this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
524 points (94.9% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3472 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This is the exact same argument that people we're using to argue that we had to "stick with Biden" as the candidate. And it was so completely and wildly wrong, it almost cost Democrats the entire game before the clock actually started. A bunch of hand-wringing and what-ifs'. If you want to make those arguments, thats fine. Go find the data and show me there is a political cost to a pivot, because I've provided data to say there isn't, and in-fact, not pivoting is costing her the election. You don't get to use speculation or uncertainty as a form of evidence.

The evidence is on my side, not yours. If you want to support your argument, go find any kind of evidence you can, work it up, and give us an evidence backed argument to support that position.

Until then the conclusion is that Harris is leaving voters on the table with her position on Israel Gaza, because thats what the data we have says.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Go find the data and show me there is a political cost to a pivot, because I've provided data to say there isn't, and in-fact, not pivoting is costing her the election.

You provided half the data and are trying to get people to draw meaningful conclusions about it, while refusing to even acknowledge you're working with incomplete data.

I'm just confused why you think you can lay out exactly half of the equation, know that you're not presenting the whole picture, and say with certainty that the data proves you correct.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

exactly half of the equation,

Except its not. It is the whole thing, you just don't like what it has to say.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

So then how many votes do you think she loses from a pivot? How many percentage points? I fully accept that she will gain votes from a segment of the base that may not vote for her otherwise. I am not arguing that at all. I want to know about the other piece you say youve laid out. You've presented all the data, walk us through that piece..

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

So then how many votes do you think she loses from a pivot?

I see one.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The same number we lost when people said Biden voters were going to depart in droves if we swapped the nominee.

0

Goose-egg.

Nada.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Okay we're just going to have to agree to disagree then.

Either way, let's do what we can to push the odds further in her favor, even if you don't think she's going to do it herself. I'll be out canvassing again on Saturday, lots of time to win this thing!