2024 Presidential Election | ELECTION DAY 2024

[Paine]

And also, maybe Progressives can find a way to voice those concerns without actually threatening to take their ball and go home?

Progressives have tried to do that time after time. There’s always an excuse as to why progressive policy proposals aren’t being adopted. Now progressives are being sidelined for the Cheneys?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I’m voting for Harris. If she loses, it won’t be the fault of progressives any more than it is the fault of the Harris campaign for not engaging progressives.

In fact, if she loses, we should immediately question the strategy of trying to peel off suburban conservative voters. That strategy failed once already in 2016. Progressives were also blamed for that loss though.

Somehow, no matter the outcome, it’s progressives’ fault. This tires people out who would otherwise be a reliably Democratic bloc.

 

[05C40]

The people who read the headline of an article about progressives possibly not voting for Harris and have a knee jerk reaction of preemptive blame for progressives should Harris lose.

The article is just good intentioned people warning that it might not be a wise strategy, in terms of turning out the base, to be amplifying Liz Cheney in the waning days of the election.

I think progressives in the party should be allowed to voice these criticisms without people saying the same shit over and over again about sucking it up or being an adult.

Or, alternatively, maybe I am older than you and I'm sick and tired of "holier than thou" progressives thinking their feces doesn't sink because they refuse to compromise on anything. And such refusal is based on their self-perception that they are morally and intellectually superior to riffraff such as me because of how I talk and that I believe that compromise is not an evil that dooms every society that practices it. And further, if imbeciles like me would just do as I was told by my betters, everything would be better. I have neither use nor time for the high and mighty who deem compromise as being unworthy of someone of their moral and intellectual superiority.

 

[Paine]

Or, alternatively, maybe I am older than you and I'm sick and tired of "holier than thou" progressives thinking their feces doesn't sink because they refuse to compromise on anything. And such refusal is based on their self-perception that they are morally and intellectually superior to riffraff such as me because of how I talk and that I believe that compromise is not an evil that dooms every society that practices it. And further, if imbeciles like me would just do as I was told by my betters, everything would be better. I have neither use nor time for the high and mighty who deem compromise as being unworthy of someone of their moral and intellectual superiority.

Progressives aren’t monolithic. I’d like to think that I’m not like that, and the majority of progressives I know aren’t. The kinds of people that you’re describing are an extreme vocal minority.

As a progressive, I associate the kind of attitude you’re distributing much more with smug liberal know-it-alls anyways.

 

[farce©]

My wife is at the Obama rally in Uptown Charlotte tonight. So far she has texted me that Eric Holder, Josh Stein, and Roy Cooper were speaking and saying Obama was next after Cooper.

 

[WaynetheDrain]

Progressives have tried to do that time after time. There’s always an excuse as to why progressive policy proposals aren’t being adopted. Now progressives are being sidelined for the Cheneys?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I’m voting for Harris. If she loses, it won’t be the fault of progressives any more than it is the fault of the Harris campaign for not engaging progressives.

In fact, if she loses, we should immediately question the strategy of trying to peel off suburban conservative voters. That strategy failed once already in 2016. Progressives were also blamed for that loss though.

Somehow, no matter the outcome, it’s progressives’ fault. This tires people out who would otherwise be a reliably Democratic bloc.

First of all, nobody is "sidelining" progressives. That's your inherent progressive low self-esteem mindset taking hold again. Always the victim with you guys. Kamala has to make up some of the Biden coalition from 2020 that peeled off, particularly in black and latino voters. She does that by lessening Trump's margins in the red areas, and adding to her current coalition with disaffected moderate Republicans and independents. That's just smart politics. Her coalition will hopefully make up in breadth what it lacks in depth from 2020.

Second, in regards to the Cheney's endorsement, please list all of the concessions Kamala had to agree to in order to get that endorsement. Same with numerous other Republicans who have endorsed her. List all the ways she had to compromise on her core beliefs in order to appease those people.

I'll wait...

That's right, those endorsements came free, with no concessions, and no pulling back on her Democratic ideals. Those Republicans simply see Trump for what he is, and understand the inherent danger that he poses needs to be eliminated before they can ever hope to get their party back. Kamala is quite capable of accepting their endorsements while still sticking with her ideals.

You want our country to become more progressive? I'm going to let you in on a little secret how that happens. It doesn't happen by nominating a pure progressive candidate. That's the quickest way to get you crushed in an election. The majority of voters in this country still skew moderate. They want normal, don't rock the boat candidates. You can't run a progressive and expect to capture those folks. What you CAN do is back the Democratic candidates that are nominated, and then use your influence within your caucus to push for progressive policies in a piecemeal approach. I say that as someone who leans more progressive the older I get. I LIKE progressive policies. I want more of them. But they need to be introduced slowly. A bit at a time. Give the citizens of this country a chance to experience them working to make their lives better.

A perfect example of this is the ACA. The first iterations of it were EXTREMELY progressive for the time. So much so that many people were scared to death of it. So much so that they had to strip a lot of stuff out of it to make it more digestible just to get through Congress, which it barely did. Remember how much anger there was over the ACA? 15 years later, and now two-thirds of the country is in favor of it. During the time the ACA was cementing itself as popular policy in the U.S., you know what else was becoming a more a popular idea? Universal Healthcare. Medicare For All. The majority of the country now believe that the government should be responsible for providing healthcare for its citizens, and Medicare For All has an approval rating in the high 60's. This acceptance of socialized healthcare probably doesn't happen without the baby steps taken with the ACA.

Now quick...name the most progressive president we've had since FDR.

I'll wait...

His name is Joe Biden. He shouldn't be labelled as a "progressive," but he is legislatively the most successfully progressive president we've had in some time. He ran as a moderate "bridge" candidate, which is why he beat Trump in 2020. Had he run as a pure progressive like Sanders or Warren, he'd have been trounced, just like they would have been. Once in the White House, he surrounded himself with competent people, many of whom believe in a progressive agenda, and many of whom he listened to in enacting progressive policies. American Recovery Act, Build Back Better, Infrastructure Investment Act, Chips Act, gun control legislation, his various attempts at student loan forgiveness...etc.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Kamala will show the same willingness to adopt progressive ideals, do you? But the first thing she needs to do is win the election. To do that, she needs to lean into an approach that appeals to the most Americans, not one that will be demonized by half the country.

Incremental change, one policy at a time, is how policies STICK. That's how you shift the country left. Or, you can just complain that Democrat Nominee So-And-So isn't progressive enough all the time on every single issue, and sit it out for an election cycle. Then you get four more years of movement back to the right.

 

[05C40]

First of all, nobody is "sidelining" progressives. That's your inherent progressive low self-esteem mindset taking hold again. Always the victim with you guys. Kamala has to make up some of the Biden coalition from 2020 that peeled off, particularly in black and latino voters. She does that by lessening Trump's margins in the red areas, and adding to her current coalition with disaffected moderate Republicans and independents. That's just smart politics. Her coalition will hopefully make up in breadth what it lacks in depth from 2020.

Second, in regards to the Cheney's endorsement, please list all of the concessions Kamala had to agree to in order to get that endorsement. Same with numerous other Republicans who have endorsed her. List all the ways she had to compromise on her core beliefs in order to appease those people.

I'll wait...

That's right, those endorsements came free, with no concessions, and no pulling back on her Democratic ideals. Those Republicans simply see Trump for what he is, and understand the inherent danger that he poses needs to be eliminated before they can ever hope to get their party back. Kamala is quite capable of accepting their endorsements while still sticking with her ideals.

You want our country to become more progressive? I'm going to let you in on a little secret how that happens. It doesn't happen by nominating a pure progressive candidate. That's the quickest way to get you crushed in an election. The majority of voters in this country still skew moderate. They want normal, don't rock the boat candidates. You can't run a progressive and expect to capture those folks. What you CAN do is back the Democratic candidates that are nominated, and then use your influence within your caucus to push for progressive policies in a piecemeal approach. I say that as someone who leans more progressive the older I get. I LIKE progressive policies. I want more of them. But they need to be introduced slowly. A bit at a time. Give the citizens of this country a chance to experience them working to make their lives better.

A perfect example of this is the ACA. The first iterations of it were EXTREMELY progressive for the time. So much so that many people were scared to death of it. So much so that they had to strip a lot of stuff out of it to make it more digestible just to get through Congress, which it barely did. Remember how much anger there was over the ACA? 15 years later, and now two-thirds of the country is in favor of it. During the time the ACA was cementing itself as popular policy in the U.S., you know what else was becoming a more a popular idea? Universal Healthcare. Medicare For All. The majority of the country now believe that the government should be responsible for providing healthcare for its citizens, and Medicare For All has an approval rating in the high 60's. This acceptance of socialized healthcare probably doesn't happen without the baby steps taken with the ACA.

Now quick...name the most progressive president we've had since FDR.

I'll wait...

His name is Joe Biden. He shouldn't be labelled as a "progressive," but he is legislatively the most successfully progressive president we've had in some time. He ran as a moderate "bridge" candidate, which is why he beat Trump in 2020. Had he run as a pure progressive like Sanders or Warren, he'd have been trounced, just like they would have been. Once in the White House, he surrounded himself with competent people, many of whom believe in a progressive agenda, and many of whom he listened to in enacting progressive policies. American Recovery Act, Build Back Better, Infrastructure Investment Act, Chips Act, gun control legislation, his various attempts at student loan forgiveness...etc.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Kamala will show the same willingness to adopt progressive ideals, do you? But the first thing she needs to do is win the election. To do that, she needs to lean into an approach that appeals to the most Americans, not one that will be demonized by half the country.

Incremental change, one policy at a time, is how policies STICK. That's how you shift the country left. Or, you can just complain that Democrat Nominee So-And-So isn't progressive enough all the time on every single issue, and sit it out for an election cycle. Then you get four more years of movement back to the right.

I agree with everything you say and appreciate the conciseness and clarity in your post. Just one thing to add. I am on a Medicare Advantage plan via Aetna. This is by far the best and cheapest, for me, medical insurance policy I have ever had in my life. Medicare for all would would quickly transform itself into a fundamental American right that people would wonder why it took so long to achieve.

 

[Paine]

First of all, nobody is "sidelining" progressives. That's your inherent progressive low self-esteem mindset taking hold again. Always the victim with you guys. Kamala has to make up some of the Biden coalition from 2020 that peeled off, particularly in black and latino voters. She does that by lessening Trump's margins in the red areas, and adding to her current coalition with disaffected moderate Republicans and independents. That's just smart politics. Her coalition will hopefully make up in breadth what it lacks in depth from 2020.

Second, in regards to the Cheney's endorsement, please list all of the concessions Kamala had to agree to in order to get that endorsement. Same with numerous other Republicans who have endorsed her. List all the ways she had to compromise on her core beliefs in order to appease those people.

I'll wait...

That's right, those endorsements came free, with no concessions, and no pulling back on her Democratic ideals. Those Republicans simply see Trump for what he is, and understand the inherent danger that he poses needs to be eliminated before they can ever hope to get their party back. Kamala is quite capable of accepting their endorsements while still sticking with her ideals.

You want our country to become more progressive? I'm going to let you in on a little secret how that happens. It doesn't happen by nominating a pure progressive candidate. That's the quickest way to get you crushed in an election. The majority of voters in this country still skew moderate. They want normal, don't rock the boat candidates. You can't run a progressive and expect to capture those folks. What you CAN do is back the Democratic candidates that are nominated, and then use your influence within your caucus to push for progressive policies in a piecemeal approach. I say that as someone who leans more progressive the older I get. I LIKE progressive policies. I want more of them. But they need to be introduced slowly. A bit at a time. Give the citizens of this country a chance to experience them working to make their lives better.

A perfect example of this is the ACA. The first iterations of it were EXTREMELY progressive for the time. So much so that many people were scared to death of it. So much so that they had to strip a lot of stuff out of it to make it more digestible just to get through Congress, which it barely did. Remember how much anger there was over the ACA? 15 years later, and now two-thirds of the country is in favor of it. During the time the ACA was cementing itself as popular policy in the U.S., you know what else was becoming a more a popular idea? Universal Healthcare. Medicare For All. The majority of the country now believe that the government should be responsible for providing healthcare for its citizens, and Medicare For All has an approval rating in the high 60's. This acceptance of socialized healthcare probably doesn't happen without the baby steps taken with the ACA.

Now quick...name the most progressive president we've had since FDR.

I'll wait...

His name is Joe Biden. He shouldn't be labelled as a "progressive," but he is legislatively the most successfully progressive president we've had in some time. He ran as a moderate "bridge" candidate, which is why he beat Trump in 2020. Had he run as a pure progressive like Sanders or Warren, he'd have been trounced, just like they would have been. Once in the White House, he surrounded himself with competent people, many of whom believe in a progressive agenda, and many of whom he listened to in enacting progressive policies. American Recovery Act, Build Back Better, Infrastructure Investment Act, Chips Act, gun control legislation, his various attempts at student loan forgiveness...etc.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Kamala will show the same willingness to adopt progressive ideals, do you? But the first thing she needs to do is win the election. To do that, she needs to lean into an approach that appeals to the most Americans, not one that will be demonized by half the country.

Incremental change, one policy at a time, is how policies STICK. That's how you shift the country left. Or, you can just complain that Democrat Nominee So-And-So isn't progressive enough all the time on every single issue, and sit it out for an election cycle. Then you get four more years of movement back to the right.

Wayne, I think you just needed to get all that out of your system. Because you know and I know that’s not the first time I’ve heard any of that.

No matter how many times you say it, it’s not going to change the minds of progressives who are more jaded with the process/system than me.

Needless to say, I disagree with your point about Harris having to concede nothing to get right-wing endorsements. If it was Trump vs Bernie Sanders, would Cheney be endorsing Sanders? I highly doubt it.

Save your smoke for conservatives if Harris doesn’t win. Progressives will be here fighting alongside liberals whether it’s a Trump or Harris admin. I don’t know where the Nikki Haley Republicans and the Cheneys will be.

 

[statboy2]

But I don't think the deaths were randomly distributed. When I looked at this, I specifically noted Wisconsin having a high proportion of deaths and a high partisan skew of them post Election Day. I think I remember an estimate of 5-10K in WI. Probably not enough to make a difference but who knows.

To me, the point of this isn't to blame Covid but to assess the likelihood that the recall vote models are good. This is another strike against those models. I don't know how much difference it would make in the model.

This makes sense because If I remember the literature correctly there was not a statistically significant difference in Florida but there was in Ohio. That doesn’t mean there’s an electorally significant difference in Ohio of course, just that more Republicans died from Covid than Democrats after the vaccine became available that can’t be attributed to random chance (not telling you that, just in case anyone else is confused what I mean by statistical significance)

 

[StrangePackage]

Wayne, I think you just needed to get all that out of your system. Because you know and I know that’s not the first time I’ve heard any of that.

No matter how many times you say it, it’s not going to change the minds of progressives who are more jaded with the process/system than me.

Needless to say, I disagree with your point about Harris having to concede nothing to get right-wing endorsements. If it was Trump vs Bernie Sanders, would Cheney be endorsing Sanders? I highly doubt it.

Save your smoke for conservatives if Harris doesn’t win. Progressives will be here fighting alongside liberals whether it’s a Trump or Harris admin. I don’t know where the Nikki Haley Republicans and the Cheneys will be.

All the leftists I know spend twice the effort fighting liberals that they do fighting conservatives. The only time leftists ever fight anyone other than Democrats is when Nazis are in the streets.

Y'all could show up before then, but it offends your delicate principles.

 

[nycfan]

 

[Paine]

All the leftists I know spend twice the effort fighting liberals that they do fighting conservatives. The only time leftists ever fight anyone other than Democrats is when Nazis are in the streets.

Y'all could show up before then, but it offends your delicate principles.

All the liberals I know spend twice the effort fighting leftists than they do fighting conservatives.

 

[BillyL]

For myself, all I can say is I am impressed . . !
Thank you to all that signed that letter !
May God Bless you all.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

Progressives have tried to do that time after time. There’s always an excuse as to why progressive policy proposals aren’t being adopted. Now progressives are being sidelined for the Cheneys?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I’m voting for Harris. If she loses, it won’t be the fault of progressives any more than it is the fault of the Harris campaign for not engaging progressives.

In fact, if she loses, we should immediately question the strategy of trying to peel off suburban conservative voters. That strategy failed once already in 2016. Progressives were also blamed for that loss though.

Somehow, no matter the outcome, it’s progressives’ fault. This tires people out who would otherwise be a reliably Democratic bloc.

If she loses, I'm not sure questioning any strategy is going to matter, because I'm not at all sure that there will be a presidential election in 2028, or at least one that isn't rigged in advance, much like national elections in Hungary are now for Orban.

 

[Paine]

If she loses, I'm not sure questioning any strategy is going to matter, because I'm not at all sure that there will be a presidential election in 2028, or at least one that isn't rigged in advance, much like national elections in Hungary are now for Orban.

If not, then I’d be looking to the leftists for a resistance movement before I ever looked to the liberals.

 

[statboy2]

For myself, all I can say is I am impressed . . !
Thank you to all that signed that letter !
May God Bless you all.

I fear that makes the average American less like to vote for Harris. We hate experts it seems

 

[Mulberry Heel]

I agree with everything you say and appreciate the conciseness and clarity in your post. Just one thing to add. I am on a Medicare Advantage plan via Aetna. This is by far the best and cheapest, for me, medical insurance policy I have ever had in my life. Medicare for all would would quickly transform itself into a fundamental American right that people would wonder why it took so long to achieve.

Which is why Republicans will fight it tooth and nail with much greater vigor than they even did Obamacare. Obamacare was actually based on a GOP program once promoted by Mitt Romney, of all people, and Republicans fought it fiercely and claimed it was socialized medicine and all the rest. And Trump has sworn that if he's elected again he'll destroy it this time for sure.

So if the GOP is that threatened by Obamacare, they'll fight Medicare-for-all with every resource and lie and tactic and money that they have left. And it all will be to oppose a program that in places like Australia has worked extremely well. And a big part of the problem, imo, is that there are simply too many people in this country that see healthcare as a privilege of being employed, and not as a human right. Looking back, we're extremely lucky that Medicaid got passed.

 

[farce©]

So my wife comes home from the Obama rally and said waiting in line was very “Taylor Swift-esque” as people were exchanging bracelets and stickers. She was very unprepared for that, but she did bring home this sticker that someone gave her…

 

[SnoopRob]

All the liberals I know spend twice the effort fighting leftists than they do fighting conservatives.

This is absolute bullshit. Liberals are the ones who are working to get Kamala elected and progressives are the ones threatening to stay home/vote 3rd party in a way that assists Trump.

If you don't want liberals to think poorly of you, then do everything you can to defeat conservatives and elect liberals.

 

[Paine]

This is absolute bullshit. Liberals are the ones who are working to get Kamala elected and progressives are the ones threatening to stay home/vote 3rd party in a way that assists Trump.

If you don't want liberals to think poorly of you, then do everything you can to defeat conservatives and elect liberals.

Plenty of progressives are also working to get Kamala elected. Which again, makes it easy to see why a lot of progressives get bitter when they’re blamed for liberals losing.

 

[SnoopRob]

Plenty of progressives are also working to get Kamala elected. Which again, makes it easy to see why a lot of progressives get bitter when they’re blamed for liberals losing.

I'm pretty sure it's not liberals who are putting out warnings from progressives saying that progressives might not support Kamala.

If progressives want liberals to take them seriously, then share your concerns in private and publicly do everything you can to support Kamala's election bid.

But you can't be threatening the Democratic POTUS campaign less than 2 weeks before the election and then be bitter when those threats are taken seriously. Why should liberals take you seriously as a minority group among left-of-center voters when you can't even do everything you can get left-of-center candidates elected?

If Trump and the dangers he represents to the country, much less progressive ideals, aren't enough to get progressives on board for a mere liberal candidate, then I have no idea why liberals shouldn't blame progressives for the repercussions of progressives making perfect the enemy of good.