Many senior Democrats were calling on Biden to resign long before he got covid, but he repeatedly made defiant announcements that he would never resign (and Harris supported him). He’s the guy who said that he would only resign if God told him to! His covid infection appears to have been mild (lasting less than a week), and he resigned not because of it but because pretty much the entire Democratic establishment (led by Pelosi) told him that he must.

Petty leftists weren’t even a significant part of the problem, IMO. Biden is very unpopular, people didn’t want more of the same, and Biden’s vice president looked like more of the same. However, the Democratic party was too hierarchical to nominate the sort of candidate that they needed to nominate.

Hell, they nominated Biden himself even though his age could have given them a perfect excuse not to nominate a sitting president. He was only forced to step aside once his inadequacies were undeniably obvious to all, and even then he was like a child throwing a tantrum. History is going to remember him as the emperor with no clothes.

I’m not sure that the problem was going too far towards Republicans rather than not going far enough, because I expect that the leftists staying home stayed home in solidly blue states. I think that the political positions that many people here on Lemmy wanted Harris to take would have been extremely unpopular with the electorate.

With that said, it might have been impossible for Harris to move to the right convincingly, because she couldn’t plausibly distance herself from Biden’s unpopular policies. I wish the Democrats nominated someone who could have criticized Biden in a way that Harris could not.

If God intervenes but He’s not powerful enough and things go to shit anyway, does that count as a miracle? I mean, I hope that doesn’t happen but I wouldn’t be calling things miracles yet.

societies have utilized shame in order to shun unwanted or undesirable opinions forever

Using shame isn’t new. Using shame in this particular way at this particular time appears to be a poor strategy. It’s deliberately divisive and conservative reactionaries aren’t the only ones who are motivated to vote against it. By now many people who call themselves liberal and have a history of reliably voting for Democrats oppose it too. I think Nate Silver does a good job of expressing why in the context of Israel, although he’s looking at a much bigger picture. Most of these people are still voting for Democrats, because Harris is a centrist and Trump is, well, Trump. It’s still not helping.

Lemmy is a place where it often seems like leftist views are almost universal among Democrats, but Lemmy is not representative of the large majority of Democratic voters. I don’t think most Harris voters (as opposed to just the vocal Democrats online) despise Republicans.

I think the proposed approach would be perceived as defeatism. Voters would see one candidate saying “the problem is too big to solve” and the other candidate offering solutions. It doesn’t help that Democratic policy is what has been making the “problem” bigger recently.

I also think that restricting immigration (especially illegal immigration) is not inherently fascist.

You simply can’t make the full case against Trump—or a compelling illustration of his fascist tendencies—without talking about immigration.

The Democrats’ approach to immigration is genuinely unpopular, even with many people who are going to vote for Harris anyway. I think a strong case for Trump as an enemy of democracy can be made without talking about immigration, but if you (the general you) can’t do that then it’s probably better not to say anything at all unless you want to help him.

even many American Jewish people don’t like Netanyahu

The may not like Netanyahu but they’re quite alarmed by what they see on the left side of the Democratic party. If they’re concerned that Harris will be influenced by the left, either due to personal sympathy or political considerations, then Trump does have some appeal since he’s making it quite clear that he’s definitely not like that.

I don’t think that word means much beyond “bad guy who wants to oppress you” to the average American today, although using it to describe a political opponent would have been outrageous just a few presidential elections ago. Trump has been using it for a while without any backlash.

“Every time the radical left, Democrats, Marxists, communists and fascists indict me, I considered it a great badge of honor,” Mr. Trump said in February, and not for the last time.

Is there anyone whose mind isn’t already made up who will be swayed by the word “fascism”? That’s not a rhetorical question. So much of what I see from both parties sounds like preaching to the choir but I genuinely don’t know what they could say that wouldn’t sound like that.

One of the few Trump voters I know personally is really bothered by the fact that so many of Trump’s handpicked officials end up turning against him, because (according to this voter) it indicates that Trump is a poor judge of people.

That’s a good point. He does seem like he would probably write this sort of article as part of his political agenda regardless of what he sincerely believed. Thus the existence of the article provides almost no information about what conservative voters might actually be thinking.

That’s all correct, but wasn’t Harris’s goal to appeal to conservatives?

I didn’t find the article particularly convincing because there’s a clear answer to the question of why Harris defended Biden’s mental acuity, everyone knows it, but Harris can’t admit it explicitly. No one wanted to be the first person to say that the emperor had no clothes.

It seems like Harris is happy with how the interview went but I’m seeing negative coverage too. I wonder what viewers open to changing their minds actually thought.

evangelical Christians - the largest crime committing block in America

Wow, really? Do you have a link?

Here are the actual poll results which the article helpfully does not link to.

Napolitan News surveys ask an initial question to determine the voter preference for each candidate. Then, a follow-up question is asked of uncommitted voters to see which candidate they are leaning towards. The results are then reported “with leaners.”

On the initial ask– the number without leaners– it was Trump 50%, Harris 47%.

This Napolitan News Service survey of 774 Likely Voters was conducted online by Scott Rasmussen on September 25-27, 2024. Field work for the survey was conducted by RMG Research, Inc. and has a margin of error of +/- 3.5.

I think articles like this based on a single poll which appears to be an outlier are uninformative, but I guess they get clicks.

His inability to speak clearly and his frequent desire to be pointlessly cruel are both reasons I won’t vote for him, but I do think it’s important to note that he’s not proposing to deport permanent residents.

The federal government uses the term “terminate” rather than “revoke” to describe the decision not to extend TPS, but even the article the OP posted (which is very critical of Trump’s plan) interprets what he said as “not extend”.

Now Trump plans to forcibly uproot this group of roughly 18,000 people who pay taxes, own homes, have jobs, and support their families. But that’s only the beginning: Up to 2.7 million people could lose protection from deportation if Trump allows immigration programs such as Temporary Protected Status, DACA, and humanitarian parole to lapse during a second term, according to Forbes.

The interviewer was the one who used the word “revoke” but Trump does seem like the kind of person who could attempt to end the TPS designation early rather than waiting for it to simply expire a year into his term. Such an attempt would have very little chance of success. Decisions to terminate (as opposed to revoke early) TPS status during Trump’s past presidency are still going through the courts (see Ramos, et al. v. Nielsen, et al.) and not in effect.

Trump and the interviewer are talking about Temporary Protected Status, which is temporary.

A TPS designation can be made for 6, 12, or 18 months at a time. At least 60 days prior to the expiration of TPS, the Secretary [of Homeland Security] must decide whether to extend or terminate a designation based on the conditions in the foreign country.

Source.

TPS eligibility for people from Haiti will last until February 3, 2026 unless it is extended. If during a Trump presidency, the federal government does not extend TPS for Haiti, it would be acting well within its established authority.

I’m not saying Trump’s tariff proposal is a good idea (I don’t know enough relevant economics) but that article’s own chart shows that tariffs increased to Trump levels after the Great Depression started and then declined back to below Trump levels several years before the Great Depression ended. I don’t think the data in the article supports the article’s link of high tariffs and the Great Depression.