malchior wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 02, 2019 3:50 pm
ImLawBoy wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:23 pm
malchior wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:49 am
hepcat wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:41 am
Oh, don't get me wrong. The clear winner in the "worst extremism" department can be found in the GOP. I'm just saying it also exists in the liberal spectrum. I think to deny that is to risk alienating people who feel like they don't have a home if they lean more centrist.
Yeah - I get that but I also feel like you have to frame the discussion right. Old white men getting turned off by progressive speech? I don't actually think it is a big factor since they are already on the crazy train in huge numbers.
The Dems need to win over a bunch of the "middle" to be sure but a lot of data suggest the middle agrees with them. The problem is the mainstream Dems can't seem to communicate this consistently.
The italics and bold
part is likely wrong and it's a dangerous attitude. I shared an anecdote in another thread about the two old white men I had lunch with the other day, and they were both very put off by Harris's attacks on Biden.
This is the difference between an anecdote and data
. It is a little hard to parse out but white, males 55+ are more likely to be self-identified Conservatives and they approve of Trump in very high numbers (80+%). Is it all of them? No but they have a very strong affinity compared to other groups.
I'm surprised you think I don't know the difference between anecdote and data, since both times I used the example I made clear that I was using anecdotal evidence. Data is, of course, important, and I appreciate you providing it. It's pretty complex - is your data showing that 80+% of the self-identified Conservatives approve of Trump, or that 80+% of white males 55+ approve of Trump? I'm guessing the former, but that's too much info for me to rummage through right now. Also, what are the figures on self-described Moderate white males 55+? Those are also potential cusp voters.
malchior wrote:That said it is true that "writing them off" is not the best course but they are the group you have to factor as being the worst investment in time and resources now (and eventually long-term as well).
They may be the worst investment, but given the low margins of victory in key states, it's still a group that would be helpful to win over or keep in the flock.
malchior wrote: Also I'll point out that why they were put off is a pretty complex equation on its own that also points to them being a bad place to put a bet in for a *black* *woman*.
It's a complex equation, but these guys are not idiots. They're self-aware, and they know that race and gender may have played a factor. I guess the question is whether Harris could have gotten her point across in a way that didn't risk alienating these types of voters? I don't know the answer. I'm hoping you're right about this being an early thing to get it out of the way if she does end up as the nominee. Plus, going after Trump in the same way is much less likely to have the same backlash as going after Biden that way.
malchior wrote:Edit: Just to be clear I'm not a Harris booster. I'm a Mayor Pete fan but I recognize he has a 0% chance because he has very, very long odds at winning the black vote.
I'm neither particularly for or against Harris, and I didn't have a problem with Harris's approach in the debate - I thought it was actually a strong moment, and I'd love to see Biden out of there. I went with Warren in this poll, but I'm still persuadable.
We had subs. It was crazy