out a common tactic in bad faith arguments.
That āright leaning audienceā sure did like his response about trusting scientists when it comes to corona virus and climate change. So the opposite of how a right leaning audience would respond. I live in a red state and there were political ads at this time of politicians killing Dr. Fauci. Those politicians won. This audience is far from āright leaningā.
Even Fox Newsās Bret Baier Admits Harris Outsmarted Him in Interview
None of this supports your claim that progressives know how to win over the disengaged voters in the middle of the ideological spectrum.
This supports my point about the Pew study you shared: the farthest left voters are more likely to vote, just not necessarily for democrats.
Which brings us full circle back to my original point. A remarkable amount of progressives didnāt vote for Harris.
Split ticket voters offer some bracing lessons for the Democratic Party
Thereās the evidence to support the claim.
You still havenāt supported your original claims.