the-pi-guy said:
I think that you're right in that aggressively pushing for a ceasefire is more beneficial election-wise. But your data doesn't definitively point to that. Being a popular position isn't the same as being an election changer. You need to take it a step further beyond popularity, and you need to find the data that shows for what percentage of Americans are these issues complete deal breakers. For instance, I have a number of in-laws that are extremely pro-life, they proudly talk about it being their only political issue. It literally overrides everything else for them. You might find that they're against some Republican proposal, that it's very unpopular for them. But as long as Republicans are the ones pushing anti-abortion laws, they are 100% going to show up on election day. Gun rights are another big thing. Most people are in favor of stronger gun control laws, but it's a difficult thing to push, because the people that are opposed to that, are absolutely guaranteed to show up on election day. Gun control is popular with most Americans, but it's a deal breaking issue for a solid portion of people. Suppose 90% of Democrats are 100% in favor of an absolute cease fire, but it's only a deal breaker for 5% of Democrats. And suppose for the other 10% of Democrats, for every one of them, the opposite is their deal breaker. The 10% is more advantageous than the 5%, even though the proposal is completely unpopular overall. Does this make sense? To be clear, I do agree with you. I do wish the Democrats would push harder on this. But your data isn't enough to say that definitively. |
"I think that you're right in that aggressively pushing for a ceasefire is more beneficial election-wise. But your data doesn't definitively point to that. Being a popular position isn't the same as being an election changer." Being a popular decision can certainly be an election changer in a race as close as this one, especially when (i) you would appease to the >100k uncontested voters and (ii)...the decision is popular lol. The uncontested vote demonstrates evidence of such a call flipping a key swing state, no? I don't buy into your suggeston that the ceasefire *could* do more harm than good electorally under the evidence I have provided: Moderate voters would overwhelmingly swing to Harris, Dems will follows like sheep under whatever their party leadership chooses to do (Trump is an extestential threat in their eyes after all lol). The only ppl who would be upset are the repubs. Again, polls demonstrate this such as the one I have already provided.
Not sure what else to say...you say you agree with me, though you argue that my evidence isn't sufficient. Ig I could provide more poll findings? idk I feel like you're just arguing b/c you don't wanna be caught agreeing with the punching bag of these forums lol.
