2024 Presidential Election | ELECTION DAY 2024

[nycfan]

Little unsolicited background here but I am a lifelong conservative (fiscally not socially) who until about 12-15 years ago voted pretty much along party lines. However, within that time period I became disillusioned with the Republican party due to what I call bible thumpers and their desire to spend more time in people's bedrooms than on national policies.

With that said, I went to the Trump event yesterday in Mint Hill not because he's even remotely getting my vote but more for reasons along the lines of what I told some of my employees who know I'm no fan of his..."when the circus comes to town, you go see the clowns even if you don't like them." Had VIP access so I was only about 20 feet from him. Yes, his hands really are that tiny but I digress.

Towards the end of the speech he confirmed why I've moved further away from the Republican party. All his talk of the economy, Iran trying to kill him, bringing manufacturing back into the country, etc. elicited cheers from the crowd; however, the absolute loudest cheers (and I mean not even close) was when he talked about getting CRT out of the classroom, and transgenders, and no men in women's sports. The damn place went crazy. I just can't anymore. It's fucking disgusting. Leave people the fuck alone and focus on running the damn country instead of who people want to sleep with.

Aaron Rupar, who posts clips of almost every Trump rally, has frequently reported the same thing — that anti-Trans statement in particular consistently get the biggest roar of approval from MAGA crowds.

 

[superrific]

Aaron Rupar, who posts clips of almost every Trump rally, has frequently reported the same thing — that anti-Trans statement in particular consistently get the biggest roar of approval from MAGA crowds.

Back when liberals started going all-in on trans rights, this was exactly what I was afraid of. I feared that liberals were walking into a right-wing trap. And I think my fears are coming to fruition. This election would be very different -- and Dems would be in a much better place -- if trans was not an issue.

I get that it's a really tough issue. Balancing political expedience and moral principle is hard, because both are important and so often in conflict. As LBJ said when signing the Civil Rights Act, "we're going to lose the South for a generation." And he did it, because it was the right thing to do -- in part because there were so many black people suffering so much from a cruel system.

But let's change the calculus a bit. Suppose Jim Crow wasn't aimed at black people, but rather albinos. That wouldn't make Jim Crow any less wrong. But I would think it should change the political calculus a bit. If we could end discrimination without cost, of course we would do it. But if someone told you, "if we sign this legislation protecting albinos, the result will be that the right to abortion will disappear and thousands upon thousands of women will suffer greatly," wouldn't that change how you think about that albino legislation?

Trans people are more common than albinos, but they are still a very small minority. Liberals are coming to the defense of a political pariah group. That's electorally unwise. If trans rights are what puts Trump back in the White House, was it a good idea to have taken on that fight in that way? It seems like the outcome is worse for everyone, except the MAGAs.

 

[roostra]

Back when liberals started going all-in on trans rights, this was exactly what I was afraid of. I feared that liberals were walking into a right-wing trap. And I think my fears are coming to fruition. This election would be very different -- and Dems would be in a much better place -- if trans was not an issue.

I get that it's a really tough issue. Balancing political expedience and moral principle is hard, because both are important and so often in conflict. As LBJ said when signing the Civil Rights Act, "we're going to lose the South for a generation." And he did it, because it was the right thing to do -- in part because there were so many black people suffering so much from a cruel system.

But let's change the calculus a bit. Suppose Jim Crow wasn't aimed at black people, but rather albinos. That wouldn't make Jim Crow any less wrong. But I would think it should change the political calculus a bit. If we could end discrimination without cost, of course we would do it. But if someone told you, "if we sign this legislation protecting albinos, the result will be that the right to abortion will disappear and thousands upon thousands of women will suffer greatly," wouldn't that change how you think about that albino legislation?

Trans people are more common than albinos, but they are still a very small minority. Liberals are coming to the defense of a political pariah group. That's electorally unwise. If trans rights are what puts Trump back in the White House, was it a good idea to have taken on that fight in that way? It seems like the outcome is worse for everyone, except the MAGAs.

Look at Kant's thoughts about treating people as means to ends.

Until very recently, this argument would have been true about the LGBTQ community. Supporting them was electorally unwise, until it wasn't. And i would argue that we got the point that it wasn't because we (Democrats) took a stand and supported the community. I am sure there were tangible electoral losses because of this. Sometimes you have to do the right thing, even if there are short term costs.

ETA - I also think we also run the risk of losing internal support as a party if we make these kind of cold, dare i say cynical, decisions. I agree it is a very complicated issue to unravel.

 

[CLT Heel]

Little unsolicited background here but I am a lifelong conservative (fiscally not socially) who until about 12-15 years ago voted pretty much along party lines. However, within that time period I became disillusioned with the Republican party due to what I call bible thumpers and their desire to spend more time in people's bedrooms than on national policies.

With that said, I went to the Trump event yesterday in Mint Hill not because he's even remotely getting my vote but more for reasons along the lines of what I told some of my employees who know I'm no fan of his..."when the circus comes to town, you go see the clowns even if you don't like them." Had VIP access so I was only about 20 feet from him. Yes, his hands really are that tiny but I digress.

Towards the end of the speech he confirmed why I've moved further away from the Republican party. All his talk of the economy, Iran trying to kill him, bringing manufacturing back into the country, etc. elicited cheers from the crowd; however, the absolute loudest cheers (and I mean not even close) was when he talked about getting CRT out of the classroom, and transgenders, and no men in women's sports. The damn place went crazy. I just can't anymore. It's fucking disgusting. Leave people the fuck alone and focus on running the damn country instead of who people want to sleep with.

As someone who was there and as close to him as you said, I have a question for you. Did he appear in person to be more orange than usual? He seemed to have a particularly bad makeup day. How his people follow him looking like that is beyond me.

 

[Calheel]

Back when liberals started going all-in on trans rights, this was exactly what I was afraid of. I feared that liberals were walking into a right-wing trap. And I think my fears are coming to fruition. This election would be very different -- and Dems would be in a much better place -- if trans was not an issue.

I get that it's a really tough issue. Balancing political expedience and moral principle is hard, because both are important and so often in conflict. As LBJ said when signing the Civil Rights Act, "we're going to lose the South for a generation." And he did it, because it was the right thing to do -- in part because there were so many black people suffering so much from a cruel system.

But let's change the calculus a bit. Suppose Jim Crow wasn't aimed at black people, but rather albinos. That wouldn't make Jim Crow any less wrong. But I would think it should change the political calculus a bit. If we could end discrimination without cost, of course we would do it. But if someone told you, "if we sign this legislation protecting albinos, the result will be that the right to abortion will disappear and thousands upon thousands of women will suffer greatly," wouldn't that change how you think about that albino legislation?

Trans people are more common than albinos, but they are still a very small minority. Liberals are coming to the defense of a political pariah group. That's electorally unwise. If trans rights are what puts Trump back in the White House, was it a good idea to have taken on that fight in that way? It seems like the outcome is worse for everyone, except the MAGAs.

Trans are just an easy target. They would do the same with any made up “wokeism” like CRT in the classrooms. That got the loudest applause and it is not even a thing.

I mean Trump’s campaign is almost all about made up threats and fake scary things. If trans people didn’t exist, the campaign would be doing the exact same thing and getting the exact same votes.

The deeper psychological issue is that some people fear change and don’t like feeling like their way of life and values are being disavowed by others. They want to cling to what they know and understand. That is what Trump is latching onto for the applause. Not trans, itself.

 

[superrific]

Look at Kant's thoughts about treating people as means to ends.

Until very recently, this argument would have been true about the LGBTQ community. Supporting them was electorally unwise, until it wasn't. And i would argue that we got the point that it wasn't because we (Democrats) took a stand and supported the community. I am sure there were tangible electoral losses because of this. Sometimes you have to do the right thing, even if there are short term costs.

It's still true about the LGBTQ community in some places. If the Dems stopped defending gay people, they'd still win CA and NY but would probably also coast to victory in MI and GA.

I mean, I expressly said that it's important to do the right thing. But I don't think it's so easy to dismiss the costs that way. Let's take an example. Weimar integrated Jews into German society in a way that had never been done before. Then came Hitler. [yes, I know this is massively oversimplified. I'm using a stylized example for illustrative purposes]. If you were a decisionmaker in Weimar 1922, and you knew that integration would lead to Nazism, what would be the right thing to do? It's not so easy, is it?

This is one of the many reasons why Kant is more or less useless for policy makers. Policy always involves using people as a means to an end. That's inherent in the task. Remember: to the extent that Kant was writing anything related to policy, it was for an audience of one: the Kaiser. Kant's philosophy perhaps works for individuals (I'm not taking sides on that now), but it doesn't work as a philosophy of government.

 

[Paine]

Back when liberals started going all-in on trans rights, this was exactly what I was afraid of. I feared that liberals were walking into a right-wing trap. And I think my fears are coming to fruition. This election would be very different -- and Dems would be in a much better place -- if trans was not an issue.

I get that it's a really tough issue. Balancing political expedience and moral principle is hard, because both are important and so often in conflict. As LBJ said when signing the Civil Rights Act, "we're going to lose the South for a generation." And he did it, because it was the right thing to do -- in part because there were so many black people suffering so much from a cruel system.

But let's change the calculus a bit. Suppose Jim Crow wasn't aimed at black people, but rather albinos. That wouldn't make Jim Crow any less wrong. But I would think it should change the political calculus a bit. If we could end discrimination without cost, of course we would do it. But if someone told you, "if we sign this legislation protecting albinos, the result will be that the right to abortion will disappear and thousands upon thousands of women will suffer greatly," wouldn't that change how you think about that albino legislation?

Trans people are more common than albinos, but they are still a very small minority. Liberals are coming to the defense of a political pariah group. That's electorally unwise. If trans rights are what puts Trump back in the White House, was it a good idea to have taken on that fight in that way? It seems like the outcome is worse for everyone, except the MAGAs.

I don’t think it’s an issue at all personally. Republicans ran hard on the trans issue in 2022 in underperformed, especially the candidates who made it central to their pitch.

 

[superrific]

Trans are just an easy target. They would do the same with any made up “wokeism” like CRT in the classrooms. That got the loudest applause and it is not even a thing.

There's some truth to that, but trans has an import well beyond fads like CRT. I remember reading an article, I think it was Slate, from a liberal who grew up evangelical. She foresaw that the evangelical right would absolutely freak the fuck out about trans being mainstreamed. It's because evangelical culture (and to some extent its theology) depends on the establishment of clear and fixed gender roles. If gender is fluid, then it means that it's not ordained by God, and thus there is no particular reason why it has to be the man who "wears the pants in the family."

 

[superrific]

I don’t think it’s an issue at all personally. Republicans ran hard on the trans issue in 2022 in underperformed, especially the candidates who made it central to their pitch.

I hope you're right. I'm not sure you are, but equally unsure you're not.

 

[lawtig02]

I don't agree about that reality. I would not say she is in excellent shape. Biden in 2020 was in excellent shape. Kamala is in excellent shape relative to Biden 2024, but if the overwhelming majority of variables and markers favor her right now, why are all the election models saying the race is pretty close to a tossup? You're assuming, I think, that the greater Kamala enthusiasm will turn into more Kamala votes, but we don't know that's true.

And as for that asteroid hitting NYC, I give you the impending dockworker strike:

Ports seek order to force dockworkers to bargaining table as strike looms at East and Gulf ports

With a strike deadline looming, the group representing East and Gulf Coast ports is asking a federal agency to make the Longshoremen’s union come to the bargaining table to negotiate a new contract.

apnews.com

I'm trying to find the profile of the head of that union that I just read this morning. That dude DGAF and he improbably has the unliteral authority to call a strike.

I have two somewhat contradictory thoughts in response.

1. I think the models are underestimating Kamala’s odds. Based on all the variables, including but not limited to the polling on which the models mainly rely, I think her odds are more like 75-80%. Not a guarantee by any means, but a very strong favorite.

2. The fact the models have Kamala with a lead with less than 45 days to go is part of the reason I’m so optimistic. Is it more likely that over the next six weeks, Trump will close the gap and pull ahead, or is it more likely that Kamala will maintain or slightly expand her lead? I think the latter is far more likely. We’re not yet at an 8 point lead with a minute remaining in the game, but every day that passes gets us closer. Miracles can happen, but Trump isn’t smart or savvy enough to make them happen 99% of the time.

 

[roostra]

It's still true about the LGBTQ community in some places. If the Dems stopped defending gay people, they'd still win CA and NY but would probably also coast to victory in MI and GA.

I mean, I expressly said that it's important to do the right thing. But I don't think it's so easy to dismiss the costs that way. Let's take an example. Weimar integrated Jews into German society in a way that had never been done before. Then came Hitler. [yes, I know this is massively oversimplified. I'm using a stylized example for illustrative purposes]. If you were a decisionmaker in Weimar 1922, and you knew that integration would lead to Nazism, what would be the right thing to do? It's not so easy, is it?

This is one of the many reasons why Kant is more or less useless for policy makers. Policy always involves using people as a means to an end. That's inherent in the task. Remember: to the extent that Kant was writing anything related to policy, it was for an audience of one: the Kaiser. Kant's philosophy perhaps works for individuals (I'm not taking sides on that now), but it doesn't work as a philosophy of government.

I agree that it is complicated, but if this kind of analytical framework reduces the party to a weathervane that only plays it safe (yes, this is an oversimplification), what are we left with? Couple this with the fact that we can't know the future, as political society is a complicated system, I would like to avoid this type of thinking as much as possible.

As to the Weimar example - we are acting with the benefit of hindsight and one still can't say "But for the Weimar decision on the treatment of Jewish folks, Hitler would not have come to power." I just think that kind of analysis can lead to bad outcomes.

 

[superrific]

I have two somewhat contradictory thoughts in response.

1. I think the models are underestimating Kamala’s odds. Based on all the variables, including but not limited to the polling on watch the models mainly rely, I think her odds are more like 75-80%. Not a guarantee by any means, but a very strong favorite.

2. The fact the models have Kamala with a lead with less than 45 days to go is part of the reason I’m so optimistic. Is it more likely that over the next six weeks, Trump will close the gap and pull ahead, or is it more likely that Kamala will maintain or slightly expand her lead? I think the latter is far more likely. We’re not yet at an 8 point lead with a minute remaining in the game, but every day that passes gets us closer. Miracles can happen, but Trump isn’t smart or savvy enough to make them happen 99% of the time.

What if the race just stays as it is?

I think if the race stays as it is, the models will start to register a higher probability for Kamala because they will be modeling less uncertainty. But there is a limit on how high she can go with this polling, and the models are probably the best way to get a sense of that limit -- certainly better than eyeballs.

As someone wrote recently, maybe on Vox, we might have an incredibly close election but a normal sized polling error could turn it into a blowout. Maybe not a landslide, but not exactly close either. Hopefully, the enthusiasm gap that favors Kamala will lead to more turnout, thus mitigating some of the damage if the polls are underestimating Trump by a point or two. But there's a lot we don't know.

I want to be optimistic as you are. I've said before that I suspect the polls are overshooting and now overestimating Trump. Kamala will surely have a better ground game. But the fact is that Kamala is winning by maybe one point in PA, and it's quite difficult for her to get the presidency without it. NC doesn't do the trick. It would have to be NC + NV, which is a tall order in an election where she's losing PA. And that's assuming she keeps MI and WI. I just can't see that as an excellent position.

 

[lawtig02]

What if the race just stays as it is?

I think if the race stays as it is, the models will start to register a higher probability for Kamala because they will be modeling less uncertainty. But there is a limit on how high she can go with this polling, and the models are probably the best way to get a sense of that limit -- certainly better than eyeballs.

As someone wrote recently, maybe on Vox, we might have an incredibly close election but a normal sized polling error could turn it into a blowout. Maybe not a landslide, but not exactly close either. Hopefully, the enthusiasm gap that favors Kamala will lead to more turnout, thus mitigating some of the damage if the polls are underestimating Trump by a point or two. But there's a lot we don't know.

I want to be optimistic as you are. I've said before that I suspect the polls are overshooting and now overestimating Trump. Kamala will surely have a better ground game. But the fact is that Kamala is winning by maybe one point in PA, and it's quite difficult for her to get the presidency without it. NC doesn't do the trick. It would have to be NC + NV, which is a tall order in an election where she's losing PA. And that's assuming she keeps MI and WI. I just can't see that as an excellent position.

If it stays as is, I think Kamala wins. But it can’t really stay as is because (amazingly enough) there’s still a (small) group of undecideds. If that group breaks to Trump, he could win, although it depends on how many of them he gets. If they break to Kamala, she wins comfortably. If they stay home, she probably wins, but it will be very close. I don’t see them breaking to Trump, but I can’t rule out that possibility either.

 

[altoheel]

If the Democrats stopped supporting trans people's rights then they should rightfully just give up and stop existing altogether. It would ruin them for generations. Why would anyone support them, knowing that they'd be willing to abandon their principles the second the worst people in the world, who would not ever vote for them anyway, started making a stink? If you win elections running on a platform that Republicans like, and vote on issues the way Republicans would, why bother to be a Democrat?

 

[superrific]

I agree that it is complicated, but if this kind of analytical framework reduces the party to a weathervane that only plays it safe (yes, this is an oversimplification), what are we left with? Couple this with the fact that we can't know the future, as political society is a complicated system, I would like to avoid this type of thinking as much as possible.

As to the Weimar example - we are acting with the benefit of hindsight and one still can't say "But for the Weimar decision on the treatment of Jewish folks, Hitler would not have come to power." I just think that kind of analysis can lead to bad outcomes.

I think there are two issues here.

1. Your second paragraph is pointing to an empirical consideration -- namely, that the future is unknowable. And you're definitely not wrong here. Going back to that Weimar example, I absolutely could see myself, if put in that position, thinking something along the lines of: "I don't know what will happen in 10 years if I do this. It's out of my control; it will depend enormously on the actions of other people, most of whom I don't know; and even if it knowable in some abstract sense, it's not known to me. I have to do the best thing in my little sphere of influence, and that would be to promote integration."

And this is part of the reason why I characterize my earlier "fear" as a "fear," and the main reason why I don't ever put this point strongly. It's really hard to analyze things counterfactually. Even something seemingly simple, like "if only Pat Sullivan had hit that FT, we wouldn't have needed Chris Webber's fuckup" isn't really correct. We still could have lost that game, in regulation even (as Antonio Davis and the rest of the Pacers know all too well). And so it's really hard to say with confidence that if the liberals hadn't jumped to the defense of trans, the election would be better for us right now. But it's also hard to say that it wouldn't be.

So on the "future is unknowable" point, we're in agreement and it's surely important.

2. On the other hand, we would be irresponsible policy makers if we didn't at least try to predict the future. I mean, that's really what policy is all about. If we pass X law, will Y or Z be the result? Y is good; Z is bad; and the decision often comes down to a prediction of whether Y or Z is better.

Moreover, if the future is unknowable, then perhaps that means we should be considerably less risky in our policy choices. If we don't know whether advocating for trans people will elect Trump or not, then we have to start thinking about magnitude of harms. On one hand, if we do nothing, trans people will be subject to the same sort of discrimination that has existed pretty much everywhere Abrahamic religions have been strong. That's a harm, but let's compare it to the harm of a Trump administration. I would say Trump being elected would be almost infinitely worse. A Trump election means, among other things, that the world will pretty much just give up on fighting climate change. Our only hope will be technologies that remove carbon from the air and water. And that is a far worse outcome than trans kids being depressed. As someone who has battled mental illness all my life, I'm not saying that disparagingly. It's just that depression is manageable; the loss of 1/3 of our arable land is really not.

So I get where you're coming from about the weathervane, but in a democracy that's an essential aspect of politics. Always trying to do the right thing is a great way to make sure that the wrong things always happen. Bill Clinton personally oversaw the execution of Ricky Ray Rector. Perhaps it would have been better, in isolation, for him to grant Rector clemency. But if that decision was integral to him winning the presidency, then the loss of that one life was absolutely the right thing to do. We would have lost Roe for sure, and we'd probably have had back then the same lunatic court we have now.

This is why politics is not a game for the idealistic or the weak of heart.

 

[superrific]

If the Democrats stopped supporting trans people's rights then they should rightfully just give up and stop existing altogether. It would ruin them for generations. Why would anyone support them, knowing that they'd be willing to abandon their principles the second the worst people in the world, who would not ever vote for them anyway, started making a stink? If you win elections running on a platform that Republicans like, and vote on issues the way Republicans would, why bother to be a Democrat?

This can't possibly be correct. There's far more at stake in our politics than the rights of trans people. Platforms have many different planks, For instance, the rights of gay people. And minorities. If we could ensure a Kamala victory by passing a "no trans surgeries anywhere" at the federal level, it would be clearly worth it because the consequences of a Trump victory would a) be terrible for trans people anyway and b) lead to the mass deportations, concentration camps, infinite corruption, destruction of alliances, etc.

In other words, I'm positing an entirely plausible scenario in which the interests of Hispanic people and trans people are in tension or even opposed. Examples like this are extremely common in our history -- gay rights in the 70s and 80s being one of them (i.e. if Dems fully embraced gay people, it would be the end of further progress on civil rights for minorities). And in such an environment, it is just not realistic to say, "Dems have to do the right thing" because there's not a right course of action.

 

[rodoheel]

Back when liberals started going all-in on trans rights, this was exactly what I was afraid of. I feared that liberals were walking into a right-wing trap. And I think my fears are coming to fruition. This election would be very different -- and Dems would be in a much better place -- if trans was not an issue.

I get that it's a really tough issue. Balancing political expedience and moral principle is hard, because both are important and so often in conflict. As LBJ said when signing the Civil Rights Act, "we're going to lose the South for a generation." And he did it, because it was the right thing to do -- in part because there were so many black people suffering so much from a cruel system.

But let's change the calculus a bit. Suppose Jim Crow wasn't aimed at black people, but rather albinos. That wouldn't make Jim Crow any less wrong. But I would think it should change the political calculus a bit. If we could end discrimination without cost, of course we would do it. But if someone told you, "if we sign this legislation protecting albinos, the result will be that the right to abortion will disappear and thousands upon thousands of women will suffer greatly," wouldn't that change how you think about that albino legislation?

Trans people are more common than albinos, but they are still a very small minority. Liberals are coming to the defense of a political pariah group. That's electorally unwise. If trans rights are what puts Trump back in the White House, was it a good idea to have taken on that fight in that way? It seems like the outcome is worse for everyone, except the MAGAs.

I think you're taking the wrong message from this. If it wasn't trans rights, it would be something else - immigrants or CRT or whatever. It's all just a pretext. Conservative voters just have this general feeling that American culture is different than it used to be, and in a worse way - too black/brown. too foreign, too queer, too urban, too oversexed, too whatever. The individual issues are just the scapegoat du jour. if you made the trans issue go "poof" tomorrow, we would still be in exactly in the same place, and the people screeching about trans rights would just be doing the same screeching about a different issue.

 

[rodoheel]

The fact the models have Kamala with a lead with less than 45 days to go is part of the reason I’m so optimistic. Is it more likely that over the next six weeks, Trump will close the gap and pull ahead, or is it more likely that Kamala will maintain or slightly expand her lead? I think the latter is far more likely.

Can you explain why you think this is true? I'm not really seeing what support there is for this idea that Kamala is more likely to see her lead increase than decrease over the coming weeks.

 

[lawtig02]

Can you explain why you think this is true? I'm not really seeing what support there is for this idea that Kamala is more likely to see her lead increase than decrease over the coming weeks.

1. Anyone willing to vote for the human pile of excrement that is Trump has already decided to do so.

2. Kamala is still relatively unknown, and as we get closer to 11/5, the people who pay no attention to politics will eventually start looking at what she’s saying. Her very moderate platform is likely to be reassuring to them.

3. The economy is good. Trump can say it’s terrible all he wants, but the people who aren’t already voting for him can look with their own eyes. It could be better, but it’s good, and that means it’s not likely to be a drag for Kamala with the remaining undecideds.

 

[roostra]

This can't possibly be correct. There's far more at stake in our politics than the rights of trans people. Platforms have many different planks, For instance, the rights of gay people. And minorities. If we could ensure a Kamala victory by passing a "no trans surgeries anywhere" at the federal level, it would be clearly worth it because the consequences of a Trump victory would a) be terrible for trans people anyway and b) lead to the mass deportations, concentration camps, infinite corruption, destruction of alliances, etc.

In other words, I'm positing an entirely plausible scenario in which the interests of Hispanic people and trans people are in tension or even opposed. Examples like this are extremely common in our history -- gay rights in the 70s and 80s being one of them (i.e. if Dems fully embraced gay people, it would be the end of further progress on civil rights for minorities). And in such an environment, it is just not realistic to say, "Dems have to do the right thing" because there's not a right course of action.

I think you can see that, given Democrats have already come out in support of trans rights, if we about-faced and said "Nope, we don't support these folks' rights anymore" that would (a) probably not get back any support we have lost over the issue and (b) alienate a not insubstantial part of existing support within the party.

Again the "If we could ensure a Kamala victory by..." part is something that is not knowable.

In my opinion, there is not that large a step from this kind of reasoning to "Hey let's engage in some voter fraud to swing the election to Harris in a small number of key counties, because the outcome of Trump getting elected would be horrifying and we would only be disenfranchising a relatively small number of citizens" and that type of reasoning further leads in the direction of "Hey, we could shoot this guy and then we have to weigh all the terrible things he will do in office against one life". (I know this is taking it pretty far out towards the logical extreme.) But ends/means arguments are hard to limit once you fully embrace the core idea.