It sounds like youâre coming at this from the perspective that Trump voters like Trump because his fascist talk makes them feel like heâll wield Presidential power to âfight the evils of the people at the top of societyâ, but I disagree. I think for a lot of Trump voters it boils down to at least one of a few feelings:
a) abortion is murder, Iâll vote against the side that clearly supports abortion more
b) Immigrants and LGBTQ+ people are the devil
c) I want to afford the stuff I wish I had, and Trump will help me do that.
d) Every left-leaning person of power of any kind is a demon and should get whatâs coming to them
IMO only the MAGA voters care about d). The average non-MAGA-but-still-Trump voter doesnât care really care about âshadowy figuresâ âgetting whatâs coming to themâ, they just want better lives for themselves as in c).
To sway those people, she doesnât have to provide a âdiametrically opposed worldviewâ to fascism - that makes it sound like what you think she needs is to run on creating a completely different way of living. It just means appealing to those in the camp of a), b) and/or c). Swaying believers of a) or b) without actually appealing to anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, or anti-LGBTQ+ reform is tricky, and tackling c) comes down to her positioning herself as the better candidate economically, but people in that camp have varied ideas on whatâs best for the economy, so thatâs tricky too.
But regardless, everyone who cares about the election and isnât already in any of those camps isnât gonna vote for Trump anyway, no matter how Harris campaigns.
I appreciate the sources but câmon dude, you could at least format stuff a bit.
First off, to your immigration sources: theyâd support a claim like âDemocrats are appealing to conservatives on immigration policyâ, not âDemocrats ran to the right of fascists on militarizing the borderâ. Thatâs a BS exaggeration.
To your link to Harrisâ interview: She was asked if she trans people should have broad gender-affirming care access. Her answer was âI believe that people, as the law states, even on this issue about federal law, that that is a decision that doctors will make in terms of what is medically necessary. Iâm not going to put myself in a position of a doctorâ. Thatâs a 2-for-1 answer - âdecisions should be left to doctors and patientsâ + âTo any conservatives listening, thatâs not just my belief, thatâs the fucking lawâ. Saying âShe just got on national TV and refused to support trans rightsâ is completely inaccurate.
To your economic sources: sure, those are food for thought. Hereâre some more:
Nobel Laureate Letter of endorsement for Harrisâ Economic Plan Perspective of former US Treasury Chief Economist Perspective by Economic Professor at University of Regensburg Perspective by NHC Perspectives of various other economists
Her implementation of the plan will matter more than whatâs on paper, but thatâs true of virtually any other economic plan she could propose. In any case âsheâs not going to meaningfully redistribute wealthâ is still a matter of what you define as âmeaningfulâ, and I assert that your definition is different from that of the average middle American.
To your climate sources: All this is saying is that drilling may likely go up under Harris. If that were all that mattered, I bet youâd say Biden âisnât committed to climate changeâ either, since oil went up under him too. And Iâd disagree, because what matters isnât just reducing dirty energy production, itâs about accelerating clean energy production. So again, BS exaggeration.
> What has she offered besides vague rhetoric on this? Is she going to end the fillibuster to restore abortion access? Is she going to reign in the extremest Supreme Court? Are they finding creative solutions with the FDA to regulate mifepristone? Will she proactively use the powers of the presidency to save lifes or is she going to talk about how important it is to codify Roe and then never do it?
What a loaded last question. âAnd never do itâ like sheâll choose not to sign roe codification into law if given the chance.
Yes, I know thatâs probably not what you meant, but your only legitimate questions are the filibuster question and the âreigning in questionâ (The FDA already approves mifepristone, expanding approval doesnât mean jack if the SC knocks it down).
To both those statements, to your entire post as a whole, and to this little quote in particular:
> Youâre missing the point. Its NOT ENOUGH to be marginally better than Trump. You need to present a coherent alternative worldview, which she is failing to do by running to the center and saying as little as possible.
I say: youâre the one missing the point, by ignoring the context of the thread you started. You opened with your opinion on why Trumpâs fascism appeals to people, and you claim she has to give an âalternate worldviewâ to turn people away from that.
You canât seriously think Harris could sway those people by talking about ending the filibuster, or reigning in the SCOTUS. Nor will she sway those people by talking more strongly about resolving the climate crisis, about protecting trans rights, about supporting abortion, about chilling out on illegal immigrants, etc. There is practically no one who wants her to take stronger left-leaning stances on all those things AND will vote for Trump instead. I only say âpracticallyâ because if the odds of that were say, 1:100mil, then hey, maybe a couple voters will do that. Everybody else? Not bought into Trump at all.
If you really do honestly feel Harris needs to go way farther left, then youâre just projecting what YOU want onto the people who are okay with Trumpâs fascism.