Harris decides on Tim Walz as running mate

[Merrill]

I was asking why sanctuary cities was listed as evidence for supporting open borders, since the two are different.



A list of questions is not evidence.


I would have thought that posts would have already been researched before being offered here as evidence.

So you:

1. Won't answer any questions
2. Won't do any research

but somehow you know I am wrong, even though you don't have any evidence to the contrary?

reminds me of what an epic waste of time it is for me to discuss anything with you and your garbage, dishonest takes

 

[Francis 1928]

That is, I think, an example of over-thinking the issue, stemming from thinking of the election as a race to the finishing line next November when it is a campaign for power over the next four years.

I get what you are saying but Shapiro would have pretty much clinched the win .She worried about her muslim voters and antisemetic voters too. Otherwise why not go with Shapiro?. He would have been a top contender had Joe not endorsed Harris (wich many of us think it was done out of spite for pushing him out of the race).Waltz didnt do so well during the riots .The voting for tampons in the mens bathroom,isnt a good thing either.Now Ill take the beam out of my own eye by saying that Vance was probably not our best choice ,and even go further by saying Trump would not have been my first choice . Matter of fact any candidate(given they have less dirt on them) other than trump would have almost guaranteed a republican win. Roe V Wade case is actually helping democrats because it inspired a record number of woman and liberal men to come out and vote ,preventing the red wave we were expecting in the midterms .You will have that again on your side come November . I think Shapiro and Kelly would have been ultimately a better choice to run . These are just my thoughts ,I am sure the magas would disagree with me. I live in SC .Trump has been to my county in the last several yrs holding rallies , I have not been to one .Im not a maga nor will I ever be. Im purely voting for for what I believe to be the lesser evil.I believe Joes dementia was coming even during the 2020 election.That is why he appeared to be hidden during the race The democrat party should have backed another candidate in my opinion,back then.You wouldnt have Harris ,who will be hammered by ads about the treatment at the border.Regardless of what is true or not true about her failures in that subject ,its out there . She certainly needs to hold more press conferences as well. Get out there and talk. Practice for those debates .

 

[BPPLEE]

I get what you are saying but Shapiro would have pretty much clinched the win .She worried about her muslim voters and antisemetic voters too. Otherwise why not go with Shapiro?. He would have been a top contender had Joe not endorsed Harris (wich many of us think it was done out of spite for pushing him out of the race).Waltz didnt do so well during the riots .The voting for tampons in the mens bathroom,isnt a good thing either.Now Ill take the beam out of my own eye by saying that Vance was probably not our best choice ,and even go further by saying Trump would not have been my first choice . Matter of fact any candidate(given they have less dirt on them) other than trump would have almost guaranteed a republican win. Roe V Wade case is actually helping democrats because it inspired a record number of woman and liberal men to come out and vote ,preventing the red wave we were expecting in the midterms .You will have that again on your side come November . I think Shapiro and Kelly would have been ultimately a better choice to run . These are just my thoughts ,I am sure the magas would disagree with me. I live in SC .Trump has been to my county in the last several yrs holding rallies , I have not been to one .Im not a maga nor will I ever be. Im purely voting for for what I believe to be the lesser evil.I believe Joes dementia was coming even during the 2020 election.That is why he appeared to be hidden during the race The democrat party should have backed another candidate in my opinion,back then.You wouldnt have Harris ,who will be hammered by ads about the treatment at the border.Regardless of what is true or not true about her failures in that subject ,its out there . She certainly needs to hold more press conferences as well. Get out there and talk. Practice for those debates .

I also think Biden's endorsement of Kamala was done in spite, a "screw you" to the ones that forced him out. That's why it took 5 days before Obama endorsed her.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I also think Biden's endorsement of Kamala was done in spite, a "screw you" to the ones that forced him out.

Or, 4 years ago Biden thought she would be a good back-up president, and after working with her for 4 years is convinced she would be a good president.

That's why it took 5 days before Obama endorsed her.

Or, Obama doesn't endorse Democrats in contests with other Democrats on principle to avoid influencing the outcome. He didn't endorse in 2016 until after the primary was settled, or even his own former VP in 2020 until *those* primaries were decided.

 

[Francis 1928]

I also think Biden's endorsement of Kamala was done in spite, a "screw you" to the ones that forced him out. That's why it took 5 days before Obama endorsed her.

many of conservatives including the magas believe that Obama is really the architect of the party at this point . There is a reason why he stayed in town and didnt move back home after his term was up. He admitted to moving a team in there to help with certain plans over a yr ago.That is why we believe that.He is very young still and his wits will be about him for many years to come. Now if I were a liberal , I would be just fine with that .So no matter who the dem potential candidate is, they mostly will answer or be held accountable by him if elected In many of our opinions of course . Im not saying its true, its what we believe.

 

[BCP1928]

many of conservatives including the magas believe that Obama is really the architect of the party at this point . There is a reason why he stayed in town and didnt move back home after his term was up. He admitted to moving a team in there to help with certain plans over a yr ago.That is why we believe that.He is very young still and his wits will be about him for many years to come. Now if I were a liberal , I would be just fine with that .So no matter who the dem potential candidate is, they mostly will answer or be held accountable by him if elected In many of our opinions of course . Im not saying its true, its what we believe.

And it's perfectly natural that he should have some influence on the party. He is the "elder statesman" now, having served two terms as President. He and his wife are still well regarded for their political opinions. He has no power, he just has good ideas that people listen to.

 

[Pommer]

Intetesting outlook on the matter. So you dont think that Shapiro being Jewish had anything to do with her choice? She may have been losing the vote possibly in places like Michigan, where the antisemitism is growing and dominant had she chose him. They even have young white liberals joining those forces.He would have been a better choice in my opinion, considering he didnt lose control of a big riot in his state like Walz of course did.

I think Shapiro demurred (was asked, politely declined), he’s ambitious, but savvy enough to chart his own course to the Presidency in the next decade.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But the math is not reliable, as even the Democrats are aware. Hispanics, for example, tend to social conservatism and would vote Republican (as many do already) if the Republicans were nicer to them. The Democrats know this and are counting on the leopard not changing its spots. But it's inherently a long game. Nobody seriously believes that the Democrats let ten million aliens into the country in order to have them vote illegally in upcoming elections.

While Hispanic and Latino voters, as a whole, would appear to not be as monolithic as other demographic groups, when you drill down into pertinent data (such as country of origin, and which part of said country they live in), it becomes less random.

For instance, immigrants from certain areas of Mexico and Centra America are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. Immigrants from Cuba are the inverse.

Cambridge university did an interesting write up on it (and I'll see if I can find it). But the general theme was that, for Latino and Hispanic Immigrants, voter affiliation can often be determined by area of origin based on which particular set of policies and ideologies they've had a worse experience with in their familial history.

So for example, if you talk to someone from Central America (where countries were exploited out the wazoo in the name of free market capitalism), they'll likely be more receptive to the socially progressive economic policies of democrats. If you talk to a Cuban immigrant who had a really bad run-in with collectivism, they're not going to want to hear anything even resembling the "s-word" (socialism) and will likely be more receptive to the Republican's messaging on economics.

Optics (and vantage point) is everything.

In our particular case, the large influx of undocumented immigrants are coming from the specific countries that would favor the Democrats.

I've once heard someone refer to it, comedically, as "The Jägermeister Effect". When you have a particular bad experience with something, you'll flock to the alternative.

As far as Latino (as a whole) trending toward conservatism, I'd challenge that notion a little bit. Being deeply Catholic doesn't equate to "politically conservative"...there's overlap, but these polling stats as a point of a reference should clear that up.

Among Immigrants of Mexican heritage:
57% support legal abortion
73% believe that controlling gun ownership should be prioritized over individual gun ownership rights
On LGBTQ+ issues, 37% support, 33% hold a neutral stance
Only 54% have a positive view of capitalism

So, I don't think your assertion of "they'd vote for Republicans if Republicans were nicer to them" holds much water.

 

[BCP1928]

While Hispanic and Latino voters, as a whole, would appear to not be as monolithic as other demographic groups, when you drill down into pertinent data (such as country of origin, and which part of said country they live in), it becomes less random.

For instance, immigrants from certain areas of Mexico and Centra America are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. Immigrants from Cuba are the inverse.

Cambridge university did an interesting write up on it (and I'll see if I can find it). But the general theme was that, for Latino and Hispanic Immigrants, voter affiliation can often be determined by area of origin based on which particular set of policies and ideologies they've had a worse experience with in their familial history.

So for example, if you talk to someone from Central America (where countries were exploited out the wazoo in the name of free market capitalism), they'll likely be more receptive to the socially progressive economic policies of democrats. If you talk to a Cuban immigrant who had a really bad run-in with collectivism, they're not going to want to hear anything even resembling the "s-word" (socialism) and will likely be more receptive to the Republican's messaging on economics.

Optics (and vantage point) is everything.

In our particular case, the large influx of undocumented immigrants are coming from the specific countries that would favor the Democrats.

I've once heard someone refer to it, comedically, as "The Jägermeister Effect". When you have a particular bad experience with something, you'll flock to the alternative.

As far as Latino (as a whole) trending toward conservatism, I'd challenge that notion a little bit. Being deeply Catholic doesn't equate to "politically conservative"...there's overlap, but these polling stats as a point of a reference should clear that up.

Among Immigrants of Mexican heritage:
57% support legal abortion
73% believe that controlling gun ownership should be prioritized over individual gun ownership rights
On LGBTQ+ issues, 37% support, 33% hold a neutral stance
Only 54% have a positive view of capitalism

So, I don't think your assertion of "they'd vote for Republicans if Republicans were nicer to them" holds much water.

How do those numbers compare to the US generally?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

How do those numbers compare to the US generally?

They line up pretty closely with the Democratic voter cohort on the gun issue and attitudes toward capitalism, and on the issues of abortion and LGBTQ issues, they'd line up more with the Independents and Moderates.

Obviously everyone is an individual and will prioritize these issues differently.

But the fact that their positions (as a whole) would line up with that of a "just touch left of center Independent", it's not surprising that Latino immigrants actually disproportionately support RFK Jr., compared to other groups, believe it or not

Per Gallup:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – a third-party candidate – gets the support of 24% of Latino registered voters. Support for Kennedy is higher among Latinos than among U.S. voters overall (15%).

 

[BCP1928]

They line up pretty closely with the Democratic voter cohort on the gun issue and attitudes toward capitalism, and on the issues of abortion and LGBTQ issues, they'd line up more with the Independents and Moderates.

Obviously everyone is an individual and will prioritize these issues differently.

But the fact that their positions (as a whole) would line up with that of a "just touch left of center Independent", it's not surprising that Latino immigrants actually disproportionately support RFK Jr., compared to other groups, believe it or not

Per Gallup:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – a third-party candidate – gets the support of 24% of Latino registered voters. Support for Kennedy is higher among Latinos than among U.S. voters overall (15%).

Very interesting. On the whole, it doesn't seem worth the trouble to sneak in ten million aliens to vote illegally in that pattern on those issues. The alternative, waiting 20 years for them to become citizens and have kids to grow up and vote, is equally problematic, Voting patterns change, issues change, Will gun control still be a hot-button issue in 20 years? I hope not. No, Democrats must be trafficking these aliens for at least some other reasons. And, of course, politics aside, they just don't mind if the culture becomes more Hispanic.

 

[Whyayeman]

No, Democrats must be trafficking these aliens for at least some other reasons.

Is this what you really think? Do you equate the Democratic Party with people smuggling? And is that why Harris has Walz as her running mate?

Surely not!

 

[Francis 1928]

I think Shapiro demurred (was asked, politely declined), he’s ambitious, but savvy enough to chart his own course to the Presidency in the next decade.

Ok, That may very be ,we will have to see

 

[KCfromNC]

I believe that Harris made the decision go for Walz, rather then Shapiro , because antisemitism has been growing rapidly in the democrat party .

Might want to brush up on what the rules say about using the correct names for US political parties.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Very interesting. On the whole, it doesn't seem worth the trouble to sneak in ten million aliens to vote illegally in that pattern on those issues. The alternative, waiting 20 years for them to become citizens and have kids to grow up and vote, is equally problematic, Voting patterns change, issues change, Will gun control still be a hot-button issue in 20 years? I hope not. No, Democrats must be trafficking these aliens for at least some other reasons. And, of course, politics aside, they just don't mind if the culture becomes more Hispanic.

To clarify, I don't think the goal is to have them vote illegally, I think the goal is to expedite citizenship so that they can vote legally. (and in 18-20 years, their Children born here will be new voters as well)


While issues do change, for voters of Mexican, Central American, and Dominican descent, it doesn't appear to be a very fast-changing shift (if any at all, it seems to bounce around but stay in the same general range regardless of what the "issue of the day" is)

So for your example of 10 million, if the plan is to expedite citizenship so they can vote legally in the next 5 years (and if their kids become registered voters in 18-20 years), and there's nothing to indicate that it's going to stray much from the 30-year pattern of ~60-70% voting Democratic, then one could certainly see how they could see that as a strategic option.

If it were a case where Mexican and Cuban immigrants were coming in at the same rates, then it'd likely be a wash, politically speaking.

Interestingly enough, republican attitudes on immigration over the years hasn't really moved the needle in that regard. I think we can all agree that on that topic, people like Mitt Romney would've had a much more moderated view on that, and certainly less overt hostile rhetoric than the current high profile members of the GOP. Yet, Romney actually received a little less of the vote from that demographic group than Trump.

Probably the most "friendly" republican to Mexican immigrants (both documented and undocumented) was George W Bush - employing what he branded "compassionate conservatism" with things like Guest Worker programs that expedited citizenship, and citizenship for children who grew up here despite their parents being undocumented. Again, it didn't move the needle as much as you'd expect (if that demographic group was actually conservative on all of the other issues).

If Bush gets 35% running on "Compassionate Conservatism" in 2000, and Trump gets 32% running on "MAGA 2.0"...that would indicate that the immigration issue is just one issue among many where that voter cohort leans left, politically.

 

[BCP1928]

To clarify, I don't think the goal is to have them vote illegally, I think the goal is to expedite citizenship so that they can vote legally. (and in 18-20 years, their Children born here will be new voters as well)


While issues do change, for voters of Mexican, Central American, and Dominican descent, it doesn't appear to be a very fast-changing shift (if any at all, it seems to bounce around but stay in the same general range regardless of what the "issue of the day" is)

View attachment 353136

So for your example of 10 million, if the plan is to expedite citizenship so they can vote legally in the next 5 years (and if their kids become registered voters in 18-20 years), and there's nothing to indicate that it's going to stray much from the 30-year pattern of ~60-70% voting Democratic, then one could certainly see how they could see that as a strategic option.

If it were a case where Mexican and Cuban immigrants were coming in at the same rates, then it'd likely be a wash, politically speaking.

Interestingly enough, republican attitudes on immigration over the years hasn't really moved the needle in that regard. I think we can all agree that on that topic, people like Mitt Romney would've had a much more moderated view on that, and certainly less overt hostile rhetoric than the current high profile members of the GOP. Yet, Romney actually received a little less of the vote from that demographic group than Trump.

Probably the most "friendly" republican to Mexican immigrants (both documented and undocumented) was George W Bush - employing what he branded "compassionate conservatism" with things like Guest Worker programs that expedited citizenship, and citizenship for children who grew up here despite their parents being undocumented. Again, it didn't move the needle as much as you'd expect (if that demographic group was actually conservative on all of the other issues).

If Bush gets 35% running on "Compassionate Conservatism" in 2000, and Trump gets 32% running on "MAGA 2.0"...that would indicate that the immigration issue is just one issue among many where that voter cohort leans left, politically.

I would like to see a little more information from actual Democrats involved in putting over this scheme as to their actual motivation and expectations. What issues do they expect a favorable vote on, and why don't they think the issues will change in importance over time?
The other reason Republicans advance for this conspiracy is that it is an attempt to contaminate the purity of our cultural heritage. Do you think Democrats are actually trying to do that? Or do they just regard it as a welcome by-product?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What issues do they expect a favorable vote on, and why don't they think the issues will change in importance over time?
The other reason Republicans advance for this conspiracy is that it is an attempt to contaminate the purity of our cultural heritage. Do you think Democrats are actually trying to do that? Or do they just regard it as a welcome by-product?

To clarify, political parties don't need a favorable vote on the issues themselves, they just need people to vote for their party (or dislike the other party a little more)

For instance, if you look at the individual attitudes on gun control among republicans. The majority favor universal background checks, waiting periods, and mental health screening as part of the gun buying requirement. And just over half support the concept of gun registration.

That's obviously pretty far away from where the official "party position" on guns is at. However, they vote for republicans for reasons of "gun rights", despite their own position not being all that in-line with the party position.

If you get to select between Bill and Tom, as long as you vote for Tom, Tom doesn't necessarily care if you agree with him on each individual policy or not, because in a republic (indirect democracy), once Tom gets your vote, he can work on advancing whatever policies he wants, you (as an individual voter) won't be having a say on the minutia of federal level policy anyway, that's something he'll be hashing out with his colleagues.

Obviously everyone hopes that a legislator or president will see things their way on as many details of policy as possible, but in a nation with only 2 choices and 300,000,000 people, the odds of most people fitting neatly into one of two buckets is vanishingly rare.



As far as what you mentioned regarding the motivation of the democrats? Obviously the "pack the electorate" is just a theory, but I've yet to hear any alternative theories that are as compelling as that for what reason US-Democrats have for trying to advance immigration policies that are actually to the left of Western European nations (that are often times more progressive as a whole on just about everything compared to us)

The nations that many progressives often claim they want to seek to emulate on a myriad of other policies, have immigration restrictions of their own that US progressives would label "draconian" if pitched by a republican.

 

[BCP1928]

To clarify, political parties don't need a favorable vote on the issues themselves, they just need people to vote for their party (or dislike the other party a little more)

For instance, if you look at the individual attitudes on gun control among republicans. The majority favor universal background checks, waiting periods, and mental health screening as part of the gun buying requirement. And just over half support the concept of gun registration.

That's obviously pretty far away from where the official "party position" on guns is at. However, they vote for republicans for reasons of "gun rights", despite their own position not being all that in-line with the party position.

If you get to select between Bill and Tom, as long as you vote for Tom, Tom doesn't necessarily care if you agree with him on each individual policy or not, because in a republic (indirect democracy), once Tom gets your vote, he can work on advancing whatever policies he wants, you (as an individual voter) won't be having a say on the minutia of federal level policy anyway, that's something he'll be hashing out with his colleagues.

Obviously everyone hopes that a legislator or president will see things their way on as many details of policy as possible, but in a nation with only 2 choices and 300,000,000 people, the odds of most people fitting neatly into one of two buckets is vanishingly rare.

But you don't think the Democrats realize that?

As far as what you mentioned regarding the motivation of the democrats? Obviously the "pack the electorate" is just a theory, but I've yet to hear any alternative theories that are as compelling as that for what reason US-Democrats have for trying to advance immigration policies that are actually to the left of Western European nations (that are often times more progressive as a whole on just about everything compared to us)

There are no other reasons to advocate a more liberal immigration policy than that favored by European nations?

The nations that many progressives often claim they want to seek to emulate on a myriad of other policies, have immigration restrictions of their own that US progressives would label "draconian" if pitched by a republican.

Of course. The genius of America is that when we see a nation doing better in some areas than we are, we can adopt their policy without having to adopt or even approve of any of their other policies.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But you don't think the Democrats realize that?

Yes, which is why I think the "pack the electorate" is the theory that has the strongest case.

The willingness to do it has been established (when several high profile democrats, even a few in the democratic primary advocating for expanding the vote to 16 year olds)

Obviously the motivation would be there to do it if discussing a group that demographically, has favored democrats over republicans by 2:1

There's been a lot of "Demographic conditioning" in terms of who certain groups vote for, and as I noted before, sometimes they're not even remotely close on the issues, it's almost of a form of cognitive dissonance.

I used the example of republicans and gun control earlier.

The moderate democrat views on guns actually more closely align with where the majority of republicans are at on gun control (when asked about the facets, individually), yet they'll vote for the republican if given the choice because it's been instilled that "that's the pro-gun thing to do", and will base their vote on an arbitrary grading system by the NRA, for which many don't even know the metrics being used for the grading system. "So & So gets and A-, the other guy only gets a D-...so the first guy it is!"

Abortion has a similar thing going on. If you look at where the majority of democratic voters are at on the issue, it's not the "legal at any time in the pregnancy, for any reason, and taxpayer funded" which is what democratic lawmakers are often advancing. It's a much more moderated position. But yet, a position of "legal up to 14 weeks, but after that, not allowed except for the 3 approved exception scenarios" when pitched by people here gets branded "anti-choice, anti-woman" despite that kind of policy being the norm throughout Scandinavia.

Sometimes the demographic conditioning is even more superficial than that.

If you look at the Black vote for democrats and the White Evangelical vote for republicans, 85-90% all vote the same way. Clearly people are making the choice to vote that way, but I would think it's highly unlikely that any one group (based solely on a demographic commonality) would have that level of agreement on social issues, economics, and military policy. To me that sounds more like the result of community conditioning "You're XYZ, so you're supposed to vote for this party"

If I got a group of people together for the "Annual meeting of pizza enthusiasts", and 90% all claimed to be in lockstep agreement on a series of hot button political issues, my first thought would be "Okay, what has Dominos and Papa Johns been telling these folks?"

There are no other reasons to advocate a more liberal immigration policy than that favored by European nations?

The only alternative reasons I can think of would be even more cynical, and/or would represent something even more petty.

A) could be a mechanism for justifying raising taxes and budgets (and then load up the budget with a bunch of pork)

B) could be "the republicans want it to be stricter, so we have to take the opposition position just cuz..."

C) could be simple pandering to the current voter block of 18-25's due to the perception that "anything uber-progressive will appeal to them"


...a reason that doesn't make the list for "likely motivations" would be "Politicians are just kind souls who want to do something out of the goodness of their heart for pure reasons without any ulterior motives"

 

[BCP1928]

Yes, which is why I think the "pack the electorate" is the theory that has the strongest case.

The willingness to do it has been established (when several high profile democrats, even a few in the democratic primary advocating for expanding the vote to 16 year olds)

Obviously the motivation would be there to do it if discussing a group that demographically, has favored democrats over republicans by 2:1

There's been a lot of "Demographic conditioning" in terms of who certain groups vote for, and as I noted before, sometimes they're not even remotely close on the issues, it's almost of a form of cognitive dissonance.

I used the example of republicans and gun control earlier.

The moderate democrat views on guns actually more closely align with where the majority of republicans are at on gun control (when asked about the facets, individually), yet they'll vote for the republican if given the choice because it's been instilled that "that's the pro-gun thing to do", and will base their vote on an arbitrary grading system by the NRA, for which many don't even know the metrics being used for the grading system. "So & So gets and A-, the other guy only gets a D-...so the first guy it is!"

Abortion has a similar thing going on. If you look at where the majority of democratic voters are at on the issue, it's not the "legal at any time in the pregnancy, for any reason, and taxpayer funded" which is what democratic lawmakers are often advancing. It's a much more moderated position. But yet, a position of "legal up to 14 weeks, but after that, not allowed except for the 3 approved exception scenarios" when pitched by people here gets branded "anti-choice, anti-woman" despite that kind of policy being the norm throughout Scandinavia.

Sometimes the demographic conditioning is even more superficial than that.

If you look at the Black vote for democrats and the White Evangelical vote for republicans, 85-90% all vote the same way. Clearly people are making the choice to vote that way, but I would think it's highly unlikely that any one group (based solely on a demographic commonality) would have that level of agreement on social issues, economics, and military policy. To me that sounds more like the result of community conditioning "You're XYZ, so you're supposed to vote for this party"

If I got a group of people together for the "Annual meeting of pizza enthusiasts", and 90% all claimed to be in lockstep agreement on a series of hot button political issues, my first thought would be "Okay, what has Dominos and Papa Johns been telling these folks?"


The only alternative reasons I can think of would be even more cynical, and/or would represent something even more petty.

A) could be a mechanism for justifying raising taxes and budgets (and then load up the budget with a bunch of pork)

B) could be "the republicans want it to be stricter, so we have to take the opposition position just cuz..."

C) could be simple pandering to the current voter block of 18-25's due to the perception that "anything uber-progressive will appeal to them"


...a reason that doesn't make the list for "likely motivations" would be "Politicians are just kind souls who want to do something out of the goodness of their heart for pure reasons without any ulterior motives"

B is actually the real reason. "Don't give a inch" is the only reasonable position when facing an opponent who has made it clear that he won't give up until he has the mile.